68 réponses à ce sujet

[Xaisis]

I am hoping someone else will make a good story based rpg.

 

That way it could be a good game.

[Ieldra]

Perhaps I should mention that I *really* like DAI. I found it intense, engaging and generally enjoyable. Read my diary thread, the opinions I posted there still stand. So please, if you say that DAI is a bad story-based rpg, don't think you're agreeing with me.

 

All I'm saying is that DAI has problems combining its excellent elements into a cohesive, believable whole, and that it lacks certain kinds of content here and there (not globally except for dynamic AI) and because of that, there is a great deal of room for improvement in the areas I've mentioned in the OP.

 

So yes, this is major criticism, but it's coming from the baseline position "I love this game!" Regrettably, there appear to be quite a few people who can't comprehend that  such a differentiated position is possible.

[Apollexander]

Hello leldra,

 

Can you further explain what the old virtues are? I don't get them.

 

It seems that all the three problems in OP can be summarized to the topic "how to make large maps more interesting". If the next DA uses DAI as the framework, and there is enough time for development, then these problems will be probably addressed. Because (1) the next DA will be completely nex-gen; (2) Bioware has gained some experience and even leveled-up; (3) they are not unsolvable, especially with more fund.

 

I am interested in are two issues and like to see if they can be addressed. The first is how to let the players have various choices and impacts on the world while the writers can still be able to handle the big story. I mean, there is a contradiction: if the players are given too much freedom then there will be too many variables, and it will be difficult to deal with every loose end decently; but if the writers grasp more of the stories in their hands, then the choices will be likely to "have no real impact".

The second is that how to improve the interaction system of the followers. To me the "banter & approval & personal quest" system in DAI has reached a peak in the DA series. I even pessimistically expect that the followers in the next DA may not be as good as in DAI. I think some novel concepts should be brought to the companion system, to make it more reactive in a higher level, like -- actually I don't know, haha.

 

I've been playing the Witcher recently. When a dialogue happens, the protagonist can say the exact lines in the dialogue option and then add some other lines. That is somewhat between paraphrasing and repeating, maybe a good way.

[eyezonlyii]

I've said this before as have many others. If Bioware wants to look for inspiration in a party based, open world game, one could do much worse than seek out Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen. The world is open, there are multiple classes, and the AI is very capable. The only drawback for me is that the story is fairly short, but at the same time it is FOCUSED (and lets not even talk about the final boss fight, best one I've ever played IMO). Anyway, the best part is the combat. it's as action-y as possible, but it still maintains a level of sophistication with both manual weapon combos for melee weapons (minus staves) and movement/utility abilities. Seriously, for anyone on an old gen system who hasn't played it, pick it up, and give it a run.

[CronoDragoon]

I've said this before as have many others. If Bioware wants to look for inspiration in a party based, open world game, one could do much worse than seek out Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen. The world is open, there are multiple classes, and the AI is very capable. The only drawback for me is that the story is fairly short, but at the same time it is FOCUSED (and lets not even talk about the final boss fight, best one I've ever played IMO). Anyway, the best part is the combat. it's as action-y as possible, but it still maintains a level of sophistication with both manual weapon combos for melee weapons (minus staves) and movement/utility abilities. Seriously, for anyone on an old gen system who hasn't played it, pick it up, and give it a run.

 

As much as I would love Dragon Age to go the way of Dragon's Dogma, combat-wise, it's likely not going to happen. DD relies heavily on twitch-based reactivity from the gamer (as it should, being an action game) which would further make impossible (or extremely annoying) the traditional pause-order system that PC gamers are used to.

[Realmzmaster]

As much as I would love Dragon Age to go the way of Dragon's Dogma, combat-wise, it's likely not going to happen. DD relies heavily on twitch-based reactivity from the gamer (as it should, being an action game) which would further make impossible (or extremely annoying) the traditional pause-order system that PC gamers are used to.

 

Enlighten me about the main and support pawns in Dragon's Dogma. Can the gamer switch from the Arisen to the main pawn in combat? I understand that up to two support pawns can be summoned into the party. Can the gamer switch to a support pawn in combat the way the gamer can switch and control any of the companions in DA games?

 

Could a tac cam be instituted in a game like DD? Watching videos of the combat it appears to require far more hand eye coordination than any of the DA games which I think would be a game breaker for PC DA players.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, I don't think it would fly. I don't think I'd like it at all myself. But honestly, after all of the ranting I've heard from the old-school PC RPG divas lately, I wouldn't mind Bio going this route just to watch this board explode.

[Gileadan]

Where does this idea that PC players can't handle action combat without a pause function come from? It's generally PC games that come with the least amount of crutches like aim assist. I don't think there's a platform based preference there... we don't play on PC because we need a pause function in our games.

