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

I'm perfectly happy to believe it's 5.8/10 game and I'll wait for the price to match thank-you very much.

Come back and talk about the combat and we'll talk again…

Bwahaha, you haven't played the game and have been letting Metacritic think for you? Good job.

Where was that thread about the quality of RPGWatch's discussions again?

EDIT: For fans of Metacritic and the "power of the people", this should be especially pleasing for you.

http://edge.alluremedia.com.au/m/k/2…/DragonAge.jpg

You should note both the "READER'S CHOICE" and the "PC" portion of this image. This just shows how very ACCURATE Metacritic is in representing the opinions of the gaming community.

Originally Posted by 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…

Then don't buy DA:I, or go and play Dragon Age Origins and 2.

Wow, check out the insanity…

1. I haven't graded the game on Metacritic. I am, however, not offended by the score, it seems reasonable. For reasons I have given.

2. I will be interested in playing the game. I played the other two, I am the market for the third installment.

Understanding negativity about a game does not:

1. Make you a troll
2. Make your opinion invalid
3. Mean that what you are factually correct about is not correct

drae - tell me about the combat in DA:I
drae - tell me how DA:I differs from the previous games
drae - tell me how DA:I is the same as the previous games

spoonful - why wouldn't I play a game just because it has a low Metacritic score if I've played the other games in the franchise?
spoonful - why do you not care that a fan of the franchise is not being catered for?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
drae - tell me about the combat in DA:I

The combat direction of Inquisition is continuing the trend of AAA RPGs, less turn-based more action. Does this make it a better or worse game? Not by itself, considering the number of complaints Origin got regarding its combat. Does this make it a better or worse RPG? Depends on how you define RPG. I could always take Sawyer's definition of an RPG and point to how it isn't dependant upon combat at all.

Whether the combat is "decent" depends on your prejudices. Most people are fine with it, it's the tactical cam which needs fixing.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
drae - tell me how DA:I differs from the previous games

How it differs from DA:2? Better all-round. People will quote the lack of attributes in Inquisition compared to DA:2, these people conveniently forget how STUPID the attribute system in DA:2 was.

How it compares/differs from DA:Origins? I'm not going to go into detail, here's my points though.

Story - Origins was better
Characterisation - Inquisitions is better
Writing quality - about the same (this will differ depending on whether you are a plot oriented man, or a character oriented man)
Exploration - Inquisitions
Choice and Consequence - Origins had more choices affect the story, I feel Inquisitions affects your environment more.
Character customisation - Origins is better
Combat - Depends on what you want. Origins had a weightier RPG-based combat, but was often panned as boring. Inquisitions is actiony, but is panned as twitchy. I don't really like either, to be honest.
Tactical Cam - Origins… unless you play on Console, in which case Inquisitions

What else did you want to know?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
drae - tell me how DA:I is the same as the previous games

It's Dragon Age. The setting is the same, the writing is the same, the lore is the same, the landscapes, the characters feel the same, there's no question it feels "Dragon Age-y". The only differences are your degree of character customisation, and you have more places to wander *shrugs*.

Awesome, so that's that then, you do have the facts to know why the PC Metacritic score is lower than you would like:

Better than DA II - DA II scores 4.4 user score on Metacritic
Not as good as Origins - Origins scores 8.6 user score on Metacritic

As time goes by and the trolls get bored and the long-term fans settle-in DA:I will likely come to rest at around 6.5 which seems about right for the long-term.

As for combat, you overstate the criticism Origins got for it's combat. The combat was discussed a lot and people simply found it inferior to D&D combat, but it obviously wasn't that big an issue, 8.6 kinda proves that.

But anyway, you'd think the devs would go into the next game with a bit more pressure applied to the combat department - story great, setting great, if we could just nail the combat…

… but no… DA II's combat was a virtually universal laughing stock, with bad guys parachuting in from everywhere. It's reknown for this problem. Not a debatable "it could be better", but a "wow, this really sucks this time".

So… we get onto the production of DA III… you'd think they'd have got the message by now… story good, settings good, shall we work on the combat a bit more this time? Nope. Let's just consolise it and fully convert a cRPG franchise into a console aRPG. Marvelous.

Of course RPGs don't need combat. But if you're putting a shit-tonne of comabt in your RPG, don't you think it might be wise to make sure that aspect ROCKS instead of being… meh.

