I should correct myself. "Stop making games based on what fans desire..." Pwease, Ingore us.
I agree with this. Honestly I think listening to the fans has done Bioware more harm than good.
I want that central nerd in Bioware HQ who wears toe socks to just let himself go and give us the game he feels is right. And based on his own internal reasoning, I will likely like it too.
No, you just make short ones:I care deeply about future sidequests being improved. Others have brought up the war table and written lengthy posts about it, I'm not one of them.
It would have been cool if some of those wartable missions had been actual quests you could do. It would have been a lot more fun than finding goats and lost rings...
What makes you think that nerd ever existed?I want that central nerd in Bioware HQ who wears toe socks to just let himself go and give us the game he feels is right. And based on his own internal reasoning, I will likely like it too.
There is a nerd like that in every video game company, they often hide in plane site.... So maybe this nerd has been replaced by a in -hiding one?What makes you think that nerd ever existed?
Or maybe he's there, and he's in charge, and DAI is the game. As Realmzmaster pointed out last page, DAI is a pretty explicit throwback to BG1's style.
I agree with this. Honestly I think listening to the fans has done Bioware more harm than good.
I want that central nerd in Bioware HQ who wears toe socks to just let himself go and give us the game he feels is right. And based on his own internal reasoning, I will likely like it too.
They will likely do just that and the fan base will still blow em to hell over it. Remember according to them and their marketing Inquisition was the DA game they had always wanted to make.
No, you just make short ones:
No real point here, except that you keep jumping in when other people bring it up.
What makes you think that nerd ever existed?
Or maybe he's there, and he's in charge, and DAI is the game. As Realmzmaster pointed out last page, DAI is a pretty explicit throwback to BG1's style.
Why is it closer to BG1? What, because they stuck some token tarot cards in the game? Where are the tactics and presets you can meticulously organize? The combat was much less turn-based and very awkward in tactical view.
Just no. I'm done with this thread. This is all ridiculous.
Why is it closer to BG1? What, because they stuck some token tarot cards in the game?
The main thing Inquisition has in common with BG1 is the exploration. There haven't been any BioWare games in between the two that included such a strong exploration element.
I don't think there are any Tarot cards in BG1.
Let me guess, you're an avid follower of "Teen Mom" on MTV? Because these are the women I'm referring to, other than the dwarf in the quest of course. Be that as it may, this influences whether or not I find that girl's story engaging or compelling. Welcome to the wide world, where not everyone shares your opinions, which of course, brings us back to the actual point of the topic, yes?
I honestly don't see the major difference between what you describe in the red Templar and Ruck. Not Ruck's mother, she's just a vehicle for the plot. But Ruck shows the cruelty of the Blight and the nature of dwarves society, the revulsion he feels for himself knowing what he's done to survive, but also the desperate will to live he's clung to. Bonus for him also mentioning Branka's journal, so he has tangential connection to the main plot.... So the model of the quest is overplayed (the models for almost all RPG quests is overplayed, including "go talk with this NPC/go find this NPC". It's not the game mechanics that matters, but what we gain through it, in terms of story or gameplay), but the quest of "an NPC looks for lost child/spouse/friend/lover - and now it's time to deliver bad news" isn't?
I've seen the variation of Ruck's quest in at last 3 last RPGs I've played. It's hard to have an emotional impact when I know exactly where the story is going. "Seen this, done that".
It's also hard to tie oneself to an NPC I only see for 10 seconds, which is why "poor mother searching for her son" doesn't really do much for me, since I just see writers trying to pull those emotional strings. In that regard quite a few quests that pull emotional strings don't work for me at all in any game, since I know what they're trying to accomplish from storyteller's perspective.
I, personally, need more meat on these bones.
And you know what? The dying templar in Suledin Keep actually does a little something for me. He was lying there predominantly for expository reasons - to give us an insight into Imshael's methods of turning templars into lyrium abominations, alongside what we discover in the mines. But his confession about being given a choice he would simply not make? It has impact.
It not only reveals the cunning and cruelty of Imshael, but also provides some insight into the dying templar's character: he'd rather die or be turned into a monster than would consciously make a choice that could save him. He died, but in a small way he was triumphant and brought a spark of humanity into people who suffered the fate of being turned into a red templar.
This, Addictress, is good writing. Short and to the point, but has many layers in itself, aside from pure exposition.
Modifié par vbibbi, 20 février 2016 - 01:04 .
Actually DA I has something like 9 different endings plus all the variations in the eplilogue plus all the variations in the Tresspasser epilogue.
And besides DA O had what? 3 endings? maybe 5? I mean there was a lot of variation in the epilogue sure, but few endings, and all of them the main character won the day.
Different definitions of endings, but it's disingenuous to consider the game fail messages as endings to the game. We don't get a trophy for completing the game if we get those messages. The game isn't really over, we have to reload, it brings up the options to reload, it doesn't cut to end credits.Each time you 'lose' a main campaign mission you get a different ending telling you how badly you suck and how badly the world sucks because you could not make it. That counts. So effectively Inquisition has 9 endings, I think it is 9 anyways, and in 8 of them you lose.
That makes sense. Though it's funny that you're ending up spending so much time talking about a feature you don't actually care about.
Why should Bioware go back to the Origins style> Why not go back to the Baldur's Gate 1 style or maybe NWN style? I like DAI because it is more in the vein of BG1. DAO is more in the vein of BG2 which was far more linear than BG1. For me everything does not have to tie in to the main plot. Let's face it a lot of the sidequests in DAO did not tie into the main plot. The only purpose was for experience and leveling up.
