187 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

You do understand that the vast majority of the people on the forum like the game and the people you say who hate it are few in number and are only the loudest right?

Because we already know what the forums would be like if the game was truely hated by the majority from da2 and me3.

I'm not stating consensus, I'm stating that the response of "don't listen to the haters and just play the game yourself" makes some terrible assumptions. If looking at over a dozen Let's Play videos has me thinking all of the same criticisms that the "vocal minority" (God, I love how that phrase gets thrown around following every Bioware game release) are making, then I don't feel I need to shell out $60 simply because someone else thinks the haters aren't right.

I checked out the game pre-release, saw things I might have serious issues with and then saw numerous people whom I share similar tastes with explain that they did not enjoy the game in the least due to the reasons I saw (plus many more I hadn't expected such as bugs and terrible UI). So I'm not going to spend the money just to find out - I'll buy another game or play one of the countless others I already have a backlog of to more than occupy my time.

Arguments such as "do you even know what an MMO is" or "just skip the content of the game, you don't have to do it" don't exactly win undecided buyers, either. Not that its anyone's job to sell the game besides Bioware, it still falls on deaf ears to hear such shallow responses to seemingly valid criticism. I'd instead like to hear what people DID enjoy about the game with specifics more than just "best companion romances ever" or "OMG the world is so pretty!" This form of praise is no better in providing support than "UI made by a two year old, clearly" or "worst Bioware game story ever."

I've seen very detailed explanations of what is wrong with the game. Yet I've only seen very vague or "the flaws people mentioned didn't bother me" praises of what went well.

[Fast Jimmy]

I like the fact that we get a new protagonist in every Dragon Age game. Bioware tried using the same protagonist throughout three games with Mass Effect and it ended in complete disaster.

In the end they couldn't handle all of the different worldstates properly, which shows a lot more if you are playing the same character. They also failed to get a balance betwen having Shepard speak on their own and feel like the players own character, with many dialogues in Mass Effect 3 making little sense based on certain past decisions and opinions they had. Not to mention the difficulty of writing a protagonist that will fit for people who played and made choices in the previous games but also to newcomers.

Mass Effect 3 was a complete trainwreck with regards to Sheaprds character and past decisions, resulting in an ending to the story and characters that for many players ruined not only that game, but the entire franchise.

It is the perfect example of why Bioware should never, ever do it again.

I'd argue it's a huge indictment of the weakness and non-viability of the Save Import system long term rather than support for a new main character every game, but that's a different discussion.

[rashie]

1 your first complaint is not valid. You bought an rpg not a management game.and its your fault for not understanding that. the rest is nitpicking and complaining and your personal taste not matching the game.

Management of resources is a vital part of any rpg, if that is now seen as something bad it doesn't paint a pretty picture for the future of the genre.

[leaguer of one]

Management of resources is a vital part of any rpg, if that is now seen as something bad it doesn't paint a pretty picture for the future of the genre.

But you have to manage resources to sevive fights. You can only heal with potions which you can make better with what you pick up.You can make better armor and weapon with what you pick up. You have a limit to the healing maternal you can have with  you. The game has plenty of management.

[Sanunes]

"Handful" doesn't equate "hundreds." DA:I copies some of the worst/boring quest concepts in DA:O, true... but then multiplies them like a game design bunny. They saturate DA:I while lightly season DA:O.


I wojlsnt count them as quests because A) they aren't listed as quests in your journal/any official guides/etc. and because they basically were a variation of rune crafting, except for your army recruits for the end game. You (optionally) collected or bought items that made your units more powerful.



Not even close.

http://dragonage.wik...uests_(Origins)

Notice - I'm not comparing the number of side quests (of which I'll say DA:I still has quite a bit more) but the number of banal, shallow, NOTHINGNESS quests. Like you'd see in WoW or another MMO. DA:O has the Chantry Boards, the Mage Collective, Favors for Certain Interested Parties and the Blackstone Irregulars (which allows for multiple outcomes in some instances and many of which entrail a cutscene or other meaningful interaction). In addition, you have some quests that require you read the Codex and piece together that there even IS a quest, like the Summoning Sciences in the Mage Tower, the Topsider's Pommel or Gaxkang (I feel sacrilegious even lumping these in with the banal quest section).

But THEN look at the list of detailed quests, like smuggling lyrium or Slim Cauldry's thief-only quests, or helping out the Antivaan Crows or Heeren & Wade's armor making or helping Ser Otto fight against a demon-possessed house. I challenge you to find me side quests in DA:I that compare to that level of detail and engagement outside the main story or companions.

