Support NeoGAF

[Ralemont]

So you think Inquisition is better than Baldurs gate 2? If not, what are you complaining about?

If you want to play the "I like them both for different reasons cards", tell me what game you are comparing Inquisition to? Oblivion?

It's becoming increasingly difficult to follow your logic.

"Anything who's played BG2 and DA: I thinks DA: I is bad."
"Actually I think both are good."
"So you think DA: I is better than BG2?"

I don't see why I should have to compare them at all, especially since Baldur's Gate 2 doesn't have a console version. For the purposes of this thread, I compared Origins and Inquisition in an earlier post.

 

[texhnolyze]

I've played BG2, Torment, Neverwinter, DA: Origins, and Inquisition.
I love them all.

 

[Yeul]

BioWare is definitely very reflexive in terms of fan feedback and how they incorporate that into their games, but it's not necessarily a bad thing all the time. To be honest, I think part of this becomes very apparent in Dragon Age in particular due to the fact that the series shifts main characters with every iteration therefore they might feel like it gives them a little more wiggle room to experiment because "oh we're shaking things up with a new location, character, and combat system as well!". The story is really the only thing that you can be sure will share a semblance of continuity in terms of lore (but even that shifts a bit as development occurs). Hawke with DA2 was originally going to be Dragon Age's "Shepard" character, but with the backlash they dropped that idea and decided to continue with the new protag each game because it's a story about "the world" rather than one particular person. This can be a blessing and a curse development-wise.

They definitely haven't found the secret sauce yet, but to me each game gave me a unique experience, that's for sure. Such shifts can be detrimental, and some may argue it has been, but they have never shipped an "open-world" game like this before, particularly on a new engine. A lot of experiments had to have taken place, and while the game certainly lacked in areas, I can only hope those systems that might have needed more improvement is something that's not just acknowledged (as they have already), but implemented in a better way in their next games. Like it or not, I think a lot of the CRPGs/IE games may appear as inaccessible for people. They just aren't that BioWare anymore, and I think EA has a lot to do with it along with certain talent leaving. Some people will never be happy with a BioWare RPG title that isn't a call-back to BG2, and a game as divisive as Inquisition is interesting, but I'm glad it's a discussion to be had. In general though, the ridiculous dev time of DA2 and ME3 backlashes caused them a lot of grief so I'm very happy to see their longer dev cycle return.

 

[Ralemont]

DA4 isn't going to be like Inquisition, either. There are a lot of mechanics that won't make sense once the story isn't about the Inquisition any more, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them give DA2's more local storytelling method another shot since they already expressed interest in the idea. Bigger than a city, less than a couple countries.

In fact, maybe a large island that would just so happen to be the perfect boiling point for the Tevinter/Qunari conflict. Fenris is also from Seheron, and he's in the latest novel Gaider is currently writing. IT ALL FITS.

 

[aliengmr]

Loved DA:O. Thought DA2 was meh but the story was good. DA:I comes in a close second to DA:O.

For me, everything that I didn't care for in DA2 was vastly improved in DA:I. But DA:I really lacked the diverse backgrounds of DA:O. The race story lines felt too "samey" in DA:I and I would have preferred DA:O style back stories. DA:O gave me perspective and I wish they had done the same with DA:I.

 

[Renekton]

Loved DA:O. Thought DA2 was meh but the story was good. DA:I comes in a close second to DA:O.

For me, everything that I didn't care for in DA2 was vastly improved in DA:I. But DA:I really lacked the diverse backgrounds of DA:O. The race story lines felt too "samey" in DA:I and I would have preferred DA:O style back stories. DA:O gave me perspective and I wish they had done the same with DA:I.

It's pretty unique. If you were Dwarf Noble you'd want to kick Bhelen's teeth in. If you were Commoner you'd prefer to keep him in power.

 

[Carlius]

Origins is still the best of the three, and BY FAR.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

Origins was great. That "mage" part of the game was awful and slow, but the rest was really fun.
I never played Inquisition. I noticed the devs drained all the sex appeal out of the female characters designs. Then I read elsewhere they deliberately made their faces less attractive and that the game engine was practically un-moddable. After seeing that stuff, I just kinda lost interest.

