293 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

I wouldn't call this generic crap. For all its faults, its not generic crap. COD is generic crap. There are too many good things here to get away with that. This game has some of the best voice acting ever in a game. That alone already sets it apart from generic crap. Hate it all you want, but don't go into the delusion that your in any majority with that opinion.

 

That's the sad part, really. DA:I has lots of good points. Graphics, voice acting, soundtrack... but the gaming experience is ... mediocre because there are so many frustrating parts that they impact on the potential of the game. One of the potentially best games ever is dragged down by questionable design choices and curious story developments.

If it really was just generic crap, I doubt people would care enough to post all these long threads.

[Bioware-Critic]

That's the sad part, really. DA:I has lots of good points. Graphics, voice acting, soundtrack... but the gaming experience is ... mediocre because there are so many frustrating parts that they impact on the potential of the game. One of the potentially best games ever is dragged down by questionable design choices and curious story developments.

If it really was just generic crap, I doubt people would care enough to post all these long threads.

You just read my mind! And it is really SAD

 

The bigger this business gets the less "soul" you find when interacting with it! It helps when you know where to look for the good stuff ...

... but there is no garanty you won't get robbed and EAten alive by greedy SOB's!

[Rawgrim]

That's the sad part, really. DA:I has lots of good points. Graphics, voice acting, soundtrack... but the gaming experience is ... mediocre because there are so many frustrating parts that they impact on the potential of the game. One of the potentially best games ever is dragged down by questionable design choices and curious story developments.

If it really was just generic crap, I doubt people would care enough to post all these long threads.

 

Pretty spot on. The designers are holding the game back with their poor choices. Arguably what happened to DA2, as well, despte the game being rushed.

[Hiemoth]

Very eloquently written post and while I would never argue against someone's right to criticize. I do find myself fundamentally disagreeing with your central point. At least as far as I understood it. My response wont' be as elegant, but hopefully it will at least be shorter and thus not cause that much suffering.

 

First, I have actually owned and played all BW's games as well as most of the other so-called central RPGs. I don't actually think it matters that much for the discussion, as I assume that any game company wants new people to play their games, but just to put it out there in order to give a little bit of context to my next sentence. I personally find the argument that BWs game have lost depth in their game design utterly ridiculous based on my experiences. BG/BG2 games used ADD rules, which were so badly broken, especially for higher level characters, NWN OC was basically a test case, DAO feat system was completely linear and pretty narrow, etc. For me, DA2 has the best character creation/development system in BW games so far, with all classes having multiple efficient builds with very different approaches to combat. BTW, not arguing that the system itself was perfect, far from it, for example the armor system was utterly broken, but as the skill trees and attribute effects made it very malleable. As for encounter experience, ME3 rules the games for me, with every class feeling very unique and encounters feeling fresh and challenging from the beginning of the game to the end.

 

Now as some probably are scoffing at my examples and sighingly dismissing me as a lost soul, but that isn't actually the point. My experience is just as valid in these discussions. I am just as much as an RPG vet that most here proclaim to be, yet my baseline experience is mysteriously and magically very different from what some proclaim to be an apparent universal truth. My main point that I am trying to get through is not that somehow people's experiences of those games are invalid because they were different from mine, but that by dragging those older games up and preaching how Bioware has lost its way by seeking mainstream audiences requires everyone to have the same baseline experience, which is clearly not true based on the very discussions in this forum. As a result it becomes this suffocating thing where instead of discussing what this game did, what worked and what did not, it becomes this continuous argument how Bioware has lost its way. Which by the way is really weird considering its mainly the same people doing those games who have also always looked for the mainstream audiences from the get-go.

 

I am not arguing that their games shouldn't be criticized. There are several aspects of DAI I don't like and have brought up. I am not even saying that those older games shouldn't be referenced. For example, I vastly preferred the voice acting approach of DA2 to DAI, thus I can use it as an example of my own taste in discussion, even as I understand others disagree. What I am arguing against is constantly glorifying and rising those past games to a pedestal and claiming that Bioware has lost their way and dumbed down their games, because that as an argument only works if it is accepted as truth by everyone, which it clearly is not. And thus it only derails the discussion to were the previous games really so beyond reproach while unintentionally being kind of offensive to players who prefer the newer games as it constantly claims that they like the dumbed down product.

