145 réponses à ce sujet

[ChaosWalking]

I love Dragon Age Origins more than I love my first born child. With that said, I painfully say I have little respect for Inquisition. It's a failure. Let me tell you exactly why. Origins was beautiful because it was so immersive in the main story. Dragon Age 2 does this better than Inquisition. Everywhere that you go in Origins, From the Brezilian Forest to Orzammar, from The Frostback  Mountains to Denerim, It's all story related. There wasn't a place you would go where it didn't direct you to the main story, the main mission, stopping the fifth blight. There was a plethora of side quests in each area to do that weren't related to the main story, yet in the end, they are done in an area that is related to the main mission of stopping the blight. In Inquisition, there is no resemblance of this structure. The main bulk of the game has NOTHING to do with stopping Corypheus and his threat. It's all about doing missions in areas that I found I couldn't give a damn less about. Like wtf. The beauty of the first Dragon Age was the drive to end the blight. In Inquisition, it feels like there's no urgency in stopping corypheus, I feel no immersion in the story. Instead now I'm play Skyrim where I just walk around areas looking for things and doing random quests in areas that ultimately don't matter at all. In Origins, every area mattered to the story. Second of all, What happened to the freedom of choice in the game? In origins, almost every time I played, I found there was a different outcome to almost every situation. In Inquisition, it's simply monotonous. It's the same outcome no matter what. There's no change to anything I do, everything kind of just works the same. The only efforts they made to make me feel like a choice I made mattered was choosing templars or mages, choosing the orlesian leader, and destroying the wardens or keeping them. In Origins, I felt like almost every choice mattered. Being persuasive had effects over simple dialouge, whereas in Inquisition, being pursuasive issss simple dialogue. I felt I mattered in Origins but here in Inquisition, where I should feel like a leader, I just feel like the game is trying to make a sheep to conform to pretty graphics and oooh, pretty trees. Where the hell is beef. Inquisition left me so dissatisfied. Anyone get what I'm trying to say?

 

[Wissenschaft 2.0]

The game isn't about closing the breach or even stopping Cory. Its about how the Inquistion rose up to become a dominate power in Thedas. Everything you do, no matter how unrelated to the main story it may see, is focused on building up the power and influence of the Inquisition. So yes, everything is on topic in the game.

 

Its much the same how in Origins the game is actually not about stopping the blight. The 5th blight is just a convenient excuse to introduce players to Fereleden and, by extension, the world of Thedas. Hence why you go to so many areas that have hardly any darkspawn in them and where the story hardly mentions the blight.

 

I'd suggest to just expect Bioware to use this "trick" in future Dragon Age games because FYI, its their MO with regards to how they build up their video game worlds/lore.

[Killawatts]

I completely understand where you are coming from. Everyone wants to relive that dragon age origins experience and it just isn't going to happen and it's heartbreaking. However, for what they were trying to do, that is put you in a position to lead a peace restoring, world reshaping inquisition, I think those areas make sense just like streetmagic said. You don't have to do them. You can just focus on stopping coryphenuts if that is what you want to rp your inquisitor to do. Ultimately like I said I sympathize with your point of view but I just hope that you can figure out how to accept what they are trying to do and realize that it is what it is, and I think it's awesome.

[arelenriel]

And since when did Hawke taking down bandits  in the Free Marches  and defeating the Arishok in DAII or the HOF and her companions assassinating people and robbing nobles in Denerim, or giving them silly presents for Saturnalia, or restoring Soldiers Keep in DAO have to do with the main plot.. This is not just a game about the main plot its about building the reputation of your player character so that they have the support they need to defeat Corypheus-- and to root out those that support him like Grand Duchess Florianne and the Duke of Wycome .. same with DAII or DAO.

 

Do you really think that the HOF or the Champion would have been able to deal with the Blight or Meredith if they had not done all those little sidequests that got them money, better equipment, and political support to do what they did .. not to mention people who helped them to fight? This is not DAO or DAII and the game needs to be judged on its own merits.. Besides 99% of all RPG games are the sidequests most of which don't tie into the main plot in any way whatsoever .. unless that fish agreement I delivered to Markarth resulted in me getting 50 pounds of fish to use as bait for Alduin, or that slave I helped in Assassins Creed Liberation fought at my side during the final boss battle.

