201 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

The problem with a Saren-type villain was that he was just a pawn for an ancient evil antagonist.

[Draining Dragon]

No, they should go back to it being like Origins.

[Heimdall]

The problem with a Saren-type villain was that he was just a pawn for an ancient evil antagonist.

Yup, better to go with the mastermind type villain, like Sun Li.

Yes, I know I say this a lot, but Sun Li's character was probably Bioware's most engaging villain. He was nobody's pawn, in fact the protagonist was his unknowing pawn through most of the game. He was also highly rational and competent, he actually succeeds instead of coming across as the near comically inept madman Corypheus did. Saren was a pawn. Loghain was an interesting concept that came across as paranoid and didn't live up to his reputation as a capable foe in game.

There's a lesson to be learned from this pattern Bioware, thwarting the villain's plans through most of the plot is no way to build up a properly threatening and satisfying antagonist.

[AresKeith]

No, they should go back to it being like Origins.

 

Origins wasn't a good framework

 

The problem with a Saren-type villain was that he was just a pawn for an ancient evil antagonist.

 

He was a puppet tangled on strings

[KaiserShep]

Yes, I know I say this a lot, but Sun Li's character was probably Bioware's most engaging villain. He was nobody's pawn, in fact the protagonist was his unknowing pawn through most of the game. He was also highly rational and competent, he actually succeeds instead of coming across as the near comically inept madman Corypheus did. Saren was a pawn. Loghain was an interesting concept that came across as paranoid and didn't live up to his reputation as a capable foe in game.

 

It seems quite a lot of the antagonists we face are pawns. The Illusive Man, Saren, Corypheus. Even Loghain seemed like Howe's chump in the end.

[AresKeith]

There's a lesson to be learned from this pattern Bioware, thwarting the villain's plans through most of the plot is no way to build up a properly threatening and satisfying antagonist.

 

Yup, Bioware started off well with Haven but as soon as we got Skyhold Corypheus' forces just started to fumble at everything 

[Aaleel]

Just asking for a clarification here. What do you mean by Saren type villain?

Someone who isn't just evil intent on destroying the world. You almost felt sorry for Saren at points of The game because he thought he was helping, but was really indoctrinated. Then he finally came to his senses and went out on his own terms. I'm not saying they have to be a tool, but just someone who isn't just I'm evil I'm going to rule the world, or destroy it.

If you're going to go with a purely evil villain at least make him like Kefka from Final Fantasy VI.

[Mathias]

The ratio of Side Quests and Main Quests in DA:I is like 95/5. It's pretty ridiculous. I love filler and exploration as much as the next guy, but Bioware actually managed to put too much exploration in their game, and I didn't even think that was possible, but somehow they did it.

 

Bioware has this awful way of sometimes fixing fan complaints with a sledgehammer. What do I mean by that? Ok let's look at a few examples:

 

Mass Effect 1: Fans complained about the bad controls of the Mako. Ok how does Bioware fix the Mako controls? F it! Just remove it entirely. Then fans missed having a vehicle in the next two games.

 

Mass Effect 2: Fans complained about how simple and cliche Harbinger was in his taunts. How does Bioware fix it? F it! Just remove him as the villain in ME3 except for a small cameo. The fans complained about his lack of presence.

 

Dragon Age 2: Fans complained about not enough areas to explore and reused dungeons. How does Bioware fix it? BY GOING NUUUUUUTS! Let's give them a hundred hours worth of content to explore! What story? Forget story we'll get to that later. But exploration WOOOOOO!!!!

[Korva]

Yes, I know I say this a lot, but Sun Li's character was probably Bioware's most engaging villain. He was nobody's pawn, in fact the protagonist was his unknowing pawn through most of the game. He was also highly rational and competent, he actually succeeds instead of coming across as the near comically inept madman Corypheus did. Saren was a pawn. Loghain was an interesting concept that came across as paranoid and didn't live up to his reputation as a capable foe in game.

 

I think Jade Empire was a bit of an underrated game overall, but especially in terms of the villain. He's the only Bioware villain who actually interested me to a degree. They could have toned down some of the "tells" early on where he acted a little too shifty in ways that felt oddly careless for the Glorious Strategist, but all in all he was definitely both interesting and competent -- and utterly unique in the sense that for one the big bad did not have godly superpowers and huge armies from the get-go. He essentially starts with nothing, just his wits, a long-laid plan, and the crucial pawn he stole and twisted and built with a flaw only he could exploit after said pawn had served its purpose. The fact that he needed me, lied to me, used me, killed me ... that made it personal on a level Bioware never managed to pull off again.

 

And his death? Also quite unique. Sure, he does the whole obligatory "mockery and delusions of godhood" spiel. But his dying words somehow brought it back to a very human, very intimate level. "You surprise me yet again. I'm a better teacher than I thought." I almost regretted that it ended that way, and it made me wonder if there was a tiny shred of the teacher-student bond that wasn't fake. The only other villain I ever felt a twinge of remorse for killing was Malak, who was a big missed opportunity in terms of establishing the ups and downs of his relationship with the protagonist.

 

There's a lesson to be learned from this pattern Bioware, thwarting the villain's plans through most of the plot is no way to build up a properly threatening and satisfying antagonist.

 

Indeed. For me, the climax of the game was In Your Heart Shall Burn because it was such a wicked rollercoaster of emotions. Don't get me wrong, there are some good moments afterwards too, but overall the rest of the game was far too smooth sailing ... and once Morrigan shows up, far too much hand-holding exposition-vomit and NPC-masturbation.

[Heimdall]

Someone who isn't just evil intent on destroying the world. You almost felt sorry for Saren at points of The game because he thought he was helping, but was really indoctrinated. Then he finally came to his senses and went out on his own terms. I'm not saying they have to be a tool, but just someone who isn't just I'm evil I'm going to rule the world, or destroy it.
If you're going to go with a purely evil villain at least make him like Kefka from Final Fantasy VI.

Kefka's the odd case where he's such an irredeemable psychopath, but he works really well because he actually WINS and gives you plenty of reason to hold a grudge.

[Heimdall]

It seems quite a lot of the antagonists we face are pawns. The Illusive Man, Saren, Corypheus. Even Loghain seemed like Howe's chump in the end.

False antagonists that turn out to be pawns aren't all bad, but there has to be an interesting story as to why and how. Saren was sort of interesting, but the Reapers really weren't. With the Illusive Man, we know he's a pawn from the start of ME3 and he's really not terribly interesting because we know he's being brainwashed my omnicidal machines. Corypheus was mostly just delusional and it was all down hill after Haven.

[dsl08002]

one thing on my list that I hope to improve dragon age is the soundtrack music I didn't find the music captivating

[Korva]

I was absolutely stoked by that initial appearance in Haven. He was so poised, so menacing, and so undeniably capable of wiping the floor with us. It's a shame that he utterly deflated afterwards. They tried to make him look badass in the end when he literally tore a mountain apart, but that just felt utterly random and over the top, and also wasn't reflected at all in the actual fight with him, so it backfired big time.

 

And I never understood this "rival" thing that some NPCs mention. We're not his rival. We're not even a lightyear within his league. Anchor or no Anchor. So being called his "rival" felt like pointless ego-stroking from the game. Either make me a rival by letting me build the knowledge and personal power (through the Anchor, so it's more than a gimmick) to actually be a credible threat to him, or drop such pretentious words.

[Mirth]

I am seriously skeptical that Bioware can tweak the frostbite engine to even allow a richer tactical experience. (Control)

I often wonder if the changes we've seen in DA:I are expressly "because" of frostbite simply not being able to do it.
First person shooters aren't exactly known for their rich RPG elements.

