Dragon Age: Inquisition

+
There are not any day-1 story DLC for DAI. Where did you saw this BS?? They haven't any plans for story DLC right about now. They are on damn vacation after more then 4 years development cycle. And i doesn't matter if you care or not about MP.... its FREE. So your argument "Here you are, EA/Bioware, losing a customer due to crappy business policies." is little bit off even though i respect your.......lack of interest in MP.

Sorry, my bad, I mixed something up. As of yet, indeed, there are no story DLCs, but there are some paid/exclusive DLCs nonetheless. And I agree with @Unkindled that they shouldn't have wasted the time with working on multiplayer in any case.

Also, @username_2080630 raises a valid concern: a recent major EA game, FIFA 2015, uses very bad kind of DRM, called Denuvo. It means that the chances are high that it will be used in DA:I as well, which would be another major reason to not buying it. Though, hopefully, it won't be the case, but that seems unlikely, unfortunately...
 
Sorry, my bad, I mixed something up. As of yet, indeed, there are no story DLCs, but there are some paid/exclusive DLCs nonetheless. And I agree with @Unkindled that they shouldn't have wasted the time with working on multiplayer in any case.

Also, @username_2080630 raises a valid concern: a recent major EA game, FIFA 2015, uses very bad kind of DRM, called Denuvo. It means that the chances are high that it will be used in DA:I as well, which would be another major reason to not buying it. Though, hopefully, it won't be the case, but that seems unlikely, unfortunately...

Well, yippie-ka-yaay and all that. Par exemple:

http://megagames.com/news/new-drm-denuvo-challenges-game-crackers

]Interestingly enough, Lords of the Fallen players are reporting plenty of in-game bugs in addition to instability and crashes that are largely attributed to the new DRM system. Developer CI Games is currently working on a patch that should thwart all those problems. Ironically, this is exactly what happened eight years ago when StarForce managed to protect Ubisoft games for months before the company ditched it due to legitimate customer complains about its stability and performance impact.

Well, it's probably for the best. Surely, our corporate overlords have only our best interests at heart and know what they are doing :(
 
Unrelated note: Someone's getting their asses kicked if they try that bullshit they did with Mass Effect in DA: I, making you have to play multiplayer for resources in the campaign. They patched that away, but damn. Having barebones gimmicky multiplayer is one thing. Making it mandatory for a decent ending is another.

Oh wait, except the ending wasn't decent and it sucked ass anyway.
 
Last edited:
In the case of tabletop games and computer games, some types of game simply translate pretty well, with some necessary modifications, across the two media. Strategy and tactical games are the example par excellence of this. Some of these games are even better at home on computers, because of what you can do in terms of graphics, animation, leaving combat resolution to the computer rather than the rolling of dice, etc.

Problems arise, I think, when attempts are made to hybridise these types of games with action games. Not that it’s impossible, but you can get some really strange results by mixing strategy / tactics game elements, who are always abstract at some level, with the more concrete, real-worldy / fantasy cartoon worldy aspects of action games.

A classic example would be the totally ridiculous numbers of levels and hitpoints in ‘action’ CRPG’s, where parties or even small armies (in MMO’s) just have to keep on whittling away at those hitpoints, rather than, say, use specific weapons and weak points:
‘Oh, look, it’s a dragon. Quick! Use a ballista with magically charged bolts to penetrate the soft hide on its belly’
versus
‘Let’s whittle away the hit points on its four legs’ :(

You're right. Most strategy games (and many actual cRPG's) do benefit from a good implementation of a tabletop game. The problem is exactly what you mention: converting these games to action video games, or expecting them to be action video games.

Let's face it, many people don't like turn based gameplay and prefer flashy over the top combat. The problem is not that these games resemble tabletop games, but that people expect them to be something else.

Back to what originated this discussion, combat in Infinity Engine games such as BG is a real-time hybridization of turn-based AD&D combat. Pause is mandatory for tactical planning, and positioning is extremely important. I find their combat system to be engaging, satisfying and highly tactical (specially those high level battles in SoA). Combat in Dragon Age is incredibly straightforward and grindy. In DAO positioning at least mattered a bit but in DA2 there are atrocities such as a rogue's backstab being a talent activated on command (teleport backstab), not to mention the entire weapon proficiency system fused with talents and the arbitrary class restrictions.
 
I'll gladly admit that I prefer practically anything to turn based combat, honestly. Not that I can't enjoy that sort of thing, as I have in the past, but it feels too dated now for me.
 
I think its appropriate for certain genres and game design approaches. You can't just stamp turn based combat on anything just because.

Turn based or real time has nothing to do with technology, so it can't be dated. It's simply an approach that favors plan-based decision making and risk-sensitive planning under uncertainty, over one that favors time-sensitive reactive control. I will agree that some combat systems may feel dated because of other reasons, like problems that haven't been addressed in decades. But that's an entirely different thing.