 

 

Its not to say this game is perfect. Little logic problem for you here.

 

A. Games are designed by people

B. People are not perfect.

C. Therefore games will not be perfect either

 

There are problems with the game especially being issues with playing after the final main quest. There are bugs and glitches to iron out.. but overall this game is not much of a disappointment in terms of recent RPG games. Sidequesting in terms of quests that have little or nothing to do with the main quest have been part of RPG's since the days of Arena, Daggerfall, and Baldurs Gate I and II.. they are a way of building up your equipment and your money and your exp... If you don't like them there is always an option to not play them even if it does leave you woefully underpowered for the main questline. Bioware is entitled to make the game they want to make and you are equally entitled to not buy it, return it , or trade it in at Gamestop if it does not meet your expectations

[Brass_Buckles]

I love Dragon Age Origins more than I love my first born child. With that said, I painfully say I have little respect for Inquisition. It's a failure. Let me tell you exactly why. Origins was beautiful because it was so immersive in the main story. Dragon Age 2 does this better than Inquisition. Everywhere that you go in Origins, From the Brezilian Forest to Orzammar, from The Frostback  Mountains to Denerim, It's all story related. There wasn't a place you would go where it didn't direct you to the main story, the main mission, stopping the fifth blight. There was a plethora of side quests in each area to do that weren't related to the main story, yet in the end, they are done in an area that is related to the main mission of stopping the blight. In Inquisition, there is no resemblance of this structure. The main bulk of the game has NOTHING to do with stopping Corypheus and his threat. It's all about doing missions in areas that I found I couldn't give a damn less about. Like wtf. The beauty of the first Dragon Age was the drive to end the blight. In Inquisition, it feels like there's no urgency in stopping corypheus, I feel no immersion in the story. Instead now I'm play Skyrim where I just walk around areas looking for things and doing random quests in areas that ultimately don't matter at all. In Origins, every area mattered to the story. Second of all, What happened to the freedom of choice in the game? In origins, almost every time I played, I found there was a different outcome to almost every situation. In Inquisition, it's simply monotonous. It's the same outcome no matter what. There's no change to anything I do, everything kind of just works the same. The only efforts they made to make me feel like a choice I made mattered was choosing templars or mages, choosing the orlesian leader, and destroying the wardens or keeping them. In Origins, I felt like almost every choice mattered. Being persuasive had effects over simple dialouge, whereas in Inquisition, being pursuasive issss simple dialogue. I felt I mattered in Origins but here in Inquisition, where I should feel like a leader, I just feel like the game is trying to make a sheep to conform to pretty graphics and oooh, pretty trees. Where the hell is beef. Inquisition left me so dissatisfied. Anyone get what I'm trying to say?

 

It would help if you used multiple paragraphs.

 

I don't agree with everything you say, but I do agree that I'd have preferred if all the areas tied in to the main quest more directly.  The main quests of each area all had to do with issues that existed within the main plot - the Venatori, the Red Templars, etc.  However, since you basically had to visit them and do a whole lot of those quests anyway just to be able to move on in the main quest (or be underleveled for it), yes, they should all have tied in directly to the main quest.

 

As for the endings--there are several major choices, and I suspect that our more minor decisions will also play into DA4 in some way, even though we don't get an ending slide for them.  There's one big event that will always be the same no matter what you do, which is maybe not my preference, but it gives a basis for DA4.  Really these games only give us the illusion of choice, because the story will be what it will be no matter what we do, with only minor references to our decisions in most cases.

 

In terms of plot and pacing, I'd say Dragon Age: Origins was probably the best game of the three.  DA2 was a bit, well... Events don't make for good antagonists in a game, in the end.  It wasn't a bad game, in my opinion, but it wasn't stellar.

