15862 réponses à ce sujet

[Zinho73]

I think TW3/Skyrim comparison is more of a discussion than TW3/DA:I.The more I play TW3(which is great)the more I see DA:I isn't the same type of game.DA is a great game but a different beast imo

I think the comparison is valid not in the literal meaning that one game should be more like the other, but feature by feature.

Quest design, story, dialogue, combat, inventory and loot, those are features presented in most RPGs and I do not mind comparing them.

 

The overall style is different and I am glad it is.

[jds1bio]

Because BioWare is an old studio (compared to other game studios) and CDPR is not. Case in point: inb4 Sylvius explains how DA: I is a return to BioWare's roots a la Baldur's Gate 1.

 

BW games mean different things to different people. They've made some really different games over the years. TW3 is CDPR's 3rd game. Origins was BioWare's 10th.

 

You're right that the Witcher fanbase is less divided than Dragon Age's though (or Mass Effect's for that matter).

 

I disagree.  Plenty of people griped over TW2 and how some of their choices from TW1 were nerfed.  Also, some people liked the long single adventure of TW1 rather than TW2's split point about 1/3 of the way through. 

 

TW3, after fooling around with it for a while, definitely harkens back to the feel and mood (and frankly, visuals) of the first game.  I also think DAI harkens back to earlier Bioware RPGs, and RPGs in general, when more of the experience was about discovery.  There is plenty to discover in DAI

[Fast Jimmy]

I'll agree that I can't think of any NPCs whose interactions were particularly memorable (nothing to match the greedy merchant in Lothering, who was especially well done), but then I think that was a short list in DAO as well - and I don't recall any in DA2, either. NPCs are not generally interesting, to me. I like characters I get to play. Characters I don’t may as well not exist. This was my criticism of Mass Effect - all of the characters felt like NPCs to me (even Shepard), so they may as well have been cardboard cutouts.

And now that I think about it, the reason I remember the Lothering merchant so fondly is not because of his personality, but because of the roleplaying opportunities he provided me. I like First Enchanter Irving for the same reason. But in both cases, I think the roleplaying freedom I was offered in those NPC interactions stemmed primarily from having a silent protagonist. So that they didn't arise in DA2 or DAI isn't surprising, and to me has nothing to do with the scope of the game.

I guess I just don't find NPCs interesting for their own sake. Take the tavern in Redcliffe in DAO. There were a bunch of conversations to be had in there, and I barely remember them, because thw choices they offered were not interesting to me. When the Keep asked me how I handled Bella, for example, I had no idea who she was.

I, too, don't find NPCs, including companions, as the end-all-be-all of RPGs, either. However, just as you state, the ability to interact with them and be invovled with different choices is a huge part of being able to roleplaying and develop your character.

The Lothering merchant is an interesting morality exercise in how the player views the world and what is considered fair and right during moments of crisis. The options the player has can allow for a wide amount of reasons, solutions and reactions to how the event plays out. And this was all from a "quest" that doesn't even make it into the player's journal.

Meanwhile, if this had been DA:I, it would have been a quest about killing six yaks to feed hungry townspeople, with no dialoue choices and zero variance. And been completely forgettable because of it.

Chess is a fairly simple game. The rules that govern each piece are easy to learn. But they key to playing chess well is using those pieces in combination attack, and that's much harder to learn.

I think DAI works similarly. The progression for any given character (or class) is fairly straightforward. It's easy to learn what the abilities do or how the prerequisites work. The complexity arises from the interaction between abilities and passives across characters. When you choose an ability or passive, it's greatest impact may not be on the effectiveness of that character, but of another.

This would be even more interesting if the game were more challenging (I just killed the end boss using basically 2 abilities), but even without the need to learn this the opportunity to do so still exists.

Yes, but I didn't indict the combat system, merely its encounter design. Encounter design suffers when you make a system that caters to totally disparate forms of play, as you can't know if a player will micromanage their party to the highest level possible and be able to mitigate things like AOE Attacks or particular resistances or if the player is just going to go in under a blaze of Awesome Button mashing glory.

