I. Introduction
I beat Inquisition a few days ago and have decided to give voice to what I think worked and what didn't in this game. Obviously everything I say here is my opinion, so all are free to agree or disagree.
I'm aiming for both constructive praise and criticism here, and thus am hoping that all potential discussions that might occur beneath this thread remain civil. This means that I am hoping to avoid developer "bashers" (those whom resort to unconstructive criticism as the sole medium to convey their thoughts) as well as developer "white-knights" (those who blindly defend everything from the company and are unwilling to accept anybody pointing out any imperfections).
With that being said, I plan on delving into several specifics here so if you haven't beaten the game, be warned that there will be spoilers present in this review. I also plan to update this review accordingly if I remember points that would have fit here.
There is a "TL;DR" at the bottom of the post for those who have no desire to read this admittedly lengthy review.
II. Wins
1. Art direction and overall environmental design.
Gone are the copy-and-paste dungeons and locales of Dragon Age 2, and in their place we have multiple diverse landscapes ranging from deserts, forests, snowy areas, swampy areas, rolling hills . . . you name it. From a purely visual perspective, this is the best looking Bioware game not only graphically but also from a purely artistic point of view as well.
There isn't much else to say here - all the areas are beautifully designed while avoiding repetitiveness.
2. The Inner Circle.
The nine companions and three advisors make a total of twelve interesting personal stories the player can engage themselves in. Consistently speaking with them after the completion of any significant quest unravels their personal issues and in turn opens up their own unique quest-lines, which are easily amongst the best quests in the entirety of the game. They overall easily have the best and most immersive dialogue / conversations in the game.
In addition to this, the dialogue the player can hear via "party banter" when walking around is also interesting, resulting not only in humurous interactions amongst the companions (and the Inquisitor) but also revealing more about each of the characters, be it their past or their beliefs. Although I do have a consistent party that I find myself most invested in, I constantly found myself switching up my party in hopes of listening to how different companions interact.
One of BioWare's strengths are the companions, and as usual, they do not disappoint when it comes to this particular aspect in Inquisition.
3. Primary Quest.
The main quest of the game was not the best, but it deserves props (and is by no means "bad"). The Mage and Templar conflict that was built up at the end of the previous installment continues here and is resolved in a satisfying, although somewhat rushed manner (will expand upon later down in the post). The Orlesian Civil War was also a great plot point (although I once again thought it was rushed).
Like companions, story is another of BioWare's strengths, and while I was somewhat disappointed at certain aspects (which will be expanded upon in the "Woes" section), it was still decent. It certainly kept me interested enough to plow through the less interesting quests (which were necessary to attain "power" points) in hopes of getting to the main quests.
4. Imports.
Yes, I am probably asking for flak just by bringing this up, as I'm sure someone will mention Lelianna's presence as the largest problem with the whole "choice-and-consequence" thing. However, putting that one instance aside, I think BioWare did a decent job for a game taking into account choices you made in two previous games with unlinked protagonists.
What is easily the best example of this is the quest "Here Lies the Abyss." It not only takes into account the gender of your Hawke but also his attitude and even his class (mage, rogue, or warrior). Hawke plays a primary role in that particular quest, giving the player ample time to see their Hawke's attitude in various conversations (paragon, renegade, or sarcastic). They can also see their Hawke's fighting style, as he fights alongside you in several occasions.
In that same quest, the Warden whom is Hawke's friend also varies based on choices you made in Origins. Did you kill Loghain or conscript him with the Grey Wardens? Did you convince Alistair to ascend to being King or remain being a Warden? Did you kill Loghain in the Lands Meet duel and have Alistair die in Denerim? Depending on your choice, Hawke's Warden friend can be one of three people.
"Here Lies the Abyss" is the best demonstration of choice-and-consequence, and to me the level of quality in the quest (and the extent to which it took choices into account) felt on par with the much loved Tuchanka level (from Mass Effect 3). However, while it is the largest, it isn't the only instance. If you made Alistair king, he gets a cameo at the end of the Mage quest. If you performed the ritual with Morrigan, you will see she has a son with the soul of Urthmiel (the Archdemon from Origins). Even small touches like references about your Warden from Lelianna and Morrigan were nice.
