1120 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

I think you seem to be missing the part where there is a fundamental design flaw with the game. People aren't making this up; it's flawed. It's not like it makes us happy and we're dancing with glee to be able to complain about it. We're disappointed. People are right to be asking why, minus the bs PR response from the twitter.

I think you seem to be missing the part where you understand what the word "subjective" means.

 

There is a SUBJECTIVE design flaw with the game.

 

Others don't see it as a design flaw.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're right. Just because some of us aren't pressed about it doesn't mean we're wrong.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't understand what you are saying, are you saying we only need the same 8 abilities the whole game or that we only get to have 8 abilities in all our levelling up or every encounter is identical in design.

 

because as it seems to me now it necessitates changing your quickslots before every encounter,

 

I'm saying that you only need to change your quickslots IF

 

- You have more than 8 abilities (since if you don't have extra abilities, there's no point in swapping out currently assigned abilities with nothing).  Note, our game has a lot more passive and upgrade abilities that won't require a quickslot.

- If you think that the encounters actually require you to constantly remap your controls between every battle.

 

 

EG:  If the 8 abilities you have assigned work fine for a particular area/region, you won't have to remap constantly.  You'll just keep using the same ones.

 

 

While I would probably debate whether or not this decision is innately "bad design" simply by its existence, I would say that if the game design is set up such that changing your mapped abilities constantly is a requirement, then that would be poor decision.

 

Constantly needing to remap the abilities would mean that our encounters vary intensely and frequently.  It would also mean that our encounters are also typically very long since you'd also have to deal with mana/energy requirements to have to cycle through each ability.  You used the word "identical" so I suspect there's going to be a disagreement you and I will have about what level of variation would mean that an encounter is "identical" so I'm not sure how well we can reconcile that aspect.

[falconlord5]

So are you saying that every area is identical and that the enemies will act exactly the same way in every fight or that every fight has the exact same number of enemies of each type.

 

Your tactics should be able to change on the fly, but with only 8 or less abilities then that is extremely difficult and ends up with you using the same abilities and approach every fight.

 

No, I am not. I am saying that each area will have its own set of enemies, who will be largely the same throughout that area, but may or may not be the same in the next area.

 

You will therefore only have to switch your tactics around based on the different areas, not encounters.

[Chari]

The end result?  Sure.  But you wouldn't have had to plan ahead... literally what they said they were trying to accomplish with it.

Welp, it doesn't work either

For casual encounters - sure, send agents

But what about cliffhangers and surprise bosses and other stuff, which is logical yet surprising? I mean, they've been telling a lot about randomly encountering a high dragon or a giant nad getting killed as a result

Now I understand why - there's no even time to change the slots accordingly

[DiegoRaphael]

I really, really hope they make a video about the combat on PC, but for now all i can say is that i'm very disapointed.

 

 

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.

 

If they release a demo to test it before you know, having to pay for it, i will agree with this part.

[aaarcher86]

We won't have heal and revival this time

 

If it's that easy then the point about "making the gameplay more tactical" just goes to a trash bin

Cuz it's not if it's that easy anyway

 

And I use warriors mostly anyway, miss those times when I could use duel-wielding. Then all my 8 slots would be filled with hack-n-slash abilities, though. They were so good at killing enemies

 

I haven't played a warrior since dual wield went away, so I don't know about that. 

 

The point was, that I'm not going to get obliterated if I have a base set of spells (allegedly).  It'll just be harder.  The planning ahead and tactics comes in by equipping the best spells/abilities for the job to give yourself the best chance of survival. 

 

If I know I'm going against undead and they're sensitive to lightening, equipping 2 lightning spells is going to grant me a heck of a lot more damage and be better from a tactical perspective.  It doesn't mean I'd die without it, but it's in my best interested to give myself the best chance.

 

Not having heal and revival just gives me 2 more offense/defense spells - so yay.

[Maria Caliban]

But for christ's sake, quit trying to ruin it for the people that still are going to buy the game.

Does someone complaining about a design decision really "ruin" the game for you?

[Deflagratio]

Someone needs to contact the NRC, we've got some Chernobyl level meltdowns in here.

 

For my part in this, I reserve judgment until I play. I can see reasons for limiting the bar to 8, and I can see why people are uppity about it, so it comes down to experiencing the design for myself and what it lends to the game. (inb4 nothing because i know better than u for u.)

[ianvillan]

We won't have heal and revival this time

 

If it's that easy then the point about "making the gameplay more tactical" just goes to a trash bin

Cuz it's not if it's that easy anyway

 

And I use warriors mostly anyway, miss those times when I could use duel-wielding. Then all my 8 slots would be filled with hack-n-slash abilities, though. They were so good at killing enemies

if you choose the dodge ability or the Scorpion harpoon ability then you have even less active damage abilities to choose from what if you take 4 abilities like the ones mentioned that are usable every fight it leaves you with just 4 damage abilities to choose from, not very deep choice or not that tactical.

