530 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

This is a flawed statement, optional could be described as DLC, because besides any content that gets you from the opening title to the end credits, all content is optional. 
 
Whatever content that $60+ gets you on release is the content you have available, and all of it should be held up to some type of standard. To dismiss that "Oh, sure collecting bear asses is tedious, but it's optional." is disingenuous at best. You can forgive a smaller company with less of a budget, less resources, less experience than Bioware, but this is a multi-million dollar company with years of experience. You in effect, should expect and ask for higher quality, anything lower and you're essentially asking to be given a lowest-common denominator's worth of experience....

Not really; one may take Quests, Codex bonuses, Kill bonuses, explore, etc; one does not have to perform any side-quests if they do not suit that Inquisitor. That is factual.

The standard used is entertaining for me; a subjective one. May not be the same as it is for others for whatever reason, but it is as valid. I enjoyed playing a MMO solo; enjoy it more here without the crowds.

[Reymoose]

Not really; one may take Quests, Codex bonuses, Kill bonuses, explore, etc; one does not have to perform any side-quests if they do not suit that Inquisitor. That is factual.

The standard used is entertaining for me; a subjective one. May not be the same as it is for others for whatever reason, but it is as valid. I enjoyed playing a MMO solo; enjoy it more here without the crowds.

 

Exactly what determines ingame what your Inquisitor can or can not take? If that is the case, then depending on your choices you should be locked out of certain paths, or a blatant tell what activity you're going to be performing. Otherwise all the things you've listed are giant exclamation points with no context whether you should engage in that activity or not past trial and error. 

 

So no, that is not factual, because there is nothing in game that contextualizes that as fact. *In fact* it is the reverse, where all of the points you've given are accepted without question and more times often than not, without context.

 

Also, by that second statement, like I said, you open yourself up to the lowest common denominator of design. I suggest you look at this from a design perspective rather than a player because by standards like yours, what tends to happen is further excision of thought from gameplay and quantity over quality design. Not to offend you, but publishers would swoon if all customers were like you, because they can milk you for all your worth as long as you're ready to accept what their offering if only for the brand.

 

Even though you may be averse to it, I suggest opening yourself up to more varied gameplay types. Criticism and holding developers (and publishers) to a higher standard is a good thing, by the way, you've made your point clear, so if you have anything further to add to this discussions as to why or why not this is one of Bioware's worst games, please, add to it.

[Elhanan]

I would say that my first Inq did not take any conversation XP boosts; used side-quests and some other options. Used some Shards, but not all. Picked up Mosaics found, but did not complete any. Completed MQ without any High Dragon kills; slew eight thus far in post-game.

Current Inquisitor is utilizing conversational bonuses, is choosing different side-quests, is choosing to romance Cassandra and avoids flirtation with Scout Harding, etc. Options are plentiful, and I shall not fault this game for including too much content.

What some consider a higher standard is also subjective, and like any opinion, is as worthy as my own. But not more so, no matter how much some may wish it so....

[Sartoz]

I bought the game based on my experience with the two previous DA games, PLUS, all that PR hype, wich turned out to be mostly crapola.

 

I've played three chars from 30 -150hrs and Wicked-Eyes is my current War Table quest with my 150hr character.

 

What's to like?

1. The scenery, obviously. No question

2. I'm thinking.. gimme a minute..... or two....

3. .............

 

150hrs in the game and what is memorable?

1. Prologue is good until the combat UI hits you in the face.

2. Saving the mages in RedCliff quest

3. The Dorian character stands out at first, then I leave him in the library in Skyhold

4. Cassandra's quest to get those Red Templars. Got three and the other two I gave up.

5. The Storm Coast caves where my companions stayed behind as I battled the spiders alone.

6. The loneliness in the desert campaigns.

7. Bears spawning in the middle of my group while battling enemy rogues.

8. Map exploration through maze like paths, got tired and went home.

9. Couldn't quite grasp my Inquisition's Influence, Military or Economic Power vs the rest of Thedas.

10. Dropped the tactics mode. Using action mode only.

11. Haven't finished the game... I'm at Wicked Eyes..

 

The rest is just too negative and has been said many a times.

 

It's a playable game, if you let go of your initial expectations and was able to adapt to its "style"

 

[Rawgrim]

I bought the game based on my experience with the two previous DA games, PLUS, all that PR hype, wich turned out to be mostly crapola.

