Opinions will of course differ about this. I think it means that even a smaller encounter can still be meaningful, rather than a pointless speed bump that poses 0 threat/cost to the player.
Those smaller encounters are not meaningless to some of us. If one like the gameplay enough, they have their own fun. When training, do I run a marathon every day?
I don't know about others, but I plan to take up the challenge to get through a major quest without taking any damage, excepting only the chapter boss fight, if any. Nerfed healing? Is of little relevance with good positioning and movement and damage reduction abilities. Add traps and bombs, and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to do it on hard, too.
Note that while I'm not exactly incompetent, I'm a story player at heart. DAO Nightmare and ME1 Insanity weren't for me. But I'm confident I'll be up to the challenge, as far as I can be with no hands-on experience of DAI.
The bolded part is exactly why I vastly prefer this new system. The strategic and tactical elements of the new combat system, especially regarding positioning, makes me really feel more like a leader or "general" leading my Inquisition into battle with real threats. Way better than the feel of being a gang of super powered demigods with infinite health and no danger who just roams around.
Your post is really great, Patrick. You've given a huge amount of detail which does make me feel a bit better about this.
The thing is, though, I just love playing healers. In the BG and NWN games, I always played clerics, because I love being able to look after my party. Tending their wounds so that they never get knocked out is a way to show that I "care" about what happens to them. In situations where there are NPCs fighting alongside us, or even peasants being attacked by enemies, I'd always try to keep them alive via healing too! I saw it as an element of roleplaying a kind character.
This is a point I can sympathize with.
There are people angered that healing is removed due to them wanting the game to be trivial, easy, unchallenging or because they hate change (or other).
But even though I love the change myself, I completely understand where you're coming from. Your reasoning for missing the healing mechanic is the only one I personally consider valid. Game mechanics on survival has been changed, not removed. But the roleplaying aspect of wanting to be a cleric, healer and directly aid people and allies is important to people and that is 100% understandable.
This thread is the very definition of "pearls before swine" - it is so sad it was needed as there has been literally a laundry list of information about healing.
As a "roleplayer" - it's a little gross to want to play a "healer" instead of using things like Barrier. "No, I want you to bleed so I can HEAL you!" That's such a twisted thought process.
Prevention will always be better than reaction even if most people aren't smart enough to do it well.
Well, as I see it, the choices here for those who don't like the new changes (like me) are:
1) Give it a try anyway. It's not like at this late an hour Bioware is going to alter the game no matter how much we voice our displeasure.
If this option is unacceptable then:
2) Cancel any preorder/refuse to buy the finished product until after release or until reliable--as in not Bioware employees--reviews of the game and it's play style are released.
I know what I like. I loved Origins, but to this day I still have never put Darkspawn Chronicles on my computer. And never will. I think it says something about my capacity for hope--or self delusion, take your pick--that I still haven't canceled my preorder of Inquisition despite all I've read here and the fact that I had to buy a new video card to play this graphic monster.
I'm obviously taking the first option despite my trepidations about the game's playability for me. That's how much I love this genre.
I can't say I am crazy about the change, either way. I liked it fine the way it was.
But I really can't judge what the it feels like or plays like until I have played the game. So I will continue with my purchase and hope for the best.
Though I can understand why people might be unhappy.
Look, the guy admitted he's not very good at games and used the standard barrier/guard combo to get through normal. If you don't want to take a barrier mage, don't. These are games where you can overcome shortcomings via skill and knowledge.
If you have to play on easy to use whatever setup you want, go ahead and play on easy. If you want to push yourself on harder difficulties, I'm sure through skill and planning you will be able to with whatever party you choose. People soloed the most difficult fights in DA:O on nightmare without healing spells, and you were able to play DA2 without healing spells on nightmare. I'm sure having a non-optimal party composition won't stop anyone from playing the game on easy.
For the people complaining about not having the choice of making a healing character, you still have the choice of making a very defensive supporting mage focusing on cc and barriers, and there is always the healing focus ability.
