Guest_Puddi III_*
I just liked the plot more. For pretty much the same reasons Dermain said. Instead of playing the legendary hero who saves everyone, everything just exploads around you and there's fuckall you can do about it.
While I agree, I still can't defend DA 2 on any level. It just proved BioWare is not talented enough to have a story without a Mary Sue protagonist and a power fantasy romp motif.
I liked it because it told a different type of story, but that story wasn't told perfectly. As is BioWare's usual modus operandi they decided to go back to their old way of making games instead of improving on what they did with DA2.
The other reason I liked it, which I went in detail with our forum cannibal in a different thread, was because of the conversations tones. While the diplomatic/sarcastic/angry tones weren't perfect, they added a bit more interactivity with the player than the standard "Choose option 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5" and the NPC will respond with "A or B" likely without actually addressing the point of your message.
As an example, if I were to choose a snarky option in DAO the NPC I would be talking to would likely respond with B without noticing the intended sarcasm/humor. If I were to choose a neutral option, the NPC would still respond with option B with the same exact wording as before.
With the tones, if I were to choose a sarcastic option (yes, I am aware BioWare screwed up by having six different tones, but not telling the player the difference between them) the NPC Hawke would be speaking to would react to that tone. I recall one instance where I was playing an aggressive female Hawke, and Anders interrupted her to tell the NPC something along the lines of "Don't mind her, she's always like that, it's not personal".
It was a system that had the potential for immersing the player into the world that doesn't rely on the player having the "head canon" events. It wasn't perfect, and because of that was poorly received which led to BioWare just removing it entirely. Of course, they did have a similar system for DAI, but it wasn't as noticeable in the long run.
TL;DR: I like DA2 for the (now wasted) potential that could have been improved on in later games.
I just liked the plot more. For pretty much the same reasons Dermain said. Instead of playing the legendary hero who saves everyone, everything just exploads around you and there's fuckall you can do about it.
Dragon Age II would have been better if it had just been about getting rich, dicking around with your party as mercenaries, and climaxed with you dropping the hammer on the Arishok (he was alright) and his posse.
The Mage/Templar stuff sucked. It also wasn't particularly interesting in DA:O and I don't really get the Dragon Age developers' obsession with it.
Honestly, Inquisition to me seems a bit like Baldur's Gate 1+ with a dash of Skyrim thrown in. It's not radically different to how BioWare do things in the past. It's just filled with a lot more content than what you'd expect and that obfuscates the issue. The problem is that BioWare makes adventure modules, while Inquisition needed a game world that stands on it's own two feet.
Thing is, BioWare is not particularly strong when it comes to delivering a focused narrative and they certainly are no good when it comes to world building. It's not like we're working with Looking Glass Studios, Gothic 2-era Piranha Bytes or Fallout 1-era Black Isle here.
So, much of the quest types they've always done look like filler and trash, because it's done in abundance. They do what they've always done, in an environment that doesn't suit it. Bethesda get away with it because they are open about making their games a power fantasy for players, their exploration gameplay is several times better and they do a better job integrating their quests into their lore. Basically, the game world can stand on it's own. Whereas in BioWare games, it needs story content to carry it, but when there is a lot more filler content than usual, then it can fall apart.
Dragon Age II would have been better if it had just been about getting rich, dicking around with your party as mercenaries, and climaxed with you dropping the hammer on the Arishok (he was alright) and his posse.
The Mage/Templar stuff sucked. It also wasn't particularly interesting in DA:O and I don't really get the Dragon Age developers' obsession with it.
I like it a lot. It's a gray conflict with no right answer. Though I can see why it could annoy some people since a lot of it is both sides dicking on each other to a equal degree.
Dragon Age II would have been better if it had just been about getting rich, dicking around with your party as mercenaries, and climaxed with you dropping the hammer on the Arishok (he was alright) and his posse.
The Mage/Templar stuff sucked. It also wasn't particularly interesting in DA:O and I don't really get the Dragon Age developers' obsession with it.
I'm still to this day baffled as to how anyone can take that storyline and dispute seriously, especially in DA2, where it's one group magically corrupted maniacs vs another group of magically corrupted maniacs. When I was in the final act of the game, I was desperately looking for a Witcher-esque neutral path or a "get the hell outta dodge" option. First time in a game where I didn't want to side with anyone.
