272 réponses à ce sujet

[Narcosynthesis]

Perhaps, but again look how Hawke turned out. Everyone hates how Hawke ended up, this was partially due to Hawke being able to have 3 different ways of dealing with people. When the Inquisitor shows up again in the future, there is little chance of the Inquisitor acting out of character, because there are less options for them to try and account for. I feel this is why it was done, and why I approve of it overall.

 

That is true, yes. Although I was perfectly fine with how my Hawke turned out - and from what I gather most people who did complain had issues with the streamlined views on blood magic, which could have been avoided with changing a few lines.

 

But the important issue in that case should be: Shouldn't the main focus be on the current game rather than the potential reappearence in future games? Shouldn't it be more important to enrich the roleplaying experience of the current game? It is a thin line to walk, I agree, because with too many variables we would end up in the HoF-dilemma.

 

In this case I'm okay with how the Inquisitor turned out because it fits my personal preferences to mainly play good guys or good guys with an edge. But I do wonder, how I'd feel about it when, say, a future game forces you into an "evil" role and all your choices are - exaggarating here, of course - being "politely evil", "impolitely evil" or "I don't care about anything"? As I said: In this case I'm totally okay with how it turned out, but the chance to make a previous PC reapear in future games should be a bonus, not the main priority while writing (it's a little different with important NPCs). While one could argue that the Inquisitor is a highly important figure in the history of Thedas and I'd agree that it wouldn't make any sense to allow them to be an evil blood-magic using, children-eating sadist, I still think that a"darker" (not evil!) personality would have been possible here, while still keeping them available for future games.

[TheRevanchist]

That is true, yes. Although I was perfectly fine with how my Hawke turned out - and from what I gather most people who did complain had issues with the streamlined views on blood magic, which could have been avoided with changing a few lines.

 

But the important issue in that case should be: Shouldn't the main focus be on the current game rather than the potential reappearence in future games? Shouldn't it be more important to enrich the roleplaying experience of the current game? It is a thin line to walk, I agree, because with too many variables we would end up in the HoF-dilemma.

 

In this case I'm okay with how the Inquisitor turned out because it fits my personal preferences to mainly play good guys or good guys with an edge. But I do wonder, how I'd feel about it when, say, a future game forces you into an "evil" role and all your choices are - exaggarating here, of course - being "politely evil", "impolitely evil" or "I don't care about anything"? As I said: In this case I'm totally okay with how it turned out, but the chance to make a previous PC reapear in future games should be a bonus, not the main priority while writing (it's a little different with important NPCs). While one could argue that the Inquisitor is a highly important figure in the history of Thedas and I'd agree that it wouldn't make any sense to allow them to be an evil blood-magic using, children-eating sadist, I still think that a"darker" (not evil!) personality would have been possible here, while still keeping them available for future games.

 

players want their characters to be relevant in the future, having these super important world bad asses just magically disappearing makes no sense. Leaving them active in some fashion can only be a boon to the franchise, honestly. Also there is almost no chance ever of us being shoe-horned into being an evil douche bag, I cannot imagine them selling a lot of copies like that. There is no reason we can't have more "grey" choices, but honestly see why for the sake of not making the writer's lives a living hell trying to account for even MORE things than they already do. Less resources spent trying to account for this, the more they have to put towards say...making sure we have real Side Quests and not, Collect 50 random Shards because reasons.

[Bizantura]

Bioware gave us the Qun that speaks volumes.  Slaves are given purpose and can't think or downwright unwilling to think out of that given box.  Much as the real world really.

 

Howe much scarier/darker do you need a game to be!

[Narcosynthesis]

players want their characters to be relevant in the future, having these super important world bad asses just magically disappearing makes no sense. Leaving them active in some fashion can only be a boon to the franchise, honestly. Also there is almost no chance ever of us being shoe-horned into being an evil douche bag, I cannot imagine them selling a lot of copies like that. There is no reason we can't have more "grey" choices, but honestly see why for the sake of not making the writer's lives a living hell trying to account for even MORE things than they already do. Less resources spent trying to account for this, the more they have to put towards say...making sure we have real Side Quests and not, Collect 50 random Shards because reasons.

