820 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

DA2 was rushed out the door by EA(it had a 16 month dev time, when most have 24 minimum/36 max.) and ME3 was made by an entirely different team.

DA:I has had a full 3 year+ dev time, can it still be a bad game... sure.

According to dev statements, DA2 was only in active development for 11 months.

So it's really no surprise that parts of it didn't work.

As such, I'm not willing to decide, based on DA2, that some feature or another is necessarily bad; it may be a good feature that was just badly done in DA2. That's why I'm going into Inquisition comparing it only to DAO. That's the only fair comparison.

[durasteel]

Don't believe it, because most of them aren't. Even most of the extremely vocal complainers in here will still end up preordering.

 

I'm not cancelling my pre-order. I provided feedback to the UI disclosure, indicating what I didn't like and why. The rest of my comments on the topic are largely responses to people who seem very eager to let me know why my criticism is wrong, and how irrational I am, and that I am clearly biased and therefore my opinion should be disregarded.

 

So, obviously I'm the one who should calm down, right?

 

It seems to me that the desperation some of you seem to have to defend every little design choice for this game reflects a deep insecurity about Inquisition. Perhaps another deeply flawed game in a row would force you to face your fears that there will never be another game as good as Knights of the Old Republic or Dragon Age: Origins from this studio? While that would indeed be a great tragedy, shouting down fan criticism (and I am certainly a fan of both the studio and the Dragon Age series) is probably the worst way to go about addressing your angst.

 

"I don't like that bit right there" is every bit as useful as "that looks amazing." And on Friday, I said both--the Keep looks amazing, and I really don't like the 8 slot bit, at all. Some critics are certainly hyperbolic and dramatic, but that's just their way of expressing their opinion. I don't see that as meriting responses that are scornful, dismissive, or vitriolic, even if this is a dimly lit corner of the internet.

[mugwuffin1986]

According to dev statements, DA2 was only in active development for 11 months.

So it's really no surprise that parts of it didn't work.

As such, I'm not willing to decide, based on DA2, that some feature or another is necessarily bad; it may be a good feature that was just badly done in DA2. That's why I'm going into Inquisition comparing it only to DAO. That's the only fair comparison.

 

I was just going off of Origins release to DA2's release.

 

Point still holds... DA2 not a really a decent comparison, Origins as you say would be more apt.

[robertthebard]

I think we got into this exact discussion the other day...
 
This isn't an MMO you shouldn't expect the same design principles and the multiplayer will clearly have different priorities when it comes to the combat.
 
Also you seem to be assuming when they were play testing the single player combat in the multiplayer builds that they did so with 4 abilities... you really seem to have a massively low opinion of these developers.
 
As for your difficulty remarks... have you played it on the hardest difficulty, do you know how difficult the game will be? No. The game isn't out.

The problem with this philosophy is that I'm not the one claiming they balanced combat in MP, they are. 4 abilities is the limit, in MP, with the other four slots being for potions, at least, that's what I read concerning MP, do you have something different? Are you going to be in a MP match changing the skills on my character? What tactics are you going to have to change for the group synergy in MP? Will changing tactics on your screen suddenly make my character do something I didn't expect? No? So none of these mechanics even come into question during MP, and none of them can be tested to be sure that their "it works great in MP" ideas carry over to the SP campaign, such as "Hey, the radial menu is too clunky for MP, we're going to have to cut it", "yeah, but when we do that, the console gamers are going to have a fit because the PC has access to more skills", "Oh, we can fix that, we'll just limit it to 8, nobody will notice that", "Heh, it's the BSN, we'd better not release that information until we set the hook with MP".

How do you even pretend to build a SP game in MP mode? It made the DAMP people even DAMPer, but really, it didn't bring anything to the table for the SP game, it took things away. Well, technically, I suppose it didn't, it just made it so that those things would never be available, like truly customizable builds, as opposed to "customized for this particular part of the game" builds. DAMP wasn't even off the presses yet and people were like "Can we solo it"... Do you honestly believe people won't be soloing the SP too? So all these arbitrary design decisions made in MP testing don't do anything but limit those of us that just play the game, or, more to the point, I guess, force us to remove focus on specific builds in favor of more jack of all trades builds, unless we want to just press 2 or 3 buttons, or ask for a macro system to do it for us, when our flavor build doesn't work, and if you're wondering, Specialist Mages that stay true to their specialization the whole game? They're flavor builds now.

