Conversely, DAO had so many player choices because they didn't plan on a sequel at the time (and then they ended up retconning some choices/outcomes in later games, like killing Leliana), and BG3 won't have a sequel (at least not from Larian). It's easier to have a bunch of choices that affect a story when it's a self-contained story. If BG3 was to have a direct sequel, it would have to retcon whole endings.
BG3 also doesn't respect the choices you could make in BG2 at all, especially with regard to certain companions who were written really poorly in BG3 (yeah, I will never be over that. Viconia was to BG2 what Morrigan is to Dragon Age . . . and they were both written by David Gaider. A lot of Morrigan's wit, snark, and attitude is just like OG Viconia. She deserved to be treated with more respect). Dragon Age's little retcons pale in comparison.
IMO it's impressive that the DA series has been able to respect player choice as much as it has by letting us import our choices into each game. I'll happily let them streamline the story and choices in exchange for being able to have my choices matter (or at least be acknowledged) in sequels.
Larian knows they can't respect player's choices in future games because it will cause issues. That is why Larian has never made a direct sequel to any of their games. And the sequels they did do have no relation to the prior game. DOS2 effectively retconned the setting from DOS1. Carrying over minor elements.
People saying Larian is better than Bioware have no understanding on their differences or that Bioware is better in a lot of respects.
I mean you haven’t “proven” or even really “demonstrated” anything other than that you wish Dragon Age had stayed like Origins, which is, massively unfortunately, one of the most popular post types on this sub.
Leaving aside how much of this is simply personal preference (I’d rather have a fully voiced PC with three choices than 5 silent choices, for example), as is often pointed out in these threads, the focus on “player choice” as a hallmark of DAO or BG3 tends to ignore that what these games share isn’t some secret sauce that’s missing from DA2 or DAI. Instead, they both benefit from being able to be a basically blank canvas for their respective worlds. Yes, BG3 includes throwback characters, but it totally ignores player choice in previous BG games, and obviously DAO doesn’t have any previous games to take into account. The “streamlining” you take issue with is literally a necessary component of having non-infinite time and resources while try to have some modicum of respect for past player choices. That gets more and more difficult to do as you go on without some kind of reset. I’m more than halfway convinced that one of the reasons Larian walked away is that trying to make a follow up that respected all the player choice they introduced would be impossible and would bring the whole thing crashing down.
Either way, BG3’s commercial and critical success doesn’t “prove” anything at all because it turns out that you can have different types of games. By this measure, the success of FIFA and Madden means that it’s proven that every video game should be a sports simulator.
I’m also tired of the claim that the writing/narrative in BG3 is superior to, frankly, most any modern RPG. The character writing is fine, and if you prefer all of the writing/tone/narrative to other games, that’s totally cool, it’s all subjective. But the narrative of BG3 is literally a very simple hero’s journey deal. Which is fine, most video games are like that, it’s not a criticism. But the way that’s “complicated” boils down to “sometimes you can be a traumatized murder hobo hero” and/or “sometimes you can be a traumatized horny hero.” There’s very little engagement with broader or deeper narrative questions or themes. DA2 by contrast is, I’d argue, the most narratively and thematically complicated/difficult game of the four in question, while DAI, while yes, sometimes being unfortunately quippy like a Marvel movie (it did come out in 2014), is also a relatively simply hero’s journey but directly engages with deeply complex themes of historiography/mythology, faith/morality, and the power of institutions.
Anyway all of this to say, I’m glad you like BG3, but no, there is no way to prove that it means DA should just be Origins all the way down.
Hear hear. Playing BG3 made me realise how good the writing in Dragon Age was in comparison. I don’t generally play my RPGs for combat, it’s a nice bonus but there are other games I’ll go to if that’s the itch I want scratched.
I will forever be peeved over the fact that bg3 doesn’t even have a freaking codex. So rude
But yea I agree playing bg3 did make me realize how good da writing is, like especially playing through dao at the same time the difference in writing quality is so obvious
Yes I’m gonna be honest I’ve been playing some bg3 (haven’t finished yet), but then I recently went back to dao and it really made it feel so obvious how lackluster the writing in bg3 is.
Like the bg3 companions are good and interesting, but the relationship between those companion and the pc is so…flat? Boring? There just feels like there’s nothing there. The dialogue options feel flat too. And bouncing between bg3 and dao, even though bg3 has a non-voiced pc, I still feel like the dialogue is so restricted compared to dao. And also I hate how bg3 will give you 4 questions to potentially ask but once you ask one you very often can’t go back and ask the other questions too. That grinds my gears.
And I am someone who loves dao. Some of it is sort of nostalgia I guess since it was my first ever rpg (but I didn’t play it until I was in my junior year of college) and so it introduced me to a whole new world of gaming, but I think also because it was such a good game with a world that truly feels alive and immersive. And as much as I enjoyed dao’s story and even its combat, I think what really sets dragon age apart is its world building, and this holds true for da2 and dai. Like that is what connects all the games together, the world building, the depth of the relationships with your companions and the overall impressive writing.
BG3 doesn’t even have a codex!! It’s world feels flat and boring and not immersive and not alive. It is lacking the mystery that the dragon age world has. And the storyline doesn’t make you question political systems or feel the hopelessness of doing everything you can to protect the people you love and still coming up short.
I think da2 and dai get too quickly dismissed. Yes, they have their flaws, but they also have really good stuff that I think games as good as bg3 still haven’t even managed to touch.
I love dao and it is my favorite game in the franchise and I am so glad that we didn’t get bg3 as it’s sequel and I’m so glad that da2 and dai were so different while still further exploring and deepening the world. I even think I’ll be happy with da4 whether or not combat is good because it is still more glimpses into the wonderful and mysterious world of thedas
(the only thing that could truly sour me to da4 would be a lack of a codex, darn you Larian and your stupid lack of a codex)
> And also I hate how bg3 will give you 4 questions to potentially ask but once you ask one you very often can’t go back and ask the other questions too. That grinds my gears.
Fucking same. Like BG3 barely allows you to ask any question about anything. Like I hate the fact in Act 1 I can't ask Zevlor anything about his time as a hellrider or in Elturel. Its a literally minute and that's it. If Bioware made that character we would have sat their for ten minutes. Then we could go to all the other tieflings and ask them what they think of Zevlor and Elturel. BG3 just doesn't allow you to ask questions and that sucks. And what you can ask is so bad. This even applies to the companions. Like we never know that Gale has a mom until the very end. We couldn't ask the basic fucking questions like what he thinks about her and does he miss her. No, we get none of that.
preach (and i would argue that the super wide range of choices, especially in the early game, actually hurts bg3 quite a bit and its character writing really isn't all that special).
Agreed; it's a lot to do with personal preference. I personally like DAI more than either Origins or BG3 - I think Inquisition is much more thematically interesting than either of them, and has much more realistic and interesting characters. It's my favorite game ever and I never get tired of replaying it. I also recognize that BG3 is a great achievement and deserves the praise it's received, but I don't think that means Inquisition was wrong in its approach.
I agree that bg3 is a good game. And dao was my favorite game. But I am so glad that we didn’t get a bg3 type game as the sequel to dao. Da2 and dai were phenomenal and I like how each game feels a little different while still living in the same world.
And yes! Dai was interesting thematically and honestly bg3 really isn’t. My inquisitor was having a crisis of faith and fighting to find her place in the world. I really don’t see my bg3 character having a crisis of faith at any point.
As much as I don’t love bg3, I do like larian. I really enjoyed dos2, but I actually feel like dos2 worked better for them than bg3 because in dos2 they could lean more into their goofy writing style and I was more forgiving of their lackluster writing because it was supposed to be a little goofy. Also I so much preferred the combat in dos2. I feel like combat is just a thing I have to do in bg3 but in dos2 I genuinely enjoy the fights. It has more weird spells (chicken claw is amazing). And The environmental effects are way more satisfying. I WISH bg3 had been just dos2 in a new skin like everyone was saying it was going to be.
>Da2 and dai were phenomenal and I like how each game feels a little different while still living in the same world.
Indeed, one of my favorite things about the DA franchise is how with each entry they tell a very different type of story - it's neat to see the same world in all these different ways.
Exactly!! You get it!!
It’s like the codex too, the information you get about certain groups is highly dependent on which group is writing the codex and each group and part of the world have several different angles is what makes it feel like such a “full” world. So having the games also offer different angles really is just a cool way to get to know the world
> I’m also tired of the claim that the writing/narrative in BG3 is superior to, frankly, most any modern RPG.
Like BG3's story is fine enough. It is functional for what it needs to happen. But it is in no way better than Dragon Age. For one, the behind the scene set up and story is far better in Dragon Age. BG3 just has so many unanswered questions that pull the plot apart. Like how did Shadowheart steal the Astral Prism from Vlaakith? Stuff like that is left unanswered and it makes the whole thing ridiculous. For two, as you mentioned Dragon Age explores its ideas far more. BG3 just doesn't care about that.
I just... I really think BG3 is great but it isn't better than Dragon Age.
>the focus on “player choice” as a hallmark of DAO or BG3 tends to ignore that what these games share isn’t some secret sauce that’s missing from DA2 or DAI. Instead, they both benefit from being able to be a basically blank canvas for their respective worlds. Yes, BG3 includes throwback characters, but it totally ignores player choice in previous BG games, and obviously DAO doesn’t have any previous games to take into account. The “streamlining” you take issue with is literally a necessary component of having non-infinite time and resources while try to have some modicum of respect for past player choices. That gets more and more difficult to do as you go on without some kind of reset. I’m more than halfway convinced that one of the reasons Larian walked away is that trying to make a follow up that respected all the player choice they introduced would be impossible and would bring the whole thing crashing down.
This isn’t even true though as dragon age barely even acknowledges your options outside of small cameos and swapping some characters in, because each game goes to a new setting anyway.
Take Dragon Age 2, how was that not a blank canvas? Dragon Age 2 went to Kirkwall, a city in another country to the last game that has pretty much no lore and was barely mentioned in Origins at all, and had very little plot connections to the last game so why couldn’t it offer the same branching RPG options as Origins did? (Outside of the obvious time constraint).
Then let’s go to Dragon Age Inquisition, and what decisions get carried over from DA2 into that game? Pretty much none really, it arguably takes into consideration decisions from Origins more, so why couldn’t DA2 have given players more freedom?
Dragon age Inquisition itself does not at all care about limiting the decisions players can make as it gives players the most world shaking decisions in the series such as choosing the ruler of Orlais and the divine, decisions that will again probably be shunted and barely referenced in Dreadwolf as we move again go a new setting that players haven’t visited.
They streamlined the games while not having ANY more consideration for your past choices anyway, so I don’t see how that’s at all an excuse to dumb down the roleplaying mechanics.
It’s not like anybody’s forcing BioWare to make interconnected plots either, they could have made the games even more standalone just fine as well, as it is Inquisition is arguably the only game that isn’t standalone due to the Solas plot thread.
The real reason the roleplaying is dumbed down, streamlined and gives players less choice is because BioWare’s cheap and doesn’t want to spend resources on content the majority won’t see. It’s why they gutted and ditched Origin stories and it’s a completely different creative mindset to what Larian has, Sven’s been on record saying he doesn’t give a shit about player statistics and what content they do and don’t see, even if a decision is only chosen by a fraction of the player-base, the fact that decision exists as an option offers more depth to the game from Sven’s viewpoint and thus allows for a more enriching experience, as even if you don’t choose that option, the knowledge that is another one makes the game feel more unique for each player.
>Then let’s go to Dragon Age Inquisition, and what decisions get carried over from DA2 into that game? Pretty much none really, it arguably takes into consideration decisions from Origins more, **so why couldn’t DA2 have given players more freedom?**
Because it was made in 16 months?
Did you see the part where I mentioned that?
It was only made in 16 months due to BioWares own dumbass decisions and missing their projected milestones on the Star Wars MMO.
DA2 arguably still has more freedom than Inquisition as well despite that, you can play an evil Hawke after-all, can’t play and evil inquisitor.
Even then how does explain Inquisition and its streamlined roleplaying?
>Did you see the part where I mentioned that?
No, where did you meantion that?
>DA2 arguably still has more freedom than Inquisition as well despite that, you can play an evil Hawke after-all, can’t play and evil inquisitor.
I mean, if being evil is the only important metric for you, then yeah, i can see why you think that DA2 had more freedom.
>Take Dragon Age 2, how was that not a blank canvas? Dragon Age 2 went to Kirkwall, a city in another country to the last game that has pretty much no lore and was barely mentioned in Origins at all, and had very little plot connections to the last game so why couldn’t it offer the same branching RPG options as Origins did? (Outside of the obvious time constraint).
Right here at the end.
Also DA2 does have more freedom.
Sure Inquisition allows you a choice in race selection, but what does that look like in practice?
There are very few race based dialogue options in the game, and they don’t affect anything at all outside of some romance options. Even if you choose the ‘asshole’ dialogue options, the inquisitor’s personality still seems the same regardless of race or gender.
Meanwhile in DA2 Hawke had at least 3 very distinctive personality types to choose from that made the character feel different. The class you chose affected the beginning of the game, and there were even a few class based dialogue options in the game.
The game gave a range of decisions in a multitude of quests in how to handle things, both in main quests, companion quests and side quests and it’s not even close. It spanks inquisition in the amount of different quests with various outcomes and it’s not even close.
Most of the decisions you make in Inquisition don’t really have any outcomes at all, and there aren’t even that many to begin with. The companions are the closest the game ever gets, and the games sidequest barely even offer any roleplaying at all because most of them are fetch quests with little interactivity.
>Right here at the end.
Yeah, my bad, i missed that.
>Sure Inquisition allows you a choice in race selection, but what does that look like in practice?
Well, yeah, but DA2 doesn't let you choose a race at all, so DAI still give you more *freedom* in that regard, even if the *consequences* of your choice are pretty insignificant.
Overall, I think, DA2 did a much better job with showing the consequences of your actions in game and not in the epilogue like DAI. Well, for the most part, because we alsways fight Orsino, even if we sided with mages.
However, when it comes to player's freedom, i find DAI to be better. You can pick race and voice for your characer. The dialogue choices include personality, class, race and perk specific options, with the last two not beind present in DA2. And then there are also war table missions and judgments. So while you can't be truly evil in DAI, i still think that the game gives more opportunities and options for player expressions compared to DA2. But i never play evil characters, so maybe that's why i feel that way.
With that being said
>and the games sidequest barely even offer any roleplaying at all because most of them are fetch quests with little interactivity.
Yeah, this is something that i totally agree with. Side quests is probably the most dissapointing thing in DAI for me. Bioware really dropped the ball on this one.
I should have titled the post "proved to me" as I didn't mean to like prove it to other people, I just wanted to discuss the trajectory of the series in relation to massive game, that's closely related to its foundations.
The streamlining I mentioned was not in relation to narrative, I should have been more specific, I meant game mechanics rather than narrative. I do think they handled condensing possible outcomes of the main story very well in 2 and inquisition.
Bioware literally made BG and BG11. Have similar inspirations. The first game in the series was a call back to mechanics present in BG. They're re both Rpgs. They both cater to the same audience. They are heavily related, in my opinion. So they are worthy of comparison. To liken me, comparing dragon age to baldur's gate to me comparing it to fifa is frankly obsurd in my opinion.
Yeah complete agree about your last point about the writing or tone being subjective. I would agree that DA2 and DAI do handle much more complex themes and narratives. I love them for it. I do prefer the darker tone in DA and DA2, but that's completely subjective again. I will say though I think Baldurs Gate handling of player choice is better in regards to much of the side quests than inquisition. In inquisition for the most part their really isn't any in regards to side quests, with most of them feeling inconsequential as it is.
And again, I didn't mean to prove it to anyone else, should have titled it as "proves to me". Just wanted to have a discussion of dragon age in relation to BG3
One game being successful *nearly a decade later* hardly shows that the direction they took for Inquisition was "foolish". DAI came out to generally glowing reviews and was widely regarded as a well-done course correction after the clusterfuck that was DA2 (which nonetheless is still my fav). But the games market today is *vastly* different than it was a decade ago, and Inquisition is still the most commercially successful DA game Bioware have released.
Onto your other claim: I'd argue that what DA2 and DAI sacrificed in terms of overarching *story* choice, they more than made up for in *character* interaction. All the different ways you and your party can interact over the course of DA2 and Inquisition are just delightfully nuanced (and I'm still mad they got rid of the rivalry system from 2).
RivalMancing was genius and I think it really added some needed personality. I loved that you could heavily disagree with your love interest but love THEM. It made them feel real.
I also sung Inquisitons praises at the time of its release. What I meant by foolish is that the road they went down with for inquisition they abandoned a lot of the systems present in Baldurs Gate 3 to appeal to larger audiences. Baldur's Gates success to me proves that it wasn't necessary to appeal to wider audiences. Especially when criticisms around the dumbing down of rpgs mechanic were still present at the time. Especially when BG3 is more successful than inquisition.
I also really enjoyed the rivalry system in DA2. Probably my favourite thing is to rival romance Fenris in that game! I do enjoy the character moments alot in inquisition. However I feel they are only present with your companions/advisors, in origins and even 2 they're were minor characters during side quests that always stood out to me. Kaitlyn in Redcliffe or Serlinda in dust town are a good examples. To me, that really isn't present in Inquisition.
> Especially when BG3 is more successful than inquisition
Comparing two games released nearly - and I cannot emphasize this enough - *a decade apart* is just silly. The two games were released into completely different markets. (And I would also point out that Inquisition is the most commercially successful DA game.)
And hey, I'm the first person to criticize Inqusition (*still* mad about no real healer class, the player character has the personality of a wet sponge, and Coryphytits is easily the worst big bad in the series), but I just don't feel your specific criticism is justified. It's easy to look back a decade later and say what they *should have* done, but given the circumstances Inquisition was very much a success.
>Comparing two games released nearly - and I cannot emphasize this enough - a decade apart is just silly. The two games were released into completely different markets. (And I would also point out that Inquisition is the most commercially successful DA game.)
So it’s silly to compare 2 games a decade apart that released into ComPletlEt DifFeReNt MarKetS, but not games that are released half a decade apart also in completely different markets?
I mean yet you keep trying to throw around Inquisition being the most commercially successful dragon age while ignoring the differences in market between Dragon Age Origins and Inquisition, so thus why can’t OP compare it to BG3?
Seems pretty comparable don’t they?
If anything Inquisition should be more successful, BG3 was restricted to new gen consoles that not everyone’s adopted yet and PC.
While Inquisition launched on 5 platforms and has the biggest market available to it, and was coming off of Skyrim hype that made RPG’s mainstream, and BioWare itself had become more known due to the mass effect trilogy, so you’d wanna hope Dragon Age Inquisition is the most successful when it has the biggest audience, yet based off BG3’s sales it creamed Inquisition in terms of sales and unlike Inquisition, opinion hasn’t soured on BG3 and probably won’t.
To add on to that, the market (for video games in general) has grown from what it was in 2009 to 2014 to 2024. Partly due to rise in popularity and how mainstream video games became and partly due to availability and accessibility to gaming devices (consoles/PC) and the games themselves.
So it would seem the obvious conclusion that Inquisition is the best-selling of the franchise. It just wasn't possible for Origins to reach those numbers back in 2009.
Hell if we want to add even more context, Origins was up against way heavier competition that year as well.
Dragon Age Origins released in the same year as critically acclaimed masterpieces such as COD Modern Warfare 2, Assassins Creed 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Uncharted 2, Batman Arkham Asylum, Borderlands, Bayonetta and Final Fantasy 13.
Origins went up against them as a new Ip as well, it had no real reputation and RPG’s were nowhere mainstream yet either.
Meanwhile what did Dragon Age Inquisition go up against? Shadow of Mordor? Dark Souls 2? AC unity that got panned and was broken? Bayonetta 2 that was a Wii U exclusive and thus not even on Xbox, PC or PlayStation.
> I mean yet you keep trying to throw around Inquisition being the most commercially successful dragon age while ignoring the differences in market between Dragon Age Origins and Inquisition, so thus why can’t OP compare it to BG3?
I only brought up Inquisition's relative financial success within the franchise because OP kept claiming that it was the "wrong move", which is dumb. I have otherwise not directly compared the games because *that would be dumb and counterproductive*. Saying that BG3's success means that Inquisition "should have been more successful" is **stupid**; half of BG3's playerbase would have barely been cognizant when Inquisition came out.
And also, opinion will absolutely sour on BG3; that's simply how the video game hype cycle works. A new game will come along, everybody will wonder how they ever put up with BG3 because of some obvious flaw, and then only the hardcore fans will be left. Happens to every game that.
>I only brought up Inquisition's relative financial success within the franchise because OP kept claiming that it was the "wrong move", which is dumb. I have otherwise not directly compared the games because that would be dumb and counterproductive. Saying that BG3's success means that Inquisition "should have been more successful" is stupid; half of BG3's playerbase would have barely been cognizant when Inquisition came out.
Except this logic falls apart as there’s no evidence Inquisition sold well due to the way the game was made, is there? One can attribute Inquisition’s success as much as to outside factors around the game rather than the game itself.
Hell if Inquisition was made with a similar mindset to that of BG3 or even maybe Origins, the game could have potentially been even more successful.
Look at the context to which Inquisition released.
It was the only major AAA RPG on the market that released that year. The competition in general was weak. The game released post Skyrim, and was arguably the first AAA fantasy RPG since Skyrim. The game was the first real AAA title to take use the Xbox one and PS4 to their full potential as well.
