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.
It is made by different team, but the MP is only separate in that it doesn't affect the story like ME3 did
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.
That doesn't mean that the departments were created in a vacuum apart from each other. I'm sure that the SP and MP devs worked together in parts for things like the ability slots. As far as creating the rest of the content (like the maps,) that was separate from the SP team. Many of these various teams don't work together 100% of the time, but they do work in tandem. With the ability slots, they probably decided to make it consistent between both modes of game play.
For the record, I thought limiting the ability slots was a very stupid idea. They cut out more of the fluff talents and gave us all of these neat abilities to use...with only 8 slots. I still have fun on my mage, but it is a little crippling with only 8 slots. I also know that the console ports had nothing to do with it, since console players also had more than a handful of slots prior to this game.
It worked well for Mass Effect, but for Dragon Age? I think it was a bad design choice, considering the sheer number of useful abilities in the game.
That doesn't mean that the departments were created in a vacuum apart from each other. I'm sure that the SP and MP devs worked together in parts for things like the ability slots. As far as creating the rest of the content (like the maps,) that was separate from the SP team. Many of these various teams don't work together 100% of the time, but they do work in tandem. With the ability slots, they probably decided to make it consistent between both modes of game play.
For the record, I thought limiting the ability slots was a very stupid idea. They cut out more of the fluff talents and gave us all of these neat abilities to use...with only 8 slots. I still have fun on my mage, but it is a little crippling with only 8 slots. I also know that the console ports had nothing to do with it, since console players also had more than a handful of slots prior to this game.
It worked well for Mass Effect, but for Dragon Age? I think it was a bad design choice, considering the sheer number of useful abilities in the game.
Believe the eight slot limit was due to being balanced with consoles in mind. I also contend this was an unwise choice, as the PC crowd cannot interact with console Players; balancing was simply not required.
Um, no.
You see, console players had more than 8 slots in previous games. Like I just said. I've seen vids of folks on console scrolling through ability bars in Origins and in DA2, just like we could on the PC, using the R and L buttons. From everything I've read, the 8 ability slot limit was implemented for MP purposes. The platform didn't make a difference. Otherwise, console players would have always had very limited slots and there would have been a lot more threads started about it.
Edit: I know of folks that play on both PC and console on the forums that have commented on this in the past.
Um, no.
You see, console players had more than 8 slots in previous games. Like I just said. I've seen vids of folks on console scrolling through ability bars in Origins and in DA2, just like we could on the PC, using the R and L buttons. From everything I've read, the 8 ability slot limit was implemented for MP purposes. The platform didn't make a difference. Otherwise, console players would have always had very limited slots and there would have been a lot more threads started about it.
Edit: I know of folks that play on both PC and console on the forums that have commented on this in the past.
If you (or anyone) is willing to track down the source, I would love to take a look for myself. I've personally been searching the BioWare forums, and so far I haven't turned anything up that confirms that statement.
The closest thing I've seen to that was folks saying that the developers had said that they wanted players to change up their abilities rather than just have the same big bar the whole time. They want you to prepare carefully for each fight, which was the same reason that they gave for no healing spells.
At least we can agree that it was a very poorly thought out design choice, and one that's gone over like a lead brick too.
on the subject of gameplay, I feel as if DA has been moving more towards action gameplay, and the incredibly half-assed tac cam in DA:I doesn't inspire any confidence in me, so I'm wondering if maybe they should start implementing more action RPG mechanics, I have rogues in mind mostly, but I think it could work for warriors as well
For the record, I thought limiting the ability slots was a very stupid idea. They cut out more of the fluff talents and gave us all of these neat abilities to use...with only 8 slots. I still have fun on my mage, but it is a little crippling with only 8 slots. I also know that the console ports had nothing to do with it, since console players also had more than a handful of slots prior to this game.
It worked well for Mass Effect, but for Dragon Age? I think it was a bad design choice, considering the sheer number of useful abilities in the game.
I'd say that 8 slots bother me... only I'm used to it. I'm spending a lot of time in Elder Scrolls Online a and there are only 5 slots available - 10, if you count 2nd weapon you can swap to, but considering that frequently two slots are constantly occupied by toggleable ability (or ones that gives passives), it's... not much. It's even less so if you consider how many abilities and weapons are available.
Still... dunno, for some reason it works for me (most of the time). I have to be pretty inventive with builds and know what works and what doesn't - I can't conveniently grab ability that would turn the fight into a fairly easy win and rotations may vary from stupidly simple (mashing two buttons) to surprisingly elaborate (burst damage, swap weapon, add DOT, swap again, use execute, etc...), even if somewhat hard to pull off with crappy latency.
I think the issue with Anders was not so much that he makes a move on Hawke, but that if Hawke turns him down he acts like a big baby about it. He throws a temper tantrum instead of handling rejection like an adult.
Of course considering everything else Anders gets up to in game perhaps that was entirely in character. That wasn't the last or his greatest overreaction.
Just to add something here, I believe it was an issue of timing. Because when he hits on you Karl has just died. It seems rather off putting. Anders romance would have been better served to have started in Act2 instead of 1.
I'd say that 8 slots bother me... only I'm used to it. I'm spending a lot of time in Elder Scrolls Online a and there are only 5 slots available - 10, if you count 2nd weapon you can swap to, but considering that frequently two slots are constantly occupied by toggleable ability (or ones that gives passives), it's... not much. It's even less so if you consider how many abilities and weapons are available.
Still... dunno, for some reason it works for me (most of the time). I have to be pretty inventive with builds and know what works and what doesn't - I can't conveniently grab ability that would turn the fight into a fairly easy win and rotations may vary from stupidly simple (mashing two buttons) to surprisingly elaborate (burst damage, swap weapon, add DOT, swap again, use execute, etc...), even if somewhat hard to pull of with crappy latency.
Hmm, fair enough. However, I don't see how that helps a single player game. I've always had the ability to make my rotation as simple or as complex I choose with the extra slots in previous games. That was part of the fun, since I didn't have to switch out abilities just to try something new. It doesn't help that I can't change abilities in combat, and (on my first couple of sessions) I can't always predict what's right around the corner. I can (and do) prepare carefully for most dragon fights, which are the only ones that I think are remotely difficult.
So, unless I meta-game or play the game at least once, preparing for a fight in such a way hampers my playing. At least on my mage. My warrior was okay, and my archer did just fine. I'd rather they give us at least 12 ability slots in the next game though.
If you (or anyone) is willing to track down the source, I would love to take a look for myself. I've personally been searching the BioWare forums, and so far I haven't turned anything up that confirms that statement.
The closest thing I've seen to that was folks saying that the developers had said that they wanted players to change up their abilities rather than just have the same big bar the whole time. They want you to prepare carefully for each fight, which was the same reason that they gave for no healing spells.
At least we can agree that it was a very poorly thought out design choice, and one that's gone over like a lead brick too.
Hmm, fair enough. However, I don't see how that helps a single player game. I've always had the ability to make my rotation as simple or as complex I choose with the extra slots in previous games. That was part of the fun, since I didn't have to switch out abilities just to try something new. It doesn't help that I can't change abilities in combat, and (on my first couple of sessions) I can't always predict what's right around the corner. I can (and do) prepare carefully for most dragon fights, which are the only ones that I think are remotely difficult.
So, unless I meta-game or play the game at least once, preparing for a fight in such a way hampers my playing. At least on my mage. My warrior was okay, and my archer did just fine. I'd rather they give us at least 12 ability slots in the next game though.
12 would've been the number I went with if Bioware was cutting the slots down
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.
You can't compare approval of companions, Geralt doesn't have any. It is significant to DAI, but wouldn't be to TW3 or any other rpg that doesn't have companions. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that your personality or character agency has anything to do with the epilogue as much as just choices you make. For instance, if I start the game off hating mages, then have a change if of heart and save them as allies, the epilogue will be the same if I loved mages to begin with and recruited them as allies. It was the choice you made that checked that plot flag, not how the Inquisitor changed their mind.
