109 réponses à ce sujet

[Marshal Moriarty]

Being able to choose to fail, or tailor the situation to your exact wishes of sucess or failure is not human. Of course you try to control the things that happen in your life, but you don't always suceed. The warden can fail, but only if you choose to - that is not real to me, and it makes the Warden into more of a superhero style figure that I don't really care about than a more human character like Hawke who tries, but has to contend with the realities of life and that some things are beyond control. It doesn't mean however that you stop trying, and again I insist that people who say DA2 is just Hawke failing at everything need to stop exaggerating that point. She has victories, she has defeats. That's life for ordinary people, and extraordinary people might be able to tip the scales on occasions, but not every time!

 

And yes, the Warden has some defeats too (Ostagar is an extremely effective opening, as are the Origins, which is why I've often said that I prefer these sections to the rest of the game, which is just the usual Bioware formula of you being great and moulding every situation's outcome to your exact specifications - precisely like it doesn't work in real life. And again the choices you make In Origins are undermined by the endings which tell you whether or not you were sucessful, or at least describe what the consequences were, allowing people to go back (as they did) and simply make different choices so they get a better outcome next time.

 

If you give people the option and the choice to tailor situations to their exact specifications, then they will take that. They won't (or at least most people won't) do a single playthrough and live with the choices they made. The bleating that went on concerning the ME3 endings (much of it justified) thinly concealed the fact that most people simply wanted a happy ending, where the Reapers were beaten, Shepard and got the partner of their choice. And they even made mods that did exactly that, and kept the Geth alive and EDI etc etc, and then considered that the canon version. 

 

This issue over how much control the player has over the story, and how much the storyteller has (i,e the writers) is an old and never ending one. I consider that to tell a proper story that doesn't just feel like a lot of awkwardly connected sequences, the writer has to have some control to move the story along and create drama, chalenge the characters etc. Letting players decide how much you succeed or fail is one way of doing it, but it only really works if you are doing a single game. Its a legitimate form of storytelling, but trying to make sequels to games that have offered wildly divergent outcomes isn't really possible, as all of Bioware's retcon shows.

 

I personally think that the more control you give to players to shape the narrative, the less threatening become the villains, the less investment I have overall, because I know ultimately I can just decide the optimum outcomes and achieve them, or have the big fails and bad calls when I decide to have them and with the consequences managed by me, so I know if its something I can live with. And that doesn't test me or the characters IMO, because I'm never having to face dilemmas that are beyond my control. The villains are never really able to do anything to me that I'm not okay with them doing etc.

 

I always remember an old quote from a British critic writing about a John Wayne movie 'The Duke tells it like it really wasn't. It'd be funny if it wasn't so jingoistic'. That for me is a perfect expression of what I'm getting at. Because maybe its British pessimism not being able to take all this seriously, if it isn't accompanied with a healthy dose of realism too.

[Qis]

If you metagame then yes you can choose to fail, but without the information you will have no idea that

 

- annul the Tower is killing everyone including children and making the Templars more aggressive in the future

- not helping Redcliffe leave that village doomed forever

- siding werewolves making them go rampage because The Lady cannot control them anymore

- siding Harrowmont will doomed Orzamar

- helping Branka making her even more crazy

 

Not knowing the future before making choices is being human, and because of that we consider things before choosing, thinking "what would happen if i do this?"

 

Like i said, if players play just for the sake of playing then it becomes like what you say, choosing evil just because want to "bwahaha i'm evul", but if play a story, role-playing a person, then that is another matter

 

DA2 lack that, the outcomes are right after you make your choices,

 

- side with Templars, you kill those Mages, help Mages, you will fight Templars or they are fooled by your charm, later the Mages betray you anyway

- defend Ketojan, those Qunari fight you, Ketojan suicide, let those Qunari kill Ketojan, you still have to fight them, in both situation Ketojan die anyway

- Qunari will attack the city no matter what you do about it, making choices regarding Qunari pointless

- Mages and Templars will fight no matter what you choose in 10 years, leader of both sides become monsters, so what is the point of choosing sides in 10 years?

 

So playing as Hawke is not playing human, but playing a human who have bad luck curse or something

[Marshal Moriarty]

But the point is that beyond one single first playthrough, you do know the outcomes, and if you don't want that to happen then you don't have to. Roleplaying your character and being able to tailor every situation to your exact specifications of victory or defeat are 2 different things. You are playing God or storyteller at least, shaping how the story unfolds outside of your character.

 

The difference for me is that in DA2, you are essentially given an actor's role. You are given the character, a specific life situation that they are in (i,e Hawke has a family she needs to support, magic in the family that needs to be hidden etc), given the lines and then given the freedom on how to say them, what tone you strike, and in a limited way say things like 'I don;t think my character would do that here - I think she'd do this instead' and be given the license to improv that.

 

Whereas in DAO, you are basically the director able to mould the story by basically writing the actual script yourself, making the protagnist the race of your choice, and giving the character such authority that they can directly affect factions that usually wouldn't listen to any outside influence etc. And you can affect exactly what that outcome is, in a much more direct way than the player actor of DA2, who simply gets to affect how their character acts as the scenario unfolds.

 

 

Your characterisation of the Ketojan scenario just shows how far apart we are on this, because I consider that an excellent scenario. Yes, he dies either way but its the context that matters. If you turn him over, he is grateful and it shows the depth of his devotion to the Qun. But if you try to defend him, he doesn't alter his character or viewpoint to account for you wanting him to live, He simply explains that he must die - he didn't want you to die for trying to protect him, but now the danger is passed, his faith and belief demand that he die. His amulet that he drops suggests that there is a regret buried deep inside him that it needed to be this way, and that he does feel the injustice somewhere inside, but that doesn't alter the fact that he believes that he is too dangerous to go on living.

 

It isn't of your (Hawke's) success or failure. This is his belief and he cannot and will not alter it just because you think he should. Its an allegory for the rest of the story - the factions are doing what they believe is the correct thing. You haven't lived their life, you don't have the authority or the right to tell what they should and shouldn't do. You can appeal to them to do the right thing, you can try to stop them if they move to commit illegal acts etc, but ultimately everyone makes their own choices and yours do not trump everyone elses.

 

Unlike say ME3, where a centuries old conflict between the Quarians and Geth is settled by Shepard saying 'Hey you Quanans and Geth, make peace not war - because I say so!' and they all just say 'You know... I'd never thought of it like it... Hell why not - peace it is!'

 

Or DAO, where you choose a candidate for the Orzammar throne (against the mandate of the Grey Wardens not to do this under any circumstances), despite not actually knowing anything about the candidates unless you're a Dwarf Noble or anything but the vaguest outline of their policies, and nobody thinks that might not the best way to resolve this. But you are given a silver bullet get out of jail way to win the election for your man through an afternoon's violence and a fancy crown etc.

 

These are the kinds of scenario that aren't possible in real life. You can't solve the issues in Palestine and Israel for example by shooting some bad guys, finding a scroll that says 'This side is in the right' and have everything solved to your satisfaction. Or simply head down to the Gaza strip with a loudhailer and say 'You Palestinians and Israelis, instead of fighting and hating each other - don't!' and have them say 'Oh you're right, lucky you came by to tell us!'

[Qis]

You can only mold story if you know the whole story, like i said you will have no idea about DA:O the first time you play, the next time you play you choose differently because you want to see "what happen if i do this instead?". In DA:O you can do that, you can make new playthrough just to see things differently.

