380 réponses à ce sujet

[Marshal Moriarty]

Anybody who thinks it is fair and reasonable that you would send someone without whom the world is doomed, into warzones with just 3 guys, is reaching so far to love this game, that its pointless to argue much further on that score. You are *literally* indispensable, and that would necessitate a near total loss of freedom. Because they could not take the risk of you dying. Warzones are chaotic places, and even if that were not the case, if you were heading into clear areas, there is no way of knowing what kind of threat each rift will pose, nor how many demons it will spawn at once.

 

If your Inquisitor insisted on going around in such a small group, in areas that are this dangerous, then it is inevitable that disaster would strike. Look at Dragon Age Origins, with what happens at the start. You fall to basic enemies, not even to elite forces or some kind of named character. Simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers and a surprise attack, because you can't maintain total awareness on a battlefield for long without having numbers of your own. Same in the circle tower later, go around in a small group and you run the risk of encountering something you won't be able to handle (hence the whole Lost in Nightmares bit, Same with your companion, who despite being a mighty warrior was overwhelmed by sheer numbers in his backstory, costing him his honor.

 

It is the *height* of idiocy for your Inquisitor to be roaming about like this, just as it is idiocy for the rest of the Inquisition in allowing it. One bad encounter is all it would take, and that would that for the world. But if you don't want to accept that, then that's your deal. In actuality, none of the rifts would be taken so lightly. You would apporach all of them as you do in the intro, because that it the only sane way to do so.

 

As to side quest, this isn't a new complait specially for this game. But it is more severe in this game. People have always complained about the banal nature of the fetch quest of Bioware games. I'm sure we all remember the endless (and completely justified) mockery of the 'Shepard eavesdrops on people's conversations and decides to help these random strangers' in Mass Effect 3. It isn't that we were content with this kind of nonsense before, and only chose to say anything about it now - just go and look in the other forums and you'll see those games are rightly criticized for doing this too.

 

The point is that this game is particularly bad about it, offering next to no interaction with NPCs, having nothing to hold onto as a reason to bother with them. Yes, Mass Effect 3 was similarly bad, and I gave that game just as much stick for it. Even with the examples mentioned here from previous DA games, I would argue however that even with the dull nature of those quests, the interaction you have in many of them, or the inherent interest of the quest itself, far outstrips that of DA:I. In Inquisition, it feels like you are being drowned with constant 'quests' that you have *no* interest in fulfulling, because you know that the game is not going to meet you halfway. It won't give you any kind of interesting conversations, it will relegate potentially interesting avenues of lore to letters and diary entries, none of which will pique the interest of any of your companions etc. None of it feels like it matters, even to the generic NPCs you (very) occasionally interact with (and I use that word very loosely here).

 

Its the same basic problem as when people complain about the companions not having much interaction with each other. Supporters of the game argue that it is there. So why does it feel like it isn't then? If these quests are so interesting and fulfulling, then why do we feel nothing for them? Are we all bioware hating, Dragon Age hating malcontents who somehow found our way here just to play fifth columnist? Of course not - we complain because we genuinely have a problem with how this game is presenting itself, and how insubstantial and unsatisfactory said content is.

[jds1bio]

If the side quests had incorporated just one of any number of wrinkles, they'd be much better received. If they had cinematic conversations, or multiple paths to completion (such as picking locks instead of fighting, or using dialogue options), or twists, or role-playing opportunities, etc. The majority of side quests serve as a small part of a greater story being told for the zone and the rise of the Inquisition, but in their own right, examined on a micro level, they aren't terribly interesting.

 

 

If you don't mind spoilers, check out some of the guides online for The Verchiel March or Dorian's companion quest.  There is so much variation in those two alone, and those quests are rather short ones.

 

And so what if Crestwood's main region quest doesn't have multiple paths. The two paths you do get (either do the quest to completion, or not), are the only ones that really matter.  If you completed the quest in full, you know what I mean.  If you didn't complete the quest at all, you don't know, but that's ok too.  Either way, you will have determined one of the definitive factors of your exploration in that region.