The result is encounter designs catering to the lowest denominator, with minimal class optimization and no unit micromanagement as the standard assumption. It COULD be deeper, but then it would be too complex for the people who want to play a particular way. That's a deficiency of trying to keep the scope of your system very broad - it is not able to leverage its best strengths in either capability.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mmm.... I think it's more that the depth and intrigue of the main quests in TW spill over into the side quests, whereas it's the opposite in DA some of the laconic aspects spill into the side quests.

I guess I just keep thinking of DA's issues as more structural, re-allocating resources and such seems like kind of a band-aid fix.

Well, I think I'm not being clear - I think there were poor allocation of resources BECAUSE the structure of the game was spread far too thin by trying to be all things to all people at once.

[VelvetV]

I agree, I even tried to argue against Roche making that decision but he convinced me in the end and so I went with what was essentially his choice.  

 

It seems that he ends up not by Radovid's side anyway, though, and the girl is in hiding with Natalis.  The best Roche's ending option got botchered. I wonder how he explains.

 

What did you do about the Henselt situation?

 

Roche is one of my favorite characters. Iorveth is okay but siding with him was boring and one sided.  I never felt like he truly had my back like Roche.

 

 

Welcome to The Roche Fans club, here's your member badge! We have three members as of now

 

Iorveth is okay, too, I love him almost equally, and he is interesting in his own way. He just doesn't have the same shine to his personality.

 

P.S. By now I stopped playing, I want to know if the game is going to cut me off from some mission or quest because of the Iorveth save. Then again, all of it might end up being a small moment, nothing significant, rather than a warm extended welcome. But I'd like to know. It's interesting that so far people say on the forums that noone encountered Iorveth or Saskia, so using the Iorveth save really might be in vain for the most part.

[jds1bio]

One thing that really worries me when comparing TW series and DA series is this:

 

The Witcher series is improving and the DA series is not.

 

...

 

DAI is very loved, but the quest design is atrocious and the tactical combat (even if you like it - or do not bother) is inferior in every single way to DAO and DA2.

 

Also, TW 3 series seems to be  gaining new fans while maintaining the fans of the series around. It has not gone mainstream overnight (and it still isn't as popular as Bioware games), but TW3 is a very important RPG title.

 

...

Disagree with you here.  The chorus of PC witcher players is growing with disappointment and feelings of being misled by the visual changes and hyping up the need for new graphics cards, of which the tangible benefits have been minimal so far.  While Geralt looks better in TW3, and in motion the game looks pretty good, screenshots of TW2 from four years ago look much better than today's TW3 screenshots.  Comparatively, DAI acquits itself quite nicely.

 

After 80+ hours with DAI, and I'm not nearly done with the game yet, I've found only the ram's meat quest to be a hard negative.  The possibilities during the major and companion quests (which would be called "sidequests" in any other game) are woven into and through the dialogue, and are the least sociopathic I've seen in a game of this type in a long time.  The actual sidequests in DAI are truly that - side-quests - that just may be worth completing. 

 

For example, finding all the landmarks in one area doesn't just get you another line in the list of collections, it gives you the opportunity to get something more, while providing an interesting twist on how today's people of Thedas view history through the transmission of stories down through the generations.  If that doesn't interest you, that's fine, but it's there in case you want to probe further.

[Zinho73]

The ruleset is different, but both games are RTwP and therefore functionally similar in terms of how battles proceed mechanically. Additionally, the game structure is very similar, with large, optional, light-on-cinematics-and-dialogue areas consisting of most of the gameplay.

What is RTWP?

 

In any case, the three cornerstones for RPGs are: story, combat and character progress.

 

The story arc is more or less the same.

 

But combat and character's progress in Baldur's Gate are so different. I have recently played the upgraded version and things are obviously less fluid, but it is way easier to control your party and make they do exactly what they want to do in Baldur's Gate.

 

DAI works much more better when controlling just one party member at a time. Trying to have control of everyone is time consuming, frustrating and only really useful in a handful of situations and only on the hardest difficulties.

