413 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

Inquisition has a bad villain. There's a difference between a lame villain and 95% crappy writing for the entirety of a game.

It also has a hokey premise and a shaky main plot all the way. Like I said, you didn't notice it, but it's every bit as bad as ME3. The big difference I'd say, is that unlike ME3 DA:I is not tightly connected with two previous plots that had the same characters and following the same overarching plot so the many mistakes regarding DA:I's plot are less noticeable but judging the games as standalone entities I think it's every bit as poorly written as ME3 and I do think ME3 was a trainwreck for almost every step of the way sans Tuchanka (which I also didn't love because it had contrivances and I never expected an end-all-be-all cure for the genphage to happen in such a short time)

[goishen]

On the topic of how long DA:I was, I just finished a playthrough (along with two of the DLC packs, in the interest of full disclosure, Hakkon and Descent)  I was sitting at let's say 80 hours played my first playthrough.  I'm now sitting at 227 hours played.  So, that means that with that additional playthrough I've racked up another 140 hours, almost 150.  That's with me doing almost every side quest imaginable (except for Storm Coast, for some odd reason).

 

That's about three times as long as my longest playthrough any of the original games and ME.

[Ahglock]

It's definitely a big game. And if you like it enough to play 3 times that is awesome. I'm only 80ish percent through my first play through and have stalled. I just hate the gameplay. I'm thinking of waiting for he game of year edition on PC to give it another go. Maybe it will flow better on PC for me. I expect faster more visceral action on consoles for some reason. And the isometric style view just doesn't work for me.

[goishen]

I honestly don't think so.   I've been waiting since it's release for an auto-attack (and not holding down left mouse) and to not have the mages standing on top of mountains looking down at people like ants below them and picking them off.  Plus, TAB targeting sometimes works.  I get caught on Dorian's raised creatures and sometimes it just won't work at all.  Plus, I find that it's better to have a ranged DPS'er than to have a melee one.  So much stuff blowing up in your face that it's sometimes hard to see what you're trying to hit.

[wolfhowwl]

Mass Effect 3 is better than any Dragon Age game.

[Linkenski]

Mass Effect 3 is better than any Dragon Age game.

Eh. To each his own. I absolutely loved DA:O and I think it still feels like the most expansive Bioware game to have notable production value.

[Beerfish]

Mass Effect 3 is better than any Dragon Age game.

Disagree with this pretty well whole heartedly.

[Ariella]

Mass Effect 3 is better than any Dragon Age game.

Apple meet orange, orange meet apple.

How you can even compare them is beyond me. They're two completely different genre with completely different game mechanics, and completely different approaches to narrative.

That YOU like Mass Effect 3 better, that's fine.

[Iakus]

Mass Effect 3 is better than any Dragon Age game.

   

 

Oh, thank you, I needed that laugh today!

[LinksOcarina]

   

 

Oh, thank you, I needed that laugh today!

 

That is quite funny....

 

And sad, really. My emotions are now conflicted...

[Linkenski]

Apple meet orange, orange meet apple.

How you can even compare them is beyond me. They're two completely different genre with completely different game mechanics, and completely different approaches to narrative.

That YOU like Mass Effect 3 better, that's fine.

Who are we kidding. They both have the dialogue wheel, the same writing cliches (archetypes, enemies cuz mindcontrol etc.) a romance-simulator arc and weak endings. The only difference is in how Mass Effect 3's ending aggressively tries to break the narrative while DA:I's was just kind of lame. I thought ME3's story had a much deeper impact on me anyhow even though I fully admit I hated it in spades. DA:I is much more similar to ME2 than ME3 in how its plot never takes proper shape, but I still feel like the thing DA:I and ME3 had in common was that there's just too much dialogue that lacks any meaning. There's so many conversations where it seems like the writers didn't know what to make the characters say, so they end up saying stuff that sounds important but when you try to think about it it doesn't even make sense.

 

Just to quote Hawke:
 

"That's what happens when you try to change things. Things change"

[Lumix19]

Who are we kidding. They both have the dialogue wheel, the same writing cliches (archetypes, enemies cuz mindcontrol etc.) a romance-simulator arc and weak endings. The only difference is in how Mass Effect 3's ending aggressively tries to break the narrative while DA:I's was just kind of lame. I thought ME3's story had a much deeper impact on me anyhow even though I fully admit I hated it in spades. DA:I is much more similar to ME2 than ME3 in how its plot never takes proper shape, but I still feel like the thing DA:I and ME3 had in common was that there's just too much dialogue that lacks any meaning. There's so many conversations where it seems like the writers didn't know what to make the characters say, so they end up saying stuff that sounds important but when you try to think about it it doesn't even make sense.

 

Just to quote Hawke:
 

"That's what happens when you try to change things. Things change"

I disagree about DA:I and ME2. DA:I had a plot to pursue, from building up the Inquisition, to stopping Corypheus' various plans, to the somewhat sudden ending. ME2 was a lot of waiting around, doing random stuff, until the Illusive Man told you that something was happening and sent you to investigate. There were two things that were proactive, going after the IFF and the Suicide Mission.

[in it for the lolz]

Mass Effect 3 is better than any Dragon Age game.

And Fallout is better then both of these games.

[CronoDragoon]

DA:I has that too. Apparently you didn't notice it. For starters its premise if contrived and lacks context. We're forming the inquisition of Old to do what exactly? "Restore order" you say? Uh, sure, let's haul in some mage/templar leaders and put them on trial then, that could be an idea... oh, we just have to slaughter them? Uh, problem solved I guess. Then suddenly Red Lyrium and Corypheus and a lot of things that have nothing to do with society being in turmoil as the premise suggested. "We're the Inquisition and we're restoring order by killing things and collecting POWER™, because there's... chaos, and... and... uh what are we doing exactly?", derp.

 

Your inability to follow DA: I's plot is impressive considering it isn't all that complicated. Cassandra explicitly lays out what the Inquisition's job is when she forms it (hint: she doesn't just say "restore order"). Their objectives are to close the Breach and find those responsible for it. Closing the Breach is why they approach either the mage or templar faction. The mage/templar plot segways into stopping the assassination of the Empress and stopping the Wardens from creating the demon army, which are Corypheus' main two objectives as revealed by either Hushed Whispers or Champions of the Just. Here Lies the Abyss and Wicked Hearts both give you enough information (through Morrigan and displaying what the Anchor is meant to do) to piece together Cory's goal and guess his motivation for going after the Temple of Mythal. After foiling that plan, Corypheus decides his only recourse is to rip open the Breach again.

 

Some of the optional side areas don't deal with the Inquisition's main goal, of course, but that's why they are optional side areas.