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
They react in a cutscene and conversation only. After that, it's as if everyone forgets about it. You may lose approval points, but you can gain them back and nothing will have changed for your decision. Can't really count for anything that happens in the Keep. Not everyone uses it and it doesn't reflect anything in-game. Which is what I am talking about. You're right about the extra dialog if you are a faithful andrastian, but it's the same dialog you receive if your Inquisitor begins as an atheist and changes heart midway. No one remarks on how much you've changed or that they're glad or angry that you've had a change of heart.
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.
Yeah, Lisette whined about me claiming to be the Herald and she said something jerkish about my choices about the mages--yet there she is in Skyhold. I have seen NPC's talking about things that are scripted, like saving the mages or the Wardens, but as far as I know, they don't speak about you judging and sentencing a mage to become tranquil or beheading a prisoner, or commenting on a war table mission. (I could be wrong about this, I am deaf and I may not have gotten close enough to a NPC to see the subtitles, but I have never seen it.)
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.
You have to complete the watch towers, or else you'll have no horses and miss out on an agent--but if you refuse to do it, no one comments on how the Inquisition is ignoring their safety. You have to capture most keeps to progress the story along, so opening trade routes is automatic by doing those. If you don't gather food and clothes and a healer for the refugees, then you again, miss out on an agent, but if you don't do it, no one comments about how you're letting refugees go hungry or they're dying because you didn't secure them a healer. Patrols and agents with chests will appear if you claimed a camp in the area, sometimes you have to clear out bandits to claim a camp and once I went to Redcliffe doing only the watch tower and ram food mission, iirc and people were still talking about joining the Inquisition and I hadn't done squat. So those things aren't reflective of the Inquisitors personality or the way you shape him, but more of things you have to do to gain something or progress the story along.
So... yeah. The world isn't as static as some poeple claim it to be. It's just a matter of paying some attention
Isn't it? When compared how your personality reflects the living world around you that isn't scripted because of a mission?
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.
I saw your post and I believe I even "liked it" because I agreed with you and thought your points did constitute growth. I am just touching on the comments you made in the reply to me.
Disclaimer: I have the summer flu, so please excuse any grammatical or spelling errors. 
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.
Not saying DA should change direction or anything; I think they are on the right path with DAI. It certainly needs improvements though, both mechanics and plot. But I wonder what the 'potential' of the Inquisitor should be. Everyone expects the Inquisitor to act differently; some want them to be more passionate, some want them to be evil while some want them to as blank as the current inquisitor. It is hard to favor everyone.
Thus, as I have always said, they should go for a semi set character like Hawke or Shepard. Folks who enjoy customisations can have some options to do whatever they want. With a semi set character, people would complain less about the limited choices as the characters have somewhat fixed personalities.
on the subject of gameplay, I feel as if DA has been moving more towards action gameplay, and the incredibly half-assed tac cam in DA:I doesn't inspire any confidence in me, so I'm wondering if maybe they should start implementing more action RPG mechanics, I have rogues in mind mostly, but I think it could work for warriors as well
I too feel DAI is more like an action game. I would like them to keep on putting action RPG elements since I think people these days love to play action RPGs more than tactical ones. This can help to attract more people to the franchise.
I'm probably one of the few that liked DA's tac cam 
You have to complete the watch towers, or else you'll have no horses and miss out on an agent--but if you refuse to do it, no one comments on how the Inquisition is ignoring their safety. You have to capture most keeps to progress the story along, so opening trade routes is automatic by doing those. If you don't gather food and clothes and a healer for the refugees, then you again, miss out on an agent, but if you don't do it, no one comments about how you're letting refugees go hungry or they're dying because you didn't secure them a healer. Patrols and agents with chests will appear if you claimed a camp in the area, sometimes you have to clear out bandits to claim a camp and once I went to Redcliffe doing only the watch tower and ram food mission, iirc and people were still talking about joining the Inquisition and I hadn't done squat. So those things aren't reflective of the Inquisitors personality or the way you shape him, but more of things you have to do to gain something or progress the story along.
