229 réponses à ce sujet

[Maverick827]

After 8 pages and it's still the same.

 

This game is too much like the elder scrolls!

No this game is too much like a Jrpg!

I want a more defined character!

No I want a less defined character!

Give me Dragon age: Origins 2!

No give me DA3!!

 

How about you accept that DA:I is it's own game and stop projecting your hopes into a finished product. This is the game you got, nothing is going to change that now. Either accept the game for what it is or accept the game isn't for you. Because no amount of QQing on the forums is going to change things and you aren't going to enjoy the game anymore by venting on the forums.

 

This is a Bioware game people are you really surprised they have made the game like this? Their entire development history has been a step by step progress to this type of game. They never freeze a series to one set of mechanics or approach, they are always taking the next step, but its always towards the goal of creating a story based RPG with a cinematic experience.

 

The point is to offer feedback for how we'd like to see the next game, or even future DLC, developed.  That's the only way things get done around here: complaining.  It's how we got into this mess in the first place, when a lot of people complained that DA2 was too small.  Now a lot of people are complaining that DAI is too large.  Hopefully they'll reach a good middle ground in the next game, or perhaps even reach it with this one with enough story DLC.

 

I can't be the only one who can already picture Mike Laidlaw talking about the failings of Inquisition while promoting Dragon Age 4, just like he did the failings of Dragon Age 2 when promoting Inquisition, and just like the did the failings of Origins when promoting Dragon Age 2.  Which is a good thing; I want BioWare to learn what works and what doesn't work.  

 

It's just that, from a lot of people's perspectives, they already had something that worked really well in Origins, and went a bit too overboard when trying to fix what few complaints the game had.

 

From Origins, BioWare mostly heard that the story was cliche and that the combat was clunky.  So what did we get in DA2?  A very unique and personal narrative and really over-the-top action combat.

 

From DA2, BioWare mostly heard that the areas were small and reused too much, and that the story wasn't epic enough.  So what did we get in DAI?  A huge world and a return to an epic and cliche story.

 

So why wouldn't anyone who doesn't like the direction this game went not post about it on the forums?

[Xx Serissia xX]

After 8 pages and it's still the same.

 

This game is too much like the elder scrolls!

No this game is too much like a Jrpg!

I want a more defined character!

No I want a less defined character!

Give me Dragon age: Origins 2!

No give me DA3!!

 

How about you accept that DA:I is it's own game and stop projecting your hopes into a finished product. This is the game you got, nothing is going to change that now. Either accept the game for what it is or accept the game isn't for you. Because no amount of QQing on the forums is going to change things and you aren't going to enjoy the game anymore by venting on the forums.

 

This is a Bioware game people are you really surprised they have made the game like this? Their entire development history has been a step by step progress to this type of game. They never freeze a series to one set of mechanics or approach, they are always taking the next step, but its always towards the goal of creating a story based RPG with a cinematic experience.

 

No one had posted in this thread since December 23rd prior to your post.  Why kick up dust if you don't want to see more people expressing their concerns about future DLCs and expansions?

[Gothfather]

I perfectly accept that this particular aspect of the game is not to my liking. It does not ruin the experience for me or anything, but the game loses a point in my books for being this way. And, looking ahead to the next game, I want the devs to know where this system is lacking so they can perhaps improve it next time.

And for every person like yourself who deducts a point for the game on this issue another person gives it a point on this issue.

 

Have you read this bloodly thread?

 

You have people moaning the gaming is too X and not enough Y and then you have people who are saying NO! the game is too Y and not enough X.  And a third group saying I like the balance of X and Y.

 

There is no consensus with the community because the game can't be all things to all people. Bioware is going to make the game the way THEY WANT not the way I want or YOU want. And people have been telling them that their main protagonist has been too X or too Y since KOTOR when they started developing cinematic storytelling. Some people want more expression because they want their character to express the emotions they want to role-play. Some people want less expression because it gets in the way of their role-playing. This debate has only intensified with addition of fully voiced PCs with Mass effect.

 

Here is the thing, Bioware WANTS to make games with fully voiced characters its fits their cinematic ideal for story based RPGs. They want to make a game where their characters are voiced and give the player a choice on how to express themselves in a given situation. When you look at the last 6 games they made (MASS effect 1-3, SW:TOR, DA2 & DA:I) all the player characters are developed pretty much the same, they have pretty much the same mechanics and pretty much the same variation in how they react to the world. I am not saying all the mechanics where identical or that all the games allowed you to express yourself in exactly the same way only that the games are very mechanically similar in how your character expresses themselves to the game world and they give the same range of responses.

 

One thing that hasn't happen is bioware has NOT changed they way they make their PCs because of player input, the reason is this is a core pillar of how they make their games and changing it removes a signature piece of what makes Bioware RPGs different from other RPGs on the market. And a company NEVER wants to remove the very thing that makes them 'stand out' from all the other games on the market.

