373 réponses à ce sujet

[Shelled]

There is an ignore function, click on your username in the upper right hand corner.

 

And yes, the AI in this game is trash.

My username or his? I can't find it.

[In Exile]

There is an ignore function, click on your username in the upper right hand corner.

And yes, the AI in this game is trash.

Trash would mean that the AI is bad. That's not even close to capturing how terrible it is - it's on a suicide mission the majority of the time. If I hadn't figured out how to mostly disable it I think I'd have throttled the screen.

[Rawgrim]

You were absolutely attacking. You literally asked me how much Bioware is paying me to shill for them. That's not starting any kind of conversation.

 

It was a rethorical question. I did start to wonder though. Someone asked me via PM if they believed you were on a paycheck, since you only seem to pop up in threads that tend to be critical towards the product, and end up derailing them.

[Shelled]

Alright I figured out how to ignore. Thank god. If I had to read any more of that mindless drivel, ignorant praising, and utter complacency with regards to this terrible completely downgraded gameplay from that guy I would have had to be medically institutionalized in an insane asylum.

[Elhanan]

You were absolutely attacking. You literally asked me how much Bioware is paying me to shill for them. That's not starting any kind of conversation.

This seems to be a rather shifting defined state, as one of those that tends to hate the game was also trying to be fair in their criticism; ended up with the Bio-fan tag, also.

It really is too bad; could have used the extra funds all this time....

[In Exile]

It was a rethorical question. I did start to wonder though. Someone asked me via PM if they believed you were on a paycheck, since you only seem to pop up in threads that tend to be critical towards the product, and end up derailing them.

I pop up far more in threads about lore and gameplay. It so happens that there are also threads were people put forward something incredibly hypocritical, usually in comparison to a previous Bioware game. Since I've been a fan forever at this point, I'm well aware of what the company has and hasn't done.

Take the quest design. DAI has terrible quest design. Just like every Bioware game since, really, Jade Empire (which was the last game to have clever side a quests). ME2, DAO and DA2 tried to cover up the ass quest design with dialogue. ME1 had the comically terrible prefabricated Mako worlds, which were even worse than DAI.

But asking for quests like DAO isn't the answer. The only difference is that there was more dialogue.

Here's a different example of why these requests are actually bad. A lot of people after DA2 slagged it for "meaningless" choices (that is flavour choices where the end outcome would be the same but you'd get different dialogue and RP options, e.g. the varying ways you could deal with the trapped mages in the Kirkwall caves like killing Thrask and Karrass or smooth talking). DAO had the same meaningless flavour choices, but for whatever reason people only started hating on the design in DA2 (my wager is that people noticed the flaw more when their general enjoyment went down).

The end result was that Bioware only left in choices that had reactive content but cut a lot of flavour choices. That's bad design that flows from misguided feedback.

To fix the ass quest design it's important to separate out the ass quest design from the things we all enjoy that Bioware did to cover it up. But when I point this out, people somehow think I'm defending the ass quest design.

So I'm a bit exasperated at this point. That won't stop me from expressing my view, but I do wonder if the problem is with how I'm saying it or if people just aren't reading it.

[Rawgrim]

I pop up far more in threads about lore and gameplay. It so happens that there are also threads were people put forward something incredibly hypocritical, usually in comparison to a previous Bioware game. Since I've been a fan forever at this point, I'm well aware of what the company has and hasn't done.

Take the quest design. DAI has terrible quest design. Just like every Bioware game since, really, Jade Empire (which was the last game to have clever side a quests). ME2, DAO and DA2 tried to cover up the ass quest design with dialogue. ME1 had the comically terrible prefabricated Mako worlds, which were even worse than DAI.

But asking for quests like DAO isn't the answer. The only difference is that there was more dialogue.