This thread makes me miss videogame instruction booklets
This thread makes me miss videogame instruction booklets
Oh man with the little note sections in the back!? That was always just filled with cheat codes.
Oh man with the little note sections in the back!? That was always just filled with cheat codes.
When I was a kid/preteen I would carry a few in my pocket like comics & read 'em when I got bored or had to wait for someone
Best ones off the top of my head: Metroid, Original Legend of Zelda, Contra, Castlevaina, Metal Gear & KotOR (the KotOR one was a mini- Prima guide)
I just liked the plot more. For pretty much the same reasons Dermain said. Instead of playing the legendary hero who saves everyone, everything just exploads around you and there's fuckall you can do about it.
Lol the worst game for being "The legendary ........" is SKYRIM lmfao.
That game took the pi$$ outta being legendary!
I have never encountered a game like it.
Also thinking about ME4 I'm not sure exactly how it will work when the dev's want it so far apart and independet from the trilogy.
It may end up like DA2 for feeling like a side story or it will become a new trilogy which is still set in the time of Shepard so yep... Reapers.
Lol the worst game for being "The legendary ........" is SKYRIM lmfao.
That game took the pi$$ outta being legendary!
I have never encountered a game like it.
Can kill legendary near immortal dragons, vampires, demons, werewolves and entire forts with no trouble. Can get obliterated by one bear.
Honestly, Inquisition to me seems a bit like Baldur's Gate 1+ with a dash of Skyrim thrown in. It's not radically different to how BioWare do things in the past. It's just filled with a lot more content than what you'd expect and that obfuscates the issue. The problem is that BioWare makes adventure modules, while Inquisition needed a game world that stands on it's own two feet.
Thing is, BioWare is not particularly strong when it comes to delivering a focused narrative and they certainly are no good when it comes to world building. It's not like we're working with Looking Glass Studios, Gothic 2-era Piranha Bytes or Fallout 1-era Black Isle here.
So, much of the quest types they've always done look like filler and trash, because it's done in abundance. They do what they've always done, in an environment that doesn't suit it. Bethesda get away with it because they are open about making their games a power fantasy for players, their exploration gameplay is several times better and they do a better job integrating their quests into their lore. Basically, the game world can stand on it's own. Whereas in BioWare games, it needs story content to carry it, but when there is a lot more filler content than usual, then it can fall apart.
I'm really not seeing how Bestehda games have a world that stands on it's own. But to each other own. Are we talking about the Bestheda world's standing on their own in terms of their mechanics (i.e., they simulate reality passably well) or writing?
If I had to pick, I'd say mechanics. Though it's not necessarily what I'm talking about. Perhaps I phrased that badly. Skyrim is full of holes and not very internally consistent (they haven't had that since Morrowind) so I wouldn't say it's perfect at all.I'm really not seeing how Bestehda games have a world that stands on it's own. But to each other own. Are we talking about the Bestheda world's standing on their own in terms of their mechanics (i.e., they simulate reality passably well) or writing?
Lazy? No.
Underwhelming performance in a number of aspects? Yes.
Lots of people blame EA or think Bio has started to rot from within. I don’t think so. Sure, a lot of people left and the company culture almost certainly changed – and will continue to change. But that’s how it is. In the end I believe they remain a large, well-funded studio filled by hardworking people with lots of experience between them, and at least a modicum of creativity (question is of course: how much creativity is allowed?).
Like the Crusty Chevalier, I don’t think BioWare excel at design or worldbuilding. The Baldur’s Gate games and KotOR gave them extensive universes to play with, but at the same time these were IP’s watched over by zealous guardians. BioWare was allowed to use them, but they were prevented from screwing things up. This is a kind of situation that actually hinders a disciplined and highly creative team who are able and willing to create their own systems and world, but if that kind of talent and / or discipline isn’t over-abundant, being limited is actually a blessing in disguise. If you look carefully at Jade Empire, the first IP of their own making, the game’s setting was unusual mainly because cRPG’s in non-standard American-style D&D-ish quasi-medieval European worlds are so rare. At the time, it was a pretty (but rather short and linear) game featuring so-so-gameplay and a setting that can only be described as a generic East Asian martial arts movie / fantasy schlock mish-mash. Refreshing because of its relative unicity, but not exactly the greatest fantasy IP evar.
