I understand this is a business and they need to make money, but why has the game series I love wimped out? They (the Devs) are so frightened of offending someone they took away what made these games engaging. If some people are so easily offended by nudity, romances scenes or character development this series was once known for I suggest they go play old maid instead and leave Mature minded gamers alone. Sermon ended.
Nah dude
There's boobies
Trust me brah
Where are all those sexy broodmothers?
If sex in video games were on the same level as violence in them is, then it would equal to porn^2.
WHich says more about the violence in games more than the (lack of) sex, dontcha think? 
Nostalgic bias.
/snip
This ^^^^
Most gamers suffer from this and DA:O fans are considerably infected with it. This ranges from their nostalgic look the sexual relationships to bias look at the quests and how they were not fetch and deliver MMO-esque quests but deep and meaningful. You get the much maligned fetch 10 ram meat and they forget that one of the quests in lothering was go kill spiders for X poison glands. A mechanically identical quest at roughly the same time in the game. There were some really great quests in DA:O and those are the ones that will make an impact on our brains but they were not the only ones there were a lot of "filler" side quests. DA:I has lower ratio of side quests to main and companion quests than DA:O. In other words you do fewer side quests in Inquisition for evey main quest or companion quest you do. (Assuming a completionist run through). There are more companion and Main quests in DA:I which makes the ratio lower than DA:O even though there are twice(roughly) as many side quests in DA:I.
There are some great things about DA:O and i do not think that DA:I is better at everything compared to DA:O but so much of people's look back on DA:O isn't based in reality but the bias of their own memories of playing the game. And that memory is far too often not grounded in reality but grounded in the emotion.
I admit to being mildly shocked about The iron Bull's comments on a certain colossal statue. And I was really hoping for male Virgins, lots of them, but all I got was - well, I don't want to spoil anything.
Perhaps the OP is wistful for a particular DAO mod?
There are some great things about DA:O and i do not think that DA:I is better at everything compared to DA:O but so much of people's look back on DA:O isn't based in reality but the bias of their own memories of playing the game. And that memory is far too often not grounded in reality but grounded in the emotion.
Some of us still play DAO. Is that still "nostalgia"?
. DA:I has lower ratio of side quests to main and companion quests than DA:O. In other words you do fewer side quests in Inquisition for evey main quest or companion quest you do. (Assuming a completionist run through). There are more companion and Main quests in DA:I which makes the ratio lower than DA:O even though there are twice(roughly) as many side quests in DA:I.
Honestly, I think the criticism about DA:I being less racy is because of the lack of screwing whoever whenever. I mean in DAO all I had to do was so much as look at Zevran whenever I went to camp and go "You. Me. Tent. Now." and we'd bone for a bit until max approval.
I'm kinda sad I can't just pop a few corks here and then with Dorian and the whole ordeal is scripted. I kinda miss kissing my LI randomly in public as well. Or flirting with them in public...or talking to them in public...
Dang...
Honestly, I think the criticism about DA:I being less racy is because of the lack of screwing whoever whenever. I mean in DAO all I had to do was so much as look at Zevran whenever I went to camp and go "You. Me. Tent. Now." and we'd bone for a bit until max approval.
I'm kinda sad I can't just pop a few corks here and then with Dorian and the whole ordeal is scripted. I kinda miss kissing my LI randomly in public as well. Or flirting with them in public...or talking to them in public...
Dang...
Well, you can take Josephine out to the garden for a little PDA, at least...
But it's not like you get a scene of her and the Inquisitor going at it atop the bog unicorn. And for that I'm thankful.
I'd prefer to use gameplay hours rather than the raw numbers of quests for such a comparison. We had a problem on the ME boards with an argument that ME3 was "mostly fetch quests." This is true if you figure a two-minute Galaxy Map retrieval mission counts the same as a Priority mission which takes three hours. In other words, the argument was either tendentious or just plain dumb.
