Dragon Age: Inquisition Game of The Year Edition Announced

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

immortalfrieza:
Look, can we drop the fandom rivalry already? The Witcher 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition are both great games, they have different plots, different themes, different writers, one is not better than the other. People can love a game without having to hate on every single vaguely similar game in existence at the same time.

To me it is not a matter of rivalry, but a matter of being honest with myself and fellow gamers. I wish DAI was a better game. It has its moments and a high production value, but DAI IS a single player MMO, a huge world full of inconsequential and dumb things to do with the occasional interesting dialogue and nice vistas.

Witcher 3 is probably one of the best games ever made.

I agree that people can love any game and I respect other people's choices but, to me, The Witcher 3 is much, much better than DAI. They are not even on the same league.

The improvements alone that CDPR added to the game after launch is reason enough to leave Bioware ashamed. DAI is still poorly optimized and have subpar PC Controls to this day.

I am a fan of the games I like.

After Witcher 3 I see no reason to bother with this pointless grindfest at all. Seriously, BW should be ashamed - W3 is currently the peak of classic BioWare RPG-dev school, while BW themselves make... This. If not their label on this game, it'd end up with rating between 1 and 6 from both players and critics and would be long forgotten.

Elfgore:
*sigh* This will be my third purchase of the game, but I'll most likely end up buying this once the price drops. I know there is a good game hidden somewhere within all the MMO-style quests and boring open world.

Sadly, there really isn't. I wasn't exaggerating when I said combat boils down to holding down one trigger until everyone around you is dead. No, not in the, "well, but you do other things too, right?" kind of way. Attacks root you to the spot, and there's no interaction once you start attacking. So you can either stop attacking and use an ability, or keep attacking.

The story just isn't there. It's a mix of incoherent gibberish that requires you read the novels to follow it, and enforced idiocy on the part of the player, where you cannot do/say the blindingly obvious thing because the writers thought they were being so cleaver, you'd never figure it out.

If you honestly want an MMO-style game, that does everything DAI is trying to do, only, you know, as an actual MMO, I'd recommend Elder Scrolls Online.

immortalfrieza:
Look, can we drop the fandom rivalry already? The Witcher 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition are both great games, they have different plots, different themes, different writers, one is not better than the other. People can love a game without having to hate on every single vaguely similar game in existence at the same time.

Well, here's the thing. It's not a fandom rivalry. Dragon Age Inquisition is not a good game. And I'll say this as someone who actually defended DA2 as a surprisingly fun title.

There's stuff I like about the Dragon Age setting. There's stuff I don't like about Bioware. Unfortunately, Inquisition veers hard into the stuff I serious object to.

Gone are the grey moral choices, the scenarios that feel like the result of people with plausible motivations getting into loggerheads, and a setting where characters are vaguely aware of their setting's genre conventions. Also gone is the legitimately dark humor from DA2.

What's in full swing, are situations where the backstory is available to the player (if you read the books) but not the character, and players who didn't cough up for every bit of horrible prose that Bioware spat out in tie ins. Without reading the books, things like The Winter Palace are arbitrary. Places like the Emprise Du Lion are flat out unexplained and unsatisfying.

Characters like Solace and Cole flat out contradict the setting's established cosmology, and we're expected to accept this as holy writ because the writers thought they were being so clever. So clever in fact, you're not even allowed to poke Solace and maybe knowledge that there's something odd about him, and maybe Liliana should, you know, actually look into who he's claiming to be. Because, no, the writers were just being that "clever."

I'm okay with there being more information in the books, or minor plot holes getting sown up there. But, with DAI, you're often left completely uninformed if you didn't read those books. Playing The Winter Palace? Trying to pick between Celene, Gaspard and Briala? Want to know what the difference between them is? Yeah, that's not in the game at all. You're expected to have read Masked Empire.

At it's core, it is impossible to actually roleplay Inquisition. Just can't be done. The game asks you to make metagame decisions far too frequently, and punishes you brutally for behaving in character.

The thing is, Witcher 3 is an easy counter example, because there are so many similarities. These are two different companies taking a run at doing the exact same game. But, the only time The Witcher 3 presents blind decisions like that is if you decided to simulate a Witcher 2 save, and the game quizzes you on what came before. And, even there, it's asking you to make your decisions based on the previous game, not did you read the terrible tie in fiction. When it comes to making decisions in TW3, you're always given information to make an informed choice.

Secondhand Revenant:

Damian Porter:

Starke:

Which is why you waited for the Mass Effect 3 GotY Edition to come out... oh, wait.

Yeah, I know, "all games" get a complete edition now. Which is why it's kind of unusual this is happening with Dragon Age, when Bioware's been pretty terrible about releasing complete editions. EA in general, for that matter, but Bioware in particular.

Which makes the whole, "I predicted the blindingly obvious" seem a bit less impressive, when you were actually betting on the unlikely outcome, thinking it was inevitable.

Funny, it's pretty clear that I wrote MOST games, not "all." Also, Bioware released a complete edition of the very first Dragon Age. This is only the third. It's not really as unlikely as you think it is.

But didn't they not put out a complete edition of the second?

Yeah, with that double negative it's a little hard to know what you meant to say. But, there is no complete edition of Dragon Age 2.

Starke:

Secondhand Revenant:

Damian Porter:

Funny, it's pretty clear that I wrote MOST games, not "all." Also, Bioware released a complete edition of the very first Dragon Age. This is only the third. It's not really as unlikely as you think it is.

But didn't they not put out a complete edition of the second?

Yeah, with that double negative it's a little hard to know what you meant to say. But, there is no complete edition of Dragon Age 2.

Sorry about that.

I was pretty sure they hadn't as I believed that was why I didn't play the DA 2 DLC.

So I am seeing your point on why a complete edition would be unlikely for DA: I.

Secondhand Revenant:

Starke:

Secondhand Revenant:

But didn't they not put out a complete edition of the second?

