19127 réponses à ce sujet

[Brogan]

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.

 

Yes, agreed.  And while I admit to there being fond memories that can often get in the way, it's obvious that things were not going to stay the same.  There were clear signs that the overall direction of the franchise would have to evolve with the financial environment.

 

I always approached the 3rd game with the mindset that I would be willing to try anything, willing to attempt to make any input method work, purely because there was an expectation there regarding the story.  It was always going to be a great game because it's the 3rd in the story.  You had things you know you are going to see.

 

However now, with all the uproar over the pc controls, I've decided not to start my game until these things are fixed.  And even if I wanted to say, screw that I need to see what happens, after all these bug reports, I don't dare start playing just yet.

[am0n]

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

 

I would almost agree with you.  However, without a way to set party Tactics, ala DA:O or DA2, it's not really a "Play the main guy and your party is AI controlled," given that the AI is terrible.  I played DA2 exactly how you suggested; I controlled Hawke and let my party do what I set via the tactics and it was great.  I got to be Hawke and had help from some others.

 

But that's a lot harder to do when failure to issue orders to your companions causes your ranged users to charge into melee.

[MIskonius]

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

 

Me too (apart from DA2), and now we got this...

We have been screwed people, plain and simple.

Dumbing down gameplay mechanic and console centric UI has been the main policy for most of the game developers

and as we seen with DA2 with Bioware as well.

I would also like to point out to something that I noticed with Bioware but also with other developers and that is art style.

All of you might remember that DAo has tried to realistically portray characters/models but with DA2 they went for a more cartoonish design.

Its like some Japanese hipster did the faces and the animations for DA2 as well as for DAI.

I have no idea what is up with this new trend nowadays where once serious games try to look like a mockery of themselves.

 

 

PS

 

No use in using that camera hack from Olegbi, its nice to see it but completely useless during the gameplay...

[Razael]

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

 

I did. Fan shout outs were geared more towards the modifying of what kind of became a cult game (mass effect 1). It was more old school, so hardcore fans rejected it a lot. Regardless of my opinion on how ME2 and 3 played (more combat/console heavy), it was still a very good and smooth experience that was defintely geared towards consoles, especially on the third installment.

 

But still, they never said ME3 was created around a PC experience. Maybe most fans didn't like their new business strategy, but at least bioware didn't lie about it.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

Was DA2 developed separately? I thought only DA:O had a truly separate PC dev cycle (where the console version was ported over at a later date).

I know they fired Brent , lead designer of DA:O so that Mike Laidlaw could develop the console version of DA:O.

Fast forward five years with Laidlaw developing Inquisiton...

[Oryctolagus]

I would almost agree with you.  However, without a way to set party Tactics, ala DA:O or DA2, it's not really a "Play the main guy and your party is AI controlled," given that the AI is terrible.  I played DA2 exactly how you suggested; I controlled Hawke and let my party do what I set via the tactics and it was great.  I got to be Hawke and had help from some others.

 

But that's a lot harder to do when failure to issue orders to your companions causes your ranged users to charge into melee.

 

Off-topic & just curious, as I started an archer last night.  Have you/how has your experience been with setting the rangeds' escape skills to preferred via settings?  I've read comments that this solves the issue of charging into melee, or alleviates it significantly.

[saladinbob]

Miskonius, the problem isn't that they dumbed down the control system for consoles, it's that they told PC gamers they had controls suitable for their platform when clearly we do not. Their failure was not so much in game design as expectation management. I, myself only pre-ordered the game after watching a Twitch broadcast where the developer specifically said PC controls would be on the PC version of the game. I disliked DA2 so much that I would never have bought this game had I known the issues it has. Whether inadvertently or intentionally, I feel like I was lied to on that Twitch stream.

[craigdolphin]

I would almost agree with you.  However, without a way to set party Tactics, ala DA:O or DA2, it's not really a "Play the main guy and your party is AI controlled," given that the AI is terrible.  I played DA2 exactly how you suggested; I controlled Hawke and let my party do what I set via the tactics and it was great.  I got to be Hawke and had help from some others.

