And this isn't true for DAI? If it isn't, then what determines success in DAI combat?
Success is determined in DAI by barrier generation, guard generation, and how many revive spells you have to use because Varric walked up to the dragon to shoot it again.
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.
That is because those of us who have played the game before don't want to babysit. We want the true tactics and behaviors menu back instead of this ancillary diluted sewage water they passed off as tactics this time.
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.
a big problem is not the skill behaviour, its the movement and overall behaviour. playing myself as double dagger rogue, so sneaking to the backline for the range enemies. my tank after one order to bind the melees he runs straight to my target and let my archer and mage with a bunch of melees alone. because of that i deactivated party ai. this kind of things you cant fix with prioritising skills
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.
Yeah, but at this point they don't help much either. Its basically like playing by yourself anyway. The AI is bad and I don't like baby sitting. You can pretend that the game is more tactical and that the lack of true logic behaviors has not impacted how people feel about gameplay and its all just their fanatic rantings, but you would be wrong. There was no reason to remove it, its just another artificial extension of difficulty. Another poorly designed choice to limit their player's instead of making the monsters harder to kill.
let the ai play in an intelligent way is no tactic too
While I do actually find setting up party AIs to be rather tactical experiences in the previous games, I do agree that it's rather odd to be saying you both want the party members to think for themselves; as well as wanting to have to have full control over party actions.
I mean, I always set party AIs up rather detailed so I *could* just play as my player character and not have to worry about switching between characters too often. If I wanted full control over my party at all times, I wouldn't have touched tactics in Origin and 2; and would've just kept switching between characters, giving commands.
Are people actually using the KE as an argument to say that balance is easy, and that the game no longer requires tactics?
Have people played as an Arcane Warrior in DA:O? You could solo the dragons on Nightmare with that broken class!
By that logic DA2 had the best dragon fights in the series, but you know, we can't ever give credit to DA2 even when it's due.
Yeah, but at this point they don't help much either. Its basically like playing by yourself anyway. The AI is bad and I don't like baby sitting. You can pretend that the game is more tactical and that the lack of true logic behaviors has not impacted how people feel about gameplay and its all just their fanatic rantings, but you would be wrong. There was no reason to remove it, its just another artificial extension of difficulty. Another poorly designed choice to limit their player's instead of making the monsters harder to kill.
While I do find the game to be more tactical than the other 2 games it really has nothing to do with party AI and having to control them during battle. It's more due to the fact that stuff like standing on top of a mountain, shooting down at their backs, has more of an effect than standing on level ground looking right at them. Positioning plays more of a role in this than the other 2 games, as well as other previous Bioware games. Other games the combat was determined by dice rolls; the result of a ranged attack has already been determined as soon as it's made - even if you run behind a wall before it hits you. There is no physical dodging. Being on a raised platform isn't going to give you more of an advantage than on level ground. Attacking 2 feet away in front of someone isn't going to be any different from attacking 20 feet away, behind them.
While I do actually find setting up party AIs to be rather tactical experiences in the previous games, I do agree that it's rather odd to be saying you both want the party members to think for themselves; as well as wanting to have to have full control over party actions.
I mean, I always set party AIs up rather detailed so I *could* just play as my player character and not have to worry about switching between characters too often. If I wanted full control over my party at all times, I wouldn't have touched tactics in Origin and 2; and would've just kept switching between characters, giving commands.
I thought the tac cam was crap as well. I tried that way for a while, it's extremely tedious and your guys often forget what orders you give them. I got bored messing with it, so I just made a team that was strong enough to overcome their own stupidity. It's just not fun, dude. Nothing about it is challenging unless you mean forcing myself to work with their design choices. The enemies are simple, have like three moves at most and have swollen hp. With limited healing it just comes to be about revive, barrier generation and guard generation. Very simple, very boring.
Oh and I played a KE once, then played a DW rogue. It wasn't any more difficult.