 

I finish by stressing that I am not saying games shouldn't criticized, but rather that it would be in my opinion more beneficial in discussing of what was actually in the game being discussed instead of harping back to past games and assuming that everyone feels exactly the same about them.

[Bioware-Critic]

Very eloquently written post and while I would never argue against someone's right to criticize. I do find myself fundamentally disagreeing with your central point. At least as far as I understood it. My response wont' be as elegant, but hopefully it will at least be shorter and thus not cause that much suffering.

 

First, I have actually owned and played all BW's games as well as most of the other so-called central RPGs. I don't actually think it matters that much for the discussion, as I assume that any game company wants new people to play their games, but just to put it out there in order to give a little bit of context to my next sentence. I personally find the argument that BWs game have lost depth in their game design utterly ridiculous based on my experiences. BG/BG2 games used ADD rules, which were so badly broken, especially for higher level characters, NWN OC was basically a test case, DAO feat system was completely linear and pretty narrow, etc. For me, DA2 has the best character creation/development system in BW games so far, with all classes having multiple efficient builds with very different approaches to combat. BTW, not arguing that the system itself was perfect, far from it, for example the armor system was utterly broken, but as the skill trees and attribute effects made it very malleable. As for encounter experience, ME3 rules the games for me, with every class feeling very unique and encounters feeling fresh and challenging from the beginning of the game to the end.

 

Now as some probably are scoffing at my examples and sighingly dismissing me as a lost soul, but that isn't actually the point. My experience is just as valid in these discussions. I am just as much as an RPG vet that most here proclaim to be, yet my baseline experience is mysteriously and magically very different from what some proclaim to be an apparent universal truth. My main point that I am trying to get through is not that somehow people's experiences of those games are invalid because they were different from mine, but that by dragging those older games up and preaching how Bioware has lost its way by seeking mainstream audiences requires everyone to have the same baseline experience, which is clearly not true based on the very discussions in this forum. As a result it becomes this suffocating thing where instead of discussing what this game did, what worked and what did not, it becomes this continuous argument how Bioware has lost its way. Which by the way is really weird considering its mainly the same people doing those games who have also always looked for the mainstream audiences from the get-go.

 

I am not arguing that their games shouldn't be criticized. There are several aspects of DAI I don't like and have brought up. I am not even saying that those older games shouldn't be referenced. For example, I vastly preferred the voice acting approach of DA2 to DAI, thus I can use it as an example of my own taste in discussion, even as I understand others disagree. What I am arguing against is constantly glorifying and rising those past games to a pedestal and claiming that Bioware has lost their way and dumbed down their games, because that as an argument only works if it is accepted as truth by everyone, which it clearly is not. And thus it only derails the discussion to were the previous games really so beyond reproach while unintentionally being kind of offensive to players who prefer the newer games as it constantly claims that they like the dumbed down product.

 

I finish by stressing that I am not saying games shouldn't criticized, but rather that it would be in my opinion more beneficial in discussing of what was actually in the game being discussed instead of harping back to past games and assuming that everyone feels exactly the same about them.

 

I think you just have to compare DA:O to DA:I and look at the things that were taken out completely or reduced from a quality of 7-10 all the way down to quality value of 3-5 (like for example the reduced skill system, reduced complexity in combat-agency, ...).

If you remember DA:O and DA:O Awakening very well from memory - you have your answer ... sort of ...

 

But to give you another food for thought ...

 

It is about a lot of things (for me) like classical RPG elements that were / are present in a lot of games and kind of derive from P&P games all together. And the new direction that somehow feels and plays a lot like (not completely) as a mixture between: action-RPG's, MMO's, Skyrim and also like some weird "12-headed-beast" that looks very familiar but feels somehow empty and strange ...

I think a very heavy factor is also that in previous DA games the story was very much "in-your-face" all the time! I for one enjoyed that quite a lot. And I do miss that at times! It is Biowares first take on open world games and the marriage between the story-heavy gameplay of the predecessors and the new "MMO-style" presents me with a gap that leaves me unsatisfied in regards to my expectations - because it feels empty to me. All I see really is a very beautiful world with less connection and less feel to it than previous installments.

 

It is like "AAA vs f2p-MMO" for me sometimes ... ... but not quite exactly!

 

What also did not help was the fact that the communication between Bioware and their fans in the past couple of years as well as the PR made us believe we will get a true DA:O successor in the spirit of Origins - but with a modern twist - so to speak! And I don't see that here ... not at all! After 5 years of waiting and all the PR I was paying for something else entirely than what I ended up buying here.

