Poll: Has Dragon Age Inquisition out-skyrimmed Skyrim?
- Thread starter thejboy88
- Start date
I'll have to echo others here. It hasn't.
I generally lean more towards Dragon Age than TES, but Inquisition is clearly inferior to Skyrim. Aside from the lack of a thriving modding community, it's less welcoming to emergent gameplay and experimentation and more hermetic with some mechanics. Just compare the crafting system in both, or the joke that Friendly Fire became (up to the point where the game doesn't even inform you which abilities cause it.)
As for the "sneaky archer" point. Yes, there's arguably no better build in Skyrim, but it's unfair to bring that up in a comparison with Dragon Age, of all games. First because DA is just as notorious for its OP classes, and Inquisition is no different. Knight Enchanter is virtually immortal. And second because, gameplay-wise, Skyrim's sneaky archers are still magnitudes more fun to play than most classes in DA:I, which, with the removal of advanced party tactics, became more often than not an exercise in button-mashing.
Despite that, I enjoyed both games.
I generally lean more towards Dragon Age than TES, but Inquisition is clearly inferior to Skyrim. Aside from the lack of a thriving modding community, it's less welcoming to emergent gameplay and experimentation and more hermetic with some mechanics. Just compare the crafting system in both, or the joke that Friendly Fire became (up to the point where the game doesn't even inform you which abilities cause it.)
As for the "sneaky archer" point. Yes, there's arguably no better build in Skyrim, but it's unfair to bring that up in a comparison with Dragon Age, of all games. First because DA is just as notorious for its OP classes, and Inquisition is no different. Knight Enchanter is virtually immortal. And second because, gameplay-wise, Skyrim's sneaky archers are still magnitudes more fun to play than most classes in DA:I, which, with the removal of advanced party tactics, became more often than not an exercise in button-mashing.
Despite that, I enjoyed both games.
I usually find myself building the same Conjurer/restoration Paladin type build.chadachada123 said:In order to out Skyrim as the best, Skyrim would have to be the best to begin with. EDIT:
GODDAMMITChairman Miaow said:
Skyrim was shallow. Really shallow. It had no soul compared to even Oblivion, itself fairly pale. Plus, the combat in Skyrim is absolute ass, and directs most people towards pic related.
I had to re-make 3 characters because of save bugs or mod incompatibilities with around 400 or so hours played in Skyrim, and I could happily play it again without them.
DA:I was an absolute snore fest and I have no intention or desire to replay that game. Reading about the story on Wikipedia would be more enjoyable than playing it in my opinion.
DA:I was an absolute snore fest and I have no intention or desire to replay that game. Reading about the story on Wikipedia would be more enjoyable than playing it in my opinion.
To me, one of the big reasons why Skyrim will always be better than any Witcher game is precisely because of what it doesn't have. Even if I could become immersed in the world of The Witcher 2, I don't want to. It *feels* like an awful place.lax4life said:
After 300+ hours of Skyrim (barely using mods as well) I still can jump back into that game and just have fun screwing about.
After dragging myself through 60 hours of Inquisition I find that every now and then I think about replaying it for those few moments where I wonder what would happen if I did the opposite, then I remember that the 50 hours of other crap would have to be done all over again.
Also, Skyrim is able to connect itself to the previous entries FAR FAR better than DA:I, and it doesn't even have a save transfer system. The Dragon Age series however has always been a bit off when it comes to save transfers (see Leliana/Zeveran still be alive in the sequels even if you end up killing them).
After dragging myself through 60 hours of Inquisition I find that every now and then I think about replaying it for those few moments where I wonder what would happen if I did the opposite, then I remember that the 50 hours of other crap would have to be done all over again.
Also, Skyrim is able to connect itself to the previous entries FAR FAR better than DA:I, and it doesn't even have a save transfer system. The Dragon Age series however has always been a bit off when it comes to save transfers (see Leliana/Zeveran still be alive in the sequels even if you end up killing them).
