760 réponses à ce sujet

[cronshaw]

I'd appreciate it if you changed the "our" in your thread title to "my."

Aloha

[Augustus Tirion]

I'd appreciate it if you changed the "our" in your thread title to "my."

Aloha

And we'd appreciate it if you'd learn that 'our' is simply plural, not meaning 'everyone', and the OP is clearly far from the only one concerned about this.

[Brogan]

And again, you assume that's the case, when your only proof is a video of firing off a barrier spell at the start of combat (Most likely not an issue, as most encounters won't have much time between the start of combat and enemies hitting the characters). And with a fast cooldown, I'm not sure how you can justify the contention that it renders them useless.

I can understand wanting better control over tactics, I don't understand the assumption that the default AI will be incompetent.

 

It's not an assumption when it's right there in front of you.  It's not like people were claiming incompetent AI before this footage.

 

And who cares how fast the cooldown is when the initial cast is where the problem exists?  Better to just switch the AI off and do it yourself (especially if it's going to happen that way every time), which brings us right back to the original issue.

 

.....especially when it's one many people won't use......

 

Dude, you really need to stop making these comments without any factual data to back it up.  We get it, your only perspective is how you personally like to play.  The rest of us care about choices and versatility.

 

 

Selecting the default behavior was shown in a few videos. You don't see the script under it the hood in the screen there though, but you still get to select a behavior (which is what the pre-made scripts were called in the previous games). The most the previewers have shown of it is that it allow to set Defend and Follow X, but none of the previewers bothered exploring what the feature did beyond that. Just like we have no idea what the * does in the Tactic menu.

 

From your lips...

[IVI4RCU5]

They do it to make money.

If you think something else, please wake up before this world eats you alive.

They are not making a game for you, because they want you to be amused. No, they are working, selling their product.

 

And that is not bad. I do the same. You will do the same. It is life.

 

 

Because they get paid to.

 

Don't be silly.

Well no sh*t they need to make money ... but there are a lot of other ways for people to make a living.  Constant hate from the people you're trying to please can't be healthy to have to deal with, and if you think it's not discouraging talented people from entering the games industry, or not encouraging those who are in it to find other outlets for their skills, YOU are the hopelessly naive ones. 

The outrage on display here (and elsewhere on this forum) is completely disproportionate to the magnitude of the issues being discussed, and criticism is not being delivered in anything approaching a constructive manner. And yet you complain they don't listen enough to the fans. 

[Meltemph]

Well no sh*t they do it to make money ... but there are a lot of other ways for people to make a living.  Constant hate from the people you're trying to please can't be healthy to have to deal with, and if you think it's not discouraging talented people from entering the games industry, or not encouraging those who are in it to find other outlets for their skills, YOU are the hopelessly naive ones. 

The outrage evidenced here (and elsewhere on this forum) is completely disproportionate to the magnitude of the issues being discussed, and criticism is not being delivered in anything approaching a constructive manner. And you complain they don't listen enough to the fans. 

I mean, bioware forums have always been...never happy(even back during the NWN days, from what I remember), but lately(couple years or so) it has been resembling tumblr more and more. Hell, even during the BG2 days(far back as I remember) they were getting nitpicked, but they could still interact and get a decent discussion out of it. Now a dev posts in here and you get tons of snide or sarcastic remarks, thinking this helps them or anyone. Meh, watcha gana do.

 

Truth be told though, there is normally more pro-dev talk then people who act like the devs wounded them, because they did something they dont like...just those people always seem to be the loudest vs the more constructive criticism(probably because human nature pays more attention to the more loud and incredibly aggressive groups).

[Heimdall]

It's not an assumption when it's right there in front of you.  It's not like people were claiming incompetent AI before this footage.
 
And who cares how fast the cooldown is when the initial cast is where the problem exists?  Better to just switch the AI off and do it yourself (especially if it's going to happen that way every time), which brings us right back to the original issue.
 
Dude, you really need to stop making these comments without any factual data to back it up.  We get it, your only perspective is how you personally like to play.  The rest of us care about choices and versatility.

I care about choice and versatility. I only take issue when you try to point to one instance of gameplay, which I have already explained is neither crippling nor proof of incompetence, and try to make it out to be proof of a crap AI that will ruin your experience. Especially since the companion AI seems to be fairly competent in all the gameplay I've seen.

If the initial cast bothers you that much, go into the tactics menu and switch it off, or perhaps there will be a way to alter the casting trigger for buffs, I won't be sure until I actually have a chance to fiddle with the behavior menu. My main issue here is that you insist on blowing this up into more than it is with only one casting a few seconds sooner than you'd like as your proof.

I stand by what I've said.

[veeia]

I hate micromanaging, so I loved tactics, but gameplay is not what I play Bioware for, so I'll be ok putting down the difficulty and not bothering.

