221 réponses à ce sujet

[S Seraff]

I think DAI is at an awkward middle ground between being story-focused and open-world. I engaged with the game when a narrated animated story was happening, and endured the grind of the open world.  what I didnt like was that i KNEW i had all the time in the world to do XYZ while Corypheus would patiently wait for me. The Corypheus storyline was peripheral to the game instead of integral. 

 

Skyrim is definitionally open-world, and players know going in that they can do whatever they want in their own time. I have come to expect STORY-driven games from Bioware, where I know going in that everything I do is moving the plot along, and I have big decisions to make along the way. My disappointments came from having that expectation unmet.

 

also, i got frustrated frustrated navigating the terrain on the maps, continually being prevented from going a more direct route from a to b. Frustration is not a good emotion to elicit from players

[Vox Draco]

Cory does nothing. He trashes Haven during his introduction ,and then nothing. He sits by and lets the inquisition picks his plans apart one by one. Probably the most passive villain I have seen in an rpg. The story suffers from this, no doubt about it. And every upgrade to Skyhold ends up being a cosmetic one.

 

The open world didn't hurt the game at all. It brought back exploration in a big way.

 

Ahem ... Loghain and the Archdemon were just as passive. We only have like two cutscenes showing shortly some events in Denerim with Loghain, and then its until the final act/Landsmeet until he really has some impact on the story. We only have minor thingies like his poisoning of Arl Eamon, the envoys to Orzammar, the little battle in that Bannorn etc where we hear/see more of his betrayals. But compared to Cory? His actions are at least noticeable in practically every area.

 

Not speaking about the Archdemon, who is on, I don't know, a picnic-vacation with his fellow Darkspawn until we are ready for him...? That's all just as passive, only some examples.

 

Cory, though I still consider him not the best of villains, is at least a step in the right direction. I knew throughout DAI since Haven who we fight, the game and dialogue and sidequests all deal with it. In DAO for example you could easily forget this while doing things as in Haven/Temple of Ashes, or the Brecilian Forest.

 

But Bioware really HAS to come up with a decent villain next time. One with charisma, one that gts enough screntime. One that makes us hate him, fear him, and wants us to either BE like him because he is cool, or crush him! A villain that dominates the story from beginning to end.

 

PErsonally, someone like Grandadmiral Thrawn from "Star Wars: Heirs of the Empire" would be great. A villain that is cruel yet fair, fighting for something evil that he does not necessarily see as evil, who uses force but is also an inspiration to his followers, is full of charisma and intelligent as well... (just an example)

 

Oh, and to the OP: I saw the poster's name and all the comparisons to ME1-3 ... and had a massive deja-vu.. The Dragon Age Games, well, each game is on its own and different. Why is THAt a lack of identity? Does every game in a franchise needs to be the same? I say no. Companions in ME-series are okay, but way, way too many to make me care over the course of the series (I mean, Miranda is...so boring it hurts, I take a Sera anytime over the Ice Queen with the Butt, that's her character, isn't it?)

 

But I will agree with the lack of focus that comes with these type of game automatically, just see Baldurs Gate 1. I could come up with ideas how to reduce that feeling of lack of focus a bit, but at teh end of the day, I don't think there is a perfect way to tighten the narrative without streamlining/railroading the story too much. And when I look at the messy story of Mass Effect I prefer that of DAI by many, many miles anyway...^^

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Ahem ... Loghain and the Archdemon were just as passive. We only have like two cutscenes showing shortly some events in Denerim with Loghain, and then its until the final act/Landsmeet until he really has some impact on the story. We only have minor thingies like his poisoning of Arl Eamon, the envoys to Orzammar, the little battle in that Bannorn etc where we hear/see more of his betrayals. But compared to Cory? His actions are at least noticeable in practically every area.

 

Not speaking about the Archdemon, who is on, I don't know, a picnic-vacation with his fellow Darkspawn until we are ready for him...? That's all just as passive, only some examples.

 

Cory, though I still consider him not the best of villains, is at least a step in the right direction. I knew throughout DAI since Haven who we fight, the game and dialogue and sidequests all deal with it. In DAO for example you could easily forget this while doing things as in Haven/Temple of Ashes, or the Brecilian Forest.

 

But Bioware really HAS to come up with a decent villain next time. One with charisma, one that gts enough screntime. One that makes us hate him, fear him, and wants us to either BE like him because he is cool, or crush him! A villain that dominates the story from beginning to end.