No. It tried to be a bit more like skyrim and failed miserably. The entire game suffered as a result. It has awful pacing problems with too much busy work. A few hours of cookie cuter quests in areas that are not interesting to explore or teeming with life just to get to the meat? No thanks. It felt like an mmo without the freedom or other players. I think if they can make this model work it will be the future of bioware games but they really need to work on how they handle open world games. I still have not finished inquisition because I know every time I turn it on I will just be killing bears or going from waypoint to waypoint for a few hours in hopes I am high enough level or with enough power to do an actual interesting quest. 20 hours in and I don't feel like I have accomplished much of anything. The main story suffers from these pacing problems and makes me not care about the game AT ALL as opposed to just being kind of annoyed with the busy work.
All this^ and more.endtherapture said:
DA:I is a tragic failure of a game. Everything it sets out to do (open world aspects, story driven RPG etc.) it does worse than other games released far earlier than it.
It actually reminds me of a slightly better Kingdom's Of Amalur: Reckoning. Not awful by any means, but way, WAY more chore content than fun/absorbing/emotionally charged content.
It's actually scary how basic DA:I feels, almost as if Bioware were an action game based company, trying to find it's feet in RPGs. What a sad, sad, sad demise of a once greart company.
Wow, I'm seeing so much hate for Inquisition here...despite the fact it was voted The Escapists game of the year of 2014...wait a minute!!! Mass Effect 3 was also hated on this site and was voted game of the year...both of which are RPG's developed by Bioware and published by EA! Not only that, but Inquisition sounds suspiciously like Jimquisition, and Jim left the site just before the advertising for Inquisition started...it's almost too convenient!!!
HIM LEAVING THE SITE WAS A COVER UP!!! IT'S ALL CONNECTED!!!! I MUST TELL THE WORLD OF MY DISCOVERY!!!!!
(Tinfoil hat intensifies)
OT: No, I don't think it does, but many other people have said why much better than I could already.
HIM LEAVING THE SITE WAS A COVER UP!!! IT'S ALL CONNECTED!!!! I MUST TELL THE WORLD OF MY DISCOVERY!!!!!
(Tinfoil hat intensifies)
OT: No, I don't think it does, but many other people have said why much better than I could already.
Love voting choices based on the assumption the two voting options are the top two for the subject, besides the fact this is a false dilemma, neither of your choices are the top even for the genre you chose.
Skyrim is just the latest re-skin of the same game Bethesda makes over and over. And DA:I is just a pretty skinner box.
Skyrim is just the latest re-skin of the same game Bethesda makes over and over. And DA:I is just a pretty skinner box.
This is a good little article about DA:I which resonates with me personally.....
http://kotaku.com/i-wish-dragon-age-inquisition-respected-my-time-1677548813
When you strip away all the hype and gumpoh, it really just isn't a very exciting or fun experience. A lot of criticism levelled at it could be levelled at Skyrim, but Skyrim was never intended to be as story driven as DA was. Even then, Skyrim does do the open world aspects far, far better.
If I had to rate both, I'd probably say Skyrim is 7.5/10, and DA:I is 6/10. Both left me very disapointed and often very BORED.
Neither are worth most of the accolades they recieved, and neither should be held up as templates of great gaming experiences.
http://kotaku.com/i-wish-dragon-age-inquisition-respected-my-time-1677548813
When you strip away all the hype and gumpoh, it really just isn't a very exciting or fun experience. A lot of criticism levelled at it could be levelled at Skyrim, but Skyrim was never intended to be as story driven as DA was. Even then, Skyrim does do the open world aspects far, far better.
If I had to rate both, I'd probably say Skyrim is 7.5/10, and DA:I is 6/10. Both left me very disapointed and often very BORED.
Neither are worth most of the accolades they recieved, and neither should be held up as templates of great gaming experiences.
Though DA:I probably would have been better served by being a more focused experience, I still consider it to be a better game. The modability of Skyrim is a point in it's favor, but I always had much more fun modding New Vegas anyways.
I don't think anybody is going to try to argue that Skyrim had a better plot or characters, so moving on...
Combat! I thought Skyrim's always felt a bit clumsy, so even with the godawful tactical camera I found combat in Inquisition to be far more enjoyable.