 

Try to keep in mind that even if I cut it short here - I could go on!

 

 

I also will say, that I like a lot of things in Inquisition where Bioware really improved DA and brought it to the next level!

It is not all "black" for me either.

 

 

But just like you, Hiemoth, I can only speak for myself!

[Lianaar]

But we get down to it again. I don't think DA:O was that high quatliy, while I think DA:2 were way higher quality.
So the preset is not the same, see?

When I was reading the forums after DA:2 which offered the best gaming experience I ever had, I realised I won't ever get what I want in the games, because many people like it differently.

 

So in my point of view, you can take the look at what GOOD changes they made from DA:O till DA:2 and they should preserve that.

If I have to list the things that I like, it'll be the exact opposite people list
- I felt consequences mattered

- I thought there was a lot of variation

- I thought each play through was different

- I could for the personality I wanted

If you go and read back the forum, people said the exact opposite from the very same game.

So this is why the argument alone, that DA:O is the best and everything went downhill from there is not valid, because of perspective differences.

 

I don't expect people to agree with my point of view of course. As long as I am not expected to take DA:O supremacy as a fact. Because it is not.

But I am happy to read what parts of the game exactly you liked.

[Dakota Strider]

Why I would rate DAO over both DA2 and DAI

-DAO had far more character class choices, even before you went into specializations (objective)

-DAO had far more spell choices (objective)

-DAO had more class skills to choose from (objective)

-DAO allowed far more flexibility for classes to use different weapons (objective)

-DAO Origin stories gave a unique and very immersive way to learn your character, with many optional Origins to choose from, superior to other intros (mostly objective)

-DAO After Lothering, player had 4 main story line quests to finish, before getting ready for the Landsmeet.  Player could choose to play these quests in any which order they chose, meaning that one play through they might play Redcliffe at very low levels, the next play through at very high levels.  This added variety almost guaranteed that each play through was a new experience, and added a lot of longevity to the game (mostly objective, a little subjective)

-DAO more than its successors, decisions seemed to make a significant difference, and there were far more opportunities to change the ending (1/2 & 1/2)

-DAO Companions seemed to have the most depth than any others in the series (mostly subjective)

-DAO combat was far more tactical (fairly objective) which is a far superior style of play (extremely subjective)

-DAO The overall story seemed to flow better, with no gaping plot holes, and protagonist had more motivation for carrying on (mostly subjective)

-DAO had the best variety of outdoor, indoor, dungeon/cavern and city maps to play through (DAI better outdoor, DA2 maybe tied for city) (partly subjective)

-DAO had more protagonist conversation choices, because his/her part was not voice acted, giving more flexibility (partly objective/mostly subjective)

-DAO more possible endings, meaning the player had far more choices through the game  (mostly objective)

-DAO there were more moments, especially in companion banter that made me laugh, which is always cool in a game (almost entirely subjective)

-DAO combat graphics were far more realistic looking (in the spirit of swords and sorcery, see a previous post in this thread) a plus for me (almost entirely subjective)

-DAO crafting skills seemed, while not extravagant seemed to make the most sense, (subjective)

-DAO villains actually felt like a threat, and usually had done things that made you revile them, and want to take them out (mostly subjective)

-DAO & DA2 allowed you to switch weapons, staves and other equipment in combat.  Not an impossible physical feat to do in most circumstances (objective)

 

-DAI graphics > DA2 graphics > DAO graphics  Can't stop technology from progressing, so that is a given.  (almost entirely objective)

-DAI had the best music, especially the bard...(the rest of it, I rarely heard)  (partly subjective)

 

It's 2 am here, so I am about to call it for a night.  Obviously what is important for me in a game, is not going to be exactly the same for others.  A lot of these things, both of DAO's successors could have succeeded in, even with the system they chose to use, if they had just been granted enough time.  Many of the plot holes, repeated maps and things that had to do with story telling were fixable.  But, I am judging the games by the way they were, not by their potential.  DAI especially had potential to be a lot better, but it just petered out after leaving Haven. 

