Dragon Age: Inquisition

[Unkindled]

I agree and well said, you put my feelings about the game into perspective. That said, I think we're going to buy it unless initial reviews/ player impressions are bad. There's just not enough out right now to play.

There was really no story continuity from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3. BTW I haven't played ME3, but read up on the story quite a bit, so it's not like I'm talking blind. They introduced all kinds of red herrings that never got developed, like dark energy, and characters went off on odd trajectories or disappeared altogether like Harbinger. And the ending... well, they didn't just flub an ending, they bombed the whole series with that ludicrous rationale spouted by the star child.

I'm not saying you can't still enjoy the games. You pretty much have to turn your mind off, though. I just said Bioware's writing is overrated. It's not the worst writing in games, of course, but that's a low bar.

Welcome to science fiction, Veleda. The series started off with red herrings, just like most of them do. So what about Dark Energy? You started off with a magical element discovered that happens to be able to generate fields that can generate energy, kinetic barriers, and make people and objects lights as a feather. Lighter, actually, which allows them to travel faster than the speed of light, and you have a problem with Dark energy?
@Costin, @Blothulfur, never watch a single zombie movie or play a single zombie game unless its the last of us or left 4 dead where the "zombies" aren't dead, because without the chemical present in fat that makes us hunger, zombies would never go around craving flesh. So mark those off. The point wasn't weak. The point was most science fiction stories can be picked apart, because most do the same thing Mass Effect did. Especially Starwars, Star Treck, Stargate SG-1, Halo, Andromeda, whatever.
@Veleda, Harbinger also didn't disappear, Harbinger was in dark space first, then was busy destroying the earth with the rest of them. I don't see a problem there really. The problem isn't that Mass Effect isn't consistent. Because it is, up until that ending. You were dead for what, two or five years? Obviously the characters are going to go about their lives. The problem is that people simply didn't like the game or stopped caring, so they use these tiny little issues to help justify their dislike for it. Or in some people's case, to justify not buying it since as you know, some people couldn't because of some pc issue with origin.

And that's really the bottom line. This is a dislike of science fiction in general, not Mass Effect, Veleda. Which is fine.

I mean lets be honest, you don't actually dislike Mass Effect because they didn't elaborate on Dark Energy or because there wasn't an immediate continuation of certain elements from 1 to 2. That wouldn't even make sense. The ending ruining things simply made people not caring about it anymore convenient. It's fine that you don't like or enjoy it anymore for whatever reason, but people don't just stop liking something because a few things go unexplained, especially when they're not even central to the plot. That's all I'm saying.

Though yes, overrated their writing is. Just not for the reasons given.

 

[volsung]

Welcome to science fiction, Veleda. The series started off with red herrings, just like most of them do. So what about Dark Energy? You started off with a magical element discovered that happens to be able to generate fields that can generate energy, kinetic barriers, and make people and objects lights as a feather. Lighter, actually, which allows them to travel faster than the speed of light, and you have a problem with Dark energy?
@Costin, @Blothulfur, never watch a single zombie movie or play a single zombie game unless its the last of us or left 4 dead where the "zombies" aren't dead, because without the chemical present in fat that makes us hunger, zombies would never go around craving flesh. So mark those off. The point wasn't weak. The point was any science fiction story can be picked apart, because they all do the same thing Mass Effect did. Especially Starwars, Star Treck, Stargate SG-1, Halo, Andromeda, whatever.
@Veleda, Harbinger also didn't disappear, Harbinger was in dark space first, then was busy destroying the earth with the rest of them. I don't see a problem there really. The problem isn't that Mass Effect isn't consistent. Because it is. You were dead for what, two or five years? Obviously the characters are going to go about their lives. The problem is that people simply didn't like the game or stopped caring, so they use these tiny little issues to help justify their dislike for it. Or in some people's case, to justify not buying it since as you know, some people couldn't because of some pc issue with origin.

And that's really the bottom line. This is a dislike of science fiction in general, not Mass Effect, Veleda. Which is fine.

And you really think THAT is science fiction? Really? That's like saying historical fiction is nonsense as a genre because there are things like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I am sure many people dislike ME3 because they like science fiction. I mean the real thing.

Meanwhile, Philip K Dick hangs himself with his own reality tape.