The problems with DA:I's combat are, in my opinion, not specific to any platform.
- tac cam feels awkward because apparently player does not move the camera itself, but instead an invisible character that can get obstructed by terrain
- hit box size does not match model size, causing issues with short range melee attacks (model stops them from reaching the hitbox)
- once an attack animation begins, its direction cannot be changed, so non-aoe melee has a hard time hitting moving targets

All these problems combine to create the feeling of clunkiness of DA:I's combat. I play on PC and I'm not sure why this is thought to be a PC specific issue, unless those problems don't occur on other platforms. I like good combat, whether it's turn based, pause based, or full on action. It's the issues above that take DA:I's combat down a few notches, not whether it has a pause function or not.

[AlanC9]

Where does this idea that PC players can't handle action combat without a pause function come from? It's generally PC games that come with the least amount of crutches like aim assist. I don't think there's a platform based preference there... we don't play on PC because we need a pause function in our games.

Well, there is a segment of the fanbase that hates both console games and action games.

[Gileadan]

Well, there is a segment of the fanbase that hates both console games and action games.

Yeah, that has to be the reason. It's not like the information that DA:I would be a console focused title wasn't out there, despite the rather iffy "for PC gamers" marketing hogwash.

[AlanC9]

So you're saying that it's a console game, but that doesn't really matter because that isn't the cause of the problems?

[Gileadan]

So you're saying that it's a console game, but that doesn't really matter because that isn't the cause of the problems?

Yes, that is the impression I get...well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but what makes the combat less enjoyable for me seems to be platform independent. The hitbox issue is my biggest gripe (it's especially bad with pommel strike). I'm fine with console games / ports in general.

[C0uncil0rTev0s]

For everyone who can't get the point of the OP.

 

Perhaps I should mention that I *really* like DAI. I found it intense, engaging and generally enjoyable. Read my diary thread, the opinions I posted there still stand. So please, if you say that DAI is a bad story-based rpg, don't think you're agreeing with me.

 

OP fails to recognize the flaws of the storytelling in DA:I, and this is barely her fault. It's just like Ieldra has very little experience with the fantasy genre and isn't any used to think of the things her character does. It's a purely consumer POV and she has a right to have it - a right everyone should be respecting.

 

So yes, DA:I is a pure consumer-oriented game with nothing for intelligently creative players. And some people will always like it.

 

P.S. Stop flagging anything you don't like as offensive, OP. This won't get you anywhere.

[Saphiron123]

You can say the war has ended, but it doesn't change anything. This is one of my biggest gripes in DAI, your progress and choices don't really reflect in-game.

Hell, you barely see the war. I hear so much about the war with the mages/tempalrs, so much about fighting the demons... as far as I can see, i'm the only one fighting demons 99% of the time, and the mages and templars get no cinematics, there's no burned out towns (a few houses int he hinterlands don't count) and we never see any large scale battles.

Inquisition's biggest sin is it has so much to say about the AMAZING stuff we're not seeing, and then never shows us. Like the warden and his mission to find the source of the calling. it sounds awesome. It's a box of text.

[Ieldra]

Can you further explain what the old virtues are? I don't get them.

Here are a few:
(1) I'm not forced to express specific character traits (ME3, some in ME2), nor am I limited to three dominant personalities in my roleplaying (DA2). The last game which gave me as much freedom to express my character was DAO (though DA2 worked surprisingly well with its more limited design). I still feel more limited than in DAO, but DAI is going in the right direction.
(2) Most quests play out in explorable areas that we can revisit, rather than one-time throwaway areas that vanish after the plot playing out there was done (ME2, ME3, DA2). The last Bioware game which had that was DAO, and even there it was significantly more limited than in DAI. For more, you'll have to go to earlier games, maybe even back to the BG series, though I don't know since I never played NWNx or Jade Empire. In addition, revisiting those areas is actually somewhat interesting. Having said that, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to revisit Caer Oswin, the Arbor Wilds or Adamant Fortress, so there is room for improvement in that regard.
(3) We can affect the style of our companions' outfits. Many outfits adapt to their personal styles but still offer significant variety, while some outfits don't even adapt to their personal styles. The last game where we had that was DAO.
 
 
 

I am interested in are two issues and like to see if they can be addressed. The first is how to let the players have various choices and impacts on the world while the writers can still be able to handle the big story. I mean, there is a contradiction: if the players are given too much freedom then there will be too many variables, and it will be difficult to deal with every loose end decently; but if the writers grasp more of the stories in their hands, then the choices will be likely to "have no real impact".

