43 réponses à ce sujet

[Dread-Reaper]

Inquisition was my first Dragon Age game and when I completed I began to crave more DA. So I went back to give Origins another shot, since it failed to capture my attention the first time I played it. Needless to say I enjoyed it much more than I did Inquisition and one of the things that I really liked about it was how we could make the Warden ruthless/heartless. I first realized this in Lothering, you could assist the merchant by getting rid of the people that were annoying him, get paid along with a discount, buy/sell from him while you were there and when you decided to leave, you could go back and straight up murder the guy because you felt like it. 

Then in Orzammar you could convince a mother to abandon her bastard in the deep roads and kill Ruck and boldly tell his mother that you killed him or lie to her and claim a reward. 

You could also recruit Zevran and use his abilities to your advantage and when you decided you had enough of the guy you could strip him of all his gear and muder him right there in camp. I know there are more in Origins and DA2, but I'm half asleep and can't remember more.

 

A few missed opportunities that I can remember in Inquisition is where you help Dorian confront his father, I thought it would be cool if you could go behind Dorian's back and help his father perform the ritual again and in return he'd make a rather hefty donation to the Inquisition. There was also Sera and the nobleman, you make have been able to do this, I don't rightly know, hopefully someone will correct me. I think that if you decided to partner with the nobleman Sera that was after Sera, you could chose to hand her over to him as a peace offering.

 

This is also my first post, so hello everyone. Please forgive me if this written badly, I wrote it hastily while falling asleep.  

[Saphiron123]

I played one of my guys evil in origins, I left leliana for dead at the urn of sacred ashes, killed wynne while siding with the Templars, killed the guy in the cage for the Mage key, put down the mabari, Loghain killed the archdemon and died, and because I turned down the ritual, Morrigan abandoned me and I stabbed her in revenge...

The options were crazy.

[spacefiddle]

KOTOR had a very simple black and white (or red and blue) scale: good and evil.  The Force as laid down by Lucasarts law was always meant to be, at either extreme, a clear example of "good" versus "evil" with very little in the way of "wellllll, some of those Dark Side guys are pretty ok i guess."

 

ME followed up on the morality system with a change: the addition of grey areas.  Shepard was always going to be the hero, he wasn't going to wreck the world or lie to his CO and blow up Earth or something.  So black-and-white Good versus Evil no longer worked.  Paragon and Renegade brought in the grey areas of: i stick to my principles no matter the cost to myself or others, versus, i get the job done no matter the cost to myself or others.  It added complexity to the choices.  You were pretty clear on being the bad guy when you played KOTOR, or it was obvious you were the Nice Fella.  In ME, you could mix the two - i know, people get obsessed with maxing a stat, never mind that.  You still had a general feeling of "good choice" versus "bad choice," but it was not always that simple.

 

In DA, rather than "push red button" or "push blue button," they developed more choices.  Not just the flirting ;P.  Different mood or intention choices beyond "i'm the good guy" or "i'm a hardass."  It was the third stage in developing an interesting system of morals that also included motivation, purpose, intent.

 

Now, in the most technologically advanced game they've developed, they have... removed all of it.

The closest you can really come is "I agree with this companion" or "I honk off this companion."  Almost all the choices I can recall are centered on the companions, like

 

Spoiler

Stopping Solas from killing the morons who summoned his Spirit of Wisdom friend, or letting him murder them.

 

Again with Sera, it's centered around

Spoiler

Telling her the noble's toast, or telling the noble that Sera's toast.

 

With Sera, the scene if you make that first choice is hysterical, but... again, it's the companion with the decisive action and the funny line.  Your character stands there and watches passively, maybe has a comment.  I think that "hey here's a funny scene with the companion" got taken too far, replaces any agency the Inquisitor would have had in previous years.

 

So much progression over so many years, and in this respect, DA:I feels like a step backwards.

 

Where is the Renegade Inquisitor?  In KOTOR, looking back at it now, it's funny how the choices usually boiled down to "I am a selfless angel" versus "I am a jerk and psychopath for no apparent reason" with very little in between.

 

DAI feels like that again, too much - oh, you miss your special Halla?  I can go fetch it for you and you're very welcome.  Or I can murder it for no apparent reason.  And even if I do, you got nothin' to say about it, there's no consequences, I'm just a jerk because I can be.