 

PErsonally, someone like Grandadmiral Thrawn from "Star Wars: Heirs of the Empire" would be great. A villain that is cruel yet fair, fighting for something evil that he does not necessarily see as evil, who uses force but is also an inspiration to his followers, is full of charisma and intelligent as well... (just an example)

 

Oh, and to the OP: I saw the poster's name and all the comparisons to ME1-3 ... and had a massive deja-vu.. The Dragon Age Games, well, each game is on its own and different. Why is THAt a lack of identity? Does every game in a franchise needs to be the same? I say no. Companions in ME-series are okay, but way, way too many to make me care over the course of the series (I mean, Miranda is...so boring it hurts, I take a Sera anytime over the Ice Queen with the Butt, that's her character, isn't it?)

 

But I will agree with the lack of focus that comes with these type of game automatically, just see Baldurs Gate 1. I could come up with ideas how to reduce that feeling of lack of focus a bit, but at teh end of the day, I don't think there is a perfect way to tighten the narrative without streamlining/railroading the story too much. And when I look at the messy story of Mass Effect I prefer that of DAI by many, many miles anyway...^^

Sir, is there any possibility of you changing your name to Vox Draconis? You chose to use a Latin name but paid no heed to the grammar and thus your name literally means voice dragon; surely you wish it to mean voice OF the dragon no? A humble request...

[KaiserShep]

Ahem ... Loghain and the Archdemon were just as passive. We only have like two cutscenes showing shortly some events in Denerim with Loghain, and then its until the final act/Landsmeet until he really has some impact on the story. We only have minor thingies like his poisoning of Arl Eamon, the envoys to Orzammar, the little battle in that Bannorn etc where we hear/see more of his betrayals. But compared to Cory? His actions are at least noticeable in practically every area.
 
Not speaking about the Archdemon, who is on, I don't know, a picnic-vacation with his fellow Darkspawn until we are ready for him...? That's all just as passive, only some examples.
 
Cory, though I still consider him not the best of villains, is at least a step in the right direction. I knew throughout DAI since Haven who we fight, the game and dialogue and sidequests all deal with it. In DAO for example you could easily forget this while doing things as in Haven/Temple of Ashes, or the Brecilian Forest.
 
But Bioware really HAS to come up with a decent villain next time. One with charisma, one that gts enough screntime. One that makes us hate him, fear him, and wants us to either BE like him because he is cool, or crush him! A villain that dominates the story from beginning to end.
 
PErsonally, someone like Grandadmiral Thrawn from "Star Wars: Heirs of the Empire" would be great. A villain that is cruel yet fair, fighting for something evil that he does not necessarily see as evil, who uses force but is also an inspiration to his followers, is full of charisma and intelligent as well... (just an example)
 
Oh, and to the OP: I saw the poster's name and all the comparisons to ME1-3 ... and had a massive deja-vu.. The Dragon Age Games, well, each game is on its own and different. Why is THAt a lack of identity? Does every game in a franchise needs to be the same? I say no. Companions in ME-series are okay, but way, way too many to make me care over the course of the series (I mean, Miranda is...so boring it hurts, I take a Sera anytime over the Ice Queen with the Butt, that's her character, isn't it?)
 
But I will agree with the lack of focus that comes with these type of game automatically, just see Baldurs Gate 1. I could come up with ideas how to reduce that feeling of lack of focus a bit, but at teh end of the day, I don't think there is a perfect way to tighten the narrative without streamlining/railroading the story too much. And when I look at the messy story of Mass Effect I prefer that of DAI by many, many miles anyway...^^

Sense of urgency is a tough thing to maintain when the game is very flexible to your play style. I felt no urgency in DA:O at all until the last battle for Redcliffe.

[Piffle]

Sense of urgency is overrated... and DAI isn't the first game to do this.

 

I remember in Zelda games -- where Ganon had the princess and was going to devastate the kingdom -- but you still had time to perfect your slingshot mini-game so that you can get that last piece of heart...

[Morroian]

It's not just cosmetic. And why should I reaper my castle tower? Maybe because Cory have  dragon and sometime in game he will attack skyhold. Same reason why we need to upgrade Amaranthine. If you played Awakening you would know why we need upgrade our base.

 

In Awakening our base was actually attacked and the upgrades had a purpose. With Skyhold upgrading it does not matter at all within the game.

[9TailsFox]

In Awakening our base was actually attacked and the upgrades had a purpose. With Skyhold upgrading it does not matter at all within the game.

How should I know? I saw epic trailer elder one attacking skyhold. This is why I waste time and done everything before main mission, I was stupid and actuly expectaid my choices and what I do in the world affect main story, silly me I should know better by now.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

How should I know? I saw epic trailer elder one attacking skyhold. This is why I waste time and done everything before main mission, I was stupid and actuly expectaid my choices and what I do in the world affect main story, silly me I should know better by now.

