Dragon Age Inquisition IV: Deal. With. It.

[ArlEammon]

Also personally, I'd rank the Dragon Age games 2 > Inquisition > Origins, but I'm very sure few will agree with me there.

Whoah.

[Zevox]

Whoah.

Well, it might be possible to convince me that Origins is better than Inquisition, if you leveraged my dislike for the oversized, time-wasting area maps of Inquisition enough, and appealed to my love of Alistair and Morrigan. The significantly clunkier gameplay of Origins does make that a touch of an uphill battle though.

As for 2, while it obviously has its flaws, I've always considered it a stronger game than Origins, and I find that the things I dislike about Inquisition I dislike more than the flaws of 2, so yeah, I consider it the best of the three personally.

[Aotrs Commander]

So, generally (Zevox aside) Better Than DA2, but not Back To DA:O. Hm.

The answer to that is going to depend on who you ask. It is more "sandbox-y" than previous games in that areas are much larger and side-quests are more numerous and shallow. Personally, I call that a bad thing, but many disagree with me on that I'm sure.

I'm more on your side of the fence on sandbox-y, just on the basis that out of the last three Bethsada games I played (I didn't even bother with Skyrim) I played a progressively shorter amount of time and never completed any of them.

Not sure how you think it would ever be like ME3, given Dragon Age couldn't play like a shooter unless they removed non-Archer and non-Mage classes entirely.

More sort of on the scale of the classes. ME 3 didn't have anything like the amount of skills/talents/spells that DA:O did, I sort of meant...? I vastly prefer having lots of decisions and things to try - if character generation/advancement doesn't take any significant time (at least in thinking time) in my opinion, the game clearly isn't doing a good enough job of it, and I much prefer the older, more Infinity-Engine style of combat to the more modern shooter-lite slash Neverwinter Nights 2-ish sort of combat. Very much a more old-school-RPG person (by comparison, Inquisition has passed by with barely any notice, yet I'm super-hyped for Pillars of Eternity and Tides of Numenara, as much as I USED to be for any new Bioware release...)

But it's basically like the two previous Dragon Age games, with some additional alterations beyond even what DA2 did, the most notable being the removal of healing magic and addition of temporary health mechanics in its place (the Warrior-specific "guard," and a barrier spell Mages can cast on the party). The spell and talent trees have been revamped again as well, with abilities swapped in and out or changed, and sustained abilities removed but a lot of passive bonuses added in their place. The basics are largely the same as they always have been, though.

Mmm. Immediately don't like the lack of healing, that's a pretty damn large mark against it before we start. (I wasn't keen on that bit of Witcher 2, to be honest, either. It feels like arbitary difficulty being added in and I REALLY don't like arbitary difficulty.)



Well, I don't think I'm going to rush out then, but it probably can go on my birthday/Christmas list (since, if I get both new Pokemon games, Beyond Earth and the second Civ V expansion this Christmas, I will literally have explunged all non-digital games I can put down as presents for next year, so I'm kinda desparate in that regard.)

[Chen]

Lack of healing really isn't an issue. You have 8 healing potions that are almost full heals (or full if you upgrade them) split among your party. This can be increased to 12 via perks. You can also have at least 5 more regeneration potions for each character (possibly 10 if you fill both slots with them but I've never needed that). These are heals over time. The main healing pots refresh anytime you go to a camp (or back to your main base) and the regeneration potions need 1 elfroot each to restore. I've been playing two mages, rogue and warrior party and I am usually pretty set on healing unless I'm tackling things a fair bit above my level, even on nightmare. I played two rogues, warrior and a mage on hard and it was a bit harder but not terribly so.

Get your companions their evasion skills. The companions are terrible at moving out of things by walking, but they're quite good at using those evasive skills. I added stealth to Sera and her survivability went WAY up. I assume evasive roll would be even better considering she still uses stealth for the damage boost sometimes.

[Psyren]

You also get Healing Mist grenades, each one of which can heal the entire party if they stack up.

But yes, healing isn't a problem - Barrier basically works like False Life from D&D, if it were a swift action to cast and doubled your hit points. You can use that for in-combat "healing" quite easily, just be proactive about it.

