Fair. At least you explained yourself.
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?
But rushed main story? I disagree. The length and quality of the main story missions were fine.
Who the **** is Empress Celene, what does she stand for? Who the **** is that other guy or that elf? Apparently she had a fling with Celene? Does that even matter? Why or why not?
No, sorry, the main missions did not live up to expectations. Dragon Age: Origins has spoiled me in that regard.
Yeah. It think this is something that's becoming more frequent in bioware games, now that the writers are publishing books. I had similar moments in ME 3 and 2, where clearly I'm supposed to know / care about certain characters and I didnt.
Yeah. It think this is something that's becoming more frequent in bioware games, now that the writers are publishing books. I had similar moments in ME 3 and 2, where clearly I'm supposed to know / care about certain characters and I didnt.
I did not find any of the characters compelling...but that is just me.
I'm going to disclaimer this with of course everyone has their own opinions on things like romances, companions, and stories. Duh. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion as to preference, even if I reply to you.
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.
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
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.
Cole has 2 major companion missions after that. And then another pretty cool scene.
Dorian has a companion mission after that, too.
All of the companion missions are way deeper than DA2, and I don't remember doing 3 character missions for each one. Are you counting the gifts?
Most of the characters present a POV necessary for the main story, rather than being tied to it directly. This is true in all 3 games. But especially 2, where you wonder why Hawke's rivals stick around, except for his sibling, Varric, and maybe Aveline, for 10 years despite disagreeing with him on basically everything.
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.
Neither of those characters are one-dimensional, and if you get to know them, they show other sides. Viv puts on a mask, true to her Game mastery, so she may appear a set way, but the mask falters at points. Sera is hardly one dimensional. Annoying? Yes. But she has many facets that aren't clear at the start; her clingy devoutness to the Maker, for instance. She's an interesting and realistic product of the slums of Denerim.
One-dimensional =/ not likable. I agree those 2 characters are ones you have to actually try to like (you have to try to see their perspectives, and many players cannot or will not) but they are not as one-dimensional as they seem at first. If you take someone at face value, everyone is one-dimensional. That's realistic to how you get to know people IRL too.
I said above I have no interest in bashing someone's opinion - that's unless it's something blatantly false like misunderstanding what makes a one-dimensional character (or a "flat character" as they are also called). Since all the companions evolve dynamically or show different sides as the story goes on, none of them are flat characters in a literary sense; if you don't see the other sides, you may not have enough approval or you may not have triggered it, or you may just not be paying attention.
As to Varric being more reserved, I think it'd be weird if he wasn't, and he still has moments, especially near the beginning, where he tries to diffuse with humour but finds it not working out for him and still being terrified and wearied by events. Red lyrium is spreading, there's a hole in the sky with demons spewing out, and he feels partially responsible for A) letting red lyrium out, and 
not telling Cass where Hawke is, though he knows and wants to protect his friend, in case it could've helped, and C) helping start the Mage/Templar war. How much gaiety did you want from him exactly?
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.
I found a romance I could tolerate in DA2 (Anders - at least it's tragic) and one I could love in DAO (Alistair), but so far, I've found 3 I enjoyed in DAI (Cullen, Solas, Sera). Cullen so much so I'm re-doing that one now. I'm also interested in basically everything left, and I started working on an idea for TWO male Inquisitors to romance Dorian and Cassandra. I never do male characters (tried once for Morrigan, found the romance beginning terrible, and never finished the playthrough) so that's saying something.
Maybe they don't appeal as much to men, I don't know. I think all the characters are great this time and the romances are excellent. The Sera one had a few annoying parts, but it's so sweet in a way (she just wants acceptance, the loony gal), and it ends on the funniest line I've seen at the end yet ("Let's push the bed off the balcony." Oh, Sera.)
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 agree with this.
They seem happy with Inquisition though. My hope is that now they will use this format and improve on it for future games.
I love DA but every game feels so different that it gets to be a bit to much at times.
Whiel the OP makes some points that have real subjective validity, the tone is all wrong. You just can't go and make authoritative statements as "DAI is a jack of all trades, master of nothing" or that it "stumbles" is inappropriate.
A lot of people disagree on those points, and posts like these need to be couched in more subjective terms. The very notion that DAI "stumbles" is highly contentious (and, in my opinion, quite incorrect).
Everyone's a critic, naturally, but at least do it right.
