Dragon Age: Inquisition

[anubite]

 

But making those game is also much easier now days.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with this.  But then again, I didn't make games before 2009 so I suppose I'm not perfectly qualified to say.

 

Don't bother. It's a dumb assertation. Technology and finance has changed so much in the last ten years that there's no way you can possibly argue either way. Yes, we have handy little things like XNA or the Apple Store/Steam to make the distribution and development of games [that are simple/small] easier, and yes, we have better graphics cards and higher memory pools so we can be wasteful in some instances where otherwise we would need to be meticulous about how things are coded, but overall, wages have gone up, expertise needed to produce a game has probably gone up as well (then again, look at Doom's crescent fresh code, or Unreal Tournament, no two-bit programmer made that stuff back then). You're trying to market AAA games to a wider audience now, so you need a much bigger marketing budget... and you have lots of competition from indie/free/f2p/p2w games, plus torrents weren't around in the '90's...

 

Games are more or less about the same to make then as they are now. The difference is that budgets have probably been forced to go up. Is this because of bloat in big publishers? I don't know, I can't say. We as consumers don't have all the facts, for one, so it's really hard to make the judgment of DLC is necessary or large developers won't make enough money to justify their existence.

 

Where I think it sucks is how it feels to be a consumer of DLC. That's why I rarely buy DLC, I feel like it's a rip off - the content:money spent ratio is usually not in my favor compared to the base game and often I find out this content is just locked away on the disc - which means it could have been included in the original sale, because they got it to market on day one. Back in the 90's or before, that's how it worked.

 

And I really don't get the whole monopoly thing that results in "thou shalt not price games at $70 USD" - I really don't. Why is that the case again? Just raise the base price to $70. If nobody is going to buy it at $70 then we have a problem fundamentally with the market. I mean, look at kickstarter, we see some people will pay $250 USD for a good game now n' days.

 

The problem is too big to really be academic about it, you need be strong in a wide variety of disciplines and have a lot of facts in order to make the judgment that games are easier or harder to make, that DLC is necessary or its not. However, to me as a consumer, I hate it. I don't like it. It feels wrong and I would prefer an expansion, or I would prefer something. And no, "season passes" which are basically black boxes of content are not the solution. I'm gambling that #1 you'll produce the DLC you say you are and #2 it will be something I actualy want. Nevermind I have no idea when this DLC will be made available. It's like pre-ordering an expansion of variable size/length/duration/content you get in fragmented, disjointed rarely-connected pieces on arbitrary days in the future at a price that when combined with the base product price -- I could have just waited a year and bought the "Complete Arcade Ultaimte GOTY Edition" and gotten it all for way less anyway.

Edited August 28, 2013 by anubite

[Gromnir]

these games, wherein the protagonist gains superpowers and can kill dragons or reapers or whatever, is doing stuff o' epic proportion. developers frequent try to avoid the Save The World nonsense, but that is near impossible as they necessarily needs create a villain worthy o' the hero. the villain who simply wants to be left alone? nope. the villain who wants better sanitation and more police responsiveness in the slums? not gonna happen. creates a villain who is worthy o' the hero and is Not a major threat to populace o' the city/planet/galaxy is harder than it sounds.

 

from pov o' the writer, we would always be starting with developing the villain rather than the hero ('cause it is scope o' the obstacle that defines the hero,) but is tough to do that in a crpg in which the hero is gonna get superpowers. one wonders how to do a smerdyakov (brothers karamazov) or even an iago (othello) in a crpg setting w/o making such characters threats to cities, land masses, planets, and innocent puppies everywhere. so, we end up with crud like darth nihilus or the reapers almost outta necessity simply 'cause our heroes is needing to be... big.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps gonna clarify that we were actually thinking the reapers worked as a pretty darn good villain for a game like me1. sure, scope was enormous, but bio did the epic with aplomb in me1. later mass effect games... not so much

Edited August 28, 2013 by Gromnir

[anubite]

Darth Nihilus is hardly crud, Star Wars is supposed to be about saving the world. I mean, you could do some kind of smaller story in the universe, but... Star Wars isn't a setting for minor dramas or character growths. It's about death stars, light sabers, and big, cumbersome philosophical statements. So, Nihilus is perfectly fine for the game he resides in.

