DA:Inquisition - In Praise Of Long Games

[Hyperion]

It is still awkward, but you get used to it after a while, and it's entirely playable. The mouse is contextual, so you have to be careful over what it's hovering for the other controls to work properly. Clumsy. No z-axis explicit (i.e. zoom) controls. They did add a run/walk button so that helps in crowded taverns and short ledges. Don't know if they fixed the journal crashing the game if you use mouse clicks to navigate. Haven't braved trying.

Thanks for the reply. I won't use mouse clicks to navigate unless I have to, I'll always use WSAD.

The no zoom controls concerns me a lot. I've heard that they've released 2 patches to address the shoddy PC port issues. Have you played any this month?

 

[Darkant]

Agreed like to play games that are longer in length and DA:I doesn't disappoint in that area,but the tactical camera and the console like jumping to get to some shards is another story,but all in all having fun with the game..

 

[Thrasher]

Yes, WASD for moving with the right mouse clicked is the way to go. However, you have to switch the key mapping for Q<->A and E<->D to get standard WASD controls.

The updates promised to fix PC control issues became empty promises, sadly. Only thing I noticed was the new run/walk button. I think bware realized changing the interact function to be on mouse click rather than 'F' had too many ramifications. Although, oddly, interact works for closing rifts already with the right mouse click, the same control used for attack. The controls follow little reason. Really lousy design. But entirely playable. I wouldn't sweat it.

You CAN zoom with the tactical camera by moving the mouse backwards and forwards but it's awkward, and unintuitive, and rather limited in scale. They would have done better to make the scroll wheel actually zoom like in most games, but that would actually require some work over and above the console controls.

 

[ChaosTheory]

As much as I loved DA:I, it was about 20-25 hours too long (took me about 150hrs). The reasons for that are partly my fault, and partly the game's. Now… If the story itself took that long, I'd have loved every extra minute it gave, but without realizing it I ended up basically finishing the story, aside from the final battle, with 2 zones yet to play. Unfortunately, by that time I was at such a high level for those zones that it just wasn't really much fun, and the 'grind' feeling started to pop up. That said, DA:I is a bit too open in that there really is no warning as to what level each zone should be played at. Level scaling is the bane of most RPG'ers, but here was the perfect argument for it.

But the longer the game, the better. I have yet to find a game that I love that lasted too long. But it has to be legit length, not filler-length, and DA:I has a bit too much of it despite the awesome other stuff.

 

[NFLed]

Unless I'm mistaken, there is a level indicator when you open up each zone in the war room, level 12 to 15, level 14 to 17, and so on. Having read very early comments that the game was too easy I played the game on hard difficulty and every zone I went to (and I did complete all of the zones) had at least some challenging fights, although the few times I revisited old zones I was at a much higher level and just waltzed through (which is what I wanted anyway since I was just finishing up collection quests).

 

[ChaosTheory]

Unless I'm mistaken, there is a level indicator when you open up each zone in the war room, level 12 to 15, level 14 to 17, and so on. Having read very early comments that the game was too easy I played the game on hard difficulty and every zone I went to (and I did complete all of the zones) had at least some challenging fights, although the few times I revisited old zones I was at a much higher level and just waltzed through (which is what I wanted anyway since I was just finishing up collection quests).

I noticed the level indicators for the main plot missions, but I must have completely missed them when each zone became available. I was too busy doing missions in a way that seemed realistic to raising an army, somehow thinking there was an underlying mechanic to the game that would acknowledge my pragmatism. Nope. LOL

 

[Thrasher]

Yes, if you finish one zone, you'll find you're over-levelled (according to those ranges) for the next. It's very strange. It's as if it was designed for those with little attention span, and who never finish anything.

 

[NFLed]

Now that many of us have screamed in frustration on the interwebz about level scaling, that puts RPG developers in a tough bind. They don't want to force someone to play 150 hours to be able to compete in the last few areas, but they don't want to scale to the max because we'd all whine (myself included). In this case they went for a middle approach.

 

[JDR13]

I'm not as enthusiastic about long games as I used to be. If a game is going to be 100+ hours it better be damn good. I find that very few games are able to maintain a consistent level of quality for that long.

I'd rather have a good 40-60 hour game nowadays mainly due to the sheer number of games I want to play.

 

[DArtagnan]

To me, it's not so much a requirement that a game is consistently "good" for 100 hours, and I'm not sure I've ever really played a game that didn't bog down occasionally or had some stretches of frustration.

When it comes to RPGs, for me, it's more about knowing that I have time enough to really immerse myself in a world and its lore - and I feel that I'm "living" in that fantasy world for as long as I could want.