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.
I'm going to disclaimer this with of course everyone has their own opinions on things like romances, companions, and stories. Duh. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion as to preference, even if I reply to you.
I deal with the combat in a moment, but I like the semi-open world A LOT personally, and I like the way I can pace the story as a player. That's a kind of freedom very few games with good stories (and I think this game has a good story) have - that's not just Skyrim level freedom, because you can actually cobble together a story that makes total sense, it's better. They wrote a beautiful story, and I can be it's conductor. I can move bits around (some), choose different options, put in the side stuff where I think it makes the most sense, etc. Great for replayability. What you find unfocused - I find to be freedom.Now let's talk combat:
I like the two combat styles too (again, freedom, choice, love that in my RGPs), but I don't generally prefer true tactical RPGs these days (I remember enjoying them in the 90s when I didn't have a lot of choice), unless we're talking about a tiny, niche turn-based game, like a Costume Quest or Child of Light; I do enjoy those from time-to-time. But I enjoy Tac Cam, despite it's flaws. And it is imperfect. They admit as much. It's still a nice addition, and the fact that everyone thought it'd never work for controllers but it works beautifully for them makes me happy.I liked DD, but I prefer this combat, personally. I found DD to have weird difficulty spikes. DAI combat reminds me of pen-and-paper mechanics where my levels and items matter enough to make or break fights, more so than my moment-to-moment skill, yes, but where my moment-to-moment skill can still overcome being slightly too underleveled, etc. To me, it's a nice balance. To you, it's unfocused. Now, granted, I don't think it's the best combat of all-time. (RPGs rarely have that.) But I find it more engaging than the first two DAs in combat, for sure, and better at combat than a lot of the games you listed (though my problem with Original Sin likely has more to do with having to use a M+KB to play than anything else - the combat is likely good for someone who doesn't find that annoying).I agree with you on enemy variety. Enemy AI and companion tactics (adding it back in) would also be improvements by far. Since they clearly had trouble with Frostbite from what they've said and the delays, I give this a reasonable pass (I didn't want to wait any longer for this - I'd rather have this game as-is and them consider adding back Companion Tactics and improving enemy AI to make it something truly interesting for DA4; more enemy types would also be good; in DA4, which will be a totally this/next-gen game, I would expect to see this; too much had to be accomodated for older PCs and old consoles in this one, I imagine; it already doesn't run well on a lot of midrange, slightly aging PCs or the old 360s and PS3).
Cole has 2 major companion missions after that. And then another pretty cool scene.
Dorian has a companion mission after that, too.
All of the companion missions are way deeper than DA2, and I don't remember doing 3 character missions for each one. Are you counting the gifts?
Most of the characters present a POV necessary for the main story, rather than being tied to it directly. This is true in all 3 games. But especially 2, where you wonder why Hawke's rivals stick around, except for his sibling, Varric, and maybe Aveline, for 10 years despite disagreeing with him on basically everything.
Neither of those characters are one-dimensional, and if you get to know them, they show other sides. Viv puts on a mask, true to her Game mastery, so she may appear a set way, but the mask falters at points. Sera is hardly one dimensional. Annoying? Yes. But she has many facets that aren't clear at the start; her clingy devoutness to the Maker, for instance. She's an interesting and realistic product of the slums of Denerim.
One-dimensional =/ not likable. I agree those 2 characters are ones you have to actually try to like (you have to try to see their perspectives, and many players cannot or will not) but they are not as one-dimensional as they seem at first. If you take someone at face value, everyone is one-dimensional. That's realistic to how you get to know people IRL too.
I said above I have no interest in bashing someone's opinion - that's unless it's something blatantly false like misunderstanding what makes a one-dimensional character (or a "flat character" as they are also called). Since all the companions evolve dynamically or show different sides as the story goes on, none of them are flat characters in a literary sense; if you don't see the other sides, you may not have enough approval or you may not have triggered it, or you may just not be paying attention.
As to Varric being more reserved, I think it'd be weird if he wasn't, and he still has moments, especially near the beginning, where he tries to diffuse with humour but finds it not working out for him and still being terrified and wearied by events. Red lyrium is spreading, there's a hole in the sky with demons spewing out, and he feels partially responsible for A) letting red lyrium out, and
I found a romance I could tolerate in DA2 (Anders - at least it's tragic) and one I could love in DAO (Alistair), but so far, I've found 3 I enjoyed in DAI (Cullen, Solas, Sera). Cullen so much so I'm re-doing that one now. I'm also interested in basically everything left, and I started working on an idea for TWO male Inquisitors to romance Dorian and Cassandra. I never do male characters (tried once for Morrigan, found the romance beginning terrible, and never finished the playthrough) so that's saying something.