 

I've played three chars from 30 -150hrs and Wicked-Eyes is my current War Table quest with my 150hr character.

 

What's to like?

1. The scenery, obviously. No question

2. I'm thinking.. gimme a minute..... or two....

3. .............

 

150hrs in the game and what is memorable?

1. Prologue is good until the combat UI hits you in the face.

2. Saving the mages in RedCliff quest

3. The Dorian character stands out at first, then I leave him in the library in Skyhold

4. Cassandra's quest to get those Red Templars. Got three and the other two I gave up.

5. The Storm Coast caves where my companions stayed behind as I battled the spiders alone.

6. The loneliness in the desert campaigns.

7. Bears spawning in the middle of my group while battling enemy rogues.

8. Map exploration through maze like paths, got tired and went home.

9. Couldn't quite grasp my Inquisition's Influence, Military or Economic Power vs the rest of Thedas.

10. Dropped the tactics mode. Using action mode only.

11. Haven't finished the game... I'm at Wicked Eyes..

 

The rest is just too negative and has been said many a times.

 

It's a playable game, if you let go of your initial expectations and was able to adapt to its "style"

 

I am at Wicked Eyes too. Can't progress due to a bug.

[DAO MAdhatter]

Op is an idiot! Who goes around comparing RPGs in 2014/2015 to ones released over a decade ago? op reminds me of the tevinter Imperium. He spends all day dreaming about what RPGs used to be like instead of appreciating what they are now.

Hey OP. GET A LIFE! Stop comparing old relics to a technical marvel like Dragon Age Inquisition. You are doing it a disservice & making your self look like a jaded nostalgic Hipster.

[Razir-Samus]

Op is an idiot! Who goes around comparing RPGs in 2014/2015 to ones released over a decade ago? op reminds me of the tevinter Imperium. He spends all day dreaming about what RPGs used to be like instead of appreciating what they are now.

Hey OP. GET A LIFE! Stop comparing old relics to a technical marvel like Dragon Age Inquisition. You are doing it a disservice & making your self look like a jaded nostalgic Hipster.

that's your response? no wonder we're getting milked

[Sarielle]

I don't remember threads like this in Dragon's Age Origins.

 

Because nobody had a previous Dragon Age game to view through rose-tinted glasses.

 

 

I look at a lot of the negatives being listed and go ... "You really miss that?" (Not to say they're not valid opinions -- lots of opinions getting thrown around as self-evident truths -- they're just not negatives for me personally.)

 

Things I DON'T MISS:

 

1. "Tactical combat." Turn-based bores me to tears. I prefer to play on a difficulty where companions can be pretty much left to do their own thing and thus feel like separate entities (with some micromanaging for special fights). As long as what I'm doing looks engaging, that's all I want from an RPG with this heavy an emphasis on story. I'm just so, so glad the awkward shuffle + females-using-male-skeletons is gone.
2. Stat allocation. I don't actually care how gameplay is customized; skills, attributes, whatever, it all works for me (as long as it's less tedious and arcane than the DnD system). Can I play several characters of the same class and have it feel different? Yes? Mission accomplished. Same for companions. I appreciate that we can choose companions' skills and thus make it more practical to include any combo of them, but I can do that without stats. I get the part of stat allocation I cared about with Inquisition Perks that add new dialogue options.
3. Directly importing characters. Seeing how Bioware has translated its own characters, I feel much better about MY ability to use the CC and get a reasonable facsimile than Bioware's, lol.
4. Fewer "filler" quests. I don't mind the "filler" quests that are drawing complaints as I can easily ignore the ones I don't feel like doing/don't feel a certain character would do, and have more replay value. I actually enjoy that not every quest and area is heavily, directly tied to the main story, and I enjoy actually building the reputation I get beyond just through "epic" feats.
5. Chaotic stupi -- sorry, evil options. Let's face it, most "evil" options are actually just stupid options imo, and playing a dumb sociopath is no more entertaining than a Mary Sue/Stu. I don't mind a less extreme morality range available if it's more sensible. (I would like to see the ability to kill neutral NPCs, but oh well.)
6. Something something better story. While this is very subjective, I'm really enjoying exploring the religious themes in this one. With a Dalish playthrough (the one I never did in Origins) it's fun having a character held up as an icon for a religion she doesn't subscribe to, and navigating all that. I can see it continuing to be engaging with other characters.