 

[haimon]

I agree that Origins is the best, but its not by far, and Inquisition is also a great game IMO.

Then again, I am a fan of the Bioware formula, and enjoy their games immensely.

 

[ColdRose]

Origins was great. That "mage" part of the game was awful and slow, but the rest was really fun.
I never played Inquisition. I noticed the devs drained all the sex appeal out of the female characters designs. Then I read elsewhere they deliberately made their faces less attractive and that the game engine was practically un-moddable. After seeing that stuff, I just kinda lost interest.

What? I mean, I get that different people have different priorities, but really? You didn't play the game because the ladies aren't sexy enough? And anyway, both Morrigan and Leliana look plenty sexy. As does Cassandra in my book, though it's true that Bioware is not taking an 'eye candy first' approach to female character design. A good thing, in my view.

Also, it isn't unmoddable. Less moddable, and trickier, sure, and modders have to do some work after each patch, but there are mods for the game on Nexus including textures, no waiting for war table missions etc.

 

[wolfhowwl]

Say what you will about whoever was in charge of Mass Effect (Hudson?) but under their watch each game was mechanically better to play than the one that came before it. After ME1 was released as a terrible mess in '07, they chose a direction for the series and stuck with it, creating vastly improved combat in ME2 and then improving it further in ME3. Sure some things got cut along the way, but they were trash to begin with and ME2 strongly benefited from the more focused approach.

Meanwhile with Dragon Age, they're on game three and the series is still lost in the woods. Ah well.

Anyways it might meet their objectives better if they went all the way, scrapped the current system, probably made some external hires for design, and just made an action game with fun combat like Mass Effect (which incidentally did a much better job delivering an "awesome button" with stuff like Vanguard Charge).

 

[Dark_castle]

Origins was great. That "mage" part of the game was awful and slow, but the rest was really fun.
I never played Inquisition. I noticed the devs drained all the sex appeal out of the female characters designs. Then I read elsewhere they deliberately made their faces less attractive and that the game engine was practically un-moddable. After seeing that stuff, I just kinda lost interest.

Easy avatar quote.

 

[thuGG_pl]

Origins >>>>>>>> Inquisition

 

[Shinypogs]

I loved Origins and am enjoying the hell out of the awakening dlc which I feel had some amazing added world building and does a good job of making it worth playing even more of the game with all the new abilities and places to explore.

Now Origins has it's faults( looking at you overly tedious fade section) and there were things that could have been improved upon in a a later game but it's still my favorite.

DA inquisition I don't own but have watched several playthroughs of. The game looks amazing but it feels a bit hollow as a whole and the plot gets really disjointed at times, like they were trying to tell too many stories and make it all feel like part of the same big adventure. I do really really like the companions for Inquisition (well most of them) and their personal storylines are all pretty damn well done.

I feel like in the future we need a game that's a mixture of the best Origins and Inquisition had to offer

 

[General Lee]

I liked Origins but I wasn't really impressed considering it was supposed to be the spiritual successor to BG2. The engine they used was dated on release which sort of bothered me more since ME looked a lot better back then. The story, characters and combat was good regardless, and the only annoying thing I remember was the overbearing combat music.

Inquisition on the other hand used the Frostbite engine well, and I think the game is graphically quite polished. The combat was fun and challenging on nightmare, at first. Unfortunately after around lvl 15 or so it started to get easier and easier to the point where there was no challenge left anymore. The game had so much filler content that you ended up overleveling if you did everything, and the main plot didn't scale and ended way too soon. They should've cut a lot of the pointless filler and redirected it into the main storyline. The different areas should've been more tightly linked to the main plot, whereas now they're not really fleshed out, just areas filled with filler quests with minimal story significance. I've played Origins through a few times, but Inquisition I don't think I'll replay more than twice. Hopefully Bioware will avoid this sort of mmofication of their games in the future.

 

[GECK]

Jesus christ what am I reading.

A really crazy wrong opinion.

 

[Prine]

i tried so hard to stick to this game, but i cant find the energy to continue. Just realised whats the point on investing time when the payoff isnt there. The only thing that reinvigorated my desire to play was Skyhold upkeep, but in the grade scheme of things means nothing. At least if the battle system was good id ignore the other points, or if there was meaningful side quests, not these bloody fetch quest.