 

I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

[Lianaar]

- while the character specialisation choices are valid, however they don't much affect me, they are indifferent for me (I understand they are very important for others) - just like being able to play with different races is insignificant for me, so in my "goodness" bar they play no role, just like eg. price or platform plays no role (obviously in my interpretation) - so I accept whatever opinion people bring up here
- appearances: not my priority, backgrounds and environment are better in DA:I, however plastic feel of DA:I is not to my preference. Something I endure. Facial expressions are better in DA:I (I don't know wether this is objective or subjective, I don't know enough graphic design for this)
- emotional highpoint of the game: DA:O had it at the end or right before the end, DA:2 had more then one, DA:I had it in Haven -- DA:2 is the best for me in that regard
- companions: DA:I has the most interesting character set, with the most in depth character formation consistency, hero-undependent personality, then DA:2 and then DA:O
- companion quests: DA:I has the most elaborated and in depth character side quests at times with multiple elements
- npcs being part of the world: DA:I's characters were the most reasonably fitting characters, again with npcs having their own agenda and motivations and personalities and responses to the world and its events. DA:O npcs didn't really much reflect to changes or plot stage, in DA:I ambiguous chatter reflects on you too, like after Mythal's temple Skyhold elves were arguing about it pointing out the importance of an elf discovering the truths within and if the Maker is real or not after all this, like people wanting to join the inquisition and doing work, like some of them only doing it if you are a certain type or person

- story: DA:O didn't actually branch away that much. Become grey warden (no matter what you thought about wanting to be one or not): You had to convince 3 parties (you couldn't go to lands meet prematurely, no matter what), then beat Loghain, then the Archdemon. If you strip the game to its plot, that is the plot. DA:2 had the most wide branching plotline, for it has more then one event that nudged your story. You had to flee Lothering, gain entrance, build up power, save the town from the Qunaries, handle mage-templar issues and eventually flee the town. More down to earth and very personal on the skin experience. DA:I is again distant, the game is once again not about the protagonist, but about an institution and a threat more then about people. Learn how you can close the breach, get chantry support, get mage/templar support, get orlais or not, deal with the Wardens, deal with the Venatory, deal with Well of Sorrow, get your dragon, beat the boss. I think based on this we can say that DA:O had the shortest storyline.

The origin stories were better then DA:I obviously.

Origins intro quests: basically become Grey warden wether you like it or not, and then things just happen TO you.
Joining the Grey Wardens
Tainted Blood
The Grey Wardens' Cache
After the Joining
The Tower of Ishal
Lothering and the Imperial Highway
DA:I intro quests: Wether you like it or not, you become member of the inquisition, first things happen TO you, but the chance is offered that you take over. No chance not to become the inquisitor.
The Wrath of Heaven
The Threat Remains
Champions of the Just
In Your Heart Shall Burn - rescue missions

From the Ashes - I put this here, for this is where you become the inquisitor

 

Main story line

Broken Circle: templars or mages
In Hushed Whispers: mages become slaves or equal partners, fate of Alexius

The Arl of Redcliffe + The Urn of Sacred Ashes - save arl, Ashes spoilt or not, Conner lives or not, Jowan's fate
Here Lies the Abyss - Jana's fate, Convince Carell or not, warden or Hawe, fate of Erimond, fate of Wardens
 

Nature of the Beast - werewolves, dalish, both
Champions of the Just - never chose this yet, no opinion, sorry

A Paragon of Her Kind: - Bhelen - Harrowmonth, void - no void
What Pride Had Wrought: fight elves, ally with them, obtain permission or take right, run after opponent instead, drink from well, let your ally drink from it

 

Landsmeet: Anora (with HoF), Alistair (with HoF), Anora+Alistair
Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts: Fate of Florianne - expose her(execution or take away), detain her (boss fight), let her succeed (boss fight); Briala (reconciled, blackmail info given to Celene), Celene (dead, ruler - with Briala), Gaspard (executed, exciled, ruler- with Briala), truce, they rule together,

DA:O ending: The Battle of Denerim (HoF or Alistair dies - God baby)
DAI ending: 
The Final Piece
Doom Upon All the World

Disclaimer: I might have left out things, the games are huge and my memory is not covering everything I ever encountered.

There are areas DA:O did better, but a quite few where DA:I is better, imho based ont he above.
The emotional highpoint was wrongly distributed in DA:I imho, and better in DA:O. There were more decisions at the end of DA:O and more decisions in the middle and at the beggining of DA:I. All in all DA:I story was longer and gave more room for decisions. I believe side quests tied more into the main theme, then those of DA:O (red lyrium quests, weakening Samson's armor, which was a multiple person quest, finding the wardens, dealing with Crestwood while at it).