Here's a different example of why these requests are actually bad. A lot of people after DA2 slagged it for "meaningless" choices (that is flavour choices where the end outcome would be the same but you'd get different dialogue and RP options, e.g. the varying ways you could deal with the trapped mages in the Kirkwall caves like killing Thrask and Karrass or smooth talking). DAO had the same meaningless flavour choices, but for whatever reason people only started hating on the design in DA2 (my wager is that people noticed the flaw more when their general enjoyment went down).

The end result was that Bioware only left in choices that had reactive content but cut a lot of flavour choices. That's bad design that flows from misguided feedback.

To fix the ass quest design it's important to separate out the ass quest design from the things we all enjoy that Bioware did to cover it up. But when I point this out, people somehow think I'm defending the ass quest design.

So I'm a bit exasperated at this point. That won't stop me from expressing my view, but I do wonder if the problem is with how I'm saying it or if people just aren't reading it.

 

I was going to send you a PM just now. But I can do it here instead. For all to see.

 

I went to far with my earlier comment, and it was uncool of me. Not only uncool, but it was stupid and a bit rash. So I apologize for attacking you. And I mean it too.

[Terodil]

Take the quest design. DAI has terrible quest design. Just like every Bioware game since, really, Jade Empire (which was the last game to have clever side a quests). ME2, DAO and DA2 tried to cover up the ass quest design with dialogue. ME1 had the comically terrible prefabricated Mako worlds, which were even worse than DAI.

 

Thank you for your interesting post. Could you elaborate a little what makes a quest "good" in your opinion, what makes a quest "bad" but "covered up with dialogue", and what makes it just "bad"? -- I tend to not really see the difference between the first two (obviously only if done reasonably well; if the dialogue consists of "Hey Inquisitooooor, grab 10 pelts for me will ya?" -- Choices: "Yes."; "OK, I might."; "I don't want to but Cassandra is going to kick me in the ribs if I don't.", that doesn't count.)

 

Funnily enough, side quests both in ME1 and DA:O definitely seemed more meaningful to me. I can remember no more than a handful of quests where you were required to grab X samples of Y (e.g. the horrible wolf pelt quest right at the beginning of DA:O, lol). Inquisition abounds with such crap. Although... perhaps time has just allowed me to forget about the bad stuff, as usual. (Oh, and I'd not classify planet exploration as side quests, unless you have a specific task there. The whole 'collect 12 sources of heavy metals, and 10 of gas' stuff was horrible though, no question about it.)

 

(If we talk again in five years' time, and I yell about how awesome DA:I is, you are hereby given permission to kick me in the ribs.)

[BackdoorPaco]

(If we talk again in five years' time, and I yell about how awesome DA:I is, you are hereby given permission to kick me in the ribs.)

 

You'll just be following the biower cycle

 

[DragonAddict]

REALY am I playing the same Game???? http://l.gamespot.com/1xB9PBO"I think really it's both a return to form, a return to what BioWare did in its roots: exploration, story-telling, character development," he said. "Also, us starting to explore new areas [being] deeper, open-world gameplay. I think just that combination is what really resonated with people." Those are his words this was after winning Game of the year at The Dice Awards.

 

And people actually believe this pile of crap???

 

 

Really?!?!?!

 

 

I need a long break from Bioware and no more DA for me......they returned to their roots.....NOT. They will say that because of the short term great profits....yah.

 

 

Mr.Darrah is living in his own world and not this one.

 

 

 

I predict right now, that since Bioware has their heads so far up their butts, the next Dragon Age game, DA4, will be just like DAI.

 

- dumbed down

- simplified even more

- reduced and simplified skills trees

- hack and slash

- big open empty areas to explore

- almost meaningless side filler quests

- only 3 things to change at the main base....or none?