 

[Unkindled]

And you really think THAT is science fiction? Really? That's like saying historical fiction is nonsense as a genre because there are things like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I am sure many people dislike ME3 because they like science fiction. I mean the real thing.

Meanwhile, Philip K Dick hangs himself with his own reality tape.

Within gaming, movies and television? Yea, it's science fiction. In fact, Mass Effect borrows from a ton of those different shows and movies.

You'd have a point, except that a lot of popular games movies and shows considered science fiction do as I said, exactly what Mass Effect does, and more so. All science fiction is, is a story based on fiction science. Futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, etc. Don't start trying to claim it isn't science fiction just because you don't like it, or because it doesn't hold a candle to most science fiction novels. We all already know that.

And please don't mistake what I'm saying. I'm not saying all science fiction does what Mass effect does with straining suspension of disbelief. I'm saying most of it does. That's the whole point, really.

 

[Jupiter_on_Mars]

Char creation and new gameplay live now:

http://www.twitch.tv/bioware

 

[Unkindled]

Character creation's so far probably the best thing about DAI from what I've seen. Not much else is pulling me.

 

[Kinley]

Char creation

Best achieved with a culinary torch.

 

[volsung]

Second, things are only random until one discovers a pattern:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rIy0xY99a0

You realize that video ultimately reinforces what philosophers like Davidson said decades ago, right? That laws of physics are generalizations and not rules. We cannot tell the universe what to do. We can try to describe it, and even then our descriptions may be incomplete. In other words, very poor predictability.

If anything humans have the tendency to see patterns in things, even where there aren't any. We want/need explanations, and sometimes we are willing to fabricate them. Doesn't mean we are discovering anything. Just making things up. That's the story of humanity.

What that guy gets wrong is that random should be unpredictable. Sure, people say a lot of words nowadays (like random, optimization, momentum) robbing them of their formal meaning. But in mathematics random is stochastic, probabilistic. That is, there isn't always the same outcome. But you may be able to have a pretty good guess. With enough samples, you may discover that particular event's probability distribution function. And realize certain aspects have a higher chance of appearing (specially with manufactured dice).

Then again, his complaint about dice and coins is terribly wrong. Dice and coins are probabilistic because each side has a chance of showing up. But he is arguing about manufactured goods, that is, an instance of a die or a coin. And this manufactured dice or coin has imperfections that introduce biases, and of course the human element introduces a bias as well. I don't agree with the first part of the video. This is like saying a loaded dice is not unpredictable.

Within gaming, movies and television? Yea, it's science fiction. In fact, Mass Effect borrows from a ton of those different shows and movies.

You'd have a point, except that a lot of popular games movies and shows considered science fiction do as I said, exactly what Mass Effect does, and more so. All science fiction is, is a story based on fiction science. Futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, etc. Don't start trying to claim it isn't science fiction just because you don't like it, or because it doesn't hold a candle to most science fiction novels. We all already know that.

And please don't mistake what I'm saying. I'm not saying all science fiction does what Mass effect does with straining suspension of disbelief. I'm saying most of it does. That's the whole point, really.

Exactly. Science fiction is an intelligent projection of what knowledge and technology might bring, or might have brought in a different time. But it isn't just fiction. It's scientific fiction, and as such its claims and projections must be reasonable within the scope of human knowledge and the theoretical extensions of scientific discoveries. Otherwise just remove the "sci" part.

We can agree there are terribly bad attempts at sci fi though.

 

[Zhyphix]

Character creation's so far probably the best thing about DAI from what I've seen. Not much else is pulling me.

:rly?:

On a serious note, character creation does look good and varied. I don't really spend lots of time making dozens of different characters, but for the couple of them that I'd play the game with, I appreciate a well done tool.

Seeing the "eyelash style" option, however, part of me can't help questioning BioWare's priorities.

 

[Unkindled]

You realize that video ultimately reinforces what philosophers like Davidson said decades ago, right? That laws of physics are generalizations and not rules. We cannot tell the universe what to do. We can try to describe it, and even then our descriptions may be incomplete. In other words, very poor predictability.

Exactly. Science fiction is an intelligent projection of what knowledge and technology might bring, or might have brought in a different time. But it isn't just fiction. It's scientific fiction, and as such its claims and projections must be reasonable within the scope of human knowledge and the theoretical extensions of scientific discoveries. Otherwise just take our the "sci" part.