Could it have been better? Obviously (see Lelianna's existence). Was it terrible? I didn't think so, especially for a series where we have had a different protagonist every single time.
5. Music.
Not much to say here, really, since this is as subjective as it gets but I felt like it deserved praise. This game easily had (in my opinion), amongst the best music tracks in any video game.
III. Woes
1. Overreliance on fetch Quests.
Lets get straight to the chase here, as this is easily the most glaring problem in my opinion.
The game has far too many fetch-quests. Yes, every single RPG out there has fetch quests; Origins had the Chantry Board, Skyrim had Radiant Quests, Mass Effect 1 had the "drive around an empty planet on your Mako" quests, and Mass Effect 2 had the planet probe mining quests / requirements.
The problem is that the previously mentioned games' reliance upon aforementioned side quests is nowhere near as pronounced as it is in this game. To phrase it differently, the ratio of fetch quests to relevant quests in Inquisition is much larger than it is in those other games. Where the other games may have something like 2:1, this game would have a ratio of something like 10:1.
What makes it worse is that in this game, you are the Inquisitor in this game, an individual with a massive influence, scores of agents, and an army standing by to do your bidding. It makes absolutely no sense, with respect to the story, for a man / woman of that status to be regularly running around performing meaningless activities that are unbefitting of even a grunt.
Don't get me wrong; fetch quests do make some sense in the beginning of the game. You have absolutely no influence in the earlier parts of the game, and nobody really knows who you are or what you can do barring your companions. Thus, it makes sense for you to have to "win the hearts of the people" via community service / being a personal mail-man for them.
However, somewhere around the point where you win over either the Mages or the Templars, let alone the loyalty of Orlais, it becomes odd for me to be placing flowers on graves or killing rams on the behalf of trained soldiers standing five feet away from aforementioned rams.
Overall, fetch quests aren't fun from a gameplay perspective, and the majority of them don't make sense from a lore / story perspective either.
2. Quests that are worse than fetch quests.
This point is an expansion of the previous point, but is still a point that I think can stand alone on its own.
Believe it or not, there are some quests that I think are even worse than fetch quests. Fetch quests involve getting an order, performing the instructions given to you, and then returning for a reward and perhaps a "thank you" or some small-talk dialogue. In this game, there are quests that don't even have the honor to be called "fetch quests."
Take the "Bergrit's Claws" quest in the Hinterlands. For those that do not remember it, it involves the Inquisitor locating a letter on a dead corpse. The aforementioned letter states that the dead person should not return home until they killed three bears and deprived them of their claws. The quest journal then tells you to obtain three bear claws.
Thinking there would be some sort of explanation as to the dead person's background, or perhaps learning about what sort of odd society exiles its members unless they kill three bears, I decided to perform the quest. After roughly 20 minutes, I kill three bears and obtain their claws. I prepare for the journal to tell me who to give the claws to . . . but it doesn't. Instead, I get a "Quest Completed!" and +1 power.
Apart from being a boring quest, this quest is odd from a story-perspective too and raises several questions. Did the Inquisitor just randomly assign himself the task of killing three bears? Why? Was there a reason we randomly completed the task of a dead person, and then never actually took it to the person that assigned the task to the dead person? How and why does killing three bears give me +1 power?
This isn't the only example, but it is the one I best remember. Others include following letter trails that ultimately lead nowhere (tons of this sort of thing).
3. Lack of Motivation & Resolution to Quests.
Again, this kind of expands upon the above where quests magically end, but I want to use this to focus on some of the quests that had the potential to be great but ultimately fell flat.
Remember the Exalted Plains' primary quest, which involved burning hay stacks to prevent infected from rising and ultimately burning the central area in the battalions as well (where the Arcane Horrors were)? Remember how you fight your way through a fort that had the magical defense system backfire on them, trapping them in their own castle? This quest had the potential to be excellent (in my opinion, of course). What went wrong?