I don't think there is an ideal solution to that, but my preferred way to address that is to implement more non-canonical large-scale outcomes, i.e. outcomes that won't be considered for the world-states for the next game in the series, similar to how "Shepard dies in ME2" wasn't continued in ME3. The game would need to be upfront about that, and there's the big issue: how can it be upfront about "This choice results in a timeline that won't be continued" without throwing the player out of the story. A second way to simplify this would be to reduce companion-relevant decision forks in favor of story-relevant ones. I'm actualy in favor of Leliana's resurrection because companion-relevant decisions result in complexity but don't add signficantly to the story. DAI is already doing something of that: every new Divine takes the name "Victoria", so that's one less variable.

 

The second is that how to improve the interaction system of the followers. To me the "banter & approval & personal quest" system in DAI has reached a peak in the DA series. I even pessimistically expect that the followers in the next DA may not be as good as in DAI. I think some novel concepts should be brought to the companion system, to make it more reactive in a higher level, like -- actually I don't know, haha.

I said something about that in the OP: IMO companions need to have bigger roles in the main story. The price for that: less freedom to choose companions for specific missions. Also, I think DAI has too many companions. It would've been better to concentrate resources on fewer companions. DAI's story would work just as well with one less of each class, say Sera, Vivienne and Blackwall. Not that they aren't interesting and that their loss wouldn't be felt, but without a part in the story they're superfluous.

 

I've been playing the Witcher recently. When a dialogue happens, the protagonist can say the exact lines in the dialogue option and then add some other lines. That is somewhat between paraphrasing and repeating, maybe a good way.

Was that the first Witcher? I recall the dialogue system worked well for me. DX:HR also did that, and it worked well as well. Paraphrasing as currently used in Bioware games....sucks.

[Akrabra]

For everyone who can't get the point of the OP.

 

Perhaps I should mention that I *really* like DAI. I found it intense, engaging and generally enjoyable. Read my diary thread, the opinions I posted there still stand. So please, if you say that DAI is a bad story-based rpg, don't think you're agreeing with me.

 

OP fails to recognize the flaws of the storytelling in DA:I, and this is barely her fault. It's just like Ieldra has very little experience with the fantasy genre and isn't any used to think of the things her character does. It's a purely consumer POV and she has a right to have it - a right everyone should be respecting.

 

So yes, DA:I is a pure consumer-oriented game with nothing for intelligently creative players. And some people will always like it.

 

P.S. Stop flagging anything you don't like as offensive, OP. This won't get you a

The storytelling of Inquisition is not flawed though, it just needs polish. Bioware has used this technique and plot for ages. Its just that with other rpg's coming out that is trying different things, people flock to that like it is the word of god. Almost every post i see mentions of The Witcher as an example of great storytelling. And it is a great series, but first of all it is based on a book series, which is old and has a strong foundation. People forget that part. It is also a European game, which i know something about because i live in Europe. The Witcher actually has very little in common with what Bioware is trying to achieve and the way you play both games.

 

Bioware has always relied on their companions to drive the narrative, because they write fantastic companions, always has (exception DAII). And Inquisition had that again. Main problem as has been discussed, the roleplaying for some has fallen abit, because of the dialogue tree and that you can't be a dick, which so many seem to favor. Also the character creation isn't as involved as earlier Bioware productions, but i still maintain that there is alot of depth in the gameplay, but it takes time to unlock that potential. This topic is about discussing flaws the game has, and yet i only see you attacking the OP, its subtle, but there. Do you want to share with us what you think of the game and how it can be improved?

[C0uncil0rTev0s]

The storytelling of Inquisition is not flawed though, it just needs polish. Bioware has used this technique and plot for ages. Its just that with other rpg's coming out that is trying different things, people flock to that like it is the word of god. Almost every post i see mentions of The Witcher as an example of great storytelling. And it is a great series, but first of all it is based on a book series, which is old and has a strong foundation. People forget that part. It is also a European game, which i know something about because i live in Europe. The Witcher actually has very little in common with what Bioware is trying to achieve and the way you play both games.

 

Bioware has always relied on their companions to drive the narrative, because they write fantastic companions, always has (exception DAII). And Inquisition had that again. Main problem as has been discussed, the roleplaying for some has fallen abit, because of the dialogue tree and that you can't be a dick, which so many seem to favor. Also the character creation isn't as involved as earlier Bioware productions, but i still maintain that there is alot of depth in the gameplay, but it takes time to unlock that potential. This topic is about discussing flaws the game has, and yet i only see you attacking the OP, its subtle, but there. Do you want to share with us what you think of the game and how it can be improved?

1. http://forum.bioware...y-final-review/
2. http://forum.bioware...-02102015-upd2/

3. http://forum.bioware...on-and-balance/
4. http://forum.bioware...nadians-needed/

5. http://forum.bioware...-spoilers-upd2/

6. http://forum.bioware...-humble-me/    and on, and on,  and on.

