966 réponses à ce sujet

[Aradace]

You know, I've been thinking about this for a while.  And while not everyone on this thread is saying it, it is implied by some folks that those who play more "action based video games" are somehow "less intelligent" than those who play RPGs.  Again, not directly stated in most cases but there are some.  So, being a firm believer in science and scientific studies and such, I dug up this article I found a while back.  Make what you will of it and I'll leave it at that:

According
to new research by cognitive scientists from the University of
Rochester, playing action video games trains people to make the right
decisions faster. The researchers found that video game players develop a
heightened sensitivity to what is going on around them. This benefit
doesn’t just make them better at playing games, but improves a wide
variety of general skills that can help with everyday activities like
multitasking, driving, reading small print, keeping track of friends in a
crowd, and navigating around town.
 
“You would not think playing action games could be beneficial by watching an avid player blast monsters,” said Daphne Bavelier, researcher at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester. “Yet,
our research shows that these individuals learn through action gameplay
how to make more informed decisions about their surroundings. They
react extremely fast to events around them, but they are not trigger
happy. Rather, our work shows that their brains are just better at
processing the information they need to perform the task at hand.”
 
The researchers, who also included
Alexandre Pouget and C. Shawn Green, tested dozens of 18- to
25-year-olds who were not ordinarily video game players. They split the
subjects into two groups. One group played 50 hours of the fast-paced
action video games Call of Duty 2 and Unreal Tournament, and the other group played 50 hours of the slow-moving strategy game The Sims 2.
 
After this training period, all of
the subjects were asked to make quick decisions in several tasks
designed by the researchers. In the tasks, the participants had to look
at a screen, analyze what was going on, and answer a simple question
about the action in as little time as possible (i.e. whether a clump of
erratically moving dots was migrating right or left across the screen on
average). In order to make sure the effect wasn’t limited to just
visual perception, the participants were also asked to complete an
analogous task that was purely auditory.
 
The action game players were up to
25 percent faster at coming to a conclusion and answered just as many
questions correctly as their strategy game playing peers. Bavelier said
these results did not show that the action game players are
trigger-happy and less accurate. In fact, they are just as accurate and
also faster.
 
“Being able to make
more correct decisions per unit of times could give you an edge in many
real-life situations,” said Bavelier. “There are already reports in the
literature of gamers being better laparoscopic surgeons, better air
traffic controllers, better pilots, and better soldiers in battle.”

Although
the study focused on an older Call of Duty game, the researchers
believe any action games, including less violent shooters, could benefit
players when it comes to quick and accurate decision making. And the
positive effects cross genders.
 

“In our study, we always make sure we train both
males and females,” explained Bavelier. “In our hands, females benefit
as much as males from action game training.”
 
The authors’ neural simulations shed light on why action gamers
have augmented decision making capabilities. Bavelier said people make
decisions based on probabilities that they are constantly calculating
and refining in their heads. The process is called probabilistic
inference. The brain continuously accumulates small pieces of visual or
auditory information as a person surveys a scene, eventually gathering
enough for the person to make what they perceive to be an accurate
decision.




 
“Decisions
are never black and white,” added Bavelier. “The brain is always
computing probabilities. As you drive, for instance, you may see a
movement on your right, estimate whether you are on a collision course,
and based on that probability make a binary decision: brake or don’t
brake.”
 
Action
video game players’ brains are more efficient collectors of visual and
auditory information, and therefore arrive at the necessary threshold of
information they need to make a decision much faster than non-gamers.
 The new study builds on previous work by Bavelier and colleagues that
showed that games improve vision by making players more sensitive to
slightly different shades of color.

Bavelier
has been researching the positive effects of action games for years,
covering more than just shooters by incorporating titles like Grand Theft Auto, Marvel vs. Capcom 2, and Mario Kart  into her research. In
2007, her research with Green found that action video game experience
heightens the ability to view small details in cluttered scenes and to
perceive dim signals, such as would be present when driving in fog. In
2008, she and Green discovered that action games can improve the
short-term memory of gamers.
 
When it comes to
more strategy-driven games like The Sims 2, Bavelier believes that there
are positive effects from playing these types of games, as well; they
just haven’t focused on those areas of the brain thus far.
 
