Dragon Age: Inquisition - Wins Game of the Year at TGAS

[lackblogger]

Do those scores on the other sites differentiate between PC and Console?

The reason DA:I PC score is low on Metacritic is quite simple:

1. It was promoted as a PC-centric product. This was a lie.
2. Looting is a pain in the ass (animation, time, repetition).
3. Rapid respawns.
4. The tactical camera does not work to standard.
5. The are barely any party-AI options
6. The game was crashing for a lot of people on a regular basis.
7. The various glitches were and are quite numerous.
8. It bares no great similarity to either previous game, it's more like a spin-off.

But none of these facts make it a bad game, if you just view it as a random game. The majority of positive responses I've seen are from people who have never played the franchise before, and, from this perspective, what exactly were they expecting? An action game with sex options and Dragons - well... that's what it delivers. 10/10 for sex options and Dragons...

... and then people moan about "old RPGers" being "blind to the quality" and "all criticism must be hate-related". I'm sorry, but... LOLLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLL.

It's an average RPG. Nothing special. The hype machine crowd will eat it up the same as they do CoD, Assassin's Creed, Candy Crush, Angry Birds, but this is an RPG site, of course you'll get a more "realistic" view of it's comparative quality. Dur.

 

[joxer]

Errr… It's not average. If it was, I'd be the first one to say we've seen this stuff so many times it's not worth buying at all.

Your first point is so true it still hurts:

It was promoted as a PC-centric product. This was a lie.

We didn't know that before the game was released. But if Bioware staff dares to post it on their forum now that we know it was the worst possible joke played on their customers, I'll overspam such thread with this phonekilling pic:

 

[rune_74]

It is honestly painful to read this site some days.

 

[drae]

Do those scores on the other sites differentiate between PC and Console?

The PC version on Gamefaq comes in at a comparatively low 8.12/10, the PS4 version rated 8.6.

The PC version on IGN was rated 9.2 by users.

Metacritic is out of kilter with almost EVERY other user rating site.

 

[joxer]

It is honestly painful to read this site some days.

There is a certain forum option called ignore.
I've added Dartagnan on it a year or even more ago and that solved my headache.
I suggest you fill your ignorelist with some of us.

 

[lackblogger]

To be honest mate, I didn't even know users rated games on random sites like IGN. I can't even imagine why a user would go there. There are no reviews there. I mean, get real, hundreds of people work on these AAA games, I know full well if I worked for them I'd do the rounds putting my 10 onto any random site that allowed me to.

But get real. It's just a computer game, of course there are hundreds of casuals out there that think it's God's gift (literally). But answer me these questions:

What's monster variety like?
What's combat tactics variety like?
How many times do you do an interesting dungeon crawl?
Can you be in anyway evil in the gameworld?
To what extent can you customise your characters' stats?
To what extent did you ever feel puzzled?
How often were you excited by the loot you found?
etc etc etc

People who are used to playing games with dumb quests love it. That's fine. A single player MMO has a market. I'd be happy to play this game as a good time-sink instead of watching tele.

But really, I use the term "average" and Joxer thinks that's wrong, because apparently he knows what's "better than average" - but does he? Or is he just, in reality, saying that DA:I is good for an average game (top of the tier of other average games). I honestly can't see how anyone could adequately describe this game as anything but average. It occupies time, but then all games do that.

Joxer is thinking of it as a game. I'm talking about it as an RPG. From a purely RPG perspective, what are it's strong points?

 

[drae]

What's monster variety like?
What's combat tactics variety like?
How many times do you do an interesting dungeon crawl?
Can you be in anyway evil in the gameworld?
To what extent can you customise your characters' stats?
To what extent did you ever feel puzzled?
How often were you excited by the loot you found?
etc etc etc

Gee, I could ask those same questions about the Witcher 2 and get some pretty damn similar results. Especially the "customising the character" stuff. In fact I'd add a couple of additional questions to the Witcher 2 and ask "how deep was alchemy/skills?" and "how many times was combat solved by rolling?" What was it rated on Metacritic again?

You seem to be under the impression that Metacritic is full of hard-core, 90's gamers who value deep gameplay over twitchy action. I'm more curious to understand where the HELL that concept came from? And which pot-head thought of it?

