123 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I am a big DA:O fan. Very much disliked the changes that started with Awakenings and wholly despised DA 2. I was considering buying DA:I, but have since decided not to do so given what I've discovered about the game which in turn informed me I would not like it. All that said, I'm curious just how much has been lost from the first DA installment to the third. I know things like spell combinations, dual-wielding all weapons, and edgy banter such as what was shared between Morrigan and Sten are history and I am wondering what else.

Input please.

Spell combinations are still in. Some work differently. Some, like shatter, are identical. When you say dual wielding all weapons I imagine you mean dual wielding warriors or sword/axe welding rogues. Those are out.

Banter is the same. In fact, this banter is far edgier. The IB is basically a walking dick joke.

[Xralius]

List of changes. All of them are a downgrade IMO.
1. Combat is basically MMO combat. Just dpsing with an occasional stun, instead of the tactics in DAO.
2. Combat has no "umph". For example, shield bashing, cone of cold, rogue attacks all felt like you were hitting hard. Now it just feels like pew pewing away until something is dead.
3. Lack of depth in quests. This is considerable. So many mindless MMO quests in DAI. Often times, they will straight up ruin the immersion. All DAO quests had a place in the world, and made it feel more alive.
4. Non-party characters. I think DAI had cool party and war table characters. Most other characters felt really lifeless though.
5. Villains. This is a big one. Corypheus becomes downright stupid when you realize that they just play cool music when he's on screen. Simply doesn't foster the hate that Loghain, Arl Howe, and the Darkspawn created in DAO. In DAI villains die the second you get to know them.
5. Controls and UI. A complete joke and insult on the PC.
6.Stat/ability customization. The amount of abilities is pathetic. No stat customization.
7. Mages. We basically lost the awesomeness and diversity thst was the mage in DAO.
8. Immersion. Pride Demons being crapped out of green holes everywhere. Astrolabes. Shards.Random enemy placement and respawns. Everything feels less serious.
9. Items. I'm not a huge fan of crafting. IMO its a stupid unnecessary addition. The problem is that it took away the fun of finding/buying cool items that we did in DAO. I still remember saving money to buy the Veshaille axe in camp...
10. The lore. Now we have time travel, lightsaber mages, jumping through the fade and using it as a weapon, and more things that simply destroy the gritty world that DAO built.
11. Everyone just loves the Inquisitor. You have nothing to work towards since everyone is fawning over you from day 1.
12. Facial expressions. Oh god. They are unrealistic in DAI compared with DAO. It's kind of disturbing somethimes.
13. We lost a deep, engaging world. In DAI, it's quantity over quality. There's really never any suprises around the corner. In DAO, you never knew when an area could contain a mad hermit, evil ritual, or demon seeking to enthrall you.
14. We lost our heart. They say anyone who doesn't like the awful game that is Inquisition is just a Bioware hater, despite the fact that most people who hate the direction Bioware is going have plated their games since BG1. It's sad.
15. Bioware lied to us again. They said it would be more like DAO and be optimized for PC. We can never trust them enough to preorder a game again.

[AlanC9]

A CRPG is a classic rpg like KoTOR and Origins, as opposed to an action rpg such as mass effect.
 
Well it can be discussed, but that's how I see it

Yeah, but that doesn't actually answer the question. I could pick a random list of common factors from those two games, but I don't know if they'd be the important ones for you.

[fireproof_boots]

Yeah, but that doesn't actually answer the question. I could pick a random list of common factors from those two games, but I don't know if they'd be the important ones for you.

 

Usually when people talk about cRPGs they are talking about some of the common threads of games like the ones mentioned above, Balurder's Gate, Neverwinter, etc...

 

The types of things that people usually mean when discussing them that they feel have stopped being a part of most RPGS are things like:

 

-Very deep character customization with respect to attributes, skills, etc...

-Tactical instead of action combat
-Choices that have profound effect on the story

-Story/Quests throughout the world that are engaging over fetch/collection quests

-A lack of handholding or over explanation of game mechanics, areas, etc...

