Dragon Age: Inquisition

[Qistina]

 

If Volo buys you a copy of DA:I to convince you its a good game would you play it then ?

 

 

Why not? But i am not sure my computer can handle it...

 

My computer is AMD Athlon x2 260 processor 3.20 Ghz, 4 GB gaming RAM, ATI radeon HD 5450, ASUS motherboard, Win 7 32 bit...

 

Can't even run it right?

[BruceVC]

 

 

If Volo buys you a copy of DA:I to convince you its a good game would you play it then ?

 

 

Why not? But i am not sure my computer can handle it...

 

My computer is AMD Athlon x2 260 processor 3.20 Ghz, 4 GB gaming RAM, ATI radeon HD 5450, ASUS motherboard, Win 7 32 bit...

 

Can't even run it right?

 

 

Probably not

[Qistina]

 

 

 

If Volo buys you a copy of DA:I to convince you its a good game would you play it then ?

 

 

Why not? But i am not sure my computer can handle it...

 

My computer is AMD Athlon x2 260 processor 3.20 Ghz, 4 GB gaming RAM, ATI radeon HD 5450, ASUS motherboard, Win 7 32 bit...

 

Can't even run it right?

 

 

Probably not

 

 

Yeah...good bye Bioware...

 

I can play Skyrim with mid-max setting, no problem...but this game can't...huh...

 

[/url]

 

Screen shot from my game

Edited November 26, 2014 by Qistina

[Volourn]

"What is there to play if there is no stats?

 

Even Skyrim have stats,"
 

But, it has stats. Why are you making things up?

 

 

"I watched the videos, both from fans and the ones who pissed off with the game."
 

You've decided that the game sucks and have no intention of playing it. Yet you spam in its thread despite knowing nothing about it. How many times are you gonna be wrong about the game before admitting your ignorance?

 

 

"oh, i don't play BG and Neverwinter Nights...the first Bioware game i play is KotOR"

 

No comment.

[Qistina]

"What is there to play if there is no stats?

 

Even Skyrim have stats,"

 

But, it has stats. Why are you making things up?

 

 

"I watched the videos, both from fans and the ones who pissed off with the game."

 

You've decided that the game sucks and have no intention of playing it. Yet you spam in its thread despite knowing nothing about it. How many times are you gonna be wrong about the game before admitting your ignorance?

 

 

"oh, i don't play BG and Neverwinter Nights...the first Bioware game i play is KotOR"

 

No comment.

 

So it have stats...?

 

In know about the game, through videos, through peoples commenting, didn't play it doesn't mean don't know, and doesn't mean ignorance. It is like everybody know about sex even never doing it. Now you insult me even i never one bit insulting you

 

I have lost my respect toward you

Edited November 26, 2014 by Qistina

[Amentep]

 

"What is there to play if there is no stats?

 

Even Skyrim have stats,"

 

But, it has stats. Why are you making things up?

 

So it have stats...?

 

Yes, Dragon Age Inquisition has stats (or "Attributes" as they're termed, IIRC).  The same stats pool from the previous games (strength, dexterity, magic, cunning, willpower, constitution).  Two are important to each class (Strength/Constitution for warriors, dexterity/cunning for rogues, magic/willpower for mages).  Special items usually provide boosts to these.

 

What doesn't happen (which IIRC was the case in DAII as well) you don't get ability points at level up that you choose to apply to raise your stats.  Nor do you have to raise ability perks (like your thief can't unlock a lock until you choose to put a point in locks).  So it is different from DA:O in this respect (but as I mentioned, more in-line with my memories of DAII).  To be honest I haven't checked to see if the Abilities auto-raise at level up (I'd been assuming they did because that's my memory of DAII so never bothered to confirm).

 

You do get points that you apply to your skill trees.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Amentep

[MrBrown]

What doesn't happen (which IIRC was the case in DAII as well) you don't get ability points at level up that you choose to apply to raise your stats.  Nor do you have to raise ability perks (like your thief can't unlock a lock until you choose to put a point in locks).  So it is different from DA:O in this respect (but as I mentioned, more in-line with my memories of DAII).  To be honest I haven't checked to see if the Abilities auto-raise at level up (I'd been assuming they did because that's my memory of DAII so never bothered to confirm).

