329 réponses à ce sujet

[Solbranthius]

I like both DA:O and DA:I, it's perfectly possible to like more than one game in a series. 

[Zwingtanz]

I don't have much nostalgia for DA:O, only played it once. BG2, Fallout 2 and Realms of Arkania are the games i subconsciously measure all new games to and i'm looking forward to certain kickstarter projects that focus on the old school aspects.

 

For a modern cinematic rpg DAI was certainly a fantastic game. You just have to be fine with the "Mass Effectification" of the Dragon Age setting. Which i am.

[Persephone]

All this irrelevant points are supposed to mean something? Want a good story, go read a book.

I want (and miss) stat points, slow combat, AI, and the whole game mechanics in general

And I liked the story, but DAO is so good I would play it without a story anyway

DAI is awful and even with the story it is still painfull

As I previously stated in this topic people who loved Origins for what it was do not like DAI, and as I previously stated in another topic, the issue was never about if Origins is good or bad, neither if Inquisition is good or bad, you people arguing about it totally miss the point, it is just about being like what we did play and love, and that's it. It doesn't matter if it is pizza, icecream or ****, if you love it you will eat it again and want more and more and more. It is not hard to understand, the pedestal is not for being great or even good, but for being what we loved and/or what we needed. Which Inquisition is not.

Bolding mine:

• Yes, wanting a good story in an RPG, that's unheard of. Esp. then the RPG being criticized is saintly DAO. Gimme a break.
• Fair enough, if all you care about are game mechanics.......
• You would play DAO even without a story........?!
• Well, you seem to think that it is awful and that's your right but your arguments aren't very...convincing.
• As previously stated in this topic, that's a nonsensical lie. Sweeping assumptions like that are unconvincing and if they're all you've got, then your argument is weak.
• Who's this "we"? Who are you to speak for everyone (who played & liked DAO)? Speak for yourself. All you're spouting here is an opinion.
• And I'll repeat: If ALL you loved about DAO were its clunky combat, messy leveling system and dungeon grinding, maybe RPGs aren't for you. There are plenty of Dungeon Crawlers out there like that though. May wanna give those a shot.

[Persephone]

So why do I see the metacritic user store of DAO higher than DAI ? This implies that DAO is a far better game than DAI will ever will be.

Because Metacritic is infested by trolls spamming 0s and 10s even on release day. If you trust the Metacritic User Score......well, I prefer to form my own opinion, thank you very much.

[bEVEsthda]

So why do I see the metacritic user store of DAO higher than DAI ? This implies that DAO is a far better game than DAI will ever will be.

 

 

But why does it matter now? I raged like that when DA2 ruined the DA of DA:O francchise. But that was a long time ago.

And DA:I doesn't follow on DA:O, but on DA2.

And I'll keep insisting that DA:I is a good game and one that I enjoy. I also strongly suspect that many fail to enjoy the game simply because they filter it through DA:O all the time.  

 

Also, I don't think that there are many left inside Bioware who understands that DA:O is better, or why. So how can you urge them to develop a DA:O type of game? They can't do it, and they don't believe it.

[Giubba]

False, since when does a PC game implement a game pad instead of a mouse and keyboard, the one that is ported over from consoles that is.

Since when people demanded it so since origins

[dsl08002]

To be honest I didn't like DA2 and It is still on top 5 worst game I have ever played, but given how DAI really looks and appear I see Da2 in a new way, DA2 has the dragon age spirit and flare, something that DAI really lacks.

If bioware really wants to create a worthy successor to DAO they have to focus 80% of all efforts on the main story and make sure that it is long and detailed. They have right now find the correct combat system, I truly hope that they will stop experimenting now.

[Fullmetall21]

DA:O is by far the better game. The story is better told, there are real consequences to your choices and actions and you get all the information you need about the world.

In DA:I some of these things are missing or partially missing or not executed as well. That doesn't make DA:I a bad game, because it's still a pretty good game. It's just not the same kind of gem that DA:O was.

