Jump to content

Dragon Age: Inquisition


Recommended Posts

 

 

If Jesus have midichlorian that enable him to channel powers, then it is science not miracle. Period.

 

 

But explanation behind miracles that Jesus could perform was much more mundane than that, as he was God's incarnation as God's son that God sent to teach and die for human kind. Meaning that any action that he did weren't actually miracle because he is omnipotent and omniscient creator of the everything. Only people who don't really have faith would call his actions as miracles, for people of faith they are just lessons by their God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If Jesus have midichlorian that enable him to channel powers, then it is science not miracle. Period.

 

 

But explanation behind miracles that Jesus could perform was much more mundane than that, as he was God's incarnation as God's son that God sent to teach and die for human kind. Meaning that any action that he did weren't actually miracle because he is omnipotent and omniscient creator of the everything. Only people who don't really have faith would call his actions as miracles, for people of faith they are just lessons by their God.

 

 

That's Christians point of view, I am a Muslim, i don't believe Jesus is Son of God and God, i don't believe Jesus was crucified. Giving explanation on something suposed to be miracle lessen the miracle. Jesus being Son of God and God lessen the suprise that is the miracle. What is the suprise if Jesus doing miracles if Jesus is Son of God and God? Other prophets also doing miracles and they are not Son of God and God. So what makes Jesus special in doing miracles if he is Son of God and God?

 

My statement/argument above is not religious debate, it just want to point things out.

Edited by Qistina
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If Jesus have midichlorian that enable him to channel powers, then it is science not miracle. Period.

 

 

But explanation behind miracles that Jesus could perform was much more mundane than that, as he was God's incarnation as God's son that God sent to teach and die for human kind. Meaning that any action that he did weren't actually miracle because he is omnipotent and omniscient creator of the everything. Only people who don't really have faith would call his actions as miracles, for people of faith they are just lessons by their God.

 

 

That's Christians point of view, I am a Muslim, i don't believe Jesus is Son of God and God, i don't believe Jesus was crucified. Giving explanation on something suposed to be miracle lessen the miracle. Jesus being Son of God and God lessen the suprise that is the miracle. What is the suprise if Jesus doing miracles if Jesus is Son of God and God? Other prophets also doing miracles and they are not Son of God and God. So what makes Jesus special in doing miracles if he is Son of God and God?

 

My statement/argument above is not religious debate, it just want to point things out.

 

 

There are zero prophets that do miracles there is only God that does acts that God has told prophets beforehand that they will do, which is why they are only prophets, not incarnations of God. Only God in their forms  The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are capable to do acts that people without faith call miracles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are zero prophets that do miracles there is only God that does acts that God has told prophets beforehand that they will do, which is why they are only prophets, not incarnations of God. Only God in their forms  The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are capable to do acts that people without faith call miracles.

 

 

Prophets does miracles with God's permission, in Islam. I think we should stop here unless you want to turn this into Christian vs Islam and surely the mods will not like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Dragon Age have lost its identity, that is something i repeatedly mention in their forum many times. When DA2 become like Mass Effect then everything have lost actually. Not only become like Mass Effect, but also a drama. Then they want to make it into Skyrim. I don't mind about open world environment but it doesn't have to be like Skyrim. They can maintain Dragon Age:Origin mechanic, but they don't want to. They can maintain the main theme is about Darkspawn then put the rest into anything like Dragon Age:Origin, but again they don't want to. So what is Dragon Age? It just random, once you play it you don't care about it anymore. The game is not even about dragons and not even about the age of dragons. The dragons in it are just monsters to kill.

 

I just don't understand arguments of Dragon Age:Origin fans that hate Dragon Age:Origin so much and force Bioware to change Dragon Age games after Dragon Age:Origin, and Bioware listen to them...i just don't get it....they are so sensitive when we wrote "let it be like Dragon Age:Origin", we will see lots of fans charging with with their lances to shut us up, and the mods come with their hammer...i just don't understand....

 

I don't post much at BSN, so I can't comment on the moderators there, but I wanted to say...

 

Dragon Age: Origins was basically a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate as far as gameplay mechanics and a few other elements. After that, BioWare wasn't really obligated to keep rehashing that formula. I think they wanted to try their own style.

 

They failed at establishing their own style with Inquisition, but I think that was their thought process. As a few have pointed out, they drew inspiration from too many sources that ended up clashing.