 

DA:I, to me, is a good game, a great game, even.  While I disagree that it failed me as a fan, I still think that, mainly for the reason you mention above--the lack of interconnectedness to the various areas--that it could have been much better than it actually is.  Plus, tying those locations in more directly with the main story would also have made the main quest a lot more involved and longer.

 

The only reason I can think of that it was done this way was not so much "make it more like Skyrim," though that's part of it, since plenty of people enjoy exploration.  I think it was more the idea that you'd still have areas to complete and important quests to complete after you beat the main quest.  That's a bit of a failure, since, in order to be the proper level for each stage of the main quest, you still have to complete a large number of the quests in each area even if you aren't a completionist.

[ChaosWalking]

I get the entire "build up power for the Inquisition" but no matter what you do, the outcome of the game is you battle corypheus. Just because you explored all the areas doesn't make the game end with a different type of inquisition. Inquisition is a great game, however, it didn't live up to what I wanted out of the game. The total immersion aspect that existed in Origins is simply absent. The main quests are short and choices feel restricted. Idk. I guess I'm rambling. If you only play the main quests, it's like a 10 hour long game honestly. If you do all the areas though, it sort of feels meaningless in the end because it doesn't change the outcome of what you make of the inquisition. Finishing the game with 200 power as opposed to 20 creates no difference. 

[ChaosWalking]

And since when did Hawke taking down bandits  in the Free Marches  and defeating the Arishok in DAII or the HOF and her companions assassinating people and robbing nobles in Denerim, or giving them silly presents for Saturnalia, or restoring Soldiers Keep in DAO have to do with the main plot.. This is not just a game about the main plot its about building the reputation of your player character so that they have the support they need to defeat Corypheus-- and to root out those that support him like Grand Duchess Florianne and the Duke of Wycome .. same with DAII or DAO.

 

Do you really think that the HOF or the Champion would have been able to deal with the Blight or Meredith if they had not done all those little sidequests that got them money, better equipment, and political support to do what they did .. not to mention people who helped them to fight? This is not DAO or DAII and the game needs to be judged on its own merits.. Besides 99% of all RPG games are the sidequests most of which don't tie into the main plot in any way whatsoever .. unless that fish agreement I delivered to Markarth resulted in me getting 50 pounds of fish to use as bait for Alduin, or that slave I helped in Assassins Creed Liberation fought at my side during the final boss battle.

 

 

Its not to say this game is perfect. Little logic problem for you here.

 

A. Games are designed by people

B. People are not perfect.

C. Therefore games will not be perfect either

 

There are problems with the game especially being issues with playing after the final main quest. There are bugs and glitches to iron out.. but overall this game is not much of a disappointment in terms of recent RPG games. Sidequesting in terms of quests that have little or nothing to do with the main quest have been part of RPG's since the days of Arena, Daggerfall, and Baldurs Gate I and II.. they are a way of building up your equipment and your money and your exp... If you don't like them there is always an option to not play them even if it does leave you woefully underpowered for the main questline. Bioware is entitled to make the game they want to make and you are equally entitled to not buy it, return it , or trade it in at Gamestop if it does not meet your expectations

Don't give me that logic. I'm entitled to my opinion too. Don't be a rude diehard fan ******. HOF did all those quests in areas that were relevant to stopping the blight. The area's that weren't, are DLC. 

[Obb42]

There's a reason for doing all of those tasks.. it's just that the game has two main goals. You only see one (stopping Corypheus). The second is building up the Inquisition's reputation, stopping mage/templar conflict, etc.. In short, "restoring order". These two goals don't always blend together, but there is a reason for doing things.

Four words: Where. The. Druffalo. Roam.

[Brass_Buckles]

I get the entire "build up power for the Inquisition" but no matter what you do, the outcome of the game is you battle corypheus. Just because you explored all the areas doesn't make the game end with a different type of inquisition. Inquisition is a great game, however, it didn't live up to what I wanted out of the game. The total immersion aspect that existed in Origins is simply absent. The main quests are short and choices feel restricted. Idk. I guess I'm rambling. If you only play the main quests, it's like a 10 hour long game honestly. If you do all the areas though, it sort of feels meaningless in the end because it doesn't change the outcome of what you make of the inquisition. Finishing the game with 200 power as opposed to 20 creates no difference. 

