19127 réponses à ce sujet

[Bethgael]

ok you totally missing the point. first its about point and click and not 2 mouse buttons.

 

Actually, I believe you did. Go back and read the last 300 pages.

[BammBamm]

Actually, I believe you did. Go back and read the last 300 pages.

 

but i quoted and replied to a post with the point and click theme so still missed the point

[TobyJake]

Do you need to physically move to the container to loot it? If you can see it then you should be able to get the contents. Tho I doubt it, the way you have to be on top of something to access it! Really you are not breaking any physics to do with terrain, just increase the selectable distance. This is not Click to Move. That is really to do with autoattack. There is definitely something in the code regarding your orientation to the object. Ladders for instance!!! If you are not directly in front of the ladder the cursor never changes. So many annoying instances of this. Maybe its Frostbyte, but I think that mouse was never really in the plot for programming. Shame really.

[BobaFett]

ok you totally missing the point. first its about point and click and not 2 mouse buttons. second someone cannot give examples for point and click where it is the only valid type of control. third what nobody sees is the technical point, more complex level architecture, higher sightdistance = much more trouble for pathfinding of an ai. name me just one game with big and complex levels with point and click controls. there is a reason why point and click in tactical works but not in exploring mode. 

 

its not that the game needs a lot more love, especially for pc users, but stay realistic. to make point and click work in open world can be very difficult and im pretty sure they already tright it and wasnt satisfied by the results. maybe there will be no point and click because of this problems. bigger zoom out in tactical, the problem here is not the zoom level of the camera, its just changing a view numbers, the real deal is the transparence of things that locks your sight. maybe frostbyte got troubles with making things dynamical transparent and  a tiny little problem can become one that isnt solvable.

both of these little wishes can be technical monsters to be beaten and dont expect that they are solved. i'm pretty sure some things in the game are as they are for a reason.

 

 

I'm completely baffled by your entire post and reasoning behind it TBH.    If the frostbyte engine won't allow proper usage of the keyboard and mouse, won't allow the tactical cam to be usable, and many other issues........THEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE USED IT!  If they are that ignorant, and bound by EA's bullshit timelines, that they are willing to put out garbage, that needs patch after patch to fix HUGE glaring issues that shouldn't have made it past alpha, let alone beta, and threads that are 300+ pages of people complaining about everything PC related, then they no longer deserve my money.  I have already stopped playing the game after 3 hours of absolute displeasure of trying to control...pretty much every thing from my own guy, to my party, to looting, to the tac cam, and the list goes on and on.

 

The thing is, its not even just the controls, although thats why i will no longer play, but other things that have ZERO to do with the frostbyte engine.  Healing spells being removed from a fantasy RPG that still has casters/mages, attributes that literally mean NOTHING in an RPG, a crafting system that is absolutely terrible and this is just a small sample of things i despise about the game.  To me this game has become,  "who do i want to f*ck?"  Its barely an RPG anymore.

 

Bottom line, if they can't solve the problems in a game that weren't even there in the earlier games in the series, then thats fine, i just won't play it anymore, and they will get no more money out of me.  They already lost my business for ME4, and now i'll never buy another DA game either.  At least I still have good ol' Bethesda.  Until EA gets their greedy mitts on them too, then i'll quit buying their products as well.  every company that EA infects just ruins gaming series'.   UGH

[Ncongruous]

ok you totally missing the point. first its about point and click and not 2 mouse buttons. second someone cannot give examples for point and click where it is the only valid type of control. third what nobody sees is the technical point, more complex level architecture, higher sightdistance = much more trouble for pathfinding of an ai. name me just one game with big and complex levels with point and click controls. there is a reason why point and click in tactical works but not in exploring mode. 
 
its not that the game needs a lot more love, especially for pc users, but stay realistic. to make point and click work in open world can be very difficult and im pretty sure they already tright it and wasnt satisfied by the results. maybe there will be no point and click because of this problems. bigger zoom out in tactical, the problem here is not the zoom level of the camera, its just changing a view numbers, the real deal is the transparence of things that locks your sight. maybe frostbyte got troubles with making things dynamical transparent and  a tiny little problem can become one that isnt solvable.
both of these little wishes can be technical monsters to be beaten and dont expect that they are solved. i'm pretty sure some things in the game are as they are for a reason.

