848 réponses à ce sujet

[thats1evildude]

I'd rather see Inquisition Part 2, honestly.

[Maverick827]

Yes. That's exactly right. You had 0 conversation options effectively with companions and very few dialogue options overall by a modern Bioware game standard.

 

What was the point, just the combat?  Hardly seems worth the idolization if so.

[SomeUsername]

What about judging DAI for what it IS instead of what you wanted it to be?

 

Because it's not Origins 2.0 but it's a pretty good game

If Dragon Age Inquisition did not have "Dragon Age" on its name, I would judge for what it "is". However, Dragon Age Inquisition is a sequel, and it is supposed to be Origins 2.0. I am expecting a sequel to be better than the original, and unfortunately Inquisition simply put, is not better than Origins. You may disagree, or you may value graphics, or "exploration" (Aka "Skyrim") type of games more, but I believe that Inquisition did not do better or equally as good as Origins on most things, such as: Story, characters, combat/tactics, choices&consequences, and character customization (as in skill points, attributes, etc). Thankfully it didn't do horribly on those, they were decently done at best, but in my opinion they don't compare to Origins. As a continuation of the first and second game, I expected DAI to have the best of both previous games, and it seemed like that didn't happen here. I like this game, I have already put a good amount of hours in it, but I am disappointed in general, and still prefer Origins over this.

[Kinsz]

If Dragon Age Inquisition did not have "Dragon Age" on its name, I would judge for what it "is". However, Dragon Age Inquisition is a sequel, and it is supposed to be Origins 2.0. I am expecting a sequel to be better than the original, and unfortunately Inquisition simply put, is not better than Origins. You may disagree, or you may value graphics, or "exploration" (Aka "Skyrim") type of games more, but I believe that Inquisition did not do better or equally as good as Origins on most things, such as: Story, characters, combat/tactics, choices&consequences, and character customization (as in skill points, attributes, etc). Thankfully it didn't do horribly on those, they were decently done at best, but in my opinion they don't compare to Origins. As a continuation of the first and second game, I expected DAI to have the best of both previous games, and it seemed like that didn't happen here. I like this game, I have already put a good amount of hours in it, but I am disappointed in general, and still prefer Origins over this.

 

This is hard to argue since you said that YOU believe its not as good in terms of story and characters but i can tell you that I believe it is superior to Origins in the character department , they are simply more fleshed out and more interesting.  Only people who are clueless about DA's lore would say that Inquisition's story wasnt well done,  we got so many questions answered in this game, elves and their gods , politics in Orlais etc...

[Marshal Moriarty]

I think the real issue is that Orgins fans don't understand why wanting the series to go back to its roots, to a system and tone that people liked in huge numbers (its why the franchise is so popular after all - because the first game was received with wild enthusiasm), why is so wrong to want the series to go back to that?

 

Origins was beloved for the epic feel, the unique idea of the Origins that enhanced different parts of the game to encourage replays, and the more old school hardcore CRPG feel - all of which felt very fresh and welcome in these modern times. It was the best kind of nostalgia, taking an old and much loved style of game and updating it just enough to allow for modern conventions which make sense and have genuinely helped to move gaming forward. It was a mixture of old and new styles that kept the credilbity, the attention to detail and complex systems from yesteryear, and married it with a game that felt fun to play and easy to access, as all modern games that hope to be successful must be.

 

Gaming must evolve and develop., Origins was not perfect, but in a great many important ways it did indeed catch lightning in a bottle and provide a good template for where to build on to make games that will satisfy the demands of modern gamers with the desire that veteran gamers have for more meaningful conetent and systems, less style over substance.

 

As much as I love DA2 for its story and characters, I do feel it was a step back in some regards from Origins in terms of gameplay. The thing which kept me on board with DA2's systems was that whilst they were more arcadey and spectacular rather than strategic, that kind of felt appropriate for Hawke and the gang, as they chaotically rolled about Kirkwall, tangling with the local villains and then having a pint afterwards. Inquisition though just feels like a messy and boring grind. Combat is just a free for all, where you press attack and wait for the explosions to clear to see that you've won again, largely without knowing much of what was going on or who you were fighting (I usually just see some red health bars, and don't really inspect what they actually are).

[SomeUsername]

This is hard to argue since you said that YOU believe its not as good in terms of story and characters but i can tell you that I believe it is superior to Origins in the character department , they are simply more fleshed out and more interesting.  Only people who are clueless about DA's lore would say that Inquisition's story wasnt well done,  we got so many questions answered in this game, elves and their gods , politics in Orlais etc...

