65 réponses à ce sujet

[Ambivalent]

I'm one of people that love all Bioware games. From KOTOR to Mass Effect to Dragon Age, all were really well done imo.

 

Even SWTOR was really well done.(Even, because i haven't thought Bioware could make a MMO before)

 

I played all of them several times with different classes, choices, tastes.

 

I just got DA:I but so far it didn't hook me for some reason. I literally force myself to keep playing, first time in a Bioware game.

 

Let me tell and ask you a few things.

 

Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong or if i miss something.

 

1) Why no auto heal after fights?

 

I'm not complaining, i don't die often but i really wonder why it changed.

 

It is too much micro management with no reason at all. Switch to Varric to heal, switch to Cassandra to heal, heal yourself and you have just a few potions -.-

 

It isn't hard or challenging just annoying.

 

2) Why no heal spell?

 

Same as before. Why get rid of that?

 

Getting rid of revive spell could make more sense since we have a Guild Wars 2 revive style.

 

3) Why limited potions?

 

I can walk with arsenal that could mobilize entire Ferelden army in first game but i can't carry more potions. Yeah.

 

These three changes can only supported for "elite pr0 gamerz with so much skillz!1" yet these don't make any sense in any Bioware game. They're known for story telling and choices, not "one hit = kill" crappy games.

 

And no even 50 potions should take less space than a suit of armor.

 

4) Isn't "dangerous mages vs conservative templars" got old?

 

In first game it was really well done, gave us insight yet didn't bore us to hell. It was a simple side quest not a focus point.

 

In second game it was the main problem. Didn't care a bit. Both sides reminded me of "More powah!1" style bad guys from crappy movies. They were both right and wrong but scared to admit that. It was all about Hawke and his/her family for me.

 

And in third yet again they're fighting over the place.

 

I really hope if there'll be a fourth game either side gets wiped totally, both sides will be even better. 

 

5) Right click to do stuff

 

Nearly all MMOs, RPGs etc. i have played i simply right click to move my character to do something.(aka open door, collect herb, go and get in conversation whatever)

 

Here he/she doesn't simply walk to do that. Why? I really wonder why it has changed. It was simple yet working as intended since i can't even remember when.

 

It doesn't really help with immersion that a person sees something and want to use it yet can't move without proper WASD movement.

 

6) Not enough party immersion

 

We'd be able to talk our companions wherever we liked to. In second you changed it for worse but that was okay too. At least maps were smaller.

 

Now i can't even talk to them in camp. Way to ruin my dreams about finding balance between first and second game's dialogues.

 

So i simply go to our base which is 139876 km away to see what Varric is thinking because camps don't work in this way and that's because... I don't really know.

 

7) Too many fetch quests

 

You are Herald of Andraste, a member of Inquisition which seperates you from regular people. Yet you collect elfroots, stones, find x's stolen wallet, go get me a beer and a cigar etc. stuff.

 

Either you shouldn't introduce us as a "Maker's blessing" at the start or get rid of these simple tasks. (It was fine in second game for example. Until becoming "something" i was a simple citizen so i didn't care about quests being "glorious" or not)

 

At Awakenings it was again bad enough but that's another topic.

 

8) No mod support

 

Simply why? Afraid to see modders work is better than vanilla or what?

 

9) So near timeline

 

DA lore is awesome. But you're playing "safe" with it. It gets tiring to see same stuff and people. Move timeline to somewhere else. 

 

Let us see Orlessian invasion and work with them or Maric/Loghain, let us see "134321 years passed since Alistair's death" story, let us see Andraste's rising and challenges.

 

In Mass Effect it was story of Shephard so it made sense games were close to each other but here we have Warden, Hawke and Inquisitor. Even if all would be well done it lacks same continuity imo.

 

I will try to play this game, hope i'll like it more but i simply can't understand and support the bad or at least questionable changes.

 

Edit: 10) Auto attributes

 

Why?

 

I hated it, i hate it, i will hate it.