 

I remember not so long ago, in another game, running into a junior security officer while I was on my way to a very important meeting.  We chatted briefly, and then he wished me luck.  On a micro level, that conversation wasn't terribly interesting.  But then again, I had NO idea what that conversation would lead to.

[MB123]

<p>

I give up. You're right. This game really does just bombard you with mindless fetch quests. Just look at this list of boring, uninteresting minutiae we're forced to deal with. Burning all my Bioware games now in protest.

Well, yeah, of course Origins had its share of pointless fetch quests, just like any other rpg. I just felt that the balance between fetch quests and interesting ones was much better. Don't get me wrong, I still think inquisition is a fantastic game.

[VelvetV]

I hated this game with a passion at first, so the experience delienated in the first post doesn't surprise me. Initially I liked the characters and the story, but after Haven I got stuck with endless boring quests (not in Hinterlands, but everywhere). It made me sad how bland all the quests were. I despised the combat in this game, to boot, which didn't help. So I took a very long break from the game and didn't really expect myself to come back to it. But then I did, although my recollection of its events suffered a bit, and now it's ok.

 

I can't play it for a long time, though, only in short breaks, otherwise I get fed up with repetitiveness. I think I'd completely give up on side quests if not for party banter. It can be hilarious.

 

So I suppose one can just skip almost all side-quests and follow the main quest line only. It's done well.

[Rolenka]

It's the open-worldiness. It doesn't draw you into the story content. It incentivizes wandering.

[Majestic Jazz]

It's the open-worldiness. It doesn't draw you into the story content. It incentivizes wandering.

 

GTA5, Red Dead Redemption, and GTA San Andreas are some of the best open-world games ever and they drew us into the story content. So how come DAI couldn't?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Anybody who thinks it is fair and reasonable that you would send someone without whom the world is doomed, into warzones with just 3 guys, is reaching so far to love this game, that its pointless to argue much further on that score. You are *literally* indispensable, and that would necessitate a near total loss of freedom. Because they could not take the risk of you dying. Warzones are chaotic places, and even if that were not the case, if you were heading into clear areas, there is no way of knowing what kind of threat each rift will pose, nor how many demons it will spawn at once.

That's how fantasy adventuring parties work. A small group going dangerous places.

Now, that said, be careful not to apply modern ideas of what war is like. The concept of total war (as described by Carl von Clauswitz) didn't exist in the medieval period. A war zone is not constant battles. It wasn't that difficult for non-combatants to move across areas of conflict.

[Marshal Moriarty]

You are allowing the all powerful nature of being the gamer, the controller of an undefeatable character (by virtue of unlimited saves), distort what would actually be the case.

 

I have no problem with the idea of small parties going to dangerous places - I've already said that for the game to work, to be the Bioware RPG experience that people expect, it had to be just that. My argument is that the narrative they set up precludes that from ever being a realistic way for you to operate in this game. The risk you are taking by operating like this is enormous, and it serves no purpose whatsoever. Why let you charge off against Dragons, whole bands of enemy forces, assault Forts etc? What reason would there be to let yo endanger yourself in such a reckless fashion?

 

I am perfectly aware that the warzones aren't constant fighting, *but* you are not trying to avoid trouble - you are constantly seeking it out as the tip of the spear. You head to all the trouble hotspots, and engage in the riskiest operations yourself, with no backup. You assault Forts through the front gate, with just your small band when you have soldiers standing around idly just a stone's throw away! You attack High Dragons again with no support. It continually undermines the core thrust of the narrative that you are part of a larger organiszation and have all these soldiers. Because it seperates that element into something which really only feels true when you are in Haven/Skyhold, and when you are in the world, it feels like you're just a small group of adventurers doing what you always do in these kinds of games.

