Should I buy Dragon Age Inquisition? Honest Opinions.

[LostTrigger]

I've played dragons age origins and 2. They both were meh, only 20 minutes though. I want to give Inquisition a try but im not sure if i'll enjoy the combat. Im a battle mage at heart and I hate fighting with the staff in dragon age(which is my biggest gripe with the series, locked weapons/armor). I do know about the Knight Enchanter special class but you fight with an conjured sword and your staff, you also still keep your weak mage gear and as far as I know mages get destroyed in cqc.

My only option would be the warrior or rogue. Don't really care for supporting role(i think thats the templar) or sword and shield(champion). For the rogue, someone said it was diverse because you could use dual daggers or switch to bow and arrow, yet you cant switch weapons during combat(i hear) then that kinda ruins it for me. Also not a fan of the back stabbing. So through elimination my only class might be the two-handed sword/reaver but from what I saw it used moves that sacrifices your health. Lol I know im being overly picky.

A few of my favorite rpg games were dark souls, skyrim, and dragons dogma(adleast action rpg's) and im really not sure if i'll enjoy the combat. Everyone says its a great game but I hate the class locks because there doesnt seem to be one that suits my playing style, upclose and personal, badass armor, and a few spells/ranged attacks. On a side note im also thinking I might want to get the witcher 3 instead. Thoughts?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Buy Witcher 3 instead.

Both are the third entry in long running fantasy RPG series, both feature moral ambiguity and "shades of grey", both have attempted to shoehorn open worlds into their existing design paradigm to get them some of that sweet, sweet Skyrim money.

The only real major point of difference is that Witcher 3 is a unmitigated masterpiece...one of the finest, if not THE finest...CRPG ever made. And Dragon Age Inquisition, by comparison, is a bloated, tedious, flaw riddled piece of crap.

 

[LostTrigger]

Buy Witcher 3 instead.

Both are the third entry in long running fantasy RPG series, both feature moral ambiguity and "shades of grey", both have attempted to shoehorn open worlds into their existing design paradigm to get them some of that sweet, sweet Skyrim money.

The only real major point of difference is that Witcher 3 is a unmitigated masterpiece...one of the finest, if not THE finest...CRPG ever made. And Dragon Age Inquisition, by comparison, is a bloated, tedious, flaw riddled piece of crap.

thats the other problem i had lol critics loved dragon age, gamers seemed to have a mixed opinion it either is great or it sucked. it has a user meta score of 5 for the pc

 

[Daniel Papaonn]

If you feel like buying it because something inside attracted you, why not?

Besides, it only takes you like 1 meal's expense to support the developers,
to me it seemed legit.

Imagine you went to McD and purchased a double cheese burgar and a drink,
it's also almost the same amount of money.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Haven't played Witcher 3.

DAI is...eh its okay. Honestly I got it not too long after release on high recommendations from people and I got swept up in the hype from them and looking back its just not all that great. I've played about thirty hours on it and have hardly scratched the surface or so it feels. A big part of its problem is it feels like a single-player MMORPG in many ways. There's a lot of busy work and the combat isn't hugely compelling. Its not as dynamic and visceral as that in DA2 and it seems a lot more like DA1's combat in that its very rubber-bandy and poorly balanced. Often it feels like either you slaughter everything with ease or you just die instantly.

In short I'd say for me in terms of combat system it was a step down from DA2. Not a big step down but step down nevertheless. Its okay. At least its not as bad as DA1 which was just awful. Its a very pretty and visually impressive game and the story from what I've seen so far isn't bad and I like the characters. But the combat gets old pretty fast.

I wouldn't recommend it unless its on sale honestly.


Edit:

If you feel like buying it because something inside attracted you, why not?

Besides, it only takes you like 1 meal's expense to support the developers,
to me it seemed legit.

Imagine you went to McD and purchased a double cheese burgar and a drink,
it's also almost the same amount of money.

DAI is currently £30 on amazon and Witcher 3 is £38. If you're paying that much for a double cheeseburger and a drink you're getting pretty ripped off.

