62 réponses à ce sujet

[ravenesse]

Honestly I had more trouble with great bears than Corypheus.

But Cory had better socks!

[Donk]

But Cory had better socks!

 

And sexier legs.

[demonicdivas]

Corypheus was not mean. At all. If that's an end-game boss I expect him to be the very Devil himself.

 

I also didn't get the way that Samson was on some sort of strange crusade - that particular character development did nothing for me although the story itself worked. Cullen getting stuck with looking after him as an option also made no sense to me whatsoever. All that said, Calpernia's questline was in no way nearly as in-depth as 'Before the Dawn'. 

 

Actually, I'd add a similar thought to Alexius as well. Many of these characters on the opposing side were too soft. I would have liked one of them at least to be pure evil   DAI felt like a lot of hand-wringing and soul-searching on occasion. 

 

The difference between 'In Hushed Whispers' and 'Champions of the Just' was noticeable. I thought the former was the best quest in the game. To see what the world could look like post-Corypheus made the potential for how awful he could be much more real to me - more so than anything else. Whereas the Templars quest seemed to be an afterthought with not nearly as much detail. I'd request they just pick one next time, or if you're going to do two allow the time to really make it meaningful. 

 

I also loved 'Wicked Hearts and Wicked Eyes' as a quest but was really disappointed with the lack of focus on Orlais as a whole. Just running around zones didn't give me the same feel for the Empire like it did in DAO when you're saving Ferelden. It all felt rather disjointed and I don't like that you have to read all the books and comics etc to know the lore properly to understand what is going on. Masked Empire could have been built in much better to the DAI story. Suddenly having to choose who rules an empire pivotal to the plot of the game with no clue to the back story was disconcerting. 

 

And agree with the whole mage-Templar thing. I would have preferred much more on the Conclave - it''s made out to be such a huge deal, then the whole thing is sorted after an hour or so of questing in the starter zone (if that)? You get that small barney outside the Chantry but I can't remember much more than that.

 

My last thought is on the Warden and the Calling. Either they explain that properly or they just shouldn't have included it - I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one still very attached to their Warden, wanting to know what happened I thought it was fabulous how they tried to bring all 3 games together and they succeeded to a point. If you can't come up with a sensible outcome that makes sense, it's better to leave it. I live in (perhaps futile) hope that the whole Grey Warden issue is as yet unresolved and will come to light in DA4. 

[Neres]

Actually, I'd add a similar thought to Alexius as well. Many of these characters on the opposing side were too soft. I would have liked one of them at least to be pure evil   DAI felt like a lot of hand-wringing and soul-searching on occasion.

Actually you do get a very evil villain or two. Magister ******* for one.

 

I would prefer there to be some sort of storyline that has you enlisting Cole and the mages. And include some exploration on the White Spire.

 

...I read Asunder btw. Was great.

[demonicdivas]

Actually you do get a very evil villain or two. Magister ******* for one.

 

I would prefer there to be some sort of storyline that has you enlisting Cole and the mages. And include some exploration on the White Spire.

 

...I read Asunder btw. Was great.

 

Erimond? He was beyond annoying  But you're right - I thought the Nightmare was very well done. Psychological warfare is something that could be explored more. I can't think of another though. I would also have loved it if Corypheus' dragon was actually an archdemon - although that would have been a different story then I guess. 

 

It would have been awesome to have more on the White Spire. That was another thing I completely missed. I'm working on The Calling atm and really looking forward to Asunder - pleased to hear it is a good read. 

[BansheeOwnage]

Well, actually I was being rhetorical, but alright.

Okay, but I wanted to contribute what I thought could have been better, since that's what we're all doing here. If it makes you feel better, pretend I didn't quote you and just started blabbering on with no inspiration.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

I also didn't get the way that Samson was on some sort of strange crusade - that particular character development did nothing for me although the story itself worked. Cullen getting stuck with looking after him as an option also made no sense to me whatsoever. All that said, Calpernia's questline was in no way nearly as in-depth as 'Before the Dawn'.