[Father_Jerusalem]

English comprehension really isn't your strong point is it. Just a hint I have never even intimated that I am OWED an explanation.

"What's wrong with asking for a detailed explanation?" is, in fact, you saying that you believe the devs owe you an explanation of their design choices.

 

I don't understand how difficult that is to understand.

[aaarcher86]

Welp, it doesn't work either

For casual encounters - sure, send agents

But what about cliffhangers and surprise bosses and other stuff, which is logical yet surprising? I mean, they've been telling a lot about randomly encountering a high dragon or a giant nad getting killed as a result

Now I understand why - there's no even time to change the slots accordingly

 

If you're ill-equipped then disengage and come back when you're ready.

 

The one dragon fight we've been shown she flies above our heads for a bit before we even engage.  Change your abilities then.  You're given warning.

[Morroian]

EG:  If the 8 abilities you have assigned work fine for a particular area/region, you won't have to remap constantly.  You'll just keep using the same ones.

 

Which then leads to a lack of variety in the combat.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Does someone complaining about a design decision really "ruin" the game for you?

It certainly ruins my desire to visit these forums more.

[falconlord5]

 

I don't know how else to say it, other than it is. It's not something that really is up for debate. I guess people who don't understand may very well argue it, but that doesn't make it less true.

 

I disagree with you. I do not see any major handicap imposed by the fact that we are limited to only eight abilities. Admittedly, that's partially because I don't use abilities that much, but also because I can work around it, employing team synergy and coordinating my abilities and their effects to effectively combat any enemy.

 

The, uh, 'limitation' is kind of minor.

[Morroian]

"What's wrong with asking for a detailed explanation?" is, in fact, you saying that you believe the devs owe you an explanation of their design choices.

 

No its not, thanks for playing.

[Kinthalis ThornBlade]

I think the PC UI is looking pretty nice! Glad they showed it off a bit.

[aaarcher86]

if you choose the dodge ability or the Scorpion harpoon ability then you have even less active damage abilities to choose from what if you take 4 abilities like the ones mentioned that are usable every fight it leaves you with just 4 damage abilities to choose from, not very deep choice or not that tactical.

 

Take dodge and scorpion and replace heal and revival since they won't be available.  Still seems like it works fine to me.

[CronoDragoon]

Which then leads to a lack of variety in the combat.

 

That lack of variety existed in Origins and DA2 as well, for everyone except those who used sub-optimal spells just for the lulz.

 

This design decision could mean I use more abilities than Origins and DA2, provided they are actually good about balancing the abilities.

[seraphymon]

So don't buy the game.

 

Sales will tell whether or not this was a good design decision. Raging about it - and assuming that YOU'RE right and people who like the change are wrong - is simply annoying at this point.

 

If it tanks, feel free to run around the forums screaming "I TOLD YOU SO!"

 

I mean, I won't care, because I'll be playing DA:I or DAMP, but maybe someone will.

Sales will not determine how good or bad this decision was, only a consensus of reviews. I also never said that others who like the changes are necessarily wrong either. This is just stupid limitations, just like they did with weapon styles, why enclose the circle when everyone can be happy instead of just a lower number? If people want 8 abilities only, they can play that way regardless but why should it be forced upon us?

[falconlord5]

I'm saying that you only need to change your quickslots IF

 

- You have more than 8 abilities (since if you don't have extra abilities, there's no point in swapping out currently assigned abilities with nothing).  Note, our game has a lot more passive and upgrade abilities that won't require a quickslot.

- If you think that the encounters actually require you to constantly remap your controls between every battle.

 

 

EG:  If the 8 abilities you have assigned work fine for a particular area/region, you won't have to remap constantly.  You'll just keep using the same ones.

 

 

While I would probably debate whether or not this decision is innately "bad design" simply by its existence, I would say that if the game design is set up such that changing your mapped abilities constantly is a requirement, then that would be poor decision.

 

Constantly needing to remap the abilities would mean that our encounters vary intensely and frequently.  It would also mean that our encounters are also typically very long since you'd also have to deal with mana/energy requirements to have to cycle through each ability.  You used the word "identical" so I suspect there's going to be a disagreement you and I will have about what level of variation would mean that an encounter is "identical" so I'm not sure how well we can reconcile that aspect.

[aaarcher86]

Oh there is a flee mechanic? Interesting.

 

Yeah.  You can disengage - it's new in DAI. 

[mugwuffin1986]

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.  

 

I trust BioWare to deliver a BioWare game.

 

As for price... increased production values on all fronts will drive a games price up, if you're a money conscious person it's best to wait for consensus before you make the leap.

 

I have no doubt EA has boxes this game needs to tick to maintain a player base and sales, that doesn't mean BioWare can't deliver a quality product while catering to those points.

 

You don't want a Dead Space 3, Visceral created a product that was way short of the mark and now Dead Space is in the great gaming void of indefinite hold. BioWare want to create a successful game and more importantly an enjoyable Dragon Age experience for the fans.

 

I believe an industry without BioWare is a far less interesting place.