 

Oh, I have little doubt that they’ll ever force us to play evil. That was just meant to be an example to illustrate the problematic point with the actual premise of this thread: Trying to understand “the other side”, i.e. people who feel that something they had in DA:O has been taken from them by imagine what it would feel like if your own preference would suddenly be cut. We already agree that the way it was handled in DA:O wouldn’t have made any sense in DA:I – and again: I’m not asking for the option of a blatantly evil Inquisitor, but for a broader grey area.

 

The reason why I think it would have made sense specifically in DA:I is that we play the head of a very powerful organization (who, like most rulers, could easily do some morally questionable things “for the greater good” or personal gain without the whole thing falling apart) and the premise of the game was that we – to a certain extend – shape that organization just as much as we do our character. That’s a thing that could have been a stronger focus in the game imo because the way it is now, all of that mainly happens at the war table rather than onscreen. And it would also boil down to one rather simple variable that would just alter a few lines in the next game: Was the Inquistion generally perceived as knights in shiny armor or a “grey” organization that at least got the job done?

 

That’s all just personal preference and by no means objective, but as far as I’m concerned, the writers could actually have made their lives easier by just skipping one region (or putting two of them together) and add in one or two interesting choices in actually shaping your organization and it’s legacy. [Plus that would have opened up a few resources which could have been used to address the other dilemma you mentioned: the side-quests…]

[TheRevanchist]

Oh, I have little doubt that they’ll ever force us to play evil. That was just meant to be an example to illustrate the problematic point with the actual premise of this thread: Trying to understand “the other side”, i.e. people who feel that something they had in DA:O has been taken from them by imagine what it would feel like if your own preference would suddenly be cut. We already agree that the way it was handled in DA:O wouldn’t have made any sense in DA:I – and again: I’m not asking for the option of a blatantly evil Inquisitor, but for a broader grey area.

 

The reason why I think it would have made sense specifically in DA:I is that we play the head of a very powerful organization (who, like most rulers, could easily do some morally questionable things “for the greater good” or personal gain without the whole thing falling apart) and the premise of the game was that we – to a certain extend – shape that organization just as much as we do our character. That’s a thing that could have been a stronger focus in the game imo because the way it is now, all of that mainly happens at the war table rather than onscreen. And it would also boil down to one rather simple variable that would just alter a few lines in the next game: Was the Inquistion generally perceived as knights in shiny armor or a “grey” organization that at least got the job done?

 

That’s all just personal preference and by no means objective, but as far as I’m concerned, the writers could actually have made their lives easier by just skipping one region (or putting two of them together) and add in one or two interesting choices in actually shaping your organization and it’s legacy. [Plus that would have opened up a few resources which could have been used to address the other dilemma you mentioned: the side-quests…]

 

Oh indeed, they had too many regions. Remove the Oasis, because everything about it is pointless. I would have combined The Approach and the Wastes, imagine how MASSIVE that zone would be. And without Oasis or any of those dumb Shards they could have focused on something better. I also would have removed the Emerald Graves tbh. That zone is absolutely gorgeous, and the artists get my unending love for it. However that Zone is almost entirely meaningless. Take the Elven Dungeon and move it to the Exalted Plains. Those changes alone i feel would have freed up so much time and resources to do more quality content, rather than just quantity. 

[Narcosynthesis]

Oh indeed, they had too many regions. Remove the Oasis, because everything about it is pointless. I would have combined The Approach and the Wastes, imagine how MASSIVE that zone would be. And without Oasis or any of those dumb Shards they could have focused on something better. I also would have removed the Emerald Graves tbh. That zone is absolutely gorgeous, and the artists get my unending love for it. However that Zone is almost entirely meaningless. Take the Elven Dungeon and move it to the Exalted Plains. Those changes alone i feel would have freed up so much time and resources to do more quality content, rather than just quantity. 

 

Yeah, the combination of the Approach and the Wastes would have been my first pick as well, I could totally see that.