Want to know how I got into Bioware? It's because I said to someone that the artwork in their banner was pretty cool. It was DA:O artwork Morrigan. The first thing they replied: "It's from Dragon Age: Origins, go play that game, it's awesome." I haven't even seen anyone with DA:I artwork in their banners, nor can I imagine that anyone would say: "this game is awesome, go play it." At best they'll say: "it's a good game, but it's a time sink. If you need to lose two weeks of your life, it's probably a good investment."

People seem to think that DA:O being seen as a masterwork is some kind of nostalgia. It's not. Even back then people knew it was a masterwork. That people don't say the same thing about DA:I now says enough.

 

Thing is people are not arguing about DAO being bad game or not good everyone pretty much knows it's a masterpiece and most likely better than Inquisition the problem is that some other people say Inquisition is terrible because its not like origins, some without even touching the game once. Chances are the same people complain about CoD being the same year after year yet want every Dragon Age game to be exactly like Origins. Oh the irony.

[Darth Death]

The thing is op, most people play DA for different reasons. What you've listed are reasons I can agree with for enjoying & playing DA, but not everyone shares the same enthusiasm. DA has changed as a franchise, and as such, became something other from what I'd come to expect. It's a hard pill to swallow.   

[Ascendra]

Again, a matter of personal taste, but "real is brown" - especially for medieval settings - always feels a bit like lens flair.  It's a touch meant to add realism, but a little jarring because it's not really that realistic.

 

I mean, medieval cities were probably very brown in some ways, because of the human waste and the stuff in the gutter and the horses trampling the ground to mud.  It makes sense that a big city like Denerim is brown.  But we think of cities as the default because we're moderns.  Almost no one lived urban in the middle ages.  Redcliffe has no excuse for its brownnes - it's too small- and there are parts of Denerim in the alleys that are actually greener!

 

And Orzammar is clearly clean, but made of brown stone.  It's like they were looking for places to insert brown at random, like they had a quota of brown to fill.  Even Shale comments on it in dialogue!

 

I don't think brown is the color they intended, more like engine limitation. in fact all hues in DAO were dulled and brownish, even Brecilian forest. As I've said this is purely personal preference, I always felt that dulled hues gave DAO this melancholic setting, for me it felt more atmospheric, more authentic. I don't know how to explain this any better. I also liked Witcher 1's environments for the same thing. Generally I also prefer low magic setting - the closest example is Game of Thrones. Anyways, as I've stated - purely personal preference. Doesn't mean I dislike DA:I's environments, I think they are beautiful and feel really alive. Especially forest areas, where you can almost feel the buzz of insects, the flapping of bird wings and the shuffle of leaves.

Shale's comments was hilarious

[caradoc2000]

How can anybody who has played DAO actually like this game?

For me, it is because DAI is the best DA game so far.

[Matth85]

It becomes easy once you stop seeing Dragon Age II and Dragon age Inquisition as sequals to Dragon Age Origins -- but part of a universe. Just as the developers wanted. 

Like a milder version of Final Fantasy. I don't like all Final Fantasy, but I do love some. Each are called "Final Fantasy" and made by the same developer. Should I then either love, or hate, them all?

[Bathead]

Short and sweet - Yes I like this game much better than DA:O.

[MisterJB]

The one thing I will agree about is the sidequests. Orzammar, for instance, would feel as empty as Val-Royeaux does if it wasn't populated by interesting NPCs giving us quests that allow us to interact with dwarven society.

On the other hand, DAI is as good as and better than DAO in other aspects. For instance, companions.

I absolutely LOVE the DAO companions. They were the first and will always hold a special place. However, you most sat around a campfire talking with them whereas DAI allows you a myriad of ways of interacting with them.

[SNascimento]

Yes, and I find DAI to be a much better game. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Origins is better than DAI, but DAI is better than DA2 (overall) and Origins being better is not a nostalgia related opinion.

