883 réponses à ce sujet

[ZeshinX]

To me, it looks like it may be party-based, a la Kotor-styling (with more action-y combat with your currently controlled character). Ultimately, not what I'm looking for in the DA franchise and if it turns out to be that or something akin to it, and not more akin to DAO, then this will certainly be a no-sale for me.

It is clearly shown to be pre-alpha, so I'll not judge for myself too completely....but going on what Laidlaw said in the race video, about not wanting to show something until they are happy with its current state of functionality and that it's not going to be completely different from the final implementation....I would have to surmise that it will be more DA2 and less DAO, with their interpretation of tactics being more twitch-style tactics (relying on your ability to control than AI pathing, etc).

I want to see more, and some actual party-based combat, though I will admit to being less than encouraged by what we were shown.

[Korusus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you'd prefer, we could just deactivate party AI and force the player to do everything. I suspect that that wasn't what you were thinking, however.

I'm confused by this...this to me kind of implies that we won't be able to do just that:  turn off party AI.  Is that the case?  Why even pretend like you're trying to make a tactical party-based game if that isn't an option?  Maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.

[Nashiktal]

Korusus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you'd prefer, we could just deactivate party AI and force the player to do everything. I suspect that that wasn't what you were thinking, however.

I'm confused by this...this to me kind of implies that we won't be able to do just that:  turn off party AI.  Is that the case?  Why even pretend like you're trying to make a tactical party-based game if that isn't an option?  Maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.

I don't mean to speak for Allan here but I though he meant turn it off COMPLETELY. Like, no auto attack, no tracking, no anything. Just complete player control.

And by complete control I don't mean in the good way. 

[Olmerto]

It's pretty clear that DAI is escalating the action flavor of combat from DA2, rather than rolling it back towards DAO as the devs seemed to be claiming before this video surfaced. Moreover, they are escalating the ridiculous aspects of DA2 combat that many of us felt were designed for juvenile console players rather than for a more mature cRPG audience. With this kind of focus and direction, I could not in good conscience pay full price for the game. I will buy it for the story, but as with DA2 and other console action titles I've bought I'll wait until it's 75% off so I don't support the insipid combat design BW seems intent upon.

[azarhal]

Korusus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you'd prefer, we could just deactivate party AI and force the player to do everything. I suspect that that wasn't what you were thinking, however.

I'm confused by this...this to me kind of implies that we won't be able to do just that:  turn off party AI.  Is that the case?  Why even pretend like you're trying to make a tactical party-based game if that isn't an option?  Maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.

Deactivated party AI mean that the characters do nothing unless you select them and tell them to do something one by one. This include not fighting back when something are whacking them and only moving when you tell them or by selecting the whole group. And if there are no queuing of abilities, it also means rotating from character to characters to do something all the time.

Not the kind of micro-managing that I want.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

My characters, in DA:O, want to kill the darkspawn. There's no more complex rhyme to my spell choices that "will this kill darkspawn?". It just so happens that direct damage spells are so unbelievably overwhelming that there's no purpose to even picking something else, which funny enough is the closest thing that DA:O gets to realism. 

That's the thing -- as a matter of role-playing, why would any of my characters adopt less efficient tactics than they possibly could? It's their lives on the line, right?

It's amazing how bad the class and spell balance is in DAO considering how many iterations the game must have had.

[o Ventus]

Olmert wrote...

It's pretty clear that DAI is escalating the action flavor of combat from DA2, rather than rolling it back towards DAO as the devs seemed to be claiming before this video surfaced. Moreover, they are escalating the ridiculous aspects of DA2 combat that many of us felt were designed for juvenile console players rather than for a more mature cRPG audience. With this kind of focus and direction, I could not in good conscience pay full price for the game. I will buy it for the story, but as with DA2 and other console action titles I've bought I'll wait until it's 75% off so I don't support the insipid combat design BW seems intent upon.

"Juvenile console players", and "mature cRPG audience".

You don't legitimately hope to be taken seriously, do you?

[o Ventus]

Vilegrim wrote...

Hopefully they have enough time to bin this action game theyhave shown us , and actually make an RPG.

Because these two things are mutually exclusive.

[Korusus]

azarhal wrote...
Deactivated party AI mean that the characters do nothing unless you select them and tell them to do something one by one. This include not fighting back when something are whacking them and only moving when you tell them or by selecting the whole group. And if there are no queuing of abilities, it also means rotating from character to characters to do something all the time.

Not the kind of micro-managing that I want.

Really?

Because that is exactly how I played all the Infinity Engine games, and Dragon Age: Origins.  I'll sick my tank on a big-bad to auto-attack and take threat, then switch to my mage and lay some AOE on the archers in the distance.

It's called tactics.  

Letting the AI do everything  while you go Scorpion on everything is the exact opposite.

