19127 réponses à ce sujet

[Ero_the_Great]

Guess what, while we waiting for patches, I finished DAO+DAA again. I'm going to play DA2 now, and I won't be surprised if I'll make it before patches will come...

 

That's not gonna be hard. DAII is rather short.

[Brogan]

Guess what, while we waiting for patches, I finished DAO+DAA again. I'm going to play DA2 now, and I won't be surprised if I'll make it before patches will come...

 

I just spent the past month playing both, with all the expansions and DLC....  (and I never touched W,A,S, or D once...)

[Dinkledorf]

Let's not forget the disabled community that perhaps relies on single hand only interaction with this game as they did with previous versions of the franchise.  Given there was no warning up front indicating that this is an Action RPG and thus requires the use of 2 hands to control, I can certainly understand the disappointment they must be going through, not because they don't like the current scheme but because they cannot physically use it.

[Sola Gon_]

I hope, Bioware stands for stability first in their patches. I had a corrupted save file which causes DA:I to CTD while loading it. I had DirectX errors in the character editor. And I had one CTD during gameplay, I played 20 h for now. This, for me, is way more of a concern then UI issues. There are UI issues, yes, but I hope Bioware has their priorities on stability.

[Brogan]

"requires the use of 2 hands"

 

heh, only because they forgot to add in the overlapping mouse controls they've always had...  or even the ability to map to your mouse.

[craigdolphin]

I think half the issue with the control scheme is that many kb&m players were expecting a primarily party-based game, like DAO.

 

When you are playing a party-based game you expect to be controlling the party as an entity. For this style of play a good overhead view must exist that shows a sufficiently large area to show the overall position and disposition of party members and foes. Traditionally you select the 'party', and click to move all of its members at once. You select 'individuals' and give them directives (move to this spot, attack this mob, cast this AOE spell, pick up this item etc) and expect that the individual will take care of the little details (like moving into melee range, or moving towards the item, or continuing to attack the mob after the first swing, or start to attack a different mob if the current mob dies etc). For a party based game, the fun for many players is directing the flow of a combat encounter, participating in the details only when deemed necessary, not being forced to participate in the minutia of character movement, locking on, etc for every single moment of the encounter.

 

In contrast, ARPGs often focus on one protagonist and combat is intended to be focused on the level of the individual character with a lot of gamer-involvement. 3rd person and 1st person viewpoints make perfect sense for this type of game. And controls are often designed to require more active participation by the gamer in the small details of the characters movements and actions. The Witcher is a good example of this. Which isn't to say such games can't have 'allies' in battle, but typically the gamer never controls the allied characters. WASD and mouse-control camera/movement (l&rmb=w, mouse movement = rotate left or right) are primarily designed to move a single character.

 

What DAO got really right was that you could handle combat and movement strictly party based (click to move) but also used a follow-the-leader system to allow the gamer to control a single lead character using either WASD or mouse-nav during exploration. And I think the 3rd person view for exploration is superior myself. It was a pretty awesome hybrid of the best of both worlds.

 

It seems to me that many of the issues in this thread come about because the game has removed a lot of the functionality required for good party-level control and game play. You see it with the much reduced implementation of the tactical cam. You see it with the disappearance of party members during mounted travel. You see it with removal of the 'select all' party members button (or the ability to simultaneously select all, at all). You see it with the removal of the ability to switch weapon sets. You see it with the default view being 3rd person. You see it with the removal of proper auto-attack (move to target, lock on, and fight until one of you is dead, then switch to nearest hostile and repeat unless given further orders). You see it with the removal of proper tactics. You see it with the removal of action queuing.

 

If you're a gamer who enjoyed the party-level gameplay of DAO, then DA2 and DAI represent a fundamental shift in game design that is intended to emphasize the moment to moment combat gameplay more typically associated with arpgs without preserving the party-based systems and gameplay that made DAO's combat fun for you.

 

If you're a gamer that prefers aRPG's, then you probably like this.

 

My strong suspicion is that the game devs testing the interface were primarily coming from the position of wanting a more aRPG-like experience in combat. From that perspective, the controls probably work great (with the obvious exception of not allowing a proper mouse-nav option instead of WASD for those that prefer it).

