113 réponses à ce sujet

[papercut_ninja]

...and "London Calling" is not true punk...

[earymir]

 "He believes gamers should spend more time having fun instead of complaining and making cynical criticism."

from the writer's own blurbography

I wasn't trying to be cynical - perhaps the comment about the GOTY stuff, but otherwise it's a legitimate criticism.  I very intentionally have brought up here and elsewhere that I think the game is good for many reasons.  I don't think it's a problem to talk about things you don't like and why.  

 

Also it's presumptuous to think people don't have fun when they are cynically criticizing

[leaguer of one]

I wasn't trying to be cynical - perhaps the comment about the GOTY stuff, but otherwise it's a legitimate criticism.  I very intentionally have brought up here and elsewhere that I think the game is good for many reasons.  I don't think it's a problem to talk about things you don't like and why.  

 

Also it's presumptuous to think people don't have fun when they are cynically criticizing

Most of your "legitimate criticism" is subjective.

[earymir]

Most of your "legitimate criticism" is subjective.

I agree but that's what criticism is in any art.  The distinction I was making was between cynical / jaded and not.  I am definitely not.  Bioware has proven time and again they can make huge improvements, even within the same game.  The difference between DA2 and DA2: Legacy, for instance, or ME3 and ME3: Citadel, for the two most recent examples.  You could say the same for NWN and NWN: Hordes of the Underdark too.  

[BigEvil]

Ah yes, 'games journalism'.

 

I can understand the writer doesn't feel like DA:I fits with Origins and DA2, but I don't agree with his feelings. And I think I know why. He brings up Mass Effect for comparison. He talks about how Shepard's decisions carried over through the three games and how it felt because some people were alive and some were not based on those choices, etc.

 

But that's where Dragon Age and Mass Effect are different (at least at the moment, we don't know what will happen with ME Next). The devs have said it time and time again, the focus of Dragon Age is the time period, the setting, not any one character. So why should something one character did have any impact on the next character unless it actually has impact? If one of my Wardens (say a HN) helped set up the Chantry in Orzammar, why should that have any impact on a Qunari Inquisitor in the same world state if they don't interact with anyone who has anything to do with that sidequest?

 

The answer is, it shouldn't. It might have impact on me the player, but that still doesn't mean it should have impact on the character I'm currently playing. The decisions exist, either because of the save import between Origins and DA2 or now because of the Keep. The writers can utilise those decisions, as seen by things like Alistair or Loghain showing up if one of them is with the Wardens, and so on, but I'd like to think they know when a choice (especially any minor choices) should pop up and be recognised and referenced. My Inquisitor doesn't need to meet every single character that my Warden and Hawke encountered and have both a recounting of those events and an update on what's going on with them now. If it makes sense for a previous character to appear, fine, and if the story they want to tell ties in to the previous events enough to warrant my current character being told about them, also fine. But I doubt any of my Inquisitors particularly care if the Warden got a bunch of toxin extract for some shady character one time (at band camp).

 

Basically I'd say this article comes down to player knowledge vs character knowledge (as well as a bit more wistful nostalgia about the good old days of Origins, because we can't complain about the current Dragon Age game without that). The writer wants cameos and past decisions to mean more because they mean something to the player. That's how he wants to play the game, fine. But that's not how I want to play the game. Neither of us are wrong or right, it's a preference. I try to avoid using player knowledge when playing RPGs, so I'm ok with the level of references, cameos and so on. Leliana mentioning that she knows Zevran in one of the war table operations is more than enough of a nod to me as the player, there's no need to make a song and dance out of it.

 

Although if you're going to make a song and dance out of something, Bioware, might as well have Leliana do the singing.

 

Also, who made this 'games journalist' the judge of what a Dragon Age game is like? *shakes fist jokingly*

[leaguer of one]

I agree but that's what criticism is in any art.  The distinction I was making was between cynical / jaded and not.  I am definitely not.  Bioware has proven time and again they can make huge improvements, even within the same game.  The difference between DA2 and DA2: Legacy, for instance, or ME3 and ME3: Citadel, for the two most recent examples.  You could say the same for NWN and NWN: Hordes of the Underdark too.  

Sure but the last thing I would say about dai is that it lacks tactics. And the bush are passive out side the ones for worrier. Debeffs are part of magical attacks. And dai cc is at the same level of da2 which has the best cc  of all the dragon age games. We even have a mage class all about cc. And then their's the lighting spells and ice spells. You also need to use all the abilties of you team to see the full tactic abilities. More so in hard and up....Unless your a knight enchanter.  Though the camra has issue. As for rogues it sound like your using it like you did in dao. For dagger rogue hit and run is the rule and chain link and dodge is your friend. You no longer have an auto dodge.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I consider it a DA game but, as other have said they forgot the old adage "You can't please all of the people all of the time." and tried to do just that.

