173 réponses à ce sujet

[GoldenGail3]

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.

I sort of dislike voiced Progies... Even though I had no idea how to play Revan. Lol. Dat game was confusing.

[Seracen]

Inquisition did a good job in the character department.  But much of our attachment came from the setup that was done in previous games.  Standalone, games just aren't given enough time to breath in order to forge those connections...not anymore or that often, at any rate.  Inquisition also did an admirable job with the story.  I think it slipped a little in terms of agency over the game.  There really weren't that many meaningful choices that affected the endgame.

 

Mages vs Templars was an interesting wrinkle, what with Calpernia vs Samson, but that's basically two playthroughs, not the multiple variations that Origins touted.  Which is fine, considering what game budgets are nowadays.  It's certainly more ambitious than most anyone else.  If I were to change anything about Inquisition, it'd be the fetch/slog nature of some of the sidequesting (the Hinterlands kills me due to my OCD about completion before moving on, lol); and I'd add a few variations on the actual ending (the only real difference, IIRC, is basically the penultimate boss fight against Samson/Calpernia).

 

Inquisition was an interesting step for Bioware.  They will never make Origins again, EA just isn't the kind of company under which such types of games flourish.  However, I certainly think Bioware COULD get back on track, if they stay honest with themselves.  No game is truly flawless, but I was imminently satisfied with Inquisition, and it certainly rates as one of my favorite games in the last decade...

[JJ Likeaprayer]

As a loyal fan,I have to be honest...DA series is getting lesser and lesser while ME series getting better and better. I was a tiny bit disappointed of DA2 first time I played...but it was still amazing no less. When I first played DAI I almost deleted it,but after Hinterlands I got used to the new system. I'm just glad it's still BioWare doing the game,not some other studios.

[GoldenGail3]

As a loyal fan,I have to be honest...DA series is getting lesser and lesser while ME series getting better and better. I was a tiny bit disappointed of DA2 first time I played...but it was still amazing no less. When I first played DAI I almost deleted it,but after Hinterlands I got used to the new system. I'm just glad it's still BioWare doing the game,not some other studios.

ME may be getting lesser and lesser too; we haven't played Adromana so we don't really know for sure.

[bEVEsthda]

I think this vs debate might be a bit self-polarizing.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the writing itself in any of the three games. More like the purpose it serves, which is different in all three games.

 

I think DA:I is terrific game. Very enjoyable and a great experience. The only way to be disappointed in it, is to have expected a different game. Unfortunately, I think that's exactly the trap many are in. They can't re-live the DA:O (or, in a few cases, the DA2) experience. That's what's on their mind all the time, so they miss the DA:I experience.

 

That said...

I do also think Bioware did lose their way. And I think they missed a tremendous opportunity for creating a huge franchise, and a huge cash cow, when they abandoned the way and culture of DA:O, and instead tried to do other's games with marketing gospel as foundation for styling. But there's no way back now, so pin your hopes to refinements of the DA:I model instead of dreaming of the past.

 

 

And, as a funny side story, that might not be the only opportunity that Bioware missed. Recently, I happened to get stuck in the restaurant with a coffee and some very younger co-employees. They discussed games, so I threw in a few comments, playing the old grumpy (all new games stink except for graphics, etc).

What followed was first vehement disagreement on the importance of good graphics, which they all thoroughly loved and which was very important for how they rated a game. Not really any surprises there.

 

But then the shockers came in sequence! They didn't knew, at all, some of my references, but they agreed !! They agreed, and unanimously. Some noted persons would rile endlessly against the arguments I made there, had I posted them on Bioware forums, but these supposedly retarded multiplayer console-kids agreed. Not only that, they served up the examples themselves:

 

"Mass Effect" they said, out of the blue. ?What, what?  You know of Mass Effect? You've played ME? I went, dumbstruck. "Yes, Mass Effect. Of course! One of the best games ever!" [And this from an online-addicted multiplayer FP-shooter] "ME2 and ME3 are crap of course, only played them because of ME One, but Mass Effect is amazing".

- Hold on, what?  - That's what I  think, but I though ME2 and ME3 were changed to suit console kids like you better, and that they were successful?  "Nah, <laughter>, people only play ME2 and ME3 because of the first game. Everybody knows the later games are  crap."     "And besides, we don't play on consoles any more. We have gaming-PCs now".  

