54 réponses à ce sujet

[vbibbi]

 

At first, I was really frustrated with Hinterlands. The area is just SO HUGE and there are so many tiny assignments just lying about. (Yeah, I would prefer if the time and effort was spent elsewhere in development of this game instead of just trying to fill an area.) The funny thing is, I didn't have to bother because my companions pointed out soon from the start that I had enough influence to go to Val Royeaux. They keep pointing it out from time to time until you go. My getting stuck in the area was my own fault. And the moment I found out the area wasn't going anywhere (Why would it? Jeez.), I got back to the story and everything and loved it. In Hushed Whispers and In Your Heart Shall Burn totally won me over.

I might be wrong, but I believe the companions reminding us to go to Val Royeaux was added in a patch, due to the Get Out of the Hinterlands meme. It perhaps was already in the vanilla game, but Bio set it to repeat much more frequently after realizing so many people were getting bogged down there.

 

Also, as to why anyone would assume the area wouldn't be accessible later, Bioware games have a strong history of this, so I don't think it's unreasonable. DAO, DA2, ME1, Jade Empire, KOTOR, the BG series (Candlekeep and Irenicus' dungeon) all had starting areas that later became inaccessible. Now, in DAI this area is the valley by the Temple of Sacred Ashes, but we only know in hindsight that it (and later Haven) are the only areas which later disappear. Lothering was an early hub for DAO, after all, and a first time player could well assume that after the IHW or CotJ missions were complete, the resulting conflict could make the Hinterlands inaccessible.

[Vanilka]

I might be wrong, but I believe the companions reminding us to go to Val Royeaux was added in a patch, due to the Get Out of the Hinterlands meme. It perhaps was already in the vanilla game, but Bio set it to repeat much more frequently after realizing so many people were getting bogged down there.

 

Also, as to why anyone would assume the area wouldn't be accessible later, Bioware games have a strong history of this, so I don't think it's unreasonable. DAO, DA2, ME1, Jade Empire, KOTOR, the BG series (Candlekeep and Irenicus' dungeon) all had starting areas that later became inaccessible. Now, in DAI this area is the valley by the Temple of Sacred Ashes, but we only know in hindsight that it (and later Haven) are the only areas which later disappear. Lothering was an early hub for DAO, after all, and a first time player could well assume that after the IHW or CotJ missions were complete, the resulting conflict could make the Hinterlands inaccessible.

 

Oh! That may be the case. I only started playing a few weeks ago and the game was already heavily patched by then. It's funny players keep doing it because the requirement to go to Val Royeaux is really easy to complete and it keeps hanging there on the top right-hand side of the screen. You only need about 4 power which you can gather very quickly. It's interesting how we, as players, work, isn't it? Being part of BW staff, I don't know if I'd be able to predict that reaction, despite having the completionist mindset myself. How do you hit the player in the face more than that?

 

I admit that looking back, getting stuck in Hintelands feels really stupid. But you make a good point that you never know which areas will keep being accessible and which can only be accessed once, as BW games often come with both kinds, which is likely what leads many of us to the "got to complete the whole area" kind of paranoia. I also think that with Inquisition, BW delivered something we were not used to. I tend to finish whole areas in one sitting in most BW games, even when I know I can return later. Like Orzammar or Brecilian Forest in Origins. I don't really have a reason to leave the place until I'm done with it. Then I just return to finish minor things if needed.

 

I still don't know how I feel about them going open world. I think Inquisition is absolutely beautiful, lovingly crafted universe. I can see how much effort they put into every area. There's so much detail to every single one of them. I see it and I absolutely love it. But I'd definitely prefer it if we got less areas like Hinterlands that are utterly humongous and full of miniature and sometimes fairly meaningless assignments, and more areas like... say... the Circle Tower or Orzammar in Origins where the entire area had a plot of its own (which offered some sort of guidance) and you could pick up small assignments on the way that added flavour to the area. Like Orzammar had that dwarven lady that got thrown out of her home because she had a baby with a castless dwarf which illustrated how the society worked there. Inquisition tries, bringing up templars, mages, refugees and whatnot, but it doesn't work as well delivered through so many letters and notes left everywhere. Some assignments are just really random and kind of pointless. Like helping the refugees in Hinterlands was definitely more relevant and had some sort of impact, even if hunting down the goods was tedious, than chasing after that elf's son to get a potion for his suffocating wife or leading the lost druffalo back to the farm which didn't really add anything of value. (But, well, at least druffalos are cute.)