 

The existence of even the limited and useless tactical cam is a sop to the large criticism of it's removal in DA2. It demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of its role in primarily party-based RPG gameplay, or shows that Bioware have decided that they really don't care about party-based gameplay at all and it's just a checkbox for marketing purposes given the backlash to DA2. I suspect the latter.

 

Given that there are so many indications that party-based gameplay has been deliberately excised or marginalized in the game design, I very much doubt Bioware will actually reverse itself on some of these decisions now.

 

You might get proper mouse-nav back as an alternative to WASD movement and better mouse binding options.

You might get an option for auto-attack in 'action' mode. Maybe. With much passive aggressive begrudging at your intransigence by the dev team I'd guess. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though. The powers that be fundamentally altered the type of game that DA is after DAO. They do not want to make proper party based games any more it seems.

You might get a patch to increase the size of the tac cam area for PC-only. But only if it's really easy to implement.

Your chances of getting tactics back in DAI are non-existent IMO.

I will be shocked if they implemented switching of weapon sets or improving the number of slots for spells etc in the UI.

 

How can Bioware keep everyone happy? They can't with DAI. You either want a primarily aRPG with badly implemented CRPG trappings (companion dialogue, romances etc) or you don't. Going forward, they could solve the issue by having two primary control modes: tactical and action. Tactical mode would have a much improved party-level focused UI and control scheme, with all supporting systems. This would be like DAO's control system including click to move, action queuing, auto-targetting, auto attack, auto loot, etc. Gameplay would be intended to be at the party-level in this mode. No need for farting about with positioning, locking on, moving to pickup loot, holding buttons to keep attacking, etc. In action/exploration mode, basically, what you have in DAI. The intention of this mode is to faff about with character movement and being involved with combat and activities at the level of the individual, with other party members content to use their own AI to fight, or just play follow the leader.

 

But DAI's tactical mode appears to be a disaster and completely unsuited for purpose. Bioware needs to decide whether they still want to make a party-based game or not, and communicate their decision to the people still hoping for a proper party-based DA experience again. Otherwise they will keep disappointing a large subset of their customers.

[Crackseed]

I wanted to chime back in after playing the game for a good 35 hours now. While I can muddle around in Tac Cam when needed and I find that the UI outside of Tac cam works fine, the biggest and most obnoxious thing for me is - why the fudge do we only have 8 skill slots? And more so, if you were capping it like Mass Effect before it - why then don't you have a power wheel option built in to the game to allow us to select any extra skills beyond the 8 from?

 

Honestly, I love this game - despite my grumps about some of the PC centric options clearly not being tested, I can work past most of them but this UI limitation makes 0 sense in any form and I hope we see something to correct this. Having to decide which of the 9 skills my mage has should go on my 8 button bar when I know I WILL make use of all 9 in a given fight is unacceptable given prior iterations of your skill systems and how well crafted this game is overall in most areas.

[saladinbob]

It's basically what happens when you take a PC game from a traditionally PC-based genre and try to attract a console audience. You end up dumbing the game down, simplifying concepts and changing control systems which simply burns your core customers (PC owners). I don't know whether Bioware were intentionally deceitful in their claims of "Controls designed for the PC when playing on the PC" or simply careless with their language, either way expectation management towards the PC community was mishandled badly and has resulted in this backlash. Regardless of the reasons, DA:O was the last truly great game they made for the PC. Everything since then has been a console port. As a result this is the last Bioware game I pre-order without waiting to see reviews that categorically state it has proper PC controls. I'm a PC gamer, I don't own a Console controller, I don't want to own a Console controller, I want to use the Mouse and Keyboard to play the game.

[Brogan]

I think half the issue with the control scheme is that many kb&m players were expecting a primarily party-based game, like DAO.
 
When you are playing a party-based game you expect to be controlling the party as an entity. For this style of play a good overhead view must exist that shows a sufficiently large area to show the overall position and disposition of party members and foes. Traditionally you select the 'party', and click to move all of its members at once. You select 'individuals' and give them directives (move to this spot, attack this mob, cast this AOE spell, pick up this item etc) and expect that the individual will take care of the little details (like moving into melee range, or moving towards the item, or continuing to attack the mob after the first swing, or start to attack a different mob if the current mob dies etc). For a party based game, the fun for many players is directing the flow of a combat encounter, participating in the details only when deemed necessary, not being forced to participate in the minutia of character movement, locking on, etc for every single moment of the encounter.
 
In contrast, ARPGs often focus on one protagonist and combat is intended to be focused on the level of the individual character with a lot of gamer-involvement. 3rd person and 1st person viewpoints make perfect sense for this type of game. And controls are often designed to require more active participation by the gamer in the small details of the characters movements and actions. The Witcher is a good example of this. Which isn't to say such games can't have 'allies' in battle, but typically the gamer never controls the allied characters. WASD and mouse-control camera/movement (l&rmb=w, mouse movement = rotate left or right) are primarily designed to move a single character.
 
What DAO got really right was that you could handle combat and movement strictly party based (click to move) but also used a follow-the-leader system to allow the gamer to control a single lead character using either WASD or mouse-nav during exploration. And I think the 3rd person view for exploration is superior myself. It was a pretty awesome hybrid of the best of both worlds.
 
It seems to me that many of the issues in this thread come about because the game has removed a lot of the functionality required for good party-level control and game play. You see it with the much reduced implementation of the tactical cam. You see it with the disappearance of party members during mounted travel. You see it with removal of the 'select all' party members button (or the ability to simultaneously select all, at all). You see it with the removal of the ability to switch weapon sets. You see it with the default view being 3rd person. You see it with the removal of proper auto-attack (move to target, lock on, and fight until one of you is dead, then switch to nearest hostile and repeat unless given further orders). You see it with the removal of proper tactics. You see it with the removal of action queuing.
 
If you're a gamer who enjoyed the party-level gameplay of DAO, then DA2 and DAI represent a fundamental shift in game design that is intended to emphasize the moment to moment combat gameplay more typically associated with arpgs without preserving the party-based systems and gameplay that made DAO's combat fun for you.
 
If you're a gamer that prefers aRPG's, then you probably like this.
 
My strong suspicion is that the game devs testing the interface were primarily coming from the position of wanting a more aRPG-like experience in combat. From that perspective, the controls probably work great (with the obvious exception of not allowing a proper mouse-nav option instead of WASD for those that prefer it).
 
The existence of even the limited and useless tactical cam is a sop to the large criticism of it's removal in DA2. It demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of its role in primarily party-based RPG gameplay, or shows that Bioware have decided that they really don't care about party-based gameplay at all and it's just a checkbox for marketing purposes given the backlash to DA2. I suspect the latter.
 
Given that there are so many indications that party-based gameplay has been deliberately excised or marginalized in the game design, I very much doubt Bioware will actually reverse itself on some of these decisions now.
 
You might get proper mouse-nav back as an alternative to WASD movement and better mouse binding options.
You might get an option for auto-attack in 'action' mode. Maybe. With much passive aggressive begrudging at your intransigence by the dev team I'd guess. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though. The powers that be fundamentally altered the type of game that DA is after DAO. They do not want to make proper party based games any more it seems.
You might get a patch to increase the size of the tac cam area for PC-only. But only if it's really easy to implement.
Your chances of getting tactics back in DAI are non-existent IMO.
I will be shocked if they implemented switching of weapon sets or improving the number of slots for spells etc in the UI.
 
How can Bioware keep everyone happy? They can't with DAI. You either want a primarily aRPG with badly implemented CRPG trappings (companion dialogue, romances etc) or you don't. Going forward, they could solve the issue by having two primary control modes: tactical and action. Tactical mode would have a much improved party-level focused UI and control scheme, with all supporting systems. This would be like DAO's control system including click to move, action queuing, auto-targetting, auto attack, auto loot, etc. Gameplay would be intended to be at the party-level in this mode. No need for farting about with positioning, locking on, moving to pickup loot, holding buttons to keep attacking, etc. In action/exploration mode, basically, what you have in DAI. The intention of this mode is to faff about with character movement and being involved with combat and activities at the level of the individual, with other party members content to use their own AI to fight, or just play follow the leader.
 
