542 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

People really gotta take off those rose coloured glasses when looking back at DA:O.

 

And put on the ****** glasses for DA:I.

[KaiserShep]

The Dark Ritual one made me think. My character was romancing Leliana etc. So there were some moral issues at work.

 

I suppose if the Warden is male and not romancing Morrigan (my Warden was female so I had to pull Alistair's arm anyway), this can be a bit of an issue, but honestly, the only thing I really found worth considering was the nature of this transfer when the archdemon dies. I can't really see much sense in Morrigan wanting to cause another Blight later, and it's either that or die, or potentially have a friend die instead. I thought it was a no-brainer.

[Gileadan]

Well, no, neither DA:O nor DA2 were super complex.  But there is still an obvious trend.

 

In DA:O, I could spend attribute points freely.

In DA2, I also could do that, except that armor attribute restrictions "encouraged" me to strongly prefer the two main attributes of a given class (I know they lessened this later in a patch, but I didn't play that game again)

In DA:I... yeah.

 

DA:O had some chanter board, mage collective, irregulars fetch quests.

DA2, they introduced the "walk quest" - click item, get text popup, walk to NPC Hawke suddenly knew about, click NPC for a generic comment, get your haaard earned XP.

DA:I got the same, except with mostly letters instead of the remains of Sister Plinth. LOTS of letters. And sometimes one doesn't click an NPC at the end of the quest, but another world item for another text popup instead, the absolute minimum in interaction. Barely qualifies as "quest".

 

DA:O had non combat skills and switchable weapon sets. DA2 and DA:I got nothing.

 

DA:O and DA2 had customizable AI tactics. DA:I has "on/off/preferred".

 

I'm sure someone will argue how that's all for the best and a brilliant way to evolve the franchise. People want different things from games, and that's fine. It's just not what I want from a game, at least not from a RPG. Because that way lies "bloody screen so real".

[DanteYoda]

I don't know who this "we" person is, but he sounds like a bit of a b**ch.

You'd know i suppose..

[Uccio]

People really gotta take off those rose coloured glasses when looking back at DA:O.

 

I would have wanted more content in DAO, that is sure. But it still beats DAI hands down IMO.

[Saphiron123]

People really gotta take off those rose coloured glasses when looking back at DA:O.

Truthfully, as soon as I finished dai I started a game of DAO and made a new warden just to build another world in the keep bit by bit... It's playing DAO that's made the steps backward so prevalent.

DAO has a lot going for it though. This time I so far I played first enchanter Irving in the fade at redcliff (had no idea that was possible. But it is if you bring the mages to try and save Conner), I took loghain to ostagar (and he had a baby!) instead of alistair or wynne (I regret not taking both, wynne ANDY loghain actually), and I have to say it's still an amazing game, with new things to see and new dialogue to hear. It's got a lot of small touches which encourage replaying the game, most of the side quests in dai don't have unique dialogue or change in any way with different parties or playthroughs... +2 power, quest complete, is not a replacement for good storytelling.

Before I played dai I played DAO and da2 as well, alistair stayed a warden, i became king. I also enjoyed da2 surprisingly much due to expecting the waves of enemies and recycled maps, I was able to look past those flaws and just enjoy the story (I originally found renegade male hawke to be super dry, but good femhawke was likeable, and next will be humorous male hawke).

I'm some ways, DAO really is superior. Especially the tactics... Thanks to that menu, wynne has far better functional ai then solas will ever have. It worked 10 years ago, and they scrapped it for inferior ai and a no/yes/more often set of options in 2015.

[Paapuli]

I personally believe that the Multiplayer part of Inquisition destroyed the entire game.

 

The whole combat section is dedicated to Multiplayer.

Alot of dedication from Single Player was moved to Multiplayer.

 

Developers were busy creating an online game so they had no time/effort for cinematics and little details / big details.

 

In the Single Player, you can ask your group members to pick up herbs and loot in the tactics screen.

YOU CAN ASK. But they won't do it. They will go to the point of interaction with a command name "Interact/Loot/Gather".

But they WILL NOT PICK UP or DO it.

 

(At Haven you will have to turn a Catapult around for a random non-spoiling reason.

How is this achieved? You pick a character and hold F/interact button.

You can not ask a companion to do it while you defend that companion.

You have to hold F while enemies waltz at you and you do this until the game says "STOP"

You can't even go to the tactics screen to issue orders because the interaction with the catapult will be lost

the moment you let loose the F/interact button.

 

This is the entire Single Player group combat/Interaction system in a nutshell.

The game is build around the idea that every character is controlled by a player. JUST LIKE IN THE MULTIPLAYER.

 

Extreme amount of disappointment.

Dragon Age never had a multiplayer before and I can see why.

And even now it's supposed to be played with "friends".

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Between trying to make the game appeal to the "I want it now and all I want to do is point and click) generation and, trying to be politically correct, DAI took a hit, a big one. Not much can be done save DLC for the to non controversial stuff now, but maybe at least a good bit of the dumbed down can be corrected. I hope so at least. With the Beta program, they are getting feedback from real players and, they are listening so, that's a big step in the right direction.

[AWTEW]

The Dark Ritual one made me think. My character was romancing Leliana etc. So there were some moral issues at work.

 

Just let Alistar or Loghain do the deed..pretty simple really.

 

I personally believe that the Multiplayer part of Inquisition destroyed the entire game.

 

The whole combat section is dedicated to Multiplayer.

Alot of dedication from Single Player was moved to Multiplayer.

 

Developers were busy creating an online game so they had no time/effort for cinematics and little details / big details.

 

In the Single Player, you can ask your group members to pick up herbs and loot in the tactics screen.

YOU CAN ASK. But they won't do it. They will go to the point of interaction with a command name "Interact/Loot/Gather".

But they WILL NOT PICK UP or DO it.

 

(At Haven you will have to turn a Catapult around for a random non-spoiling reason.

How is this achieved? You pick a character and hold F/interact button.

You can not ask a companion to do it while you defend that companion.

You have to hold F while enemies waltz at you and you do this until the game says "STOP"

You can't even go to the tactics screen to issue orders because the interaction with the catapult will be lost

the moment you let loose the F/interact button.

 

This is the entire Single Player group combat/Interaction system in a nutshell.

The game is build around the idea that every character is controlled by a player. JUST LIKE IN THE MULTIPLAYER.

 

Extreme amount of disappointment.

Dragon Age never had a multiplayer before and I can see why.

And even now it's supposed to be played with "friends".

 

Bingo, tbh.

[AWTEW]

Between trying to make the game appeal to the "I want it now and all I want to do is point and click) generation and, trying to be politically correct, DAI took a hit, a big one. Not much can be done save DLC for the to non controversial stuff now, but maybe at least a good bit of the dumbed down can be corrected. I hope so at least. With the Beta program, they are getting feedback from real players and, they are listening so, that's a big step in the right direction.

 

Blame Google.

[ThreeF]

Most of all, give us tough decisions. I'm talking the kind that only bioware gives you where you put down your controller and walk away to think about it. It's what makes you unique, and while there were some, most like the male desire demon weren't even tempting enough to debate about... they were, for lack of a better word, easy.

Were there such decisions in previous DA games? Can't say I remember any. I can think of some in DAI (at least to  the extend of 'there is no right choice')

[Heathen Oxman]

They weren't.

Fight-wise, once you knew how mechanics work it was a cakewalk on any difficultly.

 

That said, I really miss Tactics of DA 2 or even DAO (especially modded).

 

Me too.

 

Believe me, I agree that DAO and DA2 > DAI in that (and many other) regard.

[DragoN7]

I loved the fact that you could set all your skills and attributes the way you wanted to, and wear any armor or weapons too. I pretty much made a Rogue with dual swords wearing Legion of The Dead set. I never died, even against flemeth and all high dragons lol.

[Rawgrim]

Just let Alistar or Loghain do the deed..pretty simple really.

 

 

Bingo, tbh.

 

Letting Alistair or Loghain do it is a roleplaying desicion. Depends on my character's personality.

[Rawgrim]

Between trying to make the game appeal to the "I want it now and all I want to do is point and click) generation and, trying to be politically correct, DAI took a hit, a big one. Not much can be done save DLC for the to non controversial stuff now, but maybe at least a good bit of the dumbed down can be corrected. I hope so at least. With the Beta program, they are getting feedback from real players and, they are listening so, that's a big step in the right direction.

 

Pretty much this. Feels like a generic Michael Bay movie.

[Wbino]

The only thing I miss about the old system was the ability to wear whatever we wanted based on the attributes, rather than level restrictions, which is the tool of the devil. Like, if I have some armor I really like, I shouldn't have to wait until level 15 or some nonsense in order to wear it, when I could just have the attributes determine whether or not I can equip it (when applicable, like heavy armor).

 

As for tactics, this is a bit tricky as a PS3 user, since the companion AI was not the best, and I could not control them during battle. Most of the time, I found myself fiddling with the companions' tactics display to make them stop doing something that I found really annoying or looked really dumb, like Leliana's bard passives that make everyone look like they're trapped in Prince's aura. In Awakening it was even worse, because apparently, Mhairi and Justice had seismic flatulence that sounded off on a regular basis.

If you couldn't control your companions during battle...we aren't even playing the same game!

 

Gone with you!  lowly Playstation user/loser.....

[DragoN7]

If you couldn't control your companions during battle...we aren't even playing the same game!

Gone with you! lowly Playstation user/loser.....

I agree

*True Story*

[X Equestris]

Look, it's another person deciding they can speak for everyone.

