15882 réponses à ce sujet

[Torgette]

Stagnation. 

And stagnation. Fallout was based in the same era I was talking about and 3/NV/ES aren't character driven rpgs. DA is. The genre has to adapt and change to the market it's in. And no, not being able to determine every single thing about your PC does not make it them a PC. Why is Dragon's Dogma even on this list? The Arisen has a character, even if it's in the most basic of forms, that is set in stone and that you literally have no control over. And the idea that a set character in beginning must mean that you have no control over said character makes me think you're either plugging your ears and ignoring massive potential for character growth and change that you can tailor, à la the Witcher(something people who've actually played it and tried to play it would know), or you have no idea what character growth actually is. I think it's the former, but hey you never know. 

 

I don't really understand this "stagnation" point you keep bringing up, preset player characters is nothing new - in fact there's an entire genre of rpg's with preset characters they're called "jrpg's".

[Han Shot First]

 

If Inquisition is truly a 'broken' game to some folk, well I respect that view, but they should move on to games they like

(good luck with that).

 

...ot they could ask Bioware to improve upon the elements they thought were lacking in DA:I, so that DA4 would be a game they'd consider worth purchasing. There should be a place here for constructive criticism as well as praise.

[SofaJockey]

...ot they could ask Bioware to improve upon the elements they thought were lacking in DA:I, so that DA4 would be a game they'd consider worth purchasing. There should be a place here for constructive criticism as well as praise.

 

This is a reasonable request, I'd like to see more punch in side-quests and

the increased use of game mechanics deferred due to the need to meet last-gen requirements.

Certainly not averse to a little constructive criticism of some aspects where a course correction can address it.

 

For me the differentiation is between asking for improvements from DAI to DA4,

and in simply hating DAI and wanting anything but what it was, or wanting to revert to DA:O(2), (whatever that means) as that won't happen.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Br3dmax:  You're clearly not interested in a conversation - just offering rebuttal for why you're way is superior. 

 

Evolution - btw - doesn't have anything to do with "better".  It is simply a mechanism by which a thing fits into the current requirements of its environment.

 

The list of games that don't spoon feed me my imagination is actually growing - though maybe they're not being done by AAA programers, which is hardly something I care about at all. 

 

I am happy for you to get your Witcher games... I'll stick to my style of RPGs where I don't need someone to tell me my character has grown, what my motivations are, and how I perceive my journey through the game. 

 

Though - I would like to know "how" Geralt grew exactly?  Did he change his mind about anything from beginning to end?  Did he suddenly give up being a Witcher because he grew weary of killing?  Did he grow so jaded with the world that he drifted away in a bout of alcoholism?  Did he discover he'd prefer to fight inside the system and became a political figure?  What is the "big growth" that makes Geralt SO different from the beginning of Witcher 3 to the end?

[midnight tea]

I would like to know "how" Geralt grew exactly?  Did he change his mind about anything from beginning to end?  Did he suddenly give up being a Witcher because he grew weary of killing?  Did he grow so jaded with the world that he drifted away in a bout of alcoholism?  Did he discover he'd prefer to fight inside the system and became a political figure?  What is the "big growth" that makes Geralt SO different from the beginning of Witcher 3 to the end?

 

I think the only "growth" I see is that he's probably a tad less grumpy/whiny than he is... in books. Or at least dialog options we're given can paint him as someone who is a bit more at ease with who he is and what he does, despite the world he's living in becoming more and more hostile towards him, Witchers and magic/non-humans in general.

 

I'm not sure it constitutes as growth though.

 

I'm also not sure if it's also growth if - through his adventures - he finally reconciles with Yen and realizes how much he loves/always loved her, I suppose. But we're also given other options and people can pick somewhat differently...

[KBomb]

I am happy for you to get your Witcher games... I'll stick to my style of RPGs where I don't need someone to tell me my character has grown, what my motivations are, and how I perceive my journey through the game.

Though - I would like to know "how" Geralt grew exactly? Did he change his mind about anything from beginning to end? Did he suddenly give up being a Witcher because he grew weary of killing? Did he grow so jaded with the world that he drifted away in a bout of alcoholism? Did he discover he'd prefer to fight inside the system and became a political figure? What is the "big growth" that makes Geralt SO different from the beginning of Witcher 3 to the end?

