949 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

You are talking about Leadership as a quality, not Leadership as a position. It doesn't make Shephard the actual named leader of any organization. The Inquisitor is.

The title does not equate to what actually occurs in the story. Shepard's ME3 title is Commander and is reinstated as a Council Specter. Yet, he is granted the role of leadership by the various species he manages to bring to the War's conclusion.

The Inquisitor is given the title over the Inquisition, yet has the choice of how to lead or not. No Player is forced to pick Elfroot; some purchase it, assign others to get it, or may never bother with it. The Inq can supposedly lose the support of the Companions, or possibly never gain their support at all. The Player can simply assume the title and never really lead, at least based on choices made by what can be made in the game. No side quests, Shards, collections, puzzles, etc have to be solved, but then the results may prove in making the events of the game a bit more difficult.

If the Inq does not wish to pick Elfroot, that is the choice of the Player; not defined by the title, but the quality of the one bearing the title.

[Elhanan]

A valid opinion.

But a problem. As Bioware has, once again, drastically revamped the tone, feel and direction of a sequel (just like they did with DA2) and splintered the fanbase even further. No one can make an honest case about what a DA game is or plays like.

That turns into a serious branding problem, where your average gamer can't pick up DA4 tomorrow and have any real idea what the game even is.

If DAI had the most successful launch for Bioware, this so-called splintering of the fanbase seems to be working by creating more splinters/ Players. And while some do not care for it, seems to be work rather well for a great number of others.

[Elhanan]

I'm not a Witcher fan, but I'd love for TW3 to be successful enough to goad BioWare into creating more cutscenes for DA4's side content.

Hope not, cause myself and others have been waiting for less of them for a long time.

While I hold ME3 in high regards (am currently in a replay; female Sentinel Shepard), the lengthy cut-scenes and cinematic sequences can become numbing; sometimes to the point of luring the Player away for a possible interrupt. It seems much too similar to the Dark Horse comic DLC that may be used to precede the actual gameplay. And while I personally like it to display and select past choices in a quick fashion, I prefer to leave it restricted for the remainder of the game; much like what is presented in DAI.

[dreamgazer]

Not really invested either way in cutscenes for side-quests, but going back to fixed cinematic camera angles for conversations? Yes, please.

[AlanC9]

There is an argument that some people like open worlds. I don't think there is much argument about the effect of open worlds. Open worlds allow for more grinding type stuff. Skyrim is just a mass of grind. UCWs in ME1 were filler trash. There was a metric ton of junk infesting TW2 as well. Borderlands has a lot of generic kill or fetch quests. Open worlds either have to be dense with activities and that filler can't all be good because of time and money or be sparse with good quality. The latter would be a fine option and frankly a lot more tolerable than the Skyrim there is a dangerous critter or horrifying dungeon every 8 meters approach DAI wanted to copy but that isn't the direction people take it.

Well, there's also the Morrowind option of sparse with random-to-poor quality. I still preferred that to Skyrim's frantic layout.

[AlanC9]

Not really invested either way in cutscenes for side-quests, but going back to fixed cinematic camera angles for conversations? Yes, please.

This might be a wrong lesson learned from ME3's Normandy one-liners.

[Sanunes]

ME1's edge stems from having several conversationally focused sidequests on those planets (and also the Citadel and some of the main quest worlds). This, to me, cannot be overstated. But it also strikes me as something BioWare is potentially removing from its games across the board, as hiring cinematic specialists for minor content is a challenge when so much is going to be spent on open world exploration. I hope I'm wrong, but if DAI is a template then I don't expect to meet another Toombs on any of ME4's worlds, so to speak.

Outside of this DAI is the clear winner, but it is a considerable aspect to me.

 

I would only be concerned if the trend continues, for there has been many conversations about the secondary quests and how they feel.  I haven't plays Jaws of Hakkor yet, so I am not sure how the quests there work out, but if there are changes there I would expect future games to build from that.

[dreamgazer]

This might be a wrong lesson learned from ME3's Normandy one-liners.

Indeed, though I was totally fine with lower-tier conversations not taking on cinematic angles in ME3.

[Master Warder Z_]

Omni-gel is a helluva drug.

Red sand!