We can agree there are terribly bad attempts at sci fi though.

First, I think it supports exactly what I said it supports, which is that random is only a concept we created to describe things we cannot yet put a pattern to. At least originally.

As for the rest, that simply isn't the case. Science fiction at it's base is a genre with stories that have futuristic settings. The science described doesn't at all have to be possible, but generally they're at least based on some real science, in some way. Mass Effect has that. It is indeed science fiction, even if a lot of what is in it is just made up or not explained fully. Like what about the property of eezo makes it able to do all these miraculous things it can pull off, and they don't go into much detail, because they don't really need to. It's a game, and it's not really that important to the story.

Sure, you can go ahead and say that makes it bad science fiction, and I can't say you're wrong. But know that this pretty much calls out tons of movies and games people enjoy. Popularity of course doesn't mean it's quality. And I wouldn't even call Mass Effect quality story telling. Mass Effect one was pretty darn good in my opinion, but not so much the rest. The point is, you can't just ignore tons of examples within science fiction simply because you don't like them. With so many examples, one has to consider that this is a feature of the genre, rather than a single issue with Mass Effect's writing.

Mass Effect's writing has plenty of issues from the ending without calling on small things like not elaborating on dark energy. Who the hell cares. It's not even relevant to what's going on.

What in the hell.... well whatever. It's not like I have to look like that. I lived through Oblivion's character creation. I'll survive this.

 

[Cheylus]

Still waiting for the story, the pace, the music, the quest design, the dialogs and the characters but so far, and to me at least, everything else feels and looks better than Origins.

 

[Unkindled]

Still waiting for the story, the pace, the music, the quest design, the dialogs and the characters but so far, and to me at least, everything else feels and looks better than Origins.

Ha, that's pretty much everything that made origins good. Character, story, pace and dialogue. Graphics and such look better in general, but if I cared about that, I would have never played the series in the first place.

 

[CostinRaz]

The point was most science fiction stories can be picked apart, because most do the same thing Mass Effect did. Especially Starwars, Star Treck, Stargate SG-1, Halo, Andromeda, whatever.

In none of those series did you have characters going completely insane because of something like indoctrination. In none of those series was someone ever brought back to life for no fucking reason but just to have a "cool" factor.

I'm sorry, you're seriously pissing in the wind here. Mass Effect is considerably weaker on a consistency, character, lore, story level then ANY of those, yes including HALO. I've watched Stargate, Andromeda, Star Trek, Star Wars and they are far better in how they treat the lore, characters, story, themes and so on.

Mass Effect takes the piss on crucial aspects....just because.

Not saying those series don't have issues, they absolutely do, but on a scale of problems those are considerably smaller then what Mass Effect has. I would sooner rank good writing as being Andromeda Season Five then Mass Effect 3.....and THAT's saying something considering the metric ton of shit THAT was. "Shudders"

Arguing that because other series have problems means that what Mass Effect has in terms of issues is weak. Witcher 2 has it's own story line, consistency, character, lore issues, but you wouldn't argue that because of that the story issues of DA2 are excusable now would you?

 

[Unkindled]

Are you serious? Daniel Jackson's died like four times, maybe more in the series. Teal'c has been driven mad several times from the Goa'uld. So has Daniel Jackson, from repeated use of the sarcophagus from repeated deaths, and healing. Jack's been driven mad from his use of ancient technology, to the point to where he would die. That's just Stargate.

It's not pissing in the wind. I'm giving examples to explain my position of mass effect. You may not agree, but don't insult me.

Being driven insane from Indoctrination isn't a problem with the story, it's something you dislike about it. Same goes for Shephard dying and being brought back. Both fine if you don't. It isn't great storytelling, but it isn't faulty storytelling either, @Costin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Jackson_(Stargate)#.22Deaths.22

"Deaths"

