Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
just imagining that..being stuck in the fade section, over and over...
thank god for mods that allow us to skip that part.
Dragon Age Inquisition was Bioware's Worst RPG to Date
- Thread starter BloatedGuppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
just imagining that..being stuck in the fade section, over and over...
thank god for mods that allow us to skip that part.
They could make make 5 hours of tedious grind content or they could make 1 hour of actually good content. Development time is not limitless, they can't really do everything. Usually developers would aim to strike a balance since going too far one way or the other results in complaints. I can recall... 3 storyline quests before going to Skyhold. The opening of the game, going to Val Royeaux and then choosing Mages or Templars (I'm assuming Templars have some kind of analogue quest line similar to what happens with the Mages), and the attack. I cannot possibly guess the number of unrelated creatures and assailants I have fought outside of that, the number of leaves and rocks I picked up, loot gathered, so on and so forth.
The game ended up how I feared it would when I heard they were drawing inspiration from Skyrim. The pacing is a mess, there's not a lot of direction, and there's a whole lot of time to be spent just wandering. You're the head of a militant religious order and you have to pick up your own damn leaves from the ground if you want potions. You're the only person capable of closing rifts, and you're left to wander the countryside with only your skills and a couple friends to protect you. Now you can't die because you just reload, but where's the pragmatism? This is the game with the least excuse yet to have you running meaningless fetch quests, and there's more than ever.
And this is just paranoia talking, but I swear EA wanted the Table Missions to be pay2win. It's a basic mobile design, you'd just have to insert the microtransactions to make the missions happen faster.
The game ended up how I feared it would when I heard they were drawing inspiration from Skyrim. The pacing is a mess, there's not a lot of direction, and there's a whole lot of time to be spent just wandering. You're the head of a militant religious order and you have to pick up your own damn leaves from the ground if you want potions. You're the only person capable of closing rifts, and you're left to wander the countryside with only your skills and a couple friends to protect you. Now you can't die because you just reload, but where's the pragmatism? This is the game with the least excuse yet to have you running meaningless fetch quests, and there's more than ever.
And this is just paranoia talking, but I swear EA wanted the Table Missions to be pay2win. It's a basic mobile design, you'd just have to insert the microtransactions to make the missions happen faster.
Eh, well my take is this:BloatedGuppy said:
The inquisition is designed to root out corruption within the Chantry. After the events of Dragon Age 2, where a city fell to war between Mages and Templars, where the First Enchanter turned into an abomination, the Knight Commander succumbing to some unknown corruption and the local Chantry along with its revered mother were destroyed, major questions were raised about the current system for managing mages leading to rebellion from various Circles.
The inquisition at this time was trying to piece together the events in Kirkwall (which is how DA2's story is told to us, through varric under interrogation). At this point they are doing the job their title implies, getting to the root of heresy and corruption (which was assumed to be hawk early on).
The start of Inquisition shows the hierarchy of the chantry getting obliterated by an unknown force. Without divine leadership, the individual cloisters all fall into bickering. Meanwhile the Templars are off fighting angry mages. So the inquisition, a relatively minor military arm of the chantry are the only ones to step up to the plate to take on this new threat.
As they progress, each victory brings recognition and respect. It grows from a band of survivors to a militia to a full fledged army. For the early stages of the game you are travelling to various lands assisting those that can aid your cause while also trying to root out the source of the rifts.
After that... yeah, they sort of drop the ball on it. The cause basically comes knocking on your door and then the next 3/4 or so of the game is you preparing to fight. Every decision you make is meant to have "major ramifications" to Orlais and Ferelden, but all that amounts to is a few letters, gifts and some NPC exchanges.
The inquisition at this time was trying to piece together the events in Kirkwall (which is how DA2's story is told to us, through varric under interrogation). At this point they are doing the job their title implies, getting to the root of heresy and corruption (which was assumed to be hawk early on).
The start of Inquisition shows the hierarchy of the chantry getting obliterated by an unknown force. Without divine leadership, the individual cloisters all fall into bickering. Meanwhile the Templars are off fighting angry mages. So the inquisition, a relatively minor military arm of the chantry are the only ones to step up to the plate to take on this new threat.
As they progress, each victory brings recognition and respect. It grows from a band of survivors to a militia to a full fledged army. For the early stages of the game you are travelling to various lands assisting those that can aid your cause while also trying to root out the source of the rifts.