Yeah, with that double negative it's a little hard to know what you meant to say. But, there is no complete edition of Dragon Age 2.

Sorry about that.

I was pretty sure they hadn't as I believed that was why I didn't play the DA 2 DLC.

So I am seeing your point on why a complete edition would be unlikely for DA: I.

No worries. Thinking back on it, it's more of a Bioware under EA thing than just Bioware in general.

There was no ultimate release for KOTOR or Jade Empire, but the additional content for both was PC exclusive. Something Bioware moved away from.

Before that, there were three different bundled versions of Neverwinter Nights, (Gold, Platnum, and Diamond, IIRC) that collected the first expansion, then the first two, then the first two and the random DLC. But, that was Atari. And, Interplay released multiple collected Balder's Gate, and Infinity Engine releases, including both Icewind Dale 1 and 2, along side Balder's Gate 1 and 2 with all three expansions (IWD2 didn't get an expansion.) Most of those came out after they'd lost the rights to D&D, and could no longer make new titles, but could still release their old stuff. Which, should sound like familiar behavior from mid-2000s era Interplay.

But, under EA? Nothing. Just the Dragon Age Ultimate Edition. And, as I recall, that wasn't complete. The closest Bioware's gotten was releasing some of the promo DLC for DA and DA2 (though the Ser Clarke armor wasn't, so I know some stuff was left out of that.)

The closest we've had to that otherwise was the PC release of Mass Effect including Bring Down the Sky. Everything else from them since Jade Empire has been non-bundled only.

you know I think its really funny how people bash dragon age so much and compare it to the witcher 3 when the games are not really comparable for two reasons;

1. this was biowares first time putting the skyrim style questing into a game, were as CD project have done this all before and already knew the pitfalls. a better game of theirs to compare would be witcher 2 to DA:I at which point you would find that DA:I was the better game.

2. the stories are vastly different in construction. in the witcher your continuing a story that's been going on for 3 games and many books already. In DA:I your making a new character whos main focus is not just on a central plot but on the companions you pick up and actually have feelings about.( hatred is in fact a feeling.)

Starke:

immortalfrieza:
Look, can we drop the fandom rivalry already? The Witcher 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition are both great games, they have different plots, different themes, different writers, one is not better than the other. People can love a game without having to hate on every single vaguely similar game in existence at the same time.

Well, here's the thing. It's not a fandom rivalry. Dragon Age Inquisition is not a good game. And I'll say this as someone who actually defended DA2 as a surprisingly fun title.

There's stuff I like about the Dragon Age setting. There's stuff I don't like about Bioware. Unfortunately, Inquisition veers hard into the stuff I serious object to.

Gone are the grey moral choices, the scenarios that feel like the result of people with plausible motivations getting into loggerheads, and a setting where characters are vaguely aware of their setting's genre conventions. Also gone is the legitimately dark humor from DA2.

What's in full swing, are situations where the backstory is available to the player (if you read the books) but not the character, and players who didn't cough up for every bit of horrible prose that Bioware spat out in tie ins. Without reading the books, things like The Winter Palace are arbitrary. Places like the Emprise Du Lion are flat out unexplained and unsatisfying.

Characters like Solace and Cole flat out contradict the setting's established cosmology, and we're expected to accept this as holy writ because the writers thought they were being so clever. So clever in fact, you're not even allowed to poke Solace and maybe knowledge that there's something odd about him, and maybe Liliana should, you know, actually look into who he's claiming to be. Because, no, the writers were just being that "clever."

I'm okay with there being more information in the books, or minor plot holes getting sown up there. But, with DAI, you're often left completely uninformed if you didn't read those books. Playing The Winter Palace? Trying to pick between Celene, Gaspard and Briala? Want to know what the difference between them is? Yeah, that's not in the game at all. You're expected to have read Masked Empire.

At it's core, it is impossible to actually roleplay Inquisition. Just can't be done. The game asks you to make metagame decisions far too frequently, and punishes you brutally for behaving in character.

The thing is, Witcher 3 is an easy counter example, because there are so many similarities. These are two different companies taking a run at doing the exact same game. But, the only time The Witcher 3 presents blind decisions like that is if you decided to simulate a Witcher 2 save, and the game quizzes you on what came before. And, even there, it's asking you to make your decisions based on the previous game, not did you read the terrible tie in fiction. When it comes to making decisions in TW3, you're always given information to make an informed choice.

As a HUGE Witcher fan... I disagree.

If you have not read the books... your choices will be uninformed, silly and stupid in the game. It has the same pitfall that you are describing, only difference is that this time, the books are the original work (and are better than the games) rather than the other way around (in Dragon Age's case).

So it has the same problems. Though it does certainly make "gamers" think they are actually informed... that illusion... they pulled it of.
But no, if you only play Witcher 3 you dont even know half the characters...

ecoho:
you know I think its really funny how people bash dragon age so much and compare it to the witcher 3 when the games are not really comparable for two reasons;

1. this was biowares first time putting the skyrim style questing into a game, were as CD project have done this all before and already knew the pitfalls. a better game of theirs to compare would be witcher 2 to DA:I at which point you would find that DA:I was the better game.

2. the stories are vastly different in construction. in the witcher your continuing a story that's been going on for 3 games and many books already. In DA:I your making a new character whos main focus is not just on a central plot but on the companions you pick up and actually have feelings about.( hatred is in fact a feeling.)

Witcher 2 > DA:I
Witcher 2 > Witcher 3 (story-wise).

Charcharo:

Starke:

immortalfrieza:
Look, can we drop the fandom rivalry already? The Witcher 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition are both great games, they have different plots, different themes, different writers, one is not better than the other. People can love a game without having to hate on every single vaguely similar game in existence at the same time.

Well, here's the thing. It's not a fandom rivalry. Dragon Age Inquisition is not a good game. And I'll say this as someone who actually defended DA2 as a surprisingly fun title.