The first two things are frivolous but the third - well, let's talk about the third, shall we Canada?
 
Complex architecture. Much of the architecture is very simple. It only seems complex as you walk through various set pieces but much of it is just crisscrossing passageways. That may sound glib but even in the Western Edge for example with all its various tunnels that snake along the eastern and western sides; they are quite simple. So what makes pathfinding AI difficult here? Possibly running out of bounds? Resulting in jarring teleportation or snapping. A behavior I remind you that is already present in the game. I am sincerely curious and in no way attempting to be condescending.
 
A higher sight distance creating difficulties. I assume whatever maths of plotting walking points can become increasingly complex as the user attempts to move the PC and crew to locales in the distance. But I don't think the nav mesh that the AI uses is all that complex. If you constrain the AI to not navigate, drop loot or fight on impossible slopes it could work. This is pretty proven stuff.
 
Rendering I believe is where the headaches truly lay as you go on to describe. You can't zoom out and simply render as you used to. Rather you could, but it would not be as optimized. There are solutions for this without a doubt. But occlusion and highlighting from on high should not be a leviathan of a task. That being said I don't see third person view as an entrenched overly optimized method either. Third person view is filled with occasional spurts of madness and rendering faux pas. I have also witnessed "zooming out" accomplished already though I've not personally attempted it. Thus it's not infeasible, practicality aside.
 
When a floor painter starts painting at the door or (decides on/is forced into) using an engine meant for other designs, there's going to be problems. This really does not paint a very positive outlook for ME if these problems are too big to tackle. There are a lot of unknowns for me personally and most likely issues I've missed. I agree that it will be difficult and it will of course take work to remedy. Be aware that acquiescing and showing deference means your okay with it happening again.

This specific change is important for me, so thx for this

I read about (and saw with great horror) the clicking of a 'search button' in order to highlight loot.... that's really not something I think I'll enjoy. I'd much prefer it to just be highlighted when I hold a button, or to be able to turn "always highlight" on in the options menu. Hope to see this

It is indeed some times the smallest change that can inspire. I too enjoyed it greatly And yes, totally with you on key to (toggle/show while keydown) loot/materials rather than pinging.

[shushNMD]

ME4 on frostbite 3? I can't see any problems here at all. And no, it is not a sarcasm. ME series were always an action RPG, where you shoot at waves of enemies or take cover and whatnot. So, in a sense, FB3 suits perfectly for a game like Mass Effect, but not so good for dragon age.
I just wish that they would start experimenting with the new engine on a game that was more suited to that.

[Brogan]

but i quoted and replied to a post with the point and click theme so still missed the point

 

No, you didn't.  You said this rubbish:  "maybe frostbyte got troubles with making things dynamical transparent and  a tiny little problem can become one that isnt solvable."

 

This guy did though:

 

The first two things are frivolous but the third - well, let's talk about the third, shall we Canada?
 
Complex architecture. Much of the architecture is very simple. It only seems complex as you walk through various set pieces but much of it is just crisscrossing passageways. That may sound glib but even in the Western Edge for example with all its various tunnels that snake along the eastern and western sides; they are quite simple. So what makes pathfinding AI difficult here? Possibly running out of bounds? Resulting in jarring teleportation or snapping. A behavior I remind you that is already present in the game. I am sincerely curious and in no way attempting to be condescending.
 
A higher sight distance creating difficulties. I assume whatever maths of plotting walking points can become increasingly complex as the user attempts to move the PC and crew to locales in the distance. But I don't think the nav mesh that the AI uses is all that complex. If you constrain the AI to not navigate, drop loot or fight on impossible slopes it could work. This is pretty proven stuff.
 