I don't think anybody is going to try to argue that Skyrim had a better plot or characters, so moving on...
Combat! I thought Skyrim's always felt a bit clumsy, so even with the godawful tactical camera I found combat in Inquisition to be far more enjoyable.
"Top dog" and "best" are not synonymous. McDonald's is the top dog of fast food, but few would argue it's the BEST in terms of quality or service. It came to be the best by being the first of its kind to get so big, and by having so much reach and brand power. People can count on McDonald's for being the same wherever they go in terms of both choices and quality. It can always be counted on and due to the placement and sheer number of restaurants, it is often the most convenient choice.SmallHatLogan said:
You have to argue whether Inquisition is the best Dragon Age game before comparing it to another series altogether. And to this my answer is no. Origins was in my opinion a far superior game to both Inquisition and Skyrim. Inquisition just felt like a bland mash up of the two games. It didn't create the feeling of an truly beautiful open world like Skyrim, nor did it engage with us with fantastic story and characters like Origins. As a result, it just felt it felt like a Jack of all trades, master of none scenario. Decent game, but not what I wanted from a Dragon age game, and if I want open world, I'll just play Skyrim.
Also it feels like a loaded question. Using Skyrim as an adjective to describe good RPGs? Kinda' showing your hand a little early. It's like asking Did Marcus Fenix out-Commander Shepard Commander Shepard? Obviously not because Shepard is already Shepard. Nothing can, by definition, be more like Skyrim than Skyrim can.
Inquisition is a good game, damn good, but it excels in every area except the ones that matter most. It's story is generic and fragmented; a hash of interesting set pieces and ideas stitched together by a bargen bin central plot totally lacking in tension or thematic weight.
It misuses the rich lore of the series and robs it of it's nuance by hastily tying together as many lose plot threads as possible, but neglects to ensure they are resolved in an interesting way. The Bioware boiler plate story has gone from an irritating framing device to a metaphorical strait jacket that reduces engaging and evocative story beats like the Templar Mage conflict and the Orlesian civil war to incidental vignettes; not only adding nothing to them, but eliminating all conflict and striking them barren of any future potential.
Imagine if, in the next season of Game of Thrones, some random asshole we've never heard of before rounded up a couple of minor characters from the previous seasons, formed a new faction, and then the entire season was spent watching them resolve every lingering plot thread in the story, one at a time, one per episode, and without involving any of the main cast. They defeat the wildlings, dethrone and execute all the corrupt and evil lords, and eradicate the White Walkers. They run into almost no trouble, basically nobody you care about dies or has to face dire consequences, and they accomplish all this seemingly thanks to other people plotting behind the scenes and good fortune via a deus ex machina magic artifact.
Can you imagine how monumentally fucking idiotic that would be?
This can be extrapolated for describing the issues with gameplay as well; there is a distinctive lack of tension that pervades all the games mechanics, with the admittedly notable exception of combat, which has been improved in some ways. But many of the roleplaying and branching story elements essentially consist of other people doing the Inquisitors work FOR them and giving them all the credit. When we do accomplish something on our own steam, the game is so toothless and forgiving that it refuses to incorporate almost any meaningful consequences. The worst thing I ever experienced was a minor and temporary setback.
In Inquisition, if you don't get along with your party members, they take their toys and go home. In Origins, they may not only leave, but try to fucking kill you. Because Origins had the potential for things to get fucked up, to go wrong, when you successfully manipulate a situation to your advantage, you feel like a silver tongued devil, even though those moments are much fewer and far between.
The entire Inquisition as a gameplay mechanic, especially shit like the war table, is fucking patronizing. The game is basically playing itself; how am I supposed to explore a world if everything I do is to advance a preconceived cause? If I can predict the results of exploring... Well it's not fucking exploration, is it? The story is fragmented, but the gameplay is as tightly bound as ever; that's exactly what you don't want in and open world game.
Last time I played Skyrim, I ran into an extremely low level quest with my high level Vampire Mage. It was that one in Solitude when that Argonian tries to trick you into helping him crash a ship so he can loot it. Now, this was probably intended for new players; so they can learn the ropes of the world, learn that not every character is trustworthy. But I was a pretty seasoned adventurer at this point, so I sized the whole thing up as a trap right away. I accepted anyway, because what the hell? I haven't fed for a little while.