I am curious as to why you're posting here if you will never want to try TW3 and care so little for anything it has to offer? No disrespect, it's a legitimate question.

Geralt grows from TW2 in a lot of ways. You see some of this change towards the end of TW2 and more prominently in TW3. I haven't finished the game, but already I can see the struggle he has maintaining his neutrality in political matters. He is tired of killing and he wants a happy ending. You see him grow and becoming softer and wanting to find the child he loves and protect those he cares for. In fact, in TW2 he actually wants to go away and forget the war and just rest and be happy for a bit, but circumstances prevent him from doing so.

Maybe he doesn't do all of the thing you mentioned, but those things aren't exclusive to emotional growth. If so, the same could certainly be asked of other protagonists.

Does the Inquisitor stop being the Inquisitor because now the Big Bad is gone and he is tired of the killing? Does he grow so jaded with the world that he turns to alcohol? Does he tire of the endless politics of the Chantry vs. State and decide to completely back one and war with the other? What is the "big growth" that the Inquisitor goes through that makes him so different from Geralt? --that isn't headcanon.

[midnight tea]

I am curious as to why you're posting here if you will never want to try TW3 and care so little for anything it has to offer? No disrespect, it's a legitimate question.

Geralt grows from TW2 in a lot of ways. You see some of this change towards the end of TW2 and more prominently in TW3. I haven't finished the game, but already I can see the struggle he has maintaining his neutrality in political matters. He is tired of killing and he wants a happy ending. You see him grow and becoming softer and wanting to find the child he loves and protect those he cares for. In fact, in TW2 he actually wants to go away and forget the war and just rest and be happy for a bit, but circumstances prevent him from doing so.

Maybe he doesn't do all of the thing you mentioned, but those things aren't exclusive to emotional growth. If so, the same could certainly be asked of other protagonists.

Does the Inquisitor stop being the Inquisitor because now the Big Bad is gone and he is tired of the killing? Does he grow so jaded with the world that he turns to alcohol? Does he tire of the endless politics of the Chantry vs. State and decide to completely back one and war with the other? What is the "big growth" that the Inquisitor goes through that makes him so different from Geralt? --that isn't headcanon.

 

Problem is there's no fixed growth for Inquisitor as he's not a fixed character - but they can grow or devolve on multiple levels throughout playthrough. They can be prejudiced against magic and spirits at the start, only to change their position on it. They can hate the Chantry, but grow to accept it or love it and grow disillusioned with it. They can be proud Dalish who'd be humbled by what was revealed about ancient elven past. They can become more accepting of people of different backgrounds, despite voicing strong opinions on them earlier. They can grow along the companions and help them in return for their companionship and valuable lessons they've offered. Etc, etc. It really depends on how people play it, but the options to at least express their position or their change are there - it's not just in our heads.

[KBomb]

Problem is there's no fixed growth for Inquisitor as he's not a fixed character - but they can grow or devolve on multiple levels throughout playthrough. They can be prejudiced against magic and spirits at the start, only to change their position on it. They can hate the Chantry, but grow to accept it or love it and grow disillusioned with it. They can be proud Dalish who'd be humbled by what was revealed about ancient elven past. They can become more accepting of people of different backgrounds, despite voicing strong opinions on them earlier. They can grow along the companions and help them in return for their companionship and valuable lessons they've offered. Etc, etc. It really depends on how people play it, but the options to at least express their position or their change are there - it's not just in our heads.

Only through dialog choices, but I don't recall that picking any of those choices actually changed anything in-game. I don't recall anyone's opinion of you changes because of you choosing those options. Maybe I just can't recall any.

Does anyone mention how you hate or love the Chantry and if your Inquisitor has a change of heart, does anyone comment on it or does anything change because of it? Are there any dialog changes that represents this change? Is there any other change except for the choice of the already static dialog choices? Can you give an example? I am being serious about it---not baiting, I promise. I am asking because I very well could be wrong.

