15883 réponses à ce sujet

[Xetykins]

New Game Plus.  You start a new game, but keep your character stats and skills from a previous play-through. The game's enemies scale appropriately in difficulty.

Likr ME3?

[Gileadan]

Likr ME3?

Uhm, it has been a while, but I think yes.

[ashwind]

Likr ME3?

 

Not sure if it will be exactly like ME but I think the concept is similar. Although, I personally feel that this game is too long for an NG+

[chance52]

I know it won't be but I really hope that it will be the RedKit2.

 

This is the stance I wish BioWare and any other game company would take. If the DLC is big enough, charge for it, but don't put out buggy armor and a throne that blocks the camera during judgments and change $5 for the very small and broken content you are adding. It really doesn't paint your company in a good light. 

 

Realistically I don't even care if they do charge for armor packs, provided it is a reasonable price for the amount of content, or heck, package it with a larger story DLC, like what should have been done with the Spoils of the Avvar and the Jaws of Hakkon.

[JWvonGoethe]

After reading through the last ~40 pages (including the two posts that scold other BSNers for not reading the thread before posting) I had some thoughts on an old topic of debate. Sorry for going off topic, but it'll really bother me if I don't clear up some misconceptions from pages ~270 to ~280 regarding the supposed impossibility of failure in Inquisition. I'll put my thoughts in spoilers since, well, they contain significant spoilers, but also so I don't take up too much space with an opinion that doesn't pertain to the current discussion.

Spoiler

First of all, please bear in mind that there were people saying there was literally no way to fail anything at any point in Inquisition. For some reason the discussion centred on Druffy the Druffalo being immortal (and this lasted several pages) as if this was somehow proof that nothing you do in Inquisition can go wrong. However, there are actually quite a few ways to 'fail' in the game.

Just looking at the agents: Agent Ritts in the Hinterlands dies if you aren't quick/strong enough to rescue her (even if you do save her you might not find the evidence necessary to recruit her). Ser Barris dies if you let the great hall healthbar get below 30% during Champions of the Just - he can become an agent if he lives. Telling Jana to join the Grey Wardens will result in her being executed in a later quest. The Blades of Hessarian agents in the Storm Coast will attack the Inquisitor unless you are actually paying attention to the quest-related notes. There are quite a few others and that's just the agent quests.

Yes, I agree TW3 does failure better than Inquisition, but it's simply untrue to state that failure is impossible in Inquisition.

To be fair, I can understand why people might have the perception that you can't fail anything in Inquisition - even if it's not true. Taking Ritts as an example, you might assume that she's just supposed to die if you don't manage to save her since you can still complete the quest if she's dead. Even if you do save her, you'd naturally assume that's all there is to the quest if you didn't search the area for evidence after rescuing her (the evidence lets you recruit her).

It's often very subtle when you've screwed up in Inquisition's side-quests, to the point where you don't even notice you've messed up. That's a good thing and a bad thing: it makes it more realistic (in real life you don't get a "Quest Failed" notification when you miss an opportunity), but it also means that people don't notice they were able to effect change on the game through failing certain criteria - at least not until they replay the game/look up the DA Keep/read the wiki/discuss the game with others and see what they missed.

Also, the non-standard game over screens during main missions are pretty effective. I actually used one of them as the end-point of one playthrough when I died during a main mission and was told that my Inquisitor's death had just doomed Thedas to destruction. It's difficult to fail harder than that in a video-game...

[C0uncil0rTev0s]

However, there are actually quite a few ways to 'fail' in the game.

 

Okay, let me correct the original statement you're discussing. 

 

You can't fail a playthrough in means of storytelling, considering the chosen behavior (Paragon/Renegade).

 

You always win or lose, depending on the developer choice.

 

Whatever you decide to do in the meantime you save Thedas from Cory (considering you played the game to the end).

Whatever you decide to do in the meantime you save all your teammates (some can leave, none can die because of your actions).

Whatever you decide to do in the meantime you can't change the outcome. Mage/Templar and Elf/Human conflicts will start again just after you've finished the main story.  

 

Like nothing ever happened, you see? Not a single decision of yours is ever important.

