821 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

There was no "enforced failure," but two narrative bookend events that you can't control. Taking care of your family and friends in a harsh world is a better story than the cliche save the world crap we got in DAI. Your climb from the gutter to Champion, while remembering where you came from works better than falling out of the fade and getting worshiped.

 

DA2 could have had a neutral path at the end, but the story was damn good besides that. Most great video game stories are personally focused rather than epic. Nier, The Last of Us, Telltale's Walking Dead, Mask of the Betrayer, Planescape, etc. 

Pls don't make me laugh. It is clear that you wear blinders.

Game doesn't allow you to kill Petrice despite you have more than one reason to do so and perfect opportunity not once but two times, and of course it backfires horribly.

Game Forces you to indulge in unnecessary fight instead chasing Isabela what allows her to escape with Tome what of course backfires.

Game doesn't allow you to not revive Flemeth , despite throwing amullet into the lake was perfectly viable option.

Game doesn't not allow you to put down or turn anders to the templars despite he is obviously dangerous abomnation, of course it backfires.

Game doesn't allow you to properly search warehouse in that serial killer was hiding , of course it backfires.

Game doesn't allow you to just not take side and leave Kirkwall instead participate in conflict that you may not have intrest.

Game forces you to release Corypheus instead bind him again what of course backfires horribly.

Game forces you to let Tallis go with List of Qunari spies even if you tell her that you want list or kill her and as well you forced to kill Orlesian Duke what of course backfires.

 

Pretty much a lot of failures were not only forced but also forced you to be an idiot in order to fail.And that alone is protagonist , i already pointed other characters enforced stupidity in order to go forward with plot. So yeah story wasn't nowhere close to be good.

[ioannisdenton]

 

Best story , not rly outside enforced failure no matter of your choice often game forced to protagonist to be an idiot and smart option is taken away from player in order to fail. Plot didn't make sense if you were mage because it also enforced extreme stupidity and obliviousness from other characters in order to not figure out that you are mage, it didn't also made sense if you are pro-templar as you can't sell Anders to the templars or put down Anders once you know he is an abomnation and apostate and you have stick with him.Pretty much da 2 does that  a lot.  

 

LoL , i don't even understand why you started point random differences between two games that mostly have nothing to do with listening to fans.

 

As for side quests, nope da 2 did much better job with side quest than Inquistion (what isn't big achievement) , side quest in da 2 allowed to roleplay and interact in different ways with quest giver and people involved in Quest and solve quest in different ways , but also quest were more complex than just go kill wolves and return for reward.  

Da2 was a great game despite its flaws.
And Bioware listens . it is proven more than one time.
Trespasser , leviathan, Extended Cut, and opretty much all their DLCS prive that. Hence tthe dlcs change the game for the better.
And Da2 was really great, Hawke's story is my favorite in bioware, trying to explain the events of da2 to someone is mindblowing, try it. you will be explaining events for half an hour. 
Hawke's story was a tragic one yes, but really a wonderfull one.

[Al Foley]

You know maybe next time they can have their cake and eat it to.  Have a really big 'hero saves the day' story but with the personal touch of the Hawke narrative.  Its possible.  And they tried with DA I.  

[TheKomandorShepard]

Da2 was a great game despite its flaws.
And Bioware listens . it is proven more than one time.
Trespasser , leviathan, Extended Cut, and opretty much all their DLCS prive that. Hence tthe dlcs change the game for the better.
And Da2 was really great, Hawke's story is my favorite in bioware, trying to explain the events of da2 to someone is mindblowing, try it. you will be explaining events for half an hour. 
Hawke's story was a tragic one yes, but really a wonderfull one.

 

Some people have ridiculously low requirements to call something great or even good and will be excited with anything.

 

And not rly , i can shortly sum up dragon age II story in fact i pretty much can do it with any game or story im familiar with.

 

As i said Hawke story may be tragic but it is also ridiculously stupid because of poor-writing.

[ioannisdenton]

Some people have ridiculously low requirements to call something great or even good and will be excited with anything.

