261 réponses à ce sujet

[Majestic Jazz]

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.

I hate to steer off topic but I will bite.

Bioware is a shell of what they once were. They seem to now be playing catch up rather than being the industry vanguard.

KOTOR in 2003 was the coming out party for Bioware. Yes, they had NWM and Baulders Gate before that but it was KOTOR that put them on the mainstream map. In 2007, Bioware finally blew off the charts with Mass Effect which really set some industry standards.

CD Projekt Red is now the new Bioware. TW3 wad their coming out party in 2015 and with Cyberpunk 2077, that will be their "Mass Effect" that blows the industry away and set new standards. Hell, both Betheada and CDPR is going against the Bioware DLC standard and actually releasing story expansions rather than than the smaller DLCs that Bioware loves to do. I mean damn, Blood and Wine is about 30 hours long and only cost $20. Many $60 games are not even 20-30 hours long!

Bioware was once known for setting industry standards in terms of gameplay. Now the only thing they are known for is ME3's ending and openly tackling social issues in their games. CDPR might not be the most politically developer, but they are pushing the envelope the same way Bioware pushed the envelope in 2003 and 2007. I mean just look at all the praise TW3 gets for the style and presentation of its sidequest.

Point is, why have faith? This isnt 2003, this isnt 2007. What ground breaking advances has Bioware brought to the industry in the past 4-5 years?

When people complained about ME3s ending Bioware tried to blame us for not seeing their vision. When people complaindd about the amount of content Triss had in TW3 compared to Yennifer, CDPR acknowleged this and did not blame the fans and did their best to address it in a patch.

I hope MEA brings back the glory, but I feel as if Bioware is concerned about other things now rather than simply making the best game.

[The Elder King]

@Majestic Jazz: I never said I think Bioware will make the best game, or make some ground breaking advancament in the field. All I said is that the game might have good side quests, and that I think they'd at least improve the open world system a little. The two expectations aren't the same.

[CronoDragoon]

Addictress, I know what you're talking about, as the later portion of that post demonstrates. You think because video games are a visual medium that any text contained within them becomes narration by default. But this is a totally arbitrary designation created only to support your dislike of text and enjoyment of cutscenes. It doesn't make any sense, especially considering how many video games still use text to describe and not simply narrate. Let's take Mass Effect's message terminal: that can be both description or narration depending on the content. When the VS sends you a message in ME2 essentially apologizing for Horizon, is that demonstrating or narrating Ashley's regret? It's clearly demonstrating. It's what the character is actually saying to Shepard. The text doesn't say, "Ashley sent a letter to Shepard saying she was sorry and good luck with the collectors." It shows you the content of the letter. That's what that "showing" means as opposed to telling, and the distinction holds for visual mediums.

[Addictress]

Addictress, I know what you're talking about, as the later portion of that post demonstrates. You think because video games are a visual medium that any text contained within them becomes narration by default. But this is a totally arbitrary designation created only to support your dislike of text and enjoyment of cutscenes. It doesn't make any sense, especially considering how many video games still use text to describe and not simply narrate. Let's take Mass Effect's message terminal: that can be both description or narration depending on the content. When the VS sends you a message in ME2 essentially apologizing for Horizon, is that demonstrating or narrating? It's clearly demonstrating. It's what the character is actually saying to Shepard. The text doesn't say, "Ashley sent a letter to Shepard saying she was sorry and good luck with the collectors." It shows you the content of the letter. That's what that saying means, and the distinction holds for visual mediums.

Except Horizon happened - you were there. Harbinger's possessed collector troopers faced you down and talked to you while shooting you in staged fashion - descending from the sky, emerging from corners, amongst the bodies - making the threat known. Against a sort of timed terminal upload in the center. the entire way Horizon was staged was brilliant. The messages you received regarding Horizon were not describing the events of Horizon or otherwise the bulk of why Horizon was significant. I don't have a problem with text. I have a problem when text completely replaces plot actions or demonstration of key situations that have impact on motivation, atmosphere, player feelings regarding the world, etc.

[ruggly]

I wish I had half as much time and energy as some people have in arguing over a game.

[Addictress]

I wish I had half as much time and energy as some people have in arguing over a game.

As long as it doesn't approach DAI Gepher and Almostfaceman's "VIDDASALA" thread levels....