To put it simply, lack of motivation to continue the quest and lack of a satisfying resolution to the quest. The initial reasoning was great; Scout Harding explains the situation to you and then you can visually see the problem as the battalions are overrun by undead. The area design was great too, and was clearly specifically designed for the quest. However, after slaughtering battalion after battalion worth of corpses and Arcane Horrors, it stops feeling like a quest and begins to feel like an arena fighter.
Yes, the purpose of the quest is still in the back of my mind, but it isn't being reinforced consistently enough to keep me truly invested in the quest-line. How could the developer have kept me invested in the quest-line? Dialogue. The only real dialogue you get in the entirety of the quest is at the end, and even the resolution feels brief and unfulfilling (basically boiled down to a quick "thank you").
This happens in almost every area's quest-line, with the only exception perhaps being Crestwood. The tower in Emprise Du Leon had this problem, as did the Griffon Keep in the Western Approach. The quests give the player a great reason to perform the task and give them an excellently designed area to do battle in and explore, but ultimately fail to keep the player (or at least, me) interested in the quest.
To drive the point home, let me give an example of a "good quest" that balances combat and motivation to continue perfectly. Take Cassandra's quest, for example. You arrive at the locale, and Cassandra immediately comments on the area (not banter, but actual quest specific dialogue). You then enter the castle and are attacked. Upon killing your assailants, Cassandra identifies them and you can question Cassandra about them.
You then fight more enemies and then find Cassandra's apprentice, upon which another cut scene and dialogue sequence occurs where you learn about what is really happening to the Seekers. You then fight through yet another wave of enemies and reach the "boss" of the level, and before fighting him, you engage in dialogue and can question his reasoning for doing what he did. After killing him, you return to Skyhold and talk to Cassandra about what had been found (the Seeker history book), which involves cut scene and dialogue.
You see the difference between the Exalted Plains quest and the Cassandra Quest? In one, you simply fight through waves of enemies whereas in the other there is a perfect balance between dialogue and combat to keep the player (or at least, me) invested in the quest. The same could be said for Varric's quest, and even Iron Bull's quest (albeit it was very short).
4. Heavily under-utilized plot points.
Three stand out to me in particular: a. Corypheus as a villain, b. the Orlais Civil War, and the c. Mage-Templar conflict.
a. Corypheus ultimately felt like a villain that had the potential to be great, but ended up being mediocre. In DA2's Legacy, he had an interesting vibe about him; a Tevinter Magister from god-knows-how-many-years-ago. He was just as confused as the players were regarding where he was, and he had more layers to him than his Inquisition iteration did, which ultimately ended up being a typical "muahaha I am evil and will kill you because I am evil" villain.
Another issue is his lack of involvement in the game's story. He makes a strong entrance in Haven where he essentially trashes you and your still budding army. However, he doesn't make another appearance after that until the end.
His lack of involvement in the game is a problem because it brings into question what had his attention the whole time. You are running around zones destroying his followers all while he is doing . . . what, exactly? Sipping lemonade? He makes absolutely no effort to stop you from foiling his plans up until the end of the game where he is briefly seen trying to get to the Well of Sorrows.
Speaking of the end of the game, it was an underwhelming and overall uninteresting boss fight. He felt more like a meat-shield with lots of HP rather than an actual threat.
b. The Orlesian Civil War was, in my opinion, resolved far too quickly. The whole ball-room incident was what I thought would be setup for a greater conflict but it ultimately ended up being both the setup as well as the resolution. The quest was by no means bad; it was probably my second favorite in the game after "Here Lies the Abyss." It just felt odd for a civil war to be settled over what felt like a dinner party when it had the potential to span a large portion of the game.
Again, this isn't really a criticism as I loved the quest. I just thought it had the potential to be so much more.
c. Mage-Templar conflict felt like it suffered from the same issue as above. Dragon Age 2 spent a good deal of time building this whole problem up, and even the Dawn of the Seeker movie, despite being a prequel to Dragon Age 2, shed further light on the tensions between Mages and Templars.
