15890 réponses à ce sujet

[FKA_Servo]

Err... I dont think DAO aged poorly... the color scheme in DAO actually fits the atmosphere of the game very well. It has the best atmosphere of the 3 DA game.

I didnt like any DA2 companions better than Zevran or Stan or Shale or Alistair or even Wynne and I certainly dont think they are better.

Also, DAI is only out for... less than a year, about a year (cant remember exact date)? How can you say that it will age well?

Conversely, I think that DAO was born ugly and is exhibit "A" on the importance of a toolkit.

The game is still great. But it looks awful and the animations are terrible. I think with regard to design and aesthetic, DAI blows it away. It'll age fine.

I think ME1 aged wonderfully, though. It remains a beautiful game with beautiful art direction.

[TheOgre]

Maybe if DAI had a form of NG+ at the launch I'd have a different opinion on this because I would have loved to play over and over again to gain my precious schematics? 

 

I hear you when you say people will complain and say their just copying TW3 but honestly in a game where you have to grind a lot for your schematics and ingredients it's much preferable, maybe to a small few or a moderate amount of players, to continue to beat the game over and over again getting all of your preferred items.

 

BY THE WAY

 

If anyone wants to add me on origin for MP fun, pm me! Game's really fun with friends.

[TheOgre]

Conversely, I think that DAO was born ugly and exhibit "A" on the importance of a toolkit.

The game is still great. But it looks awful and the animations are terrible.

I think ME1 aged wonderfully, though.

I liked the color, but can easily see why others did not.

 

Animations? Yeah..

 

But gameplay man.. thoughts?

[FKA_Servo]

I liked the color, but can easily see why others did not.

Animations? Yeah..

But gameplay man.. thoughts?

The gameplay was great. The story was great. It's an all-time favorite of mine, it's just awkward and ugly as all hell. It embodies the principle of "Bioware face" and "Bioware hands."

[rashie]

Am I one of the only people that thinks that Origins aged poorly and doesn't think it comes close to the same higher quality as DA:I and NWN?  That found the blank face, voiceless dialogue and utter shades of brown completely lifeless and an ugly relic from a time period where brown and grey was the preferred color scheme?  That still has to use player-created bug fixes in order to even play Awakening, and finds the Origins as a whole a giant turn off these days?  That felt DA2 had the better companions, and tighter story, and an overall better experience (note: not a better game) despite some of the glaring problems?  That feels that if BioWare takes some of this feedback for TW3 and applies it well that DA5 and beyond is only going to get better?  

 

That DA:I was a pretty good game that suffered from having too many platforms to juggle, and would have been much better had they focused on current gen console/PC in the first place without angering a bunch of their fans?

 

I'm not going to defend DA:I's problems.  I never have and I never will.  However, I'm still a big fan of the company that has loved most of their games for over 17 years.  I love all of the games I've played by them, despite various flaws (sometimes huge) that most of them have.  So I like threads like this overall, because I want my favorite company to get better.   

Honestly, coming from the pespective of someone who played games like Baldurs Gate 2, Fallout 2, planescape torment in their release etc and more recently games like pillars of eternity and divinity original sin, I think DA:O is a bit too simplistic as a cRPG in gameplay, with a rather lackluster main plot, but what it did do right was have a proper buildup to the final confrontation and to a certain degree its subplots.

 

I didn't look all that good in terms of visuals in 2009 either.

[Grieving Natashina]

The voiceless was one thing, but my character having the same expression while asking about the Archedemon as she did during sex bothered me.  I played and still play games with no voice for the PC.  However, the lack of voice on top of leaving no facial expression bores me these days.  Even Link has facial expressions now.  It was all good for me back in 2012 when I first played Origins, but I tried recently...and...eh.

 

I don't know how much more streamlined that DA2 could have been.  I've been gaining interest in ME more and more, and I guess the amount of auto-dialogue doesn't bother me too much.  Say what you will about DA:I, I think they did a much better job in that regard.  The more I play the entire ME series, the more I love it.  

