There is a difference between DAI and DAO in that DAO was made for PC gamers which is why it is more chellanging and has better tactics and ported over to consoles while DAI was made for consoles despite the false advertising and ported over to PC.
Thing is, I distinctly remember being on the forums right after Origins dropped and people were blasting it, saying it was only a pale imitation of those older games. It's kind of baffling to me that now it's being held up with them, even though I think Bioware really hasn't slipped in quality for a long - long time, ignoring the original campaign of Neverwinter Nights which can go burn for all I care. People just don't like change I feel. Not to say their opinions aren't valid, not at all. But to see Origins go from that to highly revered is a bit of a switch for me, seeing as I remember the forums from back then. Then again, the answer is pretty simple, opinions change. That or the people I remember making those remarks moved on and people who felt differently are now a more prominent voice. Probably a mix.
I agree with that I believe that some people just don't like changes, it's not bad in fact my best friend is like that I bet that when Origins launched people were on about how it's not like Baldur's Gates or whatever older RPG at the time.
As for the manual stat alignment mentioned above being a min/max person in all games I play, I prefer the way Inquisition does it since in all my playthoughs I actually did it the same way, the optimal way for me and it got a bit tiresome. Stats on armor too you get that shiny armor? oops you need x amount of y stat to wear that. I know a lot of people see that as a customization thing and that's fine good for them but I still liked Origins very much played it for a very long while and still i like Inquisition just as much. Different doesn't always mean worse.
You can like something to different degrees. I loved DA:O and I like Inquisition, I just feel it's lacking in certain areas (like meaningful sidequests, multiple endings, companions giving input on the quests you're doing and generally being relevant to the plot, etc...)
If you played DAO, especially if you played it multiple times, like as a dwarf noble, human noble, mage, etc, then you experienced a long introduction unique for any type of character you created. Take dwarf noble for example, a couple hours before the game really starts you are playing your 'origin' story. All choices have consequences and visual results. Before the game starts you choices as dwarf noble determine what happens with your brother, how other dwarves will view you, you have so many options you must reply a few times as dwarf noble alone to see all the variety of outcomes for the many choices. For example at the feast do you support the land dwarves, or embarrass the noble pushing for that because his true motivation may be to get money, or challenge to a death duel, (3 different outcomes on that one little thing there), how your conversations go effect if you find your brother murdered or you fight him, many dialogue changes depending on things you said or what you did at the proving grounds, etc. This is just a beginning story that nobody ever will see if they didn't play dwarf noble, then there are a ton of other beginning stories for each option. All of this is nixed in DAI, you begin the same no matter what you select, so nothing different.
In DAO, you are eager to return to your 'origin' area to address what disaster happened and also how various characters you interacted with during that origin story will react to you when you revisit them.
In DAO, you see results for most of your side quests. In DAI many are fetch or find a letter with the last wish of a dead person and fulfill their last wish without ever talking to an NPC by fetching and dropping something.
In DAO, all the zones had a deep story with it's own problems and villians. The circle tower do you side w/ templars or help mages, and the possible outcomes. In orizzmar who do you support as king, then with blanca do you support her or the golem, if blanca do you talk her out of making golems or support making them, etc. In Redcliffe the possessed brat and how do you resolve that or do you just leave and let the city get destroyed, if you solve that area do you sacrifice queen, save everybody, who do you send in the fade to help him, do you make a deal w/ the demon or not? AND all of these choices show long term outcomes in the end game slides. IN DAI - you are doing some quests in the other zones but you don't even know if you beat or fixed the area or not, not much of a story, mostly claim areas and if you run out of things to do you assume it's done, no end game slides on helping the area and in the side zones no choices, you either help them or don't.
In DAO you must get allies and visit the zones for your battles, if you don't get allies then on the final battle scenes you don't have them. If you do you can summon them to help. In DAI, you never use your allies, no end game slides either for getting or not getting them.
DAO expansion w/ being able to customize the keep and upgrade it was more interactive then DAI. Were you excited in DAI how the chantry or garden look identical and the difference being 2 or 6 potable plants? Or the tower upgrade only being either templar or mage NPCS inside the back tower? The keep not being used for anything?
I don't understand how so many love DAI UNLESS you didn't play DAO, then I understand completely. If you played DAO and on biowares promises that DAI would be going back to its roots and being like DAO but better, you'd be pissed off they lied.
