221 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Seriously, DAI is a jack of all trades, master of nothing, this game has absolutely no focus, and therefore, no pace. It basically flops between two types of game, a lackluster Bioware style narrative but with great characters or an average exploration based RPG, neither top of the class with a combat system that wants to go two different directions as well.

 

This game has an indentiy crisis, simply put. Its just like the first Mass Effect, but far less forgivable. While ME1 had focus issues (its combat doesn't know if it wants to be a shooter or an RPG, pace killing planet exploration, weak stat system, etc.), at least it was the first game in the series. Dragon Age is on game number 3. It should have found its focus by now. Nope its still lost in the wilderness. And while DAO lacked focus in its narrative especially in the big middle of the game, game design wise, its more of what it wants to be than DAI.

 

The combat still isn't good, and this series, its never been good. DAI is a poor tactical RPG, unlike Divinity Original Sin (although that game is also very far from perfect, but its tactial combat is great) and its a poor hack and slash, definitely far below the combat seen in Dragons Dogma, which totally destroys Bioware when it comes to dragon and giant battles, much less normal mobs. Instead of choosing one style or the other, Bioware decides to keep the flaws of having both styles which clash with eachother. Combat i s a boring chore that drags the gameplay down. Nevermind the enemy variety is sorely lacking and the dragon battles after a few get redundant and less unique.

 

Then the actual RPG design, ugly mismash of two games. One game is a focused story with Mass Effect style missions, which other than two exclusive missions (the Hushed Whispers and Champions of the Just quests) lack the good direction of the Mass Effect games and relies far too much on Bioware cliches. Nevermind the main plot is also very short and very rushed, leaving the lore to try to tell the story much more than the actual plot, very bad. Why is this? Because of the second game, the average exploration and questing RPG. Here Bioware goes against what makes them good, its storytelling to deliver an average experience that is bested by others. Story takes a back seat here, there are very little cutscenes, just go do this for that quests. While there is a general direction on the maps, the characters are barely involved, there are no choices outside a few quests, and many of the quests tell simple weak stories that other average RPGs tell. I don;t even recall a story cutscene other than Harding in all zones but The Hinterlands, Crestwood, the Storm Coast, and the Western Approach. Basically, a bunch of secondary filler. The game that also makes half its cast talking codex entries with little relevance to the plot, with some also lacking in character development (ex. Sera and Dorian). Nevermind Skyhold itself is a let down, with weak customization and very little build up, unlike say Suikoden II with crazy things to do at home base.

 

So in the end, a jack of all trades, master of none, where there is always something another game does better, and where itrs sum is not greater than the parts because they simply do not add up. Easily the most overrated game of 2014 (along with Divinity but at least it got its combat right so I play for that). And at the end, this game missed the oppurtunity to have Dragon Age be somthing more than just Bioware's second franchise. Instead of evolving and learning from the first two games, and combining what they did right, they go to what DAO did wrong, add new things that are wrong, and while avoiding what DA2 did wrong, failed to even build upon what it did right, therefore we get the most unfocused game of the trilogy.

[Jaron Oberyn]

I categorically disagree with each and every poorly concocted point you made. 

[Shevy]

I agree with you, DA has an identity crisis as a franchise. Every game is totally different from the others and only Origins managed to provide a coherent feeling to some degree.

 

As a story-driven, character-focused RPG DA:I's main plot and villain are too weak, the companions too shallow. As a exploration-heavy, crafting-centered RPG its maps aren't executed well enough and crafting isn't really necessary or complex.

 

It was an attempt to go more Open-World-y but the starting area (The Hinterlands) is probably the weakest in the whole game and thus killed much of the pleasant anticipation I had before reaching it.

[txgoldrush]

I agree with you, DA has an identity crisis as a franchise. Every game is totally different from the others and only Origins managed to provide a coherent feeling to some degree.

 

As a story-driven, character-focused RPG DA:I's main plot and villain are too weak, the companions too shallow. As a exploration-heavy, crafting-centered RPG its maps aren't executed well enough and crafting isn't really necessary or complex.