“We don't think
The Sims has no effect, we probably have not tested the domains where it
has an effect,” said Bavalier. “We did not find any beneficial effect
of creative strategy games so far, but we have not looked at higher
cognitive skills such as problem solving or creative thinking.”
 
The fact that many gamers who are
18 to 25 years old today have been playing games their entire life
opens up interesting information for parents with younger kids. And
since Bavelier, who has included “Everyone”-rated titles in her past
action games research, believes the benefits of action games go beyond
the shooter category, spending time in front of the TV playing Mario
Kart or Ratchet & Clank
might not be such a bad thing. Of course, supervision will always be
important for parents to keep track of just how much time kids are
playing games. But at least now it looks like kids will be able to earn
more than just high scores.




 

[Dormiglione]

Roxlimn wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...
Its not more complex. Its just more difficult. It doesnt make the combat system more complex.

Of course it does! If nothing else, spamming Grenades in DA2 ALSO involves running, whereas spamming grenades in DA:O only involves spamming grenades. That is already additional complexity, though perhaps of a kind you don't particularly like.

Sorry, but i dont see any tactical elements in a "chicken run" fight. Sure you could call it the "evade" style. The cool downs make only sense if you can use tactical cover.

Roxlimn wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

The spell combo system added a tactical element. Tactical Elements bring more complexity in the combat. Do you remember that spells always affected your NPC's. Like the paralyze spell combo that paralyzed the NPC's even the caster himself.

Don't confuse spell combos with friendly fire.

No, im not talking about friendly fire. Remember, cast the "Glyph of Paralysis" and the "Glyph of Repulsion" this two spells combined to a mass paralyze over a wide range of the area. Everyone, even the caster was paralyzed on normal difficulty setting. It was not friendly fire.
If you used the "cone of cold" you freezed also your companions. Sure without any damage from the spell, but they were still frozen.

Roxlimn wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...
Its nothing new. In DAO a mage freezed an enemy and the warrior use the final blow -> shattered. See cross combo existed also in DAO

The new part is the part where multi-character cooperation of different classes is required. You didn't in DA:O. You could shatter your own frozen targets with Fist of Stone.

Still, multi-character cooperation of different classes was also part of Origins, its not something new that was introduced in DAO2.

Roxlimn wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...
DAO had more options and trees to skill up. You couldnt learn all abilities, spells or whatever. You had to choose wisely how you skilled up your character. So this was far more complex than the limited abilities of DA2, where there is no problem to learn the complete tree.

I want you to go to DA:O right now, fire it up, see the max level at the endgame, and count how many skills you've acquired versus how many are available. Don't hesitate. Just go on over and count.

Now do the same for a DA2 character.

Compare.

Im playing only on XBOX 360, so there i have no cheats and mods. In a normal playthrough in Origins you reached a Level between 21-23.
DA2 i think you can reach also Level between 21-23.
So, no difference.

Roxlimn wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...
Where do i find the "auto-win" spell, ability or tactical setting in DAO?

Storm of the Century. Can't miss it.

I know this spell, played more than 10 playthroughs in Origins, most of them as a mage. The storm of the century is a mighty spell. But with normal stats (xbox version no mods) it isnt as devastating as you say.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 16 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[Roses_Dilemma]

Longtime lurker, new poster here.

I like DA2. It's not what it could have been though.

To me this is the most telling part of the interview

In the balance of production, we realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories, content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters

This is kind of admitting the game was rushed, wasn't it? Surely they had the "capacity" to create an infinite number of unique levels. Other games do it. What they didn't have was time to do it. I actually feel that what the game is missing is more quests and story, especially in act 3. I don't even mind the repeated levels, really. They're just the most obvious symptom of the game's biggest weakness, which is that it was released at least a couple of months too soon.

I really believe that if the game were not so rushed the reception among Origins fans would be far different. There are other complaints, to be sure. I don't think they went in the right direction with the "waves" of combat. The cross-class combos seem forced. It's definitely geared more towards hard than nightmare in a way that makes most nightmare playthroughs more frustrating than challenging, while hard is still too easy for anybody who beat Origins on nightmare. However, having said all that, the combat itself is satisfying, enough that I'm on my 3rd playthrough. I really feel that these are minor gripes that the design team might address for the next game since they seem like common enough complaints.