[straykat]

Oh! That may be the case. I only started playing a few weeks ago and the game was already heavily patched by then. It's funny players keep doing it because the requirement to go to Val Royeaux is really easy to complete and it keeps hanging there on the top right-hand side of the screen. You only need about 4 power which you can gather very quickly. It's interesting how we, as players, work, isn't it? Being part of BW staff, I don't know if I'd be able to predict that reaction, despite having the completionist mindset myself. How do you hit the player in the face more than that?

 

I admit that looking back, getting stuck in Hintelands feels really stupid. But you make a good point that you never know which areas will keep being accessible and which can only be accessed once, as BW games often come with both kinds, which is likely what leads many of us to the "got to complete the whole area" kind of paranoia. I also think that with Inquisition, BW delivered something we were not used to. I tend to finish whole areas in one sitting in most BW games, even when I know I can return later. Like Orzammar or Brecilian Forest in Origins. I don't really have a reason to leave the place until I'm done with it. Then I just return to finish minor things if needed.

 

I still don't know how I feel about them going open world. I think Inquisition is absolutely beautiful, lovingly crafted universe. I can see how much effort they put into every area. There's so much detail to every single one of them. I see it and I absolutely love it. But I'd definitely prefer it if we got less areas like Hinterlands that are utterly humongous and full of miniature and sometimes fairly meaningless assignments, and more areas like... say... the Circle Tower or Orzammar in Origins where the entire area had a plot of its own (which offered some sort of guidance) and you could pick up small assignments on the way that added flavour to the area. Like Orzammar had that dwarven lady that got thrown out of her home because she had a baby with a castless dwarf which illustrated how the society worked there. Inquisition tries, bringing up templars, mages, refugees and whatnot, but it doesn't work as well delivered through so many letters and notes left everywhere. Some assignments are just really random and kind of pointless. Like helping the refugees in Hinterlands was definitely more relevant and had some sort of impact, even if hunting down the goods was tedious, than chasing after that elf's son to get a potion for his suffocating wife or leading the lost druffalo back to the farm which didn't really add anything of value. (But, well, at least druffalos are cute.)

 

That's the only good thing I can say about it.. It's pretty. But the shiny doesn't get me as a gamer. I don't play RPGs for that.

 

But yeah, I prefer the traditional way they made zones. Maybe it helps if they're more urban and NPC populated though. Orzammar and Denerim stand out. And I liked a lot of Kirkwall in DA2. Despite the repeating caves and beaches outside.

[Vanilka]

That's the only good thing I can say about it.. It's pretty. But the shiny doesn't get me as a gamer. I don't play RPGs for that.

 

But yeah, I prefer the traditional way they made zones. Maybe it helps if they're more urban and NPC populated though. Orzammar and Denerim stand out. And I liked a lot of Kirkwall in DA2. Despite the repeating caves and beaches outside.

 

I understand. I'm sorry the game was a disappointment for you. I may like it, but I know very well it is flawed.

 

I don't think the combat and stats customisation are exactly amazing, either. The combat seems slower than DAII but it doesn't have the strategic feel of DAO, either. I can't quite put a finger on what's wrong with it... I'm lucky I'm rather easy to please and started with a Knight-Enchanter that was quite fun for me as it combines magic and melee which is dynamic enough to keep me entertained. Playing an archer now and I must say the combat is definitely much less exciting. I wonder what the melee classes are like.

 

You weren't happy even with the story and/or dialogues? The characters did nothing for you?

 

I admit that being stuck in Kirkwall drove me insane during my first playthrough and subsequent attempts that I never finished out of frustration with both Hawke and Kirkwall. I only came to appreciate what they tried to do with the game rather recently. It took me years to give the game another chance but I feel much better about it now. Mostly because I finally started to see the big picture with the story and everything, instead of looking at it as a bunch of random quests. I still hate the random enemy waves falling from the sky/ceiling though, lol.

