33 réponses à ce sujet

[Fade-Touched-in-the-head]

Never thought I'd be suggesting that a developer pare down the size of their games, but when it comes right down to it, I'd rather play a smaller, more polished game than an enormous game filled with subpar content. Ideally, I'd prefer the best of both worlds but it seems this isn't the cards. Bioware's eyes are evidently bigger than their development cycles and I can't help thinking that they could have delivered a much better main storyline with a far more interesting villain than what we got if the development team weren't spinning so many plates at once while developing this game.

It's still hard for me to believe that the company that gave us the story in SW:KOTOR also gave us Inquisition. To call Corypheus one-dimensional would be an insult to one-dimensional characters. He has no dimensions. He's a dull villain on a standard power-grab. You must stop him. That's it. That's the story. It's like narrative Chinese food. Half an hour later, you're craving a story again because the one you just experienced didn't fill you up.

So essentially I'm suggesting that if Bioware can only deliver either an enormous mediocre game or a smaller great game with the time and resources allotted to them, then I'd prefer the latter.

[Saphiron123]

Yeah, the hinterlands was so empty and the quests were so uninvolved and impersonal I almost quit... It's big, but it has to be fun and compelling. It needs story, dialogue, characterization.

And no more quests from discarded papers. No more fetch quests.

[9TailsFox]

I want my cave from DA2 back I have much more fun in it than in all DA:I maps.

[Zeratulr]

It's still hard for me to believe that the company that gave us the story in SW:KOTOR also gave us Inquisition. To call Corypheus one-dimensional would be an insult to one-dimensional characters. He has no dimensions. He's a dull villain on a standard power-grab. You must stop him. That's it. That's the story. It's like narrative Chinese food. Half an hour later, you're craving a story again because the one you just experienced didn't fill you up.
 

So you are saying that the main villain of KOTOR was less of a one-dimenshional character and we were not on a quest to stop his power grab? Seriously? Are we both talking about Darth Malak, a guy without the lower jaw whose last words actually had a phrase "I wanted to be Master of the Sith and ruler of the galaxy,"  in them? I'm sorry if my words will shatter your blissful nostalgia but the main storyline and main villain were always a weakest point of Bioware's games (the lowest point in that regard was Origins where you actually had to kill an evil ancient dragon trying to destroy the world as a culmination of the story).

At the same time they always had a great lore, characters and epic emotional moments. Inquisition has all of that in abundance.

[Fade-Touched-in-the-head]

I'm sorry if my words will shatter your blissful nostalgia

It's okay. I'm sorry for kicking your dog.

Wait a minute. I didn't actually kick your dog. I simply criticized a game that you're obviously fond of.

And Malak, while not the most inspired villain, at least had a personal history with the protagonist of the game and was shown to be remorseful and regretful in his final moments. The fact that the protagonist was instrumental in how Malak turned out also carried resonance.

Corypheus has none of that. He's an evil guy who was always an evil guy who always will be an evil guy doing evil things because he's evil. If he had a moustache he'd be constantly twirling it.

And KOTOR's story > Inquisition's story hands down.

[wepeel_]

Respectfully but completely disagree with the OP. People tend to see the previous games with rose-tinted glasses nowadays, which is somewhat hilarious given the consideration DA2 got up until recently. For my own part, I find the scale of DAI great. Going back to DAO and DA2 now feels like being constrained to the point of being herded. Also agree with Zeratulr that if we are to debate one-dimensional villains there are several other games who qualify - including KotOR, DAO and DA2.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

well... Cory's potential was squandered imho. i did enjoy Dumat's temple quest line - didn't you want to just hug him and pat his head 'there, there, we'll find your Dumat, ok? smile for me, pretty please?'.

shame they just waved that part of his personality off and replaced it with cliche 'muahaha, i'll be the new god and whatnot'

[Fade-Touched-in-the-head]

Respectfully but completely disagree with the OP.

Fair enough. And thank you for recognizing that I didn't kick your dog.

[Zeratulr]

It's okay. I'm sorry for kicking your dog.

Wait a minute. I didn't actually kick your dog. I simply criticized a game that you're obviously fond of.

And Malak, while not the most inspired villain, at least had a personal history with the protagonist of the game and was shown to be remorseful and regretful in his final moments. The fact that the protagonist was instrumental in how Malak turned out also carried resonance.

Corypheus has none of that. He's an evil guy who was always an evil guy who always will be an evil guy doing evil things because he's evil. If he had a moustache he'd be constantly twirling it.

And KOTOR's story > Inquisition's story hands down.

My fondness for Bioware games is my dog!

 

I don't think KOTOR's main story is > Inquisition's main story (although the main twist was good I give you that) and at least Darth Malak is not a (significantly) better villain than Corypheus and here is why:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=kwbzyiUCb3U

And in case you forgot after that scene of pure Shakespearean dramaturgy Bastilla actually "willingly turned" to the dark side!

[ThreeF]

If the main story was tighter and the side-quest were more focused and polished I don't think people would have problem with the size of the game. I like DAI maps, they made the game less claustrophobic and I don't think that they are terribly big either, what is generally is missing is polishing. Now whenever the map's size was what prevented the polishing is imo debatable.

