338 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Really? I found at least one and I sided with the mages. Kinda doubt the map got changed.

 

No I sided with the templars. There's no red lyrium there when you do.

 

Least none that I've seen.

[Octarin]

the "professional" reviews on so called "AAA"-games are almost always good, regardless of whether the respective games are great, only "acceptable" or even bad. nothing to be surprised of.

 

In a nutshell, this. 

 

Which makes sense really, because reviewers usually have the best rigs, next gen consoles and generally aces high machines there, and they don't pay attention to bugs and other things, cause they presume these will be fixed. 

 

Plus, with the proper amount of money, anyone can approve of anything. 

[Maverick827]

Pretty sure it changes the looks of some maps too. Someone who sided with the templars claimed there was a red lyrium cave in Crestwood. I've never seen a one.

 

It's there.  I sided with the mages in one play through and it's there.

 

I don't need my choices to affect the game world very much.  Origins didn't have it, and I didn't miss it.  But Origins made up for it with amazing side quests that let me tailor my Warden differently each game.  That was Origins' replay value.  DA2 didn't do this so well, but it at least had the three tonal options.  DAI has none of these things and offers nothing in return for removing them except larger maps, but that's not a trade I'd willingly make.

[Ryzaki]

It's there.  I sided with the mages in one play through and it's there.

 

I don't need my choices to affect the game world very much.  Origins didn't have it, and I didn't miss it.  But Origins made up for it with amazing side quests that let me tailor my Warden differently each game.  That was Origins' replay value.  DA2 didn't do this so well, but it at least had the three tonal options.  DAI has none of these things and offers nothing in return for removing them except larger maps, but that's not a trade I'd willingly make.

 

It was there when you sided with the templars too? Because again I side with the templars. I saw no red lyrium. (Especially not where he claimed it was. That's the wyvern cave near the Ventatori encampment. There's no red lyrium whatsoever over there).

[Nightdragon8]

It is an excellent game despite it's flaws. It's an excellent Arcade action game. Problem is a lot of people bought into the game expecting a PC RPG similar to the original, and the devs were saying that was what they were going to deliver right up to release date. That is why there is a schism between the reviews and forum sentiment - the reviewers are reviewing it for what it is, the fans are reviewing what they expected.

so what you are saying is that, its alright for Devs to lie to the people, effectivly decive them, and the players have no rights at all? But as long as reviewers say good things about the game, then its alright to lie to your core group of buyers? Wow are we really going to go down this road...

 

Basicly its back to the snake oil days it seems. I will sell you prevenitive medices and its just mineral water...  oh wait pharmisodicals are STILL doing that today...

[Zachriel]

Yeah because choosing the Templars or Mages totally gives you the same mission. 

 

 

That's a perfect example, actually.  What is the outcome of that mission?  If you side with the Templars do you fight Red Lyrium Mages for the rest of the game, having deprived The Elder One of his templar forces?  Nope.  The only difference in the game that varies based on your choice of which faction to side with is who you and Cullen track down later in the game.  

 

I sided with the mages my first time and I honestly thought I was fighting red templars the rest of the game because of that decision, only to find out late that it didn't matter in the least who I sided with.  The rest of the game is exactly the same regardless.  The only pay off you see is in the one or two lines of narration that change in the slide show at the end.

[Maverick827]

It was there when you sided with the templars too? Because again I side with the templars. I saw no red lyrium. (Especially not where he claimed it was. That's the wyvern cave near the Ventatori encampment. There's no red lyrium whatsoever over there).

 

I haven't gotten to Crestwood yet in my Templar play through.  I thought you were saying "someone who sided with the Templars claimed there was a red lyrium cave in Crestwood.  I (as someone who sided with the Mages) have never seen one," so I was just offering that I did see one on my Mage play through.

[Ryzaki]

I haven't gotten to Crestwood yet in my Templar play through.  I thought you were saying "someone who sided with the Templars claimed there was a red lyrium cave in Crestwood.  I (as someone who sided with the Mages) have never seen one," so I was just offering that I did see one on my Mage play through.