[CronoDragoon]

Except Horizon happened - you were there. Harbinger's possessed collector troopers faced you down and talked to you while shooting you in staged fashion - descending from the sky, emerging from corners, amongst the bodies - making the threat known. Against a sort of timed terminal upload in the center. the entire way Horizon was staged was brilliant. The messages you received regarding Horizon were not describing the events of Horizon or otherwise the bulk of why Horizon was significant. I don't have a problem with text. I have a problem when text completely replaces plot actions or demonstration of key situations that have impact on motivation, atmosphere, player feelings regarding the world, etc.

 

I didn't say they were describing the events of Horizon. They're description nevertheless, in this case of Ashley's contrition regarding the way she acted towards Shepard.

 

If I may reframe your argument here, and you can tell me if this is unfair, this doesn't really have much to do with showing vs. telling. It's about the level of engagement that text leverages vs. actual scenes. In a visual medium where the game has already relied on cutscenes to demonstrate key points, points that use text instead are less engaging to the player, because they aren't taking advantage of the strengths that a cinematic game can otherwise offer. This is also why the drawn-back camera for NPCs was a bad idea: If you give the player the idea through main story cutscenes that important moments will be fully animated and voiced, then the player has been trained to treat things that are not such as far less important, and therefore less engaging.

[ruggly]

As long as it doesn't approach DAI Gepher and Almostfaceman's "VIDDASALA" thread levels....

I know of the first guy, can't say anything about the viddasala thread

[Addictress]

I didn't say they were describing the events of Horizon. They're description nevertheless, in this case of Ashley's contrition regarding the way she acted towards Shepard.

 

If I may reframe your argument here, and you can tell me if this is unfair, this doesn't really have much to do with showing vs. telling. It's about the level of engagement that text leverages vs. actual scenes. In a visual medium where the game has already relied on cutscenes to demonstrate key points, points that use text instead are less engaging to the player, because they aren't taking advantage of the strengths that a cinematic game can otherwise offer. This is also why the drawn-back camera for NPCs was a bad idea: If you give the player the idea through main story cutscenes that important moments will be fully animated and voiced, then the player has been trained to treat things that are not such as far less important, and therefore less engaging.

Yah that is what I mean!! You are right.

 

A lot of people and I think that is what showing vs. telling is though. I still think 'showing vs telling' fits this. I don;t know.... how else to say this? That's just what the phrase means, even according to the link you gave me. Maybe someone else can better explain.

[vbibbi]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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. I think there were some notes about mysterious elven defenses. I found a *lot* of bodies, including some fancy Orlesian civilians. 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.

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.

2) A cutscene showing the events unfold. I would suggest that would also be telling rather than showing, just a different form of telling.

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.

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.

 

For me personally, what you're describing is part of the issue I had with DAI's world. Yes, we were following up clues after a battle or after a murder or after a spell gone wrong. But this means that for 95% of the game zones we are following up on events which already happened and not interacting with anyone. We're just walking through a map of enemies to fight, reading letters, and having one line of quest completion dialogue before moving on to do this all over again. I don't even need cutscenes for everything, I just didn't want to feel like my party were the only three people in the world, picking through the remains of people who once lived there. The main plot quests were better in this.

 

But the one word which I would use to summarize my time exploring the maps is "lonely." This works for the Hissing Wastes, actually acting as an archeologist, but I didn't want to spend 100+ hours with bugged music and companion banter and no other personal interactions.

 

I think the problem is that DAI is so much larger than previous Bio games, it might have the same amount of substantive content as other games, but it's spread too thin. I can't realistically expect that ten large maps are going to be packed full of interesting content, but in that case I personally don't think that the game needed to be that large.

 

A big selling point of the game was that it was so large and could take hundreds of hours to complete. Not that I would be entertained for those hundreds of hours. And this is what I worry about for MEA. A recent interview just said that we can visit over a hundred worlds. I am certain that a lot of these worlds are going to copy DAI's lifeless zones. Which, to be fair, ME1 already did, and this style makes more sense from a space exploration standpoint than a medieval fantasy standpoint. So MEA automatically is better inclined toward this exploration system than the DA series was.

