122 réponses à ce sujet

[ZipZap2000]

Middle of my 3rd game still loving it the amount of new content that pops up if you actually switch your decisions and change races and classes makes for a new experience each time so far. Other than the romances of course but people can change that up for themselves as well i that's their preference. I much prefer inquisition to DA:O combat wise, story wise and content wise. 

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Origins -vs- Inquisition

BEGIN.

[Goldarmy]

 

Well, I think that's my personal preference then. I found those missions pretty weak and boring and they didn't expand my Shepard's character in the slightest. They just extended the time of the walkthrough for me.

But at least they were better than war table missions.

[That's Numberwang!]

the thing about DA2 and DAI was the pc didn't feel like it was mine for example sarcastahawke was a cool character in of itself but it didn't feel like there was a choice beyond pick one of 3 personalities: nice mean or funny.

i thought dai might fix that but it didn't

my HoF had depth

There was no way to give my Inquisitor depth

[PrayingMantis]

But at least they were better than war table missions.

 

Ok, I can't argue with that. 

[Broganisity]

the thing about DA2 and DAI was the pc didn't feel like it was mine for example sarcastahawke was a cool character in of itself but it didn't feel like there was a choice beyond pick one of 3 personalities: nice mean or funny.

i thought dai might fix that but it didn't

my HoF had depth

There was no way to give my Inquisitor depth

 

My problem with this logic is that a Silent protagonist lacks a voice, so we thrust our imaginations upon them. This does not mean that imagination is a bad thing, only that we're forced to use it more on the HoF than the Inquisitor.

If you used the same level of imagination with the HoF than you did with the Inquisitor, The HoF would be pretty boring due to the fact that they rarely have any body language or facial expression of their own outside of cutscenes, and typically just stand there with their face blank, even while their companions are PISSED.

I felt there was depth to my Inquisitor (and still is because I"m too lazy to finish the game): He's a human warrior, he's pretty incompetent at tending to courtly matters (thank the maker for Montilette!), and he's a big ol' softy behind that tower shield...but a good chunk of this done through imagination and th eother is the character's on voice and mannerisms. I'll probably make a mostly silent Qunari mage next, and then remake Grumps the Wonder Dwarf, who I never finished playing as in DA:O.

[schall_und_rauch]

I think DAI suffered very much with the directionless open-world system. While the main story is ok, 80% of the time you just run around doing random stuff that does not feel connected at all to your goal. This is even worse with an unbalanced pacing, horrible party AI and bad controls.

In DAO, 80% of everything you did was connected to the story, with only bits and pieces of extra stuff. And they weren't as repetative as "close 75 rifts to increase your power counter".

 

DAI shows potential of greatness every 5 feet. However, it wastes a lot of it. It's still a fun game, but doesn't feel as great as DAO.

[b09boy]

I find Origins easily better.  But if you want comparisons, let's take this one at a time.

 

Graphics: Origins was dated even when it was released.  It was somewhat impressive just in the number of details which were presented to fill in the world and make it immersive, but no.  Just no.  Inquisition, maxed out, has some of the better graphics out there.  It's a little shaky in spots, but at no point is it worse than Origins, even when taking release date into account.  Inquisition is clearly superior here.

 

Sound: Both have very subtle soundtracks and solid effects.  A more discerning ear might be better for these two, but I'd say both games are roughly equal.  Voice acting's a different matter.  Both games are pretty solid here and provide some of the best in the business.  That said, I don't consider the two equal.  In Origins I very rarely had an issue with a voice actor, and if I did they were a minor/throwaway character.  It may be the best-acted game, period.  Inquisition had a few stumbles.  Freddie is a solid voice actor, for instance, but I think he was miscast as Bull and the voice doesn't fit very well and often comes out as forced.  As well, I plain do not like many of the Inquisitor voices, which sound very bland, often like they're reading a script.  The American female voice I find the worst protagonist voice, easily, in a Bioware game.  I guess mileage may very if you're one to count the protagonist voice in Origins (or lack thereof), but I don't, in large part because I prefer voicing my own protagonist.  So with that all in mind, I'm giving a slight edge to Origins here.