The show's staff and writers occasionally make jokes about Daniel's frequent "deaths" on the show. In the season 7 episode "Heroes", one of the SG teams examine some ancient ruins and a scientist says "Dr. Jackson is gonna die when he sees this!" to which another member (Col. David Dixon, played by Adam Baldwin) responds "What?! Again?". Comparisons have also been made between Daniel and Kenny from the cartoon series South Park.[32] Daniel's first death is by staff blast while he defends O'Neil; he is resurrected by Ra with a sarcophagus in the film. Daniel flat lines in Season 4's "The Light". He dies of radiation poisoning in season 5's "Meridian" and Ascends to a higher plane until he reappears in Season 7's "Fallen (part 1)". He is killed by RepliCarter at the very end of "Reckoning" and is seen at a midway point between Ascension and mortality before finally retaking human form in "Threads". Daniel is presumed dead after SG-1 is brainwashed to believe this in Season 1's "Fire and Water". Daniel also is killed by Teal'c several times in a virtual reality system in Season 8's "Avatar". Other deaths generally involve Daniel's teammates: they die together in "The Nox" (where they get resurrected by the Nox) and in the alternate future of "2010"; their robot versions are killed in "Double Jeopardy", Daniel being the first to die; and a Goa'uld-possessed alternate timeline version of Daniel is shot by Teal'c in "Moebius", while in another timeline in the same episode, all of SG-1 are killed except Daniel. In the series first instance of an alternate timeline, the Daniel from that timeline is also presumed dead as his last known location is Egypt which is shown to have been attacked by the Goa'uld. In Stargate: Continuum Daniel is feared dead when he asks Carter and Mitchell to leave him behind while they search for help in the Arctic, only to be rescued by Col. O'Neill. Jackson is again killed by a Jaffa staff weapon near the end before Mitchell uses Ba'al's time-travel device to prevent Ba'al invading and conquering Earth

edit: I'm not at all big on Star Trek, but I do remember that Spock was brought back from death as a child in an old movie.

 

[CostinRaz]

Here in lies the difference, the story of SG1 did not just forget all those deaths as being irrelevant. Because the Ancients were a really big part of the Universe and were mentioned often and their role in the overall story was quite important as ascendant beings. Hell there was an entire plot line focused on ascension with Anubis.

In Mass Effect Shepard comes back from the dead and no ONE gives a fucking shit about it. You're kidding me?

 

[Unkindled]

Here in lies the difference, the story of SG1 did not just forget all those deaths as being irrelevant. Because the Ancients were a really big part of the Universe and were mentioned often and their role in the overall story was quite important as ascendant beings. Hell there was an entire plot line focused on ascension with Anubis.

In Mass Effect Shepard comes back from the dead and no ONE gives a fucking shit about it. You're kidding me?

What are you talking about? Tons of people react to you being brought back to life, those that knew you died. Especially Liara and Kaiden or Ashley. It's the hottest story going around in the game. People even doubt if it's really you, which got incredibly annoying to hear about from Kaiden and Ash, especially Ash.... I almost killed her on the playthrough I had her alive just so she'd shut up about it and Cerberus.

K, I'm getting kind of tired arguing about Mass Effect. Especially when I'm not even saying the writers were great. Or even really good. Without the characters being likeable, for me anyway, and being so fun to interact with, minus a few who I won't mention lest I go on a rant, then I probably wouldn't even care about the game. The characters, like in Origins for DA, they make the story. They're the real focus, and that's something I think Mass Effect does very well compared to other games. Even in 3 with all its problems, the one thing that didn't drop completely was that I enjoyed most of the character dialogue and interaction. Even with the Krogan stand in James, who will never ever be a good replacement for Wrex or Grunt, and I'm still sadface neither made it to the Normandy.

edit: It's also worth noting that not everyone even knew just how dead you were. Some even thought it was just a cover up.

edit 2: Also, with how much people die and come back to life, those deaths did pretty much become irrelevant in SG 1. Because we always suspected someone didn't actually die, or would come back somehow. Even the characters themselves.

Arguing that because other series have problems means that what Mass Effect has in terms of issues is weak. Witcher 2 has it's own story line, consistency, character, lore issues, but you wouldn't argue that because of that the story issues of DA2 are excusable now would you?

No, because none of DA 2's issues are a staple to Fantasy, unlike unexplained "space magic" in scifi. Example, they never explained that bullshit in SG1 where their zappers, Zatnikatel can disintegrate people, or where it gets the power. One shot stuns, two shots kill. Three shots disintegrate. Bull shit. But also very cool. That sort of thing, unexplained cool tech, that's a scifi staple.

 

[Seboist]

I just hope I can crush the Dalish, oxmen and any revolting mages for the rightful cause of human dominance in DAI.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Eh, I always end up with pretty generic-looking dudes anyway so I don't care too much about character creation.