 

I just really don't want MEA to be lots of exploration with beautiful scenery but nothing of interest to me making up the majority of the game. Even if the main plot and the characters are interesting, if that's going to take up less than a third of the content, the game is not going to be that fun for me.

[CronoDragoon]

A big selling point of the game was that it was so large and could take hundreds of hours to complete. Not that I would be entertained for those hundreds of hours. And this is what I worry about for MEA. A recent interview just said that we can visit over a hundred worlds. I am certain that a lot of these worlds are going to copy DAI's lifeless zones. Which, to be fair, ME1 already did, and this style makes more sense from a space exploration standpoint than a medieval fantasy standpoint. So MEA automatically is better inclined toward this exploration system than the DA series was.

 

I just really don't want MEA to be lots of exploration with beautiful scenery but nothing of interest to me making up the majority of the game. Even if the main plot and the characters are interesting, if that's going to take up less than a third of the content, the game is not going to be that fun for me.

 

I think it's possible for BioWare to cater to both types, though some compromise would occur. Scanning a planet from orbit could result in detection of settlements or civilized life. That's a sign to story players whether they can skip the planet or not.

[vbibbi]

The tricky part of this is that for quite a few people space exploration not only doesn't need "story", but that it functions better without any story whatsoever (in moderation, of course). This is what gives the player the sense of being a tiny ant in an extraordinarily large universe. So it's not that being "lifeless" is even bad design, but that it's targeting a different desire.

 

I think it's possible for BioWare to cater to both types, though some compromise would occur. Scanning a planet from orbit could result in detection of settlements or civilized life. That's a sign to story players whether they can skip the planet or not.

 

True, and ME as a concept makes more sense for "empty" exploration more than DA. And if there are 10 "core" worlds to explore amongst the 100 available worlds, I will be happy if those 10 have lots of interesting content and the remaining 90 are designed for the explorer types.

 

I don't want to be gated from what I consider interesting content like the power points in DAI. I know that it's easy enough to advance to the main quests with a minimum of side questing, but it requires metagaming and prior game completion. I don't want to be forced to explore 25 of the exploration planets in order to get the unobtanium necessary to unlock the next main quest. ME1's exploration was good in this respect. All planet side missions were for exploration (prothean disks, medals, metals, etc.) or for side missions and had no impact on the main plot other than giving me more experience before I proceeded to the next main quest.

 

Or if there is going to be gating of main content, at least have it be more organic. The vague idea of "power" gained in Inquisition felt artificial to me because I did not see any changes in the organization which demonstrated why I was now prepared to take on the next main quest when I wasn't previously.

[CronoDragoon]

Unless they change things as a response to Inquisition's gating (which I personally had no problem with and even liked, but so it goes), MEA does seem like it will have gating. From the original leak the details for which have slowly been confirmed:

 

"Scour solar systems and planets within the Helius Cluster to find valuable resources and blueprints of long forgotten alien technology that will allow you to craft better equipment and weapons, such as improving your leg armor to allow you to jetpack jump, or upgrading your cryo-beam (laser cannon) to target enemies or do area damage around you to clear out close threats. As you build your arsenal and resource infrastructure, you will be able to explore deeper into the increasingly dangerous and resource-rich solar systems of the Helius Cluster."

[vbibbi]

Unless they change things as a response to Inquisition's gating (which I personally had no problem with and even liked, but so it goes), MEA does seem like it will have gating. From the original leak the details for which have slowly been confirmed:

 

"Scour solar systems and planets within the Helius Cluster to find valuable resources and blueprints of long forgotten alien technology that will allow you to craft better equipment and weapons, such as improving your leg armor to allow you to jetpack jump, or upgrading your cryo-beam (laser cannon) to target enemies or do area damage around you to clear out close threats. As you build your arsenal and resource infrastructure, you will be able to explore deeper into the increasingly dangerous and resource-rich solar systems of the Helius Cluster."

 

Ugh. Preorder canceled!

[Addictress]

Ugh. Preorder canceled!

[Pasquale1234]

I don't want to be gated from what I consider interesting content like the power points in DAI. I know that it's easy enough to advance to the main quests with a minimum of side questing, but it requires metagaming and prior game completion. I don't want to be forced to explore 25 of the exploration planets in order to get the unobtanium necessary to unlock the next main quest. ME1's exploration was good in this respect. All planet side missions were for exploration (prothean disks, medals, metals, etc.) or for side missions and had no impact on the main plot other than giving me more experience before I proceeded to the next main quest.