 

Jimmy wants oranges

Sarah wants apples

The other 28 kids want bananas - give them 30 bananas.

[In Exile]

I agree but that's what criticism is in any art. The distinction I was making was between cynical / jaded and not. I am definitely not. Bioware has proven time and again they can make huge improvements, even within the same game. The difference between DA2 and DA2: Legacy, for instance, or ME3 and ME3: Citadel, for the two most recent examples. You could say the same for NWN and NWN: Hordes of the Underdark too.

Video games are also a product so we can talk about features objectively. We just have to separate out the value judgement (do I like the feature?) from the evaluation (does it do what it set out to do?).

For example, I think the menu UI is trash on PC. It's bad at being a UI. It controls worse with a controller, but it's not a trash console UI because it does a good job in working around console limitations. What is well designed in one sphere can be ass in another. At the same time the terrible menu UI doesn't substantially decract from my enjoyment of DAI. But I would be blind if I said it wasn't horrible.

[leaguer of one]

I consider it a DA game but, as other have said they forgot the old adage "You can't please all of the people all of the time." and tried to do just that.

 

Jimmy wants oranges

Sarah wants apples

The other 28 kids want bananas - give them 30 bananas.

As people have asked what is the old adage. Because people keep saying that it does not have it with out say what it is. It sound more of the case of "it's not origins so it's bad."

[mbeckham]

it could have used more NPC interaction and cut scenes and more interesting quests outside the original, but it had great companions with their own quests great council members and a great central story.  

[Darkly Tranquil]

Inquisition looks and sounds like a Dragon Age game for the most part, but it plays nothing like one.

[Ashagar]

I find that claim odd given the only consistent thing in the series has been the setting not the game play, DA:O was a heroic journey tactical RPG, DA2 was a gloomily repetitive hack and slash title and DAI was a save the world hybrid gameplay, all of which had their good and bad spots but are enjoyable in their own way.

[earymir]

Video games are also a product so we can talk about features objectively. We just have to separate out the value judgement (do I like the feature?) from the evaluation (does it do what it set out to do?).

For example, I think the menu UI is trash on PC. It's bad at being a UI. It controls worse with a controller, but it's not a trash console UI because it does a good job in working around console limitations. What is well designed in one sphere can be ass in another. At the same time the terrible menu UI doesn't substantially decract from my enjoyment of DAI. But I would be blind if I said it wasn't horrible.

 

Oh I agree we can be objective about the product - good and bad.  The article (which I used as a starting point for the conversation) is clearly a value/critique of the art and form, not so much the product which is bought and sold.  As a product it was an excellent, highly main stream, good-for-most type of game.  Jack-of-all-trades deal.  Had ridiculously bad bugs for some people (including me right at the beginning), so as a product it failed a decent number of people right at launch.  But they have been doing good patches as well. 

 

I'm not a fan of the UI menu either.  It doesn't make a huge difference to me, but it definitely feels very console-oriented.  I play PC basically exclusively these days, so I've felt the cringe-worthiness of some of the bugs and UI / control issues.  

[CronoDragoon]

This is a pretty terrible article. Let's just get it out of the way first that the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a true Dragon Age game are never defined.

 

"Another dispensable addition was the much-talked-about Tactic Mode. Maybe you like it, maybe you don’t, but it’s pretty much useless. Despite having Bioware telling us howDragon Age: Inquisition was going to require the use of the whole party to achieve victory, the game is actually pretty easy. The strategy mode turns out to be useful only on the harder difficulty settings or as a ridiculous way of making fights last longer."

 

What does this have to do with the thesis of the article? Nothing. Writer didn't like the Tactical Mode, all right, but was the Tactical Mode itself not Dragon Age-y? If that is his claim, it's certainly not what he discusses.

 

"Why is this setting only adequate then? Well, it doesn’t feel like the same story. The pieces are right, but there’s a different tone, a different deepness in the tale. The problem with Dragon Age: Inquisition`s plot is that instead of feeling like a whole story, facts and soul, it’s more like a display in which all the things Bioware thought fans expected are shown. The glue that ties all the cameos and references is thin and many times ridiculous."

