173 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolven_Soul]

You separate things that you like from things that are interesting?    I usually like things specifically because I find them interesting... It's hard to like something boring after all...

 

Just because something isn't interesting doesn't mean it is boring.  I find Mel Brooks movies funny as hell and fun to watch, but interesting movies they are not.  Naturally things I find interesting I tend to like a lot more, which is why I like the cast from Origins a lot more than I do the cast from Inquisition.

[straykat]

Just because something isn't interesting doesn't mean it is boring.  I find Mel Brooks movies funny as hell and fun to watch, but interesting movies they are not.  Naturally things I find interesting I tend to like a lot more, which is why I like the cast from Origins a lot more than I do the cast from Inquisition.

 

I agree.. Mel Brooks rocks.

 

But it's boneheaded.

 

I just expected something less boneheaded from Dragon Age. It's all about expectations.

[straykat]

At what point did Bull make decisions? A promotional clip made for a trailer which never happens in the game isn't making decisions. He has no authority, he's under your command. I'm not sure where you got the idea that these other characters make decisions for you...

 

And your other argument is the fact they gave a cheesy name to an achievement?? 

 

I've already pointed out how random the cast of Origins is compared to these guys.

 

 

That cast is mostly consistent with the themes of the game. A big theme of DAO is Death. It comes up almost everywhere. Even Sten lives up to this in his recruitment. The other big theme is Duty, which he really lives up to. Although they're entirely different characters, Wynne, Alistair, Sten, and Leliana talk about this stuff often. And even Morrigan, but she plays the opposite angle of Survival.

 

My point is, when they have a good subtext that all the characters get into, it doesn't feel that random. That's well thought out literature to me. Not to mention the Wardens are represented by neutrality and diversity anyways. It can't be that random because that's what they're billed as to begin with.

 

DA2 is often about home or identity. It does it well. Everyone from Fenris to Anders to Merrill go on about it. And DAI is Faith. Except it fails at it. It's so pointless that players like yourself think Female Elves and Solas are the main hook. And they're not necessarily wrong. A game about inquisitions and the Chantry lacks direction to the point that one can convince themselves it's really about playing Elven Twilight. And you get to be Bella Swan, who entices the mysterious outsider with a certain "something"... Yet has seen everything. The only thing it has in common with the rest of the game is it's for people who want their egos fed. As if being worshipped wasn't enough.

[Realmzmaster]

Too many people from the Origins team are gone. The sad fact is they have different creative goals now. 

Needing to go back to their Origin roots would start with the writing. Since the first statement in the OP has to do with the story and characters. That comes down to writing. David Gaider was the writing lead in all three games and the writers are basically the same. The Universe came from the creative minds of the writers not Brent Knowles. Also reading the credits most of the programming staff and designers are still with Bioware.

[Akrabra]

I agree.. Mel Brooks rocks.

 

But it's boneheaded.

 

I just expected something less boneheaded from Dragon Age. It's all about expectations.

Wow, you really dislike Inquisition, don't you?

[straykat]

Wow, you really dislike Inquisition, don't you?

 

Only because I like DA. "It's because I love you that I hate you!"

 

That's a different kind of dislike than, say... what you find at the RPGCodex.

 

 

And I have the right. I was duped into buying the Collector's Edition even. I was hyped before release. I mean well

[Hanako Ikezawa]

No thank you. I much prefer Inquisition to Origins so do not want them backtracking. 

[GoldenGail3]

No thank you. I much prefer Inquisition to Origins so do not want them backtracking.

I'd pefer if they backtracking - them going foward without Origns once more is insulting - it's what got me into the DA universe in the first place. And it sucked the joy out of me to know that the Inquistor's background is as ambigous and bland as The Elder Scrolls series (which I happen to like; Besthuda knows what's it's doing).

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'd pefer if they backtracking - them going foward without Origns once more is insulting - it's what got me into the DA universe in the first place. And it sucked the joy out of me to know that the Inquistor's background is as ambigous and bland as The Elder Scrolls series (which I happen to like; Besthuda knows what's it's doing).

