144 réponses à ce sujet

[Sifr]

Aint it being rebooted every game so far?

 

Pretty much, the theme of every game is different, even if our protagonists being forced to take charge tends to be the same.

 

Origins was the story of a raw (and often unwilling) recruit, forced to become a general in a war against a horde of unyielding monsters.

DA2 was the rags to riches story of a refugee turned local hero, forced to handle situations they couldn't control as best as they could.

Inquisition was a nobody turned religious icon, forced to save the world because everyone else is too busy fighting each other to do it.

[o Ventus]

Well, I find the Elder Scrolls to be incredibly dull and not very compelling at all, save for a few lore points here and there.

 

On the other Hand, I love Dragon Age.

 

So no.

[The Baconer]

Aint it being rebooted every game so far?

No.

[AresKeith]

Rebooted? No. Brought back in line with what made DA:O so great? Yes.

 

What exactly made DAO so great?

[UniformGreyColor]

No.

 

Depends on what lens you are looking through.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

What exactly made DAO so great?

 

DA:O was a great game, but it would not work as a template for a Dragon Age sequel.

[GipsyDangeresque]

What exactly made DAO so great?

 

Better spells and abilities based on sheer variety, more clearly defined player character with unique playable origin stories to establish their own supporting cast and previous life, better attribute system, better leveling up, better engine that performed more efficiently and was more modable, an actual non-combat skills system, better equipment requirements and statistical advancement of gear, better in-depth companion conversations, better critical path/main storyline pacing, better 'big decisions', more side quests with depth and cut scenes with decisions and alternate endings, better handling of companion approval, better encounter speed, better companion AI and AI customization via the Tactics and Behavior systems, more specializations, better ambient companion banter system, better implemented and more frequent ambient music/background music AND combat music, better boss battles, better encounter design that felt more organic to the environment you battled them in, and a much better ending and fantastically detailed epilogue that reflected the full scope of all of the decisions you made, instead of just hinting at repercussions for three decisions in total.

 

Inquisition had better graphics, better movement physics, more significant and interesting passive abilities, fantastic crafting system, better environmental design (especially with verticality) and better musical composition (but implemented poorly with dead silent gaps in gameplay and missed cues within the engine.) And, like Dragon Age 2, it knew better about pacing companion dialogue and cut scenes so that you don't go through too much of it the first time you meet them in camp... but that's about it so far as what it did clearly better than Origins.

[AlanC9]

Better levelling up? For a mage, maybe. Not for the other classes.

As for the engines, DA:O's engine has a terrible habit of forgetting to execute actions if it runs low on RAM; for instance, the animation for using a poultice plays, but the poultice is not actually used. I've played both games on a 3GB system, and DA:I works better.

As for better handling of companion approval.... I have no idea what you mean by this. Even if we remove DA:O's awful gift system, I don't see any advantage.

I could go on, but a lot of the others strike me as taste things, or I agree with them.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Dragon Age Origins had better combat, armor designs, sidequests, player character backstories, attributes (STR, etc.) PC controls, companions, protagonist, and more. Funny thing is, despite this so-called "open world" design, Inquisition's main quest missions take place in self-contained areas where you cannot return.

[Abyss108]

Dragon Age Origins had better combat, armor designs, sidequests, player character backstories, attributes (STR, etc.) PC controls, companions, protagonist, and more. Funny thing is, despite this so-called "open world" design, Inquisition's main quest missions take place in self-contained areas where you cannot return.

 

Gotta disagree about armor designs, backstory (this was actually detrimental to the main plot), attributes, companions, and protagonist.

 

It has a better tactical camera, better mage spells, and some better quests (but also ones that were just as bad as Inquisition, which everyone conveniently forgets).

[vbibbi]

Gotta disagree about armor designs, backstory (this was actually detrimental to the main plot), attributes, companions, and protagonist.

 

It has a better tactical camera, better mage spells, and some better quests (but also ones that were just as bad as Inquisition, which everyone conveniently forgets).