 

But to return to the issue at hand, greater numbers entails greater security. Arguing that sometmes a larger force draws greater attention completely misses the fact that savvy security will take this into account. If it is better to fly under the radar, then you would have only small scouting help. But if you were assaulting an enemy Fort, a large monster or a Fade Rift, then it would be judge necessary to beef up your protection. Simply letting you roam about wherever you want in such a small band is sheer idiocy - because how long can you keep being lucky like that? Never encountering a deadly ambush, never encountering more trouble than you can handle. These things happen to everyone, if they hang around in such dangerous places long enough - as the previous Dragon Age games show. It is not a failing on the part of those characters - it is a simple reality that a small band has its limits in what it can handle, no matter how skilled the members are. Good judgement and quick thinking can save you long enough to retreat, but not always.

 

Without timely outside help, half the characters from the previous games wouldn't have lived to see the end - and that most certainly includes Hawke and the Warden! The longer your character insists on travelling in this small band through areas that are this dangerous and unstable, where danger could come from any side at any moment, you are simply asking for it.

 

A good example of how it would actually be, can be found in the Dead Space series (and yes, its beyond depressing that a schlocky survival horror has a more internally consistent narrative than a Dragon Age game...) Isaac Clarke is in the first game just a regular joe, a working class slug who isn't particularly important to anyone. However, during the horrifric events of that game, he acquires the unique ability to understand the construction and operation of the Markers. This information is known *only* to him, and offers the possibility of limitless energy to a world that has squandered its resources, is the foundation of the Unitology religion who consider the Markers to be holy beyond all measure, and basically single him out as the one man who could either save Humanity or doom it forever (because the Markers also usher in undead creatures who slaughter everyone around them).

 

Once this becomes known to people of influence, Isaac's life becomes a constant struggle to flee from assorted different factions, all of whom want to imprision, sedate, experiment, torture and coerce him. Because his power is too great to ignore, its implications for Humanity so profound that they cannot and will not leave alone, and will not take the chance of him using the power in a way they disapprove of, and/or being killed/captured by outside forces. Thus he loses all freedom and is forced to go on the run to achieve any kind of release from this. The Mark your Inquisitor bears is no less significant. The members of the Inqusition do not know you, and much as they could be convinced to trust you, the world cannot afford them to take their eye off you, simply to make you feel more at ease. ON the subject of security, the world depends on you and your Mark surviving. They would be beyond stupid to take any kind of risks with your safety.

 

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the needs of this narrative and the needs of us as gamers to have our freedom, are incompatible. It simply wouldn't work this way, yet you wouldn't want it to work in the way the narrative constraints would mandate. When the narrative is so jarringly at odds with the reality of the gameplay, I find it hard to become immersed. It was by no means the only problem, but it is a particularly irritating thing to me. A game doesn't to be absolutely realistic, but it needs to be true to its own internal logic. And for me, this game says one thing, but does another. It uses the Mark as a narrative cheat to establish you early on as 'The One', but then completely abdicates any responsibility for sensibly incorporating that into the narrative and gameplay (hence you walking into Val Royeaux with just 4 people, risking a public lynching, especially when you learn the Templars are there etc etc etc). Bioware also use these cheats and then fail to develop them - this was simply a particularly egregious example, because the whole thing is such a blatant cop-out way of making you the hero. 'Because you just are' is your explanation, but the rationale behind it folds at the first inspection. Its lazy storytelling, particularly as the whole concept of the Mark and the Rifts is all but dropped at the end of Act 1 - its there just long enough to give you your VIP pass to mingle with Kings and Queens, have your own castle and army etc, then gets dropped as the game concentrates on the only thing it really cares about - being an 'Adventuer King Simulator'

 

I also note that my question about this game's supposedly interesting quests wasn't answered. So i'll ask again - what are these interesting side quests that some people insist are in this game? Please tell us, because apparently we missed them.

[CronoDragoon]

If you don't mind spoilers, check out some of the guides online for The Verchiel March or Dorian's companion quest.  There is so much variation in those two alone, and those quests are rather short ones.

 

And so what if Crestwood's main region quest doesn't have multiple paths. The two paths you do get (either do the quest to completion, or not), are the only ones that really matter.  If you completed the quest in full, you know what I mean.  If you didn't complete the quest at all, you don't know, but that's ok too.  Either way, you will have determined one of the definitive factors of your exploration in that region.

 

Not only have I finished Still Waters twice now, I went so far as to make a topic about how it was my favorite quest in the game. It doesn't have multiple paths to completion, but it does have plenty else going for it: lengthy, multi-part journey through Crestwood to different locations (including capturing the zone's Keep and the biggest dungeon in the game), plot twists, and role-playing opportunities (the Judgment being most important, allowing you to express your opinion on the mayor's actions). So Crestwood's main quest is a-okay by me.

 

I also agree with you that the companion quests (at least, the story ones) are good, too.

 

Please note that I never said this game doesn't have good quests. It definitely does. But for every good quest, it has 2-3 straightforward, undeveloped ones, such as Redcliffe farms' watchtowers, X/X supply caches, kill this mob, and others. Sometimes, they make you go through several fetch quests just to get to the interesting part, such as recruiting Corporal Vale in the Hinterlands or the Dragon Researcher in the Western Approach (that one was especially bad, what with finding remains, disarming traps, etc). I also think the tombs in the Hissing Wastes was a wasted opportunity. There's really no story that can be done with raiding ancient dwarven tombs?

 

Anyway, these are just a few examples. I love the game, but I don't think they had the resources to fill all zones evenly with optional story content, and several zones are kinda devoid of any.

[correctamundo]

GTA5, Red Dead Redemption, and GTA San Andreas are some of the best open-world games ever and they drew us into the story content. So how come DAI couldn't?

 

You mean the very deep, story-driven drive person Z from point A to point B quests? Or the very deep flight lessons? Steal car Z fetch quests?

[Marshal Moriarty]

Still Waters? That's... the Crestwood one, is it? That always struck me as a decent enough idea for a mission (even if it is just lifted almost in its entirety from a mission in Jade Empire, which is basically exactly the same), but suffers from the usual 'Nice idea, shame about the execution' feel I have about most of the quests in this game. I just cannot see why you wouldn't bring in your soldiers when they would clearly be of use in this region. They could protect the town, help those who wanted to evacuate do so, help you lay siege to the Fort so it doesn't look so silly, the 4 of you charging in like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, help you scout and secure the tunnels. Its a prime example of an area where the reality of the gameplay is completely at odds with the supposed narrative that you are the leader of a larger force. Why even bother having soldiers if you insist on doing everything short of full scale warfare yourself?

 

Better yet, sign me up. Sounds like an easy job being an Inquisition soldier. Who else can say they get to sit lazing about, whilst their boss does all the actual work?! Proof positive that this game bears no relation to real life!

 

I confess at first, I mistook 'Still Waters' to be the Fallow Mire mission! The missions all kind of blend together in one unsatisfying fog now (its been months since I played the game, before christmas in fact). Not that the Mire mission is much better.The trudge through the marsh, the lack of interaction with characters (other than that one Shaman whose contribution can be summed up as 'Oooh Ahh Inquisitor, OOOHH AAARRR!!!\ in an extremely pronounced accent. Don't get me wrong - I wanted to know more about the Avvar, but the mission sends you on an lengthy grind through the marsh, and offers basically nothing for story. The villain of the piece is just some guy with an axe (or whatever he's using, I forget).

 

And again, is this actually what you would do? Walk into a certain trap, in terrain so awkward and hostile that it will be basically impossible for you to get help with any speed, if it goes wrong. All to save a handful of soldiers? Now that makes me sound like some uncaring monster, and usually I'd agree that its the heroic thing to do getting in there and saving your guys. But again, they are expendable and you are the least expendable person in the whole organizaton. You might want to do this, but surely Cullen, Cassandra etc would have reservations about this, given the 'P.S this is a trap' nature of the quest. I'm not saying you shouldn't go anyway, or that the idea for the quest is flawed. I'm just making the point that this mission shows exactly what is wrong with the quests is this game (well, the ones that aren't just fetch and carry drudge work anyway). They don't have that extra bit of meat on the bones, the added of interaction and narrative. Without that, its just a 'Go here, fight these guys, get nice axe for your troubles' exercise.

