1120 réponses à ce sujet

[aaarcher86]

Maybe you didn't have a problem using the radial during combat without pausing, but it seems that they now are unwilling to make players use a radial menu in a circumstance where the game can't be paused. I'm sure they have reasons based on testing, feedback, whatever... I know I would have a hard time dealing with a radial menu in combat without pausing, which is why I have no intention of gaming on a console, ever.

 

Look, if I need someone to blame, I know who... it's BioWare's product, so they get all the credit and blame. I'm just pointing out why they did what they did, based on parsing their own statements on the subject. 

 

Pulling up the radial menu in combat on console did pause the game.  There was no reason to change that if they didn't want to.

[Patchwork]

I find this thread to be entirely disheartening, a complete and utter reflection of the modern gaming community.

 

It's sad that nobody here believes in the developers enough to release a game based on their own vision, but instead complain at every turn when something is removed just because they fear it will be detrimental to the overall experience, before they've even played it.

 

How many people here ever use the "tactics" menu, build a complimentary team or even assess a fight before engaging?

 

To me from the cries of this thread nobody here wants to the play the game, the tactical RPG that Dragon Age has always been, but instead would rather have every ability under the sun on their PC while ignoring other core mechanics like party cohesion and encounter design.

 

There is more to this franchise than face-rolling to the credits and romances.

 

Maybe if modern games weren't so expensive people could afford to buy on blind trust.

 

At the moment we have no details about a huge change in how this IP can be played so some grumbling is to be expected. How BW deal with it is part of what makes them a developer worth trusting in...or not.  

[durasteel]

Yes.

 

I'm going to come right out and tell you that.

 

You know why? Because DA:O and DA2 had less ability maps for console controllers and still had the radial menu that you could use.

 

MYTH BUSTED.

Neither game had a multiplayer component that made pausing the game impossible. Every previous DA game was single player, and you could take as much time as you wanted going through menus in the middle of a fight.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Yes it is, and I would like it explained.

 

Yeah, join the club. It will never happen, because they can't justify it. They know it's wrong.

 

 

They HAVE explained why. They HAVE justified it.

 

It's because they wanted to make DA:I into a more tactical game where you have to really think about strategy and how you go about combat.

 

The problem isn't that they haven't explained it. 

 

The problem is you simply DON'T LIKE their explanation. 

 

And... to that there's nothing to say other than then either get over it or don't buy the game. Raging at the devs isn't going to get them to magically change their minds and rebuild the entire game the way you want them to.

[PrinceofTime]

Yes it is, and I would like it explained.

Dont hold your breath.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Excessive loadout switching would require two circumstances: Having more than 8 abilities and level design/combat encounters designed in a way that would necessitate this level of micromanagement.

Or maybe we just like doing things different ways, rather than playing each combat encounter the same.

[Morroian]

It wasn't much of an explanation.

Game design that encourages planning is good. Even requiring planning to succeed is good. But this just forces planning in an arbitrary and inorganic way.

Moreover, I typically build my characters for versatility. That now appears to be impossible.

 

Mike or someone else needs to make a comprehensive post here in the interests of transparency. 

[CronoDragoon]

Not likey; most of the enemies will be broadly grouped. Templars, bandits, so on and so forth. You should be able to create a tactics bar for each area/mission, not for every encounter.

 

Indeed. For example, in one of the previews a site did, they talked about how your advisors inform you of a region that has been taken over by Red Templars. It's reasonable to assume that outfitting yourself to fight Red Templars will have good results.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Neither game had a multiplayer component that made pausing the game impossible. Every previous DA game was single player, and you could take as much time as you wanted going through menus in the middle of a fight.

ME3 had multiplayer and the radial menu.

 

Stop with the conspiracy nonsense.

[aaarcher86]

It wasn't much of an explanation.

Game design that encourages planning is good. Even requiring planning to succeed is good. But this just forces planning in an arbitrary and inorganic way.

Moreover, I typically build my characters for versatility. That now appears to be impossible.

 

Eh, we just disagree then. 

 

I don't really know how they would have gone about limiting abilities or spell usage any other way that would have gone over any better.  Dragon's Dogma used a similar technique (more limiting) and it definitely upped the tactical approach.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Indeed. For example, in one of the previews a site did, they talked about how your advisors inform you of a region that has been taken over by Red Templars. It's reasonable to assume that outfitting yourself to fight Red Templars will have good results.

If there's just one way to fight Red Templars, those fights are going to get really boring really fast.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Mike or someone else needs to make a comprehensive post here in the interests of transparency. 

Or, alternately, some of the posters here need to get over their sense of entitlement.

[Fredvdp]

The problem I have with the explanation we got, is that I think we shouldn't be able to plan our attacks in advance, at least not fully. I want the game to throw anything it has at me. I want to be surprised and act accordingly.

 

In Dragon Age: Origins you could take a wrong turn, and suddenly you're fighting a mage who can deflect all ranged attacks and you need to disarm a few traps to get into melee range. Then two drakes and several cultists join the fight. You're obviously not prepared for this situation, so you better take a look at all the abilities you have and make damn sure you pick the right ones. After you win the fight, you sigh in relief and feel good about yourself for winning in this situation. That's what makes the combat enjoyable.