Maybe they don't appeal as much to men, I don't know. I think all the characters are great this time and the romances are excellent. The Sera one had a few annoying parts, but it's so sweet in a way (she just wants acceptance, the loony gal), and it ends on the funniest line I've seen at the end yet ("Let's push the bed off the balcony." Oh, Sera.)
What is the point of having Sera in the story? What does she add to it? Almost nothing...and I romanced her.
What is the point of having Sera in the story? What does she add to it? Almost nothing...and I romanced her.
Well, most importantly.... She adds the perspective of all the common people f---d by the events surrounding the PC. I find it very interesting they selected for her to be a little kid in Denerim during the Blight, and she grew up with this Mage/Templar conflict.
She also adds some comedy. She wrestles with religious conflicts. We get a very good Bard song because of her.
If you don't like Sera, you don't need to recruit her. But I don't see how she adds any less than Oghren, Wynne, Shale, Sten, Leliana (in DAO - Leliana is way more integral to the main story in DAI, obviously). Actually, I think Leliana in DAO is a great example. You could totally miss her in Lothering, and the story was the same basically. You didn't need her for DAO. I don't see a bunch of people saying she shouldn't have been written for it. Most companions in most BioWare games are either not connected to the main story or not connected to it after a certain plot-point.
I find Sera fascinating. There's much discussion about her. People enjoy her, people hate her and want to slap her - the combination of the two and the fact that folks can argue it (see the Hate Sera thread) is proof to me that she was an interesting and well-drawn character.
What is the point of having Sera in the story? What does she add to it? Almost nothing...and I romanced her.
Hmm...I'd say she reflects a segment of the world that gets little notice in DA. The city elf origin protrayed the impoverished, ander's work in Darktown did as well, but indirectly. Sera's the most visible champion of the common in DA. Also, didn't you wonder who you gave Irving's box to in Denerim? Or who the friends were in Kirkwall?
**beaten to it by berrieh
Modifié par Norwood06, 23 décembre 2014 - 02:25 .
Yeah. It think this is something that's becoming more frequent in bioware games, now that the writers are publishing books. I had similar moments in ME 3 and 2, where clearly I'm supposed to know / care about certain characters and I didnt.
Exactly this. I buy game not book (Ok I buy books I just read 2 first, but it irrelevant) Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts was worst quest in all DA games. I just don't give a f..k for 3 vipers can't Leliana just kill all 3 and give Orlais to Alistair? I know nothing about all 3 and have no reason to care. For what I care Oghren can rule.
And agree with mostly OP points. I hate open world and filer quests, because I have to do pointless missions, already short main story felt shorter. I have 100h playtime. But actual main story game time would be about 40-50h. Why I must waste 50h when I could play other games or replay again.
Hmm...I'd say she reflects a segment of the world that gets little notice in DA. The city elf origin protrayed the impoverished, ander's work in Darktown did as well, but indirectly. Sera's the most visible champion of the common in DA. Also, didn't you wonder who you gave Irving's box to in Denerim? Or who the friends were in Kirkwall?
**beaten to it by berrieh
Exactly this. I buy game not book (Ok I buy books I just read 2 first, but it irrelevant) Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts was worst quest in all DA games. I just don't give a f..k for 3 vipers can't Leliana just kill all 3 and give Orlais to Alistair? I know nothing about all 3 and have no reason to care. For what I care Oghren can rule.
And agree with mostly OP points. I hate open world and filer quests, because I have to do pointless missions, already short main story felt shorter. I have 100h playtime. But actual main story game time would be about 40-50h. Why I must waste 50h when I could play other games or replay again.
Why would you be able to give the most powerful country in Southern Thedas (Orlais) that's all uppity about The Game and nobility to a bastard King they barely acknowledge in a country they don't particularly like without causing exactly the kind of unrest and Civil War that Corypheus benefits from? You don't even have to read the books to understand why that wouldn't work. DAO lays it out really nicely, in terms of the relations of the two countries, and their different worldviews, as does DAI itself.
