329 réponses à ce sujet

[sylvanaerie]

I've enjoyed all three games on their own merits. 

[wolfhowwl]

How dare you!!

[Hydwn]

I do enjoy it.  Immensely.

 

I played DAO maybe ten times, including five times in the last two years in the run-up to DAI.  And I've come to the conclusion (heretical here, I know) that I actually like DAI better.  The gameplay and combat are far less clunky on console, the world is larger, the major characters are just as well-written but there are more of them - including the favourites from DAO - the minor characters are better written and better acted, the relationship mechanics make more sense, the areas are larger, the codices (especially for monsters) are better and more interesting, the story hangs together better and has a better sense that things that happen in one area will affect another.

 

And it's so much more beautiful.  After five playthroughs in DAO in two years, I am so sick of brown corridors.  Even the Fade is brown.  Yes, Thedosians dream in brown. The only place that's really beautiful in DAO is the Brecilian Forest.  Sometimes I think the reason humans in Thedas so mistreated the elves is that they were jealous of their colour palette.

 

Sometimes, I'll just stop to take in the beauty of DAI.  The breathtaking woods of the Emerald Plains, the lonely starkness of the Hissing Wastes, and even the Hinterlands.  Redcliffe Village is the only place ever to get nicer and greener after a Darkspawn attack.

 

Not just visual beauty either.  Who among the fans of this game haven't just parked themselves in the tavern to listen to Maryden...?

[katokires]

I just love people and their highly selective memories.

 

ME2 best RPG ever? You don't remember the cries of Shepard dying in the intro? The retcons? Or how it, you know, dumbed down every RPG aspect?

DA:O best RPG ever? You don't remember the cries of how it wasn't like BG? You don't remember the **** tonne of bugs that needed patching?

 

Time to take off those nostalgia glasses.

In fact many people loved DA:O because it was like Baldur's Gate. I was frustrated because I was hoping for a NWN3, but for a BG3, DAO is just fine. Also critics called DAO spiritual successor of BG.

 

All the bug talk is funny, I don't have bugs, ever, even in BG era, didn't have in DAO, don't have in DAI. Yeah, from day 1, not a single bug. So I can't really say anything about bugs.

 

But the huge difference for me between DAO and DAI is that in DAO I did not push myself to play the game. I played, I disliked, uninstalled, later installed, played, loved. Now with DAI since I have a story of love with the series I force myself to play the game. I just wish I had a time machine to tell myself how awful DAI was going to be, and that there would never be a sequel deserving DA name so that I could play Origins and finish Awakening -> Witch Hunt knowing that was the end, forever, true ending. But instead I planned playthroughs, different decisions, romances, took detailed notes on planned stories, played them in DAO and DA2 and then... this... thing... ugh

[Ashevajak]

How dare people have personal preferences that do not match my own.

 

This is an outrage.  An outrage, I tell you.

 

I shall be writing to my local MP.

[pawswithclaws]

How can anyone not think like I do?!?

 

It's called a "difference of opinion". It's pretty basic stuff, OP, didn't you learn how to deal with it in kindergarten?

[eternalshiva]

_{That moment when pc people remember the pc modded game instead of the vanilla version of DA:O and think its the best thing ever,}

 

DA:O had a pretty good story, but the vanilla version gameplay was clunky and awful, It was awesome for 2009 and the nostalgia effect is keeping you from recalling all the terrible things about DA:O. Seems like a lot of people want a DA:O re-make instead of, I dunno, continuing the story and exploring more of Thedas. DA:I is a great story, it will be even richer once they add the elements they weren't able to have ready for launch (which they recently said they were implementing in patches that were coming up soon)

 

Bring it.

[Chuvvy]

I went into DAI not expecting DAO and if you went in expecting DAO you're an idiot. That bioware is gone, that type of game from them is gone. What I got is what I wanted, a decent RPG, better than the **** they've churned out since ME2. Not the classic stuff, but a taste of it. Old bioware is dead, and while I might not like DA:I as much as I liked DAO, while it may not feel the same, and while it may not be as in depth. I can appreciate what it is, and it's a step in the right direction.

If you want that classic bioware experience either replay the old games or hope they buy themselves back from EA (that will not happen). So long as they are owned by EA they will never be autonomous, they will never be able to do exactly what they want, EA will always have the final say.

You need to meassure your expectations to fit that. This isn't being a yes man, or a biodrone, this is accepting reality.