 

Both games had simple quests, eg chanter board, shards etc. - not my table in any way

 

DA:I had more unrelated, not story relevant side quests, such as Hissing Waste quests

 

I believe if the emotional high points' and the decision making places' timing would be different, many complaints would be less vocal.

 

There, my 2 cents.

 

edit:

forgot to add LIs,  but basically they tie to companions. LIs in DA:I were more spread out and had more content then that of DA:O. More choices and variations, and actually DA:I LI's had more spine then DA:2 compaions in that regard. I like the path they chose for romances in this game even over DA:2.

[hostaman]

I play on the PS4 but I don't wish a poor experience for any player on any platform.

 

(I actually think the game is still too complicated for a console, proving that it may be turning off both markets)

 

Ideally they would create separate versions for PC and console which were tailored to suit each market, but that would cost.  Would they make any more money by doing this? Probably not, when the additional development cost is factored in.

 

Although the PC game market is huge, it's probably not big enough on it's own to bankroll such a big game, and turn a nice fat stack for EA's investors.

 

Capitalism doth sucketh 

 

 

I am starting to warm to this game, but as a console player I still prefer the more console centric Mass Effect.   

[deadkai]

No console gamer asked for the removal of,for example,the tactics system.In fact,this was the only reason that playing on higher difficulties were possible for me because i couldnt manually position my party members in the previous games.

[Moirnelithe]

A game for a niche market would have to be developed on a niche budget. Suppose you designed a game that you thought 100,000 people would be interested in playing, and they would be willing to pay $100 for the game (niche products command a price premium). That gives you $10 million to work with. I don’t know what the expected gross profit margin is for a successful game, but let’s say it’s 25%, which gives you $8 million to develop the game with an expected $2 million in gross profit. $8 million is probably around 10-20% or so of what DAI actually cost to develop and market. If you’re targeting a small, concentrated, well-defined audience, you probably don’t have to spend a lot on marketing, but we’re still talking about a very small budget compared to what modern games cost.

 

Would you really be willing to pay around double the price for a game that had to cut huge corners in order to come in on budget just for something that appealed directly to you, me and a small number of other gamers? I’ve critiqued the way that the story elements and role-playing aspects came together, and I think that Bioware could have done better with the same resources, but the reason that I am able to play a game with first-rate (or at least upper second-rate) graphics, sound, voice acting, and other production values, that also has traditional roleplaying aspects is that there are lots of people who aren’t like you and me who are also willing to plunk down $60 to play the game for aspects that maybe we don’t care so much about or even dislike. Their money is worth just as much as ours, but they outnumber us and we are effectively parasites: getting most but not all of what we want because their money subsidizes what we’d probably never be willing to pay for all on our own.

 

I enjoyed playing Ultima IV in 1985, but that was created by Richard Garriott and a handful of other people over a period of a year or two. DAI took many hundreds of people to make over an even longer timeframe. A copy of Ultima IV cost the equivalent of about $100 in today’s money to buy, but I doubt that I’d spend $10 on a similar game today. I’d expect more even from a $1.99 iOS app. Granted, developers can do a lot more today on a given budget than the could when games were hand-coded in assembly and then painstakingly ported to other platforms by re-writing them from scratch, but there is still a limit to what anyone can do with a small development budget.

 

As someone who spent $165 on the Obsidian Kickstarter of Project Eternity and $100+ each on InExiles Torment, Shroud of the Avatar and a couple of others I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there are indeed people who still care for traditional cRPG's and are willing to pay quite a bit for it.

[Dakota Strider]

@Lianaar:  Appreciate you listing your reasons, and respect your choices.  Would you agree that most of your choices were subjective, and would vary on the person playing?  Personally, I liked the story of DAO far better.  It did not feel like a train ride.  Even unrelated side quests at least had positive reinforcement that made them entertaining.  Yes, handing out notices for the Mage Collective is a fetch quest; but for each note you passed out resulted in a short amount of dialogue, that was much more rewarding than picking up shards, or bottles, or weeds.  Even having the Chantry chanter quote some line from the "Chant" on completion of the Chantry Board fetch quests, gave more positive reinforcement.  And for me, I never really felt like I was doing a fetch quest:  I would accept the mission, then in the course of me doing my Warden duties, I would run across the people that would complete the quest. 