 

And not rly , i can shortly sum up dragon age II story in fact i pretty much can do it with any game or story im familiar with.

 

As i said Hawke story may be tragic but it is also ridiculously stupid because of poor-writing.

You re beeing rude more than once to more than one person. 

I do not care for that; stating the obvious.
You beeing here with 7891 posts and an avatar of an anime full of japanese cliches and incosistencies and filler critisicing Da2 story is beyond me.
Da2 tried something different for a change  unlike any game. The problem was short development time.

[GoldenGail3]

You re beeing rude more than once to more than one person.
I do not care for that; stating the obvious.
You beeing here with 7891 posts and an avatar of an anime full of japanese cliches and incosistencies and filler critisicing Da2 story is beyond me.
Da2 tried something different for a change unlike any game. The problem was short development time.

DA2 was a soap opera.

[Al Foley]

The Inquisitor may not have had as stong of an arc as Hawke did but at least they had one.  Unlike the Warden. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

You re beeing rude more than once to more than one person. 

I do not care for that; stating the obvious.
You beeing here with 7891 posts and an avatar of an anime full of japanese cliches and incosistencies and filler critisicing Da2 story is beyond me.
Da2 tried something different for a change  unlike any game. The problem was short development time.

 

Im not being rude im being honest and logical , if you find honesty and logic rude i can't help you.

Well, that is your choice if you decided overlook major and serious flaws , but just to point that says a lot.

Desperate move if you have to start attacking someone avatar and then assume someone opinion about certain product solely on avatar.

That da2 is something different doesn't mean it is something good.Short development time is just an excuse and an excuse is irrelevant here as it doesn't change quality of final product. 

[Al Foley]

You know for all its other flaws a good example of a game series with a personal, character driven, down-in-the-muck narrative getting caught up in an epic story is the Witcher. 

[vbibbi]

You know for all its other flaws a good example of a game series with a personal, character driven, down-in-the-muck narrative getting caught up in an epic story is the Witcher. 

That's true, and I do like TW3 (never played the first two). But to be fair, the story to all three games is heavily based on the book series. Nothing against the games, but they're not very original in terms of plot; I consider them more as fanfiction continuing along the developers' ideas of how the books would continue.

[tesla21]

Im not being rude im being honest and logical , if you find honesty and logic rude i can't help you.

Well, that is your choice if you decided overlook major and serious flaws , but just to point that says a lot.

Desperate move if you have to start attacking someone avatar and then assume someone opinion about certain product solely on avatar.

That da2 is something different doesn't mean it is something good.Short development time is just an excuse and an excuse is irrelevant here as it doesn't change quality of final product. 

 

That's the thing, DA2 isn't the final product, not Bioware's final product at least. You cannot cut a part of the story and in a game's case the gameplay and expect the result to be the same, that's just not how narratives work. DA2 did alot of things well and with sufficient development time it could've solved most of the loudest complaints. It would have obviously had it's flaws, just like any piece of media ever concieved.

 

The cut development time did hurt the "final" product of DA2, because like I said that's just how narratives and games are, the reused enviroments don't suddenly make the more personal and less heroic approach of DA2 less interesting, they do however make DA2 a worse game. Look at Kotor 2 or example, regardless if you personally liked it or not, the game approached the franchise in interesting ways and had some really memorable fascinating characters and ideas, and as much of an infuriating, unfinished bugfest it was many people still have fond memories and positive views of it. Had it been given more development time it could've probably been one of the best rpgs of it's time.

 

Just look at ME3's original ending outrage and tell me a fraction of a narrative does not impact the whole product, many people felt that as far as ME1 was ruined for them as they felt the whole journey was rendered pointless. 

 

As an unrelated note, as someone who likes Naruto and judging from your avatar I just can't help but be annoyed by your statement:

"Some people have ridiculously low requirements to call something great or even good and will be excited with anything" 

I followed the show from childhood and enjoyed it to end despite it's abundant flaws but surely you don't consider it great or even good by your standards then? But anyway that was just an off-topic remark, we'd probably be better off not arguing about Naruto in this boards. The point of that was that great deal of enjoying something is not overlooking but rather accepting it's flaws, unless you just consider everything you like to be perfect. Flawed isn't equal to terrible just like "I liked it" doesn't equal flawless, undisputably great.

