No, but then you can't say half the stuff you've been saying either.
You mean qualitative analysis using media terms? I'm not great but I'm not trashing it without reason. And I'm also not alone, as I pointed out. Better writers than I described the issues we have with DA:I in the meta critic reviews.
You didn't realize its history walking into zones. Littering an environment you can barely interact with with notes and letters is not conducive to an immersive history.
It worked in Skyrim but only because the entire game is designed around exploration, not narrative or character. You end up being so, so immersed....entire quests rely on interacting with objects, reading letters, exploring dungeons of lost races....going to libraries and each book can be read and collected.....
Bioware games are cinematic narratives. You have characters, who perform actions. You have companions. The story is unfolding. It's NOT hand holding. It's an Entirely different way of presenting a story.
It fell flat on its face. We're making decisions about Briala and Celene and Gaspard NOW, but the weight of those decisions is suddenly historical? In Skyrim, you read about ancient Dwemer and Snow Elves...their history is buried in the environment. Are you making main decisions about Snow Elves and Dwemer politics? No. You make decisions on Ulfred and the Imperials, all of whom are dramatized through theatrical scripted narrative.
Let me rephrase.
Your definition of good is clearly different.
So no, you can't claim it is objectively good.
So does this just sort of magically not apply to all the other games you just listed? Every single one of them has any number of flaws - or features - that could be a deal breaker for anyone for any arbitrary reason, because as you seem to be just discovering, different players have different preferences.
DAI isn't significantly different than any of those other games. I don't fully know why it rubbed you the wrong way, because I must have skipped the pages in the middle where you offered "qualitative analysis" (unless that was the part where you were just trying to turn this into another hackneyed witcher thread), but you can't pretend that your set of preferences are the only preferences, and I'm sorry, but if you defer to Metacritic as some sort of authority as opposed to a hivemind of blinding idiocy and trolling, you get laughed out the door.
To repeat Alanc9, it's a good game that's not for everyone. Like the earlier games in the series. Like Mass Effect. Also like TW3, I'm sorry to inform you. And also like anything else that would likely be relevant to the conversation.
You are hilariously overdramatic.
Relax Jazz. Bioware didn't let DAO's success (Which they didn't predict) change their plans for DA2, for better or worse.
If they had different plans for MEA, they won't change them because of DAI's success. If there'll be elements similar between the games it'll be because they planned them from the start.
Beside, DA devs already mentioned that they'll likely return to the previous type of dialogues of DAO and DA2 compared to DAI (which I still think resources cost and the old gen were partially a reason for those). so DAI's success isn't leading Bioware to keep everything the same as DAI.
7) The villain was a cartoon character.
Granted, they fixed that in a DLC, but then so did Bioware.
If we treat metacritic as a source of "quality" user reviews then DAI is much better received game than DA2 on all platforms.
Relax Jazz. Bioware didn't let DAO's success (Which they didn't predict) change their plans for DA2, for better or worse.
If they had different plans for MEA, they won't change them because of DAI's success. If there'll be elements similar between the games it'll be because they planned them from the start.
Beside, DA devs already mentioned that they'll likely return to the previous type of dialogues of DAO and DA2 compared to DAI (which I still think resources cost and the old gen were partially a reason for those). so DAI's success isn't leading Bioware to keep everything the same as DAI.
I don't become immersed in Skyrim's nonsense. Because it's mostly caves or fields with random diary entries, or an absurd collection of relatively poor to mediocre short stories. I agree that DAI fell flat on its face when it comes to this design. But it fell flat on its face because the design sucks - it sucked in Skyrim, it sucked in New Vegas when the far more talented Obsidian tried it, and it will suck in whatever other game tries it out next, whether MEA or otherwise.
Spoiler
Granted, they fixed that in a DLC, but then so did Bioware.
