237 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Huh? DA2's combat is no less a team battle than DA:O. Heck if you're on console, DA2 actually grants you more control over the rest of your team than Origins does.

[Althix]

no it's not. my warrior was capable of dispatching any mob or groups of mobs in a matter of second, simply be overbuffing damage output by using skill of different specializations. as result there is no need in party members at all. ME series have the very same issue.

 

Main character can destroy any opposition by himself, party members no more than a dead weight. Such approach to combat is indeed making game more action like, however party and team battle is nothing more than a neglected addition.

 

mind you i made two solo nightmare runs of DA2, and a warrior with two handed sword have the best results.

 

in DAO you can run solo as well, but because of speed and better skill system, you need to think twice before doing anything, when in DA2 damage output is all that matters.

This also have its impact on party gameplay. For example my favorite setup in DAO is two rogues, mage and a warrior. In DA2 i don't have any, because there is no need in that. Hawke is a destroyer of worlds all by himself.

[Googleness]

you played DA2 on easy mode ?

[Althix]

if you can't read i will explain. now i made two solo runs on nightmare. first with the mage and second with the warrior.

 

and ratio damage per stamina is better than damage per mana. now add to this cc by auto attacks and there you have it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well Jimmy as much as I enjoy having a conversation with someone that can write a proper sentence....

Why such hate? ME didn't had MP it was added on the last game.

Put your fate in Bioware and Bioware will provide. (SWTOR Balmorra reference )

...what, are you serious?

I've just outlined multiple times ME was a shooter game in its basic mechanics. It was no more difficult removing the squad and the pause feature from it than any other shooter like CoD which has squad members you can issue commands to.

DA isn't like that. It features full party control and non-action based combat. Turning that into a group action MP horde mode would require significant changes to the design philosophy.

[Googleness]

You are aware that part of what makes DA series great is the "Tactics" system which allows you to set your companions on what to do and when.

 

Most of the time in DA I don't even need to pause the game unless it's very very hard boss fight.

[Fast Jimmy]

You are aware that part of what makes DA series great is the "Tactics" system which allows you to set your companions on what to do and when.

Most of the time in DA I don't even need to pause the game unless it's very very hard boss fight.

Tactics are great. But ultimately, the fact that you (or anyone) can do this is an indictment of the encounter design. Without the need to examine unit placement, the proper timing of skills or the very simple fact that the same set of Tactics should not work on every enemy encountered in the entire game is pretty telling.

All changing difficulty did in DA:O or DA2 is boost or reduce stats for the enemy or player, respectively. Contrast that to a game of chess with a computer. Playing chess on Hard doesn't mean the computer gets more bishops instead of pawns, or has more pieces to outnumber the human player. The difficulty stems solely from how tactical the computer let's itself be. On lower difficulties, it does not have long-term strategies enabled, it only let's so many calculations be done on the ramifications of any move and it doesn't have behaviors activated that identify weaknesses in the human player's current setup. On the highest difficulties, the computer acts like a chess master, where it knows thousands of techniques to dismantle a player's defenses and let's it think twenty moves in advance to determine the best move.

In DA:O and DA2, a higher difficulty just gives HP bloat, another wave of enemies and a random immunity to all fire attacks for dogs.



I may be all for preserving DA as one of the last AAA series left that has tactical party combat, but it certainly has been allowed to be much less challenging and integrated with its party usage than it should be. I blame lack of healthy competition (something that may be changing with some Kickstarters) and, of course, the over-saturation of single character MMORPGs.

[Vortex13]

Tactics are great. But ultimately, the fact that you (or anyone) can do this is an indictment of the encounter design. Without the need to examine unit placement, the proper timing of skills or the very simple fact that the same set of Tactics should not work on every enemy encountered in the entire game is pretty telling.

