BG1 was not mainstream. The d&d bits and the Forgotten Realms had a huge following, though.
I'drather have 20 spells that all do something usefull, than 80 spells of which half are trash, a quarter or something is very, very situational (and thus almost a waste of skillpoint), a few you will only take because you need another spell that's higher up the chain, and the rest being vastly overpowered turning the game into a snoozefest.
I'm pulling these ratios out of thin air btw. Lets just say I wasn't very impressed with the spellbook in DA:O. Had they given me 80 spells that were all more or less useable, I'd be extatic.
We came from having spells like Fireball, Drain Life, Crushing Prison etc., I found those spells useful.
And as I've stated above with the hair selection comparison, I'd choose more options any day over less options. Same goes for tactics, same goes for ability points, same goes for quickbar slots, and so on.
You're not entirely off-base. In the entire Archery tree in DAO, literally only 2 talents were viable (and they were both at the end of the tree, so you had to keep wasting points to get at them, making Archery a total waste of a play style).
Archers are awesome in Inquisition 
We came from having spells like Fireball, Drain Life, Crushing Prison etc., I found those spells useful.
And as I've stated above with the hair selection comparison, I'd choose more options any day over less options. Same goes for tactics, same goes for ability points, same goes for quickbar slots, and so on.
The thing is, even burning Haven was a failure on Cory's part - he didn't manage to prevent the breach being closed, he lost a large portion of his army and he allowed the entire leadership of the Inquisition including the Herald escape. Sure, he killed a few people and drove the Inqiusition off temporarily, but in the end, it was an utter failure. As were his actions at the conclave. Yeah, he blew stuff up, but he failed to bind the anchor to himself. And every other event involving him in the game was an outright success for the Inquisition. For all that he managed to kill a lot of people and hurt many more, he never once succeded at anything he tried to do over the course of DA:I.
Cory was an utterly pathetic and ineffectual villain.
It's not until you've closed the breach does he realise what you've done.
It's not until you've closed the breach does he realise what you've done.
He attacks you with a massive army pretty much immediately after you've closed the breach. It's clear he was on his way to attack you long before you did so - he wouldn't have had the time to assemble that army after you've closed it. He was just too late to stop you. Again, failure.
Ok, so now you're going to name 3 spells out of 80 that were usefull... and suddenly they are all usefull? Or are you saying that 3 great spells out of 80 is good enough?
And even if all 80 spells were usefull, 7* orso of them eclipse all others.
I'd choose more equal options over less options too, but the options we got were far from equal. At least in DA:I all options are equally feasable, unlike DA:O where certain skill setups are not just a little bit better than others, but just downright game breakingly overpowered.
*Blizzard, Tempest, Earthquake, Inferno, Spell Might, Glyph of Paralysis, Glyph of Repulsion
Add Force Field, Walking Bomb and Virulent Walking Bomb and you have all the spells you need to faceroll the game.
Examples.
They're examples of how we've lost useful spells. Just as we've lost useful attribute point characteristics and customization, tactical options, quickbar slots and so on.
Here's another example from attribute points: Willpower, it used to give us mana, now it doesn't because mana has been streamlined to a simple 100, giving us less options in character build and combat itself. It all boils down to options.
You might not have liked the different 'hairstyles' in Origins, but I did. And since there are less 'hairstyles' in Inquisition I find it to be a very different game than Origins. Not as good as Origins. But hey, that's just my opinion.
You don't have to do anything directly to be a decent antagonist. The PC and Alistair weren't really any main threat to oghain to begin with either. Just some witnesses to what he did. He was focused on gaining the power in Denerim for most of the time. Once you became a problem, though, he upped his game.
Well yeah, Loghain is easier to defeat. He is a regular human being, and not a Mary Sue like Cory. Still, Loghain actually does something to try and hinder you a few times. Cory does nothing at all.
Howe is only a real badguy if you play as a human noble, really.
The thing is, even burning Haven was a failure on Cory's part - he didn't manage to prevent the breach being closed, he lost a large portion of his army and he allowed the entire leadership of the Inquisition including the Herald escape. Sure, he killed a few people and drove the Inqiusition off temporarily, but in the end, it was an utter failure. As were his actions at the conclave. Yeah, he blew stuff up, but he failed to bind the anchor to himself. And every other event involving him in the game was an outright success for the Inquisition. For all that he managed to kill a lot of people and hurt many more, he never once succeded at anything he tried to do over the course of DA:I.
Cory was an utterly pathetic and ineffectual villain.
That's true of every single DA villain. The AD failed comically at killing the only 2 threats facing it, instead sacking some random villages. Loghain did almost everything possible to undermine his own legitimacy. Meredith was insane, and didn't really even have an endgame.
True....BW haven't done a decent villain since Sun Li.
(note, I did like both Loghain and Meredith as characters, just not as villains)
Examples.
They're examples of how we've lost useful spells. Just as we've lost useful attribute point characteristics and customization, tactical options, quickbar slots and so on.
