94 réponses à ce sujet

[Riot Inducer]

Yeah, DA:I is a fun game and I enjoy it quite a lot but it really did drop the ball in several aspects.

 

-Enemy design is horrendous, by the time you meet Mother Gisele in the Hinterlands you've already fought the majority of enemy types in the game and they will never gain any new abilities or employ different tactics against you. Makes the combat very boring once you realize you will never need to adjust your tactics once you figure out these base enemy types.

 

-Massive limitations on player build options/stat allocation. Attributes are basically non existent, you can only change where your stats are allocated through gear and even then it doesn't make much difference (what the attributes themselves do is also poorly communicated in game). Likewise ability options are massively limited from previous entries in the series. Mages are limited to fire/ice/lightning/barriers, warriors cannot dual-wield or use bows (speaking of which why no standard crossbows?). Then there's the limited ability slots which further hamper your options.

 

-Excessive focus on exploration, don't get me wrong I enjoyed how beautiful a lot of the maps and areas of DA:I were. But once you realize there's no good reason to ever go find all the bottles/shards/astrariums it loses its charm. And stepping back from that I feel this focus on absolute exploration really really limited the depth of the side quests in the game. Very few have any character interaction at all, fewer still allow you meaningful choices. 

[AlanC9]

White I'm at it, here's one aspect where I think DAI failed miserably: quest complexity. Apart from collection quests, there's basically one type: go to location, (optional) kill something, collect item(s), go back and give item to person. There's no complexity of interaction, neither with NPCs or with places. No persuasion, no provocation, no investigation, no infiltration, no shadowing, no stealing. There's no resistance to any quest-related action but combat and the occasional pickable door, magically-leverable bridge or bashable wall. If you compare this with the TES games, this is almost unbearably simplistic. Sure, the TES games are quality over quantity, but a game with only simplistic quests is a low-quality game. I'd be content with Bioware's ten to Bethesda's hundred (and of those hundred, 90 are likely simplistic as well), but if Bethesda manages to make a part of their hundred better than Bioware makes any one of their ten, something isn't right.

Aren't some of these problems with DA:I's systems rather than the quests in particular? For instance, Bio's never figured out a way to integrate stealth solutions into a party-based game. I think it's a symptom of a more general problem with Bio's house style; they're completely resistant to locking players out of content because of build or choices, except for cases where the quest is fundamentally about picking between several options -- KotOR LS/DS paths, IHW/CotJ, romance content generally, etc.

[correctamundo]

Aren't some of these problems with DA:I's systems rather than the quests in particular? For instance, Bio's never figured out a way to integrate stealth solutions into a party-based game. I think it's a symptom of a more general problem with Bio's house style; they're completely resistant to locking players out of content because of build or choices, except for cases where the quest is fundamentally about picking between several options -- KotOR LS/DS paths, IHW/CotJ, romance content generally, etc.

 

You did get the stealth option in MotA which was interesting and fun (IMO). They should do that more often. It was easier to go in with swords drawn though.

[Al Foley]

You did get the stealth option in MotA which was interesting and fun (IMO). They should do that more often. It was easier to go in with swords drawn though.

Ugh that bit annoyed the crap outta me.  I hated it with such a burning passion that I really wish I did not RP Aeryn as such a sneak-thief. 

[correctamundo]

Ugh that bit annoyed the crap outta me.  I hated it with such a burning passion that I really wish I did not RP Aeryn as such a sneak-thief. 

 

I did occasionally use strong language there. However, I can see how they could give a stealth mission in the future based on that sequence.

[Knight of Dane]

Tell me how I'm supposed to find e.g. the Black Fens here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

When you scroll over with the marker it will display the area names.

 

 

@KnightofDane   I think the lack of armour styles was generally a complaint for everyone.  Think unless you have DLC or pick up unique armours there are only 3 distinct armours for all mages, though they disappointingly look different on each mage companion.  So an armour that looks great on Vivienne will look basic as heck on my Inquisitor!  I do think I'm going to play DAO and Awakenings again.  I'm missing these games, largely for their stories and my investment in them.

 

That didn't bother me super much, although I did have my criticism for some of the designs. For example the "Defender Coat" schematic only exist for low levels, and it is the only coat schematic with the short coat rather than the long one which looks ridiculous on male dwarves. Also for male dwarves the "Armor" styles armor also look really dumb with that huge hunchback in the neck.