 

Let me hit 23894324 but have 10 hp, let me have 3 trillion hp but hit crap. First two games had this, why remove it? Why simplify it so to speak?

[Captain Wiseass]

Some changes were due to what they could accomplish with the Frostbite 3 engine in the time given.

 

Others were because they wanted to try new things in order to create a new game experience, as well as because creative people like new challenges.

 

Also, it's weird that, in the middle of your complaining about things changing, you included complaints about things that... didn't change.

[RedLens37]

I really hope if there'll be a fourth game... 

 

Me too. So I can read similar posts like this about how great DA:I was and "why'd they have to change everything, blah, blah, blah, DA4 sux!"

[Ambivalent]

Me too. So I can read similar posts like this about how great DA:I was and "why'd they have to change everything, blah, blah, blah, DA4 sux!"

 

Probably not in a life time.

 

Crappy controls, messy UI, lack of tactics, auto attributes, non-sense start that allows prisoner to lead the captor just after one minute or so, many fetch quests, enemies that are simply red dots instead of conversable human beings like in first two games, lack of potions/auto heal after combat/heal spell because Andraste knows why.

 

This game will be regarded as Bioware's Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in near future. Where so many things were badly designed yet it has been hailed as a masterpiece for no reason. Skyrim fixed that, so DA 4 will fix this. (Same goes for GTA 4 too. It was pretty "dull" yet people realised it after RS fixed their series with GTA 5)

 

Anyway not saying it sucks though. Not crossed that line yet.

 

But still can't find a reason to keep playing. I really want to meet to the guy/gal who thought getting rid of mouse movement or healing stuff was a good idea for example.

 

Probably gonna re-roll a Female Shephard and stick to ME series for a while, god bless Jennifer Hale.

[VelvetV]

I'd suggest not to give up, but concentrate on main and inner circle quests. They're done really well and you'll miss out on the good contents of the game if you drop it outright because of inconveniences.

 

1) Why no auto heal after fights?

2) Why no heal spell?

3) Why limited potions?

 

Agreed. It becomes a problem that creates needless backtracking after resting in camps until you gain enough levels not to need potions that badly.

 

4) Isn't "dangerous mages vs conservative templars" got old?

 

 

This point you can remove, the conflict doesn't play a major role. It's just one quest.

 

5) Right click to do stuff

 

I have no idea how that could be overlooked.   Maybe only PC users got screwed over like that, just like they got badly implemented tactical combat? I wouldn't know.

 

6) Not enough party immersion

 

Talking in camps is something I missed, too. But it's a minor inconvenience. I think the reason is how banter is implemented: if you could talk at any time to companions, banter could kick in just as you click on a companion to talk, that would be glitchy and weird.

 

7) Too many fetch quests

 

 

Too many low-quality side quests in general.

 

8) No mod support

 

 

But I heard about people making mods...

 

9) So near timeline

 

This one I don't mind, actually. Any time line, if story is done well, is ok.

 

Edit: 10) Auto attributes

 

 

Not that important, imho, not for this particular game and the way it works.

[JeffZero]

If Inquisition is BioWare's Oblivion, what exactly was DA2?

[RedLens37]

To be fair, I had to somewhat force myself to finish the game on my first playthrough. I've found my 2nd, 3rd and 4th playthroughs to be much more enjoyable. Can't really explain it, but I think the game is better when you have a roadmap in your head for how it will play out. That being said, I think the majority of your points are nit-picking, and I could just as easily respond to your thread title with "why dislike change for the sake of disliking change?"

[Ambivalent]

If Inquisition is BioWare's Oblivion, what exactly was DA2?

 

DA 2 is an interesting subject. I really liked some changes made to original game but also so many things like same places getting recycled which is most obvious were worse than first game.

 

Most of companions were over the top, some worked(like Isabela and Varic) some didn't(Like Fenris, Anders, Merrill etc) At least i think so.

 

In Origins companions were more believable but again it didn't make much sense to "persuade" any companion to do anything. In DA 2 they had more characteristic responses and effects to whole story.

