Guest_StreetMagic_*
My least favorite class in Origins... I almost exclusively play as mages
Yeah, there's nothing like the DAO mage now. Not that DA2/DAI are bad, but they're not as diverse.
The DAI warrior is more involved and can move on the battlefield more than DAO, but the swing speed reminds me of it...
After playing the trilogy for the second time I REALLY didn't mind those planet scans fetch quests on ME3, I actually enjoyed finding war assets, bringing things to NPCs that made difference (to them and to the my war assets in general) and it was something to do that made the game keep going for a bit longer when I really didn't want the story to end.
The fact that those fetch quests weren't obligatory should've given people option to just not do it if they don't like that kind of stuff.
Totally agree with the ES part. The best thing about Bioware games is the interactions. All out squad mates in ME series and our party on DA seem to be really there, so even when I'm down on ME1 exploring a creepy planet, I feel like there's more to it than just scenarios, while playing Skyrim, in my experience, was a lonely and bland thing to do even when I had a companion with me.
But I'm pretty sure BioWare's team is aware of the Mako's flaws and how running around an entire planet just to find a big ass rock to mine was REALLY boring. So I'm curious as to what we are getting with the Mako back...
And as long as they don't bring that paper firewalker thing, I'm good.
I loved the Hammerhead.
It seems that Dragon Age: Inquisition turned out to be financial succes. And it won some GotY awards. However is it a good game? My first impressions were extremely positive. However long-term perspective changed my perception dramatically. It is beautifull game with a lot of potential but it is not a good game.DA:I has horrible amount of flaws but it is not a place for detailed review. Let's just say that I can accept dozens of its separate disadvantages. The biggest problem however is the overall structure of this game focused on boring fetch quests, gathering plants/stones/shards/bottles/other crap and war table "reading missions". DA:I has the worst parts of MMO and Elder Scrolls games and there is very little storytelling compared to all these fillers.One thing I love about most of Bioware games is their high potential of replayability. I can create different protagonists, make different choices, use different abilities, shape relationships with companions differently. Or I can experience the same "version of the story" again if it is enough memorable and engaging. Boring fillers however do not encourage me to return to the game. Quite the opposite.There is nothing that can be done about DA:I at this point. ME "4" is different matter. I am saying this because one thing worries me: return of the Mako. Fillers were always part Bioware games to some degree (like horrible fetch quests in ME 3). Mako however was definitely the worst, the most boring, the most meaningless and unfortunatelly the biggest part of ME 1. It is too soon to judge but I'm afraid that next ME is going in the same direction as DA:I."Success" of DA:I may be short-lived. For me after over 150 exhausting hours mostly filled with meaningless fetch quests it is the biggest disappointment of years. Please don't go this route. Focus on what matters: main storyline, protagonist, companions, combat. Focus on quality, not quantity.
The Myth of the Fetch and carry quests of DA:I is getting to the 'Zombie lie' stage to Quote Bill Maher. Doesn't matter how many times you use evidence people just keep recycling the myth.
Sooo.... Lets take Vanilla DA:O the much touted crown jewel of questing for the DA series and compare it to DA:I.
There are only 13 main quests in DA:Os of which 4 of them happen before the the tower at ostagar. If we include the tower then 5 of thirteen quests happen in the first chapter of the game if we view the origins as the prologue. That leaves 8 main quests post ostagar. You seriously telling me that these 8 quests are such a huge number compared to the side quests? DA:I has 12 main quests if we count the specialization quests as just one. (Which i think if fair as it is really all just one quest even if there are 4 listed in the journal). There isn't a large difference in the amount of main quests in both games.
Origins has 102 side quests and 6 companion quests. So the ratio of side to main quests+companion quests is 5.368 side quests to every main quest and companion quests. I did not include unmarked quests in this total of which there are 3 and i did not include DLC content. This is just vanilla origins.
So how does inquisition stack in terms of these ratios? DA:I has 12 main quests if you count all the specialization quests as 1 which I think is fair as they are really just one quest regardless how they are organized in the journal. There are 23 inner circle quests which are companion quests. There are 220 side quests in the journal. This gives us a ratio of 6.286. That's roughly 1 extra side quest to every companion and main quest that origins has (Its actually less than one.) That is hardly a huge difference that is being claimed AND you are able to skip more side quests in inquisition than you can in DA:O.
So this idea that there is a huge difference in the ratio of side quests to 'meaningful' quests in Origins compared to Inquisition is not factually based. it is cognitively biased based. Factually speaking the ratio of quests is a difference of 1, you are able to skip more quests in Inquisition and still be properly levelled for the challenges you will face means you can do even less side quests as a ratio to main/companion quests in DA:I than you could in Origins. This is the best of both worlds. You have the content for those who enjoy it and you can skip the content for those who don't enjoy it allowing you to get more into the parts of the game you like. Now if you have some personality trait that results in you refusing to skip content that's on you not bioware or anyone else.
If you don't like the game that is one thing but the game isn't what many people are claiming. It doesn't have a huge vast wasteland of meaningless side quests compared to Origins, the ratios are very close. They have almost the same number of main quests, and DA:I has significantly more companion quests than Origins. (Which one would expect with twice as many companions/advisors than origins.) The mechanics of the side quests are almost identical to both games. Now if you subjectively don't like things about Inquisition that is fine critique this, but get the facts correct.
Sources: journal from a complete game for DA:I and DA wiki for DA:O quests.
http://dragonage.wik...uests_(Origins)
http://dragonage.wik...uests_(Origins)
By any rational standard ME:A should be more like DA:I then not because DA:I was Bioware's most successful game to date. The biggest complaint you level against it is not actually based in real facts but actually based on your cognitive biases. Now you might not like DA:I which is utterly reasonable but the quests are mechanically very similar, some are identical to DA:O and the ratio of filler quests is pretty much the same.