While I do find the game to be more tactical than the other 2 games it really has nothing to do with party AI and having to control them during battle. It's more due to the fact that stuff like standing on top of a mountain, shooting down at their backs, has more of an effect than standing on level ground looking right at them. Positioning plays more of a role in this than the other 2 games, as well as other previous Bioware games. Other games the combat was determined by dice rolls; the result of a ranged attack has already been determined as soon as it's made - even if you run behind a wall before it hits you. There is no physical dodging. Being on a raised platform isn't going to give you more of an advantage than on level ground. Attacking 2 feet away in front of someone isn't going to be any different from attacking 20 feet away, behind them.
I get what you are saying, most of those are passive skills, yeah? See I wanted to set my guys up to use those kinds of things, but unless I babysit them..which again I dislike doing, they just run toward the mob anyway or use every defensive skill to defend themselves thus doing nothing for the combat.
If you like it, that's cool, but to me its boring. I never had to baby sit the characters before, they always contributed on their own and did what I asked them to do from the tactics menu. The new behaviors menu is extremely limited and I find myself frustrated enough to say forget it and just solo whatever is in front of me instead.
let the ai play in an intelligent way is no tactic too
Other games the combat was determined by dice rolls; the result of a ranged attack has already been determined as soon as it's made - even if you run behind a wall before it hits you. There is no physical dodging. Being on a raised platform isn't going to give you more of an advantage than on level ground. Attacking 2 feet away in front of someone isn't going to be any different from attacking 20 feet away, behind them.
It wasn't just the Arcane Warrior who could solo the Dragons in origins on nightmare, with the right strategy and character build, most classes could do so.
So, are you saying the player's reflex speed in executing a dodge roll is MORE tactical than having the character's stats, attributes, equipment and abilities determine whether or not they are hit? I don't agree if that's what you are saying. As I said above - the general does not aim the gun of the soldier.
While I do like the benefits of elevation, it is a small benefit given the party's AI being preset to "bum rush everyone." It just makes archers an Uber overpowered build, especially since they aren't squishy at all to make them have to constantly move or be hindered by enemies right on top of them, smacking them as they aim a bow.
Problem I always had with the whole diceroll gameplay was that because you didn't really move the character around during combat you were always bound to get hit by an attack or two by design. Because of this, the amount of damage you usually took was pretty minimal. The enemies would slowly whittle you down to 0 health. Personally, I always felt like a sponge just soaking up blows with this gameplay style - even while playing a rogue or mage. This system is designed with the mentality that you *can* physically dodge away from attacks, and so the damage you can take is a lot more punishing and carries a lot more weight behind it. As such, I find it suits me better to approach battle in a way that will ensure I *don't* get hit.
Say what you will about ease, but I've always been more prone to Leeroy Jenkins combat in Kotor, or Origins; because I knew I could do it. Charging at a battalion of archers - even with Iron Bull at full guard - has only ever ended in me getting riddled with arrows and dropped in this game. Far better to put the archers to sleep, then come around and attack them from behind, or panic them, or set them on fire, or put an ice wall up to block their arrows, or any number of things to take their advantages away.
So yeah, I do find this system more tactical. Do I think there is room for improvement? Sure. But I don't think improvement would come in the way of a combat system like Kotor/Origins.
Also, keep in mind this is a roleplaying game, not a turnbased strategy. We aren't playing a general commanding his forces from a distance. We're playing a general in the thick of battle, alongside his forces. Personally, I don't see any reason why we *shouldn't* have more agency over how our character moves in battle in this circumstance. You say a general doesn't fire a soldier's gun - well he sure as hell fires his own if he's in the fight too.
Welp, it was better than DA2 and there is a fair amount of replayability for completionists.... Thats something.
