Lucas
Versantvoort / December 9, 2014
After Mass Effect 3 disappointed in more ways
than one (yes, it’s not just the ending that’s an issue) and Dragon Age 2 felt rushed compared to the
majesty that was Origins, BioWare
knew they had to reel their fans back in with some quality game design. It’s
not for nothing Dragon Age: Inquisition
was delayed. For better or worse, Inquisition
had the aura of being an apology to gamers. BioWare was determined to give
gamers a game of massive size and scope, a culmination of everything that made
them famous: the ultimate BioWare game. If professional reviewers are to be
believed, Inquisition is as a splendid
return to form for BioWare. While that’s partially true, the game’s definitely not
without its faults. Warning: though I quite like the game, adequately conveying
my complaints takes time, so it might sound like I’m bashing Inquisition, but to BioWare that’s
probably become the same as being ‘a passionate fan’. Also, spoilers.
The action takes place right after
the events of Dragon Age 2. By
blowing up the Kirkwall Chantry, Anders unleashed years of tensions between
mages and Templars, culminating in war. Seeking to end the war, a Conclave is
called for that includes important representatives from both parties to discuss
peace. The main character finds himself/herself there, but something goes
wrong. The whole place explodes and a massive rift appears in the sky which
also causes other ‘mini-rifts’ to appear. By being in the wrong place at the
wrong time, you also find yourself with a strange mark on your left hand which
gives you the ability to close the rifts. This makes you something of a hero in
the eyes of an ever-growing number of people and you soon find yourself at the
head of an inquisition, seeking to gain allies amidst all the political turmoil
and close the rift in the sky.
So yeah, story-wise this is without
question a BioWare game where you play as one gifted individual trying to save
the world with your companions. BioWare has been using this formula since its
conception and it’s not hard to see why: you get to explore different places,
interact in various ways with your companions, etc. What’s not to like? It’s a
formula that has a lot going for it, though you know it’s getting derivative
when charts like this one pop up…
What I particularly like about the main
story is the actual structure. You form the inquisition at your base, Haven.
You rally those around you, complete quests, etc. Then after a few missions you
close the rift and it’s party time…or is it? Naturally, the threat remains and
Haven is attacked. After a narrow escape, you regroup with the survivors and
seek refuge in an abandoned fortress in the mountains, Skyhold. I like games
that pull the rug from under you and change it up like this, like when you’re
separated from the group in the desert in Final
Fantasy X.
The game is also positively enormous.
There’s main quests and then there’s side quests and those side quests might
have side quests and some missions lead to other missions. The amount of
content is dazzling, especially for BioWare. This is particularly felt when you
enter your first big area, the Hinterlands. You could easily spend the first
ten hours of the game there, claiming camps, defeating enemies, helping people,
closing rifts, farm items for crafting, etc. I feel sorry for the people that
like to 100% their games. On the other hand, replaying the game is now ten times
more tiresome because of all the content. You’ll most likely want to replay the
game to make different decisions and pursue other romances, not recapture the
same camps and finish the same side quests over and over. Also, the main storyline,
which is already underwhelming, loses focus.
Whereas everything you did in Origins
had to do with gaining allies to combat the Blight, many if not all of Inquisition’s side quests can
feel…random and pointless. BioWare of course tries to link it all to the theme of 'strengthening
the inquisition' by letting you earn Influence and Power after every mission,
but that doesn’t change the fact that you lose interest in the story after hours
of wandering the game’s vast locales...which in itself gets boring fast. I remember getting to Emprise du Lion and doing nthing but fighting the same enemies over and over again, waiting for a quest to show up that had some actual content to it. Save for the occasional party banter, nobody spoke, until I stumbled upon a dying woman who wanted me to put a letter in a tree. For the first time in hours, my inquisitor actually said something! Inquisition is now a game with two features: a main storyline and a big sandbox with chores side quests. Not only has BioWare's Skyrim-esque escapades led them to create an open world with zero emotionally compelling content (in that sense they copied Skyrim quite well...), but the main story has also suffered as a direct result. BioWare's made Inquisition a jack of all trades, master of none.
