848 réponses à ce sujet

[Paul E Dangerously]

Bioware only has three franchises with sequels: BG, ME and DA. ME and DA have changed quite a bit with each game. There are huge differences between ME and ME 2 and that was only a three year difference. Bioware has a track record of making fairly large changes in terms of gameplay with each game they make and those changes have often been in favor of making the game more action oriented.

 

ME3 also went back to ME1 to a large degree. It added in almost everything that ME2 stripped out.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that Bioware might have done the same for the elements removed from Origins in DA2 with DAI.

[Shadow Fox]

Except, you know, Origins was only in 2009. Five years ago.

 

It's not exactly ancient times, here. It had a lot of fans, was seen as a breath of fresh air, and never got a sequel at all. Worse, people who liked it and wanted to see something with similar strengths are actively being mocked for it, sometimes by fans, and sometimes by the developers.

 

Except, you know, when it comes time to marketing the new game, then it's time to lie as much as humanly possible.

XII came out 5-6 years after X and 3 years after X-2 did so...

 

So did and was almost every FF game with the exception of XIII*which pretty much everyone agreed sucks although the reasons differ* yet aside from the SNES era only VII,X,XII and XIII got sequels. No they're being mocked for the same exact reasons VII fanboys are mocked by that fanbase: for being blind to their game's faults and incredibly annoying insisting that the newer titles are being "dumbed down" or "mainstreamed" for casuals then the old guard shows up to say that VII was itself streamlined and dumbed down compared to the SNES titles or the newbies show how later games actually had a more complex battle system.

 

Except both DA2 and DAI's marketing was painfully obvious on the direction for the game they were going for.

[Zanallen]

ME3 also went back to ME1 to a large degree. It added in almost everything that ME2 stripped out.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that Bioware might have done the same for the elements removed from Origins in DA2 with DAI.

 

I think you are overestimating how much ME3 went back to what ME was, but if you want to talk about Bioware adding things back in DA:I that were stripped in DAII...How about follower armor? Exploration? That damned save the world/chosen one plot that people were complaining that DAII lacked? Racial choice? Enhanced crafting? No wave combat? They brought back the tactical cam, though probably could have done better in that regard. So on and so forth.

[Bethgael]

ME3 also went back to ME1 to a large degree. It added in almost everything that ME2 stripped out.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that Bioware might have done the same for the elements removed from Origins in DA2 with DAI.

Especially given that the marketing and statements from producers said this is what they were going to do.

I know, never believe the hype. But I can see why some are upset.

[Natureguy85]

Despite the changes to things like the skills and inventory, Mass Effect remained a 3rd-person cover shooter throughout. It seems like Inquisition is a larger step away from the tactical RPG nature of Orgins and 2. Again, I have not played Inquisition and am going off of reviews, bits of gameplay, and comments from those who have played.

[Fantazm1978]

Please just play the game and make your own mind up on things.

[luism]

It's not nostalgia if you were playing origins up until the very day inquisition was released.

[Natureguy85]

Please just play the game and make your own mind up on things.

 

Please buy me a copy for the PC and I shall.

[Fantazm1978]

Being on the forums for a game you've not even played just seems completely barmy to me. Consciously or not your opinions about it will be shaped by what you've read now and you'll undoubtedly have seen an occasional spoiler.

[Revthejedi]

ME3 also went back to ME1 to a large degree. It added in almost everything that ME2 stripped out.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that Bioware might have done the same for the elements removed from Origins in DA2 with DAI.

 

ME3 went back to ME1? That's news to me.

 

FWIW I loved Origins and I am really enjoying Inquisition, I'm always shocked to come here and see folks complaining about everything. 

[Natureguy85]

Being on the forums for a game you've not even played just seems completely barmy to me. Consciously or not your opinions about it will be shaped by what you've read now and you'll undoubtedly have seen an occasional spoiler.

 

To the first point, should I also avoid all advertising and reviews? On the second, I think I've avoided spoilers other than knowing certain people are in the game or not. Some jerk did give me a minor spoiler despite that I've stayed here in the no spoiler section.

 

I'm just a big fan of the series and Beta tested the Keep, so I keep up on things and engage in the discussions.

[FaWa]

Jade Empire 2 please

[We'll bang okay]

when you say origins 2, what do you mean by that? like a sixth blight, or a copy and paste of the combat and the dialogue tree, but with a new story and characters 

[Riverway_Inca]

When I say Origins 2, I mean the main focus should be on multiple good stories and deep interactions with characters. Enough with the mindless MMO muck.

 

I'll leave others to talk about combat specifics because I'm not so heavily into that.

[Zanallen]

When I say Origins 2, I mean the main focus should be on multiple good stories and deep interactions with characters. Enough with the mindless MMO muck.

 

I'll leave others to talk about combat specifics because I'm not so heavily into that.

 

So...Something completely subjective? Gotcha!

[Realmzmaster]

I do think Bioware made a mistake trying to make a Skyrim clone.

Skyrim sold so well because (UI issues and bugs aside), thematically, it gave Bethesda's customer base exactly what Bethesda's customer base is used to from Bethesda: open world action minor storyline. Skyrim was built off the base of Oblivion built off the base of Morrowind built off the base of... you get the idea. Bethesda stayed with its strength. The one time it tried to cater to a different market and move away from its roots.... well, the less said about ESO the better.

Bioware has a different customer base that, apparently, it has moved away from in an attempt to pick up a different market share. In doing so, Bioware made the exact same mistake Bethesda did with ESO: in trying to keep both camps (old customers and different customers) happy, neither have been completely satisfied, it seems.

Origins was, partly, a time-and-place phenomenon: you cannot reproduce the one important thing inherent in many of these successes: market conditions.

But the one thing all markets know (or should know): alienating the customer base that made your success is never the smartest idea.

Whether Bioware has done this is a matter of conjecture and opinion (and I'm not stating mine). But it is clear they have moved away from what has made this company successful and into a different sphere, and that they haven't learned the pitfalls of having done this, yet.

 

What Skyrim clone? Bioware went back and updated BG1. The BG games are semi-open world. Those gamers were created by Bioware. Bioware did what some of their fans asked for going back to their roots. For example in BG1 after rolling for attributes during character creation the gamer did not get to add to or change the attributes. 

 

The only way the attributes change was using armor, weapons or accessories. The party would have to find an ioun stone to change any attribute. The ioun stones came in different colors which corresponded to an attribute. Otherwise there was no changing the attributes. DAI requires the gamer to select different skills that add to the attributes.

 

Healing of any kind was limited in terms of spells and potions. No regenerating health. If I am not wrong regenerating health is a staple of MMOs. Both DAO and DA2 had regenerating health does that make them MMOs?.

 

The trio of Tank (warrior), Mage and rogue( thief etc) have been around since the beginning of roleplaying games. In fact the Fantasy Trip by Metagaming only had two classes fighter and mage. 

 

For those unfamiliar with Fantasy Trip it was the roleplaying system created by Steve Jackson before he created GURPS (Generic Universal Role Playing System).

 

So I am missing where this MMO stance is coming. Is it because the party members can actually jump? 

[Andraste_Reborn]

It's kind of uncanny how much like BG1 this game actually is. I replayed the Extended Edition in October, and DAI felt very similar in so many ways.

 

In regards to the exploration, the biggest difference is that Inquisition has more areas that are connected to the plot in some way, and the areas have a lot more stuff in them. I think people forget how many of the wilderness areas in BG1 were nothing but trees and bandits with one or two side quests that had nothing to do with the central plot.

[Han Master]

Agree, just like in DA2 I don't enjoy playing DAI. I mean why can't I zoom out more ????

[Yendor_Trawz]

I don't want origin 2 if you wanna play origin to play origin instead if crying around here like a fool.

 

The ability of the Anti DAO II crowd to miss the point never fails to amuse me on this type of thread. They can only think of it as a regression and not a reversion to something that worked and felt better than the 2 and a half messes since.

 

People are not asking for a rehash of DAO with maybe a few new names and faces.

 

Many many people just want the good elements in DAO not to have been thrown out for the sake of moving the story forward (although DA2 didnt even do that - it was a concurrent event). DAO was not perfect, but it blows the turd in a soupbowl that is DA2 out of the water.

