191 réponses à ce sujet

[durasteel]

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.

 

 

Don't be stupid. I am not one of the ones accusing anyone at BioWare of lying. Sure, once in a while one of them posts something that turns out to be completely false, but I don't think they intentionally prevaricate. Sometimes not everyone is on the same page in any company environment. I do think they have a responsibility to clear up misperceptions they have created, but that's different.

 

Clearly you have developed some kind of bias against me, personally. I'm kind of flattered, to be honest, but if you're going to attack me I wish you would do a better job of it.

[durasteel]

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.

 

To the best of my knowledge, no developer has ever stated that this was not an effort to accommodate a play-style similar to that of the multiplayer experience or made in consideration of the physical limitations of a controller, ie a limited number of buttons. If they haven't said it, then there's no way they could have lied about it.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to be full of it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

You don't have to draw a conclusion, you know.

If the best explanation you can imagine isn't a very good one, you should probably continue on as if you didn't think of it.

I suspect it's more likely the result of typical corporate decision-making. Somewhere along the way, they decided they wanted to make a game that would attract players used to real-time play, which meant they couldn't leave in any features that couldn't realistically be used in real-time, for fear that players would try and thus be frustrated.

But at the same time, they knew there were complaints about the lack of a tactical camera in DA2, so they made sure they put one in Inquisition, and even marketed it, without taking into account that they were removing the features that made the tactical camera useful.

Companies do this a lot. They'll reduce their objectives to a series of bullet points, but lose the nuance and necessity behind each objective in doing so. Then they'll pursue those objectives, even if in their bullet point form they're not compatible.

[Zanallen]

But at the same time, they knew there were complaints about the lack of a tactical camera in DA2, so they made sure they put one in Inquisition, and even marketed it, without taking into account that they were removing the features that made the tactical camera useful.

 

So having more abilities is what makes the tactical camera useful? How does that work?

[Dunbartacus]

I suspect it's more likely the result of typical corporate decision-making. Somewhere along the way, they decided they wanted to make a game that would attract players used to real-time play, which meant they couldn't leave in any features that couldn't realistically be used in real-time, for fear that players would try and thus be frustrated.

But at the same time, they knew there were complaints about the lack of a tactical camera in DA2, so they made sure they put one in Inquisition, and even marketed it, without taking into account that they were removing the features that made the tactical camera useful.

Companies do this a lot. They'll reduce their objectives to a series of bullet points, but lose the nuance and necessity behind each objective in doing so. Then they'll pursue those objectives, even if in their bullet point form they're not compatible.

How would the ability limit affect the usefulness of the tactical camera. is not the point of the tactical camera to get a better view of the battlefield in order to formulate how to utilize abilities, potions etc. for an ideal outcome to the current combat?

[Zanallen]

To the best of my knowledge, no developer has ever stated that this was not an effort to accommodate a play-style similar to that of the multiplayer experience or made in consideration of the physical limitations of a controller, ie a limited number of buttons. If they haven't said it, then there's no way they could have lied about it.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to be full of it.

 

The logic is flawed. The console versions of the game had full access to all skills in DA:O and DAII and it worked just perfectly. Multiplayer only has access to four skills while the single player will have eight.

[durasteel]

The logic is flawed. The console versions of the game had full access to all skills in DA:O and DAII and it worked just perfectly. Multiplayer only has access to four skills while the single player will have eight.

 

Four slots in multiplayer will be locked on consumables. You'll still have 8 slots.

 

In DAO and DAII full access required using the radial menu, which paused the game. In DAI, your skills are not accessed through the radial menu at all, so that you don't have to pause the game if you don't want to, other than (if I understand correctly) to take a potion. You can pause all you want to, but if you want a more action-oriented game experience (similar to what you'll experience in the multiplayer part of the game) you are able to do so.

 

I'm not understanding why this is such a controversial thing. It's bloody obvious.

[Zanallen]

Four slots in multiplayer will be locked on consumables. You'll still have 8 slots.