[Satiuqea]

I'm just glad my suspicions about Solas rang true at the end. Nevertheless the ending was a little anti-climatic with rather uninspiring music... bar the Bard in the bar[tavern].  

 

But I digress... DA:I has imo the following: better item crafting, better exploration, a lot of Elvish lore[played as an elven mage], fun companions. 

 

Sadly it seemed a trade in dai with customising , better crafting which does make a lot more sense 'ooh I killed a big fat dragon and this gauntlet it somehow shat out fits my hand like a glove, how spiffing!' But it then takes away character attribute 'crafting'. 

 

/jest

But the biggest travesty of all, bar none I say, why as an Elf couldn't I play as an Arcane Warrior, not some chantry praising, window licking Knight Enchanter! Pfft a staff.. give me the sword of Sulevin you dweebs. Bah Shemlins to hell with you! /end jest.

 

OP: seriously mate take a breather, the only real criticism you can level at Bioware is how they tried to pass DA:I as a PC first platform title when it was in fact clearly a console first title... and all the crap that stems from that!

[berrieh]

This argument is a logical fallacy, built on many false premises.

 

False premise: Origins are essential to Dragon Age games and the only thing people who play them can enjoy. 

Granted, I liked the origin stories in Origins, but since it was called Origins, I didn't find that to be essential to the Dragon Age franchise as a whole, but rather a part of that particular game; also, I didn't particularly like how the origin stories barely mattered in most of the game (how much they mattered depended on which one, of course). I did enjoy them, but they weren't even close to my favorite part of the game, nor did they seem to matter once you'd done them. Also, re-playing the same origin felt tedious to me, with the exception of the city elf, which was the best origin and my first one, which I replayed a few times. (Also, I wasn't really eager to "return" to my Origin area in most playthroughs. Dwarven noble I could see being an exception, based on the origin, but I only played through the dwarven origins - never played a dwarf. They look too clunky in DA:O; enjoy their look in DA:I much better and the ability to play a true surface dwarf. The Orzammar dwarves creep me out - interesting as NPCs, but I can't RP it.) A Dalish elf is from a different clan, IIRC, and can't even return to her origin area. Nor can a human noble, truly, though we could stretch and count Denerim. 

 

False premise: Ending slides or cinematic scenes make quests better.

In DA:I, I see the results of loads of my side quests. I don't need it done exactly like DA:O. Both games have plenty of loosely related side quests. The differences is that (likely because the combat is much more fun and the world much more interesting, and because I have a wider array of choices) I find the unrelated side quests in DA:I engaging and the ones in DA:O (Chantry Board, Irregulars, etc, etc) a bummer that I sometimes do for EXP (outside of Lothering; I enjoy all of Lothering). I don't want to see my "side" choices in the ending - they're side choices. What do they have to do with the fate of the WHOLE world, which is what the ending is about? I wouldn't mind more cinematics, but I don't require them. Lots of story and lore in DA:I - more than DA:O.

 

False premise: The "choices" were deeper in DA:O.

Half the quests in DA:O gave you the "3rd choice" where you could basically avoid making a hard choice. 

None of them were like Mages v. Templars where you do a whole different quest! 

In none of them did I have to choose between two important characters to leave behind? (I get that Stroud may not fit this but the other options definitely do.) 

There are tons of good, deep, interesting choices in DA:I. The one I love most is one you can't officially pick - The Divine. You pick it through your actions. How cool is that? I can't just act one way and pick another and have that totally override what I've done the whole game. Love it. 

 

False premise: The final battle of DA:O was enjoyable to all.

I hate that final battle, with calling your allies, slogging through multi-stage battles, going back and forth between places. It's too long. Way too long. It's not that it's hard (the Archdemon is a bit hard at the very end, but the rest is just trash). It's that it's LONG. The Arbor Wilds is a little like this, but they break it up much more nicely with cut scenes and story that actually interested me vs. in DA:O*, I knew what was going to happen. Clearly Riordan was going to die because otherwise? Too easy. Clearly I needed to make it to the big dragon, and of course he was going to be on the roof of something. I find the decision of whether you want to solve puzzles or fight through the Temple of Mythal makes that fight more interesting, as do all the cut scenes between areas, etc. And I love the end fight of DA:I (it does feel like a quest is missing in between the Temple and the end-fight) because it's not a slog-fest. It's a good boss fight with almost no trash. 