 

The DA:O-type games aren't seen much these days. I wouldn't mind if that combat system returned, but I doubt it will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's to say... the main plot is thin and stretched, like butter over too much bread.

 

Nice quote :yes:

 

I completed the game yesterday. I tried to think about the game in a positive way, but in the end, it is a mediocre experience. I am saying that despite the clock showing 107 hours of playtime. Not all of it was bad. Dragon fights were decent. Some characters and quests were decent. I liked the soundtrack and some decent voice acting was there. The astrariums were a fun distraction. Graphically, it looked really nice at times, so that exploration kind of fun, and there were some nice spell effects. But as a whole, I would rate even DA2 higher than this game.

 

The combat didn't feel very tactical and I wasn't happy about the lack of commands you could set up for your party members. The game felt like an action rpg, but not with particularly great combat. I basically just controlled my own melee fighter and let the others do their thing. On rare occasions, I would manually set up a barrier or something, but that's it. I also didn't care for their "Assassin's Creed" formula with some of the side stuff: shards, mosaic pieces and so on.

To me, it felt like the game didn't have an identity of its own. It feels like it didn't know what it wanted to be. Skyrim competitor? Sequel to Dragon Age? Hack 'n slash game?

 

I'm done with BioWare for the time being. Last game I bought from them was Dragon Age: Origins and I actually enjoyed the game despite some flaws. I wanted to give Inquisition a shot, but this won't be the case for their next game.

 

That was pretty much my experience also. I finished the game two days ago with around 112h playtime. I had to give it a shot when i got it cheap. The game looks ok, nothing that impressed me very much but they did a good job with world building, for the most part. Overall though, i would say it´s forgettable. The main plot is weakly written, full of holes and logic flaws and the ending is one of the biggest cliffhangers ever. It answers no questions whatsoever and instead opens a whole novel of "why, what, how" etc.

 

I really liked some of the side quests, who sadly got overshadowed by a lot of filler content. I often got the feeling of playing an mmo with the sheer amount of pointless fetch quests. As a whole i had the same experience as i had with DA:2, where the mainplot became dull to me and i only kept playing because of the better side content. Some characters were nicely written, but as far as romances went, i couldn´t be bothered. (as last as a female mainchar, i did end up with Sera and hated it...)

 

I will say this though, it was better than i expected, but i guess thats because i went into it with zero expectations :blink: My highlights were returning characters and hearing about my hero of Ferelden and exploring the world in search of more lore. It´s kinda sad that talking with Morrigan for a few minutes is more interesting than anything else.

 

And yes the combat sucks, it´s flashy and nice looking but dull and extremly repetitive. I spend the most part of 100+ hours hitting the same buttons, and i hated the fact that you are restricted to 8 active skills because of stupid console controls.

 

In the end...i would say it´s just forgetable, but worth the time if you can get it on a sale and want to hang out a bit with some old beloved faces from DA:O. (thats a stretch though..)

 

 

 

Dragon Age: Origins was basically a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate as far as gameplay mechanics and a few other elements. After that, BioWare wasn't really obligated to keep rehashing that formula. I think they wanted to try their own style.

 

They failed at establishing their own style with Inquisition, but I think that was their thought process. As a few have pointed out, they drew inspiration from too many sources that ended up clashing.

 

The DA:O-type games aren't seen much these days. I wouldn't mind if that combat system returned, but I doubt it will.

 

 

It was a spiritual successor, that was the whole point and idea from the get got of DA:O. They said that several times. They also wanted to improve on DA:O to make things better in DA2. Just like they did in Baldurs Gate 1 to 2. That was what David Gaider clearly said on the forums back then and i even defended his view because some people were crying that a new game with a new IP is not as good as BG2 was.

 

I don´t know what happened after this, but they obviously changed their plans (see DA2). Which, in my experience with EA games means, it was likely EA´s call. I don´t see Bioware as it´s own studio anymore, they are just another branch of EA now and EA is the boss. It´s that simple. Also deep, tactical games with a lot of on-use skills don´t work well with console controls, we all know that. They tried it with the wheel in DA:O but that was kinda a hit/miss with the players, some liked it, others hated it.

 

I´m not sure what Biowares style is, they made a lot of games and not always classic RPG´s. But this action gameplay, is in my opinion, a direct result of being developed for consoles.