 

Our discussion aside and to the post in the main thread, I think if DA4 had found a nice middle ground between being the almighty holy one in inquisition and a flawed Hawke in DA2. How I feel about Inquisitor is that he is basically like a poor man's paragade Shep. He's like somewhat good-neutral, somewhat willing to do what it takes, but mostly dull and never commiting to a side.  Either give us a "complete" character like Hawke/Shep or give us a blank state character for us to develop like DAO, having a little bit of both ends up in a kinda weak personality yet also with limited roleplay, kinda like FO4's pc. In fact I wouldn't mind to go back to a Hawke/Shep-like split of personalities since I don't see anything else working with a voice character. 

 

Again a middleground between DA2 non-existant (though familiar I guess) locations and DAI astonishing and huge yet completely empty and kinda boring locations.

 

And finally kill the fetch quests with fire, make quests fit who you are kinda like in ME3 where for better or worse, most missions consisted of military operations and there were only a few irrelevant fetch quests that took 3 mins to do and didn't intrude in the narrative, after all you don't have time to solve everyone's petty personal annoyances when you are too busy saving the entire galaxy. Here, If I am the damned most important person in Thedas and own the Inquisition I won't be frigging picking up your lettuce for you just because there are some wolves nearby seriously, should've let us just send a few forces to do it no? Bring back cinematic sidequests and make them fit your character, of smaller or bigger importance as corresponding. Radial quests in FA4 had as much of a backlash as fetch quests in DAI so maybe Bioware will pick up the trend.

 

Another of the major issues I've noticed with Bioware is that they always fail to follow up the build up in sequels, Mass Effect 1, beat Sovereign and it's geth. -> Puts humanity the top/Proves humanity's worth and gives them a place in the council. Proves the existence of Reapers. Time to deal with the Reaper threat right? Nope, council is even more oblivious and irresponsible in ME2 and not in the least grateful that you sacrificed humans to save them, humans are still 100% second class citizens, ah the Reapers? Who cares about those!

 

ME2 -> Destroy collector base and make TIM your bi***/Save collector base and work with TIM for the sake of humanity. Either way in ME3  Cerberus hates you and you are grounded with the alliance.

 

DA2 sets up a full on Mage-Templar war. DAI shrugs off the whole conflict in 30 mins and grants it minimal relevance.

So yeah they really need to step up their pre planning if they want to avoid another ME3 backlash.

 

But on the good side, they did pull off interesting characters in Dragon Age Inquisition,  if the characters and plot manage to pull me into the game and give the feel that my character is also a real human (or whatever race lol, not the point) and not just a vessel for me to use and bash the bad guy's heads with then that's good enough for a Bioware game.

 

If I am looking for a more "hardcore" rpg I'll probably go to indie developers or Obsidian, DAI was still loyal to Bioware's trademark storytelling and of that I am pleased. Some of the character interactions were great, they definetly nailed the main companions and advisors, they just need to make the pc less dull and more invested. Shepard might not be the most complex character but at least (specially with femshep) you can hear the emotion and investment in Shepards voice whenever youare hunting the bad guys or giving an epic speech to inspire your companions, I want to take part in the story of Dragon Age, not just be dull plot device that keeps the story moving while the more interesting characters interact with the world.

 

Anyhow I feel DAI did as many things right as it did wrong, which makes me hopeful that Bioware can still pull of a really good game. So for that despite my initial gripes with DAI (still angry with the banter bug though), the game was enjoyable enough and I appreciate the game for keeping the franchise and hopes alive. If they make a terrible DA4 I may as well just not play it, yet a dead franchise cannot give birth to a great game so...  I am pleased even if a little dissapointed with the game.

[Addictress]

Some people have ridiculously low requirements to call something great or even good and will be excited with anything.

