88 réponses à ce sujet

[Mark of the Dragon]

So far every Dragon Age game has felt like completely different games. I know the sequels are supposed to innovate and change things up but the Dragon Age games have always gone beyond that.

 

To put it simply, instead of building a foundation and sticking to it and then improving upon it with each sequel each Dragon Age games seem to just throw everything the last game did away so that it can try to be a completely different game. Nowhere was this difference more apparent than with Inquisition.

 

Now I am all good with change and innovation. I like some of the changes Bioware made for Inquisition. However I am also getting tired of never knowing what to expect from one game to another. I want to be curious about the new locals and storied the next game will tell not wondering what kind of game it will be?

 

So do you think that Bioware had finally found a good foundation for future DA games or do you think the next game will be completely different again?

[GuyNice]

I think they really hit it with the graphics, physics and artstyle in this game. The action combat is great as well, mostly needs bug/tooltip fixes and could be even better if they add some new ability trees. The game misstepped with the tactical combat and balancing imo. Both the AI behaviors and the tactical camera control scheme need some major work. I think they can and should continue to polish and iterate on the current formula. So yeah, I believe they finally found their "thing"

[wepeel_]

At least I would hope they're finding their stride somewhat more instead of making large jumps with every game. Mass Effect is a good example where ME2 changed rather drastically from ME1, whereas ME3 mostly fleshed out the ME2 concept and improved on it in every way, while still feeling similar. If you have something that works well, reinvention from scratch seems unnecessarily effort-consuming.

[Lee T]

To put it simply, instead of building a foundation and sticking to it and then improving upon it with each sequel each Dragon Age games seem to just throw everything the last game did away so that it can try to be a completely different game. Nowhere was this difference more apparent than with Inquisition.

Since this can be said about the Mass Effect series I'd say it's a Bioware thing. From the outside it looks as if they either higly favor innovating over improving their games or they have a hard case of constantly second guessing themselves. Either way they do have a tendancy to throw the baby out with the bath water.

That's one of the reasons these boards are so "lively". Whether you succed or fail at this strategy you will always ensure that the new game feels like a let down for most of those who liked pretty much everything in the previous game.

[Frenrihr]

Nah, they can and will dumb down more things just wait.

[R0bE0]

You're not wrong, that's for sure.

 

Unlike with Mass Effect, Dragon Age has always been a bit more scattered in terms of story and mechanics. Sure ME had some differences, but not nearly to the extent of Dragon Age. It might not be a 'terrible' thing, but I wouldn't say it's a good thing either.

 

I'm not sure if DAO was supposed to be a one time thing or not, but it seems like it. A lot of the endings were trashed by DA2. Likewise I noticed with Ferelden in Inquisition that it held an entirely new appearance. I mean it's not a huge deal, but it can be a bit irksome. Even small things like changing the currency from the first two games, into simple "gold".

 

Dragon Age is attempting to adapt, that is obvious. I kind of wish they would stop 'trying' so hard with it though. People like a game because they like the story and/or mechanics. So if someone (like myself) started with Origins when it first came out, and stayed with the series, then it's because we liked the way that it started off being set up.

 

It's not hard to understand why they did this though. I've seen a drastic influx of fans with Inquisition. They want a popular game and to come out on top. That being said DAO also did well for itself. So to say that they're going to stick with Inquisition-esque gameplay is unknown.

[GuyNice]

Nah, they can and will dumb down more things just wait.

Judging by DAMP, you may be right...

[Bann Duncan]

At least I would hope they're finding their stride somewhat more instead of making large jumps with every game. Mass Effect is a good example where ME2 changed rather drastically from ME1, whereas ME3 mostly fleshed out the ME2 concept and improved on it in every way, while still feeling similar. If you have something that works well, reinvention from scratch seems unnecessarily effort-consuming.

 

So true!

 

... I'll give you a few minutes before the 'real' RPG fans come in and yell at you about how ME2 killed RPGs and was 'EAWare' selling out..

[SNascimento]

ME2 is the best game Bioware has ever made.

On topic, I'd say yes. DAI is not ME2, but it's a foundation that the next Dragon Age can be built upon. 

