Dragon Age 3: Inquisition announced

[cbrunny]

The mission in the palace almost ruined the entire game for me. What a cluster.... I was so close to putting this game down and not picking it up ever again after just 10 minutes in that zone. Two hours later and I was STILL THERE and I had no idea why anymore because of how poorly the story was told.

Personally I'd far prefer a much more concise game that is far more focused. My game play hours are far reduced as I get older and I don't have time to put in hundreds of hours into a single game if I want to play more than two games a year.

I think games should include sidequests, and these sidequests should reward the players that do them. I do not think that 90% of a game should be sidequests though, and that's what DA:I is. The story doesn't flow. It's broken up by meaningless hours of weird sidequests. Increase the length of the story and cut out 90% of the sidequests (spend that time on telling a great story), and I'm in.

I will say one thing though, in the early hours of the game I really enjoyed how the sidequests I was doing all related in some way to the Inquisition. I wasn't fetching something for someone because I was there. There was an actual reason. I am feeling like this is sliding as the game progresses though into meaningless sidequests.

 

[cbrunny]

As long as we're citing blogs like they mean something, here's one that voices the opposite opinion about Dragon Age Inquisition's content.

http://kotaku.com/i-like-that-dragon-age-doesnt-respect-my-time-1678068850

"Games like Dragon Age let me shut down—disarm all my natural defenses against a hostile, unpredictable world—and immerse myself in a place. And as I said, I can do this 30 minutes or an hour at a time for months. Playing becomes a series of mini-vacations, breaths of fresh air from an adulthood polluted by payments and debt and social obligations and health problems and fears about my own mortality and the fact that I still don't own a dog and have to live vicariously through random people in parks instead."

That sounds more like a rant about great things about gaming than great things about Dragon Age. You can use any game as an escape.

 

[Red Hawk]

That sounds more like a rant about great things about gaming than great things about Dragon Age. You can use any game as an escape.

Well he says it applies to Dragon Age especially.

"Dragon Age's so-called busywork is especially conducive to this style of play because there's just enough going on that it does feel like each play session is organic, new, and interesting."

 

[bystander36]

I thought the Palace mission was fun. I was a little confused at first, on how to deal with it, but as time went on, it made sense. My 2nd time through it was a lot easier and faster, after realizing that I could just go through all the areas out of bounds and not worry about my loss of approval. It did feel a little frustrated before I realized how to go about it.

 

[Mem]

I thought the Palace mission was fun. I was a little confused at first, on how to deal with it, but as time went on, it made sense. My 2nd time through it was a lot easier and faster, after realizing that I could just go through all the areas out of bounds and not worry about my loss of approval. It did feel a little frustrated before I realized how to go about it.

I hated the time factor loss of approval ,I never really explored it properly because of that and so did not enjoy it to the full extent,would of been better with no time limit so you could take your time and do proper investigation.

 

[artemicion]

This. 1000x this. People will complain either way. But that right there is the answer.

Problem with the "just don't do it" argument is that it's not like the game tells you in advance that a quest or task is not fun or not worthwhile. I spent 3 hours the other day in the desert/oasis/mine area and eventually just left because I was like "I don't understand why I'm here in the first place."

Some of the quests are just retarded. Like the Farmland Security/Watchtower quest in Hinterlands:

"Hey guy, you should build some watch towers for the locals. I'll mark some good locations on the map."

"Now, you go to those locations I marked, and mark them again (????), then go to your war table and order someone to build towers in those locations."

"Uhhh, why do I have to physically go to the locations you've already marked? Why can't I just tell someone to build watch towers in the locations YOU marked?

"SHUT UP AND DO IT."

That's just plain lazy and stupid quest design. I mean, I thought DA:I was an okay game overall (7/10-ish), but the writing and quest design was a significant flaw in my mind.

 

[cbrunny]

Well he says it applies to Dragon Age especially.

"Dragon Age's so-called busywork is especially conducive to this style of play because there's just enough going on that it does feel like each play session is organic, new, and interesting."

He does but he goes on to say how boring and flat the sidequests are. Really he isn't writing a very argumentative article. Certainly doesn't have me convinced, nor even close to thinking about changing my perspective of the quests.

 

[bystander36]

I hated the time factor of loss of approval ,I never really explored it properly because of that and so did not enjoy it to the full extent,would of been better with no time limit so you could take your time and do proper investigation.

