You must not be reading Elhanan's posts.
Yes, I have. He/She has never said that people who dislike the game are wrong.
Anyway, I'm curious where the people who dislike the game are getting their evidence from. Everywhere I've gone outside the BSN, people seem to love the game and say its a return to form for Bioware. Can someone show me where this evidence that the game is a failure comes from?
Yes, I have. He/She has never said that people who dislike the game are wrong.
Anyway, I'm curious where the people who dislike the game are getting their evidence from. Everywhere I've gone outside the BSN, people seem to love the game and say its a return to form for Bioware. Can someone show me where this evidence that the game is a failure comes from?
To be fair, I have said that folks have the right to be wrong if they wish....
But not about their own opinions! Which is something I frequently get told by people who hate the game. 
Well it depends on what the person percieves as "maturity". To some, it could simply be violence and sex in which TW3 has. To others, it could mean tackling issues in a manner that does not care about being politically correct and offending anyone such as rape, poverty, the effects of war on a land (which DAI is good at, but TW3 extends it to another level), homosexuality and other themes and issues which TW3 handles in a more grim way than DAI does.
Think of the TV Show, The Wire. It was a mature and grim show but it wasn't because of violence and sex. It just depicted the drug/crime culture of Baltimore in a realistic and gritty way that most other shows do not dare touch on.
I agree somewhat and ironically I think Bioware can write "mature" content. I'll give an example.
The Orlais and the main characters from "The Masked Empire" I would definitely consider "mature" and I think said country and characters could easily fit into the world of the witcher based on how it treats its topics (ignore the lore-breaking). As weird as it sounds, not only did it make me more interested in Orlais but I wanted to see how Orlais changed.
The Orlais and the main characters from "Dragon Age:Inquisition" not so much. They seem very simplistic and honestly few people actually cared about Orlais itself via the "Wicked Eyes, Wicked Hearts" quest and this is based on the game itself without using outside knowledge.
In the masked empire, none of the characters are EVIL, moustache twirling irredeemable assholes but at the same time, they are NOT paragons of good. Reading the book, Celene for example truly wants to help the elves but at the same time, she doesn't want to lose her country to violence...She's a Bhelen whereas Gaspard is Harrowmount
Contrast this with say "The calling" or "the stolen Throne". There's a pretty clear cut division between "the good guys" and "the bad guys".
Yes, I have. He/She has never said that people who dislike the game are wrong.
Anyway, I'm curious where the people who dislike the game are getting their evidence from. Everywhere I've gone outside the BSN, people seem to love the game and say its a return to form for Bioware. Can someone show me where this evidence that the game is a failure comes from?
Return to form is PR speak. It doesn't mean it's bad, but who actually plays their old games and thinks this one has anything to do with their old "form"? DAI plays much differently from BG2/Kotor/DAO. It's why Brent Knowles (designer of DAO) left the team when he did.
It even plays somewhat differently from DA2 -- the game it's closest in feel to (and why Knowles left).
Like I said somewhere above, I'm forgiving with game mechanics.. but I still wouldn't say this is like old games. I'm more tired out by the high fantasy story direction they went with... To quote Danny Glover: "I'm too old for this ****." I thought they were going somewhere more interesting with DA2/Asunder/Masked Empire. There were hints of more intrigue and politics.
Return to form is PR speak. It doesn't mean it's bad, but who actually plays their old games and thinks this one has anything to do with their old "form"? DAI plays much differently from BG2/Kotor/DAO. It's why Brent Knowles (designer of DAO) left the team when he did.
It even plays somewhat differently from DA2 -- the game it's closest in feel to (and why Knowles left).
Like I said somewhere above, I'm forgiving with game mechanics.. but I still wouldn't say this is like old games. I'm more tired out by the high fantasy story direction they went with... I thought they were going somewhere more interesting with DA2/Asunder/Masked Empire.
Me?
Been playing since the original Baldur's Gate, BG2 was my favourite game of all time before Inquisition.
