I love the gameplay feels methodical but not slow. Very very fun game. Absolutely loving the evolution of this series! I reckon you just gotta let go of sacred nostalgia when games in a series change things up. Keep an open mind peeps
"you just gotta let go" thats what EA wants; all of us playing their little action RPG (arcade) game on a console. The series is dead on PC.
I love the gameplay feels methodical but not slow. Very very fun game. Absolutely loving the evolution of this series! I reckon you just gotta let go of sacred nostalgia when games in a series change things up. Keep an open mind peeps
evolution? what a load of bollocks.. da:i is "evolved" in the same sense that dungeon siege 3 was (compared to 2), in the same sense that sacred 3 was (compared to 2), 2 prime examples of a franchise changing to the extreme and being worse for it (because they no longer belong in the franchise), but if they weren't labeled as part of the franchise they wouldn't be too bad on their own
When the bear stands up for those two seconds, how are you supposed to evade that attack?
Do you pause the game immediately (in one second) then click on all your characters and have them move away from the bear?
Do you just move the character you are controlling?
I mean how do you handle REFLEX SAVES for 4 characters???
Or is the combat balanced around you definitely getting hit?
It just doesn't make sense, and that's why I say the game wants to be a full 3rd person Action RPG like Shadow of Mordor.
Reflex Saves probably work great in the Multiplayer where one human controls one character, and everyone is responsible for "dodging" the enemy attacks.
Sorry my reply took a while - been away from the computer most of the weekend.
So, first of all - to avoid any misunderstanding - I'm not saying you're wrong. DAI is very much a game trying to mix reflex-based third-person combat with tactical elements. What I am saying, however, is that with a few tweaks here and there it can work.
If you take a look at Mass Effect for example (mainly 2 and 3), it's pretty similar system, with the same kind of problems you noted in your reply. You have a third-person protagonist and two companions. So, what happens if, say, a Ravager targets one of them, giving you 3 seconds to react?
Answer: Whatever the AI is implemented to do. It's not your concern (as a player) since your companions are their own entities in the game world. They act for themselves.
And it's the same way I see the combat in DAI when playing in third-person. If that bear stands up, I dodge with the character I control. The others do whatever the AI seems fit. Having some experience with the general BioWare AI that is probably get hit and die horribly but that's not the point.
However, since ME is a shooter, the difficulty is limited by default and since it's a console shooter, there's practically no difficulty to speak of in part 2 and 3. DAI is a different kind of game with some actually difficult combat if you crank up the settings.
The basic third-person action-oriented play-style doesn't really work there anymore because the AI is not able to handle it and the player actually needs their companions to be victorious. So they added (or rather brought back) the tac view to offer more in-depths control of what is happening.
On higher difficulty levels the game transforms from a TPA to a more tactical RPG. Still far from what Origins was, but still. You're not really supposed to use both systems at the same.
You either play it as an action game in medium difficulty and regard your characters as companions that are responsible of their own well-being or you play it as a party-based tactical RPG.
So yeah, it wants to be like Shadows of Mordor for the mainstream players since they can just waltz through the game in 3rd person and it also wants to appeal to the more tactical oriented playerbase that uses the tactical view for the combat.
And if the tactical view actually worked properly, that concept would be quite successful.
I agree with the OP. Turn based combat is not fun in real time. It's like speed chess. Many Japanese developers made the same mistake.
DA:I does a good job with it, but it seems the OP is right that they tried to appease two groups of people.
I personally believe that turn based combat does not work well in an open world RPG. The reason is the engagement of enemies.
That said, the combat is decent in DA:I, but I think Bioware needs to make a choice for the next version. Full action, or full turn based.
Didn't Bioware managers mention that Dragon Age is all about the story and characters and nothing about gameplay?
It would explain the Tactical View. 
i hate these kinds of threads that act like bioware can change the fundamentals of the game with a patch. You saw the videos and the walkthroughs... you knew what kind of game this would be... so i ask you, what the **** is the point of this thread?