All changing difficulty did in DA:O or DA2 is boost or reduce stats for the enemy or player, respectively. Contrast that to a game of chess with a computer. Playing chess on Hard doesn't mean the computer gets more bishops instead of pawns, or has more pieces to outnumber the human player. The difficulty stems solely from how tactical the computer let's itself be. On lower difficulties, it does not have long-term strategies enabled, it only let's so many calculations be done on the ramifications of any move and it doesn't have behaviors activated that identify weaknesses in the human player's current setup. On the highest difficulties, the computer acts like a chess master, where it knows thousands of techniques to dismantle a player's defenses and let's it think twenty moves in advance to determine the best move.

In DA:O and DA2, a higher difficulty just gives HP bloat, another wave of enemies and a random immunity to all fire attacks for dogs.



I may be all for preserving DA as one of the last AAA series left that has tactical party combat, but it certainly has been allowed to be much less challenging and integrated with its party usage than it should be. I blame lack of healthy competition (something that may be changing with some Kickstarters) and, of course, the over-saturation of single character MMORPGs.

BioWare has said that they are aiming for a mixture of DA:O/A and DA 2 for DA:I. Now from what I have seen, we are getting the tactical awareness and customization options of DA:O/A, with things like the tactical camera, and armor/weapon customization and race selection. And we are getting the more action-y elements of DA 2 with things like combat rolls, the warrior harpoon attack, jumping, and in general more player input regarding combat. Personally, I don't see such hybridization as a watering down of classic party based RPGs, but there is obviously a difference of opinion among the player base.


The addition of MP wouldn't make DA:I more action based, or turn it into a MMO; given the structure of core gameplay mechanics we have seen, as well as BioWare's stated intention of having a hybrid of DA:O and DA 2; the only true difference a MP would have compared to the SP game would be the removal of tactical camera.


Even if MP is never included in the final game, we are still going to have combat rolls, and warrior harpoon attacks. The gameplay footage we have seen and developer design intentions are still going to be the combination of elements from two previous DA titles.

[Fast Jimmy]

Even if MP is never included in the final game, we are still going to have combat rolls, and warrior harpoon attacks. The gameplay footage we have seen and developer design intentions are still going to be the combination of elements from two previous DA titles.

Which is MORE than unfortunate, let me tell you. Although I'd disagree it is a combination of the games, and more an extreme version of DA2, with an extra camera mode added.

DA2 didn't have MP and it still had its "Awesome Button" combat design, which was blasted by many fans of tactical combat. The fact that DA:I seems to have even MORE action combat mechanics than DA2 and slapped in an overhead camera when the game is Paused does not make me feel the least bit better. The camera does not balance out the action elements - it simply gives you an easier way to see the map when the game is Paused. That doesn't mean the design of the game isn't slanted to controlling one single character over giving orders to your party when you are done pausing the game.

So if DA:I's combat turns out to be as action RPG in nature as it seems to be based on demos, it won't be any comfort to me that it doesn't have MP. The same net effect will have been accomplished and they lose the benefit of even having the extra revenue of MP microtransactions. So in that regard, we agree - if DA:I is continuing even further down the path of action RPG mechanics than what DA2 had, then they should implement a MP feature. The problem is that this means Bioware has deluded themselves into thinking adding a camera somehow trumps the rest of the game's entire design philosophy, which is also unfortunate.

I personally hope my assessment of the demos is off base and that the action combat features are not as extreme as they appear to be. I also hope that MP stays away to keep these action features away. But if I'm wrong, then Bioware should go gung-ho with MP features - they will not have me as a customer regardless.

[Fast Jimmy]

Huh? DA2's combat is no less a team battle than DA:O. Heck if you're on console, DA2 actually grants you more control over the rest of your team than Origins does.

DA2 does have a deeper Tactics screen, but the design of the game still encouraged the player to control one character over managing the party, especially in the console versions.

Mashing the attack button made your attacks faster than the standard auto attack, meaning your character would do less damage if you gave them the order to attack an enemy versus taking direct control of them and mashing.

In addition, the system logic in regards to how hits were done changed between DA:O and DA2. DA:O determined if a hit was made before the animation even started. In DA2, it was determined after the animation was completed. This means that in DA2, you could see an animation like the Rage Demon's backstab was starting, which can one-hit-kill a character. If you give the character the order to move away to dodge the attack, you cannot. If you take direct control of the character and loop around the demon, the attack will miss 100% of the time.

