153 réponses à ce sujet

[hoechlbear]

• Why is is such a big deal if a story line changes doing one thing or the other? Namely, if the story told has immersive value, why does this even matter?
• Why is it better to have a game where RPing is trumped by choice consequence?

 

 

To some people, having choices that matter and have consequences can add a lot of replay value to a game. TW3 has a set character and some may think that adds zero replayability to the game, but at least for me, it doesn't, specially when the quests have so many choices and outcomes. DAI adds no replay value because the sidequests are all the same, you can't make choices in more than half of them and even on the main story, there's only a few choices that truly change something (like going with mages or templars, drink or not from the well). I'm not saying it's a requirement to have consequences to all our choices, it's just nice when it happens. It's good to know my choices affect something, no matter how small, and that I can see it happening, instead of just being told.

 

 

• Why do different games need to be compared to see which one is better and which one is worse? Isn't it a matter of taste (especially for AAA games)? Can't you enjoy both games and actually like them for the differences they have rather than just having a one size fits all template? Isn't it much much better that Devs choose to hone in their focus on different things?

 

Well, that's the definition of "opinions", which is what we are giving here. Why is it such a big deal to you if someone says they prefer one game over the other? The OP asked how is DAI compared to TW3 and I simply stated my opinion. Feel free to add yours. Yes, they are different games, one lets you create your character, the other doesn't, one has tactical combat, the other is more action combat. But at the end of the day they are both RPGs, they have a heavy focus on characters and their story and they both have sidequests and an open world, so people mainly compare those. At the end of the day, people just want to have fun playing these games, so obviously they are going to have a favorite and a least favorite. I played DAI first before playing any TW games. I only played TW3 because I heard good things about it, and the game gave me everything DAI failed to give: memorable NPCs, personal story that is connected to the protagonist and is full of ups and downs, open world that feels alive not only because there's day and night cycle and weather but also because you have tons of NPC encounters as you explore and it's full of fleshed out sidequests and interesting places to visit (like a huge city). Again, my opinion.

 

DA:I has objectively different things in it and tries to accomplish different things than TW3. I could spout out off the top of my head a few things that one game has that the other doesn't, but I think just one will drive the point home. DA:I is a game with a party and TW3 is not. This is a major focus of DA:I, but to say TW3 should be a party game is a terrible thing to want out of that game, and for good reason. TW3 is a game based on some of the life events of a particular character who largely travels alone and it was written in the books that way, so because of that, you are not seeing many (prolly only a handful) people saying TW3 should be party based. Likewise, the DA series has had companions as a staple that has made such a huge impact, that nearly no one even gives it a second thought that DA:I should be a solo game. This is one example, I'm sure people can come up with many many more. No, I don't want people to think that I think TW3 is a bad game.. far far from it. But like I said, both games have things in them that do not even compare to each other.

 

 

No one is talking about companions though? I've only been talking about sidequests and choices, so I'm not sure how the discussion came to this point. DAO and DA2 also has companions but they weren't filled with boring quests that give you no choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To some people, having choices that matter and have consequences can add a lot of replay value to a game. TW3 has a set character and some may think that adds zero replayability to the game, but at least for me, it doesn't, specially when the quests have so many choices and outcomes. DAI adds no replay value because the sidequests are all the same, you can't make choices in more than half of them and even on the main story, there's only a few choices that truly change something (like going with mages or templars, drink or not from the well). I'm not saying it's a requirement to have consequences to all our choices, it's just nice when it happens. It's good to know my choices affect something, no matter how small, and that I can see it happening, instead of just being told.

There's one big choice available in every side quest, and that is whether to do them. That's one way in which side quests are far superior to main quests.

Really, all quests should do that. "Because it's in my journal" is not sufficient reason to do a quest.

Every single thing you do in either game is a reflection of who your character is, and because you're the one making that choice, that means you're the one deciding what the relevant aspect of you character is. That should work in both games.

To me, it's the little choices that matter most, because there are more of them. I have my character form opinions about the NPCs. That informs whether he trusts or likes each NPC. That also informa whether he's joking or serious when he says a given line, and then the NPCs reaction to that line completes the feedback loop.

