Dragon Age: Inquisition Delayed at Least a Month
- Thread starter John Keefer
- Start date
Still not entirely sure why DA2 is a bad game?
Okay fair enough I'll grant the lazy level design complaints they're entirely warranted. But everything else beyond that what's bad about it?
Yes I'll also accept complaints about it compared to DAO in terms of overwriting stuff you did, redesign and game play style.
However taken on it's own as a game what's the problem? If it was a completely separate game from DAO I think most people would be singing it's praises beyond lazy level design.
Okay fair enough I'll grant the lazy level design complaints they're entirely warranted. But everything else beyond that what's bad about it?
Yes I'll also accept complaints about it compared to DAO in terms of overwriting stuff you did, redesign and game play style.
However taken on it's own as a game what's the problem? If it was a completely separate game from DAO I think most people would be singing it's praises beyond lazy level design.
Three or Four weeks won't change a damn thing anyway.
They will just give them extra time to cut more content from the game to give it to us as DLC I guarantee that.
Pretty bummed about the delay myself.
They will just give them extra time to cut more content from the game to give it to us as DLC I guarantee that.
Pretty bummed about the delay myself.
There is quite the bit of hate about Dragon Age 2.
I mean, I was like you guys, I disliked it and was surprised why our own Greg gave it 5/5 stars. Yet I played it again. Sure, I complained about many things, but I still counted it as a sort-of enjoyable experience. Sure I still do dislike like it a bit, but that is because of all the negatives all of us have pointed out.
I mean to prepare for this new game, I played it twice. Yeah, there is too many damn loading screens, copy and pasted dungeons, and some of the story was "eh", but I still enjoyed the heck out of it. Sure, less than Dragon Age: Origins, because that was a better protagonist and overall story. Though I like what DA2 did with the combat.
Anyway, back to Inquisition.
Good, take all the time you need Bioware. I'm expecting a really good experience, without long loading screens, bugs, and less copy n' pasting. Apart from that, just make it fun. I'm sure I'll be happy with it, if you just take your time.
I mean, I was like you guys, I disliked it and was surprised why our own Greg gave it 5/5 stars. Yet I played it again. Sure, I complained about many things, but I still counted it as a sort-of enjoyable experience. Sure I still do dislike like it a bit, but that is because of all the negatives all of us have pointed out.
I mean to prepare for this new game, I played it twice. Yeah, there is too many damn loading screens, copy and pasted dungeons, and some of the story was "eh", but I still enjoyed the heck out of it. Sure, less than Dragon Age: Origins, because that was a better protagonist and overall story. Though I like what DA2 did with the combat.
Anyway, back to Inquisition.
Good, take all the time you need Bioware. I'm expecting a really good experience, without long loading screens, bugs, and less copy n' pasting. Apart from that, just make it fun. I'm sure I'll be happy with it, if you just take your time.
This is off topic but I'll indulge you: taken on it's own the story is still a meandering mess, assets are re-used time and again for the dungeons and nothing Hawke does impacts the story in a meaningful way. Not to mention Sebastian, who was supposed to be Shale 2.0(the best party member since HK-47) who turned out to be a Rogue ARCHER(we've already got a superior one in every way in Varric) that is so damn stuck up his own ass he could lick his own kidneys. Not to mention beyond Varric, most of your party members are kind of unlikeable. Oh and the City of Kirkwall is freaking lifeless. Denerim was more believable than Kirkwall, you can't even talk to villagers there they might as well be pillars.Ralancian said:
And when it first came out the combat had odd difficulty spikes and something that really irked me: combat waves. And they didn't pour in from other areas of the environment, oh no. Most of the time they appeared literally above the heads of your weaker characters and then stunlocked them to death because of the games mechanics. I wanted to like DA2, I really did but it isn't even half the game DA:O is.
On topic: Okay, so my thoughts on them trying to avoid the other big October releases seems to have been shot down. Then why the HELL are they delaying it 30 odd days? How much could they possible do in that time?
Delay it another year if that's what it takes to make a good game and not another steaming pile of DA2. Either way, there's no chance I will buy it on release day anyway, I'll wait until it's been out a while and see what the general reaction is. I no longer trust Bioware to make a great game like I used to. Hell, I still haven't bought Mass Effect 3 since I disliked ME2's trend away from the RPG aspects of ME1 and the reviews led me to expect little or no improvement in those aspects.
1. The graphics were plain ugly. I am not a graphic whore, but the art style with exploding bodies and anime-style animations was not pretty to watch.Yes, the fast animations fit well to mages and were a lot better than origins mage animations. However, animations don't make the gameplay any better and the fast animations made warriors look utterly rediculous.Ralancian said:
2. The gameplay was horrible. Low-health enemys and the wave-based combat just utterly destroyed any chance to play the game using tactics. And without tactics there isn't that much to the combat.