Oh, and as an aside; if they're building the game to force more party synergy, then I should totally expect it to have more MMO like qualities, because MMOs are all about party play, or they're supposed to be.

[Kharn-ivor]

I think a lot of people are conflating quantity with quality, or at least ignoring the other side/possibilities, which certainly isn't always the case. If the depth of each ability is greater than what was present in DAO and DA2 then that could make up for the fact that we are limited to 8 at one time. While having options is always good, more isn't inherently better if the quality of those options aren't as good as the the other technically fewer options.

 

For example DAO had like 64 spells across all schools and specializations, but only about a 1/3 of them were able to combine with one another to create spell combinations, of which there were 10 total. Now DA2 comes along and only has 34 active spells, nearly half that of DAO, but while the spell count is lower they introduced CCCs which brought about three enemy states of Brittle, Stagger and Disorient. These three states allowed for the combination of 34 abilities across all 3 classes. So while there was less overall number of total combinations states, just 3 compared to 10, there was a significant increase in the variations of the combos, chances to initiate those combos and scenarios that those combos were useful. So while the over all choices of combos went from 10 spell combos to 3 exploitable enemy states the actual number of choices increased significantly due to the greater depth and chance of initiating those combos.

 

Now in DA2 there were a total of 84 active abilities and spells, so 50 of them(not all were actual attacks of any kind but other abilities like Rally or Heal) were not used in CCCs. By all accounts DAI should have at least the same amount of active abilities if not more than DA2, but if they introduce more CCC combo states beyond Brittle, Stagger and Distorient, and and utilize more of the abilities we have in initiating and carrying out those combos then despite the fact that we will only have 8 active abilities at any one time, we could technically have more variation in our combat due to the greater versatility and depth of those individual abilities when used in combination with one another.

 

It's certainly not definite that this is the case, but again, from what we've seen it's certainly possible. We've seen effects like Fear, Burning and Chill in combat vids, along with specific combo references like the Eldritch Detonator or getting serious damage bonuses to knocked down enemies. If they have added more enemy states that allow for new combos and exploits, or simply more chances for combos than previously, then we may in fact have more choices in combat, despite the 8 ability limit. Admittedly this is a different kind of depth, some people don't care so much about the versatility of individual abilities or spells and prefer depth via breadth and the ability to have on character take on many different roles, which obviously the overall limit of abilities gained and the 8 ability slot limit discourages. Can't really help them out, that's not the direction BioWare appears to be going with in this game.

 

I would very much like to see some new vids from BioWare showing off this aspect of combat. A PC demo giving a quick rundown of the UI and menus and then maybe a look a leveling up and ability progression, ending with some combat encounters would be ideal.

I generally agree with what you've said and I think you hit the nail on the head as far as useing NPC states as a multiplier of depth.

For me the real problem at the center of this is that whatever the fancy FX or annimations you use most skills just do DPS and with a notepad you can more or less find the optimal build. Utilities spells are a good way out of this but even then you'll end up with quite a bit of overlap. The more incomparables the better though.

I think a combat system based more on tactics and less on ability use is preferable (Thats why I think Shogun2 was better than Rome2 combat wise) but I don't think combat is the no1 priority in an RPG ^^

[mugwuffin1986]

The problem with this philosophy is that I'm not the one claiming they balanced combat in MP, they are. 4 abilities is the limit, in MP, with the other four slots being for potions, at least, that's what I read concerning MP, do you have something different? Are you going to be in a MP match changing the skills on my character? What tactics are you going to have to change for the group synergy in MP? Will changing tactics on your screen suddenly make my character do something I didn't expect? No? So none of these mechanics even come into question during MP, and none of them can be tested to be sure that their "it works great in MP" ideas carry over to the SP campaign, such as "Hey, the radial menu is too clunky for MP, we're going to have to cut it", "yeah, but when we do that, the console gamers are going to have a fit because the PC has access to more skills", "Oh, we can fix that, we'll just limit it to 8, nobody will notice that", "Heh, it's the BSN, we'd better not release that information until we set the hook with MP".