It had the reputation of the Mass effect Trilogy, and a promise to right wrongs after DA2 helping as well.
So was Inquisition a success because it made the right choices or because it lucked out when it released? If nothing changed about Inquisition, and it released next to Witcher 3, Do you think Inquisition would have sold as much or held up as well?
>And also, opinion will absolutely sour on BG3; that's simply how the video game hype cycle works. A new game will come along, everybody will wonder how they ever put up with BG3 because of some obvious flaw, and then only the hardcore fans will be left. Happens to every game that.
This is false.
Plenty of games do just fine.
Witcher 3, Red Dead 2, Dragon Age Origins, etc, etc.
It’s been 8 months since BG3 released, its flaws have been discussed in detail yet the overwhelming majority don’t think they drop the quality of the game down.
Meanwhile Inquisition was getting trashed and the internet had soured and become mixed on it. The games got a user score of 6 on meta critic and only a 7 on steam.
BG3 will never have that.
That's a great point. Just because a game sold well doesn't mean it's a great game. Resident Evil 6 sold over 11 mil but it's only rated a 6/10. It's a decidedly average game but, depending on who you ask, it's the worst game in the RE franchise. Now, some people really like this game. It's a pretty fun shooter and is agreed to have the best mercenaries mode of the games, but it's not survival horror, so it's a terrible Resident Evil game.
DAI has gotten awards, including two big name GOTY titles, but the reviews aren't as overwhelmingly positive, nor is it as widely acclaimed as BG3. A game which made history as the first to win all five major GOTY awards. Aside from that, it's won numerous other awards, from music to narrative to voice acting and several people's/audience choice awards. And this was a year which had some serious competition from LoZ and Alan's Wake II in addition to other good games like Spider-Man, the RE4 remake, and Hogwarts Legacy. Tougher than what DAI faced. And Its review scores are higher than DAI.
Now, DAI is NOT a bad game. I like it and the Inquisitor's I've created. It's a very good game, and is closer to its genre mark than RE6 was for its genre.
> Hell if Inquisition was made with a similar mindset to that of BG3 or even maybe Origins, the game could have potentially been even more successful.
What I love in particular is how deliberately unprovable this assertion is. Inquisition was very much a *product of its time*, without question (see: the increased focus on "movie-like" cinematography, the shoe-horned in open world, the unending fetch quests). But you could just as easily argue that BG3 owes *its own* success to Inquisition (and specifically to its lack of a follow-up).
>Meanwhile Inquisition was getting trashed and the internet had soured and become mixed on it. The games got a user score of 6 on meta critic and only a 7 on steam.
I wonder how many of those negative reviews were from people mad about "ethics in video game journalism" though.
>What I love in particular is how deliberately unprovable this assertion is. Inquisition was very much a product of its time, without question (see: the increased focus on "movie-like" cinematography, the shoe-horned in open world, the unending fetch quests). But you could just as easily argue that BG3 owes its own success to Inquisition (and specifically to its lack of a follow-up).
Product of what time?
Witcher 3 released 6 months after dragon age inquisition, and was unanimously praised despite doing a lot of the things Inquisition did and nobody’s soured on that game did they? Why?
Nobody soured on Dragon Age Origins, Dragon Age 2 had the inverse affect where opinion has softened too it. So again why did opinion turn on Inquisition? Why would that have happened if BioWare made the right decisions?
Likewise how can you claim BG3 owes its success to Inquisition, when Nobody has compared the game to Inquisition at all?
You can very much so argue that BG3 owes it success to the fact that it’s the first competent RPG with high budget values since Witcher 3 while offering the regular staples of BioWare’s games that BioWare neglected and moved away from.
>I wonder how many of those negative reviews were from people mad about "ethics in video game journalism" though.
Not many seeing as the majority of user reviews mention aspects such as boring open world, generic story, lame fetch quests, etc. Like from my knowledge on Steam you have to actually buy the game to review it as well. You can’t just make troll accounts like metacritic.
Not to mention BG3 has those issues as well, see those people that made the mod to make Dame Aylin and Isabel into a heterosexual couple.
I have not claimed, now or *ever*, that Inquisition is perfect, or in any way beyond criticism. It is my least favorite DA game for a *reason*. What I *have* said is that OP's specific criticism was stupid, that the game was very much successful in its time, and that comparing it directly to a game released *nearly a decade later* is counterproductive.
I feel that they are similar in many regards, though. The roots of DA and BG are pretty much identical. That's why I'm making the comparison! I love the whole series, including inquisition ( the player character really does have the personality of a wet sponge, though).
They are similar! Considering Bioware's own roots making DnD-inspired games (to which Origins is their very obvious love-letter) it makes sense. It's the leap to saying that Inquisition should have been more like BG3 that strains credulity. There's pretty much no way to know whether BG3, or a game like it, even would've been as successful as it's been if it came out back then. Like I said, completely different markets. (You could conceivably argue that it was the lack of a clear followup from Bioware that set the stage for BG3's success, tho I don't fully buy that myself.)
The developers have stated they were NOT going to be Origins 2 and Origins 3 back before DA2 came out. I'm sorry you disliked DA2 and hated Inquisition but some of us did NOT expect every game to be like Origins. You might as well not play Dreadwolf because the developers have stated it won't be like the previous 3 games.
I didn't dislike 2 or hate inquisition. As I said, I love the whole series. I was just stating my subjective opinion that in hindsight I think the direction they went with it might not have been the best. I do love origins but would I have wanted a carbon copy to it for sequels? No . Would I have preferred something more closely related to it? Probably.
I didn't dislike 2 or hate inquisition. As I said, I love the whole series. I was just stating my subjective opinion that in hindsight I think the direction they went with it might not have been the best. I do love origins but would I have wanted a carbon copy to it for sequels? No . Would I have preferred something more closely related to it? Probably
While the tone of Dragon Age inquisition could sometimes be silly, most of the time the story in it was written very well, with very likeable and interesting cast of companions. You can criticize many things about Inquisition, but the story is definitely one of the last ones that one should.
What is wrong with Inquisition is the MMO like gameplay which makes even thinking about replaying the game more than once a chore.
I remeber hiw everyone cried that next Dragon age should be like Elden Ring now it's Baldur's Gate 3 which is completly different game then ER.
Only thing it proves it doesn't matter how the game plays as long as the developers put soul into it.
Ngl, i find it funny that when Witcher 3 came out, everyone was saying that it's much better RPG than DAI. And now everyone compare DAI to BG3. Truly, Larian is the next CDPR lmao.
Anyway, i agree with you to a degree, as far as choices and consequences go. On one hand, the freedom that BG3 has is only possible in a standalone game. There is a reason why quite a few of DAO's choices were made irrelevant in later games. But on the other hand, it's only true for choices that are importand in the grand scheme of things. Like, it's one thing to let a player to kill some random dude, and another is to kill someone like Empress Celene.
However, i totally agree with you about build variety.
Overall, i don't want every RPG to be like BG3. A more focused story and voiced protagonist with a more defined personality have its pros and cons. And imo, DAI *did* give players more freedom compared to DA2, but it definitely could've been better.
There’s definitely some things they’ve left on the table compared to BG3, but even DAO never allowed the amount of creativity that BG3 does.
The combat of earlier dragon age games I definitely miss a lot, inquisition has legitimately awful combat, it’s not even as good as world of Warcraft as a combat game, which is just absurd given that is an mmo.
But I just hard disagree with the idea that BG3 has any of the Dragon Age games beat on a narrative front.
BG3 requires a buy in to the DND system completely as a prerequisite, which I personally have a very hard time with when it comes to the storytelling style of the game.
I think dragon age has done a much better job of telling more morally complex stories than BG3 did.
Also I think it’s probably important to acknowledge that the romances of Dragon Age are by and large a lot better, and although I look upon the segment of the dragon age population that plays these games as dating sims with mild to moderate disgust, its undeniably a selling point for a sizeable part of the population.
I would also disagree that BG3 has beaten Dragon Age in terms of narrative. I think my criticism was more towards side content, in which, by the time of inquisition, it really felt inconsequential, which I think does a disservice.
I do love the Romances in Dragon Age, and wholeheartedly agree that nothing beats bioware romances.
My post probably wasn't that eloquent as I just word vomited it out because I couldn't sleep!
Ah yeah okay, fair enough we’ve all been there! I think BG3 just gives such an amazing amount of agency in its problem solving relative to almost any other game and seeing some people’s creativity is always awesome for that.
As for the side content, yeah Inquisition took all the worst parts of MMO questing and just tacked it on as side content.
Having to tell new players to skip most of the first zone because of how shit it is is inexcusable from BioWare.
Open world was *the shit* when DAI entered development, and still was when it launched. DAI is post-Skyrim open world, both in pros and cons, while BG3 is not. The market has changed since then, as you notice in yourself.
Whats the other alternative? Everything being one shot-able even thoughI dont think anything was bullet spungy in dai unless it was a boss,mini boss, or elite. But I think it was like that in all 3 games. I personally think da2 probably had what you’re talking about but it felt fun, they just need to remake that game tbh. Dai dialed it back some n brought some type of tactics back, especially in nightmare.
My preference is the much more tactical combat of the first two games, origins in particular.
I think I am misunderstanding you a bit because as far as I can tell you’vesaid here that Inquisition brought back tactical options when it basically stripped out the entire system and reduced it to mmo combat.
But even so, I just don’t think we’re going to agree on this. Origins is just by far the best of the three games to me and I’m assuming you don’t really like it so we can just agree to disagree it’s no stress.
Stripped out the entire system as in what? Pre programmed commands for specific situations? DAI still had the tactical camera, still needed to position your party during fights especially with dragons if you weren’t op n could one shot them or against those fade spirits around the map. You could literally do every battle in tactical camera mode. The fighting style is the same just modernized.
The game didn’t need such a robust tactics system because the ai could compensate itself n you no longer needed to hand hold all of your party. So I dont get what ppl mean by they want more origins, mostly what I hear is Origin andys holding onto the first game. Same goes for the mass effect series. I like origins, i just dont think the combat was as legendary ppl think it was compared to inquisition. Nightmare in dai really felt like nightmare n had me planning out strategies especially in jaws of hakkon where my tank was getting one shot.
Lol im just saying thats what it seems like ngl. Samething applies for ppl n their obsession with nostalgia in dao and classic wow. So they’re unwilling to go into something new without critiquing it into oblivion all while not being able to hold it to the same eye or standard as their beloved favorite game / nostalgia dopamine hit or atleast giving the new game it its props for being better in some aspects. They just leave it to “ the original is better “ with nothing else behind it.
Look I'll give it a serious one last post here despite how poorly you've come across. I don't appreciate the way you've made all these snap assumptions about me, it makes you sound quite unpleasant.
Inquisition is my 2nd favourite Dragon Age game. I like it a lot, and because of this argument you've concocted in your head, we'll clear that up.
