15883 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

It's a lot easier to give a rich backstory when you only have one main character to work with.

 

With DAI if they gave too much of a backstory people would whine and if not enough more whining. I think they did fairly well in the middle so *shrug*.

[Lawrence0294]

Nailed it; demonic led, not possessed. Thanks!

If that is the only change we can expect to see...that's quite disappointing don't you think ?

 

Just put some glowy green eyes and that's it. Kind of mediocre. And you say they are supposed to behave unnaturally from a quest description yet we don't witness that. This comes back to a crucial problem I believe DA:I had, and that is: Don't bloody tell me, show me !!! 

[Wolven_Soul]

Dunno what a demonic led wolf is supposed to look like myself (glowing eyes?), but they were in the game, and were described as behaving unnaturally for the quest. And corpses and ruined structures were nearby in several locations, as well as a few wandering demons for a few areas and sites.

Cannot complain that something was not implemented if it was, or should not anyway.

Did you even read what the other guy even said?  He was commenting that the rifts should have had some affect on the land around them.  Which they did not.  Wandering demons and ruined structures that have absolutely nothing to do with the rifts is a pretty terrible argument.  

[Wolven_Soul]

If that is the only change we can expect to see...that's quite disappointing don't you think ?

 

Just put some glowy green eyes and that's it. Kind of mediocre. And you say they are supposed to behave unnaturally from a quest description yet we don't witness that. This comes back to a crucial problem I believe DA:I had, and that is: Don't bloody tell me, show me !!! 

Yeah, they act just like every other single wolf in the game, as they attack you on sight, but we're supposed to believe they are acting oddly.

[Lawrence0294]

It's a lot easier to give a rich backstory when you only have one main character to work with.

 

With DAI if they gave too much of a backstory people would whine and if not enough more whining. I think they did fairly well in the middle so *shrug*

I don't agree to that. I sincerely don't think people whined at the fact that we were told and actually given the chance to play the backstory of your Warden in Origins.

 

In DA:I, we basically have some text, that is very simplistic and vague, and we have no emotional connection at all. A great example is the elf Inqui who finds that her clan is destroyed...and she/he doesn't care at all. No cut scene or anything. Having a quest based on your origin would have done wonders I think. 

[Wolven_Soul]

It's a lot easier to give a rich backstory when you only have one main character to work with.

 

With DAI if they gave too much of a backstory people would whine and if not enough more whining. I think they did fairly well in the middle so *shrug*.

Pretty sure I said both styles have their place, sooooo.....not sure what your arguing with me for....

 

Though, since you did mention it, I would not even say that DA:I gave us a middle ground.  DA:O gave us more in terms of our characters backstories because we actually got to play through it.  It would have been better if in Inquisition we got more than a few operations on the war board.  There should have been a unique quest or two.

[rashie]

Beginning to think that your simple a troll.

I had a feeling for a while now hes simply only in this thread because he feels the need to provide a counterweight, to everything people are saying about the witchers design choices.

[Wolven_Soul]

I had a feeling for a while now hes simply only in this thread because he feels the need to provide a counterweight, to everything people are saying about the witchers design choices.

I know and such flimsy weights to.  Shame on me for not cottoning on to it more quickly.

[Elhanan]

Terrible argument.  Yes, we can make different characters in DA:I.  No, none of them have anywhere near as rich a history or background as Geralt does.  And certainly none of them are anywhere near as badass of a character.  Games that have only one option for the player character certainly have their place, as do games where you can create your character.

And DAI supposedly has a rich story for the NPC's encountered by the tailored PC, though I have not read these books either.

As for a deeper backstory, we have the previous entries with Origins, and then again with Hawke. For DAI, we have an outsider tossed into the events, having history thrust upon them. While I also prefer the other approach, the Codex entry was much like those seen with a pre-generated character seen elsewhere.

[Elhanan]

If that is the only change we can expect to see...that's quite disappointing don't you think ?
 
Just put some glowy green eyes and that's it. Kind of mediocre. And you say they are supposed to behave unnaturally from a quest description yet we don't witness that. This comes back to a crucial problem I believe DA:I had, and that is: Don't bloody tell me, show me !!! 

Perhaps other changes besides size, eyes, and aggression might have worked for a corrupted foe like the Red Templars, but the wolves themselves were not apparently willingly possessed; simply led by lesser demons. And one only needs so many spiky monsters; those are seen in the Fade.

[Ryzaki]

I don't agree to that. I sincerely don't think people whined at the fact that we were told and actually given the chance to play the backstory of your Warden in Origins.

 

In DA:I, we basically have some text, that is very simplistic and vague, and we have no emotional connection at all. A great example is the elf Inqui who finds that her clan is destroyed...and she/he doesn't care at all. No cut scene or anything. Having a quest based on your origin would have done wonders I think. 

 

The backstory that varied and because of such was very lightly mentioned throughout? You pretty much get 2 big parts of your backstory influencing. The opening and Orz (if dwarf), Landsmeet (if human noble or CE), Mage tower (if mage) and that's it. It certainly wasn't the level that Geralt had. Wait also you got that part in Haven.

