And then there's loyalty. Loyalty is a crappy system that should not have existed in the game at all.
I didn't mind the loyalty missions. I didn't agree that it decides the fate of the squadmate
If a loyalty missions are added in the game, I would have it effect the relationship between the main character and the character who's loyalty mission wasn't completed.
I thought the multiple voices for the protagonist were neat.
Granted, I'm not asking for that, since I know it's a lot of work to do, but it was a nice feature.
The dialogue wheel was good too, a minor critique was that it was hard to discern just EXACTLY which tone was which.
What's the difference between the red exclamations and the purple exclamations? (turns out it's "anger" and "surprise", respectively)
As much as it sounds like "hand-holding", they wouldn't be amiss with telling the player EXACTLY what each feature is and what it represents.
As an example:
Explain that Paragon is taking the peaceful approach, more likely to be diplomatic or friendly, but is also to express disgust or take more aggressive action against morally reprehensible actions.
Explain that Renegade is taking the blunt approach, more likely to rude or violent, but is likely to "let some things slide" for the "greater good" or even be outright evil.
I'm not asking for "spoilers", as it were, but it is frustrating when I *think* I know what Dialogue Option 1 does, only to find that it wasn't, and then I either have to stick with a "false" role-playing experience, or engage in save-scumming.
I get what they were trying to do, and I believe that it's a good system, but there needs to be a way to look at the system it from a meta-perspective so YOU as the player can understand HOW to get the roleplaying experience you are trying to get.
What I liked about the dialogue wheel in Dragon Age 2 was that the symbols were simple in design and distinct from each other.
You could identify them at a glance, and as the player you knew what each symbol meant.
So if Hawke would respond diplomatically, you knew to pick the laurel leaf or the angel wings.
If Hawke would respond with a witty remark, you knew to pick the mask or gem.
The symbol matched the feeling, and therein the intuitiveness lies.
With Inquisition, they symbols they selected were pretty, but the amount of colors and shapes present in each one tended to make the message convoluted, and while I know what they mean now that I've played it a few times, it's a bit confusing for a first-time playthrough.
-------------
I like the companions in Inquisition, they were well-written, had ideas of their own, and you had to earn their respect/admiration/love.
I really liked how my "absolute control" of them extended only to the battlefield, and no further.
I felt like a main character, but I didn't feel like I was sub-consciously controlling everyone else too.
They had thoughts of their own, their own likes and dislikes, and not everything I did sat well with everyone all the time.
-------------
The War Table was an excellent feature.
I liked how you could send advisors to collect resources while you were out adventuring, but the only issue I had with it was that you had no way of changing what would be gathered.
Most of the time I would do the "Earn Coin" and then buy whatever I needed myself, since there's only so much you can do with 200+ Bloodstone, and it seemed very unlikely that the only source of cloth the entire black market had was Lambswool.
A better way would be to have any "Gather Resource" missions be customize-able to an extent.
You send an agent out to "find [X]", where [X] is something YOU select, rather than just picking someone and cross your fingers, hoping they come back with something good.
That way you'll have a way to get something you KNOW you want/need, instead of ending up with a surplus of the same three items every time.
Even better, it could factor into your relations with third-parties' territories and what they think of you:
If they like you, you get more [X], if they're wary, you get less [X], and if they hate you, you run the risk of getting nothing at all or worse, losing the agent you sent to gather.
It's an easy way for the developers to add more player choice/consequence without having to implement radical game systems or changes.
-------------
The item crafting is the best I've seen in a Dragon Age game, I like how you could create entire weapons and then upgrades for those weapons out of materials you've collected.
With Mass Effect, it was essentially you finding pre-made upgrades, and the extend of weapon customization was which two to pick.
Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of options, and it works very well for Mass Effect 3, but being able to fine-tune both your weapon and it's upgrades' capabilities to be just so is very satisfying.
Knowing that you scored that critical hit or broke that impenetrable cover, not by skill alone but also because you took the time to craft a masterpiece...
There's feedback, and then there's feedback, and no feedback is more satisfying then when it's immediate and accompanied with a *CHI-CHUNK* at the end.
-------------
All together though, the best thing the can learn is to iron out the bugs and glitches, and to make sure that if it's for multiple platforms that it's optimized as such.
I didn't have a problem with the PC version of Inquisition, or it's controls, but I've heard about them; and for many it's a sore point.
Basically, don't pull a "Windows 10" (the stupid thing never works right, Microsoft bastards), and odds are they should be fine.
The underline is really the only thing I disagree with in this entire post. Good post. +1
The underline is really the only thing I disagree with in this entire post. Good post. +1
What I mean is don't ship out an unfinished product.
Or a broken one.
Windows 10 as it SHOULD BE would be nice, but AS IT IS NOW, it's putrid.
But that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, so it's neither here nor there.
What do you think Andromeda could learn from Inquisition as a template?
Since you want the game to bomb so hard, what are you even doing here?
I'm reinforcing the toxic nature of the fanbase, what's the problem? 
Not use DAI as a template, since the Dragon Age franchise is about as reliable as a seesaw blowing back and forth in the wind...
Personally, I'd rather MEA used the scrapped features from ME1 rather than any of the idiotic features that were poorly implemented into DAI.
Not use DAI as a template, since the Dragon Age franchise is about as reliable as a seesaw blowing back and forth in the wind...
Personally, I'd rather MEA used the scrapped features from ME1 rather than any of the idiotic features that were poorly implemented into DAI.
What features are you referring to?
What features are you referring to?
I was referring to features such as the return of open world exploration, return of the mako, inclusion of the scrapped galaxy map interface that never made it in, perhaps even bringing back some of the RPG progression that was lost when ME2 and ME3 streamlined the gameplay.
So far, besides the progression, it seems like MEA is actually taking a lot of concepts from ME1 that either weren't received well or actually were cut from the original game.
Took the template smashes it into bits and throw it away. The game is one of the worst way to do RPG. It feels in every department, short story, annoying quests like with those stupid stones, level discrepancy, boring protagonist, lack of interesting and funny quests in general, terrible romance, getting too preachy in a look at us way instead of implement things organically, the open world was so misleading and lack of direction so much that people stuck in Hinderlands for many hours.
Retour en haut