It was a comedy and NOT to be taken seriously. The writers of Skyrim have a warp sense of humor. The problem is too many people expected it would be similar to the DA series. Elder Scrolls was always warp.
If its a comedy then it failed miserably since I did actually laugh more in the first ten minutes of DA I then in my 100+ hours of Skyrim.
It is fun BUT it was never to be taken seriously. Remember you can save the world from the world eater go into Whiterun and the Companions think you are a Nobody. They don't know you saved the world and they don't know you are Thane. I also loved the game.
If its a comedy then it failed miserably since I did actually laugh more in the first ten minutes of DA I then in my 100+ hours of Skyrim.
The story was just awful that is true. It was successful and my guess that happened because it was a sandbox. I did think the writers were trolling the players with the quests they gave especially the Daedric quest line.
And while some would say The Lion is optional, I wouldn't due to the severity of the plat lines there; for the Mages storyline anyway (have not yet allied with Templars). And I shall not criticize granting the Player more optional content over a larger linear path.
Also as mentioned, Companions are tied to some of these areas, and they are considered by some to be of importance. The Storm Coast ties to the Iron Bull, the Exalted Plains to Solas, and the market of Orlais with Vivienne, Sera, Blackwall, and Cassandra. The priority of the team and the that of the quests therein is left to each Player, and I for one prefer it over that of mandatory backtracking and linear tales.
A lot gamers are always bitching about BioWare hand-holding and not letting them explore or make choices and when BioWare lets them then they cry and whine about it.
Some people wonder I have lost a lot respect for gamers and gaming culture. 
Have to disagree. There is feedback from some that do recognize the DB as such, but with the lack of communication that exists today, the entire populace may not be able to place a face to the legend. This also occurs in RL, even with social media and other more common types of resources.
The success of Skyrim speaks to the serious interest that it generated.
The guards do recognize you that is true. It is a great sandbox. I loved modding it.
The story was just awful that is true. It was successful and my guess that happened because it was a sandbox. I did think the writers were trolling the players with the quests they gave especially the Daedric quest line.
Some of those were my fav quests in the game the one with the...what's his face...but the Daedric Lord of like madness and puns, and then the one based on the Hangover, and then you had the one I actually gave up on for months when I had to beat that poor guy and I was all 'nope, not doing this bye,' and just left him there. 
Honestly I would give DA I a 9.6 and Skyrim a 7.2. I know that BioWare did get inspiration from Skyrim and borrowed a lot of things from it, but its like they took that ball and then proceeded to do everything better.
Okay, I see your point. However, if you do that then those areas are somewhat mandatory. I believe the reason they took this approach was because people complained so much that DA2 was too linear.
I seriously do not mean to cherry pick. I played both games and enjoyed modding Skyrim. Having said that many DA fans would not like Skyrim. DA fans like companions and a Skyrim companion is a luggage rack.
Zones which focuses on exploration and allow the player to go wherever they wanted was one of the things players wanted. There were plenty of critics claiming DA2 was just a very small world that didn't allow the player to roam. Adding in more open areas is the only thing in common with DAI and Skyrim. I would include crafting but they are not even close in design.
I can see your point, it's not to say that the zones are completely unrelated to the story, of course not. Except for Oasis maybe. And I don't think the game needed to make the zones necessary to advance the story, per se, but have some actual consequences and reactivity in the world from our actions. Everything is static in every zone. As I mentioned before, defeating Imshael/freeing villagers has no effect outside of EdL zone. It doesn't weaken further red templar troops or affect the story at all. It would make no difference in the game if we do the quest or not, similar to your example of Skyrim's reactivity issues.
A lot gamers are always bitching about BioWare hand-holding and not letting them explore or make choices and when BioWare lets them then they cry and whine about it.
Some people wonder I have lost a lot respect for gamers and gaming culture.
Yes, DAI lacks hand-holding. Except for the exclamation marks, quest markers, dialogue wheel explaining consequences of our choices. And so many choices in the side quests like, do I complete this quest or leave it in my journal?
A lot gamers are always bitching about BioWare hand-holding and not letting them explore or make choices and when BioWare lets them then they cry and whine about it.
Some people wonder I have lost a lot respect for gamers and gaming culture.
Uh what?
Since DAI I've decided to go back and play the previous two DA games.
There was no hand-holding in Origins. The choices you make do matter and impact the game. You could explore. Speak to random citizens. Codexes you acquired could led to a quest etc. Never thought Origins was perfect but you really could role play the hell out of this game.
When it comes to Dragon Age 2, sure there was less exploring, but again your choices mattered and impacted the game right away. The enemies (to me) were unexpected. There was no hand holding in this game. While this game I could not role play as easily as Origins, it still was a good time. Not the best sequel but better then most I've played.
In Inquisition there is hand holding everywhere.
Healing spells are removed because combat is a total joke. The enemies are not at all tough nor interesting.
When you go to make a choice you get this idiotic dialog box that pops telling you what the consequences of your choice could be. Surprise though! Your choices don't mean jack squat in the game. The only time they do matter is when it comes to your companions or perhaps in a conversation with someone. As for it impacting the world? Well maybe that will happen in the next game.
Exploration is laughable. Run through the Hinterlands and you can either not run into trouble at all or get attacked by an army of bears.
I could go on and on but I won't.
Compare DAI to its predecessor DAO or hell DA2 and its clear Inquisition is bathed in hand-holding.
The problem with your argument is you seem to think the previous two games did have this, maybe a small pinch, but mostly no. When it comes to DAI though, its as if they opened the floodgates.
I disagree. I guess bits of it were fun but I would never describe it as 'stupid amounts of fun that left me grinning like an idiot' like I would with bits with DA I.
DA:I has the voice acting and the good companions, Skyrim for me had the gameplay (and the music 
). That kind of combat is totally my thing and I loved all the non combat skills, the lack of terrain restrictions (where there's a will, there's a way to weasel my way up something!), the freedom to steal anything or kill almost anyone, to have the townspeople run or fight when I attack them or scare them. I also randomly enjoyed enchanting a lot, and I liked all the random things you could come across like a dragon attacking a town, people getting drunk in the woods, etc...and while there were certainly the "go fetch me a mammoth tusk" style quests, there were a lot of sidequests that I thought were great (daedric quests, faction quests, etc...). In DA:I there was nothing I discovered out in the world that delighted me. They ranged from utter chore (Mama's ring and similar) to ok but not exciting (Still Waters, the elven temples, etc...). There was never even awesome and great looking gear to discover (because the loot was randomly generated I guess?) it's kind of funny (or is that depressing?) because of the banter "bug" my companions in Skyrim had a lot more unique comments while exploring than my DA:I ones did.
It is fun BUT it was never to be taken seriously. Remember you can save the world from the world eater go into Whiterun and the Companions think you are a Nobody. They don't know you saved the world and they don't know you are Thane. I also loved the game.
Never said the story was good though I thought the guild questlines were awesome
The idiotic dialogue box with the clarifications as to the choices? Wish I had this for Voting purposes. And the Tone Icons can be disabled if desired.Uh what?
Since DAI I've decided to go back and play the previous two DA games.
There was no hand-holding in Origins. The choices you make do matter and impact the game. You could explore. Speak to random citizens. Codexes you acquired could led to a quest etc. Never thought Origins was perfect but you really could role play the hell out of this game.
When it comes to Dragon Age 2, sure there was less exploring, but again your choices mattered and impacted the game right away. The enemies (to me) were unexpected. There was no hand holding in this game. While this game I could not role play as easily as Origins, it still was a good time. Not the best sequel but better then most I've played.
In Inquisition there is hand holding everywhere.
Healing spells are removed because combat is a total joke. The enemies are not at all tough nor interesting.
When you go to make a choice you get this idiotic dialog box that pops telling you what the consequences of your choice could be. Surprise though! Your choices don't mean jack squat in the game. The only time they do matter is when it comes to your companions or perhaps in a conversation with someone. As for it impacting the world? Well maybe that will happen in the next game.
Exploration is laughable. Run through the Hinterlands and you can either not run into trouble at all or get attacked by an army of bears.
I could go on and on but I won't.
Compare DAI to its predecessor DAO or hell DA2 and its clear Inquisition is bathed in hand-holding.
The problem with your argument is you seem to think the previous two games did have this, maybe a small pinch, but mostly no. When it comes to DAI though, its as if they opened the floodgates.
When you go to make a choice you get this idiotic dialog box that pops telling you what the consequences of your choice could be. Surprise though! Your choices don't mean jack squat in the game. The only time they do matter is when it comes to your companions or perhaps in a conversation with someone. As for it impacting the world? Well maybe that will happen in the next game.
I'm not entirely certain how the choices in DAO had more impact than those in DAI.
Let's take Broken Circle. Whether or not you choose templars or mages at the end of Broken Circle, it changes what type of emissary shows up in camp, who shows up to fight with you in Denerim and how Dagna's side quest can be resolved. Finally, it impacts the epilogue slides.
Let's take the final decision in Wicked Eyes Wicked Hearts, which is generally the most maligned of the main quests. Different choices in rulers translates into different War Table operations and different dialogues by NPCs in Skyhold and Val Royeaux. NPCs in other areas will reference that the civil war is now over. When it comes time to assault Corypheus' forces in the Arbor Wilds, your choice will impact which ruler appears in your camp and which NPCs will fight with you. Finally, the choice will be reflected in the epilogue slides.
The enemies are not at all tough nor interesting.
I would say they're about even on that score. I can point you to a number of fights in DAO that I basically just sleepwalked through.
Cut scenes for all the quests please.
This
Another thing I disliked...which they did a little bit in Mass Effect 3 on the citadel...was non-cut-scene interactions for side quests. The audio never seemed loud enough and the whole feel of it disappointing every time.
Tougher enemies are a subjective call. With Nightmare difficulty and the first two Trials enabled, am finding my max lvl Inquisition being decimated occasionally by collateral forces interfering in battles (eg; spiders, Lurkers, Hakkonites, etc). And personally find many of the enemies interesting and intriguing (eg; Avvar, Red Lyrium Templars, Cory, Qunari, Darkspawn, Venatori, etc), IMO.
Been there done that. Are the enemies tougher WITH trials and on nightmare. Yes.
However....
Before these trials entered the game, you may have a bit of a hard time at low level with lack of proper equipment, stats, etc. But once your character improves nightmare mode is laughable compared to D3 Nightmare mode. You should not need to add Trials nor click them on in order to make the mobs a challenge. If you choose to play on a much higher level the enemies should scale as such and the trials be injected into such choice.
You don't see D3 putting a game scale then saying, "Well if you want these enemies to be a challenge, just click on a trial." No. You click on a game setting and you are intercepted even in the lowest levels with enemies that will make your high level character with good gear **** their pants.
I love this post..
I loved how my Inquisitor wasn't a set in stone one kind of personality only the entire game like Hawke was. I could choose the types of reactions to many things in the game that fitted my Inquisitor better then auto-aggressive or auto-snark dialogue ever could. Made my Inquisitors feel more natural, more like people.
I also enjoyed each zone's quest chain specific to it
Hawke wasn't set in stone. I had 5-6 Hawke's, all distinct and different. The auto dialogue was based on your choices when you had the choice. Granted it needed more nuance but it didn't stop role playing. One of the issues with the Inquisitor is that the dialogue tones are within a smaller range than how they did DA2 and that leaves all Inquisitors rather bland in comparison.
Same here. Hawk had no control over his/her environment.
Which is one of the points of the game.
I disagree. I guess bits of it were fun but I would never describe it as 'stupid amounts of fun that left me grinning like an idiot' like I would with bits with DA I.
I had epic dragon fights across miles in Skyrim that DAI doesn't do.
Been there done that. Are the enemies tougher WITH trials and on nightmare. Yes.