 

 

...Of course, they might just have been pulling my leg.

...But I don't think so.

[MC1R]

YOU CAN SKIP FIRST PARAGRAPH NOT THAT IMPORTANT ALSO THERE IS SWEARING I'M SORRY BUT IT JUST SHOWS MY POINT I'LL HIDE IT IF I KNOW HOW AND THEN YOU CAN DISABLE THE 'HIDE' FUNCTION BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT SO..... ENJOY? the game is an 18 so i should be safe?

also i've not played tresspasser yet, want to but in two minds

 

I was just about to delve back into DA:O because it is my favourite game of all time, and I was thinking why have they strayed too far, and low and behold there is this wonderful forum that I've not got involved with yet. I thought that dragon age 2 was appalling, and I went back to origins, with the announcement of inquisition I went back through both games for DA Keep. I LOVED inquisition, BUT it still does not best Origins and I think I know why and what I think DA 4 should have or go back to.

 

 WHAT IS MISSING

Gore! Finishers and being ****** GRITTY! Origins was bloody, and merciless it was a dark game with an evil hero, grey wardens make the ultimate sacrifice and are MEANT to die. This legacy tells us you may be a hero, villain, nice guy, funny or utter ass hole, but you will save the world and die, it's a thankless role. But you do it, because it is badass! you're not a panzy ass dude who got kicked out of Lothering to become a champion or some sissy with a mark (which might kill you but the ending sucked ballz Inquisitor should have died but I may come back to that in another forum) no grey wardens have a legacy and are a brilliant place to bring up a young recruit. 

IT'S IN THE NAME and origin story, that's what makes you connect with your character, not having 3 lines of text when you pick your race and class, this invests you and may come back to haunt you later depending on the mods you used, and it adds weight to the end of the game and every conscious decision you have to make.

RACE AND CLASS FREEDOM yes being a qunari is cool and i don't really have a problem with the races until it came to armour, and class, why the **** can you not be a dual wield warrior? or, a ranged one, and why cant a rogue dual wield swords or axes? and why was the armour so limiting? why were there ALL the limiting factors? in origins if you had the strength as a mage you could use weapons. This was a massive frustration for me, being a qunari but not wear any cool armours? I know lore and stuff but come on make the game fun, give us something! Origins gave you so many options and possibilities and I missed that. In an age where customisation sells why did they not exploit that in the perfect game to do it? 

CHARACTER CREATION not what you look like i think they did a damn good job, but no attributes? or skills? only abilities? and the abilities were ok but not as defined as origins. 

DECISIONS I get that you need to cut down on them because everything follows through to the next game but you can conclude your decisions like in a battle you will need one codex saying who's involved not a million lines of voiced dialogue, so give things an ending like origins, because that was well scripted and every decision you made was fairly difficult and also you make it and see the effect.

 

All in all i think inquisition was ok, but there was too much potential in it to be ok. And that's what i'm really upset about it, this series despite it's faults is still my favourite RPG series, but Origins set the bar so high, and the team is so talented I would hate for them to always fall short. 

THE COMBAT was ok but didn't have weight, you want to FEEL each blow hit and each spell hurt, not just glancing blows and dust. You want a finisher that makes your draw drop while you ride an ogre and stab it in the face, and then chop off the dropped jaws of your enemies. It was missing the cinematic and epic feel of origins. 

CHARACTERS for me were good or bland, cassandra was ok but i think too important for the canon to allow us to affect her destiny, and solas was meh until the end of the game, cole eh, vanessa eh, sera eh (i've stopped recruiting her because why?) Dorian my one love had to go gay for him because he was the best! but no one met up to morrigans mystery, allistair idiotic charm though dorian came close and i think he hit the mark of origins cast, wynnes advice, leliana's quirky deadly nature, stens....sten, and all the others had something to bring to the table. Inquisitions characters took too much time to love.

 

Honestly, when it comes down to it, I miss my warden, we need another warden character whether it's the hero or his/her student or whomever if your warden died. The inquisitor is now a loose end and I fear he/she will be our character for DA 4 the inquisitor needed to die so the vacuum of power can be filled by canon story, leaving us with another troubled world which needs fixing and some darkspawn to be murdered, or not, being a dying grey warden with no cause is a good as origin as any, as long as we have an origin or our warden let us connect with our character and give us the gore back! 