[Xetykins]

After reading through the last ~40 pages (including the two posts that scold other BSNers for not reading the thread before posting) I had some thoughts on an old topic of debate. Sorry for going off topic, but it'll really bother me if I don't clear up some misconceptions from pages ~270 to ~280 regarding the supposed impossibility of failure in Inquisition. I'll put my thoughts in spoilers since, well, they contain significant spoilers, but also so I don't take up too much space with an opinion that doesn't pertain to the current discussion.

Spoiler

First of all, please bear in mind that there were people saying there was literally no way to fail anything at any point in Inquisition. For some reason the discussion centred on Druffy the Druffalo being immortal (and this lasted several pages) as if this was somehow proof that nothing you do in Inquisition can go wrong. However, there are actually quite a few ways to 'fail' in the game.Just looking at the agents: Agent Ritts in the Hinterlands dies if you aren't quick/strong enough to rescue her (even if you do save her you might not find the evidence necessary to recruit her). Ser Barris dies if you let the great hall healthbar get below 30% during Champions of the Just - he can become an agent if he lives. Telling Jana to join the Grey Wardens will result in her being executed in a later quest. The Blades of Hessarian agents in the Storm Coast will attack the Inquisitor unless you are actually paying attention to the quest-related notes. There are quite a few others and that's just the agent quests.Yes, I agree TW3 does failure better than Inquisition, but it's simply untrue to state that failure is impossible in Inquisition.To be fair, I can understand why people might have the perception that you can't fail anything in Inquisition - even if it's not true. Taking Ritts as an example, you might assume that she's just supposed to die if you don't manage to save her since you can still complete the quest if she's dead. Even if you do save her, you'd naturally assume that's all there is to the quest if you didn't search the area for evidence after rescuing her (the evidence lets you recruit her).It's often very subtle when you've screwed up in Inquisition's side-quests, to the point where you don't even notice you've messed up. That's a good thing and a bad thing: it makes it more realistic (in real life you don't get a "Quest Failed" notification when you miss an opportunity), but it also means that people don't notice they were able to effect change on the game through failing certain criteria - at least not until they replay the game/look up the DA Keep/read the wiki/discuss the game with others and see what they missed.Also, the non-standard game over screens during main missions are pretty effective. I actually used one of them as the end-point of one playthrough when I died during a main mission and was told that my Inquisitor's death had just doomed Thedas to destruction. It's difficult to fail harder than that in a video-game...

While I'm not belittling the death of the agent ( which I apparently I missed on my 2 pts. So do see her body or just read about it some note?) and Ser Barris. Do you really need more than 1 agent? Because even when I only have 1 and in the war table you can send that 1 agent and still achieve the same completion.

And iirc, i sent that girl to the wardens but put on the hessarian necklace and they did not attack me. I might be misremembering the faction of that necklace tho.

[KBomb]

After reading through the last ~40 pages (including the two posts that scold other BSNers for not reading the thread before posting) I had some thoughts on an old topic of debate. Sorry for going off topic, but it'll really bother me if I don't clear up some misconceptions from pages ~270 to ~280 regarding the supposed impossibility of failure in Inquisition. I'll put my thoughts in spoilers since, well, they contain significant spoilers, but also so I don't take up too much space with an opinion that doesn't pertain to the current discussion.

Spoiler

First of all, please bear in mind that there were people saying there was literally no way to fail anything at any point in Inquisition. For some reason the discussion centred on Druffy the Druffalo being immortal (and this lasted several pages) as if this was somehow proof that nothing you do in Inquisition can go wrong. However, there are actually quite a few ways to 'fail' in the game.

Just looking at the agents: Agent Ritts in the Hinterlands dies if you aren't quick/strong enough (even if you do save her you might not find the evidence necessary to recruit her). Ser Barris dies if you let the great hall healthbar get below 30% during Champions of the Just - he can become an agent if he lives. Telling Jana to join the Grey Wardens will result in her being executed in a later quest. The Blades of Hessarian agents in the Storm Coast will attack the Inquisitor unless you are actually paying attention to the quest-related notes. There are quite a few others and that's just the agent quests.

Yes, I agree TW3 does failure better than Inquisition, but it's simply untrue to state that failure is impossible in Inquisition.

