|
On December 06 2014 02:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2014 14:43 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm really curious whether or not I'd like this game. DA : O, back in the day, was something I heard a lot about, and quite a few of my friends really liked it. Like the general opinion here seems to be, it's kinda held as a sacred RPG that dared to do things "right" in an era of action RPGs and shitty stories. So I got it, ended up playing it for ~30 hours and to this day lament that it doesn't strike the same chords for me as it apparently does for other people. Between imbalanced classes (dear god melee classes felt awful!), inherent problems with high-variance combat systems (Well, guess I reload the save and hope for more knockdowns / freeze procs!) and in-your-face BUY OUR DLC GODDAMMIT I just couldn't get in to the game.
I ended up playing DA 2 with all the DLCs the whole way through, and between feeling better both gameplay-wise (Hey, I could play melee classes and not feel -totally fucking useless!-) and story-wise. I'm kind of hoping DA : I is closer to DA : 2 in a lot of aspects, but it still feels awful to step back into IP that slapped me around as hard as DA : O did. First off, I don't think anyone with much credibility will hold DA:O as some kind of sacred pillar of RPG's. It's a very good RPG that's quite fun. However, it's very generic and doesn't do a ton to stand out in a way that's comparable to, say, Morrowind or Planescape: Torment. Second, I find it horrifying that you could actually prefer DA2 to DA:O. Yea, DA2 wasn't complete trash like a lot of people like to say, but it was really, really disappointing after DA:O.
DA:O is like the 1972 Miami Dolphins and the Bill Russell Celtics. Went undefeated and won 8 straight championships but not really considered among the greatest teams of all time because of the inferior competition when they played. It was like an oasis in an RPG desert when it came out. It was good for its time but not as good as the infinity engine games.
|
On December 06 2014 05:44 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 02:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 05 2014 14:43 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm really curious whether or not I'd like this game. DA : O, back in the day, was something I heard a lot about, and quite a few of my friends really liked it. Like the general opinion here seems to be, it's kinda held as a sacred RPG that dared to do things "right" in an era of action RPGs and shitty stories. So I got it, ended up playing it for ~30 hours and to this day lament that it doesn't strike the same chords for me as it apparently does for other people. Between imbalanced classes (dear god melee classes felt awful!), inherent problems with high-variance combat systems (Well, guess I reload the save and hope for more knockdowns / freeze procs!) and in-your-face BUY OUR DLC GODDAMMIT I just couldn't get in to the game.
I ended up playing DA 2 with all the DLCs the whole way through, and between feeling better both gameplay-wise (Hey, I could play melee classes and not feel -totally fucking useless!-) and story-wise. I'm kind of hoping DA : I is closer to DA : 2 in a lot of aspects, but it still feels awful to step back into IP that slapped me around as hard as DA : O did. First off, I don't think anyone with much credibility will hold DA:O as some kind of sacred pillar of RPG's. It's a very good RPG that's quite fun. However, it's very generic and doesn't do a ton to stand out in a way that's comparable to, say, Morrowind or Planescape: Torment. Second, I find it horrifying that you could actually prefer DA2 to DA:O. Yea, DA2 wasn't complete trash like a lot of people like to say, but it was really, really disappointing after DA:O. DA:O is like the 1972 Miami Dolphins and the Bill Russell Celtics. Went undefeated and won 8 straight championships but not really considered among the greatest teams of all time because of the inferior competition when they played. It was like an oasis in an RPG desert when it came out. It was good for its time but not as good as the infinity engine games.
I also think it was the paradise for hardcore rpg players, because you had like 8 dialogue options for everything. Sure, a lot of them meant the same thing, but in your imagination it was different, so the main character was closer to you, then "this is Commander Shephard, a hero"/"This is Hawke, the champion"/"This is Andraste's Herald!".
