Dragon Age: Inquisition Review - PC Invasion
  • Sign In
|
Dragon Age: Inquisition
6 / 10
PC Review

Dragon Age: Inquisition Review

Dragon Age: Inquisition Review
Game Details
Developer: BioWare
Publisher: EA
More Info:

By now, you’ve probably read plenty of other reviews extolling the numerous sacred virtues of Dragon Age: Inquisition. You’ve possibly also read my early port impressions, in which case you’ll have noticed that – at the time, at least – I wasn’t actually very impressed with what was on offer.

The cynics among you will be happy to hear that I’m still not especially amazed by Dragon Age: Inquisition, although it’s certainly a lot better than the early hours indicated.

dragon age: inquisition 13

“The seat of power”, taken literally.

ADVERTISEMENT - WATCH THE TRAILER
Some Text / Image promotion links here.

This is the third in the Dragon Age series (or fourth if you count Awakening as a separate game, or third again if you count Awakening as a separate game but pretend Dragon Age 2 didn’t exist) and despite the lack of a number in the name, you’ll get best results if you’ve actually played the past two games. The online Dragon Age Keep lets you choose what happened with pretty much every major decision from Origins, Awakening, and Dragon Age 2, and a lot of these have at least some ramifications on the proceedings in Inquisition. It’s full of references to past games, cameo appearances from previous characters, and ties up a lot of story threads the earlier parts of the series left flapping.

You’re the Herald, a vague nobody of your own creation who suddenly becomes a somebody when a giant hole opens in the sky, demons start pouring out, and everyone attending peace talks between mages and templars are unceremoniously murdered. Everyone except you, anyway. And it turns out that – via a side-effect of whatever the hell ripped open the fabric of the world – you may actually be the only one capable of closing these holes and saving the planet from unregulated demon immigration.

dragon age: inquisition 3

Man, they teach the weirdest things in language classes these days.

You’re soon recruited into the Inquisition, an organisation that has split off from the Chantry and – with your help – may (okay, will) wind up becoming one of the most dominant political and military powers on the continent. Beholden to no nation or creed, it’s basically up to the Inquisition to sort all this shit out while everyone else carries on trying to assign blame and fighting their own little battles.

If you have no idea what the Chantry is, why mages and templars are battling it out, or what a Darkspawn is and how it relates to a Blight (assuming you know what that is), then you pretty much need to play previous Dragon Age games. Inquisition does an okay job of giving newcomers a basic grounding, but there’s an awful lot left out, and – as I said above – a lot rides on you going “Oh, hey, that’s that one guy from that other game. He did the thing with that whatsit. I remember him.”

Although, uh, not all of this is done too well. As I said, a lot of story threads are tied up, but… not very satisfactorily, in the case of many. I can’t go into details for fear of spoilers, but there’s at least one plot thread that’s been going since the very beginning of the series, and it’s resolved here in a painfully stupid way. If you’re hoping the resolution of some things will be worth the wait, you’re going to be a bit disappointed.

dragon age: inquisition 6

Spoiler alert: a game called Dragon Age involves dragons. Double spoiler alert: a fantasy RPG containing dragons may, at some point, give you the chance to kill a dragon.

The way you actually go about sorting all this shit out, though, is relatively novel. The Inquisition have a war table, and this displays basically everything pertinent in the two countries the game spans. Some are big plot events. Some are zones you can explore and quest in. Others are little side-missions which you can have one of your three advisors deal with; this takes them a certain amount of real time, but basically nets you some free rewards. This baron isn’t happy about scouts tromping through his lands? Have your military guy sort out an escort for those scouts, or have your diplomat appease him.

The quest zones and main plot missions, on the other hand, can only be accessed by spending POWER. This is a very rudimentary gauge of how much general clout you have, and it’s increased by… well, by doing stuff. Completing side-quests is a pretty good way of raising it, but finding the materials to upgrade the Inquisition’s troops, or crafting trade goods, or fulfilling requests from various guilds and authorities throughout the land, also help out.

Then it turns into a single-player MMO.

dragon age: inquisition 5

For instance: I cannot look at this place without thinking of Duskwood.

I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out a decent analogy for how Dragon Age: Inquisition actually plays, but “like an MMO” is the best I can come up with. Seriously: you go to random, wide-open zones full of quests (and these zones have no real bearing on the main thrust of the plot) for the sole purpose of levelling up enough that you can do the next story quest. Which will take place in its own little instanced zone and not in any of the zones you’ve been able to visit thus far. And then you go back to randomly levelling up in a zone of your choosing.

This has its pros and cons. On the one hand: loads of really big, beautiful, varied areas to explore (and they’re big enough that you really can explore), full of quests to take and beasties to kill. On the other hand: a lot of this feels a tad pointless because it doesn’t really have any bearing on the proceedings barring giving you POWER and adjusting your level. Some of the quests running through these zones are decent (and yes, if you’re thinking of the main quests from zones in your favourite MMO, you’re probably on the right lines) but it’s a bit sad that they don’t tie in a bit better to the overarching plot.

Also, far too many quests are accepted by reading notes either found in a ruined house or on a dead body, which is an utterly terrible way to start a quest. This happens about a dozen times in the very first zone of the game. This is inexcusable.

dragon age: inquisition 4

I’m willing to forgive quite a lot when a game lets me ride a reindeer through a desert while wearing a masquerade mask, though.

Some of this disconnect might also be down to the dialogue, but that’s perhaps a little unfair – for the most part, it’s pretty decent. I wouldn’t say that BioWare are superb writers, but they are really good at ludicrous comedy and over-the-top melodrama, and Dragon Age: Inquisition acquits itself well when it drops into either of these. Very few of the companions are as horrifyingly dull as pretty much everyone in Dragon Age 2, and a few are all but guaranteed to become fan favourites.

Buuuut… well, even this has its problems. It’s not all ludicrous comedy or over-the-top melodrama; occasionally the game tries to handle Big Issues, and with one notable exception, these tend to be done in a horribly ham-handed fashion. It’s also a little weird that a lot of the voice direction is really, really off, with the actors clearly not knowing what they’re talking about or what they’re supposed to be responding to. Not the sort of thing I’d normally expect from BioWare, even when the game has as staggering an amount of dialogue as Dragon Age: Inquisition.

dragon age: inquisition 11

I did warn you about the dragons, right? Right.

Writing aside, there are some other neat systems which tie into the gigantic world. There’s crafting, for instance. You’ll find schematics as you journey around, and once you find some suitable materials, you can have the Inquisition’s smiths forge some new armour and weapons for you. Different materials offer different stats; different schematics allow for the use of more materials in different ways. You can even name the resulting items, so if you really want to run around two-handing Horsecock the Flaccid, you can.

