820 réponses à ce sujet

[Maeshone]

Come on, that's simple.

 

So the Console players don't feel left out. 

 

The dumbing down must continue in order for console versions to sell.

 

They prefer selling on consoles than on PCs because PCs have piracy, so they will take away PC advantages that may make people want to buy it on a PC just so they make sure they get their money.

 

That's really shitty and if Bioware doesn't fix this I'm boycotting.

Most RPGs with limited quickslots that I have seen are, in fact, PC exclusives. So no, it's not a console thing, it's a design decision made by the developers of the game. You can cry and boycott all you want, but I'd rather see Bioware experimenting with gameplay than letting the series stagnate. It's a large reason why people keep coming back to the Final Fantasy series after all. Changing the gameplay system while still keeping the core values (In this case, tactics, pause and play, party based combat).

[rupok93]

I know this will make some of you mad but bear with me:

 

 

If you look at the view it is clear why there are only 8 ability slots. When they added tactical view on consoles they didn't want it to be bogged down by ability selection so since the controller has 4 buttons, they gave 4 options per list. And to switch between those lists u have the rb and lb button. You could say that they could have added another list but that would make it much hard to quickly navigate in tactical mode.

 

Now all u have to do is memorize 4 abilities per each trigger button and quickly assign things during combat.

 

I am sorry but I am kind of hard pressed to believe this wasn't the case, the "gameplay" argument is smoke and mirrors if you look at it from a design perspective of controller action fluidity. 

 

So yes pc gamers are gonna suffer from this because devs have the idea to make game systems alight across platforms, instead of taking advantage of each platform. I have no idea why. That's why origins (before bioware was taken in by EA during dev process) was the only game to have pc exclusive tactical view, then they took it out in da2 but took it out for pc as well to get their "parity" and now I believe they are doing something similar here.

[Morroian]

As I said before and is being confirmed by the devs... DA:I is about forethought and composition. I believe this to be a direct result of people barely touching companions in previous entries.

 

People chose companions based on like or dislike or based on their interactions with other companions. As a story based rpg this is entirely reasonable. Now there is the possibility that we may gimp ourselves by doing that. Why should we be forced to take certain companions we don't want to ensure an optimal party composition?  

[Morroian]

I think you guys should mass ask them on twitter to clarify how the combat works to justify only 8 abilities. Ask mike laidlaw and Mark darrah.

 

Buzzword like "forethought" means literally nothing. Whatever they said sounds like smoke and mirrors, I wanna know details.

 

It would clearly be best if they provide a more detailed explanation for the limitation.

[Pateu]

Most RPGs with limited quickslots that I have seen are, in fact, PC exclusives. So no, it's not a console thing, it's a design decision made by the developers of the game. You can cry and boycott all you want, but I'd rather see Bioware experimenting with gameplay than letting the series stagnate. It's a large reason why people keep coming back to the Final Fantasy series after all. Changing the gameplay system while still keeping the core values (In this case, tactics, pause and play, party based combat).

 

You speak as if they are doing some revolutionary change.

 

They're simply dumbing down the game even more by taking away a lot of possible builds.

[Pateu]

You are misinformed. PC never had an advantage over console because console could also use all their abilities.

 

 

The console only had 4 abilities at a time on the screen. The PC had 26.

 

Now the console will have 4 abilities at a time and the PC will have 8.

 

You're telling me this isn't an anti PC design movement?

[Nohvarr]

You speak as if they are doing some revolutionary change.

 

They're simply dumbing down the game even more by taking away a lot of possible builds.

Prove it, show me all the builds that would be possible in DAI without the current UI set up.

[mugwuffin1986]

People chose companions based on like or dislike or based on their interactions with other companions. As a story based rpg this is entirely reasonable. Now there is the possibility that we may gimp ourselves by doing that. Why should we be forced to take certain companions we don't want to ensure an optimal party composition?  

 

I'm not saying you should and you have several different companions that fill all the different roles.

 

I'm more than likely going to roll with... Varric, Solas & Iron Bull.

 

So I'll level Varric along a DPS path, Solas along a support/healer path & Iron Bull as a tank.

 

That leaves me some flexibility to run around as I please and cover any holes my party might have. 

[addiction21]

People chose companions based on like or dislike or based on their interactions with other companions. As a story based rpg this is entirely reasonable. Now there is the possibility that we may gimp ourselves by doing that. Why should we be forced to take certain companions we don't want to ensure an optimal party composition?  

 

Oh no we have to make a difficult decision between taking someone we like but might be a sub-optimal party or take someone we do not like (or the PC we are roleplaying dislikes( but have a more optimal party.

 

It almost sounds like those meaningful choices a lot of people have been asking for... or does that just apply to dialogue choice?

 

Yes I am disappointed with the limited slots but if that is the design choice they deliberately made to build the game around it then I will wait to play it to pass judgment.

[CronoDragoon]

You're telling me this isn't an anti PC design movement?

 

I'm telling you this isn't an anti-PC design movement, because contrary to what PC users think, console players could care less what the PC version of things are like.

[AlanC9]

People chose companions based on like or dislike or based on their interactions with other companions. As a story based rpg this is entirely reasonable. Now there is the possibility that we may gimp ourselves by doing that. Why should we be forced to take certain companions we don't want to ensure an optimal party composition?

How is this different from any other party-based game? If you don't like any of the clerics in BG2 you've got a problem, for instance.

[slimgrin]

I know this will make some of you mad but bear with me:

 

 

If you look at the view it is clear why there are only 8 ability slots. When they added tactical view on consoles they didn't want it to be bogged down by ability selection so since the controller has 4 buttons, they gave 4 options per list. And to switch between those lists u have the rb and lb button. You could say that they could have added another list but that would make it much hard to quickly navigate in tactical mode.

