221 réponses à ce sujet

[Hrungr]

For Dragon Age.. Auto-Attack.

 

I find I'm busy enough managing the party's special abilities.

[Nefla]

I prefer manual attack and manual aim like in Skyrim, Dishonored, third person shooters, etc...auto attack and auto aim/ auto hit make combat very boring for me.

[BouncyFrag]

When DA2 came out there wasn't auto-attack in the X360 version until a patch that came after I finished the game but before my 2nd play through. Auto-attack was infinitely better and was annoyed that it hadn't been there in the first place. Maybe it was a part of that 'awesome button' nonsense.

[SerCambria358]

I haaaaaate button mashing. And so do my fingers. A toggle seems like a good solution here.

Its been confirmed to be in the game

[iOnlySignIn]

I like the Omni-Button

 

[CybAnt1]

I prefer manual attack and manual aim like in Skyrim, Dishonored, third person shooters, etc...auto attack and auto aim/ auto hit make combat very boring for me.

 

How odd. They do the opposite for me.  They let me focus on the really interesting stuff, like choosing abilities, synergies, and tactics. If I don't have a special ability to activate (sustained or activated), either because I'm out of stamina or cool downs ... well, then let there be auto attack. (Truth be told, that situation is unusual.) 

 

 (BTW, IMHO, this is a defining 'feature' that separates action-RPGs from ... other-RPGs.)

 

I repeat, it's all in your gaming experience. *I* grew up on CRPGs where auto attack was always the default (that was the way things were in the paleolithic, before Diablo), it seems strange now for someone to ask whether or not I want it. Why wouldn't I? 

[deuce985]

Solely depends on the game and what kind of mechanics it has...

 

Example: One click auto-attack couldn't work in a game like Dragon's Dogma and it would probably make the game super boring

 

Example 2: DAO wouldn't work where you constantly button-mash attacks like Dragon's Dogma. The flow and pacing of the combat contradicts this style of play.

 

Different games require different mechanics and I don't mind either if they're done well. Tactical/Strategic can still exist in an ARPG contrary to popular belief on this forum. It's just a different type of tactical gameplay.

[CybAnt1]

Solely depends on the game and what kind of mechanics it has...

 

Example: One click auto-attack couldn't work in a game like Dragon's Dogma and it would probably make the game super boring

 

Example 2: DAO wouldn't work where you constantly button mash commands in like Dragon's Dogma

 

Different games require different mechanics and I don't mind either if they're done well. Tactical/Strategic can still exist in an ARPG contrary to popular belief on this forum. It's just a different type of tactical gameplay.

 

Some of us find that different type to also be inferior. (No, you don't have to share our opinion. But we do feel that way.)

 

Seems to me most action-RPGs either go the Dungeon Siege route and make combat ridiculously passive; watching your characters do their thing like demented robots, and just hitting the blue or red potion buttons every once in a while; or like Diablo, where I'm constantly having to slam buttons (because I play on PC, usually keyboard buttons or mouse buttons). I'm telling you, I would dance a jig if somebody wrote a mod for Diablo III that enabled you to auto attack. The game (for me) would feel a lot less annoying, and repetitive, and my wrists wouldn't hurt.

 

Oh, and BTW, I'd love another one that let me control the Templar, Scoundrel, or Enchantress.

[Nefla]

How odd. They do the opposite for me.  They let me focus on the really interesting stuff, like choosing abilities, synergies, and tactics. If I don't have a special ability to activate (sustained or activated), either because I'm out of stamina or cool downs ... well, then let there be auto attack. (Truth be told, that situation is unusual.) 
 
 (BTW, IMHO, this is a defining 'feature' that separates action-RPGs from ... other-RPGs.)
 
I repeat, it's all in your gaming experience. *I* grew up on CRPGs where auto attack was always the default (that was the way things were in the paleolithic, before Diablo), it seems strange now for someone to ask whether or not I want it. Why wouldn't I? 

For me, pause and play/auto attack becomes rinse and repeat, especially if I can set very detailed companion tactics. The easier enemies especially become a chore as they pose no challenge, give little reward, and are only there to slow me down. Plus this type of combat does not allow for stealth which is something else I enjoy. When I have to rely on my own aim and reflexes, I am instantly engaged and even weak enemies can be fun (ex: can I shoot this wolf in the eye from 100 paces while it charges me?)

[Shadow Fox]

Well... you're in luck - The devs have already said autoattack will be a toggle in DAI. 

 

So you can button-mash or auto-attack - your choice.

Huzzah!

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

I prefer auto attack but for more practical reasons, this way i can play with only 1 hand and eat or smoke with the other 

[katerinafm]

Having control of each attack feels better, but if it's auto-attack again I guess I won't mind. I liked how you controlled each attack on xbox, but I've been playing the DA games on PC for the last playthroughs and I'm used to the auto-attack anyway.

 

Will the toggle be available on the PC as well? The article makes it sound like it's only going to be available for consoles.

[Nightdragon8]

Some of us find that different type to also be inferior. (No, you don't have to share our opinion. But we do feel that way.)