8 abilities, no tactics, cut scene direction issues, skill points, helmets, hair textures, shiny lip syndrome, all interior scenes affected by environment effects. (Ever noticed how everything indoors is "wet" in rainy environments? As if roofs don't exist.)

I hope the gazillion issues laid out here on the forums can actually be "fixed", and the series doesn't just become a hack & slash romance simulator.

[Heimdall]

Yup, Bioware started off well with Haven but as soon as we got Skyhold Corypheus' forces just started to fumble at everything

I thinks this is due to a misguided attempt to make the player feel empowered, by curbstomping Corypheus' forces. But a villain needs to feel threatening for their defeat to be meaningful. They built up Corypheus really well at Haven, but instead of building him up until the final confrontation they pretty much spend the rest of the plot dismantling the idea that he poses a credible threat. Killing him was just mopping up what remained. What was it Loghain said Maric said? "A man is made by the quality of his enemies."? Bioware should take that to heart.

[AresKeith]

I thinks this is due to a misguided attempt to make the player feel empowered, by curbstomping Corypheus' forces. But a villain needs to feel threatening for their defeat to be meaningful. They built up Corypheus really well at Haven, but instead of building him up until the final confrontation they pretty much spend the rest of the plot dismantling the idea that he poses a credible threat. Killing him was just mopping up what remained. What was it Loghain said Maric said? "A man is made by the quality of his enemies."? Bioware should take that to heart.

 

If Bioware was still open to making an expansion they could've made a "Hydra" for the Inquisition 

[In Exile]

Someone who isn't just evil intent on destroying the world. You almost felt sorry for Saren at points of The game because he thought he was helping, but was really indoctrinated. Then he finally came to his senses and went out on his own terms. I'm not saying they have to be a tool, but just someone who isn't just I'm evil I'm going to rule the world, or destroy it.

If you're going to go with a purely evil villain at least make him like Kefka from Final Fantasy VI.

Unless you read the prequel novel. And then you realize Saren is a racist psycho who was looking for sovereign to genocide humanity.

The game has an interesting take but it honestly feels like a fluke seeing the book.

[wolfhowwl]

The ratio of Side Quests and Main Quests in DA:I is like 95/5. It's pretty ridiculous. I love filler and exploration as much as the next guy, but Bioware actually managed to put too much exploration in their game, and I didn't even think that was possible, but somehow they did it.
 
Bioware has this awful way of sometimes fixing fan complaints with a sledgehammer. What do I mean by that? Ok let's look at a few examples:
 
Mass Effect 1: Fans complained about the bad controls of the Mako. Ok how does Bioware fix the Mako controls? F it! Just remove it entirely. Then fans missed having a vehicle in the next two games.
 
Mass Effect 2: Fans complained about how simple and cliche Harbinger was in his taunts. How does Bioware fix it? F it! Just remove him as the villain in ME3 except for a small cameo. The fans complained about his lack of presence.
 
Dragon Age 2: Fans complained about not enough areas to explore and reused dungeons. How does Bioware fix it? BY GOING NUUUUUUTS! Let's give them a hundred hours worth of content to explore! What story? Forget story we'll get to that later. But exploration WOOOOOO!!!!

You're downplaying the problems the Mako was involved with. It wasn't just that it controlled like ****, the entire exploration aspect of ME1 it was part of was horrid.

[BabyPuncher]

I seriously hope that ME 4 does not try and go down an open world route. I think it did Inquisition a lot more harm than good. And trying to make cover-based shooting combat work in an open world would almost certainly end up sloppy, at best.

[Hazegurl]

Oh yeah. How could I have forgotten what I've ranted about on other threads repeatedly:

 

Bioware needs to start allowing for true, mutually supportive friendship bonds between the protagonist and our companions.