As far as I remember, however, there isn't any change except for what you choose to pick in dialog options. Not saying that Geralt has such change it's any of the things I mention, as I don't remember any game changes for him either, except that if you choose to play him fair, honest and reasonable--people will comment on such. You'll go into to towns and they'll either run into their homes and lock the door (if you're a violent, greedy, butthole) or greet you warmly and some even "hail" you. Some also mention that some people think Witchers are buttholes, but you aren't like that. Does anything like that happen in Inquisition? Whether you play a jerk or not, people are pretty happy with you, aren't they? (Again, could be wrong on that count)
I am a kind, generous Geralt and killed someone that I didn't have to and twice already I have been called out on it. Once in pretty embarrassing way. This wasn't an important NPC I killed, but people saw me do it and their opinion changed of me because of it.

What I am saying is, that all the "character freedoms" I have been hearing about that The Witcher 3 lacks, isn't really different than the games they are holding up in comparison.

You say:

It really depends on how people play it, but the options to at least express their position or their change are there

The same can be said for TW3. There are different dialog options to choose that express his personality. If you (Inquisitor) choose to hate mages and then have some epiphany and change your mind, what reflects that? If I hate mages, then choose to save them, it's the same result as if I loved them and chose to save them. If I like mages (as I did with my elf rogue) and chose to imprison them, it's the same result and reaction as if I hated them and imprisoned them. So, the freedom you have is minimal and shown in options that are never acknowledged outside brief conversations. Don't get me wrong, I love, love, love DAI's characters and personal missions. Dorian is the great character ever and stands behind no one, imo---but the Inquisitor's own personal change of heart against mages, the chantry or anything else is never reflected.

It's the same with Geralt, I'm not saying it isn't. (besides the changes I mentioned) But to say he has no growth at all and the player has no agency with him at all--is false. Sure, you have limited agency, but so does DAI and a lot of other rpg's.

[midnight tea]

Only through dialog choices, but I don't recall that picking any of those choices actually changed anything in-game. I don't recall anyone's opinion of you changes because of you choosing those options. Maybe I just can't recall any.

 

It does change companion approval and therefore whether at the end they stay with you or not. That's significant, especially considering that the game is built around those companions. This also has a direct influence on epilogue results as wlel as - we can be pretty certain - choices we'll find in substantial DLCs or future games.

 

 

Does anyone mention how you hate or love the Chantry and if your Inquisitor has a change of heart, does anyone comment on it or does anything change because of it? Are there any dialog changes that represents this change? Is there any other change except for the choice of the already static dialog choices? Can you give an example? I am being serious about it---not baiting, I promise. I am asking because I very well could be wrong.

 

 

Cassandra will react positively or negatively towards it (so do other companions with positive or negative outlook on the Chantry), you can talk about it with Mother Giselle or Leliana as well. How you choose to lead Inquisition - whether as believer or not is reflected in the Keep. If Character becomes faithful Andrastian options for faithful Inquisitor unlock for them on certain dialogue trees.

 

 

 

As far as I remember, however, there isn't any change except for what you choose to pick in dialog options. Not saying that Geralt has such change it's any of the things I mention, as I don't remember any game changes for him either, except that if you choose to play him fair, honest and reasonable--people will comment on such. You'll go into to towns and they'll either run into their homes and lock the door (if you're a violent, greedy, butthole) or greet you warmly and some even "hail" you. Some also mention that some people think Witchers are buttholes, but you aren't like that. Does anything like that happen in Inquisition? Whether you play a jerk or not, people are pretty happy with you, aren't they? (Again, could be wrong on that count)

I am a kind, generous Geralt and killed someone that I didn't have to and twice already I have been called out on it. Once in pretty embarrassing way. This wasn't an important NPC I killed, but people saw me do it and their opinion changed of me because of it.

 

Not all people are happy - it really depends what and how much you've done as well. Lysette (the templar) will not be happy if you went and picked mages instead of templars and many other NPCs wandering around Skyhold will react differently depending on what was done.

 

Also - if you choose to do missions like the one with zealots in Hinterlants or set Watchtowers there (or the one where you help refugee camp in various ways) you'll find groups of people/refugees who'll comment how much Inquisition has done for people (brought food, warm clothes, etc). If you're doing a lot, they'll talk about joining Inquisition as well. If you occupy keeps and help establish trading routes you'll see traders return and comment that the trade's going well thanks to effort to Inquisition.

