Oh....Baldur's Gate. I need to get over the dated graphics and actually play those two games......but it's so hard.
Oh....Baldur's Gate. I need to get over the dated graphics and actually play those two games......but it's so hard.
In many ways, DA:I takes a lot from BG1. Your enjoyment may be very much dependent on how much you like exploration and DnD 2.0 in this case.
Sylvius is going to lightning bolt me for saying so, but in my opinion you can skip Baldur's Gate 1. Although the characters carry over to 2, the characters in 1 have virtually no characterization in the way you'd recognize BioWare characterization. That all comes from 2.
I'd agree with that. Ditto for the plot, which is minimal.
Sylvius is going to lightning bolt me for saying so, but in my opinion you can skip Baldur's Gate 1. Although the characters carry over to 2, the characters in 1 have virtually no characterization in the way you'd recognize BioWare characterization. That all comes from 2.
You're not the first person who's told me this. Still, even in BG2, I'm too shallow. I simply can't get over how dated the game is and how the graphics look. I even have the Enhanced Edition and I just can't get over it.
You're not the first person who's told me this. Still, even in BG2, I'm too shallow. I simply can't get over how dated the game is and how the graphics look. I even have the Enhanced Edition and I just can't get over it.
What previous games does the OP feel were more story/character driven...How is DA:I not story/character driven?
I think john has at least been indirectly honest about what he means: high amount of cinematic content. This is clear from his notes about cinematic cutscenes in addition to his obvious love of Mass Effect.
So basically, his premise is that story-driven = cutscenes.
@CronoDragoon: Those are called "movies".
I think john has at least been indirectly honest about what he means: high amount of cinematic content. This is clear from his notes about cinematic cutscenes in addition to his obvious love of Mass Effect.
So basically, his premise is that story-driven = cutscenes.
He might be a visual person who gets more enjoyment when things are laid out for him to view. This is unlike other people who can read something and 100% visual what they're reading. Different strokes for different folks.
As a Skyrim fan, they completely failed to appeal to me with the things I liked about Skyrim. As a DA/BioWare fan they have been doing an increasingly poor job of including the things that I liked about DA and other previous BW games.
This is a story-driven game, and the characters are clearly fleshed out.
Hopefully Gaiders leaving will help. His SJW pandering halfway ruined Inquisition for me (I'm looking at you Krem, with Iron Bull ignoring reality the sake of 'feels'), while the Skyrim 'exploration' bullshit ruined it the rest of the way.
This comment is fairly hilarious, because it was not Gaider who wrote Krem, but Weekes. EDIT: You might wanna jump ship now that he's lead writer.
I think john has at least been indirectly honest about what he means: high amount of cinematic content. This is clear from his notes about cinematic cutscenes in addition to his obvious love of Mass Effect.
So basically, his premise is that story-driven = cutscenes.
I would be inclined to agree. At least in the way BioWare approaches things it seems they tell most of the real meat of their stories is told through cutscenes. Even in Inquisition the big story moments and story beats are told via cutscene, while the smaller moments, and even the little side quests, are all told through the 'new camera'. However, in watching a bit of the Jaws of Hakkon on a stream:
Also, this is the first time BioWare really did try and tell a story through environmental storytelling, that was never a big means of telling their story in their previous work...that I noticed. I think they did a good job in some areas, Exalted Plains is a stand out to me...Emprise Du Lion...but I can see where they might have hiccuped for people.
You're not the first person who's told me this. Still, even in BG2, I'm too shallow. I simply can't get over how dated the game is and how the graphics look. I even have the Enhanced Edition and I just can't get over it.
I think I'm going to have to break down and get them. I've heard so much about these games I need to see what I'm missing out on. My only problem is that I've never been able to grasp D&D rules. My b/f tried to explain them to me when I played Neverwinter Nights 2 and I couldn't get it then. It was rather sad. 
