201 réponses à ce sujet

[Tensai]

To answer OPs question: As the game is right now, i would say: NO.

 

However is see the huge potential it has, so it's up to BioWare.

[Bi_Winning]

As a fan: No

 

DA:I was a fun game, but it wasn`t a Dragon Age game, or at least, didn`t have that tone and atmosphere that Origins had. I have no doubt in my mind that the framework for the series` next game will be developed accordingly to how the fans felt about DA:I. Flash back to before DA:I was released, we wanted an open-world game like Skyrim, we wanted the combat of Dark Souls, we wanted this and we wanted that. Flash forward to release, we got a game suffering the same thing as Destiny: an identity crisis. It just can`t decide what it wants to be. It`s just mediocre game in all aspects, albeit, a fun one

[BabyPuncher]

...

 

I like your username.

[Violetbliss]

I kind of like it as a framework, aside from some obvious shooter-limitations of the engine (right now, anyway), which i hope will go away as they adept more to it.

 

Overall I liked the game, although I feel like the open-world thing needs more iteration as well. To me, this is not really an open world game as i would like one to be defined; an open world game has a lot more interaction with the world, you're not only a passenger in it but it has more bearing, such as terrain in combat, harvesting aspects of it beyond just some resource nodes, more crafting things, more ways to do things like sneaking, more social possibilities (even though the banter and such is great in DA:I), more locations within the world such as cities. I feel like all these combined make you -notice- more how it is an attempt at an open-world game, and not how that IS part of the game.

 

I'd also like to say that I feel like there were a bit too many Codex entries that should have been part of the game in scenes, I understand it is both a nice way to provide extra lore as well as avoid having to make scenes for everything, but I felt like it was a bit noticeable how much of the side things were read about in a black UI box. Speaking of the UI, the elements I didn't like is the tactical camera, and the amount of hotkeys. I think this type of game needs at least 10 or more abilities to use, especially if you have specializations and the focus ability that will use 1 slot by very many players. I feel like combat could have been even more interesting with a bit more room, as well as the enemies scaling better than now.

 

Anyway, it sounds like there's just complaints, but there isn't. It has been nice hundreds of hours.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Origins wasn't a good framework

It was if your goal was to make a story driven tactical RPG. Maybe not so much if your goal is to make an open world hack and slash game.

I know which type I would rather play...

[AWTEW]

 

We must have planned different skyrims 

 

Must have.

[Hazegurl]

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

 

 

How were keeps supposed to work in the alpha?

I disagree, Why should the freedom of the player be restricted just to have well written companions? They can still be well written while at the same time giving the player freedom in dealing with them.

 

You could assign Keeps with certain priorities such as Spying, Military et al. Also Keeps could be attacked and you had to choose between saving your Keep or the surrounding areas, villages et al. Choosing to save a Keep over a Village made Varric dislike you. Also capturing the Keeps were different, you could destroy enemy resources to weaken them et al.

 

@Bi_Winning, that is why I've reached the conclusion that BW needs to stop listening to fans. We'll complain no matter what anyway so they should just stop listening to us. They should have stuck with the ideas they had instead of acting like some DJ taking song requests.

[Heimdall]

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.

That's another thing, Inquisition completely overdid the ego-stroking. The way NPCs became so utterly worshipful of the PC (And this problem exists in most Bioware games to much lesser extent) was very off putting to me. It was so gratuitous I couldn't take it seriously for a moment.

[cJohnOne]

I'm the weird one who likes DA2 more than DAI.  I liked the deep road thaig expedition and the character development of the companions. The dragon gameplay was more fun for me and so was the overall combat encounters.

 

 

  What I want is there and back again.  I hope I did a hobbit quote correctly.

[AresKeith]

It was if your goal was to make a story driven tactical RPG. Maybe not so much if your goal is to make an open world hack and slash game.

I know which type I would rather play...

 

Really? Because I've seen tactical gameplay Inquisition as well as seeing hack and slash in Origins 

 

Both games are capable of doing both playstyles

[BabyPuncher]

I disagree, Why should the freedom of the player be restricted just to have well written companions? They can still be well written while at the same time giving the player freedom in dealing with them.

 

Simple. Because BioWare cannot write two games. Or four. Or eight. Or sixteen. They can only write one.

 

Suppose BioWare has a very well written companion with a heavy amount of content. They have strong, important arcs that tie into the themes of the games, they contribute significantly to the central plot. They interact with other characters and with the player, and the players choices and actions towards them significantly changes how their characterization and even the main plot play out.