 

I kind of have a suspicion that, via DLC, they will ultimately expand greatly on the game.  Maybe there will be more "meat" to the game then, but they can't exactly add to the main plot in doing so.

 

As big as Inquisition is, it's unclear how long it will take to put out DA4--and I am sure there will be a DA4 because of its multiple Game of the Year awards.  Even if it didn't sell well initially (and I believe it has), word will still get out.  So, it would make sense if they had plans to keep adding DLC to the game to make it absolutely huge.

 

That said, Inquisition wasn't truly made for those of us who started playing when Origins came out (I believe DAO was the first game I ever preordered, and I was just THRILLED with it, too--it wasn't at all what I expected but it was so much better!).  Inquisition was made for new players, with nods to the fans of the series included.  If you look at it as a separate game on its own merits, it is definitely a very good game--even if it's not necessarily what you wanted or expected.

[ChaosWalking]

Four words: Where. The. Druffalo. Roam.

Lol.

[ChaosWalking]

I kind of have a suspicion that, via DLC, they will ultimately expand greatly on the game.  Maybe there will be more "meat" to the game then, but they can't exactly add to the main plot in doing so.

 

As big as Inquisition is, it's unclear how long it will take to put out DA4--and I am sure there will be a DA4 because of its multiple Game of the Year awards.  Even if it didn't sell well initially (and I believe it has), word will still get out.  So, it would make sense if they had plans to keep adding DLC to the game to make it absolutely huge.

 

That said, Inquisition wasn't truly made for those of us who started playing when Origins came out (I believe DAO was the first game I ever preordered, and I was just THRILLED with it, too--it wasn't at all what I expected but it was so much better!).  Inquisition was made for new players, with nods to the fans of the series included.  If you look at it as a separate game on its own merits, it is definitely a very good game--even if it's not necessarily what you wanted or expected.

I agree, as it's own standalone thing, yea, it's a great game. But As a hardcore dragon age fan, it just didn't present that beautiful structure and replayability that Origins did, at least, not to me. I guess I too am one of those people stuck in the DAO mindset lol 

[Wissenschaft 2.0]

I get the entire "build up power for the Inquisition" but no matter what you do, the outcome of the game is you battle corypheus. Just because you explored all the areas doesn't make the game end with a different type of inquisition. Inquisition is a great game, however, it didn't live up to what I wanted out of the game. The total immersion aspect that existed in Origins is simply absent. The main quests are short and choices feel restricted. Idk. I guess I'm rambling. If you only play the main quests, it's like a 10 hour long game honestly. If you do all the areas though, it sort of feels meaningless in the end because it doesn't change the outcome of what you make of the inquisition. Finishing the game with 200 power as opposed to 20 creates no difference. 

 

You can beat Origins just as quickly. In fact, speed runners have beaten origins absurdly fast.

[ChaosWalking]

You can beat Origins just as quickly. In fact, speed runners have beaten origins absurdly fast.

RIght you can, but it's not nearly as large as Inquisition. Inquisition has so much content, but where the difference lies is how relevant that content is to the endgame

[Wissenschaft 2.0]

Four words: Where. The. Druffalo. Roam.

 

Don't forget the ballad of Lord Woolsley! Hint: Attack both animals and find out what happens. Its still related.

[Brass_Buckles]

I agree, as it's own standalone thing, yea, it's a great game. But As a hardcore dragon age fan, it just didn't present that beautiful structure and replayability that Origins did, at least, not to me. I guess I too am one of those people stuck in the DAO mindset lol 

 

Origins wasn't a long game, but I think in terms of plot, it was more interconnected--which to me is a better structure.  But I can also see the merits in how Inquisition is done.  I like both games--I would tend to agree that Origins is the better of them, but we really can't go back to those days.  Perhaps we shouldn't even want to - we should be thinking of how we can improve on the gaming experience in the future, rather than dwelling on how great it was in the past.  Lots of improvements to gameplay were made.

