66 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

Honestly the only thing I see in the demo that wasn't in the game was the ability to customize keeps.  

[correctamundo]

Honestly the only thing I see in the demo that wasn't in the game was the ability to customize keeps.  

 

And the boat-burning. Really important to be able to set fire on boats with ZPELLZ. If you're not allowed tro do that the game is not a true, deep RRRRRRRRRRRpg.

[Nefla]

If you think those things were present in significantly greater portions based solely on the snippet of the pre-alpha we were shown, you are mistaken.

 

If you are taking the above mistake and then using it to say you were mislead into buying the game, you're being melodramatic.

 

If neither of the above are true and you just wish there had been more of those things in the game, you're fine. (Also, in that case, the comments I made were clearly not directed at you, so I'm not sure why we're even having this conversation.)

How am I mistaken? Those things were present in the snippet we were shown and for the most part not present in any of the actual sidequests included in the game. It's disappointing (the idea of capturing and defending keeps was also promising and what was implemented in the game as far as keeps was again disappointing). As to why I replied to you, your reply to the OP asking why people were disappointed/wished this was how the actual sidequests were/wished this quest was actually in the game was that there was "no reason" and "people are just being melodramatic."

[Nefla]

And the boat-burning. Really important to be able to set fire on boats with ZPELLZ. If you're not allowed tro do that the game is not a true, deep RRRRRRRRRRRpg.

Were there any sidequests in the game that gave you a choice/varying ways of how to resolve them? The only one I can think of is that the ones where people would send you to get an animal (golden Halla, demon goat) you could sometimes kill the animal instead of bringing it back. I don't know why being able to do extra stuff like burn the boats to weaken your enemy or things like collapsing a bridge they're on would be bad things that should be made fun of. IMO the more details and more ways to interact with a game the better. Not to mention I like being able to see the faces of the people I'm talking to rather than it being so zoomed out like the actual side quest conversations in the game. I also like more dialogue options, more companion input/reaction, cutscenes and so on. The demo quest looked better in all respects than any non-companion sidequest that actually made it into the game IMO.

[correctamundo]

You did answer your question in that last sentence of yours.

[Knight of Dane]

The demo quest looked better in all respects than any non-companion sidequest that actually made it into the game IMO.

 

Which means "better then any sidequest" since none of the companions had any impressive personal quests.

[Al Foley]

The more I think about it the more I think calling the quest presented in the demo a side quest is absurd.  It is far more likely that BioWare crafted this quest specifically for the demo.  Literally a 'demo quest'.  A quest to demo an indicitive quest of what we would get in the game.  Showing off examples of choices (similar to what we got in the game), consequences (similar to what we got in the game), and the gameplay and combat (which is very similar to what we got in the game). 

Which means "better then any sidequest" since none of the companions had any impressive personal quests.

Cassandra's and Varric's were rather amazing and well thought out.  As was...you know probably be easier to list the personal quests which did not resonate with me or have a huge impact on those characters...Vivienne...and...Solas maybe? 

[NerdWithBigStick]

Better?  No.  Just different.

 

I placed a self-imposed ban on all media related to DAI when it was in development (something I'm currently doing for MEA, too) - and ironically this thread is a perfect example of why I did that.  Expectation can ruin a new experience.  DAI certainly has its flaws in its final incarnation, but had I seen this video and then played it, I am sure I would have had very different expectations for the game.

 

The things I notice here that are different are primarily related to the UI and interactions. 

• The map uses a highlighted region display rather than the gold markers markers.  It also seems slightly more detailed.
• The loading icon is a glimmering fade rift rather than the Inquisition symbol.
• Names of some locations have changed or been scrapped - par for the course.
• Various UI elements, such as the targeting reticle and the tactical camera placement markers, are different.

 

Other things are graphical and are to be expected to change before final release; from what I have seen in other pre-alpha demos, there are many things which are extremely resource-intensive; over time these get tuned down for an optimal play experience, and this case is no different.

• Spell effects look different, particularly the ice effects and the staff propulsions, which seem to use more intense physics, but it would be a matter of opinion as to whether they are better or simply different.
• Combat animations are more fluid and/or movement and pacing of movement and animations is slower.

 

The elements I'd say are a true "I wish that had been in the game!" are the ambient battlefield elements.

• Boats are moving out on the water; trebuchets are firing; soldiers are marching.  It's indicative of elements which would have drawn the player in more, but these were not in the final release (not for Crestwood, nor any other area.)
• Also, the destructible ladder which collapses the bridge is indicative of a desire for more player-destructible environments which also would appear not to have made the final cut.

 

Just normal casualties of development.  There are a lot of grand ideas that never make it.  The developer surely want them - it's usually a difference in resource time, where do you spend it vs. making your deadlines; or its a limitation in software.  Some really cool stuff might not work for various reasons.  Put one item in for a demo - sure, that works.  Make that thing work across the entire  game?  Not always possible.