I think what midnight_tea was trying to illustrate with these examples is that DAI does have a interactive openworld. This openworld, while less successful than that of TW3, still gets to reflect what the PC has achieved in the game.
@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.
Oh, don't misunderstand--nothing is wrong with headcanon. I headcanon myself, but when comparing in-game features, I am not sure it's fair to include headcanon, as it can differ between people.
As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree. Geralt is not like Lara Croft or Kratos. You have no input whatsoever in their actions. It's your opinion and you're not wrong for having it. I just have a different one.
Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate it, but I don't think anyone here is asking for Bioware to implement a pre-defined character. Most are asking for missions/side quests to be meatier, a more living world and other game mechanics. I love that Bioware gives us choices about who to be. They do a wonderful job with their characters and companions. DAI is not a terrible game, imo and I had a lot of fun with it in spite of the faults I found within it. I just would like to see some things improved on and since the games have similar concepts and mechanics, people are only asking that some of things be looked at as a tool for improvement. Not for Bioware to make a Witcher clone.
TheRaccoon, on 04 Jun 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:
I think what midnight_tea was trying to illustrate with these examples is that DAI does have a interactive openworld. This openworld, while less successful than that of TW3, still gets to reflect what the PC has achieved in the game.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about the interactive open world or how the choices the Inquisitor makes in quests are reactive. I was talking about the world reflecting the personality you create for your Inquisitor. The openworld wasn't in dispute--at least in this discussion. I was making the point that people commenting on the trade route isn't so much because of your personality, but because you had to capture the keep anyway, so their praise isn't based on the generous nature you molded into your PC, but because you had no choice but to do the generous thing.
You can't compare approval of companions, Geralt doesn't have any. It is significant to DAI, but wouldn't be to TW3 or any other rpg that doesn't have companions. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that your personality or character agency has anything to do with the epilogue as much as just choices you make. For instance, if I start the game off hating mages, then have a change if of heart and save them as allies, the epilogue will be the same if I loved mages to begin with and recruited them as allies. It was the choice you made that checked that plot flag, not how the Inquisitor changed their mind.
I HAVE to compare the approval of companions, considering that they're such an integral part of the game - casting them away is simply out of question. This is where both games differ significantly - Geralt has no stable of constant companions, which is why he has world that is (has to be?) more intractable. DA on the other hand focuses on companions/specific NPCs and a lot of our decisions is reflected with how they treat us or how they end up to be, which is why either many side-quest are underdeveloped - or at least they feel that way for some people.
Also - when it comes to your example with mages... how you treat mages will be reflected with how your companions treat you. If you don't coddle rebel mages and conscript them instead of trating them as allies, you'll loose a lot of approval from Dorian and Solas, but gain it from Vivienne and Sera (and Cassandra, to an extent. Leliana and Cullen will have different reactions as well).
This, eventually can also translate to who becomes the Divine - and how strong the friendship between Divine and Inqusition is strongly reflected in new Divine's course of action, which in turn decides A LOT about many plot elements (will Southern mages establish College of Enchanters or become members of Bright hand? Will Leliana urge unity through negotiations or knives and murder? Will Vivienne stay the first mage Divine with Inquisitor's support or will her end be imminent?)
They react in a cutscene and conversation only. After that, it's as if everyone forgets about it. You may lose approval points, but you can gain them back and nothing will have changed for your decision. Can't really count for anything that happens in the Keep. Not everyone uses it and it doesn't reflect anything in-game. Which is what I am talking about. You're right about the extra dialog if you are a faithful andrastian, but it's the same dialog you receive if your Inquisitor begins as an atheist and changes heart midway. No one remarks on how much you've changed or that they're glad or angry that you've had a change of heart.
They don't. Many decisions are also reflected through banter we hear when exploring the zones, so they definitely don't forget about anything.