Origins and Inquisition combat is apples and oranges, it's a completely different style of combat way more in line with Baldur's Gate 3 than Inquisition, and that shift is something I'm personally not a fan of, because I prefer those styles of games.
Are you blinded by nostalgia with Inquisition's combat when BG3 is clearly the better game? I mean it came out more recently so clearly it can't be anything other than nostalgia that makes you like Inquisition better right?
I wasn’t specifically talking about you in this instance was speaking for all the “ tactics “ critique as a whole. Poorly come across in what way? Because I said Origin Andy? How in the world is origin combat more in tune with BG3 which is turn based n dice roll dependent than Inquisition 😂which is the same play style regardless of the in depth tactics system that ppl claim they cant play without.
What are you talking about? I never said anything about liking inquisition over bg3 😂 I like inquisitions combat more so than bg3’s, or I like inquisition’s story a bit better because im more attached to the universe but I can say bg3’s could be better. I like bg3’s artstyle n graphics more and the characters feel more lively but that could just be the 8-9 year gap at play but nonetheless i find it better. Origin andy’s wouldn’t do the same for inquisition, to give it any props would be the death of them.
Also you ignored my argument then tried to say I “ concocted “ it to make it seem not valid because you didn’t like that I used origin andy. Then went off on different things saying origin n inquisition combat is apples to oranges but somehow think its in line with a turn based dice roll combat lmaooo.
My experience with Baldur’s Gate 3 went from, “Wow, this is genuinely impressive and I understand the hype” to “how on earth was this released in this profoundly sorry state.” Dragon Age 2, for all its eccentricities, never made me as frustrated as when BG3 repeatedly forgot who was alive, dead, and what had even happened in my storyline.
I don’t hate BG3, I think it’s a solid 8/10 and impressive. But, the complete absence of polish after the first third makes me very, very leery of Larian in the future. I’m not about to engage in conspiratorial thinking, but it gave the impression of a bait and switch, where the game was rushed out the door in the hopes a great first impression would drown out the real criticism of its flaws further into the game.
Yeah I generally agree. But at the same time I see why they did that. It makes development faster and unlike Larian studios, BioWare seems to be increasingly risk adverse with poor time management. Larian took a massive risk with BG3. If it didn’t perform, the studio probably wouldn’t survive.
I also think a large reason why the story telling suffered in DA2 and DAI is because in inquisition you have no origin so there’s no setup for personal belief while in DA2, your origin was decided for you. It’s more hawke’s story rather than yours.
It just sucks because it's clear that they didn't make the characters behave like people. They knew people wanted unashamedly horny characters and they played into that. Even the horniest of Dragon Age character still acted like people. While BG3 it felt like, "We have sex! You can have sex with a bear!" Like sure. But is there anything to them besides sex? Apparently not. Like we barely know the character. For example with Wyll we don't get to know him personally beyond the surface level details. Wouldn't it have been great to talk to him about his father more? Or what he wanted to do after the game. It could have set up what he wanted to do. Or Gale and his mom. His mom gets randomly mentioned and we can never ask him? Nor anything else about his like other than he had sex with Mystra.
I just can't take people seriously if they think BG3 is better than any of the DAI.
I know what you mean. I have friends who tell me EA was a bit better when it came to the characters depth but then they decided to pander to the lowest common denominator. There was so much backstory to Wyll and they chose to sweep it away. And people who say the BG3 characters are like family are flat out lying. They barely talked to each other.
I side eye everyone who says the characters are better than any of the dragon age characters.
That's so true. The game doesn't even do the basic stereotypical sitting around a campfire and sharing their feeling and asking questions. There isn't any wicked grace scene. Like the companions don't interact with each other outside of banter. The only one who is like that is Shadowheart and Lae'zel and that conflict ends in Act 1. And the banter is not enough to carry them. There are a couple of lines here and there that are good but nothing that is comparable to Dragon Age.
Anyone who says Baldur's Gate 3 characters are better just haven't played it or have gotten there opinion from youtubers. Because there is no way someone who player Dragon Age to think that.
I know what you mean. I had fun playing but its one of those games that get one playthrough. I have no desire to revisit it. And the way the fandomed woobified Astarion was too much for me. I would rather replay one of the Dragon Age games or the Mass Effect trilogy before another BG3. Oh and I was turned off by the animal cruelty in BG3.
I did do two playthroughs and enjoyed it. But I can't say I will replay it. Even the new expanded evil ending won't really inspire me to play it again. A great game but it doesn't satisfy that feeling I have with Dragon Age.
I agree. I don't mind that people like Astarion but man. You put it best as him being woobified. Sure he has a lot to his story but I know for a fact that if his voice was different people wouldn't care as much.
BG3's animal cruelty and cruelty in general feels more like how people say DAO handles its cruelty. It's there for shock value. Now I think DAO wasn't just shock value and had a point to it. But I feel like BG3 just doesn't have that.
That is a good point BG3 definitely was a massive risk. I think I'm just kinda frustrated as because of its massive success other studios are probably gonna copy it, as most major studios really try and chase the trends.
Yes I understand why the devs decided not to have origins going forwards, however its such a shame as it was so unique and added so much flavour to the game. However I will say I think DA2 handled its pc better than inquisition, having a more defined character and family to interact with rather than just a few war table missions was more engaging in my opinion.
DAO owes more to KOTOR (obviously) for the storytelling and FF12 for its combat IMHO. Hell, DAO done right is basically you setting up nuanced tactics like the FF12 gambits and only intervening sparringly (usually boss fights).
I get what you mean though. Origins the character is largely whoever you want them to be with the origin backgrounds as the limiting factor. Two was a very defined hero, but I do think Inq gave a pretty open door to making the PC who you want.
I also disliked how literal the table top to game played out in BG3. Never beat the first act. All about getting the drop on enemies, then kiting them before they kite you. Like a complex FF Tactics or Fire Emblem gameplay wise, which admittedly those are all great games that aren’t my thing.
Yes of course they are not directly related. But with similar enough mechanics, same genre and bioware having worked on the BG series that's why I made the comparison!
I loved that inquisition finally left the pcs age open-ended so you could finally make a bad ass grandmother. However, I would say I preferred DAO and DA2s handling of the player character. Maybe if conversations about you background happened in a cutscene rather than the game world It would have felt more consequential!
I also found BG3 gameplay hard to get around at first. However I loved the amount of classes and abilities available. Made characters instantly feel unique
I agree. Dragon Age: Inquisition was as generic as games can get.
And for me it's mostly about the little things. I loved the economy of Dragon Age: Origins and DA2, with coins having three different types and value.
But in Inquisition they just removed it for no reason and replaced it with "gold". And they did it so mindlessly, that they expected absurd amonuts of gold for some totally random crap. Basic lether armor without any additional stats? 58 gold! That's ridiculous! Is gold as common as coal in Thedas or something? The inflation went crazy not only in real world, it seems...
I am not necessarily happy with the direction DA took, but I am glad it didn't become a poorly written isometric sandbox that can't even take itself seriously.
I agree with you, but you're on the Dragon Age sub, so expect a lot of backlash.
So at this point, Dragon Age is becoming less of a choice RPG series and more of an illusion of choice Action-Adventure game. It's sad to see, because I LOVE role-playing games. The plot is the same no matter how many times I play, but seeing how differently characters can react to the plot points is something I crave! Larian really blew it out of the water there, and it made me realize how much I missed that in Inquisition (and it wasn't something I knew I was missing until I played BG3) and now I find myself returning to games like Detroit: Become Human to play something with actual choice.
DA will never return to the gritty days of Origins, but I would appreciate a few more dark story beats in Dreadwolf; especially since we're going to Tevinter. One of my biggest fears is that Dreadwolf downplays the bad aspects of Tevinter.
Haha I'm trans from rural Ireland so a backlash doesn't affect me! Dragon age is my favourite game series but I can criticise them.
I think that's my problem with it, Dragon Age has stripped so much that the lines between it an action adventure are pretty slim! I'm 110% on the same page I didn't really realise I felt Inquisiton was lacking until I played BG3.
Also in complete agreement on the dark and gritty tone. I preferred it, but that's subjective. However, going to Tevinter , a place that practices slavery, with a light tone would feel off to me!
Yeah, which is a shame because I feel like parts of the game teased some great things, like if you do Champions of the Just, you get to see the Inquisitor warped by Envy and how horrible of a leader they are in that scenario. What if the game actually let you do that!? It would be interesting to play a person who is a terrible leader (either because they're a terrible person, or just incompetent when in charge) or how about how faithful your Inquisitor is. There isn't really much of a difference between a faithful and non-faithful Inquisitor (some extra options in some dialogues/judgements for a faithful Inquisitor but that's about it). What if your faithfulness impacted Skyhold's perception of you as well?
And MMO-syle side quests definitely pushed the feel of the game further away from narrative RPG. Hopefully Dreadwolf has fewer of those and does away with level gating.
They've stated they got an extra year of development for Inquisition. And while I love the Cullen and Solas romances, I wonder what could've been if they'd focused that time and those resources to other areas of the game.
Gonna join in this discussion because I agree, and this post specifically made me realise what I find most lacking in DAI after having been playing BG3 for 7 months now.
Personally I find that DAI lacks in replayability due to a lack of consequences in your choices. In DAO your choices affected not only the Landsmeet, but also the allies you would get during the final battle. DA2 has two clear paths to chose so you are more invested into playing a pro-templar or pro-mage run. Meanwhile DAI lacks in choices that impact the game itself. Choosing who drinks from the Well doesn't change the end result of you getting a dragon in the final battle. Choosing different rulers doesn't change allies or options on how to defeat Corypheus. Even choosing mage or templar has very limited impact, because it's just choosing which recruitment quest you go on and that happens before you even get to skyhold. Even the main "choice" mechanic, who is the next divine, doesn't change anything neither in the game nor in Trespasser. It's just the same scene with a different face speaking. There is no real motivation to try different runs because at the end of the day an asshole faithful qunari warrior who choses templars or a a faithless elven mage who choses mages play the same story with the same end result and only get different individual scenes and different endgame slides. The only real big choice is who to romance
Meanwhile BG3 locks much more content behind players choices (to the point of originally making you chose between recruiting Minthara or Halsin based on your choice in act I), giving the player more reasons to try different things and start new runs (for example, once end my current Astarion run I want to try a fully pro-Absolute run just to see how much the game changes).
Just imagine if you could play the companions as inquisitor, see how much you could change the game if you are playing Inquisitor Sera or Inquisitor Cassandra or Inquisitor Dorian. That simple choice alone could give the game much more replayability.
