The Dragon Age: Inquisition Thread

[eremita]

Compare it to dragon's dogma rather

Any action RPG compared to Dragon's Dogma is objectively inferior.

~fin

Cant blame them to try , and its way more honora

So the game is decent if you reprogram yourself to judge it as a console game rather than as a PC game? What kind of bullshit argument is this?

The point is this IS an action RPG designed first for consoles. If you don't want to play that, don't play the game period. If you do play it, the controls are fine for the kind of game it is. People complaining about the controls are mostly focused on how not-Origins it is, but that's the core game more than not having click-to-move. Witcher 2 didn't have click-to-move either.

I wasn't talking about the controls. I'm talking about a shitty game suddenly becoming decent if you think of it as belonging to a different genre or platform.

But if you want to go that route, fine. So how does this game compares to Dark Souls?

Compare it to dragon's dogma rather, its quite similar combat system except you wont see mage joint casting and localized damage on big monsters.Theres no timed roll and dodge , not the feeling of danger like in dark souls.You can program your companions to use potions at a % of health and attacking the same target , they are like the side kick of dragon's dogma , with a lot more dialogue than "wolves hunt in pack".Prettier with better areas to explore, easier too. It doesnt deserves the irrational hatred some give it here, especially when it doesnt prevent to play true PC rpg this year.
You know you could just buy it for cheap in a third world online shop via proxy or vpn and just activate the key on origin , its not that a big deal .

ffs. there is timed roll ability for every class. check fucking skill tree.
warriors- combat roll (battlemaster skill tree)
rogues- evade (subterfuge )
mages- faed step ( ice magic )

there is even active parry skill (Block and Slash in Two handed weapon skill tree)/(Parry in double daggers)

also there are healing spells. one use Focus to heal so you can use it only in combat once or twice and cant spam every encounter and there is revival spell in spirit skill tree.

Played it only 10 hours, and thres indeed that skill, it should have been a basic action. Well no point to post more impressions of the game, everyone here , played it more intensively than i .

post more when you're further in the game pls

 

[Azarkon]

Well, I don't believe in evil at all really, but you're missing the point. A religious zealot obsessed with power is "evil" if they rule the Inquisition with an iron hand and smite the unbelievers. That's an "evil path" worth having. Most RPGs just have you kill innocents for money and call it evil, which is boring.

I don't understand why people keep falling back on this 'evil path is cool path' trope when talking about choices. 'Evil' insofar as it exists at all is simply the lack of a moral compass when making/pursuing goals. For example, the sociopath in Nightcrawler is basically the epitome of modern evil. His goal was innocuous enough - get rich, get famous, American Dream - but his way of going about it made him evil because he had no regard for what was moral. It's not very difficult to understand because the compulsion to ignore mainstream morality is in all of us.

Evil is banal. It is not deep. It is not cool. And when you experience it in life, you rarely think 'holy crap that's awesome.' When it comes down to it, it's liable to be accurate that 90% of people won't enjoy playing evil and don't want to work with evil people, and while being an ass - a lesser form of evil - speaks to the inner ten year old, it provides no satisfaction beyond that level of maturity.

I don't think the goal here is to get an evil path. Rather, it's to get 2-3 'morally challenging' paths. The bigger issue is that games simply make it too easy for the player to be a Mary Sue who gets off with a clean conscience no matter what she does. You never have to make difficult choices/you're never led to believe that a difficult choice is tragic rather than contrived. In the end, it's boring not because it's 'good' but because you never had to think about your choices and never have cause to regret them.

As to why game developers don't see this issue, I think they do. It's just that they refuse to act on it because they A) don't want to waste resources on branches to begin with, ala Bioware B) don't want to sacrifice 'narrative integrity' C) both.

Not a RPG, but a great example of B is The Last of Us.

Spoiler

At the end of the game, Joel, the player character, completes his mission of taking Ellie to the Fireflies, only to find out that they need to dissect her in order to find a cure for the plague that's wiping out humanity. The game's narrative forces Joel/you to kill the Fireflies, who are good people trying to save the world, and to rescue Ellie because she reminds Joel of his dead daughter. The path here is basically the 'evil' path because you're sacrificing the world for your own selfish desires, and the devs obviously forced it in order to complete the Joel character study and to make a thematic statement about the nature of right/wrong, but it is a HUGE missed opportunity. Imagine having the player make that choice and living with the consequences instead.