But does anybody think that when they're looking at releasing DA3, they'll address the game's real biggest weakness, which is that they rushed it out too soon?

God, I sure hope so.

[Jitter]

Roxlimn wrote...

Jitter:

I... ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Please clarify.

Im just saying , perhaps they should have changed "Champion of Kirwall" 
for 
Dragon Age For Dummies. 


ignore me .. i thought i was done with bashing the game. 
but i was sick this week , so i thought i would try the game again , as watching daytime TV was boring me. 

But even in the state i was in , stonned on Neo Citron , and codeine , to the point where pocket lint could provide hours of entertainment. 30 minutes into the game i turned it off. 

Playing the game actually makes me mad at this point. 
I just gave it away to a friend who has a young son , perhaps he can enjoy it. 
he is 10

Modifié par Jitter, 16 avril 2011 - 05:22 .

[Aradace]

Jitter wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Jitter:

I... ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Please clarify.

Im just saying , perhaps they should have changed "Champion of Kirwall" 
for 
Dragon Age For Dummies. 


ignore me .. i thought i was done with bashing the game. 
but i was sick this week , so i thought i would try the game again , as watching daytime TV was boring me. 

But even in the state i was in , stonned on Neo Citron , and codeine , to the point where pocket lint could provide hours of entertainment. 30 minutes into the game i turned it off. 

Playing the game actually makes me mad at this point. 
I just gave it away to a friend who has a young son , perhaps he can enjoy it. 
he is 10

You realize how ignorant you sound with the part in your post that says "Dragon Age for Dummies" right?  You're implying that people who like/play faster paced games are somehow less intelligent than say, someone like you who plays slower paced RPGs and such.  If you didnt catch my recent post just above, I'll say go back and read that article I posted real quick.  Or if you prefer, I can simply dig it up again real quick and post you the link instead.

[Jitter]

Aradace wrote...

Jitter wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Jitter:

I... ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Please clarify.

Im just saying , perhaps they should have changed "Champion of Kirwall" 
for 
Dragon Age For Dummies. 


ignore me .. i thought i was done with bashing the game. 
but i was sick this week , so i thought i would try the game again , as watching daytime TV was boring me. 

But even in the state i was in , stonned on Neo Citron , and codeine , to the point where pocket lint could provide hours of entertainment. 30 minutes into the game i turned it off. 

Playing the game actually makes me mad at this point. 
I just gave it away to a friend who has a young son , perhaps he can enjoy it. 
he is 10

You realize how ignorant you sound with the part in your post that says "Dragon Age for Dummies" right?  You're implying that people who like/play faster paced games are somehow less intelligent than say, someone like you who plays slower paced RPGs and such.  If you didnt catch my recent post just above, I'll say go back and read that article I posted real quick.  Or if you prefer, I can simply dig it up again real quick and post you the link instead.

If you mean i am drawing a correlation between IQ and Pew Pew ... perhaps i am , so what , i use a PC that makes me an Elitist , don't ya read these forums ?

[Aradace]

Jitter wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Jitter wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Jitter:

I... ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Please clarify.

Im just saying , perhaps they should have changed "Champion of Kirwall" 
for 
Dragon Age For Dummies. 


ignore me .. i thought i was done with bashing the game. 
but i was sick this week , so i thought i would try the game again , as watching daytime TV was boring me. 

But even in the state i was in , stonned on Neo Citron , and codeine , to the point where pocket lint could provide hours of entertainment. 30 minutes into the game i turned it off. 

Playing the game actually makes me mad at this point. 
I just gave it away to a friend who has a young son , perhaps he can enjoy it. 
he is 10

You realize how ignorant you sound with the part in your post that says "Dragon Age for Dummies" right?  You're implying that people who like/play faster paced games are somehow less intelligent than say, someone like you who plays slower paced RPGs and such.  If you didnt catch my recent post just above, I'll say go back and read that article I posted real quick.  Or if you prefer, I can simply dig it up again real quick and post you the link instead.