I could go on further but find it funny people think negative reviews are just trolls, must be that DAI got a lot of first time sales and since most console games don't have much substance, they are mostly action/fight, nobody knows any better.
I like DA:O a lot and it was a great first title, that said I like DA:I, and for the record I liked DA:2 too. It is not because I am a Fan Boy either. Infact never played any Bioware game that I can recall till DA:O. Still have yet to play Mass Effect. Scandalous I know. I will give the games a shot in the near future. Just a couple of things I enjoy about Da:I are the romances with Josephine, and Cassandra, and the songs. I didn't hear songs like that in The Gnawed Noble or Hanged Man Taverns. If they put out another DA:I soundtrack with them songs on it I am buying it.
DAI can't compare with DAO. DAO had so much better narrative. I'm playing for the sake of exploration and Bioware's attempt at sandbox style open world. Must say Skyrim does a much better job with less restrictions.
One thing I feel weird is that DA2 and DAI has a rather sci fi feel about it rather than a true fantasy genre.
Bioware needs to take this series back to its root, good old filthy and scummy medieval settings.
I find it's easier to solo in Origins than in the other games.
I never solo. I feel if I did that it would be just so I could say so. I also would never use just one party member for the same reason. I like playing the game to figure out everyones strengths and then trying a harder setting. It seems better when the group you pick barely makes it.
DAO is challenging? Fun, sure, but challenging?
I don't solo for most missions, but will on rare occasion if I think it fits. In Origins, I solo'd through the entire Trial of Crows quest, because it seemed fitting that my Warden was being shady and Assassin-y, taking out marks by her lonesome. I haven't seen any reason to do the same in DA2 or Inquisition though. I did make the mistake of exiting the Hanged Man by my lonesome with Hawke in Act 2, only to be ambushed by a f***-ton of doglords and their stupid mabaris. Never have I ever wanted to kill mabari hounds so badly.
Oh lord DA2 and their random hordes of mooks, at least it was only the dog lords and not blood mages, its a wonder a rift didn't simply swallow Kirkwall but then I seem to remember running across codex that Corypheus designed the city so the city's madness is not surprising I guess.
Lol really? No wonder Kirkwall was so f***ed. It'd probably make Varric reconsider his statement that "Kirkwall's not so bad". Really Varric?
I like DA:O a lot and it was a great first title, that said I like DA:I, and for the record I liked DA:2 too. It is not because I am a Fan Boy either. Infact never played any Bioware game that I can recall till DA:O. Still have yet to play Mass Effect. Scandalous I know. I will give the games a shot in the near future. Just a couple of things I enjoy about Da:I are the romances with Josephine, and Cassandra, and the songs. I didn't hear songs like that in The Gnawed Noble or Hanged Man Taverns. If they put out another DA:I soundtrack with them songs on it I am buying it.
Man you are right I just love the Tavern songs i sometimes just stand there listening to them. That bard should take a raise for that.
The only real singing you have in any tavern in DA:O is the drunken dwarf slurring his words and hiccuping in Orzammar.
The only real singing you have in any tavern in DA:O is the drunken dwarf slurring his words and hiccuping in Orzammar.
Oh yeah I forgot about that. The thing I remember is always drinking with that one dwarf no matter who I intend to put on the throne in Orzammar.
Oh lord DA2 and their random hordes of mooks, at least it was only the dog lords and not blood mages, its a wonder a rift didn't simply swallow Kirkwall but then I seem to remember running across codex that Corypheus designed the city so the city's madness is not surprising I guess.
off topic and interesting thing I just found out in the timeline section at the official dragon age site when it's referring to the time Hakwe visited that Grey Warden prison it say Hawke attempted to destroy Corypheus while on the DLC itself you actually kill him no way around it. I thought it was amusing at least.
I hated that dwarf by the way.
If you played DAO, especially if you played it multiple times, like as a dwarf noble, human noble, mage, etc, then you experienced a long introduction unique for any type of character you created. Take dwarf noble for example, a couple hours before the game really starts you are playing your 'origin' story. All choices have consequences and visual results. Before the game starts you choices as dwarf noble determine what happens with your brother, how other dwarves will view you, you have so many options you must reply a few times as dwarf noble alone to see all the variety of outcomes for the many choices. For example at the feast do you support the land dwarves, or embarrass the noble pushing for that because his true motivation may be to get money, or challenge to a death duel, (3 different outcomes on that one little thing there), how your conversations go effect if you find your brother murdered or you fight him, many dialogue changes depending on things you said or what you did at the proving grounds, etc. This is just a beginning story that nobody ever will see if they didn't play dwarf noble, then there are a ton of other beginning stories for each option. All of this is nixed in DAI, you begin the same no matter what you select, so nothing different.
