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.
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.
At the end of the day Console gamers want action games. It seems the very well done X-Com remake didn't sell well on consoles due to its turn based tactical nature. Not enough pointless button mashing for them.
PoE won't be coming to consoles because they don't want to gimp their game. But yes, I do wish, in a ideal world the makers of PoE could have the awesome graphics of inquistion, whilst keeping their gameplay elements with no compromise. The reality is though, it's one or the other.
PC Gamers like me, I suppose have to accept that this is the new reality for BioWare RPG's - They're going to be more action oriented by necessity of the console market they have to cater to now with the budgets the way they are. I do think however there is room to bring some of what has been lost back into future titles. At least I hope so. Too much has been lost.
I've always wondered how well XCOM sold, no figures were released 
The argument might be that he doesn't feel any need to understand since he's winning anyway.
Pretty much how my first normal mode game went. I breezed through the whole thing, with very few reloads required. My hard playthrough isn't much different so far. A little more target prioritization at times, but really not whole heap of strategy required just yet. It seems to really get the most out of the game and have to do more than just hold down a button while the game plays itself, nightmare mode is the only way to go.
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.
You're right that it was a cool idea. The real problem is how much of the story is things happening TO Hawke rather than Hawke being an active protagonist. This is fine in a movie or book, and maybe even certain types of games that are more purely narrative driven, like exploration or point and click. It's not a very good way to go for an adventure game.
I also agree that it seems like they went to the opposite extreme from DA2s problems.
Bioware are not all that daft if you think about it. If they were to make a Origins 2 then they would make that much money for EA, that EA would never let them go. They have to fail, but fail without EA getting wind of what they are up too.
In this game developers climate, Bioware, if freelance, could kickstart their way to DA4 (Origins2), and make tons of money that would go directly into the game as apposed to EA money munching wallet. Also there would be no publisher trying to push them into making yet another failed MMO.
What was the point, just the combat? Hardly seems worth the idolization if so.
BG1 isn't the game most people actually idolize. That game is BG2, which is very different from BG1. BG1 is closer in style to IWD (although IWD was actually released later and is basically a D&D combat simulator). People forget that Planescape: Torment actually was released pre-BG2. The nostalgia about the isometric IE RPGs leads to a really screwy timeline because people think that games like IWD, Torment and BG1/BG2 are contemporaries but that's not quite right.
But in terms of what BG1 did well, yes, it had really solid D&D combat. In 2e. It had a pretty creative but loose plot, and otherwise was very much akin to Skyrim - you could go around exploring without really ever caring or worrying about the main plot, which you didn't even really hit until like Chapter 6.
You're right that it was a cool idea. The real problem is how much of the story is things happening TO Hawke rather than Hawke being an active protagonist. This is fine in a movie or book, and maybe even certain types of games that are more purely narrative driven, like exploration or point and click. It's not a very good way to go for an adventure game.
I also agree that it seems like they went to the opposite extreme from DA2s problems.
This is the same in DA:O. It's funny people complain about DA:I having nothing but fetch quests when DA:O is literally a fetch quest from Flemeth, then broken up into smaller fetch quests given by each treaty target. It's like the most beautifully meta take on RPGs and fetch quests of all time. And the memorable, epic encounters are just kill quests - kill the AD, kill Flemeth, etc.
The really unique stuff - the alienage quests, the Landsmeet, the Fade - are actually relatively minor and different parts of the game.
While I think it's a fair argument that when looking at sequels, DAO should be heavily favored over DA2, wretched as it is, I disagree strongly with the OPs other point.
This game was far more entertaining than Skyrim for me. The discrete zones allowed for more environmental variety and the overall scope of the game felt great. Overall, just a better game than Skyrim (which is pretty great, so that's saying something).
A return to the smaller linear scale of DAO doesn't seem likely, given how many customers/critics will see that as moving backward. The people who really dislike open world DA or other aspects, which are core to the game and unlikely to change, might want to reconsider their interest in the franchise.
Bioware are not all that daft if you think about it. If they were to make a Origins 2 then they would make that much money for EA, that EA would never let them go.
EA can't let Bioware go unless EA sells the studio, because Bioware belongs to EA.
This is the same in DA:O. It's funny people complain about DA:I having nothing but fetch quests when DA:O is literally a fetch quest from Flemeth, then broken up into smaller fetch quests given by each treaty target. It's like the most beautifully meta take on RPGs and fetch quests of all time. And the memorable, epic encounters are just kill quests - kill the AD, kill Flemeth, etc.
The really unique stuff - the alienage quests, the Landsmeet, the Fade - are actually relatively minor and different parts of the game.
In the end almost any Quest can be broken down to a fetch or kill quest (this holds especially for sidequests). But DA:O quests have more extreme decisions and consequences tied to them.