If you mean i am drawing a correlation between IQ and Pew Pew ... perhaps i am , so what , i use a PC that makes me an Elitist , don't ya read these forums ?

So then you admit to making that ignorant and ill informed assumption?  Very well carry on then you proved my point lol

[Roxlimn]

Dormiglione:

Sorry, but i dont see any tactical elements in a "chicken run" fight. Sure you could call it the "evade" style. The cool downs make only sense if you can use tactical cover.

In one situation, you need to spam a button. In the other, you also need to manage cooldowns. One of those is a more complex situation.

No, im not talking about friendly fire. Remember, cast the "Glyph of Paralysis" and the "Glyph of Repulsion" this two spells combined to a mass paralyze over a wide range of the area. Everyone, even the caster was paralyzed on normal difficulty setting. It was not friendly fire.
If you used the "cone of cold" you freezed also your companions. Sure without any damage from the spell, but they were still frozen.

You are talking about friendly fire.

Still, multi-character cooperation of different classes was also part of Origins, its not something new that was introduced in DAO2.

I don't recall saying that it was. I said that combos are more complex in DA2 because it REQUIRES the use of multiple characters of different classes.

Im playing only on XBOX 360, so there i have no cheats and mods. In a normal playthrough in Origins you reached a Level between 21-23.
DA2 i think you can reach also Level between 21-23.
So, no difference.

There are about 60 spell picks in DA:O. There are about 90 in DA2, and they're level locked.

I know this spell, played more than 10 playthroughs in Origins, most of them as a mage. The storm of the century is a mighty spell. But with normal stats (xbox version no mods) it isnt as devastating as you say.

Shrug. No mods. It killed everything.

[Roxlimn]

dp

Modifié par Roxlimn, 16 avril 2011 - 05:41 .

[SoR82]

Wow Sarcasm and Irony are really lost arts.

[Mecher3k]

There are actually more spells in DA:O as most of DA2 trees are upgrades.

[Dormiglione]

Roxlimn wrote...

Dormiglione:

Sorry, but i dont see any tactical elements in a "chicken run" fight. Sure you could call it the "evade" style. The cool downs make only sense if you can use tactical cover.

In one situation, you need to spam a button. In the other, you also need to manage cooldowns. One of those is a more complex situation.

No, im not talking about friendly fire. Remember, cast the "Glyph of Paralysis" and the "Glyph of Repulsion" this two spells combined to a mass paralyze over a wide range of the area. Everyone, even the caster was paralyzed on normal difficulty setting. It was not friendly fire.
If you used the "cone of cold" you freezed also your companions. Sure without any damage from the spell, but they were still frozen.

You are talking about friendly fire.

Still, multi-character cooperation of different classes was also part of Origins, its not something new that was introduced in DAO2.

I don't recall saying that it was. I said that combos are more complex in DA2 because it REQUIRES the use of multiple characters of different classes.

Im playing only on XBOX 360, so there i have no cheats and mods. In a normal playthrough in Origins you reached a Level between 21-23.
DA2 i think you can reach also Level between 21-23.
So, no difference.

There are about 60 spell picks in DA:O. There are about 90 in DA2, and they're level locked.

I know this spell, played more than 10 playthroughs in Origins, most of them as a mage. The storm of the century is a mighty spell. But with normal stats (xbox version no mods) it isnt as devastating as you say.

Shrug. No mods. It killed everything.

@Roxlimn
Its a pleasure to debate with you. Unfortunately english is not my native language, but i guess that you figured it out. 

I give  you that, that  in your Opinion DA 2 combat is more complex than DAO.

In my opinion both combat system have their pros and cons and in the sum, none of them is better or more complex than the other.

Its not a general consensus that DA2 combat system is better or more complex than DAO. Some player received it well, some appreciate the new combat system, some dont care about combat system in a RPG and some did not receive it well.

I have nothing more to add to this debate and you couldnt convince me that "its a fact that the combat system of DA2 is more complex". I only noticed that you like the combat system of DA2 more as the combat system of DAO.

And so let it be. We are humans with different likes and dislike and this is what makes us individuals.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 16 avril 2011 - 06:02 .

[Jitter]

Aradace wrote...

Jitter wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Jitter wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Jitter:

I... ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Please clarify.

