139 réponses à ce sujet

[VelvetStraitjacket]

My response to this thread is: lol.

[Yosharian]

I'm really disappointed with the combat getting shafted in Inquisition. Everything else in the game may be perfect, but that was the ONE aspect that I enjoyed the most and they ruined it.

 

Seriously at this point I just feel like buying a pack of cigars and sitting down to a fresh playthrough of something I never tried like a Dalish warrior and picking a male character this time so I can actually romance Morrigan.

 

Played Origins at least 3 times.  Played a human s&b warrior, an elven mage (nightmare), and finally a dwarven noble rogue (nightmare WITH NO MAGES).  It's a fun game.

[Cartims]

I can't stand the clunky jumping up hills, it's like I have lead  shoes on. Could have been smoother, however, I am enjoying this game very much.

[DarthGizka]

You want to go back to Origins because of combat? The combat in Inquisition is leaps and bounds better!

 

What combat? Beating on the same inert punching bags again and again is not combat, it's tedium. One only needs to see the off-kilter HP ratios - i.e. enemies having ten to a hundred times as many hitpoints as controllable characters - to know that drudgery a la Dungeon Siege awaits. There is great variety in enemy visuals - i.e. appearance and animation - but combat-wise there is no difference at all except for the varying amounts of HP. Apart from one-hitters like nugs and dragonlings there are only practice dummies with up to 10k HP who tend to occur in droves, and those with 20k+ who tend to occur in smaller numbers but whom melee toons often have to circle for several combat rounds before being able to apply a single whack (because invisible bounding volumes keep them from getting close to a hittable surface/feature). The last time an enemy actually needed tactics to defeat was some fifty hours ago, when my level-4 team ran into a bunch of level-12 outcasts (one of whom was a two-hander).

 

P.S.: To put things a bit in perspective I'd say that Origins - like KotOR and Morrowind - was a really great game despite its many flaws, whereas DAI's flaws affect gameplay so massively that they drag it down from its rightful throne to the point where it is merely good, despite its many excellencies.

[Hobbit]

My modded origins is beautifully optimized and still fun to play. DA:I's combat is terrible. Too tedious in Tac cam, too shallow in normal mode. Skill tree is too small like that of action games.
DAO has no obvious flaw. Just small in scale. DAI is grand and better written but combat is painful. I think they are tie.

[PlasmaCheese]

I just WISH that my mages and rangers would not SIT there and get STABBED IN THE FACE UNTIL THEY DIE. *FLIPS KEYBOARD*. Why don't they run from enemies like in DA2 and DAO? Am I missing something? I am so tired of babysitting EVERYONE. This is my only huge problem with the battle system. My mages and rangers are constantly dying because they won't move without me. JUST FRIGGIN'MOVEOOMMFGKGJFKDL.

 

It's like I'm playing turn-based or something! Don't get me wrong, I love turn-based battles in games but WTF. Am I missing something? The "Tactics" only show when to use which abilities. Is there a way to make them friggin' move without constantly babysitting them?

[Spaceweed10]

I'm really disappointed with the combat getting shafted in Inquisition. Everything else in the game may be perfect, but that was the ONE aspect that I enjoyed the most and they ruined it.

 

Seriously at this point I just feel like buying a pack of cigars and sitting down to a fresh playthrough of something I never tried like a Dalish warrior and picking a male character this time so I can actually romance Morrigan.

 

 

Couldn't agree less.

[Swordfishtrombone]

From what I've gathered, I get the idea that melee combat is the problem. I'm playing an archer, and don't control my companions in real time mