-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
The Dragon Age: Inquisition Thread
- Thread starter Bradylama
- Start date
Slow James
Savant
Despite what people on here say, there hasn't been a better AAA party-based tactical RPG in recent years than Origins.
If you want to play a game with high production value, tactical party play, options in character builds/creation and a story that is reactive to choices you make, there is no other competition.
I agree that indies are doing it much cheaper and capture the feeling of the IE and Gold Box games (the ones we've seen so far, at least), but if AAA is a requirement for you, Origins is one of the, if not the ONLY, games that can wet your whistle.
So when Bioware comes out and says they are making a sequel that captures elements of Origins, is bringing back tactical combat and is making the game for PC players first and foremost, some people bought the hype instead of looking at what was actually being shown and talked about.
That's why.
Zeriel
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,868
I really hope Pillars of Eternity leads to some sort of mid-budget gaming scene emerging. It's totally fine for lowest-common-denominator blockbusters to exist, it's just horrifying that that's all there is, either your game is compromised to sell the most copies, or is so primitive it makes your eyes ache.
Immortal
Arcane
On one hand I think the artists were let down by creating this beautiful world and then its filled with MMO fetch quests and lame half assed content..
On the other hand.. the companions make almost semi- well written dialogue absolutely cringe worthy coming out of their weird faces.
I am split on this.. The world design artists made really great areas.. The rolling hills and texturing of the world is really well done. Also the tech used for foliage and water is very impressive. I love the entire world's artistic style before it's populated with NPC's. All the NPC's are basically SJW shilling steriotypes and their facial features are -weird-.
Like seriously, the shapes of buildings and the world terrain / setting / art direction look really really good.. I hope Witcher Keeps up.. This game could have seriously been amazing with the same artists / engine in the hands of old school Bioware. If Dragon Age Origins or BG Quality of writing was used in this setting I would probably play this game several times.
Also, I think Gaider starts at Bioware when BGII was already in progress, so we shouldn't give him credit for the overall look and feel of BGII.
Slow James
Savant
The irony of that statement is cracking me up.
Frozen
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,643
So, why are all the women so fucking ugly?
Is that some Biowhores statement or what?
Only ugly fucks like you biodrones are good an attractive people, have a cookie?
Leliana looks fuckable but is out of reach and unfortunately you cant fuck yourself...literally...because I guess player character could be created remotely attractive.
Is that some Biowhores statement or what?
Only ugly fucks like you biodrones are good an attractive people, have a cookie?
Leliana looks fuckable but is out of reach and unfortunately you cant fuck yourself...literally...because I guess player character could be created remotely attractive.
DragoFireheart
all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 23,731
Well, that's why I hate exploration.
I keep finding bad things, yes, the visuals are nice OKAY ITS A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT FROM DA2 , but it's like serving me a nice pretty dessert, only to have it tastes bland and sub-par.
Immortal
Arcane
The fact that some of my fellow Codexers are even playing (and ENJOYING!!!) this turd unironically makes me sad.
Many people got hooked on the potential of this series in Dragon Age: Origins.. it was like a salad before the meal where we all thought.. okay it wasn't amazing but with a few changes here and there for Dragon Age II.. maybe Bioware could shape things up..
Instead they took a shit inside a box and sent that out instead.. At this point we are basically a metaphor for a battered house wife. No matter how many times we are slapped around.. we are always made the promise things will change and we keep coming back for more.
Even when friends or family on the codex tell us to leave this abusive game because it's never gonna treat us like it used to.. we just can't help it.. We need to see things to the end.
Zeriel
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,868
The fact that some of my fellow Codexers are even playing (and ENJOYING!!!) this turd unironically makes me sad.
Not everyone at the Codex is monocled or prestigious (nor is that definition universal), as long as it has existed there has been a wide range of opinions on the Codex. That being said, I've only seen 1-2 people in this thread actually say they like the game. The condemnation is more universal than for almost any other game I can think of. Stuff like Oblivion, the original NWN, etc had a lot more people liking it.
Which kindda makes me sad. If there's one game I think deserves universal hatred from us, it's Oblivion. Maybe Fallout 3 as a close second. Thank God that perhaps the best content piece we have is on Oblivion.
The fact that some of my fellow Codexers are even playing (and ENJOYING!!!) this turd unironically makes me sad.
Not everyone at the Codex is monocled or prestigious (nor is that definition universal), as long as it has existed there has been a wide range of opinions on the Codex. That being said, I've only seen 1-2 people in this thread actually say they like the game. The condemnation is more universal than for almost any other game I can think of. Stuff like Oblivion, the original NWN, etc had a lot more people liking it.
Seriously? My personal favourites candidates as worst RPGs are more praised in the Codex than DAI, which qualifies more as mediocre than anything else?
I didn't expect that.
Don't underestimate the number of people here who hate homosexual romance more than they do empty sandboxes.
Zeriel
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,868
The fact that some of my fellow Codexers are even playing (and ENJOYING!!!) this turd unironically makes me sad.
Not everyone at the Codex is monocled or prestigious (nor is that definition universal), as long as it has existed there has been a wide range of opinions on the Codex. That being said, I've only seen 1-2 people in this thread actually say they like the game. The condemnation is more universal than for almost any other game I can think of. Stuff like Oblivion, the original NWN, etc had a lot more people liking it.
Seriously? My personal favourites candidates as worst RPGs are more praised in the Codex than DAI, which qualifies more as mediocre than anything else?
I didn't expect that.
There's no "Codex Consensus", basically. There never was a hivemind. There's a large group of people who basically agree with each other (NWN was shit for its time, Oblivion was even worse, etc), but even within that group there is strong disagreement over pedantry (Shadowrun Returns is either a fine revival of a tabletop license or a total waste of time, MM X was a travesty or an alright game).
But I stand by my point that opinion on DA:I is remarkably uniform. There are one or two people who enjoy it, but they're very much outliers in a way that's uncommon for the Codex. (Witness the difference of opinion in any thread about Mass Effect, say, or even Risen 3.)
DragoFireheart
all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 23,731
Oblivion vs Fallout 3: which is worse and why.
Zeriel
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,868
I need to stop pulling a Grunker and editing my posts to include more than double what the original post had.
On Oblivion, it's a great illustration of the interesting thing that happens to a game's reputation as time goes on. When it came out, people largely panned it but there were a few people enjoying particular bits of it in the immediacy of the moment (the Dark Brotherhood storyline is often cited in this way, I actually went straight for the DB line without realizing the rest of the game was nothing like it, which in the moment gave the game a more positive outlook for me in the first few hours than it would have otherwise).
Then you have the period for a few months to years after a bad game has been released, where everyone agrees on its badness.
Finally, you have the period that is years (if not decades) later where a bad game is revised as "not that bad actually" where people forget the sheer intensity of its awfulness and lionize the bits that were good. Perhaps the cycle goes back to phase 2 ("Alpha Protocol is actually and literally ALL shit!") if other people are angry enough to dispute this latest retelling.
On Oblivion, it's a great illustration of the interesting thing that happens to a game's reputation as time goes on. When it came out, people largely panned it but there were a few people enjoying particular bits of it in the immediacy of the moment (the Dark Brotherhood storyline is often cited in this way, I actually went straight for the DB line without realizing the rest of the game was nothing like it, which in the moment gave the game a more positive outlook for me in the first few hours than it would have otherwise).
Then you have the period for a few months to years after a bad game has been released, where everyone agrees on its badness.
Finally, you have the period that is years (if not decades) later where a bad game is revised as "not that bad actually" where people forget the sheer intensity of its awfulness and lionize the bits that were good. Perhaps the cycle goes back to phase 2 ("Alpha Protocol is actually and literally ALL shit!") if other people are angry enough to dispute this latest retelling.
I get what you're saying in theory, but an you come up with actual games where this is true? Oblivion and Fallout 3 are as universally panned as they've always been, aren't they? DA:O has always been hotly contested, and is probably the most controversial game on here except for the IE-games.
Maybe Skyrim? But a lot of people said that they liked it when it came out (though I think you should be shot for liking that shit unmodded). In essence, I can't think of any games that strictly follow your theory - HATRED/Yeah it was bad/nah it's alright.
Zeriel
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,868
With really, objectively awful games it happens in much more mild ways, or just one or two posters. But with some games it really can be that back and forth. Witness Morrowind. There was a time where that game was legit hated by half the Codex. Now it gets regular paeans to its greatness. Of course, perhaps these games are given context not by the passage of time, but by sequels that are much worse...
Worth noting that the "its not actually that bad" revisionist history pieces are themselves no doubt inspired by the Codex's culture of negativity. People wouldn't feel the need to say Morrowind was a good game if the Codex hadn't panned it initially.
Which makes it sound like I'm criticizing the Codex for its negativity, but I feel quite the contrary. I love that the Codex is needlessly pessimistic about everything. It can lead to unfairly slamming an alright game from time to time, but it also shields it from needless shilling in all other cases.
Easy: Here's why.
Now there's something I'm willing to believe. But yeah, I don't think your overall theory on that holds water.
Slow James
Savant
Fallout 3. Hands down.
If only because Three Dog and 50 foot tall Super Mutants.
Has anyone post this article?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...agon-age-can-still-improve-after-inquisition/
It's pretty much your usual shit like "how to improve Fallout 3" articles, nothing to see here, but there's one thing that caught my attention:
"One of my complaints with the original Dragon Age: Origins was the weirdly off-putting difficulty curve that would sometimes lead me 90% of the way through a mission, only to hit a brick wall in the form of an overbuffed miniboss, and I would have to go farm quests for three hours before I could come back and face him. DA2 solved this for the most part with extreme linearity, but now in the more free-roaming Inquisition, the difficulty curve issue manifests itself in strange ways. For example, the starting zone where you’ll probably spend the first 10 hours of the game is a weird smattering of different difficulty levels with no way to tell how strong you’re supposed to be while trying to take them on. Some areas are pretty obviously off limits, a northeast corner filled with dragons and a southwest corner filled with ice beam shooting demons, but randomly the game will throw in pockets of insanity, like a random demon breach near a waterfall that you simply can’t beat until you’re…what level exactly?
Though you have levels in the game, your enemies apparently do not. The only indicator of their strength I’ve seen is a little skull icon plastered on them when you’re trying to take on something that clearly outmatches you. And yet, it creates weird situations where you die in an area, and come back five levels later only to continue to be killed just as quickly, and you have no idea when or how you’re supposed to take on these tougher areas. Now once more, I’ve hit the problem of getting nearly all the way through a quest, only to be rebuffed by a final wave of enemies that isn’t remotelypossible to defeat until…again, I have no idea. I could come back in two levels or ten, for all I know.
It messes with your mind, as you really don’t know if you’re A) really bad at the game B) undergeared and not spending enough time crafting and enchanting or C) simply supposed to come back later. This isn’t a huge pervasive issue, but it’s starting to come up enough to be annoying."
How fucking retarded is this guy? Forget the stuff about difficulty and such, this guy can't see apparently the numbers that are besides the health bar of the enemies.
Seriously, how can you miss that fucking number?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...agon-age-can-still-improve-after-inquisition/
It's pretty much your usual shit like "how to improve Fallout 3" articles, nothing to see here, but there's one thing that caught my attention:
"One of my complaints with the original Dragon Age: Origins was the weirdly off-putting difficulty curve that would sometimes lead me 90% of the way through a mission, only to hit a brick wall in the form of an overbuffed miniboss, and I would have to go farm quests for three hours before I could come back and face him. DA2 solved this for the most part with extreme linearity, but now in the more free-roaming Inquisition, the difficulty curve issue manifests itself in strange ways. For example, the starting zone where you’ll probably spend the first 10 hours of the game is a weird smattering of different difficulty levels with no way to tell how strong you’re supposed to be while trying to take them on. Some areas are pretty obviously off limits, a northeast corner filled with dragons and a southwest corner filled with ice beam shooting demons, but randomly the game will throw in pockets of insanity, like a random demon breach near a waterfall that you simply can’t beat until you’re…what level exactly?
Though you have levels in the game, your enemies apparently do not. The only indicator of their strength I’ve seen is a little skull icon plastered on them when you’re trying to take on something that clearly outmatches you. And yet, it creates weird situations where you die in an area, and come back five levels later only to continue to be killed just as quickly, and you have no idea when or how you’re supposed to take on these tougher areas. Now once more, I’ve hit the problem of getting nearly all the way through a quest, only to be rebuffed by a final wave of enemies that isn’t remotelypossible to defeat until…again, I have no idea. I could come back in two levels or ten, for all I know.
It messes with your mind, as you really don’t know if you’re A) really bad at the game B) undergeared and not spending enough time crafting and enchanting or C) simply supposed to come back later. This isn’t a huge pervasive issue, but it’s starting to come up enough to be annoying."
How fucking retarded is this guy? Forget the stuff about difficulty and such, this guy can't see apparently the numbers that are besides the health bar of the enemies.
Seriously, how can you miss that fucking number?
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.