 

It was an attempt to go more Open-World-y but the starting area (The Hinterlands) is probably the weakest in the whole game and thus killed much of the pleasant anticipation I had before reaching it.

I wouldn;t call the companions shallow, but other than Cassandra (who is the deueteragonist), Solas, and Varric, they have very little or nothing to do in the main plot. And Dorian or Cole takes a back seat  after they are recruited for good. Unlike DA2, which every character got not only three major character missions, but almost everyone of them played a role in the plot.

[txgoldrush]

Companions shallow? The Companions are probably the most complex to date. They aren't one-note one dimensional characters. The have different views to varying degrees about different issues. You're assessment is just plain wrong.

No, The Mass Effect companions, such as Garrus, Tali, Liara, EDI, Moridn, Thane, and Miranda are far more complex, but to be fair they were in two or three games.

 

But DAI companions  do seem to lack development outside of Cassandra, Blackwall, Cole, and Iron Bull. Its basically the advisors and Cassandra that get most of the development. And its mostly more tell than show.

 

But the romances are a huge step back....ugh.

[DexterousGecko]

I have to agree on some points with the OP.

 

I found that while the world was massive and beautiful, I was tracking down random bits of crap just to gain some tidbit of information or power (of which I now have over 100) or an item that was 8 levels below my characters. It got to the point where I just wanted to finish the main story just to be done with it.

 

The main story was actually fairly short, with a whole lot of filler thrown in. One silly example at the end was the elven temple. I finished the silly ritual to ally with the elves but honestly, i could have just jumped down the hole and probably have fought a couple more enemies and it wouldn't have made much if any difference. The story itself was interesting I guess, but it seemed fairly generic, big bad guy wants the world to burn, only you can stop him, blah blah blah. At least if I felt that the big bad was really big and bad, it'd be something (see sephiroth or the dragon from dragon's dogma) but it felt strange running away from him. 

 

The companions were interesting enough I suppose, sera and solas were good company, although i didn't care enough about anyone other than sera and verric to complete their personal quest.

 

OP is right though, the choices were an illusion. One line of text after the game is over doesn't make a choice real.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Seriously, DAI is a jack of all trades, master of nothing, this game has absolutely no focus, and therefore, no pace. It basically flops between two types of game, a lackluster Bioware style narrative but with great characters or an average exploration based RPG, neither top of the class with a combat system that wants to go two different directions as well.

 

This game has an indentiy crisis, simply put. Its just like the first Mass Effect, but far less forgivable. While ME1 had focus issues (its combat doesn't know if it wants to be a shooter or an RPG, pace killing planet exploration, weak stat system, etc.), at least it was the first game in the series. Dragon Age is on game number 3. It should have found its focus by now. Nope its still lost in the wilderness. And while DAO lacked focus in its narrative especially in the big middle of the game, game design wise, its more of what it wants to be than DAI.

 

The combat still isn't good, and this series, its never been good. DAI is a poor tactical RPG, unlike Divinity Original Sin (although that game is also very far from perfect, but its tactial combat is great) and its a poor hack and slash, definitely far below the combat seen in Dragons Dogma, which totally destroys Bioware when it comes to dragon and giant battles, much less normal mobs. Instead of choosing one style or the other, Bioware decides to keep the flaws of having both styles which clash with eachother. Combat i s a boring chore that drags the gameplay down. Nevermind the enemy variety is sorely lacking and the dragon battles after a few get redundant and less unique.