 

In the Emerald Graves I also kinda liked that Haunted House and would have kept that, too. Utterly disconnected from the main story, of course, but to a certain extend side-quest are allowed to be that. And it was one of the few places where the "information via letters/notes rather than dialogue"-approach actually worked in my opinion, since it added to the atmosphere that you had nobody around to tell you what was going on, but needed to - bit by bit - form your own picture of the grim little tale that took place there. I found that well done, except for the respawning walking dead which didn't really generate the feeling of danger, but were a bit counterproductive in that way...

[Shechinah]

---------

 

I believe I understand what you mean and your point by it but I'm not sure I share it since I feel the brothels and its workers lack the presence to make that interpretation work for me. I cannot remember examples of the brothel workers seemed unhappy with their lot in life or where they seemed mistreated:

 

in Origins, they seemed to be there to provide a function for the roleplaying player but that was simply by being there and by their occupation since they seemed to have no characterization that I can remember.  

 

In DA2, they seemed to have garnered a little bit more of a presence and some had a bit of characterization but not much and still not enough that I feel it would make your interpretation work for me with the ones with the bit of character seeming to enjoy their profession. Granted, it may be that I might have missed certain things or simply forgotten them as it sometimes happens.

 

To me, the brothels seemed to be there solely to be there, sometimes for such small reasons that something else could have easily substituted for it. The companions do not even seem to react to what you do there even if they are romanced by you. 

 

This is why I do not believe the brothels were removed for reasons of attempting to avoid discomfort or offense but merely because it lacked reasons that would make implementing them worth it beyond a few comments from party members and gossip regarding the Herald of Andraste and their visits.    

 

I'd rather brothels be be implemented because of something interesting connected to them or because of something like your interpretation of them but if nothing interesting is done with them and they have no actual presence then I have no real interest in their inclusion.

 

I consider your post to be an interesting read, by the way, even if I disagree with it being applied to Dragon Age

 
 

[Bhryaen]

Perhaps, but again look how Hawke turned out. Everyone hates how Hawke ended up, this was partially due to Hawke being able to have 3 different ways of dealing with people. When the Inquisitor shows up again in the future, there is little chance of the Inquisitor acting out of character, because there are less options for them to try and account for. I feel this is why it was done, and why I approve of it overall.

Actually I saw a pre-release interview with the devs in which they were asked about "evil" choices directly. They said they started with the DAO model, but when they recognized just how lengthy and detailed the game would be they knew the extra "evil" storyline would be incompatible implementation-wise, and they decided to keep the game length and detail but sacrifice "evil" choices in order not to create an overbearingly resource-eating alt version that was just too full of variables to manage in the dev time allotted. So there was a reason behind the choice to minimize "evil" choices, but it was more one borne of practicality than philosophy or taste.

[Shechinah]

 

And Spirit Warriors. Both were awesome. They will only make what will be a great game better.

 

 

They are and I hope they make a return: here's to hoping.
 

[Erstus]

With a new lead writer this time, it would be interesting to see how a DA4 turns out....that is IF we even get a DA4.

The only thing I would like to see done better in a possible DA4 is showing more and telling less. DAI was a perfect game to be able to show us the horrors of war, racism, discrimination, religious oppression etc. Instead, what we got was this sanitized "Disneyland" version of Thedas. I wanted to see the emotional impact of the suffering of the elves in this game. Instead, we get one small tribe of elves in which we have to chase Halla for and such. Everything else was told by finding notes/letters/journals on dead bodies explaining to us the horrors and suffering.....but we never actually got to see it.

This is what gives Dark Fantasy games their niche, as they are the beacon for such topics and last time I checked, Origins was considered a Dark Fantasy game but the series is shifting into more of a High Fantasy like what we got with DAI. If anything, this is where I think the biggest difference is, that DAO was more of a dark fantasy RPG while DAI seems more like a high fantasy. Yes, DAI had it's darker moments, but it was nowhere near the level of intensity of that of DAO/Awakening. In essence, DAO is Robocop (1984) and DAI is Robocop 3 (1993) in terms of tone and intensity.