 

I think DAO had better/more interesting companions with couple exceptions, better story and better designed zones/areas from a layout perspective with couple exceptions too and more interesting quests in general (though both used codex entries for quests instead of character dialogue and NPC interaction far too much...though it's worse in DAI), DAO also had better controls on PC compared to DAI. DAA had better use and implementation of stronghold vs DAI's Skyhold though you could argue that DAO never had such a feature only the expansion which was part of DAO DLC and was done better in DAA than DAI.

 

DAI is better than DA2 in most ways except re-playability which is seriously lacking in DAI due to the insular design of the zones and quests, pointlessness of most choices and most content within it plus vastly lacking in depth, features and promises shown prior to release that never made it into the final game. DAO/DAA had more interesting classes, the Origin prologues were also very interesting and nice introduction to your character in DAO. DA2 beats DAI in regard to re-playability simply because DA2 is short so a replay takes a fraction of the time, despite how tacky and rushed DA2 was...the length of DAI with all it's pointless choices and lack of depth makes it more frustrating since still lacks as much choice/consequence as DA2 but over a longer playtime period.

 

DAI was more pretty to look at than DAO but a pretty game is not by itself a good game. Both DAI and DA2 had bad plot branching and DAI had as bad choice/consequences in that most choices in DAI had little to no effect just like DA2. Choices and consequences were done better in DAO/DAA. Both DAI and DA2 feel rushed out the door even though DAI feels less rushed than DA2, the vast amount of glitches, bugs, broken quests, collections and triggers/flags alongside graphical problems and resource problems...on top of the issues mentioned above but also the lack luster ending that feels tacked on to get it out the door in time for Christmas holidays which is reinforced by Bioware stating they wanted to put more effort in and had to cut a lot of content/features/depth which now say will be trying to add at a later date (pretty sure for additional price DLC).

 

They wanted DAI to go back to DAO style epic storyline but failed due to lack of depth in most areas of the game and lack of cinematic and in-game gameplay content designed around grand epic battles, the ones in game feel lackluster and anti-climatic. Haven attack is closest they got to epic but the battle sucked outside of the start scene and making way to Skyhold for first time, the fight itself lost any epic feel due to not enough effort put into the actual content during fight like enemy numbers and your forces having almost zero presence as they did through most of the game.

 

Building huge force and hardly ever see them anymore than the occasional NPC's at camps and tiny non-interactive patrols in other zones or the few dozen occasionally in a cinematic. Even Diablo 3 had a larger and more epic feel to it than DAI in terms of for an example looking down from the battlements on top of the keep in act 3 and seeing a massive war/battle raging below. Skyhold never being attacked and none of your forces put to use defending it or any of your pointless upgrades to it including your fairly pointless upgrades in zones outside of Skyhold. Even the other major battles had very little content dedicated to emphasizing war on any grand scale both in cinematic's and/or gameplay.

 

DAO+DAA 9/10, DA2 6/10 and DAI 7 or 7.5/10 at best. DAI ends up feeling like they had great ideas but never put in the time or effort to make that become a reality, it remains a borderline good game at best but not at all an amazing one by any stretch of the imagination. They lacked the time and/or effort put into it to turn it from a borderline good into an amazing or great one in almost all areas from gameplay, story and features.

[ladyluck278]

I lost count at how many times I have played DAO(I know way over 50 times, closer to 100 I think). With all the new mods out there for it, it always keeps my attention. That being said I just love DAI. Already have 275 hours of play in Inquisition since launch. So yea those that LOVE DAO can also LOVE DAI. I liked DAII also (did not love it). I have had minor bugs in the PC version, and since I have no idea how games are made, tho I do know they are very time consuming and it is impossible to catch every bug before launch (tested many player made mods in DAO), I will not complain about the game. The only issue I have with it, but understand how hard it could be because of how massive it is, is that we could not import our own game into DAI. However the choices are good. I love the story line and think that DAI is a much better game than DAO in all respects.