However....
Before these trials entered the game, you may have a bit of a hard time at low level with lack of proper equipment, stats, etc. But once your character improves nightmare mode is laughable compared to D3 Nightmare mode. You should not need to add Trials nor click them on in order to make the mobs a challenge. If you choose to play on a much higher level the enemies should scale as such and the trials be injected into such choice.
You don't see D3 putting a game scale then saying, "Well if you want these enemies to be a challenge, just click on a trial." No. You click on a game setting and you are intercepted even in the lowest levels with enemies that will make your high level character with good gear **** their pants.
Hope DA4 fails much in these same ways then.
Am personally opposed to having more cut-scenes for minor quests and events, and that Bioware continues to keep them for Main Quests and characters. I do not want to purchase a film with Player based interruptions; prefer to keep the game as a CRPG.
And since this mediocre story and semi-interesting characters, as well as other supposed failures garnished a record launch, 130+ GOTY Awards, and other accolades from a sizable number of folks in and outside the industry, there is hope that Bioware will listen to this kind of support when making the next game. Perhaps it will be able to see a GOTY edition, too.
You know that Mass Effect 3 garnered pretty much the exact same accolades? But everyone pretty much agrees, that it was a bit bland, the characters rather one dimensional, and the ending sucked. It still garnered many accolades. How come? Becasue bottomline, it was still a decent game. But AT LEAST ME3 paced itself. It had a cinematography which far surpassed anything ever done in any DA game, and it actually ENGAGED the players in the story. DA:I failed miserably at that.
I have NEVER had to struggle as much as I did with DA:I, with any other game just to barely finish it. DA:I was a bore, and that is entirely because of the unengaging storytelling, the lack of cinemacy, and the boring plot. The combat was decent enough, but it wasn't enough to keep me engaged with the game for 100+ hours, while the plot crawled on its way.
Have no idea what a D3 is; don't care if it is another game.
DAI was difficult enough for me on Nightmare; still have yet to attempt Friendly Fire. Trials are not needed for the challenge, and patches helped eliminate exploits and further improve the game challenge.
But Trials did add enough variety and challenges for a Player to tailor the game experience. In my case, I am able to max lvl before playing the DLC, and have to be cautious about Guard, Barriers, possible Resistances, etc on the usual encounters.
Also, be it my own experience, or another Player, this may not be enough information to qualify an informed opinion on what is declared to be a failure. DAI is not.
That would be Diablo 3.
Never said DAI was a failure. Its not the best game nor the worst game.
I'm not exactly breaking out the party hats and streamers for DAI either. <shrugs>
You know that Mass Effect 3 garnered pretty much the exact same accolades? But everyone pretty much agrees, that it was a bit bland, the characters rather one dimensional, and the ending sucked. It still garnered many accolades. How come? Becasue bottomline, it was still a decent game. But AT LEAST ME3 paced itself. It had a cinematography which far surpassed anything ever done in any DA game, and it actually ENGAGED the players in the story. DA:I failed miserably at that.
I have NEVER had to struggle as much as I did with DA:I, with any other game just to barely finish it. DA:I was a bore, and that is entirely because of the unengaging storytelling, the lack of cinemacy, and the boring plot. The combat was decent enough, but it wasn't enough to keep me engaged with the game for 100+ hours, while the plot crawled on its way.
I agree with most of your post, but could you elaborate on what in Trespasser shows how old gen limited the game? I'm not saying old gen didn't limit the game, we all know that, but I think Descent is a better demonstration of system limitations with the horde mobs and multilevel map.
Well the obvious things like hair, cheesy armors etc ... non obvious things like limited dynamic environment changes, limited visible result of decisions (Mage vs Templars)
I think these and a few more were the result of prev gen support
With Tresspasser we got two new things
Trials --> Walk Softly and the Complexity it brings into the Game.
Two upgrades available for each Active Ability
They add a considerable amount of complexity to the combat. Trails adds new abilities, its not very easy to program these into AI, so my general guess is that we would have got this from beginning itself if we didn't have prev gen console support ...