 

The most tragic thing about all this is that despite all of this, and me not finding the quest satisfactory in any way, I probably agree that its amongst the best side missions in the game. But that says more about the quality of the missions as a whole, than it does about this quest. It was the same in quests like Shrine of Dumat/Break of Dawn. Quests that unusually (for this game I mean) seemed to offer and promise more than the usual busy work, the usual grind with no real narrative or substance. Yet they too were crushing disappoinments. In the context of the game and just how unsatisfying the quests are, they are betetr than the ruck and run. But still, its depressing beyond words to single these out as being the best the game has to offer.

[AWTEW]

It would have been better if you spent the money on DA2 DLC...better value for money.

[Marshal Moriarty]

Isn't that the truth, AWTEW! If only they'd spent more time and money on DA2 - its all that game needed, so they could iron out the recycled environments. Instead they go for this... game.

[Majestic Jazz]

You mean the very deep, story-driven drive person Z from point A to point B quests? Or the very deep flight lessons? Steal car Z fetch quests?

Lol are you really trying to argue that GTA5, RDR and San Andreas open world is on par with DAI? Has the DAI defense force really lost their mind?

[correctamundo]

Lol are you really trying to argue that GTA5, RDR and San Andreas open world is on par with DAI? Has the DAI defense force really lost their mind?

 

Lol...eehh no, so your point is that fetch quests fun and deep so long they're made by Rockstar games?

[Sylvius the Mad]

First let me start by saying that despite most of my comments in this forum, I actually don't hate DAI.

However...this reasoning right here irritates the hell out of me. If the side-quests actually were efficient, well-thought out ways to "realize a characteristic" of the PC, then the number of people complaining about them would be slim to none. But that's not the case.

Sure, I can tell myself that my elf Inquisitor ignored that woman's request because, "screw the Maker," but does anybody in the game react to that at all? No. Cassandra does not ask you why that quest sits unfinished in your journal. You don't get to elaborate on the majority of your in-the-field decisions, to the quest-giver or to your companions. You just say "nah" and move along, or simply ignore them if the chain begins with a note, of which there are many. No one asks for your reasoning if you kill the golden halla or herd it back to the Dalish. You don't get to express any hidden agendas you've head-cannoned yourself into having if you decide to complete a quest for reasons other than the obvious.

Of course not. You only get to express thoughts explicilty if BioWare wrote them, and that necessarily limits your expression. if your character is limited to ideas he or she can express, then the character isn't yours - it's BioWare's.

That was one problem with DA2 - whatever quest Hawke was doing, the game assumed why he was doing it. DAI has no such failing.

If you need the game to react to your character design, then you're limiting yourself to playing only characters the developers explicitly allow.

Some games force this on you, using quests and the PC's statements regarding them to reveal details of the protagonist to the player as an ongoing feature throughout the story. Games that do that are terrible RPGs.

If BioWare is doing its job well, then the game can't react to your character's personality, because the developers have no idea what that personality is.

Using your example, if Cassandra were to remark on your failure to complete a specific quest, how would you propose that would work? She asks and... then what? Do you reply? Are you forced to give an explanation? How many options are there?

Having Cassandra not comment is the better design.

[PhroXenGold]

Of course not. You only get to express thoughts explicilty if BioWare wrote them, and that necessarily limits your expression. if your character is limited to ideas he or she can express, then the character isn't yours - it's BioWare's.

That was one problem with DA2 - whatever quest Hawke was doing, the game assumed why he was doing it. DAI has no such failing.

If you need the game to react to your character design, then you're limiting yourself to playing only characters the developers explicitly allow.

Some games force this on you, using quests and the PC's statements regarding them to reveal details of the protagonist to the player as an ongoing feature throughout the story. Games that do that are terrible RPGs.

If BioWare is doing its job well, then the game can't react to your character's personality, because the developers have no idea what that personality is.

