Dragon Age: Inquisition

[BruceVC]

 

Doesn't seem like you understand the purpose of Romance in RPG Orog?

 

They are there to add greater  immersive interaction with party members and make the whole RPG journey more memorable...don't be a hater 

No. They are included so manchildren can digitally cuddle and copulate with their digital waifus and stroke egos of bioware's target audience. In case of DA:I - also to attract SJW scum.

Good thing Pillars of Eternity refused the idea of romances early on.

 

 

Thats an extremely negative and spurious view of Romance, in fact I would write it all off as anti-Romance propaganda 

 

Romance is  a very well liked component of party interaction and adds a different depth to the overall game, plus its always optional 

 

Also us promancers are very confident that there will be Romance arcs in PoE2    

[Orogun01]

 

 

Nothing wrong with Iron Bull. He's the man you got to if you want to mess around with regardless of what sex you are.

There is everything wrong with the romances as they are for the most part cringy. Also, BW shouldn't be involved in open world games and they shouldn't in fact let you choose your own team. Those are missed opportunities for some character development, so DA:I; jack of all trades master of none, recycled assets from Origin and as usual the best girl doesn't have romance scene. (It's Harding if you're wondering)

 

 

Doesn't seem like you understand the purpose of Romance in RPG Orog?

 

They are there to add greater  immersive interaction with party members and make the whole RPG journey more memorable...don't be a hater 

 

Well, trauma is certainly memorable.

 

Really though, an open world game wasn't going to have as much character depth as a linear game. Plus the romance where a complete 180 from what some characters were portrayed as and it was done without any development. So you go from stern moral paragon woman to blubbering romance novel fangirl without any padding in between, and that was the best romance IMO. Rest were ****e.

[NOK222]

 

Gaider is getting spat on in Twitter cause people thing Iron Bull's relationship is unhealthy. He's actually the least "problematic" of them all. 

 

What are they saying is unhealthy about it?

 

After you fudge him, you have the option of not liking it and breaking it off. It's silly, cause he warned you before and even set a safe word. 

[GhostofAnakin]

But if Inquisition is at least twice times as long as the previous two DA games, does it really matter if it isn't as replayable?

 

Uh, yes?  I prefer games that I can go back to numerous times, over a game I play for a couple of weeks and then never touch again.

 

Different game, but I played Mass Effect 1 at least a half dozen times (fully), as well as a couple more partial play throughs.  So while individually it's a shorter game than Inquisition, I spent more overall time on it because it drew me back in even after I'd completed it.

 

Also, the "twice as long" thing is a bit misleading.  The reason for Inquisition's length is because of all the wandering around doing fetch quests you can do.  Its main quest was actually shorter than the other two, and the main quest is the one that I tend to judge the game on its replayability for.

[MrBrown]

 

But if Inquisition is at least twice times as long as the previous two DA games, does it really matter if it isn't as replayable?

 

Uh, yes?  I prefer games that I can go back to numerous times, over a game I play for a couple of weeks and then never touch again.

 

Different game, but I played Mass Effect 1 at least a half dozen times (fully), as well as a couple more partial play throughs.  So while individually it's a shorter game than Inquisition, I spent more overall time on it because it drew me back in even after I'd completed it.

 

Also, the "twice as long" thing is a bit misleading.  The reason for Inquisition's length is because of all the wandering around doing fetch quests you can do.  Its main quest was actually shorter than the other two, and the main quest is the one that I tend to judge the game on its replayability for.

 

 

Did you actually complete all of ME1's sidestuff half a dozen times?

[Tale]

I like comparisons to ME1 because I view DAI in a similar vein. Very short main quest, lots of wandering and sidequests. I just happen to think DAI's sidequest material is more polished.

 

Still, after digestion, I'm favoring DA:O over DA:I. I think DAO uses what it has better. Better density in content I enjoy, characters, and hand placed combat encounters.