As for losing and gaining approval points - the system is somewhat flexible, for which I'm glad. You still have to play smart to actually gain significant approval of all companions, - I don't feed them treats to gain their approval, I actually have to actively balance between things they like and they don't through entire gameplay. I really like it - makes me feel like a true diplomat 
Someone who may not be bent on gaining max approval, but with being open-minded and smart enough, I at least gain everyone's respect.
You have to complete the watch towers, or else you'll have no horses and miss out on an agent--but if you refuse to do it, no one comments on how the Inquisition is ignoring their safety. You have to capture most keeps to progress the story along, so opening trade routes is automatic by doing those. If you don't gather food and clothes and a healer for the refugees, then you again, miss out on an agent, but if you don't do it, no one comments about how you're letting refugees go hungry or they're dying because you didn't secure them a healer.
Um... just like you have to complete many quests in Witcher that change people's attitude towards them? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Add to that the fact that both horses and agents in Inquisition are entirely optional. You have to make an effort to actually get them. And no - opening trade routes isn't automatic, since you have to complete additional quests and war table mission to actually open them fully AND make them secure.
It's the same with Geralt - you actually have to do something for people to comment on him. If he doesn't, the most they do is they say "Witcher? Pfeh, I've seen more interesting things after rummaging in my nose" (or however else it's translated to English) or call him "Freak" for the 100-th time. Not really different to DAI in that respect. Both characters have to be proactive and do more than just main story quest to have many people talk about them.
Patrols and agents with chests will appear if you claimed a camp in the area, sometimes you have to clear out bandits to claim a camp and once I went to Redcliffe doing only the watch tower and ram food mission, iirc and people were still talking about joining the Inquisition and I hadn't done squat. So those things aren't reflective of the Inquisitors personality or the way you shape him, but more of things you have to do to gain something or progress the story along.
It's obvious that some people would want to join Inquisition even if they've done little, but more people will be commenting on Inquisition the more things you do.
Also - how does Inquisitor running Inquisition effectively, or by doing many things, doesn't reflect anything about their personality? People won' be singing peans about how good or cruel they are or anythings specific like that, but that's also because with how both characters are framed - Geralt is just one person, nobody really that important in a big, war-torn Continent.
He's a Witcher, true, and people will judge him accordingly or change their opinions depending on his actions, but they'd still be able to interact with him on more personal level than Inquisitor - a point that has been actually stated multiple times throughout DAI (how legendary figures are both more and less of a person at the same time).
Herald of Andraste won't be able to be so up close and personal with majority of common folk (or even someone higher that that), simply because for most folks he/she is either a demigod or someone of either immense importance or popularity. Hence what else they could be commenting on other than efforts of Inquisition?
Isn't it? When compared how your personality reflects the living world around you that isn't scripted because of a mission?
Like I said - agents, horses, gaining all of keeps and re-opening trade routes later: all of this is optional, which hardly makes those missions scripted. They're only 'scripted' in a sense that something has to be done, which is no different than TW3.
Disclaimer: I have the summer flu, so please excuse any grammatical or spelling errors
And I apologize if this comment is maybe a bot more unfocused than my previous one - it's very late (or, very early) where I live and I really should be going to sleep now^^;
That's a strong argument for a silent protagonist.I think a "free progagonist" can only work really well when the protagonist is not voiced.
Also - when it comes to your example with mages... how you treat mages will be reflected with how your companions treat you. If you don't coddle rebel mages and conscript them instead of trating them as allies, you'll loose a lot of approval from Dorian and Solas, but gain it from Vivienne and Sera (and Cassandra, to an extent. Leliana and Cullen will have different reactions as well).
This, eventually can also translate to who becomes the Divine - and how strong the friendship between Divine and Inqusition is strongly reflected in new Divine's course of action, which in turn decides A LOT about many plot elements (will Southern mages establish College of Enchanters or become members of Bright hand? Will Leliana urge unity through negotiations or knives and murder? Will Vivienne stay the first mage Divine with Inquisitor's support or will her end be imminent?)