Content gating can be problematic for everyone, regardless of one's primary interests.

I really liked the overall structure of DAO and ME1. You started with some introductory scenarios, and were then assigned multiple main quests that you could complete at your leisure in addition to whatever side content was of interest to you. Once you'd finished up certain main quest content, you were again "funneled" back into a sequence of events that brought you through the ending sequences.

Starting with the second entry of both series - DA2 and ME2 - content was meted out piecemeal. I expect this was for several possible reasons, including (but not limited to) their desire (or need) to present certain story beats in a particular order, pacing management, and perhaps managing the number of companions for whom comments on and about missions needed to be provided.

It's frustrating if you want to experience the story in a different way - for example, recruit all of ME2's companions before getting embroiled in the collector questline. Or access more of the other zones while you're still headquartered in Haven.
 

Or if there is going to be gating of main content, at least have it be more organic. The vague idea of "power" gained in Inquisition felt artificial to me because I did not see any changes in the organization which demonstrated why I was now prepared to take on the next main quest when I wasn't previously.

Well, the power mechanic is somewhat abstract, as game mechanics often are. I interpret it to mean that as the Inquisitor closes rifts, saves lives, and solves other problems, the Inquisition gains more volunteers and support for the cause. I'm not quite sure how they could have shown that in a more organic way, other than you visibly obtaining more troops or higher values on public opinion polls - and I would suggest that any such mechanic might start to feel sorta silly once you've seen it a few times.

[TK514]

To me, the entire Orlesian Civil war is a pretty pat example of telling and not showing.  From various supplemental materials we are told the Celene is a master policitican.  We are told that Gaspard is a master strategist and a man of unimpeachable (if misaligned) honor.  We are told...actually, we aren't told much about Briala unless you read the Masked Empire, at which point we are told that she's supposedly a pretty good agent who has lots of excellent reasons not to trust either of the other two and possesses a magic travel power that lets her people be a thorn in the side of vastly greater powers.

 

Then we come to the Civil War in DA:I, and there's really nothing to indicate any of those things are true.  In the Exalted Plains we find two camps of guys with little or nothing to distinguish them from one another sitting around waiting for demons/undead to come kill them all.  There's plenty of bodies around the zone, but the two camps of soldiers aren't visually distinct enough that you can tell at a glance that they were engaged in bitter fratricide just days before.  It's just a lot of dead soldiers that could have just as easily have been killed by the supernatural threats.  There's no real sense of an impending resumption of hostilities.  Nothing suggests that "as soon as these demons are gone, we are going to immediately run to the other end of this zone and murder the hell out of those other guys".  Nothing to show how Gaspard's theoretical wartime brilliance was having any effect.  Nothing to show how Celene's political accumen provided her with a numerically superior force due to her wooing allies.  No indication of Briala's elves period, just some Dalish down by the river.  Nothing at all to really indicate the character of the conflict.

 

And it only gets worse when we get to the Winter Palace.  Here we are led to expect master manipulators.  Individuals who inspire patriotic or martial zeal.  Experts at information gathering and sharp knives in dark alleyways.  Instead we get a guy who's big plan is to stroll around the palace pissing off the people he needs to impress while blatantly and obviously breaking his word, a supposedly expert agent who does almost nothing except get exposed for throwing her people under the bus, and an Empress who's entire contribution to the affair is to stand around waiting to get stabbed while possibly making googly eyes at a locket that was in her possession the entire time.

 

We are TOLD that these people are awesome, and that this Civil War is a Big Deal.  We are SHOWN that these people are idiots and that the Civil War is...nothing.  Two camps of virtually indistinguishable guys sitting around waiting to die.

 

This, to me, exemplifies what is wrong with DA:I.  It gets even worse when you apply it to Corypheus.  We are TOLD that he's this all but insurmountable force to be reckoned with, and then SHOWN that once he manages to chase us out of our barely defensible hovel he is barely even present and his forces are incompetent.  We are TOLD that he's supposed to be the ultimate threat, and SHOWN that he's just not threatening.  Even the one time he seems to get the upper hand by running us out of Haven proves to be victory for the Inquisition, because we immediately replace it with a Magic Castle of Repelling Evil +5.