 

I'm sorry but those brown and grey colors look awful.  They could have done without the "Chris Nolan/everything must be brown for the "realism" approach.  I thought that the dungeons were much better than DA:I.  I mentioned in threads before that having some way in game to get into the character's race/background was needed, although not in the same way that Origins did it.  The gameplay was a mixed bag.  I like the spells and abilities and have sodding tactics.  I hated the shuffle, and the times where my companions went "Derp, we're not listening" in a lot of fights.  

 

I would have preferred a pre-Temple event, where you talk to the people and find out the little details.  Actually interact with members of the Carta or whatever.  The origins in DA:O was nice and all, but outside of a dwarf it never really comes into play.  

 

I didn't say I thought Origins was a "bad thing."  I don't think Origins is bad and I never will.  I enjoyed it, and I wouldn't be still playing it sometimes if I didn't.  In fact, I think it's still a good game, and a nice intro into Western RPGs from the 2000s.  I just don't think it's aged well, and that ME (which came out a year earlier) aged much more gracefully.  I find Origins a lot more limiting in roleplaying to me than even DA:I, but again, that doesn't make it a bad game.

 

At this point, I'm just happy we have a multitude of RPGs to talk about these days.  

[FiveThreeTen]

Conversely, I think that DAO was born ugly and is exhibit "A" on the importance of a toolkit.

The game is still great. But it looks awful and the animations are terrible. I think with regard to design and aesthetic, DAI blows it away. It'll age fine.

I think ME1 aged wonderfully, though. It remains a beautiful game with beautiful art direction.

Never struck me as terrible, some combat animations even looks beautiful (warrior tree off the top of my head).

But then again, I even got used to the female strut/stiff male walking and ott combat animations in DA2 despite being a PC graphic ****** so...

 

Oh wait, I've never gotten used to Shepard Gorilla walk in ME2 and never will

 

But yeah despite needing more life in some areas, DAI is a beautiful game.

[ashwind]

Conversely, I think that DAO was born ugly and is exhibit "A" on the importance of a toolkit.

The game is still great. But it looks awful and the animations are terrible. I think with regard to design and aesthetic, DAI blows it away. It'll age fine.

I think ME1 aged wonderfully, though. It remains a beautiful game with beautiful art direction.

 

Animation, body proportion - yeah. There is a lot I dont like about the graphics. It is unfair to compare the graphics of DAI to DAO because... obvious reasons. 

 

Graphics is the last thing that matters when it comes to "aging well".

 

People play DAO because of its one of a kind experience and gameplay. DAI has generic gameplay and 6 years later, its graphics will look ugly by then. Why do people still play DOOM, Morrowinds, Dead Space, Bioshock, System Shock, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, BG, etc? Because of graphics? No. Because they offer something unique. Unique feeling, unique sensation.

 

After I play TW3, after I see the morning mist, the trees swaying with the wind, the animals, the hair (heck it even looks different when your hair is wet), I boot up DAI and I dont feel that it is pretty anymore. It is okay but not pretty anymore. 

[panzerwzh]

Honestly, coming from the pespective of someone who played games like Baldurs Gate 2, Fallout 2, planescape torment in their release etc and more recently games like pillars of eternity and divinity original sin, I think DA:O is a bit too simplistic as a cRPG in gameplay, with a rather lackluster main plot, but what it did do right was have a proper buildup to the final confrontation and to a certain degree its subplots.
 
I didn't look all that good in terms of visuals in 2009 either.

Agree, the glory Black Isles will live forever in my heart. As for DAO is still the peak of DA series when it comes to RPG design,quests and pacing etc. That's the sad part.

[Grieving Natashina]

Animation, body proportion - yeah. There is a lot I dont like about the graphics. It is unfair to compare the graphics of DAI to DAO because... obvious reasons. 

 

Graphics is the last thing that matters when it comes to "aging well".

 

People play DAO because of its one of a kind experience and gameplay. DAI has generic gameplay and 6 years later, its graphics will look ugly by then. Why do people still play DOOM, Morrowinds, Dead Space, Bioshock, System Shock, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, BG, etc? Because of graphics? No. Because they offer something unique. Unique feeling, unique sensation.