[Melca36]

Since I think its terrible I'm afraid for the future of the franchise

 

They only changed things because DA2 flopped (sadly, it was a good game but needed more time)
 

Anyone know any numbers? Will we be getting DA:I 2 at this rate? (pls no)

 

Still bitter and miserable and beating a dead horse I see. Pathetic

 

And the fact you want Inquisition to fail is selfish and delusional. I suggest some counseling for your bitterness

[MyKingdomCold]

Eh, I kind of feel sorry for people who stick around a message board for a game they supposedly hate. Move on. Do something else. No amount of whinging is going to make the game better if you hate it as much as you say you do.

[X Equestris]

Still bitter and miserable and beating a dead horse I see. Pathetic
 
And the fact you want Inquisition to fail is selfish and delusional. I suggest some counseling for your bitterness

Oh this is nothing compared to the guy who spammed the devs and forums with "Cass is a man" or the guy who claimed that Inquisition ruined his life. Those two really needed professional help.

[AresKeith]

Oh this is nothing compared to the guy who spammed the devs and forums with "Cass is a man" or the guy who claimed that Inquisition ruined his life. Those two really needed professional help.

 

Those two might be the same person

[JeffZero]

Hope not, cause myself and others have been waiting for less of them for a long time.

While I hold ME3 in high regards (am currently in a replay; female Sentinel Shepard), the lengthy cut-scenes and cinematic sequences can become numbing; sometimes to the point of luring the Player away for a possible interrupt. It seems much too similar to the Dark Horse comic DLC that may be used to precede the actual gameplay. And while I personally like it to display and select past choices in a quick fashion, I prefer to leave it restricted for the remainder of the game; much like what is presented in DAI.

You and I are simply very different types of gamers. I'd be over the moon if DA4 was 50 hours of cutscenes and 20 hours of gameplay. Fortunately for you that'd never happen!

[Morroian]

That's not true, I don't feel like.

Going to pick up a GTA game, or an Assassin's Creed game, or a Madden game, or a Portal game, or a new Walking Dead/TellTale game... I have a strong sense of what type of game I will be getting and what type of experience to expect. I don't have that with Bioware games, as they constantly seem to reinvent their franchises in ways that seem like a betrayal to some of their old fans and I'm ways that often widely miss the mark in terms of execution (such as the design decisions for DA2, or the buggy and somewhat flat open world execution of DA:I).

 

I agree with that but I would add IMHO its specific to the DA series. Even with the ME2 overhaul it still felt similar to ME1 to me.

 

There is an argument that some people like open worlds. I don't think there is much argument about the effect of open worlds. Open worlds allow for more grinding type stuff. Skyrim is just a mass of grind. UCWs in ME1 were filler trash. There was a metric ton of junk infesting TW2 as well. Borderlands has a lot of generic kill or fetch quests. Open worlds either have to be dense with activities and that filler can't all be good because of time and money or be sparse with good quality. The latter would be a fine option and frankly a lot more tolerable than the Skyrim there is a dangerous critter or horrifying dungeon every 8 meters approach DAI wanted to copy but that isn't the direction people take it.

 

I agree but don't mind the open world approach if the gameplay and combat itself is enjoyable. DAI wasn't, if it was a mix of DA2 and DAO as they originally purported it to be then I would probably enjoy DAI. I'm one who actually enjoys the combat in Skyrim because its largely freeform and unscripted. 

 

ME2 really clamped down on this, giving very portioned out story and missions to be handled at a certain rate. ME3 put the story even more on the rails, determining when exactly you went to which part of the conflict and dictating your success or failure beforehand. That's why I prefer the ME1 model, even if the game itself is a little more rough around the edges.

 

I also prefer the ME1 model for similar reasons. Plus the ME2 story was too slight.

[CronoDragoon]

Not really invested either way in cutscenes for side-quests, but going back to fixed cinematic camera angles for conversations? Yes, please.

 

I think the camera angle is really the thing, here.

 

Though In Exile made the point in another thread that doing Origins' style companion conversations (no cinematic scenes, but fixed close-range camera) would probably save them a whole lot of time and money.

[Orian Tabris]

Given that the game was both well-received before and after its release, I'd say incredibly successful for BioWare. As for the Dragon Age franchise, since both DA2 and DA:I are departures from their predecessors, anything could happen in the 4th game.

 

If anything, the OP should be asking himself how successful DA:I is for him, since he obviously thinks BW failed with Inquisition.

