66 réponses à ce sujet

[Wavebend]

I don't get it, yet I see this type of comment everywhere below those videos. The pre-alpha demos shown at Digiexpo/E3 2014 were somehow "better" for some people...

 

Can someone explain what the game did better in those demos than at release?

 

[Al Foley]

Its compass looked more like Skyrim perhaps? 

[Dai Grepher]

Player choice. Consequences. More storyline.

 

You actually have to choose between helping villagers or your soldiers. The enemies are also worth a damn, not mindless battle fodder. And they actually had effective attacks. There were consequences for each choice you would make.

 

Cut-scenes.

 

Strategy. More realistic interaction (burning the boats).

 

But lets be honest. This demo was only a demo. Had the player actually ran down to those red templars nothing would have happened. They were likely just models performing actions for show. Same as "take Dorian with you in Redcliffe for more story". There was never any choice. It was always made that way. Every demo player after Laidlaw made almost exactly the same choices as he did because they were all following a script.

 

Still, the demo shows the Dragon Age game that BioWare "always wanted to make". Too bad they couldn't deliver. Inquisition was a giant leap back in the right direction, but it wasn't the game that was promised.

[correctamundo]

I think the take-away message from this is that you should not show pre-alpha demos to the interturds ever again, because they just can't handle it.

[Wavebend]

Player choice. Consequences. More storyline.

 

OK

 

Cut-scenes.

 

Uhh cut-scenes are about on par?

 

The enemies are also worth a damn, not mindless battle fodder. And they actually had effective attacks.

 

Not sure what you're talking about here..

[Al Foley]

Player choice. Consequences. More storyline.

 

You actually have to choose between helping villagers or your soldiers. The enemies are also worth a damn, not mindless battle fodder. And they actually had effective attacks. There were consequences for each choice you would make.

 

Cut-scenes.

 

Strategy. More realistic interaction (burning the boats).

 

But lets be honest. This demo was only a demo. Had the player actually ran down to those red templars nothing would have happened. They were likely just models performing actions for show. Same as "take Dorian with you in Redcliffe for more story". There was never any choice. It was always made that way. Every demo player after Laidlaw made almost exactly the same choices as he did because they were all following a script.

 

Still, the demo shows the Dragon Age game that BioWare "always wanted to make". Too bad they couldn't deliver. Inquisition was a giant leap back in the right direction, but it wasn't the game that was promised.

In the main game, in the main game, and we do not know that.  From the Crestwood part of the demo we have no idea if that was a main story quest or a side quest.  Or what it was.  

 

And did you see any of these consequences to your 'choices'? If I remember correctly from the demo the demo cut out before you actually finished the demo and then skipped forward ahead.  Sure the village burned but we lack any context as to what happened or why the village burned and maybe it would have burned anyways.  As for the rest, all were in the main game of DA I.  

 

In the main game.  Did you play Dragon Age Inquisition?

 

That is honestly the first thing that they did not have in the main game.  Interesting. 

[Chiramu]

I think people just assume it was better than what we got. Maybe because it was cut content, that was the reason for people to feel slighted/cheated/etc? 

 

I don't think there would've been any part of that demo that would have been particularly different to what we actually got. From playing previous Bioware games everyone should already have experience with how Bioware games go, Bioware games always have an "illusion of choice".

 

Seeing what we don't have might give some people hope for what could have been. I think this was cut because it just didn't flow with the story that they had. I don't think that his would have meshed well into the story that we currently have. With the rewrites this alternate quest would have been completely written out for a better flowing story.

[Dai Grepher]

OK

 

 

Uhh cut-scenes are about on par?

 

 

Not sure what you're talking about here..

 

Take a look at when the Inquisitor talks to the soldier in Crestwood. It isn't just the normal view conversation, it's snapping between different camera angles. The cut-scene that plays when they walk up to the corpses in the destroyed Crestwood. The main game didn't have this except during main quests.

 

The red templars were shooting red energy "mortars" of sorts at the village in order to destroy it. This shows that they were originally intended for warfare, not just random battles.
 

[Al Foley]

I think people just assume it was better than what we got. Maybe because it was cut content, that was the reason for people to feel slighted/cheated/etc? 

 

I don't think there would've been any part of that demo that would have been particularly different to what we actually got. From playing previous Bioware games everyone should already have experience with how Bioware games go, Bioware games always have an "illusion of choice".