 

And not rly , i can shortly sum up dragon age II story in fact i pretty much can do it with any game or story im familiar with.

 

As i said Hawke story may be tragic but it is also ridiculously stupid because of poor-writing.

 

 

DA2 is not The Godfather but compared to pretty much the entire videogame industry, it's top of the food chain storytelling. Oh, and basically 5,000 nautical miles better than Inquisition's storytelling at the very least.

[TheKomandorShepard]

That's the thing, DA2 isn't the final product, not Bioware's final product at least. You cannot cut a part of the story and in a game's case the gameplay and expect the result to be the same, that's just not how narratives work. DA2 did alot of things well and with sufficient development time it could've solved most of the loudest complaints. It would have obviously had it's flaws, just like any piece of media ever concieved.

 

The cut development time did hurt the "final" product of DA2, because like I said that's just how narratives and games are, the reused enviroments don't suddenly make the more personal and less heroic approach of DA2 less interesting, they do however make DA2 a worse game. Look at Kotor 2 or example, regardless if you personally liked it or not, the game approached the franchise in interesting ways and had some really memorable fascinating characters and ideas, and as much of an infuriating, unfinished bugfest it was many people still have fond memories and positive views of it. Had it been given more development time it could've probably been one of the best rpgs of it's time.

 

Just look at ME3's original ending outrage and tell me a fraction of a narrative does not impact the whole product, many people felt that as far as ME1 was ruined for them as they felt the whole journey was rendered pointless. 

 

As an unrelated note, as someone who likes Naruto and judging from your avatar I just can't help but be annoyed by your statement:

"Some people have ridiculously low requirements to call something great or even good and will be excited with anything" 

I followed the show from childhood and enjoyed it to end despite it's abundant flaws but surely you don't consider it great or even good by your standards then? But anyway that was just an off-topic remark, we'd probably be better off not arguing about Naruto in this boards. The point of that was that great deal of enjoying something is not overlooking but rather accepting it's flaws, unless you just consider everything you like to be perfect. Flawed isn't equal to terrible just like "I liked it" doesn't equal flawless, undisputably great.

 

Our discussion aside and to the post in the main thread, I think if DA4 had found a nice middle ground between being the almighty holy one in inquisition and a flawed Hawke in DA2. How I feel about Inquisitor is that he is basically like a poor man's paragade Shep. He's like somewhat good-neutral, somewhat willing to do what it takes, but mostly dull and never commiting to a side.  Either give us a "complete" character like Hawke/Shep or give us a blank state character for us to develop like DAO, having a little bit of both ends up in a kinda weak personality yet also with limited roleplay, kinda like FO4's pc. In fact I wouldn't mind to go back to a Hawke/Shep-like split of personalities since I don't see anything else working with a voice character. 

 

Again a middleground between DA2 non-existant (though familiar I guess) locations and DAI astonishing and huge yet completely empty and kinda boring locations.

 

And finally kill the fetch quests with fire, make quests fit who you are kinda like in ME3 where for better or worse, most missions consisted of military operations and there were only a few irrelevant fetch quests that took 3 mins to do and didn't intrude in the narrative, after all you don't have time to solve everyone's petty personal annoyances when you are too busy saving the entire galaxy. Here, If I am the damned most important person in Thedas and own the Inquisition I won't be frigging picking up your lettuce for you just because there are some wolves nearby seriously, should've let us just send a few forces to do it no? Bring back cinematic sidequests and make them fit your character, of smaller or bigger importance as corresponding. Radial quests in FA4 had as much of a backlash as fetch quests in DAI so maybe Bioware will pick up the trend.

 

Another of the major issues I've noticed with Bioware is that they always fail to follow up the build up in sequels, Mass Effect 1, beat Sovereign and it's geth. -> Puts humanity the top/Proves humanity's worth and gives them a place in the council. Proves the existence of Reapers. Time to deal with the Reaper threat right? Nope, council is even more oblivious and irresponsible in ME2 and not in the least grateful that you sacrificed humans to save them, humans are still 100% second class citizens, ah the Reapers? Who cares about those!