 

After I play TW3, after I see the morning mist, the trees swaying with the wind, the animals, the hair (heck it even looks different when your hair is wet), I boot up DAI and I dont feel that it is pretty anymore. It is okay but not pretty anymore. 

I find that my 16 bit games aged better than a lot of games that came out in 2000s.  I think my 16 bit and PSX games still look great.  So that's not it at all.  Dull colors are still dull.  It reeks of a period in time where creativity for colors and graphics was still dead.  I can easily go to a site about RPGs and show you games that has a similar dreary art style.  

 

In fact, I thought that Chrono Cross (PSX) blew Origins graphics out of the water.  It was bright, colorful, and yet had some pretty damned dark themes.  Yes, a game that came out in 2000 and I think holds up better graphically than DA:O.  I still play those games frequently..  God of War is extremely dark, violent and brooding and yet there was a lot of color.  I do find having a distinct art style that doesn't look like almost every other game of the same rating on the market important to making sure a game ages well.

[FKA_Servo]

Animation, body proportion - yeah. There is a lot I dont like about the graphics. It is unfair to compare the graphics of DAI to DAO because... obvious reasons. 
 
Graphics is the last thing that matters when it comes to "aging well".
 
People play DAO because of its one of a kind experience and gameplay. DAI has generic gameplay and 6 years later, its graphics will look ugly by then. Why do people still play DOOM, Morrowinds, Dead Space, Bioshock, System Shock, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, BG, etc? Because of graphics? No. Because they offer something unique. Unique feeling, unique sensation.

Many of those games also have lovely, unique art design. That's the key to aging well. If you ask me. That's why ME1 is still so lovely, or games like Bioshock, Grim Fandango or Psychonauts.

DAO is just kind of bland and generic.

[Xetykins]

I have a couple sincere and honest questions for this thread.  Please don't take this as an attack or flaming on my part.  You know that I respect where a lot of you are coming from.  
 
This is something I'm just curious about:
 
Many people have given thought out and (mostly) friendly feedback about what CDPR's strong points were in TW versus Dragon Age.  There is apparently a lot of passion for that game, and what it did well.
 
Here's my first question:  If BioWare made it more like TW, wouldn't that immediately invite cries that they were "ripping off" CDPR?  I've seen this a lot before and sometimes from the same posters only a few months apart.  The same people that were asking DA to be more like Skyrim were bashing on DA for being more like Skyrim.  I'm not talking about whatever someone thought about DA:I's end product, I'm talking about just having some of those more sandbox exploration elements in the game at all.   I'm talking before the game was even out.
 
"Be more like Skryim!  We want exploration!"
<game info is released, showing more exploration elements>
"You ripped off Skyrim!  Can't you hacks think of something for yourselves?"
 
My second question:  If BioWare does make the game more like the Witcher, would you guys consider it paying attention to feedback, or BioWare just caving in and delivering a "clone only with a customizable PC" because of it's success?  I'm asking because there is a ton of comments saying that DA or even ME should be more like the Witcher series.  
 
Again, I apologize if anyone was offended by those questions, but it is something that I would like to hear some opinions on.  

I would never ever want Dragon Age to be like the Witcher series. The companions and having to create your own character is a real must on the Dragon Age series. I also like the multi races, hence I'm not too wild about Hawke.

I don't think anyone is asking that here. I want the tighter story back like DAO, I know you don't like DAO that much and has aged very badly for you, but judging from the official Bioware poll, I think it pretty much explained how precious DAO was ( or in my case it still is because I still play it).

Better side quests like TW3 that the side quests has story and twists and has a narrative of their own.

A world that's alive

Proper cities. Man talking to Leliana in DAO made me really want to see that cathedral. Was very very excited that we are going to Orlais and val royeaux. Well, you know how that went

Details!!! I don't even know where to start on that one. TW3 did it incredibly well on the design.

Exploration that's actually worth your time. TW3 has absolutely beautiful places like DAI. But it took it to a much higher level like finding new interesting quests. And the weather and day/night cycle makes it soo much more beautiful to stop at spots and admire the world, specially in Titan Z. Personally this is not very important. What is important though is the stories that I can get myself lost on while doing them. Not fetch this fetch that, kill this and kill that...... THE END. And also main story as a whole.