 

Also, i have to disagree with the last part. More complex, tactical combat systems (with and without pause) are having their renaissance thanks to crowed funding. Divinity OS, Wasteland 2, Pillars, Shadowrun etc. Or thru more clever publishers like XCOM, BG and Icewind Dale revamps. And more coming. These games all did well, they just don´t sell as much as mindless action games. (what does that say about players?^^)

 

This is a typical problem with big publishers. They think the more money they (mindlessly) throw at something, the more it will make and of course console pandering. But in terms of investment - return ratio, "smaller games" do better. Just look how well games like Child of Light, Rayman Legends or Valiant Hearts did for Ubisoft. I don´t even want to know how much DA:I cost EA, but i bet there is a "small" difference compared to something like Pillars of Eternity or Divinity OS. Which are games that i will play through several times and i can´t say the same about DA:I.

  • Like 1

"A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies, the man who never reads lives one."

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the discussion of how DA:I failed to find its own style, that's partly EA's fault. I posted it before but I'll post it again - EA decided to force ALL their divisions to use the Frostbite engine to create cross-division talent synergies (I get how that makes sense from EA's POV). Which also means that Mass Effect 4 will use Frostbite rather than Unreal.

 

While I have no idea how much developtment went into DA:I before this engine switch came along, however, if it was in the middle of the process that might just explain a good bunch of the games engine-related shortcomings, the controls among them (not the 8 abilities limit but the unresponsiveness).

 

So that out of the way I seem to be the only one who liked the main plot and it's massive implications on established Thedas lore, and besides you get to be the first ones since ancient Tevinter to walk through the fade in person. How's that not awesome? Solas' comments alone had me nerd-discussing things for hours upon hours. My main gripe would be that the storyline isn't very long and less verbose than I would have liked, but hey, it has Origins beat by a mile. Mostly because Origins had no plot what-so-ever (like ME2). :geek:

 

I wonder if all the pointless filler content went into the game because the main plot was so short or if the main plot became so short because they ran out of time creating all the pointless filler content. I wished more areas were like Emprise du Lion. That didn't feel pointless, it was still fairly large but focused on a goal with tangible relations to Corypheus' plans. Unlike, say, silly Storm Coast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes Dragon Age have lost its identity, that is something i repeatedly mention in their forum many times. When DA2 become like Mass Effect then everything have lost actually. Not only become like Mass Effect, but also a drama. Then they want to make it into Skyrim. I don't mind about open world environment but it doesn't have to be like Skyrim. They can maintain Dragon Age:Origin mechanic, but they don't want to. They can maintain the main theme is about Darkspawn then put the rest into anything like Dragon Age:Origin, but again they don't want to. So what is Dragon Age? It just random, once you play it you don't care about it anymore. The game is not even about dragons and not even about the age of dragons. The dragons in it are just monsters to kill.

 

I just don't understand arguments of Dragon Age:Origin fans that hate Dragon Age:Origin so much and force Bioware to change Dragon Age games after Dragon Age:Origin, and Bioware listen to them...i just don't get it....they are so sensitive when we wrote "let it be like Dragon Age:Origin", we will see lots of fans charging with with their lances to shut us up, and the mods come with their hammer...i just don't understand....

 

I don't post much at BSN, so I can't comment on the moderators there, but I wanted to say...

 

Dragon Age: Origins was basically a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate as far as gameplay mechanics and a few other elements. After that, BioWare wasn't really obligated to keep rehashing that formula. I think they wanted to try their own style.

 

They failed at establishing their own style with Inquisition, but I think that was their thought process. As a few have pointed out, they drew inspiration from too many sources that ended up clashing.

 

The DA:O-type games aren't seen much these days. I wouldn't mind if that combat system returned, but I doubt it will.