 

[lackblogger]

*sighs*

We're not talking about the The Witcher franchise, we're talking about the Dragon Age franchise...

And if you hate basic cRPG mechanics and expectations why did you enjoy the previous installments?

Where that red head gets killed... where that bad-guy wizard gets killed, where you have to make genuinely hard choices, like giving up one of your companions to ensure peace or sacrificing a small child for the greater good being an option... where you engage with many many deep and winding dungeons... you know... Dragon Age games... dur.

To be honest, I'd like to know where the heck YOU'VE come from...

 

[lackblogger]

And you completely failed to answer the question by attempting a Witcher discussion de-rail:

From a purely RPG perspective, what are DA:I's strong points?

 

[SpoonFULL]

People who are used to playing games with dumb quests love it. That's fine. A single player MMO has a market. I'd be happy to play this game as a good time-sink instead of watching tele.

But really, I use the term "average" and Joxer thinks that's wrong, because apparently he knows what's "better than average" - but does he? Or is he just, in reality, saying that DA:I is good for an average game (top of the tier of other average games). I honestly can't see how anyone could adequately describe this game as anything but average. It occupies time, but then all games do that.

Joxer is thinking of it as a game. I'm talking about it as an RPG. From a purely RPG perspective, what are it's strong points?

The same applies to Skyrim and it was game of the centry for many.

Joxer diskliked Skyrim and I agree with him, as I did with Risen 2 and 3. So when he says that DA:I is above average then there is high probability it is. But these are just personal views after all.

Having said that, I would not buy DA:I now knowing the DLC centric EA and Bioware, so would wait for the 'complete' (and hopefully bug free and refined) edition at a lower cost later.

 

[drae]

*sighs*

We're not talking about the The Witcher franchise, we're talking about the Dragon Age franchise…

No, we were talking about Metacritic and using Dragon Age as an example.

I know full well if I worked for them I'd do the rounds putting my 10 onto any random site that allowed me to.

You DO have to sign in to make these reviews. Developers who work on games making 10 random accounts to vote for a single game will be easily identified. If that’s the best people can come up with to justify substantial trolling, it fails the common sense test.

But get real. It's just a computer game, of course there are hundreds of casuals out there that think it's God's gift (literally).

You talk as though “casuals” are some lesser form of gamer whose opinion aren’t worth as much. In fact, the opinions and desires of casual fans are just as valid as the hard-core variety. Yes, most casual fans like Inquisition. Just like most casual fans like Skyrim (as opposed to Morrowind,) Diablo 3 (over Diablo 2,) and Witcher 2 (as opposed to Witcher 1.) This is the way AAA RPG development is going now. If you want old-fashioned RPG systems, then maybe the Indie scene might be a better place to look. The hard-core RPG crowd isn’t a big enough community to justify AAA development costs.

I honestly can't see how anyone could adequately describe this game as anything but average. It occupies time, but then all games do that.

DA:I is a good game. There are faults with the game just like there are faults with any game. I can pick Oblivion to pieces and yet it was rated 80+ on Metacritic.

Joxer is thinking of it as a game. I'm talking about it as an RPG. From a purely RPG perspective, what are it's strong points?

Once more, you seem to be implying that the game was scored low on Metacritic because it failed as an RPG. This is not the case. Oblivion failed as an RPG and yet it was rated 80+, The Witcher 2 has no stats and yet was rated 80+, Diablo3 console version was rated 80+ (trolls destroyed the PC score over always online and auction house. Like these issues suddenly destroyed the game.) So it is quite clear the hard-core RPG crowd DO NOT hang out on Metacritic.

To be honest, I'd like to know where the heck YOU'VE come from…

Consistency, that's where I'm coming from. I've watch RPGWatch embrace the same anti-Bioware stance many 4-channers and Codexers embrace, but this is a serious RPG community and they struggle to justify this. Codexers and internet trolls love to hate on Bioware for SJW reasons, for EA reasons (never mind that EA publishes some DAMN good games, like Total War) but the Watch tries to disguise this stuff... using what?