 

I would say the structure is a little similar, but then again, it is similar in all DA games, and the graphic presentation, representation and interface are also very different. DA is clearly a console game, with a console UI. Baldur's Gate is a mouse and keyboard game complete with full, visible inventory that is quick to manage. Moving around and exploring are so different that I think they are different genres inside the RPG genre LOL.

 

But thinking about it kinds of lends strength to my argument. I really do think that party management in combat is better in Baldur's Gate (click to move, auto-attack - now patched in!, select all, click on target, enemy information, no limits on abilities, party formation, some powerful combinations but you could roll with any kind of party, ample vision of the battlefield and the best war cry ever: Go for the eyes!). The presentation is lacking, but this system with a graphical update would be much better, in my opinion.

[jds1bio]

The Lothering merchant is an interesting morality exercise in how the player views the world and what is considered fair and right during moments of crisis. The options the player has can allow for a wide amount of reasons, solutions and reactions to how the event plays out. And this was all from a "quest" that doesn't even make it into the player's journal.

Meanwhile, if this had been DA:I, it would have been a quest about killing six yaks to feed hungry townspeople, with no dialoue choices and zero variance. And been completely forgettable because of it.
 

 

Disagree.  The Judgement quests were morality exercises in how the player views the world.  At least 1/4 of the conversations with companions were also how the player views the world.  The main quests (and sidequests) that led to the opening of war table missions also gave the player opportunity to establish the herald's viewpoint - there are varying outcomes and rewards on the war table also.

 

Even the quests to help people have variance, depending on who is in your party with you at the time. 

 

It's unfortunate that people missed all this.

[Fast Jimmy]

Disagree. The Judgement quests were morality exercises in how the player views the world. At least 1/4 of the conversations with companions were also how the player views the world. The main quests (and sidequests) that led to the opening of war table missions also gave the player opportunity to establish the herald's viewpoint - there are varying outcomes and rewards on the war table also.

Even the quests to help people have variance, depending on who is in your party with you at the time.

It's unfortunate that people missed all this.

I will admit that the Judgments were some of the coolest sections of the game, in my opinion. However, their role in the game was rather small in the number of times they happened. And we're not counting companion conversations - in Bioware games, those are about as "side quest" as the main quest line. Notice no one brings up Morrigan's Grimoire or Sten's sword as good side quests in DA:O... it's a Bioware game. Companion quests are designed to be in their own tier of involvement.

The Wartable was less side quest actions and more of a mini-game, in my estimation. You didn't feel like you were exploring or expanding the world, it felt, if anything, to remove yourself from it. Walking around the Hissing Waste and you won't see hardly any people, or ruins, or settlements, or caves/dungeons to explore. It's like they took the ideas of exchanging and interacting with the world and put them into a removed, austere war table instead of actually putting them in the world itself.

As always, your mileage my vary, but to echo others - DA:I feels like a game where people constantly talk about the places, people and events that are going on, but rarely ever show you them.

[Zinho73]

Disagree with you here.  The chorus of PC witcher players is growing with disappointment and feelings of being misled by the visual changes and hyping up the need for new graphics cards, of which the tangible benefits have been minimal so far.  While Geralt looks better in TW3, and in motion the game looks pretty good, screenshots of TW2 from four years ago look much better than today's TW3 screenshots.  Comparatively, DAI acquits itself quite nicely.

 

After 80+ hours with DAI, and I'm not nearly done with the game yet, I've found only the ram's meat quest to be a hard negative.  The possibilities during the major and companion quests (which would be called "sidequests" in any other game) are woven into and through the dialogue, and are the least sociopathic I've seen in a game of this type in a long time.  The actual sidequests in DAI are truly that - side-quests - that just may be worth completing. 

 

For example, finding all the landmarks in one area doesn't just get you another line in the list of collections, it gives you the opportunity to get something more, while providing an interesting twist on how today's people of Thedas view history through the transmission of stories down through the generations.  If that doesn't interest you, that's fine, but it's there in case you want to probe further.

Fair enough.

 

I almost cited the thing about the graphics in my first post as the exception to the rule in the Witcher 3 but I am not sure it is worse than 2 (and I am not sure that's the consensus either. There is definitely disappointment because it is not as advertised 2 years ago - more recent shows of the game were with the real graphic engine, but I haven't seen many saying that they would prefer the graphics in TW2, specially people that have played the game, because the weather and particle effects are quite amazing). 