While I realize this is a flame-bait thread I'm replying to, just offering my 2 coppers as someone who thinks it's a step up from both DA:O and DA:2.

[robertthebard]

Exactly what determines ingame what your Inquisitor can or can not take? If that is the case, then depending on your choices you should be locked out of certain paths, or a blatant tell what activity you're going to be performing. Otherwise all the things you've listed are giant exclamation points with no context whether you should engage in that activity or not past trial and error.

Personal tastes/choice? The way I'm reading you, everything put into any game should be required, or left out. As much as I realize this may sting a bit, but if we took this design "idea" into every game, Origins would have been about 30 hours, with most of that spent in the Deep Roads and in the Fade sequence of Broken Circle. By your definition, there should be no side content at all, but only main quest material. That would make for some pretty boring games. 
 

So no, that is not factual, because there is nothing in game that contextualizes that as fact. *In fact* it is the reverse, where all of the points you've given are accepted without question and more times often than not, without context.

Precisely, because there's no such thing as a side quest, right? They are accepted, and they are accepted contextually because they are side quests. Side quests have existed in every game I have ever played that wasn't Pong, or Space Invaders. Hell, there were side quests in the original Mario Brothers games, it's just that, back then, they were referred to as bonus levels. The same holds true for games like Diablo. So I don't know what you're speaking about here, but it's certainly not been anything in the CRPG genre since it was invented.
 

Also, by that second statement, like I said, you open yourself up to the lowest common denominator of design. I suggest you look at this from a design perspective rather than a player because by standards like yours, what tends to happen is further excision of thought from gameplay and quantity over quality design. Not to offend you, but publishers would swoon if all customers were like you, because they can milk you for all your worth as long as you're ready to accept what their offering if only for the brand.

I am a consumer, not a designer. What I have to look at when decided to buy or play a game is entertainment value. I don't have to look at "OMG, they didn't spend an extra 5 thousand dollars doing mocap for all the cutscenes", I have to look at whether or not the game is entertaining. This is why I don't rely on the BSN for my buy/don't buy decisions. The people that feel like they didn't get what they wanted, for what ever reason, are going to be all over the place complaining. I bought into this with DA 2, never again.
 

Even though you may be averse to it, I suggest opening yourself up to more varied gameplay types. Criticism and holding developers (and publishers) to a higher standard is a good thing, by the way, you've made your point clear, so if you have anything further to add to this discussions as to why or why not this is one of Bioware's worst games, please, add to it.

For myself, I play plenty of games, from SP games to MMOs. I have 7 or 8 different MMOs loaded on this rig, from SWTOR to Rappelz. That's a pretty big skip in genres, from science fantasy to almost anime Korean Grinder games. Guess what, the only requirement for those games is that I find them entertaining. Criticizing is one thing, expecting all developers to do the same thing comes back to your spaghetti sauce video doesn't it? You're now expecting all game developers to release the exact same game, instead of aiming at their strengths. Didn't you use that video to demonstrate a failing in game development? That is, until you think that going contrary to that will somehow "score points" in an internet discussion?

You see, we're here as fans of the game, or not, depending on the PoV. I'm not here as an employee of Blizzard, trying to make them make the next WoW, or CD Projekt Red, to make another Witcher game. I'm here as a fan of the DA series, and BioWare in particular. I've been a fan of BioWare since Baldur's Gate was The Next Big Thing^TM. I've been playing games, either on the original Atari system that hooked to one's TV, or in video arcades, since the late 70s, or early 80s, I don't really remember. The last thing I need is someone else trying to tell me what kind of games I should or should not enjoy.

[katokires]

Op is an idiot! Who goes around comparing RPGs in 2014/2015 to ones released over a decade ago? op reminds me of the tevinter Imperium. He spends all day dreaming about what RPGs used to be like instead of appreciating what they are now.

Hey OP. GET A LIFE! Stop comparing old relics to a technical marvel like Dragon Age Inquisition. You are doing it a disservice & making your self look like a jaded nostalgic Hipster.

Exccept that 2014 had Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin that proves that it is possible to be new and be good instead of becoming **** like DAI.

Divinity is amazing! Divinity went from Divine Divinity (and Beyond Divinity) to Divinity 2, a COMPLETELY different game but then went back to wha it was but WAAAAAAY better. Technically and conceptually.

There is nothing like being impossible to make a complex game with deep mechanics and beautiful graphics. [...]