 

[jademunky]

Do not buy DAI, I paid 60 for it on launch and have still not even gotten past the halfway point. I loved 1 and liked #2 more than most but I did not enjoy the third at all.

It certainly is a bigger game but lacks the interesting characters, does not tell a very focused story, has an uninteresting villain and the combat, ugh, just repetitive and not fun.

Also the size of the maps and the sheer number of fetch quests is just overwhelming. It gives you no indication of what quests are worth your time and which ones will take an hour and net you almost nothing.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

thats the other problem i had lol critics loved dragon age, gamers seemed to have a mixed opinion it either is great or it sucked. it has a user meta score of 5 for the pc

Critics went very easy on Dragon Age Inquisition. Too easy, frankly, even by the exceedingly generous standards of gaming critics.

Things DA:I does better than Witcher 3:

1. Inventory management is a bit cleaner (albeit still awful)
2. System requirements are lower
3. You can roll your choice of character
4. Voice acting is consistently excellent, Witcher 3 has the odd mediocre/poor performance

Things Witcher 3 does better than DA:I:

1. Significantly larger world, which is largely seamless. Hardly any loading screens (DA:I is a nightmare slog of long loading screens)
2. Significantly longer main story that is significantly better written and better paced
3. Better graphics...DA:I looks comparable in still shots, Witcher's world has much better animation, dynamic weather, better facial acting, etc, etc.
4. Ridiculously better sidequests and optional activities...DA:I, outside of its relatively short and utterly uninspired main narrative...offers up some of the most tedious and regressive "content" in CRPG history. It somehow manages to be even more boring than "collect 10 bear asses". Prepare to spend a lot of time clicking on glimmering widgets and escorting lost Druffalo home.
5. Significantly better world building, and richer characterizations
6. Better combat and RPG mechanics (they're not fantastic, but DA:I is pretty rubbish)
7. Pretty much everything else.

I'm honestly speechless at the degree to which CDPR's game shits all over Bioware's, given their respective budgets and development cycles. The quality gulf between them is staggering. And I say this as a long time Bioware fan whose affection for them goes back to the original Baldur's Gate. I had high hopes for DA:I, given the extra development time they had and their seeming desire to make up for the mistakes of DA2 and ME3. Instead we got this stillborn...thing. It only sort of works as a narrative CRPG, and the "open world" aspects are a catastrophic failure across the board. They even crammed some Facebook timesink nonsense into it. I found it to be a passable but hugely disappointing title. Having seen what CDPR accomplished with Witcher 3, I now have trouble viewing DA:I as anything but a laughable flub.

If you like CRPGs and want to play em all, make sure you buy and play DA:I first. Otherwise you're going to have a hard time stomaching it.

 

[LostTrigger]

Haven't played Witcher 3.

DAI is...eh its okay. Honestly I got it not too long after release on high recommendations from people and I got swept up in the hype from them and looking back its just not all that great. I've played about thirty hours on it and have hardly scratched the surface or so it feels. A big part of its problem is it feels like a single-player MMORPG in many ways. There's a lot of busy work and the combat isn't hugely compelling. Its not as dynamic and visceral as that in DA2 and it seems a lot more like DA1's combat in that its very rubber-bandy and poorly balanced. Often it feels like either you slaughter everything with ease or you just die instantly.

In short I'd say for me in terms of combat system it was a step down from DA2. Not a big step down but step down nevertheless. Its okay. At least its not as bad as DA1 which was just awful. Its a very pretty and visually impressive game and the story from what I've seen so far isn't bad and I like the characters. But the combat gets old pretty fast.

i have watched a few gameplay and the combat doent look all to great, was hoping it was a "you gotta play to enjoy" kinda thing.

Do not buy DAI, I paid 60 for it on launch and have still not even gotten past the halfway point. I loved 1 and liked #2 more than most but I did not enjoy the third at all.

It certainly is a bigger game but lacks the interesting characters, does not tell a very focused story, has an uninteresting villain and the combat, ugh, just repetitive and not fun.

noted

If you feel like buying it because something inside attracted you, why not?