 

Those are my thoughts, rather long thoughts, so let me know what you all think and yeah, i look forward to hearing from you.

[vbibbi]

Even though I like Bull, and I liked Prinze's performance, he is not that great a character.  They could have done a much better job writing a character who was supposed to be torn between the Qun and his life in Thedas.  The problem with the characters in DA:I is that not that many of them really felt all that fleshed out.  We don't know a lot about their backgrounds except for a few of them.  Whereas in Origins we know a lot about about the history of most of the characters.  Call Leiliana crazy if you like, but you cannot deny that her background is one of the richest of the entire series.  Alistair, Morrigan, Zevran, and Wynn, and Logain all have interesting and detailed backgrounds.  The only ones that were really weak were Ogren and Sten, and well, Ogren was definitely meant to be comic relief.  

I think Oghren did have some character development, but we had to dig for it, it was hidden by the easily accessible dumb humor, and he was usually the last companion recruited so we didn't get a lot of time with him. And then he was ruined in DAA.

 

Sten also had some interesting background, more as a platform for the Qun than as an individual (which the Qun would approve of!). Unfortunately, I always had to metagame in order to unlock his dialogue, as we have to choose the "correct" options when speaking to him to access a large portion of his content.

 

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...

I think it's all a matter of taste. I find Blackwall to be one of the most boring companions in DA, even after his personal quest. I also find Solas' character rather flat, and then we learn he's actually the mastermind to a generic ending the world story. Cullen is interesting, but he has been a different character in each game he's in. Vivienne is interesting but not as nuanced as I would have hoped; her character was mostly about The Game and didn't have enough personality behind it. Josephine is sweet but a little light on content.

 

And really, apart from the members of the Inquisition, there aren't that many interesting characters. There aren't that many characters at all.

 

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.

Personal preference. It seems ironic to me, though, since the origins were one of the most unique aspects of the game--the first game in the franchise---and what made it stand out for me from a lot of other current RPGs. Most RPGs really do have a blank slate PC, which is fine, but I liked having the origins in DAO. So for me, it feels "unfair" when others are glad we moved away from it. Why not play other RPGs that allow the blank slate and let those of us who enjoyed the origins to continue having them?

 

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.

True that the Bhaalspawn could customize race and personal narrative, but that also points out the flaws in narrative-driven game to the structure of an open world RPG. Given the timeline of the Time of Troubles, having the Bhaalspawn (let alone Sendai, Abazigail, etc.) be a long-lived race didn't make much sense. The story being told made the most sense for a human, half-elf, or halfing (those aren't long-lived, right?)

 

Just in the way that it's obvious to me that DAI was planned as a human-only game from the start and the race selection was a late addition.

[Rogueheart]

A person, like this game, is the sum of all of their experiences and the product of all of the environments to which they have been exposed in their lives. They are not this or that, they are all of it. The good and the bad. They should not be set at any point in their past nor can or should they leave their past behind when moving on into the future.

 

The same is true for the game.

 

I felt the female selections for males to have relationships with were better in DAO. Cassadra was nice in DAI but Morrigan and the Spymaster for Justinia  who both were in DAO and DAI (I forget her name and am too lazy to look it up) were both far more interesting and attractive but only available in DAO, not in DAI.

 

For diversity sake I ran the Inquisition through a second time as a elf female and had a relationship with the Red Jenny rogue (I also forgot her name, its been months). I was pleasantly surprised to find the relationship was actually very fun and very playful. It made me laugh out loud a few times and they did an awesome job on that scenario. Much better than the boring relationship with Cassandra as a male. Cassandra was real, though a bit insecure and I did enjoy her also. Scout Harding would have been the best I think.

 

I think it is good when your mates are not exactly what you would make them. Such is life.

 

The song that Justinia's Spymaster sings in DAO was awesome, it was heart stirring. I was looking for a similar song in DAI and was disappointed there was none. I think they should get folk singers like that to put in some optional video/song breaks in the new game as that song was beautiful and really brought me into the age. I found it mesmerizing and intoxicating.

 

If you ran a male and wanted a female mate in DAI you had to have Cassandra who was pretty good or Josephine who I did not find attractive in looks or personality. I would have rather had the Jenny rogue girl or Scout Harding as a mate.