 

*The improved combat likely helped too. DAO combat is something I tolerated because the game was good overall, vs. DAI combat I actually enjoy. 

 

That's why I can like this game (DAI, after playing DAO and DA2). If it's about gameplay, as in fights, terrible limited AI, bad controls, tiring UI, looting that doesn't work unless you fight more to get that thing than the battle itself, the poor character look options and armors, the endless features unfinished, the lack of polish - in a word an unfinished game again (too small team or not enough time or trying to include too much and ending with a poor job or just bad management or...) -- then yes, you can't like this game more than DAO.

 

See, for me, DAO has worse controls. Because I can't really play it on PC (basically no controller support, though there are some crap mods). So, why would I dislike the DAI controls more? All the combat, looting, etc, controls work lovely for me. The UI is not the world's best, but it's equally good to DAO, better. The only thing I really miss gameplay wise are Tactics. I liked Tactics. But otherwise, I find gameplay WAY more satisfying in DAI. (I do hope they fix Keyboard controls for those who want the fix.) 

 

Also, I think the character look options, the armors, and the polish is about 10x better than DA:O which looked like a 2007 game in 2009 (and I love DA:O for it's story, lore, characters - but it was not pretty; characters look like upside down triangles with strained faces; there are like 5 types of armor looks per class max and companions don't have signature looks and look ridiculous in the armor they need to wear half the time). 

 

If you play and like all kinds of games and have fun with them it is kind of obvious that most changes will not bother you. If you are used to play action and adventure games then you are probably into real time combat, puzzles, jumping and so on. But it is obvious that what we mean by "played DAO" is liked Origins for being Origins, not just for being a good game. 

 

 

I mean, this is a good point. RPG is my favorite genre, but I play other games and like lots of kinds of games. (I actually think puzzles are very RPG though and I'm glad DAI added so many because Origins was seriously lacking there. Most RPGs I played as a kid had puzzles.) And, of course, I think jumping makes the game better. It feels limited in this day and age not being able to jump over obstacles. I get it if the game is turn-based, but otherwise? Feels dated. 

 

I feel like I liked Origins for what it was though, just as I like every game for what it was. Did I join some cult of Origins? No. But that's not what the OP or title says, so it seems like a stretch to make it seem like they were only talking about people who never wanted DA to do anything other than Origins or change with the times or whatever. 

[3ntropy995]

My thoughts exactly OP. Luckily you started this thread lol. I've seen all the "heaven forbid anyone else has a different opinion" replies.

 

Thankfully I haven't bought the game, since I did extensive research, starting at the metacritic user reviews, where you'll get the most reliable idea of whether the game is worth buying. Standing currently at 1082 positive, 158 average and 803 negative, things don't look good. Origins had 2568 positive, 118 average and 222 negative, which is overwhelmingly positive. Looking at those statistics alone, how can Inqisition be described as the best in the series? I bet that a lot of Origins fans like me didn't even bother to buy or review it, since the disaster called DA2, so if all origins fans participated, it would've looked more like DA2's score. Which was overwhelmingly negative... Critic scores are sadly irrevelant.

 

If you didn't like DAO, then you didn't like Dragon Age, as simple as that. If you were a huge DAO fan, how can you like DAI if it isn't anything like it? DAO defined the series. If you like both equally, what is your judging criteria, because fundamental core characteristics don't have much in common?  DAI might be set in the same universe as DAO, but it is not Dragon Age, it should've started it's own series. DAO has a lot more tactical depth in combat, more character depth, more choices and quest branches, a better atmosphere, better polished release and a better excecuted main plot(DAI's plot looks good on paper though, I also thought Cory would make a great antagonist). DAI is even described as a single player MMO on top of everything. It retained most traits of DA2(read Dragon Effect 2) and barely any from DAO, to the point where it should've at least been called DA2:Inqisition.

 

We are all entitled to our opinions which are subjective, but by looking at where the series started to where it is now, can you really say that DA2 and DAI should even be considered as Dragon Age titles, let alone be considered the best of the series I'm genuinely at a loss...

[Fantazm1978]

"we are all entitled to our opinions" is the biggest load of rubbish going.

 

You above are not entitled to an opinion on this game because you haven't played it, the same way I'm not entitled to an opinion on why Elgin City are bottom of the scottish football league.

[ApplesauceBandit]

*gasp* People have different opinions!? Why wasn't i told of this? I thought the world revolved around me!