After that... yeah, they sort of drop the ball on it. The cause basically comes knocking on your door and then the next 3/4 or so of the game is you preparing to fight. Every decision you make is meant to have "major ramifications" to Orlais and Ferelden, but all that amounts to is a few letters, gifts and some NPC exchanges.
As for worst BioWare RPG? I still think DA2 is worse. I liked it, mainly for aspects of the story (Act 2 in particular and some of the character related events) but its gameplay is banal from start to finish. The one thing I really liked in DA2 was the Friendship/Rivalry scale, mainly because it was the first system that didn't penalise you for calling a companion out for being a douche (Anders) or being stupid (Merril). The characters would never change, but as long as you stick to your guns (Merril is always stupid, Anders is always a douche), the game offered some minor pay off.
If you max rivalry with merril she will still fuck things up for herself, but she will show regret and smash the mirror into pieces rather then being emboldened to pursue further research into it. Anders, if rivaled, will claim that Justice is taking over and that's what made him bomb the chantry and he hates himself for it, while if befriended he will claim that he and justice are of one mind and he wanted it as much as justice.
Also, rivalry romances are fun... especially with Fenris. Nothing like angry sexing.
Also, rivalry romances are fun... especially with Fenris. Nothing like angry sexing.
Inquisition, though menial and laborious at times, was fun for the most part. I just really like the new combat system (though for reference, I used a controller... fuck Keyboard and mouse, they really mucked that up). And for quite a while, I liked the open maps, though eventually I started to feel it was a little too vacant.
Story wise? I think the original Baldurs Gate is worse... BG is such a dull narrative that's poorly delivered. Jade Empire is also pretty bad. Inquisition is nothing special mind you, but I liked the characters (some more then others) and the story felt grand and epic for the most part.
It's nowhere near as engaging or fun as Mass Effect (take your pick) or Dragon Age: Origins, but I don't agree that it's their worst. I'll say this, it definitely failed drained of enthusiasm. At some point the desire to make the next big Bioware adventure was overtaken by a need to push the project forward.
But that's just me. I can't really bring myself to defend it too much. It's got a metric ass load of problems and I doubt I'll regard it too highly in the future. I think the critic reviews are overly generous as personally I would have given it a 6.5 out of 10 rather then the 8's and 9's I've seen. It's not great but still good, yet it has many flaws. There is still something of worth in it if your willing to push through to it.
I dunno... I guess I had my expectations low. Pretty hard to be dissapointed when you completely forgot the game was even in development until the week of its release.
So... what's the discussion here? I mean you only ask one actual question in the OP and it's rhetorical.
All I'm reading this as is "this game is very popular but I didn't like it and it's important I tell everyone".
All I'm reading this as is "this game is very popular but I didn't like it and it's important I tell everyone".
How did Dragon Age: Inquisition drink SJW Kool-Aid?disgruntledgamer said:
On Topic: I have to disagree with the OP. Sure Inquisition had issues but I would have to say it is one of my favorite Bioware games. It is leagues better than Dragon Age 2 and I really like the characters. The Iron Bull and Josephine are awesome.
I completely agree with OP and everyone else that thinks the same way about DA:I. I can't really add anything to this thread other than:
It doesn't feel like a Dragon Age game to me.
To put that in perspective, I had replayed the two previous games in the months before DA:I's release and immediately went into DA:I at launch. The game just didn't feel like a DA game at all. :S (I felt this to such an extent that I uninstalled it after attempting to play the game and enjoy playing it 3 times for about an hour each time.)
And I was really looking forward to continuing the "Andraste" clan's magical takeover of the world! :S
It doesn't feel like a Dragon Age game to me.
To put that in perspective, I had replayed the two previous games in the months before DA:I's release and immediately went into DA:I at launch. The game just didn't feel like a DA game at all. :S (I felt this to such an extent that I uninstalled it after attempting to play the game and enjoy playing it 3 times for about an hour each time.)
And I was really looking forward to continuing the "Andraste" clan's magical takeover of the world! :S
Throwing in my two cents here, I will agree to a number of things that were said here.
I agree with the fact that the game still needed some work, including the extremely long loading screens and making sure it didn't crash. Prior to getting a new video card, I was literally at the lowest end of the spectrum to actually play it. So I got the 'shiney plastic' look instead of just plastic. Sadly, it crashed when I tried to either meet with the mages or templars. In fact, it started to work when I purposely tried to get the crash code I was receiving.