Disapproval/approval from companions has little to do with becoming Divine or their course of action. It has more to do with decisions you make in plots (like the mages/templar or the Winter Palace) and how you relate to the chantry--not through actions--but through conversation with companions (like telling Vivienne mages need to be in the Chantry) . How they rule hinges on the choices you make, too with Leliana being the exception. Nothing really changes depending on how you treat the mages, besides a loss/gain of approval. Whether you hate mages and conscript them or love mages and conscript them, it's all the same reactions and comments. I can gain the Wardens as allies and afterward, Solas has a little tissy about them, all you need to do is agree with him and he gets over it and nothing is ever said about it again. It's almost like the companions say, "You did something completely incomprehensible! Oh, you agree with me? We cool."
Um... just like you have to complete many quests in Witcher that change people's attitude towards them? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.Add to that the fact that both horses and agents in Inquisition are entirely optional. You have to make an effort to actually get them. And no - opening trade routes isn't automatic, since you have to complete additional quests and war table mission to actually open them fully AND make them secure.
It's the same with Geralt - you actually have to do something for people to comment on him. If he doesn't, the most they do is they say "Witcher? Pfeh, I've seen more interesting things after rummaging in my nose" (or however else it's translated to English) or call him "Freak" for the 100-th time. Not really different to DAI in that respect. Both characters have to be proactive and do more than just main story quest to have many people talk about them.
It isn't that they have to be proactive--that isn't the issue. The issue is that you complete the mission and you're the best around. That isn't always the case in TW3 and you don't always have to do a mission for Geralt's personality to cause consequence.
Examples:
I think the last example particularly is more than just some villagers calling me a freak. The former examples show that even if you complete a mission for someone, they can still dislike Geralt based on how you choose to have him react.
Also - how does Inquisitor running Inquisition effectively, or by doing many things, doesn't reflect anything about their personality? People won' be singing peans about how good or cruel they are or anythings specific like that, but that's also because with how both characters are framed - Geralt is just one person, nobody really that important in a big, war-torn Continent.
He's a Witcher, true, and people will judge him accordingly or change their opinions depending on his actions, but they'd still be able to interact with him on more personal level than Inquisitor - a point that has been actually stated multiple times throughout DAI (how legendary figures are both more and less of a person at the same time).
Herald of Andraste won't be able to be so up close and personal with majority of common folk (or even someone higher that that), simply because for most folks he/she is either a demigod or someone of either immense importance or popularity. Hence what else they could be commenting on other than efforts of Inquisition?
As for the horses and watch towers being optional, that is true. However, if you don't do them you miss out on mounts and two agents. I find that to be quite a loss and that is a shame. Horses for the Inquisition would be a huge thing and Harding mentions it, people at Haven mention it and yet, if you refuse to do it, you'd think there would be some consequence with people at least within the Inquisition. You just cost them some prime mounts that they desperately need. If you don't do it, it doesn't reflect on your personality. For the bolded, it doesn't reflect it because there is no way to run the Inquisitor inefficiently. Meaning, it's one way and one way only. Don't gather horses, no one cares that you denied the Inquisition mounts that they need. Deny refugees food, no one calls you selfish and heartless. No matter if you do or don't do these types of "greater good" missions, there is only one reaction to them. I can't imagine a hardened Inquisitor or someone who doesn't wish to portray a generous and charitable one, would run around wasting time on tracking down a ring or searching out mages caches for anyone other than the Inquisition's needs, etc. Yet, you can't and if you don't do the mission at all, there is no mention of it. If you're rolling a "good" Inquisitor, you'd be fine. I don't see much opportunity and reaction if you don't. There should be times when peasants are discussing your actions, good and bad.
And I apologize if this comment is maybe a bot more unfocused than my previous one - it's very late (or, very early) where I live and I really should be going to sleep now^^;
No need for apologies! lol You're fine. I am not on my best for certain and there is no doubt I am unfocused tonight. My cold medicine makes me feel as if my head weighs as much as my body. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I have enjoyed discussing it with you, but I don't want to derail the thread.
