Will I be able to get anything out of DA Inquisition reviews?

[erbi79]

Dear Escapist community,

I hope you are all doing fine^^


I am among the, apparently, very few people who got terribly burned by Dragon Age Orgins. The game was sold to me by pretty much every review as a deep, non linear game with high replayability. To me it had none of those (I will explain later). For a long time I wondered how nobody else noticed and in fact kept praising it up to this day. I think I started understanding it when Bioshock Inifinte came out.

I love Bioshock Infinite, but so many people dislike its shallow and mediocre gameplay. These people mostly love FPS games, and as an FPS, Infinite is apparently not very good. It is a mechanics question. When you are big into a genre and played many games in it for a very long time you understand it better then others who have not. I am not an FPS player, in fact I quite loathe the genre, it being to me among the most boring genres in gaming. So the mediocrity of Infinite never stood out for me, because that was pretty much the experience I have with other shooters anyway.


I am a huge fantasy rpg geek instead. Just telling a nice story does not cut it for me.

Let me explain my three points of criticism I stated earlier. (Note: I played the PC version)

Linearity is the least problematic. But I just felt lied to. A game where I always do the same and always end up the same place is linear. I do not care that between ponts B and F I can choose in which order I will do C, D and E. I do not care if I have dialogue options that seem to be very important but end up not changing anything of importance.
For instance: in many reviews the fact that you can choose to either help the elves or the were-wolves was presented as a big thing, but in actuality it just changed a little thing in the last level of the game.
This is a common problem I have also with games like Mass Effect or The Walking Dead. Games that claim your choices matter when they in fact do not. I feel cheated and it breaks imersion on subsequent playthroughs. At that point I prefer a game that just tells a great story then one that needs to account lots of choies you made but needs to funnel them all to the same endpoint through the same route.

The little excursion you had in the middle of Origins, were you could choose in which order to tackle the next few levels also had a horrible side effect. Level Scaling, the worst and most immersion breaking thing you can have in your RPG. It exists basically to cover how badly )or lazily) designed your rpg mechanics are. At that point, choose one or the other, but do not resort to level scaling. If in a Pen & Paper RPG your Gamemaster would start doing that you would kick her/him out or at least demanding a little more effort next time.

DA:O was also heralded of being a deep rpg in the vein of classics in the genre. It was often compared to the Infinity Engine games which I like a lot. Now with those games you had a party of six, allowing you a variety of classe with different specializations. DA obviously only had a party of four characters. By default you are very limited on the RPG mechanics and/or roles you can use. What happens is that these four characters need to be able to do everything in the game, resulting in the characters feeling all pretty much the same. This is less of a problem in an action RPG, but a big one in a "pure" RPG.
In Origins you had three classes and wihtin these classes the choice of abilities you had did not make a big difference. Compared of how different the characters of the people in your party were this was a huge let down to me.

Combat felt very shallow and MMORPG like more concerned with flashy (and gory) effects then with giving you actual tactis you could use. A combat system in which I can't block a path to the enemy feels utterly ridiculos to me at this poimnt in time. It got very frustrating and immensily repetitive to me, because in the end, combined with its shallow mechanics, resulted of me winning every fight in the game the same way.

This all resulted in the worst case scenarion in an RPG for me. While it was adequately fun on the first playthrough, i stopped playing the game in the middle of the second. I could not be asked anymore. So I played through the different origin stories and then gifted away the game, never looking back and to this day not feeling the slightest need to play it again.

Not even mentioning all the little problems like having a damn DLC vendor in your camp...

I am convinced that would Dragon Age Origins have come out five years earlier it would not have gotten a single score over 8. Like the new X-Com, the game proffited from having zero competition or games it could be compared to. Something reviwers apparently need to have to notice the problematic parts of game design.


Now that DA Inquisition is coming out, I do not really know how to handle reviews of it. None of the problems I had with Origins was mentioned in reviews, in fact often the opposite was claimed, giving me the impression that the reviewers are really not that much into RPGs, and don't understand the inner workings of them. Again with Bioshock Infinite you had a much more varied and critical review process, and big FPS fans got the information they needed if they looked at more then one review (which you should do anyway).