And " return to form" isn't PR speak, when it's spoken by real people. I'm not talking about awards or reviews or press speak here, I'm talking about real people I've seen say this. Lots of them.
I agree somewhat and ironically I think Bioware can write "mature" content. I'll give an example.
The Orlais and the main characters from "The Masked Empire" I would definitely consider "mature" and I think said country and characters could easily fit into the world of the witcher based on how it treats its topics (ignore the lore-breaking). As weird as it sounds, not only did it make me more interested in Orlais but I wanted to see how Orlais changed.
The Orlais and the main characters from "Dragon Age:Inquisition" not so much. They seem very simplistic and honestly few people actually cared about Orlais itself via the "Wicked Eyes, Wicked Hearts" quest and this is based on the game itself without using outside knowledge.
In the masked empire, none of the characters are EVIL, moustache twirling irredeemable assholes but at the same time, they are NOT paragons of good. Reading the book, Celene for example truly wants to help the elves but at the same time, she doesn't want to lose her country to violence...She's a Bhelen whereas Gaspard is Harrowmount
Contrast this with say "The calling" or "the stolen Throne". There's a pretty clear cut division between "the good guys" and "the bad guys".
Agreed with this. Bioware can write some good stuff, but the games are written by quite a few different people, so it tends to depend on who gets put in charge of which quests.
Weekes (who wrote the masked empire) has just taken over as lead writer from Gaider (who wrote the calling/ stolen throne), which is the main reason I'm excited to see what will be in DA4.
Eisegesis; reading into the text is not good for comprehension. Bias clouds the message, and obscures communication.
DAI received 130+ GOTY awards, which means that those groups believe DAI is that good. Only some of those awards were from outside the industry, which would appear to mean that public opinion could not influence all of them. Losing or gaining 'luster' would not affect Industry awards, but yet, both them and public awards were still awarded.
If someone believes DAI is mediocre, that is their opinion. But the facts appear to indicate that this same opinion is not held by those granting the Awards. It does not invalidate their opinion, but does make that opinion more difficult to defend. Placing a meme about it may not appear to be a firm defense.
Well like I said, if DAI is so well recieved, we shall see how it does in the Golden Joystick Awards. I mean, considering that it already got 130+ GOTY awards, the Joystick GOTY should be a no brainer to goto DAI right?
There are a lot of well-received games that won't get the award. That is the reality.
Well like I said, if DAI is so well recieved, we shall see how it does in the Golden Joystick Awards. I mean, considering that it already got 130+ GOTY awards, the Joystick GOTY should be a no brainer to goto DAI right?
It's mostly a failure to me for failing to deliver much on the human conflicts. I don't care as much for the overall mythos of the Elves that they were going for here (or their DLC about Avvar or dwarves). Nor do I care for any fantasy setting that has to talk about it's deepest roots and Monomyths. I like politics and personal conflicts. Just like I do in the real world. I don't care about anyone going on and on about Earth's creation stories either. Who does that? lol. Life is about everything else. This is something many fantasy writers don't get....they end up so enamored with their world building that they were forget to build plots that truly live and breath. I'm selective about the whole genre in general because of this. They can't get away from Tolkien and his obsession with myths. But I thought DA2, Asunder, and Masked Empire was going in a better direction. They had something going there with the Chantry and all the various nation states' stances in this.... it came across more like Historical Fiction than pure High Fantasy.....and then they ruined it in the very beginning of the game. That whole plot explodes on the title screen. lol.. Just to introduce a story about an elven artifact.
Anyways...It's also a failure for being too mmo-like.. or at best, a poor implementation of the open world genre. But I can get past this. I'm pretty forgiving with mechanics.. but it's bad nonetheless. Even DA2 had a better tactical feel.