In the end almost any Quest can be broken down to a fetch or kill quest (this holds especially for sidequests). But DA:O quests have more extreme decisions and consequences tied to them.
So it's not good unless it's extreme? Just want clarification.
This is the same in DA:O. It's funny people complain about DA:I having nothing but fetch quests when DA:O is literally a fetch quest from Flemeth, then broken up into smaller fetch quests given by each treaty target. It's like the most beautifully meta take on RPGs and fetch quests of all time. And the memorable, epic encounters are just kill quests - kill the AD, kill Flemeth, etc.
The really unique stuff - the alienage quests, the Landsmeet, the Fade - are actually relatively minor and different parts of the game.
Well you can reduce pretty much any main quest to a fetch or kill quest, but when those terms are used derogatorily it's for quests that have no other value. True, killing the Archdemon isn't unique, but it is the story and you have a reason for doing it. While the Origin stories are events happening to the PC, the game doesn't stay that way. The Warden has objectives and direction and needs to make things happen. The Warden also gets to make several choices which are important to the world, even if they don't significantly impact gameplay.
Also, the main quest is not a fetch quest from Flemeth. She merely encourages the two Wardens to do what they are already supposed to do as Wardens.
So it's not good unless it's extreme? Just want clarification.
Yes it's so extreme deciding whether to give the Dalish some iron bark, or whether to 'reunite' or 'breakup' a couple. Baffling!
Dear Bioware,
You have my sympathies for having to put up with you fans. Pearls before swine, I swear. Anyway, I promise to buy three copies of the next Dragon Age game if it isn't Origins 2.0.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't like games optimized for people with grandma's reflexes.
P.S.
Great job on Inquisition. That was some damn good storytelling and world-building.
In the end almost any Quest can be broken down to a fetch or kill quest (this holds especially for sidequests). But DA:O quests have more extreme decisions and consequences tied to them.
This is idiotic. Compare choosing between the mages or templars in Origins with choosing between mages or templars in Inquisition. Anyone who would suggest that the former decision is more consequential than the latter needs their heads examined.
What does that have to do with Origins? I can't speak to Inquisition, but Templars or Mages in DA2 is not a quest; it's a theme. You just choose at the end and the story makes it almost meaningless.
Ugh! Have you ever even played any of the games your are talking about? In Origins, there is a quest in which you can make an "epic decision with extreme consequences" to choose either mages or templars.
So it's not good unless it's extreme? Just want clarification.
Extreme might be the wrong word, but...
...take the Quests "Urn of the sacred Ashes" and "Here lies the Abyss" for instance and compare their varity and consequences of possible decisions.
In "the Urn of sacred ashes" there were following Story based events.
The Sten Incident (fight vs him, persuade him (non-combat Skill or Attributes required iirc), make him leave, make him stay), Kolgrim's offer (Accept it, gain a specialization, deal with the consequences), Both events/ consequences do not only directly influence your companions and how you experience the Story (being a ruthless or nice person), but also the gameplay (new skills, less companions). + you had proper puzzles in the quest + real bossfights, vs a dragon, vs your own group etc etc. ...on a level that DA:I wasn't able to reach.
In "here lies the abyss" you can only make decisions that matter to a little extend (actually only to the story). You can decide whether Hawke or some one else sacrifices him/herself, but the consequences are not really punishing or rewarding like in DA:O . Kill the wardens.. only means a little more challenging combat, due to more enemies, has it an impact after this mission which matters? Like the fight for Branka or the Golem, like destroying that anvil? Like corrupting the Urn? No.
It's not the combat system that made DA:O so good, it's not the Story itself, neither healspeals or characters. It's the freedom you have as a player to make decisions which heavily influenced your game experience and this is what RPG should be about.
Excuse my crappy english, i am not a native speaker.
Nostalgia is such a silly thing.This thread is ridiculous.
Bioware, keep rocking!You're awesome, and so is DA:I.
Ugh! Have you ever even played any of the games your are talking about? In Origins, there is a quest in which you can make an "epic decision with extreme consequences" to choose either mages or templars.
Ha! My mistake, I misread what you said because I had just come from reading something else. I see what you're saying about Broken Circle. It doesn't make any difference gameplay wise, but it is important in the characterization of your Warden and the future of Ferelden. Removing previous comment because it makes no sense.
Nostalgia is such a silly thing.This thread is ridiculous.
Like your posts.
Why not just re release origins instead of making da4?
That is pointless and not what even hardcore DA:O fans want. They want Bioware to remember what made DA:O so awesome, they want that its successors stay true to this concept and improve it and deliver an overall better game expierences
This is idiotic. Compare choosing between the mages or templars in Origins with choosing between mages or templars in Inquisition. Anyone who would suggest that the former decision is more consequential than the latter needs their heads examined.