 

But that's a lot harder to do when failure to issue orders to your companions causes your ranged users to charge into melee.

You're right: the new tactics is extremely dumbed-down. I strongly suspect that this primarily the result of the switch in engines, and lack of time to properly develop the tactics system to the same level as before. I would not be surprised to see this beefed up again in the next game as it doesn't undermine the goal of having the player continuously engaged during combat. On the other hand, if they want you to be continually engaging during combat, a dumbed down system works 'well enough' to still let you play that way, and heck, maybe even forces you to engage hands-on with other party members more often when the AI does stupid stuff. They might even view that as an acceptable outcome in the short as it 'involves' you more and forces you to play the different roles/classes.

[Tarzilman]

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.

What is a sea when it's not made out of drops?

[Brogan]

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. 

 

Agreed, there is a clear 'uncertainty' in how the game is presented.  It's not working for Bioware, either.  Lot of people are not sure they even want to try Inquisition because they see questions on how the game is controlled on pc.

 

That said, I am such a fan of the series, I would gladly play it as either one.  I just want to get the most enjoyment from it.  Pff...  I doubt I'd get that right now...

[Brogan]

I would almost agree with you.  However, without a way to set party Tactics, ala DA:O or DA2, it's not really a "Play the main guy and your party is AI controlled," given that the AI is terrible.  I played DA2 exactly how you suggested; I controlled Hawke and let my party do what I set via the tactics and it was great.  I got to be Hawke and had help from some others.

 

But that's a lot harder to do when failure to issue orders to your companions causes your ranged users to charge into melee.

 

Sheesh...  I can't even imagine how frustrating that must be.

[Brogan]

Me too (apart from DA2), and now we got this...

We have been screwed people, plain and simple.

Dumbing down gameplay mechanic and console centric UI has been the main policy for most of the game developers

and as we seen with DA2 with Bioware as well.

I would also like to point out to something that I noticed with Bioware but also with other developers and that is art style.

All of you might remember that DAo has tried to realistically portray characters/models but with DA2 they went for a more cartoonish design.

Its like some Japanese hipster did the faces and the animations for DA2 as well as for DAI.

I have no idea what is up with this new trend nowadays where once serious games try to look like a mockery of themselves.

 

 

PS

 

No use in using that camera hack from Olegbi, its nice to see it but completely useless during the gameplay...

 

At least as far as DA2, I made heavy use of the Nexus mods page to alter the look of many characters as well as party members.  I don't think any of the companions in DA were using thier default textures (except Anders, because I never used that worthless tool)

[Brogan]

Was DA2 developed separately? I thought only DA:O had a truly separate PC dev cycle (where the console version was ported over at a later date).

I know they fired Brent , lead designer of DA:O so that Mike Laidlaw could develop the console version of DA:O.

Fast forward five years with Laidlaw developing Inquisiton...

 

ikr...

[craigdolphin]

I know they fired Brent , lead designer of DA:O so that Mike Laidlaw could develop the console version of DA:O.

 

No, Brent resigned.

 

From http://blog.brentkno...2/#comment-5072

 

 

Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter.

 

Through a series of circumstances it was decided that with my not wanting to participate on Dragon Age 2 it was time to transition in a new lead to finish the Dragon Age console versions and ramp up for Dragon Age 2. I moved out of an active lead role though I stayed on for several months performing quality assurance and helping with the transition. I completed the game several times during this period and racked up the second or third highest bug totals… so, still busy but doing something quite different.

After this was over and the content locked down I took a sabbatical.

 

Sabbatical
I wrote a lot during my several weeks of sabbatical time. One of the stories I wrote — “Digital Rights” — went on to win the Writers of the Future contest (though I wouldn’t learn that until late in 2009). While I enjoyed devoting my time to writing and spending more time with my kids I still had the ‘game design’ itch. When I returned to work I was hoping that there would be a new project lined up for me.

