Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I will not proceed to say everything you've expressed about DA:I is wrong, solely because of this minor error. You're a hater and a horrible person. /Nerd Rage!
Honestly I knew this game would suck when I read its subtitle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/11 22:59:35
Just so long as I don't have to listen to Martin again. The thing I always hated the most about starting a new game of Oblivion was having to listen to his speeches.
I will not proceed to say everything you've expressed about DA:I is wrong, solely because of this minor error. You're a hater and a horrible person. /Nerd Rage!
It was late and our daughter didn't want to sleep D:
EA / Activison / Blizzard; all the same. Big publishers get big ratings no matter how bad the game is.
On its own, DA:I does not seem to be a bad game. It's better than DA2, but that wasn't a challenge at all, yet is doesn't go above mediocre so far (~9 hours in). It certainly doesn't feel like a Dragon Age game. The fact that Bioware managed to screw up the PC port (and let's stop here for a second and realize that a Dragon Age game was PORTED to the PC!) alone is bad enough and a lot of features feel slapped on. The tactical isometric view for example is nigh-unplayable because of the bad controls as you have to constantly change the perspective in order to get an overview over the battlefield. Furthermore, it just isn't necessary - I'm playing on the 2nd highest difficulty level and I don't need to control any companion, they pretty much do most of the work on their own. You can just focus on your own character.
My overall impression so far is that DA:I is a game that was primarily developed for the console market and sits between all chairs at the same time - it wants to be a RPG, but it also wants to be a Skyrim and wants to be an Assassin's Creed. This concept alone cannot work well.
I'm still pretty excited about this, although perhaps less so. I liked DA1 and loved DA2, but was less fond of how dumbed down the controls were in 2 - sorry to hear they retained that.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I really dislike the fact that you can no longer freely allocate attribute points (they get leveled automatically). Really takes away from character individualization :(
Sigvatr wrote: I really dislike the fact that you can no longer freely allocate attribute points (they get leveled automatically). Really takes away from character individualization :(
....oh. Goddamn it. I don't play RPGs so I can play action games with a couple extra options. I like complicated, intensive games. This streamlinestreamlinedumbdown trend is so damned annoying.
Well, I guess this means there'll be more copies laying around for the rest of us!
Seriously though, barring the whole 'I can't control every aspect of my game', I think DA:I is going to be awesome - if that prologue playthrough is any indication.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
It's really just one opinion of one person though, who we can't even discern whether he's actually playing it. Likewise, individuals have widely ranging opinions even if he was.
He's also played only a tiny portion of the game, and for someone so down on DA2, looking at DAO with rose tinted glasses, you'd think he would just skip DAI. Despite that, he's played, apparently, 1/3 through despite no one knowing how long the game is, and hating every step of it.
And every review so far is good, albeit, only good reviews can be released early, but I bet you the negative reviews don't average below 75.
Attribute points are a vestigial leftover honestly, some games use them well, but for many games it's just a way to accidentally screw yourself over. You don't need attribute points if most of your build is based on skills such as in this game, attributes will just go straight into points that boost the skills you plan to use. There's plenty of examples of games that use attributes poorly.
Likewise, your choices in game during story means more to me than meaningless numbers in a set. Role playing is about more than attribute and skill points.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/12 10:20:58
According to some reviews, that's about 1/3 of the game
and for someone so down on DA2, looking at DAO with rose tinted glasses, you'd think he would just skip DAI. Despite that, he's played, apparently, 1/3 through despite no one knowing how long the game is, and hating every step of it.
Huh? Where did I say that I hate every step of it? I'd suggest reading my posts again. The game obviously has upsides I already mentioned. DA:O had glaring flaws, like the lack of feedback and super-slow combat, lots of backtracking, some poor characters, Leliana's accent, Zevhran, Oghren, generic overarching story etc. I am, as everyone biased, however, as I grew up with actual RPGs. Where you had to still use your brain, apply tactics etc. Did you play the original Fallout games? Plancescape Torment? Those games told a story and required tactics. DA:I, similar to DA2, is more of an action-adventure than RPG. That's not bad, of course not, it's just not my taste. Not sure why you would assume that I was talking from an objective point of view instead of just giving my very own biased opinion
And every review so far is good, albeit, only good reviews can be released early, but I bet you the negative reviews don't average below 75.
As I said, it's published by EA [SIC] and will therefore get good reviews.
Likewise, your choices in game during story means more to me than meaningless numbers in a set. Role playing is about more than attribute and skill points.
