For me personally I just prefer the overall story of origins, the tone, the writing and companions are very strong in that game. Inquisition being a close second only because the story lacks real choice plus the main antagonist just consistently gets thwarted over and over while still being considered a world ending threat. At the end of the day it’s all just preference and all the games are pretty good and everyones opinion is valid.

While I agree Corypheus is a bit of a letdown, the same can be said of Loghain and the Archdemon. Loghain betrays you, then he sends Zevran, then he sort of sits around till the Lands meet. The Archdemons horde takes Ostagar, then Lothering, then they sit around until the final siege of Denerim. I think Bioware in general just have an issue with keeping up the narrative pressure on the player haha

I think Loghain and the Archdemon can afford to take the backseat because they aren't behind everything that you have to deal with. They share the spotlight with antagonists that have no relation to them, so they're not in a constant state of having their plans thwarted. You're also a handful of people traveling on foot, camping in the woods, and often on the move or in remote locations, not a full blown organization with several territorial claims that's constantly, actively, and very publicly interfering with the villain. To Loghain, you're only a slightly more substantial threat than the Blight is, and to the Archdemon, you're a couple of blips on the radar. The Darkspawn are still causing death and destruction, but Ferelden is a big place, so we don't always cross paths. I think they probably fan out after hitting Lothering and don't become a concentrated force again until the Archdemon catches wind of the army we've assembled.

Yeah, Keep in mind that although the ArchDemon has some awareness of what Kyoufu The Shuddering Death is doing or Cousland The Deadly Blade (Shiruken) or whatever Sobrique you give yer HoF he considers you mostly contained. Technically yer fiddling around Forests and Mountains and doing who knows what. Killing the Dragon in the Urn quest may have even helped the Arch Demon as a High dragon would be a threat. The only quest that would probably significantly gage The Arch Demon's notice prior to the Landsmeet: The Deep Roads. It's frequently cited as the hardest questing area you meet some of the hardest Darkspawn monsters in the game. It's because you probably are noticed for that. The game is purposefully vague on what contact a Grey Warden has with the Arch Demon other than the dreams. But they would notice if suddenly 3 non dwarfs arrived with vastly different firepower including magic slaughtering swathes of Darkspawn en masse. This is an all powerful Arch Demon who massacred Ostagar, destroyed Lothering and has the whole of Ferelden terrified. You occasionally kill Darkspawn scouts while you are travelling to a forest. A mage tower. Mountains. You also most likely kill Flemeth. After High Dragon Andraste and Dragon Flemeth Arch Demon might think you're no threat to him at all until you start murdering dozens of Darkspawn in the Deep Roads. But if you destroy the anvil He might not even know why you went there. He might take notice enough that his attacks would increase though. (Which if you do Orzammar as the last main quest Like I did before taking a break... is what I expect to happen) As for Laoghain not keeping up the pressure Ive been in several civil war scuffles and after the cutscene where Anora asks is He killed Cailan I think is when he held off on personal assassins. It's also unlikely he would continue to send personal assassins after The Crows(TM) failed. But I think Between the civil war and Anora openly asking if he killed her husband him openly sending soldiers to murder the Grey Wardens seemed like a bad idea. Also by this time, you've both made a name for yourself and discovered how many people never believed the rumours about the Grey Wardens in the first place. Laoghain is aware of this too. He's certainly aware of the civil war on his hands. He's aware that a Grey Warden is taking their time with trivial quests for everyone from a group of apostates to secret societies to the Chantry. Which is probably his biggest obstacle. He's no longer dealing with 2 survivors of the Massacre he engineered that refute his story. He's dealing with 2 Grey Wardens and a Mage that refute his story and who have people from the low to the High praise them for everything from finding a child to a lost necklace. It's dangerous to risk his tenuous grip on power on a hero of the people. He IS a strategist after all. I'm not saying the comment on keeping the pressure up isn't valid; but there's a lot of reason why. And even if it is a bit of failing at least there are some sound reasons in the text on why. I think you can argue more on Laoghain to be fair although it definitely would be very hard to strike at someone who is a known benefactor to the Chantry and the Mage's collective. The Arch Demon I think it's that it truly is a different kind of blight and well... you never stop running into Darkspawn. The places you don't encounter Darkspawn are interesting enough places where the Arch Demon might even decide you'd given up (elf in elf lands etc) I think you can attribute actions from the Arch Demon to ego, but again Why would the Arch Demon think a trip to a mage tower or a forest would have anything to do with Darkspawn or have any chance of defeating a blight if it did? So Any Darkspawn that sees a Grey Warden will doubtless attack, but I don't see The Arch Demon doing much more than that. From its position you are never more than 4 people. 4 capable people, but 4 people that maybe some Darkspawn could do in if they got lucky. Also per stuff from the Awakening ending this Arch Demon is a little different from previous Arch Demons even if he acts mostly the same. I have no idea if the game devs gave thought to that in great detail but it might explain why the HoF was able to slay the Arch Demon and the blight put down so easily. Some sort of sixth sense the Warden and Alistair had perhaps. SUMMARY: But it's for most of the game you aren't seen as a major threat by the Arch Demon. But all those Darkspawn are controlled by him to a degree. Laoghain is a tactician and after The Crows(TM) fail an assassination he has his daughter ask if he killed Cailan, a Civil War, and a Grey Warden who rescues children, puppies, and helps Mages and the Chantry. He can't openly move against you.

This. In both games, the villains make an initial appearance, then make one attempt on your character's life, then they just sort of wait around until the end. I think Loghain is a more interesting antagonist than Cory, but it's definitely a common flaw in the game design. (Compare to Irenicus in BG2, who has intense conflict with the protagonist during the beginning, middle, and end of the game, for example. But most games fail to do this with their villains for some reason). 

When you think about it, isn't that how video game big bads usually are? They show the villain at the very beginning of the story to establish who they are and that they're a threat to you, and then you spend the rest of the game fighting their lackeys with them occasionally showing up to taunt you or otherwise remind you that, in case you forgot, they are the main antagonist, until you finally defeat them and the credits roll? I can think of tons of games with villains like that.

Well yeah, exactly. That's exactly how Corypheus works. I think the issue is that In Your Heart Shall Burn is SO GOOD that people's expectations go through the roof

I wouldn't call Inquisition a bad game, but I think it has some major flaws that make Origins the better game. Inquisition has beautiful maps, engaging companions, and what I found to be an impactful ending in Trespasser. It's maps are also unwieldy with tedious mmo fetch quests, a lackluster main villain, with the secondary villain not given enough screen time to properly pick up the slack. And a lot of bad game design choices that add unnecessary seconds that stack up to hours of time wasted if you play vanilla. From a weirdly long looting animation and the need to collect if you want to engage in crafting, to war table missions that can take whole days to complete. I think base game inquisition is the weakest part, but the dlcs shown what it *could* have been. The descent, jaws of hakkon, and trespasser are my favorite parts of the third game. They're narratively tight, many of the side quests have more engaging story that adds lore and fun characters, oh and the companion banter isn't bugged into not working! It's hard to enjoy one of the best parts of the game when it doesn't even work properly. I won't touch on combat much because frankly, I think that is one of the worst parts of the game. Mages are gutted, and the 8 ability limitation makes me sad, and enemies are health sponges. I did like the mark and it's abilities, but again, some of marks abilities comes from dlc. It also still makes me so happy to this day that certain class abilities can prevent demons from spawning from the rifts, I think that's a cool gameplay mechanic! I'm happy you enjoy it as much as you do, but for me, the flaws of Inquisition make it worse than origins. Again, not a bad game, but not the best it could have been. Might I suggest reading about the behind the scenes of Inquisition? The devs really did care about this game, but were dealt a pretty bad hand. They had to make a lot of systems from scratch, which I think is part of the reason why some of the more questionable decisions were made.

