320 réponses à ce sujet

[Realyn]

Most people, myself included, have included facts and taken time to argue and point out the reasoning behind their opinions, as to why they think the game is bad/sub-par/good/very good or great.

 

To me, it's a "good" game, and a very mediocre "RPG". I rate it was 7.5/10.

If you use the search button, it's very easy to find my posts, I think I do a fair job of presenting my case - whether you agree with me or not, that's another matter - but I very much doubt you'll find anything in there that's based of rage or hate, and not supported by my line of reasoning AND/OR facts.

So, to be perfectly blunt, you can take you little "ignorant" and "ridiculous" comments and shove them somewhere.

 

Ah, I should've said I meant the posters with lack of reasoning, which seem abundant on this forum.

 

 

 

Also, I can show the combat in DA:O and DA:I and compare them (DD Rogue), and that makes me wonder if you've ever played any RPGs if the combat in DA:I is "slowly paced".

 

Oh, I know it can be slower. I've just played a lot of much MUCH faster paced games since DA:O that I don't really think of this as 'quick' combat. This game's combat is like a leisurely stroll in the park for me.

[Elhanan]

I have never posted anything like this before, but Dragon Age Inquisition has really, truly taken things one step too far. After Dragon Age 2, I was quite sceptical, but the very positive review that were published just before release won me over, and I bought the game just before release. The bottom line: the reviewers must have been playing another game, and the developers did not keep the promises made while the game was still in development. It was supposed to redeem Bioware from the DA2 debacle, it was supposed to involve tactical gameplay, it was supposed to be a deep role playing experience. All this is not true, and I do not understand why the developers were not more up-front about their intention to make a generally accessible (to put it politely) game that would emphasise action elements over the complexities of real RPGs, such as the recently published Divinity: Original Sin or Wasteland 2. I also do not understand why Bioware did not simply admit that its focus is on console publishing and that Inquisition, in terms of interface and gameplay (and the game's very poorly optimised technical side) would play like a straight console port. This would have reduced expectations, and it would likely have saved them from the backlash that's now ocurring. The scale of this backlash seems to be similar to that provoked by Mass Effect 3, and I do not think that this is what Bioware had hoped for.
 
To be sure, it's not a complete disaster, as it's often made out to be. For example, the controls on PC are needlessly awkward, but they have not made the game unplayable for me. There's still some fun to be had with the game, particularly if you are a certain type of gamer. Still, it's worth repeating (and repeating again) some of the points that have already been made, so that perhaps eventually someone at EA or Bioware will finally listen to many very valid concerns:
 
1. Gameplay is shallow and repetitive. Quests are repetitive and fail to create a sense of a living game world that's interesting to explore. It's flash over substance - pretty graphics and fast gameplay for casual gamers, with little serious role playing to be found underneath.
 
2. There is no way to plan one's character as one can in a real RPG. No distributable attribute points, minimalist and generic skill trees, and no need to make an involved plan for the development of your character, as you can in real RPGs (think Divinity: Original Sin or Icewind Dale 2 or Wizardry 7 and 8). There's no real difference between the few ways available to differentiate one's character and what's on offer in any generic shooter.
 
3. Magic has become so simplified and spells have become so generic that playing a mage is a sad experience indeed. It's magic without magic - no sense of discovery or wonder to be had here. Remember the huge number of spells in Baldur's Gate 2 and the way you could use them to plan your combat tactis and counter opponents' tactics? What's really truly the difference between shooting Inquisition's variously coloured magic bolts and shooting a gun in any generic FPS?
 
4. The console-based, controller-friendly interface design takes a lot of atmosphere out of the game. Remember how in the Infinity Engine games you could pick up your items in the inventory and examine them and get lots of background info and backstory about them? Inquisition's list-based inventory does not convey the same sense of having found a real, unique item at all. Rather, items feel like generic power-ups you can pick from a list.
 
5. Why did the developers bother with the utterly useless tactical view? Why not admit that Inquisition is an action-oriented game? Any tester must have noticed well before release that the tactical view is essentially broken and useless, and the amount of work necessary to improve it is likely so substantial that it will never become truly functional. I mention this because it's really emblematic of the attempt to pass this game of as a tactical role-playing game when it's really casual action fare.
 
So, in sum, this is a flashy AAA game for an audience of casual gamers - it's mass-market popcorn. It's perhaps unfair of me to criticise the game for not being what I want it to be. However, Bioware did create the expectation that this would become a very different kind of game, and it's hard not to be disappointed. It's also hard not to be sad that a company that used to make great, rich, deep RPGs has so completely lost its way.