 

Now all u have to do is memorize 4 abilities per each trigger button and quickly assign things during combat.

 

I am sorry but I am kind of hard pressed to believe this wasn't the case, the "gameplay" argument is smoke and mirrors if you look at it from a design perspective of controller action fluidity. 

 

So yes pc gamers are gonna suffer from this because devs have the idea to make game systems alight across platforms, instead of taking advantage of each platform. I have no idea why. That's why origins (before bioware was taken in by EA during dev process) was the only game to have pc exclusive tactical view, then they took it out in da2 but took it out for pc as well to get their "parity" and now I believe they are doing something similar here.

 

This was my assumption as well. The limited number of buttons on a controller informed this decision. I could be wrong though.

[rupok93]

I'm telling you this isn't an anti-PC design movement, because contrary to what PC users think, console players could care less what the PC version of things are like.

 

We know this but devs think console gamers care and thus do stupid crap.

[Nohvarr]

We know this but devs think console gamers care and thus do stupid crap.

Has it occurred to you, that the devs took a look at how people actually play their games and made alterations based on that?

[Altima Darkspells]

Has it occurred to you, that the devs took a look at how people actually play their games and made alterations based on that?

I imagine some devs are like this. BioWare has a history of doing whatever the hell they want, however.

Wait, let me rephrase that. EA owned developers have a history of doing whatever the hell their corporate masters want.

[RealityMachina]

We know this but devs think console gamers care and thus do stupid crap.

Which is why the devs applied the eight active abilities only change to consoles as well.

 

Oh wait that makes no sense whatsoever.

[schall_und_rauch]

Less choices = more tactics. Gottcha.

 

You do have the choice. Just not at every point in the game. 

 

A game giving you the maximum choice at every point in the game would allow you to access every ability from every class at any time. Oh, and you would take always all of your companions with you.

 

However, you have to chose between rogue, mage and warrior. Inside each class, you have to chose which abilities you pick while leveling. And you have to chose which companions will accompany you. All of those are strategic choices. Now, you have one additional layer: chosing 8 abilities for each combat.

 

So, yes, it's part of the planing ahead, preparing and devising your strategy.

[rupok93]

Which is why the devs applied the eight active abilities only change to consoles as well.

 

Oh wait that makes no sense whatsoever.

it does make sense if you want fluidity in things like the  tactical mode using a controller. It would become tedious using tactical mode and trying to assign characters to do things while also choosing from the many skills in radial menu. The fact that the number 8 aligns with the shortcuts due to the 4 buttons on the controller should be telling. Why was it not 7 or 9? why exactly 8, the same number of shortcuts controllers can use?

[RealityMachina]

it does make sense if you want fluidity in things like the  tactical mode using a controller. It would become tedious using tactical mode and trying to assign characters to do things while also choosing from the many skills in radial menu. The fact that the number 8 aligns with the shortcuts due to the 4 buttons on the controller should be telling. Why was it not 7 or 9? why exactly 8, the same number of shortcuts controllers can use?

You know what, I'm just going to cut to the chase:

 

Explain to me why this change is only being done now in the third game in the series (which also happens to be the third DA game done under EA's ownership of Bioware) rather than straight from the start if it's being done for the reasons you're proposing.

[SmilesJA]

Come on, that's simple.

 

So the Console players don't feel left out. 

 

The dumbing down must continue in order for console versions to sell.

 

They prefer selling on consoles than on PCs because PCs have piracy, so they will take away PC advantages that may make people want to buy it on a PC just so they make sure they get their money.

 

That's really shitty and if Bioware doesn't fix this I'm boycotting.

 

Dumbing down? Please inform me how the game is being dumbed down because you can't have access to more than 8 abilities.

[viciouswhisper]

i think the console version deserves to be put at the front of attention after the piece of crap DAO came out there were just chunks of things missing from that but now the two are on even playing ground and the console nor the pc have to pay for it

[EnduinRaylene]

it does make sense if you want fluidity in things like the  tactical mode using a controller. It would become tedious using tactical mode and trying to assign characters to do things while also choosing from the many skills in radial menu. The fact that the number 8 aligns with the shortcuts due to the 4 buttons on the controller should be telling. Why was it not 7 or 9? why exactly 8, the same number of shortcuts controllers can use?

 

Why not 6, that's how many abilities could be hotkeyed on consoles before DAI. Maybe controllers did inform the amount of abilities that could be used, but only after they had decided to limit the number in the first place. You have no real evidence one way or the other, but seeing how the previous two entries provided a radial wheel that gave console gamers access to all their spells and abilities, it stands to reason that they decided to limit the number of abilities first and arrived at the actual number second.

 

Regardless this whole line of reasoning is pointless. People are crying because they feel like something has been taken away from them, but no one here knows whether this is actually good or bad for gameplay, which is all that matter. Just because there is less doesn't mean it's automatically bad, yet people are claiming this is horrendous with little no other real information about how the game is structured. It's futile and meaningless. 

[aaarcher86]

This was my assumption as well. The limited number of buttons on a controller informed this decision. I could be wrong though.

Did something about the controller change from DA2 to DAI?

[slimgrin]

Did something about the controller change from DA2 to DAI?

Nope. Something about their design approach could have. Maybe you should ask them?

[Rawgrim]

i think the console version deserves to be put at the front of attention after the piece of crap DAO came out there were just chunks of things missing from that but now the two are on even playing ground and the console nor the pc have to pay for it

 

Actually both are getting screwed by this.