Only thing anyone is guilty of here is making a terrible PR pitch to try to sell the feature. Something, mind you, we should all ignore for sure, but not try to frame a debate that doesn't exist with it.
Oh I understand. It was a marketing phrase, and I recognize it was technically incorrect to latch onto it in the senses you're describing. For me, it was just a change of emphasis summarized by a phrase.
That said, I really wish people would stop telling me the combat between DA:I and DA2 didn't change, when the top-down tactical view disappeared. Whether it was on console in DAO or not, it was something PC players lost, and they noticed.
Oh yes,
I know we're getting it back, but don't think it wasn't because players demanded a comeback.
BTW, we also lost traps (for some people important for their combat activity/strategy), and most importantly, the "new wave" completely changed the importance of positioning:
http://www.quarterto...t-with-tactics/In many ways, combat in Dragon Age: Origins was about tactical placement and planning ahead for a battle where you usually knew all of the combatants ahead of time,
while Dragon Age 2 is an exercise in attrition, resource management, and wading through two or more waves of enemies. One of the most popular complaints about Dragon Age 2 is that second and third waves of enemies spawn in such a way that your party goes from being carefully placed and tactically sound to surrounded, cut-off, and vulnerable. Whether this was an intentional design decision or not, the problem is also easily alleviated by grouping your party up as soon as each wave is defeated, and then moving them again as the next round of combat begins. It does make each scenario feel hectic, filled with tight spots where a character is overwhelmed by hordes of enemies (likely the reason why there is no friendly-fire option), or a caster is cut-off without hope of rescue. This is where I believe people are getting hung up on the combat.
It’s sloppy. Yes, it’s sloppy and messy in the “hero is covered head to toe in blood”, but it’s also sloppy because it’s nearly impossible to plan ahead for the entire battle. Your well laid plans are going to come undone, perhaps as soon as you come into contact with the enemy, or perhaps when a third wave finally exhausts your reserves. It’s frustrating, frantic, sloppy, and oddly exhilarating all in a few minutes of keyboard shortcuts and left-mouse clicks.
For those of us who want a slower, measured approach, it’s a sad state of affairs for a series that began with the promise of a return to the roots of old-school RPGs. For those who want combat that feels faster, more interactive, and less planned, Dragon Age II is probably a breath of fresh air. Count me in the latter category, but as someone who has played every single one of those old-school RPGs, t
here are times when I shake my head in frustration realizing how a little bit of compromise in the two combat philosophies could have made for something truly special.[snip][end]
I think this guy is spot on, and secondly, the good news for me, for him, for you, and for all, is I think they are seeking that compromise in DA:I.
So yes, we're arguing about nothing, except in this case, unlike the argument over a word, I *do* consider this one non-trivial.
At the end of the day, everybody's arguing their preferences - of course. Question is, are the developers going to seek the compromise between sets of preferences, or screw one group?
Modifié par CybAnt1, 10 février 2014 - 10:11 .
, and the people who think 
Retour en haut
