949 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

In addition to what wolfhowwl said -- which I fully endorse -- this mostly reveals that attempting to think about Bio's process that way is a bad idea. "One could have thought" that, sure. But one would have been thinking that on the basis of essentially zero evidence. And if expansions count, why aren't you counting SoU and HotU? I don't think they should count, but you apparently do.

You could make a minimalist case that prior to ME3 and DAI there wasn't enough evidence to know how Bio would handle a series with more than two games, I guess.

 

One could make this argument, yes. And given the fact that you are the poster I was rebutting, I guess you concede the point?

 

It'd be silly to disagree with the proposition that DA4 will be substantially different from DAI. Bio always does this; they're certainly not going to stop now.

[LinksOcarina]

Your presumption is very reasonable. I remember that a dev mentioned that the player became the inquisitor very soon at the beginning but that looked too simple, so they changed the plot and added "in your heart shall burn" to make sense. ( Damn I've forgotten who and where! Can someone provide the link?)

Evidence: In the game there are chances that you are called "inquisitor" in Haven due to some bugs.

And our poor Cory has to stand on the stage too early, losing mystique.

 

I don't think he necessarily loses mystique in that regard.

 

If In Your Heart shall Burn was late edition, then we would meet and learn about Corypheous when we find out about the Elven Artifacts and the Eluvian connection, which was indeed much later in the game.

 

So late, actually, that it would probably be a repeat of the complaints on Meredith.

 

Truth be told, you are right about him being behind the scenes, orchestrating a lot of events to achieve his goals. Notice the only times he is directly involved in something it is due to someone thwarting his plans.

 

Think about it for a minute:

 

The Conclave explosion nearly worked, but due to interference it forced Corypheous to find a way to capture the Inquisitor.

 

He would then have two factions more or less try to capture the Inquisitor, which would fail.

 

He would take matters into his own hands and attack outright Haven with what he has left. This also nearly succeeds but fails at the last minute against the Inquisitor.

 

He would then divert his agents to continue their plans, while he searches for the Well. His plans include forcing all Grey Wardens under his charge, assassinating the Empress of Orlais, and causing mayhem wherever possible for the Inquisition to distract them from his true goals.

 

When the Well is taken from him, he decides to just force your hand and assault the heavens on his own.

 

All of these actions are more or less happenstance because the player interfered, otherwise he would have succeeded in taking the Wardens, Assassinating the Empress, and using the Anchor, and no one would have known it was him. Basically, he got unlucky because of the player, and chose to act to remove the player, first subtly, then by force. 

 

I don't know, we can't really have it both ways, because it's very possible people would be saying he didn't act enough if we didn't see him that early in the game being pro-active against you. And let's face it, Corypheous personally doesn't have to focus on you at all, he has his minions do it for him while he continues with his plan. 

[In Exile]

I think all of those were just standard qqing from some after the fact, not overwhelming calls for changes like after DA2.

 

We were not on the same forum, then (i.e., this one). Because it was the same kind of overwhelming call for change, often with BG2 (or NWN2, or TW1) as the rallying cry. 

[Apollexander]

I don't think he necessarily loses mystique in that regard.

 

If In Your Heart shall Burn was late edition, then we would meet and learn about Corypheous when we find out about the Elven Artifacts and the Eluvian connection, which was indeed much later in the game.

 

So late, actually, that it would probably be a repeat of the complaints on Meredith.

 

Truth be told, you are right about him being behind the scenes, orchestrating a lot of events to achieve his goals. Notice the only times he is directly involved in something it is due to someone thwarting his plans.

 

Think about it for a minute:

 

The Conclave explosion nearly worked, but due to interference it forced Corypheous to find a way to capture the Inquisitor.

 

He would then have two factions more or less try to capture the Inquisitor, which would fail.

 

He would take matters into his own hands and attack outright Haven with what he has left. This also nearly succeeds but fails at the last minute against the Inquisitor.

 

He would then divert his agents to continue their plans, while he searches for the Well. His plans include forcing all Grey Wardens under his charge, assassinating the Empress of Orlais, and causing mayhem wherever possible for the Inquisition to distract them from his true goals.