All these above, you will never trully understand until you play the game with an open mind imho.

[FiveThreeTen]

The voiceless was one thing, but my character having the same expression while asking about the Archedemon as she did during sex bothered me.  I played and still play games with no voice for the PC.  However, the lack of voice on top of leaving no facial expression bores me these days.  Even Link has facial expressions now.  It was all good for me back in 2012 when I first played Origins, but I tried recently...and...eh.

 

I don't know how much more streamlined that DA2 could have been.  I've been gaining interest in ME more and more, and I guess the amount of auto-dialogue doesn't bother me too much.  Say what you will about DA:I, I think they did a much better job in that regard.  The more I play the entire ME series, the more I love it.  

 

I'm sorry but those brown and grey colors look awful.  They could have done without the "Chris Nolan/everything must be brown for the "realism" approach.  I thought that the dungeons were much better than DA:I.  I mentioned in threads before that having some way in game to get into the character's race/background was needed, although not in the same way that Origins did it.  The gameplay was a mixed bag.  I like the spells and abilities and have sodding tactics.  I hated the shuffle, and the times where my companions went "Derp, we're not listening" in a lot of fights.  

 

I would have preferred a pre-Temple event, where you talk to the people and find out the little details.  Actually interact with members of the Carta or whatever.  The origins in DA:O was nice and all, but outside of a dwarf it never really comes into play.  

 

I didn't say I thought Origins was a "bad thing."  I don't think Origins is bad and I never will.  I enjoyed it, and I wouldn't be still playing it sometimes if I didn't.  In fact, I think it's still a good game, and a nice intro into Western RPGs from the 2000s.  I just don't think it's aged well, and that ME (which came out a year earlier) aged much more gracefully.  I find Origins a lot more limiting in roleplaying to me than even DA:I, but again, that doesn't make it a bad game.

 

At this point, I'm just happy we have a multitude of RPGs to talk about these days.  

I'm totally the contrary, since now I find the ME serie ultra cheesy with overthetop companions that are extremely tropey with too many plotholes and nonsensical scenario that didn't exploit its setting really well. Matter of taste really.

 

Huh no? You still had specific dialogue for each origins througout the story. Not saying it was perfect but it was implemented well enough. Unless I dreamed my Tabris dialogues or Cousland and Amell specific lines.

 

I didn't say that DAI was limiting in roleplay. It was ok a tad inferior to Origins for me with the lack of Origins but ok. I really liked DAI overall.

[ashwind]

I find that my 16 bit games aged better than a lot of games that came out in 2000s.  I think my 16 bit and PSX games still look great.  So that's not it at all.  Dull colors are still dull.  It reeks of a period in time where creativity for colors and graphics was still dead.  I can easily go to a site about RPGs and show you games that has a similar dreary art style.  

 

In fact, I thought that Chrono Cross (PSX) blew Origins graphics out of the water.  It was bright, colorful, and yet had some pretty damned dark themes.  Yes, a game that came out in 2000 and I think holds up better graphically than DA:O.  I still play those games frequently..  God of War is extremely dark, violent and brooding and yet there was a lot of color.  I do find having a distinct art style that doesn't look like almost every other game of the same rating on the market important to making sure a game ages well.

 

If we are only talking about color scheme, well, to each his own.

 

Many of those games also have lovely, unique art design. That's the key to aging well. If you ask me. That's why ME1 is still so lovely, or games like Bioshock, Grim Fandango or Psychonauts.

DAO is just kind of bland and generic.

 

True, some art style ages better than others. Zelda would be a perfect example of that if you ask me.

 

I still maintain that the key to aging well is to offer people a unique experience and a unique sensation. DOOM, the fast pace chaotic experience is what we want. You cant find it any where else. Unfortunately, devs keep getting it wrong and we keep playing the classic. 

[Elhanan]

I still play DAO and DA2 and contend the original is the best of the series, but have also enjoyed alterations made to it along the way.

The pace of combat in DAI is preferred over the sluggish default animations of DAO, and the weightless speed exhibited in DA2; 2H animations are a good example.