Finally, I believe the personality variance possibilities of the IQ was wasted. A lot of people like to use the excuse that the IQ was a religious figure leading a religious organization so being "bad" would not make sense. I find that funny because in older history, some of the greatest tyrants WERE religious leaders leading religious organizations. I am not saying that we should have had the option to be evil, no. But more options to show emotions/choices that reflect greed, selfishness, manipulative, and other dictator-style traits that has been used by many religious tyrants in history. Instead, what we got was a protagonist who could really just be Good.....or neutral. This is not only a distancing from Origins, but MOST Bioware games in which we could be Good-Neutral-Bad. Even when playing as an Elven IQ who hated the Chantry/Andraste, I was not given the options to really have that stance represented in any of my choices. I was always looking and waiting for that option to say,

"I could give a damn about the Chantry or Andraste as this human religion/deity is the scourge of this world! However, I will use the resources of the religion to save the world so that my people [Elves] do not have to suffer because of human ignorance!"

But no we never got such option. With my Dalish Elf in DAO, I was given ample opportunities to display my distrust or even hatred towards humans and their ways.

I think if there is a DA4, Bioware needs to make some serious chances from what they did with DAI.

Just quoting this because it is spot-on and really a dresses my main gripe with DAI.

@Shadow Lord -
Yeah, there really is no comparison between the ritual in Origins and Inq. The sacrifice in Inq just felt like it was dumped in to make Cory more "evil" and scary. The sacrifice in Origins had impact because it fit the story narrative.

[robertthebard]

I guess the main message I'm taking away from this particular thread is that in this age of xbox and psx trophies, subtext is totally lost on people. If they didn't see it, it didn't happen. They walk through a field of burnt up corpses, and are totally detached from what that means, because it's presented in subtext, instead of in their face. They walk past camps littered with corpses, and don't understand that the mobs they killed 2 minutes previously were probably responsible for them, because it wasn't in their face. They want to point to the Joining in Origins, as if that should be the only way Dark can be presented, never taking the time to realize that the Warden they see killed in the Approach went through that exact experience, possibly even had someone trying to back out and killed, but it never happened, because they didn't have it in their face.

The same for the Warden at Adamant, especially if you don't let the woman in Crestwood join the Wardens, although it may be that it's more poignant if you do. Although both were effective enough for me, since I have to wonder, how many people died at his joining? How many tried to back out and got killed for it? How many of his brothers in arms were killed, or went to their actual calling in the years that he served, only to give his life in the name of summoning a demon. As far as some people are concerned, these mooks aren't Wardens, unless you choose to exile them anyway, and then you're a bigger criminal than anyone in the history of the franchise, mainly because HoF.

But some didn't pick up on this because it wasn't instant gratification. It was the subtext running behind the scenes, and it's just not the same as a head shot in CoD, so they don't grasp what it means. How else can someone walk through a field of burnt corpses and think they're in a Disney film?

[ShadowLordXII]

I guess the main message I'm taking away from this particular thread is that in this age of xbox and psx trophies, subtext is totally lost on people. If they didn't see it, it didn't happen. They walk through a field of burnt up corpses, and are totally detached from what that means, because it's presented in subtext, instead of in their face. They walk past camps littered with corpses, and don't understand that the mobs they killed 2 minutes previously were probably responsible for them, because it wasn't in their face. They want to point to the Joining in Origins, as if that should be the only way Dark can be presented, never taking the time to realize that the Warden they see killed in the Approach went through that exact experience, possibly even had someone trying to back out and killed, but it never happened, because they didn't have it in their face.

The same for the Warden at Adamant, especially if you don't let the woman in Crestwood join the Wardens, although it may be that it's more poignant if you do. Although both were effective enough for me, since I have to wonder, how many people died at his joining? How many tried to back out and got killed for it? How many of his brothers in arms were killed, or went to their actual calling in the years that he served, only to give his life in the name of summoning a demon. As far as some people are concerned, these mooks aren't Wardens, unless you choose to exile them anyway, and then you're a bigger criminal than anyone in the history of the franchise, mainly because HoF.

But some didn't pick up on this because it wasn't instant gratification. It was the subtext running behind the scenes, and it's just not the same as a head shot in CoD, so they don't grasp what it means. How else can someone walk through a field of burnt corpses and think they're in a Disney film?

 

Missing the point entirely and worst, portraying the critics as spoiled children who can't think for themselves? You annoy me.