There are two elephants in the room which I’ve been skating around, and both are tied together (possibly by their trunks). These are “the PC port” and “the combat.”

dragon age: inquistion 8

I’m 90% certain this isn’t actually Josephine punching Cullen in the face and laughing, but frankly, the screenshot was too good not to use.

Functionally speaking, the PC port is… well, it’s okay. I didn’t have any framerate problems, it looks relatively nice, and while I hit quite a few visual bugs, only two of them were even close to gamebreaking. For 60 hours of play, that’s actually not too bad – and most problems I found were easily solved by saving the game and then loading that save, essentially refreshing the area.

BioWare even went the extra mile, in that using mouse and keyboard completely changes the interface. The hotbar is different and the menu is (very slightly) different, so you’re not just fighting with console controls clumsily mapped to a different input device.

dragon age: inquisition 2

I’m fffffairly sure this is a bug.

Except that… well, you are. The combat really, really isn’t based around mouse and keyboard controls; it’s like trying to play an MMO where you have to hold down R instead of just toggling your auto-attack. This is kinda tolerable in short bursts, but it’s really not an ideal way to play a 50+ hour game. And don’t talk to me about the horror of trying to loot things with mouse and keyboard, either. Or the dreaded menus, which – despite the changes to fit the new interface – still make the menus of unmodded Skyrim look like a masterpiece of design. Or… well, you get the picture.

The way you’re presumably meant to manage combat on mouse and keyboard is with the tactical mode, with the minor problem that this just doesn’t really work at all. The tactical camera itself is so far zoomed in that it’s impossible to actually get a tactical overview of the battle, and to the best of my knowledge there’s no way to, say, queue up a series of actions. Which means that the “tactical combat” is actually significantly less playable than it was in Dragon Age: Origins. Which was two games ago.

dragon age: inquisition 7

This is either a bug or calisthenics.

It also doesn’t help that mouse and keyboard controls are actually lacking some of the functionality of the gamepad controls – there’s no walk modifier key, for instance. This isn’t a big problem but there are a few areas later on that require some precision movement, so it would’ve been nice to have there. More bizarrely, the gamepad controls also have an option in the tactical camera to move time forward when you hold down the trigger rather than toggling the pause on and off. There might be a way to do this with mouse and keyboard, but again, I couldn’t find it.

So, okay, mouse and keyboard are basically out if you don’t want to lose your mind; I dumped them about three hours in and never looked back. Unfortunately, the gamepad has its own quirks. The menus are still awful, for instance, and you can’t get around this by lazily tapping through them with the keyboard because if you have gamepad controls enabled, you cannot use the mouse and keyboard in the game. At all. I can sort of understand this when you’re on the field, because of the massive differences in the interface and how you use abilities, but in the menus?

dragon age: inquisition 12

It’s not quite Alpha Protocol in the “meaningful dialogue choices” stakes, either, but then what is?

Double unfortunately: the tactical camera being pointless is, I suspect, because it’s really just a bandage. There’s no real need for tactical depth on the standard difficulties, to the extent that even most boss battles can be won by holding down the attack button and using abilities when they’re off cooldown. You might occasionally pop into the tactical mode just to order someone to use a potion, but that’s about the limit of what’s required. On higher difficulties this may be more important, but based on what happened when I actually tried controlling fights with it, I’m going to guess it’ll wind up being finicky micromanagement rather than an in-depth tactical experience – not least because things like “did an attack hit” aren’t based on stats, but are actually based on collision detection. Trying to do a dragon fight in tactical combat would likely take at least 30 minutes if you actually tried to move your party out of the way of every telegraphed claw-swipe.

The problem, really, is that Dragon Age: Inquisition feels like it’s trying to serve two masters. Yes, you’ve got mouse and keyboard controls and a specialised interface, and yes, you’ve got a tactical camera… but these are present in a game that doesn’t work with mouse and keyboard controls, and doesn’t require tactics. It wants to be a third-person hack-and-slash game with RPG leanings, but doesn’t want to lose its CRPG status, and it winds up not actually being much good at either. It’s a hack-and-slasher that doesn’t really require any action finesse, and/or it’s a tactical RPG which doesn’t require any tactical thought.

dragon age: inquisition 10

It does manage some really lovely views, though.

Which leaves us with a competent and generally enjoyable RPG which never really steps beyond “quite good, I guess.” It’s utterly huge, and there’s joy to be found in exploring the huge areas and chatting to the denizens. There are lots of little mini-stories to sink your teeth into, and an engagingly silly main plot which features possibly the best Arsehole At A Ball simulation this side of Dishonored. But this is all let down by a game that doesn’t really work with PC gaming’s default controls, and with combat that’s tepid at best, and this has a massive knock-on effect with everything else.

The crafting is quite neat, for instance, but with the combat the way it is you don’t really need to be too in-depth with it, so wrestling with the menus to produce a knife called THE STABBENING becomes a bit pointless. Exploring the zones, finding hidden caves, and exploring them to find long-lost runes is an engaging way to spend 30 minutes… but the grand sum of the experience is that the flashy-but-simple combat will become a bit easier. Etc. There are no fights you’ll have to attempt repeatedly while trying different tactics, so while it’s rarely frustrating, the battles offer no satisfaction. There are solid setpieces, but nothing that quite matches the Redcliffe defense or Indy-inspired Urn of Sacred Ashes quests in the original. I sigh.

Two steps forward, one step back. It’s better than Dragon Age 2 and it’s certainly a distracting game in its own right, but Dragon Age: Inquisition doesn’t feel like it’s quite settled on what it wants to be, and that – more than the controls, more than the combat, more than the menus, more than anything – is what seems to be really holding it back.

6/10
Rubbish controls, dull combat, and a general sense that it's not quite sure what it wants to be, let down an otherwise entertaining and regularly amusing world-saving romp.


Related to this article

Comments

  1. The first honest review by a professional gaming journalism site? Is there only one left in the entire world? Thanks for being that one.

    • My thoughts exactly. I discovered Inc Gamers a few weeks ago and it is now gaming website of reference. Honest reviews and opinions and high quality articles. Keep them coming, boys! 🙂

    • avatar Corbin Labella | December 14, 2014 at 7:01 am |

      Except he reviewed the game on a medium difficulty with a passing mention that you might need tactical view on hard. I am not sure about you but I know there is no game made that if I can I will not play through on hard and I am pretty sure that is what developers design most games for. So sure the combat is easy for a veteran gamer if played on medium or easy.