 

Then the actual RPG design, ugly mismash of two games. One game is a focused story with Mass Effect style missions, which other than two exclusive missions (the Hushed Whispers and Champions of the Just quests) lack the good direction of the Mass Effect games and relies far too much on Bioware cliches. Nevermind the main plot is also very short and very rushed, leaving the lore to try to tell the story much more than the actual plot, very bad. Why is this? Because of the second game, the average exploration and questing RPG. Here Bioware goes against what makes them good, its storytelling to deliver an average experience that is bested by others. Story takes a back seat here, there are very little cutscenes, just go do this for that quests. While there is a general direction on the maps, the characters are barely involved, there are no choices outside a few quests, and many of the quests tell simple weak stories that other average RPGs tell. I don;t even recall a story cutscene other than Harding in all zones but The Hinterlands, Crestwood, the Storm Coast, and the Western Approach. Basically, a bunch of secondary filler. The game that also makes half its cast talking codex entries with little relevance to the plot, with some also lacking in character development (ex. Sera and Dorian). Nevermind Skyhold itself is a let down, with weak customization and very little build up, unlike say Suikoden II with crazy things to do at home base.

 

So in the end, a jack of all trades, master of none, where there is always something another game does better, and where itrs sum is not greater than the parts because they simply do not add up. Easily the most overrated game of 2014 (along with Divinity but at least it got its combat right so I play for that). And at the end, this game missed the oppurtunity to have Dragon Age be somthing more than just Bioware's second franchise. Instead of evolving and learning from the first two games, and combining what they did right, they go to what DAO did wrong, add new things that are wrong, and while avoiding what DA2 did wrong, failed to even build upon what it did right, therefore we get the most unfocused game of the trilogy.

This is an excellent post barring some punctuation errors and I agree with most if not all of it. However, this is the BSN, which means expect blowback. I made a video commentary on this titled the only pizza around. In trying to be everything DAI became nothing. It is not a bad game but it does nothing exceptionally well.

 

[Sondermann]

 

 

Having just finished the game myself I think you might be a bit harsh overall but hit the truth on some points. I think they were overambitious with the story* and didn't really manage to integrate it well into the world space they were building.

I generally feel games profit from simpler stories - like DA:O or ME - where the player more or less always knows where he is in the arc and why he is doing what he is doing and why others are doing what they are doing.

In DA:I there is a civil war in Orlais, the Templars are suddenly hooked on red lyrium, the Wardens went conveniently went rogue as well, the Mages sold out to Tevinter, Tevinter is plotting something as well and so on and so forth. Oh yes, and there is a guy called Corypheus who is somehow related to all of this. And then somehow you are fighting Corypheus and the game is more or less over. 

It all seems a bit arbitrary, lacks a compelling internal dynamic that is not triggered by some war table mission but the logic of the story itself.

 

* This disparity between ambition and resources to pull it off is perhaps perfectly illustrated early on, when the Templars leave Val Royeaux in a dramatic gesture - all 10 of them :-)

[Shevy]

Companions shallow? The Companions are probably the most complex to date. They aren't one-note one dimensional characters. The have different views to varying degrees about different issues. You're assessment is just plain wrong.

The reason I don't share your view doesn't make my view wrong, but no.... not again this "wrong opinion" issue.

 

Viv and Sera are as one-dimensional as it gets. Varric, while being the best DA II companion, stays surprisingly reserved. There are some who undergo development, but all in all I wasn't content with how they turned out in general.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

 

 

 

Having just finished the game myself I think you might be a bit harsh overall but hit the truth on some points. I think they were overambitious with the story* and didn't really manage to integrate it well into the world space they were building.

I generally feel games profit from simpler stories - like DA:O or ME - where the player more or less always knows where he is in the arc and why he is doing what he is doing and why others are doing what they are doing.

In DA:I there is a civil war in Orlais, the Templars are suddenly hooked on red lyrium, the Wardens went conveniently went rogue as well, the Mages sold out to Tevinter, Tevinter is plotting something as well and so on and so forth. Oh yes, and there is a guy called Corypheus who is somehow related to all of this. And then somehow you are fighting Corypheus and the game is more or less over. 

It all seems a bit arbitrary, lacks a compelling internal dynamic that is not triggered by some war table mission but the logic of the story itself.