 

Subtext is an effective story telling tool when used well and in the right places. But too much apparent subtext just gives the indication that the writer was simply too lazy or unfocused to put more emphasis on the "show" aspect of "show and tell." Needing a story to have more "show and tell" isn't a matter of instant gratification or the audience being too dumb to figure stuff out for themselves, it's a matter of a visual medium (video games for instance) using the tools and lore potential at it's disposal to tell a good story and portray the interesting nuanced world that it advertises having.

 

A field of recently killed and slain burned corpses would be more effective if there was an earlier scene accompanying it where we see bandits/mages/templars killing people brutally to emphasize the chaos of the mage-templar war. But since the conflict was mostly side-stepped with even the mages and templars fought in the Hinterlands being rogue off-shoots, the field of corpses isn't as gripping as say, a single village ravaged and burned as a result of your choices as was seen in the E3 demonstration.

 

In that demonstration, the Inquisitor had a choice between sending troops to protect a village or sending them to a fortress and leaving the village to get slaughtered. You later return to the devastated village with all of inhabitants killed as a consequence of you abandoning them. There's an example of "show and tell" and subtext being used to portray the consequences of the Inquisitor's choice as they act according to their agency.

 

Instead, all we have is a field of corpses and...nothing else. Who were these people? Were they templars or mages or both? Were they civilians? Were they mercenaries? Convicted prisoners executed to save on supplies? It's too vague and distant despite being very present to allow for much time to wonder about the corpses and thus, most players quickly move past it to finish other missions and explore the region.

 

Even then, there's no way to argue that Inquisition isn't as brutal, dark or gritty as previous games. And while those don't make a game more mature, it's odd that Inquisition is more sanitized despite being set in the same world as Origins and DA2 and having more conflict than those two games considering that Inquisition takes place during:

 

A period of heavy destabilization and leaderlessness for the Chantry

 

The Mage-Templar War

 

An invasion of Demons proctored by the Breach

 

The Orlesian Civil War

 

An Ancient darkspawn magister's plot to conquer the world and become a god

 

Fen-Harel's return and scheming to undo the world that he created

 

And yet, what the player actually sees and experiences comes off as a cleaner experience than the Blight or Kirkwall's self-destruction despite all of the supposed chaos, conflict and death that is meant to be occurring. 

[actionhero112]

People are getting confused over semantics.

 

I would also like the sequel to inquistion to have more moments that make you take a step back and go "Wow that is f'd up." 

 

Preferably every romance would have a moment like that, which makes you question the romance, and there shouldn't be any clean choices. No more summoning the circle mages to redcliffe, the choices should only be isolde and connor. 

[TheRevanchist]

Actually I saw a pre-release interview with the devs in which they were asked about "evil" choices directly. They said they started with the DAO model, but when they recognized just how lengthy and detailed the game would be they knew the extra "evil" storyline would be incompatible implementation-wise, and they decided to keep the game length and detail but sacrifice "evil" choices in order not to create an overbearingly resource-eating alt version that was just too full of variables to manage in the dev time allotted. So there was a reason behind the choice to minimize "evil" choices, but it was more one borne of practicality than philosophy or taste.

 

Well that is basically what I said later on down the page. Was just pointing out another reason to avoid them, imo.

[TheRevanchist]

People are getting confused over semantics.

 

I would also like the sequel to inquistion to have more moments that make you take a step back and go "Wow that is f'd up." 

 

Preferably every romance would have a moment like that, which makes you question the romance, and there shouldn't be any clean choices. No more summoning the circle mages to redcliffe, the choices should only be isolde and connor. 

 

No, it is not a matter of semantics, and even if it was, then there's no reason for this debate to even be happening. DAI has plenty of moments that make you go "wow that is f'd up". They simply don't beat you over the head with it with a blunt object because they, apparently, believed their audience was intelligent enough to understand subtly and subtext. Clearly due to the reactions in this thread that is not the case, anything other than overt, gratuitous squick-like scenes will simply be dismissed as a sanitized Disneyland. Personally I think that says more about the people who are demanding it than it does anything else since there is literally NO difference between the "Joining" scene and the Ritual scene, none. A Warden kills another Warden who does not wish to die, that is literally all those two scenes contain aside from Daveth dying, which is not really dark at all. You are seeing something that is simply not there. There is nothing about the "tone" of the Joining scene that makes it unique, or darker, than the other. 