      • The tactical camera is a distinctly unique feature of this style of game. It was needed in the original DA: Origins, as it was quite a hard game on its normal difficulty setting if you did not know all of the broken builds and were just learning from trial and error. Either way, I do play on Hard difficulty and the tactical camera is not needed. You just hold ‘r’ and press 1 through whatever to activate abilities when they are off cooldown. 35 hours later into the game, and I’m still doing that. Honestly, it’s the worst combat in any Bioware RPG to date.

      • Yeah I keep dying on hard. I Was wondering what he played on to not die and not require tactics. Those dragons aren’t push overs unless you use some super cheese specialization either.

      • It’s not the reviewer’s fault that the tactical camera is THAT bad that it makes no fun at all playing the game on nightmare.

        Also it’s a sad excuse to say that a game is designed for “hard”. If you offer various difficulty levels they all have to be good. If they aren’t good they should just be cut before release. Simple.

        • avatar Corbin Labella | December 23, 2014 at 4:23 am |

          I will , now that I have been playing a little bit, agree with the reviewer on some points about the tactical camera.

          Though I completely disagree with your point about your opinion on difficulty. I can’t think of any game that I would get any enjoyment on easy and medium isn’t much above that. I truly do believe that designers want there games to played on a hard and just include the other difficulties to appease people who either do not normally play games, children who can’t understand certain complex systems, people who just do not have the time to spend to finish a difficult game, and people who get stuck on a certain part and can’t be bothered to figure out what they are missing.

          • Well, that might be true for some games but for DAI? I don’t think the game is meant to be played on hard/nightmare with such a lackluster tactical camera and system. If the devs really wanted people to play the game on hard/nightmare they would have put a lot more thought and effort into tactical gameplay. But to me, this game is all about action with tactical gameplay only being an afterthought.

            I really enjoy playing games on hard. I’ve played BG 1+2 on hard, Icewind Dale 1+2 on hard, Divinity Original Sin, TToEE, Fallout 1+2 and so on. They were all enjoyable and indeed felt like they were made to be enjoyable on hard. Inquisition is the total opposite. It feels to me like a game meant to be played on normal or easy just because hard or nightmare feels more tedious and clunky than tactical and challenging. If controls and navigation and overall system offer a bigger challenge than the mechanics there is something wrong with the game or the difficulty setting… 😉

            And anyway, I still think that you should only include stuff in your game that is “good” and “fun” to play. If your difficulty settings suck you should probably cut them or put more effort into it because every bad part of your game drags the whole experience down. “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. That’s pretty much basic game development philosophy.

      • avatar Dudebro Zero | December 24, 2014 at 3:22 pm |

        I also play every game on hard and I disagree. Games may have been designed to be played on hard at some point but today most games’ hard mode is just normal mode with more health on enemies and less health on the player character. In stealth games you can also expect increased radius of detection but no fundamental difference ever exists between these modes. Normal mode is usually the intended experience and hard mode is the same thing, except more tedious. Thanks to features like regenerating health it’s not like you actually need to play better, you just need to be more cautious.

  2. I dunno, this game seems like Mass Effect with dragons to me, I just don’t like the massive amount of dialog in these things, it’s like, if I want to read a book, I’ll read one. Otherwise, give me the essentials and let me move on.
    It’s one of the reasons I don’t like Final Fantasy games anymore, they are just one long cutscene with short bursts of battles, when it should be the other way around.

    • The dialog is the least of this game’s problems. That is merely an account of preference. The game itself just has so many issues, especially on PC. And the combat is terrible. It’s not rewarding in the slightest.

    • Dialogues bring choices and those bring consequences. Which are fundamental (choices & consequences) in CRPGS. Maybe you just like action games or striped down dungeon-crawlers. But all this is sidetracking, really. The game’s issues are elsewhere like Ken or Tim pointed out.

    • Fair enough. Personally I have no problem with dialogue if it’s done well. DA:I’s dialogue isn’t the worst I’ve ever encountered (Drakensang…. *shudder*) but it has a lot of issues.

  3. avatar Chris Jonesy Jones | December 9, 2014 at 9:12 am |

    Ridiculous, the game is phenomenal, I would love to know your thoughts on the very average Skyrim this game is certainly better than a 6…I have one thing to say GAME OF THE YEAR…

    • Wow, have standards fallen.

    • Usin’ that thar controller on the pc are we butch?

    • This game is shit just like everything Bioware releases. Want real RPGs? Try Divinity: OS, Wasteland 2, Lords of Xulima, etc If you insist on 3D because ‘ololol isometric is so old’ then play Dark Souls or Risen 1.

      • It’s a matter of personal taste of course, but I wouldn’t say it has always been the case. Baldur’s Gate and NWN were great, they seem to have lost focus later though (even if some were quite distracting, like KOTOR).
        I was glad to find a good deal of those RPG’s spirit is back in Divinity: OS.

    • Stop comparing different games all the time. It makes no sense.

      All that counts is whether DAI offers a good game experience on PC and whether it’s well designed or not.

      If you want to criticize Skyrim do that over in Skyrim related comment sections, please.

      And DAI is definitely NOT GOTY. It’s way too mediocre and badly designed for that, especially on PC.

  4. Spot on. An excellent review.

  5. Very good review, quite spot-on and honest (at last! I was starting to wonder what those other DA:I reviewers were on).

    “Also, far too many quests are accepted by reading notes either found in a ruined house or on a dead body, which is an utterly terrible way to start a quest.” Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate? I’m not shocked by quests starting that way, though it’s usually as natural for them to begin in conversations.
    Is that a problem of balance, too many of them starting like that?

    I’m also curious to know what others think of the graphics, even though that’s not the most important feature. I’ve seen high praises in many reviews but to me it looks like nice sceneries with incrustated glossy plastic characters. Not sure what to make of it, a limitation of the game engine, or an hybrid that didn’t turn out quite so well? Apparently not the latter since Frostbite should be able to handle both.

    • The quests starting like that is just lazy. You don’t need to write a character to start it or a good situation to get you involved in. It’s basically an acceptance that “Yes, this exists solely to get you some more xp and power.” It’s accepted that this is why quests exist in MMOs, so people get over how awful they are, but they’ve always provided a little more in single player RPGs.

      • I see what you mean.

        I had something else in mind regarding the quests, but perhaps it’s wishful thinking. I see them as adding contents to the story rather than a mean to get XP. If that’s a fetch/kill quest of course, it’s obviously just a way to increase XP and shouldn’t be too easy to find, for sure.
        Story or RP quests though… it could make sense to have them in an abandonned or hidden house, and that entices players to explore a bit.