 

When the Well is taken from him, he decides to just force your hand and assault the heavens on his own.

 

All of these actions are more or less happenstance because the player interfered, otherwise he would have succeeded in taking the Wardens, Assassinating the Empress, and using the Anchor, and no one would have known it was him. Basically, he got unlucky because of the player, and chose to act to remove the player, first subtly, then by force. 

 

I don't know, we can't really have it both ways, because it's very possible people would be saying he didn't act enough if we didn't see him that early in the game being pro-active against you. And let's face it, Corypheous personally doesn't have to focus on you at all, he has his minions do it for him while he continues with his plan. 

I don't get your point. Are you saying that Corypheus would not lose mystique if he succeeded or even if he hid himself then people would still complain? But I was saying the fact that he lost mystique for the players. We knew the boss in the shadow is Corypheus once he came to Haven. In the early introduction of DAI there was something like "uncover the truth". Then we found the "uncovering" was just his voluntary appearance.

And that's not like the case of Meredith. We knew that she was always trying to control the mages. That's no secret. In DAI we knew that somebody should be responsible for the breach and needed to find out the boss. And we did not find Corypheus. He found us.

[Hiemoth]

Your entire post only validates my argument. I'm saying it was never clear from Bioware's history that they would reinvent their franchises with every sequel. The poster I was replying to originally said that's what Bioware always does and people just need to get used to it. My entire argument was that we are just now seeing evidence that this is a case.

The best case here is that you are replying to something you haven't paid any attention to. The worst case is well no need to go there.

 

I am really confused by this response as this is literally what you in the post, arguing that ME3 massively changes the gamemechanics from ME2. Again, literally what you argue in the post. What exactly was the point of your argument as you were quite clear in your arguments of their apparent narcissim due to them disregarding what was done in previous iterations.

[Hiemoth]

I don't think he necessarily loses mystique in that regard.

 

If In Your Heart shall Burn was late edition, then we would meet and learn about Corypheous when we find out about the Elven Artifacts and the Eluvian connection, which was indeed much later in the game.

 

So late, actually, that it would probably be a repeat of the complaints on Meredith.

 

Truth be told, you are right about him being behind the scenes, orchestrating a lot of events to achieve his goals. Notice the only times he is directly involved in something it is due to someone thwarting his plans.

 

Think about it for a minute:

 

The Conclave explosion nearly worked, but due to interference it forced Corypheous to find a way to capture the Inquisitor.

 

He would then have two factions more or less try to capture the Inquisitor, which would fail.

 

He would take matters into his own hands and attack outright Haven with what he has left. This also nearly succeeds but fails at the last minute against the Inquisitor.

 

He would then divert his agents to continue their plans, while he searches for the Well. His plans include forcing all Grey Wardens under his charge, assassinating the Empress of Orlais, and causing mayhem wherever possible for the Inquisition to distract them from his true goals.

 

When the Well is taken from him, he decides to just force your hand and assault the heavens on his own.

 

All of these actions are more or less happenstance because the player interfered, otherwise he would have succeeded in taking the Wardens, Assassinating the Empress, and using the Anchor, and no one would have known it was him. Basically, he got unlucky because of the player, and chose to act to remove the player, first subtly, then by force. 

 

I don't know, we can't really have it both ways, because it's very possible people would be saying he didn't act enough if we didn't see him that early in the game being pro-active against you. And let's face it, Corypheous personally doesn't have to focus on you at all, he has his minions do it for him while he continues with his plan. 

 

I actually saw discussion relevant to this one during the latest Avengers movie, where it was pointed out that by making the stakes too large, the story actually removes any level of threat. By having each of Cory's plans be so grandiose that him succeeding in them would basically mean the end of the world, this essentially removes any risk of even partial failure on the PCs part in thwarting them. It doesn't help that the player is always thrust in the to mix at the last moment, when it is do or die. Thus there is not even a possibility for the player to fail at some things before that.

 

In a lot of ways I guess this was in a way response from the DA team again to the criticism of DA2, by making certain that the hero could never fail and that the stakes were always the highest possible.