 

DAI has spectacular main quest missions, the best, but they're few and far between with all the side content. And their isolated nature, you can never visit those areas outside of the main quest missions, makes it feel like you're jumping between two games.

[Sarex]

Restarting the "in to the abyss" final part of the quest, took all the wrong characters in to that one. Guessing the best combo is Casandra, Cole and Solas.

[GhostofAnakin]

 

 

But if Inquisition is at least twice times as long as the previous two DA games, does it really matter if it isn't as replayable?

 

Uh, yes?  I prefer games that I can go back to numerous times, over a game I play for a couple of weeks and then never touch again.

 

Different game, but I played Mass Effect 1 at least a half dozen times (fully), as well as a couple more partial play throughs.  So while individually it's a shorter game than Inquisition, I spent more overall time on it because it drew me back in even after I'd completed it.

 

Also, the "twice as long" thing is a bit misleading.  The reason for Inquisition's length is because of all the wandering around doing fetch quests you can do.  Its main quest was actually shorter than the other two, and the main quest is the one that I tend to judge the game on its replayability for.

 

 

Did you actually complete all of ME1's sidestuff half a dozen times?

 

 

 

Everything but the mineral collection, yes.

[ShadySands]

How well did this game do btw?

 

Did it sell like gangbusters?

[Serrano]

Out of interest, what is it that makes ME1 so replayable wheras DA:I is not? They seem like similar games on a lot of levels to me.

[GhostofAnakin]

Out of interest, what is it that makes ME1 so replayable wheras DA:I is not? They seem like similar games on a lot of levels to me.

 

For me, part of it was there was more consequences for your decisions.  Or at least, more *perceived* consequences (as we saw in ME3, those consequences didn't pan out).  I also thought the main quest was paced better.  DAI's main quest seems to go on its end-run right after the Adamant Fortress/Orlais ball quests, despite the fact we'd only just been introduced to the main villain not long ago (main quest-wise).

 

And, for me, I was more interested in the party members in ME1 than DAI.  I wasn't fond of most of the party members, or their backstories.

[Raithe]

I think in some ways DA:I's main storyline seems set to that whole :

 

1: Introduction (Tutorial) Part of the story 

2: Drops you in first "open area" to get a feel 

3: Loss of Haven / Find Skyhold 

4: General Open World Stuff you don't actually have to do for main storyline 

5: Orlais Court 

6: Oh look, Grey Wardens are being Manipulated / Follow on Assault 

7: Fade Sequence

8: Hidden Elven Temple

9: Finale

 

Which if you focus only on those events, doesn't really feel as fully fleshed out. Or at least, with the several open areas to visit to get to suitable levels and such, the pacing gets thrown out. So it feels like you spend 12 hours on main story, and 90 hours on just doing stuff.  Sure, a lot of it can be interesting or fun stuff. But it doesn't completely mesh together on a structural level.

[Orogun01]

I would add that there is no real progression between becoming the Herald of Andraste and the Inquisitor. No added gameplay features, the story up to that point, the game and every character within it already treats you as the de facto ruler. So you go from ruling the Inquisition to the game catching up the fact that you rule Inquisition ever since the first hour of the game. 

It is a massive bit of ludonarrative dissonance that overshadows a series of other minor gaps between the game and its story. Every BW game is a bit of a roller coaster for me, where there are high points and low points. Throughout most of their games they have been able to identify their strengths and focus on those, DA:I has those weaknesses spread out over what are hours of mediocrity and the virtues are only enough to coast your attention. It is like getting a corpse to act on a play by attaching electrodes to it, a deadpan performance with the occasional jolt that keeps attention; sadly, the play is 100+ hours long.

[lobotomy42]

I would add that there is no real progression between becoming the Herald of Andraste and the Inquisitor. No added gameplay features, the story up to that point, the game and every character within it already treats you as the de facto ruler. So you go from ruling the Inquisition to the game catching up the fact that you rule Inquisition ever since the first hour of the game. 