        That’s based on good games like NWN, can’t really say about DA:I, I stopped playing it because of the bugs and UI/control problems. And since they haven’t addressed them properly yet (actually made them worse with the 2nd patch), it could be a while before I see what kind of quests are in there. I hope it’s not as bad as in MMORPG’s.

        • It’s as bad as in MMORPG’s…

          • I would say it is worse. Usually even MMORPGs have more flavor text and story attached to their fetch/collect/kill quests, and keep their “Do the task, get xp and no other pay off” lesser in number than DA:I.

    • My thoughts on that particular note is that primarily humans get motivated by interacting with other humans. For example, if I see a vulnerable NPC getting attacked, I would feel compelled to act to save that person, perhaps to get a reward, of some sort, or to influence those around me (second one is rarer as a mechanic in RPGs!) Whereas picking up a note that indicates the same thing, is far less motivating, and frankly comes off as boring and grindy. If the note itself led to such a situation as I just described then it wouldn’t be so bad, but more or less these ‘notes’ tend to just be excuses to fight more faceless, nameless monsters/bad guys.

      • You have a point there. Not the most interesting way to trigger a task, sure.
        But now and then, especially in many RPG settings with remote and forgotten locations, it would make sense to discover a message from adventurers who reunited with their creator.
        But it should definitely not be the primary source of quests and tasks!

  6. Best review of the game on PC I’ve read so far. I pretty much agree with everything that is said here…

  7. This review is accurate to the points about it being yet another shoddy PC port.
    And that’s it.

    I completely, and profusely disagree about the combat and many other points that were made.

    Maybe those of you that don’t like the combat aren’t playing it on a high enough difficulty that demands more micro-management. I have found the combat can be anywhere from quick, explosive and exciting, to slow and methodical, lest you slip up and make a costly mistake.

    • avatar Registeredwithem | December 11, 2014 at 9:22 pm |

      Well-designed combat would be fun on any difficulty level. It isn’t well-designed.

    • I disagree with your disagreement.

      I found the combat on Hard difficulty to be tedious, poorly-designed, poorly-executed, I could go on forever. I have completed Dragon Age: Origins on Hard once and Nightmare twice, with a Warrior, a Mage and then finally a Rogue (with NO spellcasters whatsoever for that particular playthrough). I have completed DA2 on the hardest difficulty as well. My experience with RPGs and their difficulties is almost certainly on par with yours, and probably better. I’ve completed BG2 with Sword Coast Stratagems and Tactics installed; don’t presume to lecture me, and others on this forum, on RPG difficulty, or dismiss our complaints out of hand using such false reasoning.

      • Woah-ho! Settle down there, tiger.

        I didn’t know this was about you and your mighty impressive credentials. By all means, slap me with your glove and demand satisfaction! As someone that has completed so many video games and done other impressive feats of geekery, it is your right, good sir! I am clearly but a humble peasant in the house of a noble! That you even deign to speak to me… I am honored. Please except this as a gesture of good will and understanding that you are not, by any means, a pretentious douchebag that made a simple conversation of observation into a personal pissing contest:

        …………………./´¯/)
        ………………..,/¯../
        ………………./…./
        …………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
        ………./’/…/…./……./¨¯
        ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
        ……………………..’…../
        ……….”…………. _.·´
        ……………………..(
        …………………………

        • Yawn

          • Lol! You guys are so funny. The combat was terrible for simple reasons. You could break it bad (outside of it feeling broken to begin with). And because of the stupid potion system, you often had to depending on your starting class. Likewise, because there often wasn’t clear direction and preset level locations (some levels specified a suggested level while many other areas didn’t), if I unlocked some place that turned out to be three levels above me I didn’t have enough power to unlock some place else to level. Therefore, I fought through that section. The kicker is that bad guys were poorly designed. I could shoot at templars and then run outside of their plotted “range of patrol” and they would just walk back to where they started. Rinse and repeat and I could take out most baddy groups stronger than me. Likewise, because of lack of a good heal or potion system, I got stuck constantly reviving my characters. It was obnoxious but worked for beating almost any boss at any level outside of the dragons. I simply had my archer or ranged guy as my designated reviver. You make your warrior a shield tank. Someone went down? No potions left? Who needs them?! Just revive him. You could literally revive your party members in a cycle and never die because reviving them gives them enough health to stay alive long enough to revive the other guy which will stay alive long enough for me to revive the guy that was just downed again which will stay alive long enough… that was the extent of the tactics needed for me to run through areas levels higher than me (assuming you enter the fight by telling everyone to kill any and all archers, the bane of any such strategies). That’s not well designed combat or game structure. That’s retarded.

            Yes. I could not play like that (if I didn’t need the power to go elsewhere and not feel like I wasted the power to unlock this place way too early). But the issue is, I SHOULD NOT be able to or even have to. I’ve played them all and the combat has never been this poorly constructed. Half of the time I jumped into the tactical view just to avoid having to tell the party what to do and have them auto-fight whoever I wanted them to kill. The fact that I have to hold down the shoot button to shoot when all it does is shoot makes absolutely no sense. Wait! If I don’t hold it down my character will STOP SHOOTING AT MY ATTACKERS?! HOW IS THAT EVER VALUABLE?! I never ran into a combat where I could openly surrender if I stopped shooting or where the badguys decided to quit the combat and leave me alone if I neglected to hold down the attack button. Why it doesn’t auto-attack with the attack button (or at least toggle “attack” when I press it) befuddles me.

            But being that the combat was also uninspiring at best, the fact of the matter was that most areas and badguys could simply be sidestepped by cloaking with your rogue and walking to the end of the section. I started doing that repeatedly as it saved time and potions and was the better option when running around in areas where the bad guys were way above my “pay grade.” It worked just fine. Likewise, combat became boring and repetitive so even if I could take them, sometimes I just wanted to get on with the story already and get out of these places that had nothing to do with the story other than power grinding. You simply needed to take out the last group of baddies right before most bosses to get to them. Save your potions and health for that and it was no problem. Then you could run over to the big bad boss and proceed to do a revive fest until he was defeated.

            Granted, by the end of the game I somehow created this broken combo with Cassandra and her armor that basically made her impossible to damage. She took out dragons and the final bosses without taking almost any damage while been the main target of most attacks. Of course, the rest of my auxiliary characters running around and reviving each other as they repeated went down kept me busy while she did her thing.

          • Clearly the words of a ‘Bioware hater’, amirite?

            I don’t have as much experience as you as I haven’t finished the game, but yeah, what you describe sounds about right.