Im just saying , perhaps they should have changed "Champion of Kirwall" 
for 
Dragon Age For Dummies. 


ignore me .. i thought i was done with bashing the game. 
but i was sick this week , so i thought i would try the game again , as watching daytime TV was boring me. 

But even in the state i was in , stonned on Neo Citron , and codeine , to the point where pocket lint could provide hours of entertainment. 30 minutes into the game i turned it off. 

Playing the game actually makes me mad at this point. 
I just gave it away to a friend who has a young son , perhaps he can enjoy it. 
he is 10

You realize how ignorant you sound with the part in your post that says "Dragon Age for Dummies" right?  You're implying that people who like/play faster paced games are somehow less intelligent than say, someone like you who plays slower paced RPGs and such.  If you didnt catch my recent post just above, I'll say go back and read that article I posted real quick.  Or if you prefer, I can simply dig it up again real quick and post you the link instead.

If you mean i am drawing a correlation between IQ and Pew Pew ... perhaps i am , so what , i use a PC that makes me an Elitist , don't ya read these forums ?

So then you admit to making that ignorant and ill informed assumption?  Very well carry on then you proved my point lol

I didn't admit anything really .. 
But i bet i could train this guy to play DA2 

Target audience  button = Awesome food

Modifié par Jitter, 16 avril 2011 - 06:09 .

[Aradace]

@Jitter - You're avoiding reading the article because you know it'll make you look even more ignorant than you're already portraying yourself to be. *shrugs* Thats on you though. I suppose ignorance is bliss, especially in your case it seems.

[Roxlimn]

Dormiglione:

Likewise. I hope you can use whatever new information you got from our little discussion.

[Jitter]

Aradace wrote...

@Jitter - You're avoiding reading the article because you know it'll make you look even more ignorant than you're already portraying yourself to be. *shrugs* Thats on you though. I suppose ignorance is bliss, especially in your case it seems.

I read it . 

Now tell me , how can you tell if decision making has improved , can't really use DA2 as a barometer , as most decision making has been removed . 

Am i 

1) Being Sympathetic 
2) Being Funny 
3) Being mean 

ooops i used words there 

1):innocent:
2):happy:
3)

Modifié par Jitter, 16 avril 2011 - 06:14 .

[Aradace]

Jitter wrote...

Aradace wrote...

@Jitter - You're avoiding reading the article because you know it'll make you look even more ignorant than you're already portraying yourself to be. *shrugs* Thats on you though. I suppose ignorance is bliss, especially in your case it seems.

I read it . 

Now tell me , how can you tell if decision making has improved , can't really use DA2 as a barometer , as most decision making has been removed . 

Now in that regard, we agree.  Especially since most "decisions" dont even seem to matter.  (One of the few things I dont like about DA2 but that's another thread altogether.)  Still, being funny, sarcastic or otherwise, making such a broad and sweeping generalization about people who play action based games are somehow less intelligent is not only unfair, but rhetoric in general.

[Jitter]

 PS I'm not ignorant , I'm arrogant 
I don't think i'm right, I know it.

[Aradace]

Jitter wrote...

 PS I'm not ignorant , I'm arrogant 
I don't think i'm right, I know it.

LOL,  That's ok, Im arrogant and narcissitic at times.  I can respect that I guess

[Yrkoon]

Roxlimn wrote...

Firky:

The reason people generally don't say that DA2 combat is simpler than DA:O combat is because...

Wait.  I know of at least  *one*  guy who said that DA2's combat is simpler than DA:O's.    His name is Mike LaidLaw.    And his response to us   'whiners'  is to say:  Hmph.  We  decided to make combat easier in DA2 and that's FINAL.  if you don't like it, then change your difficulty setting.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 avril 2011 - 07:34 .

[Yrkoon]

Roxlimn wrote...

There are about 60 spell picks in DA:O. There are about 90 in DA2

Bulls**t.

There are 92 spells in DA:O  and only 47 in DA2.

Huge difference.  Origins has  almost  *twice* as many spells as DA2 has.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 avril 2011 - 07:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Roxlimn wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
Sylvius the Mad:

Nonsense. DA:O basically requires you to spam Storm of the Century and Mana Clash every so often. You can defeat most encounters in the game like that, and the ones you can't you can defeat by building a two-weapon wielding warrior of doom. There are no consequences. You cast SoTC on the next room, wait until they're all dead, and then just walk in.

