1664 réponses à ce sujet

[Cobwebmaster]

But Romances are a distant priority for me. Much prefer the main stories, or the tales of the NPC's than something from a Soap. And Cole is my fave new character for this reason.

Agreed. I don't play games because they contain romance options but they are "nice to have around" if written well. However, developing good interaction and relationships with NPCs is integral I think to a good immersive RPG - something Bioware has up until now excelled at writing and voicing.

Cole gave me the shivers but I agree a good character. I liked Sten in DAO but Iron Bull as a spy? It's a bit like having an Elcor as a ballet tutor. My favourite NPC of all time is still Minsc of BG

[durengo]

Firstly I agree that the dragons were different and well crafted but I didn't see the point in just killing them.

maybe for fun?

 

the point is the same like in skyrim.....the dragons represent a danger for the citizens.

in some conversations of npc s they talk about it.

but its the same like skyrim...you mustn't kill the dragons if you dont like.well maybe because of the loot and if you wanna craft something then you need dragon bones and scalls, claws and so on.its exactly the same like skyrim.

 

what would be a dragon age game without dragons?  last but not least in the battle against cory you must fight against one dragon.like we know from other dragon age games too.

 

the problem of the dragons in the free world of dai is that they don't fly around and attack random villages like they do in skyrim.we only hear in conversations about that the dragons represent a big danger.but we didn't see it.

 

it looks like that the dragons hide and we must find them.

 

thats why for us as player we didn't feel it like they represent a big danger.it needs a little bit of imagination to see the dragons as danger for the world.

[Elhanan]

Firstly I agree that the dragons were different and well crafted but I didn't see the point in just killing them. In DAO the high dragon had become an object of worship. You could sneak by it if you wanted to on the way to fulfil a main quest line or choose to battle it to destroy the dragon cult's raison detre.

I'm a little wary of playing the game "the way the developers want me to". That's a bit like the tail wagging the dog! Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the game overall, but got nowhere near as much magic zing from it as either DAO or DA2. 

My experience with Bioware gameplaying goes back for more than 15 years and I've played all of their single player games. The main quest line still has much to admire about it but all the side issues and tertiary quests in huge areas of wasteland and uninhabited regions did little more than detract from what for me would have been a much more praiseworthy experience. I certainly expect the opportunity to give feedback on both the good and the bad

Personally, I took the phrase "the way the devs want me to" as playing the game on hand, as opposed to something imagined from pre-Alpha, DAO, or other assumed status. In my first campaign, I killed most of the Dragons poaching on the locals post-game. In my current session, am slaying them as required, but still not all of them. I try and allow the RP dictate what is of importance, in these cases, it was preserving others and promoting general safety.

Achievements are a little compelling to my O-C nature, but generally do not feel the need to collect them all; got over that during earlier Bioware games.

[PhroXenGold]

the problem of the dragons in the free world of dai is that they don't fly around and attack villages like they do in skyrim.

 

This isn't just a problem with the dragons. The same applies to the fade rifts (which are only a threat to anyone if you actually walk right up to them). The same applies to the mages and templars in the hinterlands (they fight each other but never actually affect the world around them). The same applies to the under in the Exalted Plains (they spawn and wander around a bit, but never actually do anything to the soldiers, the few battles always take place in exactly the same place, the undead will never win, despite the story implying they're about to). Nothing in the world actually does anything. The world never changes, unless the player changes things. It's a snapshot of Thedas, nothing more. Everything just sits there waiting for the player to come along and do his thing. And as such the world feels utterly dead.

[Dinkledorf]

...

 

the point is the same like in skyrim.....the dragons represent a danger for the citizens.

in some conversations of npc s they talk about it.

but its the same like skyrim...you mustn't kill the dragons if you dont like.well maybe because of the loot and if you wanna craft something then you need dragon bones and scalls, claws and so on.its exactly the same like skyrim.

 

...

Hmm, I always thought the point of killing dragons in Skyrim is to increase one's Shout vocabulary (or at least one of the reasons).  Dragons in Skyrim do actually attack other "things" in the world.