 

Now suppose BioWare gives the player the freedom to dismiss or kill them whenever they want. Gives the player 'freedom,' as you suggested.

 

More than likely, the game is broken. The content and themes you had are now gaping holes. The story simply doesn't function anymore.

 

BioWare can't rewrite the plot for every time a character might be missing or might be angry with the player and not want to cooperate. The more involved a character is in the story (which is a pretty solid indicator of the quality of the writing), the less freedom the player can have concerning them.

[Lebanese Dude]

It was if your goal was to make a story driven tactical RPG. Maybe not so much if your goal is to make an open world hack and slash game.

I know which type I would rather play...

 

Let's not kid ourselves. DAO stops being remotely tactical at level 7 without mods even on Nightmare. Unless of course you have horrible combat spatial awareness, then I suppose Origins snail speed combat was preferable. I also sure enjoyed having the tactical decision of whether to chug my health potion now so I can drink another in half a second. Unless of course I had a healer then I could avoid that decision and just blitzkrieg my way through every encounter with no need for a single pause. Of course who needs that when I can tactically set up my party to autowin with no player input. 

 

No really...thank goodness for mods...and thank BioWare for putting actual cooldowns on regenerative abilities in DA2 so there's SOME challenge in combat.

 

I also fail to see how it has any more story than DAI...is every cutscene'd interaction a story now? Right... shagging Gheyna is such a strong RP moment and a fine example of quality storytelling. 

 

Girl pls... if you count the actual story-relevant content...the war table alone has more RP content than DAO's multiple potential origins combined. 

You also have a weird definition for hack'n'slash games...not gonna even touch that...

 

Look DAI has a lot of improvements to work on, but claiming that DAO did anything remotely better in such an outright matter-of-fact manner is pretty laughable.

[Wulfram]

Shagging Gheyna is a strong RP moment. At least, it says quite a lot about the PC as a person.

[Mark of the Dragon]

I think it is a good template to work form. From the sounds of the interviews since the game released it sounds like Bioware are definitely sticking to this structure for future games.

 

That does not mean there is no room for improvement. They definitely need to improve on integrating a powerful and compelling story that flows with the games open world structure. The story in Inquisition was so poorly paces because there was so much world to explore and so little main story content. If they want to make games that last upwards of 200 hours they need to add a lengthy main campaign that keeps player's attention. To put it simply, the exploration and side quests should complement the story. The story should not just feel like something thats there just because it has to be.

 

They also need to implement better side quests that actually have story and choice mechanics instead of making everything shallow and fetch quests. I am ok with simple quests but I want some complex and deep side quests as well. People like to hate on DA2 but there were times in that game when I was playing companion quests that were of equal quality to the main mission quests.   

 

I would also rather have less open world areas to explore and deeper mechanics. For example, there was a leak demo from what I believe was gamescom a few years back. That demo had environmental destruction and reactive quests. I would like more of that. I know Mike Laidlaw said in an interview that the team wanted to focus more on environmental interaction in future products so it will be fun to see where that goes. I assume environmental interaction means destruction and the likes. I would also like to see some reactive quests like the save the keep or town decision that was in that demo. That looked like a great quest that resulted from the Inquisition taking the keep in Crestwood. It also had a decision that really radiated with the whole "be a leader" theme. Do you save the town or your keep? Those things seem like interesting decisions that could have had immediate consequences for Inquisition but did not have to be imported or worked around in future games.

 

In the end, I think it is a good template. I just hope Bioware doesn't fall into the bigger is better trap that big developers keep falling into now and days. Bigger is not always better. I would rather have less space to explore and have more impact on that space then I giant never ending map that is static.

[Tython]

DAI is by far, the gold standard of video games. It's hands down my favorite game and rehabilitated Bioware's image after the ME3 ending debacle.

 

It does have its flaws as many posters here point out but look at the competition. No other game out there gives you a fully voiced customizable character who is at the heart of the story making all the decisions. The supporting cast is strong and the world is gorgeous. Your choices from the previous two games you can customize every decision and import. I've played through the game five times and have five more alts at various stages to have one of each spec an extra for fun. The game is that good.

 

I'm certainly one to criticize game quality and am outspoken in my hatred for ME3's ending and flaws but DAI is GOTY and deserves every ounce of praise.

