101 réponses à ce sujet

[Riven326]

For a game that was in development for so long, one would think that DAI would easily be the best game in the series or at least be the most polished. I put about 25 hours into the game, really wanting to enjoy it like I did the others. But a number of key mishaps and poor design choices on the part of Bioware has thus far prevented me from doing so and I doubt will change without the game actually being redesigned.

 

Combat, which is the thing that takes up the majority amount of your time while slogging through his game, is tedious and not fun, even when played as intended, in real-time without pausing to issue orders. The tactical camera mode doesn't pull out far enough and feels very clunky by comparison to the isometric view that is present in Origins. The party AI is seriously lacking and I have often witnessed my ranged party members literally sprinting towards a giant wielding a two-handed hammer, only to get right in their face before casting a ranged spell or some other ranged attack. To combat the obviously brain dead and poorly programmed AI, I went into the "Tactics" menu and tried to set up and fine tune my scripts only to find that they are completely missing! I was horrified and dumbfounded by this and still have not thought of a good reason for the absence of scripts in a game that features a "tactical camera" and was promoted as being just as tactical as Origins.

The tactical gameplay that existed in the first two games has been completely destroyed, and that is not an exaggeration. The tactical camera is a clunky mess that I hate having to use. It also doesn't zoom out far enough and trees and other objects often obscure my view of the battlefield, meaning I have to spend more time fighting with this "tactical" camera than actually playing and enjoying the game. How did the veteran game developers over at Bioware not notice these obvious flaws before the game shipped? More over, how did they take a genuinely good formula that existed in the previous entries and so thoroughly ruin it for the third game? It boggles the mind.

 

Overall, I think this game is an accurate, and probably the best representation of modern Bioware and the decline in the quality of the games they create. I was able to overlook the obvious design flaws in DA2 because I understood that game had a hard deadline to meet. But what is the excuse with Inquisition?

[BansheeOwnage]

For a game that was in development for so long, one would think that DAI would easily be the best game in the series or at least be the most polished. I put about 25 hours into the game, really wanting to enjoy it like I did the others. But a number of key mishaps and poor design choices on the part of Bioware has thus far prevented me from doing so and I doubt will change without the game actually being redesigned.

 

Combat, which is the thing that takes up the majority amount of your time while slogging through his game, is tedious and not fun, even when played as intended, in real-time without pausing to issue orders. The tactical camera mode doesn't pull out far enough and feels very clunky by comparison to the isometric view that is present in Origins. The party AI is seriously lacking and I have often witnessed my ranged party members literally sprinting towards a giant wielding a two-handed hammer, only to get right in their face before casting a ranged spell or some other ranged attack. To combat the obviously brain dead and poorly programmed AI, I went into the "Tactics" menu and tried to set up and fine tune my scripts only to find that they are completely missing! I was horrified and dumbfounded by this and still have not thought of a good reason for the absence of scripts in a game that features a "tactical camera" and was promoted as being just as tactical as Origins.

The tactical gameplay that existed in the first two games has been completely destroyed, and that is not an exaggeration. The tactical camera is a clunky mess that I hate having to use. It also doesn't zoom out far enough and trees and other objects often obscure my view of the battlefield, meaning I have to spend more time fighting with this "tactical" camera than actually playing and enjoying the game. How did the veteran game developers over at Bioware not notice these obvious flaws before the game shipped? More over, how did they take a genuinely good formula that existed in the previous entries and so thoroughly ruin it for the third game? It boggles the mind.

 

Overall, I think this game is an accurate, and probably the best representation of modern Bioware and the decline in the quality of the games they create. I was able to overlook the obvious design flaws in DA2 because I understood that game had a hard deadline to meet. But what is the excuse with Inquisition?

As for the excuse, it's that they started with a new engine. I think that accounts for most of the clunkiness the game has. I don't use that as an excuse though, but it's most likely the reason. Another issue with the tactical "camera" is that it's not a camera. It's an invisible person walking on the ground. Because of this, you can (and will) easily get stuck on terrain and are sometimes unable to target enemies above or below you. It's really annoying and I barely use it.

 

I completely agree about the removal of tactics. People who didn't like it were always able to ignore them, but now we don't have the option at all. Like I said, I know they had to start from scratch on a new engine, but you'd think tactics would be somewhere on their priority list. Alas, no, other more useless things were. I love the game, but... yeah. It has some problems, and having problems that weren't present in previous games is aggravating, because they should try as hard as they can not to take steps backwards.