How do you even pretend to build a SP game in MP mode? It made the DAMP people even DAMPer, but really, it didn't bring anything to the table for the SP game, it took things away. Well, technically, I suppose it didn't, it just made it so that those things would never be available, like truly customizable builds, as opposed to "customized for this particular part of the game" builds. DAMP wasn't even off the presses yet and people were like "Can we solo it"... Do you honestly believe people won't be soloing the SP too? So all these arbitrary design decisions made in MP testing don't do anything but limit those of us that just play the game, or, more to the point, I guess, force us to remove focus on specific builds in favor of more jack of all trades builds, unless we want to just press 2 or 3 buttons, or ask for a macro system to do it for us, when our flavor build doesn't work, and if you're wondering, Specialist Mages that stay true to their specialization the whole game? They're flavor builds now.

Oh, and as an aside; if they're building the game to force more party synergy, then I should totally expect it to have more MMO like qualities, because MMOs are all about party play, or they're supposed to be.

 

You could have a box room... throw in a party of 4 (Your PC & 3 AI Companions), spawn 4 enemies and have a basic testing environment.

 

I'm not saying they used the multiplayer rule set to test the single player mechanics, I'm saying they used the multiplayer environment to test how the combat flows... with all 32 abilities across your party.

[robertthebard]

I still don't get what your saying, off the top of my head the only thing I can think of that was immune to fire damage in the entire playthrough of DA2 was Rage demons on Nightmare. Nothing was resistant or immune to fire on Normal or Hard, why are you suddenly assuming that every single encounter will require a certain type of damage to win it?

So you never fought the Qunari. Is there a setting below Nightmare?

I'm basing my opinions on the data provided, including screenshots that were posted to show me how wrong I was that proved my point: that the game tells you exactly what you need to succeed. The venotari(sp) screenshot, possibly earlier in this thread shows that it's immune to one, and vulnerable to the other on the Primaguide, er, I mean the tool tip when you mouse over it. If screenshots from the material provided by the devs isn't enough evidence, there can never be enough evidence that some mobs will be resistant to some attacks/elements. I guess, if you're going to spend all your time in Normal, It may not matter either, of course, we don't know how that's going to scale either, or what difficulty we've been viewing the game in.

[robertthebard]

You could have a box room... throw in a party of 4 (Your PC & 3 AI Companions), spawn 4 enemies and have a basic testing environment.
 
I'm not saying they used the multiplayer rule set to test the single player mechanics, I'm saying they used the multiplayer environment to test how the combat flows... with all 32 abilities across your party.

No. They tested combat in MP, they made sure you could get whatever passes for CCCs, if they are applicable now, but they can't test how a party comprised of 1 PC and 3 NPCs will perform in MP mode. They took their ideas, planted them in SP, took the abilities they thought would A) look cool, and work on the enemies in the demos, and made some videos. Then they patted themselves on the back for how nice their game played for that demo vid. This is essentially how you're going to have to play the SP campaign.

[EnduinRaylene]

 

I generally agree with what you've said and I think you hit the nail on the head as far as useing NPC states as a multiplier of depth.

For me the real problem at the center of this is that whatever the fancy FX or annimations you use most skills just do DPS and with a notepad you can more or less find the optimal build. Utilities spells are a good way out of this but even then you'll end up with quite a bit of overlap. The more incomparables the better though.

I think a combat system based more on tactics and less on ability use is preferable (Thats why I think Shogun2 was better than Rome2 combat wise) but I don't think combat is the no1 priority in an RPG ^^

Agreed, I'm not convinced this kind of depth over breadth is objectively better, it's simply different. I just find that most people are ignoring the possible benefits or rather additional factors that are at play and don't simply make the 8 ability limit objectively bad. Most are just looking at the change in a purely reductive light, when that most certainly isn't the case. Whether or not this approach will be better or worse remains to be seen, but my whole point is that there is much more to this than simply losing abilities and being forced into certain play styles. There is still a lot of room for interesting and deep gameplay mechanics, they will just work differently than what was there before, and even if the majority find it better and far more rewarding, there will always be those people who enjoy the other way of doing this more. There's nothing wrong with that, but simply because you don't like something doesn't make it bad. 

