Nice try but I know all about your EUSSR 'educational game purchases for schools' grift.
No its not a good game and its not even worth playing. You can have a positive first impressions since the beginning of the game is decent and gives some hope that it will be a good game. That hope will start fade away slowly but steadily the more you play it as you witness the boring world design, boring enemy encounter design, boring quests and majority of dialogs being just bad.Is it a good game? Yes or no.Some people get butthurt whenever anything nice is said about DA:I.
Look, here's the beef. In many ways, I agree it's a terrible game - the faggotry, the grll power, the overwrought open world with its febrile collection mania, the weak villain, etc. But what is actually quite good about DA:I is that they did finally perfect and refine a way of having a simplified, streamlined system of 3rd person party fantasy combat gameplay, a system that they'd started working with from KOTOR on down.
Even with DA:O and DA2, they were still falling between the two stools of biting the 3rd person bullet and trying to retain distant memories of isometric gameplay. With this game, they fully committed to 3rd person combat that you can be in most of the time, and it's actually better for it.
Sure, it would have been cool if the game had had a proper tactical view as well (there is actually a mod for it, but it's a bit fussy to implement), but you don't actually need tactical view (except in the direst emergencies on Nightmare) because the way it's set up, it actually plays very well in 3rd person with AI-controlled companions, most of the time. It would also have been cool if the AI had been better, and they'd had an extensive AI conditionals setup like DA:O (especially with the even better mods for that), or like Pillars 2. But I suppose that's console retardation for you. Can't have too many menus and lists to navigate, after all.
Essentially, like Skyrim, the combat is enjoyable if you don't pine for it to be what it's not but just accept it for what it is. There's the meta question of whether such simplified combat systems should be acceptable as "RPG", whether the pitchforks should be out for something better in relation to the good name of the genre. But that's a separate question from just looking at what's implemented and judging its quality for what it is in itself.
One of the things about the term "lowest common denominator" is that it applies to people like us too. While it doesn't refer to what we love (e.g. I love intricate turn-based tactical gameplay and deep simulationist mechanics and build systems) it can refer to something that's enjoyable enough. And I maintain that just the 3rd person party combat as it is, plus the pure dungeon crawling of the DLC Descent is the lowest-common-denominator that actually works for this game, it's more like what the game should have been: big battles with hordes of enemies, with tougher elites and bosses. With that DLC it becomes a proper, lowest-common-denominator-enjoyable PC game.
Then why all this pontification about how this shit game isn't actually that bad, comparing it to other trash games, etc? Do you potificate as much about the color texture and scent of your stools? There is nothing redeemable about this game, everything that is barely functional was lifted right out of the soul-crushing mmo formula. Accepting shit for what it is and training yourself to feel like you vaguely enjoy it is the foundation of decline. Everything that isn't great is not worthwhile.Is it a good game? Yes or no.Some people get butthurt whenever anything nice is said about DA:I.
Look, here's the beef. In many ways, I agree it's a terrible game - the faggotry, the grll power, the overwrought open world with its febrile collection mania, the weak villain, etc. But what is actually quite good about DA:I is that they did finally perfect and refine a way of having a simplified, streamlined system of 3rd person party fantasy combat gameplay, a system that they'd started working with from KOTOR on down.
Even with DA:O and DA2, they were still falling between the two stools of biting the 3rd person bullet and trying to retain distant memories of isometric gameplay. With this game, they fully committed to 3rd person combat that you can be in most of the time, and it's actually better for it.
Sure, it would have been cool if the game had had a proper tactical view as well (there is actually a mod for it, but it's a bit fussy to implement), but you don't actually need tactical view (except in the direst emergencies on Nightmare) because the way it's set up, it actually plays very well in 3rd person with AI-controlled companions, most of the time. It would also have been cool if the AI had been better, and they'd had an extensive AI conditionals setup like DA:O (especially with the even better mods for that), or like Pillars 2. But I suppose that's console retardation for you. Can't have too many menus and lists to navigate, after all.
Essentially, like Skyrim, the combat is enjoyable if you don't pine for it to be what it's not but just accept it for what it is. There's the meta question of whether such simplified combat systems should be acceptable as "RPG", whether the pitchforks should be out for something better in relation to the good name of the genre. But that's a separate question from just looking at what's implemented and judging its quality for what it is in itself.
One of the things about the term "lowest common denominator" is that it applies to people like us too. While it doesn't refer to what we love (e.g. I love intricate turn-based tactical gameplay and deep simulationist mechanics and build systems) it can refer to something that's enjoyable enough. And I maintain that just the 3rd person party combat as it is, plus the pure dungeon crawling of the DLC Descent is the lowest-common-denominator that actually works for this game, it's more like what the game should have been: big battles with hordes of enemies, with tougher elites and bosses. With that DLC it becomes a proper, lowest-common-denominator-enjoyable PC game.
I thought I was clear: out of the box, no; in that particular DLC, yes. That DLC represents something more like what the game should have been like all the way through.
And the perfect is the enemy of the good. Plus, I'm being quite specific in what I'm saying: I'm not saying the main game is good, that still has all the problems it has. I'm just saying that the Descent DLC actually does somewhat redeem the game and show something more like what the game could and should have been like, and shows that the action-ish gameplay in and of itself wasn't the worst of the game's problems.Then why all this pontification about how this shit game isn't actually that bad, comparing it to other trash games, etc? Do you potificate as much about the color texture and scent of your stools? There is nothing redeemable about this game, everything that is barely functional was lifted right out of the soul-crushing mmo formula. Accepting shit for what it is and training yourself to feel like you vaguely enjoy it is the foundation of decline. Everything that isn't great is not worthwhile.Is it a good game? Yes or no.Some people get butthurt whenever anything nice is said about DA:I.
Look, here's the beef. In many ways, I agree it's a terrible game - the faggotry, the grll power, the overwrought open world with its febrile collection mania, the weak villain, etc. But what is actually quite good about DA:I is that they did finally perfect and refine a way of having a simplified, streamlined system of 3rd person party fantasy combat gameplay, a system that they'd started working with from KOTOR on down.
Even with DA:O and DA2, they were still falling between the two stools of biting the 3rd person bullet and trying to retain distant memories of isometric gameplay. With this game, they fully committed to 3rd person combat that you can be in most of the time, and it's actually better for it.
Sure, it would have been cool if the game had had a proper tactical view as well (there is actually a mod for it, but it's a bit fussy to implement), but you don't actually need tactical view (except in the direst emergencies on Nightmare) because the way it's set up, it actually plays very well in 3rd person with AI-controlled companions, most of the time. It would also have been cool if the AI had been better, and they'd had an extensive AI conditionals setup like DA:O (especially with the even better mods for that), or like Pillars 2. But I suppose that's console retardation for you. Can't have too many menus and lists to navigate, after all.
Essentially, like Skyrim, the combat is enjoyable if you don't pine for it to be what it's not but just accept it for what it is. There's the meta question of whether such simplified combat systems should be acceptable as "RPG", whether the pitchforks should be out for something better in relation to the good name of the genre. But that's a separate question from just looking at what's implemented and judging its quality for what it is in itself.
One of the things about the term "lowest common denominator" is that it applies to people like us too. While it doesn't refer to what we love (e.g. I love intricate turn-based tactical gameplay and deep simulationist mechanics and build systems) it can refer to something that's enjoyable enough. And I maintain that just the 3rd person party combat as it is, plus the pure dungeon crawling of the DLC Descent is the lowest-common-denominator that actually works for this game, it's more like what the game should have been: big battles with hordes of enemies, with tougher elites and bosses. With that DLC it becomes a proper, lowest-common-denominator-enjoyable PC game.
I thought I was clear: out of the box, no; in that particular DLC, yes. That DLC represents something more like what the game should have been like all the way through.
Except for the part where they gave her breast reduction surgery. She's totally flat now.
Arcania is a decent game, you don't know what you're talking about if you call it bad. Restricted Area and The Fall: Last Days of Gaia are bad games, Arcania is just okay.
A badly animated game, with horrible voice acting and a dull story, that takes place in a world separated into small to medium sized areas, and populated by samey enemies that fight about the same, and you have to grind through them as you complete linear and simple quests.
No, it's not. You can't even move and attack at the same time. The combat is horrid, like it was designed by someone who had zero experience designing or playing games with action combat -- because it probably was.
What game development does to a motherfucker, smh.
Same thing.What game development does to a motherfucker, smh.
No, just Marxism.
No, it's not. You can't even move and attack at the same time. The combat is horrid, like it was designed by someone who had zero experience designing or playing games with action combat -- because it probably was.
DAO has more "fluid"(for lack of a better term) combat despite not even trying to be the same type of game as DAI. Compare and contrast them sometime, it's ridiculous.
[edit]
and if someone doesn't believe me that the game is this shit, there's a mod to enable moving while autoattacking: https://www.nexusmods.com/dragonageinquisition/mods/1498
but they never enabled moving while using skills, so it still feels very rigid while playing melee.
being able to move and attack is a basic part of 3d action-oriented games for idk... 20 or so years at least?No, it's not. You can't even move and attack at the same time. The combat is horrid, like it was designed by someone who had zero experience designing or playing games with action combat -- because it probably was.
DAO has more "fluid"(for lack of a better term) combat despite not even trying to be the same type of game as DAI. Compare and contrast them sometime, it's ridiculous.
[edit]
and if someone doesn't believe me that the game is this shit, there's a mod to enable moving while autoattacking: https://www.nexusmods.com/dragonageinquisition/mods/1498
but they never enabled moving while using skills, so it still feels very rigid while playing melee.
If you don't have that you have the kind of jank that spoiled The Secret World - where you have someone running along waving a sword or making magical hand gestures awkwardly to the side. It's a nice idea and it might be possible at some time in the future, but I don't think animation's advanced enough yet. And anyway, you usually have to be grounded when you strike (imagine fighting on a frictionless surface); standing still while concentrating momentarily on a spell also makes sense.
Same thing.What game development does to a motherfucker, smh.
No, just Marxism.
being able to move and attack is a basic part of 3d action-oriented games for idk... 20 or so years at least?No, it's not. You can't even move and attack at the same time. The combat is horrid, like it was designed by someone who had zero experience designing or playing games with action combat -- because it probably was.
DAO has more "fluid"(for lack of a better term) combat despite not even trying to be the same type of game as DAI. Compare and contrast them sometime, it's ridiculous.
[edit]
and if someone doesn't believe me that the game is this shit, there's a mod to enable moving while autoattacking: https://www.nexusmods.com/dragonageinquisition/mods/1498
but they never enabled moving while using skills, so it still feels very rigid while playing melee.
If you don't have that you have the kind of jank that spoiled The Secret World - where you have someone running along waving a sword or making magical hand gestures awkwardly to the side. It's a nice idea and it might be possible at some time in the future, but I don't think animation's advanced enough yet. And anyway, you usually have to be grounded when you strike (imagine fighting on a frictionless surface); standing still while concentrating momentarily on a spell also makes sense.
Morrigan always looked hideous. Takes several mods to even get her to a bangable state in DAO.
Never played DA3, but contrary to the concept art you posted, it's incline in game.