What I want:  an isometric camera and true tactical party-based play.  I don't want Dark Souls, I want what BioWare was talking about in the video (but didn't show). .

Modifié par Korusus, 19 août 2013 - 03:32 .

[GameHunter]

Once again most vocal fans are the most not happy. Ironical how much more words is needed
to say you don't like something than that you do like something.

Its obvious that they didn't showed party combat as in the part of video with casting
firewall with purpose of not showing companions up close at this point.
As I saw them clearly trying to keep party member faces away from screen with positioning
them to face the wall.(But we still saw the bearded character for a glimpse)

About walk animation its pre-alpha so it will definitely will get improved still.
While slow walk was clearly caused by some ability of enemies as
there was clearly like a net looking swirly thing around legs which clearly
indicated slowdown effect.

And there was only one roll action it wasn't rolling frenzy where all the hate comes from ?

As the guy showed possible option to deal with shield guy it can be by abilities
there probably be multiple abilities that can help to defeat him.
Or as he said to get position behind his back which could be achieved by out pacing
him cause he was slow. Alternate way would be getting behind his back while he is
busy with other member of your party. And get behind back was in DA;O
for backstabs for surrounding enemies for flanking shield guys ...er where the
problem comes from ? I did the same in DA:O on PC just now they give more options.

Im seeing idea of solid combat mechanic so far. And its awesome.

The encounters wont be 1on 1. The game wont consist of arishok duels

This so supposed to show a tiny piece of possibilities and enemies.

They said there will be more enemy types that require different approach.
And that's good cause in DA games before there was meat damage
ranged and magic effect types.

And they also said to about using environment so yeah you may need to move for it
to certain position lure enemies into specific place clearly no tactics
involved just 360 no scope.

The only base having complaint is lack of higher angle view not being shown but they
may not want to show some location from bird eyes to early not sure about this one.

Just my personal opinion and things I noticed sharing it cause that's what forums are for.

[Navasha]

Korusus wrote...

azarhal wrote...
Deactivated party AI mean that the characters do nothing unless you select them and tell them to do something one by one. This include not fighting back when something are whacking them and only moving when you tell them or by selecting the whole group. And if there are no queuing of abilities, it also means rotating from character to characters to do something all the time.

Not the kind of micro-managing that I want.

Really?

Because that is exactly how I played all the Infinity Engine games, and Dragon Age: Origins.  I'll sick my tank on a big-bad to auto-attack and take threat, then switch to my mage and lay some AOE on the archers in the distance.

It's called tactics.  

Letting the AI do everything  while you go Scorpion on everything is the exact opposite.

What I want:  an isometric camera and true tactical party-based play.  I don't want Dark Souls, I want what BioWare was talking about in the video (but didn't show).  If they can't deliver that, then I'll go elsewhere.  BioWare has not been in the "must-buy" category for a long time.

I am actually of the same mind.   When the battles got really intense in the DA games, I turned off the AI combat rules and issued orders individually to each character every few seconds.   The AI is good for easy difficulty levels or small confrontations where there is no real danger anyway.   Any major fight on nightmare difficulty usually is best done by disabling the AI and micromanaging each character.

Modifié par Navasha, 19 août 2013 - 03:33 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

It is, indeed, ironical.

[Korusus]

Navasha wrote...

I am actually of the same mind.   When the battles got really intense in the DA games, I turned off the AI combat rules and issued orders individually to each character every few seconds.   The AI is good for easy difficulty levels or small confrontations where there is no real danger anyway.   Any major fight on nightmare difficulty usually is best done by disabling the AI and micromanaging each character.

Agreed. That to me makes for an interesting and exciting encounter.  Letting the AI do everything while you go button mash on some baddies God of War style kind of defeats the point of a tactical party-based game.  I don't understand the appeal of that playstyle.  And I don't think adding in some Dark Souls-style gimmicks makes it better.

I remember the excitement and amazement I felt the first time I saw the isometric camera in a screenshot for DA:O.  I just want that back.

[Wulfram]

Automating at least some of the more routine tasks enhances the tactical aspect for me because it allows me to focus on the big picture, rather than having to micromanage everything. Of course this is undone if they then add in the requirement to manually dodge stuff and other actiony mechanics.

I do find it a questionable design goal to try to make switching characters optional however - that seems like would restrict the complexity of situations you're prepared to include.

edit:  I'd also make a distinction between the AI just running predesigned routines, and the AI carrying out tactics the player has set up themselves.

Modifié par Wulfram, 19 août 2013 - 03:40 .

[kingjezza]

Navasha wrote...

Korusus wrote...

azarhal wrote...
Deactivated party AI mean that the characters do nothing unless you select them and tell them to do something one by one. This include not fighting back when something are whacking them and only moving when you tell them or by selecting the whole group. And if there are no queuing of abilities, it also means rotating from character to characters to do something all the time.