For what it's worth I haven't played an Infinity Engine RPG since. I felt it necessary to experience as a historical artifact, but it doesn't make my Top 5 in BioWare RPGs. I definitely missed the boat there, having grown up on consoles. I just don't enjoy KB&M gameplay.
I grew up on consoles too, with the like of Final Fantasy VII and VIII as well as the Jak and Daxter series. As an adult I played Oblivion on the 360. I didn't switch over to PC gaming til 2007ish with Lord of the Rings Online. I left consoles in the dust completely with DA:O in 2009 and haven't looked back.
He might be a visual person who gets more enjoyment when things are laid out for him to view. This is unlike other people who can read something and 100% visual what they're reading. Different strokes for different folks.
I totally do this with reading. I can picture everything in my head as if it were a movie.
Ooooh and w00t my ME1 icon is now showing! 
I think john has at least been indirectly honest about what he means: high amount of cinematic content. This is clear from his notes about cinematic cutscenes in addition to his obvious love of Mass Effect.
So basically, his premise is that story-driven = cutscenes.
I keep seeing this. The quests aren't proper because they're no cutscenes, and the game is not story driven because of no cinematic cutscenes and I don't get it. I guess I'm just old and times are changing, I always thought it was the actual content that mattered.
Is berating those who criticise DAI as making out they speak for everybody a new thing or something? If you want me to add a IMHO I can. Its only my opinion and I'm not trying to state anything else.
Only when you attempt a blanket statement like saying that the new combat "failed miserably".
Next time, instead of attempting to speak with the voice of authority, either say that - yes - "IMHO the combat failed terribly" or "I hated the combat". Something that allows you your criticism, whilst not attempting to mask your preferences as absolute fact.
I keep seeing this. The quests aren't proper because they're no cutscenes, and the game is not story driven because of no cinematic cutscenes and I don't get it. I guess I'm just old and times are changing, I always thought it was the actual content that mattered.
The content is certainly there again even many of the 'small' moments do provide insight on character, lore, and setting.
And, while this has not been BioWare's schtick a lot of games have not utilized cutscenes to tell their stories. Again, the BioShock games never do so. Skyrim never does so. And they are both relatively...well heck older games.
Also, this is the first time BioWare really did try and tell a story through environmental storytelling, that was never a big means of telling their story in their previous work...that I noticed. I think they did a good job in some areas, Exalted Plains is a stand out to me...Emprise Du Lion...but I can see where they might have hiccuped for people.
I'll be honest that environmental storytelling is usually not enough for me. I enjoy it, but usually when it's sprinkled in with a more character and dialogue-based story going on. It's for this reason that I don't actually enjoy open-world games. Like, the list of games with an open world type structure that I've finished are: Fallout 3, both Baldur's Gates, and Inquisition. That's about it. Open world games tend to have paper-thin characters, mostly because character arcs can't be meaningfully incorporated into a story that can proceed in any direction, and because not many resources can be devoted to the main story/characters in the first place because of the need to fill the open world with quantity.
And here I feel the need to point out that Inquisition still manages to incorporate meaningful character development and a lore-driven main story in a way that most open worlds games simply cannot pull off. Say what you want about the side-content, but the quantity (and in my opinion, quality) of the main story and most importantly the characters is still alive and well. What people need to realize is that Origins and DA2 (and really, just about every BioWare game except Mass Effect 3) have very short main stories. In games like Origins, BioWare hides the length by incorporating fetch questing into the main quests themselves (the Fade is one gigantic series of fetch quests disguised as Fade forms). In Inquisition, the story quests are pure red meat, but that also makes the player keenly aware of just how little story content the main quest in a BW game constitutes.
Even if you don't think that Inquisition was a character driven game you can't argue that the previous entries Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 weren't or that they were single player MMO's. They had their problems, sure, but they were character-focused. Inquisition could just an anomaly that Bioware tries to learn from.