[rupok93]

 

 

Agreed, I'm not convinced this kind of depth over breadth is objectively better, it's simply different. I just find that most people are ignoring the possible benefits or rather additional factors that are at play and don't simply make the 8 ability limit objectively bad. Most are just looking at the change in a purely reductive light, when that most certainly isn't the case. Whether or not this approach will be better or worse remains to be seen, but my whole point is that there is much more to this than simply losing abilities and being forced into certain play styles. There is still a lot of room for interesting and deep gameplay mechanics, they will just work differently than what was there before, and even if the majority find it better and far more rewarding, there will always be those people who enjoy the other way of doing this more. There's nothing wrong with that, but simply because you don't like something doesn't make it bad. 

 

 

They should have expected fallback from this change and released some information for this "depth". At this point they said nothing and just "its for gameplay reasons" which is not a good enough response. If they did have that depth why not explain it?

 

Its 2 months from release, I highly doubt they would not have that kind of game system set in stone by now.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

I'm not cancelling my pre-order. I provided feedback to the UI disclosure, indicating what I didn't like and why. The rest of my comments on the topic are largely responses to people who seem very eager to let me know why my criticism is wrong, and how irrational I am, and that I am clearly biased and therefore my opinion should be disregarded.

 

So, obviously I'm the one who should calm down, right?

 

It seems to me that the desperation some of you seem to have to defend every little design choice for this game reflects a deep insecurity about Inquisition. Perhaps another deeply flawed game in a row would force you to face your fears that there will never be another game as good as Knights of the Old Republic or Dragon Age: Origins from this studio? While that would indeed be a great tragedy, shouting down fan criticism (and I am certainly a fan of both the studio and the Dragon Age series) is probably the worst way to go about addressing your angst.

 

"I don't like that bit right there" is every bit as useful as "that looks amazing." And on Friday, I said both--the Keep looks amazing, and I really don't like the 8 slot bit, at all. Some critics are certainly hyperbolic and dramatic, but that's just their way of expressing their opinion. I don't see that as meriting responses that are scornful, dismissive, or vitriolic, even if this is a dimly lit corner of the internet.

Good point.  Good to see that there are rational people on the other side of this debate - often it seems like a lot of the anti-8 are making a lot of fuss over nothing.  

 

I'm not fond of the 8 slots either - I don't think they're a brilliant decision - but I'm willing to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt.  They've given an explanation that, if true, would explain them, and I don't think they'll restrict my playstyle enough for me to be concerned.  On the other hand, I can understand that some people DO think that they'll cramp their style, and the debate between the two positions is interesting (which is why I keep posting in this thread).  

 

The cancelling Pre-Orders comment seemed to be more directed at the vocal minority who seem to have gone 'uh, I don't like it', provided the most nugatory of reasons why and stormed off in something of a huff when holes in their logic were discovered.  

 

So, to continue the rational debate:

I almost always specialise RPG characters, in TT or CRPG, thus the 'depth' approach that seems to be gone for here suits me just fine.  However, I think that the breadth option (lots of not so good stuff) could also work here - it's just that I think it would be on a more party than character level.  

 

I can understand why some people feel that not having swiss-army knife characters is a pain, but as DA has almost always been more about the party than the individual, I can see why this decision was made.  As to whether it works or not, I'll have to see.  

 

Oh, and just as proof I don't like every design decision Bioware has made - I think the AESTHETICS of the UI are HORRENDOUS.  It's huge and blocky and obtrusive and just offends my sight.  I hope that that isn't how it looks on 1920x1080 monitors...