Is that sort of thing possible in TW3? I haven't played it (because action combat).

The way I play, every quest has choices and every quest has multiple possible outcomes.

Well, that's the definition of "opinions", which is what we are giving here. Why is it such a big deal to you if someone says they prefer one game over the other? The OP asked how is DAI compared to TW3 and I simply stated my opinion. Feel free to add yours. Yes, they are different games, one lets you create your character, the other doesn't, one has tactical combat, the other is more action combat. But at the end of the day they are both RPGs, they have a heavy focus on characters and their story and they both have sidequests and an open world, so people mainly compare those. At the end of the day, people just want to have fun playing these games, so obviously they are going to have a favorite and a least favorite. I played DAI first before playing any TW games. I only played TW3 because I heard good things about it, and the game gave me everything DAI failed to give: memorable NPCs, personal story that is connected to the protagonist and is full of ups and downs, open world that feels alive not only because there's day and night cycle and weather but also because you have tons of NPC encounters as you explore and it's full of fleshed out sidequests and interesting places to visit (like a huge city). Again, my opinion.

A heavy focus on story is a problem. I like DAI because I have the freedom to ignore the story a lot, and because that story is written for us in only very broad strokes (unlike DA2, or ME2 & ME3).

The story the devs write might matter to the devs, but I'm much more interested in crafting a character and getting dropped in the world, and then being largely left alone to do what I want.

TW3 opens with an extended scene establishing many details about Geralt, yes? I don’t like that. Even ignoring that I think cinematics of any sort are a mistake in RPGs, I'd much rather my character have no fixed background. DAI gives us BioWare's least well established PC since NWN (or arguably KotOR, but that's a bigger discussion).

No one is talking about companions though? I've only been talking about sidequests and choices, so I'm not sure how the discussion came to this point. DAO and DA2 also has companions but they weren't filled with boring quests that give you no choice.

DA2 was almost nothing but quests in which we had no choices. Mandatory quests would appear in your journal unbidden (even if you'd refused the quest-giver when asked - Javaris - or even without speaking to one at all - Meredith). Then your only option was the completely the quest non-voluntarily, or stop playing. And fetch quests would go one step farther and auto-complete, denying us even a dialogue event.

Was it even possible not to do Fenris's first quest after meeting him? It was possible to avoid meeting him, but only by accident. Once he's been met, can he simply be ignored?

[hoechlbear]

There's one big choice available in every side quest, and that is whether to do them. That's one way in which side quests are far superior to main quests.

Really, all quests should do that. "Because it's in my journal" is not sufficient reason to do a quest.

Every single thing you do in either game is a reflection of who your character is, and because you're the one making that choice, that means you're the one deciding what the relevant aspect of you character is. That should work in both games.

To me, it's the little choices that matter most, because there are more of them. I have my character form opinions about the NPCs. That informs whether he trusts or likes each NPC. That also informa whether he's joking or serious when he says a given line, and then the NPCs reaction to that line completes the feedback loop.

Is that sort of thing possible in TW3? I haven't played it (because action combat).

The way I play, every quest has choices and every quest has multiple possible outcomes.
A heavy focus on story is a problem. I like DAI because I have the freedom to ignore the story a lot, and because that story is written for us in only very broad strokes (unlike DA2, or ME2 & ME3).

The story the devs write might matter to the devs, but I'm much more interested in crafting a character and getting dropped in the world, and then being largely left alone to do what I want.

TW3 opens with an extended scene establishing many details about Geralt, yes? I don’t like that. Even ignoring that I think cinematics of any sort are a mistake in RPGs, I'd much rather my character have no fixed background. DAI gives us BioWare's least well established PC since NWN (or arguably KotOR, but that's a bigger discussion).
DA2 was almost nothing but quests in which we had no choices. Mandatory quests would appear in your journal unbidden (even if you'd refused the quest-giver when asked - Javaris - or even without speaking to one at all - Meredith). Then your only option was the completely the quest non-voluntarily, or stop playing. And fetch quests would go one step farther and auto-complete, denying us even a dialogue event.