 

Where's the Renegade Inquisitor?  For that matter, where's the Paragon?  I seem to spend a lot of time watching things happen around me.  Which is a good theme at the beginning, but it needs to lead to a point of real agency, not "my power stat is a very high number now."

[Rawgrim]

I tried playing as a ruthless one. The auto-dialogue utterly destroyed that notion. I was trying to romance Cassandra...turns out if you do that the inquisitor, no matter what kind of personality "you give him", giggles like a little girl.

My character and immersion died right there.

[actionhero112]

Kotor was awesome in that you really felt the burn in some areas for being the good guy. It was so much easier in a lot of cases just to be a scumbag and basically bully everyone into submission. 

 

I like that, I like when being good is the harder option gameplay wise. Hit the gamer where it hurts, imagine if you were evil you got extra hairstyles. I wonder how many goody goodies would toe the line for that kind of reward. Or a big sword you could only get access to if you were evil. 

 

I think the writers go about it the wrong way. Don't eliminate the ultimate good option, because gamers will come up with their own definition of the best, most moral decision. Take away items and rewards for being the most moral.

[In Exile]

I tried playing as a ruthless one. The auto-dialogue utterly destroyed that notion. I was trying to romance Cassandra...turns out if you do that the inquisitor, no matter what kind of personality "you give him", giggles like a little girl.
My character and immersion died right there.

DAO does the same thing. That some people are better at mental fantasy when there's no VO doesn't mean that Bioware ever wrote dialogue differently or scripted scenes differently. Just read your own mandatory biography in BG1.

[Panda]

I love playing ruthless Warden and Hawkes. Usually I'm not too mean towards companions though, they are my baes :3

[Lord Surinen]

Inquisition was my first Dragon Age game and when I completed I began to crave more DA. So I went back to give Origins another shot, since it failed to capture my attention the first time I played it. Needless to say I enjoyed it much more than I did Inquisition and one of the things that I really liked about it was how we could make the Warden ruthless/heartless. I first realized this in Lothering, you could assist the merchant by getting rid of the people that were annoying him, get paid along with a discount, buy/sell from him while you were there and when you decided to leave, you could go back and straight up murder the guy because you felt like it. 

Then in Orzammar you could convince a mother to abandon her bastard in the deep roads and kill Ruck and boldly tell his mother that you killed him or lie to her and claim a reward. 

You could also recruit Zevran and use his abilities to your advantage and when you decided you had enough of the guy you could strip him of all his gear and muder him right there in camp. I know there are more in Origins and DA2, but I'm half asleep and can't remember more.

 

A few missed opportunities that I can remember in Inquisition is where you help Dorian confront his father, I thought it would be cool if you could go behind Dorian's back and help his father perform the ritual again and in return he'd make a rather hefty donation to the Inquisition. There was also Sera and the nobleman, you make have been able to do this, I don't rightly know, hopefully someone will correct me. I think that if you decided to partner with the nobleman Sera that was after Sera, you could chose to hand her over to him as a peace offering.

 

This is also my first post, so hello everyone. Please forgive me if this written badly, I wrote it hastily while falling asleep.  

It is not called ruthless but noble! Selling Dorian would save his centuries old lineage! Yes, from what I have seen DA:I lacks in this deparment.

[C0uncil0rTev0s]

But you can bang Dorian in DA:I. Aren't you happy enough? :3

[Dracon525]

Was severely disappointed when I couldn't be Super Evil Quizzy.

[AWTEW]

Was severely disappointed when I couldn't be Super Evil Quizzy.

And the severe lack of 'stabby stabby' moments..

[Darkly Tranquil]

There is indeed a lack of freedom of choice in Inquisition. You are pretty much railroaded into being the Chantry-restoring, diplomatic, kitten-saving, goody two shoes, errand boy/girl whether you like it or not. Bad luck if you wanted to play as an iron fisted tyrant who wants bring the Chantry to ruins and destroy Orlais. Even in DA2 you could still be a cold hearted jerk in many ways, but in this game your opportunities are few and far between, despite Inquisition having more jerkass potential than any DA game previously.

This review sums it up perfectly.

