Dragon Age: Inquisition

+
I don't think that's a good idea. While I think reviewers are pretty shady these days I think players either blow things out of proportion of act out of spite. What you should do is take a look at both, filter the information yourself and come to your own conclusion.

That's would/won't (can't decide) be a problem because I don't fully believe "Professional" reviewers or haters or fanboys.
 
I don't think that's a good idea. While I think reviewers are pretty shady these days I think players either blow things out of proportion of act out of spite. What you should do is take a look at both, filter the information yourself and come to your own conclusion.

True people can leave 'trolling' reviews or blow things way out of proportion. But on the other hand why is it every game magazine that has a ton of advertising for a game (like most AAA titles) always gives 9/10 and 10/10 reviews for the games that have multiple full page ads in their publication? Customers aren't being paid to review a product where it most definitely seems like the one's that write for magazines do. No matter if you liked DA2 or not it wasn't a 10/10 game.

And I always told my friends (never posted a customer review on any site) that DA2 was a mediocre game, not horrible and not great, just average as a stand alone title but as a sequel to DA:O it was a horrible game. And while I was looking at BSN a lot in the month that followed the DA2 release a lot of the posts weren't blind hate for the game. There were plenty of well written reviews and explanations given as to why people didn't like the game. Though all the focus from the devs in the press seemed to focus on the crazy over the top hate posting.

I think overall it will be easy to separate the customer reviews that go in depth, articulate and well reasoned from the "DA:I suxxxxxx! DO NOT BUY 0/10!!!!!*!!!*!*!) style troll reviews.
 
http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/inquisitor

Yay, new information and pictures about all the possible race, class and backstory combinations you are able to give for Inquisitor.

Hopefully the Character Creator will be released as separate demo before the actual relase of the game. It was quite nice in DAO and I always like to take my time when I plan my character in these type of games
 
25% ranged defense for Elves
25% magic defense for dwarves.

That's surely not game breaking at all. That vs 50 HP from Qunari, not sure how useful 50 HP is we'll see and 1 ability point for humans.
 
Here is the main theme. Composed by Trevor Morris. I quite like it,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQDs5P42MNg
It's kind of Meeh, especially considering it's 2014 and we already got way better production wise and innovative OST that take place in fanthasy-esque stories.
And OF course...

I don't know why, but BioWare is way better when making Sci FI Soundtracks or hiring appropriate people.
 
Last edited:
[MD]: Warriors have the choice of two-handed weapons or sword and shield.

[DK]: Dual-wielding daggers is otherwise only available to a rogue.

Piece of shit. This is turning out to be another DA2 gameplay wise.

At least now we know Bioware has clearly defined their target audience.
 
I liked Origins where if you wanted to you could have any class use any armor/weapon combo. Not quite sure why that was removed.
 
^^ Cuz that's what some players (not me necessarily) want. They want to be able to experiment with many different styles and pieces of equipment beyond what BW or anyone else deems conceptually appropriate for a given class.
 
Last edited:
^^ Cuz that's what some players (not me necessarily) want. They want to be able to experiment with many different styles and pieces of equipment beyond what BW or anyone else deems conceptually appropriate for a given class.

It's not a big deal. I simply don't care.
 
What kind of "role playing game" restricts what you can do to what they think you should do?

At least Geralt is a predefined character but even then, we can use spoons and polearms if we want to. Making it physically impossible to use something is an over simplification that shouldn't be present in cRPG's.

And it's not about a non rogue with daggers (which could be desirable, why not?), but about the freedom to, for instance, dual wield any two weapons. Long sword + dagger, dual short swords, dual hand axes, etc. DA:O was already oversimplified by fusing weapon proficiencies with skills. This is just ridiculous.
 
@Cormacolindor Seemed like a genuine inquiry to me, so I answered. Meh, no matter.

It's not a major deal to me, either. In fact, I think there are enough other games out there with looser equipment and combat style mechanics that something more focused like DA could actually be a pleasant change of pace.

@.Volsung. Didn't DnD restrict things like what classes could use what? Or is that somehow not an RPG? If you ask me, though, role-playing is about the character you play, not the equipment he or she uses.
 
What kind of "role playing game" restricts what you can do to what they think you should do?

At least Geralt is a predefined character but even then, we can use spoons and polearms if we want to. Making it physically impossible to use something is an over simplification that shouldn't be present in cRPG's.

And it's not about a non rogue with daggers (which could be desirable, why not?), but about the freedom to, for instance, dual wield any two weapons. Long sword + dagger, dual short swords, dual hand axes, etc. DA:O was already oversimplified by fusing weapon proficiencies with skills. This is just ridiculous.

The term RPG is somewhat loose these days. I am all for having weird combinations in RPGs, I have a melee Wizard in Diablo 3. The difference is that the melee Wizard is a viable choice while using daggers as a warrior in DA:I is just stupid.Stuff shouldn't be there "just because", You're making it sound like DA:I is the only game guilty of oversimplification but every modern RPG is guilty of breaking rules.
 
Top Bottom