Still, BioWare gets brownie points from me for having the guts to do a non-standard fantasy cRPG.
Mass Effect and Dragon Age have the same problems. They were both clearly designed to be generic and mainstream within their respective genres. DA inverts some fantasy tropes, but this does not make the DA world less generic; just somewhat refreshing, at least in the beginning until you realise that this is largely it in terms of creative worldbuilding.
My first reaction playing DA and ME was ‘well, it’s generic but it has some potential for future development’. Then along came DA2, DA:I, ME2 and ME3. These days, I would scratch everything after ‘it’s generic’ and add ‘and a mess’.
In the end I am not sure if it’s the absence of talent, ability, experience or however you want to call it. That may be part of the problem, but it may also have something to do how BioWare as a studio evolved, how they work and where they work. As a whole, I would say they are rather conservative / derivative and unimaginative when it comes to their worldbuilding, but they do like to play around with their gameplay mechanics. Unfortunately, as others have remarked, they tend to try and then scrap the more interesting and unique things in their games.
Perhaps I'll phrase it differently so that it looks like a completely different argument. It lacks interactivity and player agency outside of scripted sequences and relies on those cinematics and sequences to carry the game. Such things are fine, but Inquisition is too large in scale for that, so it feels like a limiting experience for a open world game.
New footage from ME4
If I had to pick, I'd say mechanics. Though it's not necessarily what I'm talking about. Perhaps I phrased that badly. Skyrim is full of holes and not very internally consistent (they haven't had that since Morrowind) so I wouldn't say it's perfect at all.
What I mean is that, is it possible to enjoy a game like Inquisition simply on it's own, or can you only have fun when you contextualise it using the story? In Skyrim, you can clearly make your own fun and still enjoy the game with minimal story input, because the game is open enough with dynamic elements at play, with fun exploration and gameplay that feeds into the power fantasy. BioWare games generally aren't good enough to be enjoyable if they're decoupled from the story. The two exceptions I see being Jade Empire for it's combat and BG 2 for the mage duels or exploration.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, PoE isn't much fun without it's story and writing and I'm having a blast with it. The Witcher games are also like that. PS:T is probably the biggest example I can find of it, too. It's the adventure module mindset. The problem is that I feel Inquisition is too big of a game, with too much of it's quality story content spread out. And it doesn't have the mechanics, gameplay, exploration and world design that it's able to stand on it's own without that story content.
Perhaps I'll phrase it differently so that it looks like a completely different argument. It lacks interactivity and player agency outside of scripted sequences and relies on those cinematics and sequences to carry the game. Such things are fine, but Inquisition is too large in scale for that, so it feels like a limiting experience for a open world game.
One of the biggest issues I see that BioWare can remedy easily is their refusal to allow and design for freedom of approach in quests. This is something they've done for ages but it's especially jarring in an open world game with so many filler quests.
I guess my difficulty is that decoupled from any sort of scripting, and in my opinion (to avoid starting terrible debates) the content in Skyrim is non-existent to terrible for me. Not that I find their scripted content to be great; but I find what people think is the value in the game - the randomness of stuff you can do - to not be all that interesting. The biggest part of it is that there's not really very much of it at all. The most memorable parts from TES games - such as they are - involve scripted quests that just so happen not to be the MQ because TES doesn't even really do those anyway. The example here being the Dark Brotherhood questlines.
Otherwise Skyrim is a walking simulator with worker ants, and I suppose the occasional murder spree you can engage in with slightly less consequences than a GTA or Saints Row game.
Can kill legendary near immortal dragons, vampires, demons, werewolves and entire forts with no trouble. Can get obliterated by one bear.
No no no
It's the fact that no matter what you are (werewolf/vamp/mage/dragonborn) you are the one from legend lol.
@Everyone
Anyone think ME4 will be the start of a new trilogy?
no i don't think BW has become lazy. They just working for target audience. And that audience have money to waste and very low demand on quality of the product.
Retour en haut