The game itself is just a direction that Bioware took. It wasn't the greatest direction, not by a long shot. Compared to the extreme issues with DA2 where you knew that Bioware was forced to put it on the shelves far too early, DA:I was one that they did try to flush out more, though again, it felt like they didn't quite get to the point they needed.
One big example is: None of the Inner Circle really mattered to the plot beyond one character, and even then all of them often stayed in the background. They spoke to you well enough, they seemed to have their own ideas and such, yet you didn't feel like they really gave that much to the Inquisition. They seemed more like Advisers than your own Advisers did, and didn't do much else than just add to the group of three that walked behind you, conversing.
How could they have changed it to make the companions better? Have their joining and decisions change the overall reaction to your Inquisition. Siding more with Vivian would impress the Orleisians, but not the Rebel Mages. Have Sera's influence make it hard to speak to nobles but easier to get secrets (a good reason why you would need Vivian, to balance Sera). For crying out loud, give us more instances where your Army is actually marching the fuck in!!
That being said, the Venatori didn't feel like much either. They felt more like Cobra, with the Inquisition being more like G.I.Joe. Every time you beat Corypheus, he just growls out 'curses'
I could write more but..yeah :/
I agree with the fact that the game still needed some work, including the extremely long loading screens and making sure it didn't crash. Prior to getting a new video card, I was literally at the lowest end of the spectrum to actually play it. So I got the 'shiney plastic' look instead of just plastic. Sadly, it crashed when I tried to either meet with the mages or templars. In fact, it started to work when I purposely tried to get the crash code I was receiving.
The game itself is just a direction that Bioware took. It wasn't the greatest direction, not by a long shot. Compared to the extreme issues with DA2 where you knew that Bioware was forced to put it on the shelves far too early, DA:I was one that they did try to flush out more, though again, it felt like they didn't quite get to the point they needed.
One big example is: None of the Inner Circle really mattered to the plot beyond one character, and even then all of them often stayed in the background. They spoke to you well enough, they seemed to have their own ideas and such, yet you didn't feel like they really gave that much to the Inquisition. They seemed more like Advisers than your own Advisers did, and didn't do much else than just add to the group of three that walked behind you, conversing.
How could they have changed it to make the companions better? Have their joining and decisions change the overall reaction to your Inquisition. Siding more with Vivian would impress the Orleisians, but not the Rebel Mages. Have Sera's influence make it hard to speak to nobles but easier to get secrets (a good reason why you would need Vivian, to balance Sera). For crying out loud, give us more instances where your Army is actually marching the fuck in!!
That being said, the Venatori didn't feel like much either. They felt more like Cobra, with the Inquisition being more like G.I.Joe. Every time you beat Corypheus, he just growls out 'curses'
I could write more but..yeah :/
This is probably the biggest problem for me. Like, yeah the plot sucks, frankly BioWare was never a grandmaster in that regard. What their saving grace has been, has always been, is their characters. They've always been the biggest draw to... just about any BioWare game.DahkWaltz said:
When DA2 came out, I always said that my biggest issue is that BioWare neglected the characters, because they felt shallow and superficial, archetypes to demonstrate various factions rather than actual people. Inquisition turned that on it's head, though - this is what it looks like when BioWare neglects it's characters. I didn't feel like I really got to know anyone besides Cassandra, really. I've gotten to know the love interests a bit more (Cullen, Blackwall, Solas) but only after I romanced them, and with Bull's romance I still feel like I don't really know the guy. In Origins and Mass Effect, I felt like I got to know everyone at least a little bit. Here I feel like I only befriend someone if they've been with me since the first five seconds of the game, or if I romance them. Everyone else? Half the time I wondered why they still hung around. Like Dorian - He goes on about redeeming Tevinter and then... sits around Skyhold for no reason? Go fix your goddamn country, bro. I felt the same way about Vivienne, Sera, Bull - just about everyone, at various points in the game. The only companions with actual, solid reasons to stick around are Cassandra and Solas, and Solas' reasons seem pretty dumb until literally the last five minutes of the game. Even Varric seems to be there just because BioWare said he should be.