[TheJiveDJ]

A little late to the party; these issues have been parroted for months and months now. But yep, your concerns are 100% legit. DAI is just totally lack luster; how they managed to win so many awards is beyond me. 2014 was an absolute mess of a year for gaming, so there wasn't much competition. CDPR has put BW to shame with Witcher 3 in my opinion; it's what DAI should've been, and then some.

[Riven326]

A little late to the party; these issues have been parroted for months and months now. But yep, your concerns are 100% legit. DAI is just totally lack luster; how they managed to win so many awards is beyond me. 2014 was an absolute mess of a year for gaming, so there wasn't much competition. CDPR has put BW to shame with Witcher 3 in my opinion; it's what DAI should've been, and then some.

I put the game down after playing it for a few hours some months back and just recently started playing again.

[In Exile]

A little late to the party; these issues have been parroted for months and months now. But yep, your concerns are 100% legit. DAI is just totally lack luster; how they managed to win so many awards is beyond me. 2014 was an absolute mess of a year for gaming, so there wasn't much competition. CDPR has put BW to shame with Witcher 3 in my opinion; it's what DAI should've been, and then some.

 

A non-party based game with real-time combat? I mean, don't get me wrong, TW3 is a better game, but it's weird to compare the two. 

[BobZilla84]

A non-party based game with real-time combat? I mean, don't get me wrong, TW3 is a better game, but it's weird to compare the two.

The reason DAI won all those awards in the first place was because it had no competion in fact I'll say it had The Witcher 3 or Batman Arkam Knight been released and not been delayed they would have wiped the floor with DAI.

It damn sure wouldn't have won any Gotys and it most definitely wouldn't have won RPG of the year either The Witcher 3 would have.

[Firky]

I didn't enjoy DAI as much as DAO and DA2, but it's hard to compare to The Witcher. At least the way I play. I'm your hardest difficulty, pause and play party gal.

 

The Witcher has a much smaller scope in a couple of key areas. Like, without a party, combat is a whole other thing. (And, I love The Witcher, but I generally just blitz the combat on easier settings because I'm not overly interested.) And, given Geralt is just Geralt, there's no branching for the dialogue and such to try and make your qunari more qunari. (I didn't feel my Tal-Vashoth mage was particularly qunari in DAI. But Geralt really is Geralt because that's all he has to be.)

 

Personally, I wouldn't be too worried if DA did away with race selection, in favour of a good story, like (IMO) in DA2 and that Hawke was largely Hawke. But, I think lots of people expect that from DA; to be an elf or whatever.

 

I'd miss the party stuff, but I do enjoy The Witcher for other things, like the storytelling and quest design.

 

No game can do everything? I dunno.

[BobZilla84]

I didn't enjoy DAI as much as DAO and DA2, but it's hard to compare to The Witcher. At least the way I play. I'm your hardest difficulty, pause and play party gal.
 
The Witcher has a much smaller scope in a couple of key areas. Like, without a party, combat is a whole other thing. (And, I love The Witcher, but I generally just blitz the combat on easier settings because I'm not overly interested.) And, given Geralt is just Geralt, there's no branching for the dialogue and such to try and make your qunari more qunari. (I didn't feel my Tal-Vashoth mage was particularly qunari in DAI. But Geralt really is Geralt because that's all he has to be.)
 
Personally, I wouldn't be too worried if DA did away with race selection, in favour of a good story, like (IMO) in DA2 and that Hawke was largely Hawke. But, I think lots of people expect that from DA; to be an elf or whatever.
 
I'd miss the party stuff, but I do enjoy The Witcher for other things, like the storytelling and quest design.
 
No game can do everything? I dunno.

Oh yeah I agree completely I dont compare DA & TW because there 2 different beasts but in truth do you really think DAI would have won those awards with heavyweight competion like TW3 or BAK both being released and not delayed Im just saying.

[Firky]

I've been a games reviewer (paid, for a print publication) for nearly 8 years. I have a different insight into awards and stuff. (Edit: What I mean is, awards aren't necessarily always about what is "the best" so much as also highlighting aspects well done, or important to the industry, or getting greater exposure for things. Also, awards are judged by various people, for various criteria and can't even really be compared within the subset "awards.")

