Why the Game's Title Should Have Been Dragon Age: Impositions

[Mistwraithe]

I despise the way the industry is heading, this is just one of many, many examples. It is annoying for anyone who values their time and particularly sad how much the whole model preys on the 'whales' who don't have enough self control to avoid spending way too much money.

Unfortunately a significant number of people, the majority perhaps, are willing to put up with it in the so called 'casual' market where freemium started. And it appears a growing number in the more serious gaming market are also accepting it.

So if I can get tons of additional content beyond what was shipped (assuming they make as much as they did for ME3) just because some people can't resist the need to buy health potions in game, I'm totally fine with that. I applaud the people who spend money on Platinum (the in game currency in DA:I you buy with real money) to get more health potions.

It is a slippery slope. I know some people can play even the most grindy freemium game and avoid paying any money but the reality is that most people value their time more than that. In fact it is quite likely that as you get older (not saying you are currently young, but regardless, as you get older) it is likely that time will become increasingly rare and precious to the point where you too won't be able to justify the time to grind and may succumb to paying to win. So for your own future self, if nothing else, you should perhaps rethink your support of freemium...

 

[Robzy]

Why the Game's Title Should Have Been Dragon Age: Impositions

We are getting used to the idea of microtransactions, but virtually forcing players to buy health potions for multiplayer with real cash is a bit too much.

Read Full Article

So my brother linked me to this article, asking me if what Shamus was saying is true, as I've been playing quite a bit of Dragon Age Inquisition multiplayer (about equal to the single player campaign) and trying to get him to give it a shot.

Shamus has the underlying mechanics correct, but completely misses the execution of it, showing he has very little to no experience with the multiplayer aspect of this game.

Let me clarify.
Most importantly, the fact that every chest you buy (with gold or real money) contains healing potions, yes, that's right, every chest, you don't have to hold off upgrades, because the upgrades/item chests ALL contain health potions.

You get plenty of gold if you complete the map, and if you're struggling, play on the easiest difficulty and unless everyone is level 1, you'll complete it without needing any potions.

Potions are barely required before the final boss of any map, as you get fully healed between each zone (there are 5 zones per map, each taking 3-5 minutes depending on multiple factors such as how many treasure doors spawn, map layout etc).

I've never once had someone complain that I died and didn't use a potion before doing so (as usually if something kills you, it's because you stood in a fairly obviously bad position, got genuinely unlucky, the Keeper didn't keep barrier up as they were too busy DPS'ing, or Tank did not build Guard and now everyone is dead), and people who use consumables (such as Regen pots on other players, Jar of Bees for bosses) are usually praised as this is not the norm, and is not normally needed unless you are undergeared/underleveled for that difficulty.

Comparing this to Mass Effect 3's multi, which I also loved, the need for consumables is only to help you reach endgame levels early (think Gold/Platinum on ME3 without highly leveled weapons). In fact ME3 was far more consumable centric whilst also being far harder to gather said consumables.

The gripes I have with DA I Multi, are the silly naming for easy/normal/hard (routine/threatening/perilous) and the crafting system in which materials and their effects are not explained at all (You kind of need to know that Iron sucks and what its stats are from single player to be more effective in multiplayer crafting as materials and crafting are not explained at all)

RNG with finding weapons/accessories can also be annoying, you can do a normal mission and get an item level 10 unique (purple/epic) weapon, and have it already be weaker than the item level 15 common you got from easy, feeling completely underwhelmed from your new shiny as it goes straight into the salvage bin to craft some armor.

Lack of content, there are only 3 enemy types and 3 maps, yes randomization happens but most of the random doors are just 30 second distractions to get extra gold and chance at item drops.

I know this is only my first post, and I'm making some likely unpopular calls, but, seeing someone scrutinize a system based on mechanics without understanding or explaining execution, frustrates me.