The videos and walkthroughs did nothing to show how horrible the controls were on PC. They used a controller for nearly every video even when on PC. And the majority of complaints aren't "Please entirely change the structure of combat" but "Please fix the controls so we can play your combat without fighting the UI." Honestly, I almost returned the game within the first 2 hours. I'm glad I stuck with it though, as the combat actually IS fun and the game IS good, but the controls just plain suck. It is possible to learn the controls and play in tactical mode similarly to DAO and DAII. I have the AI turned completely off and constantly pause and manage all characters. Is it perfect? No, but it's still fun and the controls do function even if it's not as good as DAO and DAII.
yet worries that began when i first heard about this game being built on the frostbite engine were actually well founded come release, the game is a mess;
- the tactical aspect is crippled
- most of the characters just look flat-out weird
- my character gets stuck on pebbles and has to spam jump (core feature of the battlefield games, thank you frostbite)
- i've had my character lunge and go flying off the top of hills, i've had mobs fly off the top of hills when they get knocked back
- my team often gets stuck on terrain
- when switching between other characters they will sometimes warp back to where i began taking control of them for some bizarre reason
- combat feels sluggish, with strange delays after a weapon swing that really slow down the fight and often lands me in one of the many aoe patches because there's no readily way to dodge or sprint (it doesn't work in sp)
- i find myself swinging at air despite being in visual range of a mob, sometimes i lunge, sometimes i don't
- i can activate skills without having a target in range (ugh), the shield spell is ridiculous, why not just have it cast on the entire party by default?
- skill trees are longer(expanded?) but i feel no real character growth when going through one
- the game itself runs like poop, i've tried a multitude of settings but it still feels like i'm playing on a console, sliding around, input lag
- skill synergy is lost with the seemingly random use of spells with a dumbed down "preferred" system
i feel like the combat is like this to encourage you NOT to use the tactical view, it is faster paced than even DA2 was (and that was faster paced than DA:O), but then again there's the encouragement to simply use it to micromanage your party to hell because of the balls NEW AND IMPROVED tactics screen (golfclap)
so are you 100% certain that the dumbed down core features that have been thrown at us with this next iteration of dragon age AREN'T because of engine limitations? see i don't know this stuff, all i know is that the engine changed and dragon age with it, in many ways for the worse
Nothing you mentioned is engine limitations. All valid, don't get me wrong... but nothing to do with the engine. At least not inherently.
Civilization 4, Fallout: New Vegas and the MMO Rift are all games made on the Gamebryo engine - they all have vastly different UIs, gameplay elements, artistic styles and physics. But they all use the same engine. Everything you are talking about is just how they developed DA:I, pure and simple.
As I said in my last post, its like complaining that Madison Square Garden is a terrible venue just because you saw Justin Bieber there. The venue can provide how many people can sit there, what types of amenities you can provide, how large of a stage is there, how easy it is for customers to get in and out of the stadium... but once the lights go down and the music starts playing, the quality of what you are seeing is solely up to the performer.
EDIT: Going back over your list, there are possibly some things involved - object/collision detection would be tied into the engine. The engine would determine how objects interact when they collide... however, the shape of the objects would be decided during development. So if you had a pebble, the engine would determine how you interact with it. However, if Bioware made the shape so obtuse that it can't be jumped over without spamming the jump button, that would fall back to development issues, not engine ones. Bioware would need to restructure the object shapes to better reflect realism, as the game's engine physics will treat it like a solid block (as it should, since it is a rock, albeit a small one that sounds like it was textured incorrectly to allow easy passage over it).
Didn't Bioware managers mention that Dragon Age is all about the story and characters and nothing about gameplay?
This game is made by Bioware not Telltale Games.
No future dragon age will ever match Origins. Period! let it go fellas. No matter how much bioware says they are going back to their roots. It's OK though.. That how classics are made and revered. Dragon age Origins is likethe movie JAWS. "We're going to need a bigger boat" And DA:I is that shark movie with LL Cool J.
You guys need to come to terms. their coffers are being lined. they don't need to listen.