I laugh. Because Skyhold wasn't attacked and no one died in the end your choices all of a sudden don't matter?

You realize that:

1- Your choices influence the Divine you have:

1.1- Your views on the circle and chantry that you pick throughout the game influences who'll be divine.

1.2- If you've shown tendencies towards freeing all mages and wanting the chantry to change, then Leliana will most probably become divine.

1.2.1- Leliana will either become a more ruthless divine, or diplomatic, depending on whether you hardened or softened her via the second dialouge you have with her, in addition to her side quest.

1.3- If you've shown a desire to return things to status quo, desiring more power for mages, supporting Vivienne in general, Vivienne will more likely become divine.

1.4- If you've shown desire that things should change, but in a more balanced fashion, then Cassandra is more likely to become divine.
1.5- Whether you choose to support Cassandra or Vivienne also has a support wartable mission which heavily affects it.

That's just one of the major endings you get. I'd expand on the rest but I really don't have the time or patience to do so now.

2- Your choices influence the fate of the grey wardens.

3- Your choice decide whether you work with templars or mages, then decide the fate of either.

4- Your choices decide the fate of Orlais, granted it is ultimately one choice, but still a pretty major one.

5- Your choices influence the kind of Inquisition you'll be. Whether you rely on military force, spying or diplomacy.

 

And these are major decisions, each being non-binary; meaning your choices can lead to one of up to 5-8 outcomes. 2 of them are fully based on choices you make throughout the game, instead of at one point. And yes, they do matter because your world state changes.

 

[AresKeith]

OP bashing DA:I and randomly praising Mass Effect again?

[TheJiveDJ]

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

Yet you neglect to elaborate, or provide any counter arguments to the TC's detailed post. Sorry, but that makes your comment totally irrelevant.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Cory does nothing. He trashes Haven during his introduction ,and then nothing. He sits by and lets the inquisition picks his plans apart one by one. Probably the most passive villain I have seen in an rpg. The story suffers from this, no doubt about it. And every upgrade to Skyhold ends up being a cosmetic one.

 

The open world didn't hurt the game at all. It brought back exploration in a big way.

 

I could make a laundry list of passive villains in RPG. Oh, know what, I've got time on my hands, let's do that.

 

Baldur's Gate: Sarevok kinda sits in the eponymous city after he kills your mentor as I remember it.

Planescape: Torment, the main villain sits in his base trying to kill an immortal being.

Fallout 1 and 2: you literally have years before the villains put their nefarious plans to fruition. FO1 avoided that at first, but the 250 day limit was a bad decision in a semi-open world.

Fallout New Vegas: Well the game doesn't have a Big Villain, but Ceasar is the closest to one and he literally never leaves his chair all game long.

Dragon Age Origins: Loghain sits in Denerim post-Ostagar and his civil war is background fluff at best. The Blight is even worse, the world-destroying invasion overruns a small village, then sits tight to make some tea while you run laps around Ferelden gathering your armies.

Witcher 2: Letho kinda vanishes from the plot between the end of Act 1 and the endgame (sounds familiar?).

Alpha Protocol: Leland is the lamest villain ever, he pretty much does nothing to oppose the protagonist.

 

I'm sure I forgot a few.

 

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree Coryfish could have been more present. But given that he goes straight for the PC early on, then actively searches for alternate methods to accomplish his goal, he's not a passive villain. All of the above were more passive than him.

[txgoldrush]

Sense of urgency is overrated... and DAI isn't the first game to do this.

 

I remember in Zelda games -- where Ganon had the princess and was going to devastate the kingdom -- but you still had time to perfect your slingshot mini-game so that you can get that last piece of heart...

Which was fixed in Majora's Mask, the best Zelda game.

[KaiserShep]

I could make a laundry list of passive villains in RPG. Oh, know what, I've got time on my hands, let's do that.

 

Baldur's Gate: Sarevok kinda sits in the eponymous city after he kills your mentor as I remember it.

Planescape: Torment, the main villain sits in his base trying to kill an immortal being.

Fallout 1 and 2: you literally have years before the villains put their nefarious plans to fruition. FO1 avoided that at first, but the 250 day limit was a bad decision in a semi-open world.

Fallout New Vegas: Well the game doesn't have a Big Villain, but Ceasar is the closest to one and he literally never leaves his chair all game long.

Dragon Age Origins: Loghain sits in Denerim post-Ostagar and his civil war is background fluff at best. The Blight is even worse, the world-destroying invasion overruns a small village, then sits tight to make some tea while you run laps around Ferelden gathering your armies.