In defense of Addictess, I do not think using Metacritic as a way to prove the quality of DAI. However, you cannot ignore the FACT that MANY gamers had negativd opinions of DAI. And these werent just raging fanboy complaints, but valid complaints. Some of these include:
1) Lack of cutscenses (which was a departure from their previous games which were cutscene/cinematic heavy)
2) The IQ was dull and monotone in terms of personality.
3) The game required a lot of "head cannon".
4) Gameplay design was too similar to that of a MMO.
5) Too much emphasis on fetch quest. The side quest were not memerable. Take the Hinterlands widow lost wedding ring for example. Where was the emotion?
6) The open zones were designed around the idea of forced exploration with its invisible on rails/linear style approach.
7) The villain was a cartoon character.
8) The IQ was reactionary to the world events rather than proactive. Compared to Shepard, Revan, Hawke, and The Warden which were mainly proactive and actively involved in events rather than showing up after the dust has settled. Thus leading to the tell but not showing narrative of DAI.
With all that being said, DAI being a good game or not is 100% subjective. My trash may be your treasure. But one common complaint among us who hates DAI was that it had a tell and not show narrative. We always came just after a major event happened and we had to ""catch up" by reading notes, letters, and journals. Take the Exalted Plains for example, we came just after the major battle occured. Take the Mage vs Templars for example, we were mainly removed from it which is odd considering the buildup from DA2 and DA: Asunder. So my fear is that Bioware will let the many GOTY Awards of DAI and it being their "most successful launch for a Bioware game" get to their head and carry over many narrative styles over from DAI to MEA.
Will Ryder be reactionary to events or proactive? Will we show up after the fact IQ showing up at the Exalted Plains or during a conflict like Shepard in ME3 coming in right in the middle of a major battle?
I am not as optimistic. If the leaks are anything to go by, a lot of the structure is similar to DAI. Bioware keeps telling us that MEA is inspired by ME1 but again, the leaks suggest otherwise.
There is so much potential with MEA narrative wise but I just dont believe Bioware was the killer instinct to go after that because they seem to like to play things safe.
This is not Bioware circa 2003....
Why not? There's nothing in the leak that says there won't be quality side quests in MEA. The open world might or might not have the same problems of DAI, but it's not like ME's open world was better.
I keep my expectations low in regards of the open world content, but I do think that, even if a little, they'll improve on DAI.
You didn't read them.
DA2 had a worse overall reaction then DAI. Some of the complaints were about things that might've been better if Bioware had more development time, but there were many features that people heavily disliked.
Not that DAI didn't have complaints, but it was far worse both here and in other forums.
Picking cherries today?
Spoiler
I really don't want to be a negative Nancy. I seriously do love DA2 and ME3, and don't consider myself picky or someone who loves to complain just because. This is probably the ONLY game that has stirred such violent emotions in my long gamer life.
And that is honestly strange to me, getting riled up over a game.
Look, if you don't like something after you play it, then you stop playing it, or during it, you know? Taste and quality become subjective to a lot of people based on what they are looking for- for example, I can't stand The Witcher games at all because of its joyless tone and because of Geralt and how he has been written throughout all the games; so the likelihood of me even playing Witcher 3 is low after going through 1 and 2.
I can appreciate things done in those games here and there, but they are bad games to me and it's not worth my time or effort to play them again. Getting riled up over it, so mad where I have to write an essay to express my hatred or disappointment in something I did for fun because it was my job, and I was barely serious in it to begin with because there is no reason to get so uptight over entertainment.
Just enjoy it, or not. We move on I guess.
And you have no comment on the many other common complaints I mentioned?
Not really, because most of them come down to preference. Some of them were even leveled at previous DA games, but apparently they weren't an issue for you then.
You don't like DAI. That doesn't make it a bad game. This is a stupid thread though.
So does this just sort of magically not apply to all the other games you just listed? Every single one of them has any number of flaws - or features - that could be a deal breaker for anyone for any arbitrary reason, because as you seem to be just discovering, different players have different preferences.