[In Exile]

I actually saw discussion relevant to this one during the latest Avengers movie, where it was pointed out that by making the stakes too large, the story actually removes any level of threat. By having each of Cory's plans be so grandiose that him succeeding in them would basically mean the end of the world, this essentially removes any risk of even partial failure on the PCs part in thwarting them. It doesn't help that the player is always thrust in the to mix at the last moment, when it is do or die. Thus there is not even a possibility for the player to fail at some things before that.

 

In a lot of ways I guess this was in a way response from the DA team again to the criticism of DA2, by making certain that the hero could never fail and that the stakes were always the highest possible.

 

At least they addressed the biggest issue with DA:O - you don't beat Corypheus because of how incredibly good you are at murder and then otherwise just have everything work out in your favour through fluke or random chance. 

[LinksOcarina]

I don't get your point. Are you saying that Corypheus would not lose mystique if he succeeded or even if he hid himself then people would still complain? But I was saying the fact that he lost mystique for the players. We knew the boss in the shadow is Corypheus once he came to Haven. In the early introduction of DAI there was something like "uncover the truth". Then we found the "uncovering" was just his voluntary appearance.

And that's not like the case of Meredith. We knew that she was always trying to control the mages. That's no secret. In DAI we knew that somebody should be responsible for the breach and needed to find out the boss. And we did not find Corypheus. He found us.

 

Actually, I am saying Corypheous was effective in his role as the villain, and the "loss of mystique" aspect to him was necessary to the plot. 

 

You are right, we didn't find him in the end in the way the marketing pushed it, but realistically, why would he keep operating in the shadows once you close the breach? He even says it to your face, "I am here for the Anchor, and then I am going to kill you." knowing full well that he himself cannot die in that situation.

 

I think the big issue I see is that people expected more once he was revealed, or people expected to find out like a murder mystery by the endgame.

[LinksOcarina]

I actually saw discussion relevant to this one during the latest Avengers movie, where it was pointed out that by making the stakes too large, the story actually removes any level of threat. By having each of Cory's plans be so grandiose that him succeeding in them would basically mean the end of the world, this essentially removes any risk of even partial failure on the PCs part in thwarting them. It doesn't help that the player is always thrust in the to mix at the last moment, when it is do or die. Thus there is not even a possibility for the player to fail at some things before that.

 

In a lot of ways I guess this was in a way response from the DA team again to the criticism of DA2, by making certain that the hero could never fail and that the stakes were always the highest possible.

 

Well, any time we get to world ending domination it becomes a bit silly to be fair. This is why I liked Dragon Age II so much, it was small scale and personal, and the stakes were high enough where it could go either way.

 

For his part though, the fact that Corypheous is more or less the reason behind all the chaos in Inquisition does show how dangerous he was, and how effective it was until he got unlucky. 

[Hiemoth]

At least they addressed the biggest issue with DA:O - you don't beat Corypheus because of how incredibly good you are at murder and then otherwise just have everything work out in your favour through fluke or random chance. 

 

Isn't that basically exactly how DAI goes? I'm not being sarcastic here.

[AresKeith]

Well, any time we get to world ending domination it becomes a bit silly to be fair. This is why I liked Dragon Age II so much, it was small scale and personal, and the stakes were high enough where it could go either way.

 

For his part though, the fact that Corypheous is more or less the reason behind all the chaos in Inquisition does show how dangerous he was, and how effective it was until he got unlucky. 

 

Personally I blame his forces who kept fumbling when he or Calpernia/Samson wasn't around

[Hiemoth]

Well, any time we get to world ending domination it becomes a bit silly to be fair. This is why I liked Dragon Age II so much, it was small scale and personal, and the stakes were high enough where it could go either way.

 

For his part though, the fact that Corypheous is more or less the reason behind all the chaos in Inquisition does show how dangerous he was, and how effective it was until he got unlucky. 

 

I agree on the DA2. I don't actually have a problem with the world domination/ending storylines in, example, FPS games because they're railroaded anyway, but in a game where there are supposed choices that affect things, having the stakes be so high just ends up taking away from the experience. The only real exception I can think of was ME3, which I know some disagree on.

 

As for Cory, yeah, I guess it builds being so dangerous for being behind everything, but then actually dealing with his henchmen and seeing how insanly inept they were made me question how the hell they managed to do anything to begin with.