          • Lol! The irony is I love Bioware! But the combat in the game! Sure! I’d gladly be a Dragon Age Inquisition Combat Hater for sure! And gladly. Did I say gladly? I thought I would get used to it after a while or it would get better or more intricate or something but it never got any better. It felt extremely broken. It felt like because I picked a dual-wielding rogue (terrible idea), I was not only at a huge disadvantage and liability to my party and own success, but also that the only correct way to take advantage of their characters few advantages was to intentionally exploit and break the combat system. Almost as if it was by design. Which makes me wonder if it wasn’t… O.o … :p

  8. Hah. This is a brilliant move by inc gamers. Cynical, but brilliant. Bioware haters are rallying around this review because it’s negative and sums up all the criticisms of the game.

    • It’s called being honest.

      • Dragon Age is Game of the Year from Game Awards. The critic’s score on Metacritic is 86 or something. If you only take notable dedicated gaming websites (ones notable enough to receive a pre-release copy), there wasn’t a review under 80. On Gamespot, it was nominated in all possible categories and is winning people’s choice in all but one of them.

        In contrast, every comment thread is filled with Bioware haters. People were creating dedicated accounts to bring down Bioware’s metacritic score. This review was released weeks after release, when EA had been very generous with review copies, releasing them weeks earlier. Then it just happened to sum up all the criticisms of the game by the Bioware haters.

        Conspiracy theory 1: If EA paid all these companies out, it has a lot of money to spend on a hyping a game that isn’t going to sell hugely. It also has a lot of balls, because that’s a damn risky strategy to be so widespread. Conspiracy theory 2: Reviewer is unprofessional and a Bioware hater OR this is a very cynical ploy to get page hits from people like you guys.
        I think 2 is more likely than 1. I think 1 on that scale is impossible in modern gaming journalism in fact. I can’t believe that this is the honest professional opinion of the reviewer: the coincidence is just too great.

        • avatar Paul Younger | December 11, 2014 at 8:09 pm |

          I suggest you read more reviews here on IncGamers and possibly even re-read this one. Because a game is released by a “big publisher” means nothing at IncGamers.

          IncGamers actually FINISHES all games before posting a review (see the review policy). No press events are attended by the editorial team even though we are invited. We had the opportunity to play DA:I well in advance to formulate a review for launch day as was seen on other game sites but decided not to.

          We don’t believe in the hype the industry generates to encourage early purchases of games by fans. We want to give our readers an opinion on a version of the game they will be playing and not a pre-release press build.

          • Ok, sorry if I was being inflammatory. I admire the neutrality of your review policy (and the fact you centre on 5: high averages annoy me). However, you did define ‘completion’ as finishing the narrative of story-based games. DAI is long, but not that long: mainstream review sites finished the game within the week before launch.

            This is a review that’s getting linked in comment sections a lot, since it’s the only negative review by a dedicated gaming website. My first thought was that this was a deliberate move to grab hits.

            I’ll just have to disagree with this review as emphatically as possible. This game brought me back into the fold. Most of the criticisms here were things I loved or didn’t find an issue. The only criticism I agreed with was that the UI was terrible.

          • So you know, review sites had access to a press build of the game around two weeks before the public launch. Remember, a review is an opinion, but I will say that the team here has a vast experience of PC gaming.

          • What about everyone commenting here and agreeing with the review (me included)? Do you think we’re all Bioware haters as well? Newsflash: I own virtually every game they’ve made. I’m probably a bigger Bioware fanboy than you.

          • Oh dear. I see someone who’s a ‘bigger fan’ than me. Reckon I’ll hang up all my opinions then. You’re completely right.

            Yes, I think everyone who’s agreeing completely with this review has a bone to pick with Bioware (with very high probability). It makes a huge song and dance about select issues that have become the thing to criticise about DA:I. Then it gives very short (or no) mention to all the points that make this game good/great/excellent.

            As a Bioware fan, you no doubt frequent their forums. There are people (many of them longstanding members and fans) who make antagonistic posts about the game. There are a number of them, they seem to be trying to dislike the game and they all make the exact points this review does. These are whom I refer to as ‘Bioware haters’. I think anyone who agrees wholeheartedly with the review (that is, the tone and conclusions of the piece, not just the individual points, most of which are valid) is likely in this group.

          • “Oh dear. I see someone who’s a ‘bigger fan’ than me. Reckon I’ll hang up all my opinions then. You’re completely right.”

            Straw man: at no point did I say you had to hang up all your opinions. Illustrating that I am a Bioware fan is a direct response to your accusation of me being a ‘Bioware hater’.

            “Yes, I think everyone who’s agreeing completely with this review has a bone to pick with Bioware (with very high probability).”

            Ad hominem: does not address the issues brought up – attacks the presenter of the argument instead. Naked assertions about motivations of posters.

            “Then it gives very short (or no) mention to all the points that make this game good/great/excellent.”

            Red herring: it is not a forum commentator’s job to praise aspects of a game in order to earn the right to criticise. We are not writing reviews. The review we are commenting on contains plenty of praise.

            “These are whom I refer to as ‘Bioware haters’.”

            Irrelevant.

            “I think anyone who agrees wholeheartedly with the review (that is, the tone and conclusions of the piece, not just the individual points, most of which are valid) is likely in this group.”

            You have presented no evidence and formed no coherent or relevant arguments to support this assertion, therefore it can be dismissed out of hand.

            I remind you that your original post basically consisted of this accusation:

            “Conspiracy theory 2: Reviewer is unprofessional and a Bioware hater OR this is a very cynical ploy to get page hits from people like you guys.”

            My comment towards you was a response to this, and as such you need to respond to the argument rather than attack my character, mislead with irrelevant arguments, or presenting further naked assertions/rephrasing the original assertions.

          • “Strawman: at no point did I say you had to hang up all your opinions. Illustrating that I am a Bioware fan is a direct response to your accusation of me being a ‘Bioware hater’.”

            Bull. You said you were a bigger fan than me, which was just being internet-aggressive. It’s not a strawman, because there was no argument at all behind it. You were poo-flinging and I was poo-flinging back.

            “Ad hominem: does not address the issues brought up -attacks the presenter of the argument instead. Naked assertions about motivations of posters.”

            What? Can I remind you what we were talking about? You asked me if I thought everyone here was a Bioware hater, which I was directly responding to. It’s not ad hominem; it’s the classic fallacy of “respondio questioni”.

            “Red herring: it is not a forum commentator’s job to praise aspects of a game in order to earn the right to criticise. We are not writing reviews. The review we are commenting on contains plenty of praise.”

            You miss my point. I was talking about the review, which was stingy with its praise. (We disagree on this.) People whole-heartedly agreeing with the review (the subject of my ire, if you read the post you are enthusiastically quoting) are endorsing this, which I felt was unfair.