 

* This disparity between ambition and resources to pull it off is perhaps perfectly illustrated early on, when the Templars leave Val Royeaux in a dramatic gesture - all 10 of them :-)

 

Prior to In Your Heart Shall Burn when you close the big rift there are a total of 5 templars. Apparently recruiting the templar order meant you only needed 5 to close the Breach though the story made it seem you needed the entire order.

[txgoldrush]

This is an excellent post barring some punctuation errors and I agree with most if not all of it. However, this is the BSN, which means expect blowback. I made a video commentary on this titled the only pizza around. In trying to be everything DAI became nothing. It is not a bad game but it does nothing exceptionally well.

 

Well, had to keep editing my post, probably mistakes eveywhere

 

But compare this game to ME2 and ME3 and DAI a lesser game (and its worse than ME1 as well but for plot reasons) because ME2 and ME3 spends less on what it doesn't do well and more on what it does well, which is character interactions and corridor combat. Some fans may not like what ME2 took out, but it helped Bioware refocus on what it does well and the games are better for it. And when exploration with Mako does return in ME4, there will be alot more focus on it.

 

The big fail is that the DAI team did not learn from what went wrong in ME1 here, the disconnect between the narrative and the exploration. That may be why that instead of trying to make planet ground exploration better in ME2, they scrapped it and rightfully so.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Well, had to keep editing my post, probably mistakes eveywhere

 

But compare this game to ME2 and ME3 and DAI a lesser game (and its worse than ME1 as well but for plot reasons) because ME2 and ME3 spends less on what it doesn't do well and more on what it does well, which is character interactions and corridor combat. Some fans may not like what ME2 took out, but it helped Bioware refocus on what it does well and the games are better for it. And when exploration with Mako does return in ME4, there will be alot more focus on it.

 

The big fail is that the DAI team did not learn from what went wrong in ME1 here, the disconnect between the narrative and the exploration. That may be why that instead of trying to make planet ground exploration better in ME2, they scrapped it and rightfully so.

You will not find much consensus on the BSN but people outside of it might well agree, I certainly do. Even certain elements that come up in the story, upon playing it a 2nd time strike me as odd. Take the Adamant situation, by all means include wardens being controlled by a darkspawn magister, makes sense but in hearing the Calling, not a single one apart from Alistair questioned it? And then they get it into their heads to summon a demon army to hunt down the final old god? Who on earth came up with that? It is almost on par with Anders has to blow up the Chantry. They MUST summon a demon army of all things...so many other possibilities but that one seemed pulled out the arse imho.

[SomberXIII]

Too bad some didn't enjoy the game when most of us are enjoying the game multiple times.

[Dermain]

Prior to In Your Heart Shall Burn when you close the big rift there are a total of 5 templars. Apparently recruiting the templar order meant you only needed 5 to close the Breach though the story made it seem you needed the entire order.

 

If we're going to use this logic...

 

Only 15 darkspawn attacked Redcliffe at the end of Origins. Denerim was assaulted and overrun by about 50-80 darkspawn and a dragon. Knloch hold was overrun by ~20 abominations, has roughly 20 mages, and was defended by a grand total of about 10 templars. 

 

I could go on, but it really starts to get silly...

 

 

Too bad some didn't enjoy the game when most of us are enjoying the game multiple times.

 

I enjoyed the game multiple times, and will continue to do so.

 

I also agree with some of his points.

 

It shouldn't be an either/or feeling.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Too bad some didn't enjoy the game when most of us are enjoying the game multiple times.

You look at this thread and all you take away from it is "some did not enjoy the game", rather than looking at some of the criticisms made and evaluating them? I enjoyed the game for what it is but it could have been much, much more and it reeks of overshooting in its ambition, whether I enjoyed it or not.

[OHB MajorV]

The problem with your analysis is that you fault them for trying to be somewhat innovative. You are basically saying "just follow the typical rpg success formula". I prefer to live and think outside the box and not have my opinion of a game tied down by my preconceived notions of what a game of a certain genre should be. Without the ability to grow and try new things it gets very stale very fast.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

The problem with your analysis is that you fault them for trying to be somewhat innovative. You are basically saying "just follow the typical rpg success formula". I prefer to live and think outside the box and not have my opinion of a game tied down by my preconceived notions of what a game of a certain genre should be. Without the ability to grow and try new things it gets very stale very fast.