 

TL:DR;

 

Your head meet proverbial wall if you expect Bioware to tamper with the very thing that makes their games stand out in the market place from every other RPG.

[stop_him]

A wet blanket of boring.

Yes, we exist..the much feared people who like a mostly set protagonist in RPGs. I constantly, see people going on, and on ,about how their inquiisitor is this, this, and this, and that's fine, and good for you. But for those of us who like more set protagonists, this game felt rather disconnected from the main character..
 

What? More than Hawke? LOL. Human Hawke was the ultimate personification of boring. I was so glad to dump his/her sorry a** in the Fade. Good riddance to boring! At least with the Inquisitor I can feel somewhat bonded to her because I can ACTUALLY make her my own in the CC--and I'm not stuck with a boring human!

[Dabrikishaw]

I really don't think head cannon is a must for everyone, nor is there something inherintly wrong with going through the motions. I can't self-insert to save my life, nor do I have the creativity to  keep headcanoning for an entire 60+ hours. Some people need more guidance than others. There are also people who need more substance to work with, than what the inquisitor offers.

Jesus Christ thank you for typing this. I can't ever say I've "role-played" in these games all that much outside of making race-based lore choices for the hell of it. I can do it, and I have done it twice, but that's just not how I prefer to play and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Aren]

A wet blanket of boring.

Yes, we exist..the much feared people who like a mostly set protagonist in RPGs. I constantly, see people going on, and on ,about how their inquiisitor is this, this, and this, and that's fine, and good for you. But for those of us who like more set protagonists, this game felt rather disconnected from the main character..

The Warden had their origin story, and other things that made them fine in DAO, but in Inquisition it was just meh. No matter, what type of response you picked: nine times out of ten, it was bland and boring.(Which was obviously done, as not to upset people who head canon).



Hawke, had enough of both ways, (but could have, maybe, a little bit more headcannon room for those who like that.)

Yes, I'm aware its a role playing game. But a role does not nesscarily mean, that all of us want to think so much about it. Some of us just want to get to know a protagonist, switch them up a little bit, and not think of the entire thing ourselves. (And yes I'm using plurals because i know people who feel the same way, but I'm not saying that the entireity of the world does, or the whole fanbase)

It just felt like, the entire game, did not take those of us how like more set characters into consideration, at all. Hawke I liked, because it satisfied me enough that i could enjoy getting to know hawke, but with the inquisitor its like, 'meh, who is this person why should I care?'

So in DA4 it would be nice, if those of us who mostly don't headcannon could have a more set protagonist, but have enough 'choice' for those who like headcannoning.

Thoughts?

Note: I mean more balanced, and not for a completly set character.

OH OH Hawke nostalgia, i love hawke he/she is part of the world Thedas, while sometimes when my Inquisitor or warden complete their adventure i fell like they are some sort of shooting star that after their job is done they become nonexistent ghost into the world.

 

A set blanket protagonist in the RPG have is advantage, but if they provide us a good protagonist with a beautiful and interesting past (maybe one that is possible to use since his/her childhood) that is deeply connected with the world Thedas, then i believe that noone would need a wet blanket of boring coming from nowhere like the warden and the Inquisitor., none will need to metagaming over and over about their protagonist.

[wright1978]

After me3 where my protagonist was butchered and replaced with a auto dialogued idiot version I'm just relieved inquisitor feels like he's my character with no noticeable auto-dialogue. I do feel they went for more subdued characterisation this time rather than the broader emotional brush strokes of say hawke. I liked hawke but sometimes dominant tone thing didn't feel of how character would react if I'd had a choice. Personally I'd be happy for them to take a modified DAI approach forward into future games.

[Melca36]

After me3 where my protagonist was butchered and replaced with a auto dialogued idiot version I'm just relieved inquisitor feels like he's my character with no noticeable auto-dialogue. I do feel they went for more subdued characterisation this time rather than the broader emotional brush strokes of say hawke. I liked hawke but sometimes dominant tone thing didn't feel of how character would react if I'd had a choice. Personally I'd be happy for them to take a modified DAI approach forward into future games.

 

Alot of people just are too lazy to roleplay their characters.  And while I do agree some more backstory would have been nice...my characters have come along quite nicely.

 

If you wanted more depth....BLAME the people who hate humans and wanted to multiple races. You have to realize some things would be sacrificed.

[Marshal Moriarty]

The one thing I will say is that the american female voice (is her name Sumalee or something like that - the one that voiced Nyreen in ME3 anyway), is the best of the various voices IMO. She actually does seem to inject some passion and seems to be trying her best with what she has. The rest all seem to be doing the Mark Meer 'Neutral even tone all the time'.