 

Most people don't stop to think that this is a normal part of development - they see it in an Alpha phase and they assume it's done and ready to go and will be in the game, but these demos are very planned out, plotted, and designed around a focused path - as you can see here, there is a very specific script being read, and no doubt all of the elements were planned around it, and in some cases likely even designed for the sole purpose of the demo.  Not final release.

 

 

 

[Knight of Dane]

Cassandra's and Varric's were rather amazing and well thought out.  As was...you know probably be easier to list the personal quests which did not resonate with me or have a huge impact on those characters...Vivienne...and...Solas maybe? 

 

Cassandra's is the only passable one. At least you get a "unique" location and a few seperated cutscenes. With Varric you just go to Valammar again plus one extra chamber, nothing interesting and Bianca was way bland.

 

With Vivienne and Solas you just go to one spot, have a battle and then return. You do have some choice in their quests, but they don't amount to anything.

[AlanC9]

So "adding new areas" is the criterion?

[Wavebend]

Cassandra's is the only passable one. At least you get a "unique" location and a few seperated cutscenes. With Varric you just go to Valammar again plus one extra chamber, nothing interesting and Bianca was way bland.

 

With Vivienne and Solas you just go to one spot, have a battle and then return. You do have some choice in their quests, but they don't amount to anything.

 

The area dedicated for Cassandra's personal quest is actually a scrapped multiplayer map.

 

 

Other things are graphical and are to be expected to change before final release; from what I have seen in other pre-alpha demos, there are many things which are extremely resource-intensive; over time these get tuned down for an optimal play experience, and this case is no different.

• Spell effects look different, particularly the ice effects and the staff propulsions, which seem to use more intense physics, but it would be a matter of opinion as to whether they are better or simply different.
• Combat animations are more fluid and/or movement and pacing of movement and animations is slower.

 

Overall movement looked like the characters had less inertia, which is good. One noticeable change is that they had a 100% stagger-on-hit system for the warriors (if you watch the warrior inflict a hit the enemy is interrupted on every single hit, which is bad)

 

In the current game the enemies no longer react to every single hit, which is a shame because it looks super unrealistic. If they had at least gone the Dragon's dogma or dark souls way (poise) of doing it it would've been much more satisfying..

 

Also destruction (havok) -> console parity with 2nd gen consoles.. TBH I couldn't care less about a destructible bridge

[Abyss108]

Yeah, BioWare didn't ruin anything with their false advertising. It was the fanbase complaining about the false advertising that ruined it.

 

How is it false when Bioware clearly labeled it as Alpha? Do you not know what an Alpha is? That specifically means its not been fully implemented and is going to change. I don't think it's Bioware's job to teach you basic English words. 

[Nefla]

You did answer your question in that last sentence of yours.

Sorry, I meant it looked better than any of the ones I encountered. I don't know them all.

[Knight of Dane]

The area dedicated for Cassandra's personal quest is actually a scrapped multiplayer map.

 

Heh, good thing it was used then. Never played the multiplayer mode msyelf. 

 

 

So "adding new areas" is the criterion?

 

For personal quests? Not necessarily, but I prefer it when it makes sense because it expands the world within our visual memory. For Cassandra's mission it fits because we had to find a secret order. Mostly I feel the fault of the Inquisition personal quests lack in length.

 

Dorian's is my most conflicted one because I love the cutscene with the father itself, but "talk to Mother Giselle -> (Optional tell Dorian) -> Go to the Redcliffe Tavern" is not a very impressive walkthrough when you know there is literally nothing but loading screens in between.

[Thelzar]

Wow, its odd to see this again. It shows a more reactive game than we - for some reason - got. I also recall Laidlaw saying somewhere that in hindsight Corypheus should have punched us at least one more time. I agree, and as much I loved DA:I, I think I would have liked this pre-alpha game even better.

 

On a more positive note, this shows that the DA:I team was wildly ambitious about their game - and great as it was, they wanted to push it even further. I remain super-exited about a possible DA4.

[Addictress]

Heh, good thing it was used then. Never played the multiplayer mode msyelf.



For personal quests? Not necessarily, but I prefer it when it makes sense because it expands the world within our visual memory. For Cassandra's mission it fits because we had to find a secret order. Mostly I feel the fault of the Inquisition personal quests lack in length.

Dorian's is my most conflicted one because I love the cutscene with the father itself, but "talk to Mother Giselle -> (Optional tell Dorian) -> Go to the Redcliffe Tavern" is not a very impressive walkthrough when you know there is literally nothing but loading screens in between.

[Addictress]

Oops. Dupe.

I'm glad the game isn't more military-ish personally. Too bad the side quests didn't make up for it though.