 

It's a bit different from both DA:O and DA2, actually.

 

In DA:O, you got attribute points to distribute, but the dependant statistics also rose by level. So you got more HP even if you didn't put points into Constitution.

 

In DA2, you got points to distribute per level, but the dependant stats were only effected by putting points to stats. So you only got more HPs if you put points to Constitution.

 

In DA:I, you don't get points to distribute, but the dependant stats go up per level.

 

 

IIRC, this applied to all dependant stats in all games, but I might be wrong. Bottom line is, they're all a bit different.

Edited November 26, 2014 by MrBrown

[MrBrown]

DA:I does indeed have less character customization when leveling up. They've added more customization to equipment though, so that's another way to make your "build". The downside is the crafting/customization menus are a chore... they really should have streamlined them for PC.

[Drowsy Emperor]

So its the JRPG model of stats auto-levelling at the pace the game sets? 

 

I don't really care much either way. I was perfectly fine with the rare stat improvement of DnD second edition style of IE games.

 

But then those games had the spells (mostly) and skills (not that many) to compensate and provide complexity. And those are much more fun to use than calculating the perfect warrior or mage. The way the third edition of DnD let you raise your stats through the roof ruined much of the game for me.

 

All of a sudden, a mage like Edwin or ranger like Minsc were no longer special by being so good at what they do and the stats, as they relate to human or superhuman capability in a particular field (strength, intellect, in the examples above) no longer meant anything.

 

So the real question is, what you can do with the abilities that DAI provides you with. 

[Qistina]

 

 

"What is there to play if there is no stats?

 

Even Skyrim have stats,"

 

But, it has stats. Why are you making things up?

 

So it have stats...?

 

Yes, Dragon Age Inquisition has stats (or "Attributes" as they're termed, IIRC).  The same stats pool from the previous games (strength, dexterity, magic, cunning, willpower, constitution).  Two are important to each class (Strength/Constitution for warriors, dexterity/cunning for rogues, magic/willpower for mages).  Special items usually provide boosts to these.

 

What doesn't happen (which IIRC was the case in DAII as well) you don't get ability points at level up that you choose to apply to raise your stats.  Nor do you have to raise ability perks (like your thief can't unlock a lock until you choose to put a point in locks).  So it is different from DA:O in this respect (but as I mentioned, more in-line with my memories of DAII).  To be honest I haven't checked to see if the Abilities auto-raise at level up (I'd been assuming they did because that's my memory of DAII so never bothered to confirm).

 

You do get points that you apply to your skill trees.

 

 

I think they do make it like my suggestion in the forum, removing stats/attributes, but it's not like what i suggested wholly, or turn out to be in different execution.

 

I do suggest in one of my thread about it, what i suggested is remove the attributes but making the player learn things through the adventure, i mean there is no class, just a mage and non-mage (because of the lore)

 

So Mages will have access to magic skills, non Mage will have access to non magical skills. However, Mages can use anything not just staff and have access to partial/minor non magical skills such as lockpicking, partial combat skills. and whatever. Non mage can have access to partial/minor magic through some means such as lyrium tattoo (like Fenris) or something

 

Secondly, item dependant. Magical items will boost magic skills as well non-magical item will bosst non-magical skills

 

With this, there is no class whatsoever, the player can customize their character as the player want not restricted to Warrior, Rogue and Mage

 

Bioware don't listen apparently...

 

Edit : the problem is if they want to make turn based or FPS, if turn base they still need stats/attribute to determine hit rate and miss such, but FPS like Skyrim, no problem at all

Edited November 26, 2014 by Qistina

[archangel979]

 

Don't be surprised. Bioware told you the game will be tactical, but there's nothing tactical about this game. As an example, I'll tell you about one of the dragon battles that were supposed to be a highlight in the game. The dragonlay in something resembling a pond. My party attacked it from up close. From then on the battle proceeded in the following way: we were next to the dragon, with me controlling my main character and literally holding 1 key, and occasionally casting a barrier spell that basically gives you temporary HP. We were standing in one place, and thedragon was standing in one place. The dragon hit us with a paw and from time to time by breathed fire, and we hit the dragon with weapons. The dragon's HP was 200K. By using my specialization's ability, my weapon was doing 300 damage on each attack. Does this paint the picture enough?

