215 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

People know. I know, that's why I'm desperate and hateful from the start. If there is one thing I never doubt, for the last 15 years of my life, is that the worst product always wins. From music to movies, books, games, food EVERYTHING. What sells more is what is sold by the culture, what controls the masses. Even in academy, except when we are talking about exact sciences, most people just go with the flow, as in dumb. In a sense Thedas did not reach its bottom yet, the moment this game goes top 3 or so it is officially and beyond redemption retarded.

What sells more Diablo dumbness or Baldur's Gate 2 awesomeness? Skyrim dumbness or DAO awesomeness? Everything that demands less intelligence, concentration, understanding and that gives more brainless pleasure will always sell more, please more and make people want more of it. If you click something happens it sells, if you have to understand a complex system for not dying and progress in the game it won't, people are always finding excuses to be even more brainless, as if they needed.

 

[KaiserShep]

Yes he does. He talks about it in Inquisition and Legacy is all about the Hawke family legacy. Anything that's about Hawke and fleshes out that character furthers the story of DA2.

 

I said in DA2 though. Within DA2, the DLC runs like an isolated diversion, even when the story itself is actually important. It's never referenced again by anyone in THAT game. Of course it would be referenced here, because now it's relevant.

[SuperNose]

If you want to play it, don't read threads on it. The cRPG community has almost entirely turned me off on the genre due to douchey elitism. It's best to just experience the games without the noise.

 

Game*

 

I own both BG and BG2, and can't bring myself to play them due to the dated graphics. I'm shallow lol. Maybe once I play PoE I'll go back and see what all the hype is about.

[SuperNose]

The price is ridiculous, but I don't think the content is very solid. It's just another region and the story is mostly fetch quests/gopher quests. There's only like 45 minutes of actual, salient story, if it could even be considered salient. Add in the exposition machines(sorry, new "characters") and the monotonous fetching and I guess you might have 2 hours of "story" but it's heavily padded. The entire DLC is heavily padded. Trash mobs everywhere, high-level items and loot to find or buy(that mostly aren't any different than existing items, just bigger numbers) to distract you, answering a question no one was asking, fetch/gopher quests out the anus, and a dragon fight because "hurr, moar dragons!" This is design by numbers. Completely uninspired.

 

I have to agree here a little bit on the price. For $15 I feel there should have definitely been a little more. This felt a lot like a $7.50 or $10 DLC at most. But I bought it anyways, because I love this game, and the zone did enough for me that I know I'll come back on every character and will get my monies worth from it. So I don't regret it looking back.

[Steppenwolf]

I said in DA2 though. 

 

No you didn't. And besides, Hawke's story is the story. DA2 is all about Hawke, like it or not.

[Leoroc]

DLCs connected to the story are ones where playing the game without the DLC seems off/weird. Javik, Leviathan, Citadel, Witch Hunt, Stone Golem, those have a strong tie to the main story.

[Aren]

Feedback are useless, i guess it's because goty are so much better

[Nefla]

I said in DA2 though. Within DA2, the DLC runs like an isolated diversion, even when the story itself is actually important. It's never referenced again by anyone in THAT game. Of course it would be referenced here, because now it's relevant.

Personally I'm cool with DLCs as random diversions as long as it's fun, the story is good, there's lots of character interaction and new companion dialogue, pretty new armor, some choices, etc...Legacy hit the right notes with me and was much more enjoyable than the main game IMO.

[Steppenwolf]

DLCs connected to the story are ones where playing the game without the DLC seems off/weird. Javik, Leviathan, Citadel, Witch Hunt, Stone Golem, those have a strong tie to the main story.

 

I will admit that Javik and Shale make their games better, but none of those DLCs are necessary for the games. I would argue that Leviathan and Citadel make ME3 worse. Leviathan introduces an even more powerful lifeform than the Reapers, capable of killing the Reapers with balls filled with magic, and yet they play no role outside of the DLC so they're not really connected to the story since the story of ME3 is the Reaper war. And Citadel is pure fanservice that's only playable after you've completed the game because the tone is so bracingly silly and it further muddies the timeline of the already nonsensical timeline of the game.

[Yokokorama]

Funny. No where in that quote do I see the words "DLC designed around player feedback." Unless it's written in invisible ink or something.....I dunno. It's possible.

 

It's not outright stated per se, but it's heavily implied here:

 

Given that you started this project before the game was released, how much were you able to respond to feedback in this DLC and how much of it has to go into whatever comes next?

 

That's a fair question. In actual fact, the game was released in November and one of the things we heard loud and clear from the fans was that they really enjoyed the depth of the story—that's what they were paying for. They wanted to see more lore, more interesting characters, more people to interact with. That's one of the focuses for this DLC was to push how that kind of content can exist in a large space. Something that is interesting to maneuvre over and that, when you get to the key plot points, has the high-end parts of Dragon Age: Inquisition as well.

 

Source:  http://www.pcgamer.c...pproach-to-dlc/

 

Take that as you will.
 

[AWTEW]

Is the DLC worth getting? I mean, I've only seen the trailer and it just smells like Skyrim to me. 

 

Save your money.

 

So I think I found it, here in this new PC Gamer interview:

Given that you started this project before the game was released, how much were you able to respond to feedback in this DLC and how much of it has to go into whatever comes next?
That's a fair question. In actual fact, the game was released in November and one of the things we heard loud and clear from the fans was that they really enjoyed the depth of the story—that's what they were paying for. They wanted to see more lore, more interesting characters, more people to interact with. 