 

This is huge, and it's been an issue literally since BG2 when Bioware began their trademark development of more fleshed-out NPCs and actual conversations between and with them. They have grown increasingly better at writing true, mutual and varied relationships between the companions that add so much to the characterization and growth of these NPCs. Inquisition has some absolute masterpieces in that regard, and I can't commend the writers enough for them. But at the same time, I feel painfully left out of all that because protagonist/companion bonds are still a one-way street in which we give all the interest, support and care and get none of it back. I can count the times all the NPCs combined showed any -- and then only very brief -- interest in my thoughts, feelings and background on the fingers of one hand.

I agree, one of things I liked about DA2 is that some of the companions stopped to show concern for Hawke. When Hawke's mother died, they actually had some words of comfort to give, not just the LI but Aveline and Varric too. The relationships were two sided whether it was a friendship or rivalry. In Inquisition, the IQ doesn't really have a personal story and the relationships with the companions, aside from a few, is shallow.  They tried to cement it with the card game but as far as I was concerned the only people who could have showed up was Cullen, Solas, Cole, and Dorian. Even then, it would have been nice to have these companions be there for my IQ instead of him helping them with everything.  Out them all the only companions I felt were close to my IQ was Dorian and Cullen.  and even with Cullen it was a leader subordinate type. So Dorian was not only my IQ's LI but his only real friend. 

 

I also enjoyed having more fleshed out companions with their own thoughts, feelings, and moral codes but I want to do more than just watch them from the side lines and reduce myself to currying their favor.

 

To answer the OP, Yes and no. I liked some things about Inquisition. The crafting was good but no ability to change the color of the fabric was strange, the idea behind the Keeps they had during the alpha was good, if they can actually do what they wanted to do during the Alpha then yes it's a good framework. Based on what we actually got, no.  I don't want to be stuck roleplaying some goody two shoes hero, I don't want my PC to be everyone's doormat, I don't want multiple voices that are all neutral tones. I want consequences for choices whether they're made for high moral reasons or low moral reasons. I want a PC I care about, a personal story that isn't reduced to a place card on the CC screen. Less filler quests and more story driven side quests with choices and consequences that get wrapped up during the game so the devs don't have to worry about what they can carry over to the next game. Give us more freedom in handling companions without having to metagame. 

 

Also the tackle cam is a mess and so is their PC controls, and forcing PC users to use only eight skills sets is hardly a framework I want. Oh yeah and their banter system is a broken mess. Having some story blocked behind the banter seems like a good idea but not if the banter is randomized like some damn RNG loot system.

[AlanC9]

It seems quite a lot of the antagonists we face are pawns. The Illusive Man, Saren, Corypheus. Even Loghain seemed like Howe's chump in the end.

Hell, the Catalyst was just following bad programming to its logical conclusion.

[KaiserShep]

Hell, the Catalyst was just following bad programming to its logical conclusion.

 

It's pawns, all the way down at BioWare.

[BabyPuncher]

Give us more freedom in handling companions without having to metagame.

 

If you want better companions, you're almost certainly going to have to accept having less freedom.

 

the idea behind the Keeps they had during the alpha was good, if they can actually do what they wanted to do during the Alpha then yes it's a good framework. Based on what we actually got, no

 

How were keeps supposed to work in the alpha?

[Vicious]

Give us a Loghain or an Ammon Jerro (NWN2) type. Someone who is consumed with saving that which they love that they will go to ANY lengths for it.

 

 

 

 

And bonus points if you can recruit them towards the end.

[Don Lionheart]

DA:I doesn't feel really open world to me. It just has big giant maps. It feels like a really loud reply to the complaints of DA:2. BTW, I really like the level design this time around so I'm not complaining about the level design itself, just saying it does not feel open world.

 

I do think the ratio of side to critical content is skewed too far in favor of side content.

 

I feel like I need to preface this next statement though, so preface: I love Dragon Age. It is one of my favorite game series. However ...