Witcher 2: Letho kinda vanishes from the plot between the end of Act 1 and the endgame (sounds familiar?).

Alpha Protocol: Leland is the lamest villain ever, he pretty much does nothing to oppose the protagonist.

 

I'm sure I forgot a few.

 

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree Coryfish could have been more present. But given that he goes straight for the PC early on, then actively searches for alternate methods to accomplish his goal, he's not a passive villain. All of the above were more passive than him.

 

Don't forget our good friends the Reapers. They basically ransack the living crap out of the galaxy, except for one place.

[txgoldrush]

OP bashing DA:I and randomly praising Mass Effect again?

Its not random, both are made by the same company.

 

One is a focused franchise with far better direction than the other franchise. Its not random.

[txgoldrush]

Don't forget our good friends the Reapers. They basically ransack the living crap out of the galaxy, except for one place.

They aren't passive villians and neither are some that were listed.\

 

And ME3 actually was focused enough to have the main antagonists be part of all its side content and stories as well.

[wolfhowwl]

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree Coryfish could have been more present. But given that he goes straight for the PC early on, then actively searches for alternate methods to accomplish his goal, he's not a passive villain. All of the above were more passive than him.

While Cory is active he is also a failure with each of his schemes being thwarted handily. The guy needed some victories. After his defeat at the Elven ruins it felt like they didn't know where to go and just jumped to a boss battle. Maybe it would have been better if he had succeeded (somewhat like Saren with the Conduit) as a lead-in to the final confrontation.

[NugHugs]

Maybe it's the master of being the jack of all trades. Mind blown?

[KaiserShep]

Its not random, both are made by the same company.

 

One is a focused franchise with far better direction than the other franchise. Its not random.

 

Whether or not the direction is better is debatable, but as for focus, I must call shenanigans on this comparison. The big problem I have with it is that we're basically comparing a series comprised of multiple stories and a series that is simply one story about a single protagonist. Even then, this single story's focus does blur a bit in that its middle chapter is mainly recruitment and loyalty quests, with a brief and ultimately pointless Collector plot.

 

They aren't passive villians and niether are some that were listed.

 

The problem with the reapers is that despite eons of going straight for the Citadel, they keep skirting around it until the last minute. I guess one could just say hubris drove them to act this way, but there was literally nothing to stop them from making a bee-line to the station and trying to reclaim their trap in far greater numbers than Sovereign and the geth.

[Giantdeathrobot]

They aren't passive villians and neither are some that were listed.\

 

And ME3 actually was focused enough to have the main antagonists be part of all its side content and stories as well.

 

By all means enlighten me on how some of those aren't passive, don't just say it.

 

Thing is, the Reapers are invading the known galaxy- except the one place they need to invade in order to win. Friggin Cerberus is almost capable of taking out the Citadel in one attack, but the Reapers are content flying about waiting for Shepard to use his radar? The entire point of ME1 was to stop Sovereign from taking over the Citadel, thereby shutting down galactic government as well as the Relay network and making everyone in the galaxy sitting ducks ripe for the picking. Which is completely forgotten in ME3 because we have no way to actually stop the Reapers from doing that, and it would mean instant game over.

 

Inquisition's plot is flawed, but it doesn't contain half of the plot holes and inconsistencies of ME3's.

[AresKeith]

Its not random, both are made by the same company.

One is a focused franchise with far better direction than the other franchise. Its not random.

Except one is a trilogy focused on one story and the other is about events that happen in the setting

You can't make comparisons to two completely different things

[KaiserShep]

 Except one is a trilogy focused on one story and the other is about events that happen in the setting

You can't make comparisons to two completely different things

 

Heck, one of the games spans over more time than the entirety of Mass Effect.

[txgoldrush]

By all means enlighten me on how some of those aren't passive, don't just say it.

 

Thing is, the Reapers are invading the known galaxy- except the one place they need to invade in order to win. Friggin Cerberus is almost capable of taking out the Citadel in one attack, but the Reapers are content flying about waiting for Shepard to use his radar? The entire point of ME1 was to stop Sovereign from taking over the Citadel, thereby shutting down galactic government as well as the Relay network and making everyone in the galaxy sitting ducks ripe for the picking. Which is completely forgotten in ME3 because we have no way to actually stop the Reapers from doing that, and it would mean instant game over.

 

Inquisition's plot is flawed, but it doesn't contain half of the plot holes and inconsistencies of ME3's.