DAI isn't significantly different than any of those other games. I don't fully know why it rubbed you the wrong way, because I must have skipped the pages in the middle where you offered "qualitative analysis" (unless that was the part where you were just trying to turn this into another hackneyed witcher thread), but you can't pretend that your set of preferences are the only preferences, and I'm sorry, but if you defer to Metacritic as some sort of authority as opposed to a hivemind of blinding idiocy and trolling, you get laughed out the door.
To repeat Alanc9, it's a good game that's not for everyone. Like the earlier games in the series. Like Mass Effect. Also like TW3, I'm sorry to inform you. And also like anything else that would likely be relevant to the conversation.
You are hilariously overdramatic.
It's not just a few flaws. These are core elements of what makes a game worth playing and successful at remotely living up to two previous fantastic installments - turned rotten. Writing. Dialogue. Story. Gameplay mechanics, lack of tactics. UI. Lack of interaction with environment, a city so small compared to cities rendered in other games of its caliber including games prior within the very same series, it's a failure. I feel cheated and betrayed. And the worst thing is, I am normally a reasonable and flexible person. I get angry seeing people trash Mass Effect 3, or Dragon Age 2. Even though I concede some of the flaws in those two games, overall I still think they are great games at the core and have a lot of other redeeming qualities.
I can think of two or three redeeming qualities for DA:I, none of which, alone, even combined by themselves, make a great game. The music - especially select tracks by Trevor Morris ('Dread Wolf' Theme, some of the Descent combat music, and 'Battle for Haven') don't get enough praise. Gorgeous. Also, obviously the environments were beautifully rendered. Too bad you rarely heard the music, and too bad those landscapes were empty.
Um.. that's pretty much it.
So yeah I'm angry. People baked cupcakes for their rage at ME3, and I honestly think DA3 deserves far worse treatment and 100 times more rage. Even more because if it is true that the thrilling lore reveal about the evanuris, the titans, and the Dread Wolf were already planned by Gaider long ago, DA:I can't even claim those to its credit since they were already in the overall series arc planned since before 2009, and they completely wasted that potential.
So no, you can't come out and conclude that it's a good game. You liked the game. But you don't get to plant that flag on that moon. You don't get to speak for the entire consumer base of Bioware. You don't get to hog that opinion to yourself.
Bioware needs to wake up and hire a professional statistics firm and figure out their demographics. They either want to cater to you, or to me.
Not really, because most of them come down to preference. Some of them were even leveled at previous DA games, but apparently they weren't an issue for you then.
You don't like DAI. That doesn't make it a bad game. This is a stupid thread though.
These are serious complaints by devout fans. Some of them may have been leveled at previous games, but all of them? At the same time? It's ridiculous.
So no, you can't come out and conclude that it's a good game. You liked the game. But you don't get to plant that flag on that moon. You don't get to speak for the entire consumer base of Bioware. You don't get to hog that opinion to yourself.
So how on earth does this not equally apply to your position?
These are serious complaints by devout fans. Some of them may have been leveled at previous games, but all of them? At the same time? It's ridiculous.
At least half of them were leveled at DAO when it was released.
And at least half, with regard to presentation and head canon, come down to preference. Not everyone likes to watch a movie or go for a ride. Some people legitimately want a decent RPG. A lot of the things that Jazz seems to want are incompatible with that. That doesn't make them flaws. It means the game isn't to his taste. It's not to your taste either. I guess you can just ignore the fact that lots of people, here and elsewhere, do sincerely like it, though.
We have none of that for the mage VS. templar war. NPCs and towns are not brimming with political opinions. You find a few randomly wandering enemies to portray the mage vs. templar war spread throughout the countryside. There is no momentum. No pacing. No dramatic effect at all.
It's like you are willfully ignoring the point... The mage/templar war is ancillary to the main story of the game. And what we do get, is after the battle exposure. But what I can clearly see, is that enviromental cues and a world/story design where it isn't plastered in neon in a cutscene for every tertiary event, you do not get.
Plenty of people got what you didn't so stop this bloody nondense that the style is inherently wrong or flawed. YOU just don't like it.