Your reason to care is that stability in Orlais matters because Cory is going to try to use instability for his gain, and he is your enemy. If you read Masked Empire, the characters are more interesting (Briala especially is done a disservice in DAI if you haven't - the others are basically developed as they are, though less so) but there is a reason given, even without it. It's not about you liking the Orlesian nobility - you're free to or not to - but you needing to stabilize the region. The reason you can't just give the country to someone else is the same reason you can't just send Jon Stewart to be President of Iraq (he probably wouldn't do it, and nobody would just accept it). You're given the range of "acceptable" options that would create immediate stability, and you select from there, like normal nation-building.
But she ends up not making many players particularly sympathetic to the plight of the common people because she is so incredibly abrasive and immature. She could have offered an interesting perspective on the fraught state of Thedosian society and the effect the battles of the powerful have on the common folk, but her obnoxious disposition ends up overshadowing everything else. She succeeds as a character in getting a reaction out of people, but she ultimately doesn't add much of substance to the broader narrative.
Hey, I wanted her to be Robin Hood, so I hear ya. She wasn't precisely what I expected or wanted from the character. But I don't think that makes her a bad, useless, or flat character. It just makes her a character who's not very likable (though I have also grown to like her in some playthroughs - it really depends on how I'm RPing). She's definitely obnoxious. But I think that itself is a reason to be sympathetic to the kind of **** she went through - but I mean, I teach at-risk teens for a living IRL and see obnoxious behavior that comes from pain and youth on a pretty regular basis, so I may have a higher tolerance level. A lot of her obnoxious bluster comes from her inability to trust, due to the stuff she's seen.
Her likability, however, doesn't make her points any less valid. Though it is interesting if it causes you to discard them, because that's an interesting story flavour too. Sure, I'll help the little people......so long as I approve of them. Hm..
But she ends up not making many players particularly sympathetic to the plight of the common people because she is so incredibly abrasive and immature. She could have offered an interesting perspective on the fraught state of Thedosian society and the effect the battles of the powerful have on the common folk, but her obnoxious disposition ends up overshadowing everything else. She succeeds as a character in getting a reaction out of people, but she ultimately doesn't add much of substance to the broader narrative.
While I didn't find her obnoxious, I can't argue with you...I totally see where you're coming from, with her abrasive personality. I enjoyed her personal quest; first time someone in DA gave my character 'the count of three' treatment.
I haven't taken her with me enough to see if there's something underneath the humor. I assumed there is, something like zevran, if you can endure all the humor to get there. Maybe not.
Not sure I agree with you on state of society. Yes, there's no commentary, but at the same time she affords this image of the underclass constantly resenting the lords, and undercutting them (small acts of harmless revenge / petty theft) whenever they have the chance. Its nothing more meaningful than flavor, but I like it.
While I didn't find her obnoxious, I can't argue with you...I totally see where you're coming from, with her abrasive personality. I enjoyed her personal quest; first time someone in DA gave my character 'the count of three' treatment.
I haven't taken her with me enough to see if there's something underneath the humor. I assumed there is, something like zevran, if you can endure all the humor to get there. Maybe not.
Not sure I agree with you on state of society. Yes, there's no commentary, but at the same time she affords this image of the underclass constantly resenting the lords, and undercutting them (small acts of harmless revenge / petty theft) whenever they have the chance. Its nothing more meaningful than flavor, but I like it.
You do not need to be a mentally stunted, small minded child to be freedom fighter for he common people, yet that is what she is; she insists to the end that she is right and only her way is the best way.
This game was a letdown for me. I really wanted to love it and I did love parts of it. The companions and advisers are enjoyable, the world is stunningly beautiful and parts of the story were goose bump worthy. But, I find myself not wanting to replay the game at all. I usually enjoy completing all the extra missions and side content in BW games. I've replayed all ME and DA games multiple times. With this game, I had to push myself to finish. I was shocked to find that I was bored with the exploration. The areas were too big, never thought I'd say that, and while beautiful to look at, I just didn't find them compelling.
The combat, for me, was also boring. Really boring. I didn't like the fact that I could only play with 8 abilities at a time. The excitement of leveling up and gaining more skills was just crushed by this mechanic. Maybe the game can be fleshed out and made better with patches and DLC. I hope so as I haven't picked it up since I completed the game.
What is the point of having Sera in the story? What does she add to it? Almost nothing...and I romanced her.
