241 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Because I'm pretty sure the OP is just out to pick a fight.

^^^^This^^^^

[GreyLycanTrope]

I would argue that the main innovation out of ME was giving the protagonist an actual voice. Like, a voice actor. And what a huge difference that made to the presentation.

 

I don't mean just reading a linear script. I mean the thing ME did.

Right but that's largely tied in with the dialogue wheel in my eyes, it's because of that format of 3 main dialogue options instead of the more traditional a constant like of 5-6 that voice work was largely possible. How influential this has been on other games is sort of arguable since voice protagonists aren't exactly a new thing, Bioware might have just been the first to put a working model out there not necessarily the people who came up with the idea.

[Melca36]

Comparing the MASS EFFECT and DRAGON AGE franchises is ridiculous.    They are two completely genres.

 

Its obviously the Dragon Age franchise is NOT your cup of tea.  I suggest you move on instead trying to diminish people's enjoyment.

[KaiserShep]

I really could not care less about a franchise's sense of identity and influence on the gaming industry in general. While this can definitely add to an IP's ability to define a developer's body of work, it doesn't necessarily make it the better option, or more importantly, more fun to play. I love Mass Effect, but as of now, I find the Dragon Age series to be much more interesting. Of course, this really depends on what you prefer to focus on. Dialogue and reactivity on the part of central characters is my primary focus, and DA simply does this better in every possible way. The morality values are not so cut and dried, and I find it more fulfilling when companion reactivity adds to these decisions. This is something that I've found to be a bit troublesome in Mass Effect. In the first game, how a companion offers advice before making a decision can change depending on the composition of the squad as the choice is being made, when that same companion should say the exact same thing no matter what. This would be like Morrigan opposing using the elven captors to augment my health when capturing the Tevinter slavers in the alienage, because I chose not to take any of the goody two-shoes characters like Wynne, Leliana and Alistair with me.

 

I've stressed this sort of thing in the past, so I guess I'm repeating myself ad nauseam, but I feel it's pretty crucial when considering that both series' primary strengths are its companion characters and their relationships with the hero. How my character's sense of morality aligns with that of the followers is what makes the companion dynamic more interesting and meaningful. If a specific character is my PC's closest friend, it's because I actively chose to make it that way, rather than it being something that happens automatically, unless I choose to simply have that character die, like Garrus.

 

Anyway, maybe I've already said too much on the subject, but defining which series is "better" is kind of silly. Both franchises have plenty of merit and a much different focus in the way each story is told, and since I have the entirety of both franchises and their respective DLC's installed on my PS3, I don't really have much of a stake in either over the other. Either way I'm going to just keep buying the next installments of both anyway.

[Fantazm1978]

Well I like it, and that's good enough for me. I also thoroughly enjoyed ME for what it's worth.

[Lord Raijin]

Comparing Dragon age to Skyrim?

 

Skyrim wasn't even that good of a game considering the fact that the mainquest was incredibly weak, the civil war was ridiculous, and no matter what by the end of the civil war arc Skyrim is still left without a king or a queen. Nobody is ruling Skyrim because Bethesda was lazy enough not to given us the opportunity to interact with the moot. The protagonist become godly like as it became far easier to defeat enemies, and the only good thing that came out of this was the open world. It was "pretty" as you call it. You barely know any of your companions other than the vampire lord Serana.

 

Don't make me explain how crappy the guild quest line was.. especially the thieves guild.

 

If it wasn't for the mod authors out there Skyrim would be full of tumbleweeds. Bethesda should be firing their current staffs, and hiring the mod writers that made Skyrim far better than they can give us.

[hairlessOrphan]

Skyrim wasn't even that good of a game considering the fact that the mainquest was incredibly weak, the civil war was ridiculous, and no matter what by the end of the civil war arc Skyrim is still left without a 

 

Yeah, the point of Skyrim wasn't the story. The story was just there because a lot of players would do nothing if they aren't told what to do.

[Bekkael]

Dragon Age is fantasy, while Mass Effect is sci-fi. One genre completely different from the other. I prefer fantasy, so I have always loved the DA series head and shoulders above Mass Effect. Dragon Age is a fantastic series, even if I don't personally adore DAI, overall it is an amazing franchise and well worth owning and playing over and over again.

OP, you will likely find more support for your assertions in the Mass Effect section of the forums.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

*​Solas disapproves*

[Little Princess Peach]

So Mass Effect being more innovative and influential in the gaming industry is an opinion?

 

Its more than just my opinion.

 

And to add, DA games have scored lower critically than most other Bioware games. Even DAI scored below ME3.

so all mighty guy/gal of numbers do you have proof of this or are you just throwing numbers out willy nilly

[adun12345]

So, the question of whether Dragon Age is a "great" franchise or not seems silly to me.