[robertthebard]

Agreed, I'm not convinced this kind of depth over breadth is objectively better, it's simply different. I just find that most people are ignoring the possible benefits or rather additional factors that are at play and don't simply make the 8 ability limit objectively bad. Most are just looking at the change in a purely reductive light, when that most certainly isn't the case. Whether or not this approach will be better or worse remains to be seen, but my whole point is that there is much more to this than simply losing abilities and being forced into certain play styles. There is still a lot of room for interesting and deep gameplay mechanics, they will just work differently than what was there before, and even if the majority find it better and far more rewarding, there will always be those people who enjoy the other way of doing this more. There's nothing wrong with that, but simply because you don't like something doesn't make it bad.

How else are we supposed to look at it, since it very literally is reductive?

reductive

What part of that doesn't really fit the scenario? Did they not remove lots of options from combat, compared to their previous offerings? Yes, they did. Isn't this going to make dealing with combat simpler? I mean, you'll have less buttons to keep track of, so I'm thinking it will. So how dare we look at it exactly as it's presented, we should be wearing our rose colored glasses too.

[Burricho]

Green health looks ugly (not pc specific but still).

Why have they removed the ability to change the length of skill bars? That was one of the best things about the PC versions of DA. Honestly don't like the new circular interface at all.

[Cassandra Saturn]

I will repost what was originally said in the previous thread.

as to clear up the confusion about the abilities for eight slots, that's only to keep the whole UI looking nice and clear from the perspective of a player. you can change your abilities while you're out of combat, but not in the combat.

the tab offers you a list of items and maps etc etc to bring up while outside of combat. that's why it's so clean and neat. and I'm saying this as a player. don't blame the consoles for that, this was also designed to play with controllers for PC, so they will be same as on Consoles. the UI layout for PC and on consoles are going to be very similar.

This is Based on Knights of The Old Republic's old RPG Mechanics and its Eight Slots. they are bringing back the old RPG setup that made BioWare famous for.

re-quoted

[mugwuffin1986]

No. They tested combat in MP, they made sure you could get whatever passes for CCCs, if they are applicable now, but they can't test how a party comprised of 1 PC and 3 NPCs will perform in MP mode. They took their ideas, planted them in SP, took the abilities they thought would A) look cool, and work on the enemies in the demos, and made some videos. Then they patted themselves on the back for how nice their game played for that demo vid. This is essentially how you're going to have to play the SP campaign.

 

You clearly missed my point.

 

I'll just say this... at the moment nobody knows how the game feels to play, this new system could work really well... or it could be terrible.

 

But nobody knows because the game isn't even finished yet... let alone on store shelves.

[Burricho]

 

 

Agreed, I'm not convinced this kind of depth over breadth is objectively better, it's simply different. I just find that most people are ignoring the possible benefits or rather additional factors that are at play and don't simply make the 8 ability limit objectively bad. Most are just looking at the change in a purely reductive light, when that most certainly isn't the case. Whether or not this approach will be better or worse remains to be seen, but my whole point is that there is much more to this than simply losing abilities and being forced into certain play styles. There is still a lot of room for interesting and deep gameplay mechanics, they will just work differently than what was there before, and even if the majority find it better and far more rewarding, there will always be those people who enjoy the other way of doing this more. There's nothing wrong with that, but simply because you don't like something doesn't make it bad. 

 

But it is objectively bad. An expandable bar is better then a fixed one in every single situation. In what situation are you going to say 'Oh gee, sure is a good think i only had 8 ability's to choose from! That fight would have been so much harder if I hadn't.

[Cassandra Saturn]

Green health looks ugly (not pc specific but still).
Why have they removed the ability to change the length of skill bars? That was one of the best things about the PC versions of DA. Honestly don't like the new circular interface at all.

bold line is your pause/resume time if you meant the hourglass.

[Burricho]

bold line is your pause/resume time if you meant the hourglass.

No, I meant the ability's.

[Kharn-ivor]

 

 

Agreed, I'm not convinced this kind of depth over breadth is objectively better, it's simply different. I just find that most people are ignoring the possible benefits or rather additional factors that are at play and don't simply make the 8 ability limit objectively bad. Most are just looking at the change in a purely reductive light, when that most certainly isn't the case. Whether or not this approach will be better or worse remains to be seen, but my whole point is that there is much more to this than simply losing abilities and being forced into certain play styles. There is still a lot of room for interesting and deep gameplay mechanics, they will just work differently than what was there before, and even if the majority find it better and far more rewarding, there will always be those people who enjoy the other way of doing this more. There's nothing wrong with that, but simply because you don't like something doesn't make it bad. 