RPG reasons? Well, let's apply the same standard to Bethesda, Witcher or Diablo 3. But not even DIABLO got as much hate as Bioware, even though the game embraced "always online", was blatently money grabbing with its "auction house", was successfully sued in Korea for false advertising, and incorporated almost ZERO RPG elements.

And now I see sections of the Watch hold Metacritic up as some sort of proof over how crappy DA:I is, never mind that every man and his dog (and EVEN Reddit) knows what a sewer it is.

I'd like to think the Watch is above this sort of thing, THAT'S where I'm coming from.

 

[lackblogger]

One minute you're claiming casuals have every right to post their crap, the next you're bemoaning the fact that RPGWatch no longer feels like a serious community - you're a joke.

You keep bringing other games into the discussion, but we're only talking about why DA:I got a low PC score on Metacritic, to which you've been given the reasons, but you reject them because other games... you're a joke.

Try answering a few simple questions to answer your own question instead of shouting like a moron about how unfairly your opinion is being treated by the wider world:

1. In what way is DA:I similar to previous entrants in the franchise?

2. In what way is DA:I different to previous entrants in the franchise?

People aren't trolls because they disagree with your opinion, they're trolls because they make shit up...

You DO have to sign in to make these reviews. Developers who work on games making 10 random accounts to vote for a single game will be easily identified. If that’s the best people can come up with to justify substantial trolling, it fails the common sense test.

I didn't see any reviews, I just saw ratings (provide a link if you're that desperate to make a point). They wouldn't have to make 10 accounts each, these companies employs HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE.

And I repeat, PEOPLE AREN'T TROLLS BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU.

 

[lackblogger]

So when he says that DA:I is above average then there is high probability it is. But these are just personal views after all.

I'm still waiting to hear what makes it above average... Haven't heard any views yet except that it's a good time killer with nice cut-scenes.

 

[Archangel]

Ok, drae confirmed a casual gamer. Luckily this site is not overfilled with such.
I stay away from Skyrim and Bioware forums for a reason.

 

[joxer]

You'll wait for a loooong time. HiddenX won't play it currently, Arhu won't perform the disection and I refuse to post spoilers.

So instead of waiting, buy, play. Standard Edition. With at least 20% off (GMG)... Wait, didn't I already post that:
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26778

 

[lackblogger]

From your review:

Pros:
- Great graphics, sound and music.
- Bard songs
- Openworld
- Puzzles… one challenging
- Superb story with a brilliant ending with great character development
- Party banter is good… there is humor all over the place
- Optional crafting not necessary to finish the main story
- Wartable missions that just look like a filler but are in fact preventing your character to stumble upon too hard to deal with areas
- Many c&c that would make the game worth replaying… if only the filler content wasn't so damned annoying.

8/10

So let me get this straight, you basically said nice graphics and a good time-filler with interesting cut-scenes…

You put puzzles in the "pro" section, but then say only one was in any way challenging!
You qualify the C&C replay value as potentially not worth the other agonies!
Wartable is just a meaningless brick wall!
No-one wants crafting to be required, yet you make it out it's a positive that crafting might be required for non-game related activities!
Bard songs are a GIGANTIC pro?!?!?! Like that would even make the major pro-list of any other game that had bard songs!

Your words don't read like 8/10, your words read like someone who's trying to fish around for something to make the game justify an 8/10. Like you started with the score and then worked backwards instead of visa-versa.

 

[joxer]

Sorry but you obviously deliberately want to pull the water on your own mill.
For what reason, I dunno. Perhaps to justify your determination not to buy the game and troll at all costs?

Let's see this:

You put puzzles in the "pro" section, but then say only one was in any way challenging!

Imagine that.
But you're missing the point completely. This is Bioware's game. How many puzzles you saw in ME3? NONE.
Even grindy ME2 had minigames, ME3 on the other hand have zero.
The positive thing is having puzzles at all. And just because only one puzzle was challenging to me doesn't mean you'll nail them easily like I did. Yea, sorry if I'm a douchebag saying this, but I have years of adventure genre experience in my arse and something easy to me doesn't mean it's generally easy.
Besides go Bioware forums - you'll see many threads "I can't solve this astrarium puzzle, it's too hard!". And I almost solved with both eyes closed.
Should I put puzzles on "cons" because I had no problems with them? Objectivly? Absolutely not. They're nongrinding content in the game, they're fun even if easy and as such are absolutely positive addition.