On my general feel about the game - still not a huge fan of the aesthetics, and the companions and setting are still leaning more towards this modern, "edgy" BioWare approach to high fantasy rather than the more classic take in DA:O, which I preferred, but at least this time there's obvious detail and serious work put into the game, unlike DA2/ME3. So, if anything, I know it won't be a cash-in and it will definitely be better for it.

I'm still not entirely sold on the combat, getting back tactical cam is nice and all but it doesn't seem like the combat has any more depth than DA2's encounters did. One of my favourite things about DA:O was the combat, but that went to hell in DA2 with anime-style moves, spamming of abilities and enemy drop-ins. They seem to have done away with the enemies appearing out of nowhere for no reason bit, but, from what I've seen, I am not convinced the combat will be as satisfying as it was in DA:O.

I'm also worried about questing, judging by the whole structure of the war map etc. I get the feeling we'll have plenty of not-so-optional tedious side quests like in DA2/ME3 (something that, for me, was the final nail in the coffin for those games, completely ruining any attempts to replay them). It's basically the Skyrim problem, where it feels like I'm playing a single player MMO. I don't have enough information on this though, so I'll have to wait and see before I form a final opinion on DA:I's system.

 

[Unkindled]

@ReptilePZ, I made the comment that I thought DA2's combat was better than origin's because it felt like I was actually fighting, and thought it was more fun... But thinking back to Origins and comparing them, I got bored a lot faster on DA2, for the very reason you mentioned. Spamming abilities, the over the top flashiness of it. Honestly, Origin's combat if I think back to it without all the flash and bullshit really was more satisfying. Especially the magic.

 

[Veleda.980]

Welcome to science fiction, Veleda. The series started off with red herrings, just like most of them do. So what about Dark Energy? You started off with a magical element discovered that happens to be able to generate fields that can generate energy, kinetic barriers, and make people and objects lights as a feather. Lighter, actually, which allows them to travel faster than the speed of light, and you have a problem with Dark energy?

The problem is, they introduced it and did nothing with it. So like I said, no story coherence. They either had no idea where they were going when they started, or the plan kept changing and no one at the helm was able to keep the creative vision on track, or both. The world itself now is incoherent after the fiasco of ME3. Maybe you can enjoy it still but they ruined it for me.

That's pretty much the case with DA, too. I haven't liked any of the lore development since Origins. It's a case of Lost- an interesting world that just became a mess. With some sentimental shit thrown in and characters you didn't really care about.

 

[Unkindled]

The problem is, they introduced it and did nothing with it. So like I said, no story coherence. They either had no idea where they were going when they started, or the plan kept changing and no one at the helm was able to keep the creative vision on track, or both. The world itself now is incoherent after the fiasco of ME3. Maybe you can enjoy it still but they ruined it for me.

That's pretty much the case with DA, too. I haven't liked any of the lore development since Origins. It's a case of Lost- an interesting world that just became a mess. With some sentimental shit thrown in and characters you didn't really care about.

Dark energy was never meant to be explained, that's what people aren't getting. That isn't a lack of story coherence. Not knowing what gives element zero its exact properties doesn't change the fact that it works and that it can be used the way it is. People think red herrings are accidental things, but often times, especially in science fiction, they're planned. I can enjoy it because I'm used to it, I guess, since as I said, this is normal for science fiction. Like the example I used for SG-1 with their zatnikatel. Not even just science fiction, like I mentioned with the zombie example and how anything dead craving flesh is already an impossibility without the chemical only present in fat that makes us hunger, which quickly leaves during decomposing. You liked The Walking Dead by Telltale games, yes? They never delved into that, and it's pretty central to the story.

That's all I have left to say on the subject. That is a problem you and others have with sci fi games and movies in general. I find it really hard to believe something as small as that can ruin a series for someone. Dark energy is tied to the effects of element zero, a made up space magic element whose only purpose was to give us a reason to have a story to explore space and do all this other stuff with it. That's better than a lot of other games and stories that won't even give you that. It simply was never meant to be expanded upon beyond the fact that it indeed works. Science fiction staple, much like the stargates in SG-1 and their element Naquadah. Or the Halo rings in Halo. Things explained outside of the show in more detail and outside the game, for Halo in more detail.

I can comprehend easy someone not liking the game, but just this? There's got to be more than what you've stated.