- can't interact with pretty much any object....all static art and eye candy

- no storage chest

- no campsite

- cant talk to party characters

- can't interact and talk to NPC's

- no pets

- can't buy or find romance gifts or items

- can't view and change armor and weapons, items between characters and on the fly

- told its made for PC when its really made for console controllers

- very buggy

- rush out the door before Christmas and on sale

- massive PR when its in pre alpha stage

- no isometric view for PC

- no PC optimized version

- start a new character and can't import the inquisitor

- frostbite 3 engine with amazing graphics to cover all this up

- even more amazing longer cut scenes

- even more gay options in the game so being straight is almost a bad thing

- more swearing

- even after patch 4, still too many issues to deal with

 

 

Rinse and repeat.....

 

 

DA5.

 

 

When DA4 is released, users will still remember DAO and other older rpg games, buy and play them.

[Shelled]

I pop up far more in threads about lore and gameplay. It so happens that there are also threads were people put forward something incredibly hypocritical, usually in comparison to a previous Bioware game. Since I've been a fan forever at this point, I'm well aware of what the company has and hasn't done.

Take the quest design. DAI has terrible quest design. Just like every Bioware game since, really, Jade Empire (which was the last game to have clever side a quests). ME2, DAO and DA2 tried to cover up the ass quest design with dialogue. ME1 had the comically terrible prefabricated Mako worlds, which were even worse than DAI.

But asking for quests like DAO isn't the answer. The only difference is that there was more dialogue.

Here's a different example of why these requests are actually bad. A lot of people after DA2 slagged it for "meaningless" choices (that is flavour choices where the end outcome would be the same but you'd get different dialogue and RP options, e.g. the varying ways you could deal with the trapped mages in the Kirkwall caves like killing Thrask and Karrass or smooth talking). DAO had the same meaningless flavour choices, but for whatever reason people only started hating on the design in DA2 (my wager is that people noticed the flaw more when their general enjoyment went down).

The end result was that Bioware only left in choices that had reactive content but cut a lot of flavour choices. That's bad design that flows from misguided feedback.

To fix the ass quest design it's important to separate out the ass quest design from the things we all enjoy that Bioware did to cover it up. But when I point this out, people somehow think I'm defending the ass quest design.

So I'm a bit exasperated at this point. That won't stop me from expressing my view, but I do wonder if the problem is with how I'm saying it or if people just aren't reading it.

I agree with the quest thing, its always been mediocre, but origins did something that inquisition doesn't in terms of side-content. There was a lot of enemy-dialogue interaction, usually before a fight would start as well. You could sometimes influence and change outcomes. The problem here is determining what was actually side-content in origins because the game was so linear everything about it may as well be main content.

I mean I just did a side quest in inquisition about a rage demon that followed a wraith through a rift because it wanted to kill the wraith I guess or something. The wraith was not demonic in nature and asked me to kill it. So I found it, and just killed it lmao. It didn't try to trick me or seduce me with a power-up, no dialogue, no nothing.... 

They just dropped the damn ball on the side-content in inquisition lol. It's ridiculously mediocre. Doesn't even hold a candle compared to skyrim either... so I duno why that bioware developer was trying to compare his game to skyrim that one time. Makes no freakin sense. Skyrim had a ton of npc interaction that went way beyond just dialogue. There was actual npc participation within quests with them.

[Terodil]

They just dropped the damn ball on the side-content in inquisition. It's ridiculously mediocre. Doesn't even hold a candle compared to skyrim either... so I duno why the dev was trying to compare his game to skyrim that one time. Makes no freakin sense.

I agree with most of your post, Shelled. Just this bit... Skyrim? Seriously? I liked Skyrim for the big world and the graphics, but quests (as part of a story) were always crap, IMO. Even the guild quests more or less just consisted of 'kill X, bring me Y (trophy, document, item) of it.'. I can't remember any quest in Skyrim that was solved via anything but combat.

One point stands though: The day we have to start comparing a Dragon Age game to Skyrim will be a sad day. Oh wait, that was Nov 18, 2014.

[Shelled]

I agree with most of your post, Shelled. Just this bit... Skyrim? Seriously? I liked Skyrim for the big world and the graphics, but quests (as part of a story) were always crap, IMO. Even the guild quests more or less just consisted of 'kill X, bring me Y (trophy, document, item) of it.'. I can't remember any quest in Skyrim that was solved via anything but combat.