[straykat]

I understand. I'm sorry the game was a disappointment for you. I may like it, but I know very well it is flawed.

 

I don't think the combat and stats customisation are exactly amazing, either. The combat seems slower than DAII but it doesn't have the strategic feel of DAO, either. I can't quite put a finger on what's wrong with it... I'm lucky I'm rather easy to please and started with a Knight-Enchanter that was quite fun for me as it combines magic and melee which is dynamic enough to keep me entertained. Playing an archer now and I must say the combat is definitely much less exciting. I wonder what the melee classes are like.

 

You weren't happy even with the story and/or dialogues? The characters did nothing for you?

 

I admit that being stuck in Kirkwall drove me insane during my first playthrough and subsequent attempts that I never finished out of frustration with both Hawke and Kirkwall. I only came to appreciate what they tried to do with the game rather recently. It took me years to give the game another chance but I feel much better about it now. Mostly because I finally started to see the big picture with the story and everything, instead of looking at it as a bunch of random quests. I still hate the random enemy waves falling from the sky/ceiling though, lol.

 

I'm the least happy with the story. I'm more forgiving with the gameplay actually..

 

But I do like some of the characters. Especially Cass and the Advisors. They're the only ones who make it feel like an "Inquisition"... for what little that matters.

[Vanilka]

I'm the least happy with the story. I'm more forgiving with the gameplay actually..

 

But I do like some of the characters. Especially Cass and the Advisors. They're the only ones who make it feel like an "Inquisition"... for what little that matters.

 

Heh, I'm the opposite. The combat is fine but nothing too exciting as far as I'm concerned, but I did rather enjoy the story. Not that I think it's perfect. But, well, that's just me. I can see why you're unhappy with the game then. That's such a big, important part of it. Shame.

[vbibbi]

I'm the least happy with the story. I'm more forgiving with the gameplay actually..
 
But I do like some of the characters. Especially Cass and the Advisors. They're the only ones who make it feel like an "Inquisition"... for what little that matters.

The characters were overall great, there just weren't that many of them, and 90% of them were at Skyhold. Most others weren't memorable and the villains weren't nuanced.

[straykat]

Heh, I'm the opposite. The combat is fine but nothing too exciting as far as I'm concerned, but I did rather enjoy the story. Not that I think it's perfect. But, well, that's just me. I can see why you're unhappy with the game then. That's such a big, important part of it. Shame.

 

Well, considering what led up to it, I don't see how I could like this story. They built up a mage/temp war in DA2 and Asunder.. and downplayed that in this game. Most of it was shuttered in the title screen itself.. lol. It went from something moderately complicated and political to something outright childish. The story is a "Dark One taking over the world" type of thing we've all seen in a thousand cartoons and fairy tales and it pretty much overrides everything that came before. And the mark is the only thing that makes you important. It grants you the power to resolve all differences. I was hoping there'd be some actual problem solving and not just hand-waving your way through all of these interesting issues the world was suffering from. I was hoping for just like.... more human sh*t. Game of Thrones like stuff or something. Real intrigue. And more reasons WHY you are an Inquisitor other than "Magic!!" Even getting hired at a freaking Grocery store demands a more interesting person than this.

 

That said, it works as just some pretty adventure in their setting... but I wanted more. If I didn't care about Dragon Age, I'd probably have more fun with that. That's how I treat Diablo or something. But that's because I think Diablo is STUPID. It's all about expectations

[Vanilka]

Well, considering what led up to it, I don't see how I could like this story. They built up a mage/temp war in DA2 and Asunder.. and downplayed that in this game. Most of it was shuttered in the title screen itself.. lol. They're trying way too hard to NOT be DA2.  It went from something moderately intriguing, complicated, and political to something outright childish. The story is a "Dark One taking over the world" type of thing we've all seen in a thousand cartoons and fairy tales and it pretty much overrides everything that came before. I was hoping there'd be some actual problem solving. And what little they can make sound interesting here fails too. The subtext dealing with faith (either yours or Corypheus') is lame.