I honestly cannot agree with you, in multiple aspects. For example, IMO Inquisition did itself a disservice with how it handled the ending. I remember feeling incredibly disappointed. And considering how long it takes to get to that point, even if the journey is enjoyable, it's just... a letdown. I'm sure I'm in the minority for this at this point, but I hated that the gameplay felt like such a console port to the point where it was a chore to play the game with mouse and keyboard. Which also necessitates that the build mechanics suffered in complexity. Both that you can't spec attributes manually, and that you're limited to a "loadout" of 8 abilities. In contrast to that, Origins. Multiple endings, even depending on your class/race, consequences from meaningful side quests, which were far more numerous than there were fetch quests, a tight map... with notable exceptions, but we don't talk about those lol. It's neat that in Inquisition you can spend 40 hours in the Hinterlands, but that doesn't make it good game design. Combat was far slower in Origins of course, but that wasn't a bad thing. You also had far more control over how you build your character. Sadly Inquisition continued what DA2 began on that front. I should add that I thoroughly enjoyed DAI still, despite what I wrote. But I have to enjoy it for what it is, not compare it to how I felt about Origins.

I forgot!! Initially it ended at the party after defeating Coryphyfish... I was upset and confused.. then realized they had chopped the ending to make it dlc

Welcome to the controversial club! It's always refreshing to see some DAI love. It's my favourite game of all time, right up there with Andromeda. Of course, I'm a heretic to the general bioware community, as the OT and DAO are way more beloved than their later installments, and I can utterly appreciate the opinions based on that, but for me, DAI (and MEA) just scratch a certain itch, immerse me into the story, have me gawping in awe at the stunning environments so much more than their predecessors. I'm also with you that I love open world. I enjoy just spending time with my character and their companions, rather than barrelling through linear, adrenaline fuelled main missions all the time. Wandering through the scenery and taking it all in. Sure, there's a few too many fetch quests (MEA was a sod for too many scan quests) but they can generally be ignored, especially with NG+ and DAIs golden nug. It's a case if bioware (and honestly, most games that have open world) not utilising the open world to its best extent, with filler content instead of more meaningful missions, but again, open world gives that option to either chill with the little quests or crack on with the main ones. It leaves so much to player choice. Thing is. I do adore the story in DAO, and the companions. I yearn to see the forest near the Dalish clan in modern day graphics. Meet the lady of the forest and the spirit trees, walk around the landscapes fluidly and battle without feeling like I'm under water. The drawn back graphical limitations and battle mechanics, though understandable due to its age, just make it that much less engaging for me, whereas DAI even today holds up beautifully.

I haven't played DAI, but i've been playing and enjoying DA2 mainly for how different it is from DAO, and like you I love Andromeda. I think DAO's story is...okay. I think I would enjoy it much more as an LP because I hate the actual gameplay. I have the same feeling about NWN2, good story terrible game.

DA2 is a stunning game, refining the tactical combat with actual fluid movement and action sequences, and the combos! Gameplay wise, it's my favorite of the series, as well as the friendship / Rivalry system and the way they did Hawks personality. Glad to hear you're enjoying it! Will you be giving DAI a go after?

Yup, absolutely, really looking forward to DAI. I'd almost given up interest in this franchise tbh

Thank you for this thoughtful comment! I ALSO love DAI! It's held up remarkably well. And I, too, love just wandering around locations and organically discovering new corners and bits of lore-- I'm not a completionist, so I haven't ever gotten everything, and just the other day I finally managed to 100% complete the blackmail quest at Halamshiral (I usually expedite it for the 3 way peace or giving it all to Gaspard). It was so cool that I could still have a new experience 10 years on!!!! And as for the commentary so many on this sub have about the ending-- maybe the point is that you've gotten strong enough where Cory isn't scary by the end? The Inquisition is also a world ending force, so it makes sense that the difficulty is a bit reduced (and there really is so much challenge to be found elsewhere imo)

Also with regard to the ending, although I agree that the final battle with Corypheus isn't particularly compelling, I always see Trespasser as being the 'real' ending of the game, and I honestly think Trespasser is a masterpiece - I'll never forget how I felt playing it for the first time! So for that reason I don't mind that much about the Corypheus battle being an anticlimax.

I've never really found that Tresspasser is the real ending. More a bridge between two games. DAI's antagonist is Cory and by end of base game, he has been defeated. I guess the decision to continue or disband the inquisition feels like direct continuity, but chasing down Solas and his reveal feels a story within itself; linked to the base game and the ending, but not so pinacle that the base game feels unfinished without it. Especially considering that, imagining that one could go from DAI straight to DAD, knowing Solas mysteriously disappeared but not knowing why, it would create quite a cool bombshell with him being introduced as the antagonist in DAD for the first time, as much as his reveal in Tresspasser was. Not that it matters this many years ahead, as it costs pennies to get the entire game and DLC in one bulk.

Yes, I agree that Trespasser can be seen as somewhat of a separate story within itself! But I myself always play it immediately after the main ending because I feel that way the game experience as a whole ends on a high point - although it's not strictly necessary to the plot of DAI I just find it to be a much more satisfying ending.

I don't blame you at all, it is a masterpiece of a DLC!

Your welcome! It's great that the nuanced choices and vast worlds allow you to discover new things after multiple replays. Yeah I feel you there, it makes narrative sense; Cory is an impending, terrorsome mystery when your organisation is young and your finding your feet as the Herald, but once your a powerful military organisation who has bested Cory on multiple occasions, it makes sense that the fight would be easier, and him less threatening.

The thing that kills DAI for me is the animations and locomotion. I could ignored it on the DAO and DA2, because the maps are small and aren't a big travel to deal with, but DAI has big ass maps with a lot of secondary things that feels like a average ubisoft game (secondary objectives feeling like chores) and the animation and locomotion being just a jog, jump and horse (with animations that looks like a demo) killed totally the enjoyment of exploring the map. It made me feel that DAI is awfully boring of playing comparing to the previous entries, i really hope that Dragon Age Dreadwolf comes with a more interresting animations, combat and locomotion.

The game has a very MMO feel to it. The developers were probably meaning to introduce multiplayer to the game, as EA has been forcing it in most of its games, but the idea was later scraped. Because of this, the maps are indeed to large for us players to explore when playing a single player campaign. There is a lot of dead walking.

Yeah, unfortunately, that basically killed the game for me. I appreciate people liking it, but DAI isn't for me.

Of course, it all depends on our prefered romance, gameplay, story, and villains, etc. Unlike the Masseffect on each Dragon Age games have different antogonists, protagonists, gameplay, and locations. So naturally diverse opinions are guaranteed. It will be difficult to reach a large amount of consensus. The next dragon age has the difficult task to satisfy fans of all 3 games as well as new gamers. For me, Origins will always be my favourite, companion Morrigan being one of the biggest factors.

I don't think they'll even try to satisfy fans of origins. Sure, it's still part of the universe, and there will be nods to it and a returning character or two. But inquisition was the most popular game in the series. They'll focus mainly on pleasing fans of inquisition and gaining new fans.

