348 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

Well, I have stopped playing the game, because I got concerned the UI might be a health hazard.

 

I like the game, basically. But it's not like I don't have better games to play. I do.

So, until/if the UI gets fixed...

[Kurt M.]

I wonder how the OP or Darkly Tranquil plays....100+ hours here and I'm still having fun like crazy. Homework? Enemies immune to some spells? How about trying to diversify all your Talents a little between all the branches, and not just fill a single one? That'll fix both.

 

Honestly, between that and the "I've beaten the game in 60 hours and at lvl 16!" complains (1st playthought here, lvl 19, third dragon just beaten, and 100+ hours, and I'm still roughly in the half of the 2nd part), I just wonder how people play it. I guess rushing it like if they were mad... D:

[NedPepper]

I wonder how the OP or Darkly Tranquil plays....100+ hours here and I'm still having fun like crazy. Homework? Enemies immune to some spells? How about trying to diversify all your Talents a little between all the branches, and not just fill a single one? That'll fix both.

 

Honestly, between that and the "I've beaten the game in 60 hours and at lvl 16!" complains (1st playthought here, lvl 19, third dragon just beaten, and 100+ hours, and I'm still roughly in the half of the 2nd part), I just wonder how people play it. I guess rushing it like if they were mad... D:

Uh...I think, after doing a completionist run and finding myself hating the game trying to complete every map, that the only way I could possibly play this game again would be skip vast portions of it.

I think, generally, if I had advice to give to someone who was playing this game the first time, I'd tell them to stick to the story and put no more than 60-80 hours into it.  The longer you play, the more side quests you do, the more you realize how empty the experience is.  My own take, at least.

[Natureguy85]

Again, your opinion nor mine makes it so. I quite like the story of Cerebus, and how we gradually view them thru the course of all the games in that series. I also am enjoying DAI, and do not requite DLC to explain it.

 

There really wasn't much opinion, as I described the events of the game. They changed what Cerberus was over the course of the games.

 

What I can do is offer my opinion on one that has played the games. In the case of Cerebus and ME, I quite like the way a minor quest builds momentum and meaning through other side-quests to become a rather significant role in the first game. Then in ME2, the mind behind the organization becomes a dominant force that drives Shepard towards a conclusion for good or ill. Then in ME3, the Illusive Man is shown to be one of the major obstacles against humanity, as well as the Reapers themselves.

From what I recall, the Reapers themselves had less face time in the original game, so now there are two adversaries with minor attention that have become major threats in the later games. And in the same way, Prothean tech, knowledge, etc is also slowly revealed across the series; no reason for me to think that the Crucible simply appears from nowhere as I accept the explanations given.

Others may wish to speak of protagonists, themes, plot devices, etc, but am simply not up for that myself.

 

Cerberus doesn't have any significant role in Mass Effect. It's an interesting quest string, but it ends with us taking out their base and introducing us to a Shadow Broker agent...which goes nowhere... ever.  In ME2, they made Cerberus much more of a force in galactic events.  In ME3, it's fine that they are an opposing force, but it isn't fine that they are the primary opposing force.

 

Of course the Reapers had less face time in the first game. They were an unknown and there was only Sovereign. In ME3 however, the Reapers have invaded and are everywhere. The game is supposed to be about the Reapers. This wasn't a spy story where the main conflict is off in the distance and you're working behind the scenes. That's where you can have the B-list opposing force take the center stage. If the Reapers were only invading Earth and sending a few forces around elsewhere, this would be fine. But the Reapers are supposed to be everywhere.

 

Your last sentence shows why we seem to disagree; we are talking about two different things. You're talking about your pure emotional enjoyment of the story. I'm getting into the guts of it to see where it fails.

 

There isn't any single rule to that. If there is anything at all in literature that proves something is that the existence of an "objeticve" rule for "good" and "bad" litrature is nonexistant.

 

The "good" and "bad" elements that form a good narration during history are mutually exclussive, contradictory or just irrational, but they exist nonetheless. And that is because fiction, or better said, written fiction, does not have any single rule that proves its value. Stating the contrary is being irrational or just allienated from reality.

