272 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Saying it's an "offline MO" doesn't actually mean anything. What's important is the character and whether or not you can control your character's actions, morality etc.. Whether or not you're interested in that character is irrelevant.

[Elhanan]

A single player MMO is NOT an rpg. You just made my point.
I actually enjoy SWTOR: i want to play an MMO, i payed for an MMO, and i got an MMO.
But if i pay for a RPG and i get, instead, an MMO (poorly made under many aspects, too), then i will be upset. Most of the side quests are fillers, or gathering quests. It is no more than a grinding/famring game. The areas are too huges, they're just misleading. The exploration quickly becomes boring....If i wanted to play skyrim, i would have just played skyrim.

Dlcs are clearly cut off the game, and added back in under further pament.....the whole da: inquisition plot is based on a DLC.

It would appear that there are a lot of business folk that disagree with that stance, considering that the full title is MMO-RPG.

Rage away; will not validate a dishonest opinion.

[Ariella]

The only 'single player' MMORPG I've ever seen was the original Guild Wars.

And there's actually more opportunity for role play, in its original context, in the fact one actually interacts with other people.

Plus the fact that a single player offline Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games is a contradiction in terms. There's no such thing.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Not even close, no.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I'm so confused by these assertions that DA:I is an MMO.

 

It can be played offline, and it's single player.

 

Even the multiplayer mode only accommodates 4 players at once on a rotation of 5 small maps. I can't think of any way to describe that as "massive."

[Elhanan]

If one ever travelled in SWTOR to see those vast maps, the Hinterlands and the Western Approach were familiar territories. The major difference of course is not seeing duplications of the PC and Companion running about the place. And in SWTOR, there were plenty of instances created for a solo experience away from such crowds, so solo play was viable.

Technically, DAI may not be a solo MMO, but they sure cloned it like one. And while I dislike most MMO's, sure enjoyed SWTOR while I was there, and DAI is even better; fewer crowds.

[Vertrix]

I am not wasting anymore time trying to explain to fanboys why MMO is not RPG. if you can't understand it on your own, it's useless even to argue with you.

Da: Inquisition is not a good game. it is mediocre at best, but it totally fails under many aspects. It certainly is not worth the full price, and it is not worth if you want a role playing game.

The fact that there's a multiplayer, it is only a further demonstration of how poor of a fanservicing parody this game is.

[Ariella]

If one ever travelled in SWTOR to see those vast maps, the Hinterlands and the Western Approach were familiar territories. The major difference of course is not seeing duplications of the PC and Companion running about the place. And in SWTOR, there were plenty of instances created for a solo experience away from such crowds, so solo play was viable.Technically, DAI may not be a solo MMO, but they sure cloned it like one. And while I dislike most MMO's, sure enjoyed SWTOR while I was there, and DAI is even better; fewer crowds.

The biggest irony is that a lot in the MMO community complain that SWTOR is too much like a single player game, and not enough like an mmo.

[Ariella]

The fact that there's a multiplayer, it is only a further demonstration of how poor of a fanservicing parody this game is.

Do you know how ironic this statement is?

Fanserving? Isn't that what Bioware is supposed to do? Make their fans happy?

This statement just reveals everything. Your problem is they didn't fanservice you.

[Elhanan]

I am not wasting anymore time trying to explain to fanboys why MMO is not RPG. if you can't understand it on your own, it's useless even to argue with you.

Da: Inquisition is not a good game. it is mediocre at best, but it totally fails under many aspects. It certainly is not worth the full price, and it is not worth if you want a role playing game.

The fact that there's a multiplayer, it is only a further demonstration of how poor of a fanservicing parody this game is.

Thanks!

An opinion is not a fact, and evidence suggests that this is also not an informed opinion, but one mired in bias.

[Knight of Dane]

Dunno, I haven't played all Bioware games ever. But with what experience I have I'd say no. Of the games I have played the DLC I least liked is that in the first Mass Effect game.