 

They're missions the PC doesn't participate in. As for the elf mission yeah that was pretty lulzy and badly handled.

 

Pretty sure I said both styles have their place, sooooo.....not sure what your arguing with me for....

 

Though, since you did mention it, I would not even say that DA:I gave us a middle ground.  DA:O gave us more in terms of our characters backstories because we actually got to play through it.  It would have been better if in Inquisition we got more than a few operations on the war board.  There should have been a unique quest or two.

 

Well if that's what you said then we're agreed on it.

 

True there should've been but seeing as how late some of the races were added I'm not surprised that wasn't the case. You can see they were pressed for time (the horrible Qunari hair, how they can't use a good portion of the outfits for reasons).

[Elhanan]

Did you even read what the other guy even said?  He was commenting that the rifts should have had some affect on the land around them.  Which they did not.  Wandering demons and ruined structures that have absolutely nothing to do with the rifts is a pretty terrible argument.

er... dead bodies and ruined structures do seem to be such evidence, as well as roaming demons to actually see what may be the cause. Am not Sherlock, but appears elementary....

[Elhanan]

Yeah, they act just like every other single wolf in the game, as they attack you on sight, but we're supposed to believe they are acting oddly.

Believe this is mentioned by the one giving the quest. However, if one found this while exploring - a praised feature of DAI - locating the demon might be enough to solve any questions.

[Elhanan]

I don't agree to that. I sincerely don't think people whined at the fact that we were told and actually given the chance to play the backstory of your Warden in Origins.
 
In DA:I, we basically have some text, that is very simplistic and vague, and we have no emotional connection at all. A great example is the elf Inqui who finds that her clan is destroyed...and she/he doesn't care at all. No cut scene or anything. Having a quest based on your origin would have done wonders I think.

The choice to care or not is given to the Player in dialogue and War Table missions; have seen this recently with my newest Elven Inq this week. Options are wonderful, even in RP.

[line_genrou]

Uhhh....and yet they still made a superior game.  My God if CDPR had Bioware's budget....I can't even imagine how much more incredible it would have been.  But then, if they did...they would probably have to deal with a crappy publisher like EA.....

 

This made me think what TW3 would be if CDPR were under EA

All the soul would be sucked out of it, multiplayer added for sure, the combat would be way faster because it should fit multiplayer, the lore would be distorted beyond recognition...

[Elhanan]

I had a feeling for a while now hes simply only in this thread because he feels the need to provide a counterweight, to everything people are saying about the witchers design choices.

Not against TW3, but those that describe DAI inaccurately; purposely or not. This thread is supposedly about features that would improve the DA series, and much of what is mentioned on topic is already there.

[Corto81]

 

 

With DAI if they gave too much of a backstory people would whine and if not enough more whining. I think they did fairly well in the middle so *shrug*.

For me it was heavily lacking.

 

DA:Origins did it right. Even ME did it right. 
Old IE games did it right, like BG.

 

You get to know your character a bit before anything important happens. You get to know his persona, his friends or colleagues, or family.

You get to see glimpses of how the world is set up.
And most importantly, the devs gave the gamers the benefit of the doubt and trusted that they would be patient enough - in the interest of a better game experience  - and not lose interest after 15-20 minutes of talking and conversations.

I truly believe DA2 and DA:I's start to your character is partly due to Bioware/EA wanting to attract the "casual" fans (meaning non-RPG gamers) and fearing they'd lose interest, like I said, if something awesome or action-based happens within 10 minutes.

 

...

 

I'm NOT comparing Witcher to DA:I here.

I'm comparing what I thought were character depth, background, development and introductions done right by Bioware in some of their prior games...
To the lackluster, actiony, shallow introductions we've been seeing lately from them.

[Lawrence0294]

The backstory that varied and because of such was very lightly mentioned throughout? You pretty much get 2 big parts of your backstory influencing. The opening and Orz (if dwarf), Landsmeet (if human noble or CE), Mage tower (if mage) and that's it. It certainly wasn't the level that Geralt had. Wait also you got that part in Haven.

 

They're missions the PC doesn't participate in. As for the elf mission yeah that was pretty lulzy and badly handled.

 

I personally don't think the backstory needs to be thoroughly mentioned through the game. The mere fact that we are given the chance to play it, and six of them, is very satisfying narratively. The fact that later on your backstory is indeed mentioned in the main story is a great bonus.

 

And of course it wasn't on the level of Geralt because... well that would simply not be feasible and that's ok really. It's the pros and cons of having a set character compared to having a created character. Both are different styles and offer different experiences.

 

The choice to care or not is given to the Player in dialogue and War Table missions; have seen this recently with my newest Elven Inq this week. Options are wonderful, even in RP.

I just feel this demands far too much work and headcanon from the audience. It's great to allow the players to use their imagination but there is a limit and I think DA:I crossed it. I feel like we were given bones and we had to imagine the meat. 