 

Anyways, got sidetracked.  I would grant DA2 probably had the better story, over DAI.  But, it was a straight down the rails train ride.  Very few variations of the plot.  You either got Carver or Bethany based on your class choice.  And I think your siblings had more possible endings than Hawke actually did.  In DAO, I believe there were at least 4 possible main endings, with about 20 lesser endings that could change. 

 

This is of course anecdotal, but I played through DAO 14 times.  The very first time, I would be crawling to bed at 4-5 a.m. and only get a couple hours of sleep before having to get up.  I did not want to stop playing it.   DA2, I have 4 complete play throughs.  First time was fine, but really did not hurt my sleep patterns.  DAI was a struggle to play, especially at first.  To be honest, sometimes it felt like a chore, but once I start something, I want to finish it.  And usually when I finish any game that I enjoy, I am looking forward to playing it again immediately, to try new things, see what I missed, etc.  Its been a month since I completed DAI, and I still have no urge to put myself through it again.  I know I will play it again, probably after they finally patch some of the technical issues.  But, there were so many things that just really bugged me about DAI, that it probably hurt my appreciation of the story.  Those that enjoy the style that DAI has become, obviously had less distraction to keep them from enjoying the story.

[Lianaar]

Well subjective as much as it can based from priorities. Subjective in what is important to me.
Because having a better graphics for me doesn't add to the game, so a fact of being more graphical and having more varied dungeons might be an objective statement, but it doesn't add to the game for me at all. So my priorities are subejctive. The fact on the level of the priorities is less so.

 

The list of main quests is a totally objective list. I simply listed what quests there are and what variations there are in it.

The amount of companion quests and their length is totally objective. DA:I had longer and more detailed companion quests. (however if you subjectively preferred DA:O companions, then size alone doesn't matter, for in your priority list it wasn't important).

 

The variation in some of the main quests is undoubtedly better in DA:I - just look at the Orlesian ball - sorry to say, but the Landsmeet doesn't offer as many outcomes based on your decisions as the Orlesian ball does. That is an objective statement. However if you hated that sort of plotline, then obviously subjectively even more is less.

 

The emotional high points are entirely subjective.

The number of companions is objective (more due to advisors)

The number and variation of LIs is objective (wether you cared for it or if it added or deducted from your experience is subjective).

 

I am sorry, but I can not say we can agree that my list was subjective while yours was objective. I think my list had objective and subjective elements both, just like yours. Maybe the ones I objectively listed were not important for your game experience, while they were for mine.

 

I replayed DA:2 the most often, because each time there was a different approach from the other characters. It allowed me to explore how playing a different person as Hawke changed the way people reacted to the events. I loved it more then anything DA:O could offer me.

 

And for me the mage and irregular quests were terrible. In my 2nd playthrough I simply didn't even do them any more. They were way worse story wise then the give food for the refugies for they starve quest here. So there you got a line of chant of light, kind of ambiguous text (which I have nothing against, I happen to hear out the ones here too). Here you get people in the game world change based on your decision - people talk about having blankets and not freezing and about not being hungry due to the Inquisition. No difference whatsoever if you go objective on it. Subjectively you are free to enjoy that more then enjoy this. However the structure, the reward, the mechanism is totally the same.

 

I tried to go back to Origins, and I could not. BUt I am happy to replay DA:2, and I bet I still can find new things in them. Little things yes. The fact I appreciate those little things more then who is king of Orzamar, that is totally subjective. I might have mentioned before, but in origin stories having to force my character to want to become a warden is putting off. I played the mage once and never again. There is simply not a single valid reason aside from being fond of the wardens, why the character would go to become a warden. The city elf has a very valid reason, I see the nobles too. I also struggled with my Dalish elf somewhat. Replay value of Orzamar and Korcari wilds is 0. The only good thing in Orzamar for me is the choice about Branka. That part was brilliantly written.

 

I love Origins, but it is objectively not as good as some people want to list. I think it has flaws that you step over easily because you personally enjoy the game. Which is totally human and normal. I naturally stepped over repeat environment in DA:2, for it didn't bother me at all, but I easily see why many people were upset about it. DA:I is too big for my liking. I prefer more personal stories. But I am happy for it, and it doesn't deserve some of the slander thrown at it, according to my view. I do wish the ending was more elevated emotionally.

