Healer (Dragon Age: Inquisition)
In the past, DA immediately rocked healing. And here at Solas I don't see anything like that at all. Maybe it's called differently? How?Well, there is a healing spell in the sorcerer knight line that uses focus. In general, there is no separate school of healing here. In this part, they put more emphasis on all kinds of defensive buffs instead.
_Irbis_
in this "part" (which in fact is a separate game) focused on the MMO component in the form of mobodroch on separate maps, rejecting all RPG elements. Healing is one of the many features that came under the knife
Evgeny Chernikov
I wonder if you can clearly explain what exactly "came under the knife" and why it is bad. Or what to say on the wave of fashionable hating?
_Irbis_
I have nothing to do with hating and any fashionable nonsense) Just stating the facts as a fan of the series and D&D foundations.
What did you get rid of?
1. All Lore Origins. A new story that crosses out everything that came before.
2. Game mechanics and D&D rules according to which Origins was built
3. Simplified gameplay up to the stage of kindergarten (in order to please the console players and go off the rails of the first part)
4. Actual MMO orientation (the game was originally conceived exclusively as an MMO, but in the end the Brewers nevertheless decided make a single playthrough)
5. Elections and their consequences. In the Inquisition, no choice affects anything and is screwed solely for the "view". Keep is made more likely to remind players of the decisions that he made in the previous parts and to spit out waiting for some kind of causal relationship in the Inquisition. Pure marketing ploy
6. The system of relationships and character depths. Much simplified compared to Origins
Evgeny Chernikov
1. What are you talking about?
2. D&D has never been sided with Dragon Age.
3. Here is more detailed please.
4. Seriously? How can you really perceive this clumsy rumor? Tell me you were joking. Still, I want more details about what you mean.
5. "No choice influences anything" - I don't even know how to comment here. There really is nothing to say here.
6. BioWare's "system of relationships" is the same and has been wandering from game to game for a long time. Inquisition and Origins have no fundamental differences in this regard. I did not understand about the "character depth". What is it and how is it measured?
Evgeny Chernikov
1. The story was never crossed out and nowhere denied, where did you see this?
5. There are fewer elections than we would like, but they have an impact. At least the choice between mages and templars affects subsequent quests and the types of opponents further in the game. Yes, and from the kip there was an influence, albeit mainly in the records of the codex and dialogues. He still influences Hawke as much as possible.
6. I did not notice any simplifications / deteriorations in comparison with the first part. It didn't get any worse for sure.
Official words from Bioware: "In creating the Inquisition, we kind of made a sequel to a non-existent game. This is a completely clean slate project."
I will omit all the questions after this type -What does Lore have to do with it).
Making Origins, the brewers were afraid that the game would fail and all the money spent would go to the tarts. Therefore, we decided to move away from the original scenario. Oringins was to become really the "Beginning" of the big story of the fifth Blight. But in view of all of the above, they decided to fit as much as possible into the first (and possibly the last) part in the flesh until the victory over the Archdemon. When the game became a popular hit and EA allocated a lot of money for the development of the franchise, the Brewers needed a new plot and plot (since they have enough scriptwriters). The desire to come to the console prompted to change the classic tactical combat system by making a bias towards action. The second part was a touchstone
2. Origins was created in the D&D setting
3. As for the MMO orientation - the information is also official
4. I do not intend to comment on all the other points, as it will drag on for long hours of useless disputes. I will say one thing - Origins continue to play until now and the Inquisition will be forgotten in a maximum of a year. All my friends old whine and hardcore gamers generally refused to even install this game.
Evgeny Chernikov
All Lore Origins. A new story that crosses out everything that came before.
It is not worth delving into the jungle of the original concepts and plans of the developers. The fact is that what you have written, to put it mildly, does not correspond to the prevailing reality.
The desire to come to the console prompted to change the classic tactical combat system by making a bias towards action. The second part was a touchstone.
We're talking about the third. So what exactly does it claim in this regard and why?
Origins was created in the D&D setting
I repeat once again. Origins has absolutely nothing to do with D&D. Well, perhaps only by the fact that it was created by the same company that created Baldur's Gate - a game in the setting and according to the D&D rules. Dragon Age itself has nothing to do with D&D.
As for the MMO focus - the information is also official.
Then it will not be very difficult for you to provide a link.
All my friends old whine and hardcore gamers generally refused to even install this ... game.
And what is the opinion of such familiar old-school hardcore players worth if they haven't played?
Origins continue to play to this day and the Inquisition will be forgotten in a year at most.
Why not two or three? Can you share the calculation formula?
I do not intend to comment on all other points, as it will drag on for long hours of useless disputes.
It seems to me that you yourself do not know what exactly you are not happy with. Having succumbed to the fashionable wave of hating, you just throw general phrases and vague concepts, maintaining the image of the dissatisfied. Which, however, did not stop you from going through the game two times.