And here I feel the need to point out that Inquisition still manages to incorporate meaningful character development and a lore-driven main story in a way that most open worlds games simply cannot pull off. Say what you want about the side-content, but the quantity (and in my opinion, quality) of the main story and most importantly the characters is still alive and well. What people need to realize is that Origins and DA2 (and really, just about every BioWare game except Mass Effect 3) have very short main stories. In games like Origins, BioWare hides the length by incorporating fetch questing into the main quests themselves (the Fade is one gigantic series of fetch quests disguised as Fade forms). In Inquisition, the story quests are pure red meat, but that also makes the player keenly aware of just how little story content the main quest in a BW game constitutes.
Good point. And if we're talking pure red meat, even their most highly regarded quests simply contain padding to draw out game length.
What was KotOR's premise? Find 4 Star Maps to locate the Star Forge and stop Malak. But what about the dynamic of the main plot changes during that time? We spend most of our time looking for these Star Maps, but Bioware choosing 4 Star Maps was an arbitrary distinction with no effect on the narrative. They could have chosen 10 Star Maps or 2 and it would have no relevance.
I'll be honest that environmental storytelling is usually not enough for me. I enjoy it, but usually when it's sprinkled in with a more character and dialogue-based story going on. It's for this reason that I don't actually enjoy open-world games. Like, the list of games with an open world type structure that I've finished are: Fallout 3, both Baldur's Gates, and Inquisition. That's about it. Open world games tend to have paper-thin characters, mostly because character arcs can't be meaningfully incorporated into a story that can proceed in any direction, and because not many resources can be devoted to the main story/characters in the first place because of the need to fill the open world with quantity.
And here I feel the need to point out that Inquisition still manages to incorporate meaningful character development and a lore-driven main story in a way that most open worlds games simply cannot pull off. Say what you want about the side-content, but the quantity (and in my opinion, quality) of the main story and most importantly the characters is still alive and well. What people need to realize is that Origins and DA2 (and really, just about every BioWare game except Mass Effect 3) have very short main stories. In games like Origins, BioWare hides the length by incorporating fetch questing into the main quests themselves (the Fade is one gigantic series of fetch quests disguised as Fade forms). In Inquisition, the story quests are pure red meat, but that also makes the player keenly aware of just how little story content the main quest in a BW game constitutes.
Indeed. Why I was looking forward to the game. The reason I did not enjoy Skyrim (despite sinking 200 hours into it...I am weak 
) is that the world felt mostly lifeless and cardboard cutouty and just got boring after long stretches because the characters were lifeless. The reason I was excited about Inquisition is I knew that if you put the BioWare formulae into that type of a game, you would be a fantastic success. I contend BioWare managed to do so. And the game is so much the richer for it. Fantastic characters, fantastic character moments, probably their best cast really. Though ME 2 had a good one too. Maybe it wasn't perfect and there are tweaks to be made but remember Inquisition had a lot going against it. Having to work with previous consoles, having to develop and utilize a new engine, AND an entire new mode of storytelling that BioWare has never done, at least not the DA team, and in that respect they kncoked it out of the park,
Good point. And if we're talking pure red meat, even their most highly regarded quests simply contain padding to draw out game length.
What was KotOR's premise? Find 4 Star Maps to locate the Star Forge and stop Malak. But what about the dynamic of the main plot changes during that time? We spend most of our time looking for these Star Maps, but Bioware choosing 4 Star Maps was an arbitrary distinction with no effect on the narrative. They could have chosen 10 Star Maps or 2 and it would have no relevance.
While commenting on an excellent point, makes an excellent point as well. But couldn't one argue that this is the POINT of side quests in general, simply to extend the length of the game? From that basic idea then you add in objectives and tie it to the story in some kind of meaningful way. Or do you start with some story tie-in and build the quest on top of that idea?