These types of design decisions make it so the player benefits more from controlling a character directly rather than giving orders. Which, again, leans more towards an action RPG experience than a tactical one. In DA:I's demos; the is indication that this was taken to new levels, so we shall see if the game is more of an action RPG than DA2 was.

[ElitePinecone]

snip

 

I still think you're massively over-analysing how big of an impact MP's combat design decisions would have on the singleplayer. 

[Allan Schumacher]

I think I am having problems communicating - I don't have any concerns about MP being too hard without a pause. My concern is that MP would be exceptionally DULL (again, like soloing DA:O on Easy) because the series isn't action oriented (DA2 mashing if the attack button notwithstanding).

 

Well, it's been a while since I played either of the games but I think you overstate the downtime with respect to abilities.  I'm also trying to illustrate that the solo aspect is irrelevant.  You've mandated that it must be soloing on easy, because that's how you can do DAO solo.  I'm saying that the comparison isn't well thought out.  Perhaps it's part of the communication problem, but by creating this comparison you haven't made things clearer for me.

 

There are people (I'm one of them) that exploit the tactics menu to automate the party.  I played most of DAO unpaused, controlling only my Warden.  On Normal difficulty.  How does a multiplayer experience differ from me playing on Normal with well design party tactics for my AI companions?

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, it's been a while since I played either of the games but I think you overstate the downtime with respect to abilities.  I'm also trying to illustrate that the solo aspect is irrelevant.  You've mandated that it must be soloing on easy, because that's how you can do DAO solo.  I'm saying that the comparison isn't well thought out.  Perhaps it's part of the communication problem, but by creating this comparison you haven't made things clearer for me.
 
There are people (I'm one of them) that exploit the tactics menu to automate the party.  I played most of DAO unpaused, controlling only my Warden.  On Normal difficulty.  How does a multiplayer experience differ from me playing on Normal with well design party tactics for my AI companions?

You don't monitor your party's health? The buffs they have active? Their placement in relation to the enemies? What skills they have on cooldown and which ones they still have active?


...don't you get bored? You're not doing anything but pressing a button every five or ten seconds or monitoring anything except a steadily decreasing health bar.

[ShinsFortress]

Preferably? Nonexistent.

I don't play RPGs in order to be sociable. If I wanted to interact with real people I'd start by turning my console off. I prefer my downtime to be a private experience and I almost didnt play ME3 as a result. If multiplayer became essential to the story it would be a deal-breaker to me. I've turned down a lot of games because they advertised multiplayer and apparently some of them were even quite good.

But I'm certainly not representative, so we'll see what happens

 

This.  But would live with it if it was totally separate and optional with any SP effects cosmetic only.

[Fast Jimmy]

I still think you're massively over-analysing how big of an impact MP's combat design decisions would have on the singleplayer.

Seeing the effect the rise of MMO's have taken the direction of RPGs in the past decade, I think you are massively under-analyzing it.

The DA series is an endangered species in terms of the gameplay experience it offers. More action elements diminish the cohesiveness of this system. MP is, by its very nature, much more of an action-focused activity.

[ElitePinecone]

...don't you get bored? You're not doing anything but pressing a button every five or ten seconds or monitoring anything except a steadily decreasing health bar.

 

The UI can show active buffs and positions of allies. 

 

And that's presumably where battlefield positioning comes in - as well as using special powers, which had much shorter cooldown times in ME3's MP. They did less damage, I think, but you could use them more often. I don't see anyone suggesting, or requesting, that the sum of any multiplayer mode would consist of the player pressing the attack button every second to swing a sword or cast a basic spell. 

 

Confronted with an enemy with a tower shield, for example, you absolutely cannot sit there for a minute - it requires flanking, special attacks to remove the shield, probably teamwork. Interviews have said that many enemies will be like that, in terms of presenting a tactical challenge. 

 

Give each class/race combination a unique group of special abilities and I think it sounds pretty fun.

[ElitePinecone]

MP is, by its very nature, much more of an action-focused activity.

 

Okay.