 

Seems to me most action-RPGs either go the Dungeon Siege route and make combat ridiculously passive; watching your characters do their thing like demented robots, and just hitting the blue or red potion buttons every once in a while; or like Diablo, where I'm constantly having to slam buttons (because I play on PC, usually keyboard buttons or mouse buttons). I'm telling you, I would dance a jig if somebody wrote a mod for Diablo III that enabled you to auto attack. The game (for me) would feel a lot less annoying, and repetitive, and my wrists wouldn't hurt.

 

Oh, and BTW, I'd love another one that let me control the Templar, Scoundrel, or Enchantress.

just try holding the button down maybe?

[The Sarendoctrinator]

I much prefer the "one click = one attack" style of combat, and I tend to button-mash. Even in games that use auto-attacks. Force of habit. It feels like I'm more in control of my own character this way, as opposed to watching my character act without any input from me - like a combat version of autodialogue. Playing KOTOR for the first time was especially strange for me when I watched a shootout between a group of people who just took turns firing their guns and missing each other. DAO disguised it better, and it took a while for me to realize that my button-mashing wasn't actually causing my character to swing his sword. I'd always rather have direct control though. 

[Enigmatick]

Why not just play an actual action RPG if you want mashing? I never understood this need to try and frankenstein mechanics together, just ends up making them half assed overall.

[Dominus]

Why not just play an actual action RPG if you want mashing? I never understood this need to try and frankenstein mechanics together, just ends up making them half assed overall.

Regardless of how the game turns out, that's partly why I'm leery to jump into DA:I. I love the atmosphere/art style/etc., but the gameplay style that's more akin to Baldur's Gate and the other classics isn't going to hold an appeal for me. Can BioWare find a genuine happy medium between the two? My Personal Answer...

For now, I'll watch and wait for Peer/Journalist reviews and make a decision after the fact.

[Xiltas]

I tried both in DA:2, and was kinda frustrated because Auto-Attack seemed so slow in comparison. Especially, since the enemies had such ridiculous amount of health. It took so long to kill them with Auto-Attack (at least that was my impression).

If both options offered the same speed, I'd go with Auto-Attack, simply because it gives me more time to analye the combat situation, instead of hammering the X-Button all the time.

[Bond]

I much prefer the "one click = one attack" style of combat, and I tend to button-mash. Even in games that use auto-attacks. Force of habit. It feels like I'm more in control of my own character this way, as opposed to watching my character act without any input from me - like a combat version of autodialogue. Playing KOTOR for the first time was especially strange for me when I watched a shootout between a group of people who just took turns firing their guns and missing each other. DAO disguised it better, and it took a while for me to realize that my button-mashing wasn't actually causing my character to swing his sword. I'd always rather have direct control though. 

Yes, my point exactly. 


Also, many people DAII had button mashing option, yet i played on pc and i didnt found one. I am aware only of the auto attack, which is by default in the pc game and i dont remember having the ability to toggle this. If by button mashing, you mean mindless combat which too simple and executed poorly, this is completely different things. I use "button mashing" phrase  literally and not in a way which offends the combat system of particular game.

I suppose on the consoles DAII had this option, which is always nice to have more than one choice. Not that it would change the fact that DAII combat was poor.

[Zelanthair]

I prefer auto-attacks. I hate mashing-buttons. Pressing 'R' once is much better than smashing 'R' every second like a child with a temper tantrum. Thank the goddess for toggles.

Also, there is no proof that those who found Origins combat slow are a minority. 

 

Origins is my favorite game, and even I can admit the gameplay was a bit slow. I'd like Inquisition to be a mix of speed between DAO and DA2.

[Naesaki]

I'm generally not fussed about either really

[n7stormrunner]

Origins is my favorite game, and even I can admit the gameplay was a bit slow. I'd like Inquisition to be a mix of speed between DAO and DA2.

 

you are in luck, from what was shown it appears combat will faster then da: o but slower then da 2, I give a full day after release before someone post that it is too fast... I'm fairly sure someone has complained it is too flashy or animey, but if I wrong I'm sure someone will after reading this post.

 

on topic, personally don't care, but I'm glad there is a toggle... I can't believe I just typed that

[Helios969]

It's pointless to argue about which one is better, because it's whatever is better for each person's playing style.  I kind of do a hybrid.  Default auto attack, alternate clicking on different opponents (especially with mage) to draw them to me, and blast them with cone of cold or some other area attack.  Constantly reposition myself on the battlefield, evaluating enemy strengths...see an enemy assassin?  Get your back to a wall.  At least when they reappear they'll be in front of you.  Same with rage demons.

 

Someone mentioned DAO/DA2 combat systems and synthesizing them.  Yeah, I'd like that.  I prefer DAO because it feels more organic...natural.  DA2 was kind of over the top with the exaggerated movements.  And I have to head canon when I deploy things like tempest or reign of arrows that these are "heat-seeking" devices since my companions do not take any damage despite being right in the middle of ground zero.

[Sidney]

Always autoattack. I stopped playing DA2 until the autoattack fix got out there.  Especially in the DA* universe where the attack is nothing but pushing "A" over and over. If it was the timing/dance combat of Witcher/Assasins Creed/Batman or the FPS action of Skyrim then control is more meaningful. Plus, in an RPG the less me the player does the more my player character does which is sorta the point for me.