These guys had no idea what they were signing up for; I felt like the Mephalia herself, twisting and subverting mortals for sheer amusement. So I do the quest, get to the betrayal, and proceed to systematically obliterate the entire band of robbers with a combination of lightning magic and fear curses, and feast on their blood. By the end of the encounter, the few survivors cut their loses and ran. I let them go; I have a reputation to uphold after all. Let them serve as an example of what happens when you cross a Vampire Lord.
The sensation of wickedness, power, and accomplishment was palpable.
This is what makes open world games unique; with the right combination of consistency and chaos, they allow players to construct a sense of self within the setting of the game. This is where the mechanics of Inquisition, many of which are carry overs from a different genre, fail as elements of an open world game. Bioware's habit of playing it safe, a template that's an annoying crutch in linear story based RPG's, amounts to a veritable death sentence, a silver bullet, for a genre that thrives on mystery.
I played Inquisition and enjoyed it, but only once; it doesn't have that quality of mystery and immersion that makes me keep coming back to Fallout and Skyrim; it doesn't have the dramatic tension and emotional engagement that keeps me replaying the Mass Effect trilogy; and it doesn't have the nuance and richness that compels me to revisit Origins.
It's like a classic Tragic Hero in game form; perfect in every way, except for the one that matters most; an example of Hamartia.
It misuses the rich lore of the series and robs it of it's nuance by hastily tying together as many lose plot threads as possible, but neglects to ensure they are resolved in an interesting way. The Bioware boiler plate story has gone from an irritating framing device to a metaphorical strait jacket that reduces engaging and evocative story beats like the Templar Mage conflict and the Orlesian civil war to incidental vignettes; not only adding nothing to them, but eliminating all conflict and striking them barren of any future potential.
Imagine if, in the next season of Game of Thrones, some random asshole we've never heard of before rounded up a couple of minor characters from the previous seasons, formed a new faction, and then the entire season was spent watching them resolve every lingering plot thread in the story, one at a time, one per episode, and without involving any of the main cast. They defeat the wildlings, dethrone and execute all the corrupt and evil lords, and eradicate the White Walkers. They run into almost no trouble, basically nobody you care about dies or has to face dire consequences, and they accomplish all this seemingly thanks to other people plotting behind the scenes and good fortune via a deus ex machina magic artifact.
Can you imagine how monumentally fucking idiotic that would be?
This can be extrapolated for describing the issues with gameplay as well; there is a distinctive lack of tension that pervades all the games mechanics, with the admittedly notable exception of combat, which has been improved in some ways. But many of the roleplaying and branching story elements essentially consist of other people doing the Inquisitors work FOR them and giving them all the credit. When we do accomplish something on our own steam, the game is so toothless and forgiving that it refuses to incorporate almost any meaningful consequences. The worst thing I ever experienced was a minor and temporary setback.
In Inquisition, if you don't get along with your party members, they take their toys and go home. In Origins, they may not only leave, but try to fucking kill you. Because Origins had the potential for things to get fucked up, to go wrong, when you successfully manipulate a situation to your advantage, you feel like a silver tongued devil, even though those moments are much fewer and far between.
The entire Inquisition as a gameplay mechanic, especially shit like the war table, is fucking patronizing. The game is basically playing itself; how am I supposed to explore a world if everything I do is to advance a preconceived cause? If I can predict the results of exploring... Well it's not fucking exploration, is it? The story is fragmented, but the gameplay is as tightly bound as ever; that's exactly what you don't want in and open world game.
Last time I played Skyrim, I ran into an extremely low level quest with my high level Vampire Mage. It was that one in Solitude when that Argonian tries to trick you into helping him crash a ship so he can loot it. Now, this was probably intended for new players; so they can learn the ropes of the world, learn that not every character is trustworthy. But I was a pretty seasoned adventurer at this point, so I sized the whole thing up as a trap right away. I accepted anyway, because what the hell? I haven't fed for a little while.