The characters were mostly interesting, but I felt like there wasn't much done with them. You only get to know them and have an actual conversation with them in some cutscenes which feel very little compared to Origins, where every time you talk to them, it feels like what you say has more "weight" over them. As for story, I do apologize because I know little about the lore. However they didn't make an attempt to have the players learn more about it and they didn't show us enough. Its not that the story was done badly rather it was executed worse than in Origins. Corypheus I know has different intentions from the typical villain that wants to destroy the world. But that's not what the game showed me. In the game, my only objective was to stop Corypheus. The lore was there but almost hidden to us in forms of notes and letters which I do often skip. And again, I have little knowledge of the lore, and the only question that was answered to me as a Dragon Age player-only, was that of Flemeth's.

[Kinsz]

The characters were mostly interesting, but I felt like there wasn't much done with them. You only get to know them and have an actual conversation with them in some cutscenes which feel very little compared to Origins, where every time you talk to them, it feels like what you say has more "weight" over them. As for story, I do apologize because I know little about the lore. However they didn't make an attempt to have the players learn more about it and they didn't show us enough. Its not that the story was done badly rather it was executed worse than in Origins. Corypheus I know has different intentions from the typical villain that wants to destroy the world. But that's not what the game showed me. In the game, my only objective was to stop Corypheus. The lore was there but almost hidden to us in forms of notes and letters which I do often skip. And again, I have little knowledge of the lore, and the only question that was answered to me as a Dragon Age player-only, was that of Flemeth's.

 

Ah i see what you mean then , this game does assume that you know DA's lore as for the characters though perhaps you dont have high enough approval with each of them but not only did i get to know my characters i also got to be part of who they were by completing their personal mission , this game has more dialogue with companions than any DA to date.

[archav3n]

I love Dragon Age Inquisition. It's FAR better for me than Origins. The ONLY problem with Dragon Inquisition is the dumbed down skill trees, tactical camera, limited inventory space and tactics.

 

If DAI put the stuff that has in Origins to Inquisition, this is a MASTERPIECE for me that i wanted to play the game for very long time. I HOPE Inquisition CAN still be fixed with future expansions.

[SomeUsername]

Ah i see what you mean then , this game does assume that you know DA's lore as for the characters though perhaps you dont have high enough approval with each of them but not only did i get to know my characters i also got to be part of who they were by completing their personal mission , this game has more dialogue with companions than any DA to date.

It can come down as a matter of opinion I guess, but my involvement with my companions in Origins was far greater than in Inquisition. I do believe people claimed that that Inquisition has "a lot" of dialogue, but it seemed that most of companion dialogue were just questions about what they did or do. I believe I did everyone's personal quests and for some of them (ex. Warden items, Red lyrium, etc) there wasn't even a single comment. I remember in Origins romancing Morrigan and having Wynne sticking her nose in and telling me to break up, and then after Morrigan approval increased, Wynne started apologizing. The companions don't seem involved in anything. They make a few small comments which don't seem important and are forgettable. I find the companions interesting because of their different backgrounds and ideals but in general, they seem like good guys that tend to be ass kissers to the Inquisitor because of his high profile. (Although that may be because I have high approval for all of them)

[cronshaw]

I find it really funny that you, Sylvius and I can all agree on DAI being the closest game to BG1 since, well, BG1 and yet people who criticise this game love throwing around the old Bioware sold out on what made BG great rhetoric.

Everyone knows Sonic the Hedgehog: Dark Brotherhood made BioWare great

[AlexMBrennan]

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. Origins sold well. DA2 didn't. Why would you attempt to improve DA2 instead of improving that which was already a success? Because you wanted to make Skyrim? Bethesda doesn't do story well. Bethesda does open worlds well. You do story well. You don't do open worlds well.

Because WoW and CoD sell ten times more copies (I just made that number up) - so obviously every publisher will try to make all of their games appeal to that market. Unfortunately the suits making these decisions are unable to learn from their mistakes (e.g. the mountain of failed "WoW killers" hasn't discouraged any of them from making a WoW killer - this time it's gonna work for sure!) so this nonsense is likely to continue. 