 

ME2 -> Destroy collector base and make TIM your bi***/Save collector base and work with TIM for the sake of humanity. Either way in ME3  Cerberus hates you and you are grounded with the alliance.

 

DA2 sets up a full on Mage-Templar war. DAI shrugs off the whole conflict in 30 mins and grants it minimal relevance.

So yeah they really need to step up their pre planning if they want to avoid another ME3 backlash.

 

But on the good side, they did pull off interesting characters in Dragon Age Inquisition,  if the characters and plot manage to pull me into the game and give the feel that my character is also a real human (or whatever race lol, not the point) and not just a vessel for me to use and bash the bad guy's heads with then that's good enough for a Bioware game.

 

If I am looking for a more "hardcore" rpg I'll probably go to indie developers or Obsidian, DAI was still loyal to Bioware's trademark storytelling and of that I am pleased. Some of the character interactions were great, they definetly nailed the main companions and advisors, they just need to make the pc less dull and more invested. Shepard might not be the most complex character but at least (specially with femshep) you can hear the emotion and investment in Shepards voice whenever youare hunting the bad guys or giving an epic speech to inspire your companions, I want to take part in the story of Dragon Age, not just be dull plot device that keeps the story moving while the more interesting characters interact with the world.

 

Anyhow I feel DAI did as many things right as it did wrong, which makes me hopeful that Bioware can still pull of a really good game. So for that despite my initial gripes with DAI (still angry with the banter bug though), the game was enjoyable enough and I appreciate the game for keeping the franchise and hopes alive. If they make a terrible DA4 I may as well just not play it, yet a dead franchise cannot give birth to a great game so...  I am pleased even if a little dissapointed with the game.

 

First of all Dragon age 2 is final product as it is product that is sold to the customer and developers doesn't work on it anymore.

 

I didn't recall saying that horrible locations were cause of terrible story so now you are trying to justify your point that story is good by saying correct but unrelated things to make it look better. I pretty sure as evidence of horrible story i used enforced idiocies it consisted of in order to move plot forward. 

 

No , i don't require perfection but i look on flaws (unlike many here that overlooks them almost completely) and if it have considerable amount of serious and major flaws game by any mean shouldn't be considered great or even good and such example is dragon age 2.

 

Loacations in Inquistion aren't empty, locations in inquistion are full off stories that concern history of locations and various people.

 

You talk what Da 2 could have been, it doesn't matter ,what matters is what it is as game isn't rated by what it could have been only for what it is.

 

 

DA2 is not The Godfather but compared to pretty much the entire videogame industry, it's top of the food chain storytelling. Oh, and basically 5,000 nautical miles better than Inquisition's storytelling at the very least.

 

Not rly , i have already said DA 2 story is horrible as it consist of idiocies to carry story forward and its premise where hero fails to the point any sane person could only facepalm how protagonist or other characters act. I pointed it in post #401 and i could have easily find even more nonsense in story. Inquistion has its idiocies but nowhere near Dragon age 2. 

[ShadowLordXII]

Inquisition was good, but could have been a lot better and is still leagues inferior to Origins.

 

It's certainly a lot better than DA2, but that's not much of an accomplishment.

 

Inquisition's big problem seems to be that it never finds its tone nor how this tone affects the world that it portrays.

 

It wants to be an exciting fantasy story while also being a dark fantasy epic and being a political story all at the same time. There's a way that this can be done (look at Origins), but Inquisition just tried to stuff in too much all at once while also leaving out the real meat that could've made it as great as Origins if not better.

 

As for why I keep bringing up Origins, its because I've been waiting for a Dragon Age sequel that builds off of what made the first dragon age game great into something that's better. I've yet to see that game and after Inquisition, I'm certain now that it will never happen.

 

Either because BW is incapable of making that game or because it simply isn't interested. (they can't or they won't)

[correctamundo]

Inquisition was good, but could have been a lot better and is still leagues inferior to Origins.

 

It's certainly a lot better than DA2, but that's not much of an accomplishment.