Witcher releases tonight, im done with DA series, time to wipe it from my HDD. 100+ hours for nothing

 

[noshten]

Orgins was probably the last Bioware game as far as I'm concerned.
The direction they have taken after Orgins is disappointing to say the least.

 

[Chaos17]

It's pretty unique. If you were Dwarf Noble you'd want to kick Bhelen's teeth in. If you were Commoner you'd prefer to keep him in power.

I really missed those origins intro from DA:O, they really gave your character a backstory in the contrary of the inquisitor.

 

[Sanctuary]

What is this shit? I'll keep my deep, tactical, not brain dead combat, thank you.

You guys just never stop patting yourselves on the back do you? Because there's nothing truly "deep" or "tactical" about the combat in Origins. On any difficulty. Okay sure, if you're going to compare it to the combat in the next two installments, it wasn't as user friendly and it wasn't anywhere near as exciting to watch (because watching auto attacks forever is exciting!!!), but it also wasn't anything new and was pretty goddamn dated if you'd already played any number of the previous iterations of the same game.

People like different things, but get over yourself. There's nothing special at all about the combat in Origins. It's simply different from the next two games.

 

[d9b]

I clocked 120hrs / Inquisition (PS4)
Loved every minute of it. Also, game looks great.

 

[Phinor]

Say what you will about whoever was in charge of Mass Effect (Hudson?) but under their watch each game was mechanically better to play than the one that came before it. After ME1 was released as a terrible mess in '07, they chose a direction for the series and stuck with it, creating vastly improved combat in ME2 and then improving it further in ME3. Sure some things got cut along the way, but they were trash to begin with and ME2 strongly benefited from the more focused approach.

But see, that is debatable too. Like many people, I enjoyed ME1 combat the most out of the three ME games so far. I'm not even going to agree with the idea that three improved upon two, I prefer the combat of ME2 over ME3. Sure, I can agree that they fixed some issues going forward, but I think the combat went backwards with every game.

I also enjoyed many (most) other parts of the gameplay most in ME1 including the exploration with Mako. So while I think ME1 is the best game in that series and that ME2/ME3 wen't backwards, I think all three are excellent games. Can't say the same with Dragon Age series, only the first game is excellent (including the expansion). It's not even because I'm some hardcore IE fan, I've never finished BG1/BG2/either Icewind Dale. I don't think the IE way of doing combat is the only right one, but DA:I just wasn't much fun to play (in combat).

 

[diaspora]

It's pretty easy to see the transition from DA:O to DA2 to DA:I in regards to combat. It's not like they simply went directly from Origins to DA:I. As much hate that DA2 receives, I always felt that for the most part, the combat was improved. Origins wasn't as "tactical" as so many love to whine about, insisting there's something deep to positioning and then auto attacking for 90% of the fight, waiting on cooldowns or spamming healing or mana potions.

The encounter design of DA2 though is something else entirely.

This, Origins required little thought.

 

[Moff]

This, Origins required little thought.

still more than inquisition though.
and although I can get the reasoning behind origins not being as tactical as some of the CPRG classics, I would absolutely still call it a tactical game, and I had tons of fun with the battle system. and both of that is not true for DA:I.

 

[diaspora]

still more than inquisition though.
and although I can get the reasoning behind origins not being as tactical as some of the CPRG classics, I would absolutely still call it a tactical game, and I had tons of fun with the battle system. and both of that is not true for DA:I.

No, no it didn't. There was no actual tactical awareness needed, and no.more thinking required over Inquisition.

 

[Rozart]

How is this even a tough choice? Origins easily. Better party, greater sense of scale, better quests, the best antagonist and an actual cohesive narrative pacing.

Also, they took away my tactics system. Why Bioware. Why.

 

[PhantomVash808]

Origins > Inquisition. I enjoyed both but Origins just had me engrossed even more between the two. The story, pacing, and characters were all much better in Origins compared to Inquisition. However Inquisition is still a great game and I really enjoyed the world. One things for sure these both Origins and Inquisition are miles ahead of Dragon Age 2.