This is only reason why the mainquest of DA:I has a real replayvalue and + the source of sorrows, but DA:O had more of these decisions, which were not even tied to the mainquest itself.
Remember the awesome, epic decisions of the final fight vs Cory. no?You are forgiven, because there are non. Now recall DA:O.
Bioware are not all that daft if you think about it. If they were to make a Origins 2 then they would make that much money for EA, that EA would never let them go. They have to fail, but fail without EA getting wind of what they are up too.
In this game developers climate, Bioware, if freelance, could kickstart their way to DA4 (Origins2), and make tons of money that would go directly into the game as apposed to EA money munching wallet. Also there would be no publisher trying to push them into making yet another failed MMO.
I have my doubts about that. As easy as it is to blame EA for everything people perceive to be wrong with Bioware games now, things are rarely so black and white.
Games have become ridiculously expensive to make. The market is brutal. It's actually us gamers who make impossible demands. People complain about games being nothing but tech demos these days, stunning graphics with no substance. Yeah, guess why that is. Because the majority of people want it that way. Nobody is forcing these crappy games on gamer. They make them because they sell. So there is a huge demand for these games that are shameless clones of each other. The sad reality is that people don't want diversity. Shooters, action games/hack n slay, and sports games. Stunning graphics included. Those make the most money.
Which is why developers have to play it safe these days if they don't want to go bankrupt. Crowd-funding works for less ambitious games. Good luck crowd funding AAA type of games that require huge funds. We're talking $20-100 million here if these numbers are to be believed. It can work I guess, but I wouldn't bet on it. Bioware games are probably not popular enough to pull that off. Wasteland 2 had a crowdfunding budget of $3, which was a LOT. Try making DAI with that budget and see how people like it...
Bioware under EA are a viable compromise. EA demands certain things so the games make a profit. But in turn they provide a relatively generous budget. EA can afford to take the gamble because they have other franchises to keep them afloat. Bioware is not their most profitable developer. Of course, EA tries to cut corners, look at DA2. But that game didn't sell all that well. So DAI got more time again and a much bigger budget. EA is not keeping Bioware on as short a leash as people claim.
People make it sound as if EA raided Bioware headquarters and forced them into servitude at gunpoint. I believe this alliance serves both parties quite well.
All recent Bioware games have been a compromise between doing what's popular and doing their own thing. I wish they didn't have to compromise so much, but it's not EA's fault alone but gamer demand that forces them to do that. Bioware games never had stunning graphics. And people complained about it! So of course they have decided to upgrade. But graphics eat up a big chunk of the budget. So does quality voice acting. And cutscenes. I really wish gamers would do a reality check before they started ranting about games not being perfect. Either you want stunning graphics and big maps or you want longer storylines. You can't have everything in one game!
It's gamer demands that ruin Bioware actually. Bioware try to please everyone by doing a little bit of everything. Because if they don't, their games don't sell. They can't stay in business by making DAO2 forever. Not enough people will like it. They'd have to go back to archaic gameplay and graphics and crowdfund their games on a much much smaller budget. I personally do not want that. Most people don't want that or they'd have done so. I like what they do with the bigger budget that EA provides. Making money is not evil, they HAVE to make money to stay in business. Ripping people off is a different matter. Like full price games that are only 4 hours long. Everybody who claims that DAI is a rip-off should do a reality check asap.
Bioware is not going back to BG and DAO. They'd be stupid to try. They need to go with time, with gamer demand. And that's not necessarily a bad thing by default.
There are old school crowd-funded games out there. It know it sucks for those who want Bioware games to be like those indie games. But that ship has definitely sailed.
Bioware is not going back to BG and DAO. They'd be stupid to try. They need to go with time, with gamer demand. And that's not necessarily a bad thing by default.
There are old school crowd-funded games out there. It know it sucks for those who want Bioware games to be like those indie games. But that ship has definitely sailed.
DA:O (and ME2) are Bioware's best selling games to date. DA:O sold 5-6 million copies, but I guess EA is only satisfied if a game sells 20 million copies like Skyrim. Butchering the franchise to make Dragon Age Dragon Age: Inquisition Skyrim is not coincidental.
EA shoud have stayed on the beaten path and kept on making high quality games. I'm sure that a DA:O 2 and DA:O 3 could have sold substantially more than DA:O and probably better than DA:I ever will.
BTW, ME2 is one of my favorite games and it isn't old-school, it is just a high quality Bioware game.
oh Maker...
another person so into living in the past. Times have changed and the ages have moved. Move on buddy!
Are u the Dalish or what? no wonder Sera hates u for not moving on with times!
Retour en haut