But DAI's tactical mode appears to be a disaster and completely unsuited for purpose. Bioware needs to decide whether they still want to make a party-based game or not, and communicate their decision to the people still hoping for a proper party-based DA experience again. Otherwise they will keep disappointing a large subset of their customers.

Very good analysis of the game thus far. I realize you left out the concept of focusing on consoles when you talked about what they intended, and I understand you were trying to generalize the goals theses people were making for DAI. I however feel that in terms of control schemes, there were just not enough, or any, dissenting voices in the room to advise against removing so many traditional input fundamentals. In addition to the shift from party-based, as you describe, I think this also was a core contributor.

I just think, looking at what they ended up with, there needs to be more choice, why can't I explore the world with just LMB+RMB and jump mapped to one of my thumb buttons? Why is that not allowed?

[AnubisOnly]

Well, after so much time they could at least release a beta patch like it was for DAO and DA2, if they cared for community like they are saying.. ''Three patches on the way'', please bi***, just release one for now!

[Selzisv]

Talking about controls I would Like to point an obvious subject. Here's the thing: DA:I is meant to be playable WITHOUT never ever ever ever pausing. Tac cam IMO is nothing but an atempt to satisfy old DA:O dinosaurs like us. That being said, Tac cam for pad or console users is almost ok for me. We just need further zoom out and a work around to avoid obstacles in our sight. The real problem as I see it is that cam in pc is like... emulating pad controll (which I think is a reasonable good scheme) and that is terrible.

Don't get me wrong, I am a progammer and I can guess what kind of new challenges bioware faces to follow DA:O's aproach (a.k.a. vertical enviorments and mount/jump mechanic). So... the current control scheme for exploration is fine, I would say, BUT, DA:O fighting mechanics that take advantage of mouse and keyboard should be back. It is possible, just take a look and see how does tac cam work at the moment.

I would like them to fix crashes and performance before the above, but we need a proper pc control too. Me playing with a controller. World gone crazy haha.

[Crackseed]

Well, after so much time they could at least release a beta patch like it was for DAO and DA2, if they cared for community like they are saying.. ''Three patches on the way'', please bi***, just release one for now!

 

Releasing a patch prematurely could end up breaking your game worse than it may be now - you never want to jump the gun on patches, no matter how much we as fans think "It can't hurt - it'll fix some things!" - code never works that way. You fix one thing but if you didn't test that fix well enough you may have opened up 3 new bugs, one which might be crippling in the process.

 

Gotta be patient, no matter how much it sucks >_<

[Danoniero]

just release one for now!

And what? they delayed the game for month to polish It and you see whats going on, you really think they can make decent patch in week or so? Just wait few more days

[ZeshinX]

Very good analysis of the game thus far. I realize you left out the concept of focusing on consoles when you talked about what they intended, and I understand you were trying to generalize the goals theses people were making for DAI. I however feel that in terms of control schemes, there were just not enough, or any, dissenting voices in the room to advise against removing so many traditional input fundamentals. In addition to the shift from party-based, as you describe, I think this also was a core contributor.

I just think, looking at what they ended up with, there needs to be more choice, why can't I explore the world with just LMB+RMB and jump mapped to one of my thumb buttons? Why is that not allowed?

DAI is a kludge, much like the F-35.  Built to do a ton of different missions, and will do all of them badly....but it flies, it shoots missiles, and guns and goes really fast....but isn't particularly effective.  A good pilot can mitigate that somewhat (or good player for DAI), but it's still bad design mentality.

 

For me, I suspect DAI will follow in the footsteps of DA2....play through it once to completion, avoid DLC utterly, and then let it sit on the shelf collecting dust and removed from my hard drive.  I will then play either DAO or Skyrim...games designed to perform in a more narrow, but more successful, mission, CRPG or ARPG respectively.

[Brogan]

It's basically what happens when you take a PC game from a traditionally PC-based genre and try to attract a console audience. You end up dumbing the game down, simplifying concepts and changing control systems which simply burns your core customers (PC owners). I don't know whether Bioware were intentionally deceitful in their claims of "Controls designed for the PC when playing on the PC" or simply careless with their language, either way expectation management towards the PC community was mishandled badly and has resulted in this backlash. Regardless of the reasons, DA:O was the last truly great game they made for the PC. Everything since then has been a console port. As a result this is the last Bioware game I pre-order without waiting to see reviews that categorically state it has proper PC controls. I'm a PC gamer, I don't own a Console controller, I don't want to own a Console controller, I want to use the Mouse and Keyboard to play the game.

 

With all that said, Origins and DA2 were both developed separately for console.

 

IMO, that's where they diverged for DAI.  That's why there's so many resultant problems now.

[Razael]

As a result this is the last Bioware game I pre-order without waiting to see reviews that categorically state it has proper PC controls.

 

I really hope that you, myself, and every one here remembes this once bioware releases their next title. I understand it's a business. I understand they need to port to consoles, but what I will never accept is being lied to. Bioware CLEARLY stated that they were catering to their PC audience and that it was "a PC game built by PC gamers." I will not keep beating this dead horse, but please guys, we consumers are the only thing that can stop these disgusting business strategies that appear to be a norm now.

 

If you want to keep PC gaming alive, or at the very least, if you want to be respected as a consumer, make a statement and do not tolerate what bioware/EA is doing. As I stated before, I am not giving my money away to businesses that have these awful practices, and I sincerely hope that enough people follow so that this company (and others) realize that lying to consumers is not a viable way to increase profits.

[Tremere]

I dont think that those are bugs, they are just features  

*laughs & laughs* You're probably right.

[Danoniero]

I really hope that you, myself, and every one here remembes this once bioware releases their next title. I understand it's a business. I understand they need to port to consoles, but what I will never accept is being lied to.

That is not the first game with that kind of problems, there is tone of games that were barely playable after release but people still keep preordering games, gamers are either to addicted to resist or to naive to see things as they are.

 

New Assassins Creed is in worse condition IMO but people still defending It and even buying premium versions of this companion mobile app just to get 100% synch in game. They require you to use phone, play on console/pc plus manage initiates website. I do not even mention the bugs and FPS issues users have. Dragon Age compared to that is a perfectly polished and very wisely designed product.

 

BTW anybody noticed that DAI, FIFA15, and new ACU have same DRM and all three games are swarmed with bugs and poor framerate?

[Razael]

That is not the first game with that kind of problems, there is tone of games that were barely playable after release but people still keep preordering games, gamers are either to addicted to resist or to naive to see things as they are.

 

One thing is having problems/bugs on release, but to base your marketing strategy on a blatent lie is another thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first time Bioware does this?

[Brogan]

Tac cam IMO is nothing but an atempt to satisfy old DA:O dinosaurs like us.

 

Nah, not at all.  In DAO, it was not even a separate camera.  You could edge scroll during pause.  That's it.  Everything else was exactly the same as regular gameplay:  camera control, auto attack, click to move.  All exactly the same in or out of the "Tac Cam" - which was not a different mode, but merely what you had "while paused".

 

In DA2, it was basically the same, all we lost was the edge scrolling while paused, and a slightly longer zoom.  And considering the graphics of DA2 were kind of unimpressive, that lack of zoom wasn't a big deal out of combat.

 

No, Tac Cam in DAI is purely for the console version.  The fact that they did not bother to take it (and it's ridiculous ground cursor control scheme) out of the pc version - is where the problem lies.

 

Here's the thing: DA:I is meant to be playable WITHOUT never ever ever ever pausing.

 

If you feel that is true then it is even more of an admonishment on the design team, since pause exists on all platforms.  It's not even lazy porting...  it's just... lazy.

[craigdolphin]

Very good analysis of the game thus far. I realize you left out the concept of focusing on consoles when you talked about what they intended, and I understand you were trying to generalize the goals theses people were making for DAI. I however feel that in terms of control schemes, there were just not enough, or any, dissenting voices in the room to advise against removing so many traditional input fundamentals. In addition to the shift from party-based, as you describe, I think this also was a core contributor.

I just think, looking at what they ended up with, there needs to be more choice, why can't I explore the world with just LMB+RMB and jump mapped to one of my thumb buttons? Why is that not allowed?

Thanks.