[midnight tea]

Actually, I am saying Corypheous was effective in his role as the villain, and the "loss of mystique" aspect to him was necessary to the plot. 

 

You are right, we didn't find him in the end in the way the marketing pushed it, but realistically, why would he keep operating in the shadows once you close the breach? He even says it to your face, "I am here for the Anchor, and then I am going to kill you." knowing full well that he himself cannot die in that situation.

 

I think the big issue I see is that people expected more once he was revealed, or people expected to find out like a murder mystery by the endgame.

 

I think quite a few people expected a flashy villain that appears and fights frequently, instead of meticulous schemer he turned out to be.

 

One has to be good in his particular brand of "villainy" if he managed to convince Venatori that he'll bring Tevinter back to its glory days, almost make Southern mages, Templars and Wardens his puppets - and in the meantime he got himself help of a powerful Nightmare and, with its help, began building an army of demons witch which he planned to conquer Thedas... Not to mention that he managed to (at least partially) unlock the powers and secrets of ancient orb and red lyrium and managed to craft the magical device with unique powers.

 

HOW pissed he must've been when all this elaborate scheming was pretty much destroyed by one meddling fool who stole the Anchor Considering the breadth and complexity of his scheming (that pretty much nobody was aware of, it seems), that act alone must have began unraveling all his machinations (even if Inquisitor/Inquisition did good job at helping unravel them faster and with less casualties, while securing more power for themselves).

[Hiemoth]

I think quite a few people expected a flashy villain that appears and fights frequently, instead of meticulous schemer he turned out to be.

 

One has to be good in his particular brand of "villainy" if he managed to convince Venatori that he'll bring Tevinter back to its glory days, almost make Southern mages, Templars and Wardens his puppets - and in the meantime he got himself help of a powerful Nightmare and, with its help, began building an army of demons witch which he planned to conquer Thedas... Not to mention that he managed to (at least partially) unlock the powers and secrets of ancient orb and red lyrium and managed to craft the magical device with unique powers.

 

HOW pissed he must've been when all this elaborate scheming was pretty much destroyed by one meddling fool who stole the Anchor Considering the breadth and complexity of his scheming (that pretty much nobody was aware of, it seems), that act alone must have began unraveling all his machinations (even if Inquisitor/Inquisition did good job at helping unravel them faster and with less casualties, while securing more power for themselves).

 

But the problem here is that he doesn't really turn out to be a meticulous schemer. Quite the opposite. He doesn't take any action against the Inquisition once it starts rising, his plans are idiotic and yet still somehow working and as a villain I found him to be just lackluster.

 

I understand your point about how he must have been good at his schemes to take over so many places and get that much power, but the actual game utterly failed to tell me this story. Instead for me he was just the weakest villain in DA franchise who utterly failed at being any kind of a threat to the Inquisition.

[LinksOcarina]

I agree on the DA2. I don't actually have a problem with the world domination/ending storylines in, example, FPS games because they're railroaded anyway, but in a game where there are supposed choices that affect things, having the stakes be so high just ends up taking away from the experience. The only real exception I can think of was ME3, which I know some disagree on.

 

As for Cory, yeah, I guess it builds being so dangerous for being behind everything, but then actually dealing with his henchmen and seeing how insanly inept they were made me question how the hell they managed to do anything to begin with.

 

Were they really inept though?

 

Let's face it, if the player didn't intervene or find out about the Empresses assassination attempt, that plan would have succeeded. The Gray Wardens were all but done, and the Templars were already taken over by the Envy Demon. The only real inept leader I could see was Alexius, because he was actually involved in this for personal reasons. 

 

What did they do that was actually a bad move, exactly? 

[Hiemoth]

Were they really inept though?

 

Let's face it, if the player didn't intervene or find out about the Empresses assassination attempt, that plan would have succeeded. The Gray Wardens were all but done, and the Templars were already taken over by the Envy Demon. The only real inept leader I could see was Alexius, because he was actually involved in this for personal reasons. 

 

What did they do that was actually a bad move, exactly? 

 

Fair point.