 

If you're looking for Ayn Rand or something, Planescape or traditional D&D is a better crpg setting, though even there, you're sort of asking for a save-the-world kind of story. If you want something smaller or petty, the universe is probably going to be more grounded in the modern or mundane.

 

The way you're arguing, you'd expect us to turn the Superman series into grimdark Batman - and then assert that we've fixed it or something. I've seen people argue this and it's silly. There's nothing wrong with "an ancient evil awakens" - it is tiring after a while and I could appreciate a smaller-in-scope story in an RPG, but Dragon Age isn't suited for that. That's a whole new IP.

Edited August 28, 2013 by anubite

[Gromnir]

darth nihilus is horrible. is the faceless terror kinda villain, but developers were using poor judgement in giving him a face and a voice like something from an evil peanuts cartoon. no real dread, and his threat is only abstract. step onto bridge of dying ship. whack him with lighsabres a few times. nihilus is dead. thus ends threat to the galaxy. 

 

you wanna create a sauron kidna threat? then at least learn from manner in which tolkien used such a villain. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 28, 2013 by Gromnir

[anubite]

Nihilus is lacking, but he's not the main antagonist. He's like the... red herring. The game isn't even close to over when you kill him.

Edited August 29, 2013 by anubite

[Gromnir]

Nihilus is lacking, but he's not the main antagonist. He's like the... red herring. The game isn't even close to over when you kill him.

game is functionally over for us after you confront jedi masters on dantooine... is all downhill after that. ultimate resolution with kreia is handled no better than nihilus.  is a crying shame too as first 2/3 of kotor2 is still our favorite game from obsidian, and we not even like particularly star wars.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am admitting that we liked first 2 star wars movies and didn't hate the third. other star wars stuff? not so much.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Gromnir

[licketysplit]

Yes, the BIoware games have from way back in 1998 or 1999 been about the chosen one, the ancient organisation, the saving the world, the big bad guy to defeat at the end. And what happenes when Bioware decided no to do this (trivial) thing/game anymore? There were much rejoi....eh...I mean, complaining. 

 

Taking a page out of EA's playbook here? Yes, let's blame the fans for not appreciating their bold foray into new creative territory. This crap is really getting old, especially when other gamers buy into it.

 

DA2 was bad on a number of levels, and if they failed in their new approach, it's their fault, not the fans.

[Tale]

the plot/story in DA2, Hawke's personal story.

People didn't complaint about Hawke's personal story. Or at least, that wasn't the meat of most complaints I heard.

 

They complained that the entire last act was on rails and the bad guys dropped philosophical differences for pure crazy. People actually liked the Qunari plot. But the personal plot was just a narrative McGuffin. Something you followed to get hooked into the real plots.

 

I mean, the personal story stops being relevant even halfway into the game. Of the three major plot threads, two of them were save the world. And one of those fails simply because the city of Kirkwall is full of crazy people.

[anubite]

Again, there's nothing wrong with 'save the world' stories. It is tiring after a while - but let's face it, video games are about action. They're about constant action that generally has to ramp up higher and higher. Even if you don't give your player "super powers" they're going to be doing "super ****" - I mean, it's hard to create a game where you only kill/incapacitate one or two dozen people in its entirety. What are players supposed to be doing in between all that? Stealth? Exploration? Crafting? I love those things, but they're hard to market, or at least, the bigwigs believe that.

 

Good luck writing a down-to-earth story where your protagonist is entering into combat against swaths of enemies in every scene. Look at TLOU - isn't it jarring how many people Joel kills? Does it hurt the realism ND was going for? The same can be said of Max Payne 3 and other cinematic games.

Edited August 29, 2013 by anubite

[alanschu]

 

 

People didn't complaint about Hawke's personal story. Or at least, that wasn't the meat of most complaints I heard.

 

Some did find the plot to be underwhelming because it was so localized and for some just not as interesting (especially compared to the large accomplishments that the Warden achieved).  I think on some level people DO like being that big and awesome hero, while hipsters like us are a bit more welcoming of some variation.  Though it can be hard to disassociate because a lot of people that disliked the main plot had issues with other elements.  Hawke being passive or even just a constant failure was a reasonably common one.