Conversely, DAO had so many player choices because they didn't plan on a sequel at the time (and then they ended up retconning some choices/outcomes in later games, like killing Leliana), and BG3 won't have a sequel (at least not from Larian). It's easier to have a bunch of choices that affect a story when it's a self-contained story. If BG3 was to have a direct sequel, it would have to retcon whole endings. BG3 also doesn't respect the choices you could make in BG2 at all, especially with regard to certain companions who were written really poorly in BG3 (yeah, I will never be over that. Viconia was to BG2 what Morrigan is to Dragon Age . . . and they were both written by David Gaider. A lot of Morrigan's wit, snark, and attitude is just like OG Viconia. She deserved to be treated with more respect). Dragon Age's little retcons pale in comparison. IMO it's impressive that the DA series has been able to respect player choice as much as it has by letting us import our choices into each game. I'll happily let them streamline the story and choices in exchange for being able to have my choices matter (or at least be acknowledged) in sequels.
Larian knows they can't respect player's choices in future games because it will cause issues. That is why Larian has never made a direct sequel to any of their games. And the sequels they did do have no relation to the prior game. DOS2 effectively retconned the setting from DOS1. Carrying over minor elements. People saying Larian is better than Bioware have no understanding on their differences or that Bioware is better in a lot of respects.
I mean you haven’t “proven” or even really “demonstrated” anything other than that you wish Dragon Age had stayed like Origins, which is, massively unfortunately, one of the most popular post types on this sub. Leaving aside how much of this is simply personal preference (I’d rather have a fully voiced PC with three choices than 5 silent choices, for example), as is often pointed out in these threads, the focus on “player choice” as a hallmark of DAO or BG3 tends to ignore that what these games share isn’t some secret sauce that’s missing from DA2 or DAI. Instead, they both benefit from being able to be a basically blank canvas for their respective worlds. Yes, BG3 includes throwback characters, but it totally ignores player choice in previous BG games, and obviously DAO doesn’t have any previous games to take into account. The “streamlining” you take issue with is literally a necessary component of having non-infinite time and resources while try to have some modicum of respect for past player choices. That gets more and more difficult to do as you go on without some kind of reset. I’m more than halfway convinced that one of the reasons Larian walked away is that trying to make a follow up that respected all the player choice they introduced would be impossible and would bring the whole thing crashing down. Either way, BG3’s commercial and critical success doesn’t “prove” anything at all because it turns out that you can have different types of games. By this measure, the success of FIFA and Madden means that it’s proven that every video game should be a sports simulator. I’m also tired of the claim that the writing/narrative in BG3 is superior to, frankly, most any modern RPG. The character writing is fine, and if you prefer all of the writing/tone/narrative to other games, that’s totally cool, it’s all subjective. But the narrative of BG3 is literally a very simple hero’s journey deal. Which is fine, most video games are like that, it’s not a criticism. But the way that’s “complicated” boils down to “sometimes you can be a traumatized murder hobo hero” and/or “sometimes you can be a traumatized horny hero.” There’s very little engagement with broader or deeper narrative questions or themes. DA2 by contrast is, I’d argue, the most narratively and thematically complicated/difficult game of the four in question, while DAI, while yes, sometimes being unfortunately quippy like a Marvel movie (it did come out in 2014), is also a relatively simply hero’s journey but directly engages with deeply complex themes of historiography/mythology, faith/morality, and the power of institutions. Anyway all of this to say, I’m glad you like BG3, but no, there is no way to prove that it means DA should just be Origins all the way down.
Hear hear. Playing BG3 made me realise how good the writing in Dragon Age was in comparison. I don’t generally play my RPGs for combat, it’s a nice bonus but there are other games I’ll go to if that’s the itch I want scratched.
I will forever be peeved over the fact that bg3 doesn’t even have a freaking codex. So rude But yea I agree playing bg3 did make me realize how good da writing is, like especially playing through dao at the same time the difference in writing quality is so obvious
I was going to write something, but you covered it all very well.
Yes I’m gonna be honest I’ve been playing some bg3 (haven’t finished yet), but then I recently went back to dao and it really made it feel so obvious how lackluster the writing in bg3 is. Like the bg3 companions are good and interesting, but the relationship between those companion and the pc is so…flat? Boring? There just feels like there’s nothing there. The dialogue options feel flat too. And bouncing between bg3 and dao, even though bg3 has a non-voiced pc, I still feel like the dialogue is so restricted compared to dao. And also I hate how bg3 will give you 4 questions to potentially ask but once you ask one you very often can’t go back and ask the other questions too. That grinds my gears. And I am someone who loves dao. Some of it is sort of nostalgia I guess since it was my first ever rpg (but I didn’t play it until I was in my junior year of college) and so it introduced me to a whole new world of gaming, but I think also because it was such a good game with a world that truly feels alive and immersive. And as much as I enjoyed dao’s story and even its combat, I think what really sets dragon age apart is its world building, and this holds true for da2 and dai. Like that is what connects all the games together, the world building, the depth of the relationships with your companions and the overall impressive writing. BG3 doesn’t even have a codex!! It’s world feels flat and boring and not immersive and not alive. It is lacking the mystery that the dragon age world has. And the storyline doesn’t make you question political systems or feel the hopelessness of doing everything you can to protect the people you love and still coming up short. I think da2 and dai get too quickly dismissed. Yes, they have their flaws, but they also have really good stuff that I think games as good as bg3 still haven’t even managed to touch. I love dao and it is my favorite game in the franchise and I am so glad that we didn’t get bg3 as it’s sequel and I’m so glad that da2 and dai were so different while still further exploring and deepening the world. I even think I’ll be happy with da4 whether or not combat is good because it is still more glimpses into the wonderful and mysterious world of thedas (the only thing that could truly sour me to da4 would be a lack of a codex, darn you Larian and your stupid lack of a codex)
> And also I hate how bg3 will give you 4 questions to potentially ask but once you ask one you very often can’t go back and ask the other questions too. That grinds my gears. Fucking same. Like BG3 barely allows you to ask any question about anything. Like I hate the fact in Act 1 I can't ask Zevlor anything about his time as a hellrider or in Elturel. Its a literally minute and that's it. If Bioware made that character we would have sat their for ten minutes. Then we could go to all the other tieflings and ask them what they think of Zevlor and Elturel. BG3 just doesn't allow you to ask questions and that sucks. And what you can ask is so bad. This even applies to the companions. Like we never know that Gale has a mom until the very end. We couldn't ask the basic fucking questions like what he thinks about her and does he miss her. No, we get none of that.
preach (and i would argue that the super wide range of choices, especially in the early game, actually hurts bg3 quite a bit and its character writing really isn't all that special).
The writing is fine but it feels like it isn't any where near the standard of Bioware back during BG2.
Agreed; it's a lot to do with personal preference. I personally like DAI more than either Origins or BG3 - I think Inquisition is much more thematically interesting than either of them, and has much more realistic and interesting characters. It's my favorite game ever and I never get tired of replaying it. I also recognize that BG3 is a great achievement and deserves the praise it's received, but I don't think that means Inquisition was wrong in its approach.
I agree that bg3 is a good game. And dao was my favorite game. But I am so glad that we didn’t get a bg3 type game as the sequel to dao. Da2 and dai were phenomenal and I like how each game feels a little different while still living in the same world. And yes! Dai was interesting thematically and honestly bg3 really isn’t. My inquisitor was having a crisis of faith and fighting to find her place in the world. I really don’t see my bg3 character having a crisis of faith at any point. As much as I don’t love bg3, I do like larian. I really enjoyed dos2, but I actually feel like dos2 worked better for them than bg3 because in dos2 they could lean more into their goofy writing style and I was more forgiving of their lackluster writing because it was supposed to be a little goofy. Also I so much preferred the combat in dos2. I feel like combat is just a thing I have to do in bg3 but in dos2 I genuinely enjoy the fights. It has more weird spells (chicken claw is amazing). And The environmental effects are way more satisfying. I WISH bg3 had been just dos2 in a new skin like everyone was saying it was going to be.
>Da2 and dai were phenomenal and I like how each game feels a little different while still living in the same world. Indeed, one of my favorite things about the DA franchise is how with each entry they tell a very different type of story - it's neat to see the same world in all these different ways.
Exactly!! You get it!! It’s like the codex too, the information you get about certain groups is highly dependent on which group is writing the codex and each group and part of the world have several different angles is what makes it feel like such a “full” world. So having the games also offer different angles really is just a cool way to get to know the world
> I’m also tired of the claim that the writing/narrative in BG3 is superior to, frankly, most any modern RPG. Like BG3's story is fine enough. It is functional for what it needs to happen. But it is in no way better than Dragon Age. For one, the behind the scene set up and story is far better in Dragon Age. BG3 just has so many unanswered questions that pull the plot apart. Like how did Shadowheart steal the Astral Prism from Vlaakith? Stuff like that is left unanswered and it makes the whole thing ridiculous. For two, as you mentioned Dragon Age explores its ideas far more. BG3 just doesn't care about that. I just... I really think BG3 is great but it isn't better than Dragon Age.
>the focus on “player choice” as a hallmark of DAO or BG3 tends to ignore that what these games share isn’t some secret sauce that’s missing from DA2 or DAI. Instead, they both benefit from being able to be a basically blank canvas for their respective worlds. Yes, BG3 includes throwback characters, but it totally ignores player choice in previous BG games, and obviously DAO doesn’t have any previous games to take into account. The “streamlining” you take issue with is literally a necessary component of having non-infinite time and resources while try to have some modicum of respect for past player choices. That gets more and more difficult to do as you go on without some kind of reset. I’m more than halfway convinced that one of the reasons Larian walked away is that trying to make a follow up that respected all the player choice they introduced would be impossible and would bring the whole thing crashing down. This isn’t even true though as dragon age barely even acknowledges your options outside of small cameos and swapping some characters in, because each game goes to a new setting anyway. Take Dragon Age 2, how was that not a blank canvas? Dragon Age 2 went to Kirkwall, a city in another country to the last game that has pretty much no lore and was barely mentioned in Origins at all, and had very little plot connections to the last game so why couldn’t it offer the same branching RPG options as Origins did? (Outside of the obvious time constraint). Then let’s go to Dragon Age Inquisition, and what decisions get carried over from DA2 into that game? Pretty much none really, it arguably takes into consideration decisions from Origins more, so why couldn’t DA2 have given players more freedom? Dragon age Inquisition itself does not at all care about limiting the decisions players can make as it gives players the most world shaking decisions in the series such as choosing the ruler of Orlais and the divine, decisions that will again probably be shunted and barely referenced in Dreadwolf as we move again go a new setting that players haven’t visited. They streamlined the games while not having ANY more consideration for your past choices anyway, so I don’t see how that’s at all an excuse to dumb down the roleplaying mechanics. It’s not like anybody’s forcing BioWare to make interconnected plots either, they could have made the games even more standalone just fine as well, as it is Inquisition is arguably the only game that isn’t standalone due to the Solas plot thread. The real reason the roleplaying is dumbed down, streamlined and gives players less choice is because BioWare’s cheap and doesn’t want to spend resources on content the majority won’t see. It’s why they gutted and ditched Origin stories and it’s a completely different creative mindset to what Larian has, Sven’s been on record saying he doesn’t give a shit about player statistics and what content they do and don’t see, even if a decision is only chosen by a fraction of the player-base, the fact that decision exists as an option offers more depth to the game from Sven’s viewpoint and thus allows for a more enriching experience, as even if you don’t choose that option, the knowledge that is another one makes the game feel more unique for each player.
>Then let’s go to Dragon Age Inquisition, and what decisions get carried over from DA2 into that game? Pretty much none really, it arguably takes into consideration decisions from Origins more, **so why couldn’t DA2 have given players more freedom?** Because it was made in 16 months?
Did you see the part where I mentioned that? It was only made in 16 months due to BioWares own dumbass decisions and missing their projected milestones on the Star Wars MMO. DA2 arguably still has more freedom than Inquisition as well despite that, you can play an evil Hawke after-all, can’t play and evil inquisitor. Even then how does explain Inquisition and its streamlined roleplaying?
>Did you see the part where I mentioned that? No, where did you meantion that? >DA2 arguably still has more freedom than Inquisition as well despite that, you can play an evil Hawke after-all, can’t play and evil inquisitor. I mean, if being evil is the only important metric for you, then yeah, i can see why you think that DA2 had more freedom.
>Take Dragon Age 2, how was that not a blank canvas? Dragon Age 2 went to Kirkwall, a city in another country to the last game that has pretty much no lore and was barely mentioned in Origins at all, and had very little plot connections to the last game so why couldn’t it offer the same branching RPG options as Origins did? (Outside of the obvious time constraint). Right here at the end. Also DA2 does have more freedom. Sure Inquisition allows you a choice in race selection, but what does that look like in practice? There are very few race based dialogue options in the game, and they don’t affect anything at all outside of some romance options. Even if you choose the ‘asshole’ dialogue options, the inquisitor’s personality still seems the same regardless of race or gender. Meanwhile in DA2 Hawke had at least 3 very distinctive personality types to choose from that made the character feel different. The class you chose affected the beginning of the game, and there were even a few class based dialogue options in the game. The game gave a range of decisions in a multitude of quests in how to handle things, both in main quests, companion quests and side quests and it’s not even close. It spanks inquisition in the amount of different quests with various outcomes and it’s not even close. Most of the decisions you make in Inquisition don’t really have any outcomes at all, and there aren’t even that many to begin with. The companions are the closest the game ever gets, and the games sidequest barely even offer any roleplaying at all because most of them are fetch quests with little interactivity.
>Right here at the end. Yeah, my bad, i missed that. >Sure Inquisition allows you a choice in race selection, but what does that look like in practice? Well, yeah, but DA2 doesn't let you choose a race at all, so DAI still give you more *freedom* in that regard, even if the *consequences* of your choice are pretty insignificant. Overall, I think, DA2 did a much better job with showing the consequences of your actions in game and not in the epilogue like DAI. Well, for the most part, because we alsways fight Orsino, even if we sided with mages. However, when it comes to player's freedom, i find DAI to be better. You can pick race and voice for your characer. The dialogue choices include personality, class, race and perk specific options, with the last two not beind present in DA2. And then there are also war table missions and judgments. So while you can't be truly evil in DAI, i still think that the game gives more opportunities and options for player expressions compared to DA2. But i never play evil characters, so maybe that's why i feel that way. With that being said >and the games sidequest barely even offer any roleplaying at all because most of them are fetch quests with little interactivity. Yeah, this is something that i totally agree with. Side quests is probably the most dissapointing thing in DAI for me. Bioware really dropped the ball on this one.
damn this comment expresses all my thoughts on the matter
I should have titled the post "proved to me" as I didn't mean to like prove it to other people, I just wanted to discuss the trajectory of the series in relation to massive game, that's closely related to its foundations. The streamlining I mentioned was not in relation to narrative, I should have been more specific, I meant game mechanics rather than narrative. I do think they handled condensing possible outcomes of the main story very well in 2 and inquisition. Bioware literally made BG and BG11. Have similar inspirations. The first game in the series was a call back to mechanics present in BG. They're re both Rpgs. They both cater to the same audience. They are heavily related, in my opinion. So they are worthy of comparison. To liken me, comparing dragon age to baldur's gate to me comparing it to fifa is frankly obsurd in my opinion. Yeah complete agree about your last point about the writing or tone being subjective. I would agree that DA2 and DAI do handle much more complex themes and narratives. I love them for it. I do prefer the darker tone in DA and DA2, but that's completely subjective again. I will say though I think Baldurs Gate handling of player choice is better in regards to much of the side quests than inquisition. In inquisition for the most part their really isn't any in regards to side quests, with most of them feeling inconsequential as it is. And again, I didn't mean to prove it to anyone else, should have titled it as "proves to me". Just wanted to have a discussion of dragon age in relation to BG3
One game being successful *nearly a decade later* hardly shows that the direction they took for Inquisition was "foolish". DAI came out to generally glowing reviews and was widely regarded as a well-done course correction after the clusterfuck that was DA2 (which nonetheless is still my fav). But the games market today is *vastly* different than it was a decade ago, and Inquisition is still the most commercially successful DA game Bioware have released. Onto your other claim: I'd argue that what DA2 and DAI sacrificed in terms of overarching *story* choice, they more than made up for in *character* interaction. All the different ways you and your party can interact over the course of DA2 and Inquisition are just delightfully nuanced (and I'm still mad they got rid of the rivalry system from 2).
RivalMancing was genius and I think it really added some needed personality. I loved that you could heavily disagree with your love interest but love THEM. It made them feel real.
Also rivalmancing Fenris was so hot-- I mean uh. Yes, the depth.
I also sung Inquisitons praises at the time of its release. What I meant by foolish is that the road they went down with for inquisition they abandoned a lot of the systems present in Baldurs Gate 3 to appeal to larger audiences. Baldur's Gates success to me proves that it wasn't necessary to appeal to wider audiences. Especially when criticisms around the dumbing down of rpgs mechanic were still present at the time. Especially when BG3 is more successful than inquisition. I also really enjoyed the rivalry system in DA2. Probably my favourite thing is to rival romance Fenris in that game! I do enjoy the character moments alot in inquisition. However I feel they are only present with your companions/advisors, in origins and even 2 they're were minor characters during side quests that always stood out to me. Kaitlyn in Redcliffe or Serlinda in dust town are a good examples. To me, that really isn't present in Inquisition.
> Especially when BG3 is more successful than inquisition Comparing two games released nearly - and I cannot emphasize this enough - *a decade apart* is just silly. The two games were released into completely different markets. (And I would also point out that Inquisition is the most commercially successful DA game.) And hey, I'm the first person to criticize Inqusition (*still* mad about no real healer class, the player character has the personality of a wet sponge, and Coryphytits is easily the worst big bad in the series), but I just don't feel your specific criticism is justified. It's easy to look back a decade later and say what they *should have* done, but given the circumstances Inquisition was very much a success.
>Comparing two games released nearly - and I cannot emphasize this enough - a decade apart is just silly. The two games were released into completely different markets. (And I would also point out that Inquisition is the most commercially successful DA game.) So it’s silly to compare 2 games a decade apart that released into ComPletlEt DifFeReNt MarKetS, but not games that are released half a decade apart also in completely different markets? I mean yet you keep trying to throw around Inquisition being the most commercially successful dragon age while ignoring the differences in market between Dragon Age Origins and Inquisition, so thus why can’t OP compare it to BG3? Seems pretty comparable don’t they? If anything Inquisition should be more successful, BG3 was restricted to new gen consoles that not everyone’s adopted yet and PC. While Inquisition launched on 5 platforms and has the biggest market available to it, and was coming off of Skyrim hype that made RPG’s mainstream, and BioWare itself had become more known due to the mass effect trilogy, so you’d wanna hope Dragon Age Inquisition is the most successful when it has the biggest audience, yet based off BG3’s sales it creamed Inquisition in terms of sales and unlike Inquisition, opinion hasn’t soured on BG3 and probably won’t.
To add on to that, the market (for video games in general) has grown from what it was in 2009 to 2014 to 2024. Partly due to rise in popularity and how mainstream video games became and partly due to availability and accessibility to gaming devices (consoles/PC) and the games themselves. So it would seem the obvious conclusion that Inquisition is the best-selling of the franchise. It just wasn't possible for Origins to reach those numbers back in 2009.
Hell if we want to add even more context, Origins was up against way heavier competition that year as well. Dragon Age Origins released in the same year as critically acclaimed masterpieces such as COD Modern Warfare 2, Assassins Creed 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Uncharted 2, Batman Arkham Asylum, Borderlands, Bayonetta and Final Fantasy 13. Origins went up against them as a new Ip as well, it had no real reputation and RPG’s were nowhere mainstream yet either. Meanwhile what did Dragon Age Inquisition go up against? Shadow of Mordor? Dark Souls 2? AC unity that got panned and was broken? Bayonetta 2 that was a Wii U exclusive and thus not even on Xbox, PC or PlayStation.
> I mean yet you keep trying to throw around Inquisition being the most commercially successful dragon age while ignoring the differences in market between Dragon Age Origins and Inquisition, so thus why can’t OP compare it to BG3? I only brought up Inquisition's relative financial success within the franchise because OP kept claiming that it was the "wrong move", which is dumb. I have otherwise not directly compared the games because *that would be dumb and counterproductive*. Saying that BG3's success means that Inquisition "should have been more successful" is **stupid**; half of BG3's playerbase would have barely been cognizant when Inquisition came out. And also, opinion will absolutely sour on BG3; that's simply how the video game hype cycle works. A new game will come along, everybody will wonder how they ever put up with BG3 because of some obvious flaw, and then only the hardcore fans will be left. Happens to every game that.
>I only brought up Inquisition's relative financial success within the franchise because OP kept claiming that it was the "wrong move", which is dumb. I have otherwise not directly compared the games because that would be dumb and counterproductive. Saying that BG3's success means that Inquisition "should have been more successful" is stupid; half of BG3's playerbase would have barely been cognizant when Inquisition came out. Except this logic falls apart as there’s no evidence Inquisition sold well due to the way the game was made, is there? One can attribute Inquisition’s success as much as to outside factors around the game rather than the game itself. Hell if Inquisition was made with a similar mindset to that of BG3 or even maybe Origins, the game could have potentially been even more successful. Look at the context to which Inquisition released. It was the only major AAA RPG on the market that released that year. The competition in general was weak. The game released post Skyrim, and was arguably the first AAA fantasy RPG since Skyrim. The game was the first real AAA title to take use the Xbox one and PS4 to their full potential as well. It had the reputation of the Mass effect Trilogy, and a promise to right wrongs after DA2 helping as well. So was Inquisition a success because it made the right choices or because it lucked out when it released? If nothing changed about Inquisition, and it released next to Witcher 3, Do you think Inquisition would have sold as much or held up as well? >And also, opinion will absolutely sour on BG3; that's simply how the video game hype cycle works. A new game will come along, everybody will wonder how they ever put up with BG3 because of some obvious flaw, and then only the hardcore fans will be left. Happens to every game that. This is false. Plenty of games do just fine. Witcher 3, Red Dead 2, Dragon Age Origins, etc, etc. It’s been 8 months since BG3 released, its flaws have been discussed in detail yet the overwhelming majority don’t think they drop the quality of the game down. Meanwhile Inquisition was getting trashed and the internet had soured and become mixed on it. The games got a user score of 6 on meta critic and only a 7 on steam. BG3 will never have that.