 

In DA2, even if you replay, there's no difference, all your choices doesn't matter in the end. The changes are only in trivial things such as which companions who will fight with you, Cricle mage Bethany or Grey Warden Bethany (who just teleport to you out of nowhere) and such, it doesn't matter at all

 

I can agree that there are things not in our control, but i don't agree every choices we make means nothing because we can't control everything. It's a butterfly effect, everything we do actually change things in the future...that's why making choices in life is hard.

 

DA2 supposed to be if Hawke have so much bad luck, Hawke must try harder, he/she is a champion and a noble, not just ordinary people. It being established like that, he/she become someone, so there must be hard choices that give consequences, hard choices that can change something, hard choices that we consider things before choosing. The weight behind every choices must be higher when Hawke rise in rank. It is fine "nothing matter" when Hawke is just an errand boy/girl, but after he/she become noble and champion he/she cannot be like before...what is the point rising in rank if you suck as before?

 

"I work hard to become the boss in this company......let me take that to the post office, and give me a tip..."

[Marshal Moriarty]

Well, I don't agree with that at all, and you keep insisting that Hawke fails because 'he sucks' which is a ridiculous over simplication, as is the 'Champions and superheroes always win, because they are better than ordinary people' That's just nonsense IMO. So if that's true why hasn't Stone Cold Steve Austin beaten Islamic State for us by now? Hawke is a warrior and adventurer - you can't use your sword and a never say die attitude to make people alter their ideologies and think differently about their faith or their race politics for example. Nor can you resolve situations requiring specific knowledge if that knowledge is kept from you.

 

Its good that your choices don't radically alter things, because that's not how life works! If it was America would change its gun laws, because President Obama wanted it to be so, but he can't overule everyone else's opinions and rights. The Warden gets to change situations because the scenarios are always tailored to a 'Might makes Right' situation. You can solve every situation by wading in, cracking some skulls and then saying 'Right, now you owe us, so do as we say to, to the faction of your choice'.

 

Hawke doesn't have scenarios like that. SHe can't just wade in and kill some bad guys and resolve everything. The Mage Templar problem has been going since the Circles were created, And Hawke is supposed to click her fingers and resolve that? The Qunari are neutal until their attack, so what could be done about them? She can hardly throw them all out by herself, can she?

 

DA2 has more realistic scenarios, and problems and tensions that are much closer to how these things actually play out. Not just 'Go here, beat some monsters and then use that as authority to tell everyone what you want'.

 

 

To put it another way, imagine I have 2 cubicles set up. I gather you qis and say blueblood and say you will compete in a contest to see who can achieve the most tasks within a certain timeframe. In Cubicle A, I seat blueblood down and ask him to complete a series of puzzles and problems that start easy and get progressively harder, I tell him he can ask his friends for advice and help, and he can use whatever resources he has at his disposal (internet access for example). The important thing is that he succeeds.

 

Then I come to you and say 'Revitalize the economy of Zimbabwe, and solve the tensions between the black and white skinned communities there so they could lead more peaceful and productive lives'. Then after that solve the disputes between shia and sunni islam, and Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, helping everyone to live together. Again, I tell you that you ask your friends for help and use whatever resource you have on hand. But I won't make you a minister in Zimbabwe with actual authority over the economy, and I won't give you any position of religious authority either. It'll be all down to your own ingenuity and willpower to get these problems solved.

 

Who do you think would have more wins at the end of this? And it wouldn't be any failing on your part, because the problems I set you were completely beyond your (or pretty much anyone's) ability to influence. Without very specific access and very specific documentation to give you the right of arbitration in such matters, these are things you cannot hope to influence. And even then that only gets you a seat at the tanle to have your voice heard. Without further help in the form of 'Well, they'll all agree to compromise if you travel to the South Poie and fetch a special piece of ice that never thaws. Oh, but *nobody* has ever attempted such a journey...' then it would still be easier than trying to make them see sense on your own. It would also be utterly ridiculous and would never happen.

 

You cannot break these things down into numbers of wins and losses, for the Warden, Hawke or whoever. Because the problems that one person faces may be signicantly tougher and more nebulous than the direct problems with direct solutions that the other person faces.

[Nefla]

It must be said that Hawke forges deeper in the Deep Roads than anyone had at that time gone, and recovers a huge hoard of treasure that makes him/her rich. I mean that's a pretty hefty personal goal achieved there, lifting yourself from squalor to splendour through being willing to risk a really long shot to make or break. She also defeats the Arishok (potentially) in personal combat, ending the siege, saving the city and again potentially in a way that saw the Qunari leave peacefully with the tome. Yes, your companions help *but that is not a bad thing!* Its very good that DA2 gives them their moments to shine, and its handling of banter and letting us know in cutscenes that they have been up to stuff on their own is the best of any Bioware game.

 

The problems facing Hawke were largely treated sensibly for once, constantly ensuring that you can't just rock up with a greatsword and solve everything with an afternoon's violence. There is nothing proactive that she could have done. She warns the city about Petrice and her faction being fifth columnists, and without mounting round the clock surveilliance on them, what else could she do? The Qunari could only be removed by force (which the city is unwilling to do), or by returning the Tome (which Hawke could not have known about since Isabella and the Arishok don't consider it her business until the crisis actually starts). And with the Mage/Templar incident, again there is nothing they could do. She has no authority over the Mages or Templars, but she can start to apply her influence to support one side or the other. There is no silver bullet for an argument as old and bitter as this - unless you really are willing to pull the trigger on a nuclear option as Anders is.

 

As to whether they could have stopped Anders, well in a similar fashion to Merill it was a case of hoping the person could overcome their problems, The situation with Anders is unusual to say the least and nobody in the party (or even the whole city really) could claim much insight on his merging with Justice. And the thing is that Anders has wild mood swings - some days he is particularly zealous, but other days he is calm and cheerful and more like his old self. Considering all he does to help the party (particularly if he saves Carver/Bethany), and his friendship with Varric, the party hope he can eventually master himself. He's done a lot of good for a lot of people in his clinic, and took a big risk showing his face to the Wardens in the Deep Roads for Hawke's sibling. Plus do we ever really believe our close friends can be capable of such awful deeds? Others may say it was obvious, but we rarely ever see it coming from so close (look at the Warden and Morrigan for example - she was clearly up to something, Alistair continually says so, but they don't do anything about it because... they're still a team at the end of the day.

 

I'm not saying that DA2 does everything right. But Hawke is a more human protagonist who has victories and defeats, and that makes for a far more credilble story IMO. People point to the defeats, because they aren't used to having them at all. But Hawke saves the city plenty of times, uncovers plots by blood mages to infilitrate the Templar Order, foils terrorist plots to gas the populace, gets rich by risking big, winning big, becomes Champion etc etc. I felt like I lived a life, saw great and terrible things happen, and most importantly I felt like I *was* Hawke making the decisions and making them in the tone and with the personality I wanted her to have. I had good times, sad times, exciting times, and things happened in the city that I felt mattered. I can't say any of these things about DAI, and if Hawke had been allowed to return as the Inquisitor it would have made so more sense considering (as she even says herself) Corypheus is her responsibility - the Hawke bloodline is tied to Corypheus and she should have been the one to see him finally defeated. It made no sense to bring back all the major NPCs and party members from DA2 who were most closely tied to the plot, install Corypheus as the main villain and then change protagonists to someone completely different, who only says about 3 lines of conversation to Cory and who has less interesting and dramatic interaction in the whole game than Hawke did in one scene of Legacy!