            “”These are whom I refer to as ‘Bioware haters’.” Irrelevant.”

            Not in the slightest: you asked me if I thought you were a Bioware hater. I was clarifying what I was referring to.

            “You have presented no evidence and formed no coherent or relevant arguments to support this
            assertion, therefore it can be dismissed out of hand.”

            First, you sound really pompous. (I know, ad hominem.) Second, I wasn’t presenting evidence, I was responding to your question and clarifying my *opinion*. Third, you didn’t read my post. My argument, such as it were, was that: “Bioware haters are defined by their posting comments with a certain tone and content. This review (and supporters) are using this tone and these arguments. Therefore I think these people are Bioware haters.”

            “*snip*My comment towards you was a response to this, and as such you need to respond to the argument rather than attack my character, mislead with irrelevant arguments, or presenting further naked assertions/rephrasing
            the original assertions.

          • “Bull. You said you were a bigger fan than me, which was just being internet-aggressive. It’s not a strawman, because there was no argument at all behind it. You were poo-flinging and I was poo-flinging back.”

            I said that I ‘might’ be a bigger fan than you, which you have seized upon because it is the only thing you can get any mileage out of. My real point was that I am a Bioware fan not a mindless hater as you have characterized me and others in this thread. In other words, instead of addressing the argument (being a “hater”), you are addressing something else (who’s the biggest ‘fan’). Straw man.

            “What? Can I remind you what we were talking about? You asked me if I thought everyone here was a Bioware hater, which I was directly responding to. It’s not ad hominem; it’s the classic fallacy of “respondio questioni”.”

            Your original response asserted that everyone who was criticising the game had a “bone to pick with Bioware” and implied that their statements could thus be dismissed. This is an attack on the character of the commentators rather than their arguments. Thus, ad hominem.

            My question ‘do you think we’re all Bioware haters?’ either leads to ‘no of course not’ and then we can discuss the issues rationally; or it leads you ‘yes you are’ in which case you are guilty of ad hominem, since this is a baseless assertion and irrelevant to the points we have raised.

            In other words ‘you and the reviewer are both haters and so your arguments can be dismissed’. Ad hominem.

            “You miss my point. I was talking about the review, which was stingy with its praise. (We disagree on this.) People whole-heartedly agreeing with the review (the subject of my ire, if you read the post you are enthusiastically quoting) are endorsing this, which I felt was unfair.”

            Fair enough, but in my opinion the review contains plenty of praise, and it’s a fact that the review praises many aspects of the game. So objectively the review is at the very least somewhat balanced.

            If it is your opinion that commentators wholeheartedly agreeing with the review is ‘unfair’, then present your opinion as such, for example ‘I think it’s unfair that you guys wholeheartedly agree with the review, because I think the review is unfair’. You are attempting to reframe your argument by saying ‘oh I was just voicing _this_ opinion!’.

            Your original assertions were not as above, but rather that the reviewer was acting out a ‘cynical’ ploy to get page hits, or that he was ‘unprofessional’ and a ‘Bioware hater’, both naked assertions that are entirely baseless.

            “Not in the slightest: you asked me if I thought you were a Bioware hater. I was clarifying what I was referring to.”

            May I refer you to your original statement, where you accuse me and others who support the review of being ‘Bioware haters’:

            “Bioware haters are rallying around this review”

            Since you accused me of being a Bioware hater, I responded with a question designed to logically proceed to the conclusion: no I am not a Bioware hater. Once we have arrived at that conclusion, we can discuss the issues rationally.

            Unfortunately you choose to continue in your assertion that I am, in fact, a Bioware hater:

            “I think anyone who agrees wholeheartedly with the review (that is, the tone and conclusions of the piece, not just the individual points, most of which are valid) is likely in this group.”

            Thus your point continues to be ‘these people are Bioware haters’. Thus the statement from me: ‘irrelevant’.

            “Second, I wasn’t presenting evidence, I was responding to your question and clarifying my *opinion*.”

            Correction: you were restating your naked assertion after I challenged it.

            “Third, you didn’t read my post. My argument, such as it were, was that: “Bioware haters are defined by their posting comments with a certain tone and content. This review (and supporters) are using this tone and these arguments. Therefore I think these people are Bioware haters.””

            So let’s examine that for a second. Urban Dictionary defines ‘hater’ as:


            http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hater

            So your assertion is that commentators (and reviewers) who criticise Dragon Age: Inquisition and/or Bioware using certain ‘tone and content’ that can be seen in the above review and comments:

            1) cannot be happy for Bioware or Dragon Age: Inquisition’s success

            2) rather than be happy for the success they make a point of exposing a flaw in Bioware or DA:I

            1) I can be happy for Bioware’s success… the problem is that I don’t see the release of Dragon Age: Inquisition as a success. Regardless of my opinion, there are objective problems with the game. Dismissed.

            2) I’m not ‘making a point’ of exposing flaws. I’m just exposing flaws, or agreeing with those that do. For me to ‘make a point’ of it, I’d have to go out of my way to find flaws in the game. If this were true, my issues with the game would be either unfounded or minor issues. A quick look around the internet shows they are not minor or unfounded, except when it comes to mainstream media.

            Conclusion: the tone and content contained in the review and my comments cannot be dismissed as the work of ‘Bioware haters’ as they are not interest A quick look at the rest of the comments here yields the same conclusion: the comments are almost entirely criticisms of certain objectively problematic issues within the game e.g. controls and do not present issues with ‘hating Bioware’ for their success. Your assertion is baseless and is dismissed.

            “What argument?”

            The following argument (your words):

            “Conspiracy theory 2: Reviewer is unprofessional and a Bioware hater OR this is a very cynical ploy to get page hits from people like you guys.”

            “We were talking about your character. If you ask me if I think you’re a wonderful person and I say no, disagree with me, don’t criticise me talking about the subject at hand.”

            My character is only relevant in that you can make observations about my comments to determine whether or not I am a ‘Bioware hater’. If you continue to make baseless accusations about my character then it’s really not ‘the subject at hand’.

            “Again, no arguments involved.”

            See above

          • This will be my last reply, but I will read your response (provided it’s not stupidly long like this one was–I gave up halfway through). I have work tomorrow and this whole discussion is of no interest to me. You can believe you have ‘won’ if it makes you feel better.

            I’ll also note that no-one has ever been persuaded by logical fallacies. Ever. It honestly just makes you sound arrogant and interested in winning a debate.

            You have conjured an argument out of nothing, mainly by deliberately missing my point throughout. I’ve responded been responding to your questions and defusing your insults as civilly as possible. However, you just seem to want to pick a fight with me.