I rather enjoy the changes made to potions and alchemy; prefer the mechanics in DAI to the possible spamming of elixirs seen previously.

Spell and Ability tiers were best for me in DA2, with more Quickslots, more variety, and possibly fewer prereq's than the other titles.

Prefer a single Specialization used in DAI; seemingly gave it more depth and worth.

The newest dialogue wheel is my favorite, and the options to hide Icons if desired, though I keep them as a preference. Having more choices for responses was wonderful, and I am sold on full VO over silent characters.

Only my opinion: DAO > DAI > DA2

[rashie]

I find that my 16 bit games aged better than a lot of games that came out in 2000s.  I think my 16 bit and PSX games still look great.  So that's not it at all.  Dull colors are still dull.  It reeks of a period in time where creativity for colors and graphics was still dead.  I can easily go to a site about RPGs and show you games that has a similar dreary art style.  

 

In fact, I thought that Chrono Cross (PSX) blew Origins graphics out of the water.  It was bright, colorful, and yet had some pretty damned dark themes.  Yes, a game that came out in 2000 and I think holds up better graphically than DA:O.  I still play those games frequently..  God of War is extremely dark, violent and brooding and yet there was a lot of color.  I do find having a distinct art style that doesn't look like almost every other game of the same rating on the market important to making sure a game ages well.

Games from that period between the first introduction of real 3D and early 2000s have mostly all aged pretty badly imo, good pixel and 2d art looks far better than games done in that original transition even today, at least on the PC side that is.

[Grieving Natashina]

 

 

 

 

Huh no? You still had specific dialogue for each origins througout the story. Not saying it was perfect but it was implemented well enough. Unless I dreamed my Tabris dialogues or Cousland and Amell specific lines.

 

I didn't say that DAI was limiting in roleplay. It was ok a tad inferior to Origins for me with the lack of Origins but ok. I really liked DAI overall.

 

 

What lines for Amell?  I don't recall much more than a line or two at the Circle.   Tabris had Tamlen, so a few lines and one event.  Not exactly running throughout the game.  Cousland?  What? No one gave a crap past Ostagar until near the end when it came to the Landsmeet.  Why even give Cousland a backstory if there is literally no mention of it after an early converstaion with Alistair until the Landsmeet.  They could have just said, "Hey, you're a human noble" and it would have had as much impact.

 

If DA:I hadn't relied so much on that stupid War Table for backstory, I would say they did better than Origins.  However, they screwed that one up and Origins did that better for sure.

 

If I was going to be brutally honest and rating this based solely on personal enjoyment (not necessarily quality,) I'd go:

 

DA:I>ME2>ME1>ME3>NWN>DA2>DA:O 

 

That doesn't mean that Origins is a bad or terrible game at all.  I still recommend it to anyone that says they are a RPG fan.   It's just the one I thought was the weakest out of the games that I have played from BioWare in the last 10 years.

[TheOgre]

DAO's art bland and generic? Et Tou, TommyServo? 

 

I preferred it over DAI's style to be honest. Not trying to be mean but maybe the elf temple was worth remembering but that's about it as far as art style goes.

 

Places I loved especially? Orzimmar, the Temple where you get the sacred ashes from, and the armor styling was more to my liking overall than what I had in DAI.

[ashwind]

"Be more like Skryim!  We want exploration!"

<game info is released, showing more exploration elements>

 

I just realize something. Exploration. Feedback to Bioware is, try to understand what exploration means before implementing it. Bioware got exploration all wrong for the most part in DAI. If they are learning from Skyrim... I cannot fathom how can DAI's exploration be this bad.

 

Let me try to explain what "exploration" is. Exploration is not marking the map with a sign, putting some shards there and force the player to walk all over there to .... admire the vista. That is not exploration.

 

This is what a typical exploration experience in Skyrim is like:

I am wondering around and suddenly I notice a cave/hole that is concealed by thick undergrowth. I entered the cave/tunnel out of curiosity. After inspecting and exploring I notice a crack in the corner. I followed the narrow crack deeper into the unknown. After sometime, I find myself before a huge underground ruins that is of dunmer origin. I explore more and fight dunmer machines and found some treasure, guardian boss. Or I find myself in some ancient burial chamber and a quest!