Modifié par BioWareMod02, 05 janvier 2015 - 02:50 .
inappropriate comment

[Rawgrim]

Op is an idiot! Who goes around comparing RPGs in 2014/2015 to ones released over a decade ago? op reminds me of the tevinter Imperium. He spends all day dreaming about what RPGs used to be like instead of appreciating what they are now.

Hey OP. GET A LIFE! Stop comparing old relics to a technical marvel like Dragon Age Inquisition. You are doing it a disservice & making your self look like a jaded nostalgic Hipster.

 

And what are they now? Shallow and with no thinking required. Just mash buttons and watch the over the top animations.

[robertthebard]

And what are they now? Shallow and with no thinking required. Just mash buttons and watch the over the top animations.

While I did find the combat shallow, actually, I found it shallow in all three games in the series, I didn't find the entire game shallow.

[katokires]

Because nobody had a previous Dragon Age game to view through rose-tinted glasses.

 

 

I look at a lot of the negatives being listed and go ... "You really miss that?" (Not to say they're not valid opinions -- lots of opinions getting thrown around as self-evident truths -- they're just not negatives for me personally.)

 

Things I DON'T MISS:

 

1. "Tactical combat." Turn-based bores me to tears. I prefer to play on a difficulty where companions can be pretty much left to do their own thing and thus feel like separate entities (with some micromanaging for special fights). As long as what I'm doing looks engaging, that's all I want from an RPG with this heavy an emphasis on story. I'm just so, so glad the awkward shuffle + females-using-male-skeletons is gone.
2. Stat allocation. I don't actually care how gameplay is customized; skills, attributes, whatever, it all works for me (as long as it's less tedious and arcane than the DnD system). Can I play several characters of the same class and have it feel different? Yes? Mission accomplished. Same for companions. I appreciate that we can choose companions' skills and thus make it more practical to include any combo of them, but I can do that without stats. I get the part of stat allocation I cared about with Inquisition Perks that add new dialogue options.
3. Directly importing characters. Seeing how Bioware has translated its own characters, I feel much better about MY ability to use the CC and get a reasonable facsimile than Bioware's, lol.
4. Fewer "filler" quests. I don't mind the "filler" quests that are drawing complaints as I can easily ignore the ones I don't feel like doing/don't feel a certain character would do, and have more replay value. I actually enjoy that not every quest and area is heavily, directly tied to the main story, and I enjoy actually building the reputation I get beyond just through "epic" feats.
5. Chaotic stupi -- sorry, evil options. Let's face it, most "evil" options are actually just stupid options imo, and playing a dumb sociopath is no more entertaining than a Mary Sue/Stu. I don't mind a less extreme morality range available if it's more sensible. (I would like to see the ability to kill neutral NPCs, but oh well.)
6. Something something better story. While this is very subjective, I'm really enjoying exploring the religious themes in this one. With a Dalish playthrough (the one I never did in Origins) it's fun having a character held up as an icon for a religion she doesn't subscribe to, and navigating all that. I can see it continuing to be engaging with other characters.

While I realize this is a flame-bait thread I'm replying to, just offering my 2 coppers as someone who thinks it's a step up from both DA:O and DA:2.

And here is my answer to the obvious problem of your answer: Your answer is just a show of how you don't like Bioware and it's history, so, no wonder you like Inquisition =)
That's exactly the kind of people Bioware made the game for. Go enjoy it, it is simples and stupid

 

1. Yeah, right, of course you don't miss a combat like all of Bioware previous titles. Also RPG. You're an action lover, the exact kind of people Bioware made Inquisition for. RPG is all about boring combat that cannot even dream of making the player enjoy it except for the mentalgasm of watching his character build in "action" and by action I mean boring movement. And no I'm noot being sarcasting, this is what I call perfection. Boring = Perfection. Action = Go play DMC or GoW.

2. The joy of a RPG lies NOTHING in story, or character development or even interction but solely on developing a character build totally oriented by stat distribution and feats (skills, talents, whatever). If you like different feeling while playing characters, again, action person.

3. I don't even think this is an isue for most people

4. Of course an action player that hates RPG would never understand what it means to complete quests lol

5. Again action dumb person who can't even begin to understand the joys of RPG

6. As you said subjective I don't even think Origins story was better but both Origins and 2 were more personal which FOR ME is better

 

Then it all summarizes in you being the perfect avatar of the people Bioware tried to please. People who do not take joy in creating character builds but in actually playing the game. In the specific case of Bioware RPG it is absurd. Or in other words a RPG should make the act of developing the character build be the center and all the rest circle around it. What you want is an action game with character creation. Story is not even a factor, every genre have great stories nowadays. NCSoft is your heaven, go there, be happy.