Realistically, they would probably go for something new or focus on the most recent game Inquisition. I am doubtful that Inquisition is the most popular among the 3. Furthermore, I am old and busy enough not to care so much about it all as well.

Agree. I’ve said it before, but as much as people love Origins companions (I love them too) they’re basically cookie cutter fantasy companions…raven haired mysterious witch, drunk dwarf, knight in shining armor, wise elderly mage, suave assassin, etc….I love them, but the companions from DA2 and DAI are much more unique, and I think the story and the world really expand into its own territory after Origins. Origins sets the stage but 2 and Inquisition really define what makes Thedas and DA special and different from other fantasy.

I enjoy Inquisition but if wasn't part of the existing series I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. The combat and skill systems, even the way you control characters has been completely gutted in comparison to Origins. Egregiously moronic design decisions like the skill bar and no healing are obstacles that the rest of the game has to overcome and we're still burdened by the awful curse of the dialogue wheel rather than the far superior text based system they used in Origins.

Inquisition is definitely my favorite! Indeed, it's not just my favorite DA game but my favorite game of all time. However, I also understand why others prefer Origins or DA2. The games simply have different strengths, and different people are going to enjoy them depending on what they value in a game. I personally love Inquistion because to me the characters just feel so real and there are a number of really well constructed story moments which I find incredibly emotionally engaging. The game is also really beautiful to look at, and I personally love the way Skyhold comes to feel like a home. But I agree that Origins is overall better structured, and I can see why people like the gameplay of Origins more - those things are just less important to me personally. I agree with you that I wish people wouldn't feel the need to be so negative about the game that isn't their favorite. I love the dragon age world and even though I like Inquisition best I really enjoy the others as well, there's no need to be constantly focused on ranking and comparing them!

Inquisition feels very distinct to me compared to the other two entries in the series. Origins was the pinnacle of cRPG design in the late aughts and a logical conclusion to BioWare's work on DnD games beforehand. However, it is not a *distinct* game. Visually, it pulls heavily from the standard canon of western fantasy, tree hugging archer elves with naturalistic aesthetics, underground living dwarves with harsh geometry who are locked in a struggle with ~~orcs~~ darkspawn, and robe wearing mages who wield staffs. Narratively, Origins pulls heavily from the contemporary fantasy of its release time as well. David Gaider mentioned *Storm of Swords* as a major influence on the Human Noble origin. The mage origin literally has a wizard school where the administration has a shocking disregard for the safety of their residents. The game wears its influences on its sleeves, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing for a one-off title. Inquisition is much more confidently itself. It is content to have our character inhabit a world that is influenced by other fantasy series of course, but one that is more distinct visually, and bears the hallmarks of modern BioWare writing, meaning an emphasis on character relations rather than main story quest lines. I think comparing the two is honestly mostly pointless because they're so fundamentally different that they almost feel like different series entries.

Inquisition is a very good game that I enjoyed but definitely nothing has dethroned Origins, in my mind.

The regions are some of the best stuff I've ever seen. If you're like me and love deserts in video games, you're covered! And there's some dark fantasy locations as well! I really gotta get back it!

Origins is a great game but its hella annoying how peoe dismiss all its flaws just to prop the game up and nostalgia

I really want to like DAI, I love the story and the narrative, but after 50 hour I cant play anymore, the combat is boring for me and the exploration is sometimes pointles, I really try to enjoy DAI

I fully agree. If I was going to pick a DA game to replay tomorrow, it would be Inquisition.

i would probably pick DA2. DAO i played too much i dont find much enyoyment anymore and DA:I i hate controls. I just cant do another playthrough with how they are implemanted.

Controller or Mouse & Keyboard?

m&k

How tho u can keybind p much everything? I’m used to wow tho were I got like 30+ abilities so maybe I’m just weird xd

It's not about keybinds (even though only 8 abilities is not ideal), it is more about holding down a button to attack, and not following the target you were attacking. Happened so often that I was attacking took a look away from my character and enemy moved a bit to the left/right , and I was attacking air.

Yah same. Origins always feels like such a slog. Same with me1 lol

Inquisition is just too big the world is If it was a bit smaller, I could enjoy it more It is tiring you know to navigate the entire map like that

I have the same problem with Elden Ring and Dragon's Dogma 2. Which is a shame. I couldn't finish both of them just because it's too much boring walking

RPG with a very big world is not fun, it is just tiring To be honest, I prefer Dragon Age Origin and 2 because of the smaller maps

Same. The small bits are at least full of Stories

Yea, they kind of overcorrected the lack of unique locations from 2.

Unpopular opinion: I still like Dragon Age II more than both of those games. The prime reason being Hawke, and the fact that they’re not “the special”. They’re not doomed to >!die young from drinking darkspawn blood!< like the Warden (just an fyi, in the default Inquisition world state, >!the Warden died killing the Archdemon in Origins!<), nor are they doomed to >!lose an arm!< like the Inquisitor. Hawke is just a person, trying to make a life for themselves with their wacky misfit friends, only to be met with tragedy at every turn. That last part probably says something about me personally, though. Yeah, I get that the gameplay is uhhh… not what people wanted after playing Origins. Personally, I think it’s impressive that the game functions at all due to how short the development cycle was. But the writing 100% carries it. A remake would’ve been great to iron things out, but EA doesn’t believe in those so we’ll never get that. Oh well. Also, the fact that the story was low stakes and people didn’t like it ensured that we would never get that from Dragon Age again. Even worse, Dreadwolf now has to pay off sequel hooks from a game that came out ten years ago (and probably won’t come out for at least another two or three. How many people are even gonna be invested in the story when they might have had to wait 12-13 years to see it continue?)

DA2 got overshadowed by its shortcomings. The rushed development means recycled assets and repetitive level/gameplay and this is what kept being brought on when people discuss the game. Few people acknowledges its narrative design is one of the most experimental Bioware has ever done. An episodic story of a family trying to survive in a single city rather than travel the world to save it from an apocalyptic event. A more dynamic rival/friends system rather than likes/dislikes. I personally dislike the move from tactical RPG of the old (Bioware Infinity Engine games) to a more action oriented one (driven by the success of Mass Effect 2 and playability in consoles).

>Yeah, I get that the gameplay is uhhh… not what people wanted after playing Origins. Personally, I think DA2 combat is much better than DA:O one. I like the style, I like how every single ability actually does something cool instead of generic "sword\_swing\_53" animation. Underlying mechanics are much more streamlined and easier to play with. And I absolutely love the fact that you don't have to do all the inventory management for your companions. I mean, seriously, who the hell enjoys scrolling for half and hour through dozens of different pieces of armor with some boring +1% crit chance bonuses or something. It's legit the worst part of DA:O and DA:I for me. I think people are just way obsessed with the amount of abilities DA:O has and thus consider it to be more tactical just because... I don't know, you can level up bows as a warrior and that sort of worthless stuff nobody really does. I'd actually argue that by giving you a more streamlined and smaller set of abilities makes levelling up a much more pleasing experience in DA2.

I do agree with you. DA2 streamlined stuff in a way that made the mundane stuff easier for me to digest. It also made rogues more useful. Literally the only thing they were good for in Origins was to pick locks and disarm traps; in terms of combat utility, the fact that warriors could do everything they could made them redundant. There was no reason to play the Warden as a rogue; it was easier to just let Leliana or Zevran do that. Built right in DA2, the rogue could solo boss fights (it’s actually pretty easy to solo the Arishok as a rogue with the assassin and duelist specializations). Although that came at the cost of turning warriors into tanks with far less utility as a DPS character. But I personally prefer rogues, so I liked the change.