 

What is the soul or depth in a story that defines a true Dragon Age game? What is missing from Inquisition's story that defines Dragon Age? Now, I'm only just pointing out how underdeveloped the article is, but let's assume for a moment that by "deepness" he's actually talking about depth: I'd love for him to defend that Origins or DA2 had a deeper story than Inquisition. As a Dragon Age game, it's laughable to contend that Dragon Age Inquisition draws less on the Dragon Age lore than the previous two games. If anything, the depths to which Dragon Age Inquisition plays with the lore is staggering. If we're talking about themes, then Inquisition's themes of religion and faith do a much better job of coming across in the story than Origins' themes of...well whatever it's themes were, and DA2's themes of family and a rise to power.

 

"None of this means Dragon Age: Inquisition’s story is less than great; it only states how apart it is from the other games in the franchise. This feeling of dispersion is additionally accentuated by the differences in the game’s mechanics and world disposition. Dragon Age games hardly ever included huge maps, extended non-urban zones, nor were that much based in exploration. Moreover, MMORPG-like quests added a whole new feel which, even though works perfectly in Dragon Age: Inquisition, feels completely foreign to many long-time fans of the series."

 

This is true, in that Inquisition's maps are a radical departure from the previous games. But then, Dragon Age 2's maps were a radical departure from Origins'. At this point, there's been no consistency in regards to zone design. He can talk about which game's structure he liked the most, of course, but that's a different matter.

 

Finally, I don't believe it's necessary to point out how ridiculous the Mass Effect comparison was. He's asking for stronger character ties between games to a series in which the creators said from the outset that the series is about the world, not the player character or his party for that game. What he's asking for is distinctly anti-Dragon Age.

[cronshaw]

I wasn't trying to be cynical - perhaps the comment about the GOTY stuff, but otherwise it's a legitimate criticism.  I very intentionally have brought up here and elsewhere that I think the game is good for many reasons.  I don't think it's a problem to talk about things you don't like and why.  

 

Also it's presumptuous to think people don't have fun when they are cynically criticizing

I wasn't really speaking about your post

just about the content of that "article" and the writer's blurbography

the juxtaposition of the two was ironic

[Brockololly]

I just continue to find it hilarious how Mass Effect fans are now deathly afraid that ME4 will end up taking on too much of Inquisition. When it was DA that absorbed so much of Mass Effect post Origins.

[In Exile]

I just continue to find it hilarious how Mass Effect fans are now deathly afraid that ME4 will end up taking on too much of Inquisition. When it was DA that absorbed so much of Mass Effect post Origins.

Not to mention that the fetch quests that are now much maligned here would be a return to ME1s UEWs.

[leaguer of one]

Not to mention that the fetch quests that are now much maligned here would be a return to ME1s UEWs.

Seriously. They whine about having to do back a forth on a giant map to do quest when that was every side quest in ME1.

[wolfhowwl]

You know it's possible for people to think that kind of content was **** in both games, right?

[Vicious]

 

What is the soul or depth in a story that defines a true Dragon Age game? What is missing from Inquisition's story that defines Dragon Age? Now, I'm only just pointing out how underdeveloped the article is, but let's assume for a moment that by "deepness" he's actually talking about depth: I'd love for him to defend that Origins or DA2 had a deeper story than Inquisition. As a Dragon Age game, it's laughable to contend that Dragon Age Inquisition draws less on the Dragon Age lore than the previous two games. If anything, the depths to which Dragon Age Inquisition plays with the lore is staggering.

 

 

 

Indeed, this 'article' and many complaints of DA:I reek of rose colored glasses. Now people complain about DA:I's main quest being too short when a story only dialogue skipping speed run takes 2-3 hours while Origins can be powered through in less than one hour, even shorter than KOTOR.

 

 

And it was only a year ago when people on these forums and elsewhere looked at the maps of Thedas and said 'wow i'd so like to explore xxx area!' Bioware then made a game where you could explore xxx area whether it be lush forest or trackless desert and people then said 'its too big and there's no reason to explore it' even though it is now chock full of lore and landmarks that you can find just for the joy of exploring.

 

 

I've been around for a very long time. Bioware is one of the few studios who still greatly values the feedback of their hardcore playerbase but there's a bit of an issue with the complains being thrown around here being so absent of facts or chock full of hyperbole that they cannot be taken too seriously.

 

 

And no, I for one do not want to go back to the DA:O model with tiny maps and a main plot that consists of 'go to these 4 places and then save the world'

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I certainly don't want to go back to DAO, or DA2. DAI is a move in the right direction in many ways but, it is also a move in the wrong direction in some ways.

 

The larger maps, lore presentation, story, graphics, abilities trees, facial customization options, being able to upgrade the base, mounts all good.

 

Removing healers, tac cam, not being able to assign stat points not so good.