[Zobert]

There is a lot to like about this game.  I compare this to the first 3 Indiana Jones.  The first one was awesome, the second one was good, the third one was great, but you still wish there was Marion in it.

[robertthebard]

And here is my answer to the obvious problem of your answer: Your answer is just a show of how you don't like Bioware and it's history, so, no wonder you like Inquisition =)
That's exactly the kind of people Bioware made the game for. Go enjoy it, it is simples and stupid
 
1. Yeah, right, of course you don't miss a combat like all of Bioware previous titles. Also RPG. You're an action lover, the exact kind of people Bioware made Inquisition for. RPG is all about boring combat that cannot even dream of making the player enjoy it except for the mentalgasm of watching his character build in "action" and by action I mean boring movement. And no I'm noot being sarcasting, this is what I call perfection. Boring = Perfection. Action = Go play DMC or GoW.
2. The joy of a RPG lies NOTHING in story, or character development or even interction but solely on developing a character build totally oriented by stat distribution and feats (skills, talents, whatever). If you like different feeling while playing characters, again, action person.
3. I don't even think this is an isue for most people
4. Of course an action player that hates RPG would never understand what it means to complete quests lol
5. Again action dumb person who can't even begin to understand the joys of RPG
6. As you said subjective I don't even think Origins story was better but both Origins and 2 were more personal which FOR ME is better
 
Then it all summarizes in you being the perfect avatar of the people Bioware tried to please. People who do not take joy in creating character builds but in actually playing the game. In the specific case of Bioware RPG it is absurd. Or in other words a RPG should make the act of developing the character build be the center and all the rest circle around it. What you want is an action game with character creation. Story is not even a factor, every genre have great stories nowadays. NCSoft is your heaven, go there, be happy.

Wow dude, you don't know anything about RPGs, and you're telling someone else what they are? So, according to you, the only thing that made Baldur's Gate great was building a character? I've been misled by myself for the entirety of that games release, because I really thought I loved the story to that CRPG. I'd swear I've seen people raving about how great the story was in Planescape: Torment too. I know I loved the stories in BG 2 and IWD as well. All CRPGs, maybe they're before your time, or you're just new to the genre? Was DA O your first CRPG or something?

[Sarielle]

I snipped out some of your ad hominems for brevity.

 

And here is my answer to the obvious problem of your answer: Your answer is just a show of how you don't like Bioware and it's history, so, no wonder you like Inquisition =)
That's exactly the kind of people Bioware made the game for. Go enjoy it, it is simples and stupid

Assumption after assumption. I began playing Bioware games with NWN, but later went back to other titles because I enjoyed it so much (well ... HoTU mostly, but still).

 

1. You're an action lover. Action = Go play DMC or GoW.

Why should I go play another game when I enjoy THIS one? lol

 

2. The joy of a RPG lies NOTHING in story, or character development ...

Thank you for speaking for all RPG players everywhere?

 

3. I don't even think this is an isue for most people

Was mentioned specifically in this thread, but possibly not a common complaint.

 

4. Of course an action player that hates RPG would never understand what it means to complete quests lol

... Wat

 

5. Again action dumb person who can't even begin to understand the joys of RPG

Wat x 2

 

6. As you said subjective I don't even think Origins story was better but both Origins and 2 were more personal which FOR ME is better

Totally fair

 

 

Then it all summarizes in you being the perfect avatar of the people Bioware tried to please. People who do not take joy in creating character builds but in actually playing the game.

Uh ... guilty as charged? How dare I enjoy the game more than a spreadsheet, lol.

 

EDIT: In retrospect, this post has to be sarcasm, right? I'm kinda sick and not thinking on my feet, lol.

[Rawgrim]

While I did find the combat shallow, actually, I found it shallow in all three games in the series, I didn't find the entire game shallow.

 

The side quests are shallow. and that is 90 percent of the quests in the game. Upgrading your castle does nothing either, so all that is shallow as well.

 

Exploration is brilliant though. Bioware nailed that bit.

[robertthebard]

The side quests are shallow. and that is 90 percent of the quests in the game. Upgrading your castle does nothing either, so all that is shallow as well.
 