So the question really is, do you feel that Bioware designed these side quests simply as story filler so that their game isn't a 30 hour game, or are most of the side quests meant to add something meaningful to the story be it by fleshing out history, lore, or perhaps showing you something that you otherwise wouldn't have seen(The quest when you learn what Corypheus plans for Calpernia comes to mind)?
Food for thought.
Indeed. Why I was looking forward to the game. The reason I did not enjoy Skyrim (despite sinking 200 hours into it...I am weak
I agree. My main concern with the game was how the exploratory content would fuel the main story. My personal conclusion is that they pulled it off better than I'd feared, but worse than I hoped. Zones like Crestwood and the Emprise (and now the Basin it seems) show the potential of how BioWare can incorporate it's typical "solve local issues that have a tenuous connection to the main plot" areas but other zones clearly needed some more story like Storm Coast, Hissing Wastes, or Emerald Graves.
Despite that, what I realized fairly early on is that Skyhold has A LOT of story content built into it. The sheer amount of dialogue with what should be throwaway NPCs is quite impressive. Accordingly I structured my playthrough around spending a few hours exploring, then an hour in Skyhold, repeat until the end. I feel that's the only tolerable way to do a completionist playthrough in this game.
However in this my second playthrough, I'm not bothering to be completionist and I'm enjoying it more. I think Mike is right that the game is not designed with completionists in mind. It's not that fetch quests and collections are bad, but that they are bad in large, overpowering doses. And Power is so ubiquitous in this game that I'm able to make the decision of when I'm no longer having fun and continue with the main story.
BTW - if cutscenes are what makes a proper RPG (laughable of course - since a proper RPG is played with pencils and paper)... I will bet quite a lot on tomorrow's release of Pillars of Eternity to be VERY disappointing as I bet you won't see nearly any cutscenes (if any) in that game.
I agree. My main concern with the game was how the exploratory content would fuel the main story. My personal conclusion is that they pulled it off better than I'd feared, but worse than I hoped. Zones like Crestwood and the Emprise (and now the Basin it seems) show the potential of how BioWare can incorporate it's typical "solve local issues that have a tenuous connection to the main plot" areas but other zones clearly needed some more story like Storm Coast, Hissing Wastes, or Emerald Graves.
Despite that, what I realized fairly early on is that Skyhold has A LOT of story content built into it. The sheer amount of dialogue with what should be throwaway NPCs is quite impressive. Accordingly I structured my playthrough around spending a few hours exploring, then an hour in Skyhold, repeat until the end. I feel that's the only tolerable way to do a completionist playthrough in this game.
However in this my second playthrough, I'm not bothering to be completionist and I'm enjoying it more. I think Mike is right that the game is not designed with completionists in mind. It's not that fetch quests and collections are bad, but that they are bad in large, overpowering doses. And Power is so ubiquitous in this game that I'm able to make the decision of when I'm no longer having fun and continue with the main story.
Now I really liked the ES in the Hissing Wastes, a lot.
And indeed. Reading through most of these comments...granted I should talk with how I approached Skyrim...but why would you do something that is torterous for you? I only did the quests I wanted to or if they were 'on the way' and I still managed to get to a high level and had oodles of power before the end, but I decided early on the Shards were not my thing, so I ignored them. Though I am intending thaT my second PT will be more complestionist then my first so I am a bit...nervous.
While commenting on an excellent point, makes an excellent point as well. But couldn't one argue that this is the POINT of side quests in general, simply to extend the length of the game? From that basic idea then you add in objectives and tie it to the story in some kind of meaningful way. Or do you start with some story tie-in and build the quest on top of that idea?
So the question really is, do you feel that Bioware designed these side quests simply as story filler so that their game isn't a 30 hour game, or are most of the side quests meant to add something meaningful to the story be it by fleshing out history, lore, or perhaps showing you something that you otherwise wouldn't have seen(The quest when you learn what Corypheus plans for Calpernia comes to mind)?
Food for thought.
Retour en haut