 

That said, I think the OP makes an interesting point about the variance of the Dragon Age series, especially compared to that of Mass Effect.  Obviously, Mass Effect changed over time, too, but in general I think that Mass Effect had a much clearer mechanical focus (third-person-cover-shooter/fully-voiced-RPG hybrid) than Dragon Age has had.  The same is true, I think, for art direction: Mass Effect had a much more unified visual aesthetic than Dragon Age has had, and changes in that aesthetic (i.e., the move from Normandy SR-1 to Normandy SR-2) were actually incorporated into the game's narrative.  Compared to the continued transformation of the appearance of elves across the Dragon Age games, Mass Effect is a model of continuity.

 

Now, whether that makes Mass Effect or Dragon Age *better* is a subjective value judgement.  Each franchise draws on the influence of other games; for instance, Mass Effect owes a great deal to the Halo franchise for its MACO elements, as well as the Gears of War franchise for its third-person-shooter elements.  Mass Effect's unified visual aesthetic is appealing, but it also fit better (I think) with Mass Effect's unified narrative.  On the other hand, Dragon Age's ecclectism works better (I think) to emphasize our ever-expanding experience of the diverse world of Thedas.  There is also the technical underpinning of the games: Mass Effect was developed in a relatively short period of time on a single engine, whereas the longer haul of Dragon Age has resulted in some pretty significant changes to the game's underlying architecture (I imagine that, with the release of Mass Effect 4 on Frostbite 3, we will see some pretty major changes to the mechanics/art direction of the Mass Effect series, as well).  YMMV, but at the end of the day, I don't see how either is objectively "better" than the other, mechanically or artistically.

 

Finally, I think the OP overlooks the most important aspect tying the Dragon Age games together, which is their story content.  The imaginary world of Thedas and the various characters who populate it are what really unite the various entires in this series, not the mechanics or art design.  In fact, the only times when mechanical inconsistencies in the franchise have bugged me is when they work to undermine the established lore of the franchise.  For instance, I really liked the way that Bioware organized the Dragon Age's magical cosmology in Origins into the four "schools" of magic, which were then reflected mechanically in the four major groupings of mage abilities.  I thought that their original magical organization was interesting from a lore perspective, while also providing several different mechanical foci for building different mage characters (i.e., that a mage who focuses on Creation plays very differently from one who focuses on Entropy or Elementalism).  I was pretty disappointed, then, that the vast majority of magic in DA:I is basically different flavors of Elementalism, with bits and pieces of the other schools shoe-horned into the specializations in ways that made very little lore-sense (Haste for the Necromancer? Firestorm for the Rift Mage?).  Indeed, what bugs me most about the "no healing" decision isn't that it is a mechanical change, but that there is no explanation for it at all in the lore.  I still enjoyed the game, and I appreciate Bioware's desire to play around with combat balance, but I wish more attention had been paid to the intersection of mechanics and storytelling at the heart of the game.

[Ashevajak]

Don't make me explain how crappy the guild quest line was.. especially the thieves guild.

 

I was with you up until this point.

 

IMO, the Thieves Guild was probably the best guild questline in the game, excluding the ridiculous RNG "steal a bajillion items to become the Guildmaster" ending.  Dark Brotherhood started out strong, and had a nice bit of black humour to it, but ended weak (and the DB are scrubs anyway...Morag Tong 4 lyfe), while the Companions and Mages Guild were just awful.  I liked the Dawnguard, but since that's a DLC I felt it was unfair to also include them.

 

Not that I think the TG questline is a good story...it's just better than the others.  And that aside, your criticisms were bang on. 

[Mihura]

Actually I think the world build part is really great, I love the lore, a lot. The World of Thedas is a great book and the same can be said about the tabletops.

I think the problem with the games comes from an identity crisis, for most part ME had a constant feeling that never changed that much but with DA it feels at times too different. I really hope now with the new engine they go for a more compact thing.

[kaidanluv]

I'd be careful to distinguish the DA games not being a good franchise collectively with not being good games individually.

 

I was one of the many who really liked DA:O for its epic storytelling and characters, but I also enjoyed DA 2 for its (IMO) better combat mechanic (I know this varies a lot depending on one's playstyle, but I never really cared for the "tactical" side of things and am happy with hack-n-slash) and more personalized story. And yes, I liked having a voiced character, too.

 

I also enjoyed DA:I. To me, all are great games by themselves.

 

However, I do see where the OP is coming from. They are pretty different in a lot of ways, with the only thing linking them together being the setting and some cameos/world lore. As games, they play different, with the first being an in-depth RPG; the second a watered-down RPG with influences from the ME series, as the OP said; and DA:I being an open-world mix of good ole DA, Skyrim, and Witcher.