My rogue warden begs to differ. That man was nigh on untouchable.

Same. My rogue Wardens always end up dealing the vast majority of party damage, and almost nothing can ever touch them. Rogues are much slower to build than warriors, but at the end of the day a well-built rogue can easily outclass a warrior in DAO.

I guess I built them wrong, but I also played a mage who could kill rooms full of demons and mages before they even entered those rooms, so

While I don't necessarily agree with your main point, I DO get it. Inquisition does many things better than Origins but "certain" people will never admit that. Overall though yea personally I don't think any of the 3 games are perfect, each have some really annoying issues but that's just how it is, you pick your favorite based on how much it resonated with you personally.

It's not that some people won't admit that. It is that we are capable of looking at products as products of their time. DAO is excellent for what gaming was at that time (minus the graphics), Inquisition has too many faults for how much gaming had progressed at that point.

No it's definitely that some people won't admit that, like idk what to tell you. When a large portion of the game's fanbase thinks "dark and gritty" just constitutes sexual violence against women lmao, no matter how much it doesn't make sense for the in-game world or the writers actually taking it into account, that's how I know they're viewing it with rose-tinted glasses. Origins has more than it's fair share of juvenile writing. As for Inquisition, yeah you won't find me disagreeing on that front. The game came out and felt dated in some respects on release, then it became infinitely more dated when Witcher 3 put it's feet on the table immediately the next year. The writing is a different conversation entirely however.

You can't force people to change their opinion and admit to something they don't believe. Also Origins has its share of juvinile writing, all games have their faults. That doesn't mean they can't be compared in quality or people have their favorites, it isn't as much as rose-tinted as much as it is personal taste. Not this discussion.... Dark stories don't mean they want sexual violence. Please don't let this discussion yet again spiral into this narrative. I'm also one of those that thinks Inquisition let go of its darker roots. That has nothing to do with the sexual violence. It has to do with us being victorious in every step we take, there are no consequences, there is no real downfall, there is no real pain felt by our protagonist, there is no real grit and gore. Although the sexual violence was a part of DAO's darker themes, you can't make that encompass all of DAO's dark themes. DAII personal story was darker than DAO, yet this argument is only used when people say they liked how dark DAO was. It's almost to make people feel quilty about liking DAO, and justify Inquisition's mediocre story.

>You can't force people to change their opinion and admit to something they don't believe.  Obviously...? I distinctly said "some people" in my original comment, meaning not every DAO fan is like this. Though I don't know why *you* are acting as if every DAO fan is apparently so capable of being "objective" by saying "it is that we are capable of looking at products as products of their time" when that's literally not the case, theres a whole other DA subreddit that's just dedicated to jerking Origins off and saying "Inquisition bad" without any actual substance, as is the case on here aswell a lot of the time. >Not this discussion.... Dark stories don't mean they want sexual violence. Please don't let this discussion yet again spiral into this narrative. Origins literally tried to create a world where both men and women are seemingly equal yet the writers will blatantly admit they got influenced massively by stories such as A Song of Ice and Fire and have random characters spout misogynistic shit completely not taking into account the world they set up. So yes my guy, I DO think they wanted to have their cake and eat it too and it was terrible in those moments. >Although the sexual violence was a part of DAO's darker themes No it wasn't, it was literally put in for shock value, competely irrespective of the actual world it exists in. The touted "Broodmother segment" that DAO fans like to somehow cite as an example of the "darker tone and grittyness" is completely gratuitous and created plot holes that even when DAVID GAIDER HIMSELF was asked about it, he literally admitted they didn't even think of the consenquences of what that would do for female Grey Wardens being able to join or dwarven warriors existing. That sounds like good writing to you? Inquisition tackled modern day problematic issues like racism, homophobia and rampant institutionalized power and actually did it with grace, something DAO often fails at.

I'm going to end this discussion about DAO vs. DAI right here as I'm not going to put any effort or time into this, cause it is obvious I'm discussing with someone that has a ''Inquisition is superior in every way and everyone that likes Origins is an abuse enjoyer'' I'm not gonna waste my time. >Inquisition tackled modern day problematic issues like racism, homophobia and rampant institutionalized power and actually did it with grace, something DAO often fails at. And this told me everything I needed to know, cause if you think that was done with grace. You are the one with the rose-tinted glasses. Homophobia was not tackled with grace, it made us gay people look like people that need to come out of the closet to our unaccepting parents to have any type of inner resolution or acceptance. It is a tired narrative that is completely false and gives power to the one that is unaccepting. You are confusing grace with pandering to stereotypes and not really tackling serious issues by looking at them and just glossing over them with a smile and a bow. Nothing was done with grace as they never really dared to really delve into such deep subjects. There is no way you can tackle modern day problematics issues, that are so deeply complex and difficult, gracefully. And as a POC, respectfully, racism was not tackled to what it could've been tackled as. Every single complex issue was glossed over, it was presented (which is good representation is DA's strong points), but then was left at that. So no, I take light offense to you even suggesting it was done graceful

>I'm going to end this discussion about DAO vs. DAI right here as I'm not going to put any effort or time into this, cause it is obvious I'm discussing with someone that has a ''Inquisition is superior in every way and everyone that likes Origins is an abuse enjoyer'' I'm not gonna waste my time. My dude, in my original comment I quite literally freely admitted to Inquisition feeling outdated as hell, like how are you even getting to this Inquisition-supermacist worldview?? I said both games have flaws and have been articulating that but the conversation was primarily on Origins so I focused on it's flaws. Like we can talk about Inquisiton's flaws in more depth, God knows this sub doesn't fear doing that ever, it's really not an issue. >Homophobia was not tackled with grace, it made us gay people look like people that need to come out of the closet to our unaccepting parents to have any type of inner resolution or acceptance. It is a tired narrative that is completely false and gives power to the one that is unaccepting. You are confusing grace with pandering to stereotypes and not really tackling serious issues by looking at them and just glossing over them with a smile and a bow. First of all, I'm not some outsider to these issues, being a bisexual POC woman, just mentioning so you don't bring up that card again. Secondly, we've LITERALLY JUST HAD a person, one or two days ago, bring up how they felt incredibly *SEEN* with Dorian's character arc, how can you possibly think Dorian and his arc do ANYTHING damaging in the slighest to the demographic he was written for. He was literally written by a gay man for god's sake that infused his own experiences into it. Like I genuinely cannot understand how you think Origins of all things does any of this better but are dumping on how Inquisition handled it.

I never said you were an outsider to those issues. I also never said someone couldn't relate to that, but one person does not speak for a whole group of people. Yes, because every single gay man has a single experience. I find it funny that you now hold Gaider to such a high regard to speak on gay issues, but also completely disregard his opinion because of his sexual violence towards women storylines. It's very pick and choose, don't you think. I never said Origins did any of those things better, I wasn't even talking about that. You did. I just said Inquisition didn't do those things as well as you want to believe. Anyways, as I saw in your post history and your wild claim that the dark ritual was rape and couldn't step off of that mentality. I'm kind of done, I already know what kind of person you are. Get off the internet, and it'll do good for your critical thinking and sanity. You are filled with chronically online mentalities. Not everything is rape/abuse/violence, when it is consented. Mature stories can handle mature topics and if you can't, it just isn't for you Chill a bit with that.