There's stuff I like about the Dragon Age setting. There's stuff I don't like about Bioware. Unfortunately, Inquisition veers hard into the stuff I serious object to.

Gone are the grey moral choices, the scenarios that feel like the result of people with plausible motivations getting into loggerheads, and a setting where characters are vaguely aware of their setting's genre conventions. Also gone is the legitimately dark humor from DA2.

What's in full swing, are situations where the backstory is available to the player (if you read the books) but not the character, and players who didn't cough up for every bit of horrible prose that Bioware spat out in tie ins. Without reading the books, things like The Winter Palace are arbitrary. Places like the Emprise Du Lion are flat out unexplained and unsatisfying.

Characters like Solace and Cole flat out contradict the setting's established cosmology, and we're expected to accept this as holy writ because the writers thought they were being so clever. So clever in fact, you're not even allowed to poke Solace and maybe knowledge that there's something odd about him, and maybe Liliana should, you know, actually look into who he's claiming to be. Because, no, the writers were just being that "clever."

I'm okay with there being more information in the books, or minor plot holes getting sown up there. But, with DAI, you're often left completely uninformed if you didn't read those books. Playing The Winter Palace? Trying to pick between Celene, Gaspard and Briala? Want to know what the difference between them is? Yeah, that's not in the game at all. You're expected to have read Masked Empire.

At it's core, it is impossible to actually roleplay Inquisition. Just can't be done. The game asks you to make metagame decisions far too frequently, and punishes you brutally for behaving in character.

The thing is, Witcher 3 is an easy counter example, because there are so many similarities. These are two different companies taking a run at doing the exact same game. But, the only time The Witcher 3 presents blind decisions like that is if you decided to simulate a Witcher 2 save, and the game quizzes you on what came before. And, even there, it's asking you to make your decisions based on the previous game, not did you read the terrible tie in fiction. When it comes to making decisions in TW3, you're always given information to make an informed choice.

As a HUGE Witcher fan... I disagree.

If you have not read the books... your choices will be uninformed, silly and stupid in the game. It has the same pitfall that you are describing, only difference is that this time, the books are the original work (and are better than the games) rather than the other way around (in Dragon Age's case).

So it has the same problems. Though it does certainly make "gamers" think they are actually informed... that illusion... they pulled it of.
But no, if you only play Witcher 3 you dont even know half the characters...

ecoho:
you know I think its really funny how people bash dragon age so much and compare it to the witcher 3 when the games are not really comparable for two reasons;

1. this was biowares first time putting the skyrim style questing into a game, were as CD project have done this all before and already knew the pitfalls. a better game of theirs to compare would be witcher 2 to DA:I at which point you would find that DA:I was the better game.

2. the stories are vastly different in construction. in the witcher your continuing a story that's been going on for 3 games and many books already. In DA:I your making a new character whos main focus is not just on a central plot but on the companions you pick up and actually have feelings about.( hatred is in fact a feeling.)

Witcher 2 > DA:I
Witcher 2 > Witcher 3 (story-wise).

witcher 2 was horrible on all levels but story. so yeah DA:I> witcher 2

ecoho:
you know I think its really funny how people bash dragon age so much and compare it to the witcher 3 when the games are not really comparable for two reasons;

1. this was biowares first time putting the skyrim style questing into a game, were as CD project have done this all before and already knew the pitfalls. a better game of theirs to compare would be witcher 2 to DA:I at which point you would find that DA:I was the better game.

2. the stories are vastly different in construction. in the witcher your continuing a story that's been going on for 3 games and many books already. In DA:I you're making a new character whos main focus is not just on a central plot but on the companions you pick up and actually have feelings about.( hatred is in fact a feeling.) continuing a story that's been going on for more than three games, and many terrible books already.

Fixed that for ya. You typed "your" instead of "you're." Also, you know, some other minor typos.

Charcharo:

Starke:

immortalfrieza:
Look, can we drop the fandom rivalry already? The Witcher 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition are both great games, they have different plots, different themes, different writers, one is not better than the other. People can love a game without having to hate on every single vaguely similar game in existence at the same time.

Well, here's the thing. It's not a fandom rivalry. Dragon Age Inquisition is not a good game. And I'll say this as someone who actually defended DA2 as a surprisingly fun title.

There's stuff I like about the Dragon Age setting. There's stuff I don't like about Bioware. Unfortunately, Inquisition veers hard into the stuff I serious object to.

Gone are the grey moral choices, the scenarios that feel like the result of people with plausible motivations getting into loggerheads, and a setting where characters are vaguely aware of their setting's genre conventions. Also gone is the legitimately dark humor from DA2.

What's in full swing, are situations where the backstory is available to the player (if you read the books) but not the character, and players who didn't cough up for every bit of horrible prose that Bioware spat out in tie ins. Without reading the books, things like The Winter Palace are arbitrary. Places like the Emprise Du Lion are flat out unexplained and unsatisfying.

Characters like Solace and Cole flat out contradict the setting's established cosmology, and we're expected to accept this as holy writ because the writers thought they were being so clever. So clever in fact, you're not even allowed to poke Solace and maybe knowledge that there's something odd about him, and maybe Liliana should, you know, actually look into who he's claiming to be. Because, no, the writers were just being that "clever."

I'm okay with there being more information in the books, or minor plot holes getting sown up there. But, with DAI, you're often left completely uninformed if you didn't read those books. Playing The Winter Palace? Trying to pick between Celene, Gaspard and Briala? Want to know what the difference between them is? Yeah, that's not in the game at all. You're expected to have read Masked Empire.

At it's core, it is impossible to actually roleplay Inquisition. Just can't be done. The game asks you to make metagame decisions far too frequently, and punishes you brutally for behaving in character.

The thing is, Witcher 3 is an easy counter example, because there are so many similarities. These are two different companies taking a run at doing the exact same game. But, the only time The Witcher 3 presents blind decisions like that is if you decided to simulate a Witcher 2 save, and the game quizzes you on what came before. And, even there, it's asking you to make your decisions based on the previous game, not did you read the terrible tie in fiction. When it comes to making decisions in TW3, you're always given information to make an informed choice.