Your companions are overall an improvement over
those in DA2. Though even after
roughly 80 hours of play, I still haven’t really gotten to know them all (aka
finish their personal quests, etc.), I didn’t have the problems with them like I
had with those in DA2, except for
one, Gollum Sera. I’m sure she has an interesting backstory and all that
stuff, but her character has the worst introduction ever. There’s no appeal in
recruiting her whatsoever beyond it giving you access to extra missions, etc. Basically
she makes no sense. She speaks English of course, but does it in a way that
suggests she fell on her head at some point. She’s to Inquisition what Merrill was to DA2;
that awkward feeling when you realize Sera and Merrill are supposed to be funny/endearing but are in actuality mostly annoying. I know I
should take the time to invest in her character before judging, but the fact
that it would require considerable effort on my part doesn’t help. Shouldn’t I
feel emotionally compelled to converse with my companions? Before the game was
released, I remember expecting a badass rogue of sorts (who simply cuts her
hair when it gets in the way) and all I got was some crazy girl who makes no
sense. Overall though, things are mostly solid character-wise.
 |
| Generic appearance? Check. Generic motivation? Check. Ladies and gents, I think we've got ourselves a boring antagonist. |
However, the story does a number of things
really wrong in my opinion. First of all, the main antagonist (Corypheus) isn’t
interesting…at all. He has the typical over-the-top look of a generic fantasy
supervillain and his motives aren’t that engaging. Plus he doesn’t show his
ugly face much either which doesn’t help. And when he does, you always foil his
plans. Ironically, for a villain with such world-threatening plans, he’s as
neutered a villain as possible. But I can deal with that as writing villains isn’t
BioWare’s strong suit anyway. What disappointed me most however was the scope
of the story. I know that’s a strange complaint considering the fact that the
world of Inquisition is enormous both
in actual size and content. What I’m referring to is where the story stops. (Spoilers) Throughout the game, you’ll
get the idea that the story will go on after you’ve defeated Corypheus. Your
companions discuss with you what the world after Corypheus will look like: who
will be the next Divine? Will the inquisition be perceived as a military
threat? Will you be betrayed by those around you who may not agree with your
post-Corypheus worldviews? There’s a trippy mission where you’re in a
dream/Fade (whatever) and a demon confronts you with visions. You walk through
a dungeon where you see your companions behind bars, wondering why you, the
Inquisitor, put them there. Unsurprisingly, I thought this was a possible
future depending on my choices, a future where I’m a merciless despot. A
Chantry mother told me I could shape the inquisition into something that will
save the world or destroy it. At one point, one of your companions actually
tells you that after you’ve defeated Corypheus, many in the world might see you
as a threat to their power and will be very eager to “knock you back down.” What
all of the above told me is that Corypheus is not the main antagonist, but the
world of Thedas and all the important players in it. I thus eagerly awaited the
moment I would defeat Corypheus and the story would continue! It’d be revealed
that—depending on my actions—several world leaders (and perhaps also some of
your companions!) would now turn against the inquisition. This would drastically
improve the story, I think. It would go from ‘defeat supernatural antagonist to
save the world’ (boring) to something concerning the complex political
landscape of the world and its people (interesting). This would bring it far closer
to the theme of “saving the world from itself,” a statement made by BioWare. It
could’ve all been so much more interesting and emotionally engaging. Now you
have a game that just ends when you defeat The Big Bad, like pretty much every
game ever made. For me, this is by far
the game’s biggest letdown, because there was an opportunity for Inquisition to separate itself from the
pack.
I also didn’t like how the plot often took the
easy route by having Corypheus magically take control of people’s minds. I get
that complaining about this kind of stuff in a fantasy game makes no sense, but
the best kind of drama comes from characters with complex emotions, motivations
and worldviews, not deus ex machina
plot twists that include magical mind control. I’m not suggesting the entire
game suffers from this. Not at all, but I just think it reduces the possibility
of truly engaging drama. It allows the game to easily explain why Corypheus has
an army at his disposal which is a shame, because the game suggests many of his
followers share his motivations (to restore the Tevinter Imperium back to its
former glory). It might’ve been more interesting to make that purely the source
of his popularity and not some magical mind control nonsense. In my Dragon Age II review I made a similar
statement regarding Meredith and the Arishok. Whereas Meredith’s mind was
corrupted by a magical artifact (boring), the whole plot regarding the Qunari
was purely based on characters with conflicting worldviews and motivations
(interesting). It’s not for nothing Meredith is universally reviled and the
Arishok universally liked. Had Inquisition
reduced the magical nonsense factor, I feel it would’ve been all the better for
it.
And what about the occasionally ‘unnatural’
sounding dialogue? I understand that a game taking place in what are basically
medieval times will require somewhat more ‘fancy’ dialogue, but at what cost? There
were quite a number of times where it didn’t feel like you were actually talking with someone. This is only
hampered by the countless conversation options that boil down to “I’d like to
know more about…” In its defense, there are many times the dialogue shines. I
vividly remember a conversation toward the end with Solas. He was worried about
what I would do after the inquisition defeated Corypheus. I answered I’d
consider the opinions of those around me. Solas disagreed, worrying I’d
squander what I’d sacrificed so much to achieve. I can’t do what he said
justice here, but that was definitely a highlight. Finally, I felt the passion
behind a character’s spoken lines.