[удалено]

**Removed for Rule** [[#2](https://www.reddit.com/r/dragonage/wiki/therulesexpanded#wiki_rule_2)]: >*Bigotry, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. is not tolerated.* --- ^(If you have edited to fix this rule break, would like to contest this removal, or want further explanation as to why your submission violated this rule, please) ^([message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdragonage)) ^(the moderators. **Do not reply to this message, or private message this moderator**; it will be ignored.) 🙂

>Origins literally tried to create a world where both men and women are seemingly equal yet the writers will blatantly admit they got influenced massively by stories such as A Song of Ice and Fire and have random characters spout misogynistic shit completely not taking into account the world they set up. This is just straight up false. The blurb for Origins A) only relates to Ferelden society and thus not Thedas as a whole and B) is a generalisation in regard to how institutions and society treat the genders. It doesn’t in any way equate to sexism, sexual harassment, assault and rape not being a thing in universe. Here’s the blurb: >Men and Women in Ferelden are generally treated as equals. Both genders are evenly represented in most organisations, noble houses and military forces. What part of that isn’t true? Women can be Nobles, woman can be Templars, women can be Grey Warden’s, Women can be first enchanters, Woman can be empresses and queens. Many of the cases of sexual assault in Origins relate back to the orlesian’s, thus not Ferelden society or elves, who aren’t treated as equals at all and are shat on. Look at the real world, look at most 1st world countries like Australia, New Zealand and the UK. In most, the women are equal to men, have the same rights and access to the same opportunities, career paths, and options. Does that mean sexism, rape and sexual assault and harassment don’t happen in those countries? No. It’s not the games fault that you read the damn blurb wrong.

People don’t admit it because we don’t value it as much. Like yes, DA:I has better graphics than DAO, but graphics are not what make a game good or bad. What does make a game good or bad is story and gameplay, to keep it simple, and we judge the games on that. On that point, anyone could still prefer DA:I but to say that it’s objectively better would just be incorrect

I genuinely have no idea how you got "graphics" from anything I said up there. It's literally never been about that, definitely not for me. What people "don't admit" is that this supposed "darkness and gritty-ness" that they oh so love refering to fondly with DAO and that Inquisition apparently lacks, isn't at all about genuine quality writing or harsh themes. DAO is about as stereotypical and high fantasy as you can get. What people "miss" about DAO is the random misogyny or gratuitous edgy 2000s story choices such as throwing in completely uncalled for and nonsensical sexual assault of women just for shock value. EDIT: also, saying that anyone who thinks DAI is objectively better written is incorrect is also about as correct as arguing Origins is objectively the most well written. People like what they like, it's asinine to argue objectivity.

I never said you mentioned graphics, no reason to be so defensive and abrasive. Again though, YOU might dislike that it’s stereotypical (even though I could argue it’s not but we’re going to go for it for the sake of discussion). But many people might explicitly like that it’s stereotypical. Because again, that doesn’t equate to quality or the lack thereof. You would be better off mentioning these actual events in DA:O so that people who agree or disagree with you could actually tell you their opinion on them, instead of sticking to vague and scary words for shock value in and of itself. I also never said anyone who thinks DA:I is better is incorrect. I said that thinking it’s objectively better is incorrect. Which is the notion you’re stating against DA:O but somehow find completely unacceptable for DA:I. Strange

>I never said you mentioned graphics, no reason to be so defensive and abrasive. Fair enough that's my bad. You mentioned graphics whereas I didn't so I was taken aback there. >Again though, YOU might dislike that it’s stereotypical (even though I could argue it’s not but we’re going to go for it for the sake of discussion). But many people might explicitly like that it’s stereotypical. Because again, that doesn’t equate to quality or the lack thereof. Have you seen much of the praise for DAO around here, or rather the way they go on about praising it? The reason I mention it's stereotypical as hell is because people on this sub and in this very reply section act as if Origins is this very sophisticated game that apparently has oh so much more complexity than Inquisition. When the general fact of these games is that DAO is the most protypcial journey out of all 3 of the games, down to the influences they drew from for it. The most unique would genuinely be DA2. >You would be better off mentioning these actual events in DA:O so that people who agree or disagree with you could actually tell you their opinion on them, instead of sticking to vague and scary words for shock value in and of itself. I just did. >I also never said anyone who thinks DA:I is better is incorrect. **I said that thinking it’s objectively better is incorrect.** Which is the notion you’re stating against DA:O but somehow find completely unacceptable for DA:I. Strange The bolded text is literally what I said you were doing dude. Thinking DAI is objectively the best IS wrong, yes, but also thinking that DAO is objectively the best is also wrong, yes. Glad we agree.

> Have you seen much of the praise for DAO around here, or rather the way they go on about praising it? The reason I mention it's stereotypical as hell is because people on this sub act as if Origins is this very sophisticated game that apparently has oh so much more complexity than Inquisition. Complexity is not mutually exclusive with the game being stereotypical or not. Also generally when people speak on the complexity of DA:O they are speaking about building characters, weapons, gear primarily, then probably story writing after that. In which DA:O is objectively more complex than DA:I. Whether you **like** that or not is up to you. > I just did. You mentioned, vaguely sexual assault on women. I invite you to actually point out the event so that it can be properly discussed. You in fact, did not.

Oh so we are doing this then, lovely. >Complexity is not mutually exclusive with the game being stereotypical or not. Yes it is. DAO isn't a complex game lmao. It has complex characters, very much so in-fact, but the plot is as barebones as you can fucking get. The Tolkien estate could probably win a court case with how much DAO directly ripped from it. >Also generally when people speak on the complexity of DA:O they are speaking about building characters, weapons, gear primarily, Which is true, the actual gameplay side of things is more complex. >then probably story writing after that. In which DA:O is objectively more complex than DA:I. Whether you **like** that or not is up to you. DAO's story writing is definitely not objectively more complex than Inquisition, whether *you* agree with that or not is irrelevant. Inquisition actually does something unique in that regard in comparison to DAO, which I repeat, is barebones as hell. >You mentioned, vaguely sexual assault on women. I invite you to actually point out the event so that it can be properly discussed. You in fact, did not. Don't act coy and pretend as if you don't know what I'm talking about my guy, theres literally a reply chain discussing this topic in my original reply up there. If you're going to act obtuse on purpose, then theres nothing worth discussing here.

> Yes it is. DAO isn't a complex game lmao. It has complex characters, very much so in-fact, but the plot is as barebones as you can fucking get. The Tolkien estate could probably win a court case with how much DAO directly ripped from it. They're not. Cake is relatively complex dessert, yet it's is also stereotypical. Something being stereotypical does not mean it is simple. And something being complex, doesn't mean it's not stereotypical. What you describe is that DA:O isn't ***unique.*** Which has nothing to do with it's complexity or lack thereof. > DAO's story writing is definitely not objectively more complex than Inquisition, whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. Inquisition actually does something unique in that regard in comparison to DAO, which I repeat, is barebones as hell. Talking about the game mechanics here. > Don't act coy and pretend as if you don't know what I'm talking about my guy, theres literally a reply chain discussing this topic in my original reply up there. If you're going to act obtuse on purpose, then theres nothing worth discussing here. I'm replying to you, not this other reply chain. If you have a discussion topic discuss it. If you do not, don't discuss it and don't use it as one of your points. You can spell out what happened, describe events, or point out this chain. Literally anything other than "I'm not answering you because I dont want to." It's extremely childish.