 

I was deliberate in not viewing this as consoles vs pc. After all, the gameplay with a controller on pc is exactly the same. The platform itself is irrelevant. The input paradigm is somewhat relevant (controllers vs kb&m; clearly the kbm controls are flawed for mouse-nav users, not as bad for WASD users) The issue is that the game itself has been designed around a totally different paradigm: party vs individual level gameplay. Yes, there's still /some/ ability to move between these modes but it is clear that the game design is first and foremost aimed at the individual (aRPG) level and that any systems required only for party-based play were at the bottom of the priority list (if they were ever on it at all).

 

I think there WERE dissenting voices regarding the shift in emphasis. I just think they lost the argument.

 

The lead designer of DAO turned down the role of lead on DA2 after the early design meetings and changes to the top-level design vision for the next game in the franchise became evident. He subsequently left the company entirely because he didn't see a future at Bioware making the kinds of games he wanted to make and decided to give writing a shot (he sounded pretty burned out at the time). Also, the franchise producer(?) during that time (Dan Tudge) left the company at some point around then although as far as I know he never explained the why's and wherefores.His departure could be totally unrelated and conicidental, but also might not be. As I understand it,Tudge was replaced by Mark Darrah.

 

To be clear, Mike Laidlaw was the lead designer of the console version of DAO and was promoted to the lead for the franchise after the PC version was already completed and the former lead stepped aside. The PC version of Origins was completed many months before release and before Mike became the overall lead for the franchise. Mike previously was lead for Jade Empire. While the former lead has never gone into details about exactly what aspects of the revised design document he objected to, I suspect it was the shift away from party-based gaemplay towards action RPG gameplay he wasn't too keen on (speculation on my part). He cites BG as his favorite game that he worked on in Bioware.

 

The QA folks could not really file issues regarding a gameplay mode that had been essentially deprecated by the top-level boffins. The removal of critical systems to support party based play was intentional. They can only play as intended by the lead designer, and file issues around that. Clearly, none of the testers used mouse-nav as their primary means of interacting with the game. That was a QA control paradigm that they totally goofed on IMO.But the rest of these issues are either intentional, or the result of prioritization inflicted by the change in engine and limitations of time and resources.

[Danoniero]

One thing is having problems/bugs on release, but to base your marketing strategy on a blatent lie is another thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first time Bioware does this?

 

Maybe first time, but Ubisoft did that with Watch Dogs and they got pretty good pre purchase sales on Unity. Hyped gamer is a stupid gamer.

So after new DA or any Bio game will be annouced everyone will forget about Inquisition and will preorder next game.

OK there will be some that won't buy It but that will be like a drop in the sea.

[Brogan]

One thing is having problems/bugs on release, but to base your marketing strategy on a blatent lie is another thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first time Bioware does this?

 

It is for the DA franchise, that's for sure.

 

I have never played a Mass Effect game, so I couldn't say regarding those titles.

 

If you were around here during the end of the summer...  there were conspiracy theories all over the place.  Hell I even started a thread asking them to show evidence of a mouse cursor in-game because all the footage to that point was console only.

[saladinbob]

First off, why the hell can I not quote in this blasted forum?

 

Secondly, @Brogan, that goes to the heart of the problem. Bioware has decided to take the franchise and attempted to blur the boundaries between Action and RPG genres resulting in the game being a mess because it's neither truly one or the other. The action part of the game works entirely as intended whereas the RPG elements simply do not because they're being undermined by the action elements. Bioware need to make a choice; either Dragon Age franchise is an RPG or an Action game. If it's the latter then it needs to shift away from being party based and focus more on a TES/Witcher-esq game that's one person being controlled directly by the player. If it's the former then go back to their routes of DA:O, Baldur's Gate etc. and have proper party control systems in. No more *****-footing around the middle ground, make a choice so we as consumers know what sort of game this is and so can make an informed choice on whether to buy. 

[MacroN0va]

I think DA2's interface was pretty similar to DA:O, it just didn't have that isometric tactical camera that required all interiors to have detachable roofs. My big gripes with DA2's combat were the cartoony animations and the AnotherWave enemy spawns, but I got used to the interface pretty quickly (I actually can't remember now if we were able to pan the camera, and I know in some cases it was hard to target AoE spells, but it was a relatively minor issue). DA:I feels like a big departure from the party-based combat of previous games, and other than giving DA2 a worse rap than it deserves, craigdolphin's analysis is very astute.