Besides dialogue, there’s also the
issue of Choice and Consequence, BioWare’s bread and butter. Make no mistake,
the amount of auto-dialogue has been greatly dialed down compared to, say, Mass Effect 3. There are countless
choices to be made and countless conversations to be had where you can assert
the kind of character you’re role-playing as. But I mostly wish to refer to the
actual impact of these choices. I
like little touches like Cassandra referencing your opinion on the Maker in a
conversation way later in the game. Even if it’s just one line, that one sentence made me feel like the world
and its people were reacting to me and my actions. However, I don’t feel many
choices truly impact the story. It’s like most of your decisions are made in
isolation from the rest. Completely conquering The Western Approach doesn’t
change the siege at Adamant. Recruiting the remaining Grey Wardens only results
in them appearing at Skyhold, but nothing is done with the risk of them being
corrupted again. Saving Empress Celene or not doesn’t change the fact that you
will get Orlesian support no matter what you do. This is all made worse by the
fact it’s implied that so much hinges on these kinds of decisions. I appreciate
that BioWare’s going for this feeling of you influencing people’s opinions and
the war effort, how the landscape changes (inquisition camps, enemy spawns),
etc. It’s all to suggest important, world-changing things are happening in the
background while you’re playing, but it doesn’t really work here. It never
comes together. Nothing really changes. A lot of what you do doesn’t rise in significance beyond ‘it
gives you Influence and Power which unlocks areas and story missions’. The same
goes for the companion quests. While they’re great on a standalone basis, they don’t really impact the rest of the game.
You’d also think the approval rating would have some effect on the story (à la Origins where companions would defy you
if pushed far enough or Mass Effect 2
where they would die if you didn’t do their personal missions), but no, besides
the romances it doesn’t really influence anything. Sure, some of it might it
influence the epilogue in a tiny way, but since the story’s
basically over at that point, who cares?
 |
| The opportunity for tactical combat is there; you just need to play on Hard or combat will be a breeze. |
I’m also uncertain about combat. DA2 attempted to please everyone (the
people who liked Origins and the hack ‘n slash crowd) with a strange
combination between strategy and hack ‘n slash that basically downplayed the tactical
element. With Inquisition, BioWare
obviously showed they listened to complaints levelled at DA2 and attempted a combination between Origins’ combat and DA2’s
combat. Make no mistake, combat is deeper than DA2 and there’s lots of room for customization, tactical approaches,
exploiting possible combinations of attacks, etc. But though a return to Origins’ combat is appreciated, I can’t
help but feel they’re basically making the same mistake again. Rather than trying
for a combination between combat styles to please everyone (a common trend in
modern BioWare games!), maybe they should just go with one style and perfect
it.
BioWare’s made no secret about the return of
the tactical combat seen in Origins.
Nevertheless, I found myself mostly breezing through combat. Only a handful of
times was I forced to resort to the tactical overview to order to my companions
around. Particularly humorous was a dragon battle toward the end. I was quite underpowered, so everyone
was attacking and I just walked out of range and kept reviving fallen
companions. If reviving companions would raise their approval ratings, I would’ve
maxed them all out in that battle… Though this all might have more to do with
me playing on normal difficulty. Higher difficulties would undoubtedly require
me to carefully position my characters, rather than just jump in and hope for
the best. But I’ve always played BioWare games for their stories and
characters, so higher difficulties would just slow me down, though I will give
it a whirl at some point.
On the technical side of things, problems also
abound, like the animations. BioWare has never been known for pushing the
limits in these areas, preferring instead to craft fictional worlds with
interesting stories and characters. That’s fine, but the resulting flaws inherent
to the animations are on full display here: from obviously reused animations
from previous BioWare games to animation glitches and Uncanny Valley facial
expressions, the gang’s all here. There often was a disconnect between what
characters were expressing and how this was conveyed (or not) through
animation. Obviously, it’d be impossible to utilize motion-capture for every
single conversation à la The Last of Us
(since that game is linear, it’s within the realm of the possible), but it
definitely annoyed me. It’s definitely not game-breaking by any means, but I do
believe—and this is crucial—that issues like ‘artificial’ facial expressions,
texture issues, animation problems, etc. can come together to reduce the
emotional impact of what BioWare’s going for. Consider the ‘the dawn will come’
scene. The inquisition has been run out of their home base, Haven, by
Corypheus. You and the other survivors come together somewhere in the snowy
mountains. Morale couldn’t be lower. Then one person starts singing a hopeful hymn.
