1664 réponses à ce sujet

[Saphiron123]

Your only measure of whether something "mattered" in the game is a one-sentence blurb right before the end credits? The difference you make by rescuing an Inquisition scout or saving a village from Red Templars is that one of your people didn't die and that an entire village didn't get corrupted by red lyrium, not a footnote at the end of your journey.

Except even if you do stop the templars, nobody talks about it, nobody acknlowedges it, the map doesn't change in the slightest... you're killing mobs for the sake of killing mobs. it's not a quest, it's a fetch quest.

[wolfhowwl]

I agree, OP. It's the biggest reason this game is middling.

[Big Magnet]

OP I agree with you. 

[DomeWing333]

Except even if you do stop the templars, nobody talks about it, nobody acknlowedges it, the map doesn't change in the slightest... you're killing mobs for the sake of killing mobs. it's not a quest, it's a fetch quest.

 

The people who you save acknowledge it. In fact, there was a whole trial where the defendant's primary argument is that she was just doing what she can to help her town survive until someone like the Inquisitor came along to help.

[Regan_Cousland]

Okay, yeah, I get that. I didn't like the lack of cinematics either. Not realizing that I was fighting a darkspawn in the Storm Coast until the codex popped up after I killed it was...disappointing. So I do hope that's something that they change in the next game. I think the major problem here isn't necessarily the content but how it was presented. You are doing things that matter, the game just needs to do a better job of selling you on that.

 

Yes, I can agree on that. Many quests (such as clearing out templar and mage strongholds, and rescuing captured Inquisition soldiers) are relevant to the story, but they're presented in such a lacklustre way that they hardly seem more important than claiming landmarks or collecting shards.

A few cinematic encounters, choice-laden conversations and interesting, quirky NPCs scattered throughout the maps would add much-needed flavour to the bland open-world questing.

Remember the Brescilian Forest in Origins? It was many times smaller than the HInterlands, but it was teaming with life. 

In fact there were more memorable characters in that one location than in every open-world environment in DA:I combined. That really says something.

[Rawgrim]

OP is quite right. It isn't Bioware. It is EA.

[Shelled]

Without the origins director behind the wheel who left after origins (among others), bioware consists of toddlers thrashing around wildly. They couldn't make a decent game even if you paid them to. Oh... wait, I see what I did there.

[Regan_Cousland]

OP is quite right. It isn't Bioware. It is EA.

 

I don't like to speculate or accuse without knowing the facts, but I do get a sense that (as Sera would say) a "big hat" made the executive decision to turn Dragon Age into Skyrim, solely because Skyrim makes a ton of money.

As a result Inquisition is two different games that aren't very compatible: A perfectly good BioWare game (the story, Haven and Skyhold portions), and a large, lovely looking, open-world snooze-fest clogged with filler to hide the fact that no roleplaying happens there. Ever. lol

[Aran Linvail]

I agree , now imagine this , im level 21 , hours and hours in the game , and i just got 2 or 3 party banters all this time , walking all the lifeless gigantic maps and the only thing i hear is my footsteps , talk about depressing ...

 

PS : Sorry for my English.

[Draining Dragon]

Inquisition is the most disappointing Bioware game since the Neverwinter Nights OC.

Only I doubt we're going to be getting a Hordes of the Underdark to make up for this one.

[Regan_Cousland]

I agree , now imagine this , im level 21 , hours and hours in the game , and i just got 2 or 3 party banters all this time , walking all the lifeless gigantic maps and the only thing i hear is my footsteps , talk about depressing ...

 

PS : Sorry for my English.

 

Your English is good. : )

And having received only two or three follower conversations in all that time is depressing.

I posed the idea in another thread that perhaps companion banter should be a reward for completing side quests. (E.g. Claim a landmark, get some banter; find three shards, get some banter; rescue Druffy, get some banter, etc.)

At least then we'd have some incentive to do those boring quests, and we'd get much more chatter out of our companions.

Two birds with one stone. Not ideal, but it's better than what we have now.

[Shelled]

I don't like to speculate or accuse without knowing the facts, but I do get a sense that (as Sera would say) a "big hat" made the executive decision to turn Dragon Age into Skyrim, solely because Skyrim makes a ton of money.

As a result Inquisition is two different games that aren't very compatible: A perfectly good BioWare game (the story, Haven and Skyhold portions), and a large, lovely looking, open-world snooze-fest clogged with filler to hide the fact that no roleplaying happens there. Ever. lol

This game is nothing like skyrim though. It doesn't even come close to skyrim with these crappy menial tasks. Skyrim actually had decent side-content that was interesting unlike this bs in inquisition. 