            My position is straight-forward. Define ‘Bioware-hater’ as someone who hates Bioware, its partners and its intellectual property. The review was brief on praise and eloquent in a handful of criticisms. This is highly unlikely if the reviewer was not a hater, so it is highly unlikely the reviewer is not a hater. Simple Bayesian inference, if you’re familiar with that. This extends to everyone who unreservedly agrees with the review and those who are similarly unconstructively negative.

            If you are trying to persuade me I’m wrong, you’ve failed. Insulting someone for being wrong has never worked. Writing novels in response is similarly futile.

            I will agree to disagree with you on this nonexistent argument. I wish you the best of luck.

          • This will be my last reply, but I will read your response (provided it’s not stupidly long like this one was–I gave up halfway through). I have work tomorrow and this whole discussion is of no interest to me. You can believe you have ‘won’ if it makes you feel better.

            Fair enough.

            I’ll also note that no-one has ever been persuaded by logical fallacies. Ever. It honestly just makes you sound arrogant and interested in winning a debate.

            Pointing out fallacies is debating 101. Fallacies are generally how debaters win against non-debaters (or spread their arguments successfully) despite having weaker arguments. Sound arrogant: I don’t care. Winning a debate: well obviously that’s what I want to do.

            You have conjured an argument out of nothing, mainly by deliberately missing my point throughout. I’ve responded been responding to your questions and defusing your insults as civilly as possible. However, you just seem to want to pick a fight with me.

            Disagree with all of that, but where did I say insult you? I tried my best to be civil, apologies if I failed somewhere in that endeavour.

            To the extent that I wish to engage you in discussion to show that your points are incorrect, yes I suppose I wish to pick a fight. I think that’s an unfair characterisation, but whatever.

            My position is straight-forward. Define ‘Bioware-hater’ as someone who hates Bioware, its partners and its intellectual property. The review was brief on praise and eloquent in a handful of criticisms. This is highly unlikely if the reviewer was not a hater, so it is highly unlikely the reviewer is not a hater. Simple Bayesian inference, if you’re familiar with that. This extends to everyone who unreservedly agrees with the review and those who are similarly unconstructively negative.

            Well actually I defined hater for you, but ok. I don’t think you proved any of those assertions. “brief on praise and eloquent in a handful of criticisms” sounds like your average review of a mediocre game.

            ‘Highly unlikely if the review was not a hater’ is just nonsense, there could be a hundred reasons for writing a negative review, being a hater is just one of them, and since we’re bringing up obscure academic terminology; I invoke Occam’s Razor: the most likely explanation for the review is that the reviewer thinks the game is actually not that good.

            Same rules apply to commentators; simplest explanation is that actually just don’t like the game, or aspects of it.

            If you are trying to persuade me I’m wrong, you’ve failed. Insulting someone for being wrong has never worked. Writing novels in response is similarly futile.

            I don’t actually care if I persuade you or not, my principal motivation in this discussion is to show other readers that you are wrong.

            Again, can’t seem to find any insults in my comments. As for the length of my comments: guilty as charged m’lud.

        • avatar Registeredwithem | December 11, 2014 at 9:29 pm |

          OR…most reviewers don’t review for PC
          OR…most reviewers base a review on a pre-view and pretend they have reviewed the finished game/move on to next review.
          OR…most reviewers don’t bother to finish a game or consider much in depth beyond graphics and whether it works with a controller
          OR…most reviewers have become inured to the problems with games which actually bother the average PC gamer because the review spends hour after hour with shoddy work and would go insane otherwise.

          • Or the fact that if you review the game too negatively you might get in trouble or miss out on invites, promotions, pre-release games/content, or events because many major reviewers have working relationships with such companies as EA (who makes far more than just Dragon Age: Inquisition) and the like.

            I have to admit that it was a very interesting read watching you two go back and forth on the issues presented. However, I have to admit that to classify a “hater” as someone who has justified criticism for game, person, etc. is completely missing the point of the term altogether. I think I almost broke 100 hrs in my first play-through of the game. But I am objective enough to see that there were serious flaws with many aspects. That doesn’t mean you can’t still get enjoyment out of something. The other extreme to a “hater” is a “fanboy” who refuses to be objective and blindly supports something regardless of its quality. That sounds more like what is happening here.

            The funny thing to me is that everyone who says they emphatically disagree with the criticism of this game seems to have yet to actually argue against the ACTUAL criticism as to why it is unfair or why the things criticized are not valid. In fact, Job himself says (and I quote, with caps emphasizing the points of note) ” I think anyone who agrees wholeheartedly with the review (that is, the tone and conclusions of the piece, not just the individual points, MOST OF WHICH ARE VALID) is likely in this group.”

            So if you agree with the individual points, most of which are valid, (and thus Job believes himself, otherwise he wouldn’t call them valid) you are a hater of Bioware. So is Job a closet hater of Bioware because he just agreed with the review that the points are valid?!

            Let’s grow up. The answer is no on both accounts. Pointing out valid points of criticism doesn’t make you any more of a hater than agreeing with valid points of criticism. And neither does acknowledging they are valid.

            In my mind, that’s like saying that pointing out a murderer murders people makes you a hater! That’s a completely erroneous use of the word. The fact is, I would blame EA for most of the digression of their latest offerings (and I expected this to happen when EA bought them). But the truth is, the game wasn’t all bad. No one here is saying that from what I see. And Bioware fans, especially, have a high stake in their success and want them to succeed. We also often have high standards because they have set the bar pretty high with their past offerings. But if keeping them objective and pointing out their errors makes you a hater, maybe we need more of them in the world. Because we all saw what yes men did to the Prequel trilogy. Maybe if Lucas had a few more “haters” in his inner circle Episode 1 would have been done right. Heck, maybe if more parents were “haters” there wouldn’t be so many kids embarrassing themselves on national TV thinking they can sing or do a talent that everyone knows they have no place attempting. Simply being HONEST or objective about something isn’t being a hater.

            The point is, name throwing doesn’t validate anyone’s argument. If you have a problem with the criticisms listed, then attack those. But if they are valid then what else is there to say? You’re right? I appreciate the honesty of these reviewers. And I can still enjoy the overall game but have the same valid quips about it while I do. Likewise, agreeing with them or enjoying them game (though flawed) doesn’t mean that I have to agree with their final rating number value (being that all such ratings are subjective in their very nature).

            Meanwhile, I can understand those who might not enjoy DA:I for those very reasons. I know I slogged through most of it because of the things mentioned. Would I rather Bioware be made aware of those things so they can change them for the better than them start patting themselves on the back and implementing them more thinking they are what the people want? YES! So are we going to be happy when someone more mainstream is honest enough to point them out? Of course we are!