Rendering I believe is where the headaches truly lay as you go on to describe. You can't zoom out and simply render as you used to. Rather you could, but it would not be as optimized. There are solutions for this without a doubt. But occlusion and highlighting from on high should not be a leviathan of a task. That being said I don't see third person view as an entrenched overly optimized method either. Third person view is filled with occasional spurts of madness and rendering faux pas. I have also witnessed "zooming out" accomplished already though I've not personally attempted it. Thus it's not infeasible, practicality aside.
 
When a floor painter starts painting at the door or (decides on/is forced into) using an engine meant for other designs, there's going to be problems. This really does not paint a very positive outlook for ME if these problems are too big to tackle. There are a lot of unknowns for me personally and most likely issues I've missed. I agree that it will be difficult and it will of course take work to remedy. Be aware that acquiescing and showing deference means your okay with it happening again.

It is indeed some times the smallest change that can inspire. I too enjoyed it greatly And yes, totally with you on key to (toggle/show while keydown) loot/materials rather than pinging.

 

Like Bethgael said, it seems you missed the point.  This is Bioware.  They should know how to solve these problems.  The fact that we haven't heard squat about the details of the majority of these features is a heavy indicator that they (Bioware) are just now attempting to implement a number of features that should have been implemented years ago when programming for DAI began (ie walk toggle).

 

[edeheusch]

funny to name a isometric action rpg and a rts as examples for point and click. in isometric you cant play with wasd because of the axxis, in rts you have to order dozens of troops so you cant babyset every single one with action controls.

and in tactic mode where point and click is mostly needed its there.

You do realise that for many people (myself included) DAO was an isometric tactical RPG and that Bioware advertised that the isometric/tactical view of DAO was back in DAI?

 

I agree that the RTS was a bad comparison but the fact that a recent action RPG offers a better tactical view than DAI speak a lot. The fact that they have removed the auto-attack, click to move and the other similar features to make a better action experience just appears to be a poor justification.  

 

Personally, it just give me the feeling that the difference is that the gameplay of D3 on PC has been developed with PC gamers in mind and that the gameplay of DAI on PC has been ported from console with budged in mind.

[Ncongruous]

ME4 on frostbite 3? I can't see any problems here at all. And no, it is not a sarcasm. ME series were always an action RPG, where you shoot at waves of enemies or take cover and whatnot. So, in a sense, FB3 suits perfectly for a game like Mass Effect, but not so good for dragon age.
I just wish that they would start experimenting with the new engine on a game that was more suited to that.

I mentioned it more for the subject of: if they can't make x feature work for DAI how should I expect y feature to work for ME4? Yes it's a shooter in gameplay but I feel that if there's something cool that could be used in ME4 and it isn't already compliant with Frostbite 3... Well, here's another half hearted tac cam button.

 

Like Bethgael said, it seems you missed the point.  This is Bioware.  They should know how to solve these problems.  The fact that we haven't heard squat about the details of the majority of these features is a heavy indicator that they (Bioware) are just now attempting to implement a number of features that should have been implemented years ago when programming for DAI began (ie walk toggle).

I did indeed. Apologies as I missed Bethgael's post. I only read BammBamm's and just became a bit incensed. Agreed that this discussion should never even have to take place - that these pitfalls should have been avoided. This thread's very existence and my initial reason for posting. It's awful, discouraging. The hypothetical scenario I like to imagine is that the one PC coder they have working is asked if they could put in a key to toggle walking. They in turn roll their eyes, look disparagingly at the gantt chart, task them self for a month. If I'm wrong BioWare prove it!

[Bethgael]

I love your post    Hope Bioware sees it, we wantz more choices!

I've moved past annoyance and into a sort of manic amusement at the whole thing. It's all very zen.