From time to time the dragon decided to mix things up and fly. That was maybe once every 5 minutes. He flew away and used one area of effect spell on us from above, then landed, and we repeated the process until it was dead, which took maybe 15-20 minutes.

This is it. This basically represents every battle in the game. Maybe I missed some things, like the dragon hopping about and me having to chase it, but the core is the same for every battle.

This from a review of Metacritic that gave the game a 5. 

 

It makes me sad. When I remember awesome Dragon fights in BG2 and ToB it makes me even more sad.

Edited November 26, 2014 by archangel979

[Qistina]

I strongly say that they can't give auto attack for PC because it's not turn based anymore, there's no stats/attribute to determine hit rate, miss and defense, so for PC users, it's a sad news.

 

The problem of Bioware right now is they don't know which direction they want to go...FPS or turn based?

 

Now to evade attack the player must push a button, meaning IT'S NOT CALCULATED behind the scene....so bad news for PC users who expect there will be a patch to give auto attack....

[Amentep]

 

 

Don't be surprised. Bioware told you the game will be tactical, but there's nothing tactical about this game. As an example, I'll tell you about one of the dragon battles that were supposed to be a highlight in the game. The dragonlay in something resembling a pond. My party attacked it from up close. From then on the battle proceeded in the following way: we were next to the dragon, with me controlling my main character and literally holding 1 key, and occasionally casting a barrier spell that basically gives you temporary HP. We were standing in one place, and thedragon was standing in one place. The dragon hit us with a paw and from time to time by breathed fire, and we hit the dragon with weapons. The dragon's HP was 200K. By using my specialization's ability, my weapon was doing 300 damage on each attack. Does this paint the picture enough?

From time to time the dragon decided to mix things up and fly. That was maybe once every 5 minutes. He flew away and used one area of effect spell on us from above, then landed, and we repeated the process until it was dead, which took maybe 15-20 minutes.

This is it. This basically represents every battle in the game. Maybe I missed some things, like the dragon hopping about and me having to chase it, but the core is the same for every battle.

This from a review of Metacritic that gave the game a 5. 

 

It makes me sad. When I remember awesome Dragon fights in BG2 and ToB it makes me even more sad.

 

 

Doesn't sound that different from the dragon fights in DA:O or DAII to me, though.  My only experience with a dragon so far was it fireballing us all to death when we wandered into its area.

[archangel979]

 

 

 

Don't be surprised. Bioware told you the game will be tactical, but there's nothing tactical about this game. As an example, I'll tell you about one of the dragon battles that were supposed to be a highlight in the game. The dragonlay in something resembling a pond. My party attacked it from up close. From then on the battle proceeded in the following way: we were next to the dragon, with me controlling my main character and literally holding 1 key, and occasionally casting a barrier spell that basically gives you temporary HP. We were standing in one place, and thedragon was standing in one place. The dragon hit us with a paw and from time to time by breathed fire, and we hit the dragon with weapons. The dragon's HP was 200K. By using my specialization's ability, my weapon was doing 300 damage on each attack. Does this paint the picture enough?

From time to time the dragon decided to mix things up and fly. That was maybe once every 5 minutes. He flew away and used one area of effect spell on us from above, then landed, and we repeated the process until it was dead, which took maybe 15-20 minutes.

This is it. This basically represents every battle in the game. Maybe I missed some things, like the dragon hopping about and me having to chase it, but the core is the same for every battle.

This from a review of Metacritic that gave the game a 5. 

 

It makes me sad. When I remember awesome Dragon fights in BG2 and ToB it makes me even more sad.