 

Yep I totaly agree, I think part of it is that people are afraid that "they changed stuff" and the other part is that mastering something seemingly (unnecessarily) complex is see as a badge of honour that distinguishes the hardcore from the filthy greasy casual.

 

As far as the whole "dumbing down" argument, it's pretty silly, most game designers want to reduce complexity so gamers can get on with the depth:

A good example is the Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spocl ,as it adds complexity without adding depth.

 

And for the game dev, it's true; you can't win, changing X will be the bread of heaven for some and the devil incarnate to others xD

http://askagamedev.t...the-angry-gamer

[Sylvius the Mad]

A possible upside of the 8 ability limit occurs to me.

If we're expected to decide, in advance, which abilities to have available, then we'll have to know exactly what those abilities do.

If BioWare is serious about this need to plan ahead (as they seem to be), they'll have to release properly detailed documentation for the first time since NWN.

And that's terrific.

[Burricho]

Yep I totaly agree, I think part of it is that people are afraid that "they changed stuff" and the other part is that mastering something seemingly (unnecessarily) complex is see as a badge of honour that distinguishes the hardcore from the filthy greasy casual.

 

As far as the whole "dumbing down" argument, it's pretty silly, most game designers want to reduce complexity so gamers can get on with the depth:

A good example is the Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spocl ,as it adds complexity without adding depth.

 

And for the game dev, it's true; you can't win, changing X will be the bread of heaven for some and the devil incarnate to others xD

http://askagamedev.t...the-angry-gamer

Which is why expandable bars are better, you don't have to have any more then you want to.

[Wulfram]

 

This is Based on Knights of The Old Republic's old RPG Mechanics and its Eight Slots. they are bringing back the old RPG setup that made BioWare famous for.

re-quoted

 

 

KotOR had like the worst mechanics and certainly worst PC GUI of any Bioware game ever

[mugwuffin1986]

 

It seems to me that the desperation some of you seem to have to defend every little design choice for this game reflects a deep insecurity about Inquisition. Perhaps another deeply flawed game in a row would force you to face your fears that there will never be another game as good as Knights of the Old Republic or Dragon Age: Origins from this studio? While that would indeed be a great tragedy, shouting down fan criticism (and I am certainly a fan of both the studio and the Dragon Age series) is probably the worst way to go about addressing your angst.

 

 

I'm not desperate to defend the game, I'm desperate for people to be a little more open minded.

 

Also... It's people violently reacting to design decisions that push the good people out of studios... have you seen David Gaider on Twitter recently? 

 

All the verbal abuse he's getting because as a writer he doesn't feel a certain romance is in a characters best interest.

 

What about Casey Hudson or the Good Doctors... Casey the lead designer on Knights of the Old Republic, torn to pieces on the Mass Effect forums.

 

Having criticism isn't wrong... if the game releases and its terrible I'll make my opinion heard, but I'll do it in a respectful manner.

 

A well designed game... is a well designed game, whether it has 50 abilities or 8 on your bar. 

[Kharn-ivor]

How else are we supposed to look at it, since it very literally is reductive?

reductive

What part of that doesn't really fit the scenario? Did they not remove lots of options from combat, compared to their previous offerings? Yes, they did. Isn't this going to make dealing with combat simpler? I mean, you'll have less buttons to keep track of, so I'm thinking it will. So how dare we look at it exactly as it's presented, we should be wearing our rose colored glasses too.

I think you're confusing complexity and depth, yes there are less options but maybe there are more meaningful options or their are less buttons to concentrate on so you can focus on tactics. Imagine a total war game where you had to move every soldier one by one, it would be more complex but would add nothing to its depth.

Obviously we don;t have the game so we don't know one way or the other.

[Ennai and 54 others]

This reminds us of how they removed the tactical camera feature between DAO and DA2 when no one ever asked them to do so.

 

"fight the way you wanna fight" they said

 

"play the way you wanna play" they said