 

[Atraveller]

You guys just never stop patting yourselves on the back do you? Because there's nothing truly "deep" or "tactical" about the combat in Origins. On any difficulty. Okay sure, if you're going to compare it to the combat in the next two installments, it wasn't as user friendly and it wasn't anywhere near as exciting to watch (because watching auto attacks forever is exciting!!!), but it also wasn't anything new and was pretty goddamn dated if you'd already played any number of the previous iterations of the same game.

People like different things, but get over yourself. There's nothing special at all about the combat in Origins. It's simply different from the next two games.

This just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you like press A for awesome, fine, whatever, don't ruin it for other people.

 

[diaspora]

This just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you like press A for awesome, fine, whatever, don't ruin it for other people.

This is what Origins does. Click on enemy, use power hotkey, unpause. Repause, repeat. It's actually similar if not outright identical to Inquisition.
Nobody actually knows what's supposed to be less "complex" do they?

 

[Atraveller]

This is what Origins does. Click on enemy, use power hotkey, unpause. Repause, repeat. It's actually similar if not outright identical to Inquisition.
Nobody actually knows what's supposed to be less "complex" do they?

You can make statements like this just about everything if you over-simplify things. Friendly fire alone makes that statement wrong(yes you can turn it on, but Inquisition was never designed around it, it'll just make the experience worse).

 

[diaspora]

You can make statements like this just about everything if you over-simplify things. Friendly fire alone makes that statement wrong(yes you can turn it on, but Inquisition was never designed around it, it'll just make the experience worse).

Inquisition is better for FF given rogue's arrays of trap abilities and mage bombing spells. Abilities in general are better thought out in Inquisition too.
Like I said, you don't know what's supposed to be less complex with DAI, but it's a dumb meme people will insist on anyway.

 

[Moff]

No, no it didn't. There was no actual tactical awareness needed, and no.more thinking required over Inquisition.

In my experience yes, origins required a lot more thinking an tactical awareness than inquisition.
inquisition had a lot of cool abilities, I give it that, that's not the problem. the problem is that any kind of positioning was a complete mess because of the abysmal camera and because of the lack of the possibility to pick multiple party members at the same time. it didn't feel tactical at all, it felt more like a fantasy mass effect. and bioware of course realized that soon. encounters were designed differently, enemies were designed differently. in both origins and DA2 your cloth wearer would be teared to shreds in seconds if they were not placed properly, I had to relad a lot.
I never made that experience in inquisition. same goes for crowd control. origins offered powerful crowd control abilities and they were needed, because witthout them you would be overwhelmed. in inquisiton, the cc abilities were a joke, they were very unrealiable and would control enemies only for a very short time. they feel more like a bonus to a damage spell instead of proper crowd control. and of course the game was designed to not need proper crowd control.
that's my take just from the top of my head, why inquisition felt more like a mass effect action game and origins more like a classic, tactical CRPG, although both of them had many tactical abilities on paper.

 

[diaspora]

In my experience yes, origins required a lot more thinking an tactical awareness than inquisition.
inquisition had a lot of cool abilities, I give it that, that's not the problem. the problem is that any kind of positioning was a complete mess because of the abysmal camera and because of the lack of the possibility to pick multiple party members at the same time. it didn't feel tactical at all, it felt more like a fantasy mass effect. and bioware of course realized that soon. encounters were designed differently, enemies were designed differently. in both origins and DA2 your cloth wearer would be teared to shreds in seconds if they were not placed properly, I had to relad a lot.
I never made that experience in inquisition. same goes for crowd control. origins offered powerful crowd control abilities and they were needed, because witthout them you would be overwhelmed. in inquisiton, the cc abilities were a joke, they were very unrealiable and would control enemies only for a very short time. they feel more like a bonus to a damage spell instead of proper crowd control. and of course the game was designed to not need proper crowd control.
that's my take just from the top of my head, why inquisition felt more like a mass effect action game and origins more like a classic, tactical CRPG, although both of them had many tactical abilities on paper.

Earth Shattering Strike, global taunting, directed taunting, spikes, grenade traps, mage ice/fire ground traps. The crowd control was better in Inquisition.

