123 réponses à ce sujet

[phantomrachie]

Choices:

Start at the beginning...The amount of classes available to choose from, Origins by far exceeds DAI or DA2.  And when you build your character in DAO, you do more than just pick a face and a voice, you actually build the statistics for the character based on your own idea of how the character should be played.  Not so in DLI, apparently players are no longer competent enough to make those choices. 

 

As you levelled up in Origins, you were not locked into a few narrow skill trees choices.  You could mix and match skills paths, and had the ability to use all your skills in combat, not be limited to a small amount of skills, based on the limited number of quick slots that a console game can handle.   You even had the freedom to choose to switch weapons within combat, instead of being locked into whatever happened to be in your hand.  No logic to DLI's methods in this, except that it worked better for consoles and multiplayer.  The versatility of Origins wins again, as versatility means more choices.

 

Now if your only objective is finishing the game, it does not matter what choices you make during the game.  For those that enjoy the role play...it does matter if you choose the elves or the werewolves as an ally, the mages or the Templars, if you choose to allow dwarven golems to be made, or if you break the anvil,  whether you support the ethical dwarven councilor to rule, or the ruthless prince.  Yeah, they all are just pawns in the final battle, if you just see it as a means to reaching the end.  But, if you immerse yourself into the game, then the choices you make reaching the end, matter just as much as finishing.  For some, the object is not just to finish the game, but to play your character in such a way, that you are happy with the choices he/she makes, just as much as you are happy with beating the big boss at the end.  And from beginning to start, there are far more role play choices that lead to different outcomes in Origins. 

 

Companions: How many companions do you have forced upon you in DLI, and how many do you actually have a chance to reject?  I am counting your War Table advisors, as apparently your choice in ambassador, general and spymaster really don't matter.  I think the only companion you "have" to have with you in DAO is Alistair.  Most of my playthroughs in DAO, I kill off at least two of my potential companions.  I would say those are choices that make a difference.  And the choices you make while you play in DAO, will determine whether or not your companions stay loyal to you until the end, or bail on you before the big fight.  (And I generally do not use the cheap trick of bribing my companions with gifts, except the one or two "special" gifts that open up roleplay options).  I would say there are definitely more companion choices in DAO. 

 

How many possible choices of endings are there in DLI?  Two, maybe?  You get a dragon to fight for you either way, one happens to be Morrigan, the other is apparently a real dragon.  You chose between Templars and Mages in the beginning, how much does that make a difference?    In DAO there are multiple possible endings, At least 4 major endings, and up to 20 different variant minor endings.  I think the choices in DAO mattered again. 

 

Did you play Inquisition? or even DA:O? It's like you've decided DA:O is the superior game and now you are trying to convince yourself of it.

 

While you can't kill your companions in DA:I, you can simply not recruit most of them or kick them out in other ways.

 

Iron Bull, Dorian, Vivienne, Sera and Blackwall are all optional to recruit. You can kick Sera out whenever you want and you can kill Blackwall if you feel like it.

 

The advisers, Cass, Varric and Solas are the only ones you have no option in recruit and you can kick all but the advisers out of the Inquisition if their approval is low enough.

 

So yes, you can't kill them and yes you have keep the advisers but you don't need to keep anyone else. BioWare never really let you wholesale kill your companions anyway. 

 

On a side note, who would replace your advisers if you killed them? They are kinda plot relevant. 

 

Your choices also affect you Companions approval in DA:I just like they did in DA:O only there are no gifts to bribe them into liking you. If their approval is low enough you can get them to leave.

 

The choices you made in DA:O were mostly reflected in the epilogue afterwards, just like in DA:I. Ultimately - there were only 2 main differences in each ending in DA:O, the factions that made up your army and whether or the Warden was dead. Apart from those things the each ending only had minor differences, like if you could talk to Anora or Alistair or both.

 

All your main decisions were reflected in slide show at the end, just like they are in DA:I

 

Honestly all this rose tinted classes stuff about DA:O is getting ridiculous. It was a great game but let's all stop pretending it was perfection or that it didn't do some of the exact same things that people complain about in DA:I

[Meredydd]

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.

DA:I is a very different game than DA:O. It almost seems like Bioware has completely re-booted the Dragon Age franchise...again (DA2). If you are a really big Origins fan like me, you may not know how to feel about Inquisition until you've played it. My biggest disappointment is that Bioware said that Inquisition was going to be the perfect blend between the first two Dragon Age games, but it really isn't. 