 

I hope they move the story of the series forward but I'm not sure they can use the exact same model for future games. The next game you may be playing a slave from Tevinter or find yourself being offered the soul of an Old God. Plot should dictate how a game should go yet I feel players will want a lot of the freedom they had in this game in the next. The open world with a purpose for one. That's where DA2 fell short. People were used to certain aspects of DAO and felt cheated when they didn't have them in DA2. I suspect DA4 will simply build on DAI with new features. It can't come fast enough for me but at least Inquisition will have more DLC now with Bioware cancelling Shadowrealms.

[Giantdeathrobot]

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.

 

Hear, hear.

 

Still, I thought Inquisition was better at this than others. Like say when Cassandra asks if your Mark still hurts, when Varric asks what you think of the whole situation, Vivienne asks you how you feel a few times that I remember too. 

[Hazegurl]

Simple. Because BioWare cannot write two games. Or four. Or eight. Or sixteen. They can only write one.

 

Suppose BioWare has a very well written companion with a heavy amount of content. They have strong, important arcs that tie into the themes of the games, they contribute significantly to the central plot. They interact with other characters and with the player, and the players choices and actions towards them significantly changes how their characterization and even the main plot play out.

 

Now suppose BioWare gives the player the freedom to dismiss or kill them whenever they want. Gives the player 'freedom,' as you suggested.

 

More than likely, the game is broken. The content and themes you had are now gaping holes. The story simply doesn't function anymore.

 

BioWare can't rewrite the plot for every time a character might be missing or might be angry with the player and not want to cooperate. The more involved a character is in the story (which is a pretty solid indicator of the quality of the writing), the less freedom the player can have concerning them.

The companion does not have to be in every game to be well written and fleshed out or to even have character arcs. All of that can take place in one game and they can die in one game, if the player chooses to kill them.  At most what the player should miss out on is some plot concerning the character, perhaps some choices that could have been made if the character had lived. The companions shouldn't be so important that the entire story must be halted due to their absence, if that's the case then they may as well be the main character. I'm not asking for that level of importance. At least not for every single companion.

 

What I want is a well defined and consistent companion who provides a challenge for my character. I don't want my character restricted just to give them wins for no reason, I don't want to be stuck derping just so they can look brilliant or intimidating, I want to be able to argue with them if I'm given the option to disagree, I want more time spent with companions, give me a reason to care for them and help them, and yeah more romance content beyond "I help you then you bang me." and if I want, I should be able to throw them out, betray them, or kill them.  I don't think that is a tall order, it certainly doesn't require them appearing in multiple games or retconning events and outcomes. Heck the character BW did retcon alive (Leliana) wasn't even worth the effort. Her story was told and done in DAO.

[BabyPuncher]

It is a tall order, like it or not. Unrealistically tall.

 

Characters drive stories forward. You take them out, stories don't work. The best outcome you could realistically hope for is something like a ME 3 scenario, where dead characters are replaced by ones that fulfill effectively the same function. Which more or less got a pretty negative reception when people found out their ME 2 companions didn't have near as much content as they wanted.

[Korva]

It's a weakness of having a character that is generally a blank slate. At least in terms in flaws. You can't really give the player character personal conflicts to address. The story can't dedicate the attention necessary to properly address them.

 

I'm talking about believable mutual friendship bonds, not conflict or flaws. At the heart, that means the companions finally starting to take an interest in the protagonist. Asking about our background, our feelings after big events, talking shop about fighting techniques or magic styles, joking around with us. Like the companions do among themselves. And these conversations need to actually remain focused on the protagonist for a change, or at least be a credibly balanced mutual give-and-take, instead of immediately turning on their heel and once again becoming all about what the companions felt or thought or experienced. It's damn annoying when that bait-and-switch happens.

 

I disagree, Why should the freedom of the player be restricted just to have well written companions? They can still be well written while at the same time giving the player freedom in dealing with them.

 

Agreed. Companions don't need to be plot-critical and non-optional be to well-written. They can simply add something here and there, tie into the main story to make something easier (*) or give more options or dialogue. How many people were expecting, for example, to see Vivienne shine if she's in the party at Halamshiral? Yet bringing her makes no difference at all.

 

(*) Or harder, if they're disruptive and rude, have a bad rep with whoever we're dealing with, or are otherwise out of place. "Snarky" or abusive NPCs who never get their teeth kicked or otherwise suffer consequences for not knowing when to STFU annoy me to death.

 

Not to mention that my definition of "well-written companion" includes a credible two-way relationship with the protagonist. It makes zero sense for the companions to happily bond with each other, but only demand one-way support and interest from us while giving none back.

 

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.

 

That is a perfect summary of my thoughts, too. The companions are great! More of that, please! But let us, finally, be part of it all.

