236 réponses à ce sujet

[Eagle Pusuit]

The advantage that DAI has over DA2 is that the worst things about DAI (excessive side quests) can be skipped past when you grow tired of them. DA2 obligated you to keep seeing its worst parts (same dungeons and house interiors and wave combat) over and over.

[Ahdia]

As you can see..I never post. I read a lot but I'm just not a forum person. I've played all the series. I just wanted to add my two coppers because I never ever want to see another game from them that has such boring banal reused areas. Please..never..ever. I understand everyone has thier own tastes but I never really felt connected to anything in DA2 and got so tierd of seeing the same things over and over. I recently redid a play through of DAO and am now doing 2 again..my opinon that I first had hasn't changed Meh. DAI has issues, I won't deny that, but I love the world and felt far more connected to it than DA2. The fetch quests can be ignored. No game is perfect and we all have our likes and dislikes but I just won't buy another game like DA2.

 

Please no more reused areas and forced boring pathways ( I'm just going to climb up on this tiny rock to see better..ugh..*strain* Sweat* Can't...step..on..rock..*flop*)

 

P.s If anyone curious looks at my profile and thinks I don't play DAI..I don't have all games I have listed on this account, I have two accounts because I didn't remember I had this one :| DAI is on my other account. It's a mess..I also have ME1 there which should be on this one..some day I'll see if I can get things sorted out

[JaegerBane]

Was it a great game? No. But considering the constraints the devs were under, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as all the online hate would have you believe.

I think that's the reason for the hate. Sure, considering the constraints the devs were under, you're right. But why am I considering those constraints? Were those constraints reflected in the price? The pre-release blurb?

DA2 garnered a lot of hate because it did not equate to what it made itself out to be. It was still an ok RPG considering it's ridiculous timeframe, but you don't judge a game based on how much disaster it averted. You judge it on its merits. I mean, hell, you could claim Day One: Garry's Incident didn't deserve the hate on the same basis.

[AlanC9]

I think that's the reason for the hate. Sure, considering the constraints the devs were under, you're right. But why am I considering those constraints? Were those constraints reflected in the price? The pre-release blurb?

Well, the constraints were considered in the time between installments, obviously. We got DA2 faster than we otherwise would have. Speaking purely about resources, I'm still not sure if maybe I wouldn't be better off with, say, three DA2-like games rather than two DA:I/DA:O-like games. But I'm in something of an unusual position as gamers go, since there aren't all that many new releases in a year that I'm interested in.

[line_genrou]

And these guys:

Do I care?

You're proud of these awards as if you worked in the game

 

The game is full of flaws and anyone can see, even if takes some time for some

[Skeevley]

Actually I always thought otherwise, despite completing this game. What I disliked was: the story pace, the action oriented gameplay, lack of DAO storyline continuity. But compared to DAI I see it as a pure masterpeice, which makes me attached to the intrigue, to the characters and their development through their journey in and around Kirkwall.

 

In DA2 I didn't have so many filler quests, like in DAI.

They did not repeat themselves! (closing rifts, founding camps, fetching, etc.)

I had a lot more control over combat.

Camera was useful (rather than annoying).

 

Honestly, I don't know how to play this thing.

 

Do you really enjoy those repetitive quests like closing the same rifts, fetching ram meat, etc? Please share your secrets.

 

I think DAI appeals to people who like MMOs and "grinding-style RPGs" (if we can even call them that) such as Skyrim. Of course, those of us who like RPGs which are character and story-based are finding DAI to be incredibly boring. It's hands-down the most boring video game I've ever finished, and I can't imagine ever picking it up again. Too bad it isn't moddable like Skyrim or we would eventually have a real gem on our hands, but without mods... Forget it.

 

I can't believe that it's so much worse that DA2, but it is. At least DA2 had great characters and a great story and great banter etc. etc, even if it did have moronic/spastic/adhd action combat. DAI has pretty much none of this.

 

Unfortunately there isn't much of a solution.

 

On the upside, DAI is SO bad that I haven't had the urge to touch ANY video-game since! (No, I'm not kidding.) Maybe they could sell it to people trying to overcome video-game addiction!

[CronoDragoon]

I think DAI appeals to people who like MMOs and "grinding-style RPGs" (if we can even call them that) such as Skyrim. Of course, those of us who like RPGs which are character and story-based are finding DAI to be incredibly boring. It's hands-down the most boring video game I've ever finished, and I can't imagine ever picking it up again. Too bad it isn't moddable like Skyrim or we would eventually have a real gem on our hands, but without mods... Forget it.

 

I can't believe that it's so much worse that DA2, but it is. At least DA2 had great characters and a great story and great banter etc. etc, even if it did have moronic/spastic/adhd action combat. DAI has pretty much none of this.

 

Unfortunately there isn't much of a solution.

 

The solution is for you to realize DA: I has all those things.

 

I'm being tongue-in-cheek but I actually believe that. This is the first game where BioWare actually nailed doing a complex, thematically-driven main story - even if it was short. The characters are likewise (mostly) complex and vividly realized, with nuance and flaws. And the banter is also fantastic when it fires.