And............ this was pretty much unique to DAO. If you dislike DAI for not having detailed origins then you must dislike pretty much every game apart from DAO.
Another day, another whiny troll trying to pretend he's all smart and talking about Origins and whining and "hey, pay attention to me-e-e-e-e-e!"
Count me in as someone who has 10 play-throughs of DAO and "likes" DAI. I didn't say love. There are too many useless time sink fedex, fetch, plant-the-flag side quests for me to love it. Add in the troubles over PC controls, the limit of 8 slot bars and it's a "like". We'll see what happens when they start releasing DLCs. Hopefully sometime in the next year or 2? BW doesn't' exactly move fast on those.
They sold it as being like DAO but bigger and better. DAI has the 'illusion' of being an RPG, if you play more than once you'll notice how nothing changes. Did you save or not save residents in Haven? Notice how if you save them or not, you loose them no matter what. They just say its death or they left on their own.
Do you see yourself having over 40 playthroughs of DAI? After 2 or 3 you'll have covered every 'dialogue' option. If you aren't buying power points, I don't know how you could stand to do any side zones again since they don't make any difference.
This really annoyed me, I went outta my way saving everyone in Haven and in the end it didn't even matter. Felt like such a rip off. And yes I agree, the zones in this game could have been linked to the main story so much better. Getting agents and upgrading Skyhold means nothing if they do nothing. In DAO you could actually SEE the effects of your playthrough in the final battle. In comparison the Arbor Wilds felt like a walk in the park. Even after you beat Corypheus, Skyhold is still in shambles in parts. The requisition upgrades were so bad it's not even worth getting them.
I do enjoy the combat in this game though, and the graphics of course are way better than Origins. The story really lets DAI down though.
That's it, Origins is a woman, Inquisition is a man. A person who loved Origins (as I said before in this post, for loving its specific mechanics) playing Inquisition is like Sera having sex with the manliest man ever, it is cruel, it is rape.
This is a ludicrous analogy. And an offensive one. Voluntarily playing a video game is not like being raped, for ****'s sake.
But I would love to understand people who claim that they loved Origins and do love Inquisition and will insist that it was for the specifics. If you loved Origins stat system, for being what it was, how can you simultaneously love not being able to assign stat points? How can you claim to love something you do not miss? As far as I know loving something means missing it when its gone...
So you want me to believe you loved Origins for its specifics and still believe you do not miss everything that was gone in DA2 and now in DAI... What kind of love is this that makes you care not for not having that which you love?
I think you're confused about why I loved Origins and why I love DA2 and Inquisition - which is understandable, I guess, since you just assume everyone who loved Origins did so for the exact same reasons you did.
I didn't love the attribute system in DAO. I had no particular feelings about it, one way or another. It wasn't very interesting, since there was a clear way for each class to min-max for the best results, so how I distributed my points didn't vary much from level to level or game to game. I can't say I'm particularly sorry to see it gone.
The primary reasons I love all three Dragon Age games are the stories, the characters, the dialogue, the world-building. Each instalment so far has its own strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately the things that were most important to me about Origins have remained present. I think there's stuff Origins did better than Inquisition (come back, if>then Tactics system! I miss you!) but there are also things Inquisition does better than Origins, like large explorable areas. And even though there aren't any playable origin stories, it actually does more to react to your character's race and class than DAO did in the long run.
If you played DAO, especially if you played it multiple times, like as a dwarf noble, human noble, mage, etc, then you experienced a long introduction unique for any type of character you created. Take dwarf noble for example, a couple hours before the game really starts you are playing your 'origin' story. All choices have consequences and visual results. Before the game starts you choices as dwarf noble determine what happens with your brother, how other dwarves will view you, you have so many options you must reply a few times as dwarf noble alone to see all the variety of outcomes for the many choices. For example at the feast do you support the land dwarves, or embarrass the noble pushing for that because his true motivation may be to get money, or challenge to a death duel, (3 different outcomes on that one little thing there), how your conversations go effect if you find your brother murdered or you fight him, many dialogue changes depending on things you said or what you did at the proving grounds, etc. This is just a beginning story that nobody ever will see if they didn't play dwarf noble, then there are a ton of other beginning stories for each option. All of this is nixed in DAI, you begin the same no matter what you select, so nothing different.