 

 

Doesn't sound that different from the dragon fights in DA:O or DAII to me, though.  My only experience with a dragon so far was it fireballing us all to death when we wandered into its area.

 

I don't remember the fight vs Flemeth in DAO but vs Archdemon I spent lots of time running from Ballista to Ballista, running around with archer avoiding dragon attacks and trying to damage him as much as possible while using other 1 or 2 member to fight off waves of enemies coming all the time. 

It wasn't just standing there and HP grinding. 

[prodigydancer]

literally holding 1 key

This is because DA:I is a next gen console game and every next gen must be more dumbed down than the last gen. For example, watch Destiny play Shadow of Mordor:

 

 

The best part is when he's doing it with his chin.

 

 

So it's just the new norm. Nothing special.

Edited November 26, 2014 by prodigydancer

[MrBrown]

 

 

Don't be surprised. Bioware told you the game will be tactical, but there's nothing tactical about this game. As an example, I'll tell you about one of the dragon battles that were supposed to be a highlight in the game. The dragonlay in something resembling a pond. My party attacked it from up close. From then on the battle proceeded in the following way: we were next to the dragon, with me controlling my main character and literally holding 1 key, and occasionally casting a barrier spell that basically gives you temporary HP. We were standing in one place, and thedragon was standing in one place. The dragon hit us with a paw and from time to time by breathed fire, and we hit the dragon with weapons. The dragon's HP was 200K. By using my specialization's ability, my weapon was doing 300 damage on each attack. Does this paint the picture enough?

From time to time the dragon decided to mix things up and fly. That was maybe once every 5 minutes. He flew away and used one area of effect spell on us from above, then landed, and we repeated the process until it was dead, which took maybe 15-20 minutes.

This is it. This basically represents every battle in the game. Maybe I missed some things, like the dragon hopping about and me having to chase it, but the core is the same for every battle.

This from a review of Metacritic that gave the game a 5. 

 

It makes me sad. When I remember awesome Dragon fights in BG2 and ToB it makes me even more sad.

 

15-20 minutes sounds like a lot of time, my first impression was that his party is really defensive which is why doesn't take damage and why it takes so long.

 

That said, I haven't beaten any dragons yet (I did try once), so no idea here.

[Amentep]

 

 

 

 

Don't be surprised. Bioware told you the game will be tactical, but there's nothing tactical about this game. As an example, I'll tell you about one of the dragon battles that were supposed to be a highlight in the game. The dragonlay in something resembling a pond. My party attacked it from up close. From then on the battle proceeded in the following way: we were next to the dragon, with me controlling my main character and literally holding 1 key, and occasionally casting a barrier spell that basically gives you temporary HP. We were standing in one place, and thedragon was standing in one place. The dragon hit us with a paw and from time to time by breathed fire, and we hit the dragon with weapons. The dragon's HP was 200K. By using my specialization's ability, my weapon was doing 300 damage on each attack. Does this paint the picture enough?

From time to time the dragon decided to mix things up and fly. That was maybe once every 5 minutes. He flew away and used one area of effect spell on us from above, then landed, and we repeated the process until it was dead, which took maybe 15-20 minutes.

This is it. This basically represents every battle in the game. Maybe I missed some things, like the dragon hopping about and me having to chase it, but the core is the same for every battle.

This from a review of Metacritic that gave the game a 5. 

 

It makes me sad. When I remember awesome Dragon fights in BG2 and ToB it makes me even more sad.

 

 

Doesn't sound that different from the dragon fights in DA:O or DAII to me, though.  My only experience with a dragon so far was it fireballing us all to death when we wandered into its area.

 

I don't remember the fight vs Flemeth in DAO but vs Archdemon I spent lots of time running from Ballista to Ballista, running around with archer avoiding dragon attacks and trying to damage him as much as possible while using other 1 or 2 member to fight off waves of enemies coming all the time. 

It wasn't just standing there and HP grinding. 