 

I think the relationships in the game are what makes it so great and they really need to expand on them

I think they should shoot for 4 possible mates/ story lines for each combo -male/male, male/female and female/female. Of course 5 or 6 would be better but that would be an enormous amount of work for them. They also should have more quests catered to these relationships. That too would require some work but would break up the story line and make it more personal to your relationship choices.

 

 

[Wolven_Soul]

I think this vs debate might be a bit self-polarizing.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the writing itself in any of the three games. More like the purpose it serves, which is different in all three games.

 

I think DA:I is terrific game. Very enjoyable and a great experience. The only way to be disappointed in it, is to have expected a different game. Unfortunately, I think that's exactly the trap many are in. They can't re-live the DA:O (or, in a few cases, the DA2) experience. That's what's on their mind all the time, so they miss the DA:I experience.

 

That said...

I do also think Bioware did lose their way. And I think they missed a tremendous opportunity for creating a huge franchise, and a huge cash cow, when they abandoned the way and culture of DA:O, and instead tried to do other's games with marketing gospel as foundation for styling. But there's no way back now, so pin your hopes to refinements of the DA:I model instead of dreaming of the past.

 

Well, some people were expecting a different game.  They were expecting a game that felt more like a Dragon Age game, which DA:I barely felt like in some ways.  And a part of that is the writing.  It feels off in some ways and in others there is very little logic, if any at all.

 

And to say that the only way to be disappointed in the game is because people were expecting a different game is just false.  Yes, a lot of people, myself included hold DA:O to be the best of the series.  But if DA:I had been a truly amazing game, people would have been more forgiving.  I just don't think it is an amazing game.  There are to many complaints to simply say they were wanting it to be exactly like DA:O.  Whether it be the combat, the removal of tactics and the ability to allocate our attribute points, the absolutely dull side content, the implementation of the warboard, the terrible villain, the limited armor models, just to name a few.

[Wolven_Soul]

I think Oghren did have some character development, but we had to dig for it, it was hidden by the easily accessible dumb humor, and he was usually the last companion recruited so we didn't get a lot of time with him. And then he was ruined in DAA.

 

Sten also had some interesting background, more as a platform for the Qun than as an individual (which the Qun would approve of!). Unfortunately, I always had to metagame in order to unlock his dialogue, as we have to choose the "correct" options when speaking to him to access a large portion of his content.

 

I think it's all a matter of taste. I find Blackwall to be one of the most boring companions in DA, even after his personal quest. I also find Solas' character rather flat, and then we learn he's actually the mastermind to a generic ending the world story. Cullen is interesting, but he has been a different character in each game he's in. Vivienne is interesting but not as nuanced as I would have hoped; her character was mostly about The Game and didn't have enough personality behind it. Josephine is sweet but a little light on content.

 

And really, apart from the members of the Inquisition, there aren't that many interesting characters. There aren't that many characters at all.

 

Personal preference. It seems ironic to me, though, since the origins were one of the most unique aspects of the game--the first game in the franchise---and what made it stand out for me from a lot of other current RPGs. Most RPGs really do have a blank slate PC, which is fine, but I liked having the origins in DAO. So for me, it feels "unfair" when others are glad we moved away from it. Why not play other RPGs that allow the blank slate and let those of us who enjoyed the origins to continue having them?

 

 

Yes, he had character development, but I think my point in that post was he didn't have much of a background.  All we knew about him was that he was warrior caste and that he had been married to Branka.  I did enjoy his character development overall though, his reunion with Felsi was pretty cool.  And then, as you mentioned, DA:A ruined him, I agree with that.  

 

I can see your point about Sten's background being more about the Qun than being about him, and indeed the Qunari would greatly approve of that I think.  

[vbibbi]

Yes, he had character development, but I think my point in that post was he didn't have much of a background.  All we knew about him was that he was warrior caste and that had been married to Branka. 

Ah okay gotcha.

[Realmzmaster]

Well, some people were expecting a different game.  They were expecting a game that felt more like a Dragon Age game, which DA:I barely felt like in some ways.  And a part of that is the writing.  It feels off in some ways and in others there is very little logic, if any at all.

 

And to say that the only way to be disappointed in the game is because people were expecting a different game is just false.  Yes, a lot of people, myself included hold DA:O to be the best of the series.  But if DA:I had been a truly amazing game, people would have been more forgiving.  I just don't think it is an amazing game.  There are to many complaints to simply say they were wanting it to be exactly like DA:O.  Whether it be the combat, the removal of tactics and the ability to allocate our attribute points, the absolutely dull side content, the implementation of the warboard, the terrible villain, the limited armor models, just to name a few.