-Overall difficulty

[Kel Eligor]

List of changes. All of them are a downgrade IMO.
1. Combat is basically MMO combat. Just dpsing with an occasional stun, instead of the tactics in DAO.
2. Combat has no "umph". For example, shield bashing, cone of cold, rogue attacks all felt like you were hitting hard. Now it just feels like pew pewing away until something is dead.
3. Lack of depth in quests. This is considerable. So many mindless MMO quests in DAI. Often times, they will straight up ruin the immersion. All DAO quests had a place in the world, and made it feel more alive.
4. Non-party characters. I think DAI had cool party and war table characters. Most other characters felt really lifeless though.
5. Villains. This is a big one. Corypheus becomes downright stupid when you realize that they just play cool music when he's on screen. Simply doesn't foster the hate that Loghain, Arl Howe, and the Darkspawn created in DAO. In DAI villains die the second you get to know them.
5. Controls and UI. A complete joke and insult on the PC.
6.Stat/ability customization. The amount of abilities is pathetic. No stat customization.
7. Mages. We basically lost the awesomeness and diversity thst was the mage in DAO.
8. Immersion. Pride Demons being crapped out of green holes everywhere. Astrolabes. Shards.Random enemy placement and respawns. Everything feels less serious.
9. Items. I'm not a huge fan of crafting. IMO its a stupid unnecessary addition. The problem is that it took away the fun of finding/buying cool items that we did in DAO. I still remember saving money to buy the Veshaille axe in camp...
10. The lore. Now we have time travel, lightsaber mages, jumping through the fade and using it as a weapon, and more things that simply destroy the gritty world that DAO built.
11. Everyone just loves the Inquisitor. You have nothing to work towards since everyone is fawning over you from day 1.
12. Facial expressions. Oh god. They are unrealistic in DAI compared with DAO. It's kind of disturbing somethimes.
13. We lost a deep, engaging world. In DAI, it's quantity over quality. There's really never any suprises around the corner. In DAO, you never knew when an area could contain a mad hermit, evil ritual, or demon seeking to enthrall you.
14. We lost our heart. They say anyone who doesn't like the awful game that is Inquisition is just a Bioware hater, despite the fact that most people who hate the direction Bioware is going have plated their games since BG1. It's sad.
15. Bioware lied to us again. They said it would be more like DAO and be optimized for PC. We can never trust them enough to preorder a game again.

 

Origins was a great game, but coming on these forums I've grown to seriously doubt the integrity and intelligence of its fanbase. Lets illustrate; 

 

1. Origins had a far less responsive, dice-roll intensive, slug-fest combat system than Inquisition has. Period. If you like numbers, and a modicum of RNG, I can see how it was the perfect system for you. Say what you will, the truth is that many people thought the combat system of Origins was by far the least attractive part of the game. 

2. Hum. If there's something that DA2 and Inquisition have improved over Origins it's the flashyness, and overall "Umph" of spells and abilities. Do not say the cone of cold of Origins felt more visceral than the one of 2 or that the old-school sound effects of lightning in Origins were crisper than those in Inquisition. That is just wrong. 

3. The truth is both games have their fair share of filler quests - but they're all optional. If you actively decide to save the Halla in Origins, it doesn't give you a right to complain about saving the Golden Halla in Inquisition.

4. Dagna? Harding? Barris? Fiona? Clarel? The Advisors? Calpurnia? All the judgement prisoners? Lifeless. Sure. Give me some time (and the wiki) to recall Dwarf #13 from Orzammar that had some obscure quest. I personally felt Teagan (who was involved in no less than 3 main-story missions in Origins) wasn't nearly as charismatic or memorable as Celene, who had a single act to leave an impression. 

5. Agreed. Corypheus was a let-down. 

6. "I'm a warrior, let me put lots of point in Strength and Constitution" "I'm a rogue, let me dump all my points in cunning and dexterity" "Oh hai, I'm a mage, I'm going to dump all my points in magic & willpower." Outside of a few subclasses (Like the Blood Mage) there really wasn't any reason or incentive to invest points in different avenues. At higher difficulties especially, it only offered a very superficial degree of customization. Most classes ended up looking the same in the end. 