[robertthebard]

A single player MMO is NOT an rpg. You just made my point.
I actually enjoy SWTOR: i want to play an MMO, i payed for an MMO, and i got an MMO.
But if i pay for a RPG and i get, instead, an MMO (poorly made under many aspects, too), then i will be upset. Most of the side quests are fillers, or gathering quests. It is no more than a grinding/famring game. The areas are too huges, they're just misleading. The exploration quickly becomes boring....If i wanted to play skyrim, i would have just played skyrim.

Dlcs are clearly cut off the game, and added back in under further pament.....the whole da: inquisition plot is based on a DLC.

I'm curious as to how you come to this conclusion? First off, I guess definitions are in order:

MMO: Massively Multiplayer Online. Now, for the kicker, in our day of lazy texting, the actual name is MMORPG.

Before you try to come at me with "I know that", it's not apparent from this post, nor from any of the other ones I've read. Most of the tropes that you'll want to fall back on for your "But MMO" claim were invented in PnP tabletop games, such as fetch quests and postal quests. MMORPGs didn't invent these tropes, they borrowed from them just like CRPGs do. I guess I should clarify all my definitions here, since you clearly don't know what they mean, but a CRPG is a Computer Role Playing Game. DAI fits squarely into this category, unless you're going to try to convince me that you shoot fire or lightning from your fingers at will?

Regarding the "no opportunity to role play" argument, that's bound to come up, nearly every mission on the War Table offers you a chance to role play. How are you going to accomplish these tasks? Are you going to sic Josie on them, and let her Diplo her way through, are they a nail that you're going to let Cullen hit, or are you going to let Leliana eliminate the target in secret? You see, along with the lazy texting that leads people to forget that RPG is part of MMO comes the fact that people don't bother to read what's presented on these missions, and don't take advantage of opportunities to RP when they're presented, and then claim poor quest design/story telling. The actual problem is "no instant gratification", which strikes me as odd, especially when these same people make the MMO claim, since MMORPGs are all about that gratification.

Did you know you could play Baldur's Gate on a LAN connection, with 5 other people, and that they didn't have to actually be Local, which is what LAN is, Local Area Network. With all that, it's still not an MMORPG, since 6 total players doesn't qualify as Massive. This is the flaw in the logic of "offline MMO". Since the O means Online, as soon as you're Offline, you no longer qualify. At their core, all such games are RPGs. They allow you to step out of yourself into another persona, and allow you to do things that you can't just do in your every day life. So how does DA I not meet this qualification, exactly? Unless you're going to tell me that you actually spend your day to day running an organization that runs around closing fade rifts and fighting demons, mages and Templars?

[Dieb]

The fact that there's a multiplayer, it is only a further demonstration of how poor of a fanservicing parody this game is.

 

As a lover of both parody and developers who actually create entertainment to please me specifically, I would say my favourite DLC is the addition of Isabela as a playable character, really.

 

Very surprising in a positive way, lore-wise absolutely unproblematic, and a very well-done unique character mechanic, too.

 

I didn't like any of the "true" DLC in DAO or ME1.

[Squeeze the Fish]

In regards to OP, I have to somewhat agree. While I enjoyed the added lore of the two single player DLCs (especially "Descent"), to me, they were both sorely lacking in companion interaction/building which was by design, I suspect. I understand not every DLC can have full-blown conversation arcs, but what I appreciated about previous DLCs (both in ME and DA) was at least a little nod to romances or especially relevant characters (Varric in "Descent", for example) having more to say.

A missed opportunity, I say, because what makes BioWare games stand out to me are the companion interactions.

That being said, I'm TOTALLY pumped for "Trespasser".

[Vertrix]

A fact is not an opinion, either. Nothing else to say.

[Vertrix]

As a lover of both parody and developers who actually create entertainment to please me specifically, I would say my favourite DLC is the addition of Isabela as a playable character, really.

 

Very surprising in a positive way, lore-wise absolutely unproblematic, and a very well-done unique character mechanic, too.

 

I didn't like any of the "true" DLC in DAO or ME1.

That is because you are a fanboy. A dlc is supposed to be a content which is not required to understand the plot of the game. And it was like that in DA:O and Mass Effect 1. Then EA took over, and started destroying the company. Now they're done doing it, they don't make a game for the sake of making a good game, but they only do it for the money.