As I learned in my 2nd and 3rd time through, you can gain approval so easily, that I finished with 100% every time after the first time. It's not an issue to spend a bit of time and explore every corner.

 

[bystander36]

Problem with the "just don't do it" argument is that it's not like the game tells you in advance that a quest or task is not fun or not worthwhile. I spent 3 hours the other day in the desert/oasis/mine area and eventually just left because I was like "I don't understand why I'm here in the first place."

Some of the quests are just retarded. Like the Farmland Security/Watchtower quest in Hinterlands:

"Hey guy, you should build some watch towers for the locals. I'll mark some good locations on the map."

"Now, you go to those locations I marked, and mark them again (????), then go to your war table and order someone to build towers in those locations."

"Uhhh, why do I have to physically go to the locations you've already marked? Why can't I just tell someone to build watch towers in the locations YOU marked?

"SHUT UP AND DO IT."

That's just plain lazy and stupid quest design. I mean, I thought DA:I was an okay game overall (7/10-ish), but the writing and quest design was a significant flaw in my mind.

While at first, you might not get a feel for what a good or bad quest looks like, you do figure it out as time goes on. And it really isn't about what is fun or an unfun quest, and more about how many you do. None of them are all that special, though I liked figuring out Hissing wastes with the pictures, even if it took a lot of time. The rewards also made it worth it.

As far as the tower building, you do need to go there to clear out the area, to make it safe for the tower builders.

 

[bystander36]

I do agree that this version of DA is a big change, and I don't know of I prefer it. I'd probably say I don't, but it is a blend of two types of RPG's that are well liked. The sandbox style and story drive style. I would have liked it more had they not "streamlined" the combat. I hate the loss of tactics, and char control, and I'd much rather have 10-12 slots for abilities, if not more.

 

[artemicion]

As far as the tower building, you do need to go there to clear out the area, to make it safe for the tower builders.

See, if that were actually true, the quest would be halfway decent.

However, it is not true. The quest giver does not mention clearing out the area at all. There aren't any enemy mobs at the marked locations. Killing enemies is not a prerequisite to completing the quest. You can literally jog in, mark, jog out, 3x times and complete the quest without killing a single mob.

Just Play video for reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiJTK269LLs

 

[bystander36]

See, if that were actually true, the quest would be halfway decent.

However, it is not true. The quest giver does not mention clearing out the area at all. There aren't any enemy mobs at the marked locations. Killing enemies is not a prerequisite to completing the quest. You can literally jog in, mark, jog out, 3x times and complete the quest without killing a single mob.

Just Play video for reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiJTK269LLs

I'm not telling you what the quest says, only something to satisfy your need for reason. You need to mark the locations, so the builders know the exact spot, and clear the spot for them, so they can build in peace.

If that isn't enough reason for you, don't do the quest. It isn't needed.

 

[Kev]

I'll come right out of the gate and say this is a bitching rant, but it is and I can't apologize for it.

I am now a level 14 character. it seems I have probably 20+ hours left. On Sunday I played for 5-6 hours and felt I had accomplished little. I am not a 15 year old now on summer vacation. I need to feel my games are moving along when I put time in, so on Monday and Tuesday I took a break.

And then, as writers often do, I found some who could put into words what I was not quite able to describe.

This game has too much damn busywork.

Kotaku: I wish dragon age respected my time:
http://kotaku.com/i-wish-dragon-age-inquisition-respected-my-time-1677548813

Some blogger guy:
http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/11/21/modern-computer-games-just-have-way-too-much-going-on/

Some of these links are from this article on Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...ition-and-the-problem-with-roleplaying-games/

--------------------

I actually loved Mass Effect 3. I felt a sense of urgency throughout the whole game to acquire power to withstand the enemy. Dragon Age has absolutely none of it, not even a little bit of it. The game really has become caught up with too much crap.

Look at arguably the best loved game last gen, the last of us. It has crafting, and I don't think craft has to be busy work like in DA, but the game had damn near nothing in the way of just empty filler. Other than the comics I cannot think of any arbitrary collection things, and DA is utterly chockablock with them. And RPGs don't need filler, either. I don't recall Fallout 3 full to the brim with these endless collectable missions.

Dragon age almost feels in some ways like the Pontiac Aztek, designed by committee to hit all the key points.

The game is good. It's solid. But it's not spectacular because it's too distracted.

Can anyone here say they spent significant time with ALL party members? I certainly haven't and have no intention of ever using a few of them. I'm sure I'm not alone.