Then we also have the infamous drop of the Crestwood Mission from Alpha. I think we would have also got it or something similar if we had only curr gen console support.
The great part of this game is that you can skip some areas. Hissing Waste is more about collecting stories and codex's.
"You must find five maps which will each lead you to a tomb that holds a key fragment. The key fragments, once all are collected, will give you access to your ultimate destination, the Tomb of Fairel. " Along with the treasure hunt you get the story of Fairel's two sons.
Oasis Map is about hunting shards.
You don't have to do them if you don't want to. The game was designed for flexibility. Not everyone wants to find all the shards so they can skip the whole area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it odd that if you give the player more control of where they go next, they complain about it. The more options the better.
My point was that instead of making so many maps (some totally disconnected with the main or companion stories), they could have spent the effort in developing a more integrated and engaging game ...
Is DAI good ... yes ... could it have been much better ... yes ... when I see much better scope and then see time spent in developing large maps which don't add much to the story ... it feels like effort wasted ...
Nope; Did not follow ME3 as closely, and purchased it well after the tempest in the teacup over the endings. And I agree, it is a decent game, but so is DAI, and for one of the same reasons: outstanding characters (eg; Garrus, Wrex, Mordin, Cole, Dorian, Solas, etc).
Personally like the fewer cut-scenes, as I can walk away from ME3 for minutes when the re-runs appear. And if one uses hours played, I have 1200+ for ME3 after several campaigns with almost every class, and 1030+ hrs in DAI while on my third campaign with varied starting characters at the starting gate.
While one may have a low opinion of DAI, the fact remains that is a success. And an enjoyable one at that, IMO.
What kind of success? Sales certainly and even the critical accolades can't be disregarded completely. But those appear to be greater indicators of popularity than actual quality. It certainly doesn't mean that it's downsides, missteps and flaws should should be overlooked as there's much that the game left to be desired. Things that should be analyzed and questioned so that DA4 can hopefully correct those mistakes while building on the things that worked in Inquisition.
My point was that instead of making so many maps (some totally disconnected with the main or companion stories), they could have spent the effort in developing a more integrated and engaging game ...
Is DAI good ... yes ... could it have been much better ... yes ... when I see much better scope and then see time spent in developing large maps which don't add much to the story ... it feels like effort wasted ...
Spot on, they used their resources poorly, didn't prioritise the right parts of the game.
Spot on, they used their resources poorly, didn't prioritise the right parts of the game.
Agreed.
Also I felt as though MP took away the time they could have applied to make the game better.
Nope; Did not follow ME3 as closely, and purchased it well after the tempest in the teacup over the endings. And I agree, it is a decent game, but so is DAI, and for one of the same reasons: outstanding characters (eg; Garrus, Wrex, Mordin, Cole, Dorian, Solas, etc).
Personally like the fewer cut-scenes, as I can walk away from ME3 for minutes when the re-runs appear. And if one uses hours played, I have 1200+ for ME3 after several campaigns with almost every class, and 1030+ hrs in DAI while on my third campaign with varied starting characters at the starting gate.
While one may have a low opinion of DAI, the fact remains that is a success. And an enjoyable one at that, IMO.
Being a financial succes, does not mean that it was a succes overall, unless you got a very limited view. All of the transformer movies were financially succesful, but none of them will be remembered as great movie artistry.
And you understand that cutscenes are skippable? If you don't want to watch a particular scene you skip it. But at least the scenes are tehre, and they advance the plot and engage the player. None of that for DA:I. What few cutscenes there are in DA:I are so laughably bad. Iron Bull's companion quests is the best(read: worst) example of that. The pacing and engagement in that quest is down right HORRID. Never have I felt so disengaged from my companion in a BioWare game than I did during taht quest. And the worst part is, that the setup had great potential. We could have had a heartwrenching last stand cutscene of the Bull's Chargers holding that hill, or a dramatic sequence of the Dreadnaught going down. What did we get though? Absolute tosh.
Retour en haut