I swear, if they put the same effort they put in forcing same sex relationship in the game, even though it makes no absolute sense at all (like in DA2), in making a good game, they would make great games.

But making a good game is not the point, making money is. There is a reason if all bioware founders resigned, and if EA was the worst company for 2 years.

[robertthebard]

A fact is not an opinion, either. Nothing else to say. you are fanboys and defend the undefendable. And you clearly have no clu what an RPG is, since i see every day threads of people asking more skimpy/sexy/whatever clothes for their character.

Can you show me one thread that I started based on this criteria? Let me save you a search, not like you would anyway, there aren't any. However, I'll save you some trouble in another way:

I've been playing RPGs since the '70s. Yes, I'm old enough to remember them. I remember when DnD was a pamphlet, and there weren't any Es in front of it. I remember picking up BG for the first time, while it was still shiny and new, and if you had a 1 gigabyte HDD, you were a God amongst men. I remember one of my first thoughts about playing NWNs online: Yay, no more messes to clean up the day after a session.

What's obvious, to me, is that you have no clue what constitutes an RPG, hence you fall back to "but people want sexy clothes"...

[Vertrix]

Can you show me one thread that I started based on this criteria? Let me save you a search, not like you would anyway, there aren't any. However, I'll save you some trouble in another way:

I've been playing RPGs since the '70s. Yes, I'm old enough to remember them. I remember when DnD was a pamphlet, and there weren't any Es in front of it. I remember picking up BG for the first time, while it was still shiny and new, and if you had a 1 gigabyte HDD, you were a God amongst men. I remember one of my first thoughts about playing NWNs online: Yay, no more messes to clean up the day after a session.

What's obvious, to me, is that you have no clue what constitutes an RPG, hence you fall back to "but people want sexy clothes"...

I might not be as ''experienced in life'' as you, but i played every game you mentioned. I swear, i have the collector's edition of every game bioware made on my shelf. An entire shelf dedicated to that.

So, if you say this game is up their older standards, it is clear you haven't played them. Or you forgot them. That is a matter of fact, not an opinion.

[Elhanan]

A fact is not an opinion, either. Nothing else to say.

* True. Facts actually exist, are based in reality, and are true.

* There is always hope.

[robertthebard]

That is because you are a fanboy. A dlc is supposed to be a content which is not required to understand the plot of the game. And it was like that in DA:O and Mass Effect 1. Then EA took over, and started destroying the company. Now they're done doing it, they don't make a game for the sake of making a good game, but they only do it for the money.

I swear, if they put the same effort they put in forcing same sex relationship in the game, even though it makes no absolute sense at all (like in DA2), in making a good game, they would make great games.

But making a good game is not the point, making money is. There is a reason if all bioware founders resigned, and if EA was the worst company for 2 years.

You know what's hilarious to me about this? None of the DLC to date has been required to understand the plot of the game. This is the spoiler section, do you need a synopsis?

An ancient Tevinter Magister, that presumably walked the Fade, was doing this ritual to open a breach to the Fade, so he could enter it physically. You walked in and interrupted the ritual, and wound up with his "key". You then spend the entirety of the game cleaning up his messes, and closing rifts and ultimately, the Breach, twice, and granting him his wish, a one way ticket to the Fade.

How much of that required JoH to understand? How much of it required Descent? The short answer is, of course, "none of it". Both of these DLCs can be played post game, or mid game seamlessly, because neither of them directly deal with the context of the main game, having only the Inquisition as a tie in. The next DLC is very definitely post game. What this means, since you seem to have problems with terms, is that you have to have completed the main game in order to play it. Given that this is factual, how does it explain the plot of the main game? It doesn't, in fact, it's quite the opposite, if you haven't completed the main game, it's not available, even if you purchase it.