[Dakota Strider]

One person's flawed feature is another person's enhancement.

 

Was not a big fan of the Orlesian Ball.  A timer, when we have to do stupid things like jump to reach something on a rafter, and explore?  If nosing around the royal mansion was so terribly important, and the Inquisitor had to maintain a presence with the guests, why didn't we just use some of Leliana's spies to scout around and find stuff?  It is not like other factions did not have henchmen running around all over the place.  Not really trying to prop up the Landsmeet, for me, most of the work done to influence the nobles was done way before you went into royal court.  But you definitely saw the results of your efforts.

 

Many of the old rpg elements that are in DAO, I know many players cannot stand.  They don't like levelling up characters, they don't like distributing attributes and worrying about how it will affect effectiveness of the character.  For me, that is the bread and butter of a rpg.  I want every possible decision that affects my character, to be put into my hands, as opposed to counting on the game engine to give me a cookie cutter clone of what a character of my race and class should look like. 

[Xralius]

Someone askes 'would you really pay double... For a game that would appeal to you and a small number of people?'.... I would have probably payed $300+ for a legitimate successor to DA:O. It could have had the same graphics and engine, i still would have payed that much, maybe more. I guess we'll have to wait for a developer that isn't a sellout to come take our money.

[Lianaar]

Someone who doesn't make a game costing 5 times that of the price of DA:I is a sellout... I sense a slight bit of controversion there.

 

I wish for you though, that you get the game you seek.
I still stick to the claim, that it is illogical from a company not to go to the direction that offers the most profit. Having a large budget offers more things for you to be able to do.

 

I do view games as artistic product of a company. They make the game they want and I decide if I want to enjoy that given art or not. As long as I don't commission the art, I don't have the right to decide what the art is. I know there are actually people rich enough to offer such a commission, but I personally am not one What a shame.

[MyloLothian]

A game for a niche market would have to be developed on a niche budget. Suppose you designed a game that you thought 100,000 people would be interested in playing, and they would be willing to pay $100 for the game (niche products command a price premium). That gives you $10 million to work with. I don’t know what the expected gross profit margin is for a successful game, but let’s say it’s 25%, which gives you $8 million to develop the game with an expected $2 million in gross profit. $8 million is probably around 10-20% or so of what DAI actually cost to develop and market. If you’re targeting a small, concentrated, well-defined audience, you probably don’t have to spend a lot on marketing, but we’re still talking about a very small budget compared to what modern games cost.

InXile.  wasteland2   http://wasteland.inx...nment.com/store
Kickstarter. niche. made north of $2m.  won multiple game of the year awards for 2014...
not as pretty or beautiful as DA:I different gamestyle.  Good example of a niche game and an example of a potential path forward away from AAA studios...
 

[IV_Benjamin]

I agree completely on how the game felt more "simplified." I was very disappointed the moment I opened the Tactic's screen for companions and turned it into something more like preference like disabled,preferred, enabled. I really miss the tactics on DA2 and I was really looking forward to see anything new they came up with the 3rd game. But instead everything was dumbed down so much your companions became a typical artificial idiots. This makes setting up cross class combos a daunting thing to do. You cant expect to freeze an enemy and Varric would shatter them with Long Shot. They probably might use it immediately on anything they see. Unless you turn off their tactics but that would make the whole 100+ hours of battle a mundane chore. 

Other than that my most favourite thing about DA series was the builds (How you level up your characters and set their skills uniquely). Since they omit stats allocations the game felt much more limited than it already is. Before you can make a tanky mage by increasing its constitution or crit mage by increasing Dex/Cun. Yes, the game is very focused on crafting now (which I actually adore) BUT the schematics are VERY random and RARE to get unless you do the loot box exploit which takes hours. (but still some certain schematics are very rare to find like a proper one handed...) Because of this the game felt very much like an MMO now but without infinite dungeons for us to farm for schematics, which makes it a...bad...mmo. I would play the old DAs over and over just to find what builds I could do but in Inquisition ALL of your companions can build like you since they dont have a unique Specialization anyways. Well maybe except for Varric cos he has Bianca. Thats the only thing that made him varry from the others.
 