The origins were actually one of my least favorite parts of Dragon Age: Origins. I much prefer the backstory be ambiguous and vague when playing a character with so much about them up to the player.

[Shechinah]

I'll be honest and say that while I do like origin stories, I like ambigious and vague backstories more. Inquisition did it by allowing the player character to form their life and opinion on said life through dialogue options which I loved. I feel there is room for improvements especially in terms of how often you have the chance to do so but I find that I rather like it more than origin stories.

[Abyss108]

I like the Origins, but they do feel more restricting. I can't play multiple characters from the same Origin because once I see how their life is, my characters personality is based off that. I can't see how two people with completely different personalities would end up in the same place with the same people who all think exactly the same of you.

 

I don't have this problem in Inquisition. Though, I kinda have the opposite problem, with being unable to play anyone that isn't an Elf... That has nothing to do with the lack of Origins though.

[GoldenGail3]

The origins were actually one of my least favorite parts of Dragon Age: Origins. I much prefer the backstory be ambiguous and vague when playing a character with so much about them up to the player.

So like The Elder Scrolls, pretty much? And DAI is pretty much took some stuff for Skyrim; like the open world (which Besthuda did so much better than Bioware), the ambigous background... I play DA not for the ambigous backgrounds that makes the Inqusitor seem lifeless, but for the Origins. I wil play Skyrim for the ambigous background, not DA. You may consider it weak - but it's what distinguishes it from Skyrim and those other RPG's, which is what makes DA seem more alive to me.

[fchopin]

Ever since DA2, there's been a change at Bioware, and I don't like it.

I think it should be ME2 and not DA2.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I think it should be ME2 and not DA2.

Perhaps you're right. It's hard for me to pinpoint exactly. I mean, ME2 and ME3 had some great moments.

[Realmzmaster]

So like The Elder Scrolls, pretty much? And DAI is pretty much took some stuff for Skyrim; like the open world (which Besthuda did so much better than Bioware), the ambigous background... I play DA not for the ambigous backgrounds that makes the Inqusitor seem lifeless, but for the Origins. I wil play Skyrim for the ambigous background, not DA. You may consider it weak - but it's what distinguishes it from Skyrim and those other RPG's, which is what makes DA seem more alive to me.

 

Elder Scrolls? More like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were the only background was that the character was the Bhalspawn. The rest of the back story and all other aspects were left to the gamer. In fact Bioware allowed the gamer to write the main character's background. The main character could also be any race. The main character also had to discover why he/she was being hunted. All the gamer knew was that he/she was Gorion's ward. The discovery of the main character being a Bhalsawn did not happen until later in the game.

 

So in DAI Bioware went back to its first very successful game which was BG1. So Bioware did go back to its roots so to speak.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Honestly, the lack of an origin story really hurt DAI. At the very least, they should've showed us arrive at the conclave and mingle a little bit. Your only real backstory in DAI is in the form of a codex entry.

[Akrabra]

Honestly, the lack of an origin story really hurt DAI. At the very least, they should've showed us arrive at the conclave and mingle a little bit. Your only real backstory in DAI is in the form of a codex entry.

I just love that starting a New game from the Main Menu is the cause of the explosion, seems fitting. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Honestly, the lack of an origin story really hurt DAI. At the very least, they should've showed us arrive at the conclave and mingle a little bit. Your only real backstory in DAI is in the form of a codex entry.

That would have hurt it even more, since part of the plot is you don't remember what happened at the Conclave. You can't do that nearly as well when the player knows what happened. 

[Abyss108]

Gotta love the way half the fanbase complains they don't know what happened at the conclave when your own character isn't supposed to know, and the other half complains about the epilogue letting you know information your character doesn't...

 

Bioware can't win. 

[Blooddrunk1004]

What is miss from Origins:

 

In Origins they weren't afraid to have a traditional dialogue system where your character was mute. Having the character speak is not always bad because i think in Witcher series it is great and it's still a roleplaying game even though you're playing as a specific person as Geralt, you're still role-playing and you still have all choices. Where as in Origins you were able to use the dialogue choices to turn your blank slate into something else. Into someone fundamentally different that you could define and truly roleplay. That wasn't the case in DA2 and Inquisition because of how simplistic the dialogue options are, same for Fallout 4.