Precisely. That is, however, where DA2 has fallen and DA:I seems to fall short again. And that's the key problem.
The only review I have seen said it took about 90 hours to complete the main storyline, partly because of all the side quests and exploring that was done. Even after finishing the main story there were still unfinished side quests left to do. One example being that they only had 3 of 10 dragon skulls.
As I said, it's published by EA [SIC] and will therefore get good reviews.
Sadly, that is a concern.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/12 15:18:13
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I still haven't washed the taste of DA2 out of my mouth. If I even smell 2 on Inquisition I'll give it a pass. (Loved DAO, though.)
I'm waiting for more reviews.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
MWHistorian wrote: If I even smell 2 on Inquisition I'll give it a pass.
You don't smell it already?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vertrucio wrote: it's just a way to accidentally screw yourself over
This is a really good point, I think. This was an element of "Game Mastery," a style of game design where the player is presented with a lot of terrible choices and a couple good ones. The player has to find the right options either by trial and error or looking up other people's experiences online. Some players get a real kick out of Game Mastery but I just don't have the time or patience.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/12 15:41:58
Sigvatr wrote: I really dislike the fact that you can no longer freely allocate attribute points (they get leveled automatically). Really takes away from character individualization :(
Well, that's a deal breaker for me. Guess I won't be picking up DAI after all.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
If its a console RPG, I like to customize my character as much as possible, beyond asthetic choices. In DA:O I could use my attribute points to make the character the way I wanted them to be, not the way the programmers wanted it to be. To a lesser extent, I could do that in DA:2 as well. Morrowind and Oblivion both had a mechanic for player-controlled increase of attributes (as did Skyrim to a much lesser extent).
I'm already not happy with DA:2 for forcing me to play exactly one type of character (two-handed fighter, dual-weilding rogue, or aoe damage wizard) unlike DA:O which allowed to me make a sword and board fighter, or a dual weilding fighter, or a two-handed fighter, as well as rogues and wizards with a variety of possible builds. DA:2 told me what character I was playing. If I wanted a sword and board fighter, I couldn't be one. I could bring Aveline along and have a tank, but I couldn't *be* the tank. Your sole role in DA;2 was dps, no matter what class you picked. DA:O let me be so much more. And to hear that the ability to determine how my character's attributes level is taken away from me pretty much confirms Bioware is doubling down on DA:2 character designs.
I'm out. Thanks, Bioware. It was fun while it lasted, but it's not fun anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/12 16:27:12
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
So I think you are talking about two separate and very different issues:
(1) narrow class choices
(2) pre-set attribute points
Issue (1) has its own interesting implications -- for example, are categories like "tank" and "DPS" really constitutive of RPGs? How many class choices is enough? Is overlap a good thing or should classes be niche?
Interesting as they may be, those questions are unrelated to issue (2). Assuming a game has both classes and attributes, having high scores in certain attributes is essential to playing a certain class while other attributes confer no meaningful benefit at all. That leaves only one (usually the social stat) or maybe two attributes where you have a meaningful choice. In other words, attribute systems usually pose the illusion of customizability (i.e., you can play an ineffectual character if you want) and (effectively) getting rid of them is not a big deal.
Manchu wrote: So I think you are talking about two separate and very different issues:
(1) narrow class choices
(2) pre-set attribute points
Issue (1) has its own interesting implications -- for example, are categories like "tank" and "DPS" really constitutive of RPGs? How many class choices is enough? Is overlap a good thing or should classes be niche?
Interesting as they may be, those questions are unrelated to issue (2). Assuming a game has both classes and attributes, having high scores in certain attributes is essential to playing a certain class while other attributes confer no meaningful benefit at all. That leaves only one (usually the social stat) or maybe two attributes where you have a meaningful choice. In other words, attribute systems usually pose the illusion of customizability (i.e., you can play an ineffectual character if you want) and (effectively) getting rid of them is not a big deal.
Nope; the issues are linked. Narrow class choices permits the game to function with pre-set attribute points. If you're playing a fighter, and there is only one type of fighter in the game (two-handed weapon) then the programmers can pre-set your attributes to maximize your 2-handed weaponness. If there is only one type of rogue (dual-wielding) then the programmers can pre-set your attributes to maximize your dual-wieldedness.
If, however, you have multiple options for fighter, the programmers can't pre-set anything, because different builds require different attributes.