 

I noticed similarities to other franchises right off the bat with this third game and immediately disliked that fact, because I think too many games now a days try to be like other games in their genre, instead of being welcomingly diverse. I liked Skyrim, and Witcher, and Dragon Age, but I liked them for different reasons, and because they weren't all the same. DA still has a tighter narrative and more replayability (again, for me personally, I know that's not true for everyone), but I couldn't help but getting a first impression of DA:I being a mishmash of the three instead of being...well, just the DA I know and love. 

 

This changed as I delved deeper into the game and got into it, but at first, the similarities struck me the most before it branched off into its own thing. And I'd agree that as a franchise, DA is mostly dissimilar amongst its titles.

[Bizantura]

Just the hours counting playing Bioware games opposed to other games says it all for me.  After putting +1000 hours into ME1+2+3 I am very glad DAI is here to sink my teeth in aldo my heart is more into ME franchise.  I welcome diversity, wouldn't want it another way.

[AlanC9]

Right but that's largely tied in with the dialogue wheel in my eyes, it's because of that format of 3 main dialogue options instead of the more traditional a constant like of 5-6 that voice work was largely possible.

I don't think 5-6 options is really the average. Most of the time in DA:O you get four or fewer, and some of those would be investigate options in the voiced games.

As for the OP's argument, I'm not sure how DA games can simultaneously be too dissimilar and take too few risks.

[phaonica]

DA doesn't have to be better than other games in every aspect for it to still be a great series. It might need to do those things to be considered the *best* series. But a series don't have to be perfect to be great. Even the Mass Effect and Elder Scrolls series aren't perfect. 

[lady8jane]

Proof. look at The Bureau: XCOM Declassified...its a straight clone of Mass Effect.

 

Well, we are calling that a cover shooter. The system's been around since the 1980's.

[KaiserShep]

I don't think 5-6 options is really the average. Most of the time in DA:O you get four or fewer, and some of those would be investigate options in the voiced games.

 

Don't forget the option that allows you to simply end the conversation.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I don't think 5-6 options is really the average. Most of the time in DA:O you get four or fewer, and some of those would be investigate options in the voiced games.

I was actually just estimating RPGs in general not strictly DA:O. In my experience it's usually around 5 actually dialogue options that aren't just investigation options or something else.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

I love Dragon Age, and I love Mass Effect. Both games satisfy completely different things I look for, while retaining some of the things I love the most about Bioware games. Each of the series is going to get compared to the other, it inevitable, but just because one series, or one game in that series does something better than another does not make it a better game or a better series.

 

Neither series is perfect, but both are awesome.

 

Dragon Age inquisition was a huge step in the right direction for the franchise, and personally a blast to play. Could it be better? Of course it could, and we the most avid fans are bound to be the most critical. Just don't focus all the negatives, and enjoy the game for what it is. Constructive criticism is a good thing, and a great tool in shaping the future of the games in question, but they cant make everyone happy.

 

People typically dont even know what they like themselves - I remember watching an episode of jimquisition where he mentioned a company that did a survey on what type of coffee people liked, most people put that they preferred a rich dark roast, rather than a smoother milder coffee. The same people when served different coffee actually preferred the taste of the smoother milder coffee when actually tasting them. According to their findings, people regularly bought coffee they didn't like because they thought they liked it. I think this can sometimes apply to many of the criticisms on here and even to some of the previous design choices. People love to hate stuff.

[o Ventus]

Proof. look at The Bureau: XCOM Declassified...its a straight clone of Mass Effect.

Only in the sense that it's a third-person shooter with a radial menu. But if that's the case, then Mass Effect itself is a clone of Gears of War, since Gears came before Mass Effect and made (modern) third-person shooters popular.

[Steelcan]

Guys,how dare you blaspheme against the paragon of gaming that is ME, all other games shall love it and despair

[Lord Raijin]

I was with you up until this point.

 

IMO, the Thieves Guild was probably the best guild questline in the game, excluding the ridiculous RNG "steal a bajillion items to become the Guildmaster" ending.  Dark Brotherhood started out strong, and had a nice bit of black humour to it, but ended weak (and the DB are scrubs anyway...Morag Tong 4 lyfe), while the Companions and Mages Guild were just awful.  I liked the Dawnguard, but since that's a DLC I felt it was unfair to also include them.

 

Not that I think the TG questline is a good story...it's just better than the others.  And that aside, your criticisms were bang on. 

 

You're joking me, right? The thieves guild quest line was outrageous and ridiculous. It actually insulted my intelligence as I felt I was in an episode of the three stooges.

With the protagonist unfortunately being the weakest member of the posse.

 

If you read this article you'll realize how ridiculous this questline truly is. http://www.shamusyou...edtale/?p=14422