I just... I felt like they were such after thoughts and I don't know why. They could've been a real interesting bunch, but they were pushed aside to make room for... what, exactly? Obligatory dragon battles? Platforming puzzles? Vendor trash gear? Great.
Honestly, it was bad from the get go. Dialogue choices were shoved out the window in favour of forcing Bioware's vision of a Shepard that would fit the ending in at the last minute. Previously, you at least had some choice in who your Shepard was, and how they acted. In 3... None. You got a couple of flavour choices, however by and large your Shepard HAD to care about everyone and everything, else the story they were trying wouldn't make sense. RPG fault #1: Forcing the character, and writing your story to that, rather than adapting it to who your player characters are.BloatedGuppy said:
From there... It was poor. It got mediocre at best.
Earth was terrible.
Mars was terrible.
Turian Moon was Ok.
Salarian planet was meh.
Krogan Homeworld was ok.
Citadel was terrible.
Quarian arc was ok.
Asari arc was terrible.
Cerberus station was meh.
Final arc on Earth was terrible.
It tried too much to be a pure 'cinematic experience' in a series that had been about at the very least the illusion of player agency to date. On top of that the story went to shit. It likely would have been more forgiven without its ending, however there would have been MANY complaints on other aspects instead. The game wasn't remotely good. It had the potential to be mediocre at best, but bad writing, removal of player agency, anime Kai-Leng nonsense and a bunch of other rubbish just sent it plummeting.
Your complaints about Inquisition being mediocre or bad, all apply to ME3 as well - except it also had the rubbish of its ending and Kai Leng BS, and autodialogue and... The list goes on...
The one thing it did right was the shooting. Everything else was average at best, and most of it was just bad.
I don't remember tactics in 2. I remember "Aveline, Anders, Hawke and AoE mage" was the rule for the game, but the only tactics I really remember using were basically "Keep Aveline in front blocking a doorway" and "Have Anders spam heal". And, if shit went down, just take control of you mage and action game kite-shoot-kite-shoot until you win. DA:I's 'tactical' side is much the same, but I at least found myself optimising which abilities to use and when to use them for maximum DPS and ministun enemies into oblivion. DA2 I was just too busy kiting everywhere.
Yeah, and I'm fine with the shooter/RPG hybrid side. The RPG side got massively shafted after the first game though, and it was basically just Gears of War in space from then on. No 'hybrid' to be found.
ME1's shooting was a mess, however I loved it from a design point of view. Levels in ME were large, and you could have combat stretching over 500m+, leaving there an actual use for the infiltrator and sniper. ME2/ME3 they were basically a cloak 360 noscope class. The levelling was also nice for me, even if it could have been a little more simplified. Having level up do more than just unlock abilities [90% of which in ME2 were useless thanks to armour and barriers completely negating them, as well as linked cooldowns whereas in ME1 they would almost always use their primary effect, and you could alpha strike with them, so more abilities were actually useful rather than superfluous], and instead provide more passive stat bonuses was nice.
The ability to freely equip weapons, but only the soldier being effective with them all was also welcome. As was the actual inventory system [Even though it needed a total overhaul], and the upgrade system for weapons, rather than just ammo abilities [Which were stupid in the first place].
ME2 was certainly more polished, but it was almost pure shooter. ME1 was the better RPG, but ME3 got the mechanics as close to a good balance as Bioware seemed to be willing to go [I seriously would prefer some inventory, so if I get a Black Widow, I can equip my party with that one Black Widow, and if I want more people with Black Widows, I've got to get more. And Ammo powers need to go. And shared cooldowns need to go]. Unfortunately it suffered in other areas, such as its dialogue mechanics and story telling.
So, I'll maintain; Inquisition was average, but it wasn't the worst RPG, or game, Bioware have made in a while.
The choices you make in any Telltale game mean nothing and have no impact on how the story will end. They take the control out of your hands, give you 2 or 3 ways to do something that has zero impact on anything. All Telltale is good at is making good story's with as little game play as possible. Yet all you people hail them and some kinda Godsend developers that should be right up there with Bioware ID and Bethesda. Remember that awesome Jurassic Park game they made? No one talks about that anymore. Now people throw them ip's like Borderlands and Game of Thrones. Which they do a disservice to.