I am sad though, as the new combat system really appealed to me until this and I thought maybe this game---which is going to have so much more gameplay--might be the one DA game that I really got into on that level. I haven't played it yet though, so maybe it still will be. I am willing to wait for my own experience, because I'm not good at telling if I'll like gameplay based on watching someone else.

I'm sorry for those fans to whom this is a bigger deal. It is a major reduction on a system that was a unique feature of the series, so its understandable that people are upset, IMO.

[zMataxa]

Huh.  I definately customized alot the "if-then" in the previous games.

But, If Bioware DAI testers made it through the gameplay - I'm confident I will to.

I'm gonna be interested to see what the better companion AI does.

And I like adapting - so when the inevitable companions' AI missteps happen - just adds to my adventure.

I'm not worried about this new feature being a problem.

 

Poor Bioware devs.  Just can't win.  Just can't please everyone.  Only so many zots.  Where to put em.

But I can certainly empathize that this is important to the micro-strategizers etc.

Fighting against "Mainstreaming games" tendencies is a constant battle from what I've been seeing.

Bigger audience vs smaller specialized niche.

[Meltemph]

Huh.  I definately customized alot the "if-then" in the previous games.

But, If Bioware DAI testers made it through the gameplay - I'm confident I will to.

I'm gonna be interested to see what the better companion AI does.

And I like adapting - so when the inevitable companions' AI missteps happen - just adds to my adventure.

I'm not worried about this new feature being a problem.

 

Poor Bioware devs.  Just can't win.  Just can't please everyone.  Only so many zots.  Where to put em.

But I can certainly empathize that this is important to the micro-strategizers etc.

Fighting against "Mainstreaming games" tendencies is a constant battle from what I've been seeing.

Bigger audience vs smaller specialized niche.

Also the bigger audience isnt always wrong. Sometimes the gameplay does need a ton of improvement, imo. I love the DA games, and enjoyed the combat. However, I didnt enjoy the combat near as much as many many other games, from varying genre's. As long as the gameplay is "better" to me, regardless of how they do it I am happy. But then again, my taste for games ranges all over the place. I'm not stuck on any 1 particular combat mechanic in games. With all the fighting game changes I've experienced over the many years, I'm used to change, I guess and now enjoy it immensely.

[seraphymon]

Also the bigger audience isnt always wrong. Sometimes the gameplay does need a ton of improvement, imo. I love the DA games, and enjoyed the combat. However, I didnt enjoy the combat near as much as many many other games, from varying genre's. As long as the gameplay is "better" to me, regardless of how they do it I am happy. But then again, my taste for games ranges all over the place. I'm not stuck on any 1 particular combat mechanic in games. With all the fighting game changes I've experienced over the many years, I'm used to change, I guess and now enjoy it immensely.

Thats the thing that hurts me the most.  Its one thing piled upon many others that have to do with combat, making it unappealing

[zMataxa]

(snip)I love the DA games, and enjoyed the combat. However, I didnt enjoy the combat near as much as many many other games, from varying genre's. As long as the gameplay is "better" to me, regardless of how they do it I am happy. But then again, my taste for games ranges all over the place. I'm not stuck on any 1 particular combat mechanic in games. With all the fighting game changes I've experienced over the many years, I'm used to change, I guess and now enjoy it immensely.

I'm on a similar page.  I replayed DA series for the story and visuals and not the combat.  And i like lots of different games.

But I can see how (and know personally players) who liked the more rpg-type battles and  that the chaos was more controlled on many levels.

They may describe it yet a little different with different emphasis, but that's how i describe it.

This latest behavior/tactics change seems to be a move away from the in-depth model of before.

So the move towards a bigger audience comes at the expense of a more specialized taste.

In this case, lucky for me, I'm fine with it.  I have other DAI personal concerns.

But i have other games where this "mainstreaming" is a huge issue.  Total War- Rome 2 for example.

[Star fury]

Bioware could easily dismiss all fears about tactics with one short sentence. They didn't and I assume they don't want to confirm any negative news before the release of DAI.

[Meltemph]

I'm on a similar page.  I replayed DA series for the story and visuals and not the combat.  And i like lots of different games.

But I can see how (and know personally players) who liked the more rpg-type battles and  that the chaos was more controlled on many levels.

They may describe it yet a little different with different emphasis, but that's how i describe it.

This latest behavior/tactics change seems to be a move away from the in-depth model of before.

So the move towards a bigger audience comes at the expense of a more specialized taste.

In this case, lucky for me, I'm fine with it.  I have other DAI personal concerns.

But i have other games where this "mainstreaming" is a huge issue.  Total War- Rome 2 for example.

And this is probably why I'm fine with the changes. I never found the gameplay to be "in depth" in terms of the actual combat mechanics. In depth to me is Street Fighter at higher levels of play, Starcraft micro managing, Civilization management, Rome II troop and country management, BG and IWD approach to encounters, and ect. I found DA's combat mechanics to be incredibly straight forward and very easy to get the hang of, but thought they could do much better, personally. I think there best games. The most enjoyable combat mechanics, to me, since BG was actually Jade Empire. Since then I found the combat in their games a bit too straight forward(well, ME3 on harder difficulties was a step in the right direction, for me).