 

Though it was definitely not one of the primary complaints, IMO.  Although I find when people are frustrated at some aspects, and in general have a bad taste in their mouth, they will look back on other things and be more critical of them than they perhaps otherwise would have.  Similar to those that really like a product, and are willing to overlook similar slights.

 

 

And yeah, the direct personal element kind of disappears after Act One.  It's more a circumstance of Hawke being called upon based on his/her past actions leading to things, but it's definitely not really affecting Hawke's personal story so much, aside from being declared the Champion at the end of Act 2.

[Volourn]

"(play NWN, the first, or IWD2 and you'll see reuse of areas in a much grander scale than in DA2),"

 

No, no NWN doesn't do that.

 

 

"DA2 was bad on a number of levels, and if they failed in their new approach, it's their fault, not the fans."
 

DA2 is better than  most RPGs. It is better than either KOTOR, or BG1 for sure. And, it is almost as good as DA1. And, it does it share of things better.  The npcs are better, the way combat abilities are gained is better,the story/plot is better, etc. However, it also does certain things worse. *shrug* I'd rate DA1 something like 8.8 and DA2 something like 8.5.

[ShadySands]

I'd give it a 6

 

I didn't hate it but it was definitely not at all what I was hoping for. I admit that I probably would have liked it a little more if they had called it something else or sold it as a spin off rather than a direct sequel. 

 

EDIT: I'd prolly given it a 7

Edited August 29, 2013 by ShadySands

[Tale]

Although I find when people are frustrated at some aspects, and in general have a bad taste in their mouth, they will look back on other things and be more critical of them than they perhaps otherwise would have.  Similar to those that really like a product, and are willing to overlook similar slights.

Absolutely. I've observed the phenomenon in myself. One of the ME3 breakdowns talks about it as "narrative coherence." And I won't swear to it, but I think the Redlettermedia examinations of the prequel trilogy talked about it too.I think it's really simple to think of just as a breaking point. You have these little problems you're willing to forgive and overlook, even without thinking, but they start building up. And either they build up too greatly and start encroaching on the parts you enjoy or this one big thing comes out and it just breaks. And everything you forgave before, you go back and stop forgiving. Humans are funny things because of stuff like this. It's a combination of reinforcement and attrition.

 

And now that I've ranted about this phenomenon that's only interesting to people like me, I guess I need to find a point to make out of this. No matter how much I crucify Dragon Age 2, no matter how much I gather people up to hand out pitchforks and torches, no matter how much I complain about cameos, references, recharacterization, and small world, no matter how much I talk about how the plot seems badly formed and justified... it is still better than Mass Effect 3.

 

 

But seriously, everything after Meredith calls you into her office in Act 3 was dumb. I liked it until that point.

 

[alanschu]

Thanks I think?

 

I agree that Act 3 is the weakest part of the game by a good chunk.

[Gorth]

This sounds like an improvement:

 

"Previously, we had a lot of the follower content gated by your approval rating. Whereas what we're doing now, we're having a lot more of your content event-driven," Gaider says. "The approval you're at informs the nature of the conversation."

 

That means you shouldn't have to agree on everything to befriend or romance another character. "They're like, 'Yes, you've chosen a thing that I disagree with, but we're good friends,'" Laidlaw says. "So that's going to change the color and tone of [those interactions], so [they're] more nuanced. I think that's going to take them beyond what's been done in the past."

 

Those clandestine agents are going to initiate 'Dragon Protocol'?

[anubite]

Hm. DA2 is better than ME3? That's a tough call. On one hand, ME3's gameplay has no redeeming factors for me - it's like any gun-game of the last 4 or so years. It has barely any polish (or at least, for the parts of it that I can remember) and there's way too much "**** is spawning from the sky". DA2 has that too, of course. DA2's story is also weaker for me - well, if we ignore the Arishok, DA2's story is strictly weaker - there's no reason at all for Meridith and Orsino to attack you at the end. One or the other, at best, but never both-

 

Wait. I better stop. I think DA2 and ME3 have a lot in common, so saying one is worser than the other is silly, as you'll be trying to apologize some problems for one that the other has that you simply cannot see.