[Elhanan]

I personally don't think the backstory needs to be thoroughly mentioned through the game. The mere fact that we are given the chance to play it, and six of them, is very satisfying narratively. The fact that later on your backstory is indeed mentioned in the main story is a great bonus.
 
And of course it wasn't on the level of Geralt because... well that would simply not be feasible and that's ok really. It's the pros and cons of having a set character compared to having a created character. Both are different styles and offer different experiences.
 
I just feel this demands far too much work and headcanon from the audience. It's great to allow the players to use their imagination but there is a limit and I think DA:I crossed it. I feel like we were given bones and we had to imagine the meat.

Guess my experience with pre-gen characters is helpful; from playing the GM, playing in throw together games, tourneys, having pre-gen modules, etc. Creating a character personality is what I prefer; not to have one thrust upon me.

[Ryzaki]

For me it was heavily lacking.

 

DA:Origins did it right. Even ME did it right. 
Old IE games did it right, like BG.

 

You get to know your character a bit before anything important happens. You get to know his persona, his friends or colleagues, or family.

You get to see glimpses of how the world is set up.
And most importantly, the devs gave the gamers the benefit of the doubt and trusted that they would be patient enough - in the interest of a better game experience  - and not lose interest after 15-20 minutes of talking and conversations.

I truly believe DA2 and DA:I's start to your character is partly due to Bioware/EA wanting to attract the "casual" fans (meaning non-RPG gamers) and fearing they'd lose interest, like I said, if something awesome or action-based happens within 10 minutes.

 

...

 

I'm NOT comparing Witcher to DA:I here.

I'm comparing what I thought were character depth, background, development and introductions done right by Bioware in some of their prior games...
To the lackluster, actiony, shallow introductions we've been seeing lately from them.

 

You...don't get to know Shepard that much before anything important happens. It's literally listen to Joker and Kaidan bicker, go see Anderson, here them talk about the setting and you being Spectre. **** hits the fan. You get a bit of worldbuilding but that's a bout it. Wait no that's not fair there's that Jenkins conversation where you can show what kind of personality Shepard has but you also have a conversation with Josephine doing the same with the Inquisitor it's just after the prologue. 

 

I liked DAI's opening though. But it wouldn't have hurt to see something before everything went to hell.

 

I personally don't think the backstory needs to be thoroughly mentioned through the game. The mere fact that we are given the chance to play it, and six of them, is very satisfying narratively. The fact that later on your backstory is indeed mentioned in the main story is a great bonus.

 

And of course it wasn't on the level of Geralt because... well that would simply not be feasible and that's ok really. It's the pros and cons of having a set character compared to having a created character. Both are different styles and offer different experiences.

 

I just feel this demands far too much work and headcanon from the audience. It's great to allow the players to use their imagination but there is a limit and I think DA:I crossed it. I feel like we were given bones and we had to imagine the meat. 

 

I recall plenty of complaints that it wasn't referred to enough that the PC acted too much like a human by default knew things he/she shouldn't know (or didn't know things he/she should've known).

 

Except you can pretty much do the whole background thing in a conversation with Josephine. There was no imagination of the meat. It was just later on.

 

The issue is of course that the missions where your family needs help are taken care of by the advisors instead of the PC. When if the PC has time to chase down someone's goat (or sheep or whatever Woodsley was) they should have time to help their family.

[Xetykins]

CDPR has cheaper dev cost than Bioware has. TW3 is only $32 million.

Seems to be the the trend for you guys. ZE KOST! As if that's got anything to do with quality. End of the day 34mil$ in zloty is equivalent to however much millions it costs DAI for those polish guys, looking at their economic state. They are not under any umbrella like EA to pick up their tabs. The difference is they made a top quality product, that they managed to make a lot of profit off their hardwork in $.

So you think everything in DAI is so purfect that you can't even imagine sacrificing useless maps for a few but well done ones.

[Elhanan]

Seems to be the the trend for you guys. ZE KOST! As if that's got anything to do with quality. End of the day 34mil$ in zloty is equivalent to however much millions it costs DAI for those polish guys, looking at their economic state. They are not under any umbrella like EA to pick up their tabs. The difference is they made a top quality product, that they managed to make a lot of profit off their hardwork in $.

So you think everything in DAI is so purfect that you can't even imagine sacrificing useless maps for a few but well done ones.

Will let 'You Guys' pass, as I have yet to mention cost, I believe. But top quality is debatable, as it has not met all standards.

[Xetykins]

Beginning to think that your simply a troll.

Lol, well at least you spot it faster than some of us.

[Xetykins]

Will let 'You Guys' pass, as I have yet to mention cost, I believe. But top quality is debatable, as it has not met all standards.

Well thank goodness they did not go by YOUR personal standards or they'd have been bankrupt instead of rolling on $$.

[Elhanan]

Beginning to think that your simply a troll.

Perhaps this is the source of the trouble; practice helps....