[Meltemph]

Is it really disproportionate? How do you quantify that? We're talking about the game's combat system, which is the underpinning for the entire game (and, I've heard it argued, the entire genre).

We're on the internet. My piece of advice to you, and to anyone who thinks that there's any "hatred" in this thread (I mean, really), is to reduce just about every emotion you see online by about 25 or 50% and you'll get how people really feel about the issue.

 
I'm not singling you out in particularly, but I just want to say, I more than anyone I know despise the "the devs wounded me" drama (when ME3 came out I proudly white-knighted the ending, and would do so again in a heartbeat), and I personally haven't seen any here. People are saying their faith in the game has been shaken, but they're not acting in any way, to quote another poster, "disproportionate" to the issue. Again, I'm not singling you out, but I've observed little or none.

Eh, I disagree, personally. I could go on a quote spree to point out what I'm talking about, but that would just start a fight. But you dont have to worry about singling me out, I dont get offended very easy. And I didnt have any problems with people airing their disagreements with the ME3 ending, personally. Just the way a very select few went about it was annoying. 

[tmp7704]

Look, Mike Laidlaw (or somebody) said in one of the earliest twitch streams or videos that have vastly improved companion AI.  Which is always a bonus for me.  If I have to pause the game every two seconds to play it on normal, I'd do it but I'd hate it. 
 
The longer that I'm not looking at a tactics screen?  The happier I am.

To put it in perspective, Mike Laidlaw (or somebody) also said they have vastly improved encounter design in DA2. Because more waves = more fun.

The devs, just like any other person have their own preferences. What they might consider "vast improvement" can greatly differ from your own preferences.

That's why being able to set the tactics in a way you consider a vast improvements was a nice thing.

[Biotic Sage]

Yes because a short post would take so much time............

 

If a deeper feature for Tactics was in the game that we haven't seen, then they'd post something telling us this.  Since they haven't, and this thread has been visible for some time now, it's looking more and more likely that a deeper feature doesn't exist beyond what we've inferred.  

 

So what would be the point of them making a post?  What would they say?  "Yes, we have indeed removed a useful feature from this game that was present in the previous two games."  That's not exactly the most political thing to do, because you can't make something like that sound good...

 

...because it isn't good.  At best it's benign for the people who don't care about Tactics and at worst it's deal-breaking for someone who valued Tactics more than anything else in the previous 2 games.  And there's a whole range in between where people would be mildly disappointed to very disappointed.  No one can say it's a "good" thing or an "improvement."

[IVI4RCU5]

Is it really disproportionate? How do you quantify that? We're talking about the game's combat system, which is the underpinning for the entire game (and, I've heard it argued, the entire genre).

We're on the internet. My piece of advice to you, and to anyone who thinks that there's any "hatred" in this thread (I mean, really), is to reduce just about every emotion you see online by about 25 or 50% and you'll get how people really feel about the issue.

Sure, this is ALL too typical for the internet, but that doesn't make it acceptable.  One should not have to apply a filter of the kind you describe; people should have the emotional maturity to measure the language they use appropriately.  This level of discourse should not be tolerated as the norm. 

As someone responding to you above said, I could quote a whole bunch of posts as examples but singling people out would just start fights. 

[Brogan]

I care about choice and versatility. I only take issue when you try to point to one instance of gameplay, which I have already explained is neither crippling nor proof of incompetence, and try to make it out to be proof of a crap AI that will ruin your experience. Especially since the companion AI seems to be fairly competent in all the gameplay I've seen.

If the initial cast bothers you that much, go into the tactics menu and switch it off, or perhaps there will be a way to alter the casting trigger for buffs, I won't be sure until I actually have a chance to fiddle with the behavior menu. My main issue here is that you insist on blowing this up into more than it is with only one casting a few seconds sooner than you'd like as your proof.

I stand by what I've said.

 

What you said in bold in your 2nd paragraph ...  is the whole point to the discussion.  That needs to be in the game.  The poorly timed casting is just a by-product of a demo that won't even be the final code we get on the 18th, we know this.  But what people are "blowing up" over is not that it happens, but that we don't see a tactics screen that would allow us to alter the casting (like you said), and in effect ... the tactics in general.

 

That's all.  You repeating that you didn't use tactics in the previous games is no more relevant to the discussion than me saying I did use them, and your reasoning as to why it might be 'OK' if they overlooked tactics this time, or didn't have as complex a system in DA;I is, unfortunately just as irrelevant.

[seraphymon]

Yes, but I tough I saw that you could do that during the fight.

 

This is the sequence I'm trying to locate.

You can. Just walk up to them, hold A or whatever button and it takes a few undisturbed seconds to revive them mid-battle