3. I don't think i have to mention repeated environments?
4. The Story was badly developed and not well presentet. I didn't mind the different way of storytelling. I don't need some epic storyline about saving the world. What i however need is at least some connection. Seperate stories can work, but there needs to be a connection. If you think about it Origins also had all the seperate stories about the mages, elves, dwarfes or arl eamon. But they were connected through the blight and the civil war. The personal storyline of "making it in Kirkwall" was over after the first act and after that it was just hawke doing shit because he was bored and being pulled into shit because of that.
Just give me reason why my character is doing all of this and it would be fine. Another flaw of rushed and underdeveloped writing is what i called the idiot-drama-sympton and DA 2 fits right in that. It's when the authors want drama to happen, but because they can't come up with a reasonable explanation for things, they just let their characters become insane and do stupid things. Anders wants to start a war between mages and templars. Fine. His only option to do that in his mind is to blow something up. Stupid, but i can still work with that. But why blow up the chantry? There was zero reason to do that. He could have just blown up the templar headquarters. You know actually damage the enemy instead of innocent people. But no he has to blow up the chantry because he's insane. Great.
The same things stands for Merril. She's just so stupid. We are at this time in the game were we have seen about a thousand evil bloodmages get corrupted and a million demons doing nothing but evil things and she still thinks it's a good idea to consort a demon about the eluvians.
If i thought more about it i could probably come up with more, but i don't really want to think more about it.
DA 2 is not the worst game ever. I wouldn't even call it undeniably bad, but it's certainly not above-average and certainly not good.
I agree; I think many people have severely overreacted to Dragon Age II. I don't think it was nearly as good as Origins, mind, but it wasn't the soulless product that people claim it was. Dragon Age II tried something new, it didn't really work, but that's the risk of innovation. People get all pissy about developers being stagnant and not trying new things, but they refuse to accept that not all risks pay off; sometimes you try something new and it doesn't work, but you don't just dismiss it outright.thebobmaster said:
DA II had a lot of ideas that were worth preserving, I think. I too am optimistic about Inquisition, for the most part. The gameplay looks absolutely brilliant; BioWare have always had a thing for world building and episodic story telling inside the framework of a larger story, a story structure you would expect to see as an arc of a TV series in a way, so an open world game seems like a natural evolution.
What does worry me, however, is the direction Inquisition is taking with it's plot. The mono-myth is severly played out in BioWare games, but what's worse is that DA II and Origins already laid out more than one perfectly workable story for the new game to follow up on. Instead of getting a game that can really dig in and focus on the complexities of the Qunari, the sentient Darkspawn, Morrigan's child, or the Mage/Templar conflict, the story is almost certainly going to dedicate tiny chunks of it's story to all of them in favor of focusing on yet another "Save the world" plot.
What frustrates me is that the whole point of the Heroes Journey is to fill in blanks; to give writers a jumping off point when they need help structuring their story. But Dragon Age already has plenty of lingering plot threads, and the writers are still trying to shoe horn the Heroes Journey into a story that already has a central conflict; it's actually making the story MORE complicated and confusing, and that's exactly what it's supposed to PREVENT.
Something similar happened with Mass Effect 3; there were a myriad of central goals the writers could have employed as a framing device that were more relevant to the plot and themes besides The Crucible (The Deus Ex Machina generator), a device that we have no prior knowledge of and whose existence makes absolutely no sense.
I feel the same way. As far as the direction of plot is going, I think that is a direct cause to the people that were so upset at how the plot of Dragon Age 2 went. They went back to what they know people want.sumanoskae said:
OT: I am not that concerned for this seems to be a bit of "We don't want to release in October with dozens of games" and "we could use a little more time fine tuning the game". Both seem to be reasonable things for me as well, as long as I don't get the four gigabyte patch on launch day that other games have I can live with waiting for weeks longer. Just means I am going to play a little more Origins before I start playing this one.
Why in the world do they think that anyone believes that they are actually using that time to work on the game itself? Sure, they might be able to do a patch or two, but the reality is that games are only delayed for reasons ancillary too the game itself, usually relating to it's launch. For instance, October is already kind of crowded and they might be worried about losing out to other games. They might also be having distribution issues or something, it's always something other than the development of the game itself if it's being delayed this close too launch.
...That one month delay actually means I won't be able to play this game for another 2 years after its released. So yes a very small delay does in fact hurt.
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/510013-delayed-until-november-18/?bioware=1 Read down this, it should give you more insite as to why BioWare Delayed the game.DarkhoIlow said: