Options

[Dragon Age Inquisition] Seeker Pentaghast found some lost hobo in a ditch and here we are

12357100

Posts

  • Options
    ZayZay yes i am zay Registered User regular
    The biggest problem with this game is that not a single dragon is romanceable

    sthbuf0g7b7y.png
  • Options
    KwoaruKwoaru Confident Smirk Flawless Golden PecsRegistered User regular
    Zay wrote: »
    The biggest problem with this game is that not a single dragon is romanceable

    Unless you put a lot of stock into Bull's weird ass qunari breeding conspiracy theory

    2x39jD4.jpg
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    Zay wrote: »
    The biggest problem with this game is that not a single dragon is romanceable

    well first romance DLC will be Jar of Bees and then we'll see what we can do.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    Zay wrote: »
    The biggest problem with this game is that not a single dragon is romanceable

    well first romance DLC will be Jar of Bees and then we'll see what we can do.

    now that you've let this enter my mind I won't be satisfied until we get a Harding DLC

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • Options
    YukiraYukira Registered User regular
    Kwoaru wrote: »
    Zay wrote: »
    The biggest problem with this game is that not a single dragon is romanceable

    Unless you put a lot of stock into Bull's weird ass qunari breeding conspiracy theory

    End game
    Corypheus taunted my Qunari inquisitor that her entire race was a mistake.

    Is that unique to Qunari? Bull might be right.

  • Options
    Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    I mean, none of you have seriously threatened to beat me up because of the game so you're already multiple steps above many other places on the internet.

    (I'll fight you)

    CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

  • Options
    ZayZay yes i am zay Registered User regular
    Look it's 2015 and all I'm saying is I still can't have gay sex with a dragon

    sthbuf0g7b7y.png
  • Options
    ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    Zay wrote: »
    Look it's 2015 and all I'm saying is I still can't have gay sex with a dragon

    let me tell you about this website

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • Options
    ShenShen Registered User regular
    Zay wrote: »
    Look it's 2015 and all I'm saying is I still can't have gay sex with a dragon

    it's not gay if it's a dragon

    3DS: 2234-8122-8398 | Battle.net (EU): Ladi#2485
    ladi.png
  • Options
    ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    Here's a question

    if the dragon is sentient, like smaug

    is it bestiality

    or is that only if its a dragon age style dragon

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    vsove I was wondering what you thought about Patrick Klepek's DAI article on Kotaku

    Don't know if you can comment

    I think Inquisition represents what you see when moving to a new toolset (the people who have their tools first are always art teams and well you have to keep them busy, so you end up with a WHOLE LOT OF STUFF) and I'd expect future games to be tighter. There are a few major factors beyond that.

    A) New Engine

    Everything we did for DA:I, we had to do from scratch. No party storage? Well, in DA:O it was a horrific hack and we didn't have the time to make another horrific hack for DA:I - thus why arguments of 'well you did it before' don't really work. It's not as simple as just taking what we had and bringing it in, since the way everything interacts code-wise behind the scenes is completely different.

    B) New Tools

    Related to A, but as mentioned before, we had to rebuild our toolset from scratch. Our cinematics tools are still -barely- enough to ship a game and a lot of our other stuff was a mess of hackery (ambient creatures/NPCs, etc) due to having X number of programming man-years and Y number of things to be done, where Y = X^2. Art (primarily level art) is the only department where a lot of their tools were very similar to what Frostbite already did, and so they had a lot of time to build levels.

    C) New Systems

    Even if we had the same tools and engine, DA:I was built differently. Part of it is trying to avoid having to bulk out our teams to 400-600 people for each project that we then need to fire most of afterwards. One thing I love about BioWare is that we don't have hire/fire cycles, and I've never seen mass layoffs, at least not in the Edmonton location. The other part, of course, is that we're looking at new ways to develop our games. I'd expect the next DA (if there is one) to be smaller, but with those smaller areas being more interactive and alive. Even stuff like the Nemesis system from Mordor are great ways to make a smaller amount of content feel bigger, without bulking out the game to 100-200 hours.