@Addictress: you should understand though, that what you feel, other people might not agree with. Some people might find DAI far better then DA2. Or maybe like or love both. Or hate them both.
I'm not saying people shouldn't criticize DAI if they didn't like it, or not posting their problems with the game. But saying that the previous games had only some of the problems mentioned and that DAI had all, or that ME3 and DA2 have more reedeming qualities compared to DAI that makes them great games, is in the end just a personal opinion. Other people might think DAI has more good qualities then those, so they obviously will disagree with your opinion on it.
edit: that goes for the other side as well, obviously.
Bioware needs to wake up and hire a professional statistics firm and figure out their demographics. They either want to cater to you, or to me.
Yeah, so you don't know what this means. Demonstrative techniques over blatant narration is exactly what we are talking about. You have to extrapolate this concept to each medium depending on the medium you are using. If you're using a video game, obviously it's not the same as a book. What is demonstration when interactive videogames is the medium? Well, something beyond "blatant text" is what it is.
I know what it means, and you're wrong. Letters found in the world are demonstration by any definition. That it's text is immaterial, or everything in a book would be narration. It's not. To give an example of narration in a game: the epilogues. Or if Cassandra had told you the world and its people were suffering because of the war (which I'm sure occurs a few times in the game with characters telling you this). That would be a form of narration, sure. What you're talking about isn't that, and suggesting otherwise makes me question if you really understand the spirit of the guideline in the first place. Likely not, because the letters are showing the player specific examples of how the war is affecting the people of Thedas. You and some others are hung up on the fact that it's text vs. cutscene and trying to skew the meaning of the phrase to ground your desire for more cutscenes in an established literary warning to try and give your personal preference some type of independent weight.
There's really no need for that, because the personal preference is justification enough. I would also prefer to see more scenes and fewer letters, and I don't need to coopt vaguely related book sayings to express that preference.
That's because you're not watching a wholly scripted, carefully edited movie or play-by-play broadcast of a war. You're actually immersed in living in the world where it's all coming down. Immersed? Yeah right. There's no spatial reasoning to the placement of objects or loot in the game. Animations and vioce acting so poor, my suspension of disbelief are broken. If you want to go the Skyrim route and use the environment to tell a story, fine. Unfortunately the skeleton of Dragon Age Inquisition as other games slings to cut scenes for the major scenes, still. So now you toss us about between two very different methods of immersion, not to mention the "looting letters and looking at random objects randomly thrown around a landscape in which two armies barely have any distinguishing traits or attributes to signify their differences as pertains to the actual story."
It's like the difference between watching a sports broadcast - complete with color commentary, slo-mo instant replays, and the like - versus being one of the players who is actually on the field. Again with the condescending misunderstanding of what we need. Successfully combining cut scenes or at least properly designing levels to immerse are not calling for "hand-holding."
If you're interested in political opinions from townies, try this: They're afraid. They want it to end. They don't know jack about the politics behind it all, they just want to survive from one day to the next. Thanks for headcanon. I expect a game to convey that either through script (doesn't need to be cut scenes), visual cues, arrangement of objects, at least.
If you're interested in political opinions from people who actually know something about what's going on - or circle life in general - you've had quite a few offered, starting in DA:O. You also find quite a few death notes on bodies of the victims. Death notes I could find in any game and don't directly pertain to the lore at hand. Those are great supplemental materials and can be found in any RPG. Where is the meat? "I'm scared, I'm dying, I miss my wife back at home." Great, I could find that letter on a body in Mass Effect 3, too. Where is the threat from Corypheus? How can Corypheus be so easy, so stupid? Where are the scared villagers surrounding all the rifts? If the rifts don't spawn unless I touch them, why bother sealing them? Yeah, I guess a few mage NPCs had some opinions in Redcliffe Village surrounding the 'In Hushed Whispers Quest' but some NPCs standing around telling me - yes, telling me - how they feel about the circle isn't quite enough.
I'm on my first playthrough, and last night I went through the Citadelle Du Corbeau - after having had to send a team to repair the bridge to access it. I was greeted by various undead enemies, and some fiery fx that repeatedly attacked my team. As I made my way through the place, I found a rage demon that was apparently creating the fire disturbance. Yep.. rage demons do that. Create fire disturbances. I think there were some notes about mysterious elven defenses. I found a *lot* of bodies, including some fancy Orlesian civilians. You think? Must not have made a great impression. kay, so? I finally got to the dungeon where some survivors were imprisoned. Talking to the leader there revealed that they had tried to activate the mysterious elven defenses out of sheer desperation - and found they could not control them. I felt sort of like a journalist in a battle zone or some sort of forensic specialist, or team of reinforcements that arrived a little too late. It was very immersive. The level looked like any other level. The only things distinguishing it was one or two notes, and one or two NPCs. Oh, and those NPCs don't have any character or traits to distinguish them from all the other military Orlesian NPCs you talk to. So why do we care about this side quest again? The fights were fun and challenging, I will grant you that. I just don't see why it matters in relation to the broader story at hand. Do I care about that NPC? Does that NPC even matter to Celene? Does anyone in the Orlesian court mention it? Do any of the party members with you - Solas, Dorian, etc, say more than a few words about the rather awesome idea of ancient Elven defenses? It's just a filler side quest at best.
In thinking about other ways this scenario might have played out, we have:
1) A codex entry describing the events. That would definitely be regarded as telling rather than showing. That's basically what happened. The events happened and you read some codex entry on it, except you put it in a dungeon area and pick up the codex entry. Which is fine for some side quests (even the great ME1-3 and DA1-2 have these kinds of quests), except this is the majority of the side quests in DA:I filling up large sections of time, and gets old fast.
2) A cutscene showing the events unfold. I would suggest that would also be telling rather than showing, just a different form of telling. It's an art. You intersperse a few cut scenes with interactive gameplay. Every RPG does this - not sure why you can't see the benefit of cut scenes properly placed. You don't even need cut scenes if you go the Skyrim route, which had scripted moments in which NPCs lead you places, follow you or join you, while talking about what happened. That didn't happen here either.
3) It could all have happened live when the Inquisitor arrived. The Inquisitor's party actively fights the enemies, and is then interrupted by a cutscene showing the leader of the forces there trying to activate the mysterious elven defenses. This could be annoying - since the Inquisition has arrived to save the day, the resident forces should not be so desperate as to try to utilize the defenses. Unless the Inquisitor's team was overwhelmed and in danger of failing - which players generally don't like - the whole scenario would have played out very differently. I get your point about it being uncanny you arrive to 'save the day' at just the right moment. But we arrived just in time for Fabienne to survive a few seconds longer (in that other trench area) so he could tell us to give his ring to Jehan...so...
So - I thought they did a great job of showing me what had happened there, while also allowing me to help clean up the mess and rescue the hostages. Hostages which pretty much stay in the same place, and don't react. Then we cut to black screen, after which we can see NPCs standing around outside. Kind of lazy.
I know what it means, and you're wrong. Letters found in the world are demonstration by any definition. That it's text is immaterial, or everything in a book would be narration.??? You so obviously don't have a clue what I am even talking about, I don't even want to continue here. It's not. To give an example of narration in a game: the epilogues. Or if Cassandra had told you the world and its people were suffering because of the war (which I'm sure occurs a few times in the game with characters telling you this). That would be a form of narration, sure. What you're talking about isn't that, and suggesting otherwise makes me question if you really understand the spirit of the guideline in the first place. Likely not, because the letters are showing the player specific examples of how the war is affecting the people of Thedas. You and some others are hung up on the fact that it's text vs. cutscene and trying to skew the meaning of the phrase to ground your desire for more cutscenes in an established literary warning to try and give your personal preference some type of independent weight.
There's really no need for that, because the personal preference is justification enough. I would also prefer to see more scenes and fewer letters, and I don't need to coopt vaguely related book sayings to express that preference.
Retour en haut