Combat wise, I feel like DA2 was a huge step backwards with respect to DA:O, which was already a step backwards with respect to other Bioware games. OK, maybe not backwards, maybe sideways (i.e. catering to a new and different crowd).
 
Right, I was referring to dated as in it's been around longer than new approaches and it's rather old school. Which is fine of course, but I've gotten used to a more fast paced feel. There's enough room for variety though. I don't think it should be stomped out or anything. It's just not for me anymore.

Not gonna get into what was a step back or sideways as some people actually preferred DA 2's combat. DA 2's combat wasn't as good for me because it wasn't satisfying. Too easy, not much thought needed. Especially with rogues.
 
Like I said, they had those. One I can think of off the top of my head, Orzammar and that dwarf chick that wants your kid. If you're a dwarf noble.

I'm aware, but in DAO they were relatively minor and there weren't any substantial in terms of variety. I am simply pointing out that if DAI meanwhile has that (and perhaps more) then I can get behind the "no origin stories".

But as I said, it comes down to personal preference.
 
I hate multiplayer games so much. I don't do gaming to play with other people and I swear most gamers don't want multiplayer anyway?
For DA:I they should have done what Bethesda did and have 2 separate departments for Dragon Age Inquisition and then Dragon Age Online or Multiplayer or whatever.

The only multiplayer game i've ever enjoyed playing was a James Bond Nightfire game and that was because the multiplayer could also be done single player and was better than the campaign.

I'm aware, but in DAO they were relatively minor and there weren't any substantial in terms of variety. I am simply pointing out that if DAI meanwhile has that (and perhaps more) then I can get behind the "no origin stories".

I might be remembering this wrong but I think I read somewhere that you don't have origin stories at the beginning but you learn about your character's origins throughout the game? Or something like that anyhow. Not sure if/how that would work though.
 
Also, @username_2080630 raises a valid concern: a recent major EA game, FIFA 2015, uses very bad kind of DRM, called Denuvo. It means that the chances are high that it will be used in DA:I as well, which would be another major reason to not buying it. Though, hopefully, it won't be the case, but that seems unlikely, unfortunately...
Oh yeah. Definitely waiting on this one. Leave it up to EA.
 
I've never pirated a game before but after reading about all the new drm lately it's getting tempting :lol:
 
Reading on BSN, is it true that ME3 DLC requires you to activate the game online every time you want to play?

deuce985, on 30 Sept 2014 - 8:15 PM, said:

Origin and a one time online activation.

Knight_47K
Posted 01 October 2014 - 04:43 AM
And then DLC authorization every effing time you start the game. I hated ME3 DRM for this very reason.

And, spoiler...

Apparently Hawke commands the Inquisitor's army? Great. So the PC is a moron.
 
Last edited:
I ran into a somewhat interesting preview on US Gamer. Interesting in the sense that the author was fairly positive overall, but two of his main comments were, to me, fairly dismaying because they confirm / reinforce my concerns.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/dragon-age-inquisition-preview

Two things: First, while being overall fairly positive, the author pretty much dismisses the combat system.

Inquisition strives to be an incredibly streamlined RPG that still offers an enjoyable degree of depth, and this approach extends to the combat, as well. If you've ever played an MMO, the enemy encounters shouldn't be too surprising: Characters have their standard attacks, as well as special abilities that need to go through a "cooldown" period before they can be activated again. Even items are boiled down to their most basic forms: Instead of buying healing herbs and tinctures, you have a set number of potions that can be upgraded and refilled, similar to Dark Souls' estus flasks. And if you can't get a grasp on the particular character you created, Inquisition lets you switch to any party member on the fly. After just a few hours into the game, I could jump from archer to mage to tank and see for myself which one of these roles felt best.

No matter which race and specialization you roll with, though, combat in Inquisition never feels quite right. It gets the job done, but since BioWare's essentially turned this series into an action-RPG, I expected to have a much greater degree of control over the action. The Souls series and the recent Lords of the Fallen have really raised the bar in terms of enemy encounters in RPGs, and while Inquisition doesn't necessarily need to strive for the same level of difficulty, most fights with my archer didn't require tactics beyond holding in RT to continuously pelt my targeted enemy with arrows while using my special abilities as soon as they became available. Melee combat isn't much more complicated, and since characters don't have many defensive options, you really just trade blows until an enemy dies. Again, BioWare didn't have to make combat quite as measured as Dark Souls', but, in its current form, fighting enemies could stand to be a lot more engaging.

And while some players may view this as a blessing, your party doesn't require too much micromanagement. You can adjust how each specific character acts in battle—when to heal, when to use special abilities, which enemy to target, and so on—and, for the most part, the AI does a great job of getting your back. But if you're interested in taking control of an entire party rather than just a single character, Inquisition may leave you wanting. At any time in battle, you can freeze the action and switch to an overhead view, which allows you to give specific commands to your party and watch them play out at whatever speed you'd like. The only problem, though, is your lack of options: You can only tell the characters not under your control to attack a specific enemy or defend, and... that's it. It's a nice feature, but this tactical mode comes off as feeling pretty superfluous since the AI does a great job of adapting on the fly. I'm sure you could attempt to turn Inquisition into a more turn-based affair by relying on the overhead view for every battle, but it wouldn't be long before tedium set in.