Not only do they give you minimum game play they force you to wait 3 to 6 months before you can finish playing their game. Oh but they want full price for it up front. Its like buying a new car but only getting 1 wheel each month for 4 months.They are mediocre game makers with some excellent story writers an I'm sorry but story alone does not make up for all the delayed releases dates for chapters and screw ball story changes.( See unlimited ammo sections in The Walking Dead)
To answer your question that reviewer was right to say that DA:I choices was above and beyond anything telltale has or will every do.
Not only do they give you minimum game play they force you to wait 3 to 6 months before you can finish playing their game. Oh but they want full price for it up front. Its like buying a new car but only getting 1 wheel each month for 4 months.They are mediocre game makers with some excellent story writers an I'm sorry but story alone does not make up for all the delayed releases dates for chapters and screw ball story changes.( See unlimited ammo sections in The Walking Dead)
To answer your question that reviewer was right to say that DA:I choices was above and beyond anything telltale has or will every do.
It could have to do with the inclusion of teh geyz as front and center as opposed to just being characters like everyone else in past games. Personally, when that's said, it translates to "Bioware doesn't exist anymore, it's mostly a new team of devs with the same title". Alot of the staff was let go or left around the time ME2 came out, and the founders retired, Bioware is not the same people that made Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate, or even Origins.Bat Vader said:
I don't have much of a problem with it, but their character writing has been noticeably decreasing over the last five years or so with more and more focus on how screwable their characters are instead of making them characters(I love Garrus, Tali, Morrigan,Ash, etc., but there's a big difference in how they're presented between every game). It's tiring, and I didn't think I'd ever get bored of a Bioware game, but I rented it over the weekend and just could not bring myself to play it. There's next to no AI, the fighting animations are somehow WORSE than Origins, the Mage subclasses are even more broken, loot/craft system is just as wonky as any other game in that you either get crap drops and godlike crafting, or vice versa, and everything has an unnatural sheen that makes me think I'm playing with polished wood puppets.
About the only thing that has gotten better with the DA sequels is the change of style for the Qunari, and the narrative experiment that fell on its face a quarter of the way through in DA2.
Edit: Personally, I'm appalled that this game got all the accolades and praise it did, since if this is what I can look forward to from Bioware from now on, I'm done with the company and possibly western RPG's in general. Well, at least until REAL turn-based combat comes back.
How are the gay characters "front and centre instead of being characters like everyone else" or dose one gay character having a plot related to an issue caused in part by him being gay somehow make them not a character any more? The guy who was lead writer in DA:I has been with bioware since BG2.Redryhno said:
I wouldn't say there a particularly heavy focus on romance or companions being "screwable" in this game either (although ME did get a bit that way).
Edit: the combat dose suck though and there is way to much pointless boring filler.
It's true, now that I think on it. It seems like the majority of the cast really didn't have a reason to stick around. Ironically, the Elder One should have been a much more extensive threat, made you feel like you were in much more danger than you felt. Because of the fact that the threat felt lackluster, it felt like you had more control over the problem. HOnestly? Drop half the Dragon Battles and instead focus mainly on your army battling it out with the enemy. It actually would have been easy as well since Bioware had the mages and templars fight in the Hinterlands. Make it so that early on your troops NEEDED your help, pushed you into finding better metals for armor and weapons and make them badass. By the time you should go to Emprise Du Lion, you're computer should be lightly lagging due to the epicness of the clash between the Inquisition and the Ventatori, and not just taking them out yourselfSaetha said:
I was going to say that the only folks they flushed out fully was Casandra, Solas and Cole, though he only feels flushed out when you've read 'Asunder', so oops. In which case, I can see the main problem: The conversations. Whereas by the time you finished Origins, you know everything there was to know about your group, even the silent Sten. Compared to Sten, you know very little of Iron Bull. Sure you get the information, but you don't quite get his feelings behind those issues. Really they should have gone more for Origins than 2 in dialogue. AND WE DON'T NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS EVERY TIME.
I modded & loved Dragon Age Origins to bits, I played it three times and wouldn't be bad to check out which mods have come out in the meanwhile and play it all over again.
Looks like I did the right thing avoiding this like the plague. And Angry Joe managed to give it a 9/10 with a *BADASS* seal of approval... seriously, how much are worth your 20 silver pieces against this eternal stain on your credibility?