It's all very well converting your franchise from PCs to consoles… but any sane person would expect disquiet by doing so…

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Awesome, so that's that then, you do have the facts to know why the PC Metacritic score is lower than you would like:

Nope. Once again you are basing your conclusion off false assumptions, namely that Metacritic is full of people who value old-style RPG systems. As I pointed out before, this is inconsistent with the scores that other games achieve.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
As for combat, you overstate the criticism Origins got for it's combat. The combat was discussed a lot and people simply found it inferior to D&D combat, but it obviously wasn't that big an issue, 8.6 kinda proves that.

No I don't, and nobody listens to Metacritic scores so the 8.6 proves nothing I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
But anyway, you'd think the devs would go into the next game with a bit more pressure applied to the combat department - story great, setting great, if we could just nail the combat…

Hardcore RPG fans make up the minority of the market, their combat will continue to be action-focused.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
So… we get onto the production of DA III… you'd think they'd have got the message by now… story good, settings good, shall we work on the combat a bit more this time? Nope. Let's just consolise it and fully convert a cRPG franchise into a console aRPG. Marvelous.

What is this "console RPG" people like to speak of.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Of course RPGs don't need combat. But if you're putting a shit-tonne of comabt in your RPG, don't you think it might be wise to make sure that aspect ROCKS instead of being… meh.

Most people are fine with the combat.

Fine… don't listen to the fans…

…

And when Inquisition sells more than Origins…

Hardcore RPG fans want AAA RPGs that tailor to their needs. Sorry. These fans don't make up enough of the market to justify the costs.

Oh, btw Call of Duty - Advanced Warfare just topped the NPD charts for November. What was the Metacritic user score? 4.4 on PC and 5.7 on PS4…

I have no idea why you give a shit about what other games are doing.

Tell me about pride demons…

Originally Posted by drae
And when Inquisition sells more than Origins…

Hardcore RPG fans want AAA RPGs that tailor to their needs. Sorry. These fans don't make up enough of the market to justify the costs.

Oh, btw Call of Duty - Advanced Warfare just topped the NPD charts for November. What was the Metacritic user score? 4.4 on PC and 5.7 on PS4…

This is same shitty argument that Avatar fanboys gave me when I called their beloved a shitty movie with nothing but CGI.

The sale numbers mean nothing except there are a lot of people that like FPS games and don't mind if they are casual or not. Counter Strike laughs at casual FPS.

I am sure more people watched Avatar and it earned more money than 2001: A Space Odyssey, but when compared Avatar is still a kid movie.

Originally Posted by drae
Bwahaha, you haven't played the game and have been letting Metacritic think for you? Good job.

Where was that thread about the quality of RPGWatch's discussions again?

EDIT: For fans of Metacritic and the "power of the people", this should be especially pleasing for you.

http://edge.alluremedia.com.au/m/k/2…/DragonAge.jpg

You should note both the "READER'S CHOICE" and the "PC" portion of this image. This just shows how very ACCURATE Metacritic is in representing the opinions of the gaming community.

Yes, Kotaku is known for its integrity lol.

Originally Posted by Archangel
The sale numbers mean nothing except there are a lot of people that like FPS games and don't mind if they are casual or not. Counter Strike laughs at casual FPS.

Once again, wrong. The sale figures of Call of Duty reflect the number of people who believe the game is good. It is the ultimate user review system, as opposed to Metacritic which reflect the opinion of trolls. The fact that Call of Duty is one of the biggest game series of all time is a reflection of the people's opinion of that series. Is it good? Obviously. People don't buy shit games en masse over and over, no matter what you LIKE to believe.

As with everything the market dictates where companies go. If Call of Duty was putting out shit games, they wouldn't sell.

Originally Posted by Archangel
I am sure more people watched Avatar and it earned more money than 2001: A Space Odyssey, but when compared Avatar is still a kid movie.

Kids movie or not, that's beside the point. People see movies to be entertained, which is the same reason people read books, that's the goal. That's what people see as "good." If all people wanted was complexity, literature novels wouldn't struggle to reach 5 figures.

Avatar was more entertaining, it satisfied the "end-goal" for a larger audience, thus more people thought it was good, thus they got the moolah.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Yes, Kotaku is known for its integrity lol.

It has more integrity than the Metacritic userbase.

Well we can agree to disagree.. on everything. Have a good life on your reddit and kotaku support groups. Just don't expect the same thing here.

Anyone who believes that sales figures objectively makes something good or bad is naive to say the least.

You saying believing what CEOs claim is being naive?

Horse armor DLC is the biggest masterpiece of human kind. Forget what people say. Think about all the money! Too bad that money goes to CEO, not to you.

Well our chinese friends released their Denuvo emulation crack, so everyone can check out the quality of DA:I themselves now .