 

My issue with them was that even though they achieved all that, when meeting them and interacting with them, they never felt like people who could achieve all that and the story never really built how they had managed to manouver themselves to that position. They just were there when the player arrived, not posing any kind of true threat to the player and just being totally transparent in every way. The Grey Warden questline was the worst in that case for me, as the henchman doesn't seem to have any ability at cunning, yet we are told that somehow he somehow managed to utterly deceive the whole Grey Warden order on an insane scale.

 

I guess this is my continues problem with villains of DAI. They have undeniably achieved much, but the player always arrives after they have done this and in those interactions they don't really seem capable of having done all that, instead seeming really inept to me. They come across as threats because we are told that they are threats instead of feeling like threats, in my opinion of course. Does that make any sense.

 

Since you mentioned liking DA2, to me the counter-examples are both the Arishok and Meredith. In those interactions with them and the way they were built up, they both felt capable threats, they felt like somebodies to be vary of. I just didn't get that feeling from any of the villains of DAI. Again, a subjective experience.

[AlanC9]

One could make this argument, yes. And given the fact that you are the poster I was rebutting, I guess you concede the point?
 

The difference is that I'm saying that Bio will always change stuff today, after we've seen DAI and ME3. Back before those games the evidence for this would have been thin. Though I would have said -- I believe I did say -- the same before, since I always saw Bio's games as being related to each other rather than being completely independent series. ME1 combat ended up where it did because Bio got so badly burned on JE, for instance.

[Elhanan]

Just to note that Steam and GOG have TW3 on sale. To some, this may mean that the game must not being doing very well to offer a discount so soon after launch. Of course, that theory may only apply to games from Bioware and/ or EA, but it is what it is....
 

[LinksOcarina]

Fair point.

 

My issue with them was that even though they achieved all that, when meeting them and interacting with them, they never felt like people who could achieve all that and the story never really built how they had managed to manouver themselves to that position. They just were there when the player arrived, not posing any kind of true threat to the player and just being totally transparent in every way. The Grey Warden questline was the worst in that case for me, as the henchman doesn't seem to have any ability at cunning, yet we are told that somehow he somehow managed to utterly deceive the whole Grey Warden order on an insane scale.

 

I guess this is my continues problem with villains of DAI. They have undeniably achieved much, but the player always arrives after they have done this and in those interactions they don't really seem capable of having done all that, instead seeming really inept to me. They come across as threats because we are told that they are threats instead of feeling like threats, in my opinion of course. Does that make any sense.

 

Since you mentioned liking DA2, to me the counter-examples are both the Arishok and Meredith. In those interactions with them and the way they were built up, they both felt capable threats, they felt like somebodies to be vary of. I just didn't get that feeling from any of the villains of DAI. Again, a subjective experience.

 

well all of the villains can be threatening in their own way. Loghain for example did things to secure his own power, as well as try to position his leverage to fight off a threat that didn't exist.

 

I think the reason feel more connected to Loghain is due to cut-scenes though, the moments when he is alone in the throne room, making decisions that pretty much affect everything he does, even a guy like Arl Howe was starting to doubt he backed the right horse, that showed weakness and complexity in his decisions.

 

But it was completely removed from the player. Imagine if we didn't have those scenes...would Loghain feel like another vain, power-hungry villain that we tend to see in fantasy games?

 

I do agree a few of the bad guys are a bit too big in Inquisition, and by a few I mean mainly the Tevinter dude who thwarted the Wardens. Although it is kind of like Grima in the end, the little devil on your shoulder whispering in your ear was more or less his purpose. 

 

I see the point though, the portrayal for several of them were very cut and dry without nuance, which is an issue. I don't know, for me it didn't effect much. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I am really confused by this response as this is literally what you in the post, arguing that ME3 massively changes the gamemechanics from ME2. Again, literally what you argue in the post. What exactly was the point of your argument as you were quite clear in your arguments of their apparent narcissim due to them disregarding what was done in previous iterations.

You took the one sentence of my response post that relates to ME3 instead of DA and other Bioware franchises as a whole and threw a conniption fit, that I would dare talk about ME3's gameplay in a bad light. You then we're so off topic in your rant that the person I was making my point against replied to your post, saying they agreed with everything you said... even when agreeing with you means that ME3 WAS more like ME2, meaning their original statement that Bioware "always" has done this is false.