 

Also, if you complete certain quests in zones, patrols will appear on roads as well as more random Inquisition members with chests, who collect some valuables form the area. There are also various comments about Inquisition progress, especially in Val Royeaux and Herald's Rest.

So... yeah. The world isn't as static as some poeple claim it to be. It's just a matter of paying some attention

 

 

 

It's the same with Geralt, I'm not saying it isn't. (besides the changes I mentioned) But to say he has no growth at all and the player has no agency with him at all--is false. Sure, you have limited agency, but so does DAI and a lot of other rpg's.

 

I've never said that Geralt doesn't grow, if you actually read my earlier comment. I said that I'm not sure if things I mentioned constitute as growth.

[Aren]

@Eluvianus Rex: It's just how I see them, not how anyone else should.  The qualities that resonate with other people for those characters - mostly repulse me.  Specifically Alistair... but also Morrigan.  That's a topic for somewhere else though. 

 

 

Same here, this is way i always brought with me Loghain and dismiss them both,i found him more interesting and less juvenile.

[Nefla]

I found myself largely agreeing with this.  The difference is that I did find the majority of the content in the zones memorable.  That being said, I felt the lack of connection between most of those zones and the main plot hurt the game quite a bit.  

 

I also felt that the devs relied too much on the players reading the EU, as characters like Michel, Imshael, Celene, Briala and Gaspard (among others) had very little on-screen characterization.  I've spend some time thinking about it, and I think I'd rather have less zones with a deeper connection and more lore focus.  As well as cut down on the plot-important War Table missions (looking at you, Wardens,) and offer more of those with player involvement.  More resource gathering and less text-heavy quests.  The War Table is a great idea, but it wasn't implemented very well.

 

Perhaps DA:I was a bit too ambitious and large in it's zones.  I'm not saying they should get rid of all of their strides towards open world, but maybe make it smaller.  That might allow for some of the suggestions offered in the thread, like having cinematic cutscenes for side quests, or having a choice you made in a sidequest actually come up later.  Also, we might actually get more of a full sized city.  I like VR, but I was pretty let down that I couldn't even look at the White Spire, or even talk to a NPC about it in the city.  It hasn't been that long since Big Nose declared an annulment, and I would have preferred to see some sort of reaction in game outside of the companions briefly offering their PoV on the matter.

 

I guess I'd rather have fewer zones, a larger city and a real connection to the main plot from the zones.  Very few of the sidequests had much more meaning than some flavor text/dialogue, experience points and Power points.  I'd like to see side quests with more of an impact, not to mention fewer of them.  I think the devs would benefit from that direction.   

 

As an aside, if you skip most of the Requisition quests (like I did,) and just focus on the regular main quests/side quests, you don't need to do any grinding for power.  After replaying it, so far the number of actual fetch quests isn't that big.  Ignore the constantly talking NPC at camp and you'll save yourself a lot of busywork.

I agree with most of what you said, and one of the biggest problems I had with DA:I was the fact that the game relied on you having read the books/comics/whatever and didn't bother to develop any of those characters. (except Cole?) After having played DA:I if someone asked me to describe the character of Fiona, Gaspard, Celine, Briala, etc...based on what I was shown and not just parroting what another character said about them ex: "Celine is this master strategist and political manipulator" (yet we never see this) I wouldn't be able to. The sidequests being irrelevant and weak is another huge problem I had.

 

The bolded part though...it all depends on if you actually like doing any of the tasks scattered throughout the maps. I had zero interests in establishing camps, closing rifts, finding lost goats and blankets, etc...so having to do 15-40 of those tasks each time I wanted to continue the story was a major grind for me.

 

It's a bit hypocritical in my opinion to accuse Bioware of offering limiting choices in a thread arguing that they could learn from Wicher 3 when Witcher 3 in fact is much, much worse in that very same area. Not to mention who Geralt is seems to change from game to game and depending on the player. Geralt can be played from anything from someone who is strictly neutral and don't judge (Berengar, Letho) to someone who very much judge (same people + a whole bunch of others). 

Honestly Bioware offered a lot more choices with how players react to Dorian then Witcher 3 does when it comes to these peasants. It's especially annoying to me that Geralt feels moral outrage on the behalf of possibly would-be-rapists that he himself might have killed.