[actionhero112]

No, it is not a matter of semantics, and even if it was, then there's no reason for this debate to even be happening. DAI has plenty of moments that make you go "wow that is f'd up". They simply don't beat you over the head with it with a blunt object because they, apparently, believed their audience was intelligent enough to understand subtly and subtext. Clearly due to the reactions in this thread that is not the case, anything other than overt, gratuitous squick-like scenes will simply be dismissed as a sanitized Disneyland. Personally I think that says more about the people who are demanding it than it does anything else since there is literally NO difference between the "Joining" scene and the Ritual scene, none. A Warden kills another Warden who does not wish to die, that is literally all those two scenes contain aside from Daveth dying, which is not really dark at all. You are seeing something that simply not there. There is nothing about the "tone" of the Joining scene that makes it unique, or darker, than the other. 

 

It's pretty clear that OP wasn't satisfied with the level of gritty elements in Inquisition. He wants more, I am inclined to agree with him.

 

Whether or not Origins did it better, I just don't care about. That's why it's semantics. It was never a desire to return to Origins, but rather an increase in the dark themes introduced in Origins. 

 
In fact, in my reply you're replying to, I never actually compared Inquisition's and Origin's dark themes. I only used the example of Connor and Isolde to illustrate the example of a "clean" choice. 

Frankly you're beating a dead horse. 

[robertthebard]

Missing the point entirely and worst, portraying the critics as spoiled children who can't think for themselves? You annoy me.
 
Subtext is an effective story telling tool when used well and in the right places. But too much apparent subtext just gives the indication that the writer was simply too lazy or unfocused to put more emphasis on the "show" aspect of "show and tell." Needing a story to have more "show and tell" isn't a matter of instant gratification or the audience being too dumb to figure stuff out for themselves, it's a matter of a visual medium (video games for instance) using the tools and lore potential at it's disposal to tell a good story and portray the interesting nuanced world that it advertises having.
 
A field of recently killed and slain burned corpses would be more effective if there was an earlier scene accompanying it where we see bandits/mages/templars killing people brutally to emphasize the chaos of the mage-templar war. But since the conflict was mostly side-stepped with even the mages and templars fought in the Hinterlands being rogue off-shoots, the field of corpses isn't as gripping as say, a single village ravaged and burned as a result of your choices as was seen in the E3 demonstration.
 
In that demonstration, the Inquisitor had a choice between sending troops to protect a village or sending them to a fortress and leaving the village to get slaughtered. You later return to the devastated village with all of inhabitants killed as a consequence of you abandoning them. There's an example of "show and tell" and subtext being used to portray the consequences of the Inquisitor's choice as they act according to their agency.
 
Instead, all we have is a field of corpses and...nothing else. Who were these people? Were they templars or mages or both? Were they civilians? Were they mercenaries? Convicted prisoners executed to save on supplies? It's too vague and distant despite being very present to allow for much time to wonder about the corpses and thus, most players quickly move past it to finish other missions and explore the region.
 
Even then, there's no way to argue that Inquisition isn't as brutal, dark or gritty as previous games. And while those don't make a game more mature, it's odd that Inquisition is more sanitized despite being set in the same world as Origins and DA2 and having more conflict than those two games considering that Inquisition takes place during:
 
A period of heavy destabilization and leaderlessness for the Chantry
 
The Mage-Templar War
 
An invasion of Demons proctored by the Breach
 
The Orlesian Civil War
 
An Ancient darkspawn magister's plot to conquer the world and become a god
 
Fen-Harel's return and scheming to undo the world that he created
 
And yet, what the player actually sees and experiences comes off as a cleaner experience than the Blight or Kirkwall's self-destruction despite all of the supposed chaos, conflict and death that is meant to be occurring.

So you're annoyed because I was right? Because you didn't witness all the people that got blown to bits at the Temple of Sacred Ashes, despite walking through all the burnt up corpses, it didn't happen? This is to be expected, considering the OP opens up stating "You don't see any Wardens sacrificed to raise demons", despite the fact that we do indeed see that, not once, but twice. "But it wasn't gory enough, so it doesn't count", right?