 

In DAO and DAII full access required using the radial menu, which paused the game. In DAI, your skills are not accessed through the radial menu at all, so that you don't have to pause the game if you don't want to, other than (if I understand correctly) to take a potion. You can pause all you want to, but if you want a more action-oriented game experience (similar to what you'll experience in the multiplayer part of the game) you are able to do so.

 

I'm not understanding why this is such a controversial thing. It's bloody obvious.

 

It is confirmation bias on your end. You want it to be because of multiplayer or consoles and so you are unwilling to even posit the idea that this is a gameplay design decision to improve the tactics of the game. In MP, you have four skills and the potions. In SP, you have eight skills and potions. Not the same at all. Consoles aren't even limited to just eight slots. If they mapped the controller correctly, using the four shoulder buttons, they could map around nineteen skills to it without needing the radial menu at all. Eight is an arbitrary limitation based around a gameplay decision and has nothing to do with consoles or multiplayer. Bioware basically feels it is better to have limited skills. A lot of games have been following this trend lately.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Four slots in multiplayer will be locked on consumables. You'll still have 8 slots.

 

In DAO and DAII full access required using the radial menu, which paused the game. In DAI, your skills are not accessed through the radial menu at all, so that you don't have to pause the game if you don't want to, other than (if I understand correctly) to take a potion. You can pause all you want to, but if you want a more action-oriented game experience (similar to what you'll experience in the multiplayer part of the game) you are able to do so.

 

I'm not understanding why this is such a controversial thing. It's bloody obvious.

You can pause, but you can't access the rest of your skills.

 

They seem to have equated those two things because they were linked in the previous games, but they don't have to be linked.  Why not let us access the other skills without pausing?

[Dunbartacus]

It is confirmation bias on your end. You want it to be because of multiplayer or consoles and so you are unwilling to even posit the idea that this is a gameplay design decision to improve the tactics of the game. In MP, you have four skills and the potions. In SP, you have eight skills and potions. Not the same at all. Consoles aren't even limited to just eight slots. If they mapped the controller correctly, using the four shoulder buttons, they could map around nineteen skills to it without needing the radial menu at all. Eight is an arbitrary limitation based around a gameplay decision and has nothing to do with consoles or multiplayer. Bioware basically feels it is better to have limited skills. A lot of games have been following this trend lately.

The right trigger is for attacking if you disable auto attack. me i think it was a conscious decision to have an ability limit the realities of controllers may or may not have lead to them arriving at 8.

[Sylvius the Mad]

How would the ability limit affect the usefulness of the tactical camera. is not the point of the tactical camera to get a better view of the battlefield in order to formulate how to utilize abilities, potions etc. for an ideal outcome to the current combat?

When the game is paused, there's no requirement that the abilities we use be easily accessible/  Pausing the game (which BioWare now seems to equate to the tactical camera, even though the two operate separately) grants access to everything in the game, without any gameplay cost - or, at least, it can, if the game allows it.

 

Inquisition doesn't allow it.  Why not?    Because they want us to plan ahead, they say.  But we could already do that.  Planning ahead is largely a function of encounter and level design, and basic UI functionality (can we use our abilities outside combat).  If we want to plan ahead, we can.  If we don't want to, we don't have to.

 

But now they've implemented this 8 ability limit to force us to plan ahead.  Even though some of us already did, so we're paying the cost for no benefit, and some of us don't want to, so now we have to play the game in a way we don't enjoy.

 

Who wins here?  Whose gameplay experience is improved by this limit?

[durasteel]

It is confirmation bias on your end. You want it to be because of multiplayer or consoles and so you are unwilling to even posit the idea that this is a gameplay design decision to improve the tactics of the game. In MP, you have four skills and the potions. In SP, you have eight skills and potions. Not the same at all. Consoles aren't even limited to just eight slots. If they mapped the controller correctly, using the four shoulder buttons, they could map around nineteen skills to it without needing the radial menu at all. Eight is an arbitrary limitation based around a gameplay decision and has nothing to do with consoles or multiplayer. Bioware basically feels it is better to have limited skills. A lot of games have been following this trend lately.