The game may have "100 hours" of stuff, but literally half of it is patent crap. It's fluff.

This is really funny to me, because I had the same feeling. I got fed up with all the junk you have to sift through in the game and ended up just starting a new game of ME2 which is mostly junk-free. I just used a save editor so I don't have to do the planet scanning BS.

 

[artemicion]

I'm not telling you what the quest says, only something to satisfy your need for reason. You need to mark the locations, so the builders know the exact spot, and clear the spot for them, so they can build in peace.

If that isn't enough reason for you, don't do the quest. It isn't needed.

Well, I mean if you're going to rely on cognitive dissonance to justify the bad writing in DA:I, there really isn't any point in arguing with you...

 

[bystander36]

Well, I mean if you're going to rely on cognitive dissonance to justify the bad writing in DA:I, there really isn't any point in arguing with you...

The way it was is fine. You just wanted more. Have you ever worked in construction before? No worker is going to build a tower without someone going there to mark the location for them, physically, on the spot. In that way it was fine. If you want more reason, I gave you more. No contractor is going to take a map from someone and build a tower either, without first surveying the area. And just because his map had a general area to build, doesn't mean he had exact spots picked out.

 

[Red Hawk]

He does but he goes on to say how boring and flat the sidequests are. Really he isn't writing a very argumentative article. Certainly doesn't have me convinced, nor even close to thinking about changing my perspective of the quests.

He basically admits that you can describe DAI's questing as "busywork", but that it's not necessarily a bad thing and enjoyment of it can be subjective.

 

[Blanky]

Problem with the "just don't do it" argument is that it's not like the game tells you in advance that a quest or task is not fun or not worthwhile. I spent 3 hours the other day in the desert/oasis/mine area and eventually just left because I was like "I don't understand why I'm here in the first place."

Some of the quests are just retarded. Like the Farmland Security/Watchtower quest in Hinterlands:

"Hey guy, you should build some watch towers for the locals. I'll mark some good locations on the map."

"Now, you go to those locations I marked, and mark them again (????), then go to your war table and order someone to build towers in those locations."

"Uhhh, why do I have to physically go to the locations you've already marked? Why can't I just tell someone to build watch towers in the locations YOU marked?

"SHUT UP AND DO IT."

That's just plain lazy and stupid quest design. I mean, I thought DA:I was an okay game overall (7/10-ish), but the writing and quest design was a significant flaw in my mind.

Haha so right. I didn't realize it at the time but that quest was as dumb as you say.

I spent a few hours in the Oasis and also don't know why. It's particularly frustrating that it's quite difficult to move around because of the cavern nature of it and not being on the right elevation. So I went there, did a few rifts, set some camps up, got some shards, none of it seemed to serve any point because I'd done it dozens of times in other areas already.

This is really funny to me, because I had the same feeling. I got fed up with all the junk you have to sift through in the game and ended up just starting a new game of ME2 which is mostly junk-free. I just used a save editor so I don't have to do the planet scanning BS.

So you quit DA:I midway through? I'm just not sure I can stomach going back to it now and working on yet more rifts.

 

[RampantAndroid]

That's just plain lazy and stupid quest design. I mean, I thought DA:I was an okay game overall (7/10-ish), but the writing and quest design was a significant flaw in my mind.

Isn't the point of a Bioware RPG to enjoy the writing? What does DA:I offer if not good writing? A hole in your wallet?

Just reaffirms my decision to only get DA:I once it is in the budget bin, if ever.

This is really funny to me, because I had the same feeling. I got fed up with all the junk you have to sift through in the game and ended up just starting a new game of ME2 which is mostly junk-free. I just used a save editor so I don't have to do the planet scanning BS.

ME2 lacked some of the junk of ME1, but had its own junk. Planet scanning was the worst - but a mouse made that a little easier to bear. What annoyed me in ME2 was that on my first play through I didn't know I was on a timeline for the main quests (they trigger every so many side missions) and so I entered the final mission with a couple people not loyal. On a second playthrough (people died that I didn't want to do, so I went back to an early save and replayed) I did the loyalty missions up front and ignored the side missions that were little more than noise.

I get why they wanted to force the pace on you, but at the same time it just led to my getting annoyed.

 

[Kev]

Haha so right. I didn't realize it at the time but that quest was as dumb as you say.