There was very little reason to do the Chanter's board, Blackstone Irregulars, Slim's quests, or the mage quests. Why was the warden chasing Gaxkang?
Why did the warden have to get all three armies and solve the problems of those factions? Why couldn't the warden just get one or two armies? Why was there no consequence to going to the tower for Connor? Why could not Erl Eamon die and Teagan take over and give the warden an army? He eventually takes over anyway?
The same reason for the quests in DAI the developers did not design it that way. Bioware made DAO more linear whereas DAI is much less linear. The main quest in both will always be linear . IMHO, DAI was less linear than DAO. But, YMMV.
Wait so the epilogue slides don't count in DAO but then they do for DAI? I think they either both need to be counted or neither counted.
Different definitions of endings, but it's disingenuous to consider the game fail messages as endings to the game. We don't get a trophy for completing the game if we get those messages. The game isn't really over, we have to reload, it brings up the options to reload, it doesn't cut to end credits.
The same could be said for you coming in and shooting down people's ideas without providing anything constructive. My impression isn't that you enjoyed the elements people are complaining about, but that you don't think it's practical to change them. If you liked them, fine, but if you didn't, why try to shoot down someone who is providing reasons they didn't like something and why/how they would like it improved in future games?
In that line of thinking, why did the Inquisitor need to get the wardens AND Orlais' troops? Why not one or the other, or just the Templars/mages they had recruited? And in the minor side quests from DAO, they might not have been directly relevant to stopping the Blight (though Blackstone Irregulars were recruiting mercenaries for the army) but how was spending weeks traveling to the Hissing Wastes or the Oasis helpful in stopping Corypheus. Or, to be less forgiving, going to any of the zones except for Hinterlands, Crestwood and Western Approach were unnecessary.
Uh reading my comments...they count in both games. I don't count them as seperate endings though.
Its not disengienious its what I believe. I think it was really clever of BioWare to do what they did.
I enjoyed MOST of Origins (Deep Roads and Fade being the exceptions). I enjoyed MOST of Inquisition (Hissing Wastes...nah, forget the pun, and not fond of the specializations, rather, how they were handled, as there should have been a quest rather than a FETCH quest). Going back seems...pointless. When marketing to a large audience, you need to cast a wide net. I'm hoping they take a LITTLE longer to develop the next in the series, to evaluate what what worked, and what to jettison. I'm certain there will be some big changes, after all, the writing team will be different. I'm actually excited about that. After four titles, lets see some fresh blood. Some of the old has remained, but lets get some new in there.
And seriously hoping they do SOMETHING about resource gathering. If you are in charge of a giant organization, you SHOULDN'T be doing the nitty gritty. We should have had the option to assign agents to those. Say, trade off experience and gold to have agents take care of it for you. That would be interesting.
ANYWAY, that's my two bits. I don't think catering to console OR PC (or Mac...though seriously, can a Mac run it?) is wise, rather all platforms involved need to be taken into consideration. Though, hear me out, if they ARE looking at the next big thing, and as much as it pains me to say, perhaps it is time to drop support for the older systems. I know, I know...but its basically spreading themselves too thin. Also, ONLY developing for ONE of those is NOT financially wise...development costs are so high now they NEED to cover as many bases as possible...but too many and it becomes a mess.
Okay, SERIOUS upside to being a consumer rather than the seller...I DON'T have to actually worry about all that. I just have to have the 60 or so bucks to plop down on a title. SOOO much easier. 
I wish they would go back to the Origins style again but I don't think that will ever happen, cause they're too busy catering to teenage fans who like punk hair and shooters. I know it hasn't turned into a shooter yet... but it will soon....
I wish they would go back to the Origins style again but I don't think that will ever happen, cause they're too busy catering to teenage fans who like punk hair and shooters. I know it hasn't turned into a shooter yet... but it will soon....
I loose brain cells when i read posts like this. Especially since its been addressed. Sure I understand its hard to read every single post in a thread when you are new, I don't often keep up either, but from my perspective, I have already had this conversation.
It's a 13 page thread... Excuse me if I don't feel like reading through the whole damn thing.I loose brain cells when i read posts like this. Especially since its been addressed. Sure I understand its hard to read every single post in a thread when you are new, I don't often keep up either, but from my perspective, I have already had this conversation.
It's a 13 page thread... Excuse me if I don't feel like reading through the whole damn thing.
Skip my post if you don't like it. Simple really...
Point is its insulting to just assume everyone who likes the 'new BioWare' is knuckle dragging teenagers who want it to become a shooter.
Point is its insulting to just assume everyone who likes the 'new BioWare' is knuckle dragging teenagers who want it to become a shooter.
That's not what I said at all. I meant that the games has taken a direction to cater teenagers specifically IMO. I think it's obvious with the hair styles and the hordes of bandits instead of the old school rpg.
But again, this is just MY opinion xD
Bandits and hairstyles make a game catered to teenagers? Uuuuhuh.
Bandits and hairstyles make a game catered to teenagers? Uuuuhuh.
That's not what I said at all. I meant that the games has taken a direction to cater teenagers specifically IMO. I think it's obvious with the hair styles and the hordes of bandits instead of the old school rpg.
But again, this is just MY opinion xD
I thought old school RPGs had terrible hair styles and hordes of bandits. 
I mean I guess Origins had great hair but I do remember hordes of bandits. And things that might as well be hordes of bandits.
I thought old school RPGs had terrible hair styles and hordes of bandits.
Origins had darkspawn and not really bandits.. inquisition only had people to kill. But of course, that's not the factor which makes it catering to teenagers for me, it's everything combined. I simply miss origins style.
By Origins style do you mean the grim!dark?
Retour en haut