70 réponses à ce sujet

[lessthanjake]

This game sounds like it will be awesome in so many ways. For instance, I am enthused about the return of the tactical view. In an RPG where you have spent a lot of time thinking about how to build your character, I find it most rewarding to be able to think and strategize about what to do in combat.

 

With that said, I am skeptical that the tactical view will be good. Here's my concern:

 

Bioware wants to appeal to the masses with their games. Fair enough. That means that they want to make the combat playable/beatable even if you largely just control only your main character and play completely in real time, because many casual gamers want that type of easy, fast-paced experience. You can see this style demonstrated in the demo videos.

 

I have no problem with that. However, if the combat isn't that hard when you only control your character and you never pause, then it will be too easy if you use tactical view and plan things out. This makes the tactical view silly. Basically, it will feel like a waste of time to spend time strategizing and planning out your actions if your party could fairly easily steamroller the enemies without any planning. I like strategy, but I am not going to sit there thinking about my strategy for a while while knowing that nothing I am thinking about is necessary. That's not very fun. Relatedly, I like to think about how to make the best build. That is also not fun if combat's so easy that a gimped build won't have much trouble. 

 

Obviously the game will almost certainly have difficulty settings to help with this. However, here's the thing. Bioware's main target audience are the people who want to be able to play completely in real-time, mostly just controlling one character, and haven't made particularly good character builds. You gear your default difficulty setting to your target audience; you don't want to force most people to lower the difficulty because people do not like doing that. So I KNOW the default difficulty will be too easy to justify tactical view. That is essentially inevitable. My point, then, is that there will need to be a difficulty setting substantially harder than the default, that basically requires using the tactical view a lot, even if you have a pretty good build. Otherwise, having the option to pause and plan is a waste. 

 

I know Bioware can make a game like that. DA:O was often very hard and had battles (even on normal difficulty I think) that essentially required lots of use of pausing and planning. For that reason, I found the combat in DA:O to be amongst the most rewarding in any game I have ever played. In many particularly tough battles I would die the first time or two that I tried it (and some I died even more than that haha). In order to succeed, I needed to really think about what to do. As a result, winning those battles felt like a real accomplishment.

 

However, even though this may all seem obvious, many RPGs suffer from not having an adequately high difficulty level to give a challenge to people with good builds who are pausing and strategizing. I just hope that DA:I is not one of those games. But given that the default difficulty will almost certainly be designed to allow players to play just fine in real-time, I have doubts that Bioware will have a setting that is enough harder.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Well for me its like this.

On nightmare mode with perfect positioning, execution and use of tactical view to the max - you should still be comming out of a fight filled with adrenaline, bruises, broken bones, trauma and blood seeping out of evey orifice.

Then again Im a pretty hardcore gamer. IMO if most people can complete nightmare without the use of tactical view/pause then the combat gameplay as a challenge has failed.

[Kage]

It is really impossible to predict how Bioware will approach the difficulty in DAI, since it was so different in both DAO and DA2.

 

In DAO, you could very well screw your character outside of combat, by giving him the incorrect attributes or abilities.

In DA2, it was so mainstreamed you had to be stupid to give him the incorrect attributes, so that was not a problem anymore.

 

In DAO, you could fight a single enemy that was so powerful that it would eat your companions one by one, I still remember those Revenants with terror.

In DA2, you could fight so many enemies at the same time, you could be totally overrun if you used your AoE's incorrectly.

 

In DAO, I found in nightmare a very good tactic to rely heavily in CC to separate the enemies, and fight them in little packs.

In DA2, I found in nightmare a very good tactic was to use little CC and rely on doing a crazy amount of DPS in order to not be overrun.

 

In DAO, I found having an allmighty Alistair with superb dexterity and being untoachable was an awesome asset to the party.

In DAO2, I found having an inmortal Aveline with little damage was subpar, since I would end up being overrun and then Aveline would end up alone and died.

 

In DAO, difficulty was kind of removed the moment you had enough gold to craft infinite health potions.

In DA2, difficulty was kind of removed the moment your DPS was so high you could kill waves of mobs before the next wave, and still have time to /dance.

 

In DAO, you could beat nightmare without knowing how to combine spells or skills.

In DA2, you could not beat nightmare without cross-class combos.

 

In DAO, you paused the game when each combat started, planned, positioned, and executed your strategy.

In DA2, you paused the game each time you saw new red dots in the minimap, which meant new waves falling from the sky, in order to re-analyze the situation again.

 

In DAO, AoE spells where used in nightmare to kill trash mobs.

In DA2, AoE spells where used in nightmare to reveal enemy elite rogues! And maybe also kill stuff, but with caution because if another rogue appears fron thin air, you are kind of fucked...

 

In DAO, when you lost a battle you tried again with another tactic, and killing first that mage that was surely the reason you died.

In DA2, when you lost a battle, you tried again memorizing the spawns of mobs. (Since you had little time to react between the spawn of an horror, and the spirit damage AoE party 1shot spell)

 

In DAO, my tactics where set up to protect allies, use abilities depending on the enemies, etc.

In DA2, 50% of my tactics where just to set up or trigger cross-class combos. I would never allow a mage to use chain lightning without a cross-class combo.

 

In DAO, the best class to nightmare was a mage.

In DA2, the best class to nightmare was a 2h warrior.

 

And the worst of all:

In DAO nightmare, all enemies were harder to kill.

In DA2 nightmare, enemies had invulnerabilities to certain elements, which meant you had to know those invulnerabilities and plan them ahead, instead of playing how you want. This is the reason I only played nightmare once.

 

 

So yeah..... They are just so different we have absolutely no idea how the difficulty in DAI will be like......

[TurretSyndrome]

The way I look at it is; as you increase the difficulty of the game, the player should be forced to use more and more of the game's mechanics. To put it simply:

 

Easy: Play the game without pausing or tactical game mechanics

Normal: Play while occasionally micromanaging companions. Might get away with not using tactical view.

Hard: Play while being heavily reliant on tactical game mechanics like positioning and micromanaging.

Nightmare: No quarter given. Use everything the game has to offer to full effect, to win. 

 

So basically, Tactical gameplay should not be an option if one decides to play on Hard/Nightmare in my opinion. The game should be difficult enough in these modes that the player has to use it to its full extent if he/she wishes to survive. Otherwise, it's just a useless feature. Furthermore, it would be a mockery of real tactical gameplay. So I hope it wouldn't turn out like that.

[Skymaple]

I don't think casual players are the only ones that enjoy combat in real-time. I love both DA games, I've done like 10+ playthroughs in DAO and 10+ in DA2, all of them hard, and the last 5 ones in nightmare. I don't like tactical view, for it removes the feeling of immersion for me. But I can understand how others love it.

I like to be in the heat of combat, feel all the adrenaline, etc. I have beaten both games in both hard and nightmare without tactical view - which is different from pausing. And again, I try to stay away from pausing, for I can't explain how my Warden/Hawke can stop the time. But that's my personal view.

I think both games are beatable in those difficulties without the tactical view if you build your character perfectly (I spent hours and hours thinking about the build) and you have good tactics for your companions and get the right teammates. Obviously I have to change between teammates sometimes. But for me tactical view and real-time are only different ways to play it, so I don't think hard/nightmare should be worse than those difficulties have been before, so I can beat them in real time with little pausing. Yes, I like challenges, for me real-time is more rewarding. Even if the note says "rely heavily on tactical view and pausing" I'll try to do it real-time 'cus my heroes are that pro!

[Sylvius the Mad]

So basically, Tactical gameplay should not be an option if one decides to play on Hard/Nightmare in my opinion. The game should be difficult enough in these modes that the player has to use it to its full extent if he/she wishes to survive. Otherwise, it's just a useless feature.

Nothing that offers the player options is a useless feature.

[TurretSyndrome]

Nothing that offers the player options is a useless feature.

 

Well, sure. But I'm just saying that it makes it obsolete if the game is easy enough to be played without the necessity of using the pause function or tactics to their full extent as the difficulty rises. What's the point of pausing the game to do all that stuff, or set up AI Tactics for your companions and all the other stuff, if not doing any of that doesn't change anything?