 

But you're claiming that what is implemented for MP must bleed over to SP, when we have absolutely no evidence that this would be the case. It's a scenario you're assuming to be true.

[Fast Jimmy]

The UI can show active buffs and positions of allies. 
 
And that's presumably where battlefield positioning comes in - as well as using special powers, which had much shorter cooldown times in ME3's MP. They did less damage, I think, but you could use them more often. I don't see anyone suggesting, or requesting, that the sum of any multiplayer mode would consist of the player pressing the attack button every second to swing a sword or cast a basic spell. 

That's what DA2 did. The game shipped with no auto attack, so every swing of the sword and every "pew pew" from a Mage staff had to be manually done by the player.

DA:I looks to be the same way - how fast you press the attack button will determine how much damage your standard attack does.
 

Confronted with an enemy with a tower shield, for example, you absolutely cannot sit there for a minute - it requires flanking, special attacks to remove the shield, probably teamwork. Interviews have said that many enemies will be like that, in terms of presenting a tactical challenge. 
 
Give each class/race combination a unique group of special abilities and I think it sounds pretty fun.

That does sound interesting.

However, what worries me is that the character will required to take direct control of a had after in order to do these things. Like shooting a hookshot to disable a shield tower. Or <shudder> use the jump button.

The jump button is the epitome of action combat. It's presence alone in DA:I makes me think tactical party combat could be totally out the window.


NOTICE - I'm saying tactical PARTY combat. Dark Souls 2 has plenty of tactical combat. You have to know your enemies, change your tactics and adapt your methods in pretty big ways. Same goes with the Witcher series. These aren't inferior games for dummies... but they aren't party tactical games. They don't utilize a party dynamic to accomplish goals in combat. That's what I'm talking about here.

[robertthebard]

Okay.
 
But you're claiming that what is implemented for MP must bleed over to SP, when we have absolutely no evidence that this would be the case. It's a scenario you're assuming to be true.

I can give you a very clear example: Galaxy at War. Galactic Readiness was directly affected by MP, and, in fact, could only get above 50% if you played MP. Whether any changes to classes are made is, in large part, irrelevant to me, if they have a Thedas at War map that can only be raised above a certain percentage through MP. It's irrelevant because, if they implement it like that, I won't be buying, let alone playing.

As I said, MP is fine, in and of itself, but is should have no direct impact on the SP campaign, optional or otherwise. If we assume MP, I am buying a SP game with a MP component. I have already observed that MP can be implemented into a SP game w/out having any impact on the SP campaign, a la NWN. Although, for NWN the charm, for me, was MP. MP should be it's own entity, and should remain that way. For those that might ask "Then what's the point, if it's not going to add to my gameplay?", isn't it adding that MP component? Isn't it giving people the opportunity to game with others in the DA universe? Why should it have an impact on the SP game, when you're not playing the SP game?

[Fast Jimmy]

Okay.
 
But you're claiming that what is implemented for MP must bleed over to SP, when we have absolutely no evidence that this would be the case. It's a scenario you're assuming to be true.

It either will have shared mechanics between the two or the MP will be a totally separate system set up that plays differently, in which case there is large amounts of duplicated efforts. I am doubtful that would be the case, just from the perspective of extra cost and for the risk that the MP mode itself would be divorced from what the player might expect after playing the SP campaign. I mean... it's not like they would include a DA Angry Birds clone for the MP mode.

[Googleness]

one thing ME3 MP teached me is single player characthers are IMBA OP Gods of death.

 

Example...

 

in MP you can have 1 type of drone, 1 type of "Tech" attack and some "Class" skills.

in Single player you can have all 3 types of drones, all the Tech attacks abilities and loads of other skills.

 

Let's take most cheasy I win tactic on single ME3...

Geth AR + Explosive Incendiary ammo + AR ability = I win boo boom!

[ElitePinecone]

I've already said I'm totally against the idea of a Galaxy at War system affecting story outcomes, if that's what they're planning for this hypothetical MP mode we're discussing for DA:I.