To be fair, I can understand why people might have the perception that you can't fail anything in Inquisition - even if it's not true. Taking Ritts as an example, you might assume that she's just supposed to die if you don't manage to save her since you can still complete the quest if she's dead. Even if you do save her, you'd naturally assume that's all there is to the quest if you didn't search the area for evidence after rescuing her (the evidence lets you recruit her).

It's often very subtle when you've screwed up in Inquisition's side-quests, to the point where you don't even notice you've messed up. That's a good thing and a bad thing: it makes it more realistic (in real life you don't get a "Quest Failed" notification when you miss an opportunity), but it also means that people don't notice they were able to effect change on the game through failing certain criteria - at least not until they replay the game/look up the DA Keep/read the wiki/discuss the game with others and see what they missed.

Also, the non-standard game over screens during main missions are pretty effective. I actually used one of them as the end-point of one playthrough when I died during a main mission and was told that my Inquisitor's death had just doomed Thedas to destruction. It's difficult to fail harder than that in a video-game...

I am not sure why you brought the bolded, as it has absolutely nothing to do with your statement. 

 

Spoiler

As far as Agent Ritts, that mission(and I use that term loosely) has no consequence if you can't save her. If you run to her and she dies before you can make it, it's as if it didn't happen. There is no cut scene to let you know that you just ****** up. All you know is that some guy just asked you to find some chick with no context at all, she dies and you're like..okay. Does she even get a mission on the war table?

 

As for Ser Barris, yes, he can die--but it doesn't fail the mission. The templar mission carries on as normal, you just miss a few quests on the war table. Quests that you can't carry out. So, I don't see how that is failure since the mission is completely the same either way. It isn't like he shows up to help in the upcoming battle, with his templars in tow, ready to slaughter crazy mages---which would have been an awesome reward for keeping him alive, btw.

 

Same for Jana. Her death doesn't fail the quest. She just dies. Even if you save her and she becomes an agent, what does she do? Again, not even a war table mission, as far as I know. There is no consequence to her death. Business as usual. How can there be failure if nothing is gained?

 

I'll give you the Blades quest. Fair point on that one. 

 

As for agents, though? Most do absolutely nothing to help you further your quests. They are reduced to war table missions where you really just send someone else to do your mission. They give you some reduced time on missions for Leliana, Josephine and Cullen, but not enough to even notice. My first go, I didn't recruit that many, tbh and my second run I recruited all agents that be recruited and never noticed a difference. 

 

Do any of your recruits show up in the Arbor Wilds, or any other battles? 

 

Also, I don't consider "game over" a real failure, when you can reload and everything is as it was. I honestly can't remember, but I don't think it registers your death beyond, "Well, you screwed up. Now reload." Nothing gained/Nothing failed. Now, if you died and couldn't reload-- that's failure. 

 

But yep, if the "failure" is so subtle that you can't be aware of it what was lost in your failure, clearly the quest has poor design, imo. I mean, I spoke to Ritts for three minutes and never heard from her again. I didn't feel like I failed anything if she died and I certainly didn't feel as if I gained anything by saving her.  

 

I don't think I ever said it's impossible to fail every single quest, maybe some did. I don't think I did, though. I will say this: Most of the quests feel like filler. It feels like the just stuck whatever, wherever to fill the large space they created. If you take out all the little side quests where you fetch something, how many side quests are actually long?  A few, but a very small few.

[JWvonGoethe]

Okay, let me correct the original statement you're discussing. 
 
You can't fail a playthrough in means of storytelling, considering the chosen behavior (Paragon/Renegade).
 
You always win or lose, depending on the developer choice.

That isn't the statement I took issue with, but I appreciate that I could have been more specific about what exactly I was replying to. I wasn't specific in who I was replying since I think it's unfair to bring people up on posts from several days ago, but the statement you quoted was not the point that I was contending. It was later points that were spawned by this statement that I disgreed with, such as (all pertaining to Inquisition) "the choices are absolutely pointless, since you can't ever make a wrong choice.", "You suffer absolutely no setbacks in the game. You can't fail at anything at all." and "with DAI you couldn't actually fail a quest".