Also, these rpg players couldn't care less for combat, or it being inferior to DA2 and Inquisition (tactics in Inquisition aside, I know it's stupid).
|
i am lvl 17 almost 18 while the game is OK i have not finished the main story yet most of the dialog it is hard to sit through and i have not gotten very captured by the story at all
the bugs are annoying and it feels like i am going through the motions....nothing 2 exciting or new
feels like skyrum but a bit more boring for some reason lol
also random but looting is rly annoying wish they added in area loot all or something and collecting all the mats is annoying too just pointless time sink
|
I agree the story is lacking a little bit, but i love the feeling of "conquer" the games gives you, getting keep, castles and stuff, setting up camps, pushing the enemies further, etc... feels great
the combat is pretty good but play it on hard at least, if not nightmare, in hard as long as you fight similar level enemiest nothing is too hard, nightmare does push you to use tactical camera a lot more
its a great game imo worth it
|
On December 06 2014 06:05 Faruko wrote:
I agree the story is lacking a little bit, but i love the feeling of "conquer" the games gives you, getting keep, castles and stuff, setting up camps, pushing the enemies further, etc... feels great
the combat is pretty good but play it on hard at least, if not nightmare, in hard as long as you fight similar level enemiest nothing is too hard, nightmare does push you to use tactical camera a lot more
its a great game imo worth it
been playing on Hard with party being Lvl 12-13
getting tempted to change to Nightmare because I haven't been challenged lately
the times where I struggled was when I was first fighting the big Rift demon at the beginning of the game and a lot of that had to do with me not realizing I needed to interact with the Rift frequently. the other time was when I was Lvl 7-8 and trying to fight the Lvl 12 Rift packs. another time was when I fought 3 to 4 Bears and ended up fighting around a camp and abusing Rest.
haven't tried fighting any dragons yet though. fought a Giant in Oasis and that was very easy abusing Tactical Camera and Shield Walling during the Giant's attack animation
I need to become more proactive about triggering Detonator combos but the game hasn't really forced me to make the most of them while playing on Hard.
|
The biggest reason you find the story not as compelling as in the previous installments because the enormous content soaks it up. Like yea, I could go on to the next mission, but I could also do this, then that, then.... Sometimes you forget there's even a baddie you should stop.
|
Definitely just had the weirdest bug yet. Was fighting some random mob and my character's auto-attack got stuck on. They just kept slashing their way forward oblivious to any of my attempted command inputs. The mouse and keyboard also stopped responding, alt-ctrl-del didn't work or anything. They just happily auto-attacked their way towards a cliff and right off of it. After the leaving-the-map respawn everything worked fine again. So weird.
|
One of the biggest issues for me is how there are no unique specialications, your character will only end up as an imitation of one of your companions, sort of ruins it for me. I liked that in DA:O there were two specialications for each class that you'd get from a companion and two unique ones, i like for my character to stand out.
I had restart the game to pre-plan my companions in order to keep from recruiting characters of a certain class to keep the specialication ¨pure¨... I'm too peculiar for my own good,,,
|
On December 06 2014 06:14 Volband wrote:
The biggest reason you find the story not as compelling as in the previous installments because the enormous content soaks it up. Like yea, I could go on to the next mission, but I could also do this, then that, then.... Sometimes you forget there's even a baddie you should stop.
This hasn't stopped other great RPG's before this from having massive worlds and yet having a great story. It's most likely that Inquisition's main storyline is just fairly weak.
|
When is the Patch coming to fix the PC controls? Its extremly annoying to play with M&K. You cannot even fucking bind your Mousebuttons - THE FUCK?
|
I gave a dual wield rogue a go for half a zone on my game just to see what it can do and I promptly removed him from party afterwards. The added micro intensity is not worth the hassle on nightmare, unless maybe if you play without FF. Death Mark damage was impressive though, but I think you can pull that one off as an archer as well.
By the time he assassinated one mob, I could have used my regular aoe wombo combo to wipe the whole encounter, but only now I couldn't because the rogue was there in the mix.