 

nah I was saying someone who sided with teh mages and I as someone who sided with the templars XD lol my bad.

[Sidney]

That's a perfect example, actually.  What is the outcome of that mission?  If you side with the Templars do you fight Red Lyrium Mages for the rest of the game, having deprived The Elder One of his templar forces?  Nope.  The only difference in the game that varies based on your choice of which faction to side with is who you and Cullen track down later in the game.  

 

I sided with the mages my first time and I honestly thought I was fighting red templars the rest of the game because of that decision, only to find out late that it didn't matter in the least who I sided with.  The rest of the game is exactly the same regardless.  The only pay off you see is in the one or two lines of narration that change in the slide show at the end.

 

 

Well that and the main henchman for the Elder One changing and a lot of differences getting to the end point with that henchman and how that final battle plays out or doesn't.

 

As far as that goes tell me the in game difference between Bhelen and Harrowmont. None not even different dwarves at the end to use as cannon fodder like the other quests.

[Zachriel]

Well that and the main henchman for the Elder One changing and a lot of differences getting to the end point with that henchman and how that final battle plays out or doesn't.

 

 

I mentioned the henchman, "who you track down with Cullen at the end," although I don't remember for sure if you work directly with cullen to track down that henchman if you side with the Templars as I've only gone down that path once.  I don't know what you mean about the final battle, though.  As far as I know it plays out exactly the same way regardless.  The only choice that has any affect is who uses the artifact in the Arbor Wilds, and even then the variation is minimal.

 

As far as that goes tell me the in game difference between Bhelen and Harrowmont. None not even different dwarves at the end to use as cannon fodder like the other quests.

 

 

Not sure how this is even relevant since that's a different game.  Plenty of good RPGs have meaningless choices in them, including some of my all time favorites.  Normally it's not a problem for me.  The reason it's a problem in this game is that Bioware said that the world in this game would change depending on the choices you make.  It does not.  Let's look a few examples:

 

Spoiler

Adamant Fortress:

 

There are two major choices here, and neither one matters:

 

1. Who do you sacrifice in the Fade?  It may feel weighty and meaningful in the moment, but in the context of this game and its narrative it is moot.  It has no impact whatosever on anything else beyond this one moment.
2. Do you recruit the wardens or exile them?  Moot.  If you recruit them you can use them on some war table operations, and that's it.  

 

Regardless of what you do here, the exact same thing happens to the wardens in the epilogue.  Nothing you do here matters.  It's all a zero sum.  Your decision is moot, pointless, devoid of all meaning.

 

Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts:

 

This quest boils down to who you put in power in Orlais:  Celene, Briala, Gaspard, or some combination of the three.  Moot.  It doesn't matter who's in charge.  Regardless of your decision, you get a unified Orlais behind the Inquisition.  Not that it matters.  It has no impact on anything else that happens in the course of the game.  You may as well ask them to draw straws.

 

 

Arbor Wilds:

 

Moot.  Doesn't matter what you do or say.  Somebody drinks from the Well of Sorrows and you get a dragon to fight for you no matter what.

 

Companion Quests:

 

The one with the greatest consequence is Blackwall's.  He can actually die if you so choose.  The others?  All moot.  No change in personality.  No abilities gained or lost.  Just approval or disapproval.  I'm not even certain that companions actually can leave the Inquisition if you ****** them off enough.  It's never happened for me and I've actually tried to get Vivenne to leave of her own volition.

 

Those were all I could think of off the top of my head without poring over the game again.  Now, it's entirely possible that these decisions could have a profound impact on some future game or DLC, but in the context of this game they mean nothing.  Nothing you do anywhere in this game has any impact on anything else int he game.  None.  At all.  

 

And again, normally the lack of any meaningful consequences for decisions I make in a game wouldn't bother me.  It bothers me this time because Bioware said your decision would change things as you played the game.  They don't.  I don't like being lied to or fed misinformation.  It doesn't make me hate the game, but it does make me very angry with Bioware.