 

Glad you think DAI is the best of the series, though. 

[jds1bio]

DAI could easily be a smaller, more focused game with still some 60, 70 hours and lots of replayability or they could have produced an intermediary game with the same old engine focused only on story, gameplay and art assets, with lots of content, like a 200- hour plus involving RPG (while cooking DAI a bit more). Or they could give it another year of just polishing (like CD Project did).

 

DAI already is that game - you could get two or three unique 60 hour playthroughs if you recruit only certain companions each time, and only visit certain zones.   And you have four races and three classes to choose from.  That would measurably help your focus and replayability.

 

TW3 still needs some work.  The overall UI is a strain to read, inventory management UI is cumbersome, and the framerate (on PS4, anyway) slows down too often.

[In Exile]

I totally agree and believe this is exactly the point... CDPR realized every single piece of content in a wide open world couldn't be top-tier quality. So instead of dividing their efforts equally amongst all side content, they instead had "busywork" content that had no NPC interaction, while having fully fleshed out side quest content in key areas. Bioware, on the other hand, spread the entire word budget and quality efforts across all side content evenly, such that aside from the truly story-sparse quests like the astrariums, all quests involved a static NPC quest giver with no dialogue deviation or development.

When people point at DA:O and say "look, DA:O had fetch quests like the Mage's Collective - it's the same thing with DA:I," this same issue is in play. It's not the presence of such "filler content" that is the problem, but the fact that there is variety in the quality - you had the Mage's Collective quests right alongside the Ostagar prisoner right alongside The Topsider's Pommel right alongside Gaxkang. All very different quests and all with varying levels of detail, content and reward for the player. DA:I, on the other hand, handles nearly every bit of side quest practically the same - find NPC or codex entry, complete task, return for reward... it all has the same flavor, the same... sameness.

You never get the feeling that you could try something new or do something with a different result - it was linear and straight shot for everything. Which gives the impression to some players that they are just doing the same type of task over and over again.

 

I guess I just so fundamentally disagree with this position that there's no reconciliation between what I think and what you think. Slapping on a label and calling something a "side quest" doesn't change the quality of the content. Again, I don't think DA:I has good quests outside of some rare zone stuff, a few things in Jaws of Haakon, and the companion/advisor/main quests. 

 

However, TW3's content - in the open world - is pretty low quality and largely a (somewhat more creative, sometimes less creative) version of Assassin's Creed. 

 

I agree that Bioware made a design error in spreading out their content related resources, and that TW3 found a way to do quests better. But IMO, that comes from the fact that the actual design of the stuff they do is varied.

 

Their side stuff is somewhat varied - though monster dens are basically their equivalent of rifts - and that they created a better world that isn't just unpopulated wilderness. But I have just been incredibly underwhelmed by the distribution of quests - proper side quests - notwithstanding their obvious quality. 

 

But again, I have been somewhat busy/tired IRL and I haven't had time to play a lot of the game. I might very well be missing a lot of good stuff. I'm only level 7. 

[In Exile]

I will admit that the Judgments were some of the coolest sections of the game, in my opinion. However, their role in the game was rather small in the number of times they happened. And we're not counting companion conversations - in Bioware games, those are about as "side quest" as the main quest line. Notice no one brings up Morrigan's Grimoire or Sten's sword as good side quests in DA:O... it's a Bioware game. Companion quests are designed to be in their own tier of involvement.

 

But that's pretty silly. It would be like saying the Kiera Metz (or however you spell her name) quest doesn't count because it's too good or something. 

[Fast Jimmy]

But that's pretty silly. It would be like saying the Kiera Metz (or however you spell her name) quest doesn't count because it's too good or something.

Maybe when comparing content between the Witcher and DA games, yes. But comparing DA:O to DA:I, which both have deep companion quests that allow role-playing opportunities?

I mean... we can count them, but DA:O did them to rough eauivalency, which means neither game gets a leg up on the other in terms of their side content quality. Which takes us back to comparing their other side content, which becomes a net neutral transaction. Hence why I proposed to ignore them.