7. Eh, sure, I miss some spell trees too. 

8. I think you might've missed the prologue, and the entirety of the first act where a giant breach in the sky sneezes out demons to explain the sudden spike in the demon population of Thedas. Idk about you, but a world-ending cataclysm qualifies as pretty serious to me. If you think that was immersion-breaking, where were you during the first 20-hours of the game? I don't know what you're trying to get at with your other points? Sidequests don't feel serious enough? I don't find the Shards particularly comedic - just kind of boring. Also which enemies felt out of place? Wat. 

9. Crafting was in Origins, and DA2, and now it's in DA:I. What a shocker. Instead of praising it for being the best (and only relevant) system in the series, you complain about it because you can't buy or find ridiculously OP or overpriced items... which you can do anyway? WAT.

10. I don't understand how any of that was offensive to lore that was established back in Origins. The player physically entered the Fade back in Awakening, in case you forgot. And exactly how did channeling magical power into the shape of a sword seem any more outlandish and/or stupid than shapeshifting, or projecting spirit energy? 

11. Yup. https://www.youtube....h?v=isISBRpHNzY Nevermind that a good part of the game is spent trying to convince people that the Inquisition isn't some heretical movement trying to take over southern Thedas and harbor a dangerous terrorist. 

12. You have got to be joking. 

13. You truly expected the Still Temple in the Western Approach? Or the Envy Demon? Or the hilarious angry Spirit in Crestwood? (By process of elimination, evil ritual, being enthralled by a demon, and a funny/weird encounter as you listed them). 

14. Blatant exaggeration and anecdotal evidence. Want another? I've played since Baldur's Gate and loved Inquisition. Now let me apply my opinion to prove that everyone who has played Baldur's Gate loves Bioware's new direction, and that they should continue. This is grasping at so many straws either way that it's offensive to anyone with half-a-brain. 

15. It is more like DA:O than DA2. It is, coincidentally, also more optimized for PC than DA2, and thus closer to DA:O. If that's the kind of logic you want to avoid using. 

[Xralius]

First of all Kel, when did you last play origins? Dud you play it on PC? My guess is either you have not played Origins recently or do not play these games on PC.
1. What? DAI you just run around and spam abilities. It makes basic MMO combat look cutting edge. DAO you actually had to carefully position and time abilities depending on the fight. Almost every fight in DAI is the same.
2. Yeah because text popping up that says "chilled" really makes me feel like a badass. Explain to me how DAI combat has more feeling to it than say... World of Warcraft combat?
3. Come on man. We all know there is a rediculous amount of filler quests in DAI. You act like we can magically know which ones to skip. Even the Halla quest in DAO had multiple ways to complete it.
4. Many of the characters you listed are in the game for a moment and then gone. I personally cared about none of them. None of those left an impression like the Dwarf Kings, zandrathian (sp), the lady of the forest, the mad hermit, brother genetivDuncan, cailen, arl aemon, connor, I can go on. Many of the characters were so fleshed out you forget they were side characters in the game.
5. Yeah.
6. You missed out if you were just maxing a few stats in DAO. Some of my favorite characters were multi-stat, like my str/cun rogue.
7. It's more than "i miss some trees". Basically the entire diversity of spells was wiped out and replaced by barrier and dps lameness.
8. Basically they turned Thedas into World of Warcraft, with mobs around every corner. The shards and astrolabes dont feel like part of the world AT ALL. I challenge you to walk up to an astrolabe and say "this feels like it should be here. Makes sense."
9. One of the whole reasons for exploring in games is to find items. The biggest reason to amass wealth in games is to buy them. I probably shouldn't push this point though because i have never liked crafting in games. Then again that's just one more thing i liked about DAO- it was all about finding good items or amassing A LOT of money and buying them.
10. Imagine you were watching Lord of the Rings, then Gandalf whips out a ligbtsaber to kill orcs. You might say "hey hes supposed to use elven weapons, not a lightsaber! They dont have those in middle earth!" But apparently i say that about DAO and I'm wrong...
11. I'm not able to watch the video right now, bht come on. The vast majority of the people are worshilping you from the beginning, even if you say repsatedly that you are not Andrastes chosen. This is so rsdiculous that anyone who doesnt insrantly believe you are a living saint is a 'fringe group'.
12. Have you seen the inquisitor laugh? It will hau t your dreams. Some expressions are done well but some are so bad it totally ruins the moment.
13. The still temple was somewhat cool. The envy demon scenario felt forced and unnatural. The spirit in Creswood is barely memorable.
14. You have a point here, but i still have trouble believing you have played Origins recently if you are enjoying Inquisition.
15. That is just wrong. Explain to me how you think what you are saying is true.