 

There wasn’t, not really. I did some high level design for a potential new project but a few months later I realized that, given cutbacks and other things that it really seemed unlikely that the project I had been ‘assigned’ to was ever going to materialize. I can’t/won’t go into any other details other than to point to an old entry I made about this and reiterate: “I’m not the same person I was when I started, and BioWare isn’t the same company. ”

The End

So I quit, giving a couple months notice to finish up my obligations on the new/hypothetical project and then in early September 2009 I left BioWare. I had a great last lunch with many of the designers I had helped train over the years. I definitely miss all the interaction at the office; there’s nothing like a couple hundred uber creative folk running around to stir the imagination but I am very much enjoying my stress reduced life.

[TobyJake]

Was DA2 developed separately? I thought only DA:O had a truly separate PC dev cycle (where the console version was ported over at a later date).

I know they fired Brent , lead designer of DA:O so that Mike Laidlaw could develop the console version of DA:O.

Fast forward five years with Laidlaw developing Inquisiton...

As Eric Idle so well put it, "say No More..."

[saladinbob]

Can I just point out that this topic is 'PC Community concerns', i.e. a place to voice constructive dissatisfaction of the PC version of DA:I. Starting a blame game, talking about who was fired/resigned or engaging in a Console vs. PC war argument will simply derail the thread for the devs/community manager and nothing will be achieved. Let's try keep it specific to the purpose and constructive, eh?

[Brogan]

If somebody trying to weed through a 157 page thread gets derailed by a couple off-topic posts out of the thousands he has to quick-scan, he's not the man for the job, IMO.

[MIskonius]

Miskonius, the problem isn't that they dumbed down the control system for consoles, it's that they told PC gamers they had controls suitable for their platform when clearly we do not. Their failure was not so much in game design as expectation management. I, myself only pre-ordered the game after watching a Twitch broadcast where the developer specifically said PC controls would be on the PC version of the game. I disliked DA2 so much that I would never have bought this game had I known the issues it has. Whether inadvertently or intentionally, I feel like I was lied to on that Twitch stream.

 

I dont know I as well as the other  haters were very skeptical from the beginning.

Manga design and animations, flashy effects etc and from UI what we saw this was going to be DA2 in a Skyrim environment which was bad enough.

I dont know is it me  and my age (I am 30) but over time i have developed sense to recognize a salesman or a liar and that bearded guy who was doing most

of the talking is the prime example of such sorts.

And he is very good at it

But even if there wasnt him, they said there will be no healers, there will be potion crafting, limitations to 8 spells or abilities, potion limitations, they havent showed tactical slots etc. Even if there was TacCam like in Origins it woudln make much sense, since micromanaging is non existent with such limitations from above.

I was expecting a mediocre game and i got it, i am bitching mostly here cause it pains to see what we ended up with after Origins...

As I said earlier, the game is broken in its design, it tries too many things and achieves nothing

Same can be said for Bf4 Vs Bf3...

How did this game receive 9/10 across the board is beyond me...

Kevin Van Ord (Gamespot) probably the only mainstream reviewer whose opinion i can take seriously gave it 9/10

and what he saw in this game escapes me...

 

At least as far as DA2, I made heavy use of the Nexus mods page to alter the look of many characters as well as party members.  I don't think any of the companions in DA were using thier default textures (except Anders, because I never used that worthless tool)

 

I played it just after the release, no mods were available then, and to be frank mods can improve the game to an extent they cant fix it by any means...

[Bavarian Warden]

Are we here yet?

[Brogan]

Are we here yet?

 

We've all been like this

Spoiler

, for 2 weeks now.

[Lostspace]

Wow, talk about missing the point.

 

I love how you say it's obsolete, and yet fail to give any example of a game that actually used it.  Maybe you are just assuming games you didn't play used it?

 

The fact is, no games actually use "click to move" as a way to play the game, or rather as a way to move/navigate through-out the game. 

 

Click to Move, for Dragon Age, is solely and singularly about the Pause feature, during combat.  The ability to order party members to move to specific locations while paused, and let their respective tactics and/or auto-attack play out when you Un-Pause the game.  The ability to manipulate the battle while paused to allow your team to have a tactical advantage.  That's what Dragon Age combat has been all about since day 1.