If the game allows us to plan in advance, it means the fights can't be as challenging. The setup you used a minute earlier should be enough to deal with the next group of enemies. There's no surprise, no changing your strategy on the fly, no depth... It just makes the game simpler. If I wanted that, I'd play Fable, not Dragon Age.

[seraphymon]

They HAVE explained why. They HAVE justified it.

 

It's because they wanted to make DA:I into a more tactical game where you have to really think about strategy and how you go about combat.

 

The problem isn't that they haven't explained it. 

 

The problem is you simply DON'T LIKE their explanation. 

 

And... to that there's nothing to say other than then either get over it or don't buy the game. Raging at the devs isn't going to get them to magically change their minds and rebuild the entire game the way you want them to.

 

 

They have explained it. But its not justifiable. Its an idiotic decision.

[Chari]

Eh, we just disagree then. 

 

I don't really know how they would have gone about limiting abilities or spell usage any other way that would have gone over any better.  Dragon's Dogma used a similar technique (more limiting) and it definitely upped the tactical approach.

I dunno, twelve, maybe, at least?

[Dr. wonderful]

Indeed. For example, in one of the previews a site did, they talked about how your advisors inform you of a region that has been taken over by Red Templars. It's reasonable to assume that outfitting yourself to fight Red Templars will have good results.

Also we seen it was possible to use the Tactical Camera to pause and examine each enemy closely. 

 

 

A huge Example?

 

Gamescom. 

[falconlord5]

The honest answer, not absurd hypothesis like "my skills in essay writing would be poorly out of place in a combat situation" we're obviously talking combat skills in combat situation, so why would Ssome be unavailable ?

 

That's not a hypothesis, that's an analogy. They are quite different.

 

And the short, blunt answer is that every combat situation is different. If you have specked Sera as a sniper, she's not going to be much use to you in CQC. The same with Magi. They are using different weapons (in some cases), different techniques, and altogether different tactics. In the real world, when we prep someone for a specific situation, we don't expect them to use skills that don't relate to that situation.

 

A sniper is not a rifleman, though they may have been trained as such. Conversely, when performing as a rifleman, he is not a sniper. He will not switch between the two.

[Sister Goldring]

I'm rather concerned that this has some implications for our tactics screen.  I will be really disappointed if I'm limited to 8 options.  I hope we get some more information about this soon.  

[CronoDragoon]

If there's just one way to fight Red Templars, those fights are going to get really boring really fast.

 

There's just one way to fight Red Templars optimally, which I don't find to be different than other strategic games. There's a preferred way and alternatives, just like this game.

 

The problem I have with the explanation that 8 slots will require us to plan our attacks, is that I think we shouldn't be able to plan in advance. I want the game to throw anything it has at me. I want to be surprised and act accordingly.

 

That's fine if that's how you feel, but after the backlash against wave mechanics, and the associated desire from gamers to be able to see enemy encounters and positioning in order to plan strategically, that realistically wasn't really an option for DAI.

[ianvillan]

Not likey; most of the enemies will be broadly grouped. Templars, bandits, so on and so forth. You should be able to create a tactics bar for each area/mission, not for every encounter.

 

If you cant create tactics for every encounter then it means you would have to change your loadout before every encounter.

 

Either it comes down to having the same abilities for every Templar fight which is in no way tactical at all or it means stopping your game before every encounter and opening up the menu and going through to pick up which abilities you need for this fight.

[Father_Jerusalem]

The problem I have with the explanation that 8 slots will require us to plan our attacks, is that I think we shouldn't be able to plan in advance. I want the game to throw anything it has at me. I want to be surprised and act accordingly.

 

In Dragon Age: Origins you could take a wrong turn, and suddenly you're fighting a mage who can deflect all ranged attacks and you need to disarm a few traps to get into melee range. Then two drakes and several cultists join the fight. You're obviously not prepared for this situation, so you better take a look at all the abilities you have and make damn sure you pick the right ones. After you win the fight, you sigh in relief and feel good about yourself for winning in this situation. That's what makes the combat enjoyable.

If the game allows us to plan in advance, it means the fights can't be as challenging. The setup you used a minute earlier should be enough to deal with the next group of enemies. There's no surprise, no changing your strategy on the fly, no depth... It just makes the game simpler. If I wanted that, I'd play Fable, not Dragon Age.

You've played through the game then already, have you?

[aaarcher86]

If there's just one way to fight Red Templars, those fights are going to get really boring really fast.

 

I'm sure there are multiple ways.  But if you find that certain skills are the best route to killing them, I doubt you're going to map the second best skills. 

[durasteel]

You're wrong. MP is only 4 abilities. No need to make up conspiracy theories.

 

MP is still 8 abilities, 4 of which will be locked as potion hotkeys. Since the potions are accessible in a radial menu in the single player game, all 8 slots are available for "spells."

[aaarcher86]

I dunno, twelve, maybe, at least?

 

Right.  I meant something other than just giving you more slots.  If you're just unhappy with the number, fine.  I was under the impression Sylvius had a better solution besides limiting the mapped abilities.