One point stands though: The day we have to start comparing a Dragon Age game to Skyrim will be a sad day. Oh wait, that was Nov 18, 2014.

Skyrims quests didn't always end with combat but I'll agree the majority of them did. But they were interesting. Remember that first early quest nettlebane? http://www.uesp.net/...sings_of_Nature   This is just one quest.

They gave you different ways to complete the quest. Sometimes npc would join you for a fight or whatever. I duno how much more you can ask for other than that. Couple of different ways to complete a quest, npc interaction, yeah... duno what else you would ask for that would be reasonable development time for a game that large. With mods, skyrim is an amazing game. People forget the little things. I mean damn, you could even attack those outposts with npc's if you went empire or stormcloak. I mean... it was slightly mediocre but it wasn't bad. 

I think skyrims main problem was its lack of interesting first person combat and the spells were completely uninteresting, but with the right mods skyrim is actually a pretty amazing game in my opinion. Way more amazing than inquisition will ever be.

I would go so far as to argue that in terms of raw gameplay (not story) its better than origins with the right mods in my opinion. They are different games though. If we're talking raw tactical combat, origins is obviously better, but you can significantly improve skyrims combat with mods. I'm a big fan of real-time first person combat though so yeah, they are just different games. Overall, I prefer skyrim over origins.

Although I play the elder scrolls for its own style, and dragon age for its own style. If I wanted every RPG to be the same, well that would suck and be boring. There is no definitive "BEST" design for a game, but some things you just don't do in sequels and that would be downgrading its style, which is what inquisition did, and what dragon age 2 did but more so.

The problem is the devs don't know what style dragon age should be and it should be pretty clear from how amazing origins was, what that style should be. They tried changing it with dragon age 2, it failed and the story sucked and everything about the city and how small it was just sucked. It entirely sucked in my opinion and I absolutely detested its combat. It might have been one of the worst rpg I've ever played. Inquisition is better, but compared to origins it isn't. They didn't get the tactics correct at all, everything is dumbed down, the tactical mode feels and plays like an afterthought. The abilities aren't designed for its use at all and the a.i customization is terrible which means both the tactical mode is bad and its real-time combat isn't as good as it could be either, maybe if we could sequence multiple commands with the tact mode it wouldn't be so bad but we can't. Maybe if we could customize the a.i better the real time action wouldn't be so bad but we can't. The PC u.i and controls are terrible and the side-content is laughable at best. 

One of the biggest features of dragon age has been the fact that you could influence the outcome of any given situation (usually). You can't do that in almost ALL of the side content in inquisition lmao.

Origins might be linear as hell, but in terms of its unique style and design almost everything about it is superior over inquisition other than the graphics and open-maps. It's not open world like skyrim but the maps are big which should be an upgrade but are not if all you put in them is lame time-filler crap which is what they've done.

[Terodil]

Fair enough Shelled, I get you. Maybe it's time to dust off Skyrim again, though I will say that if I forget that much about a game, book, or movie, I can't have found it very good :<

While I'd rate DA:KW far above DA:I in terms of writing quality (the story was good, even if it was fragmented and Hawke's impact was small, and the companions are FAR, FAR better than what sorry excuse we got for characters in DA:I), I wholly agree with your statements here.

[...] the tactical mode feels and plays like an afterthought. The abilities aren't designed for its use at all and the a.i customization is terrible which means both the tactical mode is bad and its real-time combat isn't as good as it could be either, maybe if we could sequence multiple commands with the tact mode it wouldn't be so bad but we can't. Maybe if we could customize the a.i better the real time action wouldn't be so bad but we can't. The PC u.i and controls are terrible and the side-content is laughable at best.

One of the biggest features of dragon age has been the fact that you could influence the outcome of any given situation (usually). You can't do that in almost ALL of the side content in inquisition lmao.