 

This experience is what motivates players to wonder the map and look for secrets. This is exploration. I hope this will help Bioware understand what exploration means.

[Gileadan]

I just realize something. Exploration. Feedback to Bioware is, try to understand what exploration means before implementing it. Bioware got exploration all wrong for the most part in DAI. If they are learning from Skyrim... I cannot fathom how can DAI's exploration be this bad.

 

Let me try to explain what "exploration" is. Exploration is not marking the map with a sign, putting some shards there and force the player to walk all over there to .... admire the vista. That is not exploration.

 

This is what a typical exploration experience in Skyrim is like:

I am wondering around and suddenly I notice a cave/hole that is concealed by thick undergrowth. I entered the cave/tunnel out of curiosity. After inspecting and exploring I notice a crack in the corner. I followed the narrow crack deeper into the unknown. After sometime, I find myself before a huge underground ruins that is of dunmer origin. I explore more and fight dunmer machines and found some treasure, guardian boss. Or I find myself in some ancient burial chamber and a quest!

 

This experience is what motivates players to wonder the map and look for secrets. This is exploration. I hope this will help Bioware understand what exploration means.

I'd dump a wheelbarrow with a dozen more likes or so at your door if I could.

 

Exploration is not "go to the X on your map", it's "go to the white part of your map where no one has made an X before". 

[FiveThreeTen]

What lines for Amell?  I don't recall much more than a line or two at the Circle.   Tabris had Tamlen, so a few lines and one event.  Not exactly running throughout the game.  Cousland?  What? No one gave a crap past Ostagar until near the end when it came to the Landsmeet.  Why even give Cousland a backstory if there is literally no mention of it after an early converstaion with Alistair until the Landsmeet.  They could have just said, "Hey, you're a human noble" and it would have had as much impact.

Tabris is the City elf origin, Tamlen is there in the Dalish one. You had specific dialogue throuhout the game if you were an elf in general.

Cousland, even after Ostagar, some people recognize you (Teagan/Eamon/Anora/Some guards in Denerim from what I can remember) and taking revenge on Howe is a great pay off (also for Tabris). The fact that the Origins is the most relevant during specific events is not a flaw in itself (and it's the exact same thing for the dwarven origins). Landsmeet when you're a Cousland is extremely rewarding (and by rewarding I don't necessarily mean becoming King/Queen, I never choose that option).

Tabris get a load of dialogues in the Alienage section.

Amells/Surana get the most out of the Circle true but it's already much more than what you get in DAI.

 

Even if I love reading wartables mission reports.

[Elhanan]

I just realize something. Exploration. Feedback to Bioware is, try to understand what exploration means before implementing it. Bioware got exploration all wrong for the most part in DAI. If they are learning from Skyrim... I cannot fathom how can DAI's exploration be this bad.
 
Let me try to explain what "exploration" is. Exploration is not marking the map with a sign, putting some shards there and force the player to walk all over there to .... admire the vista. That is not exploration.
 
This is what a typical exploration experience in Skyrim is like:
I am wondering around and suddenly I notice a cave/hole that is concealed by thick undergrowth. I entered the cave/tunnel out of curiosity. After inspecting and exploring I notice a crack in the corner. I followed the narrow crack deeper into the unknown. After sometime, I find myself before a huge underground ruins that is of dunmer origin. I explore more and fight dunmer machines and found some treasure, guardian boss. Or I find myself in some ancient burial chamber and a quest!
 
This experience is what motivates players to wonder the map and look for secrets. This is exploration. I hope this will help Bioware understand what exploration means.

And the latter choice is available, as one does not have to use markers or the maps. Hiding the UI and Floating Text have been options I have enjoyed; using mods and Setting choices seen in Skyrim and other titles.

If the Player wishes to use markers in DAI or TW3, that is their call to make. If the game allows for options to make the game more immersive for themselves, this is a bonus. But it is not the designers fault if the Player chooses to use a methodology when having the choice to avoid it.