Welp, it was better than DA2 and there is a fair amount of replayability for completionists.... Thats something.
to make the claim that DA:I is better than DA2 you have to look at the merits of both... perhaps you find more in DA:I than in DA2, which makes sense, given how expanded and generally open DA:I is compared to DA2 and even DA:O
i will agree that there is more in DA:I on a case by case basis, but as we all know, some things were gutted or left out entirely... these things are the basis of how i judge DA:I because it is a successor to DA2 and part of the dragon age franchise, at least bioware want us to think that it is... if it wasn't called dragon age then i would rate it fairly high but not too high as there are still mechanical and technical issues that are present that frustrate the living hell out of me when playing
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.
well ... this is what you get when you want a car and you go ahead and buy a motorcycle ...
i don't usually do this ... but your opinion is stupid. why ? because you're comparing this game with games that are NOT in any way related to it ( genre wise of course ).
the game has its problems ... definitely ... but these are not them.
you basically game here complaining that you can't drive a car in a fantasy action rpg ...
Success is determined in DAI by barrier generation, guard generation, and how many revive spells you have to use because Varric walked up to the dragon to shoot it again.
I'm curious.
How did you build Varric? ie: his abilities?
Yeah, but at this point they don't help much either. Its basically like playing by yourself anyway. The AI is bad and I don't like baby sitting. You can pretend that the game is more tactical and that the lack of true logic behaviors has not impacted how people feel about gameplay and its all just their fanatic rantings, but you would be wrong. There was no reason to remove it, its just another artificial extension of difficulty. Another poorly designed choice to limit their player's instead of making the monsters harder to kill.
I believe there was every reason to change, because of the ME3 mess. Bioware got burned badly because their PR kept say your choices matter. Well, we all know what happened.
So, in DAI, BW ensured your choices have consequences.... a manual tactical system! See? your choice of tactical play will have consequences....
I do miss my tactical list from DA2 and expected an improved version with DAI.....
I'm... uhh... flabbergasted.
Backlash? What backlash? There are some who don't like it and, like all games, complain loudly... but, frankly, the feedback is 90% positive from gamers at large.
Strawman, dude. Make your argument, you have plenty of valid points, but don't make stuff up. If you wanna see backlash, go check out the responses to DA2 and ME3. Negativity toward DA:I is no greater than virtually any other AAA game out there.
I'm... uhh... flabbergasted.
Backlash? What backlash? There are some who don't like it and, like all games, complain loudly... but, frankly, the feedback is 90% positive from gamers at large.
Strawman, dude. Make your argument, you have plenty of valid points, but don't make stuff up.
likewise, 90%? that's an irregularly large estimate given the inherent issues the game has
I'm curious.
How did you build Varric? ie: his abilities?
I believe there was every reason to change, because of the ME3 mess. Bioware got burned badly because their PR kept say your choices matter. Well, we all know what happened.
So, in DAI, BW ensured your choices have consequences.... a manual tactical system! See? your choice of tactical play will have consequences....
I do miss my tactical list from DA2 and expected an improved version with DAI.....
Lol funny, I approve.
I do miss my tactical list from DA2 and expected an improved version with DAI.....
Do you even DA:O?
http://www.nexusmods...onage/mods/181/
Problem I always had with the whole diceroll gameplay was that because you didn't really move the character around during combat you were always bound to get hit by an attack or two by design. Because of this, the amount of damage you usually took was pretty minimal. The enemies would slowly whittle you down to 0 health. Personally, I always felt like a sponge just soaking up blows with this gameplay style - even while playing a rogue or mage. This system is designed with the mentality that you *can* physically dodge away from attacks, and so the damage you can take is a lot more punishing and carries a lot more weight behind it. As such, I find it suits me better to approach battle in a way that will ensure I *don't* get hit.
Say what you will about ease, but I've always been more prone to Leeroy Jenkins combat in Kotor, or Origins; because I knew I could do it. Charging at a battalion of archers - even with Iron Bull at full guard - has only ever ended in me getting riddled with arrows and dropped in this game. Far better to put the archers to sleep, then come around and attack them from behind, or panic them, or set them on fire, or put an ice wall up to block their arrows, or any number of things to take their advantages away.
So yeah, I do find this system more tactical. Do I think there is room for improvement? Sure. But I don't think improvement would come in the way of a combat system like Kotor/Origins.