 

I think the story of The Dragon Age needs to reach a conclusion soon. I don't feel like Bioware should continue beyond one more game and I would have been much happier if they planned it out as a trilogy. I hope they really FOCUS and tell us a satisfy conclusion to this tale instead of drag it out and string us along for too much longer.

 

The first three points I agree with, definitely.  I liked the side content, but I feel like they should have made the side content more important, because a lot of it was important lore-wise, it just wasn't presented as such.  However, as to the final point, it's important to point out that there is no story of the Dragon Age series to wrap up; Mike Laidlaw has said numerous times that the Dragon Age series is the story of the world, not just a particular arc.  I hate comparing Mass Effect to Dragon Age because ME gets way too much hype over Dragon Age (of which I enjoy them both, but Dragon Age more so), but ME 1-3 were the story of Shepard, and ME4 (or whatever it is going to be called) is continuing the story of the world of ME, but not Shepard's story.  For Dragon Age, there is no main character to latch a story on to, it's just the world.  So now that the Mage-Templar War is over, and Corypheus is defeated, and a new Divine has been elected, the story can move on to something else.  DA2 and DA:I worked in tandem with one another, while DA:O served as an introduction to the world itself (in a fan-freaking-tastic way, might I add), but had very little to do with the Mage-Templar War plot that has been so central in the past two entries.  If you ask me, look to Last Flight to see where the story is going to go, they can't leave that ending, which ends in 9:42 Dragon, hanging because it takes place after DA:I, chronologically.

 

It's definitely a really great starting point. Some things I'd love to see continue:
 

1- Multiple companions with interesting back-stories and character development. Opinionated and can be argued with/kicked out when there's too much disagreement.

2- Beautiful level design which takes lore into account. Places like Emerald Graves and Temple of Dirth'amen were a couple of my favorites.

3- Reward for exploration. The number of side quests is so big and takes you almost everywhere around the map, so not only do I enjoy exploring but I also get rewarded generously for it.

4- RP opportunities & choices. Discussing your back story with Cassandra and Josephine, sharing your faith, having a clear opinion on who you side with/why. Having choices as simple as specializations acknowledged. War Table missions allowing me to handle situations based on what I feel is best, and having all that count in the end.

 

5- Incredible quest design. The main story of DA:I for some reason I feel is underrated. Each quest is lengthy, takes you through multiple phases/cutscenes/dialouges and tell you an interesting story that draws you in for more. They also don't drag you for long hours doing useless filler combat (Orzammar- The Deep Roads in DA:O, the Fade in DA:O).

 

6- Indepth, rewarding crafting. Self explanatory, crafting is awesome in DA:I albeit missing a couple of things.

 

7- Multiple voice actors. Helps me pick what is best for the character I want to create.

Things I want to see fixed:

1- Lack of cutscenes outside main quests. It was immersion breaking at times. 

2- Too little important side-quests in areas. Each area had one to a couple of important side-quests, a couple had non at all which is quite demotivating.

3- Final battle not rushed. Somewhat complex final boss mechanics. The problem with Corypheus's 1v1 is that it was quite underwhelming because it happened way too fast. No I didn't want an army scene because we already got 2 of those and they were awesome.

Nothing more I can think of atm, but while DA:I has it's flaws, I find it's model to be a great thing to follow and improve upon. 

 

I'm quoting this because I agree with almost everything.  I will say that I disagree with the assertion about the main quest just because I feel like, while the main quest individual quests were fantastic, the overall story could and should have been longer, I would venture to say significantly longer, but at the very least, longer.  I'm going to emphasize you first criticism point though: OH MY GOD YES.  The freedom to leave mid conversation was all well and good, but the discussions where we find out about people and whatnot NEED to be a cutscene.  I found myself looking away or distracted while listening just because there was no reason to watch.  If i can't see the characters' faces, then why am I staring at the screen?  That was the worst part of the game for me, when I'm expecting an up close conversation and I'm stuck like 15 feet behind the character who's talking.