[AFA]

The open world spread the narrative too thin I thought. You got way too much filler and dumb buffalo escort side quests. I wish you they used about half of the areas they did. The war table ended up having much better sidequests and stories than the main game.

[Vanilka]

When you scroll over with the marker it will display the area names.

 

I apologise in advance if I'm dense. You mean when you hover over the little icons on the map? I haven't found a way how to show actual areas. Like, I know I can hover over an icon and it'll show me that e.g. that's an astrarium or a cave entrance, it'll show me basic info about quests, etc., but I don't know how to have my map show e.g. Redcliffe Farms or Witchwood in Hinterlands without having a quest marker pointing there. I believe that is not possible. Unless I missed something.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Steep, insurmountable mountains are what I hated about Mass Effect 1. Why they decided to add these to DA:I is beyond me.

[AlanC9]

You did get the stealth option in MotA which was interesting and fun (IMO). They should do that more often. It was easier to go in with swords drawn though.

Thanks. Never bought that. How'd they make it work?

[AlanC9]

Huh? My mouse turns the camera.

And does using a controller let you walk through stuff?

[CardButton]

I'll be honest, while the combat could definitely use some improvements it was never to the point where it was a miserable experience.  Plus, I don't play a Dragon Age Game for spectacular combat, it is an RPG and thus I play it for the story. If Bioware is indeed going to make DA4 (Which I assume they will as DA:I did quite well in sales) I would rather they devote more resources into writing a spectacular adventure.  If the story they craft is fantastic and the combat is merely passable, that is a trade I easily make every time. 

 

Besides, the core combat in DA:I is fundamentally solid enough create something better (and the horde wave mechanics in the Descent and Trespasser are definitely a step in the right direction to keeping things fresh for future installments).  If they do something about the miserable auto-attack system and fix the AI command orders (how is it they are regressing in this facet of the game since Origins?) there really isn't that much they would have to alter to "fix" Dragon Age's combat.

 

It's kind of like if Bioware were an architect of a building (called DA:I) and built a remarkably sturdy frame for it ... but then ran out of time and made the walls out of paper mache. The basic foundation for everything is still solid enough to base future installments off of, they just need to refine and expand on those foundations properly now. 

[correctamundo]

Thanks. Never bought that. How'd they make it work?

 

You went solo and could knock-out the guards for a short while from behind. Otherwise keep out LOS and the light.

[cJohnOne]

Yeah I thought the amount of types of enemies was lacking and I especially didn't like closing rifts and doing the anchor mechanics over and over.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Closing rifts got old pretty quickly.

[correctamundo]

Nah, closing rifts never get old.

[Nefla]

I'll be honest, while the combat could definitely use some improvements it was never to the point where it was a miserable experience.  Plus, I don't play a Dragon Age Game for spectacular combat, it is an RPG and thus I play it for the story. If Bioware is indeed going to make DA4 (Which I assume they will as DA:I did quite well in sales) I would rather they devote more resources into writing a spectacular adventure.  If the story they craft is fantastic and the combat is merely passable, that is a trade I easily make every time. 

Same here, and if a game has a good enough story I can slog through crappy combat/gameplay mechanics to get to the story bits. Sadly that wasn't the case with DA:I. IMO for most of the game the story was just as lacking as the combat. I definitely hope that they improve the story (and variety of dialogue/personality choices) for any possible future DA4.

[Addictress]

My biggest problems with combat were:

-Not having access to all your abilities in combat but having to switch around your hotkeys and being limited to only 8 at a time
-Not being able to switch weapons in combat
-Not being able to set custom companion tactics coupled with bad ai
-The battles were uninteresting

Something else that I thought was strange is that enemies would grow in size based on their strength. Now this makes sense for monsters and animals(to a point), I would expect the largest wolf to be leading the pack of wolves for example, but the strongest Dwarf mercenary shouldn't be the same size as a human, the strongest human templar shouldn't be bigger than a male Qunari and so on. This isn't something limited to DA:I though, here's a screenshot of my body type 1 trooper next to "Revan" who is body type 2 and should be only a few inches taller:

Spoiler

I also agree with you on the terrain being frustrating especially since the game wasn't designed around that kind of thing, the collectibles being pointless, and the sidequests being boring.

This

[Rawgrim]

To me, it seems like Dragon Age Inquisition got a few features very-very wrong. I love the game overall, simply because of the characters and the details that makes me feel immersed in this madness. I have not finished the game yet, so I do not have the greatest mysteries of this game revealed yet, I will not be disappointed with the writing even if this Coryphius dude turns out to be nothing more than your usual power-hungry-i-will-destroy-the-world cliché character, I will still regard the game highly enough.