Bioware has provided a ton of reasoning on why they removed healing, and they are good points. We will have to see when the game is released how well it worked. I'm not sure the whole "sky is falling" attitude is warranted or helpful right now. They certainly aren't changing their minds this close to release, and none of us have played the game to feel it out.
I just don't see the necessity of taking healing magic away from the players.
What do we get out of it? I don't recall people asking for this.
They have provided long and detailed explanations for why they did what they did. Go look them up if you actually care.
It helps them balance the game much more tightly, as they don't have to plan for healer/no healer groups. It encourages planning and forethought. It encourages using more supporting abilities. The result is you should have much more tightly balanced and more engaging encounters.
BioWare games attract a significant audience purely interested in the dialogue and exposition. They want an interactive story, anything much harder than reading a book isn't very appealing. Somewhat cursed by their own success in that regard, I suppose.
That's why the game is playable by a 7 year old on easy. I'm sure you could find cheats if you are seriously just not capable of playing the game on easy.
This thread is the very definition of "pearls before swine" - it is so sad it was needed as there has been literally a laundry list of information about healing.
As a "roleplayer" - it's a little gross to want to play a "healer" instead of using things like Barrier. "No, I want you to bleed so I can HEAL you!" That's such a twisted thought process.
Prevention will always be better than reaction even if most people aren't smart enough to do it well.
That's an idiotic statement. People will get hurt no matter how much "prevention" you use and it only makes sense that some people will want to aid others, from a roleplaying perspective. Not only that, but nothing stops you from using preventative spells to protect others, while using healing spells when things go awry.
Just throwing in my two coppers worth here:
What I wonder is why there isn't a healing spell that's only available for use outside of combat?
Hell, I wouldn't mind if it was a small out of combat "Heal over Time" (HoT) that has a 1-hour cooldown. But to take away healing magic is more or less taking a small slice of the embedded lore away from the series... in my immensely small and extremely humble opinion.
Edit: correction of grammar errors due to working a 14-hour shift prior to posting.
Just throwing in my two coppers worth here:
I wonder is why there isn't a healing spell that's only available for use outside of combat?
Hell, I wouldn't mind if it was a small out of combat "Heal over Time" (HoT) that has a 1 hour cooldown. But to take away healing magic is more or less taking a small slice of the embedded lore away from the series... in my immensely small and extremely humble opinion.
Agreed. There were so many things they could've done to make healing spells less OP, yet they just chose to cut them out, and with it a popular playstyle, just because it was the easiest "fix" they could imagine.
As a "roleplayer" - it's a little gross to want to play a "healer" instead of using things like Barrier. "No, I want you to bleed so I can HEAL you!" That's such a twisted thought process.
Prevention will always be better than reaction even if most people aren't smart enough to do it well.
That's unfair. No matter how good one is at mitigation or healing, some wounds are going to take place. It's a realistic goal, as an extra challenge for a player, to try and play in such a way that no party member is ever incapacitated. It's not a realistic goal to aim to prevent any party member from ever losing health, even if mitigation completely replaces healing. A game in which this was achievable, even if it was only achievable through great skill, would be much too easy. So, given that some wounds will always happen, a person isn't twisted for wanting to be able to get rid of that hurt. This is especially the case given that we're talking about an already-established universe in which magical healing is possible. If we were going to design a new setting from the top down, and someone contributing to its design said: "I prefer healing over mitigation, because I want people to get hurt so that I can heal them," then that would be twisted. But that's not the situation here at all.
It's also not a fair representation of the known abilities as they stand. Previously, mages had a number of healing spells and one damage-prevention ability. (Maybe more if we see buffs like Rock Armour as damage prevention, but I don't know if that's in DA:I, so I can't compare. As such, I'll leave buffs out of the equation.) Now, it seems that mages have one damage-prevention ability, albeit one that can be evolved and developed to have extra effects as the game goes on, plus a single heal that can be used very rarely. That just seems like having fewer options, but hopefully I'm wrong.
