191 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think it's that. no one, except people who get confused about the meaning of the word tactical, like getting locked out of abilities for no reason.  I'm betting mutiplayer has something to do with it. probably because of the lack of pausing during online play.

That doesn't require they change single-player play, and it doesn't even require that they prevent online players from accessing all of their abilities during MP.  It just prevents them from letting those players pause while they do it.

 

They've taken 6 steps when they could have taken 1.

[Dermain]

 

If you're gonna limit the abilities based on the available buttons for the platform with the fewest number of buttons, other platforms are gonna wind up with a lot of unused buttons and perhaps a less than sunny disposition.

 

When you can overlook your own bias you have no proof that the abilities were limited because of consoles.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

The previous games were on consoles, and they weren't limited to 8.  Even the console versions of both DAO and DA2 allowed console players to access any of their abilities at any time.

 

I know, as stated in my post, the point was that this is how they came up with 8 , rather than 7 or 9. I guess it was in response to people saying no,it had nothing to do with consoles. Well it did, but only tangentially.

[n7stormrunner]

Wrong, this series may NOW be action rpg.  It certainly didn't start out that way.  Why do you think so many people have issues with these changes?

 

 

because most people would loss their head if it wasn't attached. and no it always was an action rpg heavy, and I'm using the term lightly, on tactical elements but still action rpg. which does not mean action game with rpg element it mean rpg with action adventure elements, like exploring.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I know, as stated in my post, the point was that this is how they came up with 8 , rather than 7 or 9. I guess it was in response to people saying no,it had nothing to do with consoles. Well it did, but only tangentially.

The number may have been based on console, but the actual presence of a limit is entirely unrelated.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

The number may have been based on console, but the actual presence of a limit is entirely unrelated.

 

Yes I agree

[n7stormrunner]

That doesn't require they change single-player play, and it doesn't even require that they prevent online players from accessing all of their abilities during MP.  It just prevents them from letting those players pause while they do it.

 

They've taken 6 steps when they could have taken 1.

 

 

I never said it was a good choice or reason, please I'm begging you give me a reason, a real followable line of thought, tha points to something else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

because most people would loss their head if it wasn't attached.

I'm inclined to let them.

[Ieolus]

because most people would loss their head if it wasn't attached. and no it always was an action rpg heavy, and I'm using the term lightly, on tactical elements but still action rpg. which does not mean action game with rpg element it mean rpg with action adventure elements, like exploring.

 

No.

 

I had a longer reply, but I'm too tired to argue with you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I never said it was a good choice or reason, please I'm begging you give me a reason, a real followable line of thought, tha points to something else.

You shouldn't need someone to give you a better reason to see that the one you have isn't very good.

 

I have no idea why they've done what they done - literally no clue - but no explanation offered so far makes any sense.

[Ieolus]

You shouldn't need someone to give you a better reason to see that the one you have isn't very good.

 

I have no idea why they've done what they done - literally no clue - but no explanation offered so far makes any sense.

 

The only thing I can come up with that is even a remote possibility is that the console companies paid them to intentionally cripple the PC UI so that they console versions could compete.  Seriously, as stupid as that sounds, its all I can fathom.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

because most people would loss their head if it wasn't attached. and no it always was an action rpg heavy, and I'm using the term lightly, on tactical elements but still action rpg. which does not mean action game with rpg element it mean rpg with action adventure elements, like exploring.

 

 

Exploring does not make it action RPG. Action RPGs are games where combat depends on players direct control of aiming attacks, dodges, blocks in combat, rather than those things happening automatically based on skill points. DAO was not action RPG in this sense. Neither was DA2, despite the fancy moves in combat.

 

Skyrim could sort of be called action RPG since you control the pc's actions directly. JRPGs tend to be more so.

[n7stormrunner]

Exploring does not make it action RPG. Action RPGs are games where combat depends on players direct control of aiming attacks, dodges, blocks in combat, rather than those things happening automatically based on skill points. DAO was not action RPG in this sense. Neither was DA2, despite the fancy moves in combat.

 

Skyrim could sort of be called action RPG since you control the pc's actions directly. JRPGs tend to be more so.

you know I don't have the patiance this week to explain word have meanings again this week. go look it up. and play a jrpg most fans complain about too many western elements poping up lately guess what there the same ones bioware fan are complaining about.

 

 

 

The only thing I can come up with that is even a remote possibility is that the console companies paid them to intentionally cripple the PC UI so that they console versions could compete.  Seriously, as stupid as that sounds, its all I can fathom.

that makes even less sense then mutiplayer, and needs a little more thought then I can credits console companies. it more like crazy conspiracy theories then anything else.

 

You shouldn't need someone to give you a better reason to see that the one you have isn't very good.

 

I have no idea why they've done what they done - literally no clue - but no explanation offered so far makes any sense.

I know it a bad reason but I can't find a better one.

 

now if you excuse me i think I hear some tequila calling my name.

[durasteel]

What's funny to me about those of you who insist this has nothing to do with the physical limitations of a controller or the no-pause kinetics of multiplayer, is that you're implicitly (or in one case explicitly) arguing that this is just a random kooky idea that the DA team pulled out of their backsides at some point during the development cycle for no real reason at all.