So, this is how EA slowly kills Bioware. Allowed them to make DAO exactly as they wanted, basically the next step up from BG2 and NWN. DA2, starts catering more to non-PC game, and it starts to feel like an arcade. Now DAI comes along, and almost every connection to a PC game feels broken. Cannot recommend this game right now. Have spent more time in forums looking for solutions to why the controls won't work, then I have been able to spend in game.
EA is a wrecking-ball -.- (I remember developers like WESTWOOD (!) - and the glorious RTS-Series Command and Conquer...but that has been ruined, too...nice going EA...are you trying to buy the devs. of the witcher next? (if they let you that is...hell, I don't even know why the original Bioware owners sold to EA...I would not have (hell, they were successfull, so why sell?))
greetings LAX
ps: I am dissapointed - again...fool me once and all that 
(ME3 I AM LOOKING AT YOU - mostly...DA2 was not all that great either!)
yet worries that began when i first heard about this game being built on the frostbite engine were actually well founded come release, the game is a mess;
- the tactical aspect is crippled
- most of the characters just look flat-out weird
- my character gets stuck on pebbles and has to spam jump (core feature of the battlefield games, thank you frostbite)
- i've had my character lunge and go flying off the top of hills, i've had mobs fly off the top of hills when they get knocked back
- my team often gets stuck on terrain
- when switching between other characters they will sometimes warp back to where i began taking control of them for some bizarre reason
- combat feels sluggish, with strange delays after a weapon swing that really slow down the fight and often lands me in one of the many aoe patches because there's no readily way to dodge or sprint (it doesn't work in sp)
- i find myself swinging at air despite being in visual range of a mob, sometimes i lunge, sometimes i don't
- i can activate skills without having a target in range (ugh), the shield spell is ridiculous, why not just have it cast on the entire party by default?
- skill trees are longer(expanded?) but i feel no real character growth when going through one
- the game itself runs like poop, i've tried a multitude of settings but it still feels like i'm playing on a console, sliding around, input lag
- skill synergy is lost with the seemingly random use of spells with a dumbed down "preferred" system
Wow, I have basically none of those issues. Smooth gameplay, charactors look great except for speech. I almost never swing at air (this game requires some aim, OMG). Abilities/skills are fun, but lack of being able to choose strength, etc is sad. I also almost never get stuck.
I'm about 25hrs in.
Great game, needs revised controls and fixed tactical mode. But it's totally playable and fun, you just need to take a deep breath and roll with things. If you can't handle any real time combat then the game isn't for you sadly. Personally I think it's immersive and awesome!
"you just gotta let go" thats what EA wants; all of us playing their little action RPG (arcade) game on a console. The series is dead on PC.
I've got to ask, what series?
The PC crowd who are criticising DA:I didn't like DA2 and its expansions either, and generally view all the multiplayer and free2play games as non-canon money-grabs, which was also the view at the time of the DA:O DLC. So you're not really fans of the series, you're fans of one game. Indeed, a console player who never played DA:O but plays DA2 and DA:I on his X-box can better claim to be a fan of the series.
I got through page 2, tried to read page 3.....ugh...lost the will to continue keeping up.
I love DA:I.
Course I am not on the PC, stopped playing most pc based games for awhile now. Wasteland 2 was my last and recent one besides NWN 2 before it.
Works fine, no bugs or issues yet. I know some others not having issues either. Maybe cause me and them are on console not PC?
Nothing you mentioned is engine limitations. All valid, don't get me wrong... but nothing to do with the engine. At least not inherently.
thanks for the response...
what i was trying to get at when i said engine limitations is perhaps things that couldn't be created with the same level of complexity that they were in previous iterations, my list is just my own gripes, as many as i could recall, a few of them i see in battlefield 3 and 4 because they share the same engine, an engine that was meant to be used for shooters, not RPGs...
so given that fact (or opinion), there must be some things that are gimped because of the engine change, and also some things that the bioware team couldn't code in due to inexperience with the frostbite engine itself, like the tactics of da:o/da2, like the control scheme, meh, i really don't know, i'm just grasping at this point, but i'm sure you understand where i'm coming from
Wow, I have basically none of those issues. Smooth gameplay, charactors look great except for speech. I almost never swing at air (this game requires some aim, OMG). Abilities/skills are fun, but lack of being able to choose strength, etc is sad. I also almost never get stuck.