[Brogan]

I did indeed. Apologies as I missed Bethgael's post. I only read BammBamm's and just became a bit incensed. Agreed that this discussion should never even have to take place - that these pitfalls should have been avoided. This thread's very existence and my initial reason for posting. It's awful, discouraging. The hypothetical scenario I like to imagine is that the one PC coder they have working is asked if they could put in a key to toggle walking. They in turn roll their eyes, look disparagingly at the gantt chart, task them self for a month. If I'm wrong BioWare prove it!

This was directed at the original poster, not you Ncongruous.

Not that I don't agree. There had to be a point in production of DAI in which there was a confrontation about the design goal of the PC version. I wonder how Laidlaw and Darrah could let it happen. Laidlaw not as much, because he just doesn't seem to even acknowledge pc anymore. But I had thought Darrah would have at least demanded the traditional features be a part of the initial design of the game...

[nkgrc]

Since the release of DA Inquisition, and after reading the posts here, i was waiting to find out how

my impression would be. After upgrading my pc i was able to play some time this weekend with minimal

crashes. I will not start counting every problem, i think at that point they are well known by Bioware and

i suppose they are about to fix them. My only concern is the symplification of the game mechanics.

The attribute and skill systems are for me a catastrophe. Bioware started with Mass Effect 2 a new

way of defining RPG.

With Inquisition they are where it stops for me to be interesting. The beautiful graphics can not

ballance that. I believe the "from pc players for pc players"  slogan but they definitely did not

make it for me. Even if they can fix the controls and the tactical cam it will not be any difference.

I do not blame them because that seams to be their way of thinking, it is their product and i have to

accept that. There are many people out there who like the game as it is, so Bioware has no reason

to change this new RPG way.

For me it means that this will propably be my last Bioware RPG. I will continue playing it until the end, and i still have some hope that Bioware finds a way to make it a bit more interesting for me.

 

[voteDC]

 in isometric you cant play with wasd because of the axxis,

Really?

Could I suggest playing Dragon Age: Origins, you may then find out that your statement is false.

[Chaos17]

You should tweet your post to him because it's been some weeks we didn't see him here.

[Dubya75]

 

I'm glad you're looking into this! Here is a list of some of the things we can do in Origins, and that I believe we are missing in Inquisition.

 

Origins in action camera

• Point and click with mouse to attack      
• Point and click with mouse to move          
• Point and click with mouse to loot           
• Auto-attack                                             
• Hold 2 mouse buttons to move
• Select multiple party members with mouse, either by click and drag, or by clicking portraits with 'Shift'
• Detailed tooltips on quickbar slots
• Choose to have up to 40 quickbar slots (while not having huge buttons for companion orders)
• Set up advanced tactics for companions

Specifically for the tactical camera

• WASD movement of controlled character                            
• Navigate camera with mouse touching the edge of the screen
• Tilt camera to also see from below "worm's eye view"      

 

 

You forgot the Walk toggle.

[Locklyn]

Where is Bioware on all these threads, what are they doing and do they even give a s h i t?

[Pali3x1]

 

I'm glad you're looking into this! Here is a list of some of the things we can do in Origins, and that I believe we are missing in Inquisition.

 

Origins in action camera

• Point and click with mouse to attack      
• Point and click with mouse to move          
• Point and click with mouse to loot           
• Auto-attack                                             
• Hold 2 mouse buttons to move
• Select multiple party members with mouse, either by click and drag, or by clicking portraits with 'Shift'
• Detailed tooltips on quickbar slots
• Choose to have up to 40 quickbar slots (while not having huge buttons for companion orders)
• Set up advanced tactics for companions

Specifically for the tactical camera

• WASD movement of controlled character                            
• Navigate camera with mouse touching the edge of the screen
• Tilt camera to also see from below "worm's eye view"      

 

This man perfectly sumarize the control problems i really liked inquisition but when i play all i cant think of is they forgot is a party game you are supose to have flexibility when i comes to control your party like previous games. srry bad english

[Ashnarug]

Probably working on the next patch instead of passing the whole day reading these messages,

[Archie591]

I think too many people had/have assumptions about what this game was supposed to deliver on the gameplay front, especially comparing it to the previous titles.