Which is a fault of the game mechanics, and not the actual combat mechanic in the game is it? If you were to actually engage the enemies in that room would you have the same result?

If I engaged the enemies in the room, I'd cast Earthquake, and Inferno the room to death while I equip my party with ranged weapons to kill everything before they even touched the opposite side of the shaking ground.  Or I'd cast Grease and Fireball and Inferno - that works, too.

Or Blizzard + Tempest.  Or Blizzard + Frost Weapons (ranged, natch).  Or Blizzard + Earthquake.

Exactly my point.  There are many ways to deal with enemies in DAO, based on the characters you've built.  Also, since I roleplay every aspect of the game - even talent selection - I mostly didn't have those spell combinations you describe.

But DAO does allow you do things like equip your party such that you can engage everything at range, and then you design tactics around that.

In DA2, you're forced to engage nearly everything in melee combat, and then they die.  There's no thought invovled.  DA2's combat is easier in that you don't just do the same thing all the time, but there's only one option available.

If I take an encounter at random from DAO, chances are there any many differentt ways that fight could go depending on how I planned ahead and what abilities I had available.  But a random encounter taken from DA2 probably involves melee combat as its primary action.

[Aradace]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
Sylvius the Mad:

Nonsense. DA:O basically requires you to spam Storm of the Century and Mana Clash every so often. You can defeat most encounters in the game like that, and the ones you can't you can defeat by building a two-weapon wielding warrior of doom. There are no consequences. You cast SoTC on the next room, wait until they're all dead, and then just walk in.

Which is a fault of the game mechanics, and not the actual combat mechanic in the game is it? If you were to actually engage the enemies in that room would you have the same result?

If I engaged the enemies in the room, I'd cast Earthquake, and Inferno the room to death while I equip my party with ranged weapons to kill everything before they even touched the opposite side of the shaking ground.  Or I'd cast Grease and Fireball and Inferno - that works, too.

Or Blizzard + Tempest.  Or Blizzard + Frost Weapons (ranged, natch).  Or Blizzard + Earthquake.

Exactly my point.  There are many ways to deal with enemies in DAO, based on the characters you've built.  Also, since I roleplay every aspect of the game - even talent selection - I mostly didn't have those spell combinations you describe.

But DAO does allow you do things like equip your party such that you can engage everything at range, and then you design tactics around that.

In DA2, you're forced to engage nearly everything in melee combat, and then they die.  There's no thought invovled.  DA2's combat is easier in that you don't just do the same thing all the time, but there's only one option available.

If I take an encounter at random from DAO, chances are there any many differentt ways that fight could go depending on how I planned ahead and what abilities I had available.  But a random encounter taken from DA2 probably involves melee combat as its primary action.

Isnt that exaggerating just a bit?  Neither my Mage nor my Archer Rogue ever had to engage in melee combat unless I physically made them do so.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aradace wrote...

Isnt that exaggerating just a bit?  Neither my Mage nor my Archer Rogue ever had to engage in melee combat unless I physically made them do so.

But other party members did.  Some part of your party engages in melee combat in nearly every encounter, regardless of how you build the party or who is in it.  Even if your whole party was mages and archers, some of them would end up in melee combat.

I'm describing the party's behaviour, not individual characters.  In terms of combat, it's a party-based game.  You control the whole party.  And that party is forced to engage in melee combat over and over agan throughout the game.

[Aradace]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Isnt that exaggerating just a bit?  Neither my Mage nor my Archer Rogue ever had to engage in melee combat unless I physically made them do so.

But other party members did.  Some part of your party engages in melee combat in nearly every encounter, regardless of how you build the party or who is in it.  Even if your whole party was mages and archers, some of them would end up in melee combat.

I'm describing the party's behaviour, not individual characters.  In terms of combat, it's a party-based game.  You control the whole party.  And that party is forced to engage in melee combat over and over agan throughout the game.

Point taken lol.  I do wish the party AI was a bit "smarter" in that regard.  I still like the game regardless