Anyway, I could do without your comment that "most people aren't smart enough to do it well." Every play style has advantages and drawbacks that can be used cleverly by a tactical mind.
I don't see why cutting healing spells would be the easiest, it requires designing all the encounters around the lack of healing spells. I seriously doubt that was their reasoning.Agreed. There were so many things they could've done to make healing spells less OP, yet they just chose to cut them out, and with it a popular playstyle, just because it was the easiest "fix" they could imagine.
Complaining about lack of heal spells for roleplaying reasons is all fine and dandy. Hell, I'm a little irritated myself.
But PLEASE stop assuming that they were removed haphazardly and to spite people.
The game is balanced without them.
The game will be fun in different ways. When they limited healing in DA2, it felt a little bad during my support mage playthrough, but my offensive mage had a blast CRITTING people to death now that spells could crit. Different gameplay does not mean less fun.
---
Thanks for the clarifications Mr Weekes.
Agreed. There were so many things they could've done to make healing spells less OP, yet they just chose to cut them out, and with it a popular playstyle, just because it was the easiest "fix" they could imagine.
... "the easiest fix". They LITERALLY set out to design the entire game to play and function with limited healing. There's nothing easy about something of that level.
I guess their solution is that they FORCE you to have almost a one of each character to further the story at the detriment of choice for who you want in your party.
This is actually what potentially bothers me more than the lack of healing. It may really put a big limit on our choices for party interaction depending on whether or not it really will be necessary to always have certain classes in our party.
Complaining about lack of heal spells for roleplaying reasons is all fine and dandy. Hell, I'm a little irritated myself.
But PLEASE stop assuming that they were removed haphazardly and to spite people. The game is balanced without them.
That's not the point (for people like me). It's not about what Bioware think I want. It's about what I actually want.
I like playing with Healing capable Mages. I had the option to do so in previous games in this 'trilogy'. Now it seems I don't. It's that simple. It's Bioware's game to make and mine to decide to buy or not. This sort of thing makes that less likely.
This as well. Why must every difficulty Mode have the same across the board feature list? Let Easy mode have HP regen out of Combat, and let Hard and Nightmare have no regen. Have lower difficulties have unlimited potion slots, and limit it more and more the higher the difficulty. That is the entire POINT of Difficulty levels is it not? Why are you forcing your design philosophy upon ALL players? You are now forcing everyone to play the game basically the same way every time. This imo totally destroys the appeal of ever replaying the game.
Agreed, and it what they did with friendly fire.
I think the best approach is how they did it in theif, you could pretty much create your own difficulty through toggles.
If there are no mages in the DA universe, who are combat healers, then what are e.g. my main mage Warden PC and Wynne in my Origins? Both are spirit healers with all possible heal spells. Are they considered as normal dmg-dealer/support mages in Inquisition now?
That's not the point (for people like me). It's not about what Bioware think I want. It's about what I actually want.
I like playing with Healing capable Mages. I had the option to do so in previous games in this 'trilogy'. Now it seems I don't. That simple. It's Bioware's game to make and mine to decide to buy or not. This sort of think makes that less likely.
I do too. My favorite character archetype is "Paladin". I couldn't even play that in DA2, and now I can't even play a "Priest" (2nd favorite).
This doesn't mean that I can't find other ways to play the game. I will enjoy it with other classes, and get my "Paladin" fix from a heavily modded Skyrim (My God it's fun).
If not being to heal is so gamebreaking to you, then it makes sense. Frankly I think you're limiting yourself but hey... it's your game.
Is this the reason we cannot be blood mages? It seems pretty incompatible with this new gameplay style.
Is this the reason we cannot be blood mages? It seems pretty incompatible with this new gameplay style.
I don't know, but it could be that the writers got tired of avoiding the elephant in the room.
Sorry BW but I am not buying your reasoning. The point is, you took a choice away from the player. It's not a deal breaker from me getting the game as I'm more interested in the story but it's frustrating that a company that prides itself on "player choice" would take this away.
Retour en haut