 

In DAI, they need to allow click to move in the regular Action Cam.  NOT to explore that way  (That is what RMB+LMB=move forward should be), NOT to spend the whole game click-click-clicking the ground like a moron (which nobody actually ever did), but as a way to make team combat easier than struggling with only 1 method, wasd, to do anything.

 

Ok, well, I'm going to stand up as a moron then.  I ONLY ever played these games using click to move.  To be honest, I find it to be a very accurate method of movement, as I can go to the exact point I mean to go to by clicking that spot....which I find just as useful as using click to move in combat.  I wasn't even aware that RMB+LMB or WASD movement existed.  Since following this thread I've tested RMB+LMB, it doesn't seem too bad (not that I wouldn't PREFER click to move....but I wouldn't complain if I had RMB+LMB as I still believe I should be able to use my mouse for almost everything related to movement and battle, aside from say pause or jump or scanning for loot). 

[Brogan]

Ok, well, I'm going to stand up as a moron then.  I ONLY ever played these games using click to move.  To be honest, I find it to be a very accurate method of movement, as I can go to the exact point I mean to go to by clicking that spot....which I find just as useful as using click to move in combat.  I wasn't even aware that RMB+LMB or WASD movement existed.  Since following this thread I've tested RMB+LMB, it doesn't seem too bad (not that I wouldn't PREFER click to move....but I wouldn't complain if I had RMB+LMB as I still believe I should be able to use my mouse for almost everything related to movement and battle, aside from say pause or jump or scanning for loot). 

 

I didn't intend to describe anyone as a moron.  I apologize for that.  The reference was purely personal, as I actually remember the point in DAO at which I realized that LMB+RMB existed and saved me alot of effort, and I ultimately felt like a moron for not checking the user's manual beforehand.

 

I clearly relied heavily on it during combat, however.  I still don't understand why they removed it from regular gameplay.

[Gothfather]

Frankly I have no idea what the issue is with some PC gamers. While I find the tactical camera has limitations its functionality is very good. Its major limitation for me is that it doesn't scroll out far enough to provide a proper view of the battle from a top down perspective. I can get all the functionality from the tactics camera and the current level of tactics & behaviours provides me with the tools to shape the battle. I am required to MANAGE my party now vs letting the AI do all the heavy lifting. I don't think that is a bad thing.

 

I have found that on nightmare I am required to use the tactical cam to win boss fights. This means I got over my initial awkwardness of the controls, I rebound the tactical camera controls so wasd moves the camera forward/back and left/right vs moving the camera forward/back and turning the camera left or right. That went a LOOOOONG way in getting  comfortable with the tac cam. Using the mouse to turn in tac cam and the keys to move the camera  gave me a unified control system for each input device. The default controls divide the turning the camera on the vertical & horizontal planes to 1/2on the keyboard and 1/2 on the mouse. Its no wonder its so awkward for most pc users. If the only way to turn the camera is via the mouse then it takes only a couple of combats to get use to the tac cam controls.

 

I found being forced to adjust to the tac cam because I was playing on the highest difficulty and changing the key binds for the tac cam resulted in me adapting to the game at hand. I now find it enjoyable and functional. I am jumping from party member to party member in battles. I feel full agency over my party and I found that in the tac cam mode they handle themselves very well.  

 

I think people didn't get the game they wanted so need to lash out and they blame it on consoles, really much of the QQ is based on design choices Bioware has taken from PC only games. The search mechanic has NOTHING to do with consoles, it was taken from the witcher 2 a PC only game. Now you can argue that you don't like it that it is an immersive breaking feature and do so fairly but it is simply ignorant to blame this on consoles. Second much maligned feature blamed on consoles is the limited active powers you can use. Again this was a feature first developed on a pc only game, GUILD WARS. Now you can argue that you don't like it, that it limits your choices in combat or that there in no need for this in a single player game, but it is ignorant to blame it on consoles.