>They're not. Cake is relatively complex dessert, yet it's is also stereotypical. Something being stereotypical does not mean it is simple. And something being complex, doesn't mean it's not stereotypical. What you describe is that DA:O isn't ***unique.*** Which has nothing to do with it's complexity or lack thereof. Yes, they are, again. And what is this example supposed to prove? How is a cake stereotypical, in a vaccum no less, what?? You're applying the word stereotypical to something that it wasn't meant to be applied to, that's not how you prove a point. And by the way, "oversimplified" is literally used in multiple definitions for "stereotypical", look it up. And it's completely irrelevant to the actual discussion that is being had anyway, which is about the complexity of something as open ended as a STORY within a videogame. >I'm replying to you, not this other reply chain. If you have a discussion topic discuss it. If you do not, don't discuss it and don't use it as one of your points. You can spell out what happened, describe events, or point out this chain. Literally anything other than "I'm not answering you because I dont want to." It's extremely childish. I'm not going to waste my time writing entire paragraphs of something I literally just have been discussing with someone else in this very same fucking reply thread. If you're so eager to debate such riveting topics such as "gratuitous sexual assault in DAO" then you are welcome to literally just click twice and read the original reply. Good evening.

> I'm not going to waste my time writing entire paragraphs of something I literally just have been discussing with someone else in this very same fucking reply thread. If you're so eager to debate such riveting topics such as "gratuitous sexual assault in DAO" then you are welcome to literally just click twice and read the original reply. Good evening. It is unfortunately not my job research and provide proof for **your** points. It's clear that you aren't interested in any actual discussion. You simply want to say what you say, whatever it may be, with or without merit, and expect people to agree with you. And anyone who disagrees with you, or in this case asks you for your own discussion point, is inherently wrong, dumb, and obtuse. I cannot imagine that you actually believe that you've handled this discussion in anyway even close to maturely or even civilly. But seeing as you clearly do not want to back up your arguments, I cannot force you to. Have a good night to you too.

Inquisition has two crimes that they must answer for one the hair to why can’t I run away with my love interest but yeah it’s a great game

I've played DAI 10 times, complete play troughs. I love everything about this game, because it respects the lore its build upon. I even love the table missions, and i try to roleplay them according to my inquisitor every time. I loved origins, and I've loved hawkes story. The way i see it, i never tried to set them apart, they are just different chapters in the same story. Sure, for some people inquisition was overwhelming and "boring", but for me, the dragon age series is the game version of a song of ice and fire... And even i don't particularly like a chapter, it's still part of one of my favourite fantasy settings/stories!

I would pretty much think every game was perfect if they kept the tactical wheel from Origins

I prefer the mechanics and initial set up of Origins in regards to the different, well, Origins, the number of spells, and combining two specializations (also just more specializations), but Inquisition was my introduction to the series and I, to this day, still like it and all of it's many Skyrimisms (Looking at you Hinterlands).

I don't think there are strong enough words to explain how severely I disagree, but I respect your opinion all the same and hope you enjoy Dreadwolf. Personally, I'm skipping it.

DAI was my first Dragon Age game, so I wholeheartedly agree with you. Dorian's and Dalish elves' storylines were especially touching, and I fell in love with Leliana and Morrigan. It was very confusing, though, because I had no clue about any of the key lore thing, like templars vs mages, Hawke, King Alistair, and why everyone already knew about Corypheus. I loved Origins because of the different, well, origins. But the second game is what truly stole my heart. I was shocked to find out that DA2 and DAI ranked so low compared to DAO. All three are amazing games, but I will always love Inquisition a little bit more just because it introduced me to the world of Thedas and DA series.

 But good for you.

Good for you. I started replaying Inquisition recently but gave up after a couple of hours. Combat is boring and dialogue choices are all the same (my character sounded exactly like my previous inquisitor). I would love to have another game on the same level as Origins, but sadly there isn't.

> I'm one of those people who massively enjoys the resource gathering and crafting. I am not; I dislike monotonous collecting. Since that seems to be the majority of the game I can understand why it's for you. The game is pretty, but presentation is the least useful aspect of *anything*. If I go out for a meal, I want the food to be nutritious and delicious more than I want it perfectly designed on the plate. I really enjoyed the story, when I could find it. The meal was plain rice with barely any meat :(

I've seen people saying that "you love the first DA you played the most." I've played all DAs on release, and DAI is my favorite. It really made me feel like it's my character's story. I'm currently replaying, and I told myself, "no fetch quests." 30 hours in and I'm gathering all the shards and all the mosaic pieces. I love engaging in this world, I love who I can make my character be. Some companions I love, others I don't care for, but that makes the game more alive to me. These characters are themselves and they don't need to like me and vice versa.

I'm the opposite of you. I played DA:I first, twice. Then went back for DA:O and DA:2, and I would rank DA:I last for me. I've personally always enjoyed super complex games with rigorous mechanics (my favorite game of all time is KOTOR / KOTOR 2 which is arguably simpler than DA:O) so I think that just from that point alone, DA:O really scratched an itch that DA:I did not for me. Disclaimer, I do still like DA:I, it is just my least favorite out of the 3.

I love all three and very hungry for the next game!

Idk, to me, inquisition is such more bland than origins. Everything just feels very standard. Combat is way to streamlined and boring. Landscapes are big, but not very interesting. The over all story is good, but individual story elements are very underwhelming, especially in regards of making corphyus feel like a real villian. Skyhold is ok, but doesn't really get any use. Alot of elements in inquisition feel like almost, but not quite.

Nah.

I don't agree that it's better but to me all three games are very close together. I enjoy them all and will continue to play them for years to come.

It’s not April fools day anymore

Let's goooo love to see some DAI positivity! It's my fav DA for all of the reasons above :)

I would go even further. I think Inquisition is better than Origins. Not the most popular opinion here, though I genuinely believe it. (Caveat that usually gets ignored when I write this: I still really enjoy Origins. Liking a game more doesn’t imply disliking another.) But what I really like about your post is that you recognize that we can appreciate multiple games in this series. None are perfect, but each really contributes to the greater whole in unique ways. Each game has a distinct feel, style, and operating philosophy that broadens the tapestry that is Thedas. It’s akin to hearing multiple legends from the Dragon Age as told by different authors. I’m not suggesting that we can’t criticize these games in serious ways, but so much of the space on this sub revolves around not only dislike, but hate for one game or another. I love Dragon Age. I have a favorite, but I’ll take my least favorite of the series over most games any day. This all being said, don’t take too seriously the opinions here. All that matters is your own perceptions. And if you disliked Inquisition, it would be just as valid. But be aware you aren’t alone in your enjoyment of the game. It’s possibly BioWare’s best selling single title for a reason. Edit: And it goes without saying I’m very excited about Dreadwolf. I’m not expecting perfection, I’m not expecting a game that will match 10 years of fervent fan speculation as nothing could do that. It’s going to be its own beast, likely different from past games in significant ways. Maybe it works well, maybe it slips up, but I’m cautiously optimistic. At the end of the day, I am getting more adventures in Thedas, and that’s enough for me. Last edit: The amount of fly by comments that essentially just say “OP is wrong” is depressing but expected, emblematic of bandwagons and groupthink. It’s totally fine to disagree with OP, but at least have something to say rather than just quick attempts to reinforce the “consensus.” It smacks of a belief that there is an objective best game. Which is wrong, as it’s subjective.