            It’s that simple. Sometimes tough love is the only way to improve on mistakes. It doesn’t mean this review is flawless or the reviewer or the commenters or the game is either. But are the points made VALID and things we would like to see improved upon in the future? Yes. Yes, they are. And for someone who has loved Bioware for over a decade, I definitely hope they hear and consider all the valid criticisms brought up about this game when they begin on the inevitable next iteration of this popular franchise (as well as their notable others).

          • I think a major problem for some people who enjoy a game is separating their enjoyment from the technical faults. There seems to be an automatic assumption among some that if they had fun it must mean the technical/objective faults do not matter.

            Anyone who likes games has at least one game they love that is, objectively looked at, a bad game. It might be a buggy mess, or have terrible controls, or physics, or missing animations, etc, etc, but it still has something, some intangible that let’s them enjoy it.

            The thing is, people need to realize that having a personal rating of a 9 or a 10 of game does not mean it should be recommended as a 9 or 10. It might have enough faults to warrant some substantial caveats.

            A 6/10 game can end up being a personal 8, or 9, or 10/10 game, but as a critical review what it is saying is, “Buyer beware, you might personally enjoy this, but it has some faults that cannot be ignored and may keep you from enjoying the game.”

            That is what good reviewers, and what good friends, should do, try to look at it from the perspective of, “How would I feel about these issues if I was not having fun with this right now, because even though I am having fun despite this, someone else might not feel the same way.”

          • “OR…most reviewers base a review on a pre-view and pretend they have reviewed the finished game/move on to next review.
            OR…most
            reviewers don’t bother to finish a game or consider much in depth
            beyond graphics and whether it works with a controller”

            I would just like to point out something that supports your assertion: The first reviews that came out all claimed their clocked in time to finish the game was about 80-85 hours (Polygon, Gamesradar, I forget the others). Not one reviewer finished it in 50 hours, or 40, or 100+, but all were about 80-85. Remarkably, and suspiciously, similar, almost like they were just quoting a PR piece.

            That those same reviews also glossed over or ignore entirely the many technical faults of the game (poor AI, poor animations, poor textures, shoddy combat controls, etc) and it one has to wonder if they really played it at all.

      • In curious as to your views regarding other bioware rpg games now. I’m certainly no fan of bioware at all but inquisition is supeior to many of their other rpg games even if it does have its port issues.

        I mean if inquisition is 6 ass effect must be in the negatives. Sure it’s no witcher but a 6? That’s rough.

        • That you find DA:I to better than other Bioware games does not mean others do.

          On technical problems alone DA:I is actually a step down from the usual Bioware offerings; AI in other Bioware games is actually more intelligent and responsive to player commands, combat and controls are actually easier to use and more sensical to the PC platform, etc. Story is about on par with usual Bioware offerings, in that it is the typical “You are the extra special Chosen One, and the rules do not apply to you!”

  9. avatar DavidTheSlayer | December 11, 2014 at 11:12 pm |

    Good review Tim. Points out the good, the bad and the ugly. Bugs and game controls might put me off a fair bit, especailly when it seems to run fine on console more than PC. Maybe the developers rushed the PC version? I think the RPG side looks pretty good from what I’ve seen and heard, not tried DI:A yet though.

  10. DAI just won GOTY at the Game Awards and I can’t help but wonder how and why; mostly because my game crashes on the main menu after being idle for 5 seconds. And all the high scores, did no other major publisher play it on PC? I am completely dumbfounded at how many problems I’m having just trying to play this game as well as most of the PC community. How did this get past QA? When I do play it, you definitely describe my exact thoughts pretty well. A big beautiful world! That’s great! Too bad there’s not much to do in it besides read random scribbles and fetch this and kill that.

    I’m a huge DA fan too. Loved Origins and I actually dug 2. Read the books, read the comics. This one though, man…biggest disappointment of the year. Here’s hoping patch 3 does something useful.

    • Because a lack of good games and a lack of multiplatform rpg games.

      Don’t worry. Next year when witcher 3 is finally released and ignored because console plebs are illiterate and can’t figure out anything on their own and ignore it, we can circle around the master race table and complain about it.

  11. In all the games with a walk toggle I’ve never once actually used the feature. Inquisition is at least 10x better than origins. So either people are lying to themselves and have been struck by nostalgia or they have some pretty awful taste in games. I’m glad bioware finally strayed away from the tired Pokemon side character collection quests even if it’s mmoish. I’d rather fart around picking up leaves than fart around pick up elf boohoo side characters.

    That crafting and inventory UI is just the worst. The worst rpg UI I’ve ever used in a PC game.

  12. I bought this game and feel like i wasted 40 euros on it. I read so many good reviews that I wasn’t expecting anything like this. After some googling I finally found someone to write the truth about the game…
    The agenda of website like gamespot and IGN is clearly not with the gamers but the publishers. Thank you for this review and I know where to look now for my reviews.

  13. I think what will eventually happen is that Bioware will have to release the frostbite toolkit and let the army of Bioware modders do what it did for Origins… fix it for them… note: DA2 was unfixable…

    • I hope this to happen but I wouldn’t put much faith on it. If Bioware was lazy enough to release the PC version in such poor condition, I don’t think they are even close to bear the idea of a toolkit. In any case, if the toolkit is released, modders will bring glory to this game.

    • They can’t do this. The Frostbite engine has too many third-party licensing issues.

  14. Thanks in found a new pc gaming site, good review

  15. Absolutely 100 percent spot on. If I have to collect another shard or close another rift, I am going to shoot my monitor.

    Main plot is fun, but the rest, after a while, is just filler. I did switch to controller and the game is much more playable.

  16. A review that did not ignore or gloss over the many technical faults of the game, and accounted for them in the final score as well so that consumers can make a more informed choice?! Examining the story and characters from more than just the, “It/They are awesome/touching/unique, so let me go on for paragraphs without actually saying anything other than I found it awesome/touching”?! Just found a new gaming news and review site to keep an eye on.

    Hope further reviews give as well balanced examinations and critiques.

  17. avatar Dominick Mastri | December 23, 2014 at 8:43 pm |

    I saw RPS name this RPG of the year and decided it was time to find a new place to read about games. And I don’t even care about the controls – for me being able to play from the comfort of my couch on my TV was a pro; unfortunately the rest of the game is bland & boring.

    • Jim Sterling and friends love it too. I really don’t get it. The story seems fine, but even with a gamepad the combat (ie, the core of the game) is godawful.

Comments are closed.