The examples I gave showed that these statements are factually incorrect. You can actually fail in certain quest-related activities, regardless of whether you believe those quests have any signficant impact on the world of Thedas or not.
 

Whatever you decide to do in the meantime you save Thedas from Cory (considering you played the game to the end).
Whatever you decide to do in the meantime you save all your teammates (some can leave, none can die because of your actions).
Whatever you decide to do in the meantime you can't change the outcome. Mage/Templar and Elf/Human conflicts will start again just after you've finished the main story.  
 
Like nothing ever happened, you see? Not a single decision of yours is ever important.

I haven't attempted to argue that any decisions have world-changing importance (other than the non-standard game over screens, which is obviously cheating). All I've tried to do is defend the game against the notion that it is impossible to fail at anything, regardless of the perceived importance of those things. Personally they had an impact on me, but it's totally fair that others wouldn't feel the same.

For the record, Inquisition and TW3 are two of the best games I've played in years. I'm not here to bash TW3 and I've found this thread very interesting to read.

[KBomb]

That isn't the statement I took issue with, but I appreciate that I could have been more specific about what exactly I was replying to. I wasn't specific in who I was replying since I think it's unfair to bring people up on posts from several days ago, but the statement you quoted was not the point that I was contending. It was later points that were spawned by this statement that I disgreed with, such as (all pertaining to Inquisition) "the choices are absolutely pointless, since you can't ever make a wrong choice.", "You suffer absolutely no setbacks in the game. You can't fail at anything at all." and "with DAI you couldn't actually fail a quest".

The examples I gave showed that these statements are factually incorrect. You can actually fail in certain quest-related activities, regardless of whether you believe those quests have any signficant impact on the world of Thedas or not.
 

I haven't attempted to argue that any decisions have world-changing importance (other than the non-standard game over screens, which is obviously cheating). All I've tried to do is defend the game against the notion that it is impossible to fail at anything, regardless of the perceived importance of those things. Personally they had an impact on me, but it's totally fair that others wouldn't feel the same.

For the record, Inquisition and TW3 are two of the best games I've played in years. I'm not here to bash TW3 and I've found this thread very interesting to read.

Even if I don't agree with you, I am glad you enjoyed the quests and feel as if they impacted you. That's always a good thing. They didn't impact me, but that is just my view of things.

 

I didn't think you were here to bash TW3, but to offer an opinion and that's what discussions are for. 

[JWvonGoethe]

I am not sure why you brought the bolded, as it has absolutely nothing to do with your statement.

I knew my statement was off-topic and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't criticised for appearing to jump into the thread without bothering to read it first. You're probably right - it was unnecessary and maybe slightly rude for me to make that remark.

Anyway, regarding your spoilered section, it's totally fair if you don't think the agent recruitment quests were satisfactory or that their fail states really mattered. I was just using them as a factual counter-example to some of the statements about how it's not possible to fail anything at all in Inquisition. Honestly, I did enjoy recruiting the agents (or failing to do so), but I can't totally see why others found them underwhelming.
 

Also, I don't consider "game over" a real failure, when you can reload and everything is as it was. I honestly can't remember, but I don't think it registers your death beyond, "Well, you screwed up. Now reload." Nothing gained/Nothing failed. Now, if you died and couldn't reload-- that's failure.

Yeah, I was cheating a bit with the non-standard game over screens. I was being tongue-in-cheek with those, but I do enjoy them.
 

But yep, if the "failure" is so subtle that you can't be aware of it what was lost in your failure, clearly the quest has poor design, imo.

Possibly... but this is an argument that could almost apply to TW3 too. I'd say it's a very fine line, but TW3 got the right balance of getting me thinking "Wait a second... was that supposed to happen?" after certain outcomes, only to ask a friend what happened in their game and finding out I got the "bad" (or "more morally grey") ending. I don't think Inquisition was as successful on this front. I'm sure there are some quests in TW3 however where I didn't even realise there was an alternative outcome, but I'm not sure I'd say that's necessarily a sign of bad quest design in and of itself.

But anyway, I agree with your last point that the side-quests in Inquisition should have been better done overall. It's my main problem with the game. I do enjoy them for the most part though, but I can't help wanting something more substantial at the same time.