Using your example, if Cassandra were to remark on your failure to complete a specific quest, how would you propose that would work? She asks and... then what? Do you reply? Are you forced to give an explanation? How many options are there?

Having Cassandra not comment is the better design.

 

While I certainly understand your point, the problem with this approach is that Cassandra not commenting is not really believable. People would ask you why you haven't done things. That's just human nature. And for such questions not to be raised makes the world less convincing and immersive. Which is in itself poor design.

[jds1bio]

Anyway, these are just a few examples. I love the game, but I don't think they had the resources to fill all zones evenly with optional story content, and several zones are kinda devoid of any.

 

That's probably true about the resources.  And in previous development generations, those zones would have been cut from the game entirely, only to be discovered by people snooping around in files.  So I'm glad I get to play them anyways.

[jds1bio]

Isn't that the truth, AWTEW! If only they'd spent more time and money on DA2 - its all that game needed, so they could iron out the recycled environments. Instead they go for this... game.

 

What will really blow your mind is when you realize that they took what was arguably the loudest criticism of DA2 (waves of enemies falling from the sky) and instead of getting rid of that, decided to make the next game EXACTLY about that (waves of enemies falling from a hole in the sky).

[RedLens37]

Having Cassandra not comment is the better design.

 

I completely agree. I think Bioware did a better job in this game of making the whole paragon/renegade choice feel less forced on us. Maybe your character just feels like being a jerk to one specific NPC or you just can't stand one particular companion, but those particular conversations aren't leading you down a particular ethical path.

 

However, I do think it would make the game more interesting if your companions potentially took more pronounced offense to your actions, or inactions. As it is, it seems pretty easy to keep everyone reasonably happy, regardless of what you do or say. There ARE (spoilery) some fun scenes with companions based on your words and actions, but I wouldn't mind if it were easier to tick someone off so much that they left the inquisition altogether (I think this is possible now, but I haven't seen it happen).

[PhroXenGold]

What will really blow your mind is when you realize that they took what was arguably the loudest criticism of DA2 (waves of enemies falling from the sky) and instead of getting rid of that, decided to make the next game EXACTLY about that (waves of enemies falling from a hole in the sky).

 

....

 

Oh my god.

 

BW have trolled us epically.

 

I love it

[Sylvius the Mad]

While I certainly understand your point, the problem with this approach is that Cassandra not commenting is not really believable. People would ask you why you haven't done things.

I wouldn't.

[correctamundo]

What will really blow your mind is when you realize that they took what was arguably the loudest criticism of DA2 (waves of enemies falling from the sky) and instead of getting rid of that, decided to make the next game EXACTLY about that (waves of enemies falling from a hole in the sky).

 

Beautiful =). But I liked the parkouring waves of enemies ;-)

[Marshal Moriarty]

The assertion that the world shouldn't react to your character is absurd. That kind of thing works in games with loose or reletively unimportant narratives (the Souls games for example, or the Elder Scrolls games which really only give a token narrative as its really all about exploration). But in a narrative heavy game where you are cast in the central role?! That simply breaks the immersion completely. Characters like Cassadra and Leliana have risked a lot to put this organization together. Are you saying they shouldn't bat an eyelash if your character makes all kinds of crazy decisions?!

 

Think of it like the President (or Prime Minister) etc. History has shown that democracies frequently elect some pretty foolish people to lead them, prone to makinh all kinds of silly decisions. And yet in most civilised democracies, there are checks and balances in place to account for this, The civil service work hard to make sure even the most radical nutcases who get elected, don't wreck the country simply because they are nominally 'in charge.' Someone has to keep an eye on the best interests of the nation (or organization in this case). Your Mark gives you a lot of sway, but there are limits.

 

And in Act 1 at least, the game is reasonably good at accounting for this (Val Royeux aside). Cullen for example takes great exception at your plans for the Mages Quest and lays down the law saying he won't allow it unless you come up with a plan that has at least a small chance of succeeding. But from Act 2 onwards, the game goes into full on 'You are the Greatest Person Ever' mode, and nobody tells your Inquisitor no from then on. No matter how ridiculous your suggestions. The idea that this should be the way to do things, undermines the narrative completely, not to mention undermining the importance and intelligence of your advisors and senior party members, who look on silently as you make all these bizarre decisions. That is when they're not praising you for being so incredibly awesome and amazing and the bestest person ever...