[KoShiatar]

I too found it hard not only to be ruthless, but even to be skeptic. You can say you're not the Herald of Andraste, but no one will listen to you and nothing changes in the game because of that.

There is no "Lead them or fall" moment because there simply is no chance to fall. The player's choices simply don't really matter. 

 

In DAO you had the chance to drive away, kill, or alienate every companion, and even the player character could die a hero's death. There were lots of potentially heartbreaking choices and each had consequences.

Even DA2, rushed a game as it often felt, was a game where one could enjoy taking risks and people could turn on you and force you to kill them if you were an @$$ to them.

 

In DAI I could not have an Inquisitor who did not play by the rules. I had no heartbreaking or world-breaking choices to make, except one that isn't even about the Inquisitor or his companions. Nowhere was I jolted with surprise or shock and I never was nervous and eager as before the Landsmeet. 

 

 

This is a good game, or has all the potential to be. It was lovingly made and clearly an enormous quantity of work went into it. Only it feels like some parts were overworked and some left incomplete, just like in the character creator where you can fully customize your Inquisitor's face but not give him/her a decent haircut. Or now, with patches that break as much as they fix. 

I'd have given up a good half of my side quest for a more developed main story, with more choices and more emotions overall.

If I'd wanted Skyrim, I would have bought Skyrim. I wanted Dragon Age and I'm not sure that I really had it. 

[harlekein]

I'd have given up a good half of my side quest for a more developed main story, with more choices and more emotions overall.

This.

But you know, developing a story and interesting quests takes talent. The completely forgettable side quests in this game take no talent to conjure up at all. It was probably outsourced to India or done by interns.

 

Some decisions were really out of place too. Hawke and the Warden deciding who stays behind and everyone looks at the Inquisitor to decide for them. It doesn't make any sense. They are both strategically capable, probably moreso.

Same with Iron Bull. Why do I get to decide? It should be Bull's decision, not mine. I feel like I'm being pushed into a role I have no place in just so we can have 'difficult decisions' which turn out to be completely irrelevant to the story anyway.

[harlekein]

This review sums it up perfectly.

That's the best review I have read so far. I truly feel the likes of Polygon have been bought off since it contained straight up lies about combat strategy.

[Kantr]

Reading the end-game description for the envy demon taking over from you. Sounds like what they should have let you done. But saving the world as well.

[Rawgrim]

DAO does the same thing. That some people are better at mental fantasy when there's no VO doesn't mean that Bioware ever wrote dialogue differently or scripted scenes differently. Just read your own mandatory biography in BG1.

 

No DA:O doesn't do the same thing at all. The character isn't voiced in that game. And even if it was in DA:O, that doesn't excuse a ****** move in another game, does it?

[In Exile]

No DA:O doesn't do the same thing at all. The character isn't voiced in that game. And even if it was in DA:O, that doesn't excuse a ****** move in another game, does it?

The lack of voice doesn't change the prescripted tone to the responses which is inherent in Bioware design. Their stories always boil down to being the hero with the rare pragmatic choice and a number of completely insane stupid evil choices.

DAO's "ruthless" choices - with some very few exceptions - were insane stupid evil. The only pragmatic choice anyone ever points to is the Anvil choice. The Landsmeet is arguable. Redcliffe is a bit idiot-ball-esque but that's it.

Otherwise the PC is stun locked into charismatic hero. You just get a few more options to be rude or insane.

[Rawgrim]

The lack of voice doesn't change the prescripted tone to the responses which is inherent in Bioware design. Their stories always boil down to being the hero with the rare pragmatic choice and a number of completely insane stupid evil choices.

DAO's "ruthless" choices - with some very few exceptions - were insane stupid evil. The only pragmatic choice anyone ever points to is the Anvil choice. The Landsmeet is arguable. Redcliffe is a bit idiot-ball-esque but that's it.

Otherwise the PC is stun locked into charismatic hero. You just get a few more options to be rude or insane.

 

Where in DA:O does my character suddenly start to giggle like a little girl, exactly? The game just took control of my character an had him laughing like a telle-tubby. Nothing even close to that happened in DA:O or DA2. I never picked any option during the conversation that told me that after some auto-dialogue, Bioware would turn my ruthless dwarf in something like that.