Next play I'll try myself as an archer rogue and have someone like Bull be my tank to get his banter, maybe pair it up with Vivienne and Dorian. Bull won't get much use from his specialization as a tank, but I'll splash into the tree that gives the hook ability and the warhorns I guess. Come to think of it, I need to try the dmg boost warhorn on Cass in my current game, with Blessed blades dropped on my range party already and then add the horn, that should be like a +50% dmg modifier. Wanna see if I can reach a 20k fire mine.
|
On December 06 2014 05:52 Volband wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 05:44 andrewlt wrote:On December 06 2014 02:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 05 2014 14:43 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm really curious whether or not I'd like this game. DA : O, back in the day, was something I heard a lot about, and quite a few of my friends really liked it. Like the general opinion here seems to be, it's kinda held as a sacred RPG that dared to do things "right" in an era of action RPGs and shitty stories. So I got it, ended up playing it for ~30 hours and to this day lament that it doesn't strike the same chords for me as it apparently does for other people. Between imbalanced classes (dear god melee classes felt awful!), inherent problems with high-variance combat systems (Well, guess I reload the save and hope for more knockdowns / freeze procs!) and in-your-face BUY OUR DLC GODDAMMIT I just couldn't get in to the game.
I ended up playing DA 2 with all the DLCs the whole way through, and between feeling better both gameplay-wise (Hey, I could play melee classes and not feel -totally fucking useless!-) and story-wise. I'm kind of hoping DA : I is closer to DA : 2 in a lot of aspects, but it still feels awful to step back into IP that slapped me around as hard as DA : O did. First off, I don't think anyone with much credibility will hold DA:O as some kind of sacred pillar of RPG's. It's a very good RPG that's quite fun. However, it's very generic and doesn't do a ton to stand out in a way that's comparable to, say, Morrowind or Planescape: Torment. Second, I find it horrifying that you could actually prefer DA2 to DA:O. Yea, DA2 wasn't complete trash like a lot of people like to say, but it was really, really disappointing after DA:O. DA:O is like the 1972 Miami Dolphins and the Bill Russell Celtics. Went undefeated and won 8 straight championships but not really considered among the greatest teams of all time because of the inferior competition when they played. It was like an oasis in an RPG desert when it came out. It was good for its time but not as good as the infinity engine games. I also think it was the paradise for hardcore rpg players, because you had like 8 dialogue options for everything. Sure, a lot of them meant the same thing, but in your imagination it was different, so the main character was closer to you, then "this is Commander Shephard, a hero"/"This is Hawke, the champion"/"This is Andraste's Herald!". Also, these rpg players couldn't care less for combat, or it being inferior to DA2 and Inquisition (tactics in Inquisition aside, I know it's stupid).
Sorry but,
DA2 combat is vastly inferior to DAO, not the other way around. in DA2 Tactics were almost nonexistent, for example positioning is meaningless due to enemies spawning from behind/above/below/seemingly through the walls etc. And I personally hate that you can only choose in dialog a option for: Funnyguygirl / Angry hurddurf I'll kick your arse if you dont do what I say / goodiedoodie generic diplomacy reply. The reply option which is almost meaningless to read too, because what the character actually says might not be anything like you thought you chose just a second ago. Excluding the eventual choice between two morally grey options in choice places of the plot.
|
|
|
Anybody knows why my twohanded warrior detonating shatter is doing only 1 damage on enemies non cold resistant ?
|
Probably a bug, like Stonefist doing 0 extra damage if you use it in a combo, meaning it just dispels your CC for the enemy.
|
did your duwal wild rogue have deathbllow? Because thats what is doing all my damage, its 3K+, resets on kill and i have red elixir to spam it on bosses once they reach 50%.
Di ont play with FF in this game, however, i guess i would go all ranged too when i had to deal with that.
|
On December 06 2014 10:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 06:14 Volband wrote:
The biggest reason you find the story not as compelling as in the previous installments because the enormous content soaks it up. Like yea, I could go on to the next mission, but I could also do this, then that, then.... Sometimes you forget there's even a baddie you should stop. This hasn't stopped other great RPG's before this from having massive worlds and yet having a great story. It's most likely that Inquisition's main storyline is just fairly weak.