 

Combat: Let's make this clear from the start.  Bioware does not do great combat systems.  It's never been their forte.  There has always been flaws, often major ones.  With that disclaimer out of the way, let's begin.  Origins was a more tactical game.  It's focused on how you build your character and how and when you use your abilities.  You do this either through a solid pause/play system with a good tactical camera, or through an If:Then tactics system which can allow you to move through combat more quickly.  The tactical system here is pretty solid, though there are definite flaws.  You can fix most everything with mods by now, which is a plus, but let's look at the base game.  There are clearly unbalanced builds here, both overpowered and useless, with a number of ineffective abilities and spells.  AI could have been made a bit more aggressive at points, and a little less cheap in others.  Aside from that, the game is slow.  Painfully so, at times.  So altogether a solid tactical game with very noticeable flaws, and the potential to make it a good, borderline great tactical game through careful selection of mods.  Inquisition, meanwhile, uses a hybrid system so you can play the game either as an action game or as a tactical game.  I'm gong to be blunt, it failed on both accounts.  The combat here is not good and oftentimes bad.  The game has little capacity to block, impeded capacity to dodge, and you cannot interrupt attacks to move or switch what you're doing.  The party AI is flat out horrible, with no ability to recognize AoE, keep ranged characters at a range, or truly affect ability priority beyond extremely basic design.  Thus it's not a good action game which can compare favorably to other action titles.  On the flipside, the tactical camera doesn't zoom back very far so it's difficult to see the battlefield without a lot of work, and the AI has a tendency to ignore commands, most especially the hold position command when engaged.  This makes it a mediocre tactical game when compared to like titles.  All the while it still shares problems with Origins in that certain builds are very clearly overpowered/inferior.  But to top all this off, the controls for the PC version are outright awful.  No excuse here.  No auto attack or point and click while in third person, no ability to walk, poor tactical cam controls, a lack of hot keys and extremely limited quickbar which basically limits the player to a bare few abilities, and no way to customize mouse buttons.  Sloppy.  Horrible.  Some of the worst m+k controls I've seen, especially considering they "fixed" what wasn't broken.  So how should we put this?  As a casual game, or an action game should you not like tactical titles, Inquisition is better, though not exactly good.  In their vanilla forms, taken for what they are, Origins plays better.  With mods, Origins destroys Inquisition.

 

World: Origins takes Bioware's old-school approach of standard zones.  Some are larger than others, or more linear than others, but few are especially large.  It's a working approach that was never bad and kept things focused, though some areas could have seen a bit more to them, namely the villages.  Inquisition takes a similar concept, only pushes it far more open.  The game is massive and beautiful.  It has fewer zones, to be certain, but then where Origins would take multiple zones to make up a single location, Inquisition just makes it all continual.  It's fantastic...but not without issues.  Problem is these massive zones have to be filled out somehow so players aren't boredly walking through them, and Inquisition takes an approach which is less than ideal.  But that is getting into the next topic.   Origins' world isn't a bad one, but Inquisition's is better and holds more potential so points to Inquisition here.

 