[lessthanjake]

Tactical view isn't about difficulty. it's simply about another, one might say "better," way to view the battlefield.

 

it doesn't NEED difficulty to justify itself. It only needs a tactical combat system (something DA:O and DA ][ both had).

 

 

Edit: And to say that people who prefer real-time combat are "casuals" is flat-out wrong. If anything, those of us who aren't fast enough on our feet to execute our attacks immediately are the casuals. Consider hack-n-slash games. Those aren't for casuals.

 

 

No, tactical view inherently affects difficulty. You're right that the change in camera angle does not really affect it. Rather it's all about the ability to pause. When you can pause, you have time to plan out a strategy and queue up actions of different characters simultaneously. This will make any player more likely to be successful. Someone playing in real-time might often make the right decisions, but they are much more likely to make a strategic mistake when they do not have time to pause and think about their next move. And unless you think that the AI is a better decision-maker than human characters, I think it is pretty self explanatory why being able to essentially control the entire party's actions simultaneously instead of just one character makes you more likely to be successful. Honestly, I'm confused as to how you don't recognize this, though I think it is because you interpreted me to just be talking about the camera angle, which does not, by itself, make anything much easier.

 

As for the other thing, I do not use the word "casual" in a derogatory manner. I just mean that a real-time style of combat appeals to the average gamer more than a pause and play type of combat, that more hardcore RPG players might be into. Since Bioware wants to sell as many games as possible, they are going to gear combat more toward the average gamer. And I certainly don't mean that those types of players are less good as gamers. Real-time combat is a different beast that favors a different gaming skill set, so some people might be relatively better at one or the other (though I maintain that no one would actually execute better in real-time; they just might be better relative to everyone else in real-time than they are relative to everyone else with pausing). 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, sure. But I'm just saying that it makes it obsolete if the game is easy enough to be played without the necessity of using the pause function or tactics to their full extent as the difficulty rises. What's the point of pausing the game to do all that stuff, or set up AI Tactics for your companions and all the other stuff, if not doing any of that doesn't change anything?

Because it's more fun that way.

 

That's the only reason any of us do anything in these games.

[TurretSyndrome]

What do you mean, doesn't change something. It will always change something. Whether it makes an "impossible" battle "possible" is another question, but the existence of a tactical camera will simply by virtue of its existence change something--it will give you that option.

 

Again--it's not a function of difficulty. How many people use the tactical view because the game is "too hard" for the non-tactical view, and how many use it simply because they prefer it? I'd wager most, if not all, fall into the second category (the reality is, the tactical view doesn't actually make fights "easier" at all, because all it is is a higher camera--with a pause function, anything you can do with a tactical cam, you can also do with the third-person cam, as far as combat control).

 

I'm not talking about the Tactical view but the tactics themselves and putting effort into micromanaging your team and whatnot. If the game is not difficult enough that higher difficulties don't force you to use elements beyond the conventional ones and to their full extent, then that would demean their implementation. For example, If I don't ever have to drink a potion throughout an entire playthrough, then I see the implementation of health potions as pointless. At that point, would the choice of having them in-game matter? 

 

 

Because it's more fun that way.

 

That's the only reason any of us do anything in these games.

 

Well, I'm not against choice, I'm just saying that when players decide to step it up a notch or play on Nightmare, I except a spike in challenge strong enough which forces them to use all that they have. I just don't agree with "I don't care what difficulty I'm on, I still should be able to play without pausing or doing anything out of the ordinary". 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I just don't agree with "I don't care what difficulty I'm on, I still should be able to play without pausing or doing anything out of the ordinary". 

Why would anyone agree with that?  That would be crazy.

[TurretSyndrome]

Why would anyone agree with that?  That would be crazy.

 

I can't tell if that's sarcasm. If it's not, then let me tell you, there are actually people out there who do want that; to be able to play in the same way they always do without being hampered at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't tell if that's sarcasm. If it's not, then let me tell you, there are actually people out there who do want that; to be able to play in the same way they always do without being hampered at all.