[In Exile]

Where in DA:O does my character suddenly start to giggle like a little girl, exactly? The game just took control of my character an had him laughing like a telle-tubby. Nothing even close to that happened in DA:O or DA2. I never picked any option during the conversation that told me that after some auto-dialogue, Bioware would turn my ruthless dwarf in something like that.

Whenever you pick any of the humorous options. You even get called out for laughing in DAO despite not picking a dialogue option that highlights you're laughing.

The game takes control of your character like that all of the time. Just like how your stoic Warden is suddenly horrified at Wynne falling down.

[Rawgrim]

Whenever you pick any of the humorous options. You even get called out for laughing in DAO despite not picking a dialogue option that highlights you're laughing.

The game takes control of your character like that all of the time. Just like how your stoic Warden is suddenly horrified at Wynne falling down.

 

I didn't pick a humorous option. I picked a normal romance option in the dialogue.

 

And what is this thing about DA:O? I don't get your logic. Just because DA:O had some dumb stuff in it, DA:I should be excused for it?

 

The warden isn't horrified, he looks surprised when Wynne falls over. Kind of a difference. Sure DA:O takes control of some of your character's movements and expressions. DA:I takes it a mile further and just takes control over your PC for a whole damn conversation. And completely changes your character's personality along the way.

[In Exile]

I didn't pick a humorous option. I picked a normal romance option in the dialogue.

And what is this thing about DA:O? I don't get your logic. Just because DA:O had some dumb stuff in it, DA:I should be excused for it?

The warden isn't horrified, he looks surprised when Wynne falls over. Kind of a difference. Sure DA:O takes control of some of your character's movements and expressions. DA:I takes it a mile further and just takes control over your PC for a whole damn conversation. And completely changes your character's personality along the way.

It's not about excusing DAI. It's about seeing that this is Bioware's design. That it worked for you in the past doesn't mean it's wasn't a problem. And the humour reference is to DAO - Bioware imputed these reactions to you even with no VO. It's about the auto-dialogue. It's about how they write their scene.

And the Wynne situation is the exact same thing. Why is my stoic character all of a sudden shocked and rushing toward her? She fell. It's not a big deal. The reaction is incredibly over the top. Especially if you're rolling a character who doesn't care for her one iota.

The only difference between that an auto-dialogue is the subjective sense of how far this goes in breaking the protagonist for you.

[Rawgrim]

It's not about excusing DAI. It's about seeing that this is Bioware's design. That it worked for you in the past doesn't mean it's wasn't a problem. And the humour reference is to DAO - Bioware imputed these reactions to you even with no VO. It's about the auto-dialogue. It's about how they write their scene.

And the Wynne situation is the exact same thing. Why is my stoic character all of a sudden shocked and rushing toward her? She fell. It's not a big deal. The reaction is incredibly over the top. Especially if you're rolling a character who doesn't care for her one iota.

The only difference between that an auto-dialogue is the subjective sense of how far this goes in breaking the protagonist for you.

 

That is how you ruin a roleplaying game. You take control over the player's character, and put the player in the passenger's seat. That is on the top five list of "Things to never to in an rpg" from Roleplaying 101. The player creates the character. The player is in the driver's seat all through the experience when it comes to control over the character.

[In Exile]

That is how you ruin a roleplaying game. You take control over the player's character, and put the player in the passenger's seat. That is on the top five list of "Things to never to in an rpg" from Roleplaying 101. The player creates the character. The player is in the driver's seat all through the experience when it comes to control over the character.

The player is never in the driver seat. It's always a negotiation between you and the game. The game can't react to everything. It gives you a premise and you have to buy into it. The design is poor when it doesn't tell you what the premise is going to be or when it is inconsistent in the baseline you're meant to respect.

DAI doesn't outright tell you you're an LG-CG paragon of virtue. DAO doesn't tell you you're a well adjusted caring person who can suffer from bouts of insanity. DA2 doesn't tell you that you don't get to care about the political issues of Kirkwall enough to act on them.

[TurretSyndrome]

 

There is no "Lead them or fall" moment because there simply is no chance to fall.

 

Indeed. It's more "Lead them or... they'll leave you behind with your 60$ in their pocket".