 

[DaemionMoadrin]

All consequences are isolated within their quest, once you are done with it, it doesn't matter anymore and if you are very, very lucky, it might get mentioned by someone once as something that happened. That's it.

[Rawgrim]

 While the reviews are so good to  the game. I do not understand why is there so much negative feedback while reviewers gave it so much positive feedback.

 

EA games always gets good reviews. They pay for them, most likely.

[scrutinizer]

 While the reviews are so good to  the game. I do not understand why is there so much negative feedback while reviewers gave it so much positive feedback.

To enlighten you a bit, here's a rather honest review. http://johnswritersb...ge-inquisition/The author observed and pinpointed many flaws, with which a lot of us agree. However, your professional reviewers failed to mention any of these. You can piece it together from here.

 

This is the BSN, the same place that trashed both DA:O & ME2 at release & both are now seen as great games, is just a very negative forum so is not surprising its the only place where there's more negative feedback then positive

I, for one, dislike ME2 - the plot is awful. A human reaper? What? The gameplay is mediocre (as compared to other action/shooter/RPG games). The only saving grace are the companions. 

DA:O still has its share of faults. Initially, many saw Origins as a harbinger of the departure into the MMO territory - they were right, so it would seem - (cooldown skills, rapid mana/health regeneration etc.), but these were minor elements as compared to the sound entirety and complexity of the game. For every flaw, there were five positives that eclipsed it and pushed it aside as a non-essential thingy.

Moreover, the team was probably more talented back then. Since that time, many employees left, and one has to take it into consideration, as, for some time now, every next Bioware product has a quality which is inferior to the previous one. (DA2 - ME3 - DA:I)

 

Peace.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

To enlighten you a bit, here's a rather honest review. http://johnswritersb...ge-inquisition/The author observed and pinpointed many flaws, with which a lot of us agree. However, your professional reviewers failed to mention any of these. You can piece it together from here.

I laugh when people talk about "honest reviews" since it usually just means "a review i agree with", take Angry Joe for example, people kept saying they would trust his reviews over "paid for" professional reviews since he's "real & uncorrupted" but ever since AJ said he enjoyed DA:I the same people turned on him & have given him hate for being a "fanboy" or a "sellout paid by EA" for not trashing the game like certain "fans" wanted

[Maverick827]

I laugh when people talk about "honest reviews" since it usually just means "a review i agree with", take Angry Joe for example, people kept saying they would trust his reviews over "paid for" professional reviews since he's "real & uncorrupted" but ever since AJ said he enjoyed DA:I the same people turned on him & have given him hate for being a "fanboy" or a "sellout paid by EA" for not trashing the game like certain "fans" wanted

 

An "honest" review need to include the negative aspects of the game, and also not dismiss them as barely noteworthy because the game is just so awesome.

 

There wouldn't be this many people complaining about all of the same things across multiple forums if there weren't legitimate things to complain about, and to not address any of them is, in my opinion, dishonest.

 

I personally did it when defending DA2.  If I even acknowledged that the game had flaws, I would dismiss them.  "Sure, the maps are re-used, but it makes sense!  Ever been to a warehouse?  They look very similar.  So if the game sends us to two warehouses, why wouldn't they look similar!"

 

"Does it really matter if enemies spawn from the ceiling or if they spawn around the corner?  Somewhere they're coming out of thin air, because this is a game!" 

 

It's hard to notice your own biases, but it's a skill a professional game reviewer should have.