EDIT: And let's not forget the most broken spec in the game, Knight-Enchanter.

[Aotrs Commander]

Lack of healing really isn't an issue. You have 8 healing potions that are almost full heals (or full if you upgrade them) split among your party. This can be increased to 12 via perks. You can also have at least 5 more regeneration potions for each character (possibly 10 if you fill both slots with them but I've never needed that). These are heals over time. The main healing pots refresh anytime you go to a camp (or back to your main base) and the regeneration potions need 1 elfroot each to restore. I've been playing two mages, rogue and warrior party and I am usually pretty set on healing unless I'm tackling things a fair bit above my level, even on nightmare. I played two rogues, warrior and a mage on hard and it was a bit harder but not terribly so.

Get your companions their evasion skills. The companions are terrible at moving out of things by walking, but they're quite good at using those evasive skills. I added stealth to Sera and her survivability went WAY up. I assume evasive roll would be even better considering she still uses stealth for the damage boost sometimes.

Aaah. Right, so, sort of not actually no healing magic - as in "no-significant-in-combat healing" (thank you again, Witcher 2, taking away the one way in the first one), but more like no healing magic SPELLS. Important difference! That's not anything like as bad.

[Tome]

Aaah. Right, so, sort of not actually no healing magic - as in "no-significant-in-combat healing" (thank you again, Witcher 2, taking away the one way in the first one), but more like no healing magic SPELLS. Important difference! That's not anything like as bad.

No spammable healing spells.

There a few abilities that allow you to regain health. The Knight Enchanter's Focus ability is the only true healing spell, but that's a Focus ability and more of last resort. There's also a few ways to get some sort of life drain effect from either damage or kills. Necromancers can regain health on a kill, Reavers have two ways to get health on dealing damage and there's accessories and weapons that can do both.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Would I be lynched in this thread for saying DA:O's gameplay has aged poorly? I guess you could play it as a tactical game, but it's not a very deep one and simple to break, and most of the difficult fights come about as a result of the game teleporting you into the worst possible positioning. I actually found the more action-y DA2 more fun to play, at least for the first two waves of every fight.

(They got rid of bad guys rappelling out of invisible helicopters for Inquisition, right? Right?)

[Zevox]

Aaah. Right, so, sort of not actually no healing magic - as in "no-significant-in-combat healing" (thank you again, Witcher 2, taking away the one way in the first one), but more like no healing magic SPELLS. Important difference! That's not anything like as bad.

Correct. And the new barrier spells actually work better in a sense, as you can get other abilities that synergize with them. A mage investing in ice magic can pick up a particularly useful passive upgrade that causes your barrier to burst and freeze nearby enemies when it goes down, for instance, or a fire mage could pick one that causes every spell they cast to drain half of their current barrier to increase its damage.

Would I be lynched in this thread for saying DA:O's gameplay has aged poorly? I guess you could play it as a tactical game, but it's not a very deep one and simple to break, and most of the difficult fights come about as a result of the game teleporting you into the worst possible positioning. I actually found the more action-y DA2 more fun to play, at least for the first two waves of every fight.

I think that's fair. Although DA2 isn't actually more action-y in any mechanical sense, just faster-paced and with better animations.

(They got rid of bad guys rappelling out of invisible helicopters for Inquisition, right? Right?)

Right. The only wave-based fights are the Fade Rifts, which spawn demons once as you approach them, then again after the first group dies. And there's a couple of areas where undead will rise up out of the ground, but only a couple.

[Rodin]

Would I be lynched in this thread for saying DA:O's gameplay has aged poorly? I guess you could play it as a tactical game, but it's not a very deep one and simple to break, and most of the difficult fights come about as a result of the game teleporting you into the worst possible positioning. I actually found the more action-y DA2 more fun to play, at least for the first two waves of every fight.

(They got rid of bad guys rappelling out of invisible helicopters for Inquisition, right? Right?)

You're not alone in that. I wouldn't particularly say DA2 improved on the combat, more that none of the games have had particularly inspiring combat.