A set protagonist that is able to be influenced a little and a blank slate protagonist are two very different things with different strengths and potential. To me TW3 did a great job establishing Geralt's relationships, past, ideals, etc...and really making you care and making his story feel personal. The emotional moments meant even more because there was substance behind them. DA:I on the other hand did a pretty poor job of being a blank slate protagonist imo. A blank slate protagonist should allow the player much more control of the character's personality than inquisition did. The inquisitor was on the mildly nice and mildly charming side of neutral. You can never do anything ruthless or evil, you couldn't (for example) be an elf who is bitter against human culture and extremely pro elven pride (which is especially strange since you're Dalish). When Celine asks "how do you find the Winter Palace" your only options are either to compliment it or to blurt out that there is an assassin. There's no akward "it's built on the bones of my people" option which would make sense for that character. You can never really be passionate one way or another about anything. To me the inquisitor was the "question asker" (there so new people could learn about the lore?) and the avatar used to move from one place to the next. The purpose of a blank slate protagonist is to be able to fill it with personality, not to leave it blank as I feel the inquisitor was.

 

That's part of the problem with DAI isn't it? Bioware isn't sticking to their strengths, rather DAI feels like Skyrimlite and WOWlite with a dose of Bioware. If anything, it feels most like The Old Republic and that comparison really doesn't bode well. Not to say that DAO was perfect, in terms of writing we still need a worthy successor to deus ex, but we haven't seen companions of the Morrigan/Alistar calibre since. I personally think Dragon Age should focus on creating even better companions and quest narratives instead of trying to be what it isn't. The reason people are saying that Dragon Age should be more like the Witcher 3 is because it takes what Bioware is traditionally thought to be good at (storytelling) and what it wants to be good at (open world gameplay) and surpasses it on both counts.

Not sure whether to like for Skyrimlite & WoWlite or dislike for dissing SWtOR

 

 

I don't doubt that, but I think Ander's reaction was also responsible for a good deal of the fan griping.

 

I say that because I don't remember as much complaining about Zevran, who is much more aggressive. Although with Zevran you did get a few hilarious complaints that people's Wardens accidentally slept with him. I mean how is that even possible? Its like accidentally sleeping with Morrigan. It couldn't be any more obvious.

You mean she didn't want me to help her build a fire in her tent so she could stay warm?!

[AresKeith]

 

A host of old healing, attribute and other mechanics are history. 

 

If Inquisition is truly a 'broken' game to some folk, well I respect that view, but they should move on to games they like

(good luck with that).

 

I wanted to comment on this and say there is a possibly that these might come back 

 

At least healing at this point because they're trying out a new healing mechanic in the MP

[Bathead]

i'd like DA to be DA, not a copy of another franchise, be it Elder Scrolls, Witcher or Mass Effect.

Over at a certain Witcher 3 forum, there's small group complaining about "Why isn't Witcher 3 more like Bloodborne?"
IMO, the kind of thinking is silly, kinda like saying "why isn't Chocolate more like Vanilla?"

[Torgette]

Over at a certain Witcher 3 forum, there's small group complaining about "Why isn't Witcher 3 more like Bloodborne?"
IMO, the kind of thinking, is silly, kinda like saying "why isn't Chocolate more like Vanilla?"

 

Well, CDPR could certainly learn how to do better combat from From Software...

[Aren]

I agree with most of what you said, and one of the biggest problems I had with DA:I was the fact that the game relied on you having read the books/comics/whatever 

do not forget the codexes  and tehe war table missions

[AresKeith]

do not forget the codexes

 

That isn't really new since it's been like that since Origins and Mass Effect

[Torgette]

A set protagonist that is able to be influenced a little and a blank slate protagonist are two very different things with different strengths and potential. To me TW3 did a great job establishing Geralt's relationships, past, ideals, etc...and really making you care and making his story feel personal. The emotional moments meant even more because there was substance behind them. DA:I on the other hand did a pretty poor job of being a blank slate protagonist imo. A blank slate protagonist should allow the player much more control of the character's personality than inquisition did. The inquisitor was on the mildly nice and mildly charming side of neutral. You can never do anything ruthless or evil, you couldn't (for example) be an elf who is bitter against human culture and extremely pro elven pride (which is especially strange since you're Dalish). When Celine asks "how do you find the Winter Palace" your only options are either to compliment it or to blurt out that there is an assassin. There's no akward "it's built on the bones of my people" option which would make sense for that character. To me the inquisitor was the "question asker" (there so new people could learn about the lore?) and the avatar used to move from one place to the next. The purpose of a blank slate protagonist is to be able to fill it with personality, not to leave it blank as I feel the inquisitor was.