 

[Makabb]

If Wasteland 2 was not OK and Divinity was not a good rpg experience, what are you expecting of Witcher 3?

Nothing.

 

[Volourn]

I never played Last of Us, but it's not a RPG right? It's an adventure game that follows Joel's story as the player guides him. It makes sense that the player wouldn't be asked to 'make that choice'. It's like you whining about not having the choice playing Mario NOT to save the princess.

YOU DUMB SHIT.

Pick a better example. There's tons of them in all RPGs be it BIO, BIS, or any other.

But, you choose to pick a non rpg. LMFAO

 

[Azarkon]

I never played Last of Us, but it's not a RPG right? It's an adventure game that follows Joel's story as the player guides him. It makes sense that the player wouldn't be asked to 'make that choice'. It's like you whining about not having the choice playing Mario NOT to save the princess.

YOU DUMB SHIT.

Pick a better example. There's tons of them in all RPGs be it BIO, BIS, or any other.

But, you choose to pick a non rpg. LMFAO

Plenty of adventure games these days provide choices and consequences. Walking Dead is a popular example. An earlier example is Heavy Rain.

 

[Arkeus]

I don't think the goal here is to get an evil path. Rather, it's to get 2-3 'morally challenging' paths. The bigger issue is that games simply make it too easy for the player to be a Mary Sue who gets off with a clean conscience no matter what she does. You never have to make difficult choices/you're never led to believe that a difficult choice is tragic rather than contrived. In the end, it's boring not because it's 'good' but because you never had to think about your choices and never have cause to regret them.

Can you give examples of why you think that, as from what i am seeing DA:I is suprirsingly good at making you conflicted on the morally questionable choices you need to make.

 

[Azarkon]

I don't think the goal here is to get an evil path. Rather, it's to get 2-3 'morally challenging' paths. The bigger issue is that games simply make it too easy for the player to be a Mary Sue who gets off with a clean conscience no matter what she does. You never have to make difficult choices/you're never led to believe that a difficult choice is tragic rather than contrived. In the end, it's boring not because it's 'good' but because you never had to think about your choices and never have cause to regret them.

Can you give examples of why you think that, as from what i am seeing DA:I is suprirsingly good at making you conflicted on the morally questionable choices you need to make.

I wasn't specifically talking about DAI there, because I'm about 10 hours into the game, and still doing fedex quests. You're going to have to wait a while before I get to these 'moral choices' that you speak of.

 

[Sammael7]

Skyrim sold 20 million copies.

Twenty. Fucking. Million.

"Some people on the Internet" complaining about silent protags is irrelevant - every RPG developer on the planet should have seen that and said "hmmmm... maybe the tens of millions of dollars we are investing in voice acting and cinematics don't mean shit?" Instead, everyone latched onto the Open World concept, where games are now just a sliver of a hair away from being MMOs without other people. Instead of making games that deliver freedom to create, control, develop and play a character how you want, they are making games that deliver the freedom to roam around and pick flowers.

I've never finished the main story in any of the elder scrolls games I've ever played. And I imagine I came into the series earlier than most of you.

In the 90s I played Dagger Fall, then...

morrowind
oblivion
skyrim


I think I enjoyed skyrim the most, even those it had fewer options than each preceding elder scrolls game. You want to talk about dumbing a series down, there were attributes and options in daggerfall that it makes skyrim look like a mobile game. You could increase athleticism and jumping to the point where you could leap into the air like superman, you could crawl up walls, you used to be able to craft a spell that allowed you to absorb mana, and other AoE spells where when you fired them at the ground, you did both damage AND restored your mana due to the AoE. But even though skyrim had less of the "freedoms" of earlier installments, it came across as more fleshed out and engrossing than its predecessors.

But even then, I've always found games with more narrative to be more engrossing, like the baldurs gate 2, and kotor I/II, Dragon age origins.


I've finished every one of those games, and enjoyed them even more. Because at their core, they kind of resemble an interactive novel, and the elder scrolls model cannot replicate that without crafting more narrative to drive things forward.



Now it may be that most people are less interested in that, games like skyrim and GTA are quite popular, but then so are shooters. But stop trying to pretend that the ever increasing freedom has the highest appeal. I had far less freedom to play around in baldurs gate 2 than any of the elder scrolls games, but that game was far more engrossing and impactful, because I was not doing the equivalent of doodling with my character, I was on a ride where I controlled some of the outcomes and fought through some of the challenges, but also had a strong narrative that DOES NOT EXIST in the same way in any truly open world game I've ever played. They can probably blend it all together, but it must take more time and money.

 

[RK47]

 

[Rake]

'Evil' insofar as it exists at all is simply the lack of a moral compass when making/pursuing goals.

That's exactly what i'm asking for.

For example, the sociopath in Nightcrawler is basically the epitome of modern evil. His goal was innocuous enough - get rich, get famous, American Dream - but his way of going about it made him evil because he had no regard for what was moral.

Good example. Why can't we have such options in a game?

Evil is banal. It is not deep. It is not cool.

No more than good is. Moral choices were never about how "cool" they make you seem.

I don't think the goal here is to get an evil path. Rather, it's to get 2-3 'morally challenging' paths. The bigger issue is that games simply make it too easy for the player to be a Mary Sue who gets off with a clean conscience no matter what she does. You never have to make difficult choices/you're never led to believe that a difficult choice is tragic rather than contrived. In the end, it's boring not because it's 'good' but because you never had to think about your choices and never have cause to regret them.

Speak for yourself. While i'm not opposed on morally challenging choices, in fact i believe they should be the default choices in games, i also want the ability to play a completely amoral character, without him being an idiot "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!!!!!"

 

[Slow James]

I've never finished the main story in any of the elder scrolls games I've ever played. And I imagine I came into the series earlier than most of you.

In the 90s I played Dagger Fall, then...

morrowind
oblivion
skyrim


I think I enjoyed skyrim the most, even those it had fewer options than each preceding elder scrolls game. You want to talk about dumbing a series down, there were attributes and options in daggerfall that it makes skyrim look like a mobile game. You could increase athleticism and jumping to the point where you could leap into the air like superman, you could crawl up walls, you used to be able to craft a spell that allowed you to absorb mana, and other AoE spells where when you fired them at the ground, you did both damage AND restored your mana due to the AoE. But even though skyrim had less of the "freedoms" of earlier installments, it came across as more fleshed out and engrossing than its predecessors.

But even then, I've always found games with more narrative to be more engrossing, like the baldurs gate 2, and kotor I/II, Dragon age origins.


I've finished every one of those games, and enjoyed them even more. Because at their core, they kind of resemble an interactive novel, and the elder scrolls model cannot replicate that without crafting more narrative to drive things forward.



Now it may be that most people are less interested in that, games like skyrim and GTA are quite popular, but then so are shooters. But stop trying to pretend that the ever increasing freedom has the highest appeal. I had far less freedom to play around in baldurs gate 2 than any of the elder scrolls games, but that game was far more engrossing and impactful, because was not doing the equivalent of doodling with my character, I was on a ride where I controlled some of the outcomes and fought through some of the challenges, but also had a strong narrative that DOES NOT EXIST in the same way in any truly open world game I've ever played. They can probably blend it all together, but it must take more time and money.

"But stop trying to pretend..."

Was that aimed at me? You quoted me, so I just wanted to make sure - my post (meant to) convey that more diverse character definition through options in the game's story/narrative is the cost of having a more cinematic game, and that having an open world for picking up thousands of magical daisies was a foolish task.

 

[Tehdagah]

Followed a link on reddit and stumbled upon this (weird, but not NSFW):

Spoiler

John Epler - Intersectional feminist. Increasingly curmudgeony. Lead Cinematic Designer on Dragon Age franchise. Social Justice Sorcerer.

It's not surprising that DA:I is shit when you have people like this working at Bioware.

Remember PCgamer review?

"The fact that Bioware's push for inclusiveness and increasingly not defining characters by their sexuality first makes for better and more well-rounded games though isn't the real reason we should be glad that they do it."

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Hey guys I haven't been following the game, only just seen this trailer:



Is the whole game like this? If so imma grab the torrent.

 

[Branm]

Curious have Bioware said anything at all about the tactical camera zoom levels?

 

[Slow James]

If Wasteland 2 was not OK and Divinity was not a good rpg experience, what are you expecting of Witcher 3?

Vajayjay?

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

Maybe small break from love/hate , as it's everyone personal opinion anyway in the end.
There are some interesting details in this game probably just for fun, already found by someone:

Well, looks like some connection between Thedas and Mass Effect universe ? Check Orleais
There are also some Codex notes written in style of Mordin.

 

[circ]

From a gay viewpoint, are you actually insulted by the bull thing or do you just not really care. And if given the choice, would you have liked a good gay relationship instead? That would be full gay, none of that stupid one sex fits all.

 

[SwiftCrack]

I never played Last of Us, but it's not a RPG right? It's an adventure game that follows Joel's story as the player guides him. It makes sense that the player wouldn't be asked to 'make that choice'. It's like you whining about not having the choice playing Mario NOT to save the princess.

YOU DUMB SHIT.

Pick a better example. There's tons of them in all RPGs be it BIO, BIS, or any other.

But, you choose to pick a non rpg. LMFAO

Plenty of adventure games these days provide choices and consequences. Walking Dead is a popular example. An earlier example is Heavy Rain.

Walking Dead only has the illusion of choice.

It's still a good game, but it definitely does not have 'real' choice.

 

[mastroego]

The video with recorded laughs is brilliant.
I almost skipped it.

 

[Azarkon]

Speak for yourself. While i'm not opposed on morally challenging choices, in fact i believe they should be the default choices in games, i also want the ability to play a completely amoral character, without him being an idiot "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!!!!!"

Amorality is only relevant when the moral choices are challenging - ie when there's a trade-off between what the player wants and what morality dictates. Otherwise, even amoral characters would do 'right.' Gyllenhaal's character didn't sabotage his competitor's van for the sake of it, but because he had to in order to beat him. Had he an equally expedient method that was also moral, he'd have taken it because it's risk-less.

Provided that what you're after is not psychopathic behavior for the sake of psychopathic behavior ie needless edginess, then what's important is getting devs to implement challenging moral choices, not random acts of greed/brutality/douchiness.

 

[DalekFlay]

Speak for yourself. While i'm not opposed on morally challenging choices, in fact i believe they should be the default choices in games, i also want the ability to play a completely amoral character, without him being an idiot "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!!!!!"

Amorality is only relevant when the moral choices are challenging - ie when there's a trade-off between what the player wants and what morality dictates. Otherwise, even amoral characters would do 'right.' Gyllenhaal's character didn't sabotage his competitor's van for the sake of it, but because he had to in order to beat him. Had he an equally expedient method that was also moral, he'd have taken it because it's risk-less.

Provided that what you're after is not psychopathic behavior for the sake of psychopathic behavior ie needless edginess, then what's important is getting devs to implement challenging moral choices, not random acts of greed/brutality/douchiness.

There's all manner of nuance here. The point is most games have zero, you work with the Brotherhood the whole game and then blow up their base at the end for the lulz. Complex moral choices in RPGs is rare.

 

[Nryn]

18 hours in, and I've finally encountered an encouraging surprise -- Witcher 2 style C&C in the main quest, complete with entirely different storylines, areas and bosses for each choice.

I'm playing through the second choice right now and there's probably only a couple of hours of content exclusive to each choice. Even so, if the rest of the game has a few more of these, I might actually play the game through to completion.

 

[Azarkon]

Walking Dead only has the illusion of choice.

It's still a good game, but it definitely does not have 'real' choice.

The choices in Walking Dead unlock different content, so I consider them actual choices. Yes, they all get squished in the end because the plot has to end up at a specific place, but that's still a step above illusion of choice, which refers to circular dialogue trees and choices that literally have no impact besides a journal entry.

 

[DalekFlay]

18 hours in, and I've finally encountered an encouraging surprise -- Witcher 2 style C&C in the main quest, complete with entirely different storylines, areas and bosses for each choice.

I'm playing through the second choice right now and there's probably only a couple of hours of content exclusive to each choice. Even so, if the rest of the game has a few more of these, I might actually play the game through to completion.

You mean

Spoiler

templars or mages?

That was the last thing I did before quitting the game. Didn't seem like a huge one-or-the-other thing to me at the time.

 

[Nryn]

18 hours in, and I've finally encountered an encouraging surprise -- Witcher 2 style C&C in the main quest, complete with entirely different storylines, areas and bosses for each choice.

I'm playing through the second choice right now and there's probably only a couple of hours of content exclusive to each choice. Even so, if the rest of the game has a few more of these, I might actually play the game through to completion.

You mean

Spoiler

templars or mages?

That was the last thing I did before quitting the game. Didn't seem like a huge one-or-the-other thing to me at the time.

Yes, that's the one. I encourage you to check out the consequences to both choices if you can. However insignificant it ultimately turns out to be, it's still out of the ordinary given that it's Bioware.