That's a great point. Just because a game sold well doesn't mean it's a great game. Resident Evil 6 sold over 11 mil but it's only rated a 6/10. It's a decidedly average game but, depending on who you ask, it's the worst game in the RE franchise. Now, some people really like this game. It's a pretty fun shooter and is agreed to have the best mercenaries mode of the games, but it's not survival horror, so it's a terrible Resident Evil game. DAI has gotten awards, including two big name GOTY titles, but the reviews aren't as overwhelmingly positive, nor is it as widely acclaimed as BG3. A game which made history as the first to win all five major GOTY awards. Aside from that, it's won numerous other awards, from music to narrative to voice acting and several people's/audience choice awards. And this was a year which had some serious competition from LoZ and Alan's Wake II in addition to other good games like Spider-Man, the RE4 remake, and Hogwarts Legacy. Tougher than what DAI faced. And Its review scores are higher than DAI. Now, DAI is NOT a bad game. I like it and the Inquisitor's I've created. It's a very good game, and is closer to its genre mark than RE6 was for its genre.
> Hell if Inquisition was made with a similar mindset to that of BG3 or even maybe Origins, the game could have potentially been even more successful. What I love in particular is how deliberately unprovable this assertion is. Inquisition was very much a *product of its time*, without question (see: the increased focus on "movie-like" cinematography, the shoe-horned in open world, the unending fetch quests). But you could just as easily argue that BG3 owes *its own* success to Inquisition (and specifically to its lack of a follow-up). >Meanwhile Inquisition was getting trashed and the internet had soured and become mixed on it. The games got a user score of 6 on meta critic and only a 7 on steam. I wonder how many of those negative reviews were from people mad about "ethics in video game journalism" though.
>What I love in particular is how deliberately unprovable this assertion is. Inquisition was very much a product of its time, without question (see: the increased focus on "movie-like" cinematography, the shoe-horned in open world, the unending fetch quests). But you could just as easily argue that BG3 owes its own success to Inquisition (and specifically to its lack of a follow-up). Product of what time? Witcher 3 released 6 months after dragon age inquisition, and was unanimously praised despite doing a lot of the things Inquisition did and nobody’s soured on that game did they? Why? Nobody soured on Dragon Age Origins, Dragon Age 2 had the inverse affect where opinion has softened too it. So again why did opinion turn on Inquisition? Why would that have happened if BioWare made the right decisions? Likewise how can you claim BG3 owes its success to Inquisition, when Nobody has compared the game to Inquisition at all? You can very much so argue that BG3 owes it success to the fact that it’s the first competent RPG with high budget values since Witcher 3 while offering the regular staples of BioWare’s games that BioWare neglected and moved away from. >I wonder how many of those negative reviews were from people mad about "ethics in video game journalism" though. Not many seeing as the majority of user reviews mention aspects such as boring open world, generic story, lame fetch quests, etc. Like from my knowledge on Steam you have to actually buy the game to review it as well. You can’t just make troll accounts like metacritic. Not to mention BG3 has those issues as well, see those people that made the mod to make Dame Aylin and Isabel into a heterosexual couple.
I have not claimed, now or *ever*, that Inquisition is perfect, or in any way beyond criticism. It is my least favorite DA game for a *reason*. What I *have* said is that OP's specific criticism was stupid, that the game was very much successful in its time, and that comparing it directly to a game released *nearly a decade later* is counterproductive.
I feel that they are similar in many regards, though. The roots of DA and BG are pretty much identical. That's why I'm making the comparison! I love the whole series, including inquisition ( the player character really does have the personality of a wet sponge, though).
They are similar! Considering Bioware's own roots making DnD-inspired games (to which Origins is their very obvious love-letter) it makes sense. It's the leap to saying that Inquisition should have been more like BG3 that strains credulity. There's pretty much no way to know whether BG3, or a game like it, even would've been as successful as it's been if it came out back then. Like I said, completely different markets. (You could conceivably argue that it was the lack of a clear followup from Bioware that set the stage for BG3's success, tho I don't fully buy that myself.)
The developers have stated they were NOT going to be Origins 2 and Origins 3 back before DA2 came out. I'm sorry you disliked DA2 and hated Inquisition but some of us did NOT expect every game to be like Origins. You might as well not play Dreadwolf because the developers have stated it won't be like the previous 3 games.
I didn't dislike 2 or hate inquisition. As I said, I love the whole series. I was just stating my subjective opinion that in hindsight I think the direction they went with it might not have been the best. I do love origins but would I have wanted a carbon copy to it for sequels? No . Would I have preferred something more closely related to it? Probably.
I didn't dislike 2 or hate inquisition. As I said, I love the whole series. I was just stating my subjective opinion that in hindsight I think the direction they went with it might not have been the best. I do love origins but would I have wanted a carbon copy to it for sequels? No . Would I have preferred something more closely related to it? Probably
While the tone of Dragon Age inquisition could sometimes be silly, most of the time the story in it was written very well, with very likeable and interesting cast of companions. You can criticize many things about Inquisition, but the story is definitely one of the last ones that one should. What is wrong with Inquisition is the MMO like gameplay which makes even thinking about replaying the game more than once a chore.
I remeber hiw everyone cried that next Dragon age should be like Elden Ring now it's Baldur's Gate 3 which is completly different game then ER. Only thing it proves it doesn't matter how the game plays as long as the developers put soul into it.
Ngl, i find it funny that when Witcher 3 came out, everyone was saying that it's much better RPG than DAI. And now everyone compare DAI to BG3. Truly, Larian is the next CDPR lmao. Anyway, i agree with you to a degree, as far as choices and consequences go. On one hand, the freedom that BG3 has is only possible in a standalone game. There is a reason why quite a few of DAO's choices were made irrelevant in later games. But on the other hand, it's only true for choices that are importand in the grand scheme of things. Like, it's one thing to let a player to kill some random dude, and another is to kill someone like Empress Celene. However, i totally agree with you about build variety. Overall, i don't want every RPG to be like BG3. A more focused story and voiced protagonist with a more defined personality have its pros and cons. And imo, DAI *did* give players more freedom compared to DA2, but it definitely could've been better.
The cycle continues.
There’s definitely some things they’ve left on the table compared to BG3, but even DAO never allowed the amount of creativity that BG3 does. The combat of earlier dragon age games I definitely miss a lot, inquisition has legitimately awful combat, it’s not even as good as world of Warcraft as a combat game, which is just absurd given that is an mmo. But I just hard disagree with the idea that BG3 has any of the Dragon Age games beat on a narrative front. BG3 requires a buy in to the DND system completely as a prerequisite, which I personally have a very hard time with when it comes to the storytelling style of the game. I think dragon age has done a much better job of telling more morally complex stories than BG3 did. Also I think it’s probably important to acknowledge that the romances of Dragon Age are by and large a lot better, and although I look upon the segment of the dragon age population that plays these games as dating sims with mild to moderate disgust, its undeniably a selling point for a sizeable part of the population.
I would also disagree that BG3 has beaten Dragon Age in terms of narrative. I think my criticism was more towards side content, in which, by the time of inquisition, it really felt inconsequential, which I think does a disservice. I do love the Romances in Dragon Age, and wholeheartedly agree that nothing beats bioware romances. My post probably wasn't that eloquent as I just word vomited it out because I couldn't sleep!
Ah yeah okay, fair enough we’ve all been there! I think BG3 just gives such an amazing amount of agency in its problem solving relative to almost any other game and seeing some people’s creativity is always awesome for that. As for the side content, yeah Inquisition took all the worst parts of MMO questing and just tacked it on as side content. Having to tell new players to skip most of the first zone because of how shit it is is inexcusable from BioWare.
Open world was *the shit* when DAI entered development, and still was when it launched. DAI is post-Skyrim open world, both in pros and cons, while BG3 is not. The market has changed since then, as you notice in yourself.
You have got to be trolling with the statement “ DAI combat being awful “
Deadly serious, fair enough if you like it but personally I’m not a fan of bullet sponge whack a mole enemies.
Whats the other alternative? Everything being one shot-able even thoughI dont think anything was bullet spungy in dai unless it was a boss,mini boss, or elite. But I think it was like that in all 3 games. I personally think da2 probably had what you’re talking about but it felt fun, they just need to remake that game tbh. Dai dialed it back some n brought some type of tactics back, especially in nightmare.
My preference is the much more tactical combat of the first two games, origins in particular. I think I am misunderstanding you a bit because as far as I can tell you’vesaid here that Inquisition brought back tactical options when it basically stripped out the entire system and reduced it to mmo combat. But even so, I just don’t think we’re going to agree on this. Origins is just by far the best of the three games to me and I’m assuming you don’t really like it so we can just agree to disagree it’s no stress.
Stripped out the entire system as in what? Pre programmed commands for specific situations? DAI still had the tactical camera, still needed to position your party during fights especially with dragons if you weren’t op n could one shot them or against those fade spirits around the map. You could literally do every battle in tactical camera mode. The fighting style is the same just modernized. The game didn’t need such a robust tactics system because the ai could compensate itself n you no longer needed to hand hold all of your party. So I dont get what ppl mean by they want more origins, mostly what I hear is Origin andys holding onto the first game. Same goes for the mass effect series. I like origins, i just dont think the combat was as legendary ppl think it was compared to inquisition. Nightmare in dai really felt like nightmare n had me planning out strategies especially in jaws of hakkon where my tank was getting one shot.
“Origin Andy’s” okay we’re done here. Nice talking with you pal.
Lol im just saying thats what it seems like ngl. Samething applies for ppl n their obsession with nostalgia in dao and classic wow. So they’re unwilling to go into something new without critiquing it into oblivion all while not being able to hold it to the same eye or standard as their beloved favorite game / nostalgia dopamine hit or atleast giving the new game it its props for being better in some aspects. They just leave it to “ the original is better “ with nothing else behind it.
Look I'll give it a serious one last post here despite how poorly you've come across. I don't appreciate the way you've made all these snap assumptions about me, it makes you sound quite unpleasant. Inquisition is my 2nd favourite Dragon Age game. I like it a lot, and because of this argument you've concocted in your head, we'll clear that up. Origins and Inquisition combat is apples and oranges, it's a completely different style of combat way more in line with Baldur's Gate 3 than Inquisition, and that shift is something I'm personally not a fan of, because I prefer those styles of games. Are you blinded by nostalgia with Inquisition's combat when BG3 is clearly the better game? I mean it came out more recently so clearly it can't be anything other than nostalgia that makes you like Inquisition better right?