[In Exile]

Maybe when comparing content between the Witcher and DA games, yes. But comparing DA:O to DA:I, which both have deep companion quests that allow role-playing opportunities?

I mean... we can count them, but DA:O did them to rough eauivalency, which means neither game gets a leg up on the other in terms of their side content quality. Which takes us back to comparing their other side content, which becomes a net neutral transaction. Hence why I proposed to ignore them.

 

That's just not true. The DA:O companion quests were barely mid-quality quests by DA:O standards, and some of them were just crap. Morrigan had a relatively strong multi-stage quest that was inferior to anything and everything DA:I had. Even Josephine - who's quest is IMO on the far lower tier of companions/advisors - had an equally sophisticated quest (minus the boss fight). 

 

Alistair's "quest" is to go see his sister in a hovel in Denerim, have one conversation, then one follow-up one regarding his morals. Sten's quest is literally a fetch quest where you talk to 3 NPCs. It's the equivalent of the Fairbanks quest in the Emerald graves in terms of how many conversations you have in it. 

 

DA:I has created the occasional unique areas (e.g. Cassandra), it has varied approaches (e.g. a pure dialogue quest for Dorian, monster hunting for Vivene, a political plot for Josie, etc.) and it threw in a lot of follow up and development.

 

And DA2 and multi-stage, multi-year quests with multiple outcomes on a two-tiered approval system. It was the most sophisticated effort to date.

 

It's just borderline absurd to say "companion quests" and act as if they are created equal. 

 

EDIT: More to the point we weren't talking about the DA games. We were comparing DAI to TW3, which doesn't have companions or companion quests. AFAIK. 

[jds1bio]

As always, your mileage my vary, but to echo others - DA:I feels like a game where people constantly talk about the places, people and events that are going on, but rarely ever show you them.

 

I've seen this comment several times, and I think a lot of the events and action that are related to this game either a) happened in the two previous games, and happened in the past, i.e. the "lore" of the game.  Other than the specific main quest events of this game, there's just not a whole lot going on in the world at this point. 

 

Southern Thedas is in the midst of the "heat death" of the mage-templar conflict, and the people have lost whatever stability the Chantry, Templar protection, Grey Warden heroism, and strong monarchies used to provide.  So other players like the Venatori, the Carta, Freemen, Dalish ex-pats, etc. use blood magic, red lyrium, etc. to inject chaos.  And of course one larger player.

 

So I think your feeling is spot on.  And thus if DAI doesn't seem like an appealing adventure because of this, I understand.  But in comparison with TW3, you are playing a character which doesn't care to see or be involved with most of the larger events happening in the world, and sometimes strives to avoid them.  Just saying.

[Elhanan]

Fair enough.
 
I almost cited the thing about the graphics in my first post as the exception to the rule in the Witcher 3 but I am not sure it is worse than 2 (and I am not sure that's the consensus either. There is definitely disappointment because it is not as advertised 2 years ago - more recent shows of the game were with the real graphic engine, but I haven't seen many saying that they would prefer the graphics in TW2, specially people that have played the game, because the weather and particle effects are quite amazing). 
 
Glad you think DAI is the best of the series, though.

In addition to the graphics issue complaints (rather a silly matter, IMO), TW3 seems to have hardcoded the movement Keys and a few others for QWERTY boards. Thus, other type of keyboards (eg; AZERTY) are currently unable to re-map keys to more desirable controls. This appears to have been a major oversight.

[Hazegurl]

It seems that he ends up not by Radovid's side anyway, though, and the girl is in hiding with Natalis.  The best Roche's ending option got botchered. I wonder how he explains.

 

What did you do about the Henselt situation?

 

 

Welcome to The Roche Fans club, here's your member badge! We have three members as of now

 

Iorveth is okay, too, I love him almost equally, and he is interesting in his own way. He just doesn't have the same shine to his personality.

 

P.S. By now I stopped playing, I want to know if the game is going to cut me off from some mission or quest because of the Iorveth save. Then again, all of it might end up being a small moment, nothing significant, rather than a warm extended welcome. But I'd like to know. It's interesting that so far people say on the forums that noone encountered Iorveth or Saskia, so using the Iorveth save really might be in vain for the most part.