[Addictress]

To me, the entire Orlesian Civil war is a pretty pat example of telling and not showing.  From various supplemental materials we are told the Celene is a master policitican.  We are told that Gaspard is a master strategist and a man of unimpeachable (if misaligned) honor.  We are told...actually, we aren't told much about Briala unless you read the Masked Empire, at which point we are told that she's supposedly a pretty good agent who has lots of excellent reasons not to trust either of the other two and possesses a magic travel power that lets her people be a thorn in the side of vastly greater powers.

 

Then we come to the Civil War in DA:I, and there's really nothing to indicate any of those things are true.  In the Exalted Plains we find two camps of guys with little or nothing to distinguish them from one another sitting around waiting for demons/undead to come kill them all.  There's plenty of bodies around the zone, but the two camps of soldiers aren't visually distinct enough that you can tell at a glance the were engaged in bitter fratricide just days before.  It's just a lot of dead soldiers that could have just as easily have been killed by the supernatural threats.  There's no real sense of an impending resumption of hostilities.  Nothing suggests that "as soon as these demons are gone, we are going to immediately run to the other end of this zone and murder the hell out of those other guys".  Nothing to show how Gaspard's theoretical wartime brilliance was having any effect.  Nothing to show how Celene's political accumen provided her with a numerically superior force due to her wooing allies.  No indication of Briala's elves period, just some Dalish down by the river.  Nothing at all to really indicate the character of the conflict.

 

And it only gets worse when we get to the Winter Palace.  Here we are led to expect master manipulators.  Individuals who inspire patriotic or martial zeal.  Experts at information gathering and sharp knives in dark alleyways.  Instead we get a guy who's big plan is to stroll around the palace pissing off the people he needs to impress while blatantly and obviously breaking his word, a supposedly expert agent who does almost nothing except get exposed for throwing her people under the bus, and an Empress who's entire contribution to the affair is to stand around waiting to get stabbed while possibly making googly eyes at a locket that was in her possession the entire time.

 

We are TOLD that these people are awesome, and that this Civil War is a Big Deal.  We are SHOWN that these people are idiots and that the Civil War is...nothing.  Two camps of virtually indistinguishable guys sitting around waiting to die.

 

This, to me, exemplifies what is wrong with DA:I.  It gets even worse when you apply it to Corypheus.  We are TOLD that he's this all but insurmountable force to be reckoned with, and then SHOWN that once he manages to chase us out of our barely defensible hovel he is barely even present and his forces are incompetent.  We are TOLD that he's supposed to be the ultimate threat, and SHOWN that he's just not threatening.  Even the one time he seems to get the upper hand by running us out of Haven proves to be victory for the Inquisition, because we immediately replace it with a Magic Castle of Repelling Evil +5.

[Pasquale1234]

It's about the level of engagement that text leverages vs. actual scenes. In a visual medium where the game has already relied on cutscenes to demonstrate key points, points that use text instead are less engaging to the player, because they aren't taking advantage of the strengths that a cinematic game can otherwise offer.

I think that engagement thing might depend somewhat on the individual player.

The nature of cutscenes is that they invariably show specific elements (while excluding others) from a specific point of view (see: Miranda's ass). They can, and occasionally do, create some confusion along with the clarity.

Case in point: some people believe the Destiny Ascension did not engage the battle with Sovereign, because it was not shown in any cutscene doing so. In the Arrival DLC, Hackett mentions its involvement.

Being present at the scene of an event, rather than seeing that event in cutscenes, can allow the player to draw their own conclusions about what happened. That can also be highly engaging.
 

This is also why the drawn-back camera for NPCs was a bad idea: If you give the player the idea through main story cutscenes that important moments will be fully animated and voiced, then the player has been trained to treat things that are not such as far less important, and therefore less engaging.

Unless the player is willing to adopt the mindset that everything presented in the game is important, and some content is presented in cutscenes for whatever reason.

[Kabraxal]

All this thread proved was some people of a hard set preference for how they are "shown". So let's just leave it since it is clear they will not accept that it isb't fact that there preference is merely that.

[vbibbi]

Content gating can be problematic for everyone, regardless of one's primary interests.