 

It is a massive bit of ludonarrative dissonance that overshadows a series of other minor gaps between the game and its story. Every BW game is a bit of a roller coaster for me, where there are high points and low points. Throughout most of their games they have been able to identify their strengths and focus on those, DA:I has those weaknesses spread out over what are hours of mediocrity and the virtues are only enough to coast your attention. It is like getting a corpse to act on a play by attaching electrodes to it, a deadpan performance with the occasional jolt that keeps attention; sadly, the play is 100+ hours long.

 

I agree with this. There's also the narrative issue of being given relatively little reason to start an Inquisition and have you lead it.  It's all just sort of thrown at you ("Oh hi we're revolting against all aspects of the status quo" "Oh ok cool" "And also you're Jesus and we're putting you in charge" "Sounds good, who am I again?") If this were done in the service of getting things rolling on some awesome storyline that would pay off later, it'd be acceptable. But it just ends up being a pretty standard defeat the Foo Monster story, so it's not clear to me why there was even a need to set up all the Inquisition stuff.  The main plot also takes you through a lot of detours with the Civil War / Wardens side-plots that don't seem to tie into anything in a meaningful way.  I suppose that's of interest to the uber-fans who read all the books, but it seemed somewhat tertiary here.

[Orogun01]

I'm getting the feeling that nowadays we just buy BW games just to keep the trainwreck going, since most of what we do is complain about them for the rest of the year. But hey, there's that new IP coming up and if they say that it has no romances i'm buying it.

[Tale]

I could complain more about The Walking Dead Season 2 if you like. Dark Souls 2 vs Dark Souls 1, maybe? It might be hard to generate a thread on Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright, but I'd give it the college try if I wasn't probably the only one here who played it.

 

Complaining about them doesn't mean we necessarily see them as a trainwreck, though this community does seem to be split on that idea. And Bioware is not churning out non-stop masterpieces, that's true. The fact that they can occasionally touch that point is admirable. And it makes when they completely miss, in whole or in part, all the more baffling.

 

I like to talk about what games can do better with rare exception. And right as I get ready to write up those exceptions, I start remembering where they need to improve as well.

[Orogun01]

Yes but I feel that BW has turned into a bad direction, open world doesn't go well with in depth storytelling.

[Gromnir]

Yes but I feel that BW has turned into a bad direction, open world doesn't go well with in depth storytelling.

hmmm. keep in mind that da:i openness were something that many has been clamoring for since bg1.  many people liked bg1 style storytelling.

 

our opinion: open world is not a prohibitive handicap to storytelling.  however, one must alter the focus and be aware o' a need to tailor the narrative different. put story and gameplay on rails is gonna make easier to develop a coherent plot that develops in a rational and predictable fashion. have main plot points occur in a linear fashion has obvious advantages, no? we need discuss? 'course many crpgs attempt to maximize the illusion o' non-linearity by making main plot points interchangeable. doesn't matter if you do nar shadda first in kotor 2, or go to orzimar (sp?) as your initial destination o' choice in dragon age. player gets to feel like they is having freedom and making choice. interchangeability is a nifty feature o' assembly lines and military hardware, but it is less efficacious when attempting to develop a dramatic story arc. that being said, within an open world, the writer is hardly prohibited from creating geographic and narrative loci. we stumble across new reno in fallout 2 and we will be having the opportunity to start any number o' quests both minor and major, yes? the depth and breath o' an individual quest is not stymied by open world environment. 

 

we do believe that the focus o' the narrative in crpgs, particularly open world crpgs, should be developed with a recognition that the hero's journey is facing different hurdles compared to novels and movies. is difficult enough to describe the heroic journey of  __________ when the protagonist needs necessarily be a he/she/snarky/serious/good/evil/ambivalent/mercenary nothing, but to then further uncouple the narrative by making plot points arbitrary is asking a bit much o' the crpg writer.  while we has not played da:i, we suspect that the single greatest hurdle in making the narrative compelling is the fact that the story is focused 'pon the tangential and frequent random actions o' a nameless and faceless meat-puppet. da:i is having its focus on the inquisitor, which is a near insurmountable narrative hurdle to overcome. 