[panzerwzh]

The effective demonstration of player choice vs consequence is not nessary depends on life or death. Here is a very good example what if player choose to slaughter baron's man before meet him.

 

The moral is consequences must be logical outcome of choice, and it is developer's job to make it so. CDPR puts amazing amount of thoughts and logical thinking into each quest in TW3.

[Aren]

There are to many threads floating around now though. This one started it and it has been a source of great feedback. Though i kind of get why people are abit upset. On the CDRP forums there are no one advocating for Dragon Age over there,

Why should they if they have the better  game?

I have yet come to see something that DAI does better than this game.

and let's put aside,the party,the possibility to create your own protagonist,and others things which WH3 doesn't do.

[panzerwzh]

And this is a good example to link several side stories together. (I missed in both my runs!)

[AmberDragon]

The effective demonstration of player choice vs consequence is not nessary depends on life or death. Here is a very good example what if player choose to slaughter baron's man before meet him.
https://www.youtube....h?v=GQOzYGits_M
 
The moral is consequences must be logical outcome of choice, and it is developer's job to make it so. CDPR puts amazing amount of thoughts and logical thinking into each quest in TW3.

I actually found that way in for my third playthrough without killing the men at the crossroads. May have to kill them for the fourth playthrough... LOL

[Xetykins]

Help..
Kill radovid or not? Really hard to play without much back stories


Eeenie meenie minee moe..

[Akrabra]

Help..
Kill radovid or not? Really hard to play without much back stories


Eeenie meenie minee moe..

Kill him, he is a maniac and there is no reason to let him live at all. Thats my opinion though.

[zyntifox]

Help..
Kill radovid or not? Really hard to play without much back stories


Eeenie meenie minee moe..

 

He hates, what he considers, non-humans. So if he lives expect genocide on Elves, Dwarves and sorceresses.  

 

Edit: On the other hand. If he dies there will be no force to stop the Nilfgaardian's advancing north.

[Elhanan]

Why should they if they have the better  game?
I have yet come to see something that DAI does better than this game.
and let's put aside,the party,the possibility to create your own protagonist,and others things which WH3 doesn't do.

Guess the absence of detractors at CDPR is an indication of the high quality of DAI then. Thanks; will remember that. And the fact that DAI has Pause and multiple options for the PC will not be forgotten.

[Xetykins]

He hates, what he considers, non-humans. So if he lives expect genocide on Elves, Dwarves and sorceresses.  
 
Edit: On the other hand. If he dies there will be no force to stop the Nilfgaardian's advancing north.

Well since those non-humans are part of the defences specially the mages that he's hunting down, he's doomed anyway I guess.

[ashwind]

Well since those non-humans are part of the defences specially the mages that he's hunting down, he's doomed anyway I guess.

I think it is safe to assume that besides Geralt's closest friends, everyone in the witcher has a reason or two to die

[Elhanan]

Uncertain as I have not tested or read about this, but wonder if Companions not recruited for the Inquisition perish or have a role in the events od the story.

[AmberDragon]

Why should they if they have the better  game?
I have yet come to see something that DAI does better than this game.
and let's put aside,the party,the possibility to create your own protagonist,and others things which WH3 doesn't do.

Actually there is a thread over at CDPRs forums http://forums.cdproj...s-DA-I-SPOILERS so far the consensus is W3 is the better game. Guess that Bioware need their shill, elhanan, to go over there and put everyone right as well as tell them that the game is putrid due to ESRB ratings (despite those being identical for both games). LOL

[AmberDragon]

Well since those non-humans are part of the defences specially the mages that he's hunting down, he's doomed anyway I guess.

Spoiler

You have to kill jim if you want Ciri to be Empress... if you don't then she becomes a Witcher.

[Elhanan]

Actually there is a thread over at CDPRs forums http://forums.cdproj...s-DA-I-SPOILERS so far the consensus is W3 is the better game. Guess that Bioware need their shill, elhanan, to go over there and put everyone right as well as tell them that the game is putrid due to ESRB ratings (despite those being identical for both games). LOL

Nah; do not need to, as I contend that DAI is the better product because it is playable. But thanks for the invitation.