 

The point is that in my case I did feel like it was a DA game. What exactly is the so-called Dragon Age feel? I feel IMHO that DAI is the best in the series and that DA2 had the best story overall. The execution in DA2 was lacking.

[cJohnOne]

Well I thought DA2 was a little side story.  DAO started it all and DAI continued the story.  DAI's story was okay as far it goes.  But there seemed to a a lot of filler, yes?  

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

DA:I is a terrible game, honestly.  There isn't much good that I can say about it, aside from the graphics.

[Wolven_Soul]

The point is that in my case I did feel like it was a DA game. What exactly is the so-called Dragon Age feel? I feel IMHO that DAI is the best in the series and that DA2 had the best story overall. The execution in DA2 was lacking.

 

It is not hard to see that each and every game in the DA series has had a distinctively different feel to it.  The series does not really have much of an identity at this point and that is hurting it.  That being said, at least in DA2 they still had enough from DA:O to keep a little of the feel of a DA game.  The tactics, it still had some of that more dark, gritty feel to it.

 

If DA:I had not been a DA game I would have liked it a lot more despite the boring nature of it, because at least then it would have been something new trying to get noticed rather than this mostly dull game with the DA label on it.

 

I cannot say that DA2 had the best story.  It had the potential to be the best story, but it was to disjointed, very little linked the separate acts together.  It was just so all over the place.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I have to agree that the Dragon Age games have a major identity crisis, and always have. For example, Resident Evil 2 is widely acclaimed for making improvements while still being recognizably RE. The DA games share lore, but little else.

[Realmzmaster]

It is not hard to see that each and every game in the DA series has had a distinctively different feel to it.  The series does not really have much of an identity at this point and that is hurting it.  That being said, at least in DA2 they still had enough from DA:O to keep a little of the feel of a DA game.  The tactics, it still had some of that more dark, gritty feel to it.

 

If DA:I had not been a DA game I would have liked it a lot more despite the boring nature of it, because at least then it would have been something new trying to get noticed rather than this mostly dull game with the DA label on it.

 

I cannot say that DA2 had the best story.  It had the potential to be the best story, but it was to disjointed, very little linked the separate acts together.  It was just so all over the place.

 

The lack of a feel to you is a sticking point whereas to me it not that much of a consideration. I want the games in a series to have a different feel. I find games that keep the same feel to be boring.

 

 I like many of the changes in DAI over DAO. DAO was far to close to the D & D stereotype. I would have preferred Baldur's Gate III than DAO if Bioware was going to go that route.

I for one like the fact that I could craft armor or weapons that could drastically change the attributes of the party members. I could have rogues go from cunning base to dexterity base to constitution base by changing the armor of weapons. I simply found the system in DAI to be more flexible.

 

Also as far as tactics and the tactics screen DA2 was superior to DAO from a programming standpoint. . DAI tactics were simplistic but did not get in the way of my managing the party.

 

The system in DAI is more flexible and suits my preference.

[straykat]

The lack of a feel to you is a sticking point whereas to me it not that much of a consideration. I want the games in a series to have a different feel. I find games that keep the same feel to be boring.

 

 I like many of the changes in DAI over DAO. DAO was far to close to the D & D stereotype. I would have preferred Baldur's Gate III than DAO if Bioware was going to go that route.

I for one like the fact that I could craft armor or weapons that could drastically change the attributes of the party members. I could have rogues go from cunning base to dexterity base to constitution base by changing the armor of weapons. I simply found the system in DAI to be more flexible.

 

Also as far as tactics and the tactics screen DA2 was superior to DAO from a programming standpoint. . DAI tactics were simplistic but did not get in the way of my managing the party.

 

The system in DAI is more flexible and suits my preference.

 

That's not really true, dude. A 2h champ is pretty much pigeonholed to boost cunning to crazy amounts and use axes, for example. That isn't very flexible. Mages fall under two archetypes/roles. Compared to the past, there were many more ways to be a 2h damage dealer or mage.

[Blooddrunk1004]

 I like many of the changes in DAI over DAO. DAO was far to close to the D & D stereotype. I would have preferred Baldur's Gate III than DAO if Bioware was going to go that route.