Yes, I agree. The problem was that so much of the canceled DA2 expansion was pushed into DAI (I know Temple of Mythal was from the expansion, not sure if we know what else) that it ended up having an uneven narrative flow and focus on different themes throughout the game. Is this about ending the mage-templar war, reforming the Chantry, and ending the Orlesian civil war? Or is it about discovering ancient secrets of the elven empire, explore Tevinter ruins, learn about Titans and the nature of lyrium and red lyrium? I enjoy the lore revelas but they feel thrown together haphazardly and doesn't connect well into one overall narrative.
I also was hoping the game would focus much more on political intrigue and acting as an actual inquisition rather than an upstart military force.
By the end of the game, with the Solas reveal, the Titans reveal, elven empire etc the game felt like it was all just setting up the next game, rather than being a standalone game with a self contained story to tell.
But not about their own opinions! Which is something I frequently get told by people who hate the game.
Yessss, he just admitted such. I think you are being intentionally obstinate.
I agree somewhat and ironically I think Bioware can write "mature" content. I'll give an example.
The Orlais and the main characters from "The Masked Empire" I would definitely consider "mature" and I think said country and characters could easily fit into the world of the witcher based on how it treats its topics (ignore the lore-breaking). As weird as it sounds, not only did it make me more interested in Orlais but I wanted to see how Orlais changed.
The Orlais and the main characters from "Dragon Age:Inquisition" not so much. They seem very simplistic and honestly few people actually cared about Orlais itself via the "Wicked Eyes, Wicked Hearts" quest and this is based on the game itself without using outside knowledge.
In the masked empire, none of the characters are EVIL, moustache twirling irredeemable assholes but at the same time, they are NOT paragons of good. Reading the book, Celene for example truly wants to help the elves but at the same time, she doesn't want to lose her country to violence...She's a Bhelen whereas Gaspard is Harrowmount
Contrast this with say "The calling" or "the stolen Throne". There's a pretty clear cut division between "the good guys" and "the bad guys".
Yes, I wish the morally grey issues from TME would have flowed through into the game. The introduction of Celene, Gaspard, and Briala felt like such afterthoughts in the game, like the devs assumed everyone had read the book.
Also, regardless of reading the book, I find it hard to sympathize with the leaders of a nation where I have barely interacted with that nation at all. We can explore one tiny section of Val Royeux, one of the largest cities in the world, and meet no notable characters there. All other areas of Orlais we travel to are war zones with no characters in them or the Freemen and Fairbanks conflict, which played out more like Robin Hood versus red templars than real social conflict. So I don't feel like we know anything about Orlais as a society in order to make a decision on what kind of ruler it needs or even care about its future.
At the end of the day negative feedback is negative feedback. Whether it is soft negative feedback or hard negative feedback that is highly aggressive. Bioware and to an extent, Electronic Arts will take notice of it and address it in DA4. I could careless if you and Elhanan classify my gripes with DAI as nonconstructive and broken record, cause at the end of the day, what I say mirrors what many others hate about DAI. I just say it in a more aggressive way while others says it in a more presentable way. Either way, the message is being sent and Bioware will take notice.
What I took from this is that the message is being sent in a presentable and helpful way by other people, but you've decided to go ahead and present it in a highly outrageous and inflammatory way because that's how you get your jollies.
Yes, I agree. The problem was that so much of the canceled DA2 expansion was pushed into DAI (I know Temple of Mythal was from the expansion, not sure if we know what else) that it ended up having an uneven narrative flow and focus on different themes throughout the game. Is this about ending the mage-templar war, reforming the Chantry, and ending the Orlesian civil war? Or is it about discovering ancient secrets of the elven empire, explore Tevinter ruins, learn about Titans and the nature of lyrium and red lyrium? I enjoy the lore revelas but they feel thrown together haphazardly and doesn't connect well into one overall narrative.
I also was hoping the game would focus much more on political intrigue and acting as an actual inquisition rather than an upstart military force.
By the end of the game, with the Solas reveal, the Titans reveal, elven empire etc the game felt like it was all just setting up the next game, rather than being a standalone game with a self contained story to tell.