The Static Cage alone puts it above Origins. Comboing the static cage with a tanks shout taunt was perfection.

 

[Atraveller]

Inquisition is better for FF given rogue's arrays of trap abilities and mage bombing spells. Abilities in general are better thought out in Inquisition too.
Like I said, you don't know what's supposed to be less complex with DAI, but it's a dumb meme people will insist on anyway.

It's like you read words and they don't go into your head, I've just made one example and you ignored that. Yeah, turn FF off and throw everything AOE at the enemy, disregarding positioning and dumbing the whole thing down, is that not clear enough to you?

Skill tree progress, spells and skills variety are all cut down, and reduced.
80% of combat or more are in open terrain, can't use building structures to your advantage(again, positioning, and Origin AI don't run around like idiots).

 

[diaspora]

It's like you read words and they don't go into your head, I've just made one example and you ignored that. Yeah, turn FF off and throw everything AOE at the enemy, disregarding positioning and dumbing the whole thing down, is that not clear enough to you?

Skill tree progress, spells and skills variety are all cut down, and reduced.
80% of combat or more are in open terrain, can't use building structures to your advantage(again, positioning, and Origin AI don't run around like idiots).

Spells and skills are vastly improved, rather than having a half dozen variations of the same skills they're more refined. Positioning is now better with the added verticality. Incidentally, I don't bother addressing fucking stupid statements like turning FF off, sure you can play on casual too. But sure, keep playing your shitty deprecated battle system.

 

[Atraveller]

Spells and skills are vastly improved, rather than having a half dozen variations of the same skills they're more refined.

Make blood mage boring useless, refined. lol no

Positioning is now better with the added verticality.

You wouldn't have needed that if everything wasn't open terrain.

 

[Moff]

Earth Shattering Strike, global taunting, directed taunting, spikes, grenade traps, mage ice/fire ground traps. The crowd control was better in Inquisition.

The Static Cage alone puts it above Origins. Comboing the static cage with a tanks shout taunt was perfection.

yeah I think static cage is the perfect example. although actually all your examples fit. they all feel more like damage spells, not crowd control abilities. the static cages in DA:O lasted much longer and did far less damage, or none at all.
static cage in inquisition is an extremely powerful AOE damage spell, the crowd control seemed only like a small bonus. so no, I don't agree with you at all. and while the "crowd control" spells in inquisition were "better" in the sense that they also did a shitload of AOE damage, their role in the tactical part of the game was actually much smaller to non existent, because the crowd control effect was much shorter and they did tons of damage, so damage is what they were used for, not for their tactical crowd control abilities.

Positioning is now better with the added verticality.

ok, I think at this point it's clear that you are trolling. positioning in inquisition is a complete mess.

 

[diaspora]

Make blood mage boring useless, refined. lol no

Blood mages did that to themselves in the first game.

You wouldn't have needed that if everything wasn't open terrain.

It's a good thing it isn't then.

yeah I think static cage is the perfect example. although actually all your examples fit. they all feel more like damage spells, not crowd control abilities. the static cages in DA:O lasted much longer and did far less damage.
static cage in inquisition is an extremely powerful AOE damage spell, the crowd control seemed only like a small bonus. so no, I don't agree with you at all. and while the "crowd control" spells in inquisition were "better" in the sense that they also did a shitload of AOE damage, their role in the tactical part of the game was actually much smaller to non existent, because the crowd control effect was much shorter and they did tons of damage, so damage is what they were used for, not for their tactical crowd control abilities.

What? Static cage was a pea shooter damage-wise, it's damn near impossible to kill anyone with it, though I haven't played on easy yet.

Positioning is fine, camera is the mess.

 

[Moff]

What? Static cage was a pea shooter damage-wise, it's damn near impossible to kill anyone with it, though I haven't played on easy yet.

It still did tons of damage because it had such a huge range. in origins, you could crowd control one enemy, that is tactical. in inquisition, you pull a bulk of enemies together with static cage and AOE them away, that does not feel tactical to me, that feels like a mass effect action game to me. it's easy and boring, I know, because I mained a mage and used that in every battle of the game.

Positioning is fine, camera is the mess.

I am sure you see that the camera is a vital part of positioning.
positioning in inqusition is so messed up that I would be surprised someone is masochistic enough to do it in every battle. personally, I only did it in the dragon fights. in origins, I loved positioning in every single battle. luckily in inquisition it was not needed at all.

 

[m@cross]

Chris Breault has a review for Inquisition that nails it imo.

http://killscreendaily.com/articles/dragon-age-inquisition-all-business/

Many chores in this game have been mislabeled as quests. Close four rifts. Establish seven camps. Free seven villagers. Find 22 shards. Collect 48 copies of a book someone lifted from the library. Pick up a billion grains of sand someone left on the beach.

It’s clear that Bioware couldn’t scale its storytelling up to the world its artists made. In Origins, even a transitional area like the Brecilian Forest could hide a paranoid hermit and the talking tree that he hated. In Inquisition, you’ll scour the wilds in vain for a scene like that, finding only “kill the guy” or “collect the thing” tasks that nobody had time to work up into a story.

But Origins’ cast was a rougher, more outspoken bunch to begin with. (Remember how some of them tried to kill you?) Inquisition’s companions are the most forgettable humanoids Bioware has assembled since the original Neverwinter Nights. I won their approval and helped with their personal quests, but I’d trade the best of them for Shale, Loghain, or Oghren.

These are just a couple excerpts, I highly recommend anyone who wants a spot on comparison, IMO, between the two and why in comparison the 3rd is rubbish compared to the first, read this review. Yes the 3rd is a good game on its own, but to say it is good compared to the first is not genuine.

 

[adamsapple]

Cut out all 90% og the bullshit filler quests and reduce the load time by half (PS3 version) and Inquisition is the better game, but as of right now, Origins is the better of the two IMO.

 

[DMiz]

Handily Origins.

While I really enjoyed some aspects of the 'open-world' map navigation that Inquisition has - I just like that control scheme, and enjoy going through worlds the way they had it set up - Origins was a much better experience and did a greater job of making you believe you were participating in a 'world event', despite the fact that it takes place in 'half' the world space and, in terms of square footage, is ostensibly much smaller.

It helps that Origins has a much more interesting cast.

 

[ramshot]

Better in Inquisition: World, most gameplay systems, variety
Better in Origins: Characters, story
Draw: Combat, I like both for slightly different reasons. I'm 100% in tactical mode in Inquisition though.

Much of what is "better" in Origins is better there simply because things were fresh. The setting, all the characters etc. DA:I is a really, really good game, especially the latter half of it.

Origins is one of my favorite RPG's of all time, and I've played through it almost 3 times, but much progress has been made in gaming since then, and the scale and production values of DA:I mean that if I had to pick one of the two games, it would be Inquisition.

 

[captainnapalm]

Inquisition is a very shallow RPG masquerading as a deep one. Despite its size, or perhaps because of it, it's extremely light on meaningful content, story, dialogue and character interaction - the things I would consider hallmarks of Bioware RPGs.

So, yes, it's very disappointing. If they'd actually bothered to populate their gigantic maps with these things, the game would have been God tier.

I'd probably have been able to forgive the fact that the combat in Inquisition is the worst of the three, and that the PC controls were butchered, and that the menus are generic and ugly, and the loot is 99% garbage.

Origins, on the other hand, is a fantastic game.

 

[Rozart]

These are just a couple excerpts, I highly recommend anyone who wants a spot on comparison, IMO, between the two and why in comparison the 3rd is rubbish compared to the first, read this review. Yes the 3rd is a good game on its own, but to say it is good compared to the first is not genuine.

This is a great read. Thanks for this!

It’s clear that Bioware couldn’t scale its storytelling up to the world its artists made. In Origins, even a transitional area like the Brecilian Forest could hide a paranoid hermit and the talking tree that he hated. In Inquisition, you’ll scour the wilds in vain for a scene like that, finding only “kill the guy” or “collect the thing” tasks that nobody had time to work up into a story. [...] You greet people in these areas only to get a work order, and you return to deposit the result for a word of thanks. Having a conversation with them is like talking to a mailbox.

One of the reasons why I'd throw away the 'open-world' nature of DA:I in a heartbeat if it meant we'd downscale the map in favour of stumbling into more genuinely fun and intriguing moments like these.