 

With the dialogue wheel in place, the options available to express your thoughts are very limited, and the ways in which they are expressed, what tone is used etc is almost always mandated, Focused narratives that allow for a range of different backgrounds and character classes also frequently run into trouble when your character takes proscribed actions that show they possess skills, eloquence, abilities that are extremely out of keeping for the character you are running. (Your Inquisitor can be from a Noble background and so could posses some knowledge of speechcraft and the art of projecting your voice and personality with authority, courtly ettiquette, statesmanship, strategic warfare, formal dancing, knoweldge of strategy games akin to chess etc etc). But equally your character can not be from that background, and would be *far* less likely to possess even a few of those talents. Yet your Inquisitor is shown to have them all.

 

It is never a good thing for immersion when games take away the need for stats to represent your character's skill at these kinds of things, because then it boils down to asking the player if they want to be good at these things. Because that places a great strain on the gamer to refuse the option to simply give in to their character being a wish fulfillment power trip who is good at everything, Hence Shepard can only lose to Garrus in the Sniper contest if she chooses to, despite potentially not having any advanced training with the weapon, and with you never having fired a Sniper round ever across all 3 games. Or with you only losing to Cullen in the strategy game if you choose to, despite there previously having been no suggestion that you've ever played it. And even if you play fair, you still automatically win even though Cullen is apparently pretty good.

 

That's why I felt DA2 offered the best solution, basically giving you the script, which told you who Hawke was, along with her lines but allowing you to decide *how^ she delivered them, Basically you became an actor inhabiting and interpreting a specific role, with limited say on certain decisions in the plot, but not to the extent that it would derail the whole thing. I.e the eqivalent of having a director who doesn;t mind actors improvising and is open to suggestions concerning script changes.

 

It doesn't please those who want to play their character however they damn well please, but that sort of thing doesn;t really work in such narrative intensive games. Particularly not with fully voiced characters and dialogue wheels. Fallout New Vegas is a great example of how if you do away with those things, you can really open up your options to play how and who you want, and still affect a substantive and interesting narrative in meaningful ways, But that's very much the exception that proves the rule sadly.

[jds1bio]

...

 

But from Act 2 onwards, the game goes into full on 'You are the Greatest Person Ever' mode, and nobody tells your Inquisitor no from then on. No matter how ridiculous your suggestions...

 

...

 

Or with you only losing to Cullen in the strategy game if you choose to, despite there previously having been no suggestion that you've ever played it. And even if you play fair, you still automatically win even though Cullen is apparently pretty good.

 

...

 

That's why I felt DA2 offered the best solution, basically giving you the script, which told you who Hawke was, along with her lines but allowing you to decide *how^ she delivered them...

 

...

 

That's because, without spoilers, the goal has changed.  You have done something both incredible, and rather remarkable, by then.  Something that the others could not physically do, nor could they come to a consensus on even attempting.  But it's not like they stop disapproving of what you say or do, that seems to continue throughout the game.  So even though they may not always say it out loud, disapproval still happens.  There are still plenty of things the companions do say out loud, so I personally don't feel shortchanged in this area.

 

As for the Cullen sequence, it's not about you having developed skills or whether you always win.  It's about how your herald wants to treat and regard people.  Same with the conversation with Leliana early in the game about retaliating over losing a spy.  At that point in the game they barely know you, and you have almost no skills, but you can still offer up a viewpoint.

 

DA2 didn't give you the script or her lines - you never knew what she was going to say, and the mechanic of developing an attitude over time didn't always match with player intent.  I actually thing DAI does this much better in that it doesn't steer the player off-course nearly as much.

 

As for pleasing people, well, I think DAI is far more ranging in player choice and immersion than others do.  I hope you don't think that is absurd, too.