[Chloe Thenab]

I loved DA:O, liked DA II and get along well with DA:I. The difference between the games is, that I couldn't get my fingers off Origins and II but have hard times to motivate myself from time to time to play Inquisition.
It's not because DA:I is a wannabe open world game, because I usually love those kind of games (played over 500 hours of Skyrim).
It's because I hate those invisible walls, the stupid pathing and those countless "fetch xyz quests". Even vanilla Skyrim felt more vivid than DA:I. If you had some mods installed Skyrim was a beast.
The story of DA:I is ok, but by far worse than the story of Origins. Party banter between the witch and the king's bastard were awesome. Banters in DA:I are mostly average.
My summary so far is that DA:I could have been a much better game if Bioware would have made it more like Origins than mix DA II with Skyrim...

[N7recruit]

Overall I would say that DA:I is a game that feels like it was originally designed to be much smaller but due to the extension it needed to be stretched out to fit the triple A's "OPEN WORLD RPG" quota of meaningless BS side quests. Which in turn ruined the games pacing & hurt the plot.

 

 

The first 20 hours of this game are an absolute chore to grind through. "Here in lies the abyss" save the game for me, without that quest & "What pride has wrought" I would never even consider starting another play through of this game. I mean why torture yourself?

 

Origins plot, although being average benefited greatly by the games linear and focused progression. You have the main missions lined up & in about 2 hours on average you knock them down, then move onto the next plot point. 

 

Where as in inquisition, which has a SLIGHTLY better plot than DA:O IMO suffered form the games HUGE open world areas that had to be filled with these MMO style of busy work quests.

 

(Also note that DA:O has SUPERIOR Antagonists compared to DA:I's boring cartoon show villains)  

 

It really does feel like the plot of DA:I was written for a much smaller scale game. Like we have no compelling plot reason to go to like 6 or 7 of the games 10 maps.

What does that tell you? They had to fill these maps with something & they had to make sure players couldn't ignore them entirely, so the solution was the power system that resulted in 45 or my 73 hour play through being grinding. 

 

For the life of me I will never understand why some people think Linear games are bad, the story telling IS going to suffer if plot progression requires the player to grind for Hours on end playing boring content to unlock the Main quest content which is what you actually want to play. 

 

For the record DA:I isn't the worst victim of Open World Narrative Stretch marks I have scene, but it does suck any momentum you build up out of it when the quest structure is essentially "Main Quest Complete! Now do 3 hours of grinding!"

[berrieh]

It really does feel like the plot of DA:I was written for a much smaller scale game. Like we have no compelling plot reason to go to like 6 or 7 of the games 10 maps.

What does that tell you? They had to fill these maps with something & they had to make sure players couldn't ignore them entirely, so the solution was the power system that resulted in 45 or my 73 hour play through being grinding. 

 

For the life of me I will never understand why some people think Linear games are bad, the story telling IS going to suffer if plot progression requires the player to grind for Hours on end playing boring content to unlock the Main quest content which is what you actually want to play. 

 

There is a reason many of the areas are not required for the main plot (though most of them are tied there). The game was written for anywhere from a 20-200 hour run, with player choice and flexibility in mind for how long they wanted to take and how much they wanted to explore. You can ignore the non-story maps entirely (enough power can be found in the Hinterlands, Crestwood, and Western Approach - the mandatory areas - to complete the game), if you want. So in a way it was written for a smaller scale game - the idea is that the player chooses the scale. You can dislike it if you want, but I think it's a brilliant idea, and it's made me feel like I have more choice than any video game ever has. I actually have a choice in not just what to do in missions but how to play the game in fundamentally different ways. 