I don't know that people forget DAO's bad side quests, it's just that it had many better side quests along with the simple Chantry board/mages' collective/etc fetch quests. Almost all non main quest or companion quest types in DAI are very basic. I think the Keep highlights this well by showing the number of outcomes available from many small quests in the first game as compared with the third.

[The Baconer]

Depends on what lens you are looking through.

No, it doesn't. Changing up the formula or switching focus to a different character in the world is not rebooting.

[thats1evildude]

Dragon Age Origins had better combat, armor designs, sidequests, player character backstories, attributes (STR, etc.) PC controls, companions, protagonist, and more.

 

I'm taking exception with those three.

 

1) What might have been the case on PC, combat wasn't spectacular on XBox 360.

 

2) As a rogue, I had exactly two options for armour: Studded Leather Armour and Leather Armour. I didn't care for the latter, so I was basically left with Studded Leather Armour. I eventually upgraded my character into a Strength Rogue so I could wear heavy armour for some variety. And the heavy armour all suffered from the giant shoulder pauldrons problem.

 

3) The sidequests are virtually the same as the sidequests in DAI; the difference is that there were more cutscenes and fewer amount of sidequests. I mean, what distinguishes a quest like When Bears Attack and A Bear to Cross?

[midnight tea]

I don't know that people forget DAO's bad side quests, it's just that it had many better side quests along with the simple Chantry board/mages' collective/etc fetch quests. Almost all non main quest or companion quest types in DAI are very basic. I think the Keep highlights this well by showing the number of outcomes available from many small quests in the first game as compared with the third.

 

It's an illusion. DAO and DAI are differently structured games, which is also reflected with differently structured Keep records - there are also less records from DAI than they are in DAO. I can think of numerous side-quests with different outcomes that were either not recorded in a Keep, or it was generalized.

 

It makes sense - the decisions of Warden that either informed us about something important to their character or things that might be significant later (though a lot of these decisions are simply fluff, added there for nostalgia's sake) is way more scattered, while Inquisition's is more organized. We don't have to record every individual decision, for example, to say that Inquisitor was, say, a harsh judge (judgments section), an explorer (explorations section), or regularly deployed their forces (operations section), while to record that Warden was generally compassionate requires recording outcomes of more scattered quests (say, feeding the prisoner or helping Dagna), at least in terms of Keep records.

 

Also - the one quest from DAO that I truly remember is a poet tree. Anything other than that I've seen a variation of in different games, including DAI and ESO. Some quests were more memorable than others, for different reasons - just like in any other game.

[UniformGreyColor]

No, it doesn't. Changing up the formula or switching focus to a different character in the world is not rebooting.

 

And the combat is exactly the same?

[bEVEsthda]

Me and a friend were talking about this the other day. Suffice it to say he's not a big fan of the series for a few reasons. They include Dragon Age being fairly generic in it's approach to fantasy, a lot of material seems to have been taken either directly or indirectly from Tolkein. The world of Thedas, he said, was not very compelling compared to other fictional universes, most notably TES; he feels that TES has a unique universe with a unique take on traditional fantasy (elves for example), where as Dragon Age just has average or generic elves, average dwarves, and so on.

What he suggested was a rebooting of the series that would allow Bioware to wipe the slate clean and really do something unique with this IP. If he had asked me about this prior to me playing Inquisition I may have been reluctant or even against the idea altogether. However, what really swayed me in this direction was Inquisition; I wasn't able to complete the game for various reasons, such as it feeling the most generic of all the games, the ludicrous amount of fetch quests, the uninteresting story and setting, and uninteresting characters, to name a few.

 

My disappointment with Inquisition had got me thinking about the previous games as well. What was unique or interesting about them? What made them worth playing over other games in the genre? It would be unfair to suggest that Origins and DA2 didn't suffer from some of the same problems that plagued Inquisition. So what made them special? It all came down to the characters. The story and setting of those games were nothing special. The darkspawn horde? Yawn. What about the templars and mages? That might have worked if the two factions themselves weren't so dull and uninteresting.