[Kinsz]

It can come down as a matter of opinion I guess, but my involvement with my companions in Origins was far greater than in Inquisition. I do believe people claimed that that Inquisition has "a lot" of dialogue, but it seemed that most of companion dialogue were just questions about what they did or do. I believe I did everyone's personal quests and for some of them (ex. Warden items, Red lyrium, etc) there wasn't even a single comment. I remember in Origins romancing Morrigan and having Wynne sticking her nose in and telling me to break up, and then after Morrigan approval increased, Wynne started apologizing. The companions don't seem involved in anything. They make a few small comments which don't seem important and are forgettable. I find the companions interesting because of their different backgrounds and ideals but in general, they seem like good guys that tend to be ass kissers to the Inquisitor because of his high profile. (Although that may be because I have high approval for all of them)

Some companions do disapprove of certain romance choices but it happens in those 3 way banters while you are exploring but since the game is bugged at the moment not everyone is experiencing banters between party members as they should.

 

o and by personal quests i dont mean the fetch quests like the warden items and varric's red lyrium stuff i meant actual quests with cutscenes.

[Astylith]

So you honestly think that making a strategic RPG where you can potentially gimp your character would do well on the PS4/Xbox one? Even you must not believe that.

[keyip]

 I remember in Origins romancing Morrigan and having Wynne sticking her nose in and telling me to break up, and then after Morrigan approval increased, Wynne started apologizing. The companions don't seem involved in anything. 

 

You mean like how if you romance Josephine, Leliana sticks her nose in and gives you the 3rd degree?

[AlexisR]

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. Origins sold well. DA2 didn't. Why would you attempt to improve DA2 instead of improving that which was already a success? Because you wanted to make Skyrim? Bethesda doesn't do story well. Bethesda does open worlds well. You do story well. You don't do open worlds well.

 

I honestly have no idea who's running the show over there, but it honestly reminds me of this:

 

[snip]

 

 

?? They didn't try to improve DA2, unfortunately. DA:I is practically the exact opposite of DA2 in most ways. Trying to be Bethesda is the opposite of DA2, too.

 

Exploration:

+ The main selling point of DA:I. Laarge beautiful areas.

+ DA2 had very little.

 

Sidequests:

+ DA:I doesn't have side quests, it has fetch quests only. No cutscene!camera, no decisions, no way for the protag to react differently to them.

+ DA2 had its side quests intermixed into the main story to the point where you couldn't tell what was the main story and what was a side quest. In the majority of all side quests (even if they were just "go rescue person!") you had some way to solve it differently or at least react to it differently. Lots of cutscenes.

 

Story:

+ DA:I is the story of an epic hero with no personal ties saving the world. (You know, like DA:O)

+ DA2 is a personal story about the protagonist+family rising in power and getting caught in the city's conflicts.

 

Combat

Well, okay, I will give you the combat system. Both DA:I and DA2 have had a lot more focus on action-y combat than the way superior tactical combat of DA:O. But that's pretty much the only shared trait I can see?

 

 

I mean, sure, dislike DA:I or DA2 all you want-- but don't blame DA2 for Inquisition's weaknesses, because Inquisition's weaknesses - the fetch quest stuff - are things DA2 did actually well on.

 

(That said, I agree with the rest: Dragon Age is not Skyrim and shouldn't try to be. Apples and oranges and all that.)

[keyip]

All the evidence so far points to Inquisition selling better than Origins, so I don't see why they would go back to the Origins design.

[Natureguy85]

?? They didn't try to improve DA2, unfortunately. DA:I is practically the exact opposite of DA2 in most ways. Trying to be Bethesda is the opposite of DA2, too.

 

Exploration:

+ The main selling point of DA:I. Laarge beautiful areas.

+ DA2 had very little.

 

Sidequests:

+ DA:I doesn't have side quests, it has fetch quests only. No cutscene!camera, no decisions, no way for the protag to react differently to them.

+ DA2 had its side quests intermixed into the main story to the point where you couldn't tell what was the main story and what was a side quest. In the majority of all side quests (even if they were just "go rescue person!") you had some way to solve it differently or at least react to it differently. Lots of cutscenes.

 

Story:

+ DA:I is the story of an epic hero with no personal ties saving the world. (You know, like DA:O)

+ DA2 is a personal story about the protagonist+family rising in power and getting caught in the city's conflicts.

 

Combat

Well, okay, I will give you the combat system. Both DA:I and DA2 have had a lot more focus on action-y combat than the way superior tactical combat of DA:O. But that's pretty much the only shared trait I can see?

 

 

I mean, sure, dislike DA:I or DA2 all you want-- but don't blame DA2 for Inquisition's weaknesses, because Inquisition's weaknesses - the fetch quest stuff - are things DA2 did actually well on.

