My opinion is that both games are great. My objective Origins is the stronger game between two great games. Or would you actually like to counter my previous points with an observation of your own rather than just say that "I liked things about Inquisition and therefore, I'm right." If it sounds like I'm patronizing you, that's because you somewhat annoy me. Believe it or not, there is an unbiased criteria with which one can judge a game's quality when compared to another game and find that one game is stronger than the other.
I understand the need for not always wanting to throw dark stuff in your face and yes, subtext and so on can be effective. But when dealing with a story with a primarily visual medium, it's more effective to show things than to talk about it or better yet, show and tell. Inquisition leaned too heavily on the "tell" aspect of "show and tell" and even the "show" aspect is watered down which minimizes the inherent effect that Inquisition's moments possessed. And for a game that's supposed to be about "saving the world from itself" or "restoring order to a world in chaos", the conflict was overall way too clean considering everything that's at play. It's not because this stuff isn't happening, it's because the game was intrinsically designed to distance the player from the grit and essence of darkness.
Do we actually tackle the mage-templar conflict and it's dilemnas? No. We side-step the situation by only engaging with one faction and leaving the other to the wolves. Even the stuff in the Hinterlands was described as conflicts between radical mages and templars rather divisions of the main factions.
The Breach? Closed within the first third of the game without much effort.
The Warden sacrifices? The two scenes that we see are too quick and swift to let that moment and what it means truly sink in. Contrast that with the Joining in Origins where there is a clear tension and weight to the deaths of Daveth and Jory. We see Duncan kill Jory with regret, we see Jory's face as he dies and blood flow from his body after he's fallen. We also see Daveth struggle against the Joining Juice even as Duncan apologizes for his inevitable death.
In contrast; both Duncan and Leandra personally met and interacted with the Warden and this created a more substantial bond. Therefore, when we see Duncan and Leandra die, there's actual room to be sad both because we knew who they were; had a chance to like them; and saw them die in undeservingly sad and horrific manners.
Not convinced? Take Justinia for instance. The game spends a lot of time trying to make her death into this big sad event and while this is true in-universe, neither the player nor the pc ever got to meet or know the woman. This could have been averted by putting in the Conclave meeting as an prologue and actually letting the player judge for themselves if Justinia is someone significant or someone worth mourning. Instead, we have to be told that Justinia was a great woman and that we should feel bad that she's dead.
It's this difference in presentation, content and atmosphere which makes Origins overall darker and stronger for being unapologetic for that darkness whereas Inquisition almost seems like it wants to hurry past it.
Considering that Origins actually lets you kill off your companions; have love triangles that can end badly; or even kill of your main hero, then it's pretty clear that Origins is less scared than Inquisition where this is greatly lacking. Trespasser not counting as much since it's a dlc that was added on later as opposed to Awakening where you could leave either an entire city or your own keep along with half of your companions to die and your companion may even turn on you depending on the choice that you make concerning the Architect's offer.
A third option is sometimes possible and Origins isn't less for having it at times as opposed to DA2 where the logical third or fourth option was cut out for the sake of pointless drama (siblings and Last Straw choice for instance). There were also missions where there was no third option like Orzammar; Anvil of the Void; Does Loghain live or die?; Take the Dark Ritual or not?; or if you don't take the DR then do you sacrifice yourself or send Alistair/Loghain to their deaths? And speaking of options, this plays into my point about role-play options because Origins isn't afraid of letting you be evil as opposed to Inquisition where you could only be a neutral jerk at worst with the moral spectrum of evil being completely omitted. Even letting Celene die isn't universally evil since neither she nor Gaspard have their hands clean of innocent blood or abuse of power.
There can be different types of antagonists and the darkspawn worked for what they were in Origins and Loghain worked even better. Corypheus? As many have pointed out before, he spends most of the game getting beaten by the Inquisitor and apart from Haven, there's never a "darkest hour" moment where Cory has the upper hand on the Inquisition and this is more disappointing considering all of the potential and the lore weight behind Cory's very existence.
Like Inquisition for the reasons that you want and if you personally prefer it over the other games fine. But don't act like any observation that doesn't put the game on a pedestal is just a biased opinion. I'm perfectly willing to admit that Inquisition is an objectively stronger game than Origins once the case can be presented and proven to me. Until then, I'm convinced that Origins is the inherently and objectively stronger game in the dragon age series. And that's even admitting that I like all of the games in the series. Some are just better than others. That's a fact.
1. For one thing It's DAO the does more showing then telling. In dao you hear about the civil war, the unrest of citizens of fereldin, and the dark spawn horde devestating the south. You see none of it. In fact if you read the book, dragon age: last flight you find that what the warden faced in dao was easy mode. And in dai you actually see the mage/templer war at it worst. We see how horrible the vinatori and red templers get and them being slavers. We see how red lyrium is destroying the country side. We even see the results of the blight socially in one of the towns in dai,
2.And with the mage/templer war it was never about picking a side. It was about bringing order to the conflict and stopping it. It was conflict of an unwinable war that was doomed to get worse with no side having anything left after it ended. No one would of been the clear victor at the end. It clear you missed the point of it. It was not about showing a victor, it was show how bad each side can get.
3. Yes, the breached was close. That does not mean the conflict is not over. The issue is that it can open up again.
4.We don't need the scarific to drag on. It has impact enough, more so if the player knew that warden. This is subjective.
And i was not sad when Duncan died.
5.Justina is a character that you meet backwards. The impact of her character is build for the character slowly over time. For everyone being sad about her and the pc not feeling anything, learning about her slowly, finding out she sacrifice herself for you in the fade and then learning what type of person she was in Liliana's mission.
6.The difference is just screen time for the character and interaction.
7.You can kill of companions in dai, have love triangles that end badly. It's just the pc does not die.
8.No third option? Like helping the mages or templers, alliing with them or conscripting with them. Concreting the wardens or banish them. Drink the well of sorrows or not. Taking Isheml's deal or not. We have that in dai.
9.The darkest hour was at Haven twice. Were he first invades it, then tries to end the world there. Also, the true villian is Solas.
Sorry but it just sounds like that you're bias.
Retour en haut