I'm about 25hrs in.
Great game, needs revised controls and fixed tactical mode. But it's totally playable and fun, you just need to take a deep breath and roll with things. If you can't handle any real time combat then the game isn't for you sadly. Personally I think it's immersive and awesome!
are you on PC or console? it strikes me as odd that none of the issues i listed appear in your game too, perhaps i'm just looking for problems, but i have a knack for finding flaws in the games that i play because they frustrate me so much they disrupt the mood and sap the enjoyment
It's not a PC/Console thing. It is a control scheme thing.
Action Camera with a Game Controller (Xbox 360 controller) is pretty cool.
Powers such as whirwlind work fine,because you just hold the button down and move around like an action game.
Reflex saves on ONE character work fine, because you are tapping buttons to roll and block etc.
It is active, it is engaging....it works.
Mouse and Keyboard, pausing, mouse click-play and tactical style gameplay? can NEVER work the same way. And that's where we are stumbling with the gameplay.
The game was designed around the assumption that the player is using a game controller.
A game like Dragon Age: Origins, in this day and age, would indeed do well... on PC. However, Dragon Age was never intended to merely dwell within that realm. It was a multi-platform release from the get-go.The Bioware defenders seems to have somehow been convinced that a game like Origin just wouldn't sell in today's market. I find it hard to believe that things changed that much since 2009. Especially considering the success of the kickstarter RPGs. Personally I believe a game true to it's root of Dragon Age Origins would sell just as well today as it did on release because there is zero competition for that kind of game.
However "Skyrim changed everything" and thus we have Inquisition. Now I can't pretend it's not a good game but I can honestly say I prefer some storytelling elements of Dragon Age 2 and the combat/controls of the earlier games. Open world games like this have too many elements intended to simply waste time for me to fully appreciate it.
Amen.I've got to ask, what series?
The PC crowd who are criticising DA:I didn't like DA2 and its expansions either, and generally view all the multiplayer and free2play games as non-canon money-grabs, which was also the view at the time of the DA:O DLC. So you're not really fans of the series, you're fans of one game. Indeed, a console player who never played DA:O but plays DA2 and DA:I on his X-box can better claim to be a fan of the series.
Broken controls, lackluster hair selection, the exclusion of hair physics, and the wonky decision to remove healing spells are all legitimate complaints. However, this mess of expecting to be specifically catered to, hand and foot, is what's killing gaming in my honest opinion.
Too much emphasis is put on making this franchise like the first game, and it shows in Inquisition. The thing is... that system is ancient by today's standards. Action RPGs are becoming more fast paced with every iteration. It's a welcome change, if done right and in small strides. The biggest problem with Inquisition, I feel, is they tried too hard to merge the two playstyles of the first two games. Even on the Xbox One, the combat can be wonky and awkward at times. And it undoubtedly plays some small part in the ongoing PC issues.
At the end of the day, most of us are fans of the franchise and we should try and remember that. Without each other, these games wouldn't exist, as without our support... BioWare would've moved on to something else.
Yeah I don't agree.
There is no entitlement.
The control system for the Console controller is polished and it seems the game was designed around it.
How is it entitlement for people who use the other controller scheme, mouse and keyboard, to want parity?
The game has two game modes. Action works with a controller fairly well, there are short comings with mouse and keyboard.
Tactical Camera doesn't seem to work very well for anyone who is accustomed to using tactical views. DA:O, XCom, Wasteland 2, Divinity Original Sin (I could go on). And for the record I didn't have a problem with DA2's combat.
How is any of this entitlement?
When you look at the design decisions, and the things that DO work, it seems clear that there is confusion and a disconnect between what the game is trying to be. Looking back at the demos you see that as well, with very little time devoted to the tactical camera and mouse and keyboard play. In hindsight, this becomes clear.