[Ieldra]

There is an argument that some people like open worlds. I don't think there is much argument about the effect of open worlds. Open worlds allow for more grinding type stuff. Skyrim is just a mass of grind. UCWs in ME1 were filler trash. There was a metric ton of junk infesting TW2 as well. Borderlands has a lot of generic kill or fetch quests. Open worlds either have to be dense with activities and that filler can't all be good because of time and money or be sparse with good quality. The latter would be a fine option and frankly a lot more tolerable than the Skyrim there is a dangerous critter or horrifying dungeon every 8 meters approach DAI wanted to copy but that isn't the direction people take it.

I prefer the "tunnel" because I want to focus on the good parts of my story not the killing another bear in the woods part. It is the difference between a well edited spy film and a badly edited one that shows all the scenes of the spy commuting to work and doing his laundry. The tunnel lets me focus on the highlights and hopefully get depth instead of the breadth the open world ushers in.

The main why reason I dislike tunnel-like experiences is that the locations they feature are rarely believable. That's what I want from my game worlds: believable locations, and that means you aren't prevented from going off to the side *everywhere*. If the experience is too linear, you feel like you're in a game level, not a location of the fictional world. DA2's dungeons and house interiors (in fact, all locations that weren't Kirkwall city districts) and almost all of ME2's missions are primary examples of this. Recall the Wounded Coast? Ugh. I never want to see that kind of map again.

 

I would criticize DAI not for having open-world elements as such as I think some are necessary to make the world believeable - DAO had open-world elements since you could travel anywhere at any time after getting out of Lothering, and I think that design worked very well - but for the low density of main story elements in that world. DAI made the same mistake as Skyrim - the story tends to be lost in the world. I'd have removed two of the open-world maps in favor of two more story missions, but wouldn't have gone further than that.

[Ieldra]

You and I are simply very different types of gamers. I'd be over the moon if DA4 was 50 hours of cutscenes and 20 hours of gameplay. Fortunately for you that'd never happen!

If those 50 hours were interactive scenes with a meaningful and diverse set of roleplaying options which other scenes further down the line react to, I'd take it. Otherwise, no. I don't buy a game to watch a movie. ME3 for instance was far too limited in that regard.

[Ieldra]

I think the camera angle is really the thing, here.

 

Though In Exile made the point in another thread that doing Origins' style companion conversations (no cinematic scenes, but fixed close-range camera) would probably save them a whole lot of time and money.

I agree with that. This style of dialogue was exactly what they wanted to get away from, but it features what, as I see it, players need most from character interaction: a clear interface where were we know what we're going to say if we choose an option and where can see the other character's face. Seeing a return to it - without removing the cinematic scenes where they have significant benefits - would please me.

[SofaJockey]

Not really invested either way in cutscenes for side-quests, but going back to fixed cinematic camera angles for conversations? Yes, please.

 

And that might be it, Mike Laidlaw spoke about the lack of cinematics for side quests.

He said that given the world size (for budgetary reasons) it was either this was or not have the side quests at all.

 

I can guarantee that despite the fetch quest grumbles, their absence would have led to 'empty world' grumbles.

 

Perhaps there is a half-way solution?

[Dean_the_Young]

Exactly, in DAO and DA2, you didn't earn your titles until either at the end of the game or towards the end.

 

In DAO I wasn't the Hero of Ferelden until I actually slayed the Archdemon.

 

Huh?

 

The 'title' of note in DAO is 'Warden,' not 'Hero of Ferelden.' The later may be what you get remembered by, but 'Warden' is the PC label/name-substitute that they use in DAO itself.
 

[Majestic Jazz]

It warms my heart to know there are still gamers out there who prefer the tunnel. Of late it's felt like I'm just some stubborn weirdo.

I prefer open worlds as it gives me more freedom and room for improvised moments.

The problem isnt the concept of open world but how it is done.

Open worlds in GTA games are fun and immersive. One can play around in the city for hours and not do a single mission and yet have fun. I cannot do the same in DAI as it was more like MMO zones.

[blahblahblah]

Like you with TW3? I just read your post in the feedback thread
I suggest you take your own advice seriously otherwise it makes you look silly

And I don't even want DA:I to fail I just don't want Bioware to make DA:I 2 (with terrible side quests + lackluster story) just because
Inquisition was successful
Not everyone loves the game-deal with it and down town your agressive fanboyism

But s/he has a point though. You need to tone down your bitterness and hate in this game and hope they will address every criticisms in order to improve the next game.