And yeah, they got rid of bad guys rappelling out of nowhere. The only enemies I've seen spawning out of nowhere are giant spiders (dropping from the ceiling in tunnels and such), fade demons coming from rifts (usually telegraphed by the rift showing more coming through), and on one occasion I was unlucky enough to be standing on a spawn point at the moment when some bandits popped.

On a different note, has anyone else found mounts to be completely useless? It's a pain to summon them and then climb on and off again, they don't go that much faster than you can walk, they're less maneuverable on rough terrain (i.e. all terrain), and if you get breathed on by an enemy you get thrown off anyway. They also aren't particularly attractive - my ram from WoW looked better, and that's from 10 years ago.

[Zevox]

On a different note, has anyone else found mounts to be completely useless? It's a pain to summon them and then climb on and off again, they don't go that much faster than you can walk, they're less maneuverable on rough terrain (i.e. all terrain), and if you get breathed on by an enemy you get thrown off anyway. They also aren't particularly attractive - my ram from WoW looked better, and that's from 10 years ago.

They could definitely stand to be faster, I'll agree with you completely on that. Still beats walking across all that empty space, though, especially in the Hissing Waste.

[Remmirath]

How does it measure up to rpevious Bioware stuff? I loved DA:O, DA 2 I have played about an hour on and I suppose one day I might even complete DA:O Awakenings and actually play through it... How does the new one compare? I'm getting an impression it's a bit more... Bethsada-y in being sandbox-y? Good? Bad? Indifferent?

I would say that it measures up favourably to ME, so far, is definitely better than DA II, and is distinctly worse than DA:O and even more distinctly worse than BG/BG II. Maybe on about the same level as KotOR, though with different strengths and weaknesses, and better than JE. Note that I haven't finished the game, though, so it could be that the plot begins to completely suck in the next mission -- I don't know. Up to the point I'm at, though, it's looking good.

It is a bit more sandbox-y, which means that there are a lot of kind of boring filler missions, but at least those aren't a question of returning corpses to people who you didn't even know where looking for them. The pacing gets a little odd, as has been the case in every open-world game I've played that doesn't have a solid mechanism in place for keeping the plot advancing at a steady rate (and that's most of them).

One thing I will say that is definitely good, and that's that so far there have been plenty of dialogue options and choices available to allow one to portray a wide variety of characters.

Where do the mechanics fall - more like DA:O or more like (as I haven't played enough of 2 to compare) ME 3-ish?

More like Guild Wars 2, to the point where I keep double-tapping move keys to try to dodge dragons. And, for whatever reason, despite finally getting rid of level scaling again they added level restrictions to looted items. That's as far as what playing feels like. The numbers are, unfortunately, more in line with DA II than with DA:O, as are the ability trees. You can't assign your ability scores any more, and a lot of the talents trend towards the cheesy (although they can be avoided and still have a solid character, at least with a warrior).

The choice between two voices is nice, but the paraphrases are still a very poor indicator of what's actually going to come out of your character's mouth. There is a lot more auto-dialogue than I would like (any is more than I would like), but nowhere near as much as in ME 3. More on the ME 2 level there, I'd say, maybe a bit less.

Oh, and if you're not playing a human, armour selection is pretty thin (at least, so far).

In my opinion, DA:O was by far the best of the three, mechanically speaking, and it's mostly the mechanics that I have a problem with in Inquisition. Leaving that aside, it seems to be a good game so far, and I'm enjoying it (now that I finally managed to figure out how to keep it from crashing in several different ways almost constantly). No matter how much was said about blending DA:O and DA II's mechanics, I'm not seeing it -- the only vestiges of DA:O's mechanics I see are those that were present in DA II as well. Which is too bad, because so far DA:O remains the only activated-ability based system that I've actually enjoyed.

(I am cautiously optimising that the tactical view is back.)

It's back, but it's kinda screwy. The camera is zoomed in too far and is generally somewhat difficult to control, and although one can at least auto-attack in it, the combat itself is still not set up in a way that I would consider tactical.