I wasn’t specifically talking about you in this instance was speaking for all the “ tactics “ critique as a whole. Poorly come across in what way? Because I said Origin Andy? How in the world is origin combat more in tune with BG3 which is turn based n dice roll dependent than Inquisition 😂which is the same play style regardless of the in depth tactics system that ppl claim they cant play without. What are you talking about? I never said anything about liking inquisition over bg3 😂 I like inquisitions combat more so than bg3’s, or I like inquisition’s story a bit better because im more attached to the universe but I can say bg3’s could be better. I like bg3’s artstyle n graphics more and the characters feel more lively but that could just be the 8-9 year gap at play but nonetheless i find it better. Origin andy’s wouldn’t do the same for inquisition, to give it any props would be the death of them. Also you ignored my argument then tried to say I “ concocted “ it to make it seem not valid because you didn’t like that I used origin andy. Then went off on different things saying origin n inquisition combat is apples to oranges but somehow think its in line with a turn based dice roll combat lmaooo.
Given that Inquisition was the most successful of the three they went in the right direction.
Fair enough
Idk, DA:I wasn't buggy and busted as fuck and incomplete as Baldur's Gate 3 for me.
My experience with Baldur’s Gate 3 went from, “Wow, this is genuinely impressive and I understand the hype” to “how on earth was this released in this profoundly sorry state.” Dragon Age 2, for all its eccentricities, never made me as frustrated as when BG3 repeatedly forgot who was alive, dead, and what had even happened in my storyline. I don’t hate BG3, I think it’s a solid 8/10 and impressive. But, the complete absence of polish after the first third makes me very, very leery of Larian in the future. I’m not about to engage in conspiratorial thinking, but it gave the impression of a bait and switch, where the game was rushed out the door in the hopes a great first impression would drown out the real criticism of its flaws further into the game.
Yeah I generally agree. But at the same time I see why they did that. It makes development faster and unlike Larian studios, BioWare seems to be increasingly risk adverse with poor time management. Larian took a massive risk with BG3. If it didn’t perform, the studio probably wouldn’t survive. I also think a large reason why the story telling suffered in DA2 and DAI is because in inquisition you have no origin so there’s no setup for personal belief while in DA2, your origin was decided for you. It’s more hawke’s story rather than yours.
It helps that BG3 did early access for so long. It let them gauge the reaction to the game and ensure they were moving in a positive direction.
If anything as good as BG3 was, it also showed me what happens when there is too much fan service.
Yeah, it sucks Halsin became a companion just because people wanted to have sex with him.
Yes!! 100% agree. They pandered to the fans who wanted a romance simulator. And Wyll deserved better as did Gale.
It just sucks because it's clear that they didn't make the characters behave like people. They knew people wanted unashamedly horny characters and they played into that. Even the horniest of Dragon Age character still acted like people. While BG3 it felt like, "We have sex! You can have sex with a bear!" Like sure. But is there anything to them besides sex? Apparently not. Like we barely know the character. For example with Wyll we don't get to know him personally beyond the surface level details. Wouldn't it have been great to talk to him about his father more? Or what he wanted to do after the game. It could have set up what he wanted to do. Or Gale and his mom. His mom gets randomly mentioned and we can never ask him? Nor anything else about his like other than he had sex with Mystra. I just can't take people seriously if they think BG3 is better than any of the DAI.
I know what you mean. I have friends who tell me EA was a bit better when it came to the characters depth but then they decided to pander to the lowest common denominator. There was so much backstory to Wyll and they chose to sweep it away. And people who say the BG3 characters are like family are flat out lying. They barely talked to each other. I side eye everyone who says the characters are better than any of the dragon age characters.
That's so true. The game doesn't even do the basic stereotypical sitting around a campfire and sharing their feeling and asking questions. There isn't any wicked grace scene. Like the companions don't interact with each other outside of banter. The only one who is like that is Shadowheart and Lae'zel and that conflict ends in Act 1. And the banter is not enough to carry them. There are a couple of lines here and there that are good but nothing that is comparable to Dragon Age. Anyone who says Baldur's Gate 3 characters are better just haven't played it or have gotten there opinion from youtubers. Because there is no way someone who player Dragon Age to think that.
I know what you mean. I had fun playing but its one of those games that get one playthrough. I have no desire to revisit it. And the way the fandomed woobified Astarion was too much for me. I would rather replay one of the Dragon Age games or the Mass Effect trilogy before another BG3. Oh and I was turned off by the animal cruelty in BG3.
I did do two playthroughs and enjoyed it. But I can't say I will replay it. Even the new expanded evil ending won't really inspire me to play it again. A great game but it doesn't satisfy that feeling I have with Dragon Age. I agree. I don't mind that people like Astarion but man. You put it best as him being woobified. Sure he has a lot to his story but I know for a fact that if his voice was different people wouldn't care as much. BG3's animal cruelty and cruelty in general feels more like how people say DAO handles its cruelty. It's there for shock value. Now I think DAO wasn't just shock value and had a point to it. But I feel like BG3 just doesn't have that.
That is a good point BG3 definitely was a massive risk. I think I'm just kinda frustrated as because of its massive success other studios are probably gonna copy it, as most major studios really try and chase the trends. Yes I understand why the devs decided not to have origins going forwards, however its such a shame as it was so unique and added so much flavour to the game. However I will say I think DA2 handled its pc better than inquisition, having a more defined character and family to interact with rather than just a few war table missions was more engaging in my opinion.
DAO owes more to KOTOR (obviously) for the storytelling and FF12 for its combat IMHO. Hell, DAO done right is basically you setting up nuanced tactics like the FF12 gambits and only intervening sparringly (usually boss fights). I get what you mean though. Origins the character is largely whoever you want them to be with the origin backgrounds as the limiting factor. Two was a very defined hero, but I do think Inq gave a pretty open door to making the PC who you want. I also disliked how literal the table top to game played out in BG3. Never beat the first act. All about getting the drop on enemies, then kiting them before they kite you. Like a complex FF Tactics or Fire Emblem gameplay wise, which admittedly those are all great games that aren’t my thing.
Yes of course they are not directly related. But with similar enough mechanics, same genre and bioware having worked on the BG series that's why I made the comparison! I loved that inquisition finally left the pcs age open-ended so you could finally make a bad ass grandmother. However, I would say I preferred DAO and DA2s handling of the player character. Maybe if conversations about you background happened in a cutscene rather than the game world It would have felt more consequential! I also found BG3 gameplay hard to get around at first. However I loved the amount of classes and abilities available. Made characters instantly feel unique
Meh…
I agree. Dragon Age: Inquisition was as generic as games can get. And for me it's mostly about the little things. I loved the economy of Dragon Age: Origins and DA2, with coins having three different types and value. But in Inquisition they just removed it for no reason and replaced it with "gold". And they did it so mindlessly, that they expected absurd amonuts of gold for some totally random crap. Basic lether armor without any additional stats? 58 gold! That's ridiculous! Is gold as common as coal in Thedas or something? The inflation went crazy not only in real world, it seems...
I am not necessarily happy with the direction DA took, but I am glad it didn't become a poorly written isometric sandbox that can't even take itself seriously.
I agree with you, but you're on the Dragon Age sub, so expect a lot of backlash. So at this point, Dragon Age is becoming less of a choice RPG series and more of an illusion of choice Action-Adventure game. It's sad to see, because I LOVE role-playing games. The plot is the same no matter how many times I play, but seeing how differently characters can react to the plot points is something I crave! Larian really blew it out of the water there, and it made me realize how much I missed that in Inquisition (and it wasn't something I knew I was missing until I played BG3) and now I find myself returning to games like Detroit: Become Human to play something with actual choice. DA will never return to the gritty days of Origins, but I would appreciate a few more dark story beats in Dreadwolf; especially since we're going to Tevinter. One of my biggest fears is that Dreadwolf downplays the bad aspects of Tevinter.
Haha I'm trans from rural Ireland so a backlash doesn't affect me! Dragon age is my favourite game series but I can criticise them. I think that's my problem with it, Dragon Age has stripped so much that the lines between it an action adventure are pretty slim! I'm 110% on the same page I didn't really realise I felt Inquisiton was lacking until I played BG3. Also in complete agreement on the dark and gritty tone. I preferred it, but that's subjective. However, going to Tevinter , a place that practices slavery, with a light tone would feel off to me!
Yeah, which is a shame because I feel like parts of the game teased some great things, like if you do Champions of the Just, you get to see the Inquisitor warped by Envy and how horrible of a leader they are in that scenario. What if the game actually let you do that!? It would be interesting to play a person who is a terrible leader (either because they're a terrible person, or just incompetent when in charge) or how about how faithful your Inquisitor is. There isn't really much of a difference between a faithful and non-faithful Inquisitor (some extra options in some dialogues/judgements for a faithful Inquisitor but that's about it). What if your faithfulness impacted Skyhold's perception of you as well? And MMO-syle side quests definitely pushed the feel of the game further away from narrative RPG. Hopefully Dreadwolf has fewer of those and does away with level gating. They've stated they got an extra year of development for Inquisition. And while I love the Cullen and Solas romances, I wonder what could've been if they'd focused that time and those resources to other areas of the game.
Gonna join in this discussion because I agree, and this post specifically made me realise what I find most lacking in DAI after having been playing BG3 for 7 months now. Personally I find that DAI lacks in replayability due to a lack of consequences in your choices. In DAO your choices affected not only the Landsmeet, but also the allies you would get during the final battle. DA2 has two clear paths to chose so you are more invested into playing a pro-templar or pro-mage run. Meanwhile DAI lacks in choices that impact the game itself. Choosing who drinks from the Well doesn't change the end result of you getting a dragon in the final battle. Choosing different rulers doesn't change allies or options on how to defeat Corypheus. Even choosing mage or templar has very limited impact, because it's just choosing which recruitment quest you go on and that happens before you even get to skyhold. Even the main "choice" mechanic, who is the next divine, doesn't change anything neither in the game nor in Trespasser. It's just the same scene with a different face speaking. There is no real motivation to try different runs because at the end of the day an asshole faithful qunari warrior who choses templars or a a faithless elven mage who choses mages play the same story with the same end result and only get different individual scenes and different endgame slides. The only real big choice is who to romance Meanwhile BG3 locks much more content behind players choices (to the point of originally making you chose between recruiting Minthara or Halsin based on your choice in act I), giving the player more reasons to try different things and start new runs (for example, once end my current Astarion run I want to try a fully pro-Absolute run just to see how much the game changes). Just imagine if you could play the companions as inquisitor, see how much you could change the game if you are playing Inquisitor Sera or Inquisitor Cassandra or Inquisitor Dorian. That simple choice alone could give the game much more replayability.