230 réponses à ce sujet

[Minticus Maximus]

For me, Inquisition was a fun but overall disappointing game, a 6 out of 10. It had some really interesting companions (Cole, Dorian, Iron Bull to name a few), cool locations, fun (though dumbed down) combat, and some relatively interesting main quests. However, the whole thing was bugged down by massive, empty areas, MMO like collection quests, dumbed down combat, bad loot system, some quests which where horribly written, and a 1960's batman main villain. So I'm always surprised when people tell me that Inquisition is a better game then Origins, which for me was a solid 9/10, 8/10 on a bad day, and one of my top games of all time. What I want to know is, why do you think that Inquisition was a superior game?

 

Edit: So my conclusion? We are completely different people. We seem to have completely different tastes to a degree I did not think possible. Things you find interesting I find impossibly boring and I thought what I thought was the norm. But it seems that even boring things hold the interest of some people, and interesting things seem boring to others.

 

I'm not going to debate who's right or wrong on this subject, because their probably isn't a right answer (unless you like DAII the most, in which case you are clearly wrong), and I'm disappointed that I will never get another Origins from Bioware, but I guess they are going after a different audience to their DAO fans, and I'll just have to find someone different.

 

Also Abyss108, you are a troll. You must be a Troll.

 

Edit 2: Though I will maintain that, if you think Loghain was a bad villain, you are wrong. Not subjectively wrong. Wrong.

[CronoDragoon]

1. Combat is way better on console.

2. World is beautiful, zones look interesting.

3. Main story has actual thematic depth, writing in general is more nuanced and interesting. Especially with respect to lore, but also discussions of the Chantry and such.

4. Skyhold

5. Music is better

6. War table is great as a supplement to rise to power

 

Reasons why it's a close call despite this:

1. Origins has a slightly better cast

2. Companion tactical slots allow for less frustrating group combat

3. Less empty space

4. Better ending divergence

5. Aubrey Ashburn

6. Longer main quest

 

Ultimately, it's really the comparison of both combat systems as third-person action games (which is what they both are on console) that tips the scales in Inquisition's favor. Origins feels terrible to play. Inquisition feels acceptable, and sometimes genuinely fun. Had I played the entire series with KB&M on PC, I'd probably favor Origins, but again only slightly.

[b09boy]

 

3. Main story has actual thematic depth

5. Main story does more interesting things with the lore

8. Writing in general feels more mature in Inquisition.

 

 

 

I mean, guess I could sorta see #5 as Origins more established lore while Inquisition tried taking it new directions, but in terms of depth and maturity?  Inquisition and Origins have a very similar story archetype to compare the two directly, and I would in no circumstances consider that it had better depth (it's been said Inquisition is like a vast puddle compared to Origins murky ocean), or it's childish good/evil story was more mature than Origins.

[Al Foley]

So first of all since you use the eight out of ten scale and what not I use my own scale.  I have a Tier system because I am tired of rankings and grading systems and what not so I try and divide everything based on the general feelings of the game and what not.  The purpose is to group, not rank.  Tier 1-5, Tier 1 being the best, Tier 5 being the worse.  Maybe Tier 0 for best of the best.  But DA I is Tier 1, DA O is Tier 3.  

 

In nearly every significant way I feel DA I is the better game.  Better zones, better graphics to say the least buuuut.  Well.  Better antagonists, better protagonist, better music, better gameplay, better story, better cast of companion characters, better fidelity of the setting, easier to connect to the world, not dark for the sake of being dark, gets me thinking more and connects to me far more emotionally.  

 

And then you have things like the War Table which was not in Origins but was a clear improvement and good addition which I had a hella of a good tie with.  

 

Origins for itself has better side quests and a better job of integrating those side quests/ and zones, into the whole story.  

[LightningPoodle]

So first of all since you use the eight out of ten scale and what not I use my own scale.  I have a Tier system because I am tired of rankings and grading systems and what not so I try and divide everything based on the general feelings of the game and what not.  The purpose is to group, not rank.  Tier 1-5, Tier 1 being the best, Tier 5 being the worse.  Maybe Tier 0 for best of the best.  But DA I is Tier 1, DA O is Tier 3.  

 

That is ranking them on a scale of 1 - 5 instead of 1 - 10. Makes no difference as far as I can see.

[Dai Grepher]

Inquisition wasn't even close to Origins' greatness. Origins had better storyline and role-playing. Better player choice. Better music, though Inquisition's was good. Origins had better maps. Inquisition was mostly just randomly generated wilderness. Also, Origins was what it was. Inquisition began as something more and had to be cut down drastically. Inquisition was still a great game, but not nearly as great as Origins. Origins and its expansions are more meaningful for me.

[Al Foley]

That is ranking them on a scale of 1 - 5 instead of 1 - 10. Makes no difference as far as I can see.

Sure, but its a lot more general, and a lot more...stable...granted it can change on a whim just like any other opinion but...for instance...I always find it tough to give something a 'score'.  I keep on changing my mind.  So one day something could be a 9.3, and then its a 9.1, then its a 9.5, and then its an 8.9.  I just...like this way of doing things better per se.  Organizing things into general groups rather then playing silly games of 'what is better.'