[Rodin]

I've never seen much need for the tactical view myself. Whoever I had tanking did a good job of rounding up people, archers used their leaping shot to get out of melee, etc. The only time I've ever really noticed a problem is with ranged characters not getting out of the way after a dragon sucked them in with that weird vacuum wing ability. Even then I just swap control real fast and tell them to stand 30 feet away and they go back to doing the business.

There just aren't enough tactical advantages to micromanaging your people to make it worthwhile. Even for combos it's easier to wait for them to use a spell/ability you can combo with than it is to set it up yourself.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Remember that ethical model I was talking about earlier? "Respect the rights and autonomy of all people, even the ones you despise, unless not acting would result in greater immediate harm (for example, you should slap a person's hand away if they're about to touch a hot stove)."

Spoiler: I'm wondering how to apply that to Iron Bull's quest

Show

Since you don't take potential consequences into account when applying the ethical model, what happens with the alliance, Bull's status and even your feelings about the Qun itself are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether there's direct harm happening in the moment and working to minimize it. But both the qunari in the dreadnought and the Chargers are soldiers, who willingly entered into combat knowing they might die. And regardless of which action you take, someone is harmed either way. I'm not sure what the ethical path here is, as the situation seems about equal, though perhaps more in favor of holding the position due to there simply being more qunari than Chargers. Any advice on this front?

[Erik Vale]

Spoiler

Show

I believe by the ethical model proposed, saving the dreadnought and thus the alliance is preferable.
If you choose to look further, you do note that the Chargers are less likely to save more lives then Qunari support, and thus is further supported by the model.

[Aotrs Commander]

I would say that it measures up favourably to ME, so far, is definitely better than DA II, and is distinctly worse than DA:O and even more distinctly worse than BG/BG II. Maybe on about the same level as KotOR, though with different strengths and weaknesses, and better than JE. Note that I haven't finished the game, though, so it could be that the plot begins to completely suck in the next mission -- I don't know. Up to the point I'm at, though, it's looking good.

I quite liked JE, actually. (Though the mechanics side of it was... not so great, since whats'hername, Dawnflower was so stupidly useful the rest of the companions were pointless camp-followers...)

Probably worth a try, then, thanks; but also probably not anything that I can't wait on (seeing as I do have DA:O Awakenings and DA2 to actually, y'know, PLAY first.)

[Morty]

I think more BioWare games could stand to be a little more like Jade Empire in terms of mechanics. Especially concerning companions, and the complete lack of having to babysit them and play dress-up. It's just a shame the quick/strong attacks and blocks ended up clunky and some styles were overpowered. But I actually enjoyed trying out completely new styles, which is more than I can say about the talents and equipment in Dragon Age. And the way they worked differently against different opponents made for an interesting dynamics.

[JBPuffin]

I've played some of both DAI and DAO, and I must say I do prefer DAI - maybe because it's new, but I feel like dialogue has sufficiently advanced for me to get closer to who my character is. Yes, that does matter to me :/.

By the way, just met Sera, and all those who had problems with her earlier in the thread? Somewhat valid. I'm still getting her and my Elf "Archer" together .

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Spoiler

Show

I believe by the ethical model proposed, saving the dreadnought and thus the alliance is preferable.
If you choose to look further, you do note that the Chargers are less likely to save more lives then Qunari support, and thus is further supported by the model.

Spoiler: Iron Bull vs. the Ethical Model

Show

That's a sentiment my friends who are currently or used to be in the military echoed. I'm inclined to agree, after all, the Chargers ARE combatants, and they entered into this mission knowing death might be a possibility.

Also:

Spoiler: Loghain and Comic Canon

Show

So I got my copy of the Library Edition of Dragon Age comics, and I thumbed through it a bit, and noticed that in Until We Sleep, Maric mentions that everyone he cares about is in the Fade, including Rowan and Cailan...and Loghain. This implies to me that in the canon the comics establish Loghain was executed at the Landsmeet. As a result, if I want to cleave as close to that canon as possible and make the narrative flow best, then that seems what I must do. However, the ethical model I'm trying to follow is very much against taking revenge against someone, which is what Loghain's execution amounts to. Help me out here, I'm stuck!