Was it even possible not to do Fenris's first quest after meeting him? It was possible to avoid meeting him, but only by accident. Once he's been met, can he simply be ignored?

 

The difference between DA2 and DAI sidequests is that, even if it didn't give you many choices, at least you could react to what the NPCs told you. I recall my playthroughs as Purple Hawke, it was quite ridiculous sometimes but it gave me a good laugh replying sarcastically to everyone. From what I remember from DAI's sidequests, a NPC tells you something terrible and you can't even choose to say something like "sorry that happened" and you can't even decline the quest. The choice you are given is "the quest is on your journal, you either do it or leave it there to rot". That really bugs me because it feels like my character is this emotionless robot who doesn't react to what is happening around them. I don't want to think "what would my character do or say?", I want to hear them saying it.

 

I agree with you that the little choices and little details are also something I value the most. TW3 has a lot of those moments. Like if you choose to attack some guys at a tavern, later on on the story you will have to do things differently because you chose the aggressive way. Or if you choose to give advice to a man you encounter on the road, you will later on see him again and the outcome of your advice, or if you choose to try to save a woman's life, even though it's risky, you will later on find out what happened to her because you decided to take that risk. This is something I didn't see happening in DAI, apart from very few exceptions. I mean, most of the maps are nothing but wilderness, so NPC interaction is very limited as it is. The way you choose to approach a certain NPC also determines the way those NPCs talk back to you and how they will treat you, maybe with more respect and fondness or maybe with a bit of disdain and aggressiveness. I've seen it happening with at least two main characters, plus a few other NPCs. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

The difference between DA2 and DAI sidequests is that, even if it didn't give you many choices, at least you could react to what the NPCs told you. I recall my playthroughs as Purple Hawke, it was quite ridiculous sometimes but it gave me a good laugh replying sarcastically to everyone. From what I remember from DAI's sidequests, a NPC tells you something terrible and you can't even choose to say something like "sorry that happened" and you can't even decline the quest. The choice you are given is "the quest is on your journal, you either do it or leave it there to rot". That really bugs me because it feels like my character is this emotionless robot who doesn't react to what is happening around them. I don't want to think "what would my character do or say?", I want to hear them saying it.

I agree with you that the little choices and little details are also something I value the most. TW3 has a lot of those moments. Like if you choose to attack some guys at a tavern, later on on the story you will have to do things differently because you chose the aggressive way. Or if you choose to give advice to a man you encounter on the road, you will later on see him again and the outcome of your advice, or if you choose to try to save a woman's life, even though it's risky, you will later on find out what happened to her because you decided to take that risk. This is something I didn't see happening in DAI, apart from very few exceptions. I mean, most of the maps are nothing but wilderness, so NPC interaction is very limited as it is. The way you choose to approach a certain NPC also determines the way those NPCs talk back to you and how they will treat you, maybe with more respect and fondness or maybe with a bit of disdain and aggressiveness. I've seen it happening with at least two main characters, plus a few other NPCs.

That you can reduce your character to "Purple Hawke" is a problem.

Experiencing emotions and displaying emotions are two different (and largely unrelated) things. For me Hawke (and Shepard) felt like automotons, because I didn't understand the mindset behind their behaviours. At least in DAI (and even moreso in the silent protagonist games) I got to decide what those emotions were before choosing the option.

But doing that in DA2 and ME never made sense, because the actual lines and delivery were so unpredictable.

[TheOrangeProject]

That you can reduce your character to "Purple Hawke" is a problem.

Experiencing emotions and displaying emotions are two different (and largely unrelated) things. For me Hawke (and Shepard) felt like automotons, because I didn't understand the mindset behind their behaviours. At least in DAI (and even moreso in the silent protagonist games) I got to decide what those emotions were before choosing the option.

But doing that in DA2 and ME never made sense, because the actual lines and delivery were so unpredictable.

 

 

This is rather strange, to state that DAI is good in that.

 

This is one of my problems with DAI, because I can simply not predict what the reactions of my charater is. I chose an option and then I am like: This nowhere what I wanted to say, but yeah.