 

Gameplay doesn't fare much better, it's actually getting worse with each new entry. By worse I mean the games feel more bipolar/schizophrenic than ever with Inquisition. This could very well be a problem with Bioware in general though, as I think there has been a noticeable drop in quality across the board since EA brought them into their fold. But it seems to be getting worse. For example, before the release of Inquisition, Bioware had talked up how they were bringing back the isometric tactical camera and admittedly did an admirable job of marketing the game to both groups of players; those who were interested in a more tactical approach to gameplay were made to feel at home in Inquisition. This however turned out to be false advertising.

The tactical camera is there, but they took away all the tactics. The "tactical" menu is devoid of most mechanics that give the player the ability to setup tactics, and the tactical camera is clunky and unwieldy. So I either have to accept that Bioware just doesn't really know what they're doing, or these features were just sort of tacked on to make one side of the player base feel that they were also included in the development process. To be honest, I don't feel really comfortable with either of these options.

 

Would a reboot really help here? I don't know, What I do know is what they're doing right now... just kinda feels sub-par. The biggest issue this IP has is it's identity crisis. It starred out as an alleged throwback to old school Bioware RPG's. Well, that's not really an issue if you're old Bioware. But it's little more difficult when you're AAA Bioware and expected to make games that appeal to people who don't even play RPG's. So they made that adjustment in DA2 and it's been a mess ever since. And like I said, Origins wasn't all that either; it had it's own set of issues of being generic in terms of it's art style and a few other things. But at least it seemed to have some sort of vision behind it.

 

Those are just some of my thoughts on this. I'd like to hear what you all think.

 

Well, what I think is that it's all kinda silly. Actually very silly. It's a bit like saying there should be vampires or androgynous Japanese youths with fluffy white hair in Call of Duty.

 

Also, DA:O had a very own, very genuine, very unique style and atmosphere. That some people are able to draw parallels to LotR doesn't change that. Neither does the existence of Elves and Dwarves in a game affect the quality of a game. And DA was very intentionally created as that kind of game. That was the point.

 

Yes, DA has an identity crisis, and DA2 did cause that. Because DA2 was halfway a sort of 'reboot' that you ask for. It was supposed to give DA an unique style of its own. It did the rather opposite. It just realigned DA with popular fantasy style fashions, and made it exactly what it wasn't before: - Generic. And then DA needed another reboot and DA:I attempted to be that. (IMO DA:I is a considerable improvement).

 

People wanting a different game should go playing a different game.

DA probably need yet another reboot - I don't think it will get it, there will be more dlc, but then I think EA will terminate DA, I hope not, but I think so - but it don't need the kind of reboot you suggests. I'd like to see it take a lot of general structure from DA:I but align the gameplay experience more with DA:O, stronger focus on the story.

[Riven326]

Aint it being rebooted every game so far?

I don't thinks so. It's more like they're throwing different things at the wall and hoping they stick with each sequel. But there's no real vision behind this game like there is with Mass Effect and I think that's the biggest problem.

[The Baconer]

And the combat is exactly the same?

 
That would fall under "changing up the formula", combat has absolutely nothing to do with the game being a reboot. Resident Evil 4, for example, is not a reboot. 
 
 

Also, DA:O had a very own, very genuine, very unique style and atmosphere. That some people are able to draw parallels to LotR doesn't change that. Neither does the existence of Elves and Dwarves in a game affect the quality of a game. And DA was very intentionally created as that kind of game. That was the point.

 
I think it was the opposite, and that it was intentionally not crafted to be unique. They were vigorously trying to pull the classic western RPG crowd, and in that regard they played it very safe with the visual design, plot, and even with a good amount of the gameplay mechanics.
 

But there's no real vision behind this game like there is with Mass Effect and I think that's the biggest problem.

 

I don't know if that's being gutsy or just oblivious. 

[midnight tea]

I think it was the opposite, and that it was intentionally not crafted to be unique. They were vigorously trying to pull the classic western RPG crowd, and in that regard they played it very safe with the visual design, plot, and even with a good amount of the gameplay mechanics. 

 

... Yep, I'm not really sure in what place DAO is unique in style or atmosphere.

 

Atmosphere =/= brown filter.