The fact that you can't choose how your attributes level up tells me that the game uses the "only one role" class system that I disliked from DA:2, even without Sig saying so explicitly. So I know that DA:I uses a class system I didn't like in DA:2, it is unlikely that I will suddenly enjoy it in DA:I.
As for making an ineffectual character; I have never made an ineffectual character, even when I played a dual-wielding mage in DA:O. True, I didn't roflstomp all my opponents as hard as if I'd gone straight nuketastic aoe wizard, but being allowed to design the character the way I wanted allowed me to play the game the way I wanted, which allowed me to enjoy the game more.
Some of us don't go through life trying to min-max everything, and being forced to do so by Bioware makes me want to play somebody else's games.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
squidhills wrote: Narrow class choices permits the game to function with pre-set attribute points.
No, narrow class choice is not what "permits" pre-set attributes. A game with many classes can still function with pre-set attributes so long as class abilities are tied to attributes.
squidhills wrote: If, however, you have multiple options for fighter, the programmers can't pre-set anything, because different builds require different attributes.
No, because what you call "builds" are essentially classes.
squidhills wrote: being allowed to design the character the way I wanted allowed me to play the game the way I wanted, which allowed me to enjoy the game more
What you are really arguing for is a game without classes. Classes are essentially a (partially) pre-built facet of a character. And as long as classes are defined by attribute-driven abilities, attributes are simply a matter of optimization.
Really looking forward to next week Friday! I'll go and cycle to the local videogame store to pick it up on my way home, and then I can immediately play!
I have also pre-ordered the game despite being very critical of both DAO and DA2. I had lots of problems with both games (especially DA2) but at the end of the day I am interested enough in them to talk about them pretty frequently, collect the table top RPG books, and follow the development of DAI. I guess I will ultimately not like DAI but if it is anything like DAO and DA2 I will be interested in it the whole time I am playing.
Manchu wrote: No, the issues are not linked. For example.
squidhills wrote: Narrow class choices permits the game to function with pre-set attribute points.
No, narrow class choice is not what "permits" pre-set attributes. A game with many classes can still function with pre-set attributes so long as class abilities are tied to attributes.
squidhills wrote: If, however, you have multiple options for fighter, the programmers can't pre-set anything, because different builds require different attributes.
No, because what you call "builds" are essentially classes.
squidhills wrote: being allowed to design the character the way I wanted allowed me to play the game the way I wanted, which allowed me to enjoy the game more
What you are really arguing for is a game without classes. Classes are essentially a (partially) pre-built facet of a character. And as long as classes are defined by attribute-driven abilities, attributes are simply a matter of optimization.
Ummm, no. "Fighter" is a class. Two-weapon fighter, two-handed fighter, and sword and board are builds of Fighter. DA:O let you pick a class (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) and let you build them the way you wanted. DA:2 let you pick your class, but pretty much chose the build for you (two-handed fighter, dual-wielding rogue, aoe dps wizard). If you have a game that has no definite class (no fighter, rogue, etc), then there is no way to determine which attributes are primary to your character so you can't have pre-set attributes (Skyrim gets around this by not really having attributes at all, just health magicka and stamina). With the much more wide-open class system of DA:O you needed different attributes depending on different builds. A dual-wielding fighter needed both Dex and Str, but a two-handed fighter really only needed Str (maybe Con, too). Given the more flexible nature of the class system in DA:O, pre-set attributes wouldn't have worked because there was no way to predict how the players were going to build their characters.
If Bioware is using pre-set attributes in DA:I it just shows that they are trying to force a particular style of play on the player. I don't like that in a western RPG. Don't tell me I can make whatever character I want, but then tell me I have to be X race, with X class, and (in the case of DA:2) with X name and locked into X plot that can't be altered in any meaningful way. Frankly, if I wanted to play a "role playing game" where 90% of my character was already predetermined, I'd go play a JRPG.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
That assumption is based upon the idea that they have not altered the stat system for DA:I to where each class gets a flat bonus to a specific statistic when it comes to their abilities.
So in your example, a dual-wielding Warrior would not necessarily need both Dexterity and Strength but rather would use primarily Strength and get a bonus to their dual-wielding abilities based upon Strength.
I do think that dual wielding Warrior might be gone though. None of the four MP Warriors are dual-wielding. Two(the Dwarf Legionnaire and the Human Templar) are 1h+shield and two(Human Reaver and Qunari Katari) are 2h weapon.
Including a picture of all the known character cards for MP:
Spoiler:
I can run down the list as well if anyone would like.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points) 
Legion: Dark Angels 
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