Yessss, he just admitted such. I think you are being intentionally obstinate.
Yes, I wish the morally grey issues from TME would have flowed through into the game. The introduction of Celene, Gaspard, and Briala felt like such afterthoughts in the game, like the devs assumed everyone had read the book.
Also, regardless of reading the book, I find it hard to sympathize with the leaders of a nation where I have barely interacted with that nation at all. We can explore one tiny section of Val Royeux, one of the largest cities in the world, and meet no notable characters there. All other areas of Orlais we travel to are war zones with no characters in them or the Freemen and Fairbanks conflict, which played out more like Robin Hood versus red templars than real social conflict. So I don't feel like we know anything about Orlais as a society in order to make a decision on what kind of ruler it needs or even care about its future.
-snip-
By the end of the game, with the Solas reveal, the Titans reveal, elven empire etc the game felt like it was all just setting up the next game, rather than being a standalone game with a self contained story to tell.
-snip-
I hate to break it to you, but in a "series", the previous game "usually" sets up the next. Also, the game is technically a "stand alone" game, you don't need to play DA2 (or even DAO) in order to understand the plot and narrative.
I hate to break it to you, but in a "series", the previous game "usually" sets up the next. Also, the game is technically a "stand alone" game, you don't need to play DA2 (or even DAO) in order to understand the plot and narrative.
...You are contradicting yourself in two sentences. So, this is a stand alone game in a series? We don't need to play previous games in order to understand the story, but previous games set up the next story?
...You are contradicting yourself in two sentences. So, this is a stand alone game in a series? We don't need to play previous games in order to understand the story, but previous games set up the next story?
...You are contradicting yourself in two sentences. So, this is a stand alone game in a series? We don't need to play previous games in order to understand the story, but previous games set up the next story?
There's no contradiction here. BioWare makes series games that are all technically stand alone, and they have stated on numerous occasions that they want players to be able to enter the series at any point and be able to understand what is going on in that game, without requiring them to play previous episodes. So what I said is true on both accounts. And since you "appear" to have been around these forums for quite some time, you should already understand that.
There's no contradiction here. BioWare makes series games that are all technically stand alone, and they have stated on numerous occasions that they want players to be able to enter the series at any point and be able to understand what is going on in that game, without requiring them to play previous episodes. So what I said is true on both accounts. And since you "appear" to have been around these forums for quite some time, you should already understand that.
So the entire point of this standalone game turns out to be caused by Solas, whom we get build up through this game but the conclusion to his story must wait until the next game (or DA5). People have posted that Solas is actually the true antagonist of DAI, and Corypheus was his pawn. But this overarching plot does not complete itself in DAI. So this dangling plot will carry over into the next game. The plots of the previous two games were self contained (although Hawke's story was intended to be finished in the canceled expansion). Yes they set up narrative elements that would carry over into future titles, but they didn't leave the overarching plot of the game unresolved and clear bait for the next game.
Also, I'm not sure what the quotes around me appearing to have been here for some time means. Or your condescending tone.
Didn’t think I would participate in one of those discussions ever again, but here are my two cents on the game anyway (as always apologies for any grammar mistakes since English is not my 1st lang.):
I’ll start saying that after ME3 I’ve banned myself from pre-ordering any game ever. More than that, I did not buy Dragon Age: Inquisition by the time it was released since I was curious to hear some real players’ feedback first. It was disturbing how many bugs there were at start (at some point I’ve lost interest in tracking BW fixes since they took long to come). I’ve also got a sense that the game was somewhat disappointing to some people.
I’ve set it aside up until late September 2015 when I’ve decided to try free demo. Note that my feedback below is solely based on that trail, not the complete game!
1) Character creator was embarrassing! I’ve got better models in MMORPGs that were 5+ years old. The idea to compile men’s hair along with women’s and hope that’d be enough to provide ‘diverse look and feel’ was simply laughable. It took some effort to create a decent looking MC. Voice option did not add anything for me, but it was a nice add-on.