I don't think Inquisition had a weak story. Generic? Yes, just as DA:O and DA2, but when I think about the main story of DA:O for example, slaying the archdemon is one of the last thing that comes to my mind. 'Twas cool, but I never really felt like he's some kind of epic opponent. But I remember Denerim, the werewolves and Orzammar quite well. They were great adventures and I made some nasty decisions. Same with Inquisition, except the adventure and decision parts are divided. You have all the time to explore the beautiful areas, while you can make important decisions during the main quests
I had just as important decisions as in DA:O, and my only regret is that - for me - I never had to think a LOT about them. I missed the feeling of a lose-lose situation, like the dalish questline in DA:O. I think they missed an enormous opportunity for that with the ball quest
Anyway, when I read into why people hate on the main story, their main point is usually that the final battle was pretty weak, or that Corypheous could've been more badass. But more badass like what? The Archdemon in DA:O who got a cutscene and you could defeat him at the end? Hell, Meredith was probably the best villain out of the 3. You could REALLY hate her or you could agree with her and feel sorry for her taint, which polluted a great mind and strong leader.
On December 06 2014 17:24 Saihv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 05:52 Volband wrote:On December 06 2014 05:44 andrewlt wrote:On December 06 2014 02:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 05 2014 14:43 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm really curious whether or not I'd like this game. DA : O, back in the day, was something I heard a lot about, and quite a few of my friends really liked it. Like the general opinion here seems to be, it's kinda held as a sacred RPG that dared to do things "right" in an era of action RPGs and shitty stories. So I got it, ended up playing it for ~30 hours and to this day lament that it doesn't strike the same chords for me as it apparently does for other people. Between imbalanced classes (dear god melee classes felt awful!), inherent problems with high-variance combat systems (Well, guess I reload the save and hope for more knockdowns / freeze procs!) and in-your-face BUY OUR DLC GODDAMMIT I just couldn't get in to the game.
I ended up playing DA 2 with all the DLCs the whole way through, and between feeling better both gameplay-wise (Hey, I could play melee classes and not feel -totally fucking useless!-) and story-wise. I'm kind of hoping DA : I is closer to DA : 2 in a lot of aspects, but it still feels awful to step back into IP that slapped me around as hard as DA : O did. First off, I don't think anyone with much credibility will hold DA:O as some kind of sacred pillar of RPG's. It's a very good RPG that's quite fun. However, it's very generic and doesn't do a ton to stand out in a way that's comparable to, say, Morrowind or Planescape: Torment. Second, I find it horrifying that you could actually prefer DA2 to DA:O. Yea, DA2 wasn't complete trash like a lot of people like to say, but it was really, really disappointing after DA:O. DA:O is like the 1972 Miami Dolphins and the Bill Russell Celtics. Went undefeated and won 8 straight championships but not really considered among the greatest teams of all time because of the inferior competition when they played. It was like an oasis in an RPG desert when it came out. It was good for its time but not as good as the infinity engine games. I also think it was the paradise for hardcore rpg players, because you had like 8 dialogue options for everything. Sure, a lot of them meant the same thing, but in your imagination it was different, so the main character was closer to you, then "this is Commander Shephard, a hero"/"This is Hawke, the champion"/"This is Andraste's Herald!". Also, these rpg players couldn't care less for combat, or it being inferior to DA2 and Inquisition (tactics in Inquisition aside, I know it's stupid). Sorry but, DA2 combat is vastly inferior to DAO, not the other way around. in DA2 Tactics were almost nonexistent, for example positioning is meaningless due to enemies spawning from behind/above/below/seemingly through the walls etc. And I personally hate that you can only choose in dialog a option for: Funnyguygirl / Angry hurddurf I'll kick your arse if you dont do what I say / goodiedoodie generic diplomacy reply. The reply option which is almost meaningless to read too, because what the character actually says might not be anything like you thought you chose just a second ago. Excluding the eventual choice between two morally grey options in choice places of the plot.
The dialogue was indeed awkward and it improved tremendously for Inquisition. I was shocked when my character actually mentioned words from the reply option I chose... in DA2 I had way too many moments when Hawke said something I totally did not want him/her to, but it is way less common here.
For combat, I meant the enjoyment. The battles paced nicely and it felt like you were actually fighting, destroying your opponents, doing crazy moves, what not. Whenever I tried to convince someone to play DA:O I had to make excuses to derail their attention from the boring combat. "It will be better later!" "It's not the best, but man, if you invest your time in it, the story is great!", etc., while with DA2, I can just tell them to get the game and play it, easy as that.