I hate - and I do mean HATE - the thought of having my power/RP fantasy disturbed by the "home stretch" in a game that I'm really digging.

So, it's not that I'm necessarily having super fun in a consistent way, it's that I have the option to keep playing until such time as I feel I'm done with it.

That's another reason, among many, that I so love games like Skyrim - because it's so flexible like that.

 

[Thrasher]

Now that many of us have screamed in frustration on the interwebz about level scaling, that puts RPG developers in a tough bind. They don't want to force someone to play 150 hours to be able to compete in the last few areas, but they don't want to scale to the max because we'd all whine (myself included). In this case they went for a middle approach.

Well if they made the zones actually vary significantly in difficulty they wouldn't have this problem. There's too much area at similar difficulty levels.

 

[blackcanopus]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to world when he said Skyrim is more engaging than DA:I

He was pretty explicit about it. He specifically mentioned characters:

Neither the world nor the characters are as engaging as other recent fantasy epics like Skyrim or Divinity: Original Sin

And I personally agree with the author. I don't see what's the big fuss about exploration in DA:I. It is definitely more limited than TES games. So many areas you are forbidden to explore…. So many times, I think I can climb that rock but nope! Have to go a long way around~

The scenery was beautiful, the sounds were realistic, the exploration was actually rewarding. I think there was a lot to like.
On a side-note, I actually liked DA:I's rock climbing… A LOT . The feeling of rock climbing in DA:I, compared to games like Skyrim or Risen, was very authentic and lifelike.
Unlike Skyrim, where we climb slopes with a steady pace until we come to a stop, in DA:I our speed actually decreases in steep slopes and we may fall down on our knees or slip. The same goes when we are descending slippery slopes. Combined with realistic sound effects, it reminded me of the times I went hiking. I had a strange feeling of really being there.
For you this might seem very trivial, but in my case, it was an eerily authentic experience.

 

[joxer]

Yes, if you finish one zone, you'll find you're over-levelled (according to those ranges) for the next. It's very strange. It's as if it was designed for those with little attention span, and who never finish anything.

Stop thinking about overleveling in the main story! It doesn't matter.
Yes the game was designed for Escapist's "critic" who gave 10/10 to Dragon Age 2.

If you feel in the end it was too easy, well, you can always replay the game where you'll do things underleveled.
Probably even then it'll feel too easy as you'll craft such items you won't care what level you are. Play the game, explore the game. If you do want hard fights, get Xulima, don't search for that in Bioware games.

Skyrim

Why is no_story no_ending nrigin_exclusive mod_friendly game mentioned in DA3 discussion?

 

[zahratustra]

Because, like it or not, Skyrim is the standard that everybody compares other open world games to. At least for now.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Because, like it or not, Skyrim is the standard that everybody compares other open world games to. At least for now.

A, well, if you compare it to Skyrims characters, you might as well compare it to a potato, they are about equally funny to start a conversation with.

 

[DArtagnan]

I was getting impatient, waiting for the daily GG Skyrim bashing.

Thank you!

 

[Thorwyn99]

Hmmmm the premise of the Author seems flawed. I'd say you actually might hurt your main game experience if you go grind things on normal.
On hard on level the game was already easy(except for the horrible tactical camera and AI during the dragon fights).
I'm not totally sure what the bare minimum is for the main quest but I'd say on normal you can do it in about 30 hours ?
That being said I did play 80 hours and did alot of the side stuff(not all) because most of it was enjoyable even if somewhat MMoish.
Which is a IMO huge improvement over ME3 and DA2.

Also I did enjoy the characters and their Sidestories again which is also a big improvement over the previous 2 games.
Gah I can't believe I'm saying positives things about an EAWare game.

 

[Thorwyn99]

I was getting impatient, waiting for the daily GG Skyrim bashing.

Thank you!

Ahh well I must admit I found the comparison of characters to Skyrim a bit weird too.
I love the elder scrolls games for the most part but main quest or characters were IMO never one of their strong points. (Haven't played TESO yet though)

 

[joxer]

A, well, if you compare it to Skyrims characters, you might as well compare it to a potato, they are about equally funny to start a conversation with.

In a perfect world this sentence would be my sig.
Then again, I could put it as sig on Bethesda forums.

 

[screeg]

Is it perfect? Most definitely not. The combat is kinda awkward, the UI is pretty bad, the crafting is extremely fiddly, and there's plenty of over-the-top Bioware characters.

It sounds like what you mostly play for is the writing. Some of the reasons people don't like it are: it's kind of shallow, the combat is kinda awkward, the UI is pretty bad, and the crafting is extremely fiddly.