Having said that, I'm not quite sure how to do the math for DAI. I don't have a principled way to divide up the travel time.
I agree with what you are saying in principle but ME3 created a new mechanic that was not present in the other games. I think that if you look at the mechanics of the quests in DA:O compared to DA:I they are either identical or they pretty close so they don't defy comparison or are unfairly compared. I think its fair to judge them along equal lines.
But you are right about travel time. DA:O environments were so small in comparison that you didn't actually have to go out of your way to complete any. You were able to do them as you work on the main quests. In DA:I the environments are so much more vast that you actually have to make an effort to complete them. i think that is a fundamental cognitive difference. In DA:I you actually have to get off the main quest rails to complete side quests but in DA:O you could always do side quests at the same time as the main quests.
If exploration is boring for some players then I can see that DA:I will not be an RPG for them because, there is no reward outside the quest rewards for going off the rails of the main quest for these players. I always found the narrow environments of Bioware games a weakness. Which is not to say they are bad games. So seeing a larger more open world to explore is rewarding so doing quests while exploring is not onerous but rewarding and enjoyable.
@Gothfather I would agree with what you were saying if that exploration didn't involve wandering through empty environments. They are visually appealing but that is the extent of the benefit the open areas gave DAI. I do think Bioware overcompensated on comments made on DA2 about the cookie cutter and limited areas in it imho.
I understand this is a business and they need to make money, but why has the game series I love wimped out? They (the Devs) are so frightened of offending someone they took away what made these games engaging. If some people are so easily offended by nudity, romances scenes or character development this series was once known for I suggest they go play old maid instead and leave Mature minded gamers alone. Sermon ended.
Did you saw the new sex scenes? they show a lot even more than The Witcher 3, a game that is proclaim to be the pinnacle of nudity.
Some of us still play DAO. Is that still "nostalgia"?
Yes...
You still have a connection to the game because you played it before. This makes you ignore flaws and exaggerate positives simply because you have a familiar nostalgic bias towards the game.
This is a similar phenomenon to old movies having a cult fan-base or people gleefully playing Mario Kart at the age of 35 with their 10 year old who would rather play the newest CoD. The movies and games may be horrid if judged by today's standards, but they're movies and games that we had a connection to for some reason or another.
It's why I always say DAO was great for its time, but it's hardly a perfect template for any future game.
Yes...
You still have a connection to the game because you played it before. This makes you ignore flaws and exaggerate positives simply because you have a familiar nostalgic bias towards the game.
This is a similar phenomenon to old movies having a cult fan-base or people gleefully playing Mario Kart at the age of 35 with their 10 year old who would rather play the newest CoD. The movies and games may be horrid if judged by today's standards, but they're movies and games that we had a connection to for some reason or another.
It's why I always say DAO was great for its time, but it's hardly a perfect template for any future game.
Yep, I have experienced that first hand with Star Wars, for I was watching the first trilogy with a cousin and he hated them and every point he made was valid just something I overlooked.
@Gothfather I would agree with what you were saying if that exploration didn't involve wandering through empty environments. They are visually appealing but that is the extent of the benefit the open areas gave DAI. I do think Bioware overcompensated on comments made on DA2 about the cookie cutter and limited areas in it imho.
I don't find them empty and I can't figure out why people say this, I am always encountering enemies to fight. I disagree with the over compensation line of thought. Open world seems to be a natural evolution to gaming. As technology has improved so too have games worked to give players larger areas to "play" in. We are seeing the evolution of gaming, no longer does "open world" automatically equate to sandbox. In both DA:I and Witcher 3 we see strong narrative, we see two games that don't rely on the Bethesda sandbox approach. I think it is a disservice to simply boil down DA:I large zones to simple overcompensation.
As i have stated if you don't like exploration as an activity then these changes are not going to be a positive but the sales of the last three open world RPGs Skyrim, DA:I and Witcher 3 seem to provided evidence that more people enjoy it than those who don't. Which I think means it is here to stay. At least for the next 10 years.