Origins might be linear as hell, but in terms of its unique style and design almost everything about it is superior over inquisition other than the graphics and open-maps. It's not open world like skyrim but the maps are big which should be an upgrade but are not if all you put in them is lame time-filler crap which is what they've done.

... and given all this, 'return to greatness'? I think not. PR blurb.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I think the reason DA2's questing got more flak than DAO is that DAO was very good with at least giving you the illusion of choice. More often than not, it's binary - you can't do something even if it might make sense otherwise. Bioware did with DAO, however, make it look like things are deeper than they really were.

 

Take the dwarven throne, for example. A Paragon's word is pretty much law, so if the DN Warden had said "Caridin told me to choose whoever I wanted as king, and I choose myself" they would have probably gone along with it. But you can't. It's either Bhelen or Harrowmont, with Branka being another variable in the mix. The Landsmeet is the same way - Allistair or Anora, with the possibility of Loghain thrown into the mix.

 

They're not really that complex, and they do basically nothing to change the game - but it looks that way. You get the same thing if you place Alistair or Anora on the throne of Ferelden, and some slightly different items should you place Harrowmont or Bhelen on the throne of Orzammar, but that's all. People are generally pleased.

 

DA2 pretty much just laughs at you the entire way. You're on a railroad, and Bioware doesn't even bother hiding the rails. Yes it's rushed and all, but Act 3 is the worst example of this - nothing you do changes the end sequence, you have to fight both Meredith and Orsino no matter what.

 

As far as sidequests, DAO had it's share of junk - the Chantry boards, the Irregulars and so on, but they did give you some minor choices along the way to even it up. Some little quests - Brother Burkel, Zerlinda, Dagna and Filda for example - all have some pretty different results, even if it doesn't impact the game that much. DA2 is far more linear in this regard, and DAI is flat-out linear for so many quests, where they wouldn't have been out of place in World of Warcraft and the like.

 

I don't necessarily mind simple quests if they make sense in universe. Witcher 2 has a bunch of "hunt this" quests (though they're not all simplistic by any means) because Geralt is a monster hunter. The Inquisitor, however, is supposed to be the head of this movement that is powerful enough to shake nations and worry the Chantry, and they're out being given grunt work. The percentage of quests you can influence is so miniscule compared to the ones you can't, and the rewards are absolute garbage in every sense of the word. 

[Dreamer]

I think the reason DA2's questing got more flak than DAO is that DAO was very good with at least giving you the illusion of choice. More often than not, it's binary - you can't do something even if it might make sense otherwise. Bioware did with DAO, however, make it look like things are deeper than they really were.

 

Take the dwarven throne, for example. A Paragon's word is pretty much law, so if the DN Warden had said "Caridin told me to choose whoever I wanted as king, and I choose myself" they would have probably gone along with it. But you can't. It's either Bhelen or Harrowmont, with Branka being another variable in the mix. The Landsmeet is the same way - Allistair or Anora, with the possibility of Loghain thrown into the mix.

 

They're not really that complex, and they do basically nothing to change the game - but it looks that way. You get the same thing if you place Alistair or Anora on the throne of Ferelden, and some slightly different items should you place Harrowmont or Bhelen on the throne of Orzammar, but that's all. People are generally pleased.

 

DA2 pretty much just laughs at you the entire way. You're on a railroad, and Bioware doesn't even bother hiding the rails. Yes it's rushed and all, but Act 3 is the worst example of this - nothing you do changes the end sequence, you have to fight both Meredith and Orsino no matter what.

 

As far as sidequests, DAO had it's share of junk - the Chantry boards, the Irregulars and so on, but they did give you some minor choices along the way to even it up. Some little quests - Brother Burkel, Zerlinda, Dagna and Filda for example - all have some pretty different results, even if it doesn't impact the game that much. DA2 is far more linear in this regard, and DAI is flat-out linear for so many quests, where they wouldn't have been out of place in World of Warcraft and the like.