[pdusen]

I'm just going to answer with "very easily" and leave it at that.

[Adynata]

I have to agree with most everyone here that DAI and DAO are different but both enjoyable games. I wouldn't want a DAO clone anyway. I can always go back and play DAO.

[hexaligned]

I liked both, if the tac cam worked better in DA:I I might even have enjoyed it more than DA:O.  Most of my enjoyment of DA:O came from the fact it was moddable, and I could "fix" the problems I had with it's mechanics.  I wouldn't say the vanilla game was much better than DA:I, it certainly wasn't objectively better.

[berrieh]

Thankfully I haven't bought the game, since I did extensive research, starting at the metacritic user reviews, where you'll get the most reliable idea of whether the game is worth buying

 

This is the silliest thing because

A) Not everyone who posts a metacritic user review actually even plays the game.

Plenty of those negative reviews are basically bigots who say they hate the game for bigoted reasons, so just looking at numbers of negative reviews tells us nothing when you have games as controversial as BioWares. 

C) You can post multiple metacritic user reviews, and while few games have enough haters to bother, BioWare attracts plenty. 

 

I'm not saying the game is for everyone or people aren't entitled to be disappointed, but I don't see how metacritic user reviews aren't skewed. How many of them even bought and played the game? At least I can trust that the critics actually played the game, and while "scores" in games journalism mean nothing (the actual numbers), there are plenty of reviewers that are good at their jobs if you actually read the text or watch the substance of their reviews. They might over-inflate the score to my taste (though if everyone overinflates for every game, it works out fine) but there were plenty of reviewers who gave the good and bad points to both DAO and DAI and seemed to hit nails on the head. As much as one could playing on a single system, a single playthrough, in the week or so you have to do a review play. 

 

 

If you didn't like DAO, then you didn't like Dragon Age, as simple as that. If you were a huge DAO fan, how can you like DAI if it isn't anything like it? 

 

It is a lot like it! If you're basing your opinion off of reviews that say it's nothing like it, those are hyperbolic at best, lies at worst. 

 

Same world, same basic gameplay (party combat, RPG style skills and attributes - no you can't manually assign, but you can choose passives or gear, classes, etc), same type of storytelling, etc. They have just improved and adjusted those things over time. The ME series did this at least equally as drastically and few people say ME2 isn't a Mass Effect game anymore (though I do remember hearing it plenty at the time) because of the mechanical changes. 

 

Now, DAI is a more open world Dragon Age game. They told us this again and again. They told us it would not have origins. All of that was expected. Personally, I welcomed it, as I never felt origins was essential to the game or would work in later games (it was your basic exposition dump - done interestingly). And I prefer some openness - still a strong narrative, which DAI does with the main story, but some degree of openness and choice, where every area is not a mandatory one. 

 

But then, you haven't played it, so how would you even know? 

 

Personally, I don't like both games equally. DAI is the Dragon Age game I've been waiting for since the beginning - I like it best. I like DAO. I even loved it. It was at the time one of my Top 5 RPGs of all times (still probably is on this list), Top 5 games of all time. Love it. But DAI may be my top RPG of all time (it's debatable with this and Fallout New Vegas) and gets very close to my favorite game of all time (The Last of Us). 

[dreamgazer]

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

Easily.

[theluc76]

I did play DAO and still enjoying it. Skipped DA2 as there was too much limitations plus all the other stuff that the community is aware of.

 

For the moment I dont plan to try, play or buy DAI as there is too much stuff missing.

 

If there is a patch of the year for game of the year that adds all that is missing in the Dragon Age Universe and adjust game play elements, then it is possible I might consider.

 

In the current state of the game, it has no points that justify the price.

[TK514]

Thank god for the Keep, because I can't play DA:O anymore.  I can't even force myself through the origins, and the last time I managed to make it any distance into the game, I remembered I had the Fade, the Deep Roads, and the Bricilian Forest to slog through and said "Nope".

 

It has not held up well from a gameplay perspective, in my opinion.

[3ntropy995]

"we are all entitled to our opinions" is the biggest load of rubbish going.

 

You above are not entitled to an opinion on this game because you haven't played it, the same way I'm not entitled to an opinion on why Elgin City are bottom of the scottish football league.