 

The problem is with this discussion is that we are talking about personal perception of what is in the game, for I don't consider the smuggling lyrium to be that engaging or have that much level of detail so I could list the quests that I consider that might have that level of detail in the game, but you wouldn't agree because you don't see them that way.  I think another big difference between the two games is how you look at the quests themselves, for in Origins you would have a massive quest that would contain multiple steps to complete it, but in Inquisition each step is an individual quest so you could walk away from it anytime you would want and not be penalized.  To me an example of that would be the dragon researcher quest in The Western Approach, for looking at each individual quest it does seem fairly basic and not that inspired compared to Origins, but then you take the entire chain it becomes a lot more interesting and a much better story.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem is with this discussion is that we are talking about personal perception of what is in the game, for I don't consider the smuggling lyrium to be that engaging or have that much level of detail so I could list the quests that I consider that might have that level of detail in the game, but you wouldn't agree because you don't see them that way. I think another big difference between the two games is how you look at the quests themselves, for in Origins you would have a massive quest that would contain multiple steps to complete it, but in Inquisition each step is an individual quest so you could walk away from it anytime you would want and not be penalized. To me an example of that would be the dragon researcher quest in The Western Approach, for looking at each individual quest it does seem fairly basic and not that inspired compared to Origins, but then you take the entire chain it becomes a lot more interesting and a much better story.

The reason I bring up the smuggler quest is that it allows a lot of variation and character in what is otherwise a rather straightforward delivery quest. You can be denied the quest right from the get go in certain circumstances. You can sell the goods yourself (for a vastly reduced price than what you'd get) and have the quest "end" that way. You can squeeze the Mage contact for money or a discount on his store (skill dependent) since this is also an NPC that exists and has purpose outside of this one quest. You can go back to the Carta and squeeze THEM for more money (skill dependent) or even fight them and loot their corpses.

It's a straight laced Fedex quest... except it has more variability than some of DA:I's main quests. That's what I mean about detail and soul - something more than walk, talk, fight, collect. DA:I's side quests have much less of this type of options or freedom and instead behave more like linear (VERY LONG) To Do lists. MMOs have these same type of linear, non-variable quests in huge numbers, hence the comparisons.

[Girtuoklis]

The problem is with this discussion is that we are talking about personal perception of what is in the game, for I don't consider the smuggling lyrium to be that engaging or have that much level of detail so I could list the quests that I consider that might have that level of detail in the game, but you wouldn't agree because you don't see them that way.  I think another big difference between the two games is how you look at the quests themselves, for in Origins you would have a massive quest that would contain multiple steps to complete it, but in Inquisition each step is an individual quest so you could walk away from it anytime you would want and not be penalized.  To me an example of that would be the dragon researcher quest in The Western Approach, for looking at each individual quest it does seem fairly basic and not that inspired compared to Origins, but then you take the entire chain it becomes a lot more interesting and a much better story.

No it isnt. Your dragon researcher "quest" is basically this: you find npc, he gives you gather junk quest, then another, then go kill some bandits then get back there put bait and kill the dragon, after you kill dragon get back and recruit npc as agent (and forget that he even existed)  . Between these "quests" npc spouts  few  irrelevant story lines and that is best that DAI has to offer.

[katokires]

Everyone on this thread will buy the next Bioware game. DA or ME...each of you will buy the next game.

That is why the negativity and whining going on here is makes no sense

 

Right... I played KOTOR, KOTOR 2 (Obsidian), then played Mass Effect, didn't like, didn't buy, didn't touch Mass Effect 2 or 3, just watched movie versions on youtube and some different endings and that's all. NEVER GONNA PLAY OR BUY THAT.

 

Then DAO at first I didn't like, skiped it, it was not DnD. Later I tried again, didn't work for me, not DnD. Then, later I played and loved it. DA2 too. DAI I hated, so it went Mass Effect way. Next DA game will be "played" by me by watching youtube videos unless they really go back to Origins.

 

I don't play action. This is a major rule in my life, I could even kill a person and commit the most sick and perverted crimes like feeding the person their own bowels while masturbating using their blood, ok, but play action games, no. That's why I don't play Mass Effect. That's why I won't play the next DA unless it goes back to Origins gameplay. Take away action and I play even Barbie or My Little Pony.

[Bizantura]

All Bioware games tell a story in wich you are more of a spectator then anyting else, you are in it for the ride mostly the hero archetype ride.  The freedom within has always been very limited if not a illusion.  Only real life gives full freedom but is therefore unpredictable.   I think the asking in games for that illusonairy freedom is to circumvent that unpredictability that real life offers and then moan about it its not on offer.