 

Seeing what we don't have might give some people hope for what could have been. I think this was cut because it just didn't flow with the story that they had. I don't think that his would have meshed well into the story that we currently have. With the rewrites this alternate quest would have been completely written out for a better flowing story.

And to be honest it did look hella cool.  But most of the praise of the demo tends to make the assumption that this is a side quest.  When we do not know that.  And hence if it was a side quest it would have probably been more amazing then roughly ninety percent of the side quests we got in DA I.  But knowing DAI I doubt that this is a side quest content.  Which also probably explains why the content did not fit with the rest of the story.  Having the Red Templars just randomly launch an attack out of nowhere on Crestwood...just would not have worked with the direction they ultimatley ended up taking.  

 

But really, in the end we just do not have enough information to know if the 'Crestwood quest' actually would have been better then what we got considering what we got was only a snippet. 

[Al Foley]

Take a look at when the Inquisitor talks to the soldier in Crestwood. It isn't just the normal view conversation, it's snapping between different camera angles. The cut-scene that plays when they walk up to the corpses in the destroyed Crestwood. The main game didn't have this except during main quests.

 

The red templars were shooting red energy "mortars" of sorts at the village in order to destroy it. This shows that they were originally intended for warfare, not just random battles.
 

And side quests. 

 

We do know from I believe...god i forgot his first name, but Lee...Cameron Lee that's it...that the more 'war like' aspects of DA I had to be tuned down.  It was sad and maybe something we can see more of in future installments given they are not having to divide their resources. 

[Dai Grepher]

In the main game, in the main game, and we do not know that.  From the Crestwood part of the demo we have no idea if that was a main story quest or a side quest.  Or what it was.  

 

And did you see any of these consequences to your 'choices'? If I remember correctly from the demo the demo cut out before you actually finished the demo and then skipped forward ahead.  Sure the village burned but we lack any context as to what happened or why the village burned and maybe it would have burned anyways.  As for the rest, all were in the main game of DA I.  

 

In the main game.  Did you play Dragon Age Inquisition?

 

That is honestly the first thing that they did not have in the main game.  Interesting. 

 

There were few instances of significant player choice or consequences in the final release. Choosing to keep the Wardens or exile them only caused different chore table missions to open up. But there was nothing in terms of immediate gameplay. Choosing to go one direction did not cause others to be closed off. There was never a choice of saving a village or a keep. There was never any choice of how to customize your keeps. And it was a side quest. The soldier explains that you are returning there to deal with a counter-attack against your forces.

 

We didn't see them in the demo, but Laidlaw claimed they were there. They weren't, of course, but the topic is about what the demo claimed to have vs. what the game actually had.
 

We couldn't burn boats in the final release. The boats appear on the Storm Coast. We can't light them on fire, not even by pressing a button. Laidlaw promised burning boats by using a fire spell or fire grenade, not just by tapping a button. Yet in the Exalted Plains we burned corpse pits by pressing a button, even though the same map had hay stacks that could be set ablaze with fire spells.

 

I played Inquisition. Did you watch the demo videos?

[Dai Grepher]

I think people just assume it was better than what we got. Maybe because it was cut content, that was the reason for people to feel slighted/cheated/etc? 

 

I don't think there would've been any part of that demo that would have been particularly different to what we actually got. From playing previous Bioware games everyone should already have experience with how Bioware games go, Bioware games always have an "illusion of choice".

 

Seeing what we don't have might give some people hope for what could have been. I think this was cut because it just didn't flow with the story that they had. I don't think that his would have meshed well into the story that we currently have. With the rewrites this alternate quest would have been completely written out for a better flowing story.

 

The demo made it seem like a massive military operation that you oversee personally every step of the way, and that all your choices would contribute to your army's strength. It made it seem like it was possible to lose the game by making too many wrong choices. Same with customizing keeps to your agenda. The demo content was better content. The final release just made the keep soldiers superficial.
 

No, Laidlaw said burning the red templars' boats would affect the world in some way, like weakening their ability to assault other targets in the near future. But the demo made it sound like choice would be fully represented. That the game would keep track and change based on your choices.

 

It wasn't cut, because it was never made to begin with. Some things in the demo were in the final release, but all those choices Laidlaw talked about were never actually programed into the demo. It was all just a veneer.