    And, yes, I do also sort of agree with Klepek - gamers as a whole have learned to fetishize game lengths. DA:I is an incredibly massive game that you can actually still finish in 30-40 hours, but not with 100% completion. That's by design - we didn't build the game so you'd hit everything in one playthrough. But we've sort of hit a point where the landscape of gaming is such that people think 'well if it exists, I better do it' in a game and so they end up putting 100-200 hours into the game. Which is fine! But you don't need to.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    vsove wrote: »
    I mean, none of you have seriously threatened to beat me up because of the game so you're already multiple steps above many other places on the internet.

    (I'll fight you)

    CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

    You'd better watch it buddy I've been practicing sambo.

    *shows up with tambourine and guitar*

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    RainfallRainfall Registered User regular
    I've posted a few wordier complaints about Inquisition in past threads, sorry if I offended, vsove(because that comment was kind of offensive, both to those who like the game and those who made it.)
    I'm really looking forward to the Inquisition DLC, because I love most of the individual parts of this game, and hopefully any DLC will be a more focused and self contained and not as enormously sprawling(which by its very nature makes it harder to conceal any flaws)

    I just really don't enjoy the base game very much at the moment, since it very much does not appeal to my tastes, and I wish the main plot was more tightly woven into the open world experience.

    Also I still haven't played any multi with you! What gives?

  • Options
    ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    vsove I was wondering what you thought about Patrick Klepek's DAI article on Kotaku

    Don't know if you can comment

    I think Inquisition represents what you see when moving to a new toolset (the people who have their tools first are always art teams and well you have to keep them busy, so you end up with a WHOLE LOT OF STUFF) and I'd expect future games to be tighter. There are a few major factors beyond that.

    A) New Engine

    Everything we did for DA:I, we had to do from scratch. No party storage? Well, in DA:O it was a horrific hack and we didn't have the time to make another horrific hack for DA:I - thus why arguments of 'well you did it before' don't really work. It's not as simple as just taking what we had and bringing it in, since the way everything interacts code-wise behind the scenes is completely different.

    B) New Tools

    Related to A, but as mentioned before, we had to rebuild our toolset from scratch. Our cinematics tools are still -barely- enough to ship a game and a lot of our other stuff was a mess of hackery (ambient creatures/NPCs, etc) due to having X number of programming man-years and Y number of things to be done, where Y = X^2. Art (primarily level art) is the only department where a lot of their tools were very similar to what Frostbite already did, and so they had a lot of time to build levels.

    C) New Systems

    Even if we had the same tools and engine, DA:I was built differently. Part of it is trying to avoid having to bulk out our teams to 400-600 people for each project that we then need to fire most of afterwards. One thing I love about BioWare is that we don't have hire/fire cycles, and I've never seen mass layoffs, at least not in the Edmonton location. The other part, of course, is that we're looking at new ways to develop our games. I'd expect the next DA (if there is one) to be smaller, but with those smaller areas being more interactive and alive. Even stuff like the Nemesis system from Mordor are great ways to make a smaller amount of content feel bigger, without bulking out the game to 100-200 hours.

    And, yes, I do also sort of agree with Klepek - gamers as a whole have learned to fetishize game lengths. DA:I is an incredibly massive game that you can actually still finish in 30-40 hours, but not with 100% completion. That's by design - we didn't build the game so you'd hit everything in one playthrough. But we've sort of hit a point where the landscape of gaming is such that people think 'well if it exists, I better do it' in a game and so they end up putting 100-200 hours into the game. Which is fine! But you don't need to.

    Thanks man this is really well thought out

    I think my issue with Klepek was the implication that the game was disrespecting his time by having that extra content, which as you said, he does not have to do

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    Rainfall wrote: »
    I've posted a few wordier complaints about Inquisition in past threads, sorry if I offended, vsove(because that comment was kind of offensive, both to those who like the game and those who made it.)
    I'm really looking forward to the Inquisition DLC, because I love most of the individual parts of this game, and hopefully any DLC will be a more focused and self contained and not as enormously sprawling(which by its very nature makes it harder to conceal any flaws)

    I just really don't enjoy the base game very much at the moment, since it very much does not appeal to my tastes, and I wish the main plot was more tightly woven into the open world experience.

    Also I still haven't played any multi with you! What gives?

    Yeah I took a break from games over the holiday 'cause it turns out that all I really wanted to do was watch Burn Notice and fantasize about making an open-world spy game.

    And no worries - the only reason I mentioned anything is 'cause I've seen your wordier complaints. Insofar as DLC is concerned I'd say your criticisms are valid and I've basically reorganized an entire department to put more focus on building systems and integrating narrative into gameplay in a much broader sense because it's something I adore and think we can do much better on going forward.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    Hella rude to just assume dragons have dongs

    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    They actually reproduce via spores

    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    They actually reproduce via spores

    actually by budding.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    DidgeridooDidgeridoo Flighty Dame Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    I'd expect the next DA (if there is one)

    :<

  • Options
    ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure vsove just doesn't want to show up in an article somewhere that says WELL KNOWN BIOWARE EMPLOYEE CONFIRMS NEXT DRAGON AGE

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    Didgeridoo wrote: »
    vsove wrote: »
    I'd expect the next DA (if there is one)

    :<

    I mean, there probably will be.

    But I've said 'the next DA' before without that disclaimer and people took it to say 'AHA THERE'S A NEW DA I KNEW IT' and I learned to hedge my words always.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    Mr. GMr. G Registered User regular
    I think BioWare games benefit from DLC more than just about any other kind of game

    Since their absolute strongsuit is characters and storytelling and DLC allows for an incredibly focused and contained single story that doesn't need to push any overarching stuff forward

    I'm thinking of things like ME2's Overlord when I say that

    6F32U1X.png
  • Options
    ZayZay yes i am zay Registered User regular
    Hella rude to just assume dragons have dongs

    I ain't assuming nothing

    sthbuf0g7b7y.png
  • Options
    Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    I'm pretty sure vsove just doesn't want to show up in an article somewhere that says WELL KNOWN BIOWARE EMPLOYEE CONFIRMS NEXT DRAGON AGE

    Complete with screenshots from this forum.

    Caulk Bite 6 on
    jnij103vqi2i.png
  • Options
    RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    I was thinking that the other day.

    I was like, if I replay Mass Effect 2, I'll pretty much have to buy Zaeed and Kasumi.

    'cause if I don't, they won't be there for Mass Effect 3 :(

  • Options
    BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    Langly wrote: »
    I didn't realize I had to nanny literally every character in the game

    One supporting character does not bow implicitly to your every whim oh noooooooo

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    Mr. G wrote: »
    I think BioWare games benefit from DLC more than just about any other kind of game

    Since their absolute strongsuit is characters and storytelling and DLC allows for an incredibly focused and contained single story that doesn't need to push any overarching stuff forward

    I'm thinking of things like ME2's Overlord when I say that

    It is also worth noting that when I said 'art is the only team with tools' I was actually wrong, writing can also get started very early on.

    And when you have 3 1/2 years of people reading and re-reading and second guessing, I think you end up with a story that isn't as tight.

    Thus why long dev cycles are often not amazing. 2 1/4 years is ideal, with about 4 months of that being pre-production, ideation and prototyping.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    Mr. G wrote: »
    I think BioWare games benefit from DLC more than just about any other kind of game

    Since their absolute strongsuit is characters and storytelling and DLC allows for an incredibly focused and contained single story that doesn't need to push any overarching stuff forward

    I'm thinking of things like ME2's Overlord when I say that

    It is also worth noting that when I said 'art is the only team with tools' I was actually wrong, writing can also get started very early on.

    And when you have 3 1/2 years of people reading and re-reading and second guessing, I think you end up with a story that isn't as tight.

    Thus why long dev cycles are often not amazing. 2 1/4 years is ideal, with about 4 months of that being pre-production, ideation and prototyping.

    you made this word up

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    vsove I was wondering what you thought about Patrick Klepek's DAI article on Kotaku

    Don't know if you can comment

    I think Inquisition represents what you see when moving to a new toolset (the people who have their tools first are always art teams and well you have to keep them busy, so you end up with a WHOLE LOT OF STUFF) and I'd expect future games to be tighter. There are a few major factors beyond that.

    A) New Engine

    Everything we did for DA:I, we had to do from scratch. No party storage? Well, in DA:O it was a horrific hack and we didn't have the time to make another horrific hack for DA:I - thus why arguments of 'well you did it before' don't really work. It's not as simple as just taking what we had and bringing it in, since the way everything interacts code-wise behind the scenes is completely different.

    B) New Tools

    Related to A, but as mentioned before, we had to rebuild our toolset from scratch. Our cinematics tools are still -barely- enough to ship a game and a lot of our other stuff was a mess of hackery (ambient creatures/NPCs, etc) due to having X number of programming man-years and Y number of things to be done, where Y = X^2. Art (primarily level art) is the only department where a lot of their tools were very similar to what Frostbite already did, and so they had a lot of time to build levels.

    C) New Systems

    Even if we had the same tools and engine, DA:I was built differently. Part of it is trying to avoid having to bulk out our teams to 400-600 people for each project that we then need to fire most of afterwards. One thing I love about BioWare is that we don't have hire/fire cycles, and I've never seen mass layoffs, at least not in the Edmonton location. The other part, of course, is that we're looking at new ways to develop our games. I'd expect the next DA (if there is one) to be smaller, but with those smaller areas being more interactive and alive. Even stuff like the Nemesis system from Mordor are great ways to make a smaller amount of content feel bigger, without bulking out the game to 100-200 hours.

    And, yes, I do also sort of agree with Klepek - gamers as a whole have learned to fetishize game lengths. DA:I is an incredibly massive game that you can actually still finish in 30-40 hours, but not with 100% completion. That's by design - we didn't build the game so you'd hit everything in one playthrough. But we've sort of hit a point where the landscape of gaming is such that people think 'well if it exists, I better do it' in a game and so they end up putting 100-200 hours into the game. Which is fine! But you don't need to.

    Thanks man this is really well thought out

    I think my issue with Klepek was the implication that the game was disrespecting his time by having that extra content, which as you said, he does not have to do

    I think he has a valid point in that, while you don't -have- to do it, that's the sort of expectation that's been set by AAA games as a whole and we have to be cognizant of that.

    Same thing with investigates. We put an achievement in ME1 for getting every single codex entry through investigates and now we're trapped in a hell of our own making where our players think they need to hit every single conversation option ever. -We- see them as optional, but not all of our players do.

    It's about knowing expectations and trying to manage your design around 'em.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    For example - I think, knowing what we know now, we probably would have locked off most of the Hinterlands until you went to Val Royeaux for the first time. Given people a taste, forced them back into the critical path to remind them it's there and -then- let them unlock more.

    In general, actually (and we've talked about this internally) we should have fed exploration content in more of a drip feed rather than all at once. The perception (and Rainfall spoke to it) is that we have this tiny oasis of critical content and all around it is the desert of exploration, while in reality we have about as much critical content (in fact a tiny bit more) than DA2, but just how it's set up and presented to the player is very different.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    ZayZay yes i am zay Registered User regular
    To that end, sera at least did a good job showing why investigate options are optional

    sthbuf0g7b7y.png
  • Options
    SproutSprout Registered User regular
    Yukira wrote: »
    Kwoaru wrote: »
    Zay wrote: »
    The biggest problem with this game is that not a single dragon is romanceable

    Unless you put a lot of stock into Bull's weird ass qunari breeding conspiracy theory

    End game
    Corypheus taunted my Qunari inquisitor that her entire race was a mistake.

    Is that unique to Qunari? Bull might be right.

    More VERY end game
    I believe that is Qunari specific. On my elfquisitor run I got something to the effect of "YO, YOU GOT SLAVE SHIT ON YOUR FACE, DUMBASS".

  • Options
    ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    For example - I think, knowing what we know now, we probably would have locked off most of the Hinterlands until you went to Val Royeaux for the first time. Given people a taste, forced them back into the critical path to remind them it's there and -then- let them unlock more.

    In general, actually (and we've talked about this internally) we should have fed exploration content in more of a drip feed rather than all at once. The perception (and Rainfall spoke to it) is that we have this tiny oasis of critical content and all around it is the desert of exploration, while in reality we have about as much critical content (in fact a tiny bit more) than DA2, but just how it's set up and presented to the player is very different.

    I think something like this, or something in the quest log making sure people know that a quest is of the bottom 'tier' of sidequests, would be really cool

    I'm still glad its all there though and would hate to see it go

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • Options
    SproutSprout Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    vsove wrote: »
    vsove I was wondering what you thought about Patrick Klepek's DAI article on Kotaku

    Don't know if you can comment

    I think Inquisition represents what you see when moving to a new toolset (the people who have their tools first are always art teams and well you have to keep them busy, so you end up with a WHOLE LOT OF STUFF) and I'd expect future games to be tighter. There are a few major factors beyond that.

    A) New Engine

    Everything we did for DA:I, we had to do from scratch. No party storage? Well, in DA:O it was a horrific hack and we didn't have the time to make another horrific hack for DA:I - thus why arguments of 'well you did it before' don't really work. It's not as simple as just taking what we had and bringing it in, since the way everything interacts code-wise behind the scenes is completely different.

    B) New Tools

    Related to A, but as mentioned before, we had to rebuild our toolset from scratch. Our cinematics tools are still -barely- enough to ship a game and a lot of our other stuff was a mess of hackery (ambient creatures/NPCs, etc) due to having X number of programming man-years and Y number of things to be done, where Y = X^2. Art (primarily level art) is the only department where a lot of their tools were very similar to what Frostbite already did, and so they had a lot of time to build levels.

    C) New Systems

    Even if we had the same tools and engine, DA:I was built differently. Part of it is trying to avoid having to bulk out our teams to 400-600 people for each project that we then need to fire most of afterwards. One thing I love about BioWare is that we don't have hire/fire cycles, and I've never seen mass layoffs, at least not in the Edmonton location. The other part, of course, is that we're looking at new ways to develop our games. I'd expect the next DA (if there is one) to be smaller, but with those smaller areas being more interactive and alive. Even stuff like the Nemesis system from Mordor are great ways to make a smaller amount of content feel bigger, without bulking out the game to 100-200 hours.

    And, yes, I do also sort of agree with Klepek - gamers as a whole have learned to fetishize game lengths. DA:I is an incredibly massive game that you can actually still finish in 30-40 hours, but not with 100% completion. That's by design - we didn't build the game so you'd hit everything in one playthrough. But we've sort of hit a point where the landscape of gaming is such that people think 'well if it exists, I better do it' in a game and so they end up putting 100-200 hours into the game. Which is fine! But you don't need to.

    Thanks man this is really well thought out

    I think my issue with Klepek was the implication that the game was disrespecting his time by having that extra content, which as you said, he does not have to do

    I think he has a valid point in that, while you don't -have- to do it, that's the sort of expectation that's been set by AAA games as a whole and we have to be cognizant of that.

    Same thing with investigates. We put an achievement in ME1 for getting every single codex entry through investigates and now we're trapped in a hell of our own making where our players think they need to hit every single conversation option ever. -We- see them as optional, but not all of our players do.

    It's about knowing expectations and trying to manage your design around 'em.

    Yeah, this game broke me of the compulsion to hit every investigate, because some of them are just rude. Like, I asked Leliana if she and the Divine were doing it and then felt like a total ass. And then I saw some of Krem's and NOPE.

    But then there's Solas and you get an actual, visible reward for exhausting his investigates. So it goes both ways.

  • Options
    vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    For example - I think, knowing what we know now, we probably would have locked off most of the Hinterlands until you went to Val Royeaux for the first time. Given people a taste, forced them back into the critical path to remind them it's there and -then- let them unlock more.

    In general, actually (and we've talked about this internally) we should have fed exploration content in more of a drip feed rather than all at once. The perception (and Rainfall spoke to it) is that we have this tiny oasis of critical content and all around it is the desert of exploration, while in reality we have about as much critical content (in fact a tiny bit more) than DA2, but just how it's set up and presented to the player is very different.

    I think something like this, or something in the quest log making sure people know that a quest is of the bottom 'tier' of sidequests, would be really cool

    I'm still glad its all there though and would hate to see it go

    In terms of satisfying content I think the next DA game will have more.

    Smaller but more interesting areas? Though one of the big things I'm working on is better tools for making our procedural content interesting, so that might let us stick with the big areas, especially now that we have a full game's development experience.

    The new ME team is about 75% people who worked on DA:I, so they know what not to do. I'd expect a lot of these issues to no longer be there with that game, and by the time we hit our next project everyone will have at least one more game under their belts, if not more.

    DA:I was very much a learning experience and while I'm super proud of what we accomplished, we could have done a lot more if we weren't the first BW project on Frostbite. But the lessons we learned were incredibly valuable.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • Options
    RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    I usually exhaust every investigative branch because you never know where it's gonna lead.

    Hitting that last rude question might open up a whole new dialogue tree that provides much greater insight into a character.

    Or they might just call you an ass.

  • Options
    LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Dubh wrote: »
    nah, I'm policing myself because I don't want to be an asshole

    this has nothing to do with impressing anyone

    I'd like to imagine we live in a world where people don't need to imagine someone is looking over their shoulder to be polite, but given what internet anonymity does...

    Theres nothing wrong with venting about a game but I don't think theres anything wrong with expecting some form of definable criticism

    Even the 'these are bull shit mmo quests' comments contain something actionable

    Comparing the designers to petulant children doesn't help anyone and also doesn't really say anything about what you actually don't like

    I mean it wasn't framed constructively but I definitely feel like and have said several times that I feel like this game has very little mechanical or narrative cohesion. It feels, to me, like there was no overall direction over the many people who made the game.

    If I were going to make a big argument about it, it would be:

    As a customer, I feel like this game fails in several major categories. All of the opinions below are from the perspective of being a customer, who paid seventy dollars for a game. It is not my problem if something was too hard or if something cost too much money or if something has an answer that I can't see because I'm not a developer. I don't have access to that knowledge, and it ultimately matters incredibly little to the end experience. So, with that caveat, my issue is that the game seems to have very little directorial editing, it seems made by a committee with no oversight and no quality control. There are many, many examples of this, but the most egregious examples are the war table (missions, design, ui), the Power and Influence system, the companion quests, the item ui and crafting system, the tactical camera, the sidequests, and the Player Hub.

    These things have been talked about to a certain extent, but for me, they all combine for a poor experience that makes it readily apparent that there were decisions made in the editing/production process that inhibited the ability to make a tight, cohesive experience. Bioware does characters really well, and they do dialogue really well, and I spent 70 dollars on this game, so I'm playing it all the way through. But that doesn't mean the experience isn't overall a poor showing.

    War Table: boy howdy is this a complete mess. It is annoying to load - every time. And you have to load it - every time in order to interact with any part of it at all. There is no way to remotely assign missions or accept rewards or set perks. You have to watch them all walk to the table each and every time. The UI itself has no rhyme or reason as to why pieces stay on the board or leave, or any indication that a piece needs to be attended to if you have already read the initial description. Some pieces stay when completed, some do not. The time to complete the missions seems completely arbitrary and also insanely long, taking up to 18 hours to complete for a pittance of a reward. There is no indication of which mission may be actually important and which will give you 30 gold and nothing else, story or item wise. Furthermore, there's an obvious cutting of mechanics with the way in which you open up missions with power. You can often choose who does it between your three advisers, but it has no impact on the story or game at all. At least that is apparent to the player in any way.

    Power/Influence and Sidequests: People had talked about the power system a ton, but the real thing I hate about it is the inability to use Power for anything other than missions, and for its contribution to the multitude of quests that only serve to artificially inflate this useless currency. Requisitions are the worst. They're repeatable and random, and they also require you to give up your crafting materials that are tedious to collect in the first place. I am a person who likes to 100 percent games, and this game has only annoyed me in my attempts. The quests are so paper thin and so boring - and there are so many, that for there to be this much tedious content when resources could have been put towards making a better experience is frustrating. The companion quests that have you go all over the world map for no discernible reward are the perfect example of this. It's busywork - it's busywork that tricks the player. There are a lot of little things in this game, and some of them are crucial to getting a good resolution to a character's arc, and some of them are completely useless. And you won't know until you complete the quest which one it is. There is a huge difference between giving the option of doing sidequests, and in letting the player know what quest is going to actually do something and which is going to simply mark something off a list.

    The Item UI and Crafting System: It is incredible to me that this got put into the product. It is a horrible item ui. In what I can only assume is an attempt to make things more streamlined, it makes things completely inscrutable. Crafting/knowing what materials or components are going to do ahead of time in a schematic is completely opaque. Switching out item mods is a chore and un-intuitive, the stats are simplified to the point of not even knowing what they're doing. Some items will have inherent bonuses but no mod slots and figuring out which is which from the inventory screen is difficult if not impossible. You can't know what schematics do ahead of time before you buy them. The material requirements for crafting are really high, and you have a party of at least 4 people and maybe 8 that you want to make things for.

    The Tactical Camera: An obvious half measure that doesn't play well with the combat or the use of a controller. I would prefer a game that is only a strategy RPG, but I never use the tactical camera because the tool itself is just not easy to use and makes the fights take way longer than if you were queuing up abilities in Origins (for example). The FOV is too tight and low, and it's overall clunky.

    The Player Hub: This feels really incomplete. There are upgrades that do nothing, and you never use them in any way. It's not like it's pertinent to the story to upgrade your castle. You are never attacked and you're never asked to like, produce supplies for your army to make it do better or harbor refugees with additional space being built or anything like that. You have upgrades because when you have a Player Hub the player expects to be able to make it look better, but there's not even an attempt to make this at all relevant beyond that.

    The Companion Quests: I've talked about this several times, but the companion quests are like ghosts compared to the ones in previous games. Most are simply a conversation with poor fades to black and short cutscenes. I don't expect everything to be combat heavy, in fact I would prefer it if they were not! But as they stand, it feels like a bunch of placeholder missions that the devs never returned to. This ties in to the bloat of sidequests, because if there were the resources to make hundreds of nothing quests, it seems like better direction would have been to focus resources on the more important character beats instead. Something that would have made the game feel less like a fractured experience.

    All of this stuff, and other things that are smaller issues, combine to give the impression that DA:I is an incomplete product as well as one that had little overall mechanical or editorial cohesion. Mechanics don't mesh well together, there are obvious holes in the experience narratively and functionally - nothing feels fully realized. I didn't even talk about the opening sequence, which is a bunch of poorly implemented cutscenes that don't really hook you into the Inquisitor's role, so much as leave him a complete blank slate. Leaving the player not even really understanding what's going on or why people are listening to them at all. I am not enough of a film buff to technically talk about the methods in which a movie "teaches" the audience about a setting and a narrative and makes you feel connected to the world, but this game (and most games) fail at it. As a counter example, Wolfenstein does this exceedingly well, and by exceedingly well i mean it does it at all. It is edited competently. I think game companies would do well to hire people who edit for film to edit their cutscenes, if they don't already. If they do, they're not getting their money's worth.

    There is really, really good writing in this game, but it is all in the dialogue. That's super enjoyable, and I can play through an incomplete game to see it all and kill some dragons (I mean, i'm trained to accept mediocre, incomplete products from big companies at this point), but just because there is stuff that I like doesn't mean I'm not overall disappointed with the game. It's frustrating to see a huge game from a big company have noticeable budget issues with all the spectacle and marketing it gets. It's frustrating to see how the game could be a tight experience and have it fight itself at every step.


  • Options
    LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Langly wrote: »
    I didn't realize I had to nanny literally every character in the game

    One supporting character does not bow implicitly to your every whim oh noooooooo

    But they do. They do if you do one specific thing at the beginning of the game. It's not a situation from DA 2. It is avoidable - I wouldn't care if it wasn't avoidable.

    Langly on
  • Options
    KwoaruKwoaru Confident Smirk Flawless Golden PecsRegistered User regular
    edited January 2015
    vsove critical question when will somebody be adding a stash

    I think I would pay up to a dollar for a stash

    Kwoaru on
    2x39jD4.jpg
  • Options
    ZayZay yes i am zay Registered User regular
    I agree with basically everything langly said, and for me it seems like, or at least I am directing blame at, the glut of meaningless side content that is at the expense of the aspects of Origins and other bioware games that I really enjoy

    I do like the game overall and the story missions and what's there for companions is really good, I just wish they'd been drastically more fleshed out

    sthbuf0g7b7y.png
This discussion has been closed.