I find it ironic that you're then going to label me a "fanboy" because I pointed out the gaps in your knowledge of both the game, and gaming in general. If you want a feel for how I really feel about the game, do a search of my post history. Unlike some, I don't feel the need to drag out the dirty laundry every time I submit a post, and nothing that I say now is going to change the flaws that I have listed with the game. In fact, the only "victory" I can claim in my list of flaws or potential flaws is that MP is completely separate from SP. Had it not been, I wouldn't be here discussing the game, because for me, that was a deal breaker and I would have cancelled my pre-order and moved on. I wouldn't be talking about things I don't have a clue about whilst calling other people "fanboys".

[Vertrix]

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the dlc of DA2 in which you free Corypheus so that, wow, he could become the villain of next game.
There are no flaws in my knowledge of the game, and you proved my theory: you are a fanboy.


Da inquisition is utterly based on a da2 dlc. Which IS required for a full understanding of the game.

[robertthebard]

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the dlc of DA2 in which you free Corypheus so that, wow, he could become the villain of next game.
There are no flaws in my knowledge of the game, and you proved my theory: you are a fanboy.


Da inquisition is utterly based on a da2 dlc. Which IS required for a full understanding of the game.

Actually, it's not. Everything you need to know about Legacy is covered in the story of DA I. You get some of it from Hawke, when they're introduced, and the rest from Varric in Valammar when you fix Bianca's mess. No playing of Legacy required to understand what's going on. Is it based on the DLC? Yep, and the sad part is, most of this would have been wrapped up in DA II, if not for all the hate it got on these very forums.

As I expected, however, your most compelling argument is "fanboy". It does seem like you can't get past that, and, I'll bet, you didn't bother to search my post history to see how I really feel, you just ran with it because "He disagrees with me, and so he's a fanboy". Fight the good fight, there are a couple of people here that will support you to the bitter end, after all, fanboy is their favorite argument too.

[Vertrix]

No, i don't dub you ''fanboy'' because you disagree with me. Everyone has the right to have their own opinions, and to express them.
And since things are that way, my opinion is that your reasons are quite laughable. And it is quite irrelevant what you wrote in other posts, i am not here to judge you as a person, i just judge what you are writing in this discussion. And i disagree.

And also, if you think that ''fanboy'' is an insult, know that i was probably the hugest fanboy of bioware until it got ruined by EA. So, no troll attempt nor insult nor flame was intended.

[BubbleDncr]

I wouldn't agree with the OP. I think DA:O had worse dlc. I don't consider Shale dlc cos it came with the game for me, so I'm looking at:
Return to Ostagar (good)
Darkspawn Chronicles (lame)
Leliana's Song (I wasn't a fan)
Gollums of Amgorrak (ok combat, but basically no story)
Witch Hunt (most of it is not fun, and it wad bugged when it came out so Morrigan said I did things I never did).

I'll compare RtO and Jaws of Hakkon - as RtO was the only one that had you use your regular companions: Overall I think Jaws was better - nice new environment, interesting lore, and rather long.

Gollums is most like Descent cos they're dungeon crawls - and Descent has much more interesting lore, nicer environments, and at least uses your regular companions (even if they have little new content).

And I can't see how Trespasser won't be better than Witch Hunt - it has all new environments and special moments with all your followers, while Witch Hunt was all reuse environments and throwaway companions.

[Majestic Jazz]

In regards to OP, I have to somewhat agree. While I enjoyed the added lore of the two single player DLCs (especially "Descent"), to me, they were both sorely lacking in companion interaction/building which was by design, I suspect. I understand not every DLC can have full-blown conversation arcs, but what I appreciated about previous DLCs (both in ME and DA) was at least a little nod to romances or especially relevant characters (Varric in "Descent", for example) having more to say.

A missed opportunity, I say, because what makes BioWare games stand out to me are the companion interactions.

That being said, I'm TOTALLY pumped for "Trespasser".

 

Good post.

 

If Trespasser is anything to judge by, it is that Bioware has learned that their experiement with DAI (lore/exploration focused) did not rub off too well with their fanbase. Yes, many people love it but many people hated it. 

 

If anything, Trespasser is a sign of where they want to take the series into DA4 in terms of how the game is developed. I doubt that DA4 will be a borefest full of fetch quest like DAI. People complained, and Bioware has listened.

 

This is why dispite me hating DAI, I am actually excited for DA4.