 

Secondly, some of the things that are favorites here are just late additions. Like the Mythal/Well of Sorrows stuff was going to be in the DA2 expansion. Knowing that makes me resentful that DA2 never got finished.. And the elven stuff gets recycled here of all places. This game seems to want to address everything BUT the Inquisition or Chantry related things. The main story, the dlcs, the tacky extra races. And a protagonist with no solid context to any of it (except maybe one of them).

 

That said, it works as just some pretty adventure in their setting... but I wanted more. The whole pretext demanded more than another "adventure".

 

I admit I have never read anything BioWare and very likely never will, but anyway, you make a good point. Like the fact there was a lot of build-up in DAII about the mages and templars and DAI kind of wasted that. Hm, it's stupid of me I didn't realise that. It's true I very much treat it as a separate game set in the mess of the mage-templar war, just not about it. Just like DAII was a completely separate game from DAO for me. Which probably helps. I must say I was pretty sick of mages and templars after DAII myself. I finished DAII thinking, "All right. I see completely everybody's dumb. GOODBYE!" If DAI was about that again, it would probably feel like making DAII about another Blight instead of switching topic to me. But maybe if they handled it well, I'd survive.

 

I also admit I've been fascinated with Corypheus and what he did since DAII. When I played the Legacy DLC (And, yes, it's silly that they took the villain from a DLC not everybody might be familiar with.) and I started realising what he was, it was a (GASP) NO WAY moment. I mean, we hear about the magisters that brought the Blight since the first moments of the first game. The realisation I was about to meet one was priceless. I wanted to know so much more about what he actually did and what happened to him, what the hell he found in the beyond. I must say I was much more interested in that in DAI than mages vs templars yet again. So I didn't have much of a problem with Corypheus as a villain besides the fact there's some wasted potential there. We saw so awfully little of him and it's all about his lackeys.

 

Personally, I don't think we always need to have a villain that we have to sympathise with or that has to have complicated motivations. I mean, whatever concept you're going to pull out, it's been here a thousand times already. Corypheus as an ancient Tevinter megalomaniac trying to achieve what he failed to achieve so long ago worked for me. I don't see anything wrong with simple concepts. I'm up to whatever kind of story as long as I'm having fun. On the other hand, I understand that you don't like it. I know for many it is hardly satisfying.

 

I only learnt recently that the thing with Mythal was supposed to be part of DAII. That was pretty shocking for me, as well. That's not really DAI's fault though, but of whoever decided to rush DAII. Hell, I'd have liked to have some more meaningful content in DAII, as well. I used to hate that game with such passion because it all felt like a collection of random errands done in the same places for ten years when I tried to play for the first time. It took me years to make peace with that game. I sure wouldn't have been mad about more story-based content.

 

But, well, that's just me and my weird tastes. DAI is definitely a mixed bag and I might not feel the same about a lot, but I think what you've said makes sense. I can't argue that DAII didn't build ground for dealing with the mage-templar war or that Corypheus is a very simple villain. I see that this time I really lucked the hell out. Maybe it also helped I finished ME3 not long before starting my DA playthrough so I'm basically happy with whatever makes some sort of sense now, lol.

[straykat]

 

I only learnt recently that the thing with Mythal was supposed to be part of DAII. That was pretty shocking for me, as well. That's not really DAI's fault though, but of whoever decided to rush DAII.

 

The Mythal stuff wasn't rushed. It was in their planned expansion. Not the main game. EA just made them move on to DAI and left the story in limbo.

 

I understand being frustrated by the mage/temp stuff. I didn't want to rehash DA2 though. I just wanted to see it expand into war and see us actually address solutions more realistically. Earlier stories showed how bad the problem is - but this story could have been more about solutions. That'd make me appreciate the Inquisition much more, if they had solved things like badasses and geniuses. And like actual people. For a group with an "eye" for it's symbol, and spawned the Seekers of Truth, there isn't much examination or "inquiry". It's just plowing through plots and making people accept your authority because you have a magical hand. It's just acting like some glorified dictator. That isn't being a seeker, an inquisitor, or just a simple problem solver. And there isn't even "war".. so I don't have the fun of being a commander either. I'm just supposed to have fun with the idea of "power" in and of itself. I have everything Corypheus wants, but it's the least interesting path to leadership imaginable. I feel sorry for Cory if that's all he can aspire to. And it makes him an extra stupid villain to me.

