Initially, my first thought is "Ugh. One press one hit is so tedious. Not a fan of button mashing to be more effective."
And then I realize I do that anyway. All the damn time. As if somehow pressing the button repeatedly translates into faster DEX or pushing a little bit harder equals more STR applied. So I guess I'm subconsciously the button mashing type. 
Most other action games play that way (one blast/fire/shot per press), so if you play a lot of action games, you feel compelled to translate your neuromuscular experience. Have you ever seen videos of the people playing action games (not the screenshots of the games themselves, videos taken of people playing.) Twitching, spasming epileptics. That's what you look like while doing it. 
Sit back. Relax. Enjoy. 
This is different kind of game. At least, it can be. Some of us love that difference.
In DA:O I never realised there was an auto-attack. I just kept pushing buttons and it just felt like the combat wasn't responsive.
I don't see the fun in auto-attack. Even in mmo's, I never use it.
I don't like autoattack. It takes away from the immersion, for me, personally. Or maybe I just like clicking too much. Even in games with forced autoattack I end up spamming the buttons.
The way I see it, smashing buttons give me the "active" feel, like I was actually in the fight. Pressing once then sit back and watch kind of feel wrong to me, as if I was in a "safe zone" and abandon my team out there. I guess all I want is one click one hit, BUT the battle has to be heavily leaning toward using your skills / spells and strategy to win instead of spamming normal attack button.
im all for auto attack but if the player can steamroll every encounter/enemy with it, then it is done wrong.
And then I realize I do that anyway. All the damn time. As if somehow pressing the button repeatedly translates into faster DEX or pushing a little bit harder equals more STR applied.
Same here. I think it started when I played Pokemon. I have no idea if clicking the attack button faster improves my chances of critical hits, but I'm going to try it anyway, in every game - even if I later find out that it doesn't (like with DAO).
I like auto-attack but only because I can come up with different tactics. I constantly switch characters depending on the situation and adjust my plan accordingly. If I'm button smashing all the time then I can't keep an eye on the battlefield like I want. I'm dependent on my companions and if I have to leave my PC in a default attack state, there is a good chance she/he would do something stupid and I would have to leave the companion I was controlling to help my PC. I hope that the Tactics Screen has improved. I nearly pull my hair out whenever my companions don't do what I programmed them to do (EX: I've programmed Merrill to use Dispel on any Mage attacking my Hawke but it only works if she's fighting against that particular mage. If she isn't, then my Hawke gets sent across the room like a rag doll. So effing frustrating).
I think button smashing works for a PC that isn't entirely dependent on allies but for team-base combat, I think auto-attack is best. It allows me to analyze the situation and have more control over certain actions.
Frankly, I'm in adoration with DA2 (for PC) where it pauses at combat and then I can place people's attacks where I need them to be. In withdrawl, I've been looking for something similar to pass the time... that won't hurt my eyes with bad graphics or my brain with stupidity, and so far I'm still waiting patiently for November.
I play DA on consoles, so I prefer button mashing. Auto attack just feels wrong.
I feel button mashing is really derogative way to call more active or player involved combat. It's not something a good action game should have either. The only thing button mashing belongs to are Street Fighter and maybe quicktime events. Actually scrap that quicktime events should not exist
I prefer auto-attacking just so that I do a little less damage to my hands and wrists from excessive clicking and/or typing.
I prefer being as involved as possible-but I expect to have to use strategy as non-stop button
mashing gets really boring, really fast for me. DA2 made me fall asleep mid-combat when I tried
to play a melee character.
I've always played one click one hit games, so it just ends up being what I prefer. Not that there aren't merits to auto-attack, and I can see why many people would like it better, it's just not as interesting to me.
But seeing as both are options in the game, both types of people will seemingly be appeased. 
It seems to me like the people who don't like auto attack went in expecting an action game. I, personally, went in expecting an RPG, which until that point had always been tactical experiences for me (even turn based RPG are by heart tactical). Dragon Age: Origins just seemed like a real-time equivalent of every RPG I had played until that point and I absolutely LOVED that. The combat never even felt clunky or unresponsive to me, because those things are entirely irrelevant in a tactical game.
These days I can enjoy an ACTION RPG as much as a tactical one, but it's a damn shame that there are few of the latter now (on PC anyway).
The player`s ability to press a button really fast, has absolutely nothing to do with the skills of their rp character. Button mashing pretty much makes stats obselete.
The player`s ability to press a button really fast, has absolutely nothing to do with the skills of their rp character. Button mashing pretty much makes stats obselete.
Unfortunately that is no longer the prevailing sentiment with some gamers. They are the character so the character should respond physically to every move they make. The only stats that matter are health and mana. Only some skills and talents are necessary mostly non-combat.. The think like a gerneral part appears to be getting lost.
It seems to me like the people who don't like auto attack went in expecting an action game. I, personally, went in expecting an RPG, which until that point had always been tactical experiences for me (even turn based RPG are by heart tactical). Dragon Age: Origins just seemed like a real-time equivalent of every RPG I had played until that point and I absolutely LOVED that. The combat never even felt clunky or unresponsive to me, because those things are entirely irrelevant in a tactical game.
My experiences with RPGs has mostly been either action combat or completely turn-based. I don't think I had ever played, or even heard of, a game with that sort of battle system. For quite some time, I assumed that the Warden was responding to my button-presses with very delayed reactions before I realized that my actions were having no impact on his basic attacks.
The think like a gerneral part appears to be getting lost.
To me, thinking like a general applies to setting the companions' tactics. I consider it my character's way of telling the others that this is their battle strategy, and these are the abilities they need to focus on. At the same time, a general would only have direct control over themselves - and as the player who created this character, I want to have direct control over them.
My experiences with RPGs has mostly been either action combat or completely turn-based. I don't think I had ever played, or even heard of, a game with that sort of battle system. For quite some time, I assumed that the Warden was responding to my button-presses with very delayed reactions before I realized that my actions were having no impact on his basic attacks.
To me, thinking like a general applies to setting the companions' tactics. I consider it my character's way of telling the others that this is their battle strategy, and these are the abilities they need to focus on. At the same time, a general would only have direct control over themselves - and as the player who created this character, I want to have direct control over them.
A general has control at a strategic level not the tactical level. Since you can assume control of any of the companions while leaving the protagonist (using tactics) to fend for his/her self you cannot be the protagonist. In combat you are the party. If you could only control the protagonist I would agree with you but that is not the case.
In the ME series the gamer is always Shepard even in combat. That is were you analogy works. If Hawke goes down in DA2 you simply shift to a different companion.
A general has control at a strategic level not the tactical level. Since you can assume control of any of the companions while leaving the protagonist (using tactics) to fend for his/her self you cannot be the protagonist. In combat you are the party. If you could only control the protagonist I would agree with you but that is not the case.
In the ME series the gamer is always Shepard even in combat. That is were you analogy works. If Hawke goes down in DA2 you simply shift to a different companion.
I know the game can be played that way, just saying this is how I like to play. When I'm roleplaying, the character that I create is the one I want to focus on, making every decision as that character including the way they react in battle, and give the others instructions that I treat as in-character orders from my own "general" which depend on what kind of strategies best fit with their combat style.
Actually, I'd like to take back my previous answer and replace it with "Whichever gets combat over and done with faster."
I'm an auto attack man myself. I really like that DA:O combined the traditional method of attack I was used to from playing games like baldur's gate and neverwinter nights with special attacks you could launch simply by using the face buttons. Without taking anything away from the tactical aspects of the game, it was refreshing. Then DA:2 ballsed it up, so i didn't bother buying that game, even after it was patched.
Retour en haut