 

Perhaps one of the developers had the flu a year ago, and took a double dose of NyQuil. When he woke up the next morning, he forgot the dreams of magenta elephants and talking toasters, but was left with the idea of limiting active abilities to barely more than a handful, just to spice things up a little bit, and everyone else on the team felt it was their moral obligation to be supportive so no one ever told him it was a bad idea.

 

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense than the idea that they wanted to support a style of play in single player similar to what someone would experience in multiplayer.

[aaarcher86]

What's funny to me about those of you who insist this has nothing to do with the physical limitations of a controller or the no-pause kinetics of multiplayer, is that you're implicitly (or in one case explicitly) arguing that this is just a random kooky idea that the DA team pulled out of their backsides at some point during the development cycle for no real reason at all.
 
Perhaps one of the developers had the flu a year ago, and took a double dose of NyQuil. When he woke up the next morning, he forgot the dreams of magenta elephants and talking toasters, but was left with the idea of limiting active abilities to barely more than a handful, just to spice things up a little bit, and everyone else on the team felt it was their moral obligation to be supportive so no one ever told him it was a bad idea.
 
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense than the idea that they wanted to support a style of play in single player similar to what someone would experience in multiplayer.

I don't think they pulled it at out of their ass anymore than limiting positions and having no health regen was.

And since Laidlaw has come right out and said that I don't see any reason to think he's lying about it.

[Dermain]

I don't think they pulled it at out of their ass anymore than limiting positions and having no health regen was.

And since Laidlaw has come right out and said that I don't see any reason to think he's lying about it.

 

aaarcher, you're failing to see his bias here.

 

To him, BioWare devs have lied about things in the past. Therefore whenever a BioWare dev states something they are lying to cover up the catering to multiplayer/consoles/whatever else he has a gripe against.

[Zanallen]

I posted this in the other thread, but I guess I'll post it here as well:

 

So ya'll know, there seems to be about five to six active abilities per tree with the better abilities being near the end. The specializations have about three active abilities. DA:I has a hard level cap of thirty. Depending on how many abilities points you get per level (Probably one), how many you start with (Maybe two?) and whether or not there are any skill books that grant ability points, you are probably looking at about fifteen active skills at max level per character. That is if you don't upgrade anything. More realistically, you'll probably have twelve active abilities. Of those twelve, you have access to eight in combat and can switch those eight around outside of combat in order to prepare for certain environments or enemies. That is hardly limiting, especially if you make use of your scouts to have knowledge of what lies ahead. it really doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. Are you in an area with a lot of ruins, walls and potential choke points? You might want to bring that ice wall ability. Are you fighting a dragon in a large open field? Switch out ice wall for a damage spell. This change further promotes tactics and planning ahead and is purely a gameplay design decision. It has nothing, and I repeat nothing, to do with console limitations or multiplayer.

[Dermain]

I posted this in the other thread, but I guess I'll post it here as well:

 

So ya'll know, there seems to be about five to six active abilities per tree with the better abilities being near the end. The specializations have about three active abilities. DA:I has a hard level cap of thirty. Depending on how many abilities points you get per level (Probably one), how many you start with (Maybe two?) and whether or not there are any skill books that grant ability points, you are probably looking at about fifteen active skills at max level per character. That is if you don't upgrade anything. More realistically, you'll probably have twelve active abilities. Of those twelve, you have access to eight in combat and can switch those eight around outside of combat in order to prepare for certain environments or enemies. That is hardly limiting, especially if you make use of your scouts to have knowledge of what lies ahead. it really doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. Are you in an area with a lot of ruins, walls and potential choke points? You might want to bring that ice wall ability. Are you fighting a dragon in a large open field? Switch out ice wall for a damage spell. This change further promotes tactics and planning ahead and is purely a gameplay design decision. It has nothing, and I repeat nothing, to do with console limitations or multiplayer.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Has this been confirmed?

 

No, but it doesn't stop people from confirming it themselves.

 

We don't even know how the tactics are going to even work as of yet.

[AlanC9]

What's funny to me about those of you who insist this has nothing to do with the physical limitations of a controller or the no-pause kinetics of multiplayer, is that you're implicitly (or in one case explicitly) arguing that this is just a random kooky idea that the DA team pulled out of their backsides at some point during the development cycle for no real reason at all.

I thought the argument was that this sort of design has been kicking around in gaming for years, and has worked well in the past. I'm taking other players' word for that myself, since I haven't played any of the games they keep mentioning.

[DarthLaxian]

Melodrama over changed features is a common occurrence when Bioware releases gameplay mechanics. I heard the reaction was very dramatic back when Bioware revealed a list inventory system instead of the grid at DAO release. 

 

If DAI is good, then most of the backlash over 8 slots will disappear. If it bombs, then people will use this as one of the bullet points on why it failed. Right now people just need something to talk/complain about.

 

Even if it is good, it will still not be one of the highlights (like Bioshock: Infinite with it's stupid two weapons (and you have to drop upgraded weapons for others, when you don't find any ammo anymore) was...while the game itself was pretty fun)

 

greetings LAX

[Dermain]

It can't be denied that it's a legitimate concern.

For someone like myself that would be a huge issue. And I find myself worrying about how tactics are going to be less tactical (do we still have combat behaviors?).

 

It may be a legitimate concern, but by saying that the devs are outright lying when they clarify that it was not caused by multiplayer/console restrictions is stretching it.

 

I will agree that how tactics work is concerning, but since they're changing the way the combat works we can not reliably use previous games as a benchmark for the current system.