Sorry, but I turned the flash down to Low on Effects Quality before playing; a tip from a Bioware Dev that aids FPS, removes shiny FX, and it also aids immersion for myself. And if one wonders why this is mentioned at all, Bioware informed me on how to improve my gameplay and opinion of the game before setting forth into the lands of Thedas. And I can use this, as a non-Action RPG Player since '75; also known to some as a Casual gamer.

* Some quest types do repeat, but gameplay is not repetitive. If one does not wish to find books, sheep, etc, it is a simple matter to avoid and skip most of these quests. Possibly something added to the Journal to remove a non-mandatory quest would be great, but as one that is still swimming in the deep mountain lake known as Thedas, I cannot say it is monotonous.

* Agree that Player freedom to choose the base design would likely improve the game, but it still remains a healthy RPG; think ME series, Skyrim, etc. Also prefer the choices of DAO, but this does not define DAI as a bad title because of it.

* Magic spells are simplified in Thedas, as Spell Tiers in DAO were also limited to four spells. In DA2 and DAI, these basic spells could now be improved or not to allow a greater range of versatility; not a bad thing at all. And this is not D&D, but an IP to help get away from the tyrannical restraints placed on that fine franchise of yore.

* Kinda nice to read descriptions of unique devices if one wishes, and yet know that a silver bracelet or figurine is just a simple bauble for sale. Not everything warrants a description.

* Tac-Cam is working well for my game; simply looked at the Control Keys to help learn how to drive the newer engine.

In summary, the opinion of the OP is a valid one, but nothing factual or substantive that alters my own, very different, yet valid opinion on this title.

[Vilegrim]

Kind of hard to be an atheist when there's a hole in the sky puking demons. Just saying' ;-)

  with the thing that summoned them claiming to be god? No hard at all.  Maltheism would be even easier, the believe that all beings claiming to be gods are vile psychopaths would fit very well.

[Chaos17]

I for one don't mind any of the controls at all. KB+M isn't bad. Is it optimal? No, but not bad. The vast majority of people who are playing this game on PC are fine with it. 

That said, just because most are ok, its not an excuse to not do something to address those who are having an issue with it. 

The forums are loaded with Forum Trolls, and Trolls do not think about anything but tearing down the good things. Stating that "On the forums...", "All these posts on the forums..." etc, isn't proof of fact that the Trolls are right. People who have no issues are not posting because they have nothing to 'feed the trolls' with. 

 

One last thing. I enjoy the game, not blindly, not because I'm a fanboy, or any other thing you want to interject. Nor are the millions who are absolutely in love with DAI. Insulting people because they disagree with you is quite low.

Trolls ?

You're considering these people who take their time to come here and post about their love of the past games being trolls ?

Aren't you being cold ?

 

Don't you see how fortunate Bioware is to have so many people waiting for them ?

Those constumers don't even ask to change 100% the game, they're just asking to bring back what worked well before in previous games.

That's love dude, not trolling !!

[Fast Jimmy]

Actually, I agree with this. Kind of actually hoping they take this advice and stick with the formula they created in this game. XD Like you said, can't please everyone. Majority of people outside of these forums seem to really enjoy the game though. I'd go for pleasing them if it were me, personally.

That's totally valid. But the problem comes into play when they market the game to sound like it was a polished version of the better parts of DA:O and DA2, instead of being an entirely different game type altogether. It went from a party-based RTWP RPG to half a smidgen away from being a full ARPG like Kingdoms of Amalur or Dragon's Dogma, and not too far away from being an single-player MMO with filler exploration, resource collection and fetch quests.

As long as Bioware keeps trying to sell the game as if it is just like its predecessors, you are going to have people calling foul when it ISN'T.

[Elhanan]

That's totally valid. But the problem comes into play when they market the game to sound like it was a polished version of the better parts of DA:O and DA2, instead of being an entirely different game type altogether. It went from a party-based RTWP RPG to half a smidgen away from being a full ARPG like Kingdoms of Amalur or Dragon's Dogma, and not too far away from being an single-player MMO with filler exploration, resource collection and fetch quests.

As long as Bioware keeps trying to sell the game as if it is just like its predecessors, you are going to have people calling foul when it ISN'T.

Even if it does play like a solo DA: MMO (my own review FWIW) does not equate to it not being like the previous titles. DAO was an area linked game; now the areas are larger and there are more of them. DA2 had enhanced Spell and Talent tiers and Full VO; DAI has these, and some improvements seen in these. Etc.

For myself, the marketing is valid. While I believe there is room for improvement (eg; Player choices for builds), I have 110+ hrs that have seen few glitches or bugs. I simply await the patches so that I may test my new gaming mouse, as it seems fine with a lesser one, but some others report glitches with better models.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

That's totally valid. But the problem comes into play when they market the game to sound like it was a polished version of the better parts of DA:O and DA2, instead of being an entirely different game type altogether. It went from a party-based RTWP RPG to half a smidgen away from being a full ARPG like Kingdoms of Amalur or Dragon's Dogma, and not too far away from being an single-player MMO with filler exploration, resource collection and fetch quests.

As long as Bioware keeps trying to sell the game as if it is just like its predecessors, you are going to have people calling foul when it ISN'T.

I'm just saying, the game was never advertised as it's 'just like predecessors'. They said they took the best of both worlds, but they also said they revamped things (tactical camera for instance). They literally never said that 'this -gameplay element- will be like it was in Dragon Age Origins/2!', people just assume so because it's a sequel. Honestly DA:I isn't even that different from its prequels, there are new action-oriented elements, but had Tactical Camera been more optimized for PC and to some extent controllers it still would've been  a pretty decent tactical experience.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm just saying, the game was never advertised as it's 'just like predecessors'. They said they took the best of both worlds, but they also said they revamped things (tactical camera for instance). They literally never said that 'this -gameplay element- will be like it was in Dragon Age Origins/2!', people just assume so because it's a sequel. Honestly DA:I isn't even that different from its prequels, there are new action-oriented elements, but had Tactical Camera been more optimized for PC and to some extent controllers it still would've been a pretty decent tactical experience.

http://www.usgamer.n...f-the-franchise

The devs said the tac cam would be returning from DA:O. Not that it would be a reinvention of the tactical camera, but that they were bringing it back from DA:O. One could hardly fault a consumer from inferring that the camera would work in a manner consistent with the prior game based on that.

The game was said to get back to its roots in tactical RPG gameplay. Tactical. RPG. GAMEPLAY. Not "action RPG gameplay" or "pause the game every two seconds to overcome the lack of AI tactics." Again - you could say Doom was tactical with pause and play if all you meant was the game had a pause function.

"Much more about tactical combat and a higher level of deliberate difficulty. More clear overall story, with the moral choices still in there, but much more in vein of Dragon Age: Origins style storytelling. You're right to ask. The goal wasn't to revolutionize the series every single time, but Dragon Age 2 forced our hand to a certain degree."

Tactical? Doesn't seem like it.

Clear story? Apparently you need to get 15 hours in to unlock Skyhold before the game's narrative "begins."

The goal wasn't to revolutionize the series with every game? Except fans who expected somewhat of the same game from the first two had the wrong expectations...?


I get that people like the game and think other posters here are giving Bioware too hard of a time for the product, but it ISN'T what anyone who believed some of these lines could reasonably expect. This is just one example - I could find dozens more articles and videos where if someone had just it, outside of any other information, could be led to believe the game would be widly different than it turned out.

Me personally? I've seen the ARPG, consoles-first design philosolhy shift coming for many years now, so I checked out gameplay videos and made sure to watch how they played out. I could tell from that, not the actual words of Bioware, that the game was not something I'd be interested in playing, so I did not pick up the game. And further review of actual gameplay videos solidified that position.


By that certainly doesn't mean it is any consumers fault that they believed the message coming out from Bioware that the game was an evolution of the series, instead of a complete reinvention of many of its core mechanics. Shame on anyone who is admonishing people for "misreading" remarks that were disparate from the actual reality.

[AlanC9]

The game was said to get back to its roots in tactical RPG gameplay. Tactical. RPG. GAMEPLAY. Not "action RPG gameplay" or "pause the game every two seconds to overcome the lack of AI tactics." Again - you could say Doom was tactical with pause and play if all you meant was the game had a pause function.

As usual with these threads, I have to ask for your definition of "tactical" here.

[Tensai]

 

Aside from the combat being much more responsive and action oriented (unlike combat in, say, Kotor or Origins) I'm not sure if I get the whole "this feels like its meant for the new rpg crowd" mentality.  Even so, I find the more action-y combat has allowed me to approach combat as if my character's life depended on it.  I always sort of felt like a damage sponge in other games; just sort of absorbing blows as I slowly chipped away at enemy health.  It felt more like a game of who had the most hitpoints - and actually kind of took me out of character.  Now I can physically dodge attacks, hide behind walls, or jump onto/off of ledges to get away from attackers - and since health is severely limited in this game, I feel like there is weight to every hit my character takes.

 

 

Interesting points, i have to admit, that the action based combat system in DA2 and DA:I made me feel more connnected with my character. However i miss the tactical depth of DA:O that made - especially - bossfights less repetitive and more interesting than in DA:I, even DA2 feels tactical challenging compared to DA:I

 

Nethertheless DA:I isn't a bad game neither a great one, but still good. It just suffers from various design flaws: For instance the automatic distribution of attribute points. I don't get the point of this.. i mean wtf it's a RPG... RPG!! 

 

Or the decision to go for Quantity and not Quality regarding sidequests. Fewer but more profound sidequests. Less locations (Locations look awesome, however they feel... lifeless to me) but with better content. Actual puzzles and dungeons like in DA:O. Proper fights for castles (4 people conquering a castle?). And so on..

 

 

Some people mentioned that DA:I feels like a single player mmorpg. I have to agree. The large areas, filled with mobs, the fetching quests, makes the game and combat feel like an asian grinder

 

However. I think that Bioware set up a solid base for a (real, no f****ng dlc sh*t) expansion, which could do better than the base game and fix most of the flaws DA:I has.

Modifié par Tensai, 05 décembre 2014 - 04:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

As usual with these threads, I have to ask for your definition of "tactical" here.

Where the placement, formation and utilization of your units changes and improves your odds of success. The same way pretty much any military historian would.

[Draining Dragon]

>OP makes a completely reasonable post
>Gets called a mindless hater

Never change, BSN.

[AlanC9]

Where the placement, formation and utilization of your units changes and improves your odds of success. The same way pretty much any military historian would.

And this isn't true for DAI? If it isn't, then what determines success in DAI combat?

[Tensai]

And this isn't true for DAI? If it isn't, then what determines success in DAI combat?

 

I played Knight Enchanter. Combat success was detemined by spamming the spirit blade ability so hard, that you could beat a dragon 1 vs 1.

 

Compare that to the high dragon in DA:O or even DA2 and you'll understand.

[movieguyabw]

I played Knight Enchanter. Combat success was detemined by spamming the spirit blade ability so hard, that you could beat a dragon 1 vs 1.

 

Compare that to the high dragon in DA:O or even DA2 and you'll understand.

 

Many have reported that the Knight Enchanter feels OP compared to the other classes.  Not sure if I'd personally use that as evidence that tactics don't matter in the game.  I played a sniper-esque archer, and found placement of my characters was rather essential in combat (at least early on.  Around level 18/19 I've found it doesn't really matter where I stand for the most part, even on nightmare)  As an archer you can get damage increases for being at higher elevations, or attacking from behind, or if a character is stunned/asleep.  Mage abilities I've found are all about controlling the battlefield; I've lost count of how many times I've herded enemies into a fire mine, or straight at Iron Bull using Ice/Firewall.  Ice wall in and of itself is a rather useful ability which can be used as a shield for most attack types.  Throwing one up when a dragon was about to breathe on one of my characters saved my ass a ton of times.

 

As for warriors - you've got chokepoints you can have them hold, and position your ranged attackers behind them; so enemies can't get to you.  While they're focused on the warrior, your ranged characters are doing flanking damage on them.

 

Really, I've found character position and playing tactically were huge helps throughout most of the game.  Sure, you could probably breeze through the game if you were playing a Knight Enchanter - you could breeze through Origins though with an Arcane Warrior as well, and I haven't seen many people complain *that* was a bad thing.  There's always going to be a way to exploit gameplay and make things that were supposed to be challenging into a cakewalk.  If it wasn't the Knight Enchanter and their magical sword ability, it'd be something else.

[Fast Jimmy]

And this isn't true for DAI? If it isn't, then what determines success in DAI combat?

Button mashing? The game is designed to be played with a single character, spamming skills and the attack button, not giving orders to your team and strategically placing them, judiciously using their skills and abilities. The AI forgets orders as soon as it gets done doing the most basic of commands (you tell a unit to attack someone and they will go over, auto attack for a second, then beginning using their skills however they see fit unless you turn off every skill in the AI).

There are no enemy-sensitive tactics, no dynamic controls about how to control your party. The game fights against you every step of the way if you do anything other than leave your companions on auto pilot and play the game controlling one character at a time, pew-pew-pew'ing and spamming the eight abilities you have.