[wepeel_]

... I'll give you a few minutes before the 'real' RPG fans come in and yell at you about how ME2 killed RPGs and was 'EAWare' selling out..

 

Yeah, that's why feel it's so important to have ME3 included in the comparison as well. ME2 still had limited character-building, in some ways dumbed down from ME1 - but then in ME3 they took the concept from ME2 and hit the ground running, and I'd dare anyone to say ME1 plays better than 3. In fact I think if they re-released ME1 and 2 in the ME3 engine, it wouldn't sell all bad. So ME3 (in terms of mechanics) seems to stand out as an example that did everything right. They didn't even use the common cop-out of resetting your character's power level at the start of the game, but developed all the abilities instead. You start ME3 in the same state as you ended ME2, and then go from there.

[In Exile]

I think DAI finally found its BG1. And like with BG1, I think to compete with Skyrim Bioware needs to double down on DAI and turn it into a revamp of BG2 in terms of the quests: more involved, more story, more interaction.

DAO was just KoTOR with the BG2 UI. That's why it struggled in terms of finding a successor - it had no identity.

[Frenrihr]

So true!

 

... I'll give you a few minutes before the 'real' RPG fans come in and yell at you about how ME2 killed RPGs and was 'EAWare' selling out..

 

ME2 is not an RPG.

[SomeUsername]

You're not wrong, that's for sure.

 

Unlike with Mass Effect, Dragon Age has always been a bit more scattered in terms of story and mechanics. Sure ME had some differences, but not nearly to the extent of Dragon Age. It might not be a 'terrible' thing, but I wouldn't say it's a good thing either.

 

I'm not sure if DAO was supposed to be a one time thing or not, but it seems like it. A lot of the endings were trashed by DA2. Likewise I noticed with Ferelden in Inquisition that it held an entirely new appearance. I mean it's not a huge deal, but it can be a bit irksome. Even small things like changing the currency from the first two games, into simple "gold".

 

Dragon Age is attempting to adapt, that is obvious. I kind of wish they would stop 'trying' so hard with it though. People like a game because they like the story and/or mechanics. So if someone (like myself) started with Origins when it first came out, and stayed with the series, then it's because we liked the way that it started off being set up.

 

It's not hard to understand why they did this though. I've seen a drastic influx of fans with Inquisition. They want a popular game and to come out on top. That being said DAO also did well for itself. So to say that they're going to stick with Inquisition-esque gameplay is unknown.

Yes, I agree. Developers not only want their game to be popular but also keep their loyal fans. I just hope that they realize they can't have both and make the decision of which type to follow and openly tell us about it instead of lying and saying their game has all types of playstyles and mechanics. If DA4 is a perfected tactical rpg game (I feel that's unlikely) I would gladly pay and play and love it. If DA4 is a perfected action game, I would still pay and play assuming that it is done correctly. If DA4 is like Inquisition, and has low quality of both sides, I would pass because I don't get any enjoyment out of it. This is all about game mechanics only. Regarding story and everything else, there is only one way it can possibly be done good, so as long as they work on that as well, I will be happy.

[Maverick827]

I hope not.  I'd hate to lose one of the two story + cinematic + party based RPGs, and who knows where Mass Effect 4 is going.  Maybe we'd lose both.  I don't know what I'd do then. 

[ButtHurtPunk]

It's very odd that they've done this, in my opinion, since there was arguably nothing wrong with the formula from DA Origins and Awakening. In fact, all the issues that were present in the first installment are still present in DAII and DA3 to a certain extent, except now there a bucket of new issues due to the changed format and because they're, quite honestly, fairly rushed products. The fact that all the games are so different in styles has also broken the fanbase, so to speak, since each game so far has drawn in new fans then sequentially alienated those fans in the next installment. Hell, at this point I'm not even sure I like this franchise anymore, as I can't honestly say I've enjoyed the last two installments -- I've liked them, yeah, but they're no longer hard RPGs like the original, and now they appear to be going the way of open world sandbox questing, with lesser emphasis on story, which I'm just... not a fan of.

[Daeion]

Personally I'm a fan of more story driven games then sandboxes and thus I'd prefer to see them go back to the DA:O style vs. continuing with the DA:I style. Having said that, I also came to the conclusion awhile ago that I am no longer part of Biowares target market. I prefer stat and loot based progression systems, to me ME1 was an amazing game that was almost perfect, whereas ME2 was a hack job compared to it.