Besides, it only takes you like 1 meal's expense to support the developers,
to me it seemed legit.

Imagine you went to McD and purchased a double cheese burgar and a drink,
it's also almost the same amount of money.

not sure where you live but in good 'ol MURICA that would cost maybe 8 dollars, this is a 60$ game which is alot of money

 

[LostTrigger]

thats the other problem i had lol critics loved dragon age, gamers seemed to have a mixed opinion it either is great or it sucked. it has a user meta score of 5 for the pc

Critics went very easy on Dragon Age Inquisition. Too easy, frankly, even by the exceedingly generous standards of gaming critics.

Things DA:I does better than Witcher 3:

1. Inventory management is a bit cleaner (albeit still awful)
2. System requirements are lower
3. You can roll your choice of character
4. Voice acting is consistently excellent, Witcher 3 has the odd mediocre/poor performance

Things Witcher 3 does better than DA:I:

1. Significantly larger world, which is largely seamless. Hardly any loading screens (DA:I is a nightmare slog of long loading screens)
2. Significantly longer main story that is significantly better written and better paced
3. Better graphics...DA:I looks comparable in still shots, Witcher's world has much better animation, dynamic weather, better facial acting, etc, etc.
4. Ridiculously better sidequests and optional activities...DA:I, outside of its relatively short and utterly uninspired main narrative...offers up some of the most tedious and regressive "content" in CRPG history. It somehow manages to be even more boring than "collect 10 bear asses". Prepare to spend a lot of time clicking on glimmering widgets and escorting lost Druffalo home.
5. Significantly better world building, and richer characterizations
6. Better combat and RPG mechanics (they're not fantastic, but DA:I is pretty rubbish)
7. Pretty much everything else.

I'm honestly speechless at the degree to which CDPR's game shits all over Bioware's, given their respective budgets and development cycles. The quality gulf between them is staggering. And I say this as a long time Bioware fan whose affection for them goes back to the original Baldur's Gate. I had high hopes for DA:I, given the extra development time they had and their seeming desire to make up for the mistakes of DA2 and ME3. Instead we got this stillborn...thing. It only sort of works as a narrative CRPG, and the "open world" aspects are a catastrophic failure across the board. They even crammed some Facebook timesink nonsense into it. I found it to be a passable but hugely disappointing title. Having seen what CDPR accomplished with Witcher 3, I now have trouble viewing DA:I as anything but a laughable flub.

If you like CRPGs and want to play em all, make sure you buy and play DA:I first. Otherwise you're going to have a hard time stomaching it.

i actually played the witcher 2 and couldnt get into the combat(for whatever reason, it was years ago so i dont remember y). it was a pirated version so that might have had some effect on the gameplay but how is the combat in witcher 3?

 

[3asytarg3t]

The hype over DAI was completely unwarranted, just as all the 10's floating about for W3 are completely unwarranted (even if it is a better game that DAI, so what), neither are the masterpieces the comically easy going gaming press makes them out to be, point of fact a true masterpiece comes along rarely, as in maybe once every 2 or 3 years at best. If you believed the gaming press it happens several times a year, currently they are slobbering all over W3, in the next release cycle it'll be fill_in_the_blank.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

i actually played the witcher 2 and couldnt get into the combat(for whatever reason, it was years ago so i dont remember y). it was a pirated version so that might have had some effect on the gameplay but how is the combat in witcher 3?

Improved from Witcher 2.

It's not perfect combat, but it's decent, and it's a damn sight better than DA:I combat (which relies heavily on "bag o' hit points" to institute difficulty, and melee combat feels nearly broken).

 

[LetalisK]

I've played dragons age origins and 2. They both were meh, only 20 minutes though. I want to give Inquisition a try but im not sure if i'll enjoy the combat. Im a battle mage at heart and I hate fighting with the staff in dragon age(which is my biggest gripe with the series, locked weapons/armor). I do know about the Knight Enchanter special class but you fight with an conjured sword and your staff, you also still keep your weak mage gear and as far as I know mages get destroyed in cqc.