 

 

Archdemon was still mob the monster, just broken up in a pattern like the DAII dragon in the mine.  In this case you had to run to the ballista, in the case of DAII, the dragon had a pattern where it'd fly off to a rock where it couldn't be mobbed by the PC/NPCs every so often (and then dragonlings would come out to attack) but from a strategy perspective the vast majority of the fight is mob the dragon and throw all of your abilities at it, use the "rest" fighting the dragonlings to recoup.

 

But my memory of the Dragon in the Temple of Sacred Ashes and Flemeth are you basically mob both and if your level is high enough and you time your resources and skills well, you'll succeed (which, to be honest, was also the BGII dragon fights, in my experience).

[archangel979]

BG2 dragons went down fairly fast or your party went down fast. You could also disable them or kill them directly. The fight often took more time to prepare your team or prepare the dragon for a kill than just taking down his HP. 

[Amentep]

*shrug* YMMV, of course.

 

My experience with the dragons in BG2 when you find them is:

 

You can micromanage incredible, plot and plan all of your resources, ensure how you can hit them, how you'll tear down their resistances, positioning etc.

 

or

 

You can go away, come back in 5 levels and kill them with all your better equipment, abilities and spells (and HP!) without a lot of planning other than making sure not everyone can be hit by an AOE at once.

[kgambit]

 

Archdemon was still mob the monster, just broken up in a pattern like the DAII dragon in the mine.  In this case you had to run to the ballista, in the case of DAII, the dragon had a pattern where it'd fly off to a rock where it couldn't be mobbed by the PC/NPCs every so often (and then dragonlings would come out to attack) but from a strategy perspective the vast majority of the fight is mob the dragon and throw all of your abilities at it, use the "rest" fighting the dragonlings to recoup.

 

But my memory of the Dragon in the Temple of Sacred Ashes and Flemeth are you basically mob both and if your level is high enough and you time your resources and skills well, you'll succeed (which, to be honest, was also the BGII dragon fights, in my experience).

 

 

 

Maybe we're thinking different things when you say "mob the monster" but I remember those fights a lot differently.

 

 

I thought the High Dragon at the Temple was by far the worst of the three, with Archdemon second and Flemeth the easiest. 

 

The High Dragon was extremely mobil and took a lot more movement and coordinated party action to bring it down. Despite his lower immunities, I think he was a tougher opponent at that stage than the AD simply because he was able to bring his physical attacks into play far more often.   I think it took me three attempts to get him.    

 

The Archdemon basically required you to keep the ballistas working, spam some arrows of filth and the right spells (inferno, tempest and blizzard).  The only other complication was keeping the mooks that appeared off your ranged fighters and spellcaster/healer.  Morrigan was always able to draw agro on him and duck behind one Ballista and that limited his movement.  The fight is complicated simply because of the extremely high immunities that he has but it's simply just a matter of perserverance.  I took him down on my first attempt.  (My warden ended throwing every acid flask he had at her while Morrigan drew agro.  I'm not sure the AD turned around once ...  lol)

 

Flemeth in Dragon form was the easiest; she generally stayed in one spot and it was simply a matter of getting the right spells off on her.   I think I ended up using all ranged weapons and spells on her, healing when I needed to and simply staying away from her physical attacks so she could only bring her flame breath to bear..  You can also spam force field on a tank and have him draw agro while hammering her.  Easiest fight of all three imo.   

Edited November 26, 2014 by kgambit

[archangel979]

*shrug* YMMV, of course.

 

My experience with the dragons in BG2 when you find them is:

 

You can micromanage incredible, plot and plan all of your resources, ensure how you can hit them, how you'll tear down their resistances, positioning etc.

 

or

 

You can go away, come back in 5 levels and kill them with all your better equipment, abilities and spells (and HP!) without a lot of planning other than making sure not everyone can be hit by an AOE at once.