[AlanC9]

Usually when people talk about cRPGs they are talking about some of the common threads of games like the ones mentioned above, Balurder's Gate, Neverwinter, etc...
 
The types of things that people usually mean when discussing them that they feel have stopped being a part of most RPGS are things like:
 
-Very deep character customization with respect to attributes, skills, etc...
-Tactical instead of action combat
-Choices that have profound effect on the story
-Story/Quests throughout the world that are engaging over fetch/collection quests
-A lack of handholding or over explanation of game mechanics, areas, etc...
-Overall difficulty

The problem with that list is that some of the supposedly classic RPGs fail pretty hard on those scores. The BG games had few choices, and NWN had essentially zero. If poor documentation of an RPG's mechanics is supposed to be positive, then NWN fails because D&D 3.0, whatever else you think of it, is very transparent. The IE games fail on character customization; you can gimp your character with bad stat allocations, but that's pretty much it. A lot of games fail on difficulty; for instance, you can't actually lose most battles in NWN, since you just respawn and try again, and in KotOR you have access to effectively unlimited healing from the inventory screen. BG1 had plenty of dopey fetch quests, and in that game you really wanted to do them since you need every XP you can get your hands on.

As for tactical vs. action combat -- well, I guess we can come up with coherent definitions of the terms if we work at it a bit. Tactical = no player reflexes needed, action means that they are?

[uncledolan]

Think one of the problems is if you decide to skip the pointless sidequests u can prob finish the game in under 15 hours. Out of the 10 open world's there are only 3 u have to visit. Hinterlands Crestwood and western approach.

[In Exile]

Usually when people talk about cRPGs they are talking about some of the common threads of games like the ones mentioned above, Balurder's Gate, Neverwinter, etc...

The types of things that people usually mean when discussing them that they feel have stopped being a part of most RPGS are things like:

-Very deep character customization with respect to attributes, skills, etc...
-Tactical instead of action combat
-Choices that have profound effect on the story
-Story/Quests throughout the world that are engaging over fetch/collection quests
-A lack of handholding or over explanation of game mechanics, areas, etc...
-Overall difficulty

But that's meaningless unless you think Bioware never made a cRPG. DAO and KoTOR didn't have any exploration. BG2 is not particularly hard (neither was BG1) and DAO and KOTOR are jokes even on the max difficulty.

In BG1-2 and KoTOR you had 0 choices with story effects. This "big choices" is basically a recent concoction. Games like IWD had 0 choices.

DAO had an obscene amount of fetch quests, it just had a lot more dialogue during them.

And so on.

[fireproof_boots]

Throwing in my 2 cents, and sorry for cutting the quote off, saving some space here: I agree with some of your points, and disagree with others. Oh and some of them I just skipped because that's going to take up too much space on my part

1. I agree Origins was more dice-roll intensive, but with the PC controls in mind Inquisition is far less responsive, so...

2. I agree Inquisition is more flashy, but I do feel Origins is very "umph" with Shield Bash, so...

3. I think it makes total sense that a bigger world has more filler quests, so here I wouldn't compare Origins and Inquisition

4. From what I've seen NPC's in both Origins and Inquisition are generally treated with respect, my hat is off for Bioware here

5. ...

6. No no no no no. Would people please stop defending this? Removing our OPTION to allocate stat points means less freedom = less RPG  If you don't like it or don't care choose auto-allocate, and let the rest of us build our own character

7. Yep!

8. ...

9. ...