Well done. You're so good at being wrong it helped me become right by default. Maybe next time try reading context before flying off the handle at one sentence and then being confused when you are told you are missing the point. Especially when your post has barely concealed insults at the poster you are responding to.

[Fast Jimmy]

The difference is that I'm saying that Bio will always change stuff today, after we've seen DAI and ME3. Back before those games the evidence for this would have been thin. Though I would have said -- I believe I did say -- the same before, since I always saw Bio's games as being related to each other rather than being completely independent series. ME1 combat ended up where it did because Bio got so badly burned on JE, for instance.

I said that each DA game has been vastly different and that this is damaging to the brand, as a consumer does not know what a DA game even is.

Your response was that everyone should expect DA4 to be drastically different than DA:I, because Bioware has always done this.

I suspect you meant that Bioware always tries to update their games, but I was making the point that there wasn't really evidence of this until very recently, that it could have been a fluke instead of a general trend, so consumers complaining about it now are still valid, as it can be seen as a newly PROVED trend, even if it's been part of Bioware's culture.

[AlanC9]

I said that each DA game has been vastly different and that this is damaging to the brand, as a consumer does not know what a DA game even is.
Your response was that everyone should expect DA4 to be drastically different than DA:I, because Bioware has always done this.
I suspect you meant that Bioware always tries to update their games, but I was making the point that there wasn't really evidence of this until very recently, that it could have been a fluke instead of a general trend, so consumers complaining about it now are still valid, as it can be seen as a newly PROVED trend, even if it's been part of Bioware's culture.

Oh, OK. That makes a bit more sense. So we were just completely talking past each other, and you weren't actually disagreeing with my point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think it was Flynn who said at one point that wheras DAO was your blockbuster cinema, DA2 was more like an arthouse experimental thing. It was also originally intended to not be a full release, which makes an incredible amount of sense to me in retrospect; since all of the more kind reviews point out it how feels like a television series rather than a movie. Accordingly, my reasoning is that EA simply wasn't too enthusiastic about the outlook of something experimental naturally not selling as well, so they crunched it together into a "direct" sequel.

Expansions are a great place to do experimental things. Look at Storm of Zehir.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I said that each DA game has been vastly different and that this is damaging to the brand, as a consumer does not know what a DA game even is.

I think DAI and DAO are fairly similar.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think DAI and DAO are fairly similar.

I disagree.



DA:I has large, open areas, while DA:O is much more segmented, with each area being very detailed and full of activity.

The quest order for the main plot can be tackled in a myriad of different ways (you can do Haven as your first quest area if you so choose), while DA:I's main quest is linear in its direction (outside to the divergence between Mage + Templar).

Voiced protagonist versus silent. You and I have talked enough about this over the years for the vast differences to remain unstated.

Quest design and dialogue for non-critical NPCs and missions is noticeably scaled back in qualify compared to the main quest in DA:I, while DA:O has side quests that range from DA:I fare (such as the Mage's Collective quests) all the way to cinematic heavy content, like Cammen's Lament, whcjh involves multiple sets of dialogue, options, approaches and solutions to the quest, but which do not tie into the main quest at all in terms of significance.

I won't mention the combat and UI, since I know you have found ways to navigate them to your tastes, but it is worth mentioning that others were not.

Locked stats, coupled with vastly streamlined AI tactics in DA:I, while having the ability to create sub-optimal or divergent builds was possible in DA:O, along with complex AI actions.

Respawning enemies (and everything that goes along with that, including loot drop mechanics, XP/gold grinding and lack of solid encounter design) were a major part of DA:I fights, while DA:O had a set limit and resulted in each fight being "hand-crafted," so to speak.

The removal of all non-combat skills from DA:I that had first debuted in DA:O.

Companions have a hidden approval score the player has no sight of in DA:I, while that number is displayed in DA:O.

The story opens abruptly in DA:I, throwing the player into the action and the world, while DA:O has a slow walk introductory Origin level to introduce and define their character before being asked background questions or given big tasks.



I'm sure I've missed a few things. And not all of these changes are for the worse (at least, YMMV on each one), but they certainly are large gameplay design differences.