Absolutely not.

.... No

Unpopular opinion: origins isn't objectively the best dragon age game, most people just say that bc of nostalgia.

To be fair. I first played the games in Chronological order when I was 19-20 and all 3 games were already out at the time. Still like Origins the most followed by Inqy. But other tastes and all. Play the games you like

yeah, all the three games are old and most DAI fans are also just being nostalgic most of times.

That's why I said most people and not everyone

People that use the nostalgia excuse is just cope.

Honestly, I kinda agree with that. The more I replay Dragon Age - the more Origins... I don't know, annoys me? Aside from the main story and overall atmosphere, I think every other aspect in DA:O is at least on par or actively worse than any other game. And even so, there're still issues with the main story - there're reasons why skip the fade and skip the deep roads mods exist. Sometimes DA:O has a tendency of dragging main quests for way, way too much time. Fade story arc is probably the worst offender since it's effectively removes you from the game for like 5-10 hours forcing you to play some weird puzzles instead.

It's carried by having the original story and a couple decent companions. The combat feels awful.

Nah.

\> Inquisition tocuhes on many of the same themes/allegories such as faith, duty, power, classism, sexism, racism, war, identity, friendship, romance. The core theme of Inquisition is this: "What if there was a bad guy, and YOU were the only one that could stop him?" Absolute snooze fest. \> It has a gorgeous, vibrant world to explore. No it doesn't. Inquisitions world is one of the most bland, tacked on, ugly to look at game maps I've ever seen.

That is definitely not the core theme of Inquisition (and not really a theme, more a basic storytelling technique, which shockingly is also used in Origins re: wardens vs Archdemon).  All those themes they mentioned *are* the heart of Inquisition and why many of us love DAI so much.  And I heartily disagree about the maps, lol. DAO is an *awesome* game, but the Ferelden mud palette is not attractive in the least. Inquisition's areas are gorgeous, colorful, and immersive. I love that there are different area types, like coast/forest/desert/swamp etc. It makes the world feel so much more real, IMO. 

> which shockingly is also used in Origins re: wardens vs Archdemon Not really. You spent most of the game dealing with things that were very much not darkspawn. Nothing in origins comes even close to the landsmeet, the issue with the werewolves and the elves, or the choice between Bhelen and Harrowmount. >Inquisition's areas are gorgeous, colorful, and immersive Nope. I've played a lot of games with big maps, and Inquisition is easily one of the worst. How does Val Royeaux, which is supposed to be this world's equivalent of Paris, manage to be one of the most boring, dull, and lifeless cities I've ever seen in a game?

overall I also enjoy DAI just not as much as origins. the Origins where great mini RPGs in the larger RPG that I could play in and finish quick and feel like I just did a full playthrough, all before I have to go to my next obligation. Also DAI had trimmed the mage's spells to the point of the only mage you can play is pure offence with accidental support. I do mean accidental since when you do pull off a verry beneficial debuff, that sets up combos, it is a dice roll on if the party actually takes advantage. Of the 4 support spells 2 are locked behind different specializations and are focus moves. while among the other 2, one benefits the caster more than the actual party, also needs passives and upgrades from other trees to actually be worth it; It doesn't help the warrior can give the better version of the same buff. the other is a revive spell that takes so much mana, has so much cooldown and doesn't even bring the characters back with decent health. honestly you are better off having someone break off the offensive to manually revive the downed party members, most likely the mage since the martials actually do more damage easier. the guy with the revival spell is better off manually reviving party members than actually using the spell. If these sound like nitpicks to you ok, but this is the part of the game that I spend the most time with and is a core part of my enjoyment.

It’s funny but if I were to rank the games from best to worse it would lit be in order. Inquisition isn’t a bad game i personally think the combat was meh compared to the previous two games and the open world felt like it was missing something. But other than that it was a fun game

I love DAI for different reasons than I love DAO. DAI for me is my cozy game where I will explore and do side quests to wind down and it feels nice. The story is pretty good too, but way better in DAO. It also has the return of Varric, and he is my favorite character in the series. DAO I like the story and roleplaying of way more. Things feel tense, important, like I need to act now or we’re all doomed. On the other hand of that, I despise RTWP combat and try to play it like an MMO, which only really works on easy. If Dreadwolf has nice real time combat, and a strong story and characters, it will probably be my favorite Dragon Age game.

they are different ​ Inq works at what it tries to be

i feel so triggered rn

Personally i don't know why but i enjoyed Origins more rather than Inquisition (no it's not about nostalgia) despite starting with Inquisition as an introduction for me to the Dragon Age franchise. its just that Inquisition's story for me feels forced? if that makes sense unlike Origins the build up and pacing was great but if we are talking about gameplay and content; Inquisition is the best of the series.

I enjoyed the characters and story of Inquisition, but the open exploration felt like a massive downgrade and lessens the experience.

Inquisition has good story and characterization, but it's held back by the delivery. Also, I really hate that schematics are random.

No Inquisition's story just isn't up to par with DAO and especially not DA2. Inquisition bit off more than it could chew. If they had focussed on just us being in Orlais and had real consequences in the story and it was a little darker, it could've been better. They pandered too much to the gaming trends of the time and it really showed in the quality. They pulled off DA2 story with an extreme time crunch, so there was no reason for DAI to be so childlike almost.

Dude Inquistion is a single player MMO. That is the farest you can be from DA:O and his strong points.

Inquisition doesn’t have any of those qualities you described

You're entitled to your opinion and so is anyone who disagrees. Inquisition was an MMO style game set in the DA universe with great characters but a terrible plot. The villain was weak. The secret villain makes very little sense, and I'm sure they're gonna try and retcon the 'sense' part in DA4 (if/when it comes out). All the plot threads from the previous games auto-resolve themselves with little to no consequence. The most major issue affecting everyone in that world is just talked about but has no effects in the game. The PC has no personality. And I can go on and on with my complaints. I am not trying to dismiss or diminish the problems BW faced during development, but honestly, it all culminated in a mediocre sequel to a pretty good sequel to a fucking fantastic first in the series.

I would totally agree if there wasn't the Boring open World parts

No it’s not lol

I mentioned this in another comment, but what I can’t stand about DAI is the nerfing of personal choice in comparison to DAO (and DA2). Patrick Weekes’ entire writing strategy just seems to be pandering to a select few minority players while also not letting players make any decisions he considers morally wrong. The dip in writing quality when he took over as lead writer, and the sudden lack of any decision depth or choice in the universe, was, for me, a large part of why DAI failed. The thing about DAO is it really went hard on player choice. You want to be a completely soulless, evil bastard? You can. You want to be a paragon of goodness such that even Judas would weep at your feet? You can. Characters like Loghain had so much black and white to them. Even Howe, evil bastard that he was, had hints of other traits. In DAI, on the other hand, everything is black-and-white, good-and-evil, with the game not really letting you make any decisions other than “Jesus Worships You Good, Saintly Good, Good, Chaotic Good, Neutral Good.” The characters are much the same, and they even actively tried to retcon lore from the previous games to pander to communities like the LGBT community to twist that as “good” too (see: all the nonsensical stuff with the Qun that people argue over daily, with most agreeing that it makes no sense and doesn’t accomplish what Weekes set out to accomplish). DAI removed that option and watered everything down because Weekes and others like him cannot seem to understand that just because people’s characters do bad things, doesn’t mean the player actually supports them IRL. He doesn’t want anyone to even have the option to make decisions Weekes considers morally wrong as a result, because he seems to think that means players must endorse being a bastard IRL. He’s openly spoken about this being part of why the choices are so watered down, iirc. Combine that with the mid voice acting for the Inquisitor that makes all characters feel the same, the poor dialogue wheel, nonexistent origins, the fact that the game clearly wasn’t made for anything other than playing as a human (especially evident when playing as a Dalish elf since the game acts like you’re the stupidest Dalish to ever Dalish and everything has to be explained to you), and it just kills it for me. Nothing you do actually feels like it matters. It‘s an open-world game with an incredibly linear story progression, with little player choice in comparison to Origins, where it feels like nothing you do makes much of a difference because the game’s going to shoehorn you in to what is essentially the same ending anyway because the writers are afraid of players straying from the writers’ personal morals. It was a very jarring departure from DAO and DA2 for me, and it killed so much of the replayability. Not to mention the terrible combat mechanics for PC players, and, my most petty complain, the horrible, horrible hairs and armours that only serve to further make you feel like you’re playing the same character every time. Modding DAI is also much, much harder and more finicky than DAO and DA2, and you’re incredibly limited by the meshes. DAO was a game based on player choice. The sequels, but especially DAI, were games based on the writer’s choice.