 

change focus to static rather than dynamic should leads to a more coherent narrative.  focus on static characters. focus on developing the tangential quests/stories.am recognizing that such a notion flies in the face o' the crpg as wish fulfillment, but developers not seem to realize that they is facing a narrative brick wall by attempting to maximize illusion o' choice AND write the compelling story o' _____________.  we hear developers says that the story in the crpg should be the player's narrative. is hogwash. crpg story, regardless o' attempts to create illusion o' choice and non-linearity (HA!) is always gonna be the writer's story. the pervasive obtuseness o' crpg developers/writers insofar as fundamental narrative limitations is a far bigger problem than is open worlds.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Stun]

Doesn't seem like you understand the purpose of Romance in RPG Orog?

 

They are there to add greater  immersive interaction with party members and make the whole RPG journey more memorable...don't be a hater 

Don't be silly. There are only 2 purposes for Romances in an RPG.

 

1) to stroke the player's ego.

2) to stroke... something else.

 

I've been lurking the BSN to try and get a feel of the rabid fan base's opinions of this latest Dragon Age. And I discovered the strangest thing. Even the biggest promancers there seem a bit jaded by the romances in DA:I. Which means they must be really awful.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Stun

[Gorth]

Dark Souls 1

Hmm, I could have sworn I saw a note on Steam not long ago, that the GFWL had been patched out of that one (finally). I might actually reinstall it and give it a second shot

 

[/OFF TOPIC]

[Tale]

 

Dark Souls 1

Hmm, I could have sworn I saw a note on Steam not long ago, that the GFWL had been patched out of that one (finally). I might actually reinstall it and give it a second shot

 

[/OFF TOPIC]

 

I don't know if it's still going on, but they were saying they'd transfer achievements and progress to the new system.

[kalimeeri]

Updating Dark Souls 1 is a simple process, and once you switch from GFWL to the Steam beta, all of your save games and progress are just as they were before you made the switch.  They are saying, though, that GFWL will only be 'live' until February; and they strongly recommend you make the switch before then, because your GFWL setup will no longer work.

There appears to be no difference in the way the game starts up and works, but I haven't played enough lately to judge the speed or consistency of multiplayer connections.  The DSFix graphics mod works as it did before, but the DSC connection fix for playing with friends thru GFWL is no longer useful.

[Gorth]

I never played the game through GWFL. I bought it, installed it, uninstalled it right away when it asked for GWFL credentials (so its just sitting there on my steam account atm).

[lobotomy42]

I'm getting the feeling that nowadays we just buy BW games just to keep the trainwreck going, since most of what we do is complain about them for the rest of the year. But hey, there's that new IP coming up and if they say that it has no romances i'm buying it.

 

"Trainwreck" is putting it a little strongly.  There are a bunch of functional pieces in DA:I, they just all seem to be culled from different design documents and seem maybe half-baked.  "Designed to maximize bullet-points on the box" seems more accurate.

 

 

I could complain more about The Walking Dead Season 2 if you like.

 

Now, speaking of trainwrecks...

Edited January 8, 2015 by lobotomy42

[lobotomy42]

 

Don't be silly. There are only 2 purposes for Romances in an RPG.

 

1) to stroke the player's ego.

 

The vast majority of RPGs are escapist power fantasies - everything is there to stroke the player's ego.  Avellone has said as much about designing non-romanceable companion characters, and it holds true for most CnC decision points as well. (YOU, almighty Inquisitor, get to choose the new Pope! And who wins the civil war! And fix Morrigan's relationship with her mother! Yes, you, because you're so great!) It's just the nature of the genre.