[Diegofsv]

Angry Joe review was honest enough. He is a huge Dragon Age fanboy and he played at a console. My complains comes mostly for the PC version, which is a badly ported console game full of stupid AI, horrible tactical camera and a repulsive UI that makes me wanna kill myself everytime I want to change equipment. The game itself is a medieval version of Mass Effect 2 mixed with a MMO....an OK action game with a bad story but awesome companions and loads of fetch quests in a huge world (yeah, I dont like ME2 story. The best quest in the game is the Shadow Broker DLC). Thats not what I expected from a Dragon Age game, but I think thats what I will get from now on. Western RPGs with depth now only comes from the indie scene and Witcher (which is more action oriented but rocks anyway). Still, the companions are good enough to make the game better than the hideous DA2.

 

For those that think that ppl only complain here, see the difference between professional scores and users scores on metacritic between Dragon Age Inquisition and Shadows of Mordor (another game of the year nominee) and see for yorselfs when a game truly delivers what it promisses and when another one dont. I can say that I enjoyed my playthrough of DAI, but it still sucks as a great  tactical RPG and stays way behind DAO.

[Hydwn]

I don't hate the game.  I am disappointed because Bioware set the expectations so high and then didn't deliver.  If I had not followed the game or Bioware at all during the pre-release phase then I would probably be perfectly happy with the game as it is (although I'd still be a little irritated at some bugs and stability issues I continue to experience).  I have played the game through three times now and I still enjoy playing it.  But I did follow the game's progress pre-release and I was really excited about each of the features that I listed, only to find them conspicuously absent.  It was... Well, disappointing.

 

I do want to ask about this, though:

 

 

Which choices, specifically, did you feel were meaningful and why?  How exactly does the world reflect those choices?  Because I can't think of a single thing I did in the game that had any impact whatsoever on:

 

- The course of the story

- The fate of my Inquistor or my compnions, with one exception (Divine)

- The state of the world in this game.

 

There are some things that are implied about the state of the world, but we never get to actually see them.  Some choices did have a much greater emotional impact than others.  For example,

Spoiler

If you end up with both Allistair and Hawke in the Fade with you, choosing who gets left behind was emotionally difficult and felt meaningful

but it does not affect the story or the outcome.  At all.  The same goes for every major decision in the game.  No matter what you choose the story unfolds in exactly the same manner every time and the world that you get to interact with remains the same.  There are no tangible consequences to any choice you make that you can actually see in the world when you go out and explore it, except perhaps a decrease/change in the type of enemy you encounter but even then it's usually just a substitution of Red Templars for whatever the previous enemies were on a particular map.

 

Let's take the choice that's closest between the two games: Bhelen/Harrowmont and Celene/Gaspard.  Both are choices between the ruler of a kingdom the PC has no personal stake in, but needs troops from.  Both are a choices between a backwards-thinking leader and a forward-thinking machiavellian politician.  

 

Quick: list all the things that picking Bhelen over Harrowmont changes practically in DAO.  After the final cutscene, the dialogue of dwarves in Orzammar will change.  There is a possible random encounter on the road, and other than that, one single dwarf outside Orzammar will mention it.  You've decided the fate of a nation, and no one outside it will care.  You'll get a different slideshow at the end, unnarrated and not particularly large.  You certainly don't get a different army based on which choice you make.

 

The choice of Celene and Gaspard changes a lot of dialogue, and party reactions.  Throw Briala in, and there's even more.  Folks will comment on it frequently, and there are war table missions related to it.  Ferelden certainly cares if you picked Gaspard, and didn't bother to make peace.

 

The Warden mission is similar.  But those are the two least reactive choices.  All you get is slideshow - which, 90% of the time, is all you get in Origins too.

 

Origins has the easier job.  It only needs to be reactive to one game.  But it actually does a worse job of it DAI does reacting to three games.  The elves don't care what you did to the dwarves, and Loghain won't use anything you did at Redcliffe against you.  

 

It's pretty hilarious Arl Eamon's reactions to your decisions because he needs to be on your side no matter what.  "You killed my wife (or son) and you executed Alistair and saved Loghain, but oh well."  He doesn't swear revenge after the war or anything like that.  Seriously, you can be worse than Loghain in this story, and people who should care don't seem to.   And they certainly don't notice what you've done in other places.  For all the complaints that DA2 was completely episodic, nothing is as episodic as DAO. At least DA2 had reactivity from act to act.