Exploration is brilliant though. Bioware nailed that bit.

Yeah, I enjoyed the hell out of it. It brought me back to NWN module exploring days: "Know your world". I literally spent hours upon hours in other people's modules exploring what they'd done with the toolset. However, since a lot of the side quests were tied directly to that exploration, and I had such fun with it, I have a hard time wrapping my head around shallow.

[dreamgazer]

There is a lot to like about this game.  I compare this to the first 3 Indiana Jones.  The first one was awesome, the second one was good, the third one was great, but you still wish there was Marion in it.

The Last Crusade had that hot, badass Nazzi woman, though.



... and bringing Marion back didn't exactly help Crystal Skull.

New can be good. Old can be not-so-good. Or something, I dunno.

[Rawgrim]

The Last Crusade had that hot, badass Nazzi woman, though.



... and bringing Marion back didn't exactly help Crystal Skull.

New can be good. Old can be not-so-good. Or something, I dunno.

 

A new script is the only thing that would have helped The Crystal Skull.

[AlanC9]

The side quests are shallow. and that is 90 percent of the quests in the game.

What percentage of the playing time do you figure that is? Just for yourself, since this will be fairly variable from player to player.

Counting up the number of quests always struck me as a fairly silly procedure; ME3 board veterans will probably remember that asinine chart that people kept reposting last year.

[Rawgrim]

What percentage of the playing time do you figure that is? Just for yourself, since this will be fairly variable from player to player.

Counting up the number of quests always struck me as a fairly silly procedure; ME3 board veterans will probably remember that asinine chart that people kept reposting last year.

 

Around 90 percent of the quests found in the game are shallow fetch quests. Nothing more. Not sure if its even quests. I'd call it content, instead. If you do absolutely everything in the game, I am sure only 10 percent of it will be directly related to the story, or have a story of its own.

[Akka le Vil]

The Gunner mechanics are what caused me to forgo any replays. But also the air-bikes, as I had to fly them at min speed removing any immersive quality about my superior abilities as a Jedi; hilarious!

As said, the gunner sequences and the only required airbike one are EXTREMELY easy (you can literally tear through them with one hand), so I don't really see how they could be an entry barrier.

 

 

Op is an idiot! Who goes around comparing RPGs in 2014/2015 to ones released over a decade ago? op reminds me of the tevinter Imperium. He spends all day dreaming about what RPGs used to be like instead of appreciating what they are now.

Hey OP. GET A LIFE! Stop comparing old relics to a technical marvel like Dragon Age Inquisition. You are doing it a disservice & making your self look like a jaded nostalgic Hipster.

 

You're far more of an idiot than the OP.

[Razir-Samus]

I snipped out some of your ad hominems for brevity.

 

 

EDIT: In retrospect, this post has to be sarcasm, right? I'm kinda sick and not thinking on my feet, lol.

you've got attitude... and it stinks

[JCFR]

Because nobody had a previous Dragon Age game to view through rose-tinted glasses.

I wasn't completly satisfied with Origins but - as a already mentioned in a few posts - it was the first game in a new franchise. Such always show some flaws and in it's whole it was quite promising so i expected the sequels to improve - which sadly did not happen.
Also: You might or might not remember but DAO was announced to be the heir to BG.

And claiming, others "view through rose-tinted glasses" while you alone see reality ain't much more objective. Honeslty, this way you appear more like someone throwing bricks when living in a glass house.
 

I look at a lot of the negatives being listed and go ... "You really miss that?" (Not to say they're not valid opinions -- lots of opinions getting thrown around as self-evident truths -- they're just not negatives for me personally.)

That's something absolutly subjective. If you don`t miss that, fine... but in that case you somehow don't seem to be someone who really understands what gave Bioware it's reputation back then in those days of BG2 or KotoR... at least not to me.  
 

"Tactical combat."[/b] Turn-based bores me to tears. I prefer to play on a difficulty where companions can be pretty much left to do their own thing and thus feel like separate entities (with some micromanaging for special fights). As long as what I'm doing looks engaging, that's all I want from an RPG with this heavy an emphasis on story. I'm just so, so glad the awkward shuffle + females-using-male-skeletons is gone.