 

 

i was active on BSN and their new site "The Bioware Forum" until i got banned after being harrassed by forumites and the mods. My last argument there was about what i have written here, so by the way thanks Obsidian for practicing free speech

 

The problem is, they want to implement new system into already established games the fans loved, "fans" here means the one who love everything in the original game because that game is the fans recognized being "Dragon Age". When it changed into Mass Effect in DA2 then it is no longer Dragon Age, and now it chaged into another and it's unrecognized

 

It is like fans love Master of Puppet because that's the identity of Metallica song, fans know the arrangements, the composition, the guitar strumming and drum beatings, it is all Metallica style. But suddenly Metalica made their next song in the new album "Master of Puppet 2" they add hip hop, jazz, and funky element. Maybe some people will like it but core Metallica fans will pissed off because it is not metal anymore

 

It is ok if they want to make new things but do not make it into the already established genre, make it in new genre, new label. Metallica could make funky songs but make it in new album that is not related at all with their previous products, in new label, "This is funky songs by Metallica for the ones who love funky music", they can continue with their original metal songs in another album "Master of Puppet 2" the same time, the fans will not get angry.

 

Same with Bioware, they made Dragon Age:Origin like it were, they only need to upgrade, not change the whole thing into someting new. If they want to change their way of things, make it into new games under new label, not on Dragon Age.

Edited by Qistina
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they were going to patch the issue with lack of party banter?  Or is this dead silence 95% of the time how it's supposed to be?

 

I'm walking around the Hinterlands and the only sound I hear is my character's footsteps.  Even the music seems to cut out for minutes at a time.  Then every once in a while (a rare occasion) two members of my party will banter for one or two sentences, then back to silence for the next hour.

 

I think that's part of why the open world feels so dead and barren.  Even with a party of four, it feels like I'm running around by myself in the middle of nowhere with very little to do.

  • Like 1

"Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque

"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i was active on BSN and their new site "The Bioware Forum" until i got banned after being harrassed by forumites and the mods. My last argument there was about what i have written here, so by the way thanks Obsidian for practicing free speech

 

The problem is, they want to implement new system into already established games the fans loved, "fans" here means the one who love everything in the original game because that game is the fans recognized being "Dragon Age". When it changed into Mass Effect in DA2 then it is no longer Dragon Age, and now it chaged into another and it's unrecognized

 

It is like fans love Master of Puppet because that's the identity of Metallica song, fans know the arrangements, the composition, the guitar strumming and drum beatings, it is all Metallica style. But suddenly Metalica made their next song in the new album "Master of Puppet 2" they add hip hop, jazz, and funky element. Maybe some people will like it but core Metallica fans will pissed off because it is not metal anymore

 

It is ok if they want to make new things but do not make it into the already established genre, make it in new genre, new label. Metallica could make funky songs but make it in new album that is not related at all with their previous products, in new label, "This is funky songs by Metallica for the ones who love funky music", they can continue with their original metal songs in another album "Master of Puppet 2" the same time, the fans will not get angry.

 

Same with Bioware, they made Dragon Age:Origin like it were, they only need to upgrade, not change the whole thing into someting new. If they want to change their way of things, make it into new games under new label, not on Dragon Age.

 

I was a regular on the BSN too (for years, actually), only I wasn't banned so much as I quit after getting tired of endless harassment by forumites and mods alike.

 

Kind of like you, I was an avid advocate for Dragon Age going back to its roots as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, or at least including race selection in the CC and less degrading portrayals of elves. That gets you mocked in that forum. Trolls harass elf fans, the mods don't do anything. You get a little snippy with the trolls? They crack down on you like a giant chisel and hammer.

 

Anyway, I rather agree. DAO was created to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate-style cRPGs. Then DA2 turned into Mass Effect with swords. Then DAI turned into Skyrim with Qunari. What's next? Call of Duty with bows and arrows?

 

They seem to just keep reinventing the wheel every time they make a new game, instead of tweaking the wheels they already have to design a new car. And all the genre-hopping is making me dizzy. I no longer know what to expect or look forward to since they just keep changing it from the ground up every game.

 

I also think that if they want to "experiment with style," then do it with another IP or franchise. Don't take a franchise that was founded on a certain RPG style and genre, then turn around and change the style and genre every new game.

 

While in the BSN, I noticed that lots of Mass Effect and DA2 fans were all, "Well, it's the same setting, so you shouldn't care about minor RP changes." But what if BioWare had changed their Mass Effect franchise, roleplay style, and genre half-way through? What if ME3 (terrible ending notwithstanding) suddenly changed the series from the modern console RPG with the set voiced protagonist in Shepard (from ME and ME2) into a more Baldur's Gate spiritual successor IN SPACE, without Shepard, without a set voiced protagonist, with alien race selection and multiple backgrounds, blah blah blah? I'll bet they would have flipped their ****! (Not that they didn't over ME3's ending.) But because it's us, we have to shut up and get over it?