10. Lore (if deemed as how the world functioned in Origins and DA2) was thrown out the window the minute we got a cap on potions

11. Yep, and that's okay for me since it's the story, maybe in DA4 we'll get to be an evil Tevinter slaver

12. ...

13. Inquisition is more quantity since it is a lot bigger, but there are still secrets out there for us to find.

14. I've been a Bioware fan since 1998, sometimes they miss, sometimes they hit, and even though I'm not very happy with Inquisition right now (mainly because of bad PC controls and no advanced tactics for companions) they are still my favorite

15. That vid. where it is said the tactical camera and the UI/HUD is just like we'd remember it from Origins, and that we'd be super super pleased with it? No I am not super super pleased with it, on the contrary 

 

1) Yeah, this is not my experience.  Most people I know who were fans of DA:O bemoan the loss of its combat.  It was far more tactical.  You needed to be precise in when, where, and how you used your skills.  You needed to be careful about positioning.  You could do things like stealth into a room to clear the fog of war, then cast force field on your rogue, and have your mages start a storm of the century while the enemies aggro'd your invulnerable and immobile scout.  You just don't get those fights in DA:I.  

 

(Also, it is true, the difficulty was reduced on console, so it will differ how Origins played depending on what platform you were on).

 

That being said, for the action oriented RPG style, the combat in DA:I is very good.  Its just not Origins combat.

 

2) This, I guess is a skill by skill basis or something?  I don't know, I think a lot of skills still feel awesome to cast and even moreso than DA:O, though yeah shield bash is probably an exception.  Fireball too, that was epic.

 

3) The filler is blatantly worse in DA:I.  The collection quests, the NPCs you can't remember, the fact that you rarely make choices about them.  

 

4) Yeah, you are totally right here.  DA:I did companions great, and Skyhold is filled with awesome non companion characters.  Not to mention the story quests.  Alexius was a great side-villain.  Clarel from Here lies the abyss.  Though DA:O had great ones too besides just Bann Teagan.  Zathrian and the Lady of the Forst?  Awesome characters.  Paragon Branka, I mean Origins had ****** Duncan.  

 

5) Yeah we all agree

 

6) Here's the thing: they took out any builds that would multi-stat, so it makes sense to get ride of attributes.  No stamina warriors, no blood mages, no dual wield warriors, or sword using rogues.  So yes, it doesn't make sense to have stats but only because the took away a bunch of builds, which was a shame in itself.

 

7) Definitely wish we had creation and entropy spells.

 

8)  I actually think this game did immersion pretty well.  So fine, the astrariums are pretty silly.  But all in all, this is very well crafted world.

 

9) Crafting was in other DA games, but not even remotely close to the degree it is in DA:I.  I actually enjoy the system we got in Inquisition, but, I wish it didn't dominate the itemization as much.  

 

10) The lore is fine.  To the guy complaining about potions: mechanics always trump lore.  My guys in DA:O could also have two weapon sets.  That's not "lore" its just mechanics.

 

11)  and 12) Yeah these are both not great complaints.  People can get really worked up and angry with you in this game.  And for ****'s sake, in DA:O they were all still obsessed with you.  "Oh, yeah, Wynne, I just defiled the ashes of your God, but you'll get over cause I've given you enough dumb presents."  What?  

 

13) The stuff happening around you in DA:O was definitely better.  The crestwood Demon quest?  You just go kill another demon.  Ok... That is not a very memorable quest.  The hermit and tree though?  Great, memorable characters.  Dagna?  So good they brought her back.  

 

14) and 15) yeah these are just hyperbole.

[In Exile]

This MMO combat nonsense has to stop. DAO had MMO combat. This was the most virulent criticism levelled at it the second combat was shown and it was spot on. Cooldowns, regen health and mana - all of that is an MMO design.

As for requiring tactics, just no. DAO required only the barest level of thought to build an AW mage (and I suppose to pick one) and then you could just faceroll the game. Or you could pick any of the other OP mage approaches - Mana Clash, Fireball x3, etc. BM/SM was an infinite mana, healbot that was also the strongest possible nuking build.

