And DAI had corpses in the nearby fields, as well as the buildings. And carrion and wolves were also seen there, too.
It was pretty limited. DAI doesn't make you feel like you're in a war, it makes you feel like you're taking a happy jaunt through the woods collecting rocks. Compared to say, seeing the army camp in chapter 2 of the witcher 2, it fails completely.
So is it fair to assume that you'd like more of those moments in the next game? That they form a valuable part of the experience? If yes, then we are all saying the same thing. A lot of posters here who actually played TW3 were overwhelmed by how many of those moments there were in that game, and that they would like to see more of it in the next DA game, which truly had a lot less. What we're saying is not a bad thing for the next DA game, but a good one that would benefit all players who enjoy having the games they play evoke emotions. Be it nostalgia, or awe, or shock, or bewilderment, or admiration, or compassion, or pain or horror, or love - in short, immersion - is what gamers look for, isn't it? It's not about the fact both games had wolves, or that there is a rational reason why Redcliffe was so different, but about what you feel when you play. BW games are great about evoking emotions. They truly are. But for me and apparently several others, another game did it even better, and by pointing out how this was achieved is constructive feedback with the aim of making the next game better.
I guess my point is that I am unsure why you so ardently contradict almost every post about a game you have not played, without actually paying attention to the intention of those posts.
DAI didn't focus on story or emotion unlike the past games, it focused on MMO elements and large maps, and then in the name of parity it cut the more interesting content.





Retour en haut