So what do you think? I am just expecting to much from the game types I love? I already read and heard that Inquisition would even be more "accessible" and I can hardly imagine how, since DA:O basically took me by the hand and made sure I could not do anything wrong or did not have any meaningful choice.

Or maybe you agree and reviewers should at least talk about these issues even if they will not take them into account for their scores?


I am very curious to read what you all think of that.

 

[Bombiz]

it sounds like you listened to the reviews too much but didn't actually look at a lot of gameplay. What I would do if I were you would be to watch gameplay videos/LP's of it and forum your opinion based off that. Though this only works if 1) you don't mind spoilers for story all that much which you said

Just telling a nice story does not cut it for me.

so that shouldn't be a problem, and 2)the game still isn't out yet so trying to find gameplay that isn't from reviews is going to be hard so you might have to weight a while.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So what do you think?

I think you have highly rarefied tastes, to the extent where it's detrimental to your enjoyment of the hobby. I also think you're going to have a hard time finding a reviewer who has the same laundry list of requirements you do, so you're not likely to get much from most of them.

Not exactly on topic, but on the subject of "choices mattering" in The Walking Dead...they matter very much. You can't dictate the ultimate resolution of events...that would be hilariously impractical from a design standpoint and probably result in a 45 minute game...but you can most certainly dictate the nature of the experience you have and the tenor of your relationships with the other survivors. Which is the entire point of the game, both in terms of mechanics and theme.

Or maybe you agree and reviewers should at least talk about these issues even if they will not take them into account for their scores?

Nope. Reviewers are going to talk about their experience with the game. It's up to you to find one whose tastes match your own closely enough to be useful. As stated, in your case that is going to be monumentally difficult if not impossible.

 

[erbi79]

@Bombiz

Yeah that is probably what I should do, though it is less then optimal because some of the problems only really get obvious after a long time into the game. Also with Let's Plays I tend to listen more to what the person says then to what is on the screen, but that should be fixable^^ So it will still probably be what I will do.


@BloatedGuppy

Really? So just as an example, can you explain to me why The Long War Mod for X-Com is such a big success? With your argumentation it would seem that it should not be a success at all...

(edit:
Also what i said was that a game like The Walking Dead offers not much replayability. I like a personalized experience and having NPCs react differntly to my choices. But these two things have nothing to do with each other. You (normally) do not replay a whole game just to hear a few lines of different dialogue, thats kind of wierd unless you are completely enamoured with a specific game, at which point it is fine but still does not make the game inherently replayable.

Replayability comes from things like: Great Gameplay, when it is just fun to play - In depth customization, when for instance choosing a different character class massively changes how you play the game, as in Baldurs Gate for instance - having different routes leading to a different ending and so on

Not from having a couple of lines of dialogue change or changing the skin of a auxilliary troop that will only appear once at the end anyway)



I think what I wanted to say is that with genres that are more mainstream you will get more in depth and accurate information on through reviews. It often feels to me like most reviewers are not much into RPGs or mainly into JRPGs (which is a genre of its own). A review exists to convey information about a game and it seems to me that some genres just get more in depth attention then other in their respective reviews. Even if I personally do not like a specific genre I would still like to have its fans get the same attention.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Really? So just as an example, can you explain to me why The Long War Mod for X-Com is such a big success? With your argumentation it would seem that it should not be a success at all...

Define "big success". It has 204,000 total downloads, not accounting for re-downloads of any of its seemingly infinite number of iterations (we're up to what now...14f?). I like Long War a lot but it's a niche mod for what was arguably something of a niche game to begin with.

You've crafted an OP where you basically rip every single element of a best selling RPG. That's your prerogative, you can like what you like, but I have no idea why you'd be bristling at the suggestion that you're difficult to please.

I think what I wanted to say is that with genres that are more mainstream you will get more in depth and accurate information on through reviews. It often feels to me like most reviewers are not much into RPGs or mainly into JRPGs (which is a genre of its own). A review exists to convey information about a game and it seems to me that some genres just get more in depth attention then other in their respective reviews. Even if I personally do not like a specific genre I would still like to have its fans get the same attention.