And that is a good way to make a game. Unlike you I got that XP and loot earlier and used it for the next 5 levels (and beyond). I also went home knowing I didn't need to run away like a baby from the big mean dragon

Edited November 26, 2014 by archangel979

[Gromnir]

one thing 'bout old games, particularly old games we played multiple times,  is that our recollection is a gestalt. when we first think o' bg2 dragon fights, we recall some wacky chromatic orb or finger of death scenarios. yeah, a bg2 dragon battle could last less than 10 seconds, but were that typical, and were it indicative o' our first, second or even third dragon battle experience?  we purposeful didn't get pre-release spoilerage regarding bg2, so we had nothing save d&d pnp experience and bg 1 to guide our bg 2 dragon battle expectations.  first bg1 dragon battle is likely something we don't recall as well as we believe we do, but am certain it didn't go off as well as we had hoped. am knowing that we had considerable fire resistance and fear protections, and we summoned a small horde o' canon fodder before starting the battle; thought we were prepared. unfortunate, the dragon spell casting and wing buffets caught us a bit off guard, though is probable that "a bit" is an understatement. took a handful o' attempts to work out a winning strategy. 'course once we had a Win strategy, dragons were easy, but that is kinda typical, no?

 

da:o dragon battles were different than bg2. am recollecting that we died a few times when we first encountered sacred ashes dragon before we discovered a strategy that would work for us. conversely, the endgame battle with the ballista actual felt a bit gimmicky to us... though nowhere near as gimmicky as the final battle with malak in kotor which still holds the top spot as our least favorite bioware endgame battle. 

 

da2 were more like the ballista stuff in da:o. the initial difficulty o' da2 dragons struck us as gimmicky, but not necessarily bad. it took us a few times to understand the pattern the dragon were using with summons and retreat to range before we could be dismissive o' da2 dragons. we didn't have much mmo experience at the time, but with benefit o' hindsight, da2 dragon were more akin to what is typical with a mmo boss battle than the bg2 or even da:o dragon battles. comparison to mmo is not a criticism but simply an observation.

 

*shrug*

 

regardless, we believe that bio has, in the past, done an admirable job making dragons challenging and unique within the context o' the specific game in which they is encountered. memory is a funny thing though, and am suspecting it is easy to 'member dragons with the benefit o' multiple successful battles rather than simple the ugly first or second attempts at dragon slaying. if we is able to roll-stomp a dragon on our first try in da:i, we will be very disappointed. am also preferring dragons that have varied abilities and clever ai to make them challenging, as opposed to crap like malak, but that is a personal preference.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 26, 2014 by Gromnir

[hollowcrown]

The game is actually really good when you get used to the wonky controls. It's fairly tactical and doesn't require twitch skill at all. Seems like an actual return to form for Bioware but there is a lot of busywork, however the actual story quests and companions make up for the side quests.

[Volourn]

"So it have stats...?

 

In know about the game, through videos, through peoples commenting, didn't play it doesn't mean don't know, and doesn't mean ignorance. It is like everybody know about sex even never doing it. Now you insult me even i never one bit insulting you

 

I have lost my respect toward you"

 

Look. You constantly state things that are factually wrong (not just opinions). That is why I am being 'mean'. It's not personal. I don't care if you hate the game. People hate games. That's not a biggy. But, please don't make stuff up. It makes the people who  are being unreasonable but unsure believe soemthing that isn't true. It'll be like the pro side making up a blatant lie 9as opposed to having an opinion) to convince people.  It's simply wrong.

 

 

"With this, there is no class whatsoever, the player can customize their character as the player want not restricted to Warrior, Rogue and Mage"

 

Uhh... Warrior, mage, and rogue all play differently. They have vastly different abilities nad usless. On top of combat abilities they also have non combat abilities that seperate them. Rogues can open doors, warriors can bash walls down, and mages  can create magical bridges and open/close magic doors/gateways.

 

 

"In DA:I, you don't get points to distribute, but the dependant stats go up per level."

 

Stats can go up by item, and based on abilities you choose. Not my ideal though. I prefer stats the old fashion way.

 

 

As for the dragon talk... haven't fought any in DA3 but the dragons in DA1 and DA2 were good enemies that mostly required to be prepared and ready just like BG2 dragons and had some nice abilities. My biggest beef with them is the utter hit point bloat.  Overall, the DA series dragons are impressive comapred to the vast majority of games that have dragons.

[ShadySands]

I'm starting over now that I know what's what