 

Anyways, not trying to convince you or anything. That's enough out of me

[cJohnOne]

I liked the combat and gameplay of DAO and DA2. In fact I thought they were great. DAI was just adequate in Combat and gameplay. 

 

 

I thought Corypheus was fine as a villain.  I mean who else would fill this spot and be better.  He is a little boring though. 

[Realmzmaster]

Actually when it comes to antagonists you see Corypheus about as much as you see Loghain or the Archdemon in DAO. The one DA game that has the most interaction with the antagonists is DA2.

Think about it. The warden actually sees Loghain only twice during the battle at Ostagar and at the Landsmeet. The Archdemon is seen in a dream, the Deep Roads and then Denerim.

 

The only reason the gamer knows more about Loghain is through cut scenes that the protagonist (warden) has no knowledge.

 

Hawke in DA2 has more encounters with the Arishok, Meredith and Orsino who are "antagonists".

 

So IMHO Corypheus is just as fine a villain except I think the Arishok is best of the antagonists overall.

[straykat]

Actually when it comes to antagonists you see Corypheus about as much as you see Loghain or the Archdemon in DAO. The one DA game that has the most interaction with the antagonists is DA2.

Think about it. The warden actually sees Loghain only twice during the battle at Ostagar and at the Landsmeet. The Archdemon is seen in a dream, the Deep Roads and then Denerim.

 

The only reason the gamer knows more about Loghain is through cut scenes that the protagonist (warden) has no knowledge.

 

Hawke in DA2 has more encounters with the Arishok, Meredith and Orsino who are "antagonists".

 

So IMHO Corypheus is just as fine a villain except I think the Arishok is best of the antagonists overall.

 

The difference with Loghain is he was just being a man... with very human motivations and dreams. Oddly enough, that turns out to be more complicated than **** like Corypheus. People are vastly more interesting than supernatural villains. And not only that, he's basically the previous hero of the setting.. just the Human Commoner version. People got plenty of insight on him going in, if they wished. There's a whole novel on him. Those who didn't got a simpler picture, but the gist was there in the game itself.

 

The Arishok is very similar. You struggle with him on who has a better right to lead people... just like Loghain. Despite being Qunari, the motivations still fairly down to earth.

[vbibbi]

The Mythal stuff wasn't rushed. It was in their planned expansion. Not the main game. EA just made them move on to DAI and left the story in limbo.

 

I understand being frustrated by the mage/temp stuff. I didn't want to rehash DA2 though. I just wanted to see it expand into war and see us actually address solutions more realistically. Earlier stories showed how bad the problem is - but this story could have been more about solutions. That'd make me appreciate the Inquisition much more, if they had solved things like badasses and geniuses. And like actual people. For a group with an "eye" for it's symbol, and spawned the Seekers of Truth, there isn't much examination or "inquiry". It's just plowing through plots and making people accept your authority because you have a magical hand. It's just acting like some glorified dictator. That isn't being a seeker, an inquisitor, or just a simple problem solver. And there isn't even "war".. so I don't have the fun of being a commander either. I'm just supposed to have fun with the idea of "power" in and of itself. I have everything Corypheus wants, but it's the least interesting path to leadership imaginable. I feel sorry for Cory if that's all he can aspire to. And it makes him an extra stupid villain to me.

 

Anyways, not trying to convince you or anything. That's enough out of me

 

To be fair, I think the Inquisition learned how to investigate from Cassandra the Seeker, stabber of books

I mean, DA2 is set up as Cass trying to find Hawke to help, then we find in DAI that she has been deceived by Varric AND LELIANA the entire time. Wow, great detective work there, Cass. Plus, the Seekers' methods seem to be to investigate once the problem has become too large to ignore rather than to try to prevent the issue from escalating. Sister Nightingale warns Elthina in Act 2 and we see the Seekers setting up camp in the former Qunari compound in Act 3, but there is no actual intervention until Hawke has already fled.