However.

They got the completely wrong side of the gameplay. It feels like they completely abandoned combat altogether. I've been playing on Hard difficulty and nothing gave me any trouble except for high dragons, and even those only gave me trouble until I had them figured out. 

There are very few actual enemy types, and most of them are just over-skinning the 'tanky fighter', 'the mage' etc.

It feels like an absolutely minimal amount of brainpower is enough to fend off most things this game would throw at me.

On the other side, they added a SH*TTON of useless collectibles that I feel no incentive to collect because the rewards they give are next to useless, and most of them are in such obscure places that I will never find them all without a guide, there is just no way. Thus, they put me in the embarassing position wherein I cannot ignore these collectibles because...THEY ARE COLLECTIBLES! I HAVE TO COLLECT THEM! Yet at the same time they not only do next to nothing, are obscurely hidden to make sure no mortal man with a reasonable amount of time on their hands will find them...BUT they are also positioned in hard to reach places!

Because guess what, the map design of this game is ABSOLUTELY ATTROCIOUS! I spent WAY more time trying to figure out 'how the **** am I gonna get up to that cliff' than trying to figure out 'how am I going to beat this boss or this large group of enemies'. Which, in a game where your only means of navigation are riding a horse (which is sped up walking), walking (which is walking) or a modest jump, IS NOT GOING TO FLOAT. I think they accidentally put the guys who were supposed to work on Assassins' Creed instead on this project (is it even the same company? whatever). I don't want to run HUGE circles around the sharp, unnavigable terrain, trying to find out how the hell I am going to pick up that shard or astarium, I WANT SOME INTERESTING ACTION! Hidden bosses, sidequests, challenging missions. Those stupid collectibles put into a ridiculously hard to navigate environment does not make for an entertaining filler of game-time while I'm trying to figure out where the hell the next dragon is.

Tl;dr: Less running around cliffs and more amazing battles next time you spend millions on a game budget. OR make it VERY focused on dialogue and decision making and only make occasional but tough battles, I could live with that.

But trying to make the clumsy inquisitor play Assassins' Creed is not cool at all.

Does anyone else agree with me?

Edit: It just occured to me, is this another 'Reason to hate EA' thing? They intentionally dumbed their game down to try and accomodate for the masses and added a crapton of collectibles because 'that's what commercially successful games do'?

 

 

You are spot on. And yes. The game was intentionally dumbed down. Everytime a de says "simplified" they mean dumbed down. The DA devs said simplified A LOT.

[AlanC9]

Pointless complexity = good?

Anyway, DA's never had a complex system.

[Nefla]

Pointless complexity = good?

Anyway, DA's never had a complex system.

Is having access to all of your abilities during combat, being able to set custom tactics for your companions, etc...pointless? I agree that DA has never been complex which makes the "streamlining" all the more mind boggling.

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure tactics have anything much to do with complexity. That just automates stuff you could do by hand, right?

[Nefla]

I'm not sure tactics have anything much to do with complexity. That just automates stuff you could do by hand, right?

I feel like they took away the ability to set your own tactics because they thought new players would be confused at trying to set tactics. Unfortunately the result ended up being a horrible companion ai >_<

[Realmzmaster]

Actually DAO simplified and gave magical abilities to warriors and rogues which were not available in its spiritual predecessors (BG1, BG2 and Neverwinter nights). Mages in those games never had access to all the spells only the one's memorized. So the so-called dumbing down started with DAO. The beginning of unlimited arrows for archers. The ability to carry boatloads of armor and potions (because there are no restrictions on how much weight can be carried or how many of item.)..

 

The lack of death as a consequence started in Neverwinter Nights, but was continued in the DA system. Weapon swapping had a penalty (attack of opportunity) in BG1 and BG2

 

So in comes DAI which reverts back to some of the design decisions found in BG1 and BG2. I never thought weapon swapping should be possible in DAO which was one of the complaints ican in my posts at the time. Or if weapon swapping was going to be implemented it should be like the BG series. Weapon swapping should only be possible in combat (without a penalty) if no enemy is within striking distance of the party member. So if a archer is targeting the party member and that member tries to weapon swap the member should be full of holes.

 

There is very little consequence when it comes to decisions in combat in the DA system.

[Wavebend]

They had to focus on consoles => linear combat, simple controls and dumbed-down tac cam