 

[OtisInf]

Chris Breault has a review for Inquisition that nails it imo.

http://killscreendaily.com/articles/dragon-age-inquisition-all-business/
These are just a couple excerpts, I highly recommend anyone who wants a spot on comparison, IMO, between the two and why in comparison the 3rd is rubbish compared to the first, read this review. Yes the 3rd is a good game on its own, but to say it is good compared to the first is not genuine.

Well, I played DA:O on PS3 (oh boy those graphics... or lack thereof), and DA:I now on a high-end PC and while there are indeed a lot of ubisoft-style 'fun' elements in DA:I, which I'm happy to skip, I still enjoy it more than DA:O, mainly because with DA:I the world is so beautiful and every corner you turn makes you run into a world of wonder; with DA:O it was a small path you have to walk from A to B, always running into some assholes that would kill your group instantly as they all rushed forward even though you were there yelling at them to kill the mage on the hill first. On PC it was likely better than on PS3 which didn't have a tactical overview (so a battle was equal to herding cats high on catnip).

Of course there are a tremendous amount of nonsense quests, AKA chores, to be done, but be honest, every RPG has them by the truckload. I find them equal to the wave after wave one has to kill in a random military shooter: that _is_ part of the game. In DA:I you explore the world, find some note, go to some place do something, end. If that is surrounded by a story 20 pages long or a small one scribbled on some note which you can fill in yourself, is that really different?

IMHO it simply depends on what the preference is of the gamer playing the game. I find 90% of the missions one has to do in a GTA game absolutely borderline stupid and the stories in almost all cases of the level a 10 year old would write, but others can't get enough of it. Good for them, I'd say, enjoy it. Let others enjoy DA:I for whatever reason they might have for it, how silly it might sound in other peoples ears.

 

[SoraanTribal]

I only put in a few hours in DA Origins when it came out, but I couldn't really get into it. To be fair, I don't think I gave it much of a chance. I skipped DA2 - didn't have interest in continuing a series I couldn't even complete the first game for, but when DA:I came out, I really wanted it for some reason. I enjoyed my time with it for the most part despite the more ubisoft-ish collectible stuff. I wish the game had a dedicated healer class or at least a tree that let you focus on that. The story was okay, but I really did enjoy all the characters. I kind of want to go back to Origins and give it another shot now that I'm more interested in the series and lore.

 

[IvorB]

What do you guys think about future DA combat system going forward?

1) Go back to DA:O / infinity party strategy? (PoE)

2) Go all out on console action with party? (Dragon's Dogma)

Number 1 please. They'll never top Dragon's Dogma so I think they should stick to their core competency and make a proper full fat party-based RPG. Bugs aside, of all the criticisms I've read of the game the ones regarding the combat are the most disappointing. Limiting players to eight skills in a Bioware RPG is just wrong. But I guess trying to hold the Bioware we have to now the standards of the Bioware of old is futile so whatever I guess.

 

[Ralemont]

Number 1 please. They'll never top Dragon's Dogma so I think they should stick to their core competency and make a proper full fat party-based RPG. Bugs aside, of all the criticisms I've read of the game the ones regarding the combat are the most disappointing. Limiting players to eight skills in a Bioware RPG is just wrong. But I guess trying to hold the Bioware we have to now the standards of the Bioware of old is futile so whatever I guess.

Well, yeah. They want to sell the game on consoles so it won't happen. Meanwhile action can appeal to both console and PC.

Make no mistake, if they do go to one extreme, they'll be making it Dragon's Dogma-y. But like I said earlier, it's simply safer for them to stick to hybridization.

 

[IvorB]

Well, yeah. They want to sell the game on consoles so it won't happen. Meanwhile action can appeal to both console and PC.

Make no mistake, if they do go to one extreme, they'll be making it Dragon's Dogma-y. But like I said earlier, it's simply safer for them to stick to hybridization.

Didn't Origin sell well on consoles? But I guess this new stuff they're making now is selling even better and winning awards so they'll probably stick with that. Mind you I don't think I have ever seen any sales numbers for Inquisition. They always say it did well but never follow up with numbers. Weird...