 

Personally, I think they did a good job of not hindering plot progression despite going semi-open world - if you do a "no extras" run, the plot is relatively solid, and if you do extras, you should theoretically be role-playing your reasons for being in places (IMO, they give you good hooks to take or ignore that make this easy, but others do disagree with me on this) - because that's what they're trying to give you "room" for. Still, I didn't run into the ridiculous fallacies that I do in something like Skyrim (though Fallout does this better, so it's not all Bethesda) where I am suddenly the leader of umpteen unrelated factions yet guards treat me as common scum and don't even notice I'm the only Kajhit allowed in town. I thought it was a nice balance, personally. 

 

I love linear games, but I prefer more openness in my RPGs (if they're big ones - I loved Child of Light, for instance, and it's obviously linear) for replayability. It means a playthrough doesn't need to be 100 hours but sometimes can be. I neither want a short RPG from a big AAA RPG nor one that needs to be 75-100 hours. Even 50 is a stretch when replaying sometimes. I feel like combat grinding in DAO is a lot longer than DAI and interrupted the story more without my choosing it to be so (grinding through the Fade or the Deep Roads, for instance) - when I interrupt the story in DAI, it's on my terms. So linearity doesn't necessarily make it better, in my opinion. Stories are padded no matter what, unless we're talking a Telltale game or something else that's all story, or the combat is well-integrated into the story (DA games don't really do this, nor do most RPGs, though with less cinematic camera and more NPC commentary in the field and more exploration, I feel DAI does better at giving me some story in my exploration/combat; still, very, very little). 

 

There are also so many more good linear stories out there. Usually a good linear story does best, in my opinion, with a set protagonist. I love lots of linear games.

 

And the player doesn't have to grind for "hours and hours" in this game (seriously, all the Power you need can be gained rather easily, especially if you don't use Power to unlock the optional areas you don't "need"). That's part of the point. How on Earth did it take you 45 hours to get the minimum amount of power you need? At least one of my run throughs has been less than 45 hours, with no skipping of cut scenes and plenty of meandering and lots of Power left over. 

[Shadow_Claw]

The points of criticism you make come down to game design choices around having open world content. It sounds like you would have preferred more of a linear story in each zone, instead of a bunch of content and things you can do at your leisure. If you actually take the time to fully explore each zone, you will see that there are several arcs in each zone that are very interesting and give you real rewards (agents, Skyhold upgrades, keeps, etc). In a way, the zone stories in DAI are so much more epic, but not linear as you would seem to prefer. Do you find yourself overwhelmed, not knowing what to do next? If you do, that would tell me you much prefer linear games.

[cronshaw]

So why do I see the metacritic user store of DAO higher than DAI ? This implies that DAO is a far better game than DAI will ever will be.

User metacritic scores are worthless

[bluonblu]

love them both

 

go figure.

 

Seconded. 

Why should loving DAO stop me from enjoying DAI? I haven't finished my first playthrough (yet), but I'll definitely try out other characters as well, same as I had with DAO. Never mind playing with the world history  

[Beomer]

The thing is op, most people play DA for different reasons. What you've listed are reasons I can agree with for enjoying & playing DA, but not everyone shares the same enthusiasm. DA has changed as a franchise, and as such, became something other from what I'd come to expect. It's a hard pill to swallow.   

^This.

 

DAO will be the 'Once and Future' game. One of its kind. Like Dagna says, 'It was a dark time. There was one light'.

But the DA franchise has changed. Why did it change? OP, people like you and me and many other chaps who loved DAO can place blame on hundreds of things. Trends in gaming are changing, EA is evil. The lead designer changed. Gaming is shifting towards consoles....the list is endless and bitterness is the death of reason. I doubt myself how many of those reasons are true. But none of it changes the fact that DA franchise has changed, and while it is not what I want, it is still pretty good.

Back with DA2 I was holding out hope for a return to roots. With DAI I had lost all hope and came with next to no expectations. I found the game to be riddled with issues, and some aspects a downright slap in the face of PC gamers, specially the mouse/keyboard ones, but over all decent. And although I doubt any future DA game will match DAO at least for me, it is time to face facts and accept the direction the franchise has taken, and enjoy it as much as you can.

