As much as it is your opinion, it does not equate to fact. 'Superficial, stupid, sob stories, suck, asterisks, etc' are not objective points; they are worth only as much as those opposing them. And if it were not for Bioware, I have doubts if the term sycophant would be used in the forums.
Of course it is my opinion. Which is just as valid or invalid as yours and which I am just as free to post as you are. But keep up the good work you have been doing here the past half year, mate. After having blared up a tree for long enough, someone might take pity on you and claim to have been convinced by your tenacity. You happen to like DA:I. I happen to think you have a shoddy, unrefined taste, have too much free time, and are more steeped in denialism than the Bible Belt wrt evolution. Equally valid viewpoints, yes?
As for the term sycophant, do you even know what it means? It's not a swear word and I was only pertaining it to general video game criticism.
Well, that's like, your opinion, man. Class is an odd one to pick at in particular, since no matter how the system is devised, it would always at least be boiled down to mundane and mage, since magic only exists as an innate ability among the minority. It could mean that you'd simply do away with the option of actually being a mage (or less likely do away with being a mundane), but I don't see how that would really improve the experience in any way, shape or form. Putting aside the "stupid" part, since that's not very meaningful, I'm curious as to what the standard would be for what counts as superficial. Lots of things in these games could be considered superficial, that players may sorely miss if they were excluded.
According to your own personal standards, of course.
Considering your history of posts, I am doubtful that anything I have to say would be viewed as a valid opinion on your part unless I'd happen to agree with you, but nevertheless, this is my take on the issue. I was talking about the player having an influence over the character arc. I want to feel like forming and shaping a personality over the course of time. Everything else is window dressing (in many cases very welcome window dressing but window dressing nonetheless), which admittedly is my opinion. The Witcher offers that, despite the character having a fixed name, face, class (arguably but I don't want to belabor the point), backstory and sexuality, even despite the fact that the game would not necessarily require such as Geralt is a strong enough character without player contribution. DA:I doesn't, which is fact. This may or not be as important as a bucket load of customisation options and if so this is something we simply will not agree on. The limited dialogue options owed to character voicing may be why this is worse in DA:I compared to older BioWare games, but the Witcher has few dialogue options and a voiced main character as well and makes it work.
To be clearer, consider not Geralt, but Hawke and the Inquisitor. Name a few adjectives describing each character. No matter how you played either game, you are bound to come up with far more attributes for Hawke. The Inquisitor has no character in the game, regardless of how you play him, and due to the flat, monotone voice acting I couldn't even make up one in my head.
I do not want you to hate DA:I. If you like it, good for you. But wrt shaping and playing a protagonist (which is what most sensible people consider roleplaying, but, yes, that is a matter of opinion), it is demonstrably inferior to the Witcher, DA2 and DA:O.
Retour en haut