Looks like I did the right thing avoiding this like the plague. And Angry Joe managed to give it a 9/10 with a *BADASS* seal of approval... seriously, how much are worth your 20 silver pieces against this eternal stain on your credibility?
Not that big of a surprise, considering he loved the crap out of Skyrim too. And this is Dragon Age: Skyrim. Lots of wandering, scavenging, without all of that "direction" and "plot" that we "hated" about Origins.Emanuele Ciriachi said:
The fact that the game does more for Skyrim fans than Dragon Age fans has the logical outcome. Skyrim fans love it and Dragon Age fans left feeling disappointed and neglected.
That's the odd thing with Bioware at the moment. They seem intent on moving further and further away from the very things that made them so popular in the first place.
Now I've no problem with them chasing the console money. If that is where they can make the most profit and stay in business then fair play. However they seem to be forgetting the PC gamers that made their reputation what it is. Especially with Dragon Age.
Origins was great on PC and console. They obviously took the time to look at what worked for the PC, what worked for consoles, and designed great interfaces for both. The only limitation I felt when playing Origins on console was the lack of camera pull out.
While Dragon Age II got consoleitis with the removal of the camera pull out on the PC, they still got the interface right. They knew what worked to control a game on the consoles didn't work for the PC.
Then Inquisition arrived and....well it's hard to remain charitable. They removed two of the three control options from the first two games and somehow didn't see how this was going to annoy PC gamers. They obviously spent very little time working on a PC interface for the game, instead just mapping console buttons to keyboard and mouse.
Bioware are now working to patch the game for the PC, adding back things like auto-attack, but I have a feeling it is too little too late.
Now I've no problem with them chasing the console money. If that is where they can make the most profit and stay in business then fair play. However they seem to be forgetting the PC gamers that made their reputation what it is. Especially with Dragon Age.
Origins was great on PC and console. They obviously took the time to look at what worked for the PC, what worked for consoles, and designed great interfaces for both. The only limitation I felt when playing Origins on console was the lack of camera pull out.
While Dragon Age II got consoleitis with the removal of the camera pull out on the PC, they still got the interface right. They knew what worked to control a game on the consoles didn't work for the PC.
Then Inquisition arrived and....well it's hard to remain charitable. They removed two of the three control options from the first two games and somehow didn't see how this was going to annoy PC gamers. They obviously spent very little time working on a PC interface for the game, instead just mapping console buttons to keyboard and mouse.
Bioware are now working to patch the game for the PC, adding back things like auto-attack, but I have a feeling it is too little too late.
I loved DA: origins. I've probably sank more time into that game than any other, including my >15 days of playtime in MW2. I liked DA: 2 well enough. It had several let downs for me, but I still sank more time into it than most RPGS. I have had inquisition for months and have probably 5 hours of play. I never even got to see the narrative or story because the combat mechanics were so god-awful boring. Never before has fighting in a bioware rpg been a chore for me, but it was in DA: I. I tried with multiple classes and party combinations, but it just doesn't work. The tactical view and combat actions fail to have the impact necessary to make them anything but a joke, and whether you fight tactically or adventure style, combat is juts a boring series of button presses and watching health bars slowly tick down.
So, largely I agree, as far as I can from my limited exposure. As a result, I will not be buying another bioware game. Not until and unless I rent one and find it has actually returned to it's roots of fun, meaningful, tactical combat and an interesting narrative. An not just for them to say that, as they've pretty much said that about every game since ME:2, and all of them have been not a return to what made bioware great, but simply a rehash of old window trimmings while the core of the games grows less and less interesting.
So, largely I agree, as far as I can from my limited exposure. As a result, I will not be buying another bioware game. Not until and unless I rent one and find it has actually returned to it's roots of fun, meaningful, tactical combat and an interesting narrative. An not just for them to say that, as they've pretty much said that about every game since ME:2, and all of them have been not a return to what made bioware great, but simply a rehash of old window trimmings while the core of the games grows less and less interesting.
The majority of the marketing I saw was about romancing companions, I didn't know much about the story until I saw Yahtzee's review of it and my own semi-playthrough before I gave up on it. But I wasn't talking about Inquisition solely there, I was talking about Bioware in general.DementedSheep said:
And look at ME3, I'll use this example again as I have in other threads(I think ME3 had alot of problems, but was a still a great game, so around 75-80% perfect), do you remember the names of the gay crewmates? I don't, and I remember pretty much every character that's given more than a paper-thin personality trait. Kenneth and Gaby though? they're great, and you don't have to talk to them at all to get through ME2 and 3 fully. The pilot? The only thing he ever talks about is his husband dying. if Gaby dies in ME2, Kenneth's just as devastated, but the difference is he has other conversation topics that talks about him as a character and not just as a gay character. Glorified emailroom clerk girl? Just as forgettable, but she's "great" because she's gay.