[Sanunes]

The reason I bring up the smuggler quest is that it allows a lot of variation and character in what is otherwise a rather straightforward delivery quest. You can be denied the quest right from the get go in certain circumstances. You can sell the goods yourself (for a vastly reduced price than what you'd get) and have the quest "end" that way. You can squeeze the Mage contact for money or a discount on his store (skill dependent) since this is also an NPC that exists and has purpose outside of this one quest. You can go back to the Carta and squeeze THEM for more money (skill dependent) or even fight them and loot their corpses.

It's a straight laced Fedex quest... except it has more variability than some of DA:I's main quests. That's what I mean about detail and soul - something more than walk, talk, fight, collect. DA:I's side quests have much less of this type of options or freedom and instead behave more like linear (VERY LONG) To Do lists. MMOs have these same type of linear, non-variable quests in huge numbers, hence the comparisons.

 

I understand for you that having those paths might add soul to the game, but for me it doesn't.  It always feels like its the exact same story a Dwarf wants you to buy a shipment of lyrium off him and sell it to a mage at the Circle.  You do have alternate approaches to getting the lyrium or how much gold you get from the mage, but the the story gained from the mission doesn't change which is what adds soul to a game for me.  Not sure if that makes sense or not, but its how I perceive the game.

[NM_Che56]

All Bioware games tell a story in wich you are more of a spectator then anyting else, you are in it for the ride mostly the hero archetype ride.  The freedom within has always been very limited if not a illusion.  Only real life gives full freedom but is therefore unpredictable.   I think the asking in games for that illusonairy freedom is to circumvent that unpredictability that real life offers and then moan about it its not on offer.

 

Yep.

 

Also, the developers and writers have a story to tell.  Yes, it's "our story", but not entirely.  These games take years to plan and build.  So, inherently, there's a limit because there has to be a clear plan. Otherwise, you're expecting a publisher to throw money at an open ended idea.  That would be like throwing money at a building contractor and all they are telling you is that "you're going to get a super cool house".  Um...sorry, I need specifics.   

 

Which brings me to my next point. There is at least one, real world limitation: Budget.  Something that people here either do not understand, appreciate or consider.  Every asset costs money. Every time a VO steps into the booth to record a line costs money.  Every time a variance to the same scene needs motion capture costs money.  Oh, you want to do that? Well this engine isn't built for that.  We either need to modify the engine to meet our needs ($) or we need to look for another engine ($$$). Every moment spent mapping out how X impacts Y, while not screwing up Z costs money.  So, games have budgets, like everything else that responsible adults manage in the real world.  Things either have to be cut or not included in order to keep the cost of making the game in budget.  If they go over budget, then they risk not making a profit.  If a game is not profitable, then kiss any notion of a sequel goodbye. Actually, you could kiss the developer goodbye because a publisher isn't going to want to hold on to a developer that costs them money (and gives them no reward).

 

That's the reality.  Accept it or continue to live in fantasy land.

[evgenija28]

I played the pc version only. It's very workable. It's like learning a new way to swim.

 

It's like learning a new way to swim. 

 

Wow. Okay, sure, it is new, but that doesn't make it good.

Look, if they upgraded what was good to be better it would be okay. But they made it illogical in a way that it requires needless work and causes headache.

 

It's not like I know how to swim and now I've learned some tricks to swim better and faster. It's that I knew how to swim, got brain damage, now I swim with constant interruptions that consist of drowning. I ultimately reach the shore, but it wasn't really a smooth ride.

So yes, I can get used to this new way, but that doesn't make it a better way to swim, just new.

[evgenija28]

Yep.

 

Also, the developers and writers have a story to tell.  Yes, it's "our story", but not entirely.  These games take years to plan and build.  So, inherently, there's a limit because there has to be a clear plan. Otherwise, you're expecting a publisher to throw money at an open ended idea.  That would be like throwing money at a building contractor and all they are telling you is that "you're going to get a super cool house".  Um...sorry, I need specifics.   