[Aran Linvail]

Sometimes when i get near a camp to claim some companion say : "Looks like a good spot to camp" , and sometimes they dont say even that , lol , its sad ....

[wolfhowwl]

Without the origins director behind the wheel who left after origins, bioware consists of toddlers thrashing around wildly. They couldn't make a decent game even if you paid them to. Oh... wait, I see what I did there.

 

But DA:O's gameplay wasn't good either. It was clunky, sluggish, horrendously balanced, and actually just kinda boring. Half a decade in development and it still needed vastly more work. The best thing I can say about it is that it controlled well on my platform of choice. This series has never been more than middling.

[Shelled]

But DA:O's gameplay wasn't good either. It was clunky, sluggish, horrendously balanced, and actually just kinda boring. Half a decade in development and it still needed vastly more work. The best thing I can say about it is that it controlled well on my platform of choice. This series has never been more than middling.

I didn't think it was clunky or sluggish at all on pc and you could do a lot of things with it, far more than you can with inquisitions crap gameplay.

If you want an action RPG, play an action rpg. Origins was never designed to be played as a dull action game. The only balance issues it had were cunning rogues being invincible basically because they got dodge+attack from cunning so you couldn't actually hit them and arcane warrior was also a bit too good. Other than that I thought it was fairly balanced if you tried to be creative with spells and tactics. Cunning rogue was definitely way too strong though.
 

I'll respect your opinion but I'll also completely disagree with you. Origins combat compared with this crap is on a completely different level. The level of control over everything in origins was outstanding. 

You can't even tell the a.i in this crappy game to use leaping shot when an enemy is within a certain range. I mean, give me a break lol. Origins combat didn't have to be slow either, you could fully customize the a.i in precise ways so that the tactical mode wasn't a necessity.

There isn't even an option for that level of combat customization in inquisition.

[Regan_Cousland]

But DA:O's gameplay wasn't good either. It was clunky, sluggish, horrendously balanced, and actually just kinda boring. Half a decade in development and it still needed vastly more work. The best thing I can say about it is that it controlled well on my platform of choice. This series has never been more than middling.

 

Whatever you think of the combat in Origins (opinions do differ), few would argue that it provided an excellent roleplaying experience from start to finish.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I don't hate the game, in fact I enjoy playing it but, I do see your point OP. It's not obvious how helping refugees and farmers and such helps further your goals. It does in that if you win over the common folks, winning over the nobility is easier but, that isn't made clear in the game, mostly you're doing the side quests for power and influence and, because you happen to be there. While that probably was not how Bioware intended it to feel, that's how it comes off unless you put some extra thought and imagination into it and, sadly younger generations are not so keen on that as us "old farts" are.

[Regan_Cousland]

I didn't think it was clunky or sluggish at all on pc and you could do a lot of things with it, far more than you can with inquisitions crap gameplay.

If you want an action RPG, play an action rpg. Origins was never designed to be played as a dull action game. The only balance issues it had were cunning rogues being invincible basically because they got dodge+attack from cunning so you couldn't actually hit them and arcane warrior was also a bit too good. Other than that I thought it was fairly balanced if you tried to be creative with spells and tactics. Cunning rogue was definitely way too strong though.
 

I'll respect your opinion but I'll also completely disagree with you. Origins combat compared with this crap is on a completely different level. The level of control over everything in origins was outstanding. 

You can't even tell the a.i in this crappy game to use leaping shot when an enemy is within a certain range. I mean, give me a break lol.

 

I largely agree. I loved Origins' combat. I didn't mind that it wasn't fast and flashy. I always thought of it as "combat chess". lol

The tactics worked exactly as they were supposed to, and encounters on higher difficulties were real brain-teasers. 

Inquisition's combat tries to please both the action fans and the strategy fans but does a better job of appeasing the former than the latter.

I do quite enjoy it, and I would like to thank BioWare for uploading a couple of patches that make the tactical mode more wieldy, but Inquisition's combat is an undeniably shallow experience compared to the combat in Origins, and even DA2, which was always tactically sound, despite its OTT visual effects.

[Nefla]

I disagree with your opinion.

I disagree with your disagreement.

[TheOgre]

Trust me, you don't need to be a Bioware hater to be considered one, called and treated as you are one. Simple criticism is enough.
I was an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee was banned 3 times in 5 days by user reports. Now I simply don't care much.

 

Ho hoo, I'm surprised I haven't been nailed with repeated complaint/reports yet.. :/ This is how forums are, disagree with my opinion, reported..