My only option would be the warrior or rogue. Don't really care for supporting role(i think thats the templar) or sword and shield(champion). For the rogue, someone said it was diverse because you could use dual daggers or switch to bow and arrow, yet you cant switch weapons during combat(i hear) then that kinda ruins it for me. Also not a fan of the back stabbing. So through elimination my only class might be the two-handed sword/reaver but from what I saw it used moves that sacrifices your health. Lol I know im being overly picky.

A few of my favorite rpg games were dark souls, skyrim, and dragons dogma(adleast action rpg's) and im really not sure if i'll enjoy the combat. Everyone says its a great game but I hate the class locks because there doesnt seem to be one that suits my playing style, upclose and personal, badass armor, and a few spells/ranged attacks. On a side note im also thinking I might want to get the witcher 3 instead. Thoughts?

I would pass DA:I unless you are a fan of the Dragon Age series. I didn't really enjoy Dragon Age 1 or 2, so big surprise when I ended up dropping DA:I because I just didn't have the motivation to keep playing, despite some really cool characters. I'm assuming I'll go back to it as some point, though. Though, to be fair, I do think DA:I is better than both DA:O and DA2. I just got tired of slogging through a game I was only lukewarm on.

Also: I wouldn't say mages get destroyed in CQC. They aren't meant for it, but they don't fall over when hit with a brisk wind. The Knight Enchanter, specifically, is basically invulnerable in melee. Unless they patched them recently. Also, Templars are meleers with a few spells that are especially effective against magic users, which is really useful since enemy mages can be brutal in the game. Sounds like that class would be the one for you.

You might also want to check out the Tempest. It can be a meleer or ranged and while it doesn't use magic per say, it centers around magic-like effects. Making your attacks more powerful with fire, slowing down time, etc.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Buying Dragon Age: Inquisition is my biggest gaming regret ever. It is pretty much a single player mmo.

The character interactions are good, the main quest is decent, but you have to slog through so much boring crap like fetch quests, and collecting hundreds of herbs and minerals, it is very clear that the game does not respect your time. I eventually just gave up on it and I have no intention of returning to it any time soon

 

[Redryhno]

Short Answer: No

Longer Answer: Hell No

Longest Answer: I like that they tried to make a single-player MMO, but they made a single player MMO, complete with X of Y gameplay, fetch quests, and a pretty lackluster story with characters that somehow dropped even further below DA2's in terms of interest(though being fair, Bioware doesn't do stories all that well, but they present them in an interesting fashion, most of the time, this is one of the three exceptions in recent years they've screwed it up). There just wasn't much there that you can't get in pretty much any other RPG. Not to mention somehow they screwed up one of the things people liked about Origins in how you could pause and queue up actions, and the AI is SO bad, I thought Origins and their order system was bad at times, but they don't even have that here as an excuse for the decisions made. Not to mention how you can seriously screw up your game by going tactical since there was that menu bug(don't know if they patched it or not)

Overall, I'd say wait it out, get it on a big sale if you have to play it, but otherwise, I'll second(or tenth, by the time I finish typing this probably) getting Witcher3 instead. I don't care to play the franchise personally(the combat just feels too samey and doing anything other than putting the majority of your points in the respective "good" skill trees of each game just means you'll be F5'ing a huge amount to get through the easiest encounters), but it is fun to watch and there's actually a semblance of moral ambiguity in the choices you make besides being Andraste herself, or a Pride demon on lyrium let loose in a Mage Tower.

In pretty much every way, Witcher3 is better and I still shudder that Inquisition got all the awards and praise it did...

If you feel like buying it because something inside attracted you, why not?

Besides, it only takes you like 1 meal's expense to support the developers,
to me it seemed legit.

Imagine you went to McD and purchased a double cheese burgar and a drink,
it's also almost the same amount of money.

What the hell kind of MickeyD's are you going to? It's still a 50+ buck game. That's more like ten meals there, three at a decent restaurant, and one where I work if you get the best in-season in the surrounding farms stuff. Not to mention, if you can cook it's more like a week's worth of good food you're blowing on something that still has a middling user score.