[9TailsFox]

If the main story was tighter and the side-quest were more focused and polished I don't think people would have problem with the size of the game. I like DAI maps, they made the game less claustrophobic and I don't think that they are terribly big either, what is generally is missing is polishing. Now whenever the map's size was what prevented the polishing is imo debatable.

I pretty sure what is not debatable biggest problem of DA:I is very simple Frostbite engine. I wonder how much time Bioware wasted just to make it work. and sacrificed stuff. And I never have problems with DA:O levels. Yes as much as I liked my one cave in DA:2 it would be nice to have few more. But DA:I Bioware like always go to extreme. ME inventor to messy remove inventor, Make need little improvement remove Mako, don't repeat same level like DA:2, bam giant empty levels.

[ThreeF]

I pretty sure what is not debatable biggest problem of DA:I is very simple Frostbite engine. I wonder how much time Bioware wasted just to make it work.

This was one of the things I had in mind.

[MaxQuartiroli]

But DA:I Bioware like always go to extreme. ME inventor to messy remove inventor, Make need little improvement remove Mako, don't repeat same level like DA:2, bam giant empty levels.

 

This is really true. What the OP has pointed out is a criticism that many other players have already done. If you read these forums you can see that more or less the things that people are complaining about are always the same, with the exception of haters (but let alone them for a moment 'cause I am only talking about feedback from player who are suggesting what can be improved according to their opinion).

 

Make map smaller, reduce the amount of fetch quests and make more cinematics doesn't mean "come back to reused DA2 mini-map and remove at all fetch quests" So, I hope that this time Bioware will read many of this criticism for what they are and they don't react like "hey they didn't like it: well, screw it all! Let's make DA4 a visual novel"

[Seraphael]

People complained about lack of exploration in ME2, ME3 and DA2 and we got DAI as a response. And of course people complain about DAI. Be careful what you wish for! People can't have it both ways; a non-linear sandbox yet filled with varied or unique content. Bioware have to prioritize. I always saw this dilemma as a quantity vs. quality, or width vs. depth kind of thing. In most cases I prefer less options if the options are more involving. I still have nightmarish flashbacks of half-asleep exploring every corner of largely empty planets in the first ME, and fear the next Mass Effect game will suffer from the same "empty space"-syndrome as ME/DAI.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i whine when it's hot. i whine when my fingers are numb from cold. people don't like extremes. those who do are not normal.

 

if someone says he wants bigger world and your world is only one room, it means world should be bigger, say - the size of a house, maybe a whole village, not a f..n galaxy filled with void.

[Linkenski]

I think this whole "military leader" thing with Mass Effect 3 and DA:I has become super tiresome. DA:O had a near-perfect hero's journey as you'd be playing as, sort of an ordinary person who wasn't necessarily high in ranking but he'd end up saving the entire wold anyway... in sort of a The Sword in The Stone kind of fashion.

 

Now, I did enjoy sitting on that throne a couple of times but putting the player character into a "live like a king" role is just a bit too much "the player is the most amazing thing in our game". I want to be in there with the other random NPCs we meet in the world. The fantasy world is alien to me and I come in from the outside so it would be better if my player character is more in that kind of situation too, which I think they captured perfectly with Mass Effect 1 to name an example.

[DarthLaxian]

I want my cave from DA2 back I have much more fun in it than in all DA:I maps.

 

STOP THAT - you just made me laugh so damned hard ^^

 

Sadly, you are right, too (you at least had more skills/spells available in DA2 - that's one of the main failings of DAI...and that you don't have healing (still hate that mechanic -.-)) - it's a big empty world (sure, the real world is like that, too - but when I game I don't game because I want to hike across the countryside...I want to discover things, fight bad guys (that don't constantly RESPAWN -.-), become stronger in the process (in a way my mage feels equally as strong in the end if he/she does not have more spells available...like I am playing an eternal student, not someone who learns things to become a master!)

 

greetings LAX

[Koneko Koji]

I found that the maps were oddly sized - some of them should have either been smaller or given more content (Hissing Wastes), or they should have been much bigger (Val Royeaux).

 

IF, and this is a big if - if Bioware / EA are going to release some DLC that fills some of these areas, gives us use for all the excess power, and perhaps allows us to actually have consequences for our decisions (it really bugs me that whatever side I choose to ally with, I'm always fighting Templars) - then there is still potential for this game.

 

But still, after I finished it - I went back to Origins and played again, and I'm STILL after dozens of playthroughs, finding new things and hearing new dialogue - with Inquisition it feels like I've done it all now and the lack of meaningful choices and actual impact is a big part of this.

[Draining Dragon]

Respectfully but completely disagree with the OP. People tend to see the previous games with rose-tinted glasses nowadays, which is somewhat hilarious given the consideration DA2 got up until recently. For my own part, I find the scale of DAI great. Going back to DAO and DA2 now feels like being constrained to the point of being herded. Also agree with Zeratulr that if we are to debate one-dimensional villains there are several other games who qualify - including KotOR, DAO and DA2.

I would respectfully but completely disagree with this. I don't need rose-tinted glasses to prefer BG2 and DAO to DAI. I found that the scale of DAI caused the content to be diluted in comparison to some older RPGs. I also don't think Malak and the Archdemon were as poorly written as Coryfishstick. Malak was at least somewhat sympathetic, especially at the end, when he asks the PC if his life might have taken a different path were it not for the PC's influence. The Archdemon, admittedly, was not very complex, but at least it didn't give any cliche "Imma gonna get you" speeches, and it wasn't utterly incompetent. DA2 didn't really have a clear villain.

[wepeel_]

I would respectfully but completely disagree with this. I don't need rose-tinted glasses to prefer BG2 and DAO to DAI. I found that the scale of DAI caused the content to be diluted in comparison to some older RPGs. I also don't think Malak and the Archdemon were as poorly written as Coryfishstick. Malak was at least somewhat sympathetic, especially at the end, when he asks the PC if his life might have taken a different path were it not for the PC's influence. The Archdemon, admittedly, was not very complex, but at least it didn't give any cliche "Imma gonna get you" speeches, and it wasn't utterly incompetent. DA2 didn't really have a clear villain.

 

Yet when DAO came out it was not uncommon at all for people of this very community to claim it a failure and laugh at the notion of it being called a spiritual successor to the BG series. Rose-tinted glasses or not in your individual case, DAO certainly didn't enjoy the lofty, 'did-nothing-wrong' status with as many people back then as it appears to do now.

 

As for the BG games, I do not claim DAI (or DAO for that matter) to be on their level - to me they still stand out as a standard to which all other CRPGs will be measured. But among that particular fanbase too there is a debate whether the BG1 approach of open world, exploration and more diluted content is better than the "more-stuff-per-m²" BG2 approach with tightly controlled, content-packed world areas that you never visit without a specific purpose. For my own part I favour BG2 over all, but still find that a more extensive world with more diluted content strenghtens my immersion, i.e. BG1 did that part better. Not every hour of gameplay or every zone you visit need or should have direct bearing on the plot; not every npc you talk to needs to convey valuable information.

[Zeratulr]

I also don't think Malak and the Archdemon were as poorly written as Coryfishstick...

The Archdemon, admittedly, was not very complex but at least it didn't give any cliche "Imma gonna get you" speeches, and it wasn't utterly incompetent.

Ok. So archdemon is a character now. The Giant dragon who wanted to destroy the world (there was never any indication that he wanted anything apart from destruction for the sake of destruction like all darkspawns). The final boss of the game who appears once or twice before the final battle in a dream sequence where he ROARS. I think it would be hard for him to give any kind of speech since he doesn't have a singlespoken line in all of the game.

And a few words about incompetence: Corypheus corrupted hearts and minds, he played on human weakness, their fears, sense of injustice and misguided patriotism (venatori are great villains btw, so much more interesting then darkspawn could ever be and grey wardens are represented in one single mission of the Inquisition much better then in all of the Origins' main campaign) in order to employ an army of followers. He sowed discontent, sent assassins to weaken his enemies. Archdemon used unthinking monsters who were biologically obliged to serve him to attack Denerim which was exactly what his enemies wanted him to do, and that was after his stupid attack on Ostagar which should have ended in his defeat if it was not for the Loghain's betrayal.

 

So in short: are you serious?

[Saphiron123]

You know that ostagar wouldn't have defeated the blight even if it was a sweeping victory, right?

That was like a tiny portion of the archdemon's forces. Most didn't even think it was a true blight becuase the majority of the horde was still in the deep roads and the archdemon hadn't even arrived on the surface himself.

Loghain's betrayal just killed the king and his men, and crippled the wardens.

[AlanC9]

People complained about lack of exploration in ME2, ME3 and DA2 and we got DAI as a response.

People did, yes. I didn't. I've never really thought exploration was necessary in an RPG myself.

[Winged Silver]

Indeed. I mean, for some places, the large scale makes sense as a characterization, which in my eyes, is perfectly fine (the Hissing Wastes would not have had as desolate a feel if it were a small patch on the ground ^.^), but for others, it's just a little excessive. The Hinterlands didn't need to be as big as it was. I don't know how they allocate their resources, but if there indeed is a connection between the size of the maps and the amount of content, I hope in the future they'll put more focus on content. 

 

I think this is the first time we've seen them experiment with such large maps. I'm hoping that now that they've seen how it works, and what was liked, they'll find a better balance in the future

[Draining Dragon]

With the exception of Haven, Coryfishstick's temporary successes are only due to his victims being even more incompetent (Templars using red lyrium, mages siding with Tevinter, grey wardens siding with Tevinter). Even in those cases, he is thwarted at every turn, and in the end, he delivers himself to the Inquisitor's doorstep with almost no backup.

Also, the Archdemon never showed up at Ostagar. Even if it lost that battle, it would have left the enemy forces devastated and demoralized, while it's own forces could, as far as we know, be easily replenished.

Finally, you neglect the fact that Loghain and his supporters are also antagonists, and Loghain is a morally grey villain, while Coryfishstick is obviously evil.