[wolfhowwl]

I didn't think it was clunky or sluggish at all on pc and you could do a lot of things with it, far more than you can with inquisitions crap gameplay.

If you want an action RPG, play an action rpg. Origins was never designed to be played as a dull action game. The only balance issues it had were cunning rogues being invincible basically because they got dodge+attack from cunning so you couldn't actually hit them and arcane warrior was also a bit too good. Other than that I thought it was fairly balanced if you tried to be creative with spells and tactics. Cunning rogue was definitely way too strong though.
 
I'll respect your opinion but I'll also completely disagree with you. Origins combat compared with this crap is on a completely different level. The level of control over everything in origins was outstanding. 

You can't even tell the a.i in this crappy game to use leaping shot when an enemy is within a certain range. I mean, give me a break lol. Origins combat didn't have to be slow either, you could fully customize the a.i in precise ways so that the tactical mode wasn't a necessity.

There isn't even an option for that level of combat customization in inquisition.

 
Oh I don't like DA3 combat either. Although I found DA:O to be clunky and plodding, I don't disagree that the combat in this game is worse. They've gone from mediocre to a twisted hybrid that doesn't know what it wants to be.

DA:O for its faults at least knew what it was trying to for even if the result was something that I didn't enjoy that much. Although I found DA:O combat itself to not be very fun, party control in DA:O as you said was good so I never had to fight the game over things like positioning and AI commands while that can be an exercise in frustration in DA3.
 
The AI in this game is indeed ****. Going from this in DA2...

to defend/follow commands and AI that can't even hold position...is just lol!
  

Inquisition's combat tries to please both the action fans and the strategy fans but does a better job of appeasing the former than the latter.

 
Yeah, the game really seems to lack direction and leaves a strong impression that no one decided on a gameplay identity resulting in no one being pleased. The tactical combat is frustrating and the action combat also lags behind what people expect.
 
It probably didn't have to be like that. The series was always going to have a more...mainstream direction after DA:O, but they could have stayed the course with DA2's combat and cleaned up its problems like the crippled camera on PC and the infamously shitty encounters. DA2 for its other faults also apparently fixed DA:O's playability problem on consoles (I played all of them on PC, so this is hearsay). The game would be more shallow than some people hoped but it would still play like a Dragon Age title and you could fire off fireballs, set up cross-class combos, and have decent party control.
 
Or they could have gone full action, shed any pretense of catering to DA:O gameplay fans or making a CRPG, and made something like Kingdoms of Amalur that would at least be mildly amusing to break skulls in.

Also nice Lightning.

[DanteYoda]

Fun Fact: You don't need to clear out every nook and cranny in order to advance the main story.

Fun Query, then why is it there, and why was it added..

[sleeping heart]

This game is nothing like skyrim though. It doesn't even come close to skyrim with these crappy menial tasks. Skyrim actually had decent side-content that was interesting unlike this bs in inquisition. 

Skyrim is awesome in many ways tho. I remember my first playthough of skyrim, i was around level 15-20 walking around and all the sudden i get attacked by a giant and a dragon at the same time!. I was like "oh my god!, no! what's happening?!?!?" next thing i know, i'm on fire and in the sky. I was like a comet, it was a glorious death.

[Saphiron123]

Skyrim is awesome in many ways tho. I remember my first playthough of skyrim, i was around level 15-20 walking around and all the sudden i get attacked by a giant and a dragon at the same time!. I was like "oh my god!, no! what's happening?!?!?" next thing i know, i'm on fire and in the sky. I was like a comet, it was a glorious death.

It is, but so is dragon age... and the key is dragon age is aweosme for totally different things. Trying to become skyrim is a waste because if I want to play skyrim and be in a giant sandbox i can... for story, i want a bioware title.

I don't want dragon age to be skyrim. I want it to be dragon age, and if they try really hard to copy others, the thing that made them great will vanish.

Hence the fetch quests, the lack of unique companion dialogue for entire maps, and the tedious farming.

I want to play dragon age when I play dragon age.

[10K]

This game is nothing like skyrim though. It doesn't even come close to skyrim with these crappy menial tasks. Skyrim actually had decent side-content that was interesting unlike this bs in inquisition. 

I agree. There's a lot of mention of how Skyrim is bad. But for what Skyrim was it did great in its presentation, especially with free roaming. Yes Skyrim's main story lacked intrigue, but exploring was something it did fantastically. Inquisition felt half-baked when it tried to duplicate what Skyrim did so well.