 

Responding to a red templar counterattack would have been great for the storyline. It's all part of the war against Corypheus, which seemed hollow in the final release. Cory just didn't do enough to attack the Inquisition.

[correctamundo]

And to be honest it did look hella cool.  But most of the praise of the demo tends to make the assumption that this is a side quest.  When we do not know that.  And hence if it was a side quest it would have probably been more amazing then roughly ninety percent of the side quests we got in DA I.  But knowing DAI I doubt that this is a side quest content.  Which also probably explains why the content did not fit with the rest of the story.  Having the Red Templars just randomly launch an attack out of nowhere on Crestwood...just would not have worked with the direction they ultimatley ended up taking.  

 

But really, in the end we just do not have enough information to know if the 'Crestwood quest' actually would have been better then what we got considering what we got was only a snippet. 

 

I think it would have been to much red templar activity so early in the game. Instead a smaller contingent and just as compelling (if not more) story in Crestwood.

[Al Foley]

There were few instances of significant player choice or consequences in the final release. Choosing to keep the Wardens or exile them only caused different chore table missions to open up. But there was nothing in terms of immediate gameplay. Choosing to go one direction did not cause others to be closed off. There was never a choice of saving a village or a keep. There was never any choice of how to customize your keeps. And it was a side quest. The soldier explains that you are returning there to deal with a counter-attack against your forces.

 

We didn't see them in the demo, but Laidlaw claimed they were there. They weren't, of course, but the topic is about what the demo claimed to have vs. what the game actually had.
 

We couldn't burn boats in the final release. The boats appear on the Storm Coast. We can't light them on fire, not even by pressing a button. Laidlaw promised burning boats by using a fire spell or fire grenade, not just by tapping a button. Yet in the Exalted Plains we burned corpse pits by pressing a button, even though the same map had hay stacks that could be set ablaze with fire spells.

 

I played Inquisition. Did you watch the demo videos?

I feel a bit cheated here because in your original post you seemed to indicate you were talking about any player choice or any consequences for your choices.  Now you are saying Inquisition has them but not enough and the wrong type of them?  As for immediete gameplay...  I guess at the end of the day I really do not care.  Though Inquisition's choices did effect gameplay, but offering you different quests and missions and even closing off whole main content and adding significantly to certain character arcs within the game.  How does soldiers telling you you are returning to deal with a counter attack make it a main quest?  

 

I watched them.  Several times. 

[Vox Draco]

The demo made it seem like a massive military operation that you oversee personally every step of the way, and that all your choices would contribute to your army's strength. It made it seem like it was possible to lose the game by making too many wrong choices. Same with customizing keeps to your agenda. The demo content was better content. The final release just made the keep soldiers superficial.
 

No, Laidlaw said burning the red templars' boats would affect the world in some way, like weakening their ability to assault other targets in the near future. But the demo made it sound like choice would be fully represented. That the game would keep track and change based on your choices.

 

It wasn't cut, because it was never made to begin with. Some things in the demo were in the final release, but all those choices Laidlaw talked about were never actually programed into the demo. It was all just a veneer.

 

Responding to a red templar counterattack would have been great for the storyline. It's all part of the war against Corypheus, which seemed hollow in the final release. Cory just didn't do enough to attack the Inquisition.

 

The problem with the war against Cory and all that is: Open World. The storyline of DAI - with the world threatened by a Dark Lord commanding armies of demons and mutated templars - called for a way more linear game. Instead of huge areas with rather bland and lazy "side-quests" (if you can even call 'em that) the areas for the main-quests should have been more of the scale of DAO, and the war-table would have forced us to choose between side-quests inbetween the main-quest (instead of the rather pointless war-table we have now)

 

Ignore the city's plea for help and instead investigate the Dragon's Lair for treasure? Alright, you win the horde, but the city is in ruins when you later are asked to retake it from Cory. Help defending a merchant-caravan to upgrade your soldiers, or visit a dwarven stronghold to get even better gear, but at the loss of loyalty from the human soldiers or nobility-support? And now and then missions like massive battles between your army and Cory's troops along the way, where the upgrades etc will have an impact on the mission's difficulty and outcome...

 

The design of DAI from the start with it trying to copy Skyrim's formula was, if you ask me, why DAI didn't turn out to be more than just "good"

[Wavebend]

There were few instances of significant player choice or consequences in the final release. Choosing to keep the Wardens or exile them only caused different chore table missions to open up. But there was nothing in terms of immediate gameplay. Choosing to go one direction did not cause others to be closed off. There was never a choice of saving a village or a keep. There was never any choice of how to customize your keeps. And it was a side quest. The soldier explains that you are returning there to deal with a counter-attack against your forces.