[ShadowLordXII]

So you're annoyed because I was right? Because you didn't witness all the people that got blown to bits at the Temple of Sacred Ashes, despite walking through all the burnt up corpses, it didn't happen? This is to be expected, considering the OP opens up stating "You don't see any Wardens sacrificed to raise demons", despite the fact that we do indeed see that, not once, but twice. "But it wasn't gory enough, so it doesn't count", right?

 

 

As Kermit says, you are 100% wrong about both my OP, my underlying point, and about my reply. Hence, my annoyance. And next time, clarify exactly which field of corpses you meant, because I thought you were talking about the corpses in the Hinterlands.

 

I didn't say that we don't see the wardens die, I said that that the situation hurries past it rather than emphasizing and displaying it's brutality.

 

If you're going to disagree, at least have a decent understanding of what you're arguing against or nothing that you say will be taken seriously.

[robertthebard]

 
As Kermit says, you are 100% wrong about both my OP, my underlying point, and about my reply. Hence, my annoyance. And next time, clarify exactly which field of corpses you meant, because I thought you were talking about the corpses in the Hinterlands.
 
I didn't say that we don't see the wardens die, I said that that the situation hurries past it rather than emphasizing and displaying it's brutality.
 
If you're going to disagree, at least have a decent understanding of what you're arguing against or nothing that you say will be taken seriously.

Right, so you never said this:

Dragon Age Inquisition does have disturbing stuff that's in your face. But most of the darker aspects are either absent or presented in a way which creates distance between the event and the player. For instance, the grey warden sacrifices aren't directly shown, but merely implied. While in Origins and DA2, they take detailed care to show you what's happening or time's taken to show the immediate aftermath.

Source

Yep, I'm 100% wrong...

[ShadowLordXII]

Right, so you never said this:


Source

Yep, I'm 100% wrong...

 

You 100% misunderstood my point, so yes, you're still 100% wrong and I'm sick of trying to clarify if you still don't understand what I was actually talking about.

[robertthebard]

You 100% misunderstood my point, so yes, you're still 100% wrong and I'm sick of trying to clarify if you still don't understand what I was actually talking about.

How do I misunderstand "it's not shown, it's implied" when it is shown? Maybe it's not my comprehension that's at fault here, but your understanding of "shown"? The irony, despite the erroneous claim made in your OP, you then provided links that demonstrate that you were wrong in your OP...

It's not my issue here, mate, but yours. You straight out misrepresented what's going on in the game to support your "But no brothels..." complaint.

[ShadowLordXII]

How do I misunderstand "it's not shown, it's implied" when it is shown? Maybe it's not my comprehension that's at fault here, but your understanding of "shown"? The irony, despite the erroneous claim made in your OP, you then provided links that demonstrate that you were wrong in your OP...

It's not my issue here, mate, but yours. You straight out misrepresented what's going on in the game to support your "But no brothels..." complaint.

 

Because I've said again and again before, it's shown in a way where the player is DISTANT from what's happening as opposed to being immersed in it. This is things like mood, tone, atmosphere and showing the full measure of a dark aspect rather than side-stepping it or marginalizing it. I'm not misrepresenting the content in Inquisition and did acknowledge there is "something" present, it just often doesn't go far enough or it keeps itself distant for no real reason.

 

That was the point of the comparison between the warden deaths in Origins and Inquisition. In the Former, the Joining was appropriately brutal, tense, tragic, sad and so on and messy as the situation calls upon with time for the player to have the moment sink it. In the Latter, the warden sacrifices are rushed, non-center, un-tense and the gritty details of their actual deaths are done off-screen and even the aftermath isn't honed in on.

 

If you can't understand what I'm trying to say despite multiple posts where I expand and clarify on my OP to ensure that people understand even if they don't agree, that's not my fault. And if you still don't understand, then that's your problem. I'm not wasting anymore time feeding a troll.

[Googleness]

Many points were raised but I would like to address the gameplay changes from origins to inquisition.

 

1. Gear is locked to certain classes in inquisition.

2. crafting > inquisition is broken due to crafting. craft the most simple gear and it will be 10 times better then anything you can find.