 

If I had any doubt the game was keeping track of my choices, it was dispelled the first time I spoke to Leliana in my first playthrough, and she told me about her friend the hero of Ferelden who became queen, and the second time when her lover the hero of ferelden was her lover, and on an important mission.  Or the third playthrough I just started where she rails against the hero for having killed her.  Any lingering doubts are dispelled the instant you enter a cave in Crestwood.  

 

(Seriously, they brought Simon Templeman out of retirement from the series to voice Loghain for the small minority of playthroughs where he's alive!)

 

And if you didn't feel the choices mattered, you must not have feelings for Hawke.  Or Alistair.  Or Krem.  Or any of your new companions.  Hell, I read the Calling and felt like a jerk just for killing Fiona on a Templars run >_<

 

Then at the midpoint it does something DA2 tried to do and DAO didn't bother with - it branches the entire story, the nemesis, the future mission structure, and the future war table missions through a choice of mages versus templars.  You might lament that the ending was the same, but everything up to that point is drastically altered.  Drinking from the pool, having an old god baby in your playthrough, all of ti alters the mission structure.  

 

This is tons more drastic than anything you'll see in DAO.  The post-game will change based on your decisions, and it's someone else who gives the speech when the invasion of Denerim begins, but nothing else much changes in the assault on Denerim.  Even on hard difficulties I don't experience any serious difference between an army of templars or an army of mages.

 

It comes down to what you were expecting that you didn't see...?  A fully rendered cutscene for each decision?  DAO didn't have that, and DA2 didn't even have a slideshow.  The resource cost would have been enormous.  The storyline changes throughout and the slideshow changes, so what's the problem exactly?

[DaemionMoadrin]

I laugh when people talk about "honest reviews" since it usually just means "a review i agree with", take Angry Joe for example, people kept saying they would trust his reviews over "paid for" professional reviews since he's "real & uncorrupted" but ever since AJ said he enjoyed DA:I the same people turned on him & have given him hate for being a "fanboy" or a "sellout paid by EA" for not trashing the game like certain "fans" wanted

 

I watched the entire Angry Joe review and he gushes about questionable design elements (Skyhold upgrades for example) as if they were the greatest thing ever. He does mention some flaws but dismisses them as PC problems that will get patched out soon. He did rate DA:I (PC) with 7/10 and the console version with 8/10, so that part was realistic. It's just the tone of his review doesn't reflect the rating and he glossed over quite a few things in the process.

Personally I don't care but if I didn't have the background knowledge from actually playing the game, then I would interpret his review as a recommendation to buy the game right now, because it's so awesome.

It's not just what he said, it's also what he didn't say and how he said it.

[ARGranati]

ppl on these boards want there top down point n click DA:O2, if BioWare dont give them exactly that they will simply beat every game released by the company into the ground, bioware is not allowed to move on in the new directions they have, but to stay the same company they were 10 - 20 years ago and not move on with times and a younger generation with newer demands/outlooks for there games

That also includes bad as hell AI for the people fighting besides you? I don't see anyone getting mad for having that in their game.

[Madrict]

I love this game, so I agree with the positive reviews. Some people are never happy though and always complain when they don't get what they want and they let that ruin the entire experience for them instead of adapting.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I love this game, so I agree with the positive reviews. Some people are never happy though and always complain when they don't get what they want and they let that ruin the entire experience for them instead of adapting.

 

How about you read the entire thread first? I really don't want to repeat myself again and again and if I had to say it with a few words it would be something like "Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about, you are wrong and thank you for dismissing all critics as complainers."