Quests: Not to be confused with story, this is where we deal with sort of the meat of the games, the what you're doing and how you do it.  Origins took hard-nosed old school method, modernized (perhaps a slight too much).  Quests can be large or small.  You can pick them up from boards or most any NPCs.  Most have combat, though many you can avoid fighting altogether.  Aside from the board quests, most also tend to have a good bit of narrative to them which explain a lot about the status of things, the lore of the world, and allow you to develop your character.  A decent number even wind up tying into other quests and stories, though they don't tend to change the result.  More interesting puzzles and more dynamic dialogue choices, especially during the mid game, would have been more welcome, but all in all Origins had a fine set of quests, from the main story to the side content, which usually felt like you were having an effect on the world, like you were leaving a footprint behind, even if much of this was, in reality, an illusion.  Inquisition...  Inquisition quests consist of, by and large, what people have been saying are some of the worst, most annoying quest designs for decades.  Put another way, the main content in the game consists of around 15 hours.  Put another 5-10 in for talking to NPCs.  Yet people are completing the game in 150-200 hours.  So what is filling in those 100+ hours?  Fetch quests, mostly.  That and "kill this many of this."  Most of what you see in the game is the most basic form of questing with no narrative, a single line of dialogue to start you out/end the quest (if that) an no decisions.  It's the board quests in Origins, except multiplied to the extreme.  What's worse, though, is how everything feels so independent.  No quests tie into anything else.  At best you might have a main story mission which will tie into a cutscene in a following mission, but then that's it.  Everything will still play out the exact same and no further mention will be made.  The game feels like it's made up of many independent stories which you are watching unfold from your rail cart because little you do is supported by the game at large, and that little doesn't end up being supported very far.  Big points to Origins here as the quests there are largely (not entirely) about quality, while those in Inquisition are almost purely about quantity in trying to fill out their massive world.

 

Story: This is an interesting mirror.  Both games contain an extremely generic base story, yet those stories are handled extremely differently.  Origins is the story of an ancient unstoppable evil reawakening and the attempt to end it.  Inquisition is about an amnesiac chosen one trying to stop an ancient evil bent on godhood.  How each story handles this generic foundation is telling.  Origins treats its main story like it's a background tale.  The generic monster is treated more like a force of nature and the focus instead goes on developing how one goes about stopping it (through various alliances and the like) and developing the lore and characters throughout the adventure rather than focusing on the big bad itself, and it all comes together very well in the end.  The pacing here is oftentimes slow, very rarely rushed, and too often too subtle for its own good.  But, if you have the patience, and are one who likes to tackle the lore, the story present is executed extremely well, even masterfully.  Not perfect, not by any means, and not for those who have little patience or do not like to dig into a story, but very well done.  Inquisition...not so much.  The focus occasionally shifts to other topics, especially in the beginning (the mage/templar war, for instance) but by and large the story never really develops into anything more than what it is.  Part of this I'll cover in the coming sections, as it comes down to characters, and part of it comes down to the fact that most of the game consists of the filler quests mentioned above, which do little to raise the story above the cliches and instead pad out the time between anything meaningful.  The story is just as basic as the earlier description, with poor pacing making major narrative segments come rushing out in sudden spurts, and a horrible anticlimax for an end.  Points to Origins here.  Execution trumps all.

 

Protagonist: Because of the nature of the Warden, there are always going to be vastly different opinions on this subject.  Some despise the silent protagonist.  Others despise the voiced one.  Some fall in the middle with preference one way or another.  As such, for an unbiased opinion, I can't award points one way or another on this because the two styles of protagonist are so very different.  I can, however, criticize them for what they are.  The Warden is one of the better silent protagonists you'll find in gaming.  Yes there could have been improvements.  Some more contextual answers based on class, skill, etc would have been very welcome and were sorely missing at points.  However, the game allowed for many different personalities based on what is said and the tone you might decide to put it in.  More, because of the cast of characters, you are allowed to formulate more solidly than most protagonists of the type just what sort of character yours is, their opinion, their stance on matters, even how they feel about their own history and future.  About the only thing you cannot make your protagonist is incompetent, but otherwise the game actively supports a wide range of protagonists to, if you're willing, basically create your dream character, as perfect or imperfect as you'd like them.  Inquisition, I do not like the protagonist.  This is not because I dislike voiced characters (I prefer unvoiced, but do enjoy voiced sorts as well, otherwise I would not like Mass Effect or The Witcher).  The protagonist here falls under the same old problem Bioware has always had with this sort of character.  They want to provide a voice, but leave the personality up for the player to decide.  That doesn't work.  Either a voiced character has a personality, or they don't.  Shepard had this issue somewhat, but then Bioware found something of a rhythm with the character as the games went on, and even so the voice actors did a great job to give each line of dialogue their own flavor.  Hawke was voiced decently enough, but they never supported what the character actually wanted, their motivations, dreams, desires, or the opportunity to truly reflect, leaving it up to the player, but also making it a very bland character.  The Inquisitor isn't even voiced all that well, but more than that, they never establish theirself as anything more than the basic chosen one good guy.  You can be more or less  impatient or sarcastic, but the game never digs into the character and they never once become anything more than that generic good guy.  Poor character, in my opinion, and Bioware should have learned long ago, quit going halfway.  Either make the character your own and allow us to influence them, or give the character to us and allow us to mold them into what we want.  Trying to balance this only leaves the character looking poor in all respects.