 

My personal opinion is that if awards allow DA to continue being made, great. I didn't enjoy DAI as much as the others, but the series has a lot going for it IMO.

 

(Edit again: As an example, the magazine I write for asked contributors to vote for our GOTYs. They do every year. Last year I mostly dealt with indie games and I had hardly played the games on the list, so I couldn't vote for them. The magazine is cool about that because they consider what we play as also relevant to what should be considered. Then they ask for extra games and I think I just picked a few games I thought were exceptional and wrote a little blurb on them. So, these games have the magazine's stamp on them solely based on my recommendation. Then there's reader's choice and stuff, too. Which are always totally different. Awards. They're a multi-layered thing.)

[c0bra951]

A little late to the party; these issues have been parroted for months and months now. But yep, your concerns are 100% legit. DAI is just totally lack luster; how they managed to win so many awards is beyond me. 2014 was an absolute mess of a year for gaming, so there wasn't much competition. CDPR has put BW to shame with Witcher 3 in my opinion; it's what DAI should've been, and then some.

 

Because that's your opinion, and most reputable review publications had a different opinion, as do I. 

 

Someone nailed it by saying that most of the heavy criticism comes from people who are not judging the game on its own merits.  They mentally pigeonhole it into the mold of the previous games, and expect the third entry to be the same, only better.  No, it's not the same.  It's a new entity.  I think the game excels at what it does, save for some technical rough edges--a massive endeavor that succeeds in almost every way.  It has been my main gaming entertainment for over an entire season.  The Witcher 3 is next, but I'm in no hurry.  A few more patches there will help, and I can wait for them.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Because that's your opinion, and most reputable review publications had a different opinion, as do I. 
 
Someone nailed it by saying that most of the heavy criticism comes from people who are not judging the game on its own merits.  They mentally pigeonhole it into the mold of the previous games, and expect the third entry to be the same, only better.  No, it's not the same.  It's a new entity.  I think the game excels at what it does, save for some technical rough edges--a massive endeavor that succeeds in almost every way.  It has been my main gaming entertainment for over an entire season.  The Witcher 3 is next, but I'm in no hurry.  A few more patches there will help, and I can wait for them.

When people buy the third game in a series, they expect it to bear some passing resemblance to the previous games besides the name. Inquisition takes everything that made the previous games good and dilutes with vast amounts of vacuous filler in a vain attempt to disguise the completely lack of depth or substance at its heart. Inquisition is a cynical mirage of a game that (sadly) succeeded in fooling a lot of people with it's pretty vistas and lighting effects into overlooking its glaring narrative and gameplay deficiencies.

[Riven326]

Because that's your opinion, and most reputable review publications had a different opinion, as do I. 

 

Someone nailed it by saying that most of the heavy criticism comes from people who are not judging the game on its own merits.  They mentally pigeonhole it into the mold of the previous games, and expect the third entry to be the same, only better.  No, it's not the same.  It's a new entity.  I think the game excels at what it does, save for some technical rough edges--a massive endeavor that succeeds in almost every way.  It has been my main gaming entertainment for over an entire season.  The Witcher 3 is next, but I'm in no hurry.  A few more patches there will help, and I can wait for them.

Well, I think that's a very condescending attitude to have towards anyone who criticizes the game, it's also wrong. Inquisition is the third entry in the same franchise, and as such, it is not unreasonable nor unfair to compare and contrast it with the previous entries. In any event, even when judged solely by it's own merits the game's problems do not simply go away. It's flaws present themselves in a very obvious way to anyone playing the game for more than a few hours. There are a few subtle issues as well, but most stick out like a sore thumb.

 

I wouldn't compare it to the Witcher myself, even though I could point out a number of things that are vastly superior in that game. That said, I have no doubt that DAI was so well received primarily because of the lack of competition in 2014, especially on PS4 and Xbox One.

[Torgette]

The reason DAI won all those awards in the first place was because it had no competion in fact I'll say it had The Witcher 3 or Batman Arkam Knight been released and not been delayed they would have wiped the floor with DAI.

It damn sure wouldn't have won any Gotys and it most definitely wouldn't have won RPG of the year either The Witcher 3 would have.

 

Clearly, that said people are already dumping on Bethesda's games as well despite Skyrim being 4 years old and Fallout 4 not even being out yet. Hopefully there is room for more than one rpg in the market.

[o Ventus]

The reason DAI won all those awards in the first place was because it had no competion in fact I'll say it had The Witcher 3 or Batman Arkam Knight been released and not been delayed they would have wiped the floor with DAI.

It damn sure wouldn't have won any Gotys and it most definitely wouldn't have won RPG of the year either The Witcher 3 would have.

 

None of the Arkham games are in any way similar to any of the DA games, so any competition between the 2 would be null and void on that basis alone. That would be like claiming that Forza Motorsport is better than StarCraft, even though they are wholly unrelated. The Witcher is at least the same genre, but the way it approaches the genre is sufficiently different that a direct comparison game-to-game would be pointless for anything other than a "best RPG" award.

[line_genrou]

A little late to the party; these issues have been parroted for months and months now. But yep, your concerns are 100% legit. DAI is just totally lack luster; how they managed to win so many awards is beyond me. 2014 was an absolute mess of a year for gaming, so there wasn't much competition. CDPR has put BW to shame with Witcher 3 in my opinion; it's what DAI should've been, and then some.

 

W3 is a perfect example of a team of devs completely dedicated to make the best RPG they can. CDPR has always been ambitious, since W1.

I loved DAO because it showed how much attention to detail Bioware had, just like CDPR did with W3 now.

 

 

About the tactical camera, the zoom is very far now after all those patches.

[Greetsme]

I put the game down after playing it for a few hours some months back and just recently started playing again.

 

Me to. Do you have any tips on how to stay awake?  I have been sticking pins in myself, but keep having to go the doctors to have the holes patched up with band-aids before I leak to death.

[correctamundo]

It's flaws present themselves in a very obvious way to anyone playing the game for more than a few hours.

 

No.

 

Your opinion is your opinion, not anyones or everyones.

[Riven326]

Me to. Do you have any tips on how to stay awake?  I have been sticking pins in myself, but keep having to go the doctors to have the holes patched up with band-aids before I leak to death.

Nope, sorry. I'm sure some will say play Witcher 3.

 

No.

 

Your opinion is your opinion, not anyones or everyones.

My opinion is that it's a mediocre game. But the design flaws are not subjective.

[o Ventus]

 

My opinion is that it's a mediocre game. But the design flaws are not subjective.

 

Do you know what subjectivity entails?

[Riven326]

Do you know what subjectivity entails?

Yes. The tac-cam is objectively worse than the isometric camera in Origins, for example. Every issue I raised with the game in my original post was objective and could be demonstrated and shown to be worse than the mechanics that exist in the previous entries.

[TheJiveDJ]

A non-party based game with real-time combat? I mean, don't get me wrong, TW3 is a better game, but it's weird to compare the two. 

I object to this line of reasoning. Both games are supposed to be story-heavy western RPGs. Details like combat and the like are not much of a concern to me when comparing these two titles. CDPR made a better BW game than BW. This is what BW used to be.

[TheJiveDJ]

Because that's your opinion, and most reputable review publications had a different opinion, as do I. 

 

Someone nailed it by saying that most of the heavy criticism comes from people who are not judging the game on its own merits.  They mentally pigeonhole it into the mold of the previous games, and expect the third entry to be the same, only better.  No, it's not the same.  It's a new entity.  I think the game excels at what it does, save for some technical rough edges--a massive endeavor that succeeds in almost every way.  It has been my main gaming entertainment for over an entire season.  The Witcher 3 is next, but I'm in no hurry.  A few more patches there will help, and I can wait for them.

Judging the game on its own merits would've ended up with me tossing the game in the trash (had I owned physical copy). The only reason I grinded it out to the end was because of my love of the first game, and to a much lesser degree, the second. So sure, lets judge the game on its own merits. A single player MMO wannabe grind-fest with a neutered story, half decent combat, and a villain so pathetic I actually felt sorry for him.

[TheJiveDJ]

I don't think that TheJiveDJ was saying that DA:I should have been exactly like TW3 just that it should have a similiar high quality in open world, side quests, main story etc.

 

DA:I sadly looks cheap in comparison to TW3 and its a shame especially since Bioware had so much time for DA:I (wonder where all that time was wasted, the fetch quests?)

 

Its also not weird at all to compare them, both are story focused RPG's (It would be weirder to compare them with Skyrim or Fallout)

This.