3. healing was removed, in inquisition you can't heal with magic only with health potions which are limited. this hurts the flow of the game at the start but then you reach skyhold and get fade-touched silverite and game over.

4. in origins we had splendid tactical system. I could "program" each companion to do exactly what I wanted in the moment I wanted. In fact once I've set up my companions I didn't need any tactical cameras or anything they butchered everything easily.

In inquisition at the start you need to control all of your companions but then you get crafted gear and you don't need to bother.

5. while indeed in origins you had broken builds like master race BM\AW build in inquisition it's just... sad. Sera.... she can solo anything one nightmare using her flasks... or blackwall which can't die... c'mon...

6. the companions themselves in origins were also nicer imho because they weren't locked into specified build. they had base class and 1 advanced class. you could give them whichever build you wanted and whichever advanced class you wanted. in Inquisition due to the game mechanics of no heals and only damage mitigation combined with the lock(rogue) \ Barrier (mage) \ Walls (warrior) I had to mix each time 1 of each class and respec all my rogues as range dps, all my mages as spirit support and all my warriors as S&S tanks.

otherwise I could not use some of my companions due to needed classes to clear paths or the need for support and tanks.

7. Another change gameplay wise worth note is the crafting system in origins was much nicer. you had stores selling unlimited supplies and didn't need to fiddle with respawning mats to collect all over the place, much more simple and intuitive.

8. Also gameplay wise the maps on Origins were much better imho for this type of game. they take the classic single player approach where a map is static and nothing in it will respawn once you cleared it. the fact inquisition got mmo style open world just hinder the gameplay for no reason.

 

I would also like to address the execution of some mission in bioware games to show the difference,

1. NWN: HOTU - > Chapter 2. you are in the drow rebel city, you destroyed the allies of the valsharess and gained allies of your own. then there is a siege at the gates... according to how you prepared yourself then the battle with execute with multiple phases and interesting mechanics..... lots of fun!

 

2. DA:O > Gates of denerim. first we get speech with cutscene. then all of our companions joined by the leaders of our alliance zerg the gates and fight with you to capture it! glorious!

It continues with our team capturing each part of the city, saving people and destroying the darkspawn forces, bouncing back to the gates to do the "battle" our companions which were left behind are fighting. again it was made very well and lots of fun.

 

3. DA:I > Siege of the adamant. we got cutscene... looks promising. then small scale battles to "clear" the ladders... which is underwhelming... where are all our mighty black templars charging up the ladders? nothing. then we get to courtyard with 1 demon to fight.... then fade. bah... what kind of underwhelming execution of mass battle this is? 

 

If I'm allowed to sin and compare this to another game which was not 100% made by bioware but still relevant it's NWN2,

you prepare your fortress of crossroad keep, in a long and in depth mechanic to raise mighty fortress and protect the land while building your forces to stand against the king of shadows.

then when hell break lose and the fortress is assaulted you got number of phases... from defending the wall and destroying the siege towers to holding the gates with your companions and holding out until dawn arrives to drive away the shadows... it's masterpiece of siege battle missions.

 

Again I must sin....

NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer

final act > siege on the wall of the faithless

no words needs to be said.. you are assaulting the heavens with hosts of mighty legendary beings... each part of that mission is beautifully made.

 

Mechanics, gameplay and execution of quest chains in Inquisition are step down in my opinion.

[Meredydd]

I agree with the OP. I was very exited when Bioware said they were going back to their roots with Dragon Age: Inquisition. They said it was going to be the best of Origins and DA2 mixed together. Err...no Bioware, just no. What you really meant was: DA:I is going to be the best of SKYRIM and DA2 mixed together. I really thought they would go back to an Origins style game after the backlash they got for DA2, but instead they went in a completely different direction...again.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think Bioware will ever go back to an Origins type of game again. Since Inquisition was rather successful they will keep making future Dragon Age games like it, not Origins.

[Aren]

The Grey Wardens were never honourable... They took in criminals and did whatever was needed to stop the blight no matter how bad it was. "Honour" was NEVER something they had

It depends ,as an order no,but within it you can find honourable individual