As a HUGE Witcher fan... I disagree.

If you have not read the books... your choices will be uninformed, silly and stupid in the game. It has the same pitfall that you are describing, only difference is that this time, the books are the original work (and are better than the games) rather than the other way around (in Dragon Age's case).

So it has the same problems. Though it does certainly make "gamers" think they are actually informed... that illusion... they pulled it of.
But no, if you only play Witcher 3 you dont even know half the characters...

Yeah, the thing with Witcher 3, and really the series as a whole is, outside of sporadic moments, it presents you with enough information to think you're making an informed decision. Starting with Dragon Age: Awakenings, the DA series has been really bad about putting decisions in front of the player with absolutely no explanation or frame of reference.

The Winter Palace choice is still an excellent example of this. Where you're left to choose who the next leader of not-France will be, with no information, or ability to gather information, about who these people are. Just pick the flavor you fancy.

That... doesn't really happen in The Witcher 3. Even when you're not really making an informed choice, you're still given enough information to have some idea what you're doing, even if you don't have the full backstory, or a full understanding of the context. You're never put in to a position where it's just, "well, blindly pick a side, without any information about who these characters are, whatsoever."

The Witcher 3 is tie-in media.

Dragon Age (and, Mass Effect) have become ads for their tie in novels and comics; gradually transitioning into a more aggressive sell. With more information... more critical information, filtering out of the games and into the other material, demanding you go read those to have any idea what the hell you're doing.

Starke:

ecoho:
you know I think its really funny how people bash dragon age so much and compare it to the witcher 3 when the games are not really comparable for two reasons;

1. this was biowares first time putting the skyrim style questing into a game, were as CD project have done this all before and already knew the pitfalls. a better game of theirs to compare would be witcher 2 to DA:I at which point you would find that DA:I was the better game.

2. the stories are vastly different in construction. in the witcher your continuing a story that's been going on for 3 games and many books already. In DA:I you're making a new character whos main focus is not just on a central plot but on the companions you pick up and actually have feelings about.( hatred is in fact a feeling.) continuing a story that's been going on for more than three games, and many terrible books already.

Fixed that for ya. You typed "your" instead of "you're." Also, you know, some other minor typos.

Charcharo:

Starke:

Well, here's the thing. It's not a fandom rivalry. Dragon Age Inquisition is not a good game. And I'll say this as someone who actually defended DA2 as a surprisingly fun title.

There's stuff I like about the Dragon Age setting. There's stuff I don't like about Bioware. Unfortunately, Inquisition veers hard into the stuff I serious object to.

Gone are the grey moral choices, the scenarios that feel like the result of people with plausible motivations getting into loggerheads, and a setting where characters are vaguely aware of their setting's genre conventions. Also gone is the legitimately dark humor from DA2.

What's in full swing, are situations where the backstory is available to the player (if you read the books) but not the character, and players who didn't cough up for every bit of horrible prose that Bioware spat out in tie ins. Without reading the books, things like The Winter Palace are arbitrary. Places like the Emprise Du Lion are flat out unexplained and unsatisfying.

Characters like Solace and Cole flat out contradict the setting's established cosmology, and we're expected to accept this as holy writ because the writers thought they were being so clever. So clever in fact, you're not even allowed to poke Solace and maybe knowledge that there's something odd about him, and maybe Liliana should, you know, actually look into who he's claiming to be. Because, no, the writers were just being that "clever."

I'm okay with there being more information in the books, or minor plot holes getting sown up there. But, with DAI, you're often left completely uninformed if you didn't read those books. Playing The Winter Palace? Trying to pick between Celene, Gaspard and Briala? Want to know what the difference between them is? Yeah, that's not in the game at all. You're expected to have read Masked Empire.

At it's core, it is impossible to actually roleplay Inquisition. Just can't be done. The game asks you to make metagame decisions far too frequently, and punishes you brutally for behaving in character.

The thing is, Witcher 3 is an easy counter example, because there are so many similarities. These are two different companies taking a run at doing the exact same game. But, the only time The Witcher 3 presents blind decisions like that is if you decided to simulate a Witcher 2 save, and the game quizzes you on what came before. And, even there, it's asking you to make your decisions based on the previous game, not did you read the terrible tie in fiction. When it comes to making decisions in TW3, you're always given information to make an informed choice.

As a HUGE Witcher fan... I disagree.

If you have not read the books... your choices will be uninformed, silly and stupid in the game. It has the same pitfall that you are describing, only difference is that this time, the books are the original work (and are better than the games) rather than the other way around (in Dragon Age's case).

So it has the same problems. Though it does certainly make "gamers" think they are actually informed... that illusion... they pulled it of.
But no, if you only play Witcher 3 you dont even know half the characters...

Yeah, the thing with Witcher 3, and really the series as a whole is, outside of sporadic moments, it presents you with enough information to think you're making an informed decision. Starting with Dragon Age: Awakenings, the DA series has been really bad about putting decisions in front of the player with absolutely no explanation or frame of reference.

The Winter Palace choice is still an excellent example of this. Where you're left to choose who the next leader of not-France will be, with no information, or ability to gather information, about who these people are. Just pick the flavor you fancy.

That... doesn't really happen in The Witcher 3. Even when you're not really making an informed choice, you're still given enough information to have some idea what you're doing, even if you don't have the full backstory, or a full understanding of the context. You're never put in to a position where it's just, "well, blindly pick a side, without any information about who these characters are, whatsoever."

The Witcher 3 is tie-in media.

Dragon Age (and, Mass Effect) have become ads for their tie in novels and comics; gradually transitioning into a more aggressive sell. With more information... more critical information, filtering out of the games and into the other material, demanding you go read those to have any idea what the hell you're doing.

thanks for fixing the typo but crossing out the truth to put YOUR personal opinion not fact in is a bit of a dick move and makes you seem childish.

ecoho:
thanks for fixing the typo but crossing out the truth to put YOUR personal opinion not fact in is a bit of a dick move and makes you seem childish.