Before in Origins for example, some rare equipments are hard to get due to tougher enemies in that map etc. But in DA:I since the game' is open world sand box type, you can have your way around that. During 17+ hours into the game I already can get a teir 3 materials on nightmare and some schematics (if I do the loot box exploit) and by going to the Hissing Wastes by doing the puzzles. This is where it became game breaking and made the game very much less challenging to play.

And the fact that the last few main missions (like fighting coryphephus) are far too straight forward, all the effort of farming these materials,schematics and crafting felt unsatisfying. Players would try to get all these good gear to ready ourselves for the worst, like how the final battle in DA 2 was very hard (lookin at you blood mages & demons) which lead to an epic battle with Merideth. Even in Origins you had to fight through Darkspawns AND demons to get to the Arch Demon. But when I fought Coryphenus it was so straightforward. Just meet and kill, no need to fight your way through red templars or demons. It just felt like all that hard work was for nothing. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that the game is holding your hand WAY too much that it felt like "rpg for dummies". I'm a hardcore DA fan and I hope they would go back to their old roots. I felt like they bit more than they could chew because of this new open world feature. It's great and all but most of the maps were just filled with redundant quests.some of us just wants the old Dragon Age back. We're just worried which path this game is going to go to.

 

But the game's isnt as horrible as people wrote, I completely adore the companions and their personalities. The story line is going on a VERY intriguing path and I cannot wait for what they have in store.

This is just more of a gameplay point of view of mine. 

I cannot believe I had the heart to write these down but I'm just a concerned fan.
Thanks for reading my rant. 

[Jackal19851111]

Agreed, I complain because I do care, Bioware is a company I've been with for 16 years

 

Underneath all the bullsh-t is a gem of a story, great lore and great characters. I praise it whenever I can, but the gameplay experience needs an overhaul.

[Zobert]

OP - You are obviously capable of eloquent and well thought out argument. I hope you put as much effort into complaining about what the government spends your taxes on, as you are an investor in that government after all.

 

We get to complain about our politicians in this forum now?  Awesome!

 

I hate that my tax dollars fund the drone war on foreign children (thanks Nobel Peace Price winner!), I hate that it funds the drug war and police militarization, and I hate that I pay for all their salaries.

[Tsunami Chef]

I see the OP's point, and think the way he portrays his opinion is very kind and understandable...but I hope other people realize there is a huge amount of people who think this was Biowares step in the RIGHT direction, not the wrong one. This underlying premise that people who dislike DA:I have of it being more likeable to people who appreciate "dumbed down, casual, quick gratification" (things I've seen used to describe the game) does a disservice to the entire argument and just makes people look like douches. It is easy to say something doesn't appeal to you without inferring anyone it does appeal to has interests or tastes of a lower intelligence.

[fcedric]

I hate the new tactic system, i would prefer the DAO/DA2 tactic row system... But the camera tactic is useful...

And of course, constantly pressing R2 to attack is a problem, i don't want to destroy my new PS4 controller...

But i disagree DAI isn't worse than DAO or DA2... They just forgotten some functionality... And Bioware have forgot Dragon Age Players aren't nag (bourrins) Dragon Age is a Strategic RPG game, axed on tactical combat if the gamer want to play tactics (mainly for power combos for example)

 

As i said in another topic... i want the old tactic system return, and i also want the return of the Spell wheel (Press L1 and have the spell menu in battle), because now we are restricted to only 8 capacity/spells...

It is a shame to have forgot this ...

[Dakota Strider]

@Tsunami Chef:  As to a franchise taking the right step in another direction...  Pardon me, but that almost seems like an oxymoron.  If a franchise is successful, why would they go in a different direction than what their fans have come to expect? 

 

I understand, that there are probably many, guessing yourself included, that are happy to see another game that meets your style of gameplay.  But, is that not doing a disservice to the original fans of the game?  What if a different game franchise that always had the style of play you enjoy, suddenly changed to try to copy the style of a different game, that you don't like?  Would you not feel betrayed?  And if that game's devs argument was that they were attempting to broaden their audience, and knew that their original customer base was loyal, so they could take advantage of that, by offering them something that went against what they had always sold their customers before. 

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are plenty of diverse styles of games available.  Especially in the action combat style, which DAI seems to becoming.  I think it would be awfully boring if they all tried to morph into imitations of each other.  I personally believe Bioware would be better served by sticking with what they proved to know how to do best.  Specialize in that, and do not keep trying to follow every trend in the market.  There is no surer way to become mediocre.