 

("Thedas at War", probably )

But if they two modes are decoupled, or MP is just an alternative way to get "Inquisition Power Points" that you could get via singleplayer content, I wouldn't have a problem with it in that respect. The marketing would push it as "players can choose to explore the vast open world for secrets, or pla some MP matches to boost their influence" - okay, that's fine, I have no issue there. 

 

What I mean by a substantial impact is that I don't necessarily think an MP mode would involve huge changes to the singleplayer gameplay experience, or vice versa. If they're building both from the ground up, there's probably enough scope to tweak both systems so that they could work equally well as one player controlling four characters with a pause menu, or four players controlling four characters in real time. 

[ElitePinecone]

It either will have shared mechanics between the two or the MP will be a totally separate system set up that plays differently, in which case there is large amounts of duplicated efforts. I am doubtful that would be the case, just from the perspective of extra cost and for the risk that the MP mode itself would be divorced from what the player might expect after playing the SP campaign. I mean... it's not like they would include a DA Angry Birds clone for the MP mode.

 

Sure, so it becomes a matter of how different the two are from each other... 

 

Looking at ME3 as a guide, they disabled pausing, changed weapon statistics and enemy hitpoints, changed the countdowns for powers, made new powers, character kits, etc.

 

I'm not saying those are trivial things, but they're not fundamentally deviating from the singleplayer content - and the style of gameplay that resulted was pretty excellent as far as multiplayer gameplay modes go. 

 

I can imagine a DAI example offering four-player co-op (in, let's say, a horde mode) without pausing. Enemies require teamwork to take down, and some are only vulnerable to particular powers or spells carried by certain classes. The gameplay rewards tactical teamwork and co-operation, and occasionally mandates it.

[robertthebard]

I've already said I'm totally against the idea of a Galaxy at War system affecting story outcomes, if that's what they're planning for this hypothetical MP mode we're discussing for DA:I.
 
("Thedas at War", probably )

But if they two modes are decoupled, or MP is just an alternative way to get "Inquisition Power Points" that you could get via singleplayer content, I wouldn't have a problem with it in that respect. The marketing would push it as "players can choose to explore the vast open world for secrets, or pla some MP matches to boost their influence" - okay, that's fine, I have no issue there. 
 
What I mean by a substantial impact is that I don't necessarily think an MP mode would involve huge changes to the singleplayer gameplay experience, or vice versa. If they're building both from the ground up, there's probably enough scope to tweak both systems so that they could work equally well as one player controlling four characters with a pause menu, or four players controlling four characters in real time.

This would be an acceptable compromise, as opposed to what ME 3 offered, which came down to "You don't have to play MP, but you'll be wishing you did if you miss a couple of missions" back when. It makes that "Thedas at War" mean something other than "Look at me, I played a few hours of MP, and now I have (insert whatever here), and can skip half the game". If all those side missions in ME 3 had meant that you could increase your GaW as if you'd played MP, it might have been better received than it was by the people that didn't care for the mechanics of it.

I'm not adverse to it, I just don't want it locking me out of something if I don't play it. I don't even think, based entirely on what we know of the classes from the previous 2 installments, that they'd have to change much mechanics wise, other than removing the pause feature. They probably wouldn't even have to remove the tactical camera, and really, it might make it more interesting if they left it in. I can achieve something similar in several of the MMOs I play with camera positioning, and in Aion, it was particularly helpful in large scale PvP situations. So long as they stay away from "The only way to achieve X is via MP", I'll be fine.

[ElitePinecone]

Honestly I think the most aggravating part of ME3's Galaxy of War thing was the difference between what the devs said would happen and what actually happened in the game - and the explanation given, that someone had miscounted something, was pretty dubious. 

 

The reaction would've been poor anyway if they'd said "MP is required to see all content" - which was true, until the Extended Cut - but it was so much angrier, with so much more room for conspiracy theories and accusations of lying, because the very thing people *most* dreaded ended up happening anyway, and it looked deliberate and opportunistic. After going to such lengths to calm people about an MP mode, they went and did the one thing that would ****** them off the most - and it looked like it was intentional. 

 

A lot of the flak Bioware and EA get is over the top, but that really was an own goal.