Yes, after I spent hours to talk with everyone about everything, and read some codexes and planned operations at the war table, I want to go out there and smash someone in the face with my shield, while hearing that lovely crushing vfx and seeing them fly in the air. Seriosuly, just check out what they did with the rogue in DA2, it's sick. I actually wanted to play an archer, and the dual-wielding route was the most badass thing. You kick a grenade to their faces, baaam, disappear, backstab, have 10 stacks on them, BAMMM detonate it. The game really needed that, even if the way they solved enemy reinforcements was stupid.
On December 06 2014 16:47 daemir wrote:
I gave a dual wield rogue a go for half a zone on my game just to see what it can do and I promptly removed him from party afterwards. The added micro intensity is not worth the hassle on nightmare, unless maybe if you play without FF. Death Mark damage was impressive though, but I think you can pull that one off as an archer as well.
By the time he assassinated one mob, I could have used my regular aoe wombo combo to wipe the whole encounter, but only now I couldn't because the rogue was there in the mix.
Next play I'll try myself as an archer rogue and have someone like Bull be my tank to get his banter, maybe pair it up with Vivienne and Dorian. Bull won't get much use from his specialization as a tank, but I'll splash into the tree that gives the hook ability and the warhorns I guess. Come to think of it, I need to try the dmg boost warhorn on Cass in my current game, with Blessed blades dropped on my range party already and then add the horn, that should be like a +50% dmg modifier. Wanna see if I can reach a 20k fire mine.
Noo, that's what I'm planning to do! I actually thought if I set my tactics right (I read some useful tips), I can do the average battles with just controlling my PC, so even if I have to flank them or something, it wouldn't feel like a chore.
I took over the control of Sera during some fights, and while I liked it, I couldn't imagine myself playing with that for ~100 hours. I especially disliked the specialisation which gives you the focus ability to double your archer skills. I'm not a trap person.
|
On December 06 2014 22:26 Volband wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 16:47 daemir wrote:
I gave a dual wield rogue a go for half a zone on my game just to see what it can do and I promptly removed him from party afterwards. The added micro intensity is not worth the hassle on nightmare, unless maybe if you play without FF. Death Mark damage was impressive though, but I think you can pull that one off as an archer as well.
By the time he assassinated one mob, I could have used my regular aoe wombo combo to wipe the whole encounter, but only now I couldn't because the rogue was there in the mix.
Next play I'll try myself as an archer rogue and have someone like Bull be my tank to get his banter, maybe pair it up with Vivienne and Dorian. Bull won't get much use from his specialization as a tank, but I'll splash into the tree that gives the hook ability and the warhorns I guess. Come to think of it, I need to try the dmg boost warhorn on Cass in my current game, with Blessed blades dropped on my range party already and then add the horn, that should be like a +50% dmg modifier. Wanna see if I can reach a 20k fire mine. Noo, that's what I'm planning to do! I actually thought if I set my tactics right (I read some useful tips), I can do the average battles with just controlling my PC, so even if I have to flank them or something, it wouldn't feel like a chore. I took over the control of Sera during some fights, and while I liked it, I couldn't imagine myself playing with that for ~100 hours. I especially disliked the specialisation which gives you the focus ability to double your archer skills. I'm not a trap person.
Triple.  It's awesome really, I was able to spam leaping shot with the cooldown reduction and with the focus skill that was just insane...
Oh nvm Sera is actually Tempest, I thought it's Artificer. Lol. But wait, I think you mean the Artificer skill. It says doubles, but it spawns two ghosts who fire your abilites.
|
Oh yes, I read the skill itself on Varric, I just mentioned Sera because she was the one I was testing what an archer feels like.
I don't doubt the skill itself is strong, but the whole assassin tree looks more fun to me (though the focus ability sounds... lame?), while Tempest has probably the most awesome focus ability with thousand cuts, though it's somewhat awkward with a bow.
|
I was using Sera with dual dagger, fits the specialization better I guess. Honestly, I didn't like Varric much because of his weapon. Just Bianca and it's almost always worse than bows you find/build.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