Not the kind of micro-managing that I want.

Really?

Because that is exactly how I played all the Infinity Engine games, and Dragon Age: Origins.  I'll sick my tank on a big-bad to auto-attack and take threat, then switch to my mage and lay some AOE on the archers in the distance.

It's called tactics.  

Letting the AI do everything  while you go Scorpion on everything is the exact opposite.

What I want:  an isometric camera and true tactical party-based play.  I don't want Dark Souls, I want what BioWare was talking about in the video (but didn't show).  If they can't deliver that, then I'll go elsewhere.  BioWare has not been in the "must-buy" category for a long time.

I am actually of the same mind.   When the battles got really intense in the DA games, I turned off the AI combat rules and issued orders individually to each character every few seconds.   The AI is good for easy difficulty levels or small confrontations where there is no real danger anyway.   Any major fight on nightmare difficulty usually is best done by disabling the AI and micromanaging each character.

Agreed with both of these posts.

I like to micromanage my whole party, that's how I played Origins. For me the point of a party based game is having control of a full party, if the computer is doing half the work for your companions then it seems pointless.

I understand some don't like the pause and play micro managing style of playing though.

[azarhal]

Korusus wrote...

azarhal wrote...
Deactivated party AI mean that the characters do nothing unless you select them and tell them to do something one by one. This include not fighting back when something are whacking them and only moving when you tell them or by selecting the whole group. And if there are no queuing of abilities, it also means rotating from character to characters to do something all the time.

Not the kind of micro-managing that I want.

Really?

Because that is exactly how I played all the Infinity Engine games, and Dragon Age: Origins.  I'll sick my tank on a big-bad to auto-attack and take threat, then switch to my mage and lay some AOE on the archers in the distance.

It's called tactics.  

Letting the AI do everything  while you go Scorpion on everything is the exact opposite.

What I want:  an isometric camera and true tactical party-based play.  I don't want Dark Souls, I want what BioWare was talking about in the video (but didn't show). .

You might have played the BG games like that because you could turn off the party AI, but not DAO. It's impossible to turn off the party AI in DAO, the most you can do is leave the Tactic list empty, but even then the party AI still do a few things (fight back, target character, auto-attack, etc).

The fact that you can micro-manage you party in DAO have nothing to do with the party AI existing, you could also micro-manage the party in DA2 and KoTOR. I don't see why that would be different in DAI really. Just like the BG games had scripting for party tactics.

Modifié par azarhal, 19 août 2013 - 03:47 .

[Korusus]

azarhal wrote...

Korusus wrote...

azarhal wrote...
Deactivated party AI mean that the characters do nothing unless you select them and tell them to do something one by one. This include not fighting back when something are whacking them and only moving when you tell them or by selecting the whole group. And if there are no queuing of abilities, it also means rotating from character to characters to do something all the time.

Not the kind of micro-managing that I want.

Really?

Because that is exactly how I played all the Infinity Engine games, and Dragon Age: Origins.  I'll sick my tank on a big-bad to auto-attack and take threat, then switch to my mage and lay some AOE on the archers in the distance.

It's called tactics.  

Letting the AI do everything  while you go Scorpion on everything is the exact opposite.

What I want:  an isometric camera and true tactical party-based play.  I don't want Dark Souls, I want what BioWare was talking about in the video (but didn't show). .

You might have played the BG games like that because you could turn off the party AI, but not DAO. It's impossible to turn off the party AI in DAO, the most you can do is leave the Tactic list empty, but even then the party AI still do a few things (fight back, target character, auto-attack, etc).

My concern is that DA:I won't allow us to even do that.  Auto-attacking for example is an important part of the Infinity Engine's tactics as well.  The approach is slightly different, a few of the more rote functions are handled better in DA:O.  But the outcome is essentially the same, you as the player are making all of the major combat related decisions.

 I can't do that if I'm too busy deciding if I should roll my main char in time or throw my hook-chain or any other actiony combat awesome button crap.

Modifié par Korusus, 19 août 2013 - 03:49 .

[Wulfram]

Korusus wrote...

 I can't do that if I'm too busy deciding if I should roll my main char in time or throw my hook-chain or any other actiony combat awesome button crap.

We'll still have pause.

And the harpoon isn't fundamentally any different from any othet talent, as far as I can see.  It's no more actiony than casting Magic Missile at them in BG.

[Navasha]

azarhal wrote...


You might have played the BG games like that because you could turn off the party AI, but not DAO. It's impossible to turn off the party AI in DAO, the most you can do is leave the Tactic list empty, but even then the party AI still do a few things (fight back, target character, auto-attack, etc).