 

Inquisition's big problem seems to be that it never finds its tone nor how this tone affects the world that it portrays.

 

It wants to be an exciting fantasy story while also being a dark fantasy epic and being a political story all at the same time. There's a way that this can be done (look at Origins), but Inquisition just tried to stuff in too much all at once while also leaving out the real meat that could've made it as great as Origins if not better.

 

As for why I keep bringing up Origins, its because I've been waiting for a Dragon Age sequel that builds off of what made the first dragon age game great into something that's better. I've yet to see that game and after Inquisition, I'm certain now that it will never happen.

 

Either because BW is incapable of making that game or because it simply isn't interested. (they can't or they won't)

 

Endlessly reiterating the same crap will not all of a sudden make it true.

 

[ShadowLordXII]

snip

 

I merely spoke the truth.

 

BW hasn't topped Origins and Inquisition was their opportunity to do so. Instead, we got a good game that still misses the mark in key areas. Key Areas that leave it objectively weaker than Origins though still better than DA2. (again not too hard)

 

I've accepted that BW either can't or simply isn't interested in building off of their last masterpiece. So this whole "moving on thing" is a strawman on your part.

 

I'm just disappointed because I know and have seen that BW can do better.

[correctamundo]

I merely spoke the truth.

 

BW hasn't topped Origins and Inquisition was their opportunity to do so. Instead, we got a good game that still misses the mark in key areas. Key Areas that leave it objectively weaker than Origins though still better than DA2. (again not too hard)

 

I've accepted that BW either can't or simply isn't interested in building off of their last masterpiece. So this whole "moving on thing" is a strawman on your part.

 

I'm just disappointed because I know and have seen that BW can do better.

 

It's nowhere near the truth.

 

[ShadowLordXII]

It's nowhere near the truth.

 

 

How so?

 

Are you going to actually debate my post or just say "no you're wrong" without any actual argument or viewpoint behind it?

[correctamundo]

How so?

 

Are you going to actually debate my post or just say "no you're wrong" without any actual argument or viewpoint behind it?

 

There is nothing to debate. We have our opinions, I just don't confuse mine with some "universal truth".

[GoldenGail3]

There is nothing to debate. We have our opinions, I just don't confuse mine with some "universal truth".

All opinions can be 'universal truths'.

[robertthebard]

How so?

 

Are you going to actually debate my post or just say "no you're wrong" without any actual argument or viewpoint behind it?

It's hard to debate a personal opinion.  I know, I just started to try, and back buttoned out because it's your opinion.  My opinion varies wildly from your own.  I don't mind, for example, that the Mage/Templar war was rather abbreviated.  An actual scenario where you had to actually work it out would have been a game unto itself, and so wasn't the point of this one, just another thing going on.  That's just touching on one issue that I've seen brought up in this thread, regardless of whether it's your view or not.

 

However, the point of contention that I have is stating an opinion as an objective truth.  Since it's an opinion, it's subjective, and can easily vary between two different people.  The context is the same, but the perceptions/feelings about it aren't.  I enjoyed Origins, despite all the flaws that I saw in it, all the way through the game, such as being forced to play errand boy to the different factions, instead of telling them to resolve their crap and send a messenger when they're ready to end the Blight.  I absolutely despised people talking at my Warden, instead of to my Warden.  All points that made it inferior to Inquisition, to me.

[robertthebard]

All opinions can be 'universal truths'.

 

Really?  Because in my opinion, a silent protagonist sucks, so now, because all opinions can be universal truths, everyone must believe that too?

[GoldenGail3]

It's hard to debate a personal opinion.  I know, I just started to try, and back buttoned out because it's your opinion.  My opinion varies wildly from your own.  I don't mind, for example, that the Mage/Templar war was rather abbreviated.  An actual scenario where you had to actually work it out would have been a game unto itself, and so wasn't the point of this one, just another thing going on.  That's just touching on one issue that I've seen brought up in this thread, regardless of whether it's your view or not.
 