 

Which brings me to my next point. There is at least one, real world limitation: Budget.  Something that people here either do not understand, appreciate or consider.  Every asset costs money. Every time a VO steps into the booth to record a line costs money.  Every time a variance to the same scene needs motion capture costs money.  Oh, you want to do that? Well this engine isn't built for that.  We either need to modify the engine to meet our needs ($) or we need to look for another engine ($$$). Every moment spent mapping out how X impacts Y, while not screwing up Z costs money.  So, games have budgets, like everything else that responsible adults manage in the real world.  Things either have to be cut or not included in order to keep the cost of making the game in budget.  If they go over budget, then they risk not making a profit.  If a game is not profitable, then kiss any notion of a sequel goodbye. Actually, you could kiss the developer goodbye because a publisher isn't going to want to hold on to a developer that costs them money (and gives them no reward).

 

That's the reality.  Accept it or continue to live in fantasy land.

 

It's a fair point, budget limitations.

But here's the thing - you only get disappointed about the final product if something was promised to you about that final product thus causing you to expect it will appear, but in the end it wasn't there.

For example, I don't know what kind of desk I want. But when you say, you now, I can make it bright red, I will like that and expect that. In a week you come and bring me a pale red, almost brown desk. Now I am disappointed, why did you say it will and can be done, that it will be red, if it isn't? Well, budget limitations. Well, I say, you should have known your budget limitations and thought about them before making promises.

 

So yes, we all know that money is very important and we understand that in the end it will make you say, okay, take this, remove that. But then you shouldn't promise anything if money is limiting you in making it happen.

[evgenija28]

I also agree about the protagonist. I feel like I can connect so much more with a consistent protagonist. You can still role play one protagonist in multiple ways (paragon vs. renegade for shep, sarcastic vs. diplomatic vs. aggressive Hawke).

The reason it's not going to happen in Dragon Age: is because it's more important to DA players to be able to choose a race and a different background "story" for their character. People were pretty pissed about Hawke only being human. Hence the return of race choice in DA and the death of Hawke, figuratively or literally. (Who I really believe was supposed to be the Inquistor all along- but they scrapped the idea with the poor reception of DA2.)

With shep no one revolted because it was that way from the beginning. But I bet if ME1 gave them the option to play a Krogan or a Quarian and then in ME2 they said "oh never mind- here's human Shepard. He/She will be your protagonist for the rest of the series"- people would have been pissed.

I don't have that strong an imagination. I don't invent some elaborate back story to follow my character. I would have loved a Hawke Inquistor. I only really play human or elf anyway because I can't take the dwarves seriously (they look like 12 year olds to me). I would have considered a Qunari but I keep hearing their armor choices suck and I lost interest.

"Role playing" means different things to different people. For me it's mostly about choosing specializations, building stats and gear to reflect that character. The dialogue options are also fun, but so many of them in inquisiton sound the same or result in the same lines or reaction from the other character I don't see how it really matters. Make a new character, make a new build. The origin stories and race dependent dialogue don't add enough to the story to make up for lack of character arcs and continuity in protagonists. I'd much rather fire up a game and see a few friendly faces then pick a new race.

 

I agree with this 100%. The fact that Hawke is the only choice of background/race in DA2 made such a backlash that I actually don't agree with. In theory before playing I didn't like that limitation, but when I started playing the fact that it is limiting makes you have much more of an emotional connection to Hawke. His/her family and story is given a lot of attention because it is only Hawke. Now this is a limited budget that it is only Hawke in DA2 I guess, and limited time, but then you would expect in Inq. that bigger budget/more time would make it much better - but it really isn't. Quantity over quality isn't good. With DA2 I actually think they did much better than with Inqusition, it's like they embraced short amount of time and small budget and used it well.

[Fast Jimmy]

I understand for you that having those paths might add soul to the game, but for me it doesn't. It always feels like its the exact same story a Dwarf wants you to buy a shipment of lyrium off him and sell it to a mage at the Circle. You do have alternate approaches to getting the lyrium or how much gold you get from the mage, but the the story gained from the mission doesn't change which is what adds soul to a game for me. Not sure if that makes sense or not, but its how I perceive the game.

It does make sense - the amount of lore/setting content is the same. But in mine, more options and role playing is allowed. That's why I feel it has more soul - someone poured thought into those exchanges and asked what would different players want to do with their characters in different situations. Based on my own character's personality and background, I can choose to define myself in different ways through the simple little quest.

Having quests where you can just glaze over the dialogue, never have to make a choice, never have to give your input, never have to do anything but follow a quest marker are, to me, quests not worth having. And I'd take DA:O's puzzle quest in the Brecilian Ruins which involved you needing to read a Codex entry to figure out the steps to choose over the shard puzzle quests over and over again any day of the week.



Huge props to the Hissing Wastes ruins quest, though. That you can piece together the locations of these tombs through the provided clues is actually really cool. Just wish there were more quests that demonstrated (and required) such thought in DA:I.