These guys had no idea what they were signing up for; I felt like the Mephalia herself, twisting and subverting mortals for sheer amusement. So I do the quest, get to the betrayal, and proceed to systematically obliterate the entire band of robbers with a combination of lightning magic and fear curses, and feast on their blood. By the end of the encounter, the few survivors cut their loses and ran. I let them go; I have a reputation to uphold after all. Let them serve as an example of what happens when you cross a Vampire Lord.
The sensation of wickedness, power, and accomplishment was palpable.
This is what makes open world games unique; with the right combination of consistency and chaos, they allow players to construct a sense of self within the setting of the game. This is where the mechanics of Inquisition, many of which are carry overs from a different genre, fail as elements of an open world game. Bioware's habit of playing it safe, a template that's an annoying crutch in linear story based RPG's, amounts to a veritable death sentence, a silver bullet, for a genre that thrives on mystery.
I played Inquisition and enjoyed it, but only once; it doesn't have that quality of mystery and immersion that makes me keep coming back to Fallout and Skyrim; it doesn't have the dramatic tension and emotional engagement that keeps me replaying the Mass Effect trilogy; and it doesn't have the nuance and richness that compels me to revisit Origins.
It's like a classic Tragic Hero in game form; perfect in every way, except for the one that matters most; an example of Hamartia.
People with unpopular opinions are often the most fervent about expressing them. For the record, it is my humble opinion that Mass Effect 3 deserved all the credit it got as an excellent game with a terrible ending. Inquisition has been severely over hyped. Too much emphasis has been focused on DA:I's polish and basic mechanics; in other words, the the surface of the game.Edl01 said:
Lots of reviewers seem to not make distinctions between highly professional execution and true creative genius. This is why you see games like Bayonetta and God of War II get marks just as high as Persona or The Walking Dead.
Video games do not yet have the advantage of a mainstream culture of people professionally dedicated to studying the craft's true artistic depth.
Reviewers, understandably, approach games like customers, and developers have to spend ungodly amounts of money and take enormous risk just to compete in the AAA market; never mind experimenting with unconventional design choices once they get there.
I consider DA:I a middling game, not great, and most certainly not fantastic. It lacked the good things from DA2 (visceral and impactful combat with a solid party combat system in small fights, awesome and memorable companions) and DA:O (great and natural story, immersive world, *building a world setting*). It somehow managed to combine the worst from these two games, and the companion AI was at at 1992 level. Embarassing.
I actually felt that DA as a franchise and as a world was *harmed* by DA:I, since ...
the overall world setting gets absolutely f****d when magic somehow pops up everywhere, the elluvians suddenly start working, f*****g Fenris AND another goddess that I forget the name of pop up for coffee, and super-rare and all-powerful Lyrium starts sprouting from every nook, cranny, and nostril. This isn't DA. DA is a much more subtle and satisfying world, where not everyone is able to destroy the universe. This is JRPG style endboss where every spell is a worldbreaking megablast.
And what's with the last fight? Seriously? Half a mountain suddenly defies gravity? Ridiculous, overdone, and disappointing.
I had more respect for the series before this game came out. Though it should be noted that I of the previous two, the one I have replayed several times is DA2 (I very much enjoy the fastpaced combat and the smart AI system).
I actually felt that DA as a franchise and as a world was *harmed* by DA:I, since ...
the overall world setting gets absolutely f****d when magic somehow pops up everywhere, the elluvians suddenly start working, f*****g Fenris AND another goddess that I forget the name of pop up for coffee, and super-rare and all-powerful Lyrium starts sprouting from every nook, cranny, and nostril. This isn't DA. DA is a much more subtle and satisfying world, where not everyone is able to destroy the universe. This is JRPG style endboss where every spell is a worldbreaking megablast.
And what's with the last fight? Seriously? Half a mountain suddenly defies gravity? Ridiculous, overdone, and disappointing.
I had more respect for the series before this game came out. Though it should be noted that I of the previous two, the one I have replayed several times is DA2 (I very much enjoy the fastpaced combat and the smart AI system).