 

Besides that stating that reducing his/her hawke to "purple hawke" is a problem is pretty much a form of a paternalistic way of arguing, even more since you have ni information what kind of person the player wants to play. If the purple hawke is a fitting representation of the intentions of the player so be it. 

 

Experiencing emotions and displaying emotions is certainly not unrelated, just because they are different doesn't mean they are not related. To state this as a fact is highly problematic. Experience leads often to actions. Starting from the feeling of pain up to love. There is literally a ton of literatue in academic fields like psychology, philosophy and social sciene which are dealing with those things. Just saying. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is rather strange, to state that DAI is good in that.

This is one of my problems with DAI, because I can simply not predict what the reactions of my charater is. I chose an option and then I am like: This nowhere what I wanted to say, but yeah.

I found DAI's paraphrases to be, by far, the best BioWare has done.

They're still not as good as full text, but they'll do.

Whereas, DA2's paraphrases may as well have not been there, they were so utterly worthless.

Besides that stating that reducing his/her hawke to "purple hawke" is a problem is pretty much a form of a paternalistic way of arguing, even more since you have ni information what kind of person the player wants to play. If the purple hawke is a fitting representation of the intentions of the player so be it.

There are only 3 colours of Hawke available.

Experiencing emotions and displaying emotions is certainly not unrelated, just because they are different doesn't mean they are not related. To state this as a fact is highly problematic. Experience leads often to actions. Starting from the feeling of pain up to love. There is literally a ton of literatue in academic fields like psychology, philosophy and social sciene which are dealing with those things. Just saying.

It's entirely possible to experience an emotion without displaying it. Someone who displays no emotion isn't necessarily emotionless.

And yes, there is considerable academic work on the subject. But when reading Psychology, in particular, pay close attention to the simplifying assumptions.

[UniformGreyColor]

To some people, having choices that matter and have consequences can add a lot of replay value to a game. TW3 has a set character and some may think that adds zero replayability to the game, but at least for me, it doesn't, specially when the quests have so many choices and outcomes. DAI adds no replay value because the sidequests are all the same, you can't make choices in more than half of them and even on the main story, there's only a few choices that truly change something (like going with mages or templars, drink or not from the well). I'm not saying it's a requirement to have consequences to all our choices, it's just nice when it happens. It's good to know my choices affect something, no matter how small, and that I can see it happening, instead of just being told.

 

Someone could just as easily say "I have played a character which exhibits X, Y, Z traits in one play through and A, B, C character traits in another. Being able to do that also adds replay value.

 

 

Well, that's the definition of "opinions", which is what we are giving here. Why is it such a big deal to you if someone says they prefer one game over the other? The OP asked how is DAI compared to TW3 and I simply stated my opinion. Feel free to add yours. Yes, they are different games, one lets you create your character, the other doesn't, one has tactical combat, the other is more action combat. But at the end of the day they are both RPGs, they have a heavy focus on characters and their story and they both have sidequests and an open world, so people mainly compare those. At the end of the day, people just want to have fun playing these games, so obviously they are going to have a favorite and a least favorite. I played DAI first before playing any TW games. I only played TW3 because I heard good things about it, and the game gave me everything DAI failed to give: memorable NPCs, personal story that is connected to the protagonist and is full of ups and downs, open world that feels alive not only because there's day and night cycle and weather but also because you have tons of NPC encounters as you explore and it's full of fleshed out sidequests and interesting places to visit (like a huge city). Again, my opinion.

 

 

People who are quick to say "This AAA game is great and this AAA game is terrible" are the kind of people who inherently judge things far too early. Much of that is based on a very few things that they have read and not experienced and they simply jumped on some bandwagon from something some person who they look favorably upon said.

 

Similarities between games does not at all mean that they are the same game and does not meant that those games try to accomplish the same things. Context is important. And ofc some people are going to like what a particular game tries to accomplish more than another game and what it is trying to accomplish, that is not the problem. The problem is when people say "this game is objectively good and that game is objectively bad, without weighing in on the fact that the games do not even try to accomplish the same things.