 

The very first thing that came to my mind after I began playing is "huh... well this looks far worse than TES: Oblivion" - and Oblivion isn't really known for its distinct style (minus Shivering Isles perhaps), plus it was a game released 3 years earlier.

 

In regard of visuals and feel of the game alone DAI is a major improvement compared to its predecessors.

 

Each race, architecture style or zone has its own, unique feel - not in a way that you could point to it and be "yep, it's DA!" (which I don't necessarily require, though I wouldn't be opposed to, depending on stylistic choices - you gotta admit that tarot/character cards are very distinct and I wouldn't mind if they took that direction when designing overall feel for the game), but certainly in a way that helps to identify things in the game itself, including plot-relevant elements.

[UniformGreyColor]

 
That would fall under "changing up the formula", combat has absolutely nothing to do with the game being a reboot. Resident Evil 4, for example, is not a reboot. 
 
 

 
I think it was the opposite, and that it was intentionally not crafted to be unique. They were vigorously trying to pull the classic western RPG crowd, and in that regard they played it very safe with the visual design, plot, and even with a good amount of the gameplay mechanics.
 

 

I don't know if that's being gutsy or just oblivious. 

 

So then, what do you consider a reboot?

[The Baconer]

So then, what do you consider a reboot?

By the definition of the term: to discard all existing continuity to make way for a new interpretation.

[midnight tea]

So then, what do you consider a reboot?

 

Quite a few people consider new Star Wars movie a reboot - and that's a movie that hasn't broken continuity of the story, but was pushed in time so much, that we basically have a new crew, that still in many ways resembles the old one.

 

I'd actually say that DAI is a kind of a soft reboot. The notion appears to be supported by some of the devs comments:

 

Spoiler

Mike Laidlaw for Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer...s-of-dragon-age):

"We wanted Inquisition to be the one which people would point to and say, 'they've found their feet. They've finally nailed down what this series is about.' Not that this locks us down or shackles us in any way, it just makes a clear statement on the priorities."

 

Mark Darrah in this video:

Spoiler

"It was much more like a new franchise then it was like the sequel to an existing franchise."

 

Mark Darrah for PC Gamer (http://www.pcgamer.c...n-world/#page-1)

 

"In a lot of ways Inquisition has been the game that we've really wanted to make from the beginning. From a systemic perspective Dragon Age 2 is actually very similar to Dragon Age: Origins. Its bones are the same, but we've put a very different outfit on top of it, for a lack of a better term.

Dragon Age 2, we decided we want to try something, to try to do very different storytelling, something much more personal, something much more tightly constrained. No chosen one, no clear overarching threat. I don't think it was a perfect success, but that was intentional.

A lot of the other changes that are perceived, the overall scope of the game or the perception of the combat getting a lot simpler or waves and things like that—not intended, exactly. That was supposed to be more evolutionary. I think we just overreached. We pushed too hard.

Because of Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age: Inquisition is having to be a lot more ambitious, to address those concerns and really try to get back much more to the roots of the franchise. Much more about tactical combat and a higher level of deliberate difficulty. More clear overall story, with the moral choices still in there, but much more in vein of Dragon Age: Origins style storytelling. You're right to ask. The goal wasn't to revolutionize the series every single time, but Dragon Age 2 forced our hand to a certain degree."

 

So... not a full reboot, but still Inquisition is sort of a whole new stepping stone for the whole franchise - a place from where they're telling the story they've always wanted to tell, with no time wasted for introductions anymore (DAO served that purpose) and no diversions the like of DAII.

[ShadowLordXII]

No.

 

BW has already pseudo-rebooted the series twice already and it hasn't made anything better.

[UniformGreyColor]

By the definition of the term: to discard all existing continuity to make way for a new interpretation.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but that just looks like an entirely new series, not really a reboot.

[Abyss108]

Correct me if I am wrong, but that just looks like an entirely new series, not really a reboot.

 

No, a reboot takes the original idea and reimagines it, pretending the original interpretation doesn't exist. A reboot of Dragon Age would be something along the lines of keeping the lore intact, but going back and retelling the story of the Hero of Ferelden and the fifth Blight again.