 

Maybe you could like (or not) a plot. But trying to make that as an objeticve rule is ridiculous.

 

No, there are actually a number of rules to writing. Rules can be bent or broken, but you have to know what you're doing. The rules didn't come from nowhere; they came from humans' millennia of practice telling stories. Plots can fail from an objective point of view.

 

Allow me to talk about quality very briefly. In the book world there is literature for the serious thinkers, and genre fiction for those lowly individuals who seek pure entertainment. Do you want to know why developers will generally push for entertainment over a "quality story?"

 

That's not really a good definition, though you are correct about some genre's being flooded with low quality works.

 

Here is a good description of problems with trying to make the distinction.

 

 

 

Edited to fix typos!

[Kurt M.]

Uh...I think, after doing a completionist run and finding myself hating the game trying to complete every map, that the only way I could possibly play this game again would be skip vast portions of it.

I think, generally, if I had advice to give to someone who was playing this game the first time, I'd tell them to stick to the story and put no more than 60-80 hours into it.  The longer you play, the more side quests you do, the more you realize how empty the experience is.  My own take, at least.

 

Well, if you can't enjoy at least the 1st completionist playthought, then I guess the Dragon Age universe is just not suited for you.

 

For people like me, I'm enjoying exploring every bit of the map, gathering all the shards and crushing my brain at Astrariums. And it's not like the secret caves and dungeons aren't worthy: it's precisely by exploring how I discovered Valammar way before a certain mission does it for you, and enjoyed that little part immensely.

 

If you're not into exploring, then...well, your loss.

[Salaya]

No, there are actually a number of rules to writing. Rules can be bent or broken, but you have to know what you're doing. The rules didn't come from nowhere; they came from human's millennia or practice telling stories. Plots can fail from an objective point of view.

There are conventions, there are grammar rules and there are semantic agreements that come close to what "objective rules" are. But none of those are rules to "good" or "bad" writing.

You (or anyone, of course) are unable to give any single objective rule to identify or define "good" or "bad" writing. Conventions and styles are not objective rules, if that's what you are thinking.

If you know there is such a rule, please, go ahead. Tell us, share it with humanity; you are going to break the rule about objetivity in liberal arts and discover the path of truth that so many years evaded this field.

[NedPepper]

Well, if you can't enjoy at least the 1st completionist playthought, then I guess the Dragon Age universe is just not suited for you.

 

For people like me, I'm enjoying exploring every bit of the map, gathering all the shards and crushing my brain at Astrariums. And it's not like the secret caves and dungeons aren't worthy: it's precisely by exploring how I discovered Valammar way before a certain mission does it for you, and enjoyed that little part immensely.

 

If you're not into exploring, then...well, your loss.

I played completionist playthroughs of both Origins and Two many, many times. Read all the books.  Read all the comics.  The Dragon Age Universe couldn't BE more me.   The problem isn't me, it's the quest design of Inquisition.  It's the pacing.  It's game design.  My first playthrough (only playthrough) was nearly 200 hours of trying to complete every map.  I don't think there is anything left for me to explore.  And I certainly don't WANT to explore any more.  But, to be honest, I'm tired of this argument, and I've actually come to a kind of understanding with how I feel about Dragon Age: Inquisition.  It's always going to be a mixed bag.  And I really don't want to dredge all that up again.

So, for the sake not rehashing what I've said earlier in this thread, I will simply agree to disagree.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I wonder how the OP or Darkly Tranquil plays....100+ hours here and I'm still having fun like crazy. Homework? Enemies immune to some spells? How about trying to diversify all your Talents a little between all the branches, and not just fill a single one? That'll fix both.

Well, if you can't enjoy at least the 1st completionist playthought, then I guess the Dragon Age universe is just not suited for you.

For people like me, I'm enjoying exploring every bit of the map, gathering all the shards and crushing my brain at Astrariums. And it's not like the secret caves and dungeons aren't worthy: it's precisely by exploring how I discovered Valammar way before a certain mission does it for you, and enjoyed that little part immensely.