 

If you were to ask some, the replay value that you get from being able to simply use a different dichotomy from one character to another and how the other characters react to that is the most important part of a game's replay value. To those people, I'd imagine to some of them, the way things play out in a different series of events, is just a cherry on top. Also, your comparison is simply not fair. DA:I does not have changing weather or day and night cycles, but it does have lands that are vastly different from each other. And Its true its focus is largely on the inquisition and mostly about the characters in it, but it is not fair to say that DA:I lacks depth because of this. DA:I goes to great lengths to make the characters you are directly involved in seem as real and diverse as real people might be. Obviously, this is a video game and as such there is only so much the devs can do to make their char seem as realistic as a real human being, but it is still pretty amazing the way the chars react to the PC and each other. I guess its a question of breadth vs depth in this regard. DA:I has much depth in the primary char and TW3 has much breadth in how many chars are in the game. Again, it is a difference between what these games try to accomplish.

 

 

No one is talking about companions though? I've only been talking about sidequests and choices, so I'm not sure how the discussion came to this point. DAO and DA2 also has companions but they weren't filled with boring quests that give you no choice.

 

 

I've read more than a couple comments about how the only reason to play DA:I is for the way key characters interact with you as the Inquisitor and each other, care to rephrase that?

[hoechlbear]

There are only 3 colours of Hawke available.

 

The personality system in DA2 wasn't a major problem for me. Sure, they were 3 extremes but I do love my sarcastic Hawkes and I did have lots of fun playing them. The same can't be said about the Inquisitor, where I felt like they never really had a personality no matter what dialogue options I'd choose. They were always slightly funny or slightly evil. Of course I speak for myself, but I always like my characters to have a bold and strong personality that outshines the other characters. 

 

 

Someone could just as easily say "I have played a character which exhibits X, Y, Z traits in one play through and A, B, C character traits in another. Being able to do that also adds replay value.

 

I didn't say you couldn't. But to me, I could only accomplish that if I'd use my imagination. Which hey, nothing wrong with that, I'm just not a headcanon kind of person, I guess. No matter what choices I'd make in the game, my Inquisitors always felt like the same person for the most part. Which is one of the reasons why I only managed to finish one playthrough. DAI simply does not have replay value to me.

 

 

Similarities between games does not at all mean that they are the same game and does not meant that those games try to accomplish the same things. Context is important. And ofc some people are going to like what a particular game tries to accomplish more than another game and what it is trying to accomplish, that is not the problem. The problem is when people say "this game is objectively good and that game is objectively bad, without weighing in on the fact that the games do not even try to accomplish the same things.

 

If you were to ask some, the replay value that you get from being able to simply use a different dichotomy from one character to another and how the other characters react to that is the most important part of a game's replay value. To those people, I'd imagine to some of them, the way things play out in a different series of events, is just a cherry on top. Also, your comparison is simply not fair. DA:I does not have changing weather or day and night cycles, but it does have lands that are vastly different from each other. And Its true its focus is largely on the inquisition and mostly about the characters in it, but it is not fair to say that DA:I lacks depth because of this. DA:I goes to great lengths to make the characters you are directly involved in seem as real and diverse as real people might be. Obviously, this is a video game and as such there is only so much the devs can do to make their char seem as realistic as a real human being, but it is still pretty amazing the way the chars react to the PC and each other. I guess its a question of breadth vs depth in this regard. DA:I has much depth in the primary char and TW3 has much breadth in how many chars are in the game. Again, it is a difference between what these games try to accomplish.

 

The way I see it is, at the end of the day, a person buys a game and just wants to have fun playing it. Wants to enjoy a good story with interesting characters and explore an immersive world. Both games should give you that in some form. It just so happens I didn't find DAI's story, characters and world that good. I don't care how beautiful and different the maps are, if they don't have interesting content in them, then I lose all motivation to explore those maps, because they are just that, beautiful. I don't want to explore a world just to look at it, I want to find interesting things and meet interesting people. It has to give me a reason to explore the maps. I understand that Bioware games are more focused on the companions but I think having 9 companions and 3 advisors was a big mistake. Obviously there's so much they can do and I felt like the characters suffered in content because of the quantity. Apart from maybe a couple of them, I didn't feel any connection to them at all because I think the game didn't give me enough opportunities to feel that true friendship between my Inquisitor and these characters. I would much rather have half of those characters and have a bit more development to them and make them more connected to the story and my character. Most of them just felt like one more soldier for the Inquisition forces. They were just.. there. But well, opinions.

 

 

I've read more than a couple comments about how the only reason to play DA:I is for the way key characters interact with you as the Inquisitor and each other, care to rephrase that?

 

Who said that? Not me. If anything I've always said that the companions felt like the Inquisitor's employees and not so much their friends and that they lacked the chemistry we see in past games. I understand that a lot of people think that DAI's companions are the best to date, but personally, I just don't see it. I've been talking about sidequests and choices for the most part, but the conversation slowly moved away to the companions and how that is Bioware's strength. Ok, fair enough, but that doesn't mean the other aspects of the game should suffer from it. Like, why give us so many open maps if you can't connect them to the main story and can't give them some meaning? And I'm of the opinion that an open world without weather or night&day cycle just doesn't work, because it feels fake, static.

[UniformGreyColor]

You're entitled to your opinion. Not much else either of us can say at this point.

[Deanna Troy]

Words of enlightment:
1 - Yes, games should not be compared or even discussed when it comes to being good or not because it is entirely and ultimately about a person's subjectivity;
HOWEVER
2 - Technical aspects can be discussed AS LONG AS YOU REMEMBER THEY DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING AT ALL, they don't even mean the words you are using to discuss them, but yes you can discuss them and ponder what would make a game better or worse technically
3 - All kinds of game have admirers, to discuss about a game being good or technically good is all but pointless so remember it

Of all pointless things here, discussing if a game is good or not with people looking for things COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what you are looking for is the most pointless of all. It is like arguing if pizza is better than sex when one person is assexual and starving and the other one is a nymphomanic, surely both could theorize about the absolute technical qualities of pizza and sex but it would be all but pointless.

Enlightment aside, DAI tried to excell at 12 things and managed to fail at 144, still worked for a lot of people because it gives these people what they want, usually an interesting story with interesting characters (I can't really picture someone liking the gameplay, even after some here said they do). It doesn't mean it is good, or bad, it means it does have its public (unfortunately). Of all the things I have seen DAI been accused of, good combat system, good sidequests and rewarding exploration are NOT among them, make of that what you will. For me it is enough to know that the only person in the whole uni[multi(omni)]verse that matters, me, thinks it is the worse game that was ever made and that will ever be made by mankind (except for the next Bioware games, Bioware will keep on making them worse on each installment).

[Sylvius the Mad]

The personality system in DA2 wasn't a major problem for me. Sure, they were 3 extremes but I do love my sarcastic Hawkes and I did have lots of fun playing them. The same can't be said about the Inquisitor, where I felt like they never really had a personality no matter what dialogue options I'd choose. They were always slightly funny or slightly evil. Of course I speak for myself, but I always like my characters to have a bold and strong personality that outshines the other characters.

Mine always does. I don't ever find the characters I'm not roleplaying interesting.

Which is why I didn't like Hawke (or Shepard). I didn't get to play him.

[hoechlbear]

You're entitled to your opinion. Not much else either of us can say at this point.

 

Of course. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Although, even people who enjoyed Inquisition complained about the shallow sidequests and empty maps so this isn't exactly an unpopular opinion.

 

 

Mine always does. I don't ever find the characters I'm not roleplaying interesting.

Which is why I didn't like Hawke (or Shepard). I didn't get to play him.

 

I was never too bothered about playing "someone else's character" (in this case, Bioware's). Same goes to Geralt in TW3. Sure, he isn't completely my character, but I felt really attached to him by the end of the game. And it was because of the story and how personal it was. I prefer to play a game where my character has a set background, I don't like to imagine what that background is. Which is why most of the times I don't even care if I get to create my character or not, as long as the story is enjoyable and I still get to roleplay and decide how I want this character to behave, I'm all set. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I was never too bothered about playing "someone else's character" (in this case, Bioware's). Same goes to Geralt in TW3. Sure, he isn't completely my character, but I felt really attached to him by the end of the game. And it was because of the story and how personal it was. I prefer to play a game where my character has a set background, I don't like to imagine what that background is. Which is why most of the times I don't even care if I get to create my character or not, as long as the story is enjoyable and I still get to roleplay and decide how I want this character to behave, I'm all set.

They never give me enough information about the character for me to play him without making up large pieces of his personality.

But then the game comes along later and contradicts my headcanon, thereby destroying the coherence of prior decisions.

I vastly prefer a blank slate protagonist with a mysterious stranger background.

Like DAI. And NWN.

[taglag]

I just want the combat to be enjoyable and not be a mash fest. In my honest opinion Dark Souls/Bloodborne are only difficult if its your first time playing any of them and once you get the hang of it they are pretty straightforward and highly entertaining. You should try it yourself and decide if you wanna play it, it might be much easier than you thought! I also liked The Kingdoms of Amalur and Skyrim both of which were button mashers but still pretty fun to play, so it's not like I only enjoy hard games or anything.

 

  I played Dark souls 1 & 2, all though I beat them, and enjoyed them a great deal, they are very unforgiving, and let the player know constantly that if you make a mistake, all your souls are gone.. I liked them, But they are tough [ the graphics and art work in those is very impressive, in some places, and weak in others, but good overall ]. But I am not a gaming God, I try just to enjoy myself.

 

   I liked Amalur, but it is another game I got bored in and never have managed to finish. Truly enjoyed Skyrim, and all the Elder scrolls series.

 

   If you are a masochist, you will not get your gratification from DAI, but it can be challenging in places.

[duckley]

When we compare and contrast we can do so on many different levels. Same-Different or Better-Worse for example. I often find the Same-Different approach more interesting and enlightening!!

[UniformGreyColor]

They never give me enough information about the character for me to play him without making up large pieces of his personality.

But then the game comes along later and contradicts my headcanon, thereby destroying the coherence of prior decisions.

I vastly prefer a blank slate protagonist with a mysterious stranger background.

Like DAI. And NWN.

 

I think they should incorporate things like what you said in a given situation in the Keep. So lets say you play as sarcastic Hawk for example. That should be reflected in the Keep.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think they should incorporate things like what you said in a given situation in the Keep. So lets say you play as sarcastic Hawk for example. That should be reflected in the Keep.

As long as that selection isn't mandatory.  If I don't think any of those three categories adequately describe my Hawke, I should be able to opt out of that somehow.

[UniformGreyColor]

As long as that selection isn't mandatory.  If I don't think any of those three categories adequately describe my Hawke, I should be able to opt out of that somehow.

 

My point was that how you played your char should be recognised so that you're head cannon does not get contradicted. At least key discussions, besides actions took, should be included in the keep.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My point was that how you played your char should be recognised so that you're head cannon does not get contradicted. At least key discussions, besides actions took, should be included in the keep.

Sure, I get that. But one of the big problems with DA2 was the dominant personality system, and how it assumed that however Hawke behaved most of the time was applicable 100% of the time.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

  I played Dark souls 1 & 2, all though I beat them, and enjoyed them a great deal, they are very unforgiving, and let the player know constantly that if you make a mistake, all your souls are gone.. I liked them, But they are tough [ the graphics and art work in those is very impressive, in some places, and weak in others, but good overall ]. But I am not a gaming God, I try just to enjoy myself.

 

   I liked Amalur, but it is another game I got bored in and never have managed to finish. Truly enjoyed Skyrim, and all the Elder scrolls series.

 

   If you are a masochist, you will not get your gratification from DAI, but it can be challenging in places.

Haha no I'm not a masochist, not even close. I tend to play a lot of pvp in the souls games so perhaps playing against human opponents has made dealing with the AI simpler for me. I liked amalur but near the end i just blazed through the game running straight to the final boss area as I was getting kinda bored myself. Skyrim especially modded was soo much fun though, so many options! 

                                                                I''m definitely interested in DA as well since I haven't really played their style of companion or group based gameplay. I don't expect it to be anything like the souls and neither do I want it to. But I do prefer it if the combat is fun and engaging.