Putting Reflex based Action Combat in a tactical, semi-turn based game won't work. One playstyle will take precedence over the other, and it has.
How is pointing this out, and asking for it to be addressed, considered entitlement? If we say nothing, nothing will get done.
This is the engine and direction that will set the tone for ALL the DLC expansions, and ALL future Dragon Age games, and Mass Effect as well.
Say something NOW, or never get a chance again is how I see it.
You say ALL RPGs becoming Action games is a good thing, why? Because you prefer that style of gaming?
The dual nature of Dragon Age Inquisition could work, with a better tactical camera view, and sensible underlying mechanics not based on reflex gameplay (like Dragon Age 2).
The Multiplayer element of DA:I is where much of the consideration for this style of gameplay came from I think. It has nothing to do with being "better". It has to do with getting the Call of Duty, Divinity,Shadows of Mordor, Assassin's Creed, action console crowd playing the game and buying boxes for money. At least that's my analysis.
Point me to the gamer survey for the millions of Dragon Age 2 players which said that they would prefer Reflex action based combat in Dragon Age : Inquisition?
I am quite enjoying the game so far on the overall level, playing with a controller on my PC. From what I've played so far the gorgeous world is the main star of the game. The combat gameplay is ok and keeps me engaged, but it's clear that it was designed to appeal to people who're not your typical, classic PC RPG players. Like OP writes, it feels like a jumble of sort-of-working mechanics instead of a razor-sharp, well thought out design.
Playing Divinity: Original Sin for 100+ hours has spoiled me with best-in-class CRPG combat. Dragon Age: Inquisition is a rather weak and fumbling game in comparison - But that's AAA(A) development where everything has to appeal to everyone and ends up not really appealing to anyone.
My biggest gripe with DA:I is the extremely bad item management with the scrolling through dumb, unappealing lists and enduring the clumsy way you equip characters. This is console focused game design at its worst. When I think of the design team that implemented this travesty all that spring to mind is... "ENCHANTMENT!"
Give me a paper doll and item tetris, pls! That is the only time-tested RPG item and equipment system I can embrace for immersion and gameplay satisfaction.
DA:I's world is a joy to explore, too bad the actual gameplay is only slightly above average in terms of usability and enjoyment – D:OS nukes it from orbit, so hard it isn't funny.
Is there no edit post button?
I wanted to add to the above, that I'm playing with a controller because the game was clearly designed around one. So why not? I don't really mind when the game design dictates it, but I prefer a game designed around mouse/keyboard, like the gloriousness that is Divinity: Original Sin.
Reflex based?
LOL.
PC Gamer for over 20 years <<
Feel this is amazing, in fact a master piece.
Tired of listening to people whinge, cod is that way >
Amazing graphics and environments
Game is HUGE!
Works p-e-r-f-e-c-t-l-y with a 360 pad on pc
Can't wait to continue the adventure
Tired of threads like this
Fact#
Reflex based?
LOL.
I see you noted the exaggeration and hyperbole to highlight my point. Good for you ;-)
While it is not totally an action/reflex based combat system, there are enough elements of that included so as to move it firmly away from any "tactical" or "turn based" , stats and attribute driven combat.
This is definitely more action combat than we had in DA:O, or DA2. It borders on Witcher and Skyrim territory, but doesn't quite go that far. Resulting in the disconnect with the control schemes.
Works p-e-r-f-e-c-t-l-y with a 360 pad on pc
Yes, it would. Since that's what they developed the game around.
I agree with the OP. Turn based combat is not fun in real time. It's like speed chess. Many Japanese developers made the same mistake.
DA:I does a good job with it, but it seems the OP is right that they tried to appease two groups of people.
I personally believe that turn based combat does not work well in an open world RPG. The reason is the engagement of enemies.
That said, the combat is decent in DA:I, but I think Bioware needs to make a choice for the next version. Full action, or full turn based.
Wtf are you talking about, turn-based? Turn based is Battleship. Uno.
I think you are trying to discuss pause-based.
Retour en haut