 

Antagonists: Ehhh.  This is...eh.  Both antagonists are as generic as you get.  The archdemon is a gigantic evil dragon leading a massive evil army.  The Elder One is an ancient evil intent on godhood and ruling the world no matter the cost.  Neither are developed beyond that.  I'll probably give this to Origins and the archdemon, though.  The game simply handled that antagonist better by focusing more on how to stop it rather than...well...it.  The Elder One had too much focus upon him and not on the secondary characters.  More to the point, by the end he just didn't match up.  Through his failures throughout, this just didn't feel like an opponent which could match up to you by the end, whereas the archdemon was always presented as a terrifying threat, even as late as Inquisition.  Point to Origins here.

 

Secondary characters:  The games are more even here, largely because this is Inquisition's forte.  Unfortunately, it's also Origins' forte.  Origins has a fantastic cast.  Morrigan, Alistair, Sten, Leliana, Duncan, Loghain, Shale, Wynne...very strong performances all around, and there's always something new to discover about them, it seems.  Inquisition, meanwhile, sports the likes of Blackwall, Iron Bull, Solas, Dorian and Alexius.  It also has some nice appearances from old characters, namely Morrigan, Cullen, and the returning Warden.  Very strong cast there...buuut...  The thing with Origins is it had a strong cast everywhere.  Your party was pretty well likable and rarely outright annoying.  The antagonists were excellent.  The quests specific NPCs, like Bhelen and Harrowmont, were very well done, and almost never weak.  Inquisition does have a lot of weak characters, however.  Sera is a travesty while Leliana I consider in some ways a step back from her former self, and while Alexius tries his best, he is really the only well-done antagonist in the game, and is only present for a small portion of it.  Better story focus could have helped this, but lacking that, point has to go to Origins.

 

Overall: Heck, I basically already stated it.  Inquisition is a game in which far too much just wasn't good.  Origins played it safer and developed things along familiar lines, but executed so well, for the most part, along those lines that it is great, even today.  Point to Origins.  It's plain out better.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

DA:O marginally better story (if at all), but significantly better executed due to focus/cohesion.

 

DA:I better game, but story lacks focus.

I'd argue DA:I's execution is better, but it's true, I felt it Arbor Wilds was a bit too.. Sudden? Would've loved seeing more build ups considering how perfect the build up towards you being the Inquisitor was. 

[Lukas Trevelyan]

I think DAI suffered very much with the directionless open-world system. While the main story is ok, 80% of the time you just run around doing random stuff that does not feel connected at all to your goal. This is even worse with an unbalanced pacing, horrible party AI and bad controls.

In DAO, 80% of everything you did was connected to the story, with only bits and pieces of extra stuff. And they weren't as repetative as "close 75 rifts to increase your power counter".

 

DAI shows potential of greatness every 5 feet. However, it wastes a lot of it. It's still a fun game, but doesn't feel as great as DAO.

Actually in DA:I most of what you do is tied to the main plot one way or the other- more so than DA:O I'd say. In addition DA:O had a handful of repetitive side quests, plus the example you give is unfair, it's like saying "defeat the darkspawn in area x". 