I spent a few hours in the Oasis and also don't know why. It's particularly frustrating that it's quite difficult to move around because of the cavern nature of it and not being on the right elevation. So I went there, did a few rifts, set some camps up, got some shards, none of it seemed to serve any point because I'd done it dozens of times in other areas already.So you quit DA:I midway through? I'm just not sure I can stomach going back to it now and working on yet more rifts.

Well I wouldn't say I completely quit, I'll probably go back eventually. I got really annoyed when I got to the desert area and was constantly under attack by wolves that were more powerful than most demons.

Which reminds me, does anyone else find it ridiculous that the most powerful enemy in the Hinterlands were the bears? What game designer thought it would be fun to spend 4 minutes fighting a god damn bear?

 

[zinfamous]

Well I wouldn't say I completely quit, I'll probably go back eventually. I got really annoyed when I got to the desert area and was constantly under attack by wolves that were more powerful than most demons.

Which reminds me, does anyone else find it ridiculous that the most powerful enemy in the Hinterlands were the bears? What game designer thought it would be fun to spend 4 minutes fighting a god damn bear?

eh, a few of the gates/rifts/whatever in Hinterlands spawn tougher mobs than bears. But as far as wildlife goes, bears tend to be the toughest of those in all the maps.

Each map has a set level, which isn't explicitly known until you arrive and it's either too easy, or you get your ass handed to you. Hinterlands has a larger spread of leveled content than other maps because it is both very large, and meant to be completed at various stages of the story. When the story fragments and you get to choose out of 5 paths, it's up to you decide which way to go. This is fine, but the problem with the level design in DA:I is that you can start at a hard or really hard map and work through it, then start on the other quests and find that you are about 4 levels too high to be threatened by anything. That is one way that I felt like a lot of the content was busy work--even the story or substantial sidequest content (too little of this), is so easily out-leveled that it just ends up being something that's in your way

 

[Red Hawk]

Problem with the "just don't do it" argument is that it's not like the game tells you in advance that a quest or task is not fun or not worthwhile. I spent 3 hours the other day in the desert/oasis/mine area and eventually just left because I was like "I don't understand why I'm here in the first place."

Some of the quests are just retarded. Like the Farmland Security/Watchtower quest in Hinterlands:

"Hey guy, you should build some watch towers for the locals. I'll mark some good locations on the map."

"Now, you go to those locations I marked, and mark them again (????), then go to your war table and order someone to build towers in those locations."

"Uhhh, why do I have to physically go to the locations you've already marked? Why can't I just tell someone to build watch towers in the locations YOU marked?

"SHUT UP AND DO IT."

That's just plain lazy and stupid quest design. I mean, I thought DA:I was an okay game overall (7/10-ish), but the writing and quest design was a significant flaw in my mind.

The War Room is nothing but telling people what to do. In fact, that very quest finishes by you going back to the war room and ordering people to go help build the towers. So you have to go put the markers where you want them built yourself, it seems like a really trivial thing to get annoyed about. I didn't think twice about it when doing it.

 

[bystander36]

These annoyance seem to be more about the open world, sandbox feel of DA:I than anything else. These types of games always end up with lots of trivial quests. Those who like these games tend to like combat more than the quests themselves and the quests are an excuse to go out and kill stuff.

A lot of people like these games, but others don't. I like both games that are more story focused and these sandbox games, so it isn't a terrible blend to me. Obviously some don't like it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Some of the quests did get annoying. I got really tired of closing rifts by the end of the game. The worst i think though was the search quests where the circle lights up and you have to plng until you get close enough for the object to magically appear. I think the main problem for me is that I just cant seem to get into the main quest. Even skyrim and especially DA:O seemed more focused. Overall, i would pretty much go along with the previous poster and give the game about a 7/10.

 

[zinfamous]

$32.16 at GMG with 20% off coupon

 

[Madia]

I think the main problem for me is that I just cant seem to get into the main quest.

I think that the main premise of the game, being the leader of the inquisition was good but it wasn't executed as well as could be. A lot of the problems I had with the story was that a lot of the plot (especially in the second half) seemed more about tidying up the plot threads from the mediocre dragon age 2 rather than having inquisiton stand on it's own. I mean not only do we have all the various returning characters but the main villain

Spoiler

was the enemy from a lowly DLC for Dragon Age 2!

I appreciate that it was well done for the most part and did seem to make Dragon Age 2's story better than it actually was but I rather them just take the approach that this is what the world is like after the events of Dragon Age 2, now let's craft a new story.

Still, I thought the game was well done but didn't completely deliver on it's potential.