 

Hairstyles, armor styles, AI Tactics, quest markers getting stuck, quests that don't trigger when they should, those need work.

 

In a lot of ways the game was simplified in an effort to please the masses but, that detracts from the game for many players. Instead of removing the ability to assign stat points all together, it should have been part of the auto level option so that players who did not wish to bother with them could simply auto level but, those of us that prefer a more custom build could assign them manually. Tack cam should be a free moving camera that allows any zoom and any angle the player needs to establish tactics for a fight.

 

I understand the clipping and animation issues with longer hair (Sims games show that) but, they also show that not animating the long hair and the minor clipping are acceptable for those that prefer longer hair. Modders are beginning to get there, but, it's going to take time and, it would be nicer if the Devs simply patched in more hairstyles. Players that can't deal with the clipping and lack of animation do not have to use longer styles.

[Helios969]

I agree with the previous two posters.  Another longtime lurker.  DAI is the culmination of all the negative feedback of DA2 and the subsequent requests by posters of what they wanted in the next game.  It just goes to show you'll never be able to please everyone...and maybe it's a bad idea to even try.  DAI is definitely a move in the right direction and for the most part needs to find a better balance between the narrative and gameplay (and F'ing better hair opts.)  I think the combat is massively improved though admittedly I never really used the tac-cam that many PC'ers are distraught over as I prefer real time decision-making.  As much as I loved DAO when it was released the combat was simply boring and was merely something I did to get to the next part of the story.  DAI definitely feels like a Dragon Age game to me; it simply has evolved.

[Nykara]

"Bioware tried to cater for all kinds of players at the same time, which ended up being weird for everyone."

 

I agree.

 

The game is enjoyable, loveable as far as I'm concerned, & even the dreaded multiplayer is suprisingly fun - but I never lost this lingering sense of weirdness. Something is off since the beginning, and it never really stops. After +90 hours and four months, every evening I boot it up, it feels as strange as a new game, and it never truly became "familiar".

 

That's not a complaint, not even criticism. Heck if I know what it is.

 

 

EDIT: Since apparently the above is like-worthy, I'd like to point out I disagree with the headline of the article. I just agree with this one thing.

 Know what I hate the most?

When people try to speak FOR me. Only I can do that. I did not find DA:I weird. I love this game and the characters and the story. I did not feel as if it was off. I did not feel disconnected, I felt rather engaged in fact.

I wish those who wrote these silly articles actually bothered to see if their opinions are really in fact those of EVERYONE. Makes it sound much 'bigger' then it is.

[Hawklyn Starblade]

Its pretty sad that after 3 entries into the franchise, dragon age has yet to establish its own identity. Every entry feels different with little coherency and familiarity(and no the protagonist is not the reason) unlike, say Mass Effect.
 
DAI will be forgotten when ME4 is revealed at E3 anyway so whatever.

[earymir]

I agree with the previous two posters.  Another longtime lurker.  DAI is the culmination of all the negative feedback of DA2 and the subsequent requests by posters of what they wanted in the next game.  It just goes to show you'll never be able to please everyone...and maybe it's a bad idea to even try.  DAI is definitely a move in the right direction and for the most part needs to find a better balance between the narrative and gameplay (and F'ing better hair opts.)  I think the combat is massively improved though admittedly I never really used the tac-cam that many PC'ers are distraught over as I prefer real time decision-making.  As much as I loved DAO when it was released the combat was simply boring and was merely something I did to get to the next part of the story.  DAI definitely feels like a Dragon Age game to me; it simply has evolved.

 

I (for real) find it so interesting how much people prefer different combat styles.  For fantasy/RPG games I've always preferred a slightly slower, more complicated battle style with lots and lots of options (DAO, NWN, Divinity Original Sin, for instance), so DAI is a huge step in a rather boring direction for me.  I *do* enjoy fast-paced 3rd and 1st person shooters (ME2/3, Bioshock) and more adventure or platforming games (e.g. rebooted Tomb Raider) at the same time.  Helios, how you describe DAO combat is basically how I feel about DAI combat.  I dread it, especially after about level 14-15.  DAA had similar issues because the balancing was pretty off after a while, but luckily combat takes a lot less time in DAA than say DAI at later levels.  

 

Totally separate thought: I don't typically start many posts, and I appreciate most of the comments.  I generally speaking hate terrible journalism and would in no way consider the original post/article journalism.  It just captured better than a number of articles my feeling about the game in comparison to the others (which I have played off and on since they came out, including within the last year from start to finish).  

 

Anyway thanks everyone - and for basically keeping it civil.  It's fun to hear people's thoughts.