 

*sigh*

 

As for my individual feelings on DAI, it was better than I hoped for. I was TERRIFIED that they were just going to make DA2.5, so I'm glad they at least tried to incorporate roleplaying features that people liked about DAO, like (in my taste) race selection, multiple backgrounds, more of a blank slate personality, etc.

Edited by Faerunner
  • Like 1

"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what i actually want to say, my English is bad.

 

If they want to experiments, don't do it on already established francise, do it on new fresh francise. There will be no problem and the fans will not raged. All they need to do for DA is upgrade, tweak and fixing, not change it into something else.

 

That is why i don't understand, those DA:O "fans" hate DA:O so much and pushing Bioware to change the game, how come? They even hate Grey Warden, Darkspawn and the Blight in which the central issue of the game. How come they are fans of DA:O but they hate everything in DA:O? Then they prising DA2 so high and pushing Bioware make DA:I as we can see now....I doubt they are actually fans, but Bio-EA staffs...

 

Now and future Bioware games are all Mass Effect-like with Skyrim open world map, MMO quests and FPS combat mechanic, so that's what they want. Every games from now on will look like that

 

I am fine by that, on new francise, just don't ruin DA with it, but it is too late now...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what i actually want to say, my English is bad.

 

If they want to experiments, don't do it on already established francise, do it on new fresh francise. There will be no problem and the fans will not raged. All they need to do for DA is upgrade, tweak and fixing, not change it into something else.

 

That is why i don't understand, those DA:O "fans" hate DA:O so much and pushing Bioware to change the game, how come? They even hate Grey Warden, Darkspawn and the Blight in which the central issue of the game. How come they are fans of DA:O but they hate everything in DA:O? Then they prising DA2 so high and pushing Bioware make DA:I as we can see now....I doubt they are actually fans, but Bio-EA staffs...

 

Now and future Bioware games are all Mass Effect-like with Skyrim open world map, MMO quests and FPS combat mechanic, so that's what they want. Every games from now on will look like that

 

I am fine by that, on new francise, just don't ruin DA with it, but it is too late now...

 

Oh, no problem.

 

Yeah, it is frustrating. I think fans who dislike DA:O are mostly Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2 fans, and this is why:

 

DA:O was a great game that won many awards and sold many copies, but it appealed to a specific audience: people who liked or were okay with more classic computer RPGs. I hear that the developers tacked on console versions of DA:O (PS3, Xbox, whatever) at the last second, and ended up selling more console versions than PC versions. I don't know if they changed the franchise because of that, because of EA buying BioWare, or because of ME2's MASSIVE success, but they seemed to change DA2 to try to reach a broader audience.

 

They clearly seemed to think, "Our DA:O fanbase will still love DA2 because it has the Dragon Age title, but the more mainstream crowd will come in because it's more of a modern/casual/console RPG with lots of flashy, explosive combat." This backfired; many DAO fans were not happy that they changed most of what they fell in love with the game to begin with, and most of the Halo/Call of Duty mainstream crowd avoided it because they assumed it was like DA:O. Many old fans jumped ship, many new fans came in only because they liked the Mass Effect-style changes, NOT because they loved DA:O.

 

However, I think it's telling that DA2 sold half the copies of DA:O; clearly the DA:O fanbase was pretty big, and sacrificing DA:O fans' love for newcomers wasn't enough.

 

However, now the DA fanbase is split down the middle. For those who haven't left, there are fans who love the original DA:O and want more games like it, and fans who love DA2's changes and think every new game should be exactly like it. (And some who love both, but eh.) BioWare seems to be backpedaling; trying to go back and include game features that DA:O fans like (more tactical combat, race selection, multiple backgrounds, blank slate protagonist, "join a big organization and save the world" story, etc) while still keeping many of DA2 changes (dialogue wheel, voiced protagonist, etc).

 

I've given up on the Dragon Age franchise going back to being like DA:O, but if the devs at least incorporate many of the same game features that made DA:O fans fall in love with the franchise in the first place (and race selection; if I can't play without a non-human!), I'll accept that as a compromise.

  • Like 1

"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's next? Call of Duty with bows and arrows?