[Al Foley]

Inquisition wasn't even close to Origins' greatness. Origins had better storyline and role-playing. Better player choice. Better music, though Inquisition's was good. Origins had better maps. Inquisition was mostly just randomly generated wilderness. Also, Origins was what it was. Inquisition began as something more and had to be cut down drastically. Inquisition was still a great game, but not nearly as great as Origins. Origins and its expansions are more meaningful for me.

Oh I did forget the better role playing in mine...actually though thinking about it this is a close call because the Inquisitor was a better protag then the Warden, and hence easier to role play, but you could do 'muhahaha' choices with the Warden.  But then I am not sure being able to do muhahaha choices actually is better.  And better player choice?  Explain.  

[CronoDragoon]

 

I mean, guess I could sorta see #5 as Origins more established lore while Inquisition tried taking it new directions, but in terms of depth and maturity?  Inquisition and Origins have a very similar story archetype to compare the two directly, and I would in no circumstances consider that it had better depth (it's been said Inquisition is like a vast puddle compared to Origins murky ocean), or it's childish good/evil story was more mature than Origins.

 

Inquisition has the best discussion of organized religion we've seen in games. That may not be saying much, but it's a hell of a lot better than anything Origins' story did.

And I sincerely hope no one has called Origins' story a "murky ocean" of depth, for their sake.

[thats1evildude]

Voiced protagonist, for one. The Warden feels awfully wooden. The Inquisitor emotes, and while there is the odd line that I felt is delivered poorly, I'll take that over the Warden's constant staring and lack of non-reaction to some pretty emotionally damaging events. ("I just had to kill my friend, who was turned into a ghoul!" *Stares vacantly*)

The environments are considerably more varied and have wildlife you can actually interact with.

The Perks system is way better than the shoddy Skills system in DAO and crafting is less of a headache.

Few of the side quests in DAO come close to touching some optional quests in DAI in terms of size. I think the Knight's Tomb is as big as one floor of the Circle Tower.

They eliminated healing potion spam as a tactic against opponents.

Judgements are pretty fun. So is assaulting keeps.

 

The chirping of nugs is a lot less irritating in DAI.

[Al Foley]

 

And this scene by itself.  Honestly if the game were just this scene then it would probably be a better game then DA O. 

[Al Foley]

Voiced protagonist, for one. The Warden feels awfully wooden. The Inquisitor emotes, and while there is the odd line that I felt is delivered poorly, I'll take that over the Warden's constant staring.

The environments are considerably more varied and have wildlife you can actually interact with.

The Perks system is way better than the shoddy Skills system in DAO and crafting is less of a headache.

Few of the side quests in DAO come close to touching some optional quests in DAI in terms of size. I think the Knight's Tomb is as big as one floor of the Circle Tower.

They eliminated healing potion spam as a tactic against opponents.

Judgements are pretty fun.

Nugs are a lot less irritating in DAI.

Forgot about the crafting!

[b09boy]

Inquisition has the best discussion of organized religion we've seen in games. That may not be saying much, but it's a hell of a lot better than anything Origins' story did.

And I sincerely hope no one has called Origins' story a "murky ocean" of depth, for their sake.

 

That's why it's called a murky ocean, and not just an ocean.  You only find depth if you're willing to look into it.  As to Inquisition and religion, as compared to Origins...yeah, no...not going to bother getting into it.  I can see where this discussion is going and it's not worth it.

[AlanC9]

That's the thing about murky water.... it can look deep without actually being deep.

[Al Foley]

That's the thing about murky water.... it can look deep without actually being deep.

Excellent definition of Origins really.  Good one for Inquisition is...not sure what its called but it looks shallow but is actually deep.  Like you take one step, am fine, take another step and up to your head in seawater. 

[Minticus Maximus]

In nearly every significant way I feel DA I is the better game.  Better zones, better graphics to say the least buuuut.  Well.  Better antagonists, better protagonist, better music, better gameplay, better story, better cast of companion characters, better fidelity of the setting, easier to connect to the world, not dark for the sake of being dark, gets me thinking more and connects to me far more emotionally.  

 

Bullshit does I have better zones. They are massive, and ****** empty. You trek for miles to find one collectable, and it's never worth it. Prettiness does not trump practicality. And like hell was Cory better then Loghain. Loghain felt like a person, with flaws but redeemable qualities. You could empathise with his fear of Orlais, and you saw him as both a man and a monster.

 

Cory is bullshit. He's not threatening. He spouts cheesy dialogue that does not in anyway build his character. He dies twice before we kill him FFS. I don't fear someone who has to rely on his resurrection power to do anything. It also doesn't help that he constantly loses. He only wins one fight: Haven, which was a small temple at most. The rest of the game is him just failing again and again and again. ANY other force could of beaten him, but they decides to reduce the intelligence of every other in game faction to make it that you were the only one with common sense (the Warden quest line was ****** awful for that...).

 

And the story was ESPECIALLY bullshit, but I can't be arsed to go into the 1000 problems with that...