A review exists to give you the reviewer's position on a game. Recent controversies in gaming aside, reviews do not exist to conform exactly to the user's expectations lest they be deemed "unethical".

As for WRPGs...I have no idea which review sites you frequent, but there never seems to be a lack of reviews for major WRPGs. Again, I suspect you just don't like any of them, because none of them address their reviews to your highly specific tastes.

 

[erbi79]

Well I think even if it is just 30 000 people playing a -mod- for a niche game, that is a big success to me. It means that a considerable part of the game consumers wanted a more in depth experience that the game originally offered.


I do not think you understand what I am getting at, probably I am just explaining myself badly.

I just do not think that less information about game mechanics is ever good for any game and it seems that some genres get less attention to that in their reviews. I think a review in general for every genre should be very informative to people interested in that game, I do not really understand whats wrong with that.
Also I am hardly the only person who had those exact complaints about DA:O, some valued them more then others but these are things that become obvious when you spend much time with a game and also think about it.

Also please note, I never mentioned, nor said a single time, that DA:O is a -bad- game, I actually said that it was adequately fun playing through it for the first time. And I did not say that if the game had come out 5 years earlier it would not have gotten a single score above 6. I said 8 which would still mean a good game for the most part.

I also did not say that WRPGs get reviewed less, I was complaining if you so want, that their reviews are much less in depth about the actual mechanics.


Why is it perfectly fine for FPS players to have their attention to game mechanics but when someone does it for an RPG where you usually spend a lot more time with it becomes a specific taste? I honestly do not understand it, and if you like I would be happy if you could explain this to me in a different way then just saying -well what hc rpg fans like does not matter to most people-

I might be wrong, I am perfectly fine with that, but I would like to know in what way I am
Because at this point I just do not see the difference other then that one genre is more mainstream so it is fine if games have in depth discussions about game mechanics while more niche products should not have that.

 

[TheIceQueen]

I'm with Guppy here. You've got to find a reviewer who actually seems to have your tastes and you haven't found any. It looks as though you're going to have a bit of trouble with that, too, as the people you claim to not like RPGs usually do tend to like RPGs. Aside from the FPS genre, the RPG genre is one of the most successful and it had plenty of competition around the time of Dragon Age: Origins. The Witcher. Fallout revival. Elder Scrolls. Risen. Mount & Blade. The Fable Series. Alpha Protocol. That's not even counting the other ones that BioWare were also in charge of, like the KOTOR series and Mass Effect. There has always been plenty of competition in WRPG ever since Morrowind exploded into the mainstream, so I've no idea what you're talking about. The WRPG is one of the most diverse and acclaimed genres and is only ever becoming more and more popular. Really, the thing is, you've got way sharper tastes than most people. That's not a bad thing. That's just something you have to work around.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I might be wrong, I am perfectly fine with that, but I would like to know in what way I am

I'm not telling you you're "wrong" for liking what you like, or wanting certain things from reviews. I'm telling you that reviews are not tailored to any one person's particular tastes, and neither are they meant to broadsheet documents poring over every detail of the game in minutiae. A lot of reviewers will focus on story elements first and foremost in RPGs, you're not incorrect. If they're not giving you what you want from a review, you need to find someone who will. If no one is giving you what you want from a review...focusing on the elements you consider important or slamming the deficiencies you felt were evident...then it's possible your tastes are...as I originally stated...rarefied enough that you're going to have difficulty finding perspectives that mirror yours.

 

[EternallyBored]

Like Bloatedguppy said, I think your tastes are just a little too niche to rely solely on the reviews coming out right now, I would strongly recommend waiting until after release and watching some Let's Plays or gameplay videos before you make a decision, as it sounds like you are looking for a straight up nearly turn-based RPG like the old Baldur's gate and Icewind Dale games, from everything I've seen, it's too early to get the level of detail about the story you are looking for, and it looks like the game is fairly real-time combat heavy, with tanking abilities drawing aggro directly rather than relying on unit positioning, the harder difficulties seem to require the pausing time and issuing detailed orders mechanic of the tactical mode, but that still likely isn't nearly as detailed or finicky as the positioning and timing of the AD&D style games.