 

We didn't see them in the demo, but Laidlaw claimed they were there. They weren't, of course, but the topic is about what the demo claimed to have vs. what the game actually had.
 

We couldn't burn boats in the final release. The boats appear on the Storm Coast. We can't light them on fire, not even by pressing a button. Laidlaw promised burning boats by using a fire spell or fire grenade, not just by tapping a button. Yet in the Exalted Plains we burned corpse pits by pressing a button, even though the same map had hay stacks that could be set ablaze with fire spells.

 

I played Inquisition. Did you watch the demo videos?

 

I see your point, but TBH I think you're extrapolating and even in the unlikely scenario where some of those promises were to be fulfilled I wouldn't imagine a big difference. It seems to me like people got angry over how the demo had this nice storyline where you were involved in this epic battle, and how this kind of action was "missing" at release (probably not even fully coded in the first place)...

 

edit: what Vox Draco said..

[Reznore57]

Well from what I can remember , it gave the feelings areas were tied to the main plot...which happened sort of...and you had more agency over the Inquisition.

If memory serve , when you entered Crestwood , you had a short cutscene when companions get to know each others.It seemed the Inquisitor just picked Vivienne up .We had banter in games but nothing like that.

Then it seems you've already been to Crestwood and settled there , sadly your fort gets attacked by Red Templars.You had multiple choices to make , first before the attack what kind of fort you wanted , then where you'd send your men.It's not too far fetched to assume if you were more interested in military , and sends patrols instead of scouts picking flowers , you would get an edge over the battle.

Then you meet the General at the crossroad who explains the situation , you have choices to make again.Leave the wounded , send the soldier to defend the fort or village.etc...

Then another choice you either go defend the village or the fort.

Then another choice if you wanted to assault the fort you could go sneaky using a tunnel or I assume you could go through the front gate.

 

Anyway we didn't really have that in the final product.

When it comes to choices at the war table having an actual effect on the maps , you mostly had no choice.

Forts never got attacked , I don't remember making any military decision which had an impact , helping civillians and the Inquisition always went hand in hand .

There never was any timer so I never had to stop and think about taking a better route.etc..etc...

[Knight of Dane]

Interaction between the player, the main plot, and the features. Bioware showed us their design pitch before they had to cut it to it's final form. That's what they did wrong.

[Abyss108]

A lot of people are just mad because they have no idea how game development works, and think that if something is demo-able then its already been fully developed and programed and works perfectly and how dare Bioware take that content away from them.

[Al Foley]

A lot of people are just mad because they have no idea how game development works, and think that if something is demo-able then its already been fully developed and programed and works perfectly and how dare Bioware take that content away from them.

I think more likely people are asuming things about said content.  Like quest looks like a main quest, so it has to be!

[Abyss108]

I think more likely people are asuming things about said content.  Like quest looks like a main quest, so it has to be!

 

Yup, this too!

[Al Foley]

The other problem is people seem to have very different opinions on what is in said game based on...IDK lack of memory.  And even I have some trouble with this too because I just remembered, going back to Grepher's earlier point, that there was a choice you could make in DAI which led to an almost instanteous consequence.  If you kill the Wardens instead of letting them flee Adamant it makes it that much harder to actually save the Wardens, and justify saving them.  It takes away an option for talking them down. 

[correctamundo]

The other problem is people seem to have very different opinions on what is in said game based on...IDK lack of memory.  And even I have some trouble with this too because I just remembered, going back to Grepher's earlier point, that there was a choice you could make in DAI which led to an almost instanteous consequence.  If you kill the Wardens instead of letting them flee Adamant it makes it that much harder to actually save the Wardens, and justify saving them.  It takes away an option for talking them down. 

 

Exactly, but that really doesn't change the FACT that a) there are NO choices in DAI and choices that are there anyway has NO consequences at all.

[Al Foley]

Exactly, but that really doesn't change the FACT that a) there are NO choices in DAI and choices that are there anyway has NO consequences at all.

My sarcasm detector I think is faulty sometimes.

[themikefest]

I'm not worried about it. I played the game. I enjoyed the game. Good enough for me