 

There are elements in DA2 that are better - like the Arishok. I can't think of a ME3 antagonist that is as well-done. TIM was kind of butchered to death in ME2, let alone in ME3. And cyborg ninja? Don't get me started. At least BioWare didn't invent anything new in DA2 that was as bad as that. And I guess I can't be upset about DA2's plot pacing, I mean ME3 starts after a whole bunch of DLC and comic content that I didn't play or read. Didn't appreciate that.

 

But ME3 gets points for actually not copypastaing the entire game, though there are some copypasta areas - which is excusable I think since it's not in excess. DA2's talent system is more complex and interesting, but that's only faint praise from me - it's still less complex than DA:O which is significantly less complex than Baldur's Gate.

[Gromnir]

writers o' crpgs has got a conundrum. there is seeming universal belief that players want to be doing epic. players want to be heroes who save cities and nations and more. right or wrong, this belief is a given. this leads to issue we broached earlier 'bout villains-- 'cause villains gotta be as epic as the heroes. why should epic heroes and villains be a problem? 'cause regardless o' scope o' story, you is trying to get player emotionally invested. a hero fighting to save folks, or benefit self? such motivations is not all that deep or profound, but most folks can "get" those kinda motivation. but what about villains? how you write an epic villain that folks not see as campy or over-the-top? perhaps villain wanna take over the world or achieve immortality? perhaps villain is angry with god/gods for some slight? is no natural common ground most of us has with such characters, so they very frequently is seeming fake. our hero, while easier to understand, is written vague so that wide-range o' people can make their own. bob wants to play hero as prototypical champion o' justice. joe wants to play as a kinda good-natured rogue who is in the hero biz for girls and gold. writer of crpg writes game hero so both players is only marginally dissatisfied-- call it a win. 

 

the crpg story is borked a bit from the very start. you force writer to has a vague protagonist and a villain with whom nobody will naturally empathize w/o considerable development, and chances are you won't get opportunity to develop the villain much as we is talking 'bout a game and not a novel. gosh, why is crpg writing typical bad? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 29, 2013 by Gromnir

[anubite]

I disagree. I don't necessarily want to save the world. Firstly, many players want to be anti-heroes - note all the negative choices in games like Fallout or BG. Secondly, "epic" hardly describes some of the stuff you do in Fallout or even VTMB. Though, maybe it's easy to mistake it as that, with all the boss battles you have n' stuff.

 

It's what I was trying to explain before - stories for games exist to give context to gameplay. Stories haven't yet been perfected to do this. What's fun about Fallout is killing doods (or managing not to kill them), exploring the wasteland, and making moral/story choices. The more of those you have, the better the game it is. We might want catharsis/climax at some point or another, but video games aren't like traditional story telling mediums. A good recent example of this is TLOU - it tells a serious story, but a lot of the videogameisms make you scratch your head at it, if you care to think for a moment or two (or be unjustly critical of certain situations involving the AI or game mechanics).

 

If a story doesn't mesh with a game, well...

 

Players want to do **** in a game. Gone Home is an example of a recent game where it tells a simple story but has no gameplay because what gameplay could there possibly be besides dumb Myst-like puzzles?

[licketysplit]

writers o' crpgs has got a conundrum. there is seeming universal belief that players want to be doing epic. players want to be heroes who save cities and nations and more. right or wrong, this belief is a given. this leads to issue we broached earlier 'bout villains-- 'cause villains gotta be as epic as the heroes. why should epic heroes and villains be a problem? 'cause regardless o' scope o' story, you is trying to get player emotionally invested. a hero fighting to save folks, or benefit self? such motivations is not all that deep or profound, but most folks can "get" those kinda motivation. but what about villains? how you write an epic villain that folks not see as campy or over-the-top? perhaps villain wanna take over the world or achieve immortality? perhaps villain is angry with god/gods for some slight? is no natural common ground most of us has with such characters, so they very frequently is seeming fake. our hero, while easier to understand, is written vague so that wide-range o' people can make their own. bob wants to play hero as prototypical champion o' justice. joe wants to play as a kinda good-natured rogue who is in the hero biz for girls and gold. writer of crpg writes game hero so both players is only marginally dissatisfied-- call it a win. 