However, the point of contention that I have is stating an opinion as an objective truth.  Since it's an opinion, it's subjective, and can easily vary between two different people.  The context is the same, but the perceptions/feelings about it aren't.  I enjoyed Origins, despite all the flaws that I saw in it, all the way through the game, such as being forced to play errand boy to the different factions, instead of telling them to resolve their crap and send a messenger when they're ready to end the Blight.  I absolutely despised people talking at my Warden, instead of to my Warden.  All points that made it inferior to Inquisition, to me.

The Inquistor was far more of a errand boy then the Warden, lol. And so was Hawke; all the dang heroes have been errand boys so far.

[GoldenGail3]

Really?  Because in my opinion, a silent protagonist sucks, so now, because all opinions can be universal truths, everyone must believe that too?

Kay.

[ShadowLordXII]

There is nothing to debate. We have our opinions, I just don't confuse mine with some "universal truth".

 

I wasn't asking your opinion, I was asking for your counterpoint to why Origins is an objectively and inherently stronger game than Inquisition.

 

But if you're going to chicken out and hide behind the whole "everyone has their own opinion" thing, then that's fine with me.

 

It's hard to debate a personal opinion.  I know, I just started to try, and back buttoned out because it's your opinion.  My opinion varies wildly from your own.  I don't mind, for example, that the Mage/Templar war was rather abbreviated.  An actual scenario where you had to actually work it out would have been a game unto itself, and so wasn't the point of this one, just another thing going on.  That's just touching on one issue that I've seen brought up in this thread, regardless of whether it's your view or not.

 

However, the point of contention that I have is stating an opinion as an objective truth.  Since it's an opinion, it's subjective, and can easily vary between two different people.  The context is the same, but the perceptions/feelings about it aren't.  I enjoyed Origins, despite all the flaws that I saw in it, all the way through the game, such as being forced to play errand boy to the different factions, instead of telling them to resolve their crap and send a messenger when they're ready to end the Blight.  I absolutely despised people talking at my Warden, instead of to my Warden.  All points that made it inferior to Inquisition, to me.

 

I personally like both games, but I can objectively judge Origins as the superior game.

 

And I'm going to keep using the word objective because there are ways to judge whether one of two games is inherently superior to the other. Otherwise, one could say that Superman 64 is as good of a game as The Last of Us. But that's not true. It's not true because Last of Us has inherently superior qualities that make it run laps around Superman 64 which is judged as one of the worst if not the worst video games ever made because of its inherent failings.

 

Seriously, stop with this extremist relativist nonsense and its a strawman anyway since I never claimed that my opinion is stronger than anyone else's. The OP wanted to ask folks about how they felt about Inquisition and I spoke both my personal and non-personal viewpoint on the game. I like Inquisition and do agree both personally and objectively that it's a good game, but I lament that its weaker than Origins since BW seemed capable of surpassing that game this time.

 

That's not an opinion. Origins has inherent qualities in its design that made it a spectacular game. Qualities which were abandoned in DA2 and then mostly forgotten for Inquisition. Hence why Inquisition has a weaker story compared to Origins; has weaker immersion compared to Origins; has weaker antagonists compared to Origins;has weaker gameplay compared to Origins; has a weaker PC compared to Origins and has weaker replay value. Inquisition does do a few things better than Origins such as graphics; character skills; Improved Character Creation; A central theme that goes off the beaten trail and makes folks think; the Inquisition Influence system; and the Presentation of Combat, but Origins is still clearly the superior game.

 

For example, you brought up how Inquisition side-steps the mage-templar conflict and were disappointed by it. Wouldn't you agree that how Origins handled a similar though smaller scale conflict is superior? Especially since that game let you engage both sides and make an effective and informed choice between the pro-mage, pro-templar or kill all mages options in accordance to your character's morality and beliefs?

 

Now if you'd like to debate this angle and counter with facts and reasoning to how Inquisition is a stronger game than Origins, then I'm all ears. If you don't want to debate, then feel free to walk away, I'm not forcing you to do anything.

 

I'm merely participating in the discussion. Don't like what I have to say? Too bad.