Slowly but surely the rest join in. It’s meant to be a revelatory moment and
while it’s all well-sung, something’s missing. I can’t take it seriously, not
truly. Maybe it’s the campiness that often haunts BioWare whenever they try to
be dramatic, but there’s always something that catches my eye. I want to read
the emotion in the character’s eyes, but it’s not there. The animations feel
off. When a character appears, I notice the textures still haven’t loaded
correctly. The list goes on. This may all sound nitpicky, but lump enough
technical issues together and you easily ruin the emotional core of what you’re
going for. People joke about Mass Effect’s
crappy graphics and animations, but those games are still loved because they
made gamers feel something. I’m not
sure I can say the same for Inquisition.
To again make the unfair comparison to The
Last of Us, that game uses mo-cap and all the resources at its disposal to
enhance the emotional impact of the story. The animations feel just right, the
look in the characters’ eyes betray their emotions. While there are definitely times when Inquisition positively nails the facial
expressions, this is something BioWare hasn’t come close to achieving on a
consistent basis and it negatively impacts the intended emotional impact of
their stories and characters.
Also, glitches…glitches everywhere. Inquisition was developed for both
current- and next-gen consoles and pc’s. Surprisingly, performance issues
abound on all versions. I’m currently playing the PS3 version, so I’m
undoubtedly getting the short end of the graphical stick. I can’t readily
compare the versions performance-wise. The PS3 version however is troubled by lag,
texture pop-ins, audio glitches (sound effects that appear several seconds too
late), conversation glitches (the conversation might stay stuck during lines,
forcing you to press skip which makes the game skip the next line), freezes
(after roughly 80 hours of play, the game’s frozen up on me three times,
forcing me to restart the game, but since the save file will have disappeared,
you have to hope the latest auto-save wasn’t too far removed from the point the
game froze), very slowly loading textures, etc. What pisses me off the most
though is the lip-syncing. I don’t
know if and how this affects other versions of the game, but believe me when I
say that 99% of all lip-syncing feels off. I can handle pop-ins, audio
glitches, but if the lip-syncing isn’t spot-on, full immersion becomes
extremely difficult, because I’m constantly reminded of it. I’ve lost count of
the times I was more worried about whether or not the lip-syncing was accurate
than paying attention to what people were saying. This is the technical issue that needs to be fixed asap. Though supposedly
the next-gen and pc versions aren’t free of technical issues themselves, it’s
all supposed to look, feel and play a lot better…which isn’t a surprise.
However, technical issues are patchable,
provided BioWare is willing to expend the effort to do so on a continual basis.
On the other hand, issues with storylines and characters aren't solved with a simple patch, which is why judging BioWare games on these key fronts—as I’ve mostly
done—is more relevant.
So yeah, this game is definitely not perfect,
but at the very least in terms of size and scope it’s miles above DA2, so that’s something. It’s obvious a
great deal of effort went into making it, but for every thing Inquisition does right, it also does
something wrong. I realize this review’s mostly paid attention to the negatives,
but that’s because 1) they are plenty and 2) explaining why something sucks
requires greater explanation. Inquisition
does a lot of things right: overall, the characters are an improvement over those in DA2; Skyhold is wonderful (though its
customization options are actually quite limited); combat is pretty fun and
tactical provided you’re playing on higher difficulties; the story’s got a lot
of good sections (though it all doesn’t come together), the game world is huge (which
is both good and bad); character customization is deep (but flawed); the music is quite good;
the list goes on. The game’s got so much going for it, it’s frustrating that I don’t feel it reaches true greatness. I’m definitely liking the game and
everything it has to offer, but I don’t think I love it, despite my wanting to. Either way, Inquisition definitely did not "make awesome happen."
Stray
observations:
That awkward moment when you realize DA2's Qunari storyline had more depth than anything in Inquisition...
On a side
note, may I just say I positively adore the Tarot cards? Not only are they
wonderful to look at, each character (save for Leliana, Josephine and Cullen)
has multiple versions that reveal more of their personalities. Ironically, I think the reason I like them so much is that they hint at the passion underlying these characters, an aliveness that the game itself has trouble conveying.
While Origins allowed you to fully customize your companions' appearances and DA2 only had special armor that was unlocked after doing romances or special missions, Inquisition finds a comfortable middle ground by adjusting new armor to your companions' general appearances. This way, they maintain their unique identities while still obviously wearing different armor.
The
question remains: will BioWare eventually figure out how to make hair?
No comments:
Post a Comment