Tactics are pretty much non-existent. The story is weaker than that of Origins (in my opinion). Character customization, loot (especially armor sets), mmo-style side quests, and bugs really brings the game down for me. Not to mention the frustrating PC controls. 

Its seems to Bioware has lost sight of what made Origins such a classic and much-loved game. Even though they had a new engine and a bigger budget to spend on Inquisition, Origins is still the benchmark of the Dragon Age series.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Its seems to Bioware has lost sight of what made Origins such a classic and much-loved game. Even though they had a new engine and a bigger budget to spend on Inquisition, Origins is still the benchmark of the Dragon Age series.

It's like they suddenly remembered what made BG (the first one) one of the best CRPGs ever made, and decided to do that again.

 

I thought they'd never revisit BG's design.  I'm very glad they did.

[AlanC9]

That's an idiotic definition.

Yep. I don't think many posts complaining about fetch quests are very well thought out.

Investigation. Exploration. Freedom to do other stuff.

Straight ahead quests like fetch and kill foozle are only a problem if the objective is handed to us on a silver platter. But if we have to figure out what to do, or decide what we want to do, that turns the simple quest into a denouement on the end of a much more interesting section of plot.

Roleplaying is about making decisions. If we're told what to do, and have no choice but to do it, we have no decisions to make.

Well, you generally have some choice in that you don't have to do the sidequests, by definition. (That's all the choice you get in Skyrim, really) But yeah, that's not the same thing as having anything to think about when doing the quest.

[AlanC9]

fetch quest
noun. A term, often used by gamers, to describe a quest in an RPG game in which the player must obtain an object or objects to complete the quest. While in the process, they may come into contact with enemies, obstacles, and or general head ache. After the player has obtained the object, the quest is completed, and the character is awarded with a tivial reward. Most gamers hate fetch quests, and games such as Aika Online are full of them.
 
Yeah, it's just a simple fetch quest. Just go get a bucket of milk and give it to the farmer.

Gah! I have to get a stupid glowing rock for only 1000 XP?!?! I hate fetch quests!
 
 
Examples here serve to show that they are simple. Yes you may get some enemies or obstacles but not to the extent that we saw in haven which was anything but a simple fetch quest and simple fetch quest is what people are referring to when they call these quests in DAI fetch quests. Split hairs all you like but the examples provided are pretty solid in the camp of simple.

You sure the amount of reward for the quest is relevant? What if a quest is simple but has a big reward?

And why does it matter that the quest involves retrieving something? If simplicity is the problem, then a Kill Foozle quest can be even simpler than a fetch quest since you technically don't have to return to the quest giver. Though I suppose if the mission is to bring back someone's head then it's a fetch quest too.

[Kage]

There are many more ADDED features in DAI compared to DAO, than LOST features.

However, nostalgia will do its work, and if you are not mature/intelligent enough to see it, you can be biased.

 

I am not saying DAI is better nor worse, since it is a matter of preference. They are both great games.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

meh.

 

the good

+ crafting

+ huge world

+ visuals

+ complex characters

+ massive amount of quests

+ awesome cc

+ lore

 

the bad

- terrible m&kb support

- awkward tactical camera

- dumbed down AI

- little to no crowd control abilities (depending on class)

- technical bugs

- changing difficulty affects mostly hp pools

- RNG forces farming

- no NG+

 

the subjective

* how much it feels "this is what BG should look like, omg! /squee" - seriously, they somehow captured it here, not sure if intentionally

* no connection to player character. i don't care for my inquisitor, but i was biting my nails when

Spoiler

gray warden (Alistair in my case) mentioned HoF was called to Orlais and she walks dark path... we know what happened to them blood mages

* too much meaningless dialogue (maybe that's because i'm a bit schizophrenic - reading in polish, hearing in english - would kill for english subs)

* no city hubs (where's my Crime Wave?! i want to patrol some streets/routes with Aveline or... something)

* cliche story/villain (well... i'm not counting the uhm... spoilery one - that was brilliant twist)

* lack of evil choices/dialogue options - this is a huge downside for me, those don't have to affect the plot much (like killing Ostagar prisoner and such)

* realtime agent missions (i hate it. i'm completionist and i hate everything that is meaningless and/or doesn't have any lore attached but has to be done only because there's an entry in journal/wherever)

* mage is probably the weakest class ever (excluding jedi)

* less skills to use, more passives - it would be awesome if those actually worked (Spirit/Lightning Rift Mage here)

 

conclusion: cool interactive movie in which you steer some existing dude/chick. if you want to have fun tho - meh, just another game 7/10

if the combat was done better (like... improved upon DA:O), this game would probably be the best game i've ever played.