Gladly accepts badge. 

 

Hensalt is dead.  I let Roche murder knife him like the boss he is.  And also, Geralt is politically neutral so his hands were tied.  To stop Roche from killing the King would be the same as supporting him (Hensalt). 

 

Yeah, it seems like giving Anais over didn't amount to much, but I do understand Roche doing his own thing and leaving Radovid's side.  He's planning something big behind the scenes in W3.

 

I have three W2 saves I wanted to play through.  One siding with Iroveth, One siding with Roche and saving Anais, and siding with Roche but saving Triss.  So far I'm playing the Anais save and right now I think I could be nearing the end and I haven't seen Saskia or Iroveth.  A part of me might stick with my two Roche saves and scrap the Iroveth save because I don't think he's(Iroveth) in this game at all. 

[Fast Jimmy]

That's just not true. The DA:O companion quests were barely mid-quality quests by DA:O standards, and some of them were just crap. Morrigan had a relatively strong multi-stage quest that was inferior to anything and everything DA:I had. Even Josephine - who's quest is IMO on the far lower tier of companions/advisors - had an equally sophisticated quest (minus the boss fight).

Alistair's "quest" is to go see his sister in a hovel in Denerim, have one conversation, then one follow-up one regarding his morals. Sten's quest is literally a fetch quest where you talk to 3 NPCs. It's the equivalent of the Fairbanks quest in the Emerald graves in terms of how many conversations you have in it.

DA:I has created the occasional unique areas (e.g. Cassandra), it has varied approaches (e.g. a pure dialogue quest for Dorian, monster hunting for Vivene, a political plot for Josie, etc.) and it threw in a lot of follow up and development.

And DA2 and multi-stage, multi-year quests with multiple outcomes on a two-tiered approval system. It was the most sophisticated effort to date.

It's just borderline absurd to say "companion quests" and act as if they are created equal.

EDIT: More to the point we weren't talking about the DA games. We were comparing DAI to TW3, which doesn't have companions or companion quests. AFAIK.

The exact quote I was responding to in terms of companion quests was someone quoting me in discussing the Llthering Merchant from DA:O as it compares to DA:I, that's where I was coming from. I realize the larger thread is talking about DA:I vs. TW3.

I disagree with you on DA:O's companion quests, for whatever it's worth. Even Allistair's short quest winds up having huge implications on the rest of the game and it's ending depending on how you respond. From a lore perspective, one could argue it's the most important companion quest in the trilogy.

Sten's quest can be solved with pure dialog, you (in a sense) go monster hunting for Morrigan, there is huge political impact for Allistair's quest... YMMV. My point being is that Bioware has long been focusing their efforts to make companion content as some of the best in the game for quite some time because of fan attachment to party members. It's side content, but it's not quite the same as walking up to a settlement and having a quest drop in your lap.

That kind of quest, found be exploring and being part of the world, is what can make the world seem real. Involved companion quests work to make the CHARACTER seem real. At least in my viewpoint.

[Saphiron123]

I disagree.  Plenty of people griped over TW2 and how some of their choices from TW1 were nerfed.  Also, some people liked the long single adventure of TW1 rather than TW2's split point about 1/3 of the way through. 

 

TW3, after fooling around with it for a while, definitely harkens back to the feel and mood (and frankly, visuals) of the first game.  I also think DAI harkens back to earlier Bioware RPGs, and RPGs in general, when more of the experience was about discovery.  There is plenty to discover in DAI

Yup, it's just all the same. Rocks. A half dozen Reskinned enemy mobs for all humanoid enemies. Big empty environments. Quests without unique companion dialogue or anything that makes them replayable. At least in origins if I did most of the side quests with a different party, there were new dialogue scenes. Bioware didn't bother with that in DAI. 

It's been done better then DAI did it, even in past bioware games.

[Saphiron123]

The exact quote I was responding to in terms of companion quests was someone quoting me in discussing the Llthering Merchant from DA:O as it compares to DA:I, that's where I was coming from. I realize the larger thread is talking about DA:I vs. TW3.