Instead of the conflict playing a massive role in the game, it was pretty much resolved for us by Corypheus, upon which we (the Inquisitor) were forced to react to whom we should try to "save" (or recruit to our side). Again, by no means was this quest bad, but I felt like it far too neatly wrapped up a conflict that I thought would have involved more repercussions
Basically, I felt like the entire game could have been just about the Orlesian Civil War or Mage Templar conflict individually. The fact that both were in the game, and both were resolved, not to mention Corypheus' plot, felt like a lot of plot was crammed into the game and none were utilized to their full potential. This is not to say they were bad stories or quests, but I felt like they could have been so much more if they were given more space to prosper.
5. Static NPCs and lifeless towns.
For all the things BioWare was inspired by Skyrim, I was hoping alive towns and cities would be one of them. Unfortunately, it wasn't. Many people love to hate on Skyrim, but one thing I think we can all acknowledge they did well is having dynamic towns and cities.
You go to a town in the morning. Their houses are still locked. They open at a certain hour. The individuals within are eating at a certain hour. They walk around outside and do their jobs at a certain hour. They eat dinner at a certain hour. They go to sleep and lock their doors at a certain hour. You can break into the houses and steal stuff, kill people in their sleep, pick-pocket or reverse pick pocket people at the risk of making the town hostile to you if you are caught. You can kill people in the open and have people attack you on sight.
You can spend an hour in a Skyrim town just messing around with people. The same cannot be said in an Inquisition village. People stand in the same exact spot, waving their arms around awkwardly even if they aren't talking. You cannot interact with anybody in an Inquisition village barring a select few. Typically, there is no reason to return to a village in Inquisition whereas in a Bethesda game (be it Oblivion, Skyrim, or Fallout 3), there is always something to do. Most people in Inquisition can be replaced by trees and there would be no difference.
6. Lack of "zoomed-in" dialogue.
Last and probably smallest complaint.
The third person zoomed out dialogue was probably done for budget reasons, but I still want to emphasize how it seemed to trivialize a conversation compared to the "face-to-face" style where emotions and reactions are much more easily visible. I feel more detached to these zoomed-out conversations than "zoomed-in" ones.
Again, I acknowledge the budget issues when building a game of this size, but still thought it was worth a brief mention.
IV. Overall & a TL;DR
Pros
- Art, environments, overall design
- Companions and their personal quest-lines
- Primary quest line
- Imports / decisions from previous games being reflected
- Music
Cons
- Overreliance on fetch quests
- Lack of proper motivation / resolution to quests
- Heavily under-utilized plot points (mainly Corypheus)
- Lifeless NPCs and hub zones
- Lack of zoomed-in dialogue
The very existence of a semi-open-world and the questing problems with Inquisition felt like a knee-jerk reaction by Bioware driven purely by the negative fan feedback from DA2. I felt like the company fixated far too much on the issue of heavily re-used environments and lost sight of many of the other factors that made their previous games great.
They gave us a massive game with consistently beautiful and unique locales (thus addressing the woes of DA2), but ultimately failed to fill them with a satisfying amount of meaningful content, instead being filled with fetch-quests and things that I consider even worse than fetch quests. The ratio of bare-bones quests to relevant ones was probably something like 10 to 1, making the game feel far more fillerly than previous installments.
Inquisition was a huge step forward in environment and level design, but several steps back in side-quests and interact-ability with NPCs. The massive size of the world further emphasized the lack of depth the game had whereas if it were scaled down a bit I doubt it would have felt anywhere near as empty and lifeless.
I still greatly enjoyed the game (to me it's an 8 at its worst and a 9 at best) and think it is a step in the right direction by BioWare; certainly superior to DA2. It, most importantly, shows BioWare listened to our feedback from DA2. However, in my opinion, BioWare should either strive to fill their worlds with more meaningful content or scale down their worlds to fit the meaningful content they are capable of producing. Being open world just for the sake of being open world is what Inquisition felt like, and where many of my complaints stem from.
Retour en haut