Well, please read more of the thread so I don't have to say something like that. Thank you.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

I watched the entire Angry Joe review and he gushes about questionable design elements (Skyhold upgrades for example) as if they were the greatest thing ever. He does mention some flaws but dismisses them as PC problems that will get patched out soon. He did rate DA:I (PC) with 7/10 and the console version with 8/10, so that part was realistic. It's just the tone of his review doesn't reflect the rating and he glossed over quite a few things in the process.
Personally I don't care but if I didn't have the background knowledge from actually playing the game, then I would interpret his review as a recommendation to buy the game right now, because it's so awesome.
It's not just what he said, it's also what he didn't say and how he said it.

He certainly had his own biases when discussing his opinion of the game, just surprised me how some people utterly turned on him for not trashing the game & only seeing negative reviews as "honest"

[Hydwn]

How about you read the entire thread first? I really don't want to repeat myself again and again and if I had to say it with a few words it would be something like "Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about, you are wrong and thank you for dismissing all critics as complainers."t's 

Well, please read more of the thread so I don't have to say something like that. Thank you.

 

It's not just the critics as complainers.  I think for those of us who loved the game, the frustrating thing isn't "X error frustrated me" or "I liked the characters better in DAO."  

 

Most forums in this thread are now walls of negativity, some are covered in two-thirds blockage of the same complaints, pushing out far more interesting discussions about character and lore and story.  There's thread after thread after thread decrying it as a terrible game, a betrayal of the fans.  Deliberately positive threads about the game are hijacked by the second and third post.

 

The balance is overwhelming and disproportionately negative, and for all the complaints about those of us who loved the game trying to shut up those who didn't, just look at the thread titles in any forum and count up the complaints to the compliments.  The complaints vastly outnumber compliments, and what's worse they vastly outnumber threads that constitute interesting discussion of the game and its lore. 

 

I joined the forum a few months before the game came out.  It wasn't like this even a few months before.  The shift was extreme, sudden, and depressing.

 

None of this has diminished my love of the game, but it's made me wonder if those of us who actually like discussing its characters and story past "It sucked and everyone who likes it sucked" shouldn't just uproot and go elsewhere.  Seriously, how many negative, repetitive threads are needed?  Positive threads about the game are a few and far between still.

 

And since all the evidence suggests that the BSN is wildly out of step with the rest of the audience for this game, it's natural for those of us who liked it to wonder why.  Why is the majority of this series' main fan site devoted to trashing the latest entry of a series it purports to love, whle the rest of the world loves it?  

[dsl08002]

DAO set the height of what dragon age is about, DAI is so much better than DA2 but it doesnt reach DAO in story, depth and performance. Most importently it doesnt feel like a DA game, it is more similair to mmo swtor.

Strangely i used to say that DA2 is the worst game i have ever played and it still is. But after DAI i look on DA2 with different eyes, that feels like dragon age, but DAI doesnt.

[DaemionMoadrin]

He certainly had his own biases when discussing his opinion of the game, just surprised me how some people utterly turned on him for not trashing the game & only seeing negative reviews as "honest"

 

Yeah... people are hardly ever objective. ^^

 

My recommendation is to always get information from as many sources as possible. In the case of DA:I, I avoided almost all news until the release, so I would go into the game without expectations. I was still shocked and disappointed ... and then started to read the DA:I forum, the BioWare news/blogs and gaming sites. The things they talked about? The things they promised? The things they showed us in gameplay videos and presentations? Those are not in the actual game. And -that- is a good and valid reason to be disappointed.

 

If you're feeling let down by your favourite game developer, if you are disappointed you spent quite a lot of money on overhyped game... well, then you won't react objectively when some reviewer praises the very thing that frustrates you so much. ^^

 

A completely honest and objective review made by me would rate the game as 7/10. A good, solid game... once the technical problems are patched out anyway. It isn't worth the €70 I paid, it doesn't actually have enough interesting content to justify the 120+ hours I put into it but it isn't actually a bad game. It's just not as good as it should be and if BioWare could be honest about it, they'd probably admit that with more time the game would be much, much better.

 

This is also the reason why people are constantly asking for patches and DLC... the game is incomplete and they want the full experience.

 

Anyway... I think I wrote more than enough on this topic.