No, my "personal opinion" is that Dragon Age: Origins, and DA2 existed.

Okay, Ecoho, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

ecoho:
you know I think its really funny how people bash dragon age so much and compare it to the witcher 3 when the games are not really comparable for two reasons;

1. this was biowares first time putting the skyrim style questing into a game, were as CD project have done this all before and already knew the pitfalls. a better game of theirs to compare would be witcher 2 to DA:I at which point you would find that DA:I was the better game.

Except, of course, it's not. Because neither the Witcher 3, nor DA:I use "Skyrim style" questing.

Skyrim's quests tend to be very light on dialog. You pick up a piece of dialog at the outset, with no roleplaying options whatsoever, or occasionally a choice between, "yep, I'll do the thing," or, "nope, I'm going to go punch wolves in the face until one shits out a lockpick."

What ends up happening is, for the most part, roleplaying in Skyrim is based on the actions, and decisions of the player outside of the game. You choose to do a thing or not, because of your perspective as a player. There's no in-game incentive, just facilitation. With Skyrim, there's no attempt to reconcile whatever the player might be doing at this moment with their actions elsewhere, outside of very sporadic, and specific, instances.

With DAI, roleplaying is a function of reading from about five or six different scripts. Helpfully colorcoded to differentiate between "unrequited emo" and "flaming jackass."

With The Witcher 3, roleplaying in quests usually comes down to a problem with alternate approaches, and choosing to read from two or three different responses to queries. The difference is that Geralt is a fairly consistent character, in contrast to The Inquisitor.

Which is kind of surprising when you consider that with Hawke, Bioware managed to nail a fairly consistent tone in DA2, while still balancing out between alternate responses when prompted.

The crazy thing with The Witcher 3's quests is how many of them have full cutscenes. Random crap that DAI would pawn off to text only with no voicework, get full cutscenes and choices in The Witcher 3.

Though it is hilarious you're trying to claim that Bioware is the less experienced developer. Especially given that The Witcher started out as a mod on the Aurora Engine, and Bioware was crowing about how Dragon Age would be a spiritual successor to Neverwinter Nights or Balder's Gate, whichever they felt prouder of at the moment.

So, on one hand, you have a developer with three titles under it's belt. And on the other, you've got one with... what? Thirteen major RPG releases over the last 16 years? And they're less experienced than the company that hasn't been around for 10?

ecoho:
2. the stories are vastly different in construction. in the witcher your continuing a story that's been going on for 3 games and many books already. In DA:I your making a new character whos main focus is not just on a central plot but on the companions you pick up and actually have feelings about.( hatred is in fact a feeling.)

In The Witcher 3, you're dealing with a new story built on the framework of two previous games, and inherits it's world state from player decisions in those previous entries, that draws heavily on the literary material that forms the core of the franchise.

I'm honestly not sure why you think The Witcher 3 is the fourth game in the series, unless you're thinking of that action game in the early 2000s that was never finished.

With Dragon Age Inquisition, you're dealing with a new story built on the framework of three previous games, and inherits it's world state from player decisions in two of those previous entries, that draws heavily on the tie-in lit that built around the core franchise, and has gradually been becoming less optional, and more mandatory as time goes by.

Yeah, I can see how profound those differences are.

In the case of Inquisition, you start by looking for a character who's out there ripping a giant hole in the universe and letting all sorts of horrific monsters through.

In the case of The Witcher 3, you start by looking for a character who's out there and has the potential to rip a giant hole in the universe letting horrific monsters through.

In the case of Inquisition, the story ultimately focuses on the actions of the Ancient elves (elves that disappeared for unexplained reasons in the distant past) and sets them up as the true villains before cutting off without a resolution.

In the case of The Witcher 3, the story ultimately focuses on the actions of the Aen Elle (elves that departed the world in the distant past) and sets them up as the true villains before continuing for another 12 hours to provide some actual conclusion to the story.

Yeah, completely different.

Yeah, I'm being snide.

But, really, Bioware set the stage. They said, "writing is important in video games." And other developers looked at that, said, "yeah, no, you're right." And while everyone else has been taking time, learning, trying to get better, Bioware... really hasn't. There's a little improvement. You stick Inquisition next to KotOR, and it's better, kinda. But, while they're doing that a lot of other developers have said, "wait, we really need to improve." And, they've been making real progress, resulting in far better written games than Bioware seems to be capable of these days.

So we get, Inquisition, a game that was literally developed by MMO designers, and feels like it. That's, not a good thing. An MMO is basically a chat room with some toys to keep you amused while you BS with other people. They took out the chat room, and left us with the sub par distractions.

It's got a story you're expected to spam through without paying attention, because the conversation going on in zone, or guild chat, is the real draw... except, that's not happening here, and the story isn't better to compensate. Inquisition remains a game you can, literally, play one handed. That's not a complement. In an MMO, you can do that, type with one, play with the other... that might have sounded slightly perverted, and participate in the game, while having your conversations. But, with a single player game? That's a bad thing.

If you honestly want an Inquisition style MMO, you're better off with ESO. The combat is more engaging than "hold down the right bumper until combat's over," and the writing is, honestly, better. That's how far Bioware's slid. There's actually better written MMOs on the market.

ecoho:

Charcharo:

Starke:

Well, here's the thing. It's not a fandom rivalry. Dragon Age Inquisition is not a good game. And I'll say this as someone who actually defended DA2 as a surprisingly fun title.

There's stuff I like about the Dragon Age setting. There's stuff I don't like about Bioware. Unfortunately, Inquisition veers hard into the stuff I serious object to.

Gone are the grey moral choices, the scenarios that feel like the result of people with plausible motivations getting into loggerheads, and a setting where characters are vaguely aware of their setting's genre conventions. Also gone is the legitimately dark humor from DA2.