[Dinkledorf]

So I am clocking more and more hours in this game, I have to say that there are moments of remembrance to the good ol' times.  Trek from Haven to Skyhold and initial arrival, I enjoyed quite a bit.  The pacing up to that point leaves a bit to be desired given you cannot progress to other parts of the map until that moment (as far as I know).  Hmm... the game goes for the open world (area) concept kinda large but restricts the payer's ability to do so.  Not sure if that is actually the case as this is still my first playthrough, I think I would have preferred to have the entire map open to me and let me go for broke, maybe.  Part of the grind is all related to trying to move on, Hinterlands is just too big and "grindy".

 

On a somewhat unrelated note and with full consideration to the numerous problems people have reported with performance and stability, on my system, this may very well be the most stable game (of this or similar magnitude) that I have installed to date.  So far, touch wood, not a single CTD or crash of any kind.  I have had the game running all day on my machine, playing an hour here or there but always open, do not notice any memory leaks or other issues which in itself is pretty impressive.  I sure hope it stays that way.  Mind you I never upgraded past Patch 2 due to all the issues I heard/read about.

 

On the bad side, my right hand is not liking this game at all, too much stress.

[Elhanan]

The Dragons of the Hinterlands, Crestwood, The Lion, and Western Approach appear to be a clear danger to the local populations. The one in the Hinterlands can be seen destroying a bridge and killing workers in the distance, while the others are seen flying about while hunting food sources. Even the one on the Storm Coast is seen encroaching on populated lands for a time, though the brood is more of a danger. I am more than happy with the representation of Dragons in this game.

Not certain, but most of the Rifts may require the Mark to open by the time the Inquisitor gets to them. Damage can be seen from earlier openings; some confrontation still seen in Redcliffe and elsewhere, but may be due to others involved.

The Mage-Templar war has cut-scenes and cinematics dedicated to illustrating the destruction being done to the locals. The Hinterlands also has story after another of the suffering done by these groups, and Mother Giselle can keep one apprised of the needs of the people there and elsewhere.

The Undead in the Exalted Plains has soldiers trapped within the confines of a Keep, and the remains of many and the destruction of the war in total can be seen in a majority of the area.

Etc.

Have no idea of what some wanted, but I know continued massive battles can create greater FPS issues, so am content with what is presented here.

[TheRatPack55]

This isn't just a problem with the dragons. The same applies to the fade rifts (which are only a threat to anyone if you actually walk right up to them). The same applies to the mages and templars in the hinterlands (they fight each other but never actually affect the world around them). The same applies to the under in the Exalted Plains (they spawn and wander around a bit, but never actually do anything to the soldiers, the few battles always take place in exactly the same place, the undead will never win, despite the story implying they're about to). Nothing in the world actually does anything. The world never changes, unless the player changes things. It's a snapshot of Thedas, nothing more. Everything just sits there waiting for the player to come along and do his thing. And as such the world feels utterly dead.

 

This is sadly very true. One of the aspects of TES and similar games that is the most enjoyable for me is the randomness - the fact that I can trek across half of Skyrim to bring this boring old sword to the boring old npc, just like in DAI, but then - unlike in DAI - find him mauled to death by a bear, and stand sadly over his bloody corpse, ruminating on the time lost and the irremovable quest item in my inventory... wait... nevermind.

 

Point is, I agree, but of course when the player doesn't control everything that happens in the world people start complaining about that, so, eh.

 

Oh, and actually Lord Woolsley did get mauled by a bear. That was somewhat amusing, all things considered.

[Archerwarden]

Firstly I agree that the dragons were different and well crafted but I didn't see the point in just killing them. In DAO the high dragon had become an object of worship. You could sneak by it if you wanted to on the way to fulfil a main quest line or choose to battle it to destroy the dragon cult's raison detre.

I'm a little wary of playing the game "the way the developers want me to". That's a bit like the tail wagging the dog! Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the game overall, but got nowhere near as much magic zing from it as either DAO or DA2. 

My experience with Bioware gameplaying goes back for more than 15 years and I've played all of their single player games. The main quest line still has much to admire about it but all the side issues and tertiary quests in huge areas of wasteland and uninhabited regions did little more than detract from what for me would have been a much more praiseworthy experience. I certainly expect the opportunity to give feedback on both the good and the bad

Cobwebmaster,

I should have put a space between the sentences.