That's Hungry Hungry Hippos, if anything.

[Charcoal15]

I love the game, I prefer the combat in origins but like this combat too. I feel this game is getting a bit of unnecessary backlash because its in the Dragon age series, if it was not in the DA series it could get away with different combat, but because its in the DA series and is not exactly like origins combat people complain. Dont get me wrong, people are entitled to their own opinions, but the game is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be, without the bugs its a good game with some flaws, whether you personally like it or not. With the bugs its currently a little worse but unfortunately all major releases have bugs (they should not have them but at the same time because all major releases tend to have bugs these days we should start waiting until the major ones are patched before reviewing a game)

 

This game is ten times better than DA2, anyone with a pair or working eyes should be able to see that. Sure, its not an open world origins like most of us wanted, but its a brilliant game in its own right, and the silly little hate threads popping up because its not a next gen copy of orgins are not helping anyone.

[Tremere]

I hope you find what you are looking for, but your opinion =/= Everyone's opinion. 

"...your opinion /= || != Everyone's opinion."

 

I think your relational operator caused a syntax error.

 

*chuckles*

[BammBamm]

I played Knight Enchanter. Combat success was detemined by spamming the spirit blade ability so hard, that you could beat a dragon 1 vs 1.

 

Compare that to the high dragon in DA:O or even DA2 and you'll understand.

 

this is a balance problem and not a tactical

[BammBamm]

Button mashing? The game is designed to be played with a single character, spamming skills and the attack button, not giving orders to your team and strategically placing them, judiciously using their skills and abilities. The AI forgets orders as soon as it gets done doing the most basic of commands (you tell a unit to attack someone and they will go over, auto attack for a second, then beginning using their skills however they see fit unless you turn off every skill in the AI).

There are no enemy-sensitive tactics, no dynamic controls about how to control your party. The game fights against you every step of the way if you do anything other than leave your companions on auto pilot and play the game controlling one character at a time, pew-pew-pew'ing and spamming the eight abilities you have.

That's Hungry Hungry Hippos, if anything.

 

play on nightmare, turn of the party ai in the options (autoattack still works) and you will get exactly what you want.

[Tensai]

this is a balance problem and not a tactical

 

It is a balance issue. However it doesn't effect the tactical aspects , i switched over and played Sera for a while and it doesn't change the fact that you need zero tactics and simply can beat any enemy by controlling only one character the whole time (which is probably intented). Also the game seems to become extremly easy once you reached a certain level independent of the level of your enemy (as long as it is not too high). Difficulty and Friendly Fire have an impact. but it is an artificial one imho. Giving mobs more health and more dps has nothing to do with tactics.

[Bladenite1481]

play on nightmare, turn of the party ai in the options (autoattack still works) and you will get exactly what you want.

I played NM with FF, got the Inquisitor tag. Its still boring combat and has nothing to do with tactics, mostly tactics in this game is babysitting my teammates who are too stupid to realize that shooting arrows at the Hurlock from 2 feet away is the wrong thing to do. 

[Fast Jimmy]

play on nightmare, turn of the party ai in the options (autoattack still works) and you will get exactly what you want.

Not really? I don't want to pause and play every single frame by frame Attack. I liked the DA2's detailed tactics systems as it let me set up very specific behaviors that let me worry about positioning and controlling the battlefield, while letting tactics do the damage, keep my party in good standing and keep the general flow of things under control, adjusting as needed.

DA:I has two options: pew-pew single character control that mostly ignores the party or 60 hours of pausing minutia, with little in-between those two options. Neither of those are "exactly what I want." It basically forces the micro-management option with bloated HP bars on Nightmare.

[BammBamm]

I played NM with FF, got the Inquisitor tag. Its still boring combat and has nothing to do with tactics, mostly tactics in this game is babysitting my teammates who are too stupid to realize that shooting arrows at the Hurlock from 2 feet away is the wrong thing to do. 

 

let the ai play in an intelligent way is no tactic too its really funny people complain about lag of tactic AND complain about micromanage their teammates. to give them orders about behaviour is not tactics.

[movieguyabw]

There's actually a guide someone did on party tactics for Inquisition - you can actually set up party AI so that they can handle themselves in combat scenarios.  I'll agree that I wish there were more options when it came to party AI tactics (that was actually one of my more favorite bits in the earlier games)   However, if you set their tactics so that their defensive abilities are "preferred" and the rest of their abilities are "active" you don't really have to worry about babysitting them.