[MagisterMaximus]

Burn me at the stake for my heresy because I believe that DA:I is objectively better than DA:O in just about every conceivable manner.

I tend to favor this as well. Burn away.

[schall_und_rauch]

Actually in DA:I most of what you do is tied to the main plot one way or the other- more so than DA:O I'd say. In addition DA:O had a handful of repetitive side quests, plus the example you give is unfair, it's like saying "defeat the darkspawn in area x". 

 

While it is tied to the main plot, it's neither neccessary nor an important plot point. Sure, you can find the gems, explore the ruins, or light the runes. However, if you don't do it, the main plot advances in exactly the same fashion. There's no impact, other than some loot, some xp, and that power counter. That's what I meant with "lack of direction".

 

Yes, DA:O had some side quests, I just personally found the relation between main and side more interesting. If most of the quests in DA:O had been of the style "defeat the darkspawn in area x, then come back, restock and defeat the darkspawn in area y", I wouldn't praise it so high.

 

I liked the main story quests in DA:I a lot -- all of them (except the final battle) are very imaginative and extremely well done. However, I didn't think the balance with the open world quests was so great.

[jsachun]

I think once I finish DAI, I'll go play Origins again. I think I'm gonna enjoy it. Played it through atleast 10x and enjoyed every moment of it.

 

Even just traveling from one area to another feels like a choir.

 

War table is a nuisance. Why couldn't it happen at camp?

 

The immersion is not about graphics, but about the world, environment, ambience and atmosphere. DAI just has dead perfect rendering, and has no other qualities.

[Fullmetall21]

Story wise Origins was top notch a true masterpiece. Inquisition on the other hand while the story was not bad, it was quite good in my opinion, it could benefit greatly having more ties to other areas like the dales areas having to do with the Orlesian ball quest. All in all the story in Inquisition was good but not as good as Origins.

 

Gameplay wise I always hated Origins combat, in truth i can't imagine how anyone who didn't play a mage or a dagger rogue could like it. Though I miss the attribute points it didn't affect me since I find the way that works best for me (or read about it) and then use that every time. I enjoy the more fast paced combat of Inquisition a lot more maybe because I like 2 handed warriors. The controls could be better for PC but after playing with it for some time and remapping some button it worked out for me.

 

I feel that the companions are much better written in Inquisition and everyone has a moment although Origins handled that very well with the crisis moments. All in all i consider both game to be more or less equal when it comes to companion.

 

Content wise Inquisition takes the cake by a long shot. I'm on my 6th playthough at the time and I'm still finding things that I missed in my previous (5!) playthoughs be it dungeons people to talk with or even some areas. Being a very big fan of exploration its the main thing keeping me playing Inquisition so much in such a short time.

 

As a conclusion I think its unfair to compare Origins and Inquisition since they are very different games and each has its own pros and cons. In the end each person experiences the game differently so its unlikely we will reach a conclusion like Origins>Inquisition or vice-versa different people like different things and by extension different aspects of each game. I personally think they are both excellent games both for their own reason and they both would make an exceptional addition to any RPG lover's game library.   

[RNDMstuff]

I find Origins easily better.  But if you want comparisons, let's take this one at a time.

 

 

Sound: Both have very subtle soundtracks and solid effects.  A more discerning ear might be better for these two, but I'd say both games are roughly equal.  Voice acting's a different matter.  Both games are pretty solid here and provide some of the best in the business.  That said, I don't consider the two equal.  In Origins I very rarely had an issue with a voice actor, and if I did they were a minor/throwaway character.  It may be one the best-acted game, period.  Inquisition had a few stumbles.  Freddie is a solid voice actor, for instance, but I think he was miscast as Bull and the voice doesn't fit very well and often comes out as forced.  As well, I plain do not like many of the Inquisitor voices, which sound very bland, often like they're reading a script.  The American female voice I find the worst protagonist voice, easily, in a Bioware game.  I guess mileage may very if you're one to count the protagonist voice in Origins (or lack thereof), but I don't, in large part because I prefer voicing my own protagonist.  So with that all in mind, I'm giving a slight edge to Origins here.