Edit: Forgot to mention, you can also die 3 times before going down for good and enemies get harder, if this is the case, you're playing above your level and probably shouldn't be tackling whatever you are attempting, the fact it gets harder if someone dies so often, is there to try and stop one person carrying the entire team solo, it is a team game, and coordination and knowledge of role help greatly)

 

[Nixou]

We are getting used to the idea of microtransactions, but virtually forcing players to buy health potions for multiplayer with real cash is a bit too much.

I'm waiting for EA to announce that they need that money to fix all the game-breaking bugs plaguing the PC and 7th gen console versions.

 

[daibakuha]

From what I've played he seems to be completely overstating the impact of this system and the cost of these items without using cash.

From my actual first hand experience the multiplayer is exactly like the one in Mass Effect 3, with a crafting system to help balance out the RNG. Mass Effect also sells consumables for cash, but they're so easy to obtain that it doesn't matter, just like in Inquisition.

So basically Shamus read about the system, didn't play it for himself and is now lamenting it's implementation, even though he has no idea what he's talking about. If he's going for a sort of "symptom of what's to come" thing it falls under the slippery slope fallacy.

It's the exact same system for ME3, which allowed for a bunch of free content, including doubling the maps and characters, adding a faction of enemies, a new event and a new difficulty.

 

[Norix596]

Oh wow, I didn't hear anything about this. I wasn't planning on getting Inquisition so I wasn't reading up on it. If it is as described that's pretty vile.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd argue that episodic games are a whole different beast than charging real Earth currency for in-game ammo clips.

Perhaps it should be advertised as one, then. Saying that there will be story DLC isn't the same as saying that the story is being released in parts.

 

[Ishal]

Why not? Destiny's already charging you for the rest of its story. That was another thing that was unthinkable when it was first suggested.

I'd argue that episodic games are a whole different beast than charging real Earth currency for in-game ammo clips.

Paying for the rest of the story is pretty much what MMO's have done forever, haven't they? The subscription ones, anyway.

OT: Yeah, that sounds almost like DOTA II levels of potential rage at teammates. No thank you.

But honestly... it's a Dragon Age game. Are people really playing this for multiplayer? I mean, I guess people are. I'm still kind of shocked that people played ME3 multiplayer, even with it's positive reception. Playing multiplayer in a game like Dragon Age is just... I don't know. I can't wrap my head around it.

edit: Thinking about it. Is this why they removed healing from the mage skills? Rely on potions in multiplayer, and just do the same for single player? If so... well. EA. Nothing else to say.

 

[Callate]

I hear such good things about the singleplayer, it's sort of sad to hear such a damning condemnation of the multiplayer.

The silly thing is, though, that it's penny wise and pound foolish. Well-crafted multiplayer can be a terrific way for social circles to drag new players into a game, long after the initial sales rush has passed. Instead, it sounds like this one has been crafted to attempt to sucker an existing player base that has already paid out their entry fee.

And what has it got to be like to be one of the people who was responsible for crafting an also-ran component of an otherwise well-received game, designed for just such money-gouging? That can't be good for your morale as a team member.

This kind of bottom-lining inability to look at the big picture is what has helped turn EA into a curse in so many people's mouths. It's really unfortunate.

 

[Darkmantle]

From what I've played he seems to be completely overstating the impact of this system and the cost of these items without using cash.

From my actual first hand experience the multiplayer is exactly like the one in Mass Effect 3, with a crafting system to help balance out the RNG. Mass Effect also sells consumables for cash, but they're so easy to obtain that it doesn't matter, just like in Inquisition.

So basically Shamus read about the system, didn't play it for himself and is now lamenting it's implementation, even though he has no idea what he's talking about. If he's going for a sort of "symptom of what's to come" thing it falls under the slippery slope fallacy.

It's the exact same system for ME3, which allowed for a bunch of free content, including doubling the maps and characters, adding a faction of enemies, a new event and a new difficulty.

It somewhat depends on how hard they twist the knife I guess. How hard do they push you in DA:I instead of ME3.

