The changes they've made over the series are understandable, the kind of game DA:O was didn't translate well to consoles and if you're in the position BioWare is you have to care about console sales a lot, but the execution has left much to be desired.
"Dragon Age" did not 'need' to become a console game.
While the complete removal of both 2-handed swords and 2-handed sword combat in DAI is a disgrace, and not at all something you seem tragically misinformed about, the lack of big breast is something that we as players must not accept.
You know that 2-handed combat is a thing in DAI, yeah?
"Dragon Age" did not 'need' to become a console game.
"Dragon Age" did not 'need' to become a console game.
I admit, I'm not sure how a game "becomes" a console game.
In the case of the elves, remember that DA:O was widely criticized for having a bland and dull look. I was one of the critics myself -- mostly of the muddy palette, though. As it turns out, I hated the new look even more.
This. I was on the forums at the time when there were long threads about DAO elves being too "human-like" and their ears not being big enough and on and on and on. I knew it will not end well. It did not. What we got is what (some) fans demanded. It's just that human memory is short, and often people don't remember that what they hate now is what was asked 2 years ago.
a lot of Inquisition's problems I think come from trying to 'blend' DA2 and DA:O, they need to pick a direction, not keep jumping from one side of the fence to another.
They did. The DA:O team left the studio and their replacement gave us DAI.
1. DAI Elves
2. DAO Elves
......10000000000. DA2 Elves
Still clear room for improvement. I honestly don't think they need to be this thin in most cases, for example.
The game is not that good because of lack of focus.
They tried to please everybody:
- Solo players;
- story fans;
- character fans;
- MMO players;
- Multiplayer aficionados;
- DAO fans
- DA2 fans;
- collectors;
- New console players;
- Last gen console players;
- PC players;
They weren't trying to make a good game, they were trying to make something that hit enough bullet points to grab a huge amount of people.
The sad part is that it worked. It sold a lot, it won prizes and it is a shadow of what a focused, less compromised game could have been.
Bioware do listen to their fans. They also listen to the PR guys at EA, and listen to the marketing research team and what they do is to mix everything together and put out something uneven and without personality.
One thing I have to say, though: they are extremely competent at execution. I don't think any other company can pull off a game that good with so many bad ideas.
A big sticking point for DAI which I have seen many a thread about is the fetch quests. That was something which was roundly criticised in DA2 - fetching Greg's pants that he'd lost on the coast. However, they weren't as prevalent. So why have we seen substantially more of them in DAI?
I think this is symptomatic of the fact BW attempted something they are inexperienced with; in creating an open world. The easiest thing to do with huge open spaces is litter them with fetch quests. Perhaps if they had more experience or even time, we may have seen something different.
You know that 2-handed combat is a thing in DAI, yeah?
Dual wielding with swords not daggers I meant and for warriors.
I was following you a while, but I lost you with big breast and hot female characters that are replaced with hot male characters? Just nope.
Eh, I think Bioware took DA2 criticism too much in the heart. In DAI they didn't want to use same areas and dungeon all over so they did tons of wilderness where you could run and jump around.. and that's majority of your game while doing fetch quests. Unless you want to only play main story.
I think Bioware should have still focused on characters and story, in some parts those are still strong, but lack of cinematic view when you speak with characters and lack of quests where you actually have to make hard choices etc. are negative to me. I also hoped the last boss battle would have been more epic, only epic thing from it was Morrigan's dragon battle in my opinion.
I also hoped Bioware would have focused more in technical aspects over expanding the maps.
My guess is that they are worried about backing off of DA2 for whatever reason.
DA2 has its supporters who put it over DA:O, but their continued mixing of the game styles, then throwing in a quasi Open World isn't doing them any favors. Returning to the older mode of having a few hubs, with side missions going off of them and main plotline involvement, ala ME1/2 and DA:O with some smaller side areas for other missions (like side planets in ME or even the temple of Dirthamen or Shrine of Dumat in DA:I)
In terms of gameplay, I am not a good judge on this because I tend to play whatever, I liked DA:O's gameplay more than DA2's but its not a huge factor for me, and tbh I wouldn't be overly upset if they adopted a more "hack n slash" approach, but that's just me.
In those pools are there usually all kinds of gamers who vote be they console and pc?
tbh I wouldn't be overly upset if they adopted a more "hack n slash" approach, but that's just me.
If they believe in the game they are doing they can do whatever, I agree.
But mixing and matching things without a clear focus will only deteriorate the franchise and alienate fans.
As it stands DAI combat has poor action and poor tactical elements.
Dual wielding with swords not daggers I meant and for warriors.
Dual wielding is entirely different than 2-handed weapons.
Dual wielding is entirely different than 2-handed weapons.
Yeah I made a mistake because I did not understood the difference.
Dual wielding with swords not daggers I meant and for warriors.
Well, Dual wielding requires special training as the user cannot use both weapons at the same time, and one is meant to be used more defensively. I feel that the combat style system is fine, as it makes the warrior and rogue unique.
Warriors are meant to be brutal, strength based fighters, and rogues are the stealthy, agile fighters.
^It was a good feature and many liked it also even if not very used in real life during the age of swords and arrows it was used there were even training manuals for it. It was one of the features that made DAO so good. In dawn of the seeker Cassandra by dual-wielding 2 swords fought a army of ogres and golems and she did took a lot of them out before she lost. My point is its even in DA lore so why do we not have dual wielding swords.
No. We constantly say how great DA:O was and couldn't stress enough how DA2 wasn't DA:O2. Personally for me DA2 was better than DA:I both story and gameplay, definitely gameplay DA:I gameplay is horible disaster.
According to metacritic
DA:O 8.6
DA2 4.4
DA:I 5.1
So you could say DA:I is 6 steps forward 5 steps back.
DA2 for me was an infinitely better game in terms of the combat mechanics but other than that except for the Corypheus DLC was inferior to DAO
Retour en haut