I disagree. Before the Dawn has you run around doing the exact same stuff as you would if Calpernia was your enemy, just with more conversations with Cullen (which I always appreciate).

[ZhengAn]

I always feel that the hawke VS warden choice in fade could have been introduced more naturally and less forced-tragedy.

 

The choice pops up so suddenly without any hint or build-up before and instead of 'Oh no big threat what should I do who should I abandon', I was like 'Oh for....really?' and then bunch of 'Why necessary' and 'Why can't I' question came up in my mind. It was immersion breaking.

 

The Chargers vs Qun choice was better introduced at least, at least I understand why there's such choices, see the reason behind, and don't feel forced. Hawke one is...the way how it is introduced make me feel it is happening just because the devs wanted to add more so-call-significant-choices and tragedy.

[BansheeOwnage]

I always feel that the hawke VS warden choice in fade could have been introduced more naturally and less forced-tragedy.

 

The choice pops up so suddenly without any hint or build-up before and instead of 'Oh no big threat what should I do who should I abandon', I was like 'Oh for....really?' and then bunch of 'Why necessary' and 'Why can't I' question came up in my mind. It was immersion breaking.

 

The Chargers vs Qun choice was better introduced at least, at least I understand why there's such choices, see the reason behind, and don't feel forced. Hawke one is...the way how it is introduced make me feel it is happening just because the devs wanted to add more so-call-significant-choices and tragedy.

I have problems with both of those choices, but for different reasons.

 

The Hawke/Warden choice was, like you said, forced, and it came out of nowhere. It's also just plain odd that the Inquisitor would get to decide it. The worst part about it is that it could have been easily avoided. They could have all run into the rift-portal instead of standing around debating on who should stay. Or, they could have all stayed and just killed the bloody Nightmare-spider. I mean, at this point, you could have killed a few high dragons and other large and/or extremely dangerous foes. How hard could that spider be to defeat, especially with the added help of the Champion of Kirkwall and a senior Warden?

 

The Dreadnaught/Chargers decision was fine for the story, but the problem here is the level-design and enemy presence which almost made me laugh during what was otherwise a well-done scene. It's also a problem in other missions, like IYHSB. There are only a few enemy mages (three?), and they are not very far away from our group or the Chargers. With the Chargers' cover I think they could have fought them fairly well if not ordered to retreat, but that's a minor point. The main problem is that the Inquisitor's group cannot engage the Venatori mages themselves.

 

We should have been able to either run down the hill or have our ranged characters attack them. Even if that didn't kill them outright, it would have forced their attention away from the dreadnaught and the Chargers and divide their attention between all three targets. I think the odds are that they wouldn't have been able to destroy the dreadnaught if the Inquisition actually tried to save it instead of standing there like idiots, which is a common problem with these decisions. I would much rather have been able to try to save the ship myself instead of making a choice, and succeed or fail based on how fast I could take out the Venatori.

 

These kinds of decisions are fine to have in a game, but only if you make sure they make sense and aren't a forced moment of drama/tragedy. We'll probably see more in the next game, so Bioware, please do it right. Have your testers hound you until you've made the choice absolutely air-tight.

[demonicdivas]

I disagree. Before the Dawn has you run around doing the exact same stuff as you would if Calpernia was your enemy, just with more conversations with Cullen (which I always appreciate).

 

Maybe that's why I prefer it too   

 

I found Calpernia insipid and the whole thing ended far too quickly. It also didn't feel as integrated as the mage questline although I guess after a point neither of them mattered. To be fair to both, I never understood her or Samson as Corypeus' general.

[ZhengAn]

I have problems with both of those choices, but for different reasons.

 

The Hawke/Warden choice was, like you said, forced, and it came out of nowhere. It's also just plain odd that the Inquisitor would get to decide it. The worst part about it is that it could have been easily avoided. They could have all run into the rift-portal instead of standing around debating on who should stay. Or, they could have all stayed and just killed the bloody Nightmare-spider. I mean, at this point, you could have killed a few high dragons and other large and/or extremely dangerous foes. How hard could that spider be to defeat, especially with the added help of the Champion of Kirkwall and a senior Warden?