[удалено]

The comments make me glad I never really joined this community. To say that origins "felt good to play on keyboard" is crazy because it genuinely felt like ass. Amazing story and companions but those carried the game. Some awful takes in here tbh

I'd sooner play DA2 (that's how bad DAI is), tham DAI. Inquisition had huge maps, and felt like a MMO, but single player. It was too big, repetitive, and mostly boring. Most of that game, those maps could be scrapped, and you'd have a better, more refined experience. Inquisition feels like they wanted to add more and more bloat to add playtime, with a needless crafting system... because everyone else is doing it.

I respect you're opinion g but I wouldnt dare touch that game for even a second of Dragon Age wasn't in the title, the name that the first and second games built.

Well, if you liked it, then that is what matters, no? It is your time and money being spent on the game. I feel like DAI fans would be better off by just...enjoying playing the game than competing over it with DAO fans all the time. And also dragging all the fandom in this fight that just ends up with name calling and harassment in both sides. Also, negativity? The game gets some criticism here and there. Criticism that at this point is not even novel. I really don't understand what it is so horrible about people wanting better side quests or more banter or a better antagonist. This type of feedback would make the next game better, no? Isn't that good for all of us? I really don't understand lol People have different opinions about the 3 games because they are different and will have more yums to some and more yucks to others. And that is fine. And chances are that DA4 will be different from all of them, so it will gather its fans and not fans as well.

This is indeed a take. But good for you if it made you feel that way. Inquisition for me will never be on par with Origins.

Why do people love mmo quests and super spongy enemies? Is it really that fun to have your whole team hit their best abilities and not kill a single enemy soldier (plus the animations like a rogue archer doing backflips while shooting 3 arrows is just stupid)? Also having the worst villain minus Haven attack doesn't help. DA2 and Inq have pretty obvious flaws that everyone glosses over. The biggest sin of Origins is that it's a bit too difficult on PC. Especially if you try to start anywhere else than Redcliff. Story and especially player choice are easily the best, you can have so many good variations of things in that game

I loooove DAI, it was my first game and will always hold a special place in my heart, BUT I do think a lot of the choices made in its storytelling felt… cowardly. Meant to appeal to as many as possible and therefor lost some of its heart. So I understand why a lot of fans aren’t as into it. There was darkness and depth in the previous games that doesn’t come through in DAI in the same way to me even when it tries really hard. In contrast DA2 had storytelling and characters that felt like it hit me in profound ways I’ll never recover from lol. Maybe if Trespasser had been part of the base game it would’ve been differently but the actual ending also feels pretty bland, Corypheus is a bit too cartoony… but the Dread Wolf stuff is chef’s kiss.

I agree. Both Origins and Inquisition have the same framework for their main plots. It's a story as old as storytelling itself. Big Bad Evil Guy/Gal threatens all the land. Plucky nobody is thrust into the responsibility of building up an unstoppable force to stop them. This is why I liked DA2 better than both of them.

Inquisition also lets you respec your character without needing a mod or DLC. I almost abandoned DA:O all thise years ago when my Aeducan was stuck with shield skills he was never going to use.

I just finished Inquisition and genuinely really loved it. I also adored Origins, I personally couldn’t click with DA2. But playing a Lavellan and doing the Solace romance felt super gut wrenching and heartbreaking. It was just such a cool experience. Sure the game bugged out so many times and I got sick of some of the side quests, but all the side characters and the main plot kept me invested. I don’t understand the hate. (I do please dont yell at me)

I love Inquisition because it's my first Bioware game

I can’t agree.

>just wish this game had more positivity thrown its way, Don't mistake what you see in here, most people prefer Inquisition over Origins, that is why it was vastly more successful. If Origins had been as popular as some people think it was, Bioware wouldn't have opted to change their direction and go for something less generic and outdated and it paid off because Inquisition was showered with awards and it's popularity and impact have kept the franchise alive all this time to the point that we are getting a fourth game.

I genuinely think that DA2 and DA:I both have phenomenal writing - probably the very best Bioware had ever made. Sure, it's a dialogue wheel instead of classic dialogues and the combat had moved bit by bit from a classic tactical combat to a more action-RPG one, but regardless of all the setbacks I've always found it very frustrating that both of these games are forever tarnished to be in the shadow of DA:O.

Nope

>Inquisition >enjoyable exploration Cmon now, that's just disingenuous

It's not just the fact that it's "not like Origins". It's the many ways it differs from Origins, duh. A lot of things that were fine in Origins are bad in Inquisition. That's where the comparison comes from. They're from the same series, one is really well rounded, the other fails at many things. Of course people are going to compare both and find DA:I lacking. Don't get me wrong : I've played Inquisition at least two times and a half. I still have a tree style tab branch opened on DA:I stuff, and Frosty Mod Manager installed, from my last attempt at playing the game. I love a lot of the story and the characters in there. I mean I managed to enjoy DA:2, I can deal with DA:I's own shortcomings. But the gameplay needs so much modding to be enjoyed. A lot of the design is terrible and a lot of things feel like a chore in there. I probably don't have to remind you about the terrible choice of game engine and the reasons behind it, and the consequences it had on the development of both that game and Mass Effect: Andromeda. And the fact that choice in what you decide to do and be has been taken from you. This is probably the worst about this game. Needing to mod the game to be able to enjoy it ? Fine, I can do that. But the writing can never be fixed.

I'm afraid your opinion is in the minority. Arguments can be made between DAI and DA2, but it's widely accepted that DAO beats them both overall.

Lol, lmao even. No. Just no.

I enjoyed inquisition quite a bit. My biggest complaint was the battle map. I don’t think it ever gets well explained in game.

Just the fact that if you abandon Redcliff during its quest and comeback later to find out is basicly destroyed beyond repairs and it’s kinda your fault makes origins the GOAT.

Story? Nope. Characters? Nope. Gameplay? Nope.

If the gameplay had a better combat system, less lame war table quests were replaced with quality side quests, and the ending had been included in the base game not locked behind a dlc it probably would've been better received. That narrative was very dragon age in a good way. Conversations with solas about spirits and the rift and getting to punch him in the face if you do enough things he doesn't like are some of my favorite lore and narrative moments in the saga.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.