 

 

I agree with most of the things you say, but I'd still go with Origins OST. it's the only game that is still giving me the goozebumps while still on the starting screen, because of its music) And I am not even mentioning the rest. To me Origins soundtrack is just genius. 

[Lukas Trevelyan]

While it is tied to the main plot, it's neither neccessary nor an important plot point. Sure, you can find the gems, explore the ruins, or light the runes. However, if you don't do it, the main plot advances in exactly the same fashion. There's no impact, other than some loot, some xp, and that power counter. That's what I meant with "lack of direction".

 

Yes, DA:O had some side quests, I just personally found the relation between main and side more interesting. If most of the quests in DA:O had been of the style "defeat the darkspawn in area x, then come back, restock and defeat the darkspawn in area y", I wouldn't praise it so high.

 

I liked the main story quests in DA:I a lot -- all of them (except the final battle) are very imaginative and extremely well done. However, I didn't think the balance with the open world quests was so great.

 

That is debatable. DA:O's main plot has always advanced in exactly the same fashion as well with or without the side quest. The number of meaningful quests in DA:O are equal to those in DA:I, thing is DA:I is bigger, hence they lost some focus. Also as I said before, unfair comparison because the rifts are but a part of the game, just as slaying darkspawn was.

[Saricc]

I think it's just a nostalgia thing at this point, but I still like DAO more than Inquisition. With that being said I thinK DAI is a great game, and it's close to being as good as DAO imo. 

[Dean_the_Young]

I prefer Inquisition.

 

A great number of mechanics were refined, the world was broadened out, Big Decisions were better balanced and nuanced to avoid 'best' and 'fail' states, in-game reactivity was greatly improved in a number of respects, character progression was better paced, and fewer god-damned corridor slogs.

 

I'm trying to think of things that DAI did better, but it's mostly the prologue and finale. DAI was weak, and Origins put a lot more attention on the, well, Origins. The final battle was more climatic.

 

But as far as the body of the games, the bread and butter? DAI did as well or better with pretty much everything I considered important.

[Taura-Tierno]

Myself I just started replaying DA2. That game certainly has its drawbacks, but there's way more feeling in that game than the other two, imo. The characters feel so much more personal that that alone is a reason for my to wanna play the game again.

[Wrghst]

We can't compare two games in graphics and gameplay because DA:I was released after Skyrim. Gatering and Crafting in the DA:I was influenced by Skyrim. It is same for the graphics. We can't compere two games graphics because DA:O was released five years ago. 

DA:I have very massive open world, very good gathering-crafting system and decent combat system but it lacks a proper main story and side quests. Companions are good and they have very good character deployment but I cannot say the same for antagonistes.

DA:O lacks DA:I's very good designed maps and places as well as the gathering-crafting system and its combat system very slow but its main story and side quest very good. Companions and antanogistes are very good and they have very god character deployment. DA:O has more interensing characters than DA:I.

I played DA:O when it was released in 2009 and I founded very good. I think DA not console type rpg because its focuses the story rather than the combat but as always financial concers put before anything.

For me both games are good but DR:O is better because its focusing story rather than combat.

[Gambit458]

The quests were more interesting in Origins. Origins seemed very...LOTR like in the way its story went about. Unite the races against a great evil and so on. Combat wise, DA I takes the cake. The only thing wrong with it is that it needs tactics badly. Idk why people like the Mabari so much. I liked the mabari too but didn't take him along much simply because, well, he can't talk. One of the things I liked was listening to my party banter and although there's banter with the dog..It's just not the same as someone who can actually speak. 