Here's another example from attribute points: Willpower, it used to give us mana, now it doesn't because mana has been streamlined to a simple 100, giving us less options in character build and combat itself. It all boils down to options.
You might not have liked the different 'hairstyles' in Origins, but I did. And since there are less 'hairstyles' in Inquisition I find it to be a very different game than Origins. Not as good as Origins. But hey, that's just my opinion.
True....BW haven't done a decent villain since Sun Li.
(note, I did like both Loghain and Meredith as characters, just not as villains)
I'd definitely rank Sun Li as the high end of Bioware villains.
Saren also was pretty good when it came to motivation, even if I think his ME1 plan wasn't exactly sensible.
Yes. But people tend to forget that part.
More like denial on my part.
Instead of making Kotor 3 and making a solid profit AND appease the fans. They went for another MMO. As if MMOs after wow hadn't already shown that WoW had such a tight grip on the MMO marked that competition would be hard to impossible regarding investment vs gain.
I sometimes wish I could build a time machine only to go back in time and steal the position as Bioware leader to:
1: Create Kotor 3 instead of Kotor MMO
2: Merge together with Zenimax and work with/for Bethesda instead
Bethesda + Bioware working together under Zenimax would have been the golden age of RPG games. Instead we are in the dark ages.
Isn't Zenimax responsible for the TES MMO? Not to mention, I can't count the number of Fallout 1 and 2 fans who absolutely despite Fallout 3.
Bethesda + Bioware working together under Zenimax would have been the golden age of RPG games. Instead we are in the dark ages.
My stock response to this hypothetical is that we'd probably have ended up with the weaknesses of both and the strengths of neither.
Unless of course gamers want to pay potentially double game prices to in essence put both game types together? But given how many times I see people rip apart the $60 game price and day 1 dlc, I can't say this is ever likely to be acceptable.
...
You misunderstand. I don't mind have a boatload of options, I really don't. But if most of the options are sub par (either because the spell is super situational and/or it just is a bad spell), then you just have options for the sake of having options, instead of really adding anything
And please don't use hairstyles as anology... because if there's one thing I hate in DA:I it's the &^@#(*&@^!#(*%^ hair.
This is where we have a difference of opinion then. Because in my opinion the options we had in Origins with 60 more spells, willpower that gave mana, 200+ tactical condition settings, huge and fully customizable quickslot bar, and so on, were not sub par. Those options were important to me.
I still find Inquisition to be a good game, I just wish it wasn't so streamlined and simplified.
And yes the hair itself is one of the worst things in Inquisition I ended up making a bald character... 
Here's another example from attribute points: Willpower, it used to give us mana, now it doesn't because mana has been streamlined to a simple 100, giving us less options in character build and combat itself. It all boils down to options.
There's no need to increase the max mana pool because there are no more sustained effects. you can't increase total stamina either.
And it's hardly "options" when playing in 1 particular fashion is so blatantly better than another. The inferior style may as well not exist, since you're actively penalizing yourself by pursuing it.
There's no need to increase the max mana pool because there are no more sustained effects. you can't increase total stamina either.
And it's hardly "options" when playing in 1 particular fashion is so blatantly better than another. The inferior style may as well not exist, since you're actively penalizing yourself by pursuing it.
That's like saying how we don't need the 200+ condition settings for tactics since combat has been simplified. Or how we don't need the 40 slot quickbar since 60 spells have been removed and potions are now limited to max 3 slots ... Actually that's not funny, that's just the sad truth 
You have a funny definition of "killing the franchise" then.
As much as I want to join in the nostalgia and play "what could/should have been", ultimatively it is pointless. BioWare screwed up with DA:I, dumbed it down to be almost generic and pretty much ruined the franchise (in my opinion).
It is far too late to discuss spells, combat systems or stats. There will be no significant changes to DA:I and BioWare is not going to change their recipe for upcoming games, since it seems to sell well. I doubt they'll be able to repeat this feat though and DA:I is not nearly as good for customer retention as Mass Effect 3 is, issues with the ending nonwithstanding.
DA:I has no substance. The replay value is not very high... it doesn't seem to suck the players in as much as the previous games. When I look at sites like DeviantArt, I can see ungodly amounts of DA:O and DA2 fanart... but DA:I? Only a little.
*shrugs* In the end, lamenting the situation of BioWare and its current games is pointless. It's done.
Bioware should just buy EA imo.
There's no need to increase the max mana pool because there are no more sustained effects. you can't increase total stamina either.
And it's hardly "options" when playing in 1 particular fashion is so blatantly better than another. The inferior style may as well not exist, since you're actively penalizing yourself by pursuing it.
Well do not overestimate CD Project Red, its also a stock corporation with a free flow of 44.25% shares on the market.
I am purely commenting on their game gevelopment, their design choices and the sales numbers of their games.
For me this is more than reason enough to make that comment!
Bioware should just buy EA imo.
WORD!
Retour en haut