You do not need to be a mentally stunted, small minded child to be freedom fighter for he common people, yet that is what she is; she insists to the end that she is right and only her way is the best way.
Well she's not a freedom fighter, she's not really out to change the balance of society, and there's no class war going on. Its just servants getting back at their bosses in petty ways, which suits her personality well. If she were more serious, I think she wouldn't be content with the limited scope of what's she's doing. And she has a point, I guess. Any 'serious' movement for change would just get a bunch of farmers / servants killed / starved.
I could say the same about Sten, Wynne, and even Leliana in DA:O. The latter didn't become relevant until her revival (if applicable).
You do not need to be a mentally stunted, small minded child to be freedom fighter for he common people, yet that is what she is; she insists to the end that she is right and only her way is the best way.
Norwood makes good points above as to the character's motivations, but even if you are absolutely correct - Why does this make her a bad character. Again, being unlikable =/ being useless in terms of a companion's purpose.
I think Sera fleshes out a part of the world we've seen precious little of - she shows us the common people. The real common people who are sometimes jerks too but who have every reason to be. Otherwise, all you see from commoners, are usually victims you maybe deign to help on your way to save the world. She shows another side.
People are so busy worrying about Mages in their gilded cages and people repressed under the Qun, they don't bother to remember that like 90% of people in all these countries are basically living hand-to-mouth and struggling to get by with little personal power. Sera is such a jerk because she has struggled so long with feelings of helplessness and not belonging.
all of this is in retrospect, without the knowledge of the next 2 games you wouldn't know that what they brought to the table mattered at all. So can we really judge her importance or impact yet?I think they all offer valuable contributions to fleshing the world out in their own way.
Sten = introduces the qunari and the Qun (you could argue that was not necessary in Origins since they have no real relevance to that game save to explain the source of Ogres)
Wynne = Pro Circle/Chantry perspective on the Mage issue, in opposition to Morrigan's anti-Chantry apostate perspective.
Leliana = Tells you about Orlais and it's convoluted politics, offers insights into the Chantry faith while simultaneously questioning much of its dogma.
Even Oghren (the weakest written of the Origins companions) serves to provide insight into dwarven culture.
I think they all offer valuable contributions to fleshing the world out in their own way.
Sten = introduces the qunari and the Qun (you could argue that was not necessary in Origins since they have no real relevance to that game save to explain the source of Ogres)
Wynne = Pro Circle/Chantry perspective on the Mage issue, in opposition to Morrigan's anti-Chantry apostate perspective.
Leliana = Tells you about Orlais and it's convoluted politics, offers insights into the Chantry faith while simultaneously questioning much of its dogma.
Even Oghren (the weakest written of the Origins companions) serves to provide insight into dwarven culture.
My first playthrough - I missed Sten and Leliana. Didn't go into the Tavern, because "Rowdy Soldiers, Bad for Business" and I didn't want any of that. And Sten was a man in a cage - I didn't have enough persuasion to get the key from the Revered Mother, so I just went on.
It's not like the Qun/Qunari are all that significant in the first game to start with - aside from all the Sten Look-a-likes that would be unexplained.
And You don't even go to or hear about Orlais outside of a few dialogues concerning Orlesian Grey Wardens. While the Chantry has more Significance, there were no direct dealings outside of the Chanter's Board, and the Lothering Chantry - well, Redcliffe's Chantry maybe, but that was like a last-resort hold-up for the villagers more at that time.
I'll give you Wynne and Oghren though, because they're more tied to exactly what the Warden was doing.
Norwood makes good points above as to the character's motivations, but even if you are absolutely correct - Why does this make her a bad character. Again, being unlikable =/ being useless in terms of a companion's purpose.
I think Sera fleshes out a part of the world we've seen precious little of - she shows us the common people. The real common people who are sometimes jerks too but who have every reason to be. Otherwise, all you see from commoners, are usually victims you maybe deign to help on your way to save the world. She shows another side.
People are so busy worrying about Mages in their gilded cages and people repressed under the Qun, they don't bother to remember that like 90% of people in all these countries are basically living hand-to-mouth and struggling to get by with little personal power. Sera is such a jerk because she has struggled so long with feelings of helplessness and not belonging.
Yes, she is a chav, a very good chav. Since we all love chavs in real life it was a good idea to put a chav in the game to reflect that love.
Retour en haut