Second, the point he makes about there 'being so much to do' and the player constantly running into 'points of interest'.
Brad Gallaway mentioned this because he disliked this, but this journalist likes it but basically says the same.

If seeing a map dotted with quests, treasure, and various other worthwhile ventures does it for you, there's a lot to love about Dragon Age: Inquisition. BioWare's placed a real emphasis on exploration this time around, and the most fun I had during my session came from gradually charting uncharted territory. Even if you don't have an agenda—and I sure didn't—it doesn't take much wandering before you'll stumble into something fun. Just exploring at random, I gathered resources for crafting, set up camps to unlock waypoints, took on quests from NPCs around the area, explored mini-dungeons full of enemies more dangerous than the ones on the overworld, participated in arena style battles against demon-spawning portals, hunted for fresh meat, and ran from things that were far too deadly. And, refreshingly, my time exploring didn't involve me staring at a mini-map in the corner of the screen: If something looked worthwhile off in the distance, I headed in that direction, and my curiosity was usually rewarded.
That is not exploration, that is constantly putting carrots in front of the player, exploiting his/her curiosity and greed for XP and loot. Skyrim (and other games) do that as well (in Skyrim for instance in the early stages from Helgen to Whiterun), but there was a lot in Skyrim you would only find if you truly explored, meaning going to areas and looking around without knowing if you would find anything.
I'm a quintessential explorer (I once swam along the shores of all the landmasses in Azeroth, seeking and finding small, normally inaccessible areas. Did the same with the similarly inaccessible main island in Two Worlds II) and I am frankly horrified by this. I get the 'stringing the player along' mechanic here, and I am fairly sure it will work for a time with many players (until they are overwhelmed with fetch quests and the nth tower with a chest, a letter and the nth similar combat encounter), but it's not for me :(

Having said that, I do get a sense that the game will please, for a time, the more casual gamer. I am curious how fast they will get bored, though, and how many will actually finish the game. Perhaps, if the story is compelling enough, who knows...
 
Last edited:
but there was a lot in Skyrim you would only find if you truly explored, meaning going to areas and looking around without knowing if you would find anything.

That is the key difference between exploring in say GTA, or exploring in a Bethesda or Larian game. The environment is what should lure you into exploring, not dots on a mini map. If they haven't figured this out the game is screwed.
 
And, spoiler...

Apparently Hawke commands the Inquisitor's army? Great. So the PC is a moron.
That's kinda the point of being the head of a powerful organisation, to have other people to do things for you. I like it personally.
 
"If seeing a map dotted with quests, treasure, and various other worthwhile ventures does it for you, there's a lot to love about Dragon Age: Inquisition. BioWare's placed a real emphasis on exploration this time around, and the most fun I had during my session came from gradually charting uncharted territory. Even if you don't have an agenda—and I sure didn't—it doesn't take much wandering before you'll stumble into something fun. Just exploring at random, I gathered resources for crafting, set up camps to unlock waypoints, took on quests from NPCs around the area, explored mini-dungeons full of enemies more dangerous than the ones on the overworld, participated in arena style battles against demon-spawning portals, hunted for fresh meat, and ran from things that were far too deadly. And, refreshingly, my time exploring didn't involve me staring at a mini-map in the corner of the screen: If something looked worthwhile off in the distance, I headed in that direction, and my curiosity was usually rewarded."

Well that sounds absolutely wonderful to me!
 
That is the key difference between exploring in say GTA, or exploring in a Bethesda or Larian game. The environment is what should lure you into exploring, not dots on a mini map. If they haven't figured this out the game is screwed.

Yep, I turn the opacity down just to get rid of the hud so I can explore naturally. Now that I've finally purchased parts for my gaming pc, I can mod it away instead.
 
Wait, so you can't chain attacks in the tactical mode, just tell your party which enemy to attack?

That's kinda the point of being the head of a powerful organisation, to have other people to do things for you. I like it personally.
Based on what exactly?
First of all, the Inquisitor should lead the army. Second, Hawke is useless, so if they force your PC in DAI to appoint Hawke general, then that makes her a moron.
 
Don't know what to say about having douchebag Hawke sticking his homeless looking ass into my business and stealing my thunder. The hell is the Inquisitor good for anyway. This whole "I fell out the sky and can do cool stuff with my hand, make me leader" thing is weak, especially with Hawke who has done pretty much nothing but fuck up a city and never lead a mass force in his life leading my army. Is the Inquisition just handing out leadership roles at this point? Is the White House secretly behind the chantry? Lol.

The Warden would be the man/woman to pick for a general.
 
Top Bottom