 

The Dreadnaught/Chargers decision was fine for the story, but the problem here is the level-design and enemy presence which almost made me laugh during what was otherwise a well-done scene. It's also a problem in other missions, like IYHSB. There are only a few enemy mages (three?), and they are not very far away from our group or the Chargers. With the Chargers' cover I think they could have fought them fairly well if not ordered to retreat, but that's a minor point. The main problem is that the Inquisitor's group cannot engage the Venatori mages themselves.

 

We should have been able to either run down the hill or have our ranged characters attack them. Even if that didn't kill them outright, it would have forced their attention away from the dreadnaught and the Chargers and divide their attention between all three targets. I think the odds are that they wouldn't have been able to destroy the dreadnaught if the Inquisition actually tried to save it instead of standing there like idiots, which is a common problem with these decisions. I would much rather have been able to try to save the ship myself instead of making a choice, and succeed or fail based on how fast I could take out the Venatori.

 

These kinds of decisions are fine to have in a game, but only if you make sure they make sense and aren't a forced moment of drama/tragedy. We'll probably see more in the next game, so Bioware, please do it right. Have your testers hound you until you've made the choice absolutely air-tight.

 

 

I remember in DAO, in landsmeet, the warden could actually choose to let her dog to deal with loghain. Of course it doesn't work, some character would point it out, and the player has to choose again.

 

I guess it would have been better, if there's more choices, even if some of the choices turn out to be no use. In fade, instead of the two extreme choices between Hawke and warden, they could have given more choices, or at least the inquisitor can suggest something like, 'why don't we give a try together blah blah blah.' Even in the end the choices/suggestion was refused, and the choices are stil limited to two, it at least would have explained to player why this and that don't work. Or else it just make no sense.

[Korva]

The Hawke/Warden choice was, like you said, forced, and it came out of nowhere. It's also just plain odd that the Inquisitor would get to decide it. The worst part about it is that it could have been easily avoided. They could have all run into the rift-portal instead of standing around debating on who should stay.

 

That was such a headdesk moment. If you're trying to create dramatic tension, pretty much the LAST thing you should do is hit the pause button on the action to let the characters blather at each other. Cole's quest has a similar problem. He's in a shocking, grief-induced killing rage, and we argue over his fate like he's not even there instead of engaging with him as the dear and hurting friend he is. If the devs hadn't conveniently put him on standby, he could have butchered that templar and broken himself into a demon a dozen times over, just as they conveniently put the Nightmare demon on standby instead of having it eat us.

 

I'm fine with the Nightmare being too tough to kill at full strength, but if the sacrifice of a powerful spirit like "Justinia" and the resultant arse-kicking we gave the demon's diminished form only inconveniences it for about two seconds before it returns as good as new, what is the point of having that boss fight to begin with? And if the demon is that powerful, then one person throwing themselves at it is only going to make it laugh, not buy us any time to ecape.

 

Also, I admit I was not keen on Hawke and the "Warden friend" overall because it felt like they stole all the spotlight in the Fade sequence when the people whose comments I really wanted to hear were my companions, so hearing these two morons bicker and whinge at each other (so much for being friends) instead was doubly irritating. Granted, I never played DA2 and the "Warden friend" was Stroud, so I wasn't part of the target audience for these cameos to begin with.

[BansheeOwnage]

Maybe that's why I prefer it too 

 

I found Calpernia insipid and the whole thing ended far too quickly. It also didn't feel as integrated as the mage questline although I guess after a point neither of them mattered. To be fair to both, I never understood her or Samson as Corypeus' general.

Yeah, it's one of the things that makes me torn about which faction to side with, romance or not, since Cullen's only other mission is Perseverance, which, although well done, was short.

 

I agree. It was great while it lasted, and I like being able to actually learn more about Corypheus as well, but it was over fast. Well, I never really understood Samson's motivation, but I understand why Corypheus used them as generals. Samson is an extremely powerful warrior due to red lyrium, yet he managed to keep his mental faculties, making him ideal for the position. Calpernia wants to restore Tevinter as well, though eventually she finds out her vision is different than Corypheus'.