Yes I agree with you on the dragons. They had no role in the story and seemed lorebreaking to me to have so many roaming around. But they were there and I killed them not for achievements but because they were there in game. I did think I would get more loot as in killing the high dragon in DAO.

"the way the developers want me to". I was responding to another poster. I was talking about the quests, gaining influence, diplomacy, people, refugees, etc then skip them" quote. I was just trying to tell him that skipping these things are not an option, they are there to play. Either in 1 PT or many PT in the game not skip things. I am not responsible if it doesn't make sense within the existing lore, roleplaying, or storywise.

Look, it you read all my posts you will find I think the mainstory line very underwhelming, aside from Crestwood and the Warden questline in Creastwood. Much was just silly and seemed more like plot devices where the designers said put this here put that here with out thinking of the overall story and cohesiveness (I'm talking mainly about the Redcliffe maage and time travel and the VS choice that was suppose to have an emotional impact which went flat and the harbinger fade similarity. There was much lorebreaking things also.

Much was boring, repetitive, soulless grind. But I've been trying to find the good in DAI and when I do thats a plus.

In DAO it was much easier to all in multiple playthroughs because it was so engaging and the minor quests pretty much fit into the overall story.

In this no I didn't have to kill the dragons twice in 1 playthrough but I saw no need not to- same as I killed the giants each time I passed through. In DAO & DA2 combat was fun in DAI not so much.

[9TailsFox]

Agreed. I don't play games because they contain romance options but they are "nice to have around" if written well. However, developing good interaction and relationships with NPCs is integral I think to a good immersive RPG - something Bioware has up until now excelled at writing and voicing.

Cole gave me the shivers but I agree a good character. I liked Sten in DAO but Iron Bull as a spy? It's a bit like having an Elcor as a ballet tutor. My favourite NPC of all time is still Minsc of BG

Iron Bull spy see it works you wouldn't expect someone like him to be spy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In DAO & DA2 combat was fun in DAI not so much.

It's amazing how much opinions differ on this point. I agree that DAO combat was fun (best in the series), but disagree with you on both DA2 (incredibly boring combat) and DAI (fun enough not to be a chore, but nowhere near BioWare's usual standard).

I think BioWare has, historically, had the best CRPG combat around. But they've been moving away from that for several games now (starting with ME2, I would argue).

[PhroXenGold]

To be honest, I found DA:I's combat a lot more fun when I stopped trying to play it like the first two games, and just stayed in the third person camera with manual attack rather than trying to make use of the abortion of a tactical camera. Wehn played like that, it's pretty enjoyable, and there's a decent amount of challenge - albeit artificial challenge partly caused by the AI being retarded...

[Dinkledorf]

Combat in DAI is...interesting as it does not seem to fit in any specific type of category.  On the one hand its faster and perhaps more exciting than previous titles, on the other hand its a mash fest with not all that much real thought going into it.  It does not really fit with a shooter/FPS style nor a tactical style.  Mostly its just meh for me but does have its moments here and there.  I believe the game would be better if Bio picked a side and went with it instead of sitting on the fence, either style would have worked better in my opinion.

[Elhanan]

At this point, it appears that some desire more attachment from the MQ to the various areas and side-quests, while others do not have such a need. Personally, I found the Scout Harding intros to be good enough, perhaps more of her reports would have helped, as well as a possible expansion of a romantic nature. While she does not require a full fledged romantic storyline, I do like her nature as is, and would not be opposed to seeing more of this.

[durengo]

never mind

[Greetsme]

Went back to playing the real deal.  Elder scrolls online.  It's what DA:I is trying to be but didn't quite make it.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Combat in DAI is...interesting as it does not seem to fit in any specific type of category.  On the one hand its faster and perhaps more exciting than previous titles, on the other hand its a mash fest with not all that much real thought going into it.  It does not really fit with a shooter/FPS style nor a tactical style.  Mostly its just meh for me but does have its moments here and there.  I believe the game would be better if Bio picked a side and went with it instead of sitting on the fence, either style would have worked better in my opinion.