[Nefla]

I agree with many of your points OP but DA:I was not made for existing fans, it was made to try and bring new people in. Sure they did some things to try to bring back those they had lost with DA2 and ME3 such as race choices and various hints or footage of what would be in the game(though many such things were not actually included), things existing players wanted to see but those people weren't the main target. BioWare has said DA:I was their most successful launch ever and they got multiple GOTY awards for it so obviously their tactics paid off. Not only did they bring back disgruntled fans, they brought back fans who had been satisfied with DA2 and ME3 as well as bringing in new players.

[AlanC9]

The only thing I miss about the old system was the ability to wear whatever we wanted based on the attributes, rather than level restrictions, which is the tool of the devil. Like, if I have some armor I really like, I shouldn't have to wait until level 15 or some nonsense in order to wear it, when I could just have the attributes determine whether or not I can equip it (when applicable, like heavy armor).
 

I'd do away with both sets of restrictions, myself.

[Nefla]

Were there such decisions in previous DA games? Can't say I remember any. I can think of some in DAI (at least to  the extend of 'there is no right choice')

One of my problems with DA:I is that all choices are equivalent. There is no morally right or wrong choice, there is no choice with a worse outcome (and most choices don't have an observable outcome in game, only in text) it makes it really hard to care. Compare it with the choices in TW2: the things I did felt organic and with unforeseeable consequences, it was one of that game's strong points.

[ThreeF]

One of my problems with DA:I is that all choices are equivalent. There is no morally right or wrong choice, there is no choice with a worse outcome (and most choices don't have an observable outcome in game, only in text) it makes it really hard to care. Compare it with the choices in TW2: the things I did felt organic and with unforeseeable consequences, it was one of that game's strong points.

Haven't played TW so can't comment, but personally I don't care much for obvious right and wrong since the game becomes far too "moral" for my liking. That said I wouldn't mind outcomes that can go terribly wrong, as long as morality isn't obviously attached to it.

 

I liked some of the aspects of morality played out in the Winter Palace, especially those connected to choosing Gaspard, or generally the concept of being the kingmaker, although  the outcome (it being just slides at the end) and the execution was for the most part lacking. I also liked Cole's quest as there was no moral  right/wrong attached to it, you could rationalize things yourself.

[Nefla]

Haven't played TW so can't comment, but personally I don't care much for obvious right and wrong since the game becomes far too "moral" for my liking. That said I wouldn't mind outcomes that can go terribly wrong, as long as morality isn't obviously attached to it.

 

I liked some of the aspects of morality played out in the Winter Palace, especially those connected to choosing Gaspard, or generally the concept of being the kingmaker, although  the outcome (it being just slides at the end) and the execution was for the most part lacking. I also liked Cole's quest as there was no moral  right/wrong attached to it, you could rationalize things yourself.

I liked Cole's personal quest as well.

 

I've got a mad case of the flu which has fogged my brain so it's hard to explain what I mean, but I just want one choice to sometimes work out much better than another (but even knowing that you still pick the less ideal option for role playing reasons ex: revenge or saving someone) or having unexpected consequences ex: you side with someone acting so diplomatic and nice and making you all these promises but they betray you or abandon you later. I also miss the occasional campy evil choice like in ME2 or at least ruthless choices such as "we leave this village to die so we have time to strengthen our own defenses." You get where I'm going? 

[ThreeF]

I liked Cole's personal quest as well.

 

I've got a mad case of the flu which has fogged my brain so it's hard to explain what I mean, but I just want one choice to sometimes work out much better than another (but even knowing that you still pick the less ideal option for role playing reasons ex: revenge or saving someone) or having unexpected consequences ex: you side with someone acting so diplomatic and nice and making you all these promises but they betray you or abandon you later. I also miss the occasional campy evil choice like in ME2 or at least ruthless choices such as "we leave this village to die so we have time to strengthen our own defenses." You get where I'm going? 

I hope you get better! Yeah I get what you mean, the problem with DAI though is that most consequences that might have impact are actually in the epilogue. DAI is very much a weird limbo of epilogue to some things and prologue to other. Unexpected consequences are nice, they are hard to do, but I like them too. That said I'm sure there are many people who don't like discovering that they have screwed up terribly after hours and hours of play, another reason they are hard to do. Campy (evil) choices are the ones I never take, I do like "evil" pragmatic choices though, like in one game that I've played where in order  to have the "best" outcome you had to agree to slaughter defenseless villagers (for greater good), even better if the NPC can convince me to make the choice (evil or not).

[o Ventus]

Campy (evil) choices are the ones I never take, I do like "evil" pragmatic choices though, like in one game that I've played where in order  to have the "best" outcome you had to agree to slaughter defenseless villagers (for greater good), even better if the NPC can convince me to make the choice (evil or not).

Agreed. The campy evil choices just feel out of place and stupid when the overall tone of the game is supposed to be mature and grounded. Going from letting a village fall because you need to infiltrate a castle (a pragmatic "evil" choice) to taking and resurrecting the fallen village's inhabitants as zombies for no discernible reason is just needlessly cruel.