I really liked the overall structure of DAO and ME1. You started with some introductory scenarios, and were then assigned multiple main quests that you could complete at your leisure in addition to whatever side content was of interest to you. Once you'd finished up certain main quest content, you were again "funneled" back into a sequence of events that brought you through the ending sequences.

Starting with the second entry of both series - DA2 and ME2 - content was meted out piecemeal. I expect this was for several possible reasons, including (but not limited to) their desire (or need) to present certain story beats in a particular order, pacing management, and perhaps managing the number of companions for whom comments on and about missions needed to be provided.

It's frustrating if you want to experience the story in a different way - for example, recruit all of ME2's companions before getting embroiled in the collector questline. Or access more of the other zones while you're still headquartered in Haven.
 

Well, the power mechanic is somewhat abstract, as game mechanics often are. I interpret it to mean that as the Inquisitor closes rifts, saves lives, and solves other problems, the Inquisition gains more volunteers and support for the cause. I'm not quite sure how they could have shown that in a more organic way, other than you visibly obtaining more troops or higher values on public opinion polls - and I would suggest that any such mechanic might start to feel sorta silly once you've seen it a few times.

 

Good points, I agree. Specifically looking at the power mechanic, it is an ambitious and abstract mechanic to use, but I think if Bioware couldn't implement it well they should have looked at other options. E.g. the Hinterlands minor side quests do make sense before the Chantry will treat us seriously enough to parley with, in that we're building the reputation of the Inquisition as a source of relief and stability in times of crisis. The quests are generally not that interesting to me and aren't fun to replay for the xth time, but they make sense in context.

 

But then we come to WEWH or HLtA where we need power points to unlock these quests. The open-ended nature of power points means that we could just keep closing rifts on the Storm Coast, recruit the Hessarian Blades to be our agents on the coast, do a bunch of smaller fetch quests which net power points without actually increasing our military might or providing resources. Yet once we close the nth rift, we're suddenly able to lay siege to Adamant or merit an invitation to Halamshiral.

 

I would rather have had to do some operation chain in order to access the quests, and then perhaps any additional power points from unrelated quests help determine how successful we are in those quests.

 

For HLtA, we either need to do some quest for the noble who provides us the siege engines to gain her favor, we have to secure siege engines that are held by bandits (in Griffon Wing Keep, maybe?), or perform an operation that scouts out the weaknesses in Adamant and provide this info to Leliana's spies to sneak into the fortress and open the gates for us. The game is already set up very smoothly to provide the military/diplomatic/subterfuge methods of conducting the Inquisition. But instead, we can do any unrelated quest which nets power points and then somehow reach the exact same point in besieging Adamant. No real options.

 

For WEWH, we could have needed to either free Celene's troops from that Citadel Corbeau, helped Gaspard's troops clear the ramparts, or helped the Dalish tribe enough that they gave us an agent. We would then get invitations to the ball from Celene, Gaspard, or Briala, depending on our choices, or if we had done some/all of the quests, we could choose which invitation to accept. Have WEWH change based on which "sponsor" we begin with, but still let us choose the ruler during the quest based on our actions.

 

A lot of customization of quests and player choice was neglected in order to create more expansive maps to explore. This isn't engine limitations from old gen preventing the full on warfare elements that were planned, these are narrative elements which were lower priority than being able to claim 100+ hours of gameplay and 100+ number of quests.

 

All this thread proved was some people of a hard set preference for how they are "shown". So let's just leave it since it is clear they will not accept that it isb't fact that there preference is merely that.

 

What honestly irritates me is when people who are big fans of DAI take the attitude that any flaws others present to the game are purely personal preference and discount them immediately. Rather than take the attitude of "I can see why someone might prefer that element to have been done differently/how it has been done in previous games" they take the attitude of "well that's your preference but this game is objectively wonderful."

 

I am willing to concede that DAI is a good game that does a lot of things right, but that there is a list of issues that I think can be improved upon. I'm not unilaterally stating that the game is awful. But the tendency a lot of "defenders" on these boards has is to dismiss any and all criticism and talk down to the critics. Maybe they're tired of defending the game or of feeling attacked by critics, in which case I'm sorry that it's gotten to that point. But don't maintain the double standard that criticisms are just someone's opinion and those who liked the game are objectively correct in all of their opinions.