The fact that you can micro-manage you party in DAO have nothing to do with the party AI existing, you could also micro-manage the party in DA2 and KoTOR. I don't see why that would be different in DAI really. Just like the BG games had scripting for party tactics.

That's not entirely accurate.  In DA, you can select 'Hold Position'  (H key by default) and it pretty much disables the AI.   They will continue to attack things you ordered them to attack, but they won't seek out a new target when that one dies and they won't cast spells, or even fight back without a new attack order.

[azarhal]

Korusus wrote...

My concern is that DA:I won't allow us to even do that.  Auto-attacking for example is an important part of the Infinity Engine's tactics as well.  The approach is slightly different, a few of the more rote functions are handled better in DA:O.  But the outcome is essentially the same, you as the player are making all of the major combat related decisions.

 I can't do that if I'm too busy deciding if I should roll my main char in time or throw my hook-chain or any other actiony combat awesome button crap.

Why would BioWare suddenly make a combats system without auto-attacks, tactic list, pause and party members control when they said that they were putting the combat in-between DAO and DA2? Both game support it.

The gameplay prototype video two-handed sword attacking sequence is the same as DA2 two-handed auto-attack (same animations, different speed). Why wouldn't it be an auto-attack sequence now? Because you saw a dude rolling around? DA2 console version had a auto-attack on/off option, did it stop being a game where you could issue orders to all your party members because of it?

Modifié par azarhal, 19 août 2013 - 04:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

azarhal wrote...

You might have played the BG games like that because you could turn off the party AI, but not DAO. It's impossible to turn off the party AI in DAO, the most you can do is leave the Tactic list empty, but even then the party AI still do a few things (fight back, target character, auto-attack, etc).

You can disable those AI behaviours, though, by leaving the characters selected whenever the game isn't paused.  It is entirely possible to have the DAO characters do nothing at all you didn't tell them to do.

The fact that you can micro-manage you party in DAO have nothing to do with the party AI existing, you could also micro-manage the party in DA2 and KoTOR.

KotOR didn't allow you to control more than one character's movement simultaneously.  KotOR had a significant deficiency when it came to full party control, compared to BG or DAO.

[Vilegrim]

o Ventus wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

Hopefully they have enough time to bin this action game theyhave shown us , and actually make an RPG.

Because these two things are mutually exclusive.

yes, yes they are.  You can have an action game with a good plot, (Witcher I am looking at you) and some RPG bits, but it isn't an RPG, especailly when to be done well, it needs a set, single protagonist.

[azarhal]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The fact that you can micro-manage you party in DAO have nothing to do with the party AI existing, you could also micro-manage the party in DA2 and KoTOR.

KotOR didn't allow you to control more than one character's movement simultaneously.  KotOR had a significant deficiency when it came to full party control, compared to BG or DAO.

You could still go through all the charaters while on pause to issue orders, does the exact same thing as selecting more than one and telling them to do the same thing. It's not like going through 3 characters take a long time.

[Allan Schumacher]

No offense meant here Allan, but shouldn't you guys check what will get covered by Game Informer and what footage will be released and how it will be released? Isn't that the point of Quality Assurance? You may chalk this up to "fans overreacting again, nothing new" etc, but for instance many, many on NeoGAF for example have already dismissed this simply because of the mixed messaging of this video.

I have zero clue how something like the Game Informer exclusive works.. I do know that there are aspects of the GI article that did surprise some people (although mostly minor stuff), which leads me to believe that they have autonomy to do things how they like.

And no, that isn't the point of Quality Assurance and I'm not quite sure I like the implication I'm reading into your decision to make a statement like that either.

I'm not chalking this up to "fans overreacting" either. I can understand the concern people have given the juxtaposition. It's why I made the comment in the first place.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 août 2013 - 05:01 .

[esper]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No offense meant here Allan, but shouldn't you guys check what will get covered by Game Informer and what footage will be released and how it will be released? Isn't that the point of Quality Assurance? You may chalk this up to "fans overreacting again, nothing new" etc, but for instance many, many on NeoGAF for example have already dismissed this simply because of the mixed messaging of this video.

I have zero clue how it works. I do know that there are aspects of the GI article that we were surprised to see put in the way that they were, which leads me to believe that they have autonomy to do things how they like.

And no, that isn't the point of Quality Assurance and I'm not quite sure I like the implication I'm reading into your decision to make a statement like that either.

I'm not chalking this up to "fans overreacting" either. I can understand the concern people have given the juxtaposition. It's why I made the comment in the first place.

I am going to try again, since my last question sort of drowned in the discussion.

But I am curious about the dogde roll the warrior performed in the video. It is an ability on line with all other abilities, an manuel function from the player's side (like press d to dogde, if I am not explaning my self properly), or is it an automatic movement from the character when an attack 'miss', or perhaps something else.