 

That's because DA2 didn't really have a main plot as we normally think about it. The main plot was Hawke's life in Kirkwall. Mages and Templars was a major theme and was the major thing going on in the second half of the game, but not all of it.

[keyip]

That's because DA2 didn't really have a main plot as we normally think about it. The main plot was Hawke's life in Kirkwall. Mages and Templars was a major theme and was the major thing going on in the second half of the game, but not all of it.

 

Dragon Age Origins was inspired by LOTR and (to a lesser degree) the Witcher. An epic storyline in a darker world. 

 

DA2 was inspired by Fable. You had that more personal story with those timeskips, you even had that opening scene with the narrator and the puppets.

 

DA3 was inspired by Skyrim.

[AlexisR]

That's because DA2 didn't really have a main plot as we normally think about it. The main plot was Hawke's life in Kirkwall. Mages and Templars was a major theme and was the major thing going on in the second half of the game, but not all of it.

 

Well, yes. You are completely right! Hence the inability to tell main plot+side quests apart. Personally, I kinda liked that.

 

But no matter if you like that or not, it's a different thing from what Inquisition is doing - which was my point. DA2 gets blamed for everything, but if you dislike something in Inquisition chance is that Inquisition's doing the opposite of DA2. So it's really silly to lay the blame on DA2's door step, y'know? If anything, it's the fault of the violent hate DA2 gets 'cause they went extremely in the other direction.

[Angloassassin]

Dragon Age Origins was inspired by LOTR and (to a lesser degree) the Witcher. An epic storyline in a darker world. 

 

DA2 was inspired by Fable. You had that more personal story with those timeskips, you even had that opening scene with the narrator and the puppets.

 

DA3 was inspired by Skyrim.

 

And yet maintained the ability of having engaging story-telling, more than 5 VA's, and having relevant (If numerous) side-content that tied back to the story. And not just Mindless Faffing about.

[VelvetStraitjacket]

Dear person who thinks you are speaking for everyone, no.

[Angloassassin]

Dear person who thinks you are speaking for everyone, no.

 

 

Is Arishok looming about? -Peeks about.- My time to shine!

 

(Btw, I agree with you, just giving you the proper ammunition. Deep baritone mmm)

[Riverway_Inca]

SomeUsername, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the dearth of companion interactions in DAI as compared to DAO. I really cannot comprehend how anyone can say that you had more to talk about with your companions in DAI, or that the companions had more meaningful interactions with you in which you actually learned something valuable about them. I remember clicking on characters umpteen times and getting the same old stock reactions, the same lines recycled over and over. Vivienne and Iron Bull seemed to have almost nothing to say to me for a lot of the game until I practically whored myself in gaining some approval with them, and only then did I get a few measly cutscenes. Part of the problem also is that the game dragged on so long with mostly all that MMO crap that one would go back to Skyhold thirsty for something meaningfully interactive like one would for an oasis in a desert, only to get the same old canned responses.

 

I found many of the companions interesting, but there just wasn't enough to go on like there was in DAO, and this severely detracted from my DAI experience.

 

I must also add that I had that thing where I hardly heard any party banter whilst traversing so that only made things far, far worse.

[DariusDrannen]

Inquisition though just feels like a messy and boring grind. Combat is just a free for all, where you press attack and wait for the explosions to clear to see that you've won again, largely without knowing much of what was going on or who you were fighting (I usually just see some red health bars, and don't really inspect what they actually are).

 

I don't really get this part.  Isn't that a fault of you, as a gamer, not the actual combat system?

 

How can you *not* understand what's going on?  With the pause-ability, you can scroll from one enemy to the next, checking out their HP, their immunities, and their weaknesses.  Maybe if you're playing in real-time you miss this stuff, but it seems more a case of the way you're playing that's causing this issue and not the actual combat system of the game.

[AlanC9]

What was the point, just the combat?  Hardly seems worth the idolization if so.

Well... kinda. Have a look at Desslock's review of BG1 for Gamespot. He spends time talking about the game's faithful re-creation of AD&D tactical combat and good implementation of exploration, and then:
 

Nonplayer characters in the game tend to only give your characters simple messages and basic tasks to accomplish. The lack of significant interaction with NPCs other than your party members, who are quite colorful, combined with the frequency of combat in the game, makes Baldur's Gate feel far more like a hack and slash game than a story-driven one, which is a trait that's certainly consistent with previous AD&D computer games.

It's overall a very positive review. By the standards of the time BG1 deserved it.