 

But yeah, I was disappointed that "inquisition" actually just meant a pseudomilitary organization that attacks the very obvious enemies rather than a shadow organization trying to work behind the scenes to find the truth. I wanted the nations to consider the Inquisition a rogue faction and a threat up until we proved that it wasn't the mages or templars who caused the breach, it was the Elder One.

[straykat]

 

But yeah, I was disappointed that "inquisition" actually just meant a pseudomilitary organization that attacks the very obvious enemies rather than a shadow organization trying to work behind the scenes to find the truth. I wanted the nations to consider the Inquisition a rogue faction and a threat up until we proved that it wasn't the mages or templars who caused the breach, it was the Elder One.

 

Yeah, but that's also why I lament not even being a commander. It simplifies the other things, yet the military stuff is almost nonexistent too. There's no sense of large scale to the gameplay. Not even an illusion of it, like say, ME3.

[Realmzmaster]

The difference with Loghain is he was just being a man... with very human motivations and dreams. Oddly enough, that turns out to be more complicated than **** like Corypheus. People are vastly more interesting than supernatural villains. And not only that, he's basically the previous hero of the setting.. just the Human Commoner version. People got plenty of insight on him going in, if they wished. There's a whole novel on him. Those who didn't got a simpler picture, but the gist was there in the game itself.

 

The Arishok is very similar. You struggle with him on who has a better right to lead people... just like Loghain. Despite being Qunari, the motivations still fairly down to earth.

 

The novel is not necessary to the game and many gamers have not even read it.The only way you get any insight into motivations for Loghain in game is through cut scenes provided in DAO that the warden knows nothing about. For example does the warden know that Loghain and Howe hired an assassin to kill him/her? No, but the gamer does because the gamer is given foreknowledge in a cutscene. The overall antagonist in DAO is a supernatural villian. The Archdemon, which is suppose to be a corrupted old god.

 

Corypheus motivations are quite clear and human. He wants to be a god and control Thedas. Corypheus was mortal so he has mortal aspirations. Solas sums it up quite nicely in saying "No real god need prove himself. Anyone who tries is either mad or lying."

[Wolven_Soul]

Well, considering what led up to it, I don't see how I could like this story. They built up a mage/temp war in DA2 and Asunder.. and downplayed that in this game. Most of it was shuttered in the title screen itself.. lol. It went from something moderately complicated and political to something outright childish. The story is a "Dark One taking over the world" type of thing we've all seen in a thousand cartoons and fairy tales and it pretty much overrides everything that came before. And the mark is the only thing that makes you important. It grants you the power to resolve all differences. I was hoping there'd be some actual problem solving and not just hand-waving your way through all of these interesting issues the world was suffering from. I was hoping for just like.... more human sh*t. Game of Thrones like stuff or something. Real intrigue. And more reasons WHY you are an Inquisitor other than "Magic!!" Even getting hired at a freaking Grocery store demands a more interesting person than this.

 

That said, it works as just some pretty adventure in their setting... but I wanted more. If I didn't care about Dragon Age, I'd probably have more fun with that. That's how I treat Diablo or something. But that's because I think Diablo is STUPID. It's all about expectations

 

The mage/templar war was one of the biggest issues I had with the game's story.  Really the war is built up during the entirety of the first two games.  We see rumblings of it in DA:O, and then see it erupt in DA2.  Then when DA:I gets here, the war is over just as the game is getting started.  It's just...mind boggling to me.  That war should not have been resolved until near the end of the game.  

 

I also have issues with Corypheus and some of the things he does.  Like I am not sure what kind of moron of a villain brings the key to his immortality to the final battle of the story, and then does nothing to help defend that rather important thing while your destroying it.

 

Like you I would have liked this game a lot more if it had not been a Dragon Age game, because it barely feels like one.

[straykat]

The mage/templar war was one of the biggest issues I had with the game's story.  Really the war is built up during the entirety of the first two games.  We see rumblings of it in DA:O, and then see it erupt in DA2.  Then when DA:I gets here, the war is over just as the game is getting started.  It's just...mind boggling to me.  That war should not have been resolved until near the end of the game.  