I'm not saying that Bioware makes bad games now days, it's just I know their focus has shifted to try and bring in a larger audience. So if they are going to stick with the DA:I model then I think they need to really work on flushing out the zones and implimentation of scaling mobs. Some of the zones just feel like a waste to me because they are so empty, Storm Coast comes to mind. Also, don't give me a million things to do but then let me out level the content, I want things to continue to be a challenge, I don't want to be fighting mobs 4+ levels lower then I am.

And it would be really nice if the PC version made full use of the M&KB. If you are going to release the game on a platform then take the time to utilize the tools of the platform.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Inquisition is a baseline from which they should improve. Longer main quest, better side-quests, slightly smaller areas, no Shards-like busywork, more decisions to make, etc. I don't believe they need to reinvent the wheel a third time.

[metatheurgist]

Nope, they've got to stick with the tradition of completely changing everything from one game to the next. They now have an action fan base that thinks the game is great. The obvious thing to do now is to say they're releasing another action game then release a tower defence game.

[Paul E Dangerously]

So true!

 

... I'll give you a few minutes before the 'real' RPG fans come in and yell at you about how ME2 killed RPGs and was 'EAWare' selling out..

 

I like ME2. But it's grossly oversimplified to the point "dumbed down" is really appropriate. Why do you think ME3 added in all the missing elements from ME1, majorly buffed up the (extremely lacking) weapons and armor count from ME2, and actually improved on the strengths of both games?

 

I only wish Dragon Age would've had the same treatment with DAI as ME did with 3 in terms of gameplay.

[AlanC9]

So true!
 
... I'll give you a few minutes before the 'real' RPG fans come in and yell at you about how ME2 killed RPGs and was 'EAWare' selling out..

Looks like it took 22 minutes.

[Cyonan]

BioWare's thing seems to be doing a decent amount of alteration between iterations. Even in Mass Effect the combat changed a pretty decent amount between each of them(and I still wish they hadn't removed heat as a mechanic).

 

So I wouldn't be all that surprised if Dragon Age 4 makes some pretty major changes to the Inquisition formula.

[dlux]

ME2 is the best game Bioware has ever made.

 

[shama]

DAO was just KoTOR with the BG2 UI. That's why it struggled in terms of finding a successor - it had no identity.

 

I see no problem with DA:O being 'just KoTOR'. Both games were critically acclaimed (both by journalists and gamers). KoTOR, a decade after release, is *still* being sold on Steam, has an iOS version and is generally still alive. Not many 10 year old games can still keep selling.

 

As for having no identity, I think you'll need to explain. I'm not sure what you mean. Personally I think the strong identity of DA:O is what attracted existing customers to DA2 and DA:I. Of course, as OP says, that identity changed with DA2, and again with DA:I. So it *had* a strong identity but now does feel rather schizophrenic and/or malleable.

[In Exile]

I see no problem with DA:O being 'just KoTOR'. Both games were critically acclaimed (both by journalists and gamers). KoTOR, a decade after release, is *still* being sold on Steam, has an iOS version and is generally still alive. Not many 10 year old games can still keep selling.

As for having no identity, I think you'll need to explain. I'm not sure what you mean. Personally I think the strong identity of DA:O is what attracted existing customers to DA2 and DA:I. Of course, as OP says, that identity changed with DA2, and again with DA:I. So it *had* a strong identity but now does feel rather schizophrenic and/or malleable.

It's not that there's a problem with DAO being KoTOR with a different UI. It's that Bioware as a company after KoTOR had really struggled to find a unifying formula for their studio. The played around with creating games heavy on the mortality system and console action (JE), cinematics and story choices (ME) and played around with other elements. DAO started its development shortly after KoTOR and continued as Bioware struggled to find that identity for its studio once it decided to move past BG2. Whether people thought DAO had a clear identity is different from Bioware thinking it had a clear identity.

When I talk about identity, I mean for Bioware. Subjective stuff like whether the game had "soul" I don't get into becsudr that's way too much of a YMMV IMO.