What's in full swing, are situations where the backstory is available to the player (if you read the books) but not the character, and players who didn't cough up for every bit of horrible prose that Bioware spat out in tie ins. Without reading the books, things like The Winter Palace are arbitrary. Places like the Emprise Du Lion are flat out unexplained and unsatisfying.

Characters like Solace and Cole flat out contradict the setting's established cosmology, and we're expected to accept this as holy writ because the writers thought they were being so clever. So clever in fact, you're not even allowed to poke Solace and maybe knowledge that there's something odd about him, and maybe Liliana should, you know, actually look into who he's claiming to be. Because, no, the writers were just being that "clever."

I'm okay with there being more information in the books, or minor plot holes getting sown up there. But, with DAI, you're often left completely uninformed if you didn't read those books. Playing The Winter Palace? Trying to pick between Celene, Gaspard and Briala? Want to know what the difference between them is? Yeah, that's not in the game at all. You're expected to have read Masked Empire.

At it's core, it is impossible to actually roleplay Inquisition. Just can't be done. The game asks you to make metagame decisions far too frequently, and punishes you brutally for behaving in character.

The thing is, Witcher 3 is an easy counter example, because there are so many similarities. These are two different companies taking a run at doing the exact same game. But, the only time The Witcher 3 presents blind decisions like that is if you decided to simulate a Witcher 2 save, and the game quizzes you on what came before. And, even there, it's asking you to make your decisions based on the previous game, not did you read the terrible tie in fiction. When it comes to making decisions in TW3, you're always given information to make an informed choice.

As a HUGE Witcher fan... I disagree.

If you have not read the books... your choices will be uninformed, silly and stupid in the game. It has the same pitfall that you are describing, only difference is that this time, the books are the original work (and are better than the games) rather than the other way around (in Dragon Age's case).

So it has the same problems. Though it does certainly make "gamers" think they are actually informed... that illusion... they pulled it of.
But no, if you only play Witcher 3 you dont even know half the characters...

ecoho:
you know I think its really funny how people bash dragon age so much and compare it to the witcher 3 when the games are not really comparable for two reasons;

1. this was biowares first time putting the skyrim style questing into a game, were as CD project have done this all before and already knew the pitfalls. a better game of theirs to compare would be witcher 2 to DA:I at which point you would find that DA:I was the better game.

2. the stories are vastly different in construction. in the witcher your continuing a story that's been going on for 3 games and many books already. In DA:I your making a new character whos main focus is not just on a central plot but on the companions you pick up and actually have feelings about.( hatred is in fact a feeling.)

Witcher 2 > DA:I
Witcher 2 > Witcher 3 (story-wise).

witcher 2 was horrible on all levels but story. so yeah DA:I> witcher 2

Story is the biggest thing in an RPG. .. and Witcher 2 is also better gameplay wise.... much better than DAI.

So yeah. DAI is worse at everything. From story, themes, characters... to game play, atmosphere. To game play. And is a more standard fantasy...

Charcharo:
And is a more standard fantasy...

Which is actually kind of surprising when you consider that The Witcher, as a setting, draws heavily from classic fairytales.

Starke:

Charcharo:
And is a more standard fantasy...

Which is actually kind of surprising when you consider that The Witcher, as a setting, draws heavily from classic fairytales.

Not only... but it is ironic how the classics of old are now the exceptions...

Anyways, I still fucking hate W3 act 3...

Sniper Team 4:

SlumlordThanatos:

Sniper Team 4:
That's nice. While I haven't gotten to Trespasser yet--running through the game one last time to make sure I do everything right and whatnot--from what I understand it's well worth it. The other two DLCs could have easily been left out in my opinion, but Trespasser is a must play for anyone who enjoyed the game I think.

Answered my question, then. I have to admit, the game was easily the most mediocre in the series, but I think it'll be worth playing again with the DLC.

Agreed, which is a shame. It started out great, with the promise of some ground-breaking revelations in the franchise in terms of lore, but then it just sort of...wandered off into the Hissing Wastes and spent too much time in sandbox mode. And when it finally comes back from that, it takes a hard left turn with the elves that is nothing short of jarring.
Which is why I'm really looking forward to playing Trespasser, because someone comes back and he better damn well have some answers!

Whats funny is the Hissing Wastes was where I just gave up on the game. The combat was already draggin me down into boresvilles (especially on a pc as a sword and board character without a controller, blocking was literally impossible without a controller), then sandboxing my way into the Hissing Wastes for 2 hours before I stopped and literally asked myself the question that you should never be asking while playing a game. "Why am I out here again? I...dont even remember what the point of this was." Then I tried to remember really anythin that happened in the last several hours and drew a blank. At that point the story hadn't engaged me enough to remember anything, or even what my characters motivations were at that point (except to get more of those shards to get deeper into that cave/tomb/thing). Once I'd reached that point it was basically gg for me, minus the first g.

shintakie10:

Sniper Team 4:

SlumlordThanatos:

Answered my question, then. I have to admit, the game was easily the most mediocre in the series, but I think it'll be worth playing again with the DLC.

Agreed, which is a shame. It started out great, with the promise of some ground-breaking revelations in the franchise in terms of lore, but then it just sort of...wandered off into the Hissing Wastes and spent too much time in sandbox mode. And when it finally comes back from that, it takes a hard left turn with the elves that is nothing short of jarring.
Which is why I'm really looking forward to playing Trespasser, because someone comes back and he better damn well have some answers!

Whats funny is the Hissing Wastes was where I just gave up on the game. The combat was already draggin me down into boresvilles (especially on a pc as a sword and board character without a controller, blocking was literally impossible without a controller), then sandboxing my way into the Hissing Wastes for 2 hours before I stopped and literally asked myself the question that you should never be asking while playing a game. "Why am I out here again? I...dont even remember what the point of this was." Then I tried to remember really anythin that happened in the last several hours and drew a blank. At that point the story hadn't engaged me enough to remember anything, or even what my characters motivations were at that point (except to get more of those shards to get deeper into that cave/tomb/thing). Once I'd reached that point it was basically gg for me, minus the first g.