 

I also have issues with Corypheus and some of the things he does.  Like I am not sure what kind of moron of a villain brings the key to his immortality to the final battle of the story, and then does nothing to help defend that rather important thing while your destroying it.

 

Like you I would have liked this game a lot more if it had not been a Dragon Age game, because it barely feels like one.

 

Even if they didn't want us to play directly in it, it might have served a better backdrop at the very least.

 

There's a lot of good stories like that, where war is the backdrop, but not the focus. But to just end it all right away, and at best.. do some bullshit conflict with random temps/mages in the Hinterlands is beyond stupid. "We're not gonna do the mage/temp war, but here are some other mages and templars fighting...To give you the illusion that you're involved in something. They have nothing to do with it though. Go level up for awhile."

[JJ Likeaprayer]

As a sequel,it is good enough...still can't compare with Origins tho...just sayin'.

 

Now many sequels are being much worse than Inquisition,shall I name a few? BioShock:Infinite, Tomb Raider 2013, Hitman:Absolution, GTA 4, Medal of Honor:Warfighter, No One Lives Forever 2...and last but not least of course,every Resident Evil game after RE 6 (RE 6 included).

[cJohnOne]

@JJ Yaug That's a pretty good point that other sequels aren't as good as DAI I guess I just Spoileteeed.   It's all BioWares fault.  ha, ha.

 

 

Go Dragon Age!!!

[BSpud]

S3R10USG4M3R2.0

 

u hav3 2 b tot3$ 0v3r 11 yrz 0ld 2 pl4y n und3r$t4nd dis g4ym3, d00d

[Elhanan]

While I do enjoy DAO more than DAI, the latter takes me almost three times as long to complete per campaign. And I prefer the more polished results more than DA2, though I still enjoy it, too.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

The mage/templar war was one of the biggest issues I had with the game's story. Really the war is built up during the entirety of the first two games. We see rumblings of it in DA:O, and then see it erupt in DA2. Then when DA:I gets here, the war is over just as the game is getting started. It's just...mind boggling to me. That war should not have been resolved until near the end of the game.

I also have issues with Corypheus and some of the things he does. Like I am not sure what kind of moron of a villain brings the key to his immortality to the final battle of the story, and then does nothing to help defend that rather important thing while your destroying it.

Like you I would have liked this game a lot more if it had not been a Dragon Age game, because it barely feels like one.

I had this same issue with SWTOR. I kept thinking that I'd get to take part in the war that they'd been hyping up with trailers and everything... but then by the time the game starts, the war has been over for 30 years. They did the same thing with the mage-templar war in Dragon Age. Considering how Inquisition's plot turned out, there was really no reason why you couldn't get both the mages and templars on your side.

[Wolven_Soul]

As a sequel,it is good enough...still can't compare with Origins tho...just sayin'.

 

Now many sequels are being much worse than Inquisition,shall I name a few? BioShock:Infinite, Tomb Raider 2013, Hitman:Absolution, GTA 4, Medal of Honor:Warfighter, No One Lives Forever 2...and last but not least of course,every Resident Evil game after RE 6 (RE 6 included).

 

Bioshock: Infinite?  I dunno, that was not a terrible game.  The story was phenomenal, but the gameplay was a little lacking.  The big issue I had in that game all the things they showed in trailers and gameplay videos not being in the final game.

 

I would throw RE5 into the list of RE sequels that were not very good.  That game started the series down a trend of being more like a COD game with monsters than a true RE game.

[MonsterSobStory]

I wonder how an organisation that is supposed to gain people's trust and save the world would even benefit from evil characters, even if I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea, either. As the Inquisitor, you can do or say some pretty cruel and unreasonable things, but it sure doesn't offer you much space for "MUAHAHAHAHAAA, I WILL NOW STAB YOU SEVENTEEN TIMES JUST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT." Not so sure that's a bad thing, though.

 

Agreed. I personally love the idea of playing a more evil-leaning character (there were plenty of choices for this in DAO for example) but the role of Inquisitor presented to us in DA3 just doesn't seem right for it...being a leader involved with Orlais and Ferelden and having the religious title (willing or not) I just can't see the room for decent chaotic-evil choices to be written in there.