 

the crpg story is borked a bit from the very start. you force writer to has a vague protagonist and a villain with whom nobody will naturally empathize w/o considerable development, and chances are you won't get opportunity to develop the villain much as we is talking 'bout a game and not a novel. gosh, why is crpg writing typical bad? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I don't need epic. I don't need a blank slate. Both are overdone in gaming.

[Nepenthe]

Dao had the worst crog villain of all time, remember?

 

People didn't complaint about Hawke's personal story. Or at least, that wasn't the meat of most complaints I heard.

Some did find the plot to be underwhelming because it was so localized and for some just not as interesting (especially compared to the large accomplishments that the Warden achieved). I think on some level people DO like being that big and awesome hero, while hipsters like us are a bit more welcoming of some variation. Though it can be hard to disassociate because a lot of people that disliked the main plot had issues with other elements. Hawke being passive or even just a constant failure was a reasonably common one.

 

Though it was definitely not one of the primary complaints, IMO. Although I find when people are frustrated at some aspects, and in general have a bad taste in their mouth, they will look back on other things and be more critical of them than they perhaps otherwise would have. Similar to those that really like a product, and are willing to overlook similar slights.

 

 

And yeah, the direct personal element kind of disappears after Act One. It's more a circumstance of Hawke being called upon based on his/her past actions leading to things, but it's definitely not really affecting Hawke's personal story so much, aside from being declared the Champion at the end of Act 2.

In other corners of the internet, there were numerous and frequent complaints about how the game "wasn't epic enough". I, obviously, disagree...

[Gromnir]

being a bad-guy hero hardly decreases scale of epic. even fo:nv has your choices determining the fate of new vegas and altering the power balance 'tween cal republic, caesar's legions and odo from star trek. fallout? not epic? what you do decides if master and his mutant army succeed or fail. bg? bg2, heck, even planescape the writers has you saving towns in outlands that a cheesed-off angel wants dragged into a "hell," and ps:t sold poorly, so try to distinguish is an epic fail in any case.

 

*shrug*

 

am not thinking epic is needed, but developers appear to disagree with you.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps please note that observing that you can play protagonist as a bad guy is actual reinforcing our observation 'bout need to make such a protagonist vague. character needs to be written so he/she can be all things to all people... which is a stoopid way to try and write a compelling protagonist.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

"DA2's talent system is more complex and interesting, but that's only faint praise from me - it's still less complex than DA:O which is significantly less complex than Baldur's Gate."

 

Are you kidding? Both were easily more complex than BG. That's insane to think otherwise. but, yeah, those fightersin BG and their awesome options.

[Azure79]

@Anubite. Will have to disagree that ME3 gunplay is like every other gun game. Though shooters are not my preferred genre, I don't really know of any other game with the different classes and abilities that ME2/ME3 offers and the corresponding change in gameplay. Vanguards play differently from Sentinels which play differently from Biotics etc. That combined with using companion abilities in tandem to create biotic explosions or electrical overloads or sending frozen enemies hurtling through space etc, was a lot fun. I thought it offered a lot of variety. 

 

The Dragon Age Keep sounds like a great idea. I've long since lost track of my save games and don't really relish playing through both games again. Well maybe DAO, but not DA2 that much. 

[Gorth]

I found ME1 to have the best combat of the 3. Less corridors, better use of terrain and more "convincing" physics in the way biotics were used. It wasn't open world, but it gave a greater sense of freedom when fighting. Probably just as well I completed it last, otherwise I would have been very disappointed with combat in ME2 (in particular) and to a lesser degree ME3.

 

Similar feelings around DA:O and DA2 where the latter feels a lot more restrictive and "smaller" in scale.

[licketysplit]

I found ME1 to have the best combat of the 3. Less corridors, better use of terrain and more "convincing" physics in the way biotics were used. It wasn't open world, but it gave a greater sense of freedom when fighting. Probably just as well I completed it last, otherwise I would have been very disappointed with combat in ME2 (in particular) and to a lesser degree ME3.

 

Similar feelings around DA:O and DA2 where the latter feels a lot more restrictive and "smaller" in scale.

 

ME2 had better combat imo because it was more responsive and frankly lifted the cover mechanic from GOW that it needed. Great combat. But ME1 is the better game.