The Myth of the Fetch and carry quests of DA:I is getting to the 'Zombie lie' stage to Quote Bill Maher. Doesn't matter how many times you use evidence people just keep recycling the myth.
Sooo.... Lets take Vanilla DA:O the much touted crown jewel of questing for the DA series and compare it to DA:I.
There are only 13 main quests in DA:Os of which 4 of them happen before the the tower at ostagar. If we include the tower then 5 of thirteen quests happen in the first chapter of the game if we view the origins as the prologue. That leaves 8 main quests post ostagar. You seriously telling me that these 8 quests are such a huge number compared to the side quests? DA:I has 12 main quests if we count the specialization quests as just one. (Which i think if fair as it is really all just one quest even if there are 4 listed in the journal). There isn't a large difference in the amount of main quests in both games.
Origins has 102 side quests and 6 companion quests. So the ratio of side to main quests+companion quests is 5.368 side quests to every main quest and companion quests. I did not include unmarked quests in this total of which there are 3 and i did not include DLC content. This is just vanilla origins.
So how does inquisition stack in terms of these ratios? DA:I has 12 main quests if you count all the specialization quests as 1 which I think is fair as they are really just one quest regardless how they are organized in the journal. There are 23 inner circle quests which are companion quests. There are 220 side quests in the journal. This gives us a ratio of 6.286. That's roughly 1 extra side quest to every companion and main quest that origins has (Its actually less than one.) That is hardly a huge difference that is being claimed AND you are able to skip more side quests in inquisition than you can in DA:O.
So this idea that there is a huge difference in the ratio of side quests to 'meaningful' quests in Origins compared to Inquisition is not factually based. it is cognitively biased based. Factually speaking the ratio of quests is a difference of 1, you are able to skip more quests in Inquisition and still be properly levelled for the challenges you will face means you can do even less side quests as a ratio to main/companion quests in DA:I than you could in Origins. This is the best of both worlds. You have the content for those who enjoy it and you can skip the content for those who don't enjoy it allowing you to get more into the parts of the game you like. Now if you have some personality trait that results in you refusing to skip content that's on you not bioware or anyone else.
If you don't like the game that is one thing but the game isn't what many people are claiming. It doesn't have a huge vast wasteland of meaningless side quests compared to Origins, the ratios are very close. They have almost the same number of main quests, and DA:I has significantly more companion quests than Origins. (Which one would expect with twice as many companions/advisors than origins.) The mechanics of the side quests are almost identical to both games. Now if you subjectively don't like things about Inquisition that is fine critique this, but get the facts correct.
Sources: journal from a complete game for DA:I and DA wiki for DA:O quests.
http://dragonage.wik...uests_(Origins)
http://dragonage.wik...uests_(Origins)
By any rational standard ME:A should be more like DA:I then not because DA:I was Bioware's most successful game to date. The biggest complaint you level against it is not actually based in real facts but actually based on your cognitive biases. Now you might not like DA:I which is utterly reasonable but the quests are mechanically very similar, some are identical to DA:O and the ratio of filler quests is pretty much the same.
I'm sorry but I don't get your point. First, my statement is about DA:Inquisition and ME:Andromeda specifically. I didn't make comparisons between DA:I and DA:O. Second, all these mathematical calculations are completely meaningless to me. What matters for me is the good feeling while playing the game, not amount of anything in numbers.
Speaking of roleplaying in RPGs. I think the system ME used of choosing your past through the Earthborn/Survivor/etc. options deserves an honorable mention. Obviously it was very shallow in ME with a few token mentions here and there. Nevertheless, it's a great concept that adds a little variety and I hope to see a more expanded version of it in ME:A. It can really go a long way towards personalizing our protagonist, IMO.
It seems that Dragon Age: Inquisition turned out to be financial succes. And it won some GotY awards. However is it a good game? My first impressions were extremely positive. However long-term perspective changed my perception dramatically. It is beautifull game with a lot of potential but it is not a good game.DA:I has horrible amount of flaws but it is not a place for detailed review. Let's just say that I can accept dozens of its separate disadvantages. The biggest problem however is the overall structure of this game focused on boring fetch quests, gathering plants/stones/shards/bottles/other crap and war table "reading missions". DA:I has the worst parts of MMO and Elder Scrolls games and there is very little storytelling compared to all these fillers.One thing I love about most of Bioware games is their high potential of replayability. I can create different protagonists, make different choices, use different abilities, shape relationships with companions differently. Or I can experience the same "version of the story" again if it is enough memorable and engaging. Boring fillers however do not encourage me to return to the game. Quite the opposite.There is nothing that can be done about DA:I at this point. ME "4" is different matter. I am saying this because one thing worries me: return of the Mako. Fillers were always part Bioware games to some degree (like horrible fetch quests in ME 3). Mako however was definitely the worst, the most boring, the most meaningless and unfortunatelly the biggest part of ME 1. It is too soon to judge but I'm afraid that next ME is going in the same direction as DA:I."Success" of DA:I may be short-lived. For me after over 150 exhausting hours mostly filled with meaningless fetch quests it is the biggest disappointment of years. Please don't go this route. Focus on what matters: main storyline, protagonist, companions, combat. Focus on quality, not quantity.
I back that up. I've played Mass Effect games a million times, but I cannot say the same about DA:I.... (or DA:O, but that is for different reasons. ) I tried as a mage, but soon enough I got the HECK bored. The first time it was fine (Archer), I seriously enjoyed the game... but it doesn't work for seconds.
Do góry