 

Agreed. DAI's combat is a mishmash of different combat styles and it doesn't do any of them well. I honestly expect them to drop all pretense of tactical gameplay altogether by the next game and just go balls out on action combat; tactical combat is considered a PC gaming niche that console oriented AAA developers don't care about anymore.

[Dinkledorf]

Agreed. DAI's combat is a mishmash of different combat styles and it doesn't do any of them well. I honestly expect them to drop all pretense of tactical gameplay altogether by the next game and just go balls out on action combat; tactical combat is considered a PC gaming niche that console oriented AAA developers don't care about anymore.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing if one can separate themselves from previous titles, I just wish they would make up their minds one way or the other.

[Ashen Nedra]

What's your point? "Fans" who don't know what they're talking about are entitled to have their uninformed ideas respected anyway because they're fans? Surely not.

Edit: I didn't see anything personal about the fans in there. Just no respect for ideas that aren't grounded in reality.

Nope, because they are paying customers.

 

 

They deserve respect. Their ideas, however, don't have to be taken into consideration if it's not a collaborative creative process, agreed.

 

However, in the case of DAI, Bioware stated/communicated that fans' ideas and opinions were a significant part of imagining and creating DAI, after DA2 mixed reception.

 

So.... 'something is rotten in the province of Alberta'... or  'We are not in Alberta anymore, Toto'.

 

Something like that.

[Lilithor]

Anyone reading the highlighted comment would have to see the irony of statement, considering the fact that the developers of Dragon Age and indeed most games these days aren't young people... Much less teenagers. But of course you (or any teenager) spends about 10 minutes thinking about this. (Ironic, huh?) That you took the time to investigate the inner workings of games throughout your youth speaks highly of your curiosity and you came away more knowledgeable for it. Good for you, but you should never make the assumption that others (regardless of their age) don't have the same or in fact a more evolved sense of curiosity. It's that kind of puerile arrogance that spawns comments like Lee T's, and while I may or may not share his thoughts on some things, his comment would apply to anyone... Regardless of age.

 

Look, for all I know you're computer genius, but I make no assumptions beyond what you shared with us today. The point is, you don't live in a bubble and there are probably more people like you (and some more evolved), than you might imagine. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that those people come in difference races, creeds, colors, sexes and sexual orientations and many with their own unique skill sets... Yes, and different ages too. I've always said that there's nothing wrong with people being the center of their own universe, so long as it doesn't lead you to believe that you're the center of everyone elses.

 

Remember: "Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups!" So don't assume or presume to know what other people are capable of or have done. It might make people assume that you're arrogant and opinionated. Then again, I don't know you, so...

So please, instead of answering me, clean your head of everything you know and do what I said, spend 10 minutes thinking about how you can make a NPC. Let's say Morrigan.
What is the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about developing her? You don't think she just step out of the fade inside the game do you? Be honest and answer me, where would you start. Even if you don't "hit the spot" you would still understand it takes a lot of work to do. It is not about curiosity it is PURE logic. Logic doesn't allow one to think a 3D model would be animated by magic. Or that character would say things out of their heads. Someone have to write the lines right? And record. And so on. Just use logic. Skip all technical knowledge and you would still understand the development is hard working unless you believe in magic.

[Regan_Cousland]

Combat in DAI is...interesting as it does not seem to fit in any specific type of category.  On the one hand its faster and perhaps more exciting than previous titles, on the other hand its a mash fest with not all that much real thought going into it.  It does not really fit with a shooter/FPS style nor a tactical style.  Mostly its just meh for me but does have its moments here and there.  I believe the game would be better if Bio picked a side and went with it instead of sitting on the fence, either style would have worked better in my opinion.

 

I agree, Dinkledorf. The combat can be fun but it's also frustrating because it doesn't know what it wants to be -- action-based or strategy-based.

Both the action elements and the strategy elements suffer due to the compromise.

For instance, the new Shield Wall ability is clearly designed with real-time, action gameplay in mind. Having to press a button to block each individual enemy sword strike becomes tedious in tactics mode, and, although the AI is (surprisingly) competent at it, you still essentially have to hope that the your tank doesn't throw her hands up and say, "Screw it! Not blockin' today. Come at me, fools." lol.

That element of chance shouldn't exist in a pure strategy game.

As I said in an earlier comment, I think BioWare should pick a side -- and that extends to combat. 

 

They should turn Dragon Age into a real-time action game with companion characters providing minimal but useful support (in other words, Mass Effect combat).

Or ... they should revert to the highly tactical, table-top approach of Dragon Age: Origins (with spruced up visual effects, naturally).

I would, personally, prefer real tactical combat to return, but I think that either approach would work better than the reasonably-fun-but-flawed hybrid we have now.

 

[keesio74]

This isn't just a problem with the dragons. The same applies to the fade rifts (which are only a threat to anyone if you actually walk right up to them). The same applies to the mages and templars in the hinterlands (they fight each other but never actually affect the world around them). The same applies to the under in the Exalted Plains (they spawn and wander around a bit, but never actually do anything to the soldiers, the few battles always take place in exactly the same place, the undead will never win, despite the story implying they're about to). Nothing in the world actually does anything. The world never changes, unless the player changes things. It's a snapshot of Thedas, nothing more. Everything just sits there waiting for the player to come along and do his thing. And as such the world feels utterly dead.

 

And how is this different than DA:O? You can just hang out at the bar in Orzammar all day and night if you wish. Nothing will change. The blight will wait for you as long as you want it to.

[keesio74]

To be honest, I found DA:I's combat a lot more fun when I stopped trying to play it like the first two games, and just stayed in the third person camera with manual attack rather than trying to make use of the abortion of a tactical camera. Wehn played like that, it's pretty enjoyable, and there's a decent amount of challenge - albeit artificial challenge partly caused by the AI being retarded...

 

yeah 100% agree. I struggled with combat until I just accepted that it is different and not try to play it like I did with DA:O. Now I find it mildly fun.

[PhroXenGold]

And how is this different than DA:O? You can just hang out at the bar in Orzammar all day and night if you wish. Nothing will change. The blight will wait for you as long as you want it to.

 

While it's true that in DA:O nothing changed, it is much more obvious and egregious in Inquisition because there is so much more of a world out there. In DA:I pretty much everything is either part of the main plot, or stuff you encounter while doing the main plot. There's nothing else to do other than to get on with the story. In Inquisition, you're encourgaed to go out into the world, spend time doing things, and as such it becomes really obvious that the world is utterly static. Sure you could sit in a bar for months in Origins, but who would? You have to go out of you way and do weird things for this to be noticable. On the other hand, in Inqusition, spending 50 hours of gameplay - which is liekly the equivalent of at least weeks of in game time - going out exploring the world is normal play. And yet in all that time, nothing has changed. The other zones are exactly as you left them. Corypheus hasn't gotten any closed to becoming a god.

 

Maybe it works for you, but personally, I could suspend my disbelief regarding this effect in Origins and similar games. I can't in Inquisition. I don't feel like I'm playing someone who's part of the world. I feel like I'm controlling the world. I feel like I'm some sort of god, not a person in Thedas.

[durengo]

While it's true that in DA:O nothing changed, it is much more obvious and egregious in Inquisition because there is so much more of a world out there. In DA:I pretty much everything is either part of the main plot, or stuff you encounter while doing the main plot. There's nothing else to do other than to get on with the story. In Inquisition, you're encourgaed to go out into the world, spend time doing things, and as such it becomes really obvious that the world is utterly static. Sure you could sit in a bar for months in Origins, but who would? You have to go out of you way and do weird things for this to be noticable. On the other hand, in Inqusition, spending 50 hours of gameplay - which is liekly the equivalent of at least weeks of in game time - going out exploring the world is normal play. And yet in all that time, nothing has changed. The other zones are exactly as you left them. Corypheus hasn't gotten any closed to becoming a god.

 

Maybe it works for you, but personally, I could suspend my disbelief regarding this effect in Origins and similar games. I can't in Inquisition. I don't feel like I'm playing someone who's part of the world. I feel like I'm controlling the world. I feel like I'm some sort of god, not a person in Thedas.

maybe a game time counter would change that like 'if you don't finish quest A into 2 hours then cory will become a god and then he  kill you'.. 'game over' .