 

 Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol.

[Nami_Tokiwa]

Wow, you guys just like templars vs mages. I grab popcorn to see you guys fight each others. 

[Tython]

I like the DLC. It's a high level zone to continue to advance my character. It has an interesting story related to the last Inquisitor. I do understand the complaints however, and I do wish it had more. I'm not a fan of some of the quest types they put in and the lack of cut scenes was noticeable.

 

Hopefully, the next DLC gives us one of the top two things player feedback wants: Wolf Hunt and the Warden quest.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

Save your money.

 

 

 Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol.

What's so funny? 

It's true. The Templars vs Mages questline and the In Your Heart Shall Burn sequence, both the Grey Warden and Winter Palace arcs were extremely well refined, as well as Temple Of Mythal and the plot twist in the post credits scene. These things received a heck ton of praise as far as I know. 

[CronoDragoon]

Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol.

The depth of Inquisition's story is impressive. You may be thinking of breadth.

[Lebanese Dude]

The depth of Inquisition's story is impressive. You may be thinking of breadth.

Hardly lacking breadth either.

[Steppenwolf]

The depth of Inquisition's story is impressive. You may be thinking of breadth.

 

You're just saying words. A lot of people think the story was lackluster. Trying to turn it into an issue of depth vs breadth is silly.

[Lebanese Dude]

You're just saying words. A lot of people think the story was lackluster. Trying to turn it into an issue of depth vs breadth is silly.

 

A lot of people liked it too. 

 

Opinions...everyone has them...except that those that enjoy it tend to stay quiet as opposed to going to the forums to cry about it.

[Tython]

Agree Lebanese Dude. I liked Inquisition but wouldn't be so hard on people that didn't. If they don't like it, don't buy another Bioware game. But coming on these forums and trashing it will get you counter points real fast.

[SuperNose]

It's not outright stated per se, but it's heavily implied here:

 

Given that you started this project before the game was released, how much were you able to respond to feedback in this DLC and how much of it has to go into whatever comes next?

 

That's a fair question. In actual fact, the game was released in November and one of the things we heard loud and clear from the fans was that they really enjoyed the depth of the story—that's what they were paying for. They wanted to see more lore, more interesting characters, more people to interact with. That's one of the focuses for this DLC was to push how that kind of content can exist in a large space. Something that is interesting to maneuvre over and that, when you get to the key plot points, has the high-end parts of Dragon Age: Inquisition as well.

 

Source:  http://www.pcgamer.c...pproach-to-dlc/

 

Take that as you will.
 

 

Yeah, when I posted that first post, no one had linked the PC Gamer interview, and I'd never read it. Now we've got two Bioware Employees saying two different things. I don't know what to believe anymore.

[Lebanese Dude]

Agree Lebanese Dude. I liked Inquisition but wouldn't be so hard on people that didn't. If they don't like it, don't buy another Bioware game. But coming on these forums and trashing it will get you counter points real fast.

 

Hey people can QQ on the forums all they like. Sometimes the QQ is actually constructive and worthy of being taken into consideration.

 

Sadly many people here resort to sensationalized opinions with little actual value.

[Steppenwolf]

A lot of people liked it too. 

 

Absolutely, and that's great. I have no problem with people liking the story. I'm just pointing out that saying to someone "You didn't dislike the story because of the depth, which was awesome, you disliked it because of the breadth" is gibberish.

[Lebanese Dude]

 I'm just pointing out that saying to someone "You didn't dislike the story because of the depth, which was awesome, you disliked it because of the breadth" is gibberish.

O well this is true. You can't safely assume why people didn't like it unless they told you why.

 

The thing is AWTEW replied with seven whole "lol"s to this:

 

from the fans was that they really enjoyed the depth of the story

 

So it's fair to assume that he thought the game lacked depth. Considering what DAI entailed, that notion is ridiculous as Cronodragon implied, but whatever.

[CronoDragoon]

Absolutely, and that's great. I have no problem with people liking the story. I'm just pointing out that saying to someone "You didn't dislike the story because of the depth, which was awesome, you disliked it because of the breadth" is gibberish.

No, it's not, as clearly displayed by the fact that you understood my sentence. You'll have to find some other way to spout hyperbole, I'm afraid.

In the absence of actual content in someone's post, I'll feel free to fill in the blanks wherever I like, in this case with how the discussion of Inquisition's story depth has usually been framed, which is as an issue of breadth.. If someone wants to correct me, they can.

[Dieb]

Well, the statement of having created the DLC according to fan feedback is true - as usual, sort of:

Scout Harding gets tons of interactions, there is a full blown new hub town with stores & crafting, closing rifts now yields tons of rewarding loot, there's new schematics etc. etc.

 

The problem is that one of the major complaints was not addressed.

 

I don't doubt that they started to work on it after the first patch wave for the vanilla game, but there has to have been a general plan for the DLC schedule way before, like any functioning company would have. They basically adressed whatever they could without changing "their" approach completely. I thoroughly enjoyed the DLC for being more of the good examples of DA:I's new approach, but I understand why some are confused (to say the least) about that statement.

 

You just don't feel equally as strong about item drops, than about narrative/exploration-weighting.