[taglag]

Haha no I'm not a masochist, not even close. I tend to play a lot of pvp in the souls games so perhaps playing against human opponents has made dealing with the AI simpler for me. I liked amalur but near the end i just blazed through the game running straight to the final boss area as I was getting kinda bored myself. Skyrim especially modded was soo much fun though, so many options! 

                                                                I''m definitely interested in DA as well since I haven't really played their style of companion or group based gameplay. I don't expect it to be anything like the souls and neither do I want it to. But I do prefer it if the combat is fun and engaging.

 

   I have a thread where I have been trying to determine why I have been unable to finish DAI.

 

    But that does not mean I do not enjoy it, there are so many things to do in it. I just somehow seem to get overwhelmed and as a competition-est This has been hard, mainly because there are so many side quest's, and there are a few Main story Quest's that I personally hate, they sort of put a damper on my enthusiasm.

 

    The fact that the game main villain is based off a character from a DLC has also bothered me, this again is a personal Dislike.

 

  But to give full credit, I have invested many fun hour's, and some not so fun in this game, I have more than gotten my moneys worth. But there are things your will not like, or will be upset about, the Battle system is not quite what it should have been. The number of things to do in it, can really overwhelm you if you try to finish them all.

 

   The dragon battles can be a blast, and a frustration, but they are neat

 

    I am trying to force myself to avoid doing all quests in every area this time, and stay mainly on the main quest, only finishing what i need to in-order to advance, power point wise.

   I love the crafting system, but the number of Different looks to the Armors is not much. ( Choices in fashion are very limited ) Which is something I truly Loved about skyrim, and all the mods, Gosh, I can wear something different there every time I load up the game. 

 

    I think you will enjoy it, if your not a die hard completion-est like me ( I still enjoy it though, I just have trouble finishing  ) then you should have lots of fun.

[Duelist]

Haha no I'm not a masochist, not even close. I tend to play a lot of pvp in the souls games so perhaps playing against human opponents has made dealing with the AI simpler for me. I liked amalur but near the end i just blazed through the game running straight to the final boss area as I was getting kinda bored myself. Skyrim especially modded was soo much fun though, so many options!
I''m definitely interested in DA as well since I haven't really played their style of companion or group based gameplay. I don't expect it to be anything like the souls and neither do I want it to. But I do prefer it if the combat is fun and engaging.

How you like to play Dark Souls may have some bearing on how engaging you find DA's combat.

For instance, in DS my preferred build is a light armour wearing spear fighter who relies on mobility for defence and countering for offence.
The closest thing DA has to such a build is the Rogue class and even then it took until DA2 to get anything resembling mobility that wasn't reliant on stats.

[UniformGreyColor]

Sure, I get that. But one of the big problems with DA2 was the dominant personality system, and how it assumed that however Hawke behaved most of the time was applicable 100% of the time.

 

I'm surprised you didn't just say its because of too few RP options. I guess it goes a little deeper than that.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

How you like to play Dark Souls may have some bearing on how engaging you find DA's combat.

For instance, in DS my preferred build is a light armour wearing spear fighter who relies on mobility for defence and countering for offence.
The closest thing DA has to such a build is the Rogue class and even then it took until DA2 to get anything resembling mobility that wasn't reliant on stats.

Yes I usually play a really mobile playstyle too except that I love using a the big ultra greatswords and maybe a little pyromancy. I don't really use a shield except for parrying either.  But I'm not looking for a similar system of combat. I use to play a greatsword character in skyrim too and the combat is very very different in that. In fact there's not even a roll option in skyrim. But I still enjoyed it for it's own reasons. On the other hand, the combat in Kingdoms of Amalur was decent but got stale pretty fast and so towards the end I just ran through half the world map without fighting to kill the end boss. 

[Teabaggin Krogan]

I...

Btw I did check out the link in your signature and since I was curious as to what my own gaming preferences are, I took their survey and this is what it looks like. Of course internet surveys are best taken with a grain of salt but just to give anyone interested an idea about my in game habits;

https://goo.gl/VbHZRk