[Douglas]

Spoiler: Loghain and Comic Canon

Show

So I got my copy of the Library Edition of Dragon Age comics, and I thumbed through it a bit, and noticed that in Until We Sleep, Maric mentions that everyone he cares about is in the Fade, including Rowan and Cailan...and Loghain. This implies to me that in the canon the comics establish Loghain was executed at the Landsmeet. As a result, if I want to cleave as close to that canon as possible and make the narrative flow best, then that seems what I must do. However, the ethical model I'm trying to follow is very much against taking revenge against someone, which is what Loghain's execution amounts to. Help me out here, I'm stuck!

While killing Loghain can be viewed as revenge, it is also thoroughly legitimate to view it as justice, the proper and legal punishment for treason, delivered by the rightful king.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

This is true, but true justice is always focused on the future, that the past can't be undone. How does prosecuting Loghain benefit society? If he is found guilty, will imprisoning him prevent him from committing similar crimes for the duration of his sentence, thus protecting other people from harm? Will it reform Loghain? Will some form of punishment prevent him from committing other crimes in the future, or deter other people from committing similar offenses?

Ethically speaking, executing Loghain is not justice. It denies him an opportunity to reform, and no one else would do what he did anyway after he's disproven at the Landsmeet. As my friend from whom this ethical model comes says:

"Justice is blind, but she is also deaf. She has no memory, and she has a heart of stone. She does not care about the suffering of the victims or their families. She does not hear the demands of the gathered mob screaming for vengeance. Like her younger sisters, Ethics and Human Rights, she cannot prevent crimes from happening without defying the very core of what she is. But although her hands are tied, unable to prevent crimes without denying rights, convicting the innocent and imposing tyranny, her duty is still to do all that she can to reduce harm in the future, using the crimes that have been committed in the past and the motives and the character of the perpetrators as an indicator and a guide. Nothing more. Nothing less."

[ArlEammon]

This is true, but true justice is always focused on the future, that the past can't be undone. How does prosecuting Loghain benefit society? If he is found guilty, will imprisoning him prevent him from committing similar crimes for the duration of his sentence, thus protecting other people from harm? Will it reform Loghain? Will some form of punishment prevent him from committing other crimes in the future, or deter other people from committing similar offenses?

Ethically speaking, executing Loghain is not justice. It denies him an opportunity to reform, and no one else would do what he did anyway after he's disproven at the Landsmeet. As my friend from whom this ethical model comes says:

"Justice is blind, but she is also deaf. She has no memory, and she has a heart of stone. She does not care about the suffering of the victims or their families. She does not hear the demands of the gathered mob screaming for vengeance. Like her younger sisters, Ethics and Human Rights, she cannot prevent crimes from happening without defying the very core of what she is. But although her hands are tied, unable to prevent crimes without denying rights, convicting the innocent and imposing tyranny, her duty is still to do all that she can to reduce harm in the future, using the crimes that have been committed in the past and the motives and the character of the perpetrators as an indicator and a guide. Nothing more. Nothing less."

Loghainn more than just needed to die, he needed to die for ethical reasons. If he is going to desert King Caillan out in the field so they can lose an entire city/fortress, both with soldiers and non-combatants alike, then there's no reason to assume he won't have some kind of weird relapse into incompetence again. He tells you point blank he isn't sure that the Fereldans can win the war, but instead of consolidating losses, and trying to hold out until they can see an opening in the enemy's forces like a real commander, he abandons civilians and fellow comrades to horrifying deaths at DarkSpawn hands. That's not just ethically horrifying, which it is, but it's also incompetent. Very dangerously so, and could have cost Thedas all of Fereldan, and maybe Orlais and the rest of the known world while they're at it.

That's from a practical stand point AND an ethical one.

[Spacewolf]

Wasn't Ostagar an Abandoned fortress so there weren't all that many Civilians about. So in that regard it does seem to make sense, Cailan is already trapped in a Ravine due to his poor choice of battle plans and committing more forces to a flanking attack would just lose you even more troops so the only logical solution is to retreat.