[Elhanan]

Combat is crap. That right there is huge. We lost tactics, we lost lots of abilities as well as being limited to eight. We are limited on potions and there is no healing. We lost meaningful side quests. We lost storytelling. A story is told and it is uninspiring. We lost immersion. Once you could fully immerse yourself in the world. Now for enough of us it feels like you are playing a character and trying to muster up a reason to care about him/her and the whole story.
 
We gained vast open world maps of boring. We gained console ports. We gained some nice graphics. We gained the need to do side quests and menial tasks as part of the world just like in ME3 you had to waste time charging around the galaxy picking up assets with the scan feature. Now it's power and influence though influence is more of a bonus to get some different bonuses in the game.

Combat is fine; a bit of DAO and DA2. There are tactics, though they are not as detailed as previous games. There is healing; both potions and spells. There are added Talents, though not all will be chosen by a single character. The story is captivating, esp if one enjoys the lore of the past games.

Just another viewpoint from the other side of the fence....

[errantknight]

So, basically, DA:I is even less of a cRPG than DA 2. That says a lot about how EA has drifted off course from the original vision of the Dragon Age series. Change is good if change moves an idea forward and improves upon previous installments for the most part (BG to BG II, Witcher I to Witcher II, etc.). While not every change can be positive, from what I've seen in reviews and discussions, the majority of changes that have occurred in the DA universe have been changes that are steps backwards or steps away from what was originally intended.

I disagree with this assessment. It was a different kind of story than DA:O, but I didn't find it to be an uncompelling one. I was very much engaged with my inquisitor and the interactions with the companions and others. While I can agree that it's--to me-- unfortunate that they chose to move away from the pure rpg model, there's much to love in the explorable world.

 

Yes, some of the side quests could have been more involving, but that wasn't so much a problem with the side quests, but with the amount of interaction in giving them. Almost every quest in Origins was given in a cutscene conversation, while they were lighter on that here, to the detriment of engagement. That could have been better, but it was by no means game breaking.

 

IMO, Inquisition breaks new ground for the series and shows that they recognize that important things were lost, it just doesn't go far enough. The tactics and party controls need to come back. We need more abilities, more inventory control, more armor style control and variation. We need the isometric view back. it's definitely going back the right way, though, and I think they deserve credit for responding.  

 

Actually, Bioware always responds, that's where they get into trouble, lol. They respond by going WAY too far. Some complained that Origins combat and inventory was too complicated and the combat was too slow, so they changed it when they shouldn't have except maybe speeding it up just a tad. DA2 was the result. People complained that females didn't look feminine and now they're twerking across Thedas. For the love of god, people! Be careful what you ask for!

[TristynTrine]

the 'edgy banter' is still there, it just depends on who you bring with you, just like Origins, Iron Bull, Dorian and Sera are always good for a laugh.

 

I found the story well written and interesting, in my opinion it's the open world that let's the story down. BioWare try to build up tension and create a sense of urgency but it doesn't work as well when you can spend hours messing about between story quests.

 

The environments are  beautiful and well designed, even the ones I hate navigating like the Forbidden Oasis are beautiful to look at.

 

The companions are varied and interesting and each has their own plausible inner life that you learn about throughout the game. In many ways the character interaction is more interesting then in Origins, for example

 

Spoiler

A female Inquisitor can flirt with Cassandra, who then approaches the Inquisitor to say that they can just be friends because she is not interested in her that way.

This is not something that was in Origins and its a really nice touch.

 

I miss the AI tactics in that was in DA:O & DA2 but overall I prefer the combat in DA:I to the combat that was in DA:O. Although it did take me awhile to get used to.

 

 

I've just finished my first playthough were I did pretty much everything, in my next playthrough I'm going to stick to story quests and important side quests to see how that compares.

 

Overall though I've really enjoyed my time in DA:I so far. I can't say if I prefer it to DA:O until I complete more playthroughs, it's only fair since it took me 2 playthroughs of DA:O & DA2 to really see what was so special about them.

 

the 'edgy banter' is still there, it just depends on who you bring with you, just like Origins, Iron Bull, Dorian and Sera are always good for a laugh.