 

That's another thing, Inquisition completely overdid the ego-stroking. The way NPCs became so utterly worshipful of the PC (And this problem exists in most Bioware games to much lesser extent) was very off putting to me. It was so gratuitous I couldn't take it seriously for a moment.

 

This time around, I only really had that issue with that nonsensical "you are Corypheus' rival" talk, which thankfully didn't pop up often. The whole "Herald of Andraste" angle and its occasional worshipful implications at least make sense story-wise and provides RP opportunities even though the whole "faith and its effects" theme wasn't explored as well as it should have been. It also helped to feel part of a leadership team ... I just wish Cassandra remained more involved with that instead of essentially ceasing to exist after we reach Skyhold.

 

There was, thankfully no "OMG you are the most powerful, most gifted, most brilliant Jedi/student/fighter we've EVER seen!!!!" w*nk-for-w*nk's-sake that I recall. Whoa boy do I roll my eyes at that sort of thing, especially when the protagonist is barely a legal adult.

[wicked cool]

I have been on both sides of good game/bad. Dlc quality is make or break for this game for me. They need to add much more as it feels incomplete. I think the developers need to take more of what worked in previous 2 games and blend thst into this beautiful world

[DarkAmaranth1966]

DAI is a great start, but it needs DLC and, they need to get back away form simplifying it for the undereducated. Get back to making a game by adults for adults, forget the under 16 crowd, make other games for them. The DA saga was meant to be an adult game, lets keep it that way, and lets keep it geared for intelligent people that are capable of making decisions, doing a bit of math and, learning a few new mechanics, planing tactics etc...

 

If EAWare wants to make it appealing to the younger, less willing to think masses fine, give us the more advanced feature,,then put an east mode button in there so those that can't handle it, can play easy mode and let the automated system assign stat points, abilities, handle combat, etc but, don't make it mandatory for all of us to accept it that way.

[JakeLeTDK]

I enjoy DA:I. Sure it has flaws, but heck, it's their first game adapting new engine, and they are still recovering after ME 3 ending controversy. There are just few things they need to address (and hopefully they will, since they are a lot more familiar with Frostbite now, they can spend more time on other aspects of the next game).

 

- Story driven maps. No, DA:I IS NOT OPEN WORLD. I can't stress this out enough. OPEN WORLD means the entire game is a giant freakin map that you can go anywhere without restriction (TES series). DA:I is a collection of HUGE maps put together (imo, more like a loud respond to DA2's criticism). It's a double edged blade really. The maps are well design and beautiful, but they are often too big, which means there's a tons of space they need to fill. The reason we "explore" each maps most of the time has little to nothing relate to main plot. Instead, to fill the "void" they added side quest and collective items / puzzle. If they can put a string of story driven quests (can be directly related to main plot, or indirectly, similar to crestwood's subplot but longer and a bit more rewarding) that make us explore all regions in a map, that would be much better. 1 or 2 story quests, and the rest filled with collectibles and fetch quests isn't a good way to go guys.

 

- ENDING!!! Not just the little slideshow at the end, but the entire last mission. DA:I main plot was ok (not awesome, but acceptable) until the final showdown with main antagonist. I honestly groaned in great agony because of how they handle the final confrontation. We spent tons of hours to build an army, we HAVE TO see them in action, not just walking around in a short cutscene... And the way they handle Cory at the end is just utterly lame and ridiculous (dude your plans failed, you are not even close to get in the black city, why the heck are you acting all high and mighty like a "God"? Freakin delusional ******.) At this point I might suggest BioWare to work on the ending FIRST when they make a game, because for awhile now, ever since DA2, it really feels like they ran out of gas by the end of the game, and the endings are always rushed, and sloppy. Work on that guys, seriously.   

[Korva]

At this point I might suggest BioWare to work on the ending FIRST when they make a game, because for awhile now, ever since DA2, it really feels like they ran out of gas by the end of the game, and the endings are always rushed, and sloppy. Work on that guys, seriously.   

 

You'd think it would be obvious how a crappy ending can utterly tank a player's impression of an otherwise enjoyable game. Especially after all the hoopla about ME3.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

 

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.

Oh I don't disagree, but what quests we had were so beautifully designed and had significantly better production than the previous games.

Now they just have to act towards adding more content with the same level of craft

[Fredward]

Nah. Go back to DA2s tighter story and character focus and awwwaaaaaayyyy from the Mary-Sue World Saviour bullshit but keep DAIs dev time and budget. It would be so, so glorious.