 

So what you're telling me is that you are unable to draw up conclusions about blantantly obvious differences and flaws without having to personally play the game? Looking at **** isn't enough, one must first pay to stick your finger in it and taste? One is like DAO and the other is not. You're exactly the reason why consumers get bent over by the corporate world. There is no way I'm going to drop 40$ to 60$ just to find out, did the same with DA2, so once was enough.

[herkles]

This might come as a shock but people can like different things then other people.

[Cervin]

I like all 3 of em tbh..

[_Aine_]

Modded DAO was likely one of my favorite games ever.  Would I play it today unmodded?  Hells no.    Well, very likely not anyway.  Still probably my favorite game in the series due to the fact that it was so replayable with the different races and starting points, and the highly customisable nature of it being a moddable game.   What is better than an already good game that you could turn *personally* great to your own preferences, keeping that game alive much longer?  Not too much.  

 

Now that said, I did end up modding a very slight bit in DA2 to cater to my own mercurial whim but work/reward balance wasn't high enough for me to *really* get into it.  On my second full playthrough of DAI now and it def isn't as *easily* replayable, though, you certainly still can, and I will to experience some of the other "characters" as opposed to the racial experiences that are missing from this game that were so cool to have in DAO.  Some people likely wouldn't give two figs about that, but I really enjoyed that diversity in DAO.  That was likely a huge time suck though, I give them that.  Was appreciated on this end though.  

 

Despite that?  DA:I is a strong game on its own merits, and better than much of the crap that is released as a "complete" game these days in ever-shortening production/release times.  Two of my recent favorite games (Witcher and DA) have both increased time on their last games, and I completely believe that it is actually wise to do so for this sort of game.  No amount of cutting corners repairs THAT bad of publicity.  DAI may have actually re-strengthened the franchise, though that may be an exaggeration.  I am just not sure having a game LESS appreciated than DA2 was would have helped the franchise.  I admit to zero factual basis for this opinion though, opinion is all that it is.        Which actually is also all that *preference* is, liking what we like, despite what others like.  *shrugs*  But that is exactly why some people can actually like both games, like me...on their own merits.  They are not the same game.  

[Fullmetall21]

My thoughts exactly OP. Luckily you started this thread lol. I've seen all the "heaven forbid anyone else has a different opinion" replies.

 

Thankfully I haven't bought the game, since I did extensive research, starting at the metacritic user reviews, where you'll get the most reliable idea of whether the game is worth buying. Standing currently at 1082 positive, 158 average and 803 negative, things don't look good. Origins had 2568 positive, 118 average and 222 negative, which is overwhelmingly positive. Looking at those statistics alone, how can Inqisition be described as the best in the series? I bet that a lot of Origins fans like me didn't even bother to buy or review it, since the disaster called DA2, so if all origins fans participated, it would've looked more like DA2's score. Which was overwhelmingly negative... Critic scores are sadly irrevelant.

 

If you didn't like DAO, then you didn't like Dragon Age, as simple as that. If you were a huge DAO fan, how can you like DAI if it isn't anything like it? DAO defined the series. If you like both equally, what is your judging criteria, because fundamental core characteristics don't have much in common?  DAI might be set in the same universe as DAO, but it is not Dragon Age, it should've started it's own series. DAO has a lot more tactical depth in combat, more character depth, more choices and quest branches, a better atmosphere, better polished release and a better excecuted main plot(DAI's plot looks good on paper though, I also thought Cory would make a great antagonist). DAI is even described as a single player MMO on top of everything. It retained most traits of DA2(read Dragon Effect 2) and barely any from DAO, to the point where it should've at least been called DA2:Inqisition.

 

We are all entitled to our opinions which are subjective, but by looking at where the series started to where it is now, can you really say that DA2 and DAI should even be considered as Dragon Age titles, let alone be considered the best of the series I'm genuinely at a loss...

 

You can't really have an opinion if you base it on other people's scores of the game in some site. What if you are in the 1000 something positive voters? and do you know just how many people would have down voted the game because of the PC controls? Granted they are not perfect, they might not even be good but I personally had no problem with it and if you do you can always use a controller. An RPG in my opinion is not about controls its about the story. People who base their opinion on others, more so in you case since the votes are split, can't be objective in their very OWN opinion.

 

In other words you get a second hand experience, hell can we even call it an experience you just see a number and therefor base your opinion solely on that. Granted you may indeed not like the game at all and that's actually alright not everyone likes the same things but I can't take you seriously after you mention I didn't play the game but metacritic said whatever.