YOu might be better off waiting for Obsidian's new game, or picking up Divinity: original sin, as those types of games sound closer to what you are looking for, combat wise at least. Your tastes for RPGs sound very niche though, so there probably aren't going to be many games out there to satisfy them, much like those incredibly detailed hex-based war simulation games, there just isn't a market large enough for those types of games to draw in the AAA developers and publishers, indie games and kickstarter projects are probably your best bet for satisfying your specific palate.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

One thing that bothers me, when talking about opinons... when someone says "I don't agree with you" people mistake that for "I think you're wrong" which isn't the same idea. We're talking about subjectivity in which honestly one can't be wrong or right.
That being said, you seem to have a focused taste which precludes you from liking a lot of things. That really makes it hard for people to recommend anything to you because it seems you've already written off so much that whats left is probably going to be things you've already experienced and anything new most likely won't live up to your standard.
Its not wrong to have those opinions, just realize how narrow your choices are ultimately going to be and don't take offense when someone says they can't help you.
That being said, wait for the game to be released and see what information comes out at that point in time. You aren't going to get an honest answer anyway as the game isn't out yet and opinions beyond the limited demo reviews are unable to be formed.

 

[erbi79]

The Witcher. Fallout revival. Elder Scrolls. Risen. Mount & Blade. The Fable Series. Alpha Protocol.

(those are all action RPGs basically proving my point)

Maybe I am to old and hang around people who are to old for my point to make sense here, but I get what you all are saying. Though I still not get why everyone is against reviwers explaing how games work in their reviews. That completely baffles me. I would seem to me that this is just common sense, but apparently not.
They do it in strategy games (usually) in racing games, sports games, shooters, as far as I can tell, RPGs are the only genre where this does not happen even though it would seem it is among the genres where this is the most important.

Also I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought you were telling me that my taste is wrong, I did not think that. I was just opposing the notion that my tastes are so specicifc that no one can relate to them when I know people who have stopped playing RPGs at all because of exactly those reasons and Kickstarter RPGs try to appeal to old and wierd people like me.

But again I get what you all are telling me and I will avoid all reviews on the game and wait a month and check out some lets plays.

 

[josemlopes]

The more popular sites usually never talk about actual gameplay, they mostly talk about what they did or happened in a specific moment and then how that made them feel inside.

If you want to see them discuss gameplay on the technical side, discussing mechanics and issues, you have to go after some more niche websites, or *gasp* foreign ones.

 

[Fat Hippo]

Reading through this thread, I think the assertion that you have very specific tastes regarding RPG's is probably correct. I know this, because I am in the same boat and pretty much agree with everything you said about DA: Origins. It's an absolute pain when everybody seems to love a game and you've got a giant checklist of flaws within 2 hours of starting it. At least, that's what happens to me all too frequently.

As for niche RPG websites, I would recommend GameBanshee, they don't write a ton of reviews, but when they do, they are indepth, and written by someone who has A LOT of experience when it comes to RPG's. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree, but it allows me to make a fairly good assumption on whether I will enjoy a given game or not.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, this was their conclusion on DAO back in the day.

"Yet at the same time, I get no sense from the game of a giant creative vision, or even a strong imagination. It is an exceptionally slick hack-n-slash, and a good example of what this new engine and system can do. The structure is there, with some tweaking, for an RPG that could do a lot more. DA:O?s dull, obvious plot, unbalanced, boring combat, rote quests, pay-for-combat AI, and numerous reality breakers simply get in the way too often for me to regard it as superlative. Yes, I moderately enjoy it, but I?m frankly more curious as to where BioWare will take the DA franchise next. Hopefully, it won?t be into the kind of cookie cutter mode that made those SSI gold and platinum games of the 1990s so interchangeable and ultimately forgettable. There?s a great opportunity here to improve upon a first offering, and I hope BioWare rises to the occasion."