But what I really notice is the laziness honestly. EA didn't have ANY balancing mechanics for number of players, so solution this time around? FUCK IT MAKE IT ALWAYS THE SAME NUMBER OF PLAYERS! lol.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Seriously, is this real? I didn't even know da:i had multiplayer. Would this be noticable to me that only wants to play singleplayer?

Nope. There aren't even any trophies/achievements for multiplayer (as far as I can tell). It is a completely stand-alone thing that you don't have to play whatsoever. I mean, even in Mass Effect, the N7 ranks transferred into single player if you wanted, but here there's nothing.
Okay, that might not be true. It's possible that once you hit max level, you may be able to move the character into single player to up your 'influence', much like Mass Effect 3. I don't know though because I haven't touched multiplayer.


Anyway, this sounds like Mass Effect 3's multiplayer all over again. I just kind of shrug and go, "Big deal." I guess I'm one of those people who say, "get good." I spent tons of time playing the ME3 multiplayer with friends and strangers, and while there were times I was a bit jealous because someone had a cool gun, I never felt like I needed to buy anything in order to enjoy the game. I'm betting it's the same way here. With enough practice, I was able to get good at the multiplayer and stop being a downer on my team.
Now, if this starts making it's way into single player like he said, then yeah, we're going to have a problem. I'm already annoyed that I can't just find more potions and that I'm limited on how many I can carry. At least they replenish every time you make camp or travel, but it's still kind of a drag.

 

[daibakuha]

Now, if this starts making it's way into single player like he said, then yeah, we're going to have a problem. I'm already annoyed that I can't just find more potions and that I'm limited on how many I can carry. At least they replenish every time you make camp or travel, but it's still kind of a drag.

At about 40 hours in and I barely use potions anymore. Shields become so good and The damage mitigation from warriors is really good. I'm actually playing Knight Enchanter on my Inquisitor and I'm finding that I am somewhat of an unkillable god.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

And I had no idea this was a thing because I never touched the multiplayer and have no intention to. It has nothing I want.

 

[Nixou]

I'm actually playing Knight Enchanter on my Inquisitor and I'm finding that I am somewhat of an unkillable god.

You know, one of the best aspect of Dragon Age 2 is that even if you took the Healer specialization, a mage Hawke was never completely unkillable and could be beaten if you were not careful enough.

The thing is, I suspect the reason sequels and supplementary material keep bashing the audience's heads with the idea that the Hero of Ferelden was this unstoppable force of nature way above archdemons in the food-chain comes from the fact that after the game was released, the writers realized that the Arcane Warrior was so overpowered that the only way for their story to keep making sense was:
1. Assuming that most players had chosen this specialization (because most did: I mean, which character will you choose: the one with the very big sword, or the one who can do That [http://i.imgur.com/SLVMihK.png]?)
2. Run with it and build their canon around the idea that the Warden was this abnormally powerful freak before sending him/her on a wild goose chase far away from Thedas in order to get rid of their marysuesque presence.
3. Make sure to avoid giving players the possibility to create another overpowered medieval Jedi.

Apparently, they missed step 3.

 

[Tatsuki]

Why the Game's Title Should Have Been Dragon Age: Impositions

We are getting used to the idea of microtransactions, but virtually forcing players to buy health potions for multiplayer with real cash is a bit too much.

Read Full Article

Ok I'm admitting up front I didn't read the article after reading that little snippet right there, it was clickbait, but this thread is almost pure speculation from most people.

Yes you CAN buy potions with real money, you can also, not do that.
You can buy the potions with in game cash which is easy to get hold of, the only hard part of multiplayer is getting materials to make new items out of. (you will have the money for a potion crate in about 1/4 of a level)

The multiplayer has a fair few issues,but drawing people in with an out and out lie is a bit crude.