[Fredward]

There are some things I prefer in DAI over DA2 but, surprisingly, not that many. I liked the new engine and everything that came with it. I liked the diversity of the environments. And I liked that npcs got a bigger focus than they did in DA2. And the additional races and origins ofc. I also really liked the wartable. That adds a lot for me. But that's about it. I feel DA2 had deeper, more involved characterization. I liked it's storyline much, much better. I liked that it had cinematics for pretty much every discussion. I liked that Hawke had a personality. I liked that it's protag didn't save the world and wasn't a Mary-Sue of Godawesome.

[Ashagar]

Mary-Sue? I don't care for such terms even when I don't like a character as in most cases it is used it boils down to a person not liking a character therefore it is a Mary-Sue.

[Ygolnac]

The abuse of the copypasted dungeons, the micro city where all the game is set, the rushed story that fails to make sense. To me DA2 will always be a rushed product (18 months of developement) and i couldn't finish it even once.

 

In DA:I i see they tried to follow trends instead of pushing their own concept, and it will not be a game i'll play and remeber through years, but at least i'm having fun with it. I had 0 expectations and waited after release, read many users rewievs, waited the christmas sale, and bought what i was expecting at a price i consider fair.

 

So not memorable, but at least so far so good.

[Fredward]

Mary-Sue? I don't care for such terms even when I don't like a character as in most cases it is used it boils down to a person not liking a character therefore it is a Mary-Sue.

 

Oh? I think the Warden and the Inquisitor are Mary-Sue's because they never really fail at anything. Even when they fail they succeed. Events react to them as much or more as they react to events. Whatever happens they're always a match for it, events are never BIGGER than they are. They're often inexplicably skilled at what they do despite a dearth of experience. They're given authority without ever actually doing much to earn  it. And at least in the Inquisitor's case they are a 'Chosen One.'

 

Are any of these observations inaccurate?

[Ashagar]

Given that a mary-sue would have prevented all the bad things that happened in origin's origins, make everyone love them for it and won the battle at ostagar, saved haven, redeemed corypheus, prevented the wardens from using their fellow wardens as blood sacrifices and other things I say yes both the inquisitor and warden are very far from being true mary-sues in any meaningful use of the term.

[Fredward]

Given that a mary-sue would have prevented all the bad things that happened in origin's origins, make everyone love them for it and won the battle at ostagar, saved haven, redeemed corypheus, prevented the wardens from using their fellow wardens as blood sacrifices and other things I say yes both the inquisitor and warden are very far from being true mary-sues in any meaningful use of the term.

 

Or we disagree on the definition. ~shrug~

[CronoDragoon]

Oh? I think the Warden and the Inquisitor are Mary-Sue's because they never really fail at anything. Even when they fail they succeed. Events react to them as much or more as they react to events. Whatever happens they're always a match for it, events are never BIGGER than they are. They're often inexplicably skilled at what they do despite a dearth of experience. They're given authority without ever actually doing much to earn  it. And at least in the Inquisitor's case they are a 'Chosen One.'

 

Are any of these observations inaccurate?

 

All Inquisitors have combat experience prior to the Breach. They are also constantly reacting to the events of the story, but I'm not sure what specific relationship you are asking for there.

 

As for the Inquisitor earning their authority and being the Chosen One, I'd argue there's a significant undercurrent of people like Giselle and Leliana manipulating both the Inquisitor and followers of the Inquisition into believing the Inquisitor is a religious figure regardless of whether they actually believe it to be true, which lends the process more nuance and weight than it would otherwise.

 

Regardless, the real definition of a Mary Sue is that it's a character that the writer put in to represent his or herself. Based on this, the PC characters in Dragon Age games can't be Mary Sues, since they are created by the writers for the player to represent his or herself. The closest thing in Inquisition that fits this definition is Dorian for David Gaider, and that's a real stretch by itself.

 

The things you mentioned are often effects of this cause, but they don't always happen and thus aren't necessary ingredients for a Mary Sue. This is why Mary Sue discussions often devolve into semantics.

[Ser Kilroy]

Oh with the next instalment DAI will be the masterpiece and the just released follow up the biggest mistake Bioware could ever make.  Nothing new under the sun.

this

[Fredward]

All Inquisitors have combat experience prior to the Breach. They are also constantly reacting to the events of the story, but I'm not sure what specific relationship you are asking for there.

 

As for the Inquisitor earning their authority and being the Chosen One, I'd argue there's a significant undercurrent of people like Giselle and Leliana manipulating both the Inquisitor and followers of the Inquisition into believing the Inquisitor is a religious figure regardless of whether they actually believe it to be true, which lends the process more nuance and weight than it would otherwise.

 

Regardless, the real definition of a Mary Sue is that it's a character that the writer put in to represent his or herself. Based on this, the PC characters in Dragon Age games can't be Mary Sues, since they are created by the writers for the player to represent themself. The closest thing in Inquisition that fits this definition is Dorian for David Gaider, and that's a real stretch by itself.