Also, keep in mind this is a roleplaying game, not a turnbased strategy. We aren't playing a general commanding his forces from a distance. We're playing a general in the thick of battle, alongside his forces. Personally, I don't see any reason why we *shouldn't* have more agency over how our character moves in battle in this circumstance. You say a general doesn't fire a soldier's gun - well he sure as hell fires his own if he's in the fight too.
to make the claim that DA:I is better than DA2 you have to look at the merits of both... perhaps you find more in DA:I than in DA2, which makes sense, given how expanded and generally open DA:I is compared to DA2 and even DA:O
i will agree that there is more in DA:I on a case by case basis, but as we all know, some things were gutted or left out entirely... these things are the basis of how i judge DA:I because it is a successor to DA2 and part of the dragon age franchise, at least bioware want us to think that it is... if it wasn't called dragon age then i would rate it fairly high but not too high as there are still mechanical and technical issues that are present that frustrate the living hell out of me when playing
Oh, I totally agree. My comment was designed to sort of say: "Well, its better then total crap". Which isn't much, but it is technically something. I greatly prefer the characters, world, combat, narrative - all of it, to DA2. Some of these things are not great, but better than what we had.
When it comes down to it, personally the things I have the biggest gripe with in the game.are the elements that feel half-assed, or were outright cut. Crafting weapons is ok, but crafting armor is half-assed. Its the same 3 designs with the most minor of changes as you go up in tiers. Not to mention that because the majority of schematics are based on RNG, it feels as though the player can never get what they really want. So, what we then are left with is armor thats way too similar, or dress like an npc. Even the NPC schematics cant be amended or added to.
When I looked at this game, I swear I was marketed a fantasy-military-romance-RPG. I thought that sounded amazing. Building strongholds, killing templars/mages in epic battles, being raided, building skyhold (assuming it would be attacked), all while hanging out with quality written BW characters. Remember the cutscene with Varric where you decide to save what you have built or, rescue the town? That was cut.
All of this was compounded with the "Lead them or Fall" motto for this title... So, I don't think I got the game that was advertised to me.
Frankly, the only area of the game that feels fully fleshed out (no pun intended) is the romances. BW was so desperate to score points and be as "inclusive" as possible with the love interests, that they devoted too many resources to them, and the other areas of the game didn't get enough love. This paid off for the romances. The romances were good, assuming you like the characters and the dialogue, which I think are well written and quite complex compared to previous recent BW games.
What I wanted was a great narrative with decent friends. What it felt more like is great friends with a decent narrative. Arguably, they tried to appeal to everyone and in the end made a product where few people feel totally satisfied. Stretched it too thin.
The game was delayed a year and a month, yet its still buggy as hell with major things cut or half done - which are all great criticisms. Now, if people want to disagree with the "politics of the romances" in the game, that CAN also be a valid criticism - as I said it, causeed poor allocation of resources; but its far more personal and theres little chance of swaying the writers or the devs (or forumites) one way or the other. Those people are already in their camps, and so I think its best to regard it as personal preference. If you don't like the direction BW is going politically, if its TRUELY too much for you, whatever the reason, then I encourage you to not buy future BW products - a tough pill to swallow, but again, its your issue and most likely you will only get pissed playing the games.
That you are playing the game "as" your character in combat is the disconnect. What piece do your play as in chess?
I think you're missing the point of a "roleplaying" game. I wasn't aware that when playing DND one person makes all of the decisions for the entire party. At least, that's how I usually look at it. Not saying that your playstyle is invalid - if you want to constantly have control over all of your characters, you should certainly be able to. Neither playstyle is "wrong" or "invalid" - I just personally find it more inkeeping with the spirit of roleplaying by sticking with one character. Of course this would be much easier if we had more control over party AI, admittedly. So I find myself using tactical at the start of most fights anyway, then just going back to my main character.
Still, I like the idea of them giving the option to play both ways to players. Even if I prefer one style of gameplay, doesn't mean I think they should devote their games to one playstyle in the future.
Though I assume we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.
Retour en haut