That's definitelya far more negative review than most sites gave it at the time, and closer to my line of thinking anyway. I still don't understand why so many people thought that game had good combat.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

I'm in the same boat but for shooters (I love Quake and seeing all these games with 2 weapon loadouts and standard shooter movement get called "Quake inspired" because they have a rocket launcher and a laser rifle is awful). I'd advise asking other enthusiasts and maybe finding a network of niche sites. Most of the mainstream games reviewers are going to look at surface level stuff. There ought to be a stronger and more approachable network/website for that sort of thing though

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

yeah gotta throw my hat in with most people...your tastes are really "refined", in such you are demanding extremely polished and balanced mechanics, when that is an afterthought for alot of games, as they usually concentrate on the macro level and just making sure the damn thing is at least playable for any average joe, rather than stress testing it to the max for multi-decade veterans. Plus if they did this, there would probably be little else to the game, it would just be a combat simulator for rpg sheets. (Not a bad thing, not trying to say it shouldn't happen, just is a very small niche.)

I didn't pay attention to the trailers much or hype when origins came out, therefore I wasn't expecting any of those things...

however, for me personally, it does have high replayability (replaying it right now in fact, about to finish up awakening).
I've gone through the game the full way about ~10ish times, but I still haven't completed all the origins...I just find playing as a dwarf so boring.

I pray you never played the sequel then at least, that would make your eyes roll like sonic the hedgehog right through the back of your head.

 

[HyperBadger]

Personally I'd be hesitant to suggest inquisition to you after reading your post. While I expect it to be a good game and still fun I expect the following. Please note these are just what I expect it to be like not what I know for certain:

- Less tactical combat

After DA:Orgins they went and simplified it even more for DA2, I believe Inquisition will be somewhere in the middle but that's still less then origins. Personally I liked the level of tactics in origins but that might be because I never used the AI customisation to program what to do when and where.

- Choices that have very little overall impact.

It has become standard to have different choices etc in BioWare games but it has also become standard for the end to be pretty much the same regardless too. Sure there will be a few hard choices over the fate of some NPC's, your generic good or bad choices and possibly ways to drive off or kill party members but this was all stuff in origins. In the end I think there will be one main ending with multiple little variations again same as origins. If that didn't impress much I don't expect it to now.

- Larger world, more side quests etc

This is something they've been alluding to and I really hope it delivers on. In comparison to BG2, Origins really lacked meaningful side quests or anything really outside the main plot line. I really hope that's not the case this time. This is only my hopes though.

- All in all still a really good game

I still loved origins even if it doesn't love up to BG2 and PS:Torment and with that in mind I still expect inquisition to be a bigger shinier and flashier RPG then we've had for some time.

I don't expect the level of depth of 90's RPG's but personally I believe the decline is caused more by the much larger amount of effort it takes to make levels and voice act dialogue etc then it did to draw a couple of hundred area's and type a bunch of quest text. Sure what we get looks and feels great but that level of quality requires much more time and money to produce and results in not enough resources to do more then say....a single ending. I remember the BG2 final ending after the expansion having a number of different choices that were radically different but lets be honest, they were scrolling text with a few stock images thrown on screen. Unfortunately audiences often expect more from AAA games and would feel cheated by the sort of endings the old RPGS delivered.

Also you're right Bioshock Infinite was awesome and the lack of FPS depth is rubbish. It was much more linear then say Bioshock 1, cuts out the exploration but if you were to drop it next to a popular fps series like Halo and say 'it lacks depth' then I really want to know what games everyone else has been playing because I'm yet to see anything more complicated then point shoot, occasionally throw grenade and hit with gun. If point shoot and mix in a few plasmid/vigor powers is less deep then that then I've no idea what depth is anymore.

FINALLY consider checking out Divinity: Original Sin, a very good revival of the older WRPG's. Story is a bit weak but there's a great variety of ways to accomplish things as well as great combat. Can't say if you have any impact on the end or not though as I haven't finished it. I expect not.