 

If our biggest complaint is the structure and the relative inflexibility of the ending (which is probably due to having had to make certain decisions canon for DAO in the first place so that the DA2 and DAI stories would work), then, I think they're probably doing a pretty good job.  I expect they'll take note of this complaint and do something about it.  We still can't go back to the nostalgia of DA:O though.  An experience can only be new one time.

[Wissenschaft 2.0]

RIght you can, but it's not nearly as large as Inquisition. Inquisition has so much content, but where the difference lies is how relevant that content is to the endgame

 

Really? How relevant was most of the game to beating the Archdemon, which is a villain that you barely even see before the final battle.

 

Sigh, I must be old. I remember a day way back when where the BSN was fill with threads complaining about how unconnected the Origins quests where to fighting the blight.

 

Its like Deja Vu.

 

Note: I'm not mocking you, I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree with you and those that hold this viewpoint.

[ChaosWalking]

Origins wasn't a long game, but I think in terms of plot, it was more interconnected--which to me is a better structure.  But I can also see the merits in how Inquisition is done.  I like both games--I would tend to agree that Origins is the better of them, but we really can't go back to those days.  Perhaps we shouldn't even want to - we should be thinking of how we can improve on the gaming experience in the future, rather than dwelling on how great it was in the past.  Lots of improvements to gameplay were made.

 

If our biggest complaint is the structure and the relative inflexibility of the ending (which is probably due to having had to make certain decisions canon for DAO in the first place so that the DA2 and DAI stories would work), then, I think they're probably doing a pretty good job.  I expect they'll take note of this complaint and do something about it.  We still can't go back to the nostalgia of DA:O though.  An experience can only be new one time.

Well, I played Origins 14 times total, and each time there was something that came out different in my opinion, and I had yet to still get the achievement for all possibilities. 

[ChaosWalking]

Really? How relevant was most of the game to beating the Archdemon, which is a villain that you barely even see before the final battle.

 

Sigh, I must be old. I remember a day way back when where the BSN was fill with threads complaining about how unconnected the Origins quests where to fighting the blight.

 

Its like Deja Vu.

 

Note: I'm not mocking you, I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree with you and those that hold this viewpoint.

As for this, Every area you went to was out of a necessity to recruit forces to be able to fight loghain and the archdemon. You needed the support of the dwarves, the elves/werewolves, and the mages/templars and arl eamon. After that, the next step was to unite Ferelden in order to fight the Archdemon. In each of t,hose areas though, there were a plethora of sidequests to do, rather than just having entire areas full of sidequests that don't relate the the campaign areas. I'm playing the game and I feel absolutely no reason to go to the Emerald Graves or the Exalted Plains. I felt compelled to go to the storm coast because of Bull however, as that certain part added and contributed to the main story overall.

[Brass_Buckles]

Really? How relevant was most of the game to beating the Archdemon, which is a villain that you barely even see before the final battle.

 

Sigh, I must be old. I remember a day way back when where the BSN was fill with threads complaining about how unconnected the Origins quests where to fighting the blight.

 

Its like Deja Vu.

 

Note: I'm not mocking you, I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree with you and those that hold this viewpoint.

 

Personally I don't think every single quest needs to tie in to the main plot, but I think the main quest of each region should have had ties to the main plot, to give you a better reason to go there.  There is a good, and valid, argument against that in the form of, "Well, you need those people on your side to help you battle Corypheus's forces."  Still, it might have been nice to see a cut scene or the like of Corypheus sending some of these groups out that we were fighting against.  Or even if we just had to go there because we located intelligence on his plans involved in that area--just, you know, something a bit more direct to send us to those areas.

 

Again, I can see the argument of gathering people; that was actually the majority of the Warden's plot in DA:O.  You could skip some areas, or abandon them, but gathering together those forces really made a difference to the state of the battle in the ending.  In the case of DA:I, you don't see that so much.  Where are my mage forces in the final battle?  Celene's Orlesian army?  My Dalish allies?  None of them are there.  They were there in DA:O, so gathering them felt more relevant.