As for killing him Ethically, just have him duel Alistair. After all not like your warden could have known what would happen.

[Psyren]

He's too fearful/hateful towards Orlesians to be trusted to make rational or moral decisions (he is so opposed to their aid that he turns away Grey Wardens, who have no fealty to any nation, simply because they came from the Orlesian border). In addition, as long as he is alive there are members of the bannorn who could raise standards in his name and bring back the civil war, causing many more deaths. Thus, you are executing him not for the past, but for the future.

[ArlEammon]

He's too fearful/hateful towards Orlesians to be trusted to make rational or moral decisions (he is so opposed to their aid that he turns away Grey Wardens, who have no fealty to any nation, simply because they came from the Orlesian border). In addition, as long as he is alive there are members of the bannorn who could raise standards in his name and bring back the civil war, causing many more deaths. Thus, you are executing him not for the past, but for the future.

If their raising their banners in his name, they work for him. :/

[Lord Ruby34]

That makes me wonder, Zousha, what are you planning on doing with Anders at the end of DAII? Killing him doesn't let him atone for his crimes, but he's a dangerous abomination that might hurt innocents in the future. This seems to be another tough choice if you want to stick as close as possible to you model.

[Giggling Ghast]

There's no question that Loghain must die for his crimes; he has either been found guilty of treason by the Landsmeet or by trial of arms. Either way, the penalty is death.

The Joining is not "a chance for Loghain to reform." It's simply a chance for his death to have some meaning. However you cut it, it's still a death sentence, albeit a delayed one.

[Psyren]

If their raising their banners in his name, they work for him. :/

Not necessarily; he could merely serve as a convenient rallying point for any bann or arl dissatisfied with Alistair's rule. Whether or not he is physically with any faction fomenting the unrest wouldn't even need to be relevant until long after the war is underway.

[Crow]

Wasn't Ostagar an Abandoned fortress so there weren't all that many Civilians about. So in that regard it does seem to make sense, Cailan is already trapped in a Ravine due to his poor choice of battle plans and committing more forces to a flanking attack would just lose you even more troops so the only logical solution is to retreat.

As for killing him Ethically, just have him duel Alistair. After all not like your warden could have known what would happen.

Actually, Cailan placed his army in "death ground", in a spot where they could not be flanked by an enemy with superior numbers. The enemy would be forced to assault their front in a ravine where their numerical advantage would be far less useful, and knowing there was no escape, Cailan's army would fight to the bitter end (which they did).

If Loghain's force would have swept into the darkspawn flank from their high ground as planned, they would have inflicted grievous losses against the darkspawn.

Now the hollywood counter-charge was certainly ill-advised, true. There is even a case for that in that they could have been trying to take advantage of the disruption in the darkspawn battle order after the dogs had been loosed into them. Also even if the plan had gone as planned, we can't say the humans would have won, but the tactics were (for the most part) sound.

[Spacewolf]

Actually, Cailan placed his army in "death ground", in a spot where they could not be flanked by an enemy with superior numbers. The enemy would be forced to assault their front in a ravine where their numerical advantage would be far less useful, and knowing there was no escape, Cailan's army would fight to the bitter end (which they did).

If Loghain's force would have swept into the darkspawn flank from their high ground as planned, they would have inflicted grievous losses against the darkspawn.

Now the hollywood counter-charge was certainly ill-advised, true. There is even a case for that in that they could have been trying to take advantage of the disruption in the darkspawn battle order after the dogs had been loosed into them. Also even if the plan had gone as planned, we can't say the humans would have won, but the tactics were (for the most part) sound.

Placing your troops in an inescapable situation when you don't know the enemies abilities is always a bad idea especially against an enemy who is basically immune to fear meaning the flanking attack wouldn't have been able to cause a route like it would against most armies. Like I said at that point Calians troops are as good as dead from Logains point of view all he can see is an endless wave of darkspawn appearing, if he moves into help well that just means his troops get bogged down and slaughtered.

From what I remember even walking around Ostagar Duncan basically says the plan won't work if it is a true blight and Logian obviously has doubts about it.