[rashie]

I just realize something. Exploration. Feedback to Bioware is, try to understand what exploration means before implementing it. Bioware got exploration all wrong for the most part in DAI. If they are learning from Skyrim... I cannot fathom how can DAI's exploration be this bad.

 

Let me try to explain what "exploration" is. Exploration is not marking the map with a sign, putting some shards there and force the player to walk all over there to .... admire the vista. That is not exploration.

 

This is what a typical exploration experience in Skyrim is like:

I am wondering around and suddenly I notice a cave/hole that is concealed by thick undergrowth. I entered the cave/tunnel out of curiosity. After inspecting and exploring I notice a crack in the corner. I followed the narrow crack deeper into the unknown. After sometime, I find myself before a huge underground ruins that is of dunmer origin. I explore more and fight dunmer machines and found some treasure, guardian boss. Or I find myself in some ancient burial chamber and a quest!

 

This experience is what motivates players to wonder the map and look for secrets. This is exploration. I hope this will help Bioware understand what exploration means.

Pretty much nailed it.

 

In the case of skyrim for me, it gets even better when you use a mod like Requiem to completely delevel the entire world along with higher difficulty in general, meaning its possible to stumble upon a nest of vampires that will kick your ass and eat you alive at lvl 5, together with things like frostfall making it possible to freeze to death unless clothed and equipped properly to handle some of the harsher places.

 

Its a slightly old school design view of rpg's but it gives the world a sense of real danger, were exploring and suddenly hearing a dragon roaring and coming flying, heck even a rock or ice troll, which actually scares the **** out of you unless actually prepared for a fight.

[Grieving Natashina]

Tabris is the City elf origin, Tamlen is there in the Dalish one. You had specific dialogue throuhout the game if you were an elf in general.

Cousland, even after Ostagar, some people recognize you (Teagan/Eamon/Anora/Some guards in Denerim from what I can remember) and taking revenge on Howe is a great pay off (also for Tabris). The fact that the Origins is the most relevant during specific events is not a flaw in itself (and it's the exact same thing for the dwarven origins). Landsmeet when you're a Cousland is extremely rewarding (and by rewarding and don't necessarily mean becoming King/Queen, I never choose that option).

Tabris get a load of dialogues in the Alienage section.

Amells/Surana get the most out of the Circle true but it's already much more than what you get in DAI.

 

Even if I love reading wartables mission reports.

See, you just proved my point.  This isn't "throughout the game" this is "if you're in the right spot."   DA:I would have done much better in that regard, except...

 

I hate the War Table.  It's one of the laziest ways I've seen BioWare attempt story telling in any game before.  PC elf clan?  You don't get to meet them ever, but here's a shiny War Table questline.  Oh sorry, did we mention that unless you pay really close attention or have a guide you can kill them off.  Plenty of dwarves walking around, but the Carta is active.  Here's some nice text-only quests.  

 

That War Table should have been used for smaller quests and busywork like gathering materials.  Not as a cheap and lazy why to provide background quests for the player character.

 

Regarding exploration:  I've played BG1 and BG2.  DA:I >>>>>>>>those.

[ashwind]

And the latter choice is available, as one does not have to use markers or the maps. Hiding the UI and Floating Text have been options I have enjoyed; using mods and Setting choices seen in Skyrim and other titles.

If the Player wishes to use markers in DAI or TW3, that is their call to make. If the game allows for options to make the game more immersive for themselves, this is a bonus. But it is not the designers fault if the Player chooses to use a methodology when having the choice to avoid it.

 

 

Feedback to you: Try not to jump to defend Bioware the moment someone criticizes them. You are doing them no favor and you are actually trying to destroy them with your comments. Take a moment, digest and understand what is being said before responding. This is the exact problem with Bioware. Jumping to implement something without understanding.

 

Who is talking about markers? I am not. Exploration is that you never know what you will find and/or where you find them. If the player knows that there is nothing interesting on the map. No hidden caves, hidden ruins, hidden treasure but only shards and a static picture or a place to poke a flag. What is the point of "exploring"? What is there to "explore"?