[AWTEW]

After me3 where my protagonist was butchered and replaced with a auto dialogued idiot version I'm just relieved inquisitor feels like he's my character with no noticeable auto-dialogue. I do feel they went for more subdued characterisation this time rather than the broader emotional brush strokes of say hawke. I liked hawke but sometimes dominant tone thing didn't feel of how character would react if I'd had a choice. Personally I'd be happy for them to take a modified DAI approach forward into future games.

 

I agree with what you're saying about the dominant tone, that it did create the situations that you described. But, the dominant tone also added to the game in positive ways. Like how a cutscenes played out, and how dialogue  could change depending on the dominant personality. For example I really bland diplomatic  hawke scene, could  become quite comical if you went with the humorous path instead.

 

Then theres Inquisition,  where almost every interaction is bland and neutral sounding. I understand why they went that way, but it's gone too far in the opposite direction, and lost what was good about the DA2 system. 

[Reznore57]

I headcanon.

 

This game is incredible.

 

Me too...and it worked pretty well.

I thought the difference between diplomatic/clever/direct was more smooth than what we had in DA2.(although the british male voice was sometimes a bit bad at the direct option, not complaining he nailed a lot of clever lines)

 

I'm now really fond of my Inquisitor more than Hawke and the warden to be honest.

My main problem was the companions lacking involvement in the main plot.

Mostly you can avoid most of them so the advisors are more present.

Didn't like that much to be honest.

 

Anyway with headcannon , my pc had a hell of a ride .Since my main is Dalish , and you learn a lot about what happens at the Dales , and part of what happened with the ancient elves/gods.

His whole faith was shaken by the end.

It felt way more personal than Hawke family stuff , or even what the wardens went through.

Obviously it's possible I wouldn't feel the same if I had played a Qunari.

[AWTEW]

Alot of people just are too lazy to roleplay their characters.  And while I do agree some more backstory would have been nice...my characters have come along quite nicely.

 

If you wanted more depth....BLAME the people who hate humans and wanted to multiple races. You have to realize some things would be sacrificed.

 

Seriously? People who spend hours in the game, fighting all the dragons,customising, and ect who don't head cannon are lazy? Wat.. :/

[Cheech 2.0]

lol didn't you know,we are lazy. Since we don't play RPG's like a good little headcannoner it's all our fault the Inquisitor is boring as the day is long.

[AWTEW]

Jesus Christ thank you for typing this. I can't ever say I've "role-played" in these games all that much outside of making race-based lore choices for the hell of it. I can do it, and I have done it twice, but that's just not how I prefer to play and there's nothing wrong with that.

 Your welcome

 

You're right there is, absolutly, nothing wrong with how you prefer to play.

[rapscallioness]

I really like my Inquisitor's. All of them. But I do not love them. I don't feel that connection to the Inquisitor. I felt a strong connection to the Warden--as voiceless and expressionless as she was. And I felt a very strong connection to Hawke.  Two very different approaches to a PC, yet they both worked for me better than the Inquisitor.

 

Like I said, I like my Inquisitor's, but I don't really care about them. Not like I did the Warden and Hawke. Idk why, either. Not sure what it is, tbh.

 

Shrugs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

lol didn't you know,we are lazy. Since we don't play RPG's like a good little headcannoner it's all our fault the Inquisitor is boring as the day is long.

I wouldn't call you lazy, but it is your fault if your Inquisitor is boring, just as it would be your fault if you had a boring character in a tabletop RPG.

[rapscallioness]

Although, I will say there was a scene that really got to me with the Inquisitor. It was during the whole Hawke thing, and the Abyss. The convo with Cass at some point where she was lamenting that Hawke  was not  leading the Inquisition and how maybe if Hawke had been there, etc.

 

I felt a bit hurt for my Inquisitor then. She's been busting her azz this whole time, and this convo was making her feel a bit like the second choice step-child, or something.

[Cheech 2.0]

Hhhhmmm....I'd agree if it was a table top RPG I was playing, but it's not. It's a video game. Now granted I'm a bigger fan of JRPG's with already established characters so maybe I'm a little biased in this discussion. This seems to always come back to DA2 to me, because I loved the character of Hawke. Going from one of my favourite characters in any game to basically a template where I need to become the character to inject any life in their personality just didn't fly.

 

What bugs me is not head canon players, if that's how you roll awesome good for you and I'm glad you enjoyed the game. It's the people who blame non head canoners for not having fun with the Inquisitor because it's not our play style. I'm not sure if the Inquisitor was more defined like Hawke that I would of enjoyed playing them more but that's just the kind of protag I like in my games. 

[line_genrou]

I agree with you, though it's not as bad as it was with Hawke because Inquisition has so much big stuff going on with events changing the world, but still

it does feel like I don't know much about my Inquisitor, we're not so much involved with his background and personal struggle. It just feels like he's just there.

This element of rpg that is so essencial leaves a lot to be desired.