 

I've shared my opinion on most things. Even on the OP and the likes of her.

 

It's just like somebody doesn't want to have a dialogue. OP didn't even try to think about my post - the one that was deleted. You're so focused on the possibility you are getting offended that you fail to see everything else, just like the OP. Btw, aren't you a feminist?

[Apollexander]

Here are a few:
(1) I'm not forced to express specific character traits (ME3, some in ME2), nor am I limited to three dominant personalities in my roleplaying (DA2). The last game which gave me as much freedom to express my character was DAO (though DA2 worked surprisingly well with its more limited design). I still feel more limited than in DAO, but DAI is going in the right direction.
(2) Most quests play out in explorable areas that we can revisit, rather than one-time throwaway areas that vanish after the plot playing out there was done (ME2, ME3, DA2). The last Bioware game which had that was DAO, and even there it was significantly more limited than in DAI. For more, you'll have to go to earlier games, maybe even back to the BG series, though I don't know since I never played NWNx or Jade Empire. In addition, revisiting those areas is actually somewhat interesting. Having said that, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to revisit Caer Oswin, the Arbor Wilds or Adamant Fortress, so there is room for improvement in that regard.
(3) We can affect the style of our companions' outfits. Many outfits adapt to their personal styles but still offer significant variety, while some outfits don't even adapt to their personal styles. The last game where we had that was DAO.
 
 
 

I don't think there is an ideal solution to that, but my preferred way to address that is to implement more non-canonical large-scale outcomes, i.e. outcomes that won't be considered for the world-states for the next game in the series, similar to how "Shepard dies in ME2" wasn't continued in ME3. The game would need to be upfront about that, and there's the big issue: how can it be upfront about "This choice results in a timeline that won't be continued" without throwing the player out of the story. A second way to simplify this would be to reduce companion-relevant decision forks in favor of story-relevant ones. I'm actualy in favor of Leliana's resurrection because companion-relevant decisions result in complexity but don't add signficantly to the story. DAI is already doing something of that: every new Divine takes the name "Victoria", so that's one less variable.

 

I said something about that in the OP: IMO companions need to have bigger roles in the main story. The price for that: less freedom to choose companions for specific missions. Also, I think DAI has too many companions. It would've been better to concentrate resources on fewer companions. DAI's story would work just as well with one less of each class, say Sera, Vivienne and Blackwall. Not that they aren't interesting and that their loss wouldn't be felt, but without a part in the story they're superfluous.

 


Was that the first Witcher? I recall the dialogue system worked well for me. DX:HR also did that, and it worked well as well. Paraphrasing as currently used in Bioware games....sucks.

Thanks for the reply.

 

I want to point out an advantage of  the three personalities in DA2. As a non-English native speaker, sometimes I cannot tell the difference between "Hey, I am Cousland." and "I am a grey warden. Nice to meet you." And sometimes I also cannot understand that whether a line is sarcastic or not. With the blue/purple/red icons, at least I know the attitude of Hawke.

 

For the companions I would like them to be more active. They are like talk show performers. The approval system is like " buy and earn points for reward in the superstores". They are really good companions for me but I would welcome some new mechanics (though I don't expect that much).

 

Yeah that's the first Witcher.

[Ieldra]

Hell, you barely see the war. I hear so much about the war with the mages/tempalrs, so much about fighting the demons... as far as I can see, i'm the only one fighting demons 99% of the time, and the mages and templars get no cinematics, there's no burned out towns (a few houses int he hinterlands don't count) and we never see any large scale battles.

Inquisition's biggest sin is it has so much to say about the AMAZING stuff we're not seeing, and then never shows us. Like the warden and his mission to find the source of the calling. it sounds awesome. It's a box of text.

The Warden's mission was not part of this story, just a sidenote. An important one for those who played DAO for sure, but not more than a sidenote. It's something I'd expect to be handled in a spinoff, if at all. There is just too much stuff going on in the world to put it all on-screen. That's part of the scope of the game. You are leading a big organization, you can't be everywhere. Heck, I would've loved to play half of the war table operations myself, switching to the agent or general who did them. It isn't possible. It's content for four games, not one.

 

As for the war not being present: In the Exalted Plains armies of both factions are barricaded in their forts because of the undead. In the Emerald Graves the Red Templar allies, the Freemen, were fighting Fairbanks' people. The Emprise du Lion was conquered by Red Templars, the Venatori were searching for some important magical MacGuffins in the Hissing Wastes and the Western Approach. The war is everywhere.

 

Having said that, I agree we should've seen more people except ourselves fighting back, and some more battles to watch would've lessened the impression that nothing really interesting was going on on some maps. That's part of the "more dynamic map content" aspect I mentioned in the OP.