In DAO, you are eager to return to your 'origin' area to address what disaster happened and also how various characters you interacted with during that origin story will react to you when you revisit them.
In DAO, you see results for most of your side quests. In DAI many are fetch or find a letter with the last wish of a dead person and fulfill their last wish without ever talking to an NPC by fetching and dropping something.
In DAO, all the zones had a deep story with it's own problems and villians. The circle tower do you side w/ templars or help mages, and the possible outcomes. In orizzmar who do you support as king, then with blanca do you support her or the golem, if blanca do you talk her out of making golems or support making them, etc. In Redcliffe the possessed brat and how do you resolve that or do you just leave and let the city get destroyed, if you solve that area do you sacrifice queen, save everybody, who do you send in the fade to help him, do you make a deal w/ the demon or not? AND all of these choices show long term outcomes in the end game slides. IN DAI - you are doing some quests in the other zones but you don't even know if you beat or fixed the area or not, not much of a story, mostly claim areas and if you run out of things to do you assume it's done, no end game slides on helping the area and in the side zones no choices, you either help them or don't.
In DAO you must get allies and visit the zones for your battles, if you don't get allies then on the final battle scenes you don't have them. If you do you can summon them to help. In DAI, you never use your allies, no end game slides either for getting or not getting them.
DAO expansion w/ being able to customize the keep and upgrade it was more interactive then DAI. Were you excited in DAI how the chantry or garden look identical and the difference being 2 or 6 potable plants? Or the tower upgrade only being either templar or mage NPCS inside the back tower? The keep not being used for anything?
I don't understand how so many love DAI UNLESS you didn't play DAO, then I understand completely. If you played DAO and on biowares promises that DAI would be going back to its roots and being like DAO but better, you'd be pissed off they lied.
I could go on further but find it funny people think negative reviews are just trolls, must be that DAI got a lot of first time sales and since most console games don't have much substance, they are mostly action/fight, nobody knows any better.
I have enjoyed all of the Dragon Age games for different reasons. I honestly didn't like the combat in Origins. The character interaction, world, and story were what pulled me through it. I much prefered the combat in DA2, and I enjoyed how the story felt more personal and contained, though I disliked all the reused dungeons and how you didn't really seem to get as many chances to just go and talk to your companions. I'm really enjoying the world of DA:I and most of the characters and their interactions. I like the combat okay, but I dislike how trimmed down mages are. Mages were super fun to play as in DA2, and while they're still fun in DA:I, there just aren't as many skills. DA:I has given me a new favorite character, so that's a plus, and while the story had some pacing issues (mainly created by just how much extra stuff there is and how easy it is to get sucked into doing random quests for hours at a time), I enjoyed it. The things that keep me coming back to Dragon Age are the characters, the lore, and the world, and I've never been disappointed in those areas.
I don't see how liking one game precludes one from liking others. Yes, they're different. Some things I would have preferred not be changed, and some changes I like, but I've found things I enjoy in all of them.
Since your post makes it obvious you are not talking about story but about gameplay, I'll keep it short.
I didn't like combat system in DAO. I despised it. I suffered through it for the sake of the story. I wish they didn't try to revive that style in DAI. I vastly prefer DA2 style of the gameplay.
Yes, DAI's AI tactics are lacking severely and that it is obvious console port for PC(but I played entire AC series on PC, so I'm not easily scared by shitty console ports), but I still take it over DAO's boring ability queue where you are more of spectator than actual participant.
Also, I honestly wonder when the last time people who like to wax nostalgia over DAO actually played it as it was at release date, without mods and and fan-made tweaks.
You said the pros of DAO over DAI, but you did not say the pros of DAI over DAO.
This thread is stupid.
Why do we have to always compare this game to DA:O?
It is called Dragon Age: Inquisition, not Dragon Age: Origins Resurrection/Version2/whatever...
Would be nice to judge DA:I according to this fact, not according to the daydreams some have in their heads.
I bet if Bioware would have been created DAI exactly the same as DAO, the greatest problem would be that there is absolutely no new thing in this game.....boooriing.
After 200+hrs of playing, I am still enjoying it. Dunno why....
Retour en haut