[Melca36]

I agree with this 100%. The fact that Hawke is the only choice of background/race in DA2 made such a backlash that I actually don't agree with. In theory before playing I didn't like that limitation, but when I started playing the fact that it is limiting makes you have much more of an emotional connection to Hawke. His/her family and story is given a lot of attention because it is only Hawke. Now this is a limited budget that it is only Hawke in DA2 I guess, and limited time, but then you would expect in Inq. that bigger budget/more time would make it much better - but it really isn't. Quantity over quality isn't good. With DA2 I actually think they did much better than with Inqusition, it's like they embraced short amount of time and small budget and used it well.

 

 

I think people better expect to not have the same amount of races in the next game. I love Inquisition...don't get me wrong but the lack of depth of our Inquisitors is due to the I HATE PLAYING HUMAN's Crowd.

 

That said...I was able to roleplay my Inquisitors without much difficulty though it would have been nice to have some more background on them.

 

DA2 had good characters BUT that was NOT enough to sustain the game.

[evgenija28]

I think people better expect to not have the same amount of races in the next game. I love Inquisition...don't get me wrong but the lack of depth of our Inquisitors is due to the I HATE PLAYING HUMAN's Crowd.

 

That said...I was able to roleplay my Inquisitors without much difficulty though it would have been nice to have some more background on them.

 

DA2 had good characters BUT that was NOT enough to sustain the game.

 

For the bolded part - DA2, I think, had so much potential, it would have been an amazing game, I am sure of it. All of its flaws really come down to not having money and time. And I also felt that Hawke should have led Inquisition, it would make more sense. It is like that role is taken away from him/her. I don't personally mind getting new characters to play as, but I do mind if it feels like it is not intended that way. 

[sch1986]

There are very few actions available in the game (and those actions have no consequences beyond a few wartable missions and epilogue slides) and your character has very limited opportunities to express themselves and many attitudes can't be expressed. The tones of each dialogue options are barely more than neutral (if that) even when a much stronger emotional reaction would be appropriate (the pendulum swung too far in the other direction from DA2's manic personalities rather than finding balance imo). If you have to imagine and pretend everything because the game gives you no option to actually do or say anything distinct then why are we playing a game instead of writing our own books or fanfictions or what have you?

Is there really another ending where you lose? Can you link it?

This!! So much this! I pay good money for a game to not have to invent the story behind it or reimagine that my character was really angry or that NPC had a more severe reaction.

I actually do enjoy writing and creating my own stories- but when I read a book or play a game. I want that story told to me. I don't want to tell it to myself.

EDIT: I wanted to add that in an rpg I like the ability to provide direction to the story- but I still don't want to have to invent alternate scenes or back stories to make the ac character not boring.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I'm not stating consensus, I'm stating that the response of "don't listen to the haters and just play the game yourself" makes some terrible assumptions. If looking at over a dozen Let's Play videos has me thinking all of the same criticisms that the "vocal minority" (God, I love how that phrase gets thrown around following every Bioware game release) are making, then I don't feel I need to shell out $60 simply because someone else thinks the haters aren't right.

I checked out the game pre-release, saw things I might have serious issues with and then saw numerous people whom I share similar tastes with explain that they did not enjoy the game in the least due to the reasons I saw (plus many more I hadn't expected such as bugs and terrible UI). So I'm not going to spend the money just to find out - I'll buy another game or play one of the countless others I already have a backlog of to more than occupy my time.

Arguments such as "do you even know what an MMO is" or "just skip the content of the game, you don't have to do it" don't exactly win undecided buyers, either. Not that its anyone's job to sell the game besides Bioware, it still falls on deaf ears to hear such shallow responses to seemingly valid criticism. I'd instead like to hear what people DID enjoy about the game with specifics more than just "best companion romances ever" or "OMG the world is so pretty!" This form of praise is no better in providing support than "UI made by a two year old, clearly" or "worst Bioware game story ever."

I've seen very detailed explanations of what is wrong with the game. Yet I've only seen very vague or "the flaws people mentioned didn't bother me" praises of what went well.

 

There's loads of things that the game does well. It just so happens to be the nature of forums (of any game, this isn't restricted to BSN in the least) that people with complaints post more and more often than people with praise (I saw that a lot in Skyrim; forums filled with complaints, while the game racked up massive sales and was very popular). I mean, really, what kind of justification do you need to serve beyond ''I like it''? Maybe explanations as to why, sure, but the person saying ''I didn't'' usually takes more time to explain their stances and how this element could have been improved or comparing it to X element from Y game they like. That is at least my experience.