 

Totally, which is why I think it's silly people are using DAI as an example that Bioware should change direction - if anything they should double down because they didn't reach the potential the Inquisitor had.

[Nefla]

do not forget the codexes  and tehe war table missions

Remember when codex entries were there mostly to give you extra tidbits of lore (like the history of a weapon you picked up) or record what you'd just learned in game instead of being a stand in for character development and things actually happening in the game? (Pepperidge Farm remembers!)

[Medhia_Nox]

@KBomb:  But headcanon is exactly the point of the blank slate protagonist - using my imagination is the point of roleplaying for me. You're using headcanon in a disparaging way... and in that way, headcanon is used to re-write established story facts.  I'd have to headcanon Geralt for example.  Headcanoning the "space in between" is just using your imagination for moments that will never be challenged by the existing material.  If you think using your imagination is wrong - we've got very little to discuss.

 

Unless - you are roleplaying a character that has massive blackouts and awakens for brief moments to complete quests only to have more massive blackouts during travel times, or lapses of time in between events - who never eats, goes to the bathroom or does any other function but endless run back and forth to shop keepers, move stats around and manage gear. 
 

There doesn't seem much a difference between Geralt and... say.. Lara Croft or Kratos or Gordan Freeman except that you can change his gear and put some points into whatever stats you want.  Geralt is tired of killing.  Geralt is tired of politics.  Geralt had some kid... wants to find some kid.  In truth - I don't care.  I'm glad you care - the game is made for you, but this thread is about making Bioware games more like that game... and that, I care about.

 

The numbers don't interest me - the blank slate does.

 

As to why I'm posting here... I do NOT want Bioware to take this route at all.

[Nefla]

I'm curious if anyone actually said they wanted DA to have a set protagonist? The critiques I've been seeing is that DA should take inspiration from the deeper, more interesting, and more involved side quests (which often involve choice) as well as the detailed world which feels alive.

[Rawgrim]

Stagnation. 

And stagnation. Fallout was based in the same era I was talking about and 3/NV/ES aren't character driven rpgs. DA is. The genre has to adapt and change to the market it's in. And no, not being able to determine every single thing about your PC does not make it them a PC. Why is Dragon's Dogma even on this list? The Arisen has a character, even if it's in the most basic of forms, that is set in stone and that you literally have no control over. And the idea that a set character in beginning must mean that you have no control over said character makes me think you're either plugging your ears and ignoring massive potential for character growth and change that you can tailor, à la the Witcher(something people who've actually played it and tried to play it would know), or you have no idea what character growth actually is. I think it's the former, but hey you never know. 

 

Fallout is as character driven as they come. The main character is deeply tied to the main quest. In Fallout 3, for example you spend most of your time searching for you lost father.

 

Being able to determine everything about the character you CREATE makes them very much a PC.

 

You can have control over any character you control in a video game. And some of them can even have personal growth, but that is hardly an argument since Isabela and Varric also has personal growth through the story of DA2 and those two are NPCs.

 

Geralt isn't your character. No matter how much I enjoy The Witcher game, Geralt was never mine. I control his actions and whatnot, but thats it. I had no hand in creating the fellow.

[Rawgrim]

I wanted to comment on this and say there is a possibly that these might come back 

 

At least healing at this point because they're trying out a new healing mechanic in the MP

 

But....they said the MP didn't\would never affect the SP????

[AresKeith]

But....they said the MP didn't\would never affect the SP????

 

It doesn't affect the SP 

[Grieving Natashina]

But....they said the MP didn't\would never affect the SP????

They were talking in terms of the story.  They were assuring players that they didn't have to do the multiplayer in order to get the "best" ending ala ME3 for their single player game (before the patch that lowered the requirements.)  They never said anything about mechanics though.

[Rawgrim]

I distinctly remember the devs saying that the MP was made by a completely different team and that it was completely separate from the SP in any way.