@KBomb: I totally agree there are improvements to be made, I just sometimes don't get threads like this. I think it's the chaos in them and the broad generalizations. Witcher is BEST! No! DA:I is BEST!
I don't see nearly as much specific, detailed examples that can really help Bioware at all - and more: "My gaming style is superior." (Not coming from you, I'm mean in general.)
I loved a lot of concepts from DA:I... but I found them to be in their extreme infancy. My biggest worry is that they'll just scrap ideas for "new ideas!" for the next game which will still be in their infancy and suffer from the same lack of polish many concepts in DA:I did.
If the Witcher has better consequences during side-quests that's great and I totally agree Bioware needs to do less celebrating the player and more sticking to their guns with chosen consequences. I still remain somewhat dubious that Geralt ever really experiences any personal loss, failure, hardship - because very few games have the stones to do that, but since I'm not going to play it I have to take the word of those who have.
I know the stats building speaks to a lot of people. I can take it or leave it, but it resonates with a big crowd and I think Bioware had best strongly consider returning to a more traditional style of RPG character building (which I gather the Witcher has).
I'm curious how the side quests are better - can you provide me with an example that spoke to you? What about it was better? Is it because you got to decide the fate of several NPCs? Is it because the writing was compelling?
@KBomb: I totally agree there are improvements to be made, I jusendingstimes don't get threads like this. I think it's the chaos in them and the broad generalizations. Witcher is BEST! No! DA:I is BEST!
I don't see nearly as much specific, detailed examples that can really help Bioware at all - and more: "My gaming style is superior." (Not coming from you, I'm mean in general.)
I loved a lot of concepts from DA:I... but I found them to be in their extreme infancy. My biggest worry is that they'll just scrap ideas for "new ideas!" for the next game which will still be in their infancy and suffer from the same lack of polish many concepts in DA:I did.
If the Witcher has better consequences during side-quests that's great and I totally agree Bioware needs to do less celebrating the player and more sticking to their guns with chosen consequences. I still remain somewhat dubious that Geralt ever really experiences any personal loss, failure, hardship - because very few games have the stones to do that, but since I'm not going to play it I have to take the word of those who have.
I know the stats building speaks to a lot of people. I can take it or leave it, but it resonates with a big crowd and I think Bioware had best strongly consider returning to a more traditional style of RPG character building (which I gather the Witcher has).
I'm curious how the side quests are better - can you provide me with an example that spoke to you? What about it was better? Is it because you got to decide the fate of several NPCs? Is it because the writing was compelling?
Actually depending on how you play Witcher 3 Geralt can and does experience personal loss, there are multiple endings. I just finished my first playthrough (apart from side quests I want to go back and finish and some exploring I want to do) and
Here's a question - is there anything analogous to a new game+ in TW3?
@AmberDragon: Again, that relies on pre-scripted requirements the game is telling me my character cares about. It's not something "I" did. Totally great for those who love Geralt and the characters you mention - but not what I'm hoping to emulate in games I play.
Some people hate the Inquisitor because he's forced to be neutral... but somehow everything forced about Geralt is superior. I'm not sure I get that argument - it seems radically inconsistent.
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
@AmberDragon: Again, that relies on pre-scripted requirements the game is telling me my character cares about. It's not something "I" did. Totally great for those who love Geralt and the characters you mention - but not what I'm hoping to emulate in games I play.
Some people hate the Inquisitor because he's forced to be neutral... but somehow everything forced about Geralt is superior. I'm not sure I get that argument - it seems radically inconsistent.
People hate the Inquisitor because he/she is just boring, there are no interesting RP possibilities just the same old neutral
the voice acting is terrible too (its like they didn't even try)
Geralt is already a pre defined character, you can still make choices etc. but overall he is more like Adam Jensen than Shepard
With the Inquisitor there is no reason to be neutral (with Geralts its part of him being a Witcher) so no there is nothing inconsistent with that argument
Also regarding the side quests I suggest you look some up on Youtube and compare it to DA:I fetch quest nr 999
Retour en haut