Are you one of those people that think EA is actually going to put a minigun in a fantasy game?

 

Hey, the Qunari invented canons and gunpowder. It's only a matter of time.  o:)

"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What's next? Call of Duty with bows and arrows?

Are you one of those people that think EA is actually going to put a minigun in a fantasy game?

I would not be surprised. Perhaps not THE minigun but something like boltthrower with autoload and circular movement that load bolts from a belt is in their premise 100%

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the discussion of how DA:I failed to find its own style, that's partly EA's fault. I posted it before but I'll post it again - EA decided to force ALL their divisions to use the Frostbite engine to create cross-division talent synergies (I get how that makes sense from EA's POV). Which also means that Mass Effect 4 will use Frostbite rather than Unreal.

 

While I have no idea how much developtment went into DA:I before this engine switch came along, however, if it was in the middle of the process that might just explain a good bunch of the games engine-related shortcomings, the controls among them (not the 8 abilities limit but the unresponsiveness).

 

 

EA didn't force any of of its divisions to use Frostbite, all the divisions that use that engine decided to use it because it is actually very good engine when you want to make larger open areas.  

 

Bioware's previous engines that they used in Dragon Age  weren't capable to do open areas that Bioware wanted to do in DA:I, which meant that they had to switch engine to do game they wanted. 

 

Frostbite become maybe more popular inside EA than it should have, but that was mainly because of success of DICE and how well they were able to sell their engine. But in my understanding Frostbite 3 is quite developer friendly engine that is very capable when you want to make open world areas that decently populated.

 

I would point out that from EA's big franchises, EA Sports, Sims, Sim City, Titanfall, Crysis and Dead Space don't use Frostbite, which means that from their current lineup most games don't use it. And that according to Bioware they decided move to Frostbite before DA2 was even out, because they wanted to make bigger game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

EA didn't force any of of its divisions to use Frostbite, all the divisions that use that engine decided to use it because it is actually very good engine when you want to make larger open areas.  

 

Bioware's previous engines that they used in Dragon Age  weren't capable to do open areas that Bioware wanted to do in DA:I, which meant that they had to switch engine to do game they wanted. 

 

Frostbite become maybe more popular inside EA than it should have, but that was mainly because of success of DICE and how well they were able to sell their engine. But in my understanding Frostbite 3 is quite developer friendly engine that is very capable when you want to make open world areas that decently populated.

 

I would point out that from EA's big franchises, EA Sports, Sims, Sim City, Titanfall, Crysis and Dead Space don't use Frostbite, which means that from their current lineup most games don't use it. And that according to Bioware they decided move to Frostbite before DA2 was even out, because they wanted to make bigger game. 

 

 

Should have clarified that. Every non-sport game is going to run Frostbite in the future, as per EA's announcement. So Frostbite becoming so popular is not only because the engine is good, but because EA actively tells their divisions to use it. Now if they're really going to Frostbite the next Sims installment, who knows? Fact is, we're going to see a lot more Frostbite and a lot less everything else that EA needs to fork over royalties for - hence ME4 going to use Frostbite instead of Unreal.

 

The rest was pure speculation on the technical shortcomings of DA:I, not all of which are related to shoddy console porting. The entire game feels like a first installment with all the associated problems and shortcomings, or at least I'm hoping that was the case. I want my next Dragon Age to be something else than Skyrim with Darkspawn and Templars. Beh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they were going to patch the issue with lack of party banter?  Or is this dead silence 95% of the time how it's supposed to be?

 

I'm walking around the Hinterlands and the only sound I hear is my character's footsteps.  Even the music seems to cut out for minutes at a time.  Then every once in a while (a rare occasion) two members of my party will banter for one or two sentences, then back to silence for the next hour.

 

I think that's part of why the open world feels so dead and barren.  Even with a party of four, it feels like I'm running around by myself in the middle of nowhere with very little to do.

 

Eh, after having had Blackwall ask Varric for the 10 billionth time if he had fought Mr Main Villain before I sort of wish they'd shut up more often... (seems some characters or character combinations have a pretty limited pool of banter. Or I simply use my go-to party way too often...)

 

 

 

EA didn't force any of of its divisions to use Frostbite, all the divisions that use that engine decided to use it because it is actually very good engine when you want to make larger open areas.  