2) Environment was OK. I was expecting something to blow my mind though... Graphics looked fine, but after seeing what Black Desert is capable off, DA:I lost its visual points in my eyes.
3) PC controls were… unusual. I can’t say they were buggy, but just not something I am used to. Did not bother me much though after playing around.
4) Even though I’ve only seen a small portion of the whole story, it seemed boring, IMHO. So, my MC is ‘the chosen one’ (again ) – what’s the big deal? Does this game give any twist on this perspective later on, by the way?.. In any case, I do not want to comment much on plot since I obviously did not complete the main story; however, demo part was not enough to catch my attention and make me wonder what was going to happen next.
5) Mid-way demo crashed and closed itself. I’ve never re-started it again.
Verdict: I did not hate this game or felt eager to complain. I felt indifferent about it. Maybe I’ll get it once the price drops… maybe I won't. Overall I felt that BioWare could’ve done much better with it.
I agree that there were lots and lots of dumb bugs and some of them graphical ones too.
Very simple: Dragon Age is what makes Dragon Age special. It is an original IP, and not simply playing in someone else's toy box.
I found combat fine, in fact this is the first time I've enjoyed playing a mage. The menus worked well, so I don't understand the complaint about being counterintutitive.
You can't compare the combat systems of DAI and Witcher at all. One is party based combat using skills mapped to keyboard/controller buttons, the other is single combatant based where most combat skills trigger based on a sequence of buttons, ala SoM. It's a different design philosophy.
As for lack of variety in classes? As compared to what? Not the Witcher certainly. We have the same three classes that have been in every DA game. Numerically we have one less specialization than either DAO or DA2, but the specializations in DAI are superior to Origins in that fact DAI specializations give a great deal more than an Origins specialization.
Assassin in Origins has 3 passive skills and one active.
Same specialization in DAI has 3 actives, each with two togglable upgrades, and 4 passives.
Templar in DAO has 2 passive 2 active.
Templar in DAI: 3 active, each with upgrades and 4 passive.
And that doesn't even get into focus skills.
And yes, I'm not including Awakenings as it's practically a new game in and of itself. You can't start a completely new character and just play Trespasser unlike Awakenings were you can or,if you did the US in Origins, have to.
Some people like their echo chambers
I compare it to other BioWare games.
Dragon Age is not even close about beeing new thing in gaming. All the things we have are already part of Neverwinter Nights - some more complex others just basic stuff compared to Dragon Age. NWN was more complex and hard to learn for beginners and DA:O was a nice compromise in this regard.
DA:O combat system is basically an easy version of NWN, which is based on p&n DnD. However it is true that DA:O uses it's own set of rules and not the D&D stuff. Still doesn't change the fact that they are similiar. (not talking about the acutal rules, more like about the amount of stuff, like class combinations, xp loss, how effects are applied and such.)
I don't hype NWN. It was an epic journey, especially with the addons, but also had it's flaws.
DA:I :Freezing characters, fancy hitbox a la bears with 180° hits, always 4v1-10 fights, lack of variety in skills (arguable), tactial view tends to bug around - you can't even move a hill straight up with it, completly let down regarding AI tactics and the battle setting is basically always the same - which was sometimes also poorly done in the other two.
The combination of bugs with a new combat system and some unnessacry simplifications is just too much of a disappointment for me to actually enjoy the battles. They kind of improved it for the worse. I don't want to argue that the mechanic is bad - tanking was never such fun -, but it is poorly executed.
About menu:
PC: The menu is slow, if you move the mouse over an item and take it to thepart of the inventory which to sell it the tooltip will not update automatically. To put it another way, if you sell a certain item, the next item in the list will still have the tooltip of the sold item.
Class:
We have basically the same three classes with more or less the same specializations (knight en. is an arcane warrior). I don't see any improvement in this aspect of the game. The point about having the option to do 2 specs is about individualize ones character. The game simply lacks that. I don't even want to compare it to NWN because this would be an unfair battle. The aim of DA should not be NWN, but again DA:I simply lacks variety. People, including me, expect more from the third part of the series.