 

I remember in DAO, in landsmeet, the warden could actually choose to let her dog to deal with loghain. Of course it doesn't work, some character would point it out, and the player has to choose again.

 

I guess it would have been better, if there's more choices, even if some of the choices turn out to be no use. In fade, instead of the two extreme choices between Hawke and warden, they could have given more choices, or at least the inquisitor can suggest something like, 'why don't we give a try together blah blah blah.' Even in the end the choices/suggestion was refused, and the choices are stil limited to two, it at least would have explained to player why this and that don't work. Or else it just make no sense.

I agree, it's better to try for a third option even if it ends up failing than make a hasty decision. It would have been a lot better if the Nightmare-spider was actually attacking you and winning, prompting someone to stay behind. As it was, everyone could have just run into the rift

 

That was such a headdesk moment. If you're trying to create dramatic tension, pretty much the LAST thing you should do is hit the pause button on the action to let the characters blather at each other. Cole's quest has a similar problem. He's in a shocking, grief-induced killing rage, and we argue over his fate like he's not even there instead of engaging with him as the dear and hurting friend he is. If the devs hadn't conveniently put him on standby, he could have butchered that templar and broken himself into a demon a dozen times over, just as they conveniently put the Nightmare demon on standby instead of having it eat us.

 

I'm fine with the Nightmare being too tough to kill at full strength, but if the sacrifice of a powerful spirit like "Justinia" and the resultant arse-kicking we gave the demon's diminished form only inconveniences it for about two seconds before it returns as good as new, what is the point of having that boss fight to begin with? And if the demon is that powerful, then one person throwing themselves at it is only going to make it laugh, not buy us any time to ecape.

 

Also, I admit I was not keen on Hawke and the "Warden friend" overall because it felt like they stole all the spotlight in the Fade sequence when the people whose comments I really wanted to hear were my companions, so hearing these two morons bicker and whinge at each other (so much for being friends) instead was doubly irritating. Granted, I never played DA2 and the "Warden friend" was Stroud, so I wasn't part of the target audience for these cameos to begin with.

I was considering mentioning Cole's decision, because like some other decisions, it really comes across as "It's up to you because you're the player character!" (In contrast I didn't think Cullen's Perseverance quest felt like that.) Even having someone ask Cole to wait for just a minute would have been an improvement, though it wouldn't have fixed the other problem.

 

Yes, the Nightmare Aspect is a boss fight for the sake of a boss fight in some ways, which is actually sadly common in DA:I. IHW takes the cake, and combines with my hatred of Leliana ignoring direct orders in favour of slitting some innocent person's throat (it's really scary that that comes up more than once). She, more than almost anyone, knows Alexius would do anything for Felix. Yet, when she holds him at knife-point, instead of using him as leverage for the amulet, she decides the best option is to... kill him? Not only that, but he didn't do anything wrong. He helped you, in fact, and she'll still kill him even if the Herald orders her not to, just so we can have a boss fight with Alexius! Grr.

 

The even sadder part is that in earlier games, that kind of situation would actually have different outcomes. If you used Felix as leverage and had enough charm/intimidation, you could get the amulet from Alexius. Or, you could choose to have it play out the exact same way. But there was a choice.

 

Well, opinions will differ, but I liked seeing Hawke and Alistair there. The Nightmare spoke to everyone in the group, too. But I agree that their arguing was stupid on a few different levels. It was there for the sake of drama and another decision, which I didn't like. Don't take control of my Hawke like that, Bioware. It makes no sense that she would hate wardens. Anyway, I liked seeing the companions' worst fears on the gravestones,  but I am really disappointed that the advisors' fears don't appear along with them. I mean, why? They already got kind of shafted in general, how hard would it have been to add literally three lines of text? And to add insult to injury, there are 4 blank gravestones - exactly enough to add the advisors and leave one blank for the Inquisitor. Or they could have used the last one for Loghain/Stroud/Alistair. Wasted potential, there.