If you're not into exploring, then...well, your loss.

Like Nedpepper, I own ever Dragon Age game, novel, comic, players guide, art book, and encyclopaedia that Bioware have published. Hell, I even have the map of Thedas from the Inquisitor's Edition of DAI framed on my wall above my PC. I've completed origins and da2 many times, doing every origin, romance, ending, and achievement you can think of. So I'm pretty sure that (at least up until now) Dragon Age is for me.

As for how I played DAI, unlike Ned, because I hated the gameplay (combat) so much, I bum rushed the main story to get it over with. I'm mainly interested in the lore, so side quests, crafting, gathering, dragon hunting, and the like don't interest me unless they are integral to the main story. I don't even like open world games for the most part. I prefer more linear game design as it produces stronger, more coherent, better paced narratives, which is my main concern. Honestly, if it weren't a Dragon Age game I would have packed it in after an hour and gotten a refund, but I decided to give Bioware a chance to win me over, as they've never let me down before (I even liked DA2, flaws and all). Sadly, they didn't succeed.

[Natureguy85]

There are conventions, there are grammar rules and there are semantic agreements that come close to what "objective rules" are. But none of those are rules to "good" or "bad" writing.

You (or anyone, of course) are unable to give any single objective rule to identify or define "good" or "bad" writing. Conventions and styles are not objective rules, if that's what you are thinking.

If you know there is such a rule, please, go ahead. Tell us, share it with humanity; you are going to break the rule about objetivity in liberal arts and discover the path of truth that so many years evaded this field.

 

I can tell you bad elements, such as plot holes, very easily. But if you mean that there isn't a line at which we say "X number of these issues means this is a bad work, but this other one is ok because it has less" then no, that's more subjective.

 

Some other ideas: http://www.writersdi...f-novel-endings

[Salaya]

I can tell you bad elements, such as plot holes, very easily.

There is any way to objectively prove that "plot holes" are bad elements in writing. It is perfectly possible that "plot holes" turn out to be the element that turn a novel, screenplay or any other kind of written fiction into a historically considered work of art.

[keyip]

There is any way to objectively prove that "plot holes" are bad elements in writing. It is perfectly possible that "plot holes" turn out to be the element that turn a novel, screenplay or any other kind of written fiction into a historically considered work of art.

 

Like Doctor Who, for example

[Kurt M.]

Like Nedpepper, I own ever Dragon Age game, novel, comic, players guide, art book, and encyclopaedia that Bioware have published. Hell, I even have the map of Thedas from the Inquisitor's Edition of DAI framed on my wall above my PC. I've completed origins and da2 many times, doing every origin, romance, ending, and achievement you can think of. So I'm pretty sure that (at least up until now) Dragon Age is for me.

As for how I played DAI, unlike Ned, because I hated the gameplay (combat) so much, I bum rushed the main story to get it over with. I'm mainly interested in the lore, so side quests, crafting, gathering, dragon hunting, and the like don't interest me unless they are integral to the main story. I don't even like open world games for the most part. I prefer more linear game design as it produces stronger, more coherent, better paced narratives, which is my main concern. Honestly, if it weren't a Dragon Age game I would have packed it in after an hour and gotten a refund, but I decided to give Bioware a chance to win me over, as they've never let me down before (I even liked DA2, flaws and all). Sadly, they didn't succeed.

 

Sooo, I was writing a "look, the gameplay is bad but it's still a fun game" speech, but sadly, having in mind that I can't even assign anything to mouse buttons, the tactical cam is garbage, Talents have been nerfed, and that the Tactics menu is so useless you can't even tell your mages/rogues something as basic as to ****** stay away from enemies, and thus they moronicly stays in the middle of a fight against a giant dragon getting moronicly killed...I kinda agree with you

 

Still, it's gameplay is pretty horrible, but fun enought for me, I guess. Not so much for you, that you spent 60 bucks in something you could have seen for free on YouTube, or Wikia

[Natureguy85]

There is any way to objectively prove that "plot holes" are bad elements in writing. It is perfectly possible that "plot holes" turn out to be the element that turn a novel, screenplay or any other kind of written fiction into a historically considered work of art.

 

Any specific examples? Can you show this to be widespread and not just some exception? Are you seriously going to argue that plot holes are not bad? Do you know what a Plot Hole is?

[prosthetic soul]

Hence the titles of Alpha and Beta. Bioware is not responsible for false impressions, as all content may be subject to change.

That said, I was looking forward to aiding Varric's attitude in my choice to place the people above the Keep as my priority. This eventually lead to my entire RP approach for my first Inquisitor.

Not responsible for false impressions?  Good lord, you're starting to sound like Wal-Mart during its heyday when people kept getting mugged on its premises, or one of those heavy-duty trucks that carries about 5 tons of bricks in its bed.  Yeah, just because you put a gigantic sign on the truck that says "Not responsible for broken windshields" doesn't mean I won't sue your ass if a brick comes flying through MY windshield and kills my wife sitting in the passenger seat.  

 

Could you please stop shilling for Bioware for five seconds?  They're the ones who choose to release content that's not available in the main game.  You cannot blame the CONSUMER for getting false impressions.  That is down right despicable. 

[Akka le Vil]

Well, if you can't enjoy at least the 1st completionist playthought, then I guess the Dragon Age universe is just not suited for you.

 

Wut ?

Someone doesn't like grinding filler quests in empty space for hours on end, and somehow you conclude that it's because that's because the "Dragon Age universe is not suited to him" ?

When was the Dragon Age universe defined to revolve around filler quest ?
 

[ORTesc]

It took you a whole month? I haven't played this game since the week it was released.

[prosthetic soul]

Personally, the lack of customization is killing this game's fun factor. 

 

All my characters, no matter the race or sex look exactly the same across all games.  This game suffers MAJORLY from KOTOR syndrome.  Which is unacceptable considering this game came out in 2014.   Where are all the armor sets in this game?  Where are all the different mage robes?  Why does my Qunari male get no exclusive loot besides a Vitaar that I can't wear until I'm level FREAKING 20??  Why is the armor for Female Qunari currently bugged to all hell?  Why hasn't any of this been remedied yet?

 

It is killing my desire to replay this game because I freaking LOVE customizing my own character.  But this game man....this game sucks so much in the customization department.   

[prosthetic soul]

It took you a whole month? I haven't played this game since the week it was released.

Ahahaha, Kurwa!

[Elhanan]

Cerberus doesn't have any significant role in Mass Effect. It's an interesting quest string, but it ends with us taking out their base and introducing us to a Shadow Broker agent...which goes nowhere... ever. In ME2, they made Cerberus much more of a force in galactic events. In ME3, it's fine that they are an opposing force, but it isn't fine that they are the primary opposing force.

Of course the Reapers had less face time in the first game. They were an unknown and there was only Sovereign. In ME3 however, the Reapers have invaded and are everywhere. The game is supposed to be about the Reapers. This wasn't a spy story where the main conflict is off in the distance and you're working behind the scenes. That's where you can have the B-list opposing force take the center stage. If the Reapers were only invading Earth and sending a few forces around elsewhere, this would be fine. But the Reapers are supposed to be everywhere.

Your last sentence shows why we seem to disagree; we are talking about two different things. You're talking about your pure emotional enjoyment of the story. I'm getting into the guts of it to see where it fails

I believe Cerebus began their appearance in the side quest concerning an Admiral awaiting to see the council. By the end of the tale, we have been ambushed by Thresher Maws, seen scientific abominations and experiments with the Rachni, and the Admiral is slain. Perhaps not of primary importance, but they made an impression. Thus, not a failure for me.

And I do not care to discuss writing because I loathe arguing for its own sake; have more important matters that are pressing like matching socks....

[Elhanan]

Not responsible for false impressions?  Good lord, you're starting to sound like Wal-Mart during its heyday when people kept getting mugged on its premises, or one of those heavy-duty trucks that carries about 5 tons of bricks in its bed.  Yeah, just because you put a gigantic sign on the truck that says "Not responsible for broken windshields" doesn't mean I won't sue your ass if a brick comes flying through MY windshield and kills my wife sitting in the passenger seat.  
 
Could you please stop shilling for Bioware for five seconds?  They're the ones who choose to release content that's not available in the main game.  You cannot blame the CONSUMER for getting false impressions.  That is down right despicable.

Yep; am a self-pronounced fanboy that supports the company that made this great game. It also made DAO, NWN1, ME1 and ME3 which I enjoyed more, but support the GOTY awards that DAI richly deserves.

Also love Wal-Mart; first one to buy DAA there after release. No bricks or muggers; nor any false impressions gathered from pre-release hype. As for shoulder chips, they might be in the snack food aisle....

[Degs29]

I normally only stick with a game for three to four weeks.  If I haven't beaten it by then, it's cast aside, even if it's a good game.

 

But with DA:I, I finished my 99.5-hour playthrough after 5 weeks of play.  So I guess that means I loved it! lol

 

Also, I played on hard and I didn't have a problem with enemies being resistent to elemental attacks.  What, you have four mages in your party all with the same elemental staffs/spells?  RPGs have always had this kind of mechanic, especially on the harder difficulty levels.  Seems odd to call DA:I out on it.

 

I do think mages are somewhat underpowered in DA:I, which is the opposite of what they were before.  Would like to see a balance between the two.

[Natureguy85]

I believe Cerebus began their appearance in the side quest concerning an Admiral awaiting to see the council. By the end of the tale, we have been ambushed by Thresher Maws, seen scientific abominations and experiments with the Rachni, and the Admiral is slain. Perhaps not of primary importance, but they made an impression. Thus, not a failure for me.

And I do not care to discuss writing because I loathe arguing for its own sake; have more important matters that are pressing like matching socks....

 

Yeah, Cerberus was fine in Mass Effect. I never said they weren't. The problem is how their nature changes between games.

[Salaya]

Any specific examples? Can you show this to be widespread and not just some exception? Are you seriously going to argue that plot holes are not bad? Do you know what a Plot Hole is?

 

So do you accept the possibility of an exception. But, at the same time, you claim that objective rules are effective. Do you know what "objective" means?

 

It's possible to deliberately use a "plot hole" as a writing tool. For example, contradict plot logic to imply the fiction does not give any relevance to that logic, and that the piece's intention is merely formal. You, or anyone else may not perceive this, but nonetheless the work of fiction may end as a renowed example of literature. 

 

Again, there is not a single objective rule that qualifies as discerner of "good" or "bad" literature. Maybe general conventions occur, but those are no objective by any mean.

[Natureguy85]

So do you accept the possibility of an exception. But, at the same time, you claim that objective rules are effective. Do you know what "objective" means?

 

It's possible to deliberately use a "plot hole" as a writing tool. For example, contradict plot logic to imply the fiction does not give any relevance to that logic, and that the piece's intention is merely formal. You, or anyone else may not perceive this, but nonetheless the work of fiction may end as a renowed example of literature. 

 

Again, there is not a single objective rule that qualifies as discerner of "good" or "bad" literature. Maybe general conventions occur, but those are no objective by any mean.

 

Of course, I said earlier that rules can be bent and broken, but you have to be careful when doing so.

 

Give me an actual example of what you are talking about. Also, a work can still be good despite a particular part being bad or problematic, but that isn't a defense of that one part.

 

I think I'd agree that there is no single rule; there are many of them and it's a sum of the parts thing.

[Heathen Oxman]

Of course, I said earlier that rules can be bent and broken, but you have to be careful when doing so.

 

Give me an actual example of what you are talking about. Also, a work can still be good despite a particular part being bad or problematic, but that isn't a defense of that one part.

 

I think I'd agree that there is no single rule; there are many of them and it's a sum of the parts thing.

 

And I'm still waiting for all of these supposedly "objective" rules that define what makes stories "good" or "bad"........