Obviously having more than 1 specs would not make much sense in DA:I since we only have 8 slots hence only one spec and with one only one spec there is no need for more than 8 slots and etc.. Somehwat of a circular argument.
Edit: Even though I don't like to say it, but Dragon Age Inquisition feels somewhat console like. I don't hate those since I know and play both worlds but maybe BioWare/EA should just decicde for one side and that's it. That the old ways still work have shown games like Divinity: Original Sin - the kickstarter for the second went great - and Pillars of Eternity.
but maybe BioWare/EA should just decicde for one side and that's it.
That would be throwing away money. I buy exclusively for PC and I'm sure I'm not the only one. People have been complaining about console/pc controls for years. They'll keep making them for PC as long as there is a market, which isn't disappearing despite these complaints.
if they'd start producing just for consoles I'd be out. I never had problems with the controls, interface or the menu on PC either.
Couldn't care less for consoles ... such a money dump
I compare it to other BioWare games.
Dragon Age is not even close about beeing new thing in gaming. All the things we have are already part of Neverwinter Nights - some more complex others just basic stuff compared to Dragon Age. NWN was more complex and hard to learn for beginners and DA:O was a nice compromise in this regard.
DA:O combat system is basically an easy version of NWN, which is based on p&n DnD. However it is true that DA:O uses it's own set of rules and not the D&D stuff. Still doesn't change the fact that they are similiar. (not talking about the acutal rules, more like about the amount of stuff, like class combinations, xp loss, how effects are applied and such.)
I don't hype NWN. It was an epic journey, especially with the addons, but also had it's flaws.
DA:I :Freezing characters, fancy hitbox a la bears with 180° hits, always 4v1-10 fights, lack of variety in skills (arguable), tactial view tends to bug around - you can't even move a hill straight up with it, completly let down regarding AI tactics and the battle setting is basically always the same - which was sometimes also poorly done in the other two.
The combination of bugs with a new combat system and some unnessacry simplifications is just too much of a disappointment for me to actually enjoy the battles. They kind of improved it for the worse. I don't want to argue that the mechanic is bad - tanking was never such fun -, but it is poorly executed.
About menu:
PC: The menu is slow, if you move the mouse over an item and take it to thepart of the inventory which to sell it the tooltip will not update automatically. To put it another way, if you sell a certain item, the next item in the list will still have the tooltip of the sold item.
Class:
We have basically the same three classes with more or less the same specializations (knight en. is an arcane warrior). I don't see any improvement in this aspect of the game. The point about having the option to do 2 specs is about individualize ones character. The game simply lacks that. I don't even want to compare it to NWN because this would be an unfair battle. The aim of DA should not be NWN, but again DA:I simply lacks variety. People, including me, expect more from the third part of the series.
Obviously having more than 1 specs would not make much sense in DA:I since we only have 8 slots hence only one spec and with one only one spec there is no need for more than 8 slots and etc.. Somehwat of a circular argument.
Edit: Even though I don't like to say it, but Dragon Age Inquisition feels somewhat console like. I don't hate those since I know and play both worlds but maybe BioWare/EA should just decicde for one side and that's it. That the old ways still work have shown games like Divinity: Original Sin - the kickstarter for the second went great - and Pillars of Eternity.
I brought the PC version, and I'm not having any issues. I use an xbox for PC controller works just fine.
The combat on those games are these small objects top view. Pillars is combat and read the story. Excellent voice acting isn't required in those games. Not everyone wants that.
That would be throwing away money. I buy exclusively for PC and I'm sure I'm not the only one. People have been complaining about console/pc controls for years. They'll keep making them for PC as long as there is a market, which isn't disappearing despite these complaints.
I agree. Others are not having issues, and there is no reason not to have a PC version.
Retour en haut