 

edit:

i'm cursing the gameplay, currently in my NM PT. it's a breeze, i really hate how unchallenging it is. i know, i could do solo PT but combat with such bloated HP pools would only bore me.

i do love turn based games and the time it takes to come up with perfect strategy (the longer it takes the better - more fun for me), but action button mashing/using teribad tac cam is not my cup of tea - i cringe everytime battle in this game takes more than 3 minutes... ugh

[DreamwareStudio]

DA:I is a very different game than DA:O. It almost seems like Bioware has completely re-booted the Dragon Age franchise...again (DA2). If you are a really big Origins fan like me, you may not know how to feel about Inquisition until you've played it. My biggest disappointment is that Bioware said that Inquisition was going to be the perfect blend between the first two Dragon Age games, but it really isn't. 

Tactics are pretty much non-existent. The story is weaker than that of Origins (in my opinion). Character customization, loot (especially armor sets), mmo-style side quests, and bugs really brings the game down for me. Not to mention the frustrating PC controls. 

Its seems to Bioware has lost sight of what made Origins such a classic and much-loved game. Even though they had a new engine and a bigger budget to spend on Inquisition, Origins is still the benchmark of the Dragon Age series.

 

*sighs* EA should learn that there is no perfect blend and what leads to success is coming up with something unique of their own. The proof was the sales for DA:O, but after they saw the success of the Witcher, EA decided to make DA 2 more action than role-playing in the hopes of selling even more copies. What happened was a bunch of unhappy existing customers and few happy new ones in comparison to the number they alienated. That should have driven home the message of a unique vision, but then, when they saw the success of Skyrim and DA 2 was a disappointment, they decided to change direction yet again. What should be apparent to them is that no developer can make a game be all things to all people. It's my opinion they should have stuck with the original DA:O vision rather than let the successes of other series so influence their own and capitalize on and extend each game entry. Now they have a split fan base; something Bethesda and CD Projekt have avoided by staying their perspective courses. Of course, having a change in leadership didn't help either given the new person at the helm possessed totally different ideas than his predecessor. 

[taxguy]

Unfortunately, they're missing the point of why Skyrim was such a huge success. Skyrim profited from solid contributions throughout the Elder Scrolls series that saw the series stay true to itself for the most part. Arena came out in 1994. Think on that. Twenty years of history and building momentum. Most importantly, throughout that history, Bethesda had legions of fans who stayed loyal to Bethesda because Bethesda stayed loyal to them. Those fans helped spread the word and word-of-mouth is the best advertising. That is no small thing. The accumulative result was a mind-boggling amount of games sold.

 

Calasade said, "As for the DA series, EA dropping what was originally planned and copying what has been done better by someone else only ensures that EA's product is of inferior quality because EA's offering did not spring from their own vision. Their product then becomes (and has become) a hodgepodge of ideas thrown in the hopper in a desperate hope to capture the imagination of gamers. Success in the RPG world doesn't work like that. Given Bioware's previous success in that genre you would think EA would not be so clueless. Loyalty to fans and to the product is something other companies, such as CD Projekt and Bethesda, understand. They approach their games with passion for profits but also a passion for making the game the best it can be. They have and execute a unique vision. After each release, they listen to their customers and make changes accordingly that appease current customers and hopefully attract new ones.

 

I completely agree. The first two games of Dragon Age were terrific. Sadly, Inquisition isn't as good as noted above and for the following reasons:

No healing
No storage ,which was incredibly stupid
There is MUCH too MUCH fetch and run around quests
Game map is too long. There is too much running around that just gets boring
Interface isn't as easy to use as other Dragon age games. I don't think Tactics menu works well
EA should NEVER, EVER eliminated the ability for MODS. There should be a set place to install mods and modding should have been encourage in the same way as it was in prior games. 
Leveling takes too long, which is boring 
Constant going to war council is stupid. Areas should open up as the game progresses
Side quests should be related to the main plot and not just a way to level.

In short, EA needs to scratch what they've done with DA, go back to the original drawing board, and do a reboot."
 

[Calders]

DAI is really two games welded together (and not very well).  There is one game that is in keeping with the design of previous Dragon Age games i.e. a mostly linear, story driven game, with relevant and varied side quests.  This takes up about 30% of the game. The second game is an open world exploration game with only background story telling in a similar style to Skyrim.  This takes up the remaining 70% of the game.  If you like both then you will like the game, sadly I only really like the former.