 

I guess people should never try to own a classic car. They should just 'move on' and drive a piece of plastic on wheels built in Bumfuckistan or Korea.

 

A proper sequel to DAO that retains most of the style of interaction and gameplay could be pretty great and I'm sure pretty well received.

 

The problem is, I no longer think BW are capable of making it, even if they wanted to.

[bateluer]

I loved DAO. DAI is good, mostly an improvement over DA2. But I'd rather have DAO2 than DA2.5. 

[Bethgael]

What Skyrim clone? Bioware went back and updated BG1. The BG games are semi-open world. Those gamers were created by Bioware. [snip]

 

So I am missing where this MMO stance is coming. Is it because the party members can actually jump? 

I played BG1 (back when Bioware was still Black Isle). I can see the relationship--but no, I'm not sure DA:I goes back to that. Having said that, I haven't touched either BG game for 10-odd years, so my memory may be fuzzy.

I am not sure exactly why people call DA:I an MMO for SP--but as an MMO player as well, while I think the comparison is exaggerated (personal opinion only), I believe it's probably because there's so much busywork now. Fetch quests are an MMo staple. Personally, I'm not sure it's that bad.

[And WoD's Garrisons trump Skyhold in any case].

Almost all of the side quests in DA:O had a real effect on a storyline aspect (eg, doing the assassin quests assisted at the Landsmeet, even though you didn't know that at the time). Many of the side quests have an effect internally in DA:I--but not on the main story itself (ie, not the ending).

Busywork doesn't bother me, but I think that's why others are saying that.

It is Bioware themselves that made comparisons to Skyrim. Hence the reference.

[dlux]

ME3 also went back to ME1 to a large degree. It added in almost everything that ME2 stripped out.

Wat.

 

The talent trees in ME3 were revised and fleshed out, weapon modding was improved as well, but that is about it.

 

ME3 is basically an ME 2.5, except for the slightly improved combat, shallow companions, shallow writing and narrative, less areas and levels, lackluster quest and level design, SJW lecturing en masse and a terrible (horrible, god awful) ending.

[Salaya]

What Skyrim clone? Bioware went back and updated BG1. The BG games are semi-open world. Those gamers were created by Bioware. Bioware did what some of their fans asked for going back to their roots. For example in BG1 after rolling for attributes during character creation the gamer did not get to add to or change the attributes.

 
The similarities between BG1 and DA:I are just superficial, and in most cases, only on paper. Exploration in DA:I, by how it's controlled and played, resembles Bethesda's style more than old Bioware. Big maps which require not only walking, but constant jumping, "exploring" with a search button and taking insane amounts of products to keep item based gameplay rolling. In BG you could change attributes at the beginning ad this allocation had a deep impact in the way the game was played. This has nothing to do with DA:I, and is a difference, not a similarity. 
 

The only way the attributes change was using armor, weapons or accessories. The party would have to find an ioun stone to change any attribute. The ioun stones came in different colors which corresponded to an attribute. Otherwise there was no changing the attributes. DAI requires the gamer to select different skills that add to the attributes.

 
The stat allocation BG offered at the beginning of the game had a deep impact in gameplay flow. In DA:I you play precisely by changing those attributes with items and crafting; the gameplay is radically different. If anything this is, again, a difference.
 

Healing of any kind was limited in terms of spells and potions. No regenerating health.

 
No regenerating health, no, but many ways to heal your characters during combat by magic. In fact, healing magic palyed a huge role in a class "roleplaying" and could impact deeply the way the game was played. DA:I has only potions.   
 

The trio of Tank (warrior), Mage and rogue( thief etc) have been around since the beginning of roleplaying games. In fact the Fantasy Trip by Metagaming only had two classes fighter and mage.

The way those roles are handled in Inquistion have little to do with the way Bioware tend to devise those clases in the past. The only class that still works, more or less like the old role, is the warrior-tank. Both the thief and the mage have different roles that clearly diverge from their late cousins. Thieves left diversity for damage dealing; mages left damage dealing for "crowd control" roles. The way those new roles are handled are much more similar to the gameplay changes late rpg gaming added to viodegames.

[theluc76]

DAI is DA2.5