 

Hawke family was nicer and more "human" than "Let's save the world" style in Origins but overall it lacked in a few areas. I kinda got tired of being special one and saving the galaxy  

 

So i honestly thought DA 2 was really nice and risky to implement in this "You are dragonborn/witcher/jedi knight/chosen one/Bringer of balance/God's son/Natalie Portman!1 All enemies lie before your footsteps and whole universe counting on you!1" era.

 

On topic: I have finished Origins and 2 just a week ago or so. Probably 4th or 5th time since they came out Maybe i got burned out so that's why i sounded "pessimistic" or "critical", won't gonna uninstall or "I want my money back!11" stuff, just maybe i need a change to strike back again. Thanks for responses and tips though.

[AlanC9]

The devs have spoken to some of those questions over the years

 

Questions 1,2, and 3 all relate to the same thing. The design intent is to make all combats at least somewhat meaningful, in the sense that their outcome will matter to the player. This isn't true in DA:O, or indeed in most Bio games since BG2. There have been some fairly extensive dev posts on the subject.

 

Point 4 is inherent in where DA2 left us. If you didn't like DA2... well, what are you asking them to do about it? They can't just handwave the whole business away or resolve it all off-camera. Unless Bio accepted your point 9 and jumped forward a few decades, of course.

 

 

Point 5: DAI works like Skyrim and the rest of the TES games., where you have to walk over to stuff yourself rather than right-clicking on it. I don't know why Bio went this route, but it's not all that unusual. Is right-clicking more "immersive" than WASD?

 

Point 6 seems to derive from two things. First, the writers have said that they prefer to have more awareness of context for the dialogues, which is hard to have when the player has control over when and where they happen. Second, pacing is much harder to regulate when the player chooses how often to interact. My understanding is that the writers thought that the ME series handled this better than the DA series had.

 

Point 7 is what open-world games tend to do. Whether they should is another matter, but it's an easy and cheap way to get a player moving through the map.

 

Point 8 is simple: they've said that the new ending doesn't support modding, and can't cheaply be made to do so. It's not wholly clear why everybody's going to Frostbite, but there are some obvious advantages to going with an engine that's, in effect, subsidized by the rest of EA.

 

I haven't heard that Bio ever considered moving very far in the timeline. There's precedent for this. TES games do it all the time. I don't know about moving backwards -- that's never polled very well.

 

I'm not aware of any official dev comments about attributes. It might be another case of thinking that ME had the right approach.

[Captain Wiseass]

Given that the name of the series is also the name of the century in which it takes place, it baffles me why people think massive time jumps are an option.

 

(Never mind issues of player agency involved in going back to the past. How much do your choices matter if things are exactly the same in 9:30 Dragon no matter what you do?)

[Ambivalent]

 

Point 5: DAI works like Skyrim and the rest of the TES games., where you have to walk over to stuff yourself rather than right-clicking on it. I don't know why Bio went this route, but it's not all that unusual. Is right-clicking more "immersive" than WASD?

 

Thanks for informative post but at least for this point i can talk more.

 

The thing is normally when you right click on this or that game your character moves to there and do the intended thing.(Like getting something, opening door, getting in conversation etc)

 

Simple "use x" button which worked great since 90's i think.

 

And TES series are mostly intended to be played in FPS cam and you're mostly solo so while moving to do something works there, doesn't really work for me here. (Oh also worked nice on new Fallouts too, just to record)

 

On vast surface, trying to find loot(Which again is a questionable useless change from TAB toggle to smaller area effect) while checking 4 people's not-auto healing healths and my character's unresponsive and clunky movement... Too much hassle for a RPG. 

 

Or it could work if controls on PC were better, i have no idea really Might use my dual shock 4 on PC or get game on PS4, but need to wait a deal -.-

 

Best of both worlds would be an option, at least in single player game.

[Ambivalent]

Given that the name of the series is also the name of the century in which it takes place, it baffles me why people think massive time jumps are an option.

 

(Never mind issues of player agency involved in going back to the past. How much do your choices matter if things are exactly the same in 9:30 Dragon no matter what you do?)