 

[J Tyran]

But honestly... it's a Dragon Age game. Are people really playing this for multiplayer? I mean, I guess people are. I'm still kind of shocked that people played ME3 multiplayer, even with it's positive reception. Playing multiplayer in a game like Dragon Age is just... I don't know. I can't wrap my head around it.

edit: Thinking about it. Is this why they removed healing from the mage skills? Rely on potions in multiplayer, and just do the same for single player? If so... well. EA. Nothing else to say.

Glad I'm not the only one that doesn't see the appeal, I felt a bit like a "keep your multiplayer off my Dragon Age lawn" grumpy puss. With ME3 the game was also a fairly competent 3rd person co-op shooter with varied playstyles and opportunity for lots of tactical customisation and flexibility, like horde mode in Gears of War with a lot more variety in skills and classes and loadouts as well as "loads of guns".

The gameplay alone can carry it, with Inquisition though unless the multiplayer is very, very different I personally don't find the combat all that engaging. Its serviceable enough and although its not as tactical and strategy dependant as Origins was during its best moments its far better than it was in DA2, even if most of the enemies simply boil down to large HP tanks and stripable defences (barriers & guard) rather than "truly" difficult or challenging. Bosses are just a long slog with lots of HP, even some of generic enemies just take a fairly long time to kill without being any real threat.

Its better than many MMOs I guess but still not engaging enough for to want to play it purely for the gameplay alone, unless it contains its own plot like Halos Spartan OPs or something.

 

[Nurb]

I don't think companies are going the right direction when more people are rooting for the pirates to fix things.

 

[Right Hook]

I think the problem is being overstated - I haven't tried playing the MP a ton, but I haven't had much of a problem running out of health potions just using all of my in game money on large chests.

Yeah he went a little off the rails in this article, partially truthful but it really felt like he just wanted to drum up anger for EA which has by now been stereotyped as evil. I've only played a bit of multiplayer so far but haven't felt incentivised to buy anything. The matches are tough and scaling would be nice but there has always been something endearing about gritting your teeth in a co-op game space, fosters comradery, at least in my experience.

 

[Shinkicker444]

Wait... I've been playing quite a bit and... This game has Multiplayer?! Huh, learn something new everyday.

 

[Sanunes]

Yeah he went a little off the rails in this article, partially truthful but it really felt like he just wanted to drum up anger for EA which has by now been stereotyped as evil. I've only played a bit of multiplayer so far but haven't felt incentivised to buy anything. The matches are tough and scaling would be nice but there has always been something endearing about gritting your teeth in a co-op game space, fosters comradery, at least in my experience.

I wouldn't say he was trying to drum up hate, but it does feel like he is using Dragon Age: Inquisition as an example of something wrong based only on what he has read elsewhere and then to go down the slippery slope of "this is the future of games". Now we had this future in Dead Space 3 and funny in all three games that have had something similiar Mass Effect 3, Dead Space 3, and Dragon Age: Inquisition I only bought one box in Mass Effect 3 and that was because I had leftover "BioWare points" from buying single player DLC which won't happen this time because they dropped the silly point system for the PC. Heck from my experience Mass Effect 3 was worse then what he is talking about here because there are four consumables that you would randomly get from the box instead of just healing potions and after a few boxes from using the in game credits I never reached the bottom of my stockpile.

What I think is worse is what Assassin's Creed Unity is doing and using more then one game as an example would have made the article seem better.

 

[Ladylotus]

So, as people have stated, this isn't the case. You are not told to buy anything, and as someone who has played several hours of multiplayer already I can tell you that there have been no advertisements telling me to buy chests with my cash.

Heck, when I started the multiplayer, I was given 2 chests for free - with three health potions total.

And then there's the fact that you can make more than enough money to afford a chest containing 5 health potions after one sitting (even losing, as I've gotten good at doing). And that's all this chest contains, 5 health potions and nothing else.

People have already said it, and I'll say it again: The author is misinforming their audience. Do not condemn a (fantastic, in my opinion) game just because of someone one person on one website says about one aspect of a huge game. I recommend giving Dragon Age: Inquisition a chance, it'd be worth it.