 

You keep throwing around this idea that limiting your action slots will "improve the tactics of the game." I have yet to see even a theory as to how that might be. Is this "confirmation bias" on your part?

 

I am mildly enthusiastic about the multiplayer content we've seen so far. I'm pretty much ambivalent about consoles, and in any event my observations apply equally to playing on a PC with a controller. I don't really want anything to be because of anything, I just call it like I see it.

 

Also, you seem to be assuming that the other two shoulder buttons aren't already mapped to something else. Seems unlikely, to me.

[AlanC9]

Who wins here? Whose gameplay experience is improved by this limit?

People who want planning to actually be worthwhile? (Assuming DAI actually accomplishes that, of course.)

[Sylvius the Mad]

People who want planning to actually be worthwhile?

Planning was already worthwhile.  It was worthwhile if you enjoyed it.

 

This also limits the types of plans we can have.  I like to construct elaborate and complicated plans, just to see if they'll work.  But having fewer abilities leaves us with fewer possible plans.

[durasteel]

People who want planning to actually be worthwhile? (Assuming DAI actually accomplishes that, of course.)

 

I'm guessing that trial and error are gonna beat planning, unless the next big surprise will be a nerf to the quicksave function.

[Zanallen]

You keep throwing around this idea that limiting your action slots will "improve the tactics of the game." I have yet to see even a theory as to how that might be. Is this "confirmation bias" on your part?

 

I am mildly enthusiastic about the multiplayer content we've seen so far. I'm pretty much ambivalent about consoles, and in any event my observations apply equally to playing on a PC with a controller. I don't really want anything to be because of anything, I just call it like I see it.

 

Also, you seem to be assuming that the other two shoulder buttons aren't already mapped to something else. Seems unlikely, to me.

 

I am throwing around that idea because that is the statement that Bioware has made. Mike Laidlaw has said that DAI is about planning ahead and making strategic decisions.

 

Shoulder buttons are rarely mapped to anything useful. Camera panning can be relegated to the right thumb stick and there is no need for target cycling with the tactical camera. Supposedly one of the triggers is used for attacking if auto-attack is turned off, but they could have just as easily made that trigger an ability tab and turned one of the non-tabbed buttons into the attack (A or X depending on the system).

[Cainhurst Crow]

You can pause, but you can't access the rest of your skills.

 

They seem to have equated those two things because they were linked in the previous games, but they don't have to be linked.  Why not let us access the other skills without pausing?

 

Cause you'll get zerg rushed when you bring up your radial menu and the game continues unpaused. Believe me, my copy of DAO has experienced this glitch, and all it does is sucks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cause you'll get zerg rushed when you bring up your radial menu and the game continues unpaused. Believe me, my copy of DAO has experienced this glitch, and all it does is sucks.

I disagree.  I've been complaining since BG2 that the game shouldn't pause when we access our inventory.  It didn't in BG, and I don't see why it should.

 

But if they let us access abilities through the radial menu while unpaused, you'd have to decide whether you wanted to risk going for different abilities, or just sticking with the ones you have handy.  That's a more interesting decision than whether the reload so you can try this encouter with a different hotbar loaded.

[aTigerslunch]

 

 

 

And some thought there was too many romance threads....    

 

"8"  The Laws of 8! 

 

You will obey orders without question.

 

Punishment shall be swift.

 

Mercy is for the weak.

 

Terror will defeat reason.

 

Your allegiance is to the clan.

 

Justice can be dictated.

 

Any Clansmen may challenge for leadership of the Clan.

 

There is only one penalty - DEATH.

 

 

 

*I know I am trolling but amused.*

 

So, who shall rule over the Clan of 8 threads? 

[Dunbartacus]

When the game is paused, there's no requirement that the abilities we use be easily accessible/  Pausing the game (which BioWare now seems to equate to the tactical camera, even though the two operate separately) grants access to everything in the game, without any gameplay cost - or, at least, it can, if the game allows it.