 

The things you mentioned are often effects of this cause, but they don't always happen and thus aren't necessary ingredients for a Mary Sue. This is why Mary Sue discussions often devolve into semantics.

 

The 'defintion' is indeed mucky and I hate arguments about semantics so suffice it to say: the Warden and the Inquisitor have, because of plot demands or circumstance or events, a certain set of traits or characteristics or plot influence that I do not like. They have this in common with many heroes in fiction and I believe that Hawke is meaningfully dissimilar in that s/he's not particularly special and, more importantly, fail at their objectives. Regularly.

[ThreeF]

The 'defintion' is indeed mucky and I hate arguments about semantics so suffice it to say: the Warden and the Inquisitor have, because of plot demands or circumstance or events, a certain set of traits or characteristics or plot influence that I do not like. They have this in common with many heroes in fiction and I believe that Hawke is meaningfully dissimilar in that s/he's not particularly special and, more importantly, fail at their objectives. Regularly.

Inquisitor might still have failed in a very big way.

[CronoDragoon]

The 'defintion' is indeed mucky and I hate arguments about semantics so suffice it to say: the Warden and the Inquisitor have, because of plot demands or circumstance or events, a certain set of traits or characteristics or plot influence that I do not like. They have this in common with many heroes in fiction and I believe that Hawke is meaningfully dissimilar in that s/he's not particularly special and, more importantly, fail at their objectives. Regularly.

 

That's fair. Personally I believe we'll be moving to a different area of Thedas after Inquisition, so I definitely think there's room to retreat back into a smaller scope that allows for more experimentation with the PC.

[Fredward]

Inquisitor might still have failed in a very big way.

 

But they didn't  and therein lies my problem. Not that I'm saying they should have because that would have been terribly depressing. I'm saying that entire kind of storyline where failure means death of everyone so your hero NEEDS to be marvelous in all aspects bores and frustrates me. I like Inquisition just fine but it's not memorable, it doesn't grip  me. It doesn't make me think. Or reflect. Or feel poignant. Not the Inquisitor's story anyway, some aspects do which is in part why I don't dislike the game.

[CronoDragoon]

But they didn't  and therein lies my problem. Not that I'm saying they should have because that would have been terribly depressing. I'm saying that entire kind of storyline where failure means death of everyone so your hero NEEDS to be marvelous in all aspects bores and frustrates me. I like Inquisition just fine but it's not memorable, it doesn't grip  me. It doesn't make me think. Or reflect. Or feel poignant. Not the Inquisitor's story anyway, some aspects do which is in part why I don't dislike the game.

 

Here's a game design question: do you design failure to be a result of player choice (Mass Effect 2 Suicide Mission deaths) inevitable (Thessia, but envision is done better) or both?

[ThreeF]

But they didn't  and therein lies my problem. Not that I'm saying they should have because that would have been terribly depressing. I'm saying that entire kind of storyline where failure means death of everyone so your hero NEEDS to be marvelous in all aspects bores and frustrates me. I like Inquisition just fine but it's not memorable, it doesn't grip  me. It doesn't make me think. Or reflect. Or feel poignant. Not the Inquisitor's story anyway, some aspects do which is in part why I don't dislike the game.

Nah, I understand what you mean, I was just saying that in the end we don't know if Inquisitor won the war or just a little insignificant battle (or made things worse). I'm having many problems with the way DAI plot was handled on overall, on the other hand I don't see Hawkes failures adding any depth to the character itself, in the end of the game I didn't felt as tragic hero, even if the writers dropped a mountain on Hawke.

[CronoDragoon]

Nah, I understand what you mean, I was just saying that in the end we don't know if Inquisitor won the war or just a little insignificant battle (or made things worse). I'm having many problems with the way DAI plot was handled on overall, on the other hand I don't see Hawkes failures adding any depth to the character itself, in the end of the game I didn't felt as tragic hero, even if the writers dropped a mountain on Hawke.

 

Whether or not it was intentional, I do think the most interesting way to role-play Hawke is as a failure.

[ThreeF]

Whether or not it was intentional, I do think the most interesting way to role-play Hawke is as a failure.

oh i think it was intentional, if Anders's initiation to romance is any indication. Hawke was set up for tragedy with capital T.

[CronoDragoon]

oh i think it was intentional, if Anders's initiation to romance is any indication. Hawke was set up for tragedy with capital T.

 

And you don't think it added any depth to the character? For a Hawke who cares about her family and is acting largely out of concern for their welfare, the events of the game are pretty...well, tragic.

[ThreeF]

And you don't think it added any depth to the character? For a Hawke who cares about her family and is acting largely out of concern for their welfare, the events of the game are pretty...well, tragic.

No, because to me for the most part it played out as a B movie, over the top and in your face. Don't get me wrong, there were parts that I liked but they didn't had much to do with Hawke.

 

I'm generally very sensitive to drama and there are movies and books that I have found too tragic to finish, yet I could stab Anders over and over again and feel nothing, because I knew I was set up to do exactly that and shoehorned to care about it too. I refused to care because of how it was done. To me it's never about what but it's always about how. DA2 has a concept of good tragedy down, but not the execution.