[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I'm not feeling optimistic on this one anymore. I will not be getting it at release, dlc be damned.

[Morgoth]

I fear that Bioware have lost their way when it comes to writing. From what little I've seen of DA:I the writing does not look promising.

[Cause]

Avatar, on 01 November 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

Quote

How necessary is playing DA2 first? I've heard many pooor things about that one.

Not very important, I would guess. DAO and DA2 stories are not that tightly connected either. I would recommend not to play DA2, read a synopsis instead or watch some footage on youtube.

Something else: the idea that I get so far from watching DAI videos, is that it will be a pretty game, more open worldly, and will hopefully have good gameplay/combat. The thing I worry about most is the story. Although DAO's story wasn't the best story ever, I liked it for most parts, especially the main storyline. I loved the dark ritual part, that was very, very well done. The thing about DAI is that in all these video's, the story is not mentioned very much. And because the game is larger, and more open world, I'm afraid that bioware will not focus on telling a good story this time.

In many ways the story seems separate from the previous games which should hopefully free them from trying to shoehorn in every possibility (The reason MA3 failed). Im hoping the reason they have not mentioned the story much is to keep it unspoiled. Having said that DA2 was a travesty in every possible way, So I await the reviews. That said it looks very promising.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Avatar, on 30 October 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

Anyone going to play DA Inquisition? Thinking about upgrading my pc, wonder if the story will be worth it.

Not yet, I'll need a PC upgrade to handle it and that won't be happening for another year or so I should think. The old girl plays the original DA but doesn't really appreciate being made to do so.

I am however fairly optimistic about it from the footage I've seen, so I shall await hearing feedback.

[Gothos]

ME3 didn't fail, it's a brilliant game. The ending sucks, but the game didn't fail.

In any case, I'm definitely not buying this for full price. Bring me a 75% steam sale and I might. Way too busy otherwise.

[Cause]

Gothos, on 05 November 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

ME3 didn't fail, it's a brilliant game. The ending sucks, but the game didn't fail.

In any case, I'm definitely not buying this for full price. Bring me a 75% steam sale and I might. Way too busy otherwise.

Truth to what you say.

I will amend ME3 failed to deliver on its promises and its potential.

[Morgoth]

I'd argue there were some serious issues with ME3. In a vacum it was quite good, but it failed to live up to its promises as the conclusion of the series.

There were some very poor design decisions for one. Forcing the player to participate in the multiplayer for one of the endings. I hated that. Really, the whole idea of distilling your choices of the previous two games into numbers on a spreadsheet was a retarded idea.

Furthermore, the final cutscene was surprisingly short and poorly made (I still don't understand what they were thinking), and the quality of the writing went down from 2-3, which I attribute to the new head writer.

However, ME3 still had a powerfull emotional impact, and was very well done. It was an excellent game, but failed quite spectacularly as a sequel to ME2 I think.

Edit: so I agree with Cause, as it turns out.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 05 November 2014 - 01:03 PM

[Gothos]

Morgoth, on 05 November 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

I'd argue there were some serious issues with ME3. In a vacum it was quite good, but it failed to live up to its promises as the conclusion of the series.

There were some very poor design decisions for one. Forcing the player to participate in the multiplayer for one of the endings. I hated that. Really, the whole idea of distilling your choices of the previous two games into numbers on a spreadsheet was a retarded idea.

Furthermore, the final cutscene was surprisingly short and poorly made (I still don't understand what they were thinking), and the quality of the writing went down from 2-3, which I attribute to the new head writer.

However, ME3 still had a powerfull emotional impact, and was very well done. It was an excellent game, but failed quite spectacularly as a sequel to ME2 I think.

Edit: so I agree with Cause, as it turns out.