[CronoDragoon]

That's why it's called a murky ocean, and not just an ocean.  You only find depth if you're willing to look into it.

 
Which is also the case for crystal clear water. This analogy is not really working, honestly.

And like hell was Cory better then Loghain. Loghain felt like a person, with flaws but redeemable qualities. You could empathise with his fear of Orlais, and you saw him as both a man and a monster.

He didn't say Cory > Loghain. He said DAI's antagonists > DAO's antagonists. So Cory + Solas > Archdemon + Loghain. Something I agree with as well.

[Abyss108]

Better protagonist.

Better plot.

Better companions.

Better gameplay.

Better music.

Better graphics.

Better romance.

Better main base.

 

Also, wartable.

 

DA:I! 

[b09boy]

 
Which is also the case for crystal clear water. This analogy is not really working, honestly.


He didn't say Cory > Loghain. He said DAI's antagonists > DAO's antagonists. So Cory + Solas > Archdemon + Loghain. Something I agree with as well.

*blinks*

 

Sure.

[Al Foley]

Bullshit does I have better zones. They are massive, and ****** empty. You trek for miles to find one collectable, and it's never worth it. Prettiness does not trump practicality. And like hell was Cory better then Loghain. Loghain felt like a person, with flaws but redeemable qualities. You could empathise with his fear of Orlais, and you saw him as both a man and a monster.

 

Cory is bullshit. He's not threatening. He spouts cheesy dialogue that does not in anyway build his character. He dies twice before we kill him FFS. I don't fear someone who has to rely on his resurrection power to do anything. It also doesn't help that he constantly loses. He only wins one fight: Haven, which was a small temple at most. The rest of the game is him just failing again and again and again. ANY other force could of beaten him, but they decides to reduce the intelligence of every other in game faction to make it that you were the only one with common sense (the Warden quest line was ****** awful for that...).

 

And the story was ESPECIALLY bullshit, but I can't be arsed to go into the 1000 problems with that...

If you can't handle a difference of opinion without resorting to swearing, then why bother posting?  

 

Anyways the comparison is more Archdemon= Cory then Loghain=Cory.  But Cory regardless, imo, I feel Cory was the better bad guy.  Don't get me wrong they were both pretty bad antagonists but I give Cory the slight edge. 

[Abyss108]

Oh yeah, I forgot Better villains for my list of reasons DA:I is better!

[greenbrownblue]

For me, Inquisition was a fun but overall disappointing game, a 6 out of 10. It had some really interesting companions (Cole, Dorian, Iron Bull to name a few), cool locations, fun (though dumbed down) combat, and some relatively interesting main quests. However, the whole thing was bugged down by massive, empty areas, MMO like collection quests, dumbed down combat, bad loot system, some quests which where horribly written, and a 1960's batman main villain. So I'm always surprised when people tell me that Inquisition is a better game then Origins, which for me was a solid 9/10, 8/10 on a bad day, and one of my top games of all time. What I want to know is, why do you think that Inquisition was a superior game?

1. Better story

2. More interesting characters

3. I like hearing my character talking

4. Puzzles (though I wish there were more and that they were slightly more difficult)

5. Origins world was claustrophobic, too tiny and too filled with objects, therefore unrealistic

6. Open areas and big maps

7. Better music

8. Skyhold and the idea of using war table(it was so good that MEA will imply sth similar)

9. Mount (tho animation could be slightly improved - like in TW3)

10. Solas, Solas, and again Solas.

11. I do like the approval system. It is more realistic.

12. Judgements (hope I will still be able to judge with my Inquis in Tevinter)

13. Origins had too much Middle Age in it.
14. I am tired of the Wardens. Would love the next DA to focus on Tevinter and Elves.

15. Better combat system, more dynimic (hopefully they will keep it that way)

16. etc etc etc

[Minticus Maximus]

 
Which is also the case for crystal clear water. This analogy is not really working, honestly.


He didn't say Cory > Loghain. He said DAI's antagonists > DAO's antagonists. So Cory + Solas > Archdemon + Loghain. Something I agree with as well.

That wasn't a reply to you...

[Al Foley]

The only antagonist in origins I felt was worth more then just a second look is Arl Rendon Howe.  And that guy is not especially deep and compelling but they did succeed in making me hate the little fucker and wanting me to drive a stake through his heart...so he was a good bad guy.  

 

Whereas DA I had Corypheus, Solas (somewhat anyways), Livius Erimond of Virantium, Alexius Gerron (sp?), Samson, and especially Calpernia.  A far better, more nuanced, and made-me-feel-more-things about them then DA Os collection of mustache twirlers.  Only horrible bad guy in DA I from a writing stand point was Florianne.  Granted neither game comes close to matching DA 2s fantastic collection of baddies. 

[CronoDragoon]

11. I do like the approval system. It is more realistic.

Forgot about this, but it's definitely true. Though you can still kind of grind approval through quests, the majority of your approval is through dialogue instead of gifts. Beyond that, you can double disapproval points with the Trespasser mods, which makes things more exciting.