What was innovative about DAI if I might ask?

[Sondermann]

 

 

The big fail is that the DAI team did not learn from what went wrong in ME1 here, the disconnect between the narrative and the exploration. That may be why that instead of trying to make planet ground exploration better in ME2, they scrapped it and rightfully so.

I imagine it would have been much better if the story missions took place in the areas themselves and instead of doing more or less pointless side quests you had to do stuff that "unlocked" the story mission itself.

Crestwood - IMO the most convincing area in terms of side quest content - could have served as one of many possible templates: you visit the town, have to liberate the keep, open the dam which in turn gives access to a dungeon.

[OHB MajorV]

What was innovative about DAI if I might ask?

Trying to mix an open world elder scrolls style sandbox with somewhat streamlined narrative, mixing turn based combat with a button smasher, companions having personal conflicts with their own emotions and inner demons (cole anyone)? While they may have not perfected much of this they definitely reached for the stars with inquisition and it's hard to fault them for doing so. I'd much rather say "they overreached" than play an underwhelming cookie cutter rpg.

You want a game that really lacks an identity and doesn't know what it wants to be? Play destiny.

[SomberXIII]

No, The Mass Effect companions, such as Garrus, Tali, Liara, EDI, Moridn, Thane, and Miranda are far more complex, but to be fair they were in two or three games.

Was it because they are famous and modern, wasn't it?

 

 

But the romances are a huge step back....ugh.

 

So, you just want the "Morrigan crawling" scene back?

[Norwood06]

OP's comparison to ME1 is a good one.  Both had a few really great main story quests, then a bunch of lackluster exploration.  But rushed main story?  I disagree.  The length and quality of the main story missions were fine.  Compare it to other bioware games.  ME1 had, what, 5 main story missions?  ME2 had about the same, I think?  Same for DA2.  DAO had many more, but cmon it was in development forever.    The problem with DAI was the uninteresting side quests...what we're doing between story missions was less interesting than we normally do in Bioware games (but DAI is very, very pretty)

 

I don't play a lot of fantasy games, so I can't compare combat.  But yes, DAI feels a bit sluggish.  I was able to adjust without a problem, though. 

 

In both DAI and ME1, we see what happens when Bioware tries to do something new.  What was innovative about DAI?  It was bioware's first attempt to make a single player, open-world game.  And yeah, the result wasn't especially innovative, as it borrowed a lot from skyrim, TOR, and Assassin's creed.  I've always played all of Bethesda's and Biowares big releases:  Bethesda for sandboxes, Bioware for narratives.  Bioware tried to combine the two in DAI, and yes the result is a game that is a bit unfocused.  But I respect the ambition and effort. 

 

Give me mod tools to cut the grindy aspects I don't like, and I'll be happy. 

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Trying to mix an open world elder scrolls style sandbox with somewhat streamlined narrative, mixing turn based combat with a button smasher, companions having personal conflicts with their own emotions and inner demons (cole anyone)? While they may have not perfected much of this they definitely reached for the stars with inquisition and it's hard to fault them for doing so. I'd much rather say "they overreached" than play an underwhelming cookie cutter rpg.

You want a game that really lacks an identity and doesn't know what it wants to be? Play destiny.

Fair. At least you explained yourself.

[Navasha]

People are different and like different things.   I would agree that Dragon Age has an identity crisis.   Personally, I love the exploration parts.   Loved the planet exploration in ME1 too.    Some of us still like playing games that let us find the stuff and don't have a huge arrow pointing to it in the sky.   That's a modern thing and always something I try turning off in games. 

 

I like finding the hole in the desert boarded over, but with the hint of seeing a lootable chest down there.    How do you get to it?

[SomberXIII]

Well at least I'm not left annoyed. That's something.