Yeah, well, I can't argue any of that. I'll say I was first in line for hatin' the multiplayer stuff - until I actually played it.
The writing was best in ME1 and yeah, ME3 goes down considerably - though still better than most stuff you see nowdays. Writer change is, imo, the chief reason - so we agree. The game had some truly insanely epic moments, though, so on that front I'd say they succeeded. The showdowns on Tuchanka and Rannoch were expertly executed. I do still prefer the relation between Shep and Saren from ME1, but this was some great stuff. I'd say the game is sufficiently End-Of-Days. The solution to it is what's been neglected, sadly.
The ending... well. I'm one of those people who have played fucking everything there is to do in the series. I finished ME1 11 times, ME2 9 and ME3 7 times. I'm disappointed that they didn't deliver on their promises, but... I like the game more than I dislike that.
Mechanics-wise, I'd say ME3 was the most enjoyable in combat of the three games, without a contest. It may lack the "depth" of ME1 (if you consider the extensive and tedious inventory system and dozens of small skill levels "depth") and steers way clear of the quasi-RPG roots, the action is just so satisfying. I've played quite a bit of that multiplayer too, and it's tremendous for replayability.

Dragon Age 2's two biggest mistakes are:
1. Trying to cash in on Shepard's tremendous success.
2. Thinking that fantasyShep would make people accept lazy/hasty design.

[Tiste Simeon]

Gothos, on 05 November 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 05 November 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

I'd argue there were some serious issues with ME3. In a vacum it was quite good, but it failed to live up to its promises as the conclusion of the series.

There were some very poor design decisions for one. Forcing the player to participate in the multiplayer for one of the endings. I hated that. Really, the whole idea of distilling your choices of the previous two games into numbers on a spreadsheet was a retarded idea.

Furthermore, the final cutscene was surprisingly short and poorly made (I still don't understand what they were thinking), and the quality of the writing went down from 2-3, which I attribute to the new head writer.

However, ME3 still had a powerfull emotional impact, and was very well done. It was an excellent game, but failed quite spectacularly as a sequel to ME2 I think.

Edit: so I agree with Cause, as it turns out.

Yeah, well, I can't argue any of that. I'll say I was first in line for hatin' the multiplayer stuff - until I actually played it.
The writing was best in ME1 and yeah, ME3 goes down considerably - though still better than most stuff you see nowdays. Writer change is, imo, the chief reason - so we agree. The game had some truly insanely epic moments, though, so on that front I'd say they succeeded. The showdowns on Tuchanka and Rannoch were expertly executed. I do still prefer the relation between Shep and Saren from ME1, but this was some great stuff. I'd say the game is sufficiently End-Of-Days. The solution to it is what's been neglected, sadly.
The ending... well. I'm one of those people who have played fucking everything there is to do in the series. I finished ME1 11 times, ME2 9 and ME3 7 times. I'm disappointed that they didn't deliver on their promises, but... I like the game more than I dislike that.
Mechanics-wise, I'd say ME3 was the most enjoyable in combat of the three games, without a contest. It may lack the "depth" of ME1 (if you consider the extensive and tedious inventory system and dozens of small skill levels "depth") and steers way clear of the quasi-RPG roots, the action is just so satisfying. I've played quite a bit of that multiplayer too, and it's tremendous for replayability.

Dragon Age 2's two biggest mistakes are:
1. Trying to cash in on Shepard's tremendous success.
2. Thinking that fantasyShep would make people accept lazy/hasty design.

I loved the game play of ME3 more than the first 2. I loved that it didn't have the horrendous inventory problems or world exploration boringness of 1 (I get so sick of driving that thing every time I play the game!) or the tedious planet scanning of 2. I loved (as Gothos said) the atmosphere and End-of-Days feel and the desperation of the characters you have come to care about. So overall it was an excellent playing experience.

But it was let down by 1) the end. Enough has been said about that. 2) The selection of characters wasn't nearly as cool as ME2. I missed playing as Legion and Thane especially. (ME1 doesn't feature because basically you only needed Garrus and Wrex.) 3) Kai Leng.

[Morgoth]

I think making Cerebrus the main antagonist was one of the worst failures of the trilogy.

[Cause]

Cerberus was mutch better as the shady ally. You needed them, maybe you did or did not agree with them, their methods or their ideals but they got things done and as ME2 showed sometimes they were the only ones humanity could count on. Suddenly in 3 they are the Nazis, no black and white, no redeeming features. It was disappointing.

