181 réponses à ce sujet

[Brogan]

I wish people would stop adding consoles into their argument like they are a factor...

 

[10K]

¿?

 

The only thing the PC made in Origins by itself was autoattack, and whatever tactics you chose. The rest was by player input. DAII was similar but with the worst mechanics I´ve ever come across, unless you like to button mash attacks I guess. But spamming basic attacks is not very involving to me.

And that's what I mean, auto-attack. I dislike it and never will like it. That's fine that you may not have liked how controlling a character felt in DA2. But I did, even If I was just mashing a button. I do it all the time in most hack and slashers anyway so I had no problems. Tactics were fine in both Origins and DA2, but when I took over a character in DA2 I liked how the game turn into abit of a hack and slash. I didn't have a problem with it, besides it gave me a choice. If I wanted to revert back to auto-attack I could just go into options and make it that way. A lot of people here say the loyal and hardcore fans want DA to revert back to it's Origins roots, So I posted because I don't and I consider myself to be one of those fans. I think Inquisition in the way of combat is going in the right direction. People say BW are just trying to cater to the action RPG players with the combat. 

 

But I feel as if they're trying to make a balance between both action and tactical combat. I love the tactical aspects of the game, which is why I think Inquisition should have had the tactic lists as both games did and fix the K&M controls for the PC. But I also like when I jump into the shoes of one of my party members it feels like I'm in control of them combat wise and I'm not just auto-attacking. Though auto-attacking should be an option as in DA2.  

[Gel214th]

People say BW are just trying to cater to the action RPG players with the combat.  But I feel as if they're trying to make a balance between both action and tactical combat. I love the tactical aspects of the game, which is why I think Inquisition should have had the tactic lists as both games did and fix the K&M controls for the PC. But I also like when I jump into the shoes of one of my party members it feels like I'm in control of them combat wise and I'm not just auto-attacking. Though auto-attacking should be an option as in DA2.  

 

You see how you could go into Dragon Age 2 and adjust the options to your playstyle? That's finding a balance.

We don't have that option in DA:I, do we? 

 

There's no balance here, and I would like balance. Because on my computer RPGs like Dragon Age with a party of 4, I'm not that interested in that type of action combat. Granted, if the tactical combat camera worked better I may spend more time in it. 

[Skeevley]

I don't mind "button mashers", but I DO like them to remain in the right types of games. For me, in a role-playing game, I prefer to NEVER have to manually attack anything. I want to program my party members and then watch them go at it with great animations etc.

 

There has definitely been a lot of attempts to "merge" play-styles, but instead, IMHO, if you really want to make your RPG appeal to people who prefer action games, then there should really be two completely different play modes, each of which work properly.

 

Imagine if there was a simple preference choice: "Directly control combat" on or off. Off = Plays like DAO, On = Plays like The Witcher 2.

 

I think the best example of "melding" these styles is Fallout 3 and FNV. As you can probably guess, I was one of the ones who loved VATS, and used it as much as possible, setting up my character to quickly have so many AP that I basically never had to do any first-person-shooter-style playing. Bethesda did a great job of seamlessly blending two different styles into a single style that worked almost perfectly. You could, if you wanted, play almost 100% VATS, or if you wanted you could play 0% VATS.

 

What DAI is missing is that fantastic true RPG experience. Maybe they meant tactical view to be that experience, but it's so hard to use, and so limited (camera zoom) that it might as well not even be there. If Tactical Mode just made the experience the same as DAO I think most of us would be happy.

[10K]

You see how you could go into Dragon Age 2 and adjust the options to your playstyle? That's finding a balance.

We don't have that option in DA:I, do we? 

 

There's no balance here, and I would like balance. Because on my computer RPGs like Dragon Age with a party of 4, I'm not that interested in that type of action combat. Granted, if the tactical combat camera worked better I may spend more time in it. 

And I agree with that.I just don't agree with those who want DA to revert back to its Origin roots. As I said before this is why I liked DA2 over Origins it gave me that choice. I have said that I wish Inquisition had those tactical options back, I have no problem with tactics.

[Gwalchmai]

And that's what I mean, auto-attack. I dislike it and never will like it. That's fine that you may not have liked how controlling a character felt in DA2. But I did, even If I was just mashing a button. I do it all the time in most hack and slashers anyway so I had no problems. Tactics were fine in both Origins and DA2, but when I took over a character in DA2 I liked how the game turn into abit of a hack and slash. I didn't have a problem with it, besides it gave me a choice. If I wanted to revert back to auto-attack I could just go into options and make it that way. A lot of people here say the loyal and hardcore fans want DA to revert back to it's Origins roots, So I posted because I don't and I consider myself to be one of those fans. I think Inquisition in the way of combat is going in the right direction. People say BW are just trying to cater to the action RPG players with the combat. 

 

But I feel as if they're trying to make a balance between both action and tactical combat. I love the tactical aspects of the game, which is why I think Inquisition should have had the tactic lists as both games did and fix the K&M controls for the PC. But I also like when I jump into the shoes of one of my party members it feels like I'm in control of them combat wise and I'm not just auto-attacking. Though auto-attacking should be an option as in DA2.  

I thought DA2's combat was great. I would target the nearest enemy and my warrior would zip over and bash it then continue to attack. Then I could manage the spell bar and other characters (healing etc) and pause if needed. DAI combat is just so clunky and slow, meh.

[Sunlight Heart]

don't they? i bet many design choices were made with consoles in mind, hell, i'll state that as a fact

 

Those choices the developers made were because they were lazy. People wanted a game more like Origins, which worked perfectly fine on consoles. Consoles aren't the problem, lazy devs going for parity when it isnt necessary are. Not the console's fault. 

 

 

Post your stupid little gifs that add nothing all you want, but the simple fact is that consoles aren't getting your games dumbed down. The devs are consciously deciding that you, the player, is too stupid to be able to handle complex mechanics. They are, of their own accord, prioritizing one market over the other and failing to optimize their product.

 

Thinking that consoles are the problem with how this game was made is like blaming Chevy that your new Sony sound system is incompatible with your Toyota. Sony knew that they were making universal car sound systems, but they only tested and optimized with one manufacturer then released to everyone. That point can't be taken seriously when a game with the depth and complexity asked for here has already been done on the PS2 and and the gen after that.

 

Blame the market for shying away from those types of games, and blame the Devs for thinking that you have ADHD and can't be bothered to play a game like FFXII or Origins. Nothing stopped them from making the game we all wanted. Nothing but themselves.