 

[The Madman]

DA:Inquisition is alright. It's got some pretty visuals, interesting locations to explore, a few neat story ideas, and an interesting cast of supporting characters. Unfortunately gameplay isn't really its strength and if you're looking for something comparable to Dragon's Dogma or Demon's Soul then this isn't it. Inquisition plays much more reminiscent of a simplified actiony MMO than either a pure rpg or action game proper and certainly can't compare to any of the games you've listed in your post.

...It just really could have been great instead of merely alright, and that feeling of failed potential probably accounts for a lot of the bitterness you'll see towards this game online. Inquisition isn't terrible, it's just not nearly as good as people hoped it would be or that it possibly had the potential to achieve.

Frankly Witcher 3 is just a better experience in pretty much every way. Of the two games it's without question the one I would more highly recommend.

 

[OpticalJunction]

DAI is a stunningly pretty game that plays much like an MMO. The combat was designed with a controller in mind, so I'd highly recommend using that. It's a fun RPG for the most part, but not very story driven like DAO/2 or the witchers, it reminds me more of dungeon seige and other lite action-RPGs. HUGE game though, you're likely to spend upwards of 70 hours on a single playthrough, so in terms of value for money, it's quite good.

witcher 3 is a more hardcore RPG and has a stronger tie to the past witchers, so if you're into continuity and depth, you should go for that.

 

[LostTrigger]

DAI is a stunningly pretty game that plays much like an MMO. The combat was designed with a controller in mind, so I'd highly recommend using that. It's a fun RPG for the most part, but not very story driven like DAO/2 or the witchers, it reminds me more of dungeon seige and other lite action-RPGs. HUGE game though, you're likely to spend upwards of 70 hours on a single playthrough, so in terms of value for money, it's quite good.

witcher 3 is a more hardcore RPG and has a stronger tie to the past witchers, so if you're into continuity and depth, you should go for that.

DA:Inquisition is alright. It's got some pretty visuals, interesting locations to explore, a few neat story ideas, and an interesting cast of supporting characters. Unfortunately gameplay isn't really its strength and if you're looking for something comparable to Dragon's Dogma or Demon's Soul then this isn't it. Inquisition plays much more reminiscent of a simplified actiony MMO than either a pure rpg or action game proper and certainly can't compare to any of the games you've listed in your post.

...It just really could have been great instead of merely alright, and that feeling of failed potential probably accounts for a lot of the bitterness you'll see towards this game online. Inquisition isn't terrible, it's just not nearly as good as people hoped it would be or that it possibly had the potential to achieve.

Frankly Witcher 3 is just a better experience in pretty much every way. Of the two games it's without question the one I would more highly recommend.

Short Answer: No

Longer Answer: Hell No

Longest Answer: I like that they tried to make a single-player MMO, but they made a single player MMO, complete with X of Y gameplay, fetch quests, and a pretty lackluster story with characters that somehow dropped even further below DA2's in terms of interest(though being fair, Bioware doesn't do stories all that well, but they present them in an interesting fashion, most of the time, this is one of the three exceptions in recent years they've screwed it up). There just wasn't much there that you can't get in pretty much any other RPG. Not to mention somehow they screwed up one of the things people liked about Origins in how you could pause and queue up actions, and the AI is SO bad, I thought Origins and their order system was bad at times, but they don't even have that here as an excuse for the decisions made. Not to mention how you can seriously screw up your game by going tactical since there was that menu bug(don't know if they patched it or not)

Overall, I'd say wait it out, get it on a big sale if you have to play it, but otherwise, I'll second(or tenth, by the time I finish typing this probably) getting Witcher3 instead. I don't care to play the franchise personally(the combat just feels too samey and doing anything other than putting the majority of your points in the respective "good" skill trees of each game just means you'll be F5'ing a huge amount to get through the easiest encounters), but it is fun to watch and there's actually a semblance of moral ambiguity in the choices you make besides being Andraste herself, or a Pride demon on lyrium let loose in a Mage Tower.