[Elhanan]

Unfortunately, they're missing the point of why Skyrim was such a huge success. Skyrim profited from solid contributions throughout the Elder Scrolls series that saw the series stay true to itself for the most part. Arena came out in 1994. Think on that. Twenty years of history and building momentum. Most importantly, throughout that history, Bethesda had legions of fans who stayed loyal to Bethesda because Bethesda stayed loyal to them. Those fans helped spread the word and word-of-mouth is the best advertising. That is no small thing. The accumulative result was a mind-boggling amount of games sold.
 
Calasade said, "As for the DA series, EA dropping what was originally planned and copying what has been done better by someone else only ensures that EA's product is of inferior quality because EA's offering did not spring from their own vision. Their product then becomes (and has become) a hodgepodge of ideas thrown in the hopper in a desperate hope to capture the imagination of gamers. Success in the RPG world doesn't work like that. Given Bioware's previous success in that genre you would think EA would not be so clueless. Loyalty to fans and to the product is something other companies, such as CD Projekt and Bethesda, understand. They approach their games with passion for profits but also a passion for making the game the best it can be. They have and execute a unique vision. After each release, they listen to their customers and make changes accordingly that appease current customers and hopefully attract new ones.
 


I completely agree. The first two games of Dragon Age were terrific. Sadly, Inquisition isn't as good as noted above and for the following reasons:

No healing
No storage ,which was incredibly stupid
There is MUCH too MUCH fetch and run around quests
Game map is too long. There is too much running around that just gets boring
Interface isn't as easy to use as other Dragon age games. I don't think Tactics menu works well
EA should NEVER, EVER eliminated the ability for MODS. There should be a set place to install mods and modding should have been encourage in the same way as it was in prior games. 
Leveling takes too long, which is boring 
Constant going to war council is stupid. Areas should open up as the game progresses
Side quests should be related to the main plot and not just a way to level.

In short, EA needs to scratch what they've done with DA, go back to the original drawing board, and do a reboot."

Except of course, that there is healing (both potions and spells), that Fetch quests and maps are optional content and having extra material is not a negative, the mechanics work fine for this disabled Player, that mods are already being made and thoughts concerning EA overlords are seemingly nonsense, gaining levels are challenging again and not easily obtained is a positive thing, that the War Table and side-quests involve a lot of optional material and as such is positive.

That leaves the one factual comment that there is no current storage; hopefully will be seen in DLC. Also new pajamas.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, you generally have some choice in that you don't have to do the sidequests, by definition. (That's all the choice you get in Skyrim, really) But yeah, that's not the same thing as having anything to think about when doing the quest.

Skyrim's strength is because you can go anywhere and do anything when you get there, so it does a great job of supporting headcanon.

[abaris]

The entire main quest in DAO was a fetch quest. "Go fetch allies!" said Flemeth, and you agreed to do it and save Ferelden. Then the treaty quests were fetch quests. "Go fetch Branka!" said Bhelen/Harrowmont. "Go fetch the urn!" said Teagan. "Go fetch Withefang's heart", said Zathrian. "Go fetch Irving", said Gregoire.

 

The difference being it had all the elements I'm loving when it comes to RPGs. Character customisation for the main and the group, strategy options for every character, combat being slow but not goofy, characters that got me interested in their stories, a story that wasn't great in it's own right, but well enough for a gripping game. Hell, I even forgot about the main story while talking and interacting with my companions. And it was enjoyable to control on my PC.

 

With DA2 I only played the demo to decide, I wouldn't like the game anymore. With DAI I only read the reviews, positive as well as the negative ones to decide, this isn't a game for me.

 

I'm not saying, it is a bad game as a standalone. There's obviously a market for these kinds of games. All I'm saying is, they're catering now to a different audience than they did with DAO. I'm absolutely not interested in multiplayer. Never was, never will be. And I'm absolutely not interested in action based combat, button mashing included. So I'm obviously not the target audience anymore. The good thing about it, other developers still make games to my liking.

[Tielis]

Everything is pretty much watered down in favor of making a Skyrim clone.  

[Rawgrim]

That is the point with DAI the gamer does not have to do all the  quests. The gamer can decide to do certain quests to get the minimum amount of power and influence or do many quests to gather as much power and influence as possible. The gamer has a choice. 

Sometimes that simple quest can lead to a bigger quest or not, but that is up to the developer.

 

The gamer doesn't know this in the first playthrough. The gamer might think seemingly small quests might lead to something bigger. Because the devs said, up untill 3 days before release, that every area would have lots of story based quests with plenty of concequences. I am sure lots of gamers are still looking for those.

[Biotic Flash Kick]

there was very little being evil

there was very little risk of losing party/inquis or missing out on party members 

 

one playthrough of DA:O i missed both leilana and sten because i ran through lothering and thought i could come back later

 

 

so much lore was just around and never mentioned or part of the story

it was just there for being there 

[Gambit458]

I prefer the combat they've got now. DA O's combat was far too slow and boring. That auto-attack might appeal to those old school RPG lovers but it's boring on console. I can handle turn based combat but that auto-attack bit drives me crazy. Taking away healing spells was pretty dumb. They could've increased the cooldown on heal or something like that if it bothered Bioware that much. If you replay DA O, you'll notice that the cooldowns were really short on healing spells. Even games like Dark Souls has healing spells if I recall. DA I isn't bad but it could be a lot better

[DragonAddict]

I loved Dragon Age Origins, all the DLC and even Awakenings.

 

- excellent story lines and plots

- you could talk to party characters whenever you wished

- gift items, romance

- chest

- camp site

- very well written

- isometric view

 

 

I think I played DAO 5x or 6x before I was done with it and I could even play it again now.

 

 

DA2 had great graphics, music, voices, cut scenes and you could use a console to play it but it lacked all the above that DAO offered and it was very limited to what you could do. Plus your decisions in your save game made no difference when loaded into DA2.

 

 

DA:I also had even better graphics, music, longer cut scenes, voices and was primarily designed for PS4 / XBox One but not for the PC like Bioware claimed.....very limited to what you could actually do in the game and lots of hack and slash and dumed down everything. You could explore more, sorta like Skyrim in a minimal way which is great but if you go in the ocean, no diving or swimming because you'll just die. To many static items you can't do anything with besides look at them.........wow.

 

I remmeber DA2 was rated the best game of its time.....just like DA:I is rated the best game and RPG.........not!!!!

 

 

After I played DA2 once, I was done with it.

 

 

I just recently finsihed DA:I and I'm done with it and disappointed. Eye candy and graphics do not a game make.

 

 

A good game you will remember 5+ years later and maybe even play it again. A mediocre not so great game you will play once and forget in a few years, like DA2 and DA:I.

 

 

[In Exile]

The difference being it had all the elements I'm loving when it comes to RPGs. Character customisation for the main and the group, strategy options for every character, combat being slow but not goofy, characters that got me interested in their stories, a story that wasn't great in it's own right, but well enough for a gripping game. Hell, I even forgot about the main story while talking and interacting with my companions. And it was enjoyable to control on my PC.

 

I will certainly quibble that DA:O had more "strategy options", non-goofy combat or more meaningful customization options. Things like being attached to the characters is purely subjective, as is enjoying the controls (which I think were better in DA:O, but don't find a problem in DA:I).

 

The three things, though? The combat animations were goofy. S&S warriors didn't know how to use shields. Mages walked like they had crapped their pants. The mage auto-attack looked like the mage was trying to poke a corpse with a stick. The 2H warrior swung the sword like it was a baseball bat. It was slower, and it wasn't goofy in the way DA:2 was goofy, but it wasn't good.

 

As to customization, I wouldn't agree we had any more worthwhile options. Sure, there were more ability choices; but the ratio of completely worthless trash to meaningful investment was lower in DA:O. I'm not sure I'd say we had less useful abilities in DA:I vs. DA:O, despite the fact that DA:O had room for many more.

 

As to strategy, putting aside the fact that both DA:I and DA:O are generally lacking in anything that would approach the actual meaning of the word, I didn't find DA:I to be substantially harder than DA:O on nightmare, pathing and control issues aside. I suppose DA:O could be heart if you avoided all mages and intentionally gimped the warriors, but all of that just flowed from the broken combat and the substantial privilege enjoyed by mages. But by that logic, DA:I could also be quite challenging if you intentionally gimped yourself. 

 

I'm not saying DA:O was a bad game. I just don't think it did anything objective better than DA:O. Story, characters, etc. is a big YMMV. In a sense so is your perception of the features we're debating, but I just don't see how there's a factual difference between the two games on that front. 

[Grifter]

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.

Second this guy and ill add: 16: Where is Our Grey Super Warden? 

 

And we dont hate Dragon Age... we love Dragon age.. thats why we are here.

We have to ask WHO hate OUR Dragon Age world