[N7recruit]

There is a reason many of the areas are not required for the main plot (though most of them are tied there). The game was written for anywhere from a 20-200 hour run, with player choice and flexibility in mind for how long they wanted to take and how much they wanted to explore. You can ignore the non-story maps entirely (enough power can be found in the Hinterlands, Crestwood, and Western Approach - the mandatory areas - to complete the game), if you want. So in a way it was written for a smaller scale game - the idea is that the player chooses the scale. You can dislike it if you want, but I think it's a brilliant idea, and it's made me feel like I have more choice than any video game ever has. I actually have a choice in not just what to do in missions but how to play the game in fundamentally different ways. 

 

Personally, I think they did a good job of not hindering plot progression despite going semi-open world - if you do a "no extras" run, the plot is relatively solid, and if you do extras, you should theoretically be role-playing your reasons for being in places (IMO, they give you good hooks to take or ignore that make this easy, but others do disagree with me on this) - because that's what they're trying to give you "room" for. Still, I didn't run into the ridiculous fallacies that I do in something like Skyrim (though Fallout does this better, so it's not all Bethesda) where I am suddenly the leader of umpteen unrelated factions yet guards treat me as common scum and don't even notice I'm the only Kajhit allowed in town. I thought it was a nice balance, personally. 

 

I love linear games, but I prefer more openness in my RPGs (if they're big ones - I loved Child of Light, for instance, and it's obviously linear) for replayability. It means a playthrough doesn't need to be 100 hours but sometimes can be. I neither want a short RPG from a big AAA RPG nor one that needs to be 75-100 hours. Even 50 is a stretch when replaying sometimes. I feel like combat grinding in DAO is a lot longer than DAI and interrupted the story more without my choosing it to be so (grinding through the Fade or the Deep Roads, for instance) - when I interrupt the story in DAI, it's on my terms. So linearity doesn't necessarily make it better, in my opinion. Stories are padded no matter what, unless we're talking a Telltale game or something else that's all story, or the combat is well-integrated into the story (DA games don't really do this, nor do most RPGs, though with less cinematic camera and more NPC commentary in the field and more exploration, I feel DAI does better at giving me some story in my exploration/combat; still, very, very little). 

 

There are also so many more good linear stories out there. Usually a good linear story does best, in my opinion, with a set protagonist. I love lots of linear games.

 

And the player doesn't have to grind for "hours and hours" in this game (seriously, all the Power you need can be gained rather easily, especially if you don't use Power to unlock the optional areas you don't "need"). That's part of the point. How on Earth did it take you 45 hours to get the minimum amount of power you need? At least one of my run throughs has been less than 45 hours, with no skipping of cut scenes and plenty of meandering and lots of Power left over. 

Probably should of clarified but my 73ish hour in play through I completed like 98% of the games total content. The only things I did not complete are those star puzzles & I can't find the last 4 shards. I did everything else in the game. My power upon completion was 220 something.

 

I wanted to experience everything this game had to offer so I wouldn't be talking out of my ass when discussing it. So my Criticism was kinda unfair, seeing as it only applies to completion's runs.  

 

Personally I just found the majority of the content in this game to be underwhelming, the plot wasn't bad but I just found it too boring with it's lame underdeveloped villains & it's predictability (For the most part). And the exploration wasn't engaging enough (Plat forming was too basic/wonky sometimes, Horse riding was too slow/stiff + you had to constantly dismount to loot stuff as well as making sure you didn't miss any banter. Also the Looting animation was too long) All we did was kill strangers in the forest & pick flowers 

 

And when it was about to get interesting with the Coronation of divine Victoria & the revelation about Solas, the game cuts to the Credits. I know that game development resource allocation does not work like this but I would trade all my time exploring DA:I's open world hubs for more Main plot missions in a heart beat.