I honestly think ME3 should have been ME2 but instead of characters you had races. Do one mission to save and earn a race, do a second to earn their loyalty. At the end decide whether you want the krogans or the taurians to be your shock infantry as you assault the reapers. Maybe they succeed, maybe they all die. Maybe as a result the mission fails. Also because of the race against time to save the world it should have been impossible to do every mission. As Morgoth says turning victory into a matter of numbers on a spreadsheet was retarded! Especially since it was practically impossible to fail or have a meaningful impact.

[Gothos]

I agree Cerberus should be the shady ally, I hated the face-heel turn between 2 and 3.

In any case, I've watched some hands-on video of Inquisition and.... I'm so not buying this shit.

[Obdigore]

Cause, on 05 November 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

Cerberus was mutch better as the shady ally. You needed them, maybe you did or did not agree with them, their methods or their ideals but they got things done and as ME2 showed sometimes they were the only ones humanity could count on. Suddenly in 3 they are the Nazis, no black and white, no redeeming features. It was disappointing.

I honestly think ME3 should have been ME2 but instead of characters you had races. Do one mission to save and earn a race, do a second to earn their loyalty. At the end decide whether you want the krogans or the taurians to be your shock infantry as you assault the reapers. Maybe they succeed, maybe they all die. Maybe as a result the mission fails. Also because of the race against time to save the world it should have been impossible to do every mission. As Morgoth says turning victory into a matter of numbers on a spreadsheet was retarded! Especially since it was practically impossible to fail or have a meaningful impact.

Cerberus should have split into two in the third game. One faction follows captain-smoking-man and his 'human 4 lyfe' mantra, and the other faction is trying to defend the entire galaxy, and then you have to choose which one to support, which would have ripple effects in what other alien factions would support you.

Of course, this would have required more time and more interesting choices. You shouldn't get 'This entire race of sentient beings supports you!', it should have been numerous factions in each with each faction cancelling out at least one other, and effecting your ability to get other factions from other races and so on.

I was real excited for Inquisition, but with all the whining/complaining/gamergating/hatemasturbation/kama sucka in this thread, maybe I need to watch some of these videos. I do so hate spoiling anything in what should be a very story-driven game, though.

[Cause]

Gothos, on 07 November 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

In any case, I've watched some hands-on video of Inquisition and.... I'm so not buying this shit.

Please expand

[Gothos]

The combat looks like even more of an infuriating lightshow than DA2. Yeah great idea lets put spell effects on everything from farting to stratching Varric's beard. It just screams they just fixed the re-used environments and just went further with every other design decision made between DA:O and DA2. It's like the game is 1 step away from becoming a shooter. And with all that, it looks boring as hell.

I don't know what I expected, maybe going closer to DA:O formula after the relative flop of DA2? Well, it's not happening.

[Avatar]

Quote

The combat looks like even more of an infuriating lightshow than DA2. Yeah great idea lets put spell effects on everything from farting to stratching Varric's beard. It just screams they just fixed the re-used environments and just went further with every other design decision made between DA:O and DA2. It's like the game is 1 step away from becoming a shooter. And with all that, it looks boring as hell.

Boring is exactly what I am afraid of. Expanding (diluting) a game so heavy with story and lore (as DAO was) into a 200 hour game, much bigger than Skyrim: I doubt anything interesting will be left. It sounds like the Old Republic MMO: huge, fun for a while, but in the end, not really worth your time.

[Aptorian]

The review thread is up on r/games:

http://www.reddit.co..._review_thread/

It looks overwhelmingly positive. The fact that EA is allowing review to go up a week before release shows that they have a lot of confidence in the game.

[Tiste Simeon]

Yeah Grim said in the Whats Making you Happy thread that she is loving it.

[Morgoth]

I am very surprised, but in a good way. I'm happy to hear that good triple A RPGs can be made.

[Gothos]

Site reviews are something you shouldn't really be trusting.

I retain my stance. If the combat looks like it did in the videos I saw, I'm not touching that thing with a 10 foot pole.