 

For myself, I'd say that the writing is solid across the board, the characters varied in outlooks without being psychos like in DA2, the world is beautiful and just large enough, the main quests are well crafted with quality cutscenes, the major moral choices abandon black and white morality to focus on supporting X faction or another, the side quests that they did bother to put effort in are good (Still Waters, the haunted Chateau, Hissing Wastes, Sulevin Keep), the dragon fights are awesome, the War Table is good in concept if flawed in execution, the combat is overall good if too fast, the PC's role-playing options are overall great (albeit you can't be mwahahaha evil, I don't care myself), the crafting system is well implemented, some decisions matter more than in many Bioware games (mainly Mages or Templars which changes a decent part of the story), the loot is more interesting than in past games, the lore expansions breath some much-needed life in the setting, and I loved playing as a Qunari.

 

Sure, it's far from perfect, and you'll find plenty of people who disagree with the above list in part or perhaps even in entirety. I still like Origins more, mainly because of the Origins themselves, the better crafted side-quests and the slightly deeper combat. But Inquisition is a very fine game in its own right, a big step up from DA2 if nothing else. I certainly wouldn't say it was overhyped and underwhelming, and given that the game has swept the Reader's Choice awards this year I would say lots of people feel the same. 

[BioWareMod03]

Hey everyone. Let's try to keep it civil in here,

[Fast Jimmy]

Exactly. The mood on this forum was 1000 times worse for Dragon Age 2 than it is for Inquisition. I was there. I saw the anger and fights. Sure there are some upset people here but alot of them are just bitter and ridiculously picking the game apart now.

And the funny thing now alot of them will change their attitude about the game the SAME way some people did for DA2.

I was one of those ragers after DA2. Looking at DA:I, what little faith I had just dissolved.

There is less rage here because there are less PEOPLE here. After posting on this board for years, I can tell most people have just up and left. If the rumors/speculations of low DA:I sales numbers are correct, it could be that people just stopped caring enough to rage.

[Adynata]

The key difference was suppose to be precise control over war assets[inquisition forces] which  isn't the case here.

Different projects, opening up roadways, rebuilding bases and creating new infrastructure is actually very linear and only slightly impactful on gameplay and has little to do with player agency
I thought that maps would have enemy bases that would make deployment of inquisition forces a tactical and key element of the game
Info governing the inquisition needed to be explicit. I should know inquisition funds, soldier numbers, locations, and gear.
Instead its application is linear and simply implied.....this is next gen not genesis, there's no reason to be vague.

 

Thank goodness it wasn't like that at all as I HATE those kinds of games. 

[leaguer of one]

Huge props to the Hissing Wastes ruins quest, though. That you can piece together the locations of these tombs through the provided clues is actually really cool. Just wish there were more quests that demonstrated (and required) such thought in DA:I.

There's one like that nearly per map.

[leaguer of one]

It's like learning a new way to swim. 

 

Wow. Okay, sure, it is new, but that doesn't make it good.

Look, if they upgraded what was good to be better it would be okay. But they made it illogical in a way that it requires needless work and causes headache.

 

It's not like I know how to swim and now I've learned some tricks to swim better and faster. It's that I knew how to swim, got brain damage, now I swim with constant interruptions that consist of drowning. I ultimately reach the shore, but it wasn't really a smooth ride.

So yes, I can get used to this new way, but that doesn't make it a better way to swim, just new.

If you like it or not that's your preface. Workable does not mean it must be universally liked. As I said before I understand why people don't like it but it's far from broken.

[VanguardCharge]

You do understand that the vast majority of the people on the forum like the game and the people you say who hate it are few in number and are only the loudest right?

 

Because we already know what the forums would be like if the game was truely hated by the majority from da2 and me3.

 

DA:I has a user score of 5.8 from 2647 reviews. Amazon's average from reviews is 3.5 stars from 267 reviews for the PC  version. I don't think this signifies that DA:I is a perfect game that is immune to critique and debate. Far from it, actually. 

 

Besides, majority liking the game has no value on the strengths of its storyline or mechanics. If BioWare decides to make the next DA akin to the Citadel DLC in ME3 (Story: After the inquisition, Inqy decides to chill in Orlais, where he spends his days watching plays with Cassandra and wrestling with Iron Bull. Never mind that countries are on the brink of war and that Solas still walks about. We get an extensive sex scene with Josie!), the masses will LOVE it.