I disagree with you on DA:O's companion quests, for whatever it's worth. Even Allistair's short quest winds up having huge implications on the rest of the game and it's ending depending on how you respond. From a lore perspective, one could argue it's the most important companion quest in the trilogy.

Sten's quest can be solved with pure dialog, you (in a sense) go monster hunting for Morrigan, there is huge political impact for Allistair's quest... YMMV. My point being is that Bioware has long been focusing their efforts to make companion content as some of the best in the game for quite some time because of fan attachment to party members. It's side content, but it's not quite the same as walking up to a settlement and having a quest drop in your lap.

That kind of quest, found be exploring and being part of the world, is what can make the world seem real. Involved companion quests work to make the CHARACTER seem real. At least in my viewpoint.

Loved DAO companion quests far more then DAI. DAI half of them didn't even get commented on for the most part by your companion, DAO at least had unique scenes with the character and it seemed to actually matter. Killing those five guys for Cass took me to every single map and she didn't even comment when the last one died... another disappointing watered down experience. Same with completing Varrick's red lyrium quest.

[TheOgre]

In addition to the graphics issue complaints (rather a silly matter, IMO), TW3 seems to have hardcoded the movement Keys and a few others for QWERTY boards. Thus, other type of keyboards (eg; AZERTY) are currently unable to re-map keys to more desirable controls. This appears to have been a major oversight.

 

This is a valid concern IMO and good point to bring up. Remapping or making it easier to adjust your keyboard to your playstyle. It WAS a major oversight and assumes that a lot of players will only play on QWERTY or switch to a console controller. I myself prefer controllers nowadays especially now that I learned CLAW playing souls games and prefer using CLAW over keyboard when I have an option. 

 

Hope they address that.

[KaiserShep]

Loved DAO companion quests far more then DAI. DAI half of them didn't even get commented on for the most part by your companion, DAO at least had unique scenes with the character and it seemed to actually matter. Killing those five guys for Cass took me to every single map and she didn't even comment when the last one died... another disappointing watered down experience. Same with completing Varrick's red lyrium quest.

 

This isn't a fair comparison. The only difference between Origins' and Inquisition's companion quests is that the latter has an extra approval-farming quest for Dorian, Iron Bull, Varric and Cassandra, on top of a proper companion quest that gets cut scene dialogue with them in the aftermath, and even possibly comments from companions in banter. You conveniently left out Cassandra's Seekers quest, which reveals quite a lot about the Seekers, and even drops that nugget about the cure for tranquility, which I know that at least Dorian will comment on in banter. I don't see Alistair's quest to find his sister any more meaningful than Dorian going to Redcliffe to confront his father, the latter of which at least gives you the option of either reconciling or walking out on him. You do get that hardening/softening thing for Alistair, but unless I planned on sparing Loghain I didn't really care about that.

[Zinho73]

DAI already is that game - you could get two or three unique 60 hour playthroughs if you recruit only certain companions each time, and only visit certain zones.   And you have four races and three classes to choose from.  That would measurably help your focus and replayability.

 

Perfect.

Now all they need to do is to take all the money and time spent in the other 60 hours and do some more dialogue, cut-scenes, a proper PC interface and revamp the whole tactical combat and I will be a happy camper. Don't bother with jump or horse rides, give me more stability and performance instead.

 

The problem is not with my focus - it is in theirs.

 

But I do understand that (lackluster tactical combat notwithstanding, this was a poor effort no matter how you look at it) I am asking them to make the game I want at this point and not the game they want to make. The problem is that the game they set up to make is not very appealing to me. It is too spread out for my tastes. I understand the game is fine for a lot of people, though and I am not arguing that (at least not in that post LOL).

[Fast Jimmy]

You do get that hardening/softening thing for Alistair, but unless I planned on sparing Loghain I didn't really care about that.

Well, if you harden Allistair and make him King, the endings change to make him a more effective and competent ruler, where otherwise he would be noted as loved by the people but generally not effective at doing much.

That's where I was coming from in terms of significance of the quest.