 

I don't necessarily mind simple quests if they make sense in universe. Witcher 2 has a bunch of "hunt this" quests (though they're not all simplistic by any means) because Geralt is a monster hunter. The Inquisitor, however, is supposed to be the head of this movement that is powerful enough to shake nations and worry the Chantry, and they're out being given grunt work. The percentage of quests you can influence is so miniscule compared to the ones you can't, and the rewards are absolute garbage in every sense of the word. 

 

The keen observer would note that Inquisition has the boards in place, but they do not have any functional use (yet?). I surmise that Chantry Boards were at one time considered as a location to pick up quests.

[Linkenski]

Angry Hoe got this wrong too. He said DA2 was a departure but DA:I felt more like Origins 2.

Personally I felt all 3 games were completely unique and I have no faith that Bioware will ever make a DA:O successor ever again, but I do hope they keep finding new ways to make RPGs relevant in this over saturated and conservative gaming industry of today.

DA:I's MMORPG aspect is not what any of us are looking for so that was a misstep. If Bioware ever makes that idea of a strategical choice-based RPG like they originally intended to make with DAI then some faith is restored. I hope they can develop a game without resource miscalculations and content-cutting and make a game with some quality side-content again in the near future.

[aliastasia]

@In Exile - just a personal preference in terms of quest design:

I actually didn't mind the Mako quests, because they felt as part of a whole, especially the UNC mission ones.
I did not get that feeling in DA:I - Mother's Ring in Emprise du Lion isn't the same as cleaning up Geth in the Armstrong Nebula, or UNC:Cerberus or UNC Dead scientists was better tied in to the main story than i.e cleaning up hat keep in the Exalted Plains.
 

Hassle-wise, the Mako was a nightmare, but all in all, everything felt tied in - DA:I sorely lacks that quality. You can even bypass the Virmire moment by picking Stroud.

 

/A

[phantomrachie]

I agree this is a problem, but isn't it a pretty common RPG problem? It's easier to list RPGs that don't have it than RPGs that do.

 

Good Point!

 

Maybe it's that the world in DA:I is so big that it enhances the issue for me. You could probably use the same argument for most of their games, but it was never something I really noticed until DA:I

 

DA:I's MMORPG aspect is not what any of us are looking for so that was a misstep. 

 

People keep on saying this and I'm afraid I don't get it. I genuinely don't understand this link between DA:I & a MMORPG.

 

I'll admit the only MMORPGS that I've every played are WOW, DC Universe Online and Guild Wars, but I don't see how DA:I was more MMORPG than any other single player RPG. I mean it's not like it was Kingdoms of Amalur, which was literally a single player MMORPG right down to the lackluster plot and quests. 

 

Perhaps I don't get it because I still have a vague memory of people saying that the MMORPG elements of DA:O ruined it and made it the worst BioWare game ever.

[line_genrou]

Was this guy even involved with the BG games or Kotor? Just curious.

I have a feeling most people, if not everyone, involved in these games are not in Bioware anymore

[Lord Surinen]

If this is a form then I would rather prefer them to stay formless. Male elf model is stillnot fixed. Well, what is fixed? Banter? tee-hey

 

[aliastasia]

I have a feeling most people, if not everyone, involved in these games are not in Bioware anymore

Brent Knowles' Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia....i/Brent_Knowles

[Shelled]

Brent Knowles' Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia....i/Brent_Knowles

no wonder this game sucks.

[Draining Dragon]

It's a step in the right direction, but a return to form?

nope nope nope nope

[SnakeCode]

It's like most things that have been changed. For every step forward, Bioware have also taken a step back. Some things (most things) have been dramatically improved upon from DA2, so in that sense I can understand why the DA team are saying it's a return to form. Since they like to start with a clean slate each game though, they drop things that were really popular from the previous titles. Instead of taking those things and improving on them, they get rid of them completely and try to come up with something new.