Without quoting other points…

I qualify C&C replay value as the most important feature that in my personal case, where I can't stand diabloclones or grinding of any kind, won't work. My personal, subjective, case. Do I have to repeat all I need there is either an ingame option to turn off respawns or norespawn mod? Oh, and… Wait a minute. But I did put the filler in cons, didn't I? So why are we questioning perfectly designed C&C then?

What's the problem about stating that crafting is not mandatory to finish the main game quests? You don't want to grind for crafting materials? You don't have to! You'll still be able to finish the game - you'll just have hard time to deal with side content. But then again, if you'll go for sidecontent, that means you're not trying to Need for Speed through the game but want to experience everything. Crafting included. And having options is something RPG should be about, isn't it?

And sorry pal, the music, like it or not, is a very important part of any game. Bard songs in DA3 are absolutely brilliant (the only possible way to make them better is to pay malukah to rerecord them, and that ain't happening). You're still unsure what am I talking about, why did I put bard songs as a separate thing? Make friends with someone who plays a guitar. Go with that someone to a park or wilds. Perhaps, maybe, unless clotheared, you'll understand.

I never start the score then look for excuses on it. After playing the game for a while I did say I feel it'll be 7 or 8 /10. In the end, when I summed it all up, it was, IMO again, 8. And I also said what needs to be changed in this game to reach 9. And it's not just endless mobrespawns, it's also inventory, ME2 lootmechanics sonar plus k/b controls. But even if they changed all that it still can't reach Escapist's 10/10, because grinding mobs is just one annoying filler, not the only one.

No matter how hard you want this game to be a disaster, I'll repeat once again.
DA2 was a disaster. DA3 is not.
While absolutely not a masterpiece, it's highly above average game. Still not worth it's full superexpensive price, thus get at least 20% off (currently possible on GMG with their voucher).
When you do that and finish the game one time at least, return here. Then we'll talk again.

 

[lackblogger]

This is the joke... I will most likely buy the game one day. Because it's a fun time-filler with good graphics and good cut-scenes.

But... no, someone's approaching the topic from a balanced perspective, immediate declaration of "trolling", yeah, like my position is the insane one...

Dude... it's an RPG. Combat did not feature in any of your pros. It wasn't even mentioned other than in a negative light. Zero, zip, nada, no mention what-so-ever. An RPG where you are consistently and routinely met with combat, does not take any part of your 8/10.

To me, that's a joke. Do you get it?

I can quite believe that it's possible to have a quality RPG with zero combat. But this isn't one of them, this is a combat game, where a vast amount of game resources were dedicated to combat. And you don't even mention it in your Pro's. And then rate it 8/10. Because a bard sings a song or two... *multiple facepalms*

And, no I'm not denying what you said were pro's, I'm denying that the pro's you mentioned are "enough" to warrant an "objective" 8/10 from the perspective of objectively judging an RPG.

 

[lackblogger]

If the game had been called something other than Dragon Age, such as, I dunno, Kingdom of Dragons, and was promoted as a console off-line MMO, then yes, it would probably be considered a great addition to the genre. But it wasn't.

It was promoted as a PC Dragon Age game. But the only thing that makes it a Dragon Age game is the companions and the rivalry between Mages and Templars. Aside from that it bares no resemblance to either Dragon Age Origins or Dragon Age 2.

It's akin to a bate and switch. "Hey fans we're making a new game in the series"... some time later... "here have a computer game, it's really good, but, ahem, you're a troll if you compare it to previous games or have any expectations about what it will be like because it's a good game, even if it's not the game you were expecting". As if you'd ordered pizza and are then delivered a hamburger, yes the hamburger's a fine hamburger... but it's not a pizza...

 

[joxer]

Did you miss my last paragraph?

finish the game one time at least, return here. Then we'll talk again.

I mean, I really don't have time nor nerves for this. You're no better than those opposite side trolls on Bioware forums who also didn't play the game and are trying to explain to me there that I'm wrong and it deserves 10/10 just because.