Yes...
You still have a connection to the game because you played it before. This makes you ignore flaws and exaggerate positives simply because you have a familiar nostalgic bias towards the game.
This is a similar phenomenon to old movies having a cult fan-base or people gleefully playing Mario Kart at the age of 35 with their 10 year old who would rather play the newest CoD. The movies and games may be horrid if judged by today's standards, but they're movies and games that we had a connection to for some reason or another.
It's why I always say DAO was great for its time, but it's hardly a perfect template for any future game.
I would add that there is nothing wrong with Nostalgic Bias, but it is important to be aware of it. I have Nostalgic Bias for the original Battlestar Galactica. Nostalgic Bias isn't a negative it is the positive memories associated with experience with the media that get mixed up with the actual media. Nostalgic bias isn't saying that what you enjoyed was actually crap and you just think it is good, it is process of your memories of enjoying the media get mixed in with the actual memories of the media and this creates a bias towards the familiar vs the new.
Yes...
You still have a connection to the game because you played it before. This makes you ignore flaws and exaggerate positives simply because you have a familiar nostalgic bias towards the game.
This is a similar phenomenon to old movies having a cult fan-base or people gleefully playing Mario Kart at the age of 35 with their 10 year old who would rather play the newest CoD. The movies and games may be horrid if judged by today's standards, but they're movies and games that we had a connection to for some reason or another.
It's why I always say DAO was great for its time, but it's hardly a perfect template for any future game.
So whether I still play the game or not, it's nostalgia simply because I like it.
Gotcha
So whether I still play the game or not, it's nostalgia simply because I like it.
Gotcha
What are you trying to prove exactly?
Liking the game isn't nostalgia. Liking the game and yearning for it is. Liking the game,yearning for it, and putting it on a pedestal while ignoring its flaws in relation to general or modern standards is nostalgic bias.
It's a very safe assumption that someone who thinks that dry humping to Enya is racy compared to the vivid imagery in DAI from exposed breasts to conveniently angled Iron Bull bottoming is a victim of nostalgic bias.
#thread
What are you trying to prove exactly?
Liking the game isn't nostalgia. Liking the game and yearning for it is. Liking the game and yearning for it while constantly thinking that newer games are relatively worse when they aren't is an indication of nostalgic bias.
It's a very safe assumption that someone who thinks underwear sex is racy compared to the vivid imagery in DAI is a victim of nostalgic bias.
#thread
Maybe; maybe not.
I admit to liking DAO more than DAI, and I also prefer the relationships for Morrigan and Leliana over Cassandra, for instance. However, none are quite as impactful to me as Aveline from DA2; that one crushed me, and had to take a break from the game for perhaps a day. I also quite like the romantic flirtations of Scout Harding more than the full Romance arc of Cassandra, though I am fond of the humorous flirtations of the latter, too.
It may be bias for some, but never assume....
The discussion is about the raciness or provocativeness in the relationships, not their sentimentality and personal impact
I'd personally rate the Alistair and Morrigan romances in DAO above most romances in DAI if I go by the latter. Of course I also conveniently forget the parts where I bought their love by giving them stones and jewelry 
I don't find them empty and I can't figure out why people say this, I am always encountering enemies to fight. I disagree with the over compensation line of thought. Open world seems to be a natural evolution to gaming. As technology has improved so too have games worked to give players larger areas to "play" in. We are seeing the evolution of gaming, no longer does "open world" automatically equate to sandbox. In both DA:I and Witcher 3 we see strong narrative, we see two games that don't rely on the Bethesda sandbox approach. I think it is a disservice to simply boil down DA:I large zones to simple overcompensation.
As i have stated if you don't like exploration as an activity then these changes are not going to be a positive but the sales of the last three open world RPGs Skyrim, DA:I and Witcher 3 seem to provided evidence that more people enjoy it than those who don't. Which I think means it is here to stay. At least for the next 10 years.