 

In regards to DA I, I actually liked Corypheus as a villain. The ancient Magisters that caused the dark spawn? That's a great concept for who to be fighting. Thing is it feels like they dropped the ball on it.  He was a lot harder in DA 2 than he was in Inquisition. This seems to be Bioware's problem nowadays. They can make a journey, or at least a bearable journey, but then drop the ball when it comes to the finale. DA I was a step in the right direction for the most part but you can tell that they tried too hard to be like Skyrim

[Rannik]

I played DAO/DA2 8 times and enjoyed every single one.

 

On the other hand I'm having trouble replaying DA:I once, even giving myself 9999 of each material and ignoring all the MMO quests.

[Rekkampum]

I think Origins had a generic fantasy storyline, right down to the (near)immortal elves and the hardy dwarves that drink a lot. The only thing that really set it apart was how they inverted a few common fantasy tropes - elves being persecuted instead of admired, and magic being feared and controlled. Otherwise, it was standard classical fantasy. The thing that made it special for me, as usual with Bioware, were the characters. From Alistair and Morrigan bickering to Leliana trying her damndest to get at Sten's soft side, even constantly trying to get Wynne to talk about griffons whenever she spoke on Wardens, I have to say it was a very personal experience. The origins we crafted for our Wardens also gave me more of an incentive in the larger conflict(as a Carib, the City Elf particularly struck home). The rhyming tree and paranoid hobo were nice touches.

 

Aside from those highlights -tactical combat was fun, but archaic - and other things, I enjoyed Origins. It was hardly perfect and needed a bit more originality lore-wise(why is every high fantasy game set in an alt-version of Medieval Europe?) but I did like it.

Inquisition I think improves in many areas that Origins failed and with the massive amount of lore I feel it's finally taken on its own sense of character, although I still cringe at the French accents and concepts that should not exist in Thedas. That's a bit immersion breaking. It gives us a massive amount of contained spaces for players to venture to find and do various things when not involved in the main story. However, this sense of grandiosity doesn't have the kind of focus or immediacy the plot demands of it. Not to forget most of the side quests give it that tedious MMO vibe since they usually boil down to: kill badguys who murdered x, retrieve stolen or lost item y, collect z for requisitions.

The War Table is a cool concept, but since there are no clear advantages or disadvantages conveyed plotwise (as well as no time limits) in regards to who we acquire as allies that meaningfully impacts the story re: your success, it loses the potency or sense of immediacy it normally would hold if it did. I think they could've taken a few notes from Awakening or even the Krogan genophage or Geth/Quarian arcs of Mass Effect. In each of these, the latter especially, choices you made would literally decide whether you'd succeed at the ultimate goals of that arc in the final trilogy. I would've liked to see the forces and agents we acquired through the Inquisition factoring in with a similar approach. Nonetheless, it was fun to do the operations and see whether my decisions did as expected or backfired due to the wrong approach. I just wish all the influence really translated to the gameplay itself aside from perks.

 

So yeah, Origins is fairly linear and contained. Inquisition is huge and sprawling. I think the latter can feel a bit directionless at times and that this is what perhaps is its greatest weakness. When it hits its stride though, it's a blast.

[Lady Harlequinn]

I've played Origins completely through about 5 or 6 times.  I absolutely LOVED it every single time.  Getting to know the nuances of each characters story line, etc... was a blast.

 

I played DA2 1 time and never touched it again.  It was barely ok.

 

I've played Inquisition completely through 1 time - about 150 hours.  I really liked it a lot, but I'm not really left with the urge to immediately start again and create a new character and find all new things.  How I feel is this...  I feel like besides learning few new combat skills from whatever new type of character I create... well, there is not much "new" content, dialogue, etc... to find or discover.

 

Am I missing something?  Plus, even though I found every stinking shard, I could not open the last door to get all my resistances... grrrrrrrr. 

 

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

 

 

 

Ah I totally agree! I played Dragon Age O 1 time through then played Dragon Age 2 one time through, now having played DAI it made me miss Origins times a million! I've played it now 4 times and only began to start my second play through on DAI. I feel the same way! I feel DAO is more of a game I made my own to play, than really set in line to play like in DAI for terms of the stories.