 

Even if I agree that DA2 was slanted more towards the 'Take that for trying - life sucks and you lose again! Bwa ha ha!' I would argue that Bioware were becoming so reknowned for their pampering and puffing up of the player's ego, that an extreme correction was needed to bring things back down to earth and try to break people of this power trip juvenile wish to be awesome all the time. If nothing else, DA2 was different, and an experimentation to break their usual formula. Now, so was DAI in many ways, but only in the sense that it returned to familiar old themes and pampering of the player's ego but in an even more rushed and unearned way than they did before. All due to the curse of the modern lowering of attention spans and the general decline in standards of storytelling that IMO have characterised this gen.

 

There's no easy answer to my ideal DA3. I wouldn't have retconned the missing Warden and Hawke as being a red herring in the end. That plot strand and Stroud's warning that something was already happening that he couldn't talk about, were a good launching pad for any number of stories. I would have started with a mission where Varric is the main character, where he seems to be running from Cassandra, but eventually you see they are working together and at the end of it track down Hawke etc. Hawke becomes Inquisitor, and throughout the story we learn what she and the Warden have discovered is going behind the scenes, but that somebody has to solve the current crisis of Mages and Templars etc.

 

I'd be looking to make the story much longer. Build up to the Conclave, working at resolving the Mage Templar disputes. But also have plot strands where they are trying to find out who is behind unusual events behind the scenes. Basically make Act 1 of DAI into most of the game, and only reveal the true threat towards the end, have a big confrontation al la Haven to end, and whilst your forces are  buying time, have your party track the villain Corypheus to the temple of sacred ashes and have the events there happen in the finale. Have an Empire strikes back style ending where all seems lost, but see that Hawke survived, and the main goal of Corypheus was foiled, and have Skyhold be unveiled as the new base just before the To be Continued.

 

I'm not in the business as you can see of complete rewrites. The fact is that this was the narrative direction they were going in, and I think writers have to support and try to make it work. Just saying 'Oh it would have better if the game had been all about surf boarding or set in Rivain with you playing as a Qunari sex therapist' isn't helpful. I simply would have tried to write the story and structure it better, and in a way that made more sense. But all of this is off the top of my head anyway - if I actually had been writing it then I would take the time to decide exactly what to do. I'm just giving a flavour of what I'd do with the current narrative. As it stands, its too rushed, and only Act 1 is any good at all. The rest might as well not even be in the game.

I disagree that people felt Hawke was a failure because he or she was somehow a more realistic protagonist and anyone with a criticism just wants to play as a god-like figure. I feel characters like Lee from Telltale's TWD are much more realistic and relatable than Hawke (or the inquisitor). I did like DA2-obviously not in the same way you did, I thought the story was very weak but I really liked the characters. I think it was a good concept: "a small group of close friends and family and their day to day lives and adventures over the years" but the execution fell flat in my book. I mostly felt like an errand girl who was too frustratingly stupid or complacent to act on obvious clues or to go out and try to make changes in the city her way without someone else directly ordering her to. It starts with her home being utterly destroyed to the point where nothing may ever grow there again, she can never go back. Then we proceed to her younger sibling being killed while she stands 5 feet away making a derp face rather than trying to intervene or the monster being so strong that they are all forced to run. She gets to the city and she's poor and unwelcome and her uncle sells her into "indentured servitude" (my first playthrough I thought Gamlen was selling her and Bethany into prostitution for a minute with the whole "work off the debt" line lol). Life goes on, chores are forced on her, the rest of her family drops like flies, her lover treats her like crap (again not sure about Merrill), everyone bosses her around, nobody listens to her, she has no autonomy, I'm honestly surprised they didn't kill off the dog. But hey she killed some crazy people and got a nice house...yay?

 

Personally if there had been a second game with Hawke as the protagonist I would have wanted something entirely different than the conflict with Corypheus DA:I had. I'd have wanted a real game about the mage-templar war that was set up in DA2 and not a single quest early on in the game that ties everything up and tosses it aside.

 

For a game with Corypheus as the antagonist, I would have wanted a new character (as we got) but not one who is some super special snowflake chosen one. I agree with you that I'd want the conclave to have built up and I would have wanted to explore it however right from the beginning I would be making major changes. First of all, I wouldn't have the conclave explode and I wouldn't have the protagonist gain a magical rift-closing hand (if rifts were involved in the game I'd want them closed through hard work, rituals, etc...that anyone with skill or enough manpower could do). I'd want Justinia to step down from the chantry and become the leader of the inquisition. I would have the conclave involve an assassination attempt on her that was meant to look like either the mages or the templars did it and renew the conflict between them. I'd want the main character to have a hand in thwarting that attempt and offered a position in the inquisition for it as a squad captain rather than the leader which makes much more sense. You already use a small strike team at all times, you never command platoons of troops on the battlefield, never strategize, never formulate your own diplomatic strategies and goals. This way when you're being ordered to go somewhere or do something (though as in the actual game you can choose how) it makes sense. It also makes sense that a cog in the machine would be put at risk where it makes no sense for the only one with the magical McGuffin hand to put themselves in danger all the time.

 

I'd want Corypheus to actually be smart and effective and for him to keep his warden body for most of the game. My idea was that he'd be secretly manipulating the mages and templars against each other, making them a huge threat to the regular people of Thedas and riling up the populace against them. He could still have the wardens under his control both though his mental coercion and from tricking them into thinking they're defending the people. He'd use the good will generated by the HoF ending the blight so recently and painting the wardens as neutral and selfless heroes again to weasel his way into power, using the fear of the mages and templars the nobles and royalty would have.

 

You'd set out in the beginning to try and stop the mages and templars and to broker peace but for each incident you'd run across you'd notice things weren't quite right, and eventually start to see connections and evidence of a guiding hand behind the chaos with the mages and templars having no idea they were being used. When you finally realize it was the warden Larius/Janneka behind it is when Justinia gets assassinated for real and the protagonist and the inquisition is (credibly) framed. The different inquisition cells could be hunted down one after another (some of whom you'd have previously gotten to know, worked alongside for a mission, etc...) and executed as traitors. The remaining inquisition becomes a shadow organization. I'd want the heroes to be able to use strategy, manipulation, subterfuge, guerilla tactics, disguises, etc...at their discretion rather than just steamrolling everything though I'd want you to be able to attempt to brute force your way through certain situations where it would be ill fitting and be "punished" for it with an appropriate outcome (which might sometimes only be an extremely difficult battle that you could feel satisfied at having won).

 

I agree with you that game devs play it way too safe in recent years. Games that have choices (such as DA:I) make every choice equivalent with none "punishing" the player for making the "wrong" choice. I like to roleplay and discard my meta knowledge and I LIKE when things don't turn out all sunshine and roses sometimes. My favorite scenario for Redcliffe in DA:O is killing Connor because of how heart wrenching it is and the guilt it adds. "Was there another way?" "Could I have made it to the circle tower?" I liked in Deus Ex: Human Revolution where if you get that software upgrade your special abilities are disabled by an enemy and the fight is much harder but if you don't get the upgrade you can sit there and gloat while she tries to her her override to work. I want to be able to sacrifice and have it actually be a sacrifice rather than a sacrifice on paper but you keep all your money, troops, companions, limbs, whatever. I remember before DA:I came out the devs mentioned that there was some quest dealing with the Qunari that was almost impossible to succeed at while playing a Qunari inquisitor. That sounded awesome to me but that kind of thing didn't make it into the game

 

The part in DA:I that I thought was really well done was from the time they close the breach the first time to the time the hero was named inquisitor. It was the only part that felt tense, emotional, desperate, etc...but then unfortunately right after that you get this huge awesome fortress that is never in danger or attacked and you have no more setbacks the rest of the game. There are quests I liked as stand alone quests but they felt more like sidequests than part of the main plot. I wish BioWare would switch to a linear style of storytelling.

 

After DA2 I was really interested in playing a game about the mage-templar war that was set up but they threw that idea away in favor of the generic "ancient evil wizard wants to destroy the world, special snowflake chosen one stops him." After Trespasser I was really interested in playing a sequel as the inquisitor who now had been made interesting (IMO) with the loss of the arm, the betrayal of a companion, the fall from grace as the inquisition is dismantled or gelded, and the working in secret to stop said companion but that has been tossed away too in favor of a random new protagonist. I feel like the next game is going to be just as bland as DA:I

[elrofrost]

This is one of the few games were I cheated to get through it. Mostly mats. Which brings me to the bad, first.

 

Bad:

1. MMO playstyle. That includes way too many fetch quests, invisible walls and barriers (designed to waste time) level or quest locked areas of the maps (this game was not open world, more like open map). Felt like I was playing a MMO,

2. The loot tables (this is where I cheated). Having to farm a mob in a single player game is just ridiculous.

3. The hair. Just terrible. All hair in fact, even eyebrows looked plastic.

4. The game butchered rogues- no pickpocket, no stealing, hardly any stealth, no traps. And this thing of having to slect a bow or daggers is just stupid. Are you suggesting my rogue can't carry both?

4a. Same with warriors. Forcing me to chose between a 2-handed -vs- sword and board wasn't fun. I've never seen a game that didn't allow chars to use what-ever they wanted. If my warrior wanted to fight with daggers, the game should've allowed it.

5. The 8 bar slot limit. By level 11 any char filled it up with skills. Forcing me to drop skills in favor of others. In DA2 and DAO you could have as many as you wanted. I still don't get the reasoning behind this except maybe some vain attempt to make the game play more like ME.

Good.

1. The environment. Just a very pretty game.

2. Companions and characters in general. Some of the best I've seen.

2a. The romances. Iron Bull, Dorian, Cullen and Cass being my favorites. But from watching Youtube I see all were funny, touching and  just a few cringe moments. All in all, a good job.

3. The dragons. Bad ass fights for great loot.

4. The story in general - the backdrop of the war between the mages and templars. Lots of fun and added a lot of drama. Loved it.

5. The lore. This was fairly well done. I admit to there being plot holes though.

6. Decent and Tresspasser DLC's (more dwarves please in the next one)

 

Fair:

1. Cory. First of all, basing the main villain on a DLC from a previous game is messed up. Sure it made sense for BW, cause some players would buy the DLC and replay DA2. But it was cheap. And insulting.And Cory was weak. The end battle was a cake walk. Hell, I had more troubles with bears than Cory.

2. Introducing characters from novels. I mean, com'on - how many read the books? Reminds me of James and Kai in ME.

3. Little connection to the previous games.

4. The War Table. This goes back to MMO. If it was game time it would not had been so bad. But to make us wait days (in real time)  in some cases for missions to complete is BAD. Do not do that again.

5. MP was crap.

6. Mounts. Useless. And another waste of time.

7. No ones dies. In fact, it's not possible to lose a companion (except for the warden)  unless you pissed them off. And only 1 or 2 will leave. But in the big battle at the end, no chance for death. This actually suprised me, giving what ME and the previous games had done.

[elrofrost]

You can only mold story if you know the whole story, like i said you will have no idea about DA:O the first time you play, the next time you play you choose differently because you want to see "what happen if i do this instead?". In DA:O you can do that, you can make new playthrough just to see things differently.

 

In DA2, even if you replay, there's no difference, all your choices doesn't matter in the end. The changes are only in trivial things such as which companions who will fight with you, Cricle mage Bethany or Grey Warden Bethany (who just teleport to you out of nowhere) and such, it doesn't matter at all

 

I can agree that there are things not in our control, but i don't agree every choices we make means nothing because we can't control everything. It's a butterfly effect, everything we do actually change things in the future...that's why making choices in life is hard.

 

DA2 supposed to be if Hawke have so much bad luck, Hawke must try harder, he/she is a champion and a noble, not just ordinary people. It being established like that, he/she become someone, so there must be hard choices that give consequences, hard choices that can change something, hard choices that we consider things before choosing. The weight behind every choices must be higher when Hawke rise in rank. It is fine "nothing matter" when Hawke is just an errand boy/girl, but after he/she become noble and champion he/she cannot be like before...what is the point rising in rank if you suck as before?

 

"I work hard to become the boss in this company......let me take that to the post office, and give me a tip..."

 

It's the same in the game too. The end is the end no matter what you do. No one dies, no one leaves, you can't even be evil in the game. Whatever you do, the end happens the same. I mean, what's the point of gathering resources and improving your castle? It does nothing for you at the end battle.

[Donquijote and 59 others]

If you metagame then yes you can choose to fail, but without the information you will have no idea that

 

- annul the Tower is killing everyone including children and making the Templars more aggressive in the future

 

That's exactly what the annulment is about aka no survivors being ignorant doesn't mean something is unpredictable.

Gregoir even rub on your face what an annulment is.

 

 

- not helping Redcliffe leave that village doomed forever

 

You abandon the village against the zombies of course everyone die(except Tegan for plot reasons/plot armor) why is this unpredictable?

 

 

- siding werewolves making them go rampage because The Lady cannot control them anymore

 

Have you ever looked the werewolves?

They are unstable beasts that carry a mortal disease of course the lady of the forest would never be able to control them forever how is this unpredictable?

 

 

- siding Harrowmont will doomed Orzamar

 

Siding with Harrowmont does not doom Orzammar since in DAI they are still fine it just enforce traditions which is very predictable if you bothered to listen the infos the dwarves are saying about Bhelen and Harrowant and their way to do politic.

 

- helping Branka making her even more crazy

 

Not knowing the future before making choices is being human, and because of that we consider things before choosing, thinking "what would happen if i do this?"

 

Branka showed to be an unstable woman willing to put everyone in the Anvil even denizens of Ferelden like she does in one of the epilogues how is this unpredictable?

 

There is no need of any metagame in DAO to choose deliberately to fail pretty much what  @MarshalMoriarty said.

 

Being able to choose to fail, or tailor the situation to your exact wishes of sucess or failure is not human.

[Jigglypuff]

The whole game was a mistake, I wanted to play as my warden. 

[Donk]

The whole game was a mistake, I wanted to play as my warden.

My love!

[Qis]

 

That's exactly what the annulment is about aka no survivors being ignorant doesn't mean something is unpredictable.

Gregoir even rub on your face what an annulment is.

 

You abandon the village against the zombies of course everyone die(except Tegan for plot reasons/plot armor) why is this unpredictable?

 

Have you ever looked the werewolves?

They are unstable beasts that carry a mortal disease of course the lady of the forest would never be able to control them forever how is this unpredictable?

 

Siding with Harrowmont does not doom Orzammar since in DAI they are still fine it just enforce traditions which is very predictable if you bothered to listen the infos the dwarves are saying about Bhelen and Harrowant and their way to do politic.

Branka showed to be an unstable woman willing to put everyone in the Anvil even denizens of Ferelden like she does in one of the epilogues how is this unpredictable?

 

There is no need of any metagame in DAO to choose deliberately to fail pretty much what  @MarshalMoriarty said.

 

Being able to choose to fail, or tailor the situation to your exact wishes of sucess or failure is not human.

 

 

i. As the first time player, there is no indication about Right of Annulment do, even if played as a Mage

 

ii. not helping peoples does not make you a sight seer who can predict "they're sure doomed because i don't help them", maybe there are some other guys who are more bad ass than The warden can help them, or they manage to hold on until The warden return and pissed of The Warden for not helping them, maybe the support to Grey Warden diminished in said village...but the game only make "The Warden don't help them, so they doomed". First time playing you don't know what happen if you don't help them

 

iii. maybe Zathrian is lying, maybe there is no cure, maybe Zathrian will backstab you after you help him killing Witherfang. Maybe choosing to attack the Elves is because you're tired of their bullshit and attitude. At that point you don't know the outcome, you have no idea what happen when they face the Elves. And you have no idea what they will become. Maybe killing Zathrian will actually break the curse, we will never know. We don't know the nature of the curse before we using the persuade option.

 

v. It doom Orzamar because of that, not only cut off Dwarves from outsider, Harrowmont also get poisoned and Orzamar is back into endless dirty politic. Maybe Branka only crazy because she want that Anvil so much, maybe she become normal again after she get what he want, like kid who going amok because don't get ice cream, then silence when we give them. Who would think the kid will shot people after get the ice cream?

 

You only know all the outcomes by metagame, for first or second time playing you wouldn't know.

 

You can only deliberately choose to fail after you know the result is failure, that's not human

[Jigglypuff]

My love!

 

What's up?

[German Soldier]

 

My favorite scenario for Redcliffe in DA:O is killing Connor because of how heart wrenching it is and the guilt it adds. "Was there another way?" "Could I have made it to the circle tower?

 

 

With Connor i never saw the dilemma there is no problem to travel in the circle while someone else can kill the child if it cause troubles in the meantime,i don't see why the PC is necessary to kill one single child?

[Nefla]

With Connor i never saw the dilemma there is no problem to travel in the circle while someone else can kill the child if it cause troubles in the meantime,i don't see why the PC is necessary to kill one single child?

Have you ever done the kill Connor route? You have to fight demons. Nobody in the town would have been able to do it and if given that warning "we're leaving, but if Connor acts up ___ is going to kill him" Isolde would definitely have tried to smuggle him out. The whole killing him choice is also not about the PC being necessary to kill Connor, it's about not wanting to take a chance of letting an abomination that has killed many people already run wild for even one more day. If you're roleplaying a templar type character or someone who knows the dangers of magic and demons you wouldn't take the risk of leaving him alive.

[Draconaise]

@ straykat & Moriarty

 

 

In a thread titled "The Mistakes of Dragon Age Inquisition" I'm not surprised at all the healthy criticism.   I think everyone is bringing up great points. As others have mentioned too, recognizing the game's weaknesses still does not prevent me from enjoying Inquisition for what it is. I can see how it could prevent you from enjoying it though, and I respect that you're willing to articulate your grievances. It's been good food for thought.

[cimerians412]

I actually liked Inquistion.....only after playing Trespasser. That closed out the game for me from what could have been a huge letdown.

 

Then playing it two more times and on Nightmare made me a solid fan, still.....I have gripes with it:

 

Bad:

- Collecting stuff. For chrissake...

- Collecting stuff animation (without a mod its painful)

- Fetch quests

- Every map was basically the same thing, close rifts, get camps, collect stuff etc.

- Still missing a lot of things that made Origins great.

- Elves\hair look like garbage

- Storyline was very weak without Trespasser. 

 

If I didn't care I woudn't complain. 

[Qis]

With Connor i never saw the dilemma there is no problem to travel in the circle while someone else can kill the child if it cause troubles in the meantime,i don't see why the PC is necessary to kill one single child?

 

They should make it when we return from the Circle, everyone is dead and the castle run by demons. There is no reason why the demon stop what she's doing before, the only excuse they give is Connor said "the battle scared her away". Even if we talk to Connor there is no assurance the demon don't came back and going rampage. Also there is no assurance we are safe in our travel, we could die fighting bandits or ambushed by assassins or Darkspawn...ect

 

Killing Connor is not evil choice actually, because at that point we have no idea what will happen if we leave the castle. It is just that a particular companion making you feel like **** about that. Connor is the threat in Redcliffe.

 

This is what i am talking about DA2 is lacking, and DA:I have nothing like this. We will consider to kill a child, or her mother to save the child or taking risk to seek outside help

[vnth]

But the point is that beyond one single first playthrough, you do know the outcomes, and if you don't want that to happen then you don't have to. Roleplaying your character and being able to tailor every situation to your exact specifications of victory or defeat are 2 different things. You are playing God or storyteller at least, shaping how the story unfolds outside of your character.

 

The difference for me is that in DA2, you are essentially given an actor's role. You are given the character, a specific life situation that they are in (i,e Hawke has a family she needs to support, magic in the family that needs to be hidden etc), given the lines and then given the freedom on how to say them, what tone you strike, and in a limited way say things like 'I don;t think my character would do that here - I think she'd do this instead' and be given the license to improv that.

 

Whereas in DAO, you are basically the director able to mould the story by basically writing the actual script yourself, making the protagnist the race of your choice, and giving the character such authority that they can directly affect factions that usually wouldn't listen to any outside influence etc. And you can affect exactly what that outcome is, in a much more direct way than the player actor of DA2, who simply gets to affect how their character acts as the scenario unfolds.

 

 

Your characterisation of the Ketojan scenario just shows how far apart we are on this, because I consider that an excellent scenario. Yes, he dies either way but its the context that matters. If you turn him over, he is grateful and it shows the depth of his devotion to the Qun. But if you try to defend him, he doesn't alter his character or viewpoint to account for you wanting him to live, He simply explains that he must die - he didn't want you to die for trying to protect him, but now the danger is passed, his faith and belief demand that he die. His amulet that he drops suggests that there is a regret buried deep inside him that it needed to be this way, and that he does feel the injustice somewhere inside, but that doesn't alter the fact that he believes that he is too dangerous to go on living.

 

It isn't of your (Hawke's) success or failure. This is his belief and he cannot and will not alter it just because you think he should. Its an allegory for the rest of the story - the factions are doing what they believe is the correct thing. You haven't lived their life, you don't have the authority or the right to tell what they should and shouldn't do. You can appeal to them to do the right thing, you can try to stop them if they move to commit illegal acts etc, but ultimately everyone makes their own choices and yours do not trump everyone elses.

 

Unlike say ME3, where a centuries old conflict between the Quarians and Geth is settled by Shepard saying 'Hey you Quanans and Geth, make peace not war - because I say so!' and they all just say 'You know... I'd never thought of it like it... Hell why not - peace it is!'

 

Or DAO, where you choose a candidate for the Orzammar throne (against the mandate of the Grey Wardens not to do this under any circumstances), despite not actually knowing anything about the candidates unless you're a Dwarf Noble or anything but the vaguest outline of their policies, and nobody thinks that might not the best way to resolve this. But you are given a silver bullet get out of jail way to win the election for your man through an afternoon's violence and a fancy crown etc.

 

These are the kinds of scenario that aren't possible in real life. You can't solve the issues in Palestine and Israel for example by shooting some bad guys, finding a scroll that says 'This side is in the right' and have everything solved to your satisfaction. Or simply head down to the Gaza strip with a loudhailer and say 'You Palestinians and Israelis, instead of fighting and hating each other - don't!' and have them say 'Oh you're right, lucky you came by to tell us!'

first of all, just because da2 is a slice of life game and hawke a tragic figure doesnt make da2 more realistic than dao. you argued that there is nothing hawke could do to change Ketojan's mind. does that mean no one has ever changed anyone else's mind in real life? you mentioned that theres nothing hawke could do to stop the mage-templar war or change ander's action. i disagree with both. even though the conflict itself is beyond hawke's ken, the fact remains that mages had never rebelled before in the circles' long history. it's not like they had just discovered yesterday that they didnt like the templars. even if hawke could not solve the conflict itself effectively, there're plenty of ways to keep the peace. likewise, through either sheer luck or insight, hawke could have discovered meredith's and anders' plan and save kirkwall. the fact that he didnt was not because it was realistic but because your failure was predetermined.

 

conversely, i dont see how dao is in any way more unrealistic. you mentioned, for example, that realistically the dwarves of orzammar would never have agreed to a leader handpicked by an outsider with no knowledge of their politics. except the warden didnt have a free pick. he had to align himself with the existing candidates and perform tasks in their name. even if the "ancient artifact" given at the end was a silver bullet, it nevertheless wasnt a deus ex machina.

 

more importantly, people got upset with the changes of da2, dai, or me3, isnt because they, or rather, we, are spoiled children who dislike mature storytelling or whatever other nonsense as you and many others would like to believe. it is instead because, in varying ways, the actions we took in these games have very limited meaningful consequences, which fundamentally contradicted the spirit of the franchise. me3 has its ending. da2 and dai hilariously have identical but opposite problems. whereas in da2, no matter what you do, hawke ends up as a failure, in dai, no matter how hard you try to mess things up, you end up as the most perfect person in the world.

 

lastly, no, there's more problems to me3's ending than because it was "sad."

[Pasquale1234]

The problems facing Hawke were largely treated sensibly for once, constantly ensuring that you can't just rock up with a greatsword and solve everything with an afternoon's violence. There is nothing proactive that she could have done. She warns the city about Petrice and her faction being fifth columnists, and without mounting round the clock surveilliance on them, what else could she do?

Why couldn't she mount round the clock surveillance?

My primary issue with Hawke/DA2 is not that the character couldn't always be successful, it's that far too often, she couldn't even try. In the first Act, you meet a templar (Emeric?) investigating missing women who turns his investigation over to Hawke and Hawke does nothing. In the third Act, you know that Anders/Justice is up to something, and your only options are whether to help him or not.

The only actual motivation/goal I could ever invent for the character was taking care of family and friends - yet the game actively denied me the ability to do either.
 

This issue over how much control the player has over the story, and how much the storyteller has (i,e the writers) is an old and never ending one. I consider that to tell a proper story that doesn't just feel like a lot of awkwardly connected sequences, the writer has to have some control to move the story along and create drama, chalenge the characters etc. Letting players decide how much you succeed or fail is one way of doing it, but it only really works if you are doing a single game. Its a legitimate form of storytelling, but trying to make sequels to games that have offered wildly divergent outcomes isn't really possible, as all of Bioware's retcon shows.

When I pop in a DVD or open a novel, I expect to be told a story entirely under the control of the author/creator.

When I play a game, I expect to actively participate in the creation of the narrative that will result from my playthrough. I don't really need (or especially want) to see wildly divergent outcomes in terms of world state importation, but I do want my character to be able to have some influence, even if it is small in scope.
 

I personally think that the more control you give to players to shape the narrative, the less threatening become the villains, the less investment I have overall,

If I can't shape the narrative, I may as well watch it on youtube.
 

because I know ultimately I can just decide the optimum outcomes and achieve them,

Optimum outcomes aren't always available or known.

Example: destroy the Anvil of the Void so that noone else will ever have to suffer the process of being made a golem, or leave it operational to give Orzammar a fighting chance versus the darkspawn onslaught. IIRC, even if you do destroy it, the wreckage is found and may be reassembled.

[TheAtomicSurvivor]

I am surprised so many people are disappointed in Dragon Age Inquisition. I actually find this game twenty times better than Dragon Age 2, which was an abomination and to even put in the same league as Dragon Age Origins or even Inquisition is ridiculous. If Inquisition was the second game that came out instead of Dragon Age 2, this would have been the casual more mainstream version of Dragon Age I enjoyed. Inquisition at least let you have time to feel for each of the characters, the party members felt genuine, and the Inquisitor honestly felt like a human being at points in time. Or maybe a Dalish being. Either way race technicality aside, this game is a great game. Better than the slog they call Dragon Age 2 or as I call it, The Game Never to be Named.

 

The only few complaints I have are with the camera when casting barrier and resurrect spells. Because the camera bugs out. To be preferably honest, I just like the spell to immediately target whoever I am looking at with my camera. Iron Bull's dead body is right staring in my face, okay maybe a good 15 feet out, but....when the camera is trying to res on top of a mountain because I decided my glass cannon inquisitor is not going to get in the way of an angry dragon, then yeah.....

[Smudjygirl]

My turn!!!!

Bad:
- Massive disconnect between the beautiful areas and the story
- Fetch quests
- Little characterisation of Cory. They relied on what we (might have) know(n) from Legacy.
- No Mabari
- Lack of romance when compared to Origins (but a step up from 2)
- Lack of choices
- Where was Sandel?
- No characterisation for the Inquisitor. We had backgrounds, but there were wasted.
- Lack of healing potions and healing spells (I like being the party healer)
- Hawke. They were a veritable stranger
- Cameo characters. Varric was Hawke's friend and I felt i was meant to transfer that to my Inquisitor. Same with Morrigan, my Inquisitor had no reason to care for or trust her, yet we were all but forced to.
- Story ends and boss will be recycled. If the games are to be separate, they need to stop pushing previous PC's mess on to new blood.
- Skyhold was a wasted opportunity, really
-AI needs a lot of work. Mage running to the dragon was really annoying!

Good:
-Characters are amazing.
- Beautiful areas
- Mounts
- Armour
- Lore and plot developments
- Banter
- A house for all my friends!
- Voice Actors were really good!
- Combat was pretty fluid
- I liked that there were more creatures running around, and not all of them were out to eat you

[Marshal Moriarty]

My point is that people are placing entirely unreasonable demands on Hawke and completely discounting her sucesses. Why couldn't she mount 24 hour surveillance on Petrice? Well how would that even work? Petrice is a ranking member of the Chantry - is Hawke supposed to slink along from pillar to pillar after her, and use some kind of spyglass to peep at her letters etc? And Hawke has a life of her own - she tells the authorities what Petrice is doing, but they take no steps to stop it. And it would hardly have mattered if they had, as someone else would simply have stepped in. You cannot change ideology - the Chantry with its 'Sing the chant from all the corners of the world' and the Qun's 'All lands must learn the truth of the Qun' are directly opposed. The Quanri were not going to leave unless their mission was completed or the city itself forced them out. None of this is anything Hawke could have affected, without knowledge she could not have been privy to.

 

Hawke is trying to keep her family safe and secure her financial situation in Act 1. That doesn't make her blind to the problems of the city, but neither does she have the authority or the time to start acting like some version of Batman, rooting out injustice and conducting extralegal investigations. She does help remove the corrupt Captain of the Guard and save the Templar Order from being inflitrated by demons though, so I hardly think you could say she spends Act 1 twiddling her thumbs!

 

My point on realism is that Hawke is not given the same insider advantages that the Warden gets. The treaties allow them to walk on in, speak immediately to the people in charge and be listened to, and their Warden status (even though eaned only weeks ago, and not knowing anything at all about the Order), gives them a powerful sway with many people because of the history of the wardens. Also, the Blight is a very obvious threat that affects everyone, so people are more likely to be open and forthcoming with solutions and offers of help, rather than ignoring or obstructing you. And finally, as I said before, the problems that the Warden is given are always given direct solutions (go here and get this, kill this person, find this document etc). That is very different to both predicting and stopping rebellions and revolutions in organizations to which you do not belong! And its only in Act 3 that Hawke gains any kind of authority, but even then it is mostly symbolic and certainly doesn't grant any kind of authority over the Templars and Mages. Its a start, but events spiral out of control, as by that time the Templars have already in effect seized control of the city.

 

The Warden (and Bioware's other heroes in recent times) always get special VIP passes to go anywhere, talk to kings and local leaders etc with no need to wade through any red tape. They already are *someone* whereas Hawke is just a person living the slums. The other characters have direct mandates that they can use to demand help with a persuasive argument that reasonable people will agree to. Hawke has no such authority. And again, they always have direct problems with direct solutions (many of which are highly improbable, and Sten for example points out in almost every mission that the strategy you are following is completely insane. The sheer time it would take for example to climb a mountain to find a village not on the map in the hope that a holy relic will be there, and that it actually works... Do they really have time for things like this?!'

 

As for control over the narrative, you have control over what your character can do within the bounds of sense, and given that the game cannot offer unlimited options. The game offers the chance to be part of the narrative, and make Hawke into the kind of person you want him/her to be. Actors will frequently comment on the roles they enjoyed, because they liked being able to explore who the character was and develop them over time in tandem with the writers and directors. The actors aren't writing the scripts themselves though, are they? Yet they get enjoyment out of the process, exploring the story as they play the part of the character making it their own. Just saying 'Oh well if the game doesn't let determine what happens, I might as well be watching a movie' is completely missing the point.

 

I'm not saying that DAO is a bad game. Far from it. As objective as I can be, I consider it the 'best' DA game. But DA2 is the one which means the most to me, because I feel my character is a person, capable of success and failure. I like seeing how she rises from nothing to make something of herself, rather than having everything handed to her. I like how the narrative isn't smothered by some ancient evil returning and 'Only You Can Save Bristol From Total Destruction!' DA2 made the world feel more real, because I got to see what people get up to when they *aren't* being menaced by some enemy horde, and when there aren't demons and darkspawn and what have you rampaging everywhere. It was nice to see the characters having ordinary concerns (money worries - when do the rest of the Bioware characters ever have money worries?!) and you're not some isolated superhero living in a mountain retreat or a swanky invisible spaceship. Hawke is a man or woman of the people, being involved with every strata of society as she makes her way.

 

Just look at what ME3 had to do in order to hand Shepard even the smallest of defeats.They built her up much to impossibly undefeatable proportions, that their attempts to make her human fell flat on their face. We have Eva Coren escaping from her, despite Shepard having a whole range of abilties that should in theory have been able to stop her (from Stasis to Biotic Charge, which Eva simply ignores and speeds up whenever you get near here). All so the crewmember can be injured, and Vega can have his big moment. And it happens all the time, as Shepard does his/her usual thing of waltzing through situations until the very end when suddenly (gasp) she's taken out or left standing, until your ME2 squadmembers goes all One Man Army on the enemies - exactly like they never did in ME2. And of course we have the priceless ME3 Kai Leng and helicopter shoot the bizarrely cardboard like floor of the Asari temple (which of course been built on top of a huge chasm, because why not right?)

 

They'd made the character too infallible in the previous games, so when they tried to correct it, that proved nearly impossible. Because short of actually rendering Shepard immobile, people expected her to overcome any situation no matter how unlikely. So we have her rolling about dodging Destroyer beams on remarkably hardy hillsides that also shrug off this beam. A beam which later on is shown to kill whole squads of people who are spaced out. Or hitting rh big hammers to summon the big worm to attack the hapless destroyer. You know the one - the one that apparently has no scanners to see where the worm is, and that forgets it can fly, and that only 1 gun despite its size and no anti infantry or AA guns. That destroyer.

 

I'm not saying every game should be like DA2, but I'm really glad at least that game was. A more down to earth narrative, a more relatable ordinary and fallible protagonist with actual life goals and personality instead of being some superheroic cypher. And political situations and ongoing plots that couldn't be solved by 'Climb this tower and find the magic spoon' or 'Dive into the Ocean and kill the giant manatee of terror that is running for Mayor' nonsense that we usually get. No matter how big the problem is Bioware's other games, you can always solve it by simply rocking up to the enemy base and knocking some skulls together.

 

'Back off Man - I'm a Bioware Protagonist. If I want to come in here and murder everyone, I have the right. It says so right here on my badge. Now hurry it up, I'm meeting the King of Georgia in half a hour. He wants to me to deal with the inflation problem in his country's banking system. I'm planning to head into the sewers, kill some kobolds and then find the Silver Spanner of Banking Reform that the Kobold king stole century's ago. They say its impossible to find, but I have to be done by 8 O Clock, because I'm due in Switzerland to end Child Poverty by skydiving into a lake of Coca Cola to find Lord Lucan.'

 

Oh, and vnth, Take that Orzammar story and take out the crown and Branka as your magic silver bullets to end that crisis. What exactly would the Warden do then, eh? That kind of simplistic 'Find the Magic Thing' is exactly what I'm talking about, as is the fact that your treaty gives you the access all areas pass that even people who have lived there for their whole lives don't have. Does that seem like a story that many people can relate to? Does that seem like a solution to a problem that would apply in the real world? Like I said, not every game needs to be that, but Bioware were (and are) in danger of only making narratives like that.

 

You want to talk lack of options? How about the Dalish quest in DAO? You have the treaty, but they won't help you. One clan. And not on principle, but for the understandable reason that they have other concerns. Which is fine, but they won't even contact other clans? Not even if you yourself are a Dalish?! And given that with the Dalish Origin, the clans should already know about the Blight, unless your clan have been keeping that info to themselves. Did Duncan just forget to mention to them 'Oh by the way, you remember that you are sworn to help us right?' Or did they creep off, hoping nobody would find the treaties because that's the only way they would help. Again, even if you are a Dalish? And even if not, are these really the kind of johnnies you want on your side?

 

The warden has a controlled story in the Origins and at Ostagar, and they are IMO by far the best parts of that game. Because you actually suffer defeat and setbacks that make you seem mortal. The Darkspawn had you bang to rights ih the Tower of Ishaal before Flemeth saves you. And yet a couple of months later, you're the man who knows not defeat, pwning all before you. Why? Because the player is given control over the narrative, and any defeats they suffer are ones they allowed to happen. Its pointless to compare successes. The characters faced different situations and were in different positions in life. And by simply branding Hawke a continual failure and just ignoring all his/her sucesses, you invalidate your position immediately.

 

Oh and before I forget and seeing as how this is likely to be my last post for a while, a big salute to everyone I've talked to. And especially to folks like Draconaise because I know it can't be fun to see a game you like be vivisected like this. Just remember that despite my problems with this game, I still consider myself a DA fan and supporter. I criticise because I care! But I'll yield the floor to others now I think. Hopefully the next DA game will be a happier occasion for me to talk about.

[Pasquale1234]

My point is that people are placing entirely unreasonable demands on Hawke and completely discounting her sucesses.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the PC in a role-playing game to be role-playable.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect the character to have some actual you know, life goals that she can pursue, a mission, something she can accomplish other than reacting to random strangers doing random crap. The PC in an RPG typically has some sort of overall goal. Hawke had none.
 

Why couldn't she mount 24 hour surveillance on Petrice? Well how would that even work? Petrice is a ranking member of the Chantry - is Hawke supposed to slink along from pillar to pillar after her, and use some kind of spyglass to peep at her letters etc?

Why not? Hawke spent most of her time passively observing.
 

And Hawke has a life of her own

If you can call running random errands for random strangers a life.
 

Hawke is trying to keep her family safe and secure

And failed miserably.
 

That doesn't make her blind to the problems of the city, but neither does she have the authority or the time to start acting like some version of Batman,

Then what exactly was she doing going around clearing out those nests of baddies in each part of town in every act?

Also - as a noble, the Champion, and having a friend who was the Captain of the Guard should have empowered the character to at least some degree.
 

As for control over the narrative, you have control over what your character can do within the bounds of sense, and given that the game cannot offer unlimited options.

In DAO and DAI, the narrative is entirely mine. I know exactly what my character is thinking and feeling, their goals, their priorities, their motives, their personal agendas, and what they hope to accomplish with everything they do and say. My character also has a fair bit of control over what she does when. Hawke is a complete enigma to me.
 

The game offers the chance to be part of the narrative, and make Hawke into the kind of person you want him/her to be. Actors will frequently comment on the roles they enjoyed, because they liked being able to explore who the character was and develop them over time in tandem with the writers and directors. The actors aren't writing the scripts themselves though, are they?

No, but they're interpreting them and doing the actual acting. In DA2, the VA and cinematic animators already did all of that. All I got to do was decide whether Hawke would deliver the previously performed and recorded diplomatic, snarky, or aggressive line.
 

Just saying 'Oh well if the game doesn't let determine what happens, I might as well be watching a movie' is completely missing the point.

Speaking of missing the point...
 

I'm not saying every game should be like DA2, but I'm really glad at least that game was. A more down to earth narrative, a more relatable ordinary and fallible protagonist

Sorry, but Hawke is completely unrelatable to me. I cannot fathom why she would stay in Kirkwall once her family was gone.
 

with actual life goals

Those goals were... what exactly?

[Nefla]

Anyway, my actual list for DA:I

 

The good:

-The improved visuals and character expressions/lip syncing

-The map design was beautiful

-Best character creator BioWare has ever made by FAR (minus the hair, facial hair, and most eyebrows)

-The voice acting is top notch as usual

-Being able to play as a non-human (this is incredibly important to me!)

-The inner circle characters

-The romances

-The entire sequence from when the breach is closed to when the PC is named Inquisitor

 

The bad:

-The lack of balance in the story, the inquisitor and inquisition have one single setback in the entire game which ends up being a huge boost for them 5 minutes later in that they get an upgraded fortress and only 1 minor character dies. The player might also consider the choice between Hawke or the warden friend a setback but it doesn't affect the inquisitor or the inquisition. They steamroll over everything else with ease, the inquisitor is the bully and Corypheus is the helpless guy getting thwarted at every turn.

-The non-companion sidequests. 99.9% of them were shallow, boring, and useless IMO. I enjoyed the Crestwood one somewhat the first time (though not as much as BioWare's side quests in other games) but the others were mostly pointless chores. I want interesting quests with interesting NPCs that I can feel something for. Either sympathy, rage, humor, or whatever. I want side quests to have choices/multiple ways to resolve, dialogue options (besides "what do you need?" and "no") it doesn't have to be anything world shattering, it doesn't have to affect the rest of the game, I just want more opportunities to ropleplay and define my character and fun, more in depth quests that help build the world, lore, culture, etc...

-The power requirements system: Not only did it not make sense story-wise (how would finding a bunch of lost rings, skinning bears for your own personal use, etc...make you ready to storm adamant fortress, etc..?) but it forces people who hate the shallow and grindy sidequests to do around 124 of them in order to complete the story (more if you want to unlock optional zones) it had me beating my head against the wall in boredom and frustration.

-The war table: The amount of real time it took to finish the missions was ridiculous, the gathering ones got you barely any materials, and the interesting little story snippets just reminded me that there were no interesting side quests like that out in the world for me to do. The inquisitor was off picking berries and finding lost pantaloons while the random grunts did political espionage and other cool things. I was jealous.

-The combat system: while it seemed cool in theory, it was totally broken for me. There was no reason to limit you to 8 skills in battle when the previous games let even consoles use the radial menu to use ALL the abilities. Then I had the hold position command which NEVER worked even once, the tactical camera that respects terrain, my companions often ignoring commands I gave them despite nothing blocking them, long range characters immediately running in to shoot dragons from 2 feet away rather than staying at a distance where I put them, etc...

-Loss of the healing specialization: it didn't make the combat any more tactical, you just spam barrier and guard instead of heal and it took away that roleplaying option

-The cameos and returning characters: I hated this in DA2 and I hate it in DA:I. It makes the world feel small, especially when it seems the characters are shoehorned in for fanservice (Morrigan, Alistair/Loghain, Varric, Hawke, Cullen) when new characters would have served better or are a writer's pet like Leliana and are given increasingly more importance and relevance than they deserve so they can be put in every game.(also Liara from Mass Effect)

-Lack of evil choices/roleplaying opportunities

-No ambient soundtrack(and no, I don't count the 10 second blurb that plays once an hour), I was alone in silence with the sound of my footsteps and the occasional river or chirping bird and it drove me nuts! I know some people don't like ambient music but that's why there are sound sliders in other games T_T

-The distant camera when talking to NPCs or sometimes companions. It made me feel so detached and was so impersonal. I can't relate to a little ant with no face and no personality, especially when they're having me do something like collect elfroot rather than something interesting that teaches me more about the lore, culture, world, etc...

-The typical and cliched plot: ancient evil wizard trying to destroy the world, special snowflake chosen one is the only one capable of stopping him.

-No interesting NPCs outside the inquisition's inner circle and almost no NPCs to talk to in general. The ones you could talk to just sent you out for their lost goats and rings.

-The non-linear plot. (not just a DA:I thing but made more obvious since there are no enjoyable side quests and less RP opportunities to distract me) I think BioWare should move to a linear style of plot so they can write a tighter and more interesting story where each part flows into the next and builds on the previous. The way they do it now means it can only be "go to point A, B, and C and recruit forces" and "go to A, B, and C and stop self contained evil action" in any order. The way they currently do it means it feels very disjointed and doesn't feel like one solid story. Also since you can do the parts in any order it waters down the mentions or effects each can have on the next, often to zero.

-The DLC that made the inquisitor interesting(trespasser) and made me want to play them again was made to "tie off" the inquisitor as a protagonist and though it was written as a call to action, a beginning, sequel bait, it was apparently supposed to be a conclusion.

 

The ugly:

-The hair: oh maker, it's completely awful! Graphically it looks like it was imported from a last generation console (especially jarring compared to the very nice skin, eye, and fabric textures) and most of the styles look like they were chosen by someone who has a genetic disease that made them permanently bald and has only ever heard stories of hair but never seen it. You have half the styles as some form of bald or crew cut, a handful of feminine styles but with non-removable sideburns added, a mullet, an attempt at copying Miley Cyrus, a bunch of male pattern baldness/shaved pointy temples and the only style imported from previous games wasn't something popular like Leliana's style of hair, Anora's hair, etc...it was that one absolutely horrible granny looking hairstyle with the too-short straight across bangs that remind me of the three stooges. The Qunari were actually much worse than the rest of the races since they only had what, 3 hairstyles? 1)The baby-in-the-bath mohawk that's like an inch tall, the sad attempt at corn rows that are way too big and so poorly textured they look like melted tootsie rolls stuck to the head and 3) The pringles guy/schoolmarm look with a weird center part and a tiny malformed bun.

-The male elf bodies. Not only do these poor guys have obvious man-boobs but their upper arms are completely broken and being sucked into their torso.

-The lack of variety in clothing. Your character only get a few variations on the same armor for their class with a few extra sets here and there (only the warden one looks good IMO), the Qunari are especially restricted and can hardly wear anything. Players are also no longer able to wear mage robes though they are in the game being worn on NPCs.

-The Skyhold outfit (oatmeal long underwear) and the ball outfit (manly nutracker)