 

I found the story well written and interesting, in my opinion it's the open world that let's the story down. BioWare try to build up tension and create a sense of urgency but it doesn't work as well when you can spend hours messing about between story quests.

 

The environments are  beautiful and well designed, even the ones I hate navigating like the Forbidden Oasis are beautiful to look at.

 

The companions are varied and interesting and each has their own plausible inner life that you learn about throughout the game. In many ways the character interaction is more interesting then in Origins, for example

 

Spoiler

A female Inquisitor can flirt with Cassandra, who then approaches the Inquisitor to say that they can just be friends because she is not interested in her that way.

This is not something that was in Origins and its a really nice touch.

 

I miss the AI tactics in that was in DA:O & DA2 but overall I prefer the combat in DA:I to the combat that was in DA:O. Although it did take me awhile to get used to.

 

 

I've just finished my first playthough were I did pretty much everything, in my next playthrough I'm going to stick to story quests and important side quests to see how that compares.

 

Overall though I've really enjoyed my time in DA:I so far. I can't say if I prefer it to DA:O until I complete more playthroughs, it's only fair since it took me 2 playthroughs of DA:O & DA2 to really see what was so special about them.

Omg loved it as a guy, trying to flirt with Cullen. That creepy smile you give him and he gets all flustered. I love it lol

[fireproof_boots]

I like a lot of your points, well said But 2 of them I disagree with:

 

10. Yes mechanics may trump lore, but that is beside the point. The point is that a lot of lore from Origins have been destroyed in Inquisition in order to pave way for new mechanics, so the lore is not fine. What happened to all the mage healers?

 

15. Is not an hyperbole. Bioware did say that the HUD was made specifically for the PC, and any PC gamer with just a little critical sense can tell this isn't true. It's a console port, and a bad one at that.

 

Sorry, your 14 and 15 weren't hyperbole.  The original post that the guy I quoted had quoted had hyperbole for 14 and 15.   Yeah, the HUD could use PC Optimization, along with the controls, the tactical camera... 

 

Healing magic is a whole different situation, but Lore-wise its actually pretty hard for mages to use healing magic in combat unless they have been possessed by a spirit (like Spirit Healers).  But definitely not every mage can, and often they can't, so the idea that 3 mages would get together who couldn't use it is not surprising lore wise at all.  

 

Potion number just doesn't get to count as lore, its to mechanical.   I think lore is one of the things Bioware does very well across their games.

[DreamwareStudio]

I disagree with this assessment. It was a different kind of story than DA:O, but I didn't find it to be an uncompelling one. I was very much engaged with my inquisitor and the interactions with the companions and others. While I can agree that it's--to me-- unfortunate that they chose to move away from the pure rpg model, there's much to love in the explorable world.

 

Yes, some of the side quests could have been more involving, but that wasn't so much a problem with the side quests, but with the amount of interaction in giving them. Almost every quest in Origins was given in a cutscene conversation, while they were lighter on that here, to the detriment of engagement. That could have been better, but it was by no means game breaking.

 

IMO, Inquisition breaks new ground for the series and shows that they recognize that important things were lost, it just doesn't go far enough. The tactics and party controls need to come back. We need more abilities, more inventory control, more armor style control and variation. We need the isometric view back. it's definitely going back the right way, though, and I think they deserve credit for responding.  

 

Actually, Bioware always responds, that's where they get into trouble, lol. They respond by going WAY too far. Some complained that Origins combat and inventory was too complicated and the combat was too slow, so they changed it when they shouldn't have except maybe speeding it up just a tad. DA2 was the result. People complained that females didn't look feminine and now they're twerking across Thedas. For the love of god, people! Be careful what you ask for!

 

The things you mention aren't what qualify a game as role-playing. Origins was not an ideal cRPG because it had many missing facets, but it was a far cry more RPG than DA 2 which in turn was more than DA:I.

[Maverick827]

Origins actually had very few fetch quests. Only the "Board" quests are fetch quests. The rest of them, almost without fail, gave you options to complete them differently.