The review never compared DA:I to the games listed in the preface (Blackguards, Original Sin, Dragonfall), and after that they were not mentioned so it has no bearing on the review's substance. I would also be interested in hearing how the actual comparisons to "essentially everything" in the review are wrong, considering most of those comparisons are just observations of traits that the DA games share with each other. At this point I wonder if you read the review or just skimmed over it and decided to tell the world what you thought.
I didn't say that the review compared DAI to the games at the outset. I said it was wrong regarding their quality. In my view, this was not a year to be 'spoiled' so far, at least based on that selection.
As to the review itself, the majority of comparisons are not to previous DA games. Not on substance. There are a number of references to "Bioware's tendency" (or statement of a similar effect) that says very little beyond their subjective evaluation of Bioware tropes (which to give them some credit they do acknowledge some people like; they just say it in an especially condescending way). The comparison, instead, is either to a perceived RPG, theories of RPGs that they have, or to the various casuak games it references.
Let's take one passage as an example, which says:
Roleplaying is limited to defining your main character's personality archetype and there's very little in terms of systemic emergence the way that Dr. Spector or Sir Wolfsbane envision.
If you follow this chain down through the bowels of the internet all you wind up with is a completely idiosyncratic theory of what RP is that just amounts to a self-important way of saying "I think RPGs are X". It is done way a covert comparison to other RPGs and tautologically starts from the conclusion it sets out to prove (the theory of what makes an RPG an RPG that is). It's purportedly couched in an objective description of the feature of the game but is really just a subjective expression of taste that has little to do with critiquing that feature in a way that goes beyond "I don't enjoy it".
As to comparisons to games, well, I'll let the title to the section on exploration speak for itself: "EXPLORATION - THE SEQUEL TO KINGDOMS OF AMALUR THAT NEVER HAPPENED".
Funny enough I actually don't disagree with that general claim. But in any event, much of the section focuses on Skyrim and Diablo among other games (weird given the title).
The actual section itself is where the review descends into (to put it politely) a long discussion on subjective taste or (to put it less politely) self-congratulatory chest thumping. Take for example:
Exploring the game world itself is not very engaging. The wilderness areas are fairly large and open-ended, and also quite good looking. But BioWare seems to think it would be nonsense to just drink in the visage. With so many fetch quests to accomplish, you simply don't have the time to become lost in an immersive world! Which is why the mighty Quest Arrow is here to guide your every step, along with the "Search" (default 'V') key that highlights everything of note in an area. You won't have to find anything in this game: collectables, quest opportunities, objectives, locked doors, almost everything is marked on the world map. While this isn't entirely unlike the previous Dragon Age games, at least their more inane quests weren't spread throughout miles of terrain, far out of the way from the main plot.
The authors don't like the use of quest arrows or the filler quests. Quite fair. But this isn't some meaningful criticism of the design. It's not even really a description of the game. It's just chest thumping about what feature is "proper".
The section goes on to compare DAI with say Diablo.
The true exception is the combat. Aside from the belligerent tone, I think the review is quite right in the technical flaws it points out. But that's marred by a comical comparison to the purported complexity of BG2's spell combat, which suffered from the design issues at the concept level but implemented in a more traditional isometric RPG with D&D rules.
And then we get to the conclusion, which includes:
Delterius: What more can be said? Combat is mindless, exploration is tedious and what could otherwise be an enjoyable story is gated behind them. And this was RPG of the Year on countless gaming sites! Its development dances well to the status quo of the industry. It has sufficiently high production values to allow the professional blogging scene to praise it to the highest of heavens without losing face. Never mind that it brings absolutely nothing new to the RPG genre. Years from now millions of people who don't know any better will cite its name as proof that Games Are Art. But the truth is that Inquisition is nothing more than an exercise in treating players with a great deal of condescension. I can sympathize with the notion of simplifying a series in order to attract a wider audience but by God, I can't in good faith recommend Dragon Age: Inquisition even as a casual experience. It just isn't fun.
This isn't some deep or meaningful review. It's certainly more honest than the review proper. And it's last sentence is really all that should have been said, with an IMO in front.
Retour en haut