 

It seems to me that way too many RPGs nowadays are doing where players want to feel they are litteraly inside the game world as a protagonist. Which is something that RPG don't necessarily have to be.

[GoldenGail3]

Elder Scrolls? More like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were the only background was that the character was the Bhalspawn. The rest of the back story and all other aspects were left to the gamer. In fact Bioware allowed the gamer to write the main character's background. The main character could also be any race. The main character also had to discover why he/she was being hunted. All the gamer knew was that he/she was Gorion's ward. The discovery of the main character being a Bhalsawn did not happen until later in the game.
 
So in DAI Bioware went back to its first very successful game which was BG1. So Bioware did go back to its roots so to speak.

I never said that other games were more successful in that; feel free to think that. And I said DAO was the start of DA which had Origins it; I mean it that in the way they should go back to Origins (which was the start of the DA series) where I'd play those games for the ambious background; I find the ambigous background dull and down right boring in DAI; the Inqusitor was a huge blank slate and I hated Bioware for NOT making Origin stories in DA. And I was comparing it to the Elder Scrolls as they were blanks slates that I felt were okay (they're good at it; Bethusda...)

And the fact that DA starts with Origins but ingores it is insulting to me. I like the Warden; but the writers must feel that DAO was a mistake or something, becuase they gave us DA2. A game nobody wanted. Humph, I lack confidence in DA, to be honest....

[Wolven_Soul]

The origins were actually one of my least favorite parts of Dragon Age: Origins. I much prefer the backstory be ambiguous and vague when playing a character with so much about them up to the player.

 

The origin stories did not at all keep you from making the character exactly the way that you wanted it.  You want your Elf to be a xenophobic, human hating jerkbag?  You can do that.  You prefer he be more cooperative, wanting to find better ways for humans and elves to live together?  You can do that.  The backstory only provides a history for the character, the character's personality is still completely up to you.  The backstory though, allows for a better story overall, and it provides opportunity for unique content in the playthrough.  My dwarven noble was happy to meet an old friend as a merchant in Denerim, my mage was horrified to see his old home swarming with demons.  You just don't get moments like that in Inquisition, because the only place that your background matters is on the war board, which was just really weak.

[Wolven_Soul]

That would have hurt it even more, since part of the plot is you don't remember what happened at the Conclave. You can't do that nearly as well when the player knows what happened. 

 

Well considering the plot is fairly weak...maybe a different plot would have been a good idea.

[Wolven_Soul]

I like the Origins, but they do feel more restricting. I can't play multiple characters from the same Origin because once I see how their life is, my characters personality is based off that. I can't see how two people with completely different personalities would end up in the same place with the same people who all think exactly the same of you.

 

I don't have this problem in Inquisition. Though, I kinda have the opposite problem, with being unable to play anyone that isn't an Elf... That has nothing to do with the lack of Origins though.

 

If I worried about that sort of thing, I would simply picture it in my mind as an alternate reality.  

[Wolven_Soul]

What is miss from Origins:

 

In Origins they weren't afraid to have a traditional dialogue system where your character was mute. Having the character speak is not always bad because i think in Witcher series it is great and it's still a roleplaying game even though you're playing as a specific person as Geralt, you're still role-playing and you still have all choices. Where as in Origins you were able to use the dialogue choices to turn your blank slate into something else. Into someone fundamentally different that you could define and truly roleplay. That wasn't the case in DA2 and Inquisition because of how simplistic the dialogue options are, same for Fallout 4.

 

It seems to me that way too many RPGs nowadays are doing where players want to feel they are litteraly inside the game world as a protagonist. Which is something that RPG don't necessarily have to be.

 

I can agree there.  I have said it before that when I was younger, I wanted more games to be fully voiced, as back then it just seemed so much more cool.  Now that I am older and I see how much it limits the dialogue, I am starting to want to go back to silent protagonists with their more varied options.