 

What i meant was Bioware wasting vast lores that they created by placing games so near to each other. Just like what Lucas Arts did before Bioware did a tiny game called KOTOR for them. And that opened a whole new era and possibilities, still a favourite of mine.

 

Using same or close timeline worked for Mass Effect because we were Shephard since the start. Here we have 3 personas who are living at the same time, might be 4 if Bioware continues tradition. Or at least i want Warden, Hawke, Inquisitor and new guy/gal in same party, heh.

 

In the whole lore all our 3 playable characters combined are just like a ripple in the ocean, just saying.

[Captain Wiseass]

That's backwards thinking. The storytelling isn't there to serve the lore. The lore is there to serve the storytelling. And the story being told is about the Dragon Age.

 

(Also, the Star Wars comics were doing the "ancient history" thing well before KOTOR.)

[Thandal N'Lyman]

The question is misplaced.  The only responses it will get here are from other players, who know no more about BioWare's thought processes than the OP.  We can all speculate and spin our theories for as long as we care to do, but no one who actually knows will be posting an answer in this thread.

 

So, "Why?"  All I can say with any degree of certainty, (based on public postings by, and my private convos with, BioWare staff) is, "Nothing was changed just  to change it.  Nothing."

[pdusen]

I highly doubt the devs would spend a lot of time and money changing things to change them.

More likely they change things because there is a technical problem or because they have an idea for how they think it can be improved.

Sometimes they are going to be wrong. That doesn't mean they should stop.

[Sanunes]

The thing is what you consider changing for "the sake of change" doesn't always mean that is the reasoning behind those changes.  The example for me would be potions, they just didn't decide one day to remove the ability to carry huge amount of potions they thought about a way to keep the game balanced. It was noticed that a lot of people were using a lot of potions and trivializing content so they put a cap on them so they could expect every player to have a certain number of potions and balance the fights around that instead of guessing how many a person might have.

Modifié par Sanunes, 19 mai 2015 - 05:19 .

[c0bra951]

First, as was already mentioned, you can bump the 8 potions to 12 with a perk.  Those are shared by the whole party, for an average of 3 per member.  In addition, you can add 5 health-regen (over time) potions per member, and even 3 healing-mist grenades per member, if you are that much into wanting health potions.  These can all be upgraded several times, even adding area heal to the regen potions.  In addition, any fast travel will fully heal the party and restore the shared health potions.

 

Second, this game allows for 2 additional health bars, which can be regenerated in the field.  These are guard and barrier.  Guard is semi-permanent.  It will remain until you fast-travel, or set up a new camp.  Barrier is a magic spell which decays over time, and can be recast as often as the mage's skills allow.  2 mages can share the load, and do it twice as often.  Both of these bars need to deplete before your normal health is affected (usually--I've seen Dorian get killed while still showing some guard).  Characters which normally can't generate guard (like mages) can get to do so with the proper fade-touched items in the masterwork slot of crafted weapons or armor.

 

Third, reviving a dead party member is easy, and happens automagically after combat. 

 

Fourth, why do I want to play the same game 3 times?  I want differences and variety from one to the next. 

 

Edit:  Fifth, what Sanunes said. ^^

[VelvetV]

To posters above, do you really think that OP was serious about "change for change's sake"? For me it sounded like an expression of exasperation with the game, rather than a serious opinion that the devs did all this just to be different.

[Captain Wiseass]

I tend to take people at face value on the Internet, even if they're saying something ridiculous.

 

Actually, make that especially if they're saying something ridiculous.

[Cheviot]

To posters above, do you really think that OP was serious about "change for change's sake"? For me it sounded like an expression of exasperation with the game, rather than a serious opinion that the devs did all this just to be different.

It seems the posters above have engaged with the other points he made, so there's no need to worry on his behalf.

[Riekopo]

The corporate and destroying influence of EA?

[turuzzusapatuttu]

If Inquisition is BioWare's Oblivion, what exactly was DA2?

 

Morrowind 

 

*goes into hiding*