Yeah, the payoff for those shards are various elemental resistances. The last one's lighting, or spirit, I think. So, literally, the only reason to grab those are just for stat boosts. There's no story implication. No lore significance. Even the part where those skulls have been made from Tranquil, and how the mages in Redcliffe were complicit in their creation is glossed over. Nope, just +30% to an elemental resistance, after another.

Charcharo:

Starke:

Charcharo:
And is a more standard fantasy...

Which is actually kind of surprising when you consider that The Witcher, as a setting, draws heavily from classic fairytales.

Not only... but it is ironic how the classics of old are now the exceptions...

Anyways, I still fucking hate W3 act 3...

Or how close they stuck to Tolkien via Warhammer. With bits of Elder Scrolls leaking in out of nowhere in DAI. I know, I know, "studying Skyrim intently." But, still.

I think act 3 of TWH lasted about 4 hours for me, so no real animosity from me there. Though, I do need to get off my ass and finish reading the novels, which might be the point of contention.

Starke:

Damian Porter:

Starke:

Really? You knew that Dragon Age Inquisition would be the second Bioware title ever to receive a Game of the Year edition?

No, he knew, just like me, that a game like this would receive a complete edition like most games do these days.

Which is why you waited for the Mass Effect 3 GotY Edition to come out... oh, wait.

Yeah, I know, "all games" get a complete edition now. Which is why it's kind of unusual this is happening with Dragon Age, when Bioware's been pretty terrible about releasing complete editions. EA in general, for that matter, but Bioware in particular.

Which makes the whole, "I predicted the blindingly obvious" seem a bit less impressive, when you were actually betting on the unlikely outcome, thinking it was inevitable.

hmmm perhaps i should have worded it better and explained myself more. when it first came out, a lot of people said it was a good game, but with previous experience with EA and other RPG's like Skyrim, saints row and such with has a ton of DLC that comes out after launch, a lot of em eventually had the GOTY edition with all (or at least most) of the DLC attached (i figured every game was gonna do that so why buy the game on the day when a better, more complete version will come out later, and maybe cheaper too). so i opted to wait until a better deal came out (my thinking is, if that game IS that good, it will still be good after a year and I can get more stuff). now this wasn't a sure thing, I could have been wrong and if i was, no biggie, i can still get the game for cheap later if it;s still good. I guess I was a bit happy that my guess was vindicated, even though it's not for anything really important.

Starke:

What's in full swing, are situations where the backstory is available to the player (if you read the books) but not the character, and players who didn't cough up for every bit of horrible prose that Bioware spat out in tie ins. Without reading the books, things like The Winter Palace are arbitrary. Places like the Emprise Du Lion are flat out unexplained and unsatisfying.

Not to mention the whole court intrigue was boiled down to pixel hunting with a timer. Who the hell thought it was great game design? I know people don't like talking and reading stuff nowdays, so you have to throw them a gauntlet full of enemies every 10 minutes, but for crying out loud. That was a huge missed opportunity to do a proper non-combat quest.

Imre Csete:

Starke:

What's in full swing, are situations where the backstory is available to the player (if you read the books) but not the character, and players who didn't cough up for every bit of horrible prose that Bioware spat out in tie ins. Without reading the books, things like The Winter Palace are arbitrary. Places like the Emprise Du Lion are flat out unexplained and unsatisfying.

Not to mention the whole court intrigue was boiled down to pixel hunting with a timer. Who the hell thought it was great game design? I know people don't like talking and reading stuff nowdays, so you have to throw them a gauntlet full of enemies every 10 minutes, but for crying out loud. That was a huge missed opportunity to do a proper non-combat quest.

In a game after 1998?

The sad thing is, the timed stuff they were showing in the E3 demo looked like a legitimate use for the mechanics. The fortress would be whittled down, and the village would be massacred, and you only really had time to do one. Screwing around and letting the timer run out would cause you to miss out on both.

And then there were only two or three timer sequences in the entire game, and nothing that interesting. The really obnoxious thing about the Winter Palace wasn't the pixel hunting, though. It was that collectibles were hidden away behind some of the doors, meaning if you were trying to 100% the game... well, you'd basically need the strat guide or a horrific amount of trial and error.

Starke:

The sad thing is, the timed stuff they were showing in the E3 demo looked like a legitimate use for the mechanics.

After following DA2 from rumors to launch day trailer, I've learned my lesson about taking game marketing at face value. I went into DA:I with zero expectations, maybe that's why I'm not furiously disappointed about it, rather just meh, it passed the time.

I might give it a spin if it's reasonably priced or once it goes on sale.

Darth Rosenberg:
But the comparison's a little tiresome now, as if vast swathes of teh internetz have a kind of TW3 defined DA:I bashing tourettes; they can't help themselves.

Nah. This isn't a specific thing related to DAI and W3. Gaming on the internet is rife with people who don't like it if you A. don't like what they like, B. like what they don't like, or C. enjoy things the wrong way.

Fallout 4 is already being compared to Halo, Gears of War and Call of Duty on YouTube, because apparently removing skills is just like making a multi-player focused modern shooter or the rest of those. And you can say "lol YouTube," but I'm betting we'll see this argument leak onto forums like this, because I've seen it before.

Starke:
"all games"

Why did you add quotes to "all games" when responding to a quote that specifically said "most?"

Imre Csete:

Starke:

The sad thing is, the timed stuff they were showing in the E3 demo looked like a legitimate use for the mechanics.

After following DA2 from rumors to launch day trailer, I've learned my lesson about taking game marketing at face value. I went into DA:I with zero expectations, maybe that's why I'm not furiously disappointed about it, rather just meh, it passed the time.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about being mislead by the hype. Just that in retrospect, looking back at their prerelease stuff, they actually had a more coherent use for the system. And then proceeded to whiff it in the actual game.

Something Amyss:

Starke:
"all games"

Why did you add quotes to "all games" when responding to a quote that specifically said "most?"

Same reason you carved up the rest of my post to pull that out of context. Rhetoric.

zellosoli:

Starke:

Damian Porter:

No, he knew, just like me, that a game like this would receive a complete edition like most games do these days.

Which is why you waited for the Mass Effect 3 GotY Edition to come out... oh, wait.

Yeah, I know, "all games" get a complete edition now. Which is why it's kind of unusual this is happening with Dragon Age, when Bioware's been pretty terrible about releasing complete editions. EA in general, for that matter, but Bioware in particular.

Which makes the whole, "I predicted the blindingly obvious" seem a bit less impressive, when you were actually betting on the unlikely outcome, thinking it was inevitable.

hmmm perhaps i should have worded it better and explained myself more. when it first came out, a lot of people said it was a good game, but with previous experience with EA and other RPG's like Skyrim, saints row and such with has a ton of DLC that comes out after launch, a lot of em eventually had the GOTY edition with all (or at least most) of the DLC attached (i figured every game was gonna do that so why buy the game on the day when a better, more complete version will come out later, and maybe cheaper too). so i opted to wait until a better deal came out (my thinking is, if that game IS that good, it will still be good after a year and I can get more stuff). now this wasn't a sure thing, I could have been wrong and if i was, no biggie, i can still get the game for cheap later if it;s still good. I guess I was a bit happy that my guess was vindicated, even though it's not for anything really important.

Yeah, that I get. Like I said, it came across as a bit more smug than you probably intended. Also, honest recommendation? Give Inquisition a pass, at least until it's down into the sub $20 range. Mechanically it's an unsatisfying game, and narrativly... I mean, minor spoiler here, but the game's story doesn't actually have an end. It just suddenly gets bored, throws a boss fight at you, and rolls credits. The final piece of DLC makes a weak attempt to address that (according to the people who didn't say, "screw it" and ignored the DLC entirely), but what's there just isn't worth the time, even if you do like the setting.

The Witcher 3's an easier recommendation for a similar game with a more satisfying conclusion. If you want something in the vein of the first game, then Neverwinter Nights 2 and it's first expansion (Mask of the Betrayer) are a better option. Or Pillars of Eternity, if you actually want the kind of old school RPG DAO was trying to go for. If you want an MMO like experience, then Elder Scrolls Online is now subscription free... and actually is an MMO, but it's a better option than DAI.

That said, Dragon Age Inquisition is just, deeply underwhelming. I played through it once, and basically tossed it. This is easily the most banal and boring game I've ever seen come from a AAA studio, and honestly the worst thing I've seen from Bioware.

Something Amyss:

Darth Rosenberg:
But the comparison's a little tiresome now, as if vast swathes of teh internetz have a kind of TW3 defined DA:I bashing tourettes; they can't help themselves.

Nah. This isn't a specific thing related to DAI and W3. Gaming on the internet is rife with people who don't like it if you A. don't like what they like, B. like what they don't like, or C. enjoy things the wrong way.

In this case, as someone who's played both games, DAI and TW3TWH feel like similar approaches to the same game. Both developers saw the ridiculous success of Skyrim, and decided to take a swing at that.

With DAI the end result feels like a launch state MMO. Unsatisfying content, a story that leaves you on the hook for the next five years of updates, vast empty spaces that exist so they can brag about how large their world is and just a general lack of polish. Also a combat system that really does boil down to "hold left trigger to win."

With TW3 the end result feels like a decent hybrid of the open world RPG genre and the prior Witcher titles. It's got a lot of the delayed consequences, where you don't see the outcome of your choice for 50 hours, and a story that might, honestly, leave some people baffled, simply because of volume. But it never feels like an open, soulless, checklist of crap you need to do before you can move on.

In both cases, you can see the influences of Bethesda, but in the former case, the result is just fishing to fill bullet points for the box. In the later case, it feels like the developers were looking at what they could learn from, rather than what they could pilfer.

Starke:

Same reason you carved up the rest of my post to pull that out of context. Rhetoric.

Well, no, that's not the same reason. I'm curious as to what context you think is added to this misrepresentation by the rest of the post, though. It doesn't make it any more accurate.

In this case, as someone who's played both games, DAI and TW3TWH feel like similar approaches to the same game.

See, this is trying to explain something out of context. The context I attempted to provide by pointing out that this isn't unique to these two games.

In any given case, one can probably find several ways to rationalise or justify. It's the larger context that demonstrates that the pattern exists, which is exactly the point. I honestly don't believe people are going around saying X is like Y but better/worse to be dishonest or to be dicks. I'm pretty sure a good chunk, maybe even the vast majority, believe it in any given case.

EDIT: Somehow the forum hamsters made this post twice. Please ignore this second version.

Oh

Great

I totally... waited for that. Yep. I am a smart gamer that do not pay microtransactions to EA, the great devourer.

Something Amyss:

Starke:

Same reason you carved up the rest of my post to pull that out of context. Rhetoric.

Well, no, that's not the same reason. I'm curious as to what context you think is added to this misrepresentation by the rest of the post, though. It doesn't make it any more accurate.

It does however convey the overall tone, which is lost when you crop it down to two or three words.

Something Amyss:

In this case, as someone who's played both games, DAI and TW3TWH feel like similar approaches to the same game.

See, this is trying to explain something out of context. The context I attempted to provide by pointing out that this isn't unique to these two games.

No, you attempted to disregard the discussion here and characterize it as a fanboy slapfight, which, it's not.

Something Amyss:
I might give it a spin if it's reasonably priced or once it goes on sale.

In case you'd forgotten.

If you'd taken a look at both games, you could probably contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Without that frame of reference; not so much.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here