I for one like the fact that I could craft armor or weapons that could drastically change the attributes of the party members. I could have rogues go from cunning base to dexterity base to constitution base by changing the armor of weapons. I simply found the system in DAI to be more flexible.

 

Also as far as tactics and the tactics screen DA2 was superior to DAO from a programming standpoint. . DAI tactics were simplistic but did not get in the way of my managing the party.

 

That was the point of Origins. It was a spiritual successor to BG, everything from the dialogue system to combat.

DA2 and Inquisition is Mass Effect with swords and magic.

 

I disagree regarding the combat for both DA2 and Inquisition. It's barely even tactical and pause function almost never serves any point in DA2, even less in Inquisition. The only thing what DA2 did better than Origins is commanding issues for companions but even that was throwed out of the window when they tried to mix both Origins and DA2 combat and it ended up being nothing but a mess.

[Auztin]

I have never considered DA:O strategic nor tactical.I would prefer they stick Inquisition setup & build off it.

[straykat]

I have never considered DA:O strategic nor tactical.I would prefer they stick Inquisition setup & build off it.

 

Play on a harder difficulty, if you haven't. To deny it exists makes me think you might have not. All older Bioware RPGs required a little pausing and tactical thinking.

 

Funnily though, I think DA2 is underrated in this aspect and did better boss battles. Some of them have unique skills on high difficulties.

 

I don't get any of this out of DAI on nightmare. Some of it can be hard, but it's more often tedious. And it's perfectly fine in real time. Exactly what do you want to build off?

[Auztin]

Play on a harder difficulty, if you haven't. To deny it exists makes me think you might have not. All older Bioware RPGs required a little pausing and tactical thinking.

Funnily though, I think DA2 is underrated in this aspect and did better boss battles. Some of them have unique skills on high difficulties.

I don't get any of this out of DAI on nightmare. Some of it can be hard, but it's more often tedious. And it's perfectly fine in real time. Exactly what do you want to build off?

I have paused in game to do a move but I wouldn't consider that tactical alone.Hell I paused alot more in DA:I to do cross-combos & see where/which enemies to attack.DA:O I only really paused at big battles/Dragons.Only time I recall DA:O getting hard is when I was trying a limited healing/health poutice run.
As for what to build off,it could build off existing system & add new specs,abilities,enhance AI behavior,& make mmo-like boss fights(ones with mechanics).In general enhance/fine tune their games further off a familiar system/engine.

[straykat]

I have paused in game to do a move but I wouldn't consider that tactical alone.Hell I paused alot more in DA:I to do cross-combos & see where/which enemies to attack.DA:O I only really paused at big battles/Dragons.
It could build off existing system & add new specs,abilities,enhance AI behavior,& make mmo-like boss fights(ones with mechanics).In general enhance/fine tune their games further off a familiar system/engine.

 

It could definitely use more specs, I'll agree there. I probably wouldn't even complain about the 2h dps, if they had a Berserker spec. Reaver is just lulzy. Like a kiddie spec. Champ is cool.. it just needs to specific gear to work right as dps. Templar is OK, but I'm not really into the RP aspect.

[Auztin]

It could definitely use more specs, I'll agree there. I probably wouldn't even complain about the 2h dps, if they had a Berserker spec. Reaver is just lulzy. Like a kiddie spec. Champ is cool.. it just needs to specific gear to work right as dps. Templar is OK, but I'm not really into the RP aspect.

I like the RP aspect because I don't look to Dragon Age for a challenge similar to Souls/Bloodborne but to the whole setting with squad gameplay. I play for story but add little challenges to keep it interesting. I even throw in personal challenges to make my game interesting.For example,I always play with no party members falls in combat rule for some authenticity/challenge.

[straykat]

I like the RP aspect because I don't look to Dragon Age for a challenge similar to Souls/Bloodborne but to the whole setting with squad gameplay. I play for story but add little challenges to keep it interesting. I even throw in personal challenges to make my game interesting.For example,I always play with no party members falls in combat rule for some authenticity/challenge.

 

I mean I'm not into the RP aspect of playing a Templar in DAI. Especially if I'm someone who gets them off the lyrium. It works well as a 2hander though..

 

I think all of these specs should work well defensively or offensively and not be too dependent on specific gear and odd stats like Cunning. That's where Champ fails.