 

The controls of the game and whatever features included seem all perfectly fine to me on PC. I expected nothing more. I expected no super tactical overlay or auto-attacking or mouse-clicking movement or anything like that. Why? Because it seemed blatantly obvious that Bioware was moving towards ME style action-rpg settings, rather than back to DA:O style.

 

This is no longer a traditional RPG in any way. DA:I is a combination of Witcher 2/Skyrim with many features and ideas taken from both, as-well as a general feel of Mass Effect to it.

 

Comparing DA:I to DA:O or DA2 is pointless in a sense that they are almost nothing alike anymore. Forget the gameplay of previous titles, take the storyline but consider DA:I to be a completely stand-alone, different genre game entirely. Less disappointment that way.

 

 

This man perfectly sumarize the control problems i really liked inquisition but when i play all i cant think of is they forgot is a party game you are supose to have flexibility when i comes to control your party like previous games. srry bad english

 

 

You are not supposed to have quite the same flexibility as in previous games. Just because it's in the same line of games, doesn't mean it has be so very similar. Yes, many people want it to be like DA:O where you had so much more control over anything, but face it - the game is an Action RPG now, not a traditional isometric/tactical/strategical RPG.

 

That's the direction they have gone. It's not really a bad thing unless you desperately wanted the old style back and considered it superior. I for one don't. Playing Origins even after DA2 felt clunky. And Inqusition makes things ever more fluid and responsive, which I like. 

 

DA:I is much more like Mass Effect now. You have control over your party, but it is less about micro-managing everything during a fight and more about giving general direction to direct the flow of the battle and instead controlling your own character.

[Skeevley]

Really?

Could I suggest playing Dragon Age: Origins, you may then find out that your statement is false.

 

I'm actually playing DAO through again as a diversion every time I get too frustrated (or, also, mind-numbingly BORED with the moronic skyrimesque fetch-quests) with DAI. The entire control and camera structure in DAO is basically perfection. All Bioware had to do, period, is implement that same control and camera structure in DAI. They didn't even need to think about it, or analyze it, all they freaking needed to do was exactly COPY what they already had! That's it. Then they could have added whatever else they wanted, as long as they left the foundation there.

 

It's as if Mazda came out with the Miata / MX 5 and then, for a followup, made a new MX 5 that drove like a 20 year old Yugo in which the steering-wheel was installed in the passenger's-side rear seat position and the turn-signals control is up-front under the hood...

 

When you've got it right, you've got it right, don't go and screw it up.

[kalikilic]

I've moved past annoyance and into a sort of manic amusement at the whole thing. It's all very zen.

i love this. this is exactly how i feel...and the entire transition between the emotions were rather fast. i dont own alot of games which stems from not being the richest person out there. here i thought, "Yes, buying DA:I for the christmas. Looks great; got some raves reviews but wonky controls for pc....ah well, they patched it already. Nice. i'll shell out 45 bucks for it on origin. Getting it just in time for the start of my holidays away from school too...very excited. This is gonna be great. I wanna have a great time with it."

 

....

 

In reality, I'm playing Skyrim. Skyrim never ever disappoints, and if it does, there's a mod for that. Still gonna have a blast, its just that, it wont be with DA:I.

 

i imagine i wont touch that game until i hear its finally worth the money i paid for it.

[shushNMD]

*snip*

DA:I is much more like Mass Effect now. You have control over your party, but it is less about micro-managing everything during a fight and more about giving general direction to direct the flow of the battle and instead controlling your own character.

 

More like, don't you DARE to touch those controls!  The party will do very well on it's own (your main character included). 

I don't know what party micro-management in tactical RPG has ever done to you, but I, for one, not happy to see it go. 

I would love to see this very system applied to ME4, but it's totally unacceptable for DA series.