[Wissenschaft 2.0]

To be honest, I'm bias. I'm a big Skyrim fan but I always wished it had a stronger main story. So to me, DA: I is a wish come true. Perhaps I just have a high tolerance for doing random side quests. lol

[ChaosWalking]

Personally I don't think every single quest needs to tie in to the main plot, but I think the main quest of each region should have had ties to the main plot, to give you a better reason to go there.  There is a good, and valid, argument against that in the form of, "Well, you need those people on your side to help you battle Corypheus's forces."  Still, it might have been nice to see a cut scene or the like of Corypheus sending some of these groups out that we were fighting against.  Or even if we just had to go there because we located intelligence on his plans involved in that area--just, you know, something a bit more direct to send us to those areas.

 

Again, I can see the argument of gathering people; that was actually the majority of the Warden's plot in DA:O.  You could skip some areas, or abandon them, but gathering together those forces really made a difference to the state of the battle in the ending.  In the case of DA:I, you don't see that so much.  Where are my mage forces in the final battle?  Celene's Orlesian army?  My Dalish allies?  None of them are there.  They were there in DA:O, so gathering them felt more relevant.

YEESSS. It's that feeling that everything you did up until the final battle completely mattered in the end

[ChaosWalking]

To be honest, I'm bias. I'm a big Skyrim fan but I always wished it had a stronger main story. So to me, DA: I is a wish come true. Perhaps I just have a high tolerance for doing random side quests. lol

The main reason I hate Skyrim is because I've tried playing it five times now and I still don't know what the frak the main story is even about lol

[Efvie]

That said, Inquisition wasn't truly made for those of us who started playing when Origins came out (I believe DAO was the first game I ever preordered, and I was just THRILLED with it, too--it wasn't at all what I expected but it was so much better!).  Inquisition was made for new players, with nods to the fans of the series included.  If you look at it as a separate game on its own merits, it is definitely a very good game--even if it's not necessarily what you wanted or expected.

 

That seems an uncharitable interpretation. Everyone’s sensibilities develop (somewhat); plus, the lure of new technology is always strong. Even in this small scale, reach exceeds grasp, and things are done because they can—not so much because they should be. They wanted new players, I’m certain, but moreso it’s simply about making a Dragon Age game.

 

That said, yes, I thought it was a disappointment that the ‘power’ amounted to essentially nothing tangible, neither during gameplay nor in the end game. Perhaps it will be explored further in DLC, perhaps not, but it is definitely something that needs to be addressed in the next installment. Static worlds are simply not as immersive as dynamically responsive ones, no matter how much lore one can dig out.

 

That is why I prefer Dragon Age, not Skyrim.

[Brass_Buckles]

To be honest, I'm bias. I'm a big Skyrim fan but I always wished it had a stronger main story. So to me, DA: I is a wish come true. Perhaps I just have a high tolerance for doing random side quests. lol

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Skyrim also.  I wished it had a stronger story, and better characters, as well.  DA:I is a nice balance, and I actually love DA:I.  Unfortunately, it also introduces a lot of NPCs we don't get to know as well as we did a lot of the NPCs in Origins, largely thanks to the scope of the game.  It does still suffer in terms of the main plot, and as the OP said, we don't get to change too much in the ending.  On the upside, it does have some great companion characters.

 

That said, I understand the "why" of it.  I just think a little better structuring so that all areas do tie directly in and the player makes sure to visit them all (even if the player chooses to abandon the people/not help, with varying results) would be nice.  I don't mind the shortened main plot, because there's so much other content.  Exploration is great.  Crafting is great--I like DA's better than Skyrim's.  Downside:  Without radiant quests, if you are a completionist, you WILL run out of stuff to do when you beat the game, and then it's either time to start a new playthrough or go play something else.

 

One thing that has impressed me is that despite the return to a Mass Effect style dialogue wheel, I find that the options are more nuanced than "Sensitive/Sarcastic/Grumpy" in most cases.  So, you can actually roleplay a little better, instead of being tempted to just choose the nice or nasty or sarcastic option every time.