[line_genrou]

i actually felt that hawke was very much a blank slate (as far as personality went) and didn't feel very connected to him/her until i came across a fanfic that i fell in love with.  the author used the sarcastic hawke as a basis for his personality and really fleshed it out.  from that point on, i liked hawke as a character in their own right and i guess that's when i actually started roleplaying more, trying to flesh out my characters, make them feel more "real".  i've always been one to enjoy using imagination though.

 

i think that, as long as you're the type of person who likes to give your characters their own background and personality, the inquisitor leaves you plenty of creative room and i don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

 Can you share this fanfic you mentioned? 

[Xx Serissia xX]

I'd say that I'm alright with forming head canon when it comes to a character.  However, I don't see how you can have a personality that isn't neutral when almost all of the Inquisitor's responses are neutral.  Are some people are ignoring what their PC says and injecting their own head canon into the conversation?  If that's the case then good on you but that's something that I just can't do.  It's one thing if it was a silent protagonist but I can't ignore the way the PC is voiced.

 

My head canon for my Inquisitor is as a sultry human mage that uses her circle education, experience dealing with the nobility and inherent wit to come to a diplomatic solution whenever possible.  It's just so hard with how dry the voice over is.  There's a few moments here and there throughout the game that shine but there's a lot of bleh in between.  Hopefully they'll give us a really meaty DLC soon.  

[Vader20]

I've seen a lot of people commenting that the voiceless warden had more personality that our voiced inquisitor because we had more dialogue options. Now this might sound like a stupid question, but couldn't they make the dialogues options like in DAO, but with a voiced protagonist. I mean imagine DAO with all it's dialogue options and a talking warden. it's impossible to do ? I'm curious.. I suppose it's more work for the voice actors and pay, but it's not like Bioware is an indie company with low budget.

[Fullmetall21]

I have no idea what the original poster is talking about.

 

There is not a single example given to get  frame of reference and all we get is a, "in Origins I could..." comment that doesn't actually further the topic at hand.

 

I found LOTS of choice in how I reacted to becoming the Herald of Andraste, and how I would respond to this title on MULTIPLE situations. I have no idea how you played tha game but I found if I picked a path of the inquisition and played my character based on that direction/goal/belief I got an enjoyable game even when I didn't pick the best mechanic results. I played my first game as a true believer which was really enjoyable and I am playing my second game as someone who has no idea if it is chance or divine providence.

 

I could be sarcastic in many dialogue, I could be an angry individual or stoic. I could play the scholar type granted it required me to invest my perks into dialogue options. The fact remains that you have choice in the game. I think people look back on Origins with rose colour glasses and forget that one of the first quests you get after the fall of Ostagar is a go kill X spiders to collect X glands for my traps. A mechanically 100% identical quest to go kill X rams for X ram meat to feed the starving refugees. But somehow DA:I quests are sucky and MMO-esque and Origins has these deep and meaningful side quests. I can't think of a single SIDE quest in Origins that had meaningful choice. The quests that gave you meaningful choice were all part of the main quest getting the treaties. Even the much reference talking tree/ mad hermit was part of the main questline to get deeper into the woods to resolve the Dalish treaty main questline. I do agree that in Inquisition you are more retrained in your options but that is a direct result in the fact that you are trying to help create and then helm a new quasi-religious / quasi-military organization. The psychotic warden/hawke option doesn't work in this game because you'd be locked up by the very organization you are set to lead.

 

I get some people are just NOT going to like the story and/or the game. Thats just the way games are they can't be all things to all people, but if you can't find a way to make the Inquisitor intresting that isn't because Bioware hasn't given you options to explore, its simple because the game just doesn't resonate with you. But bare in mind that the game resonates with LOTS of people, It has done well in game reviews and has been well recieved by the industry.

 

So just accept that the game isn't for you even if you wanted it to be.

 

I agree with that and also wasn't Hawke being a set human character one of the top reasons (like really up there with the reused environments) that DA2 got so much hate? Granted I did enjoy all bioware games I played this far (yes including DA2 and ME3) so I liked Hawke but I also liked the Inquisitor. And yes you can express emotions in a lot of dialogue even in Inquisition its just more obvious when there is an icon on the option.

[Eterna]

They had the perfect opportunity to create a very well defined character influenced by player choice with the emotion wheel they introduced, Sadly this new feature was squandered and barely used throughout the game. 

[Eterna]

I've seen a lot of people commenting that the voiceless warden had more personality that our voiced inquisitor because we had more dialogue options. Now this might sound like a stupid question, but couldn't they make the dialogues options like in DAO, but with a voiced protagonist. I mean imagine DAO with all it's dialogue options and a talking warden. it's impossible to do ? I'm curious.. I suppose it's more work for the voice actors and pay, but it's not like Bioware is an indie company with low budget.

 

Too much was sacrificed for the semi open world for this to be a possibility.