Because simply put, the Citadel isn't important. Its not really the main head of government unlike the capital planets. Lost in your criticism is the fact that the Reapers were winning much quicker in the current cycle than the last and what it took centuries is taking months, they do not need the Citadel. the matriarchs, the primarch, and the alliance parliament were all better targets than the Citadel and its council. Nevermind losing in ME1 means they change their strategy.

 

Look at the map right before the earth mission and notice all race captial planets have either fallen or are being attacked, except for Rannoch. They do not need the Citadel to cut the gates.

 

Also lost in your criticism is that the Reapers are NOT infallible and can make mistakes. The Starchild actually says that "organics are more resourceful than we realized". This means that ME3 was plausable, that the Reapers did underestimate the galaxy. There is no plot hole here.

 

Whether or not the direction is better is debatable, but as for focus, I must call shenanigans on this comparison. The big problem I have with it is that we're basically comparing a series comprised of multiple stories and a series that is simply one story about a single protagonist. Even then, this single story's focus does blur a bit in that its middle chapter is mainly recruitment and loyalty quests, with a brief and ultimately pointless Collector plot.

 

 

The problem with the reapers is that despite eons of going straight for the Citadel, they keep skirting around it until the last minute. I guess one could just say hubris drove them to act this way, but there was literally nothing to stop them from making a bee-line to the station and trying to reclaim their trap in far greater numbers than Sovereign and the geth.

However, in ME2, the side stories are more thematically linked to the main plot and are better linked as well than DAI, nevermind, it also continued the series from ME1. Notice how ME1 and ME2 designates main quests as missions and side quests as assignments, well loyalty quests are marked as missions, so they are part of the main narrative. Also ME2 knows its the middle chapter and the plotlines do converge and wrap up in ME3

[txgoldrush]

Except one is a trilogy focused on one story and the other is about events that happen in the setting

You can't make comparisons to two completely different things

But I can make comparisions on game design style, its simply not just story, which is the topic here.

 

One franchise finds its gameplay focus and the other is lost in the wind when it comes to gameplay.

[AresKeith]

But I can make comparisions on game design style, its simply not just story, which is the topic here.

One franchise finds its gameplay focus and the other is lost in the wind when it comes to gameplay.

Because how dare they try to change things after the complaints about gameplay in the past two games

[KaiserShep]

Don't want this thread to derail too much farther, but I figure why the frak not I'll just address this right quick:

 

Because simply put, the Citadel isn't important. Its not really the main head of government unlike the capital planets. Lost in your criticism is the fact that the Reapers were winning much quicker in the current cycle than the last and what it took centuries is taking months, they do not need the Citadel. the matriarchs, the primarch, and the alliance parliament were all better targets than the Citadel and its council. Nevermind losing in ME1 means they change their strategy.

 

Look at the map right before the earth mission and notice all race captial planets have either fallen or are being attacked, except for Rannoch. They do not need the Citadel to cut the gates.

 

But the Citadel is important. It's the key to essentially everything as far as their long-term harvesting plans are concerned. At some point, they're going to have to reacquire it if they intend to go forward. They're not about to just abandon the giant relay that links directly into dark space that they've been using for thousands upon thousands of years forever. And a more immediate concern, the Citadel's continued function as a hub allows their targets to mobilize and slow them down, costing them some of their own ships in the process. If the Reapers bumrushed the Citadel, they could have finished what Sovereign started and held the line long enough to shut down the entire mass relay network and cripple the entire galaxy at once. Wherever the Crucible was being built, that's exactly where it would have stayed. The reapers were clearly not looking to be efficient.

 

 

Also lost in your criticism is that the Reapers are NOT infallible and can make mistakes. The Starchild actually says that "organics are more resourceful than we realized". This means that ME3 was plausable, that the Reapers did underestimate the galaxy. There is no plot hole here.

 

That quote's a bit out of context. The Catalyst is speaking strictly of its inability to totally wipe out the Crucible plans over the millennia, because organics found numerous ways to keep beacons or other storage devices hidden as they were passed down to subsequent cycles. It has nothing to do with why the reapers simply avoided the Citadel until the last minute.

 

 

However, in ME2, the side stories are more thematically linked to the main plot and are better linked as well than DAI, nevermind, it also continued the series from ME1. Notice how ME1 and ME2 designates main quests as missions and side quests as assignments, well loyalty quests are marked as missions, so they are part of the main narrative. Also ME2 knows its the middle chapter and the plotlines do converge and wrap up in ME3

 

The only side stories in ME2 that really tie into the greater narrative are Mordin's, Tali's and Legion's. Outside of that, a lot of ME2 was comprised of killing mercenaries.

 

I guess there's that husk-filled mine, but I was too annoyed at crowd controlling those damn things to care.