 

Inquisition doesn't allow it.  Why not?    Because they want us to plan ahead, they say.  But we could already do that.  Planning ahead is largely a function of encounter and level design, and basic UI functionality (can we use our abilities outside combat).  If we want to plan ahead, we can.  If we don't want to, we don't have to.

 

But now they've implemented this 8 ability limit to force us to plan ahead.  Even though some of us already did, so we're paying the cost for no benefit, and some of us don't want to, so now we have to play the game in a way we don't enjoy.

 

Who wins here?  Whose gameplay experience is improved by this limit?

I don't know. the limit could be positive or negative, im leaning towards positive as since mass effect they have delivered nothing but stellar games(Da2 perhaps less so but still good) imo. that wasn't my query however you basically stated that the ability limit would make the tactical cam useless which doesn't really make sense.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I disagree.  I've been complaining since BG2 that the game shouldn't pause when we access our inventory.  It didn't in BG, and I don't see why it should.

 

But if they let us access abilities through the radial menu while unpaused, you'd have to decide whether you wanted to risk going for different abilities, or just sticking with the ones you have handy.  That's a more interesting decision than whether the reload so you can try this encouter with a different hotbar loaded.

 

That's nice, but as someone whose actually experienced this in their game, I can tell you its no fun to open your menu and have a genlok back-stab you without the ability to run away, cause your movement controls are being used to control the selector for the radial menu.

 

It's not a challenge, its just a pointless way to get you killed in combat. When wanting to improve the difficulty of carpentry, smacking your hand with a hammer is not the route to go. Similarly, creating something as dumb as the radial menu not pausing combat is not a way to improve difficulty.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's nice, but as someone whose actually experienced this in their game, I can tell you its no fun to open your menu and have a genlok back-stab you without the ability to run away, cause your movement controls are being used to control the selector for the radial menu.

Because you weren't expecting it.

 

If you had known that was a risk, you would have changed your radial menu behaviour.

It's not a challenge, its just a pointless way to get you killed in combat. When wanting to improve the difficulty of carpentry, smacking your hand with a hammer is not the route to go. Similarly, creating something as dumb as the radial menu not pausing combat is not a way to improve difficulty.

If you don't want to get caught unable to respond to attacks, don't open the radial menu in combat.  It's that simple.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't know. the limit could be positive or negative, im leaning towards positive as since mass effect they have delivered nothing but stellar games(Da2 perhaps less so but still good) imo. that wasn't my query however you basically stated that the ability limit would make the tactical cam useless which doesn't really make sense.

I think ME was a mediocre game, ME2 was horribly broken, and I didn't even bother to try ME3.

 

DAO I really liked, but DA2 is probably my least favourite BioWare game.  I couldn't roleplay my character, and the combat was remarkably dull (even ME2 didn't manage that).

[durasteel]

I am throwing around that idea because that is the statement that Bioware has made. Mike Laidlaw has said that DAI is about planning ahead and making strategic decisions.

 

Shoulder buttons are rarely mapped to anything useful. Camera panning can be relegated to the right thumb stick and there is no need for target cycling with the tactical camera. Supposedly one of the triggers is used for attacking if auto-attack is turned off, but they could have just as easily made that trigger an ability tab and turned one of the non-tabbed buttons into the attack (A or X depending on the system).

 

What he said is "Ability count clarity: DAI is about roles, planning ahead and making tactical decisions. Potions, ability choice, gear, party composition."

 

Did he mean that they limited abilities to achieve that, or did he mean that he sees the limitation fitting into that context, along with potions, gear, and party composition? He did not, to the best of my knowledge, ever say that they chopped down our toolbars to "improve the tactics of the game." I still haven't seen how such an assertion could be supported in any event.

 

You seem not to know how the controller shoulder buttons are mapped. Your speculation on the subject is interesting, but not persuasive to me.