It's lazy writing that isn't even unintentionally funny and I'm sick of seeing it from a company I've come to expect better of. Where's the next Irenicus? Imoen? Alistair? Morrigan? Ash? Sagacious Zu? Silk Fox? Carth? Where are the successors of these characters that are considered some of the best in gaming? The only positive memorable character for me was Iron Bull, and that's solely because I'm a big fan(for whatever reason) of Freddie Prinze Jr., have been since I was a kid, and I love what they did with the idea of the Qunari in terms of art design after Origins.
Playing through Dragon Age, Zevran outright says so long as it's good, he'll sleep with anyone, and that's the last you really hear of it really unless you don't pay attention to how he talks and catapult yourself into bed with him. He's got alot of stories that have nothing to do with his sexuality, Leliana only opens up to being bi after you get ot know her way later. And you can say these don't count the same way as a fully gay character, but that's needlessly shrinking the size of the box. Dorian's ok, but he doesn't have much going for him outside of his personal story, which has everything to do with not having kids as opposed to the throwing off the chains of oppression and "don't ask, don't tell" of the Tevinter Mages that everyone likes to say it's about. He's heavily overhyped and isn't all that interesting(to me, I've got alot of friends on this site that have also played the game that will probably beat me over the head with a copy of the Thedas encyclopedia for saying that) beyond his novelty as a completely gay character. I applaud the idea, but not the execution.
Just too much of the game screams rush-job(or like they got the art and writing staff to do their part, then switched the devs working on the game portion with the TOR team), at least DA2 had the excuse of actually being a rush job and wanting to try out a new narrative style.
I have many problems with ME feeling too fanservicy and can?t be assed getting into that.Redryhno said:
I don?t find their old characters to be that spectacular compared to the alter ones except where the villains are concerned (although if a certain character from DA:I is actually the next games villain they might be a decent one). ME 1 I like Saran and I found Ashley interesting but most the characters I didn't hate but didn't really care about too much. In BG some were memorable but many of the characters were forgettable (they just had a huge cast) or were memorable because they had a wacky trait not because they are well rounded characters.
I don't remember bioware marketing the Lis much. Sure there was a lot of talk about it but was from the fans and websites reporting it but not much from bioware themselves. David Giader has even said he finds the focus on romance you get in the fanbase ?borderline distasteful?.
You are claiming the reason people think bioware is drinking ?SJW kool-aid" with DA:I is because of the gay characters being front and centre instead of being actual characters but this really isn?t true.
Sera doesn?t talk about being lesbian, it?s comes up very occasionally in conversation when she swoons about Qunari women. Josephine is bi but many players don't even seem to realise this. She is certainly more subtle about that than Leliana was. Iron bull is bi and talks about sex a fair amount but not with a focus on being bi, he just likes sex. With Dorian you can not like him, I don't particularly like him because I don?t like the egotistical persona he has but saying he's just a novelty gay character is just plain wrong. It's like people zoom in on that and ignore everything else. The central themes for his character is not being gay though it?s still a big part of because it effect his life (as it does for many people who are gay). The theme getting repeated a lot for his character is being the "good? Tevinter mage who has a problem with the corruption in his own country and him dealing with his mentors letting him down. That?s how he is introduced with Alexis, much of his dialogue isn't about his personal quest and is talking about Tevinter. Even during his personal quest with his dad it was largely about the fact that his dad was willing to use blood magic, risk destroying his mind and sacrificing his happiness for the sake of appearances (don't ask, don't tell) and to continue the practice of trying to breed the perfect mage with once again, someone Dorian respected turning to the very thing they were supposed to be against. The problems that arise from him being gay all tie back into the issues he has with practices in Tevinter in general. One of his final dialogue is about him being inspired by you to be the example and that he might be able to make a difference himself but fuck all that, being gay isn't side flavour you can easily forget about if you don't pursue him yourself so now he's a novelty.