 

Bioware's previous engines that they used in Dragon Age  weren't capable to do open areas that Bioware wanted to do in DA:I, which meant that they had to switch engine to do game they wanted. 

 

Frostbite become maybe more popular inside EA than it should have, but that was mainly because of success of DICE and how well they were able to sell their engine. But in my understanding Frostbite 3 is quite developer friendly engine that is very capable when you want to make open world areas that decently populated.

 

I would point out that from EA's big franchises, EA Sports, Sims, Sim City, Titanfall, Crysis and Dead Space don't use Frostbite, which means that from their current lineup most games don't use it. And that according to Bioware they decided move to Frostbite before DA2 was even out, because they wanted to make bigger game. 

 

 

Should have clarified that. Every non-sport game is going to run Frostbite in the future, as per EA's announcement. So Frostbite becoming so popular is not only because the engine is good, but because EA actively tells their divisions to use it. Now if they're really going to Frostbite the next Sims installment, who knows? Fact is, we're going to see a lot more Frostbite and a lot less everything else that EA needs to fork over royalties for - hence ME4 going to use Frostbite instead of Unreal.

 

The rest was pure speculation on the technical shortcomings of DA:I, not all of which are related to shoddy console porting. The entire game feels like a first installment with all the associated problems and shortcomings, or at least I'm hoping that was the case. I want my next Dragon Age to be something else than Skyrim with Darkspawn and Templars. Beh.

 

 

That's actually pretty bad. Frostbite might be a good engine but it certainly isn't going to be a good fit for every game that will have to use it. "Making" their developers use it is also a pretty good way to make sure Frostbite isn't pressed as much as other engines to improve because of competition (I suspect that especially the developer facing side of the engine will suffer from this, which obviously will show in the resulting games, though not in the ways one might expect. Graphics quality for one is unlikely to suffer).

 

Basically EA seems to be running its business as a run of the mill enterprise corporation trying to save by forcing standardisation on a limited set of tools with the idea that it's then easier to make others work on other stuff, which is just plain desastrous (right tool for the job goes right out of the window in lieu of "company santioned tool for the job") for quality of the work as well as the quality of the employees (the great ones will most likely jump ship). The net result of this is usually mediocrity and relatively slower development (relative to shops without these restrictions) because all you will have left after a while are 9to5ers (either because they don't care about the product or because the enterprise process has ground all their hopes and dreams to dust, resulting in the same, really) and inexperienced people that will either turn into 9to5ers, or leave (once they gain some modicum of experience).

 

Not to mention that standardizing on non-standard tools makes your company a lot less attractive on the job market, as "getting out" becomes a lot harder since your skills don't immediately transfer to another job (the fact that a competent developer can pick up new tools in a matter of weeks/months is something few recruiters/employers consider when hiring). Arguably the gaming industry might appear more attractive to quite a few people due to "omg I get to make games" and certainly this scenario won't bancrupt EA. However the entire mindset precludes innovation of any kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What's next? Call of Duty with bows and arrows?

Are you one of those people that think EA is actually going to put a minigun in a fantasy game?

I would not be surprised. Perhaps not THE minigun but something like boltthrower with autoload and circular movement that load bolts from a belt is in their premise 100%

 

Then that's a contextual choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to do a speed-run for this play through.  I've been trying to do the various sidequests and it's just killing me.  So dull.  My only issue is I might not be high enough level to take on Jaws of Hakkon if I don't do all the non main story maps.

"Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque

"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to do a speed-run for this play through.  I've been trying to do the various sidequests and it's just killing me.  So dull.  My only issue is I might not be high enough level to take on Jaws of Hakkon if I don't do all the non main story maps.

 

Pretty sure you can limit how much of the side stuff you have to do though, since stuff two levels below you doesn't give XP anymore...right now I barely get XP for any combat anymore (lvl21 now and I still have to do the Warden quest...). I did notice Red Templars tend to scale to your level if they're on a respawning spot.

 

Kinda curious what level I will have ended up at by the time I finish the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At what level should you do the expansion?

 

Well, the Frostback Basin is by far the hardest regular area in the game. Actually, if you play on Normal difficulty I'd say even some boss fights are way easier than just the Basin (not the ruins) alone, especially those rifts can be a real pain in the backside. I'd say be as high as you possibly can get before going there, but if you're slightly masochistic you might have fun with less...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...