In pretty much every way, Witcher3 is better and I still shudder that Inquisition got all the awards and praise it did...

If you feel like buying it because something inside attracted you, why not?

Besides, it only takes you like 1 meal's expense to support the developers,
to me it seemed legit.

Imagine you went to McD and purchased a double cheese burgar and a drink,
it's also almost the same amount of money.

What the hell kind of MickeyD's are you going to? It's still a 50+ buck game. That's more like ten meals there, three at a decent restaurant, and one where I work if you get the best in-season in the surrounding farms stuff. Not to mention, if you can cook it's more like a week's worth of good food you're blowing on something that still has a middling user score.

so the general opinion is DA:I bad W3 good?

I've played dragons age origins and 2. They both were meh, only 20 minutes though. I want to give Inquisition a try but im not sure if i'll enjoy the combat. Im a battle mage at heart and I hate fighting with the staff in dragon age(which is my biggest gripe with the series, locked weapons/armor). I do know about the Knight Enchanter special class but you fight with an conjured sword and your staff, you also still keep your weak mage gear and as far as I know mages get destroyed in cqc.

My only option would be the warrior or rogue. Don't really care for supporting role(i think thats the templar) or sword and shield(champion). For the rogue, someone said it was diverse because you could use dual daggers or switch to bow and arrow, yet you cant switch weapons during combat(i hear) then that kinda ruins it for me. Also not a fan of the back stabbing. So through elimination my only class might be the two-handed sword/reaver but from what I saw it used moves that sacrifices your health. Lol I know im being overly picky.

A few of my favorite rpg games were dark souls, skyrim, and dragons dogma(adleast action rpg's) and im really not sure if i'll enjoy the combat. Everyone says its a great game but I hate the class locks because there doesnt seem to be one that suits my playing style, upclose and personal, badass armor, and a few spells/ranged attacks. On a side note im also thinking I might want to get the witcher 3 instead. Thoughts?

I would pass DA:I unless you are a fan of the Dragon Age series. I didn't really enjoy Dragon Age 1 or 2, so big surprise when I ended up dropping DA:I because I just didn't have the motivation to keep playing, despite some really cool characters. I'm assuming I'll go back to it as some point, though. Though, to be fair, I do think DA:I is better than both DA:O and DA2. I just got tired of slogging through a game I was only lukewarm on.

Also: I wouldn't say mages get destroyed in CQC. They aren't meant for it, but they don't fall over when hit with a brisk wind. The Knight Enchanter, specifically, is basically invulnerable in melee. Unless they patched them recently. Also, Templars are meleers with a few spells that are especially effective against magic users, which is really useful since enemy mages can be brutal in the game. Sounds like that class would be the one for you.

You might also want to check out the Tempest. It can be a meleer or ranged and while it doesn't use magic per say, it centers around magic-like effects. Making your attacks more powerful with fire, slowing down time, etc.

nope couldnt get into the first 2

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Honestly? Just flip a coin. Seriously. I loved the game for about a week then just got soooooo bored of it.
If its on sale and you'll willing to have a good week and then never pick it up again, I'd say go for it.

 

[Redryhno]

so the general opinion is DA:I bad W3 good?

If nothing else, Inquistion is a huge downgrade in many aspects from Origins and even 2 in some respects and is a severe disappointment(I admit this could easily be me having high hopes and having them dashed). Witcher, while repetitive to a point and the near useless clusterfuck that was Alchemy in 2 in addition to a couple of very bad bugs that require you to reload back substantial amounts if you encounter them, at least delivers on most of the promises and knows what it wants to be about.

But yes, if you boil it all down, Witcher good, Inquisition bad. But I will say that the Witcher series is not for everyone(I'm one of them for the most part, as I've gotten older I've found I love to theorycraft, lore, and build things, but not so much most combat systems since they end up being really repetitive in most non-turned based RPGs, or maybe I just like making shit up). So be careful, if you liked the other two(I recommend you try out one of the others first, they're reasonably priced I'd say most of the time and routinely go on sale). Sorry if I missed you saying you've played them.