[Dutch's Ghost]

Spoiler

Granted, they fixed that in a DLC, but then so did Bioware.

Except Eredin had a legitimate excuse/reason to be a villian and Cory was just a plain old cartoon villian with no motivation except wanting power.

[Xilizhra]

CD Projekt Red is now the new Bioware. TW3 wad their coming out party in 2015 and with Cyberpunk 2077, that will be their "Mass Effect" that blows the industry away and set new standards. Hell, both Betheada and CDPR is going against the Bioware DLC standard and actually releasing story expansions rather than than the smaller DLCs that Bioware loves to do. I mean damn, Blood and Wine is about 30 hours long and only cost $20. Many $60 games are not even 20-30 hours long!

Until the company provides us with more than one role to play, they're unworthy of the idea that they produce roleplaying games.

[Majestic Jazz]

To me, the entire Orlesian Civil war is a pretty pat example of telling and not showing. From various supplemental materials we are told the Celene is a master policitican. We are told that Gaspard is a master strategist and a man of unimpeachable (if misaligned) honor. We are told...actually, we aren't told much about Briala unless you read the Masked Empire, at which point we are told that she's supposedly a pretty good agent who has lots of excellent reasons not to trust either of the other two and possesses a magic travel power that lets her people be a thorn in the side of vastly greater powers.

Then we come to the Civil War in DA:I, and there's really nothing to indicate any of those things are true. In the Exalted Plains we find two camps of guys with little or nothing to distinguish them from one another sitting around waiting for demons/undead to come kill them all. There's plenty of bodies around the zone, but the two camps of soldiers aren't visually distinct enough that you can tell at a glance the were engaged in bitter fratricide just days before. It's just a lot of dead soldiers that could have just as easily have been killed by the supernatural threats. There's no real sense of an impending resumption of hostilities. Nothing suggests that "as soon as these demons are gone, we are going to immediately run to the other end of this zone and murder the hell out of those other guys". Nothing to show how Gaspard's theoretical wartime brilliance was having any effect. Nothing to show how Celene's political accumen provided her with a numerically superior force due to her wooing allies. No indication of Briala's elves period, just some Dalish down by the river. Nothing at all to really indicate the character of the conflict.

And it only gets worse when we get to the Winter Palace. Here we are led to expect master manipulators. Individuals who inspire patriotic or martial zeal. Experts at information gathering and sharp knives in dark alleyways. Instead we get a guy who's big plan is to stroll around the palace pissing off the people he needs to impress while blatantly and obviously breaking his word, a supposedly expert agent who does almost nothing except get exposed for throwing her people under the bus, and an Empress who's entire contribution to the affair is to stand around waiting to get stabbed while possibly making googly eyes at a locket that was in her possession the entire time.

We are TOLD that these people are awesome, and that this Civil War is a Big Deal. We are SHOWN that these people are idiots and that the Civil War is...nothing. Two camps of virtually indistinguishable guys sitting around waiting to die.

This, to me, exemplifies what is wrong with DA:I. It gets even worse when you apply it to Corypheus. We are TOLD that he's this all but insurmountable force to be reckoned with, and then SHOWN that once he manages to chase us out of our barely defensible hovel he is barely even present and his forces are incompetent. We are TOLD that he's supposed to be the ultimate threat, and SHOWN that he's just not threatening. Even the one time he seems to get the upper hand by running us out of Haven proves to be victory for the Inquisition, because we immediately replace it with a Magic Castle of Repelling Evil +5.

[Majestic Jazz]

I am willing to concede that DAI is a good game that does a lot of things right, but that there is a list of issues that I think can be improved upon. I'm not unilaterally stating that the game is awful. But the tendency a lot of "defenders" on these boards has is to dismiss any and all criticism and talk down to the critics. Maybe they're tired of defending the game or of feeling attacked by critics, in which case I'm sorry that it's gotten to that point. But don't maintain the double standard that criticisms are just someone's opinion and those who liked the game are objectively correct in all of their opinions.

A lot of DAI fans here act like DAI was a 100% perfect game....completely flawless and thus there is NOTHING that Bioware can look to improve upon in DA4 or future Bioware titles.