 

It is logically inconsistent to blame design features that first appeared on PC only games and attribute these features to being in DA:I because of consoles. It doesn't make sense. Its almost a meaningless mantra of SOME PC gamers to blame any design feature they don't like on consoles.

 

I do know that the controls going from one form of combat to the next to NOT flow so players wanting a seamless transition from one form to the next are going to have a problem. I use click to walk in combat all the time, it simply something I accept not being able to do in "action" mode and since I don't want to play in "action" mode its not a problem for me. I think the major issues SOME PC users are having is they want action combat to behave like tac combat without having to go into tactical combat mode. This said I do use "action" mode combat for scrubs as its easier with a long range heavy party. But if too many of them reach my party and are in melee range I switch to tac camera and I have full agency over my companions. I really don't think it is a step backwards for game play to limit what options can be scripted for the AI by the player. DA:O was dumbed down combat because the tactics could do all the work. When combat is such that you don't have to do much at all but let your scripts make all  the combat decisions then combat is DUMBED down. When you LIMIT what you can do with scripts so it FORCES the player to make tactical decision vs letting a script do it you have not by definition dumbed down combat, You have forced combat to be more of an intellectual endeavour because YOU must determine when to react to X threat with y ability. This means you have to regulate your companions abilities and behaviours so you can make these choices when needed. 

 

Case in point I run a tank, ranged rogue (Pc), and two barrier mages, party. One barrier mage I keep his mana reserve at 50% and remove barrier from the rotation of spells. The second barrier mage I keep  their reserve at 30% and put barrier as a priority. This allows me to ALMOST always have barrier ready and waiting to slap on my tank and keeps one mage always putting up a barrier when its ready protecting the group. This combo gives means I don't have to micromanage barrier but allows me to put up a timely barrier when my tank gets into trouble or any other party member for that matter. Now I am still working out what behaviours are best for what role but the game is new. I have been able to adapt to the system in DA:I and I enjoy that party combat is now no longer a "Set up my tactics perfectly, start combat, go get a coffee, come back and pick up my loot," affair anymore. I think its a huge step forward in game play when the player is actually REQUIRED to make combat decisions.

 

I know that some players are having technical problems, my game was crashing a lot the first week I played the game and the reason was I had a non-recommended setting level video card. I bought an AMD R9 290 using the beta drivers and I have had 1 crash since. This game is NOT low end computer friendly at all, this is similar to a "benchmark" game used to test the power of a system. It does need some more optimization but I believe most of the technical issues are from people trying to run the game with older systems. 

 

The above said; I still think there need to be tweaks and things are nt perfect but it is hardly the doom and gloom SOME PC gamers at painting.

[BammBamm]

@gothfather

 

exactly my experience and opinion about the tactical mode

 

a bigger problem is that the ai wander around an enemy while autoattack ( flank and back attack problem) and everybody likes to priorize your target when you not babysitting them (tank problem)

[Krustus]

Well that's a little dramatic, no?

 

In the world of console ports, DAI is one of the best, in the midst of all the problems.

 

So you just cheated your friends out of playing a really great game.

 

BTW, if this is your view on DAI, what are you even doing here?

 

Nah, i just "cheated" EAware for their money, if you want to say it like this. They dont deserve more support for this false advertisement and this whole pc-port debacle.

It just cant be that a Multimilliondollar company can lie to a whole costumerbase without consequences.

 

And what i am doing here? I pre-orderd this game because i fell for the false advertisement and trusted them. The whole From Pc-gamers for Pc-gamers...i just believed them. Now i am one of the poor guys, waiting for some patch...or a live-sign. 

 

And also i sayed to myself: "Ea are giving review copies early to gaming sites. this is not the norm. they must be really convinced in their product"

 

And then every review was positiv, stating the PC-Port were allright. Just one magazin gave DA:I a slap in the face with 59% - mainly because of the crappy port...I just should have listened to them.

 

So in a nutshell: i feel cheated and betrayed because of false advertismenet. And it wouldnt be a good friendship if i dont try to warn my friends  What they do is up to them, but i informed them and they made a decision. 

 

Sorry for my horrible english, its hard to write for me