For me, the difference between Skyrim and TW3's open world and DAI's open world, comes down to depth of content. If you're going to do open world, then that world should be alive. The sidequests, for example, should have some meat to them. Otherwise, all you're doing is taking DA2's subpar fetch quests and inserting them into a larger space.
I liked some of the "major" sidequests. But not enough of the open world was fleshed out, IMO, to be worth it. IMO, if you're going to do that kind of game, then flesh out the stuff that makes exploring the open world worthwhile.
For me, the difference between Skyrim and TW3's open world and DAI's open world, comes down to depth of content. If you're going to do open world, then that world should be alive. The sidequests, for example, should have some meat to them. Otherwise, all you're doing is taking DA2's subpar fetch quests and inserting them into a larger space.
I liked some of the "major" sidequests. But not enough of the open world was fleshed out, IMO, to be worth it. IMO, if you're going to do that kind of game, then flesh out the stuff that makes exploring the open world worthwhile.
People like different things. i found the environments of DA:I were fleshed out, what I didn't like was how they were constructed to funnel you along specific paths vs a more open level design. So many locations in DA:I are not passable compared to Skyrim or Witcher 3. I chalk it up to inexperience. Bioware has little experience in open world and as a large company you get more "inertia" when trying to switch from the established method to the newer methods than a smaller company would.
I think there is room to approve and i think they need to cut back on player choice, having so much choice of voice actors, companions and customization of the Main character resulted in a shallower personality for the main character compared to Hawke, a plethora of choice for companions but they were all shallow in content. None of their personal story arcs resonated because there was no time to explore it because you have 12 companions & advisors that needed stories told. Net result we got more "choice" but the choices were less meaningful because the content was too diluted. Just my opinion. I think this diluted content is the real reason people find the open world lacking because the great emotional moments in the game were lacking. Dorian's story for example could have resonated but it just felt forced because you never got a change to see the vulnerability of Dorian before he confronts his father. Cassandra's crisis of conscious fails to resonate because there is no content past her getting the head seeker's book except a minor bit of dialogue. Cullen's drug addiction was so pitiful that i was like what its over that it? It was simply weak. Because it never got a chance to develop. Varric was almost a non entity this game, and the Iron bull's story arc was so poorly done that he leaves the Qun and it has NO effect on him or the Chargers. All these short comings I feel are a direct result of having too many companions too many stories competing for resources. We would have been better served with 1/2 the number but twice the depth to their stories. Same amount of content but deeper and more meaningful. Sometimes less choice really is better.
Star Wars was always based on an extremely naïve morality, but the original trilogy was a less tight narrative (the prequels actually do a better job of telling a story), so it was less obvious.I remember some critic - from Vulture, maybe? - saying that it's not so much that the SW prequels were bad in themselves as that they reminded everyone of how flawed SW always was.
For me, the original SW trilogy works better than either the prequels or most of the EU because of the plot holes, lack of explanations and so on. Why? Well, thing is, fundamentally, the entire concept of SW is stupid. Really stupid. And trying to explain it, to make it coherent simply can't work because of the inherent stupidity. And so the original films didn't really even try. If anything, they ran off of the Rule of Cool: The Force? Space magic, which is cool. Lightsabres? Frikkin' laser swords, how awesome is that? Spaceships working like WW2 fighters IN SPACE? So much fun to watch. Evil dudes with evil space magic? Cool. Incest? Hell yeah. And so on. By not even trying to justify these things, it allowed them to be great entertainment and escapism. It's not a deep meaningful complex story, but it's not meant to be, it's a modern fairy tale. And at that it works brilliantly. I wouldn't even say it's a matter of letting the viewer make his own explanations, instead to me it's more about explanations simply not being relevant to the story being told.
The prequels (and much of the EU) on the other hand, tried to add some level of explanations, justifications and mechanics for these things. And yet, all they manage by doing this is to highlight just how ridiculous the underlying mechanics of Star Wars are.
Retour en haut