The combat you describe has ABSOLUTE NO NEED FOR COMPANIONS. It's the way Action-Rpgs work... titles like the Witcher 2 or Skyrim.
Games where you only control one guy all the time. But when i have a group of different characters with different classes and different skills, they should have some meaning... and not just be there to do their thing while you do your own.
It was this deep tactic-system which made BG and BG2 great. Everything influenced the outcome of the battle... every mage-spell, every potion used, even the position of your party-members. If you lost with one strategy, there were still tons of other to try and even alternative solutions.
Yeah, as i wrote, Origins wasn't that deep, but it was the first in the DA-Series, so room for improvement was given... and please, what's got the story or the animations to do with combat-mechanics? Nothing. It's like comparing apples with pears.

And the story can't be an excuse for everything... especially not within a party-based-Rpg made by the same company, which gave us legendary classics like BG, KotoR and yes even NWN.
 

Stat allocation.[/b] I don't actually care how gameplay is customized; skills, attributes, whatever, it all works for me (as long as it's less tedious and arcane than the DnD system). Can I play several characters of the same class and have it feel different? Yes? Mission accomplished. Same for companions. I appreciate that we can choose companions' skills and thus make it more practical to include any combo of them, but I can do that without stats. I get the part of stat allocation I cared about with Inquisition Perks that add new dialogue options.

Oh geez... how do i explain someone who's satisfied with the most simplistic gameplay the greatness of aD&D? I'm so astonished seeing someone calling her/himself a fan of RPGs, eventhough he/she doesn't get which core-features define a RPG.
It's not just to decide the way your character looks... it's the way he's build up by attributes, skills and equipment. This was part, what made older Rpgs great - you had to put a little bit of thought in what you did and sometimes plan ahead.
All those who say "don't need it" to this translate themself to me like: "i don't wanna use my brain, just give me explosions".
I'm sorry if i sound offensive but this is really the way i feel and i can't describe it any other way without missing the point.

I can't understand: are you really fine with just being allowed to pick your skills from a bunch of trees, while some are even mandatory like Barrier?
Are you relly fine with having no influence on your warrior except from his/her looks and wether if he/she wields sword and shield or 2-handed-weapons?
Are you really fine with having no parts in the game, where sneaking around with your rogue actual has some use or value?
And why even showing the attributes if you can do jack sh*t about them? Are they important for skills, gears or anything? No. They're just there for show.
 

[u]Fewer "filler" quests.[/b] I don't mind the "filler" quests that are drawing complaints as I can easily ignore the ones I don't feel like doing/don't feel a certain character would do, and have more replay value. I actually enjoy that not every quest and area is heavily, directly tied to the main story, and I enjoy actually building the reputation I get beyond just through "epic" feats.

You may not have noticed but... pretty much EVERYTHING aside the "story-missions" are filler-quests. They don't serve any purpose other than having you run around on those huge maps and making them appear a bit less empty.
There's no deep story behind any of them... and still you gotta do a bunch because of the "power" and to level-up.
And this "building up reputation"... tell me, when did you really feel like this? Because of some strategy-table-missions?
Just getting some text-messages and suddenly at the ending hearing, that you're all this powerful?
I for my part would really need much fantasy to buy that.

In my opinion: The meaning of sidemissions and subquests in RPGs is to immerse the player into the game-universe. So why not showing those fights between nobility of orlais? Why not showing the inner conflicts between the Venatori and their opposiiton in Tevinter? Why not gaining "power" and"reputation" by deciding, weither you wanna quest for the dwarven-king or the carta?
Why is there no Siege for Skyhold?
With so much unused potential i don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with those "go and get" or "go and kill" quests... or having to collect thiose stupid shards while hopping around?
 

Chaotic stupi -- sorry, evil options.[/b] Let's face it, most "evil" options are actually just stupid options imo, and playing a dumb sociopath is no more entertaining than a Mary Sue/Stu. I don't mind a less extreme morality range available if it's more sensible. (I would like to see the ability to kill neutral NPCs, but oh well.)[

Once again very subjective. I myself are not really a fan of playing "bad guys" as well but there are people who like to take this road for diversion.
And there would be room to play more like an anti-hero... or use all that "power" of the inquisitionmore for his own good. F.E: in halamshiral, there were some moments when i thought "oh man, i wished i could note this or that guy's name and repay him later for that insolence".
 

While I realize this is a flame-bait thread I'm replying to, just offering my 2 coppers as someone who thinks it's a step up from both DA:O and DA:2.

A coin for your braveness but... how do i put it... not all criticsm is flaming. As long as arguements are given and opinions are tried to explain i give the benefit of the doubt.