Then why are they playing on Nightmare? That's insane.

Nightmare is for players who want the gameplay to challenge them, ideally without respite.

That's why I don't play on Nightmare.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not talking about the Tactical view but the tactics themselves and putting effort into micromanaging your team and whatnot. If the game is not difficult enough that higher difficulties don't force you to use elements beyond the conventional ones and to their full extent, then that would demean their implementation. For example, If I don't ever have to drink a potion throughout an entire playthrough, then I see the implementation of health potions as pointless. At that point, would the choice of having them in-game matter?

You seem to be assuming that the only possible gameplay objective is to win.

If that were the case, and ignoring differences in player ability, you would be correct.

But differences in player ability do exist, and there are other valid gameplay objectives.

[TurretSyndrome]

You seem to be assuming that the only possible gameplay objective is to win.

If that were the case, and ignoring differences in player ability, you would be correct.

But differences in player ability do exist, and there are other valid gameplay objectives.

 

I'm not denying that there are differences in player ability. There's also the player interest that plays a significant role. But that's why we have the difficulty modes in the first place. Each of them is crafted with a range of levels of player ability and preference in mind.

 

I don't understand what you mean by other gameplay objectives. For me, the ultimate objective is winning a battle, because you can't move any farther in the game if you don't.

[Kage]

Well, using tactical camera makes the game like 10x easier.

Instead of taking control of 1 character, and switch now and then to different characters, you are mostly in pause and selecting at the same time what you want all characters to do for the next action. That is far better, more optimized. And also, you have much control of the battlefield because you can see all the enemies, their levels, their resistances, etc.

 

So I really think that Nightmare should force us to use tactical view. If not, then by using tactical view we would feel like nightmare is normal.

[Amfortas]

People tend for some reason to associate the tactical camera with pause, tactics and terms like cRPG, when it's just another view, and a normal camera that zooms out enough is even better in my opinion, since you can rotate it at will. The tactical camera is more like a relic from the isometric days.

If I were to choose, a first person camera would bring a more interesting change in terms of gameplay.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Nothing that offers the player options is a useless feature.

A tool is useless if it has no application for the job you are doing. You can have 100 tools in your shed, that gives you options. But if all you need is a hammer the other tools serve no purpose. Sure - you CAN use a sledgehammer instead of a hammer. But using that tool just to use it and not because you need it still makes it useless no?

[Gtdef]

No, the game won't be difficult enough to justify the extra camera tools. It just exists for the sake of nostalgia and because people asked for it. Just letting us zoom out more than DA2 allowed is enough for every combat scenario.

 

For something to be difficult it has to strain your abilities and punish your mistakes. Only bosses that do this are ARW, Mother and Corypheus and even these have a gimmick quality about them because it's more about gear and less about tactics or execution.

 

Only reason DA games can be considered difficult is because you spend 90% of the game strangling kittens and then you have to deal with a tank. If everything is so easy that you don't feel the need to optimize and gear your party, then when you reach the boss that has a trillion health and phases you are going to die. But if you optimize your party then there isn't a single boss in DA that is difficult. You just overpower it with eyes closed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't understand what you mean by other gameplay objectives. For me, the ultimate objective is winning a battle, because you can't move any farther in the game if you don't.

And that's what I'm talking about. Your objective, as a player, is to advance through the story the writers have provided.

My objective, however, is to roleplay my character effectively. To do this, I don't always choose optimal combat tactics. I play suboptimally if it fits my character. And if I lose, then that's where that character's story ends.

Other players might play to see how oddly they can construct a party.

Winning the battle and advancing through the story are not everyone's ultimate objectives. I just wanted to make you aware of your assumption, and that other people might not share it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

A tool is useless if it has no application for the job you are doing. You can have 100 tools in your shed, that gives you options. But if all you need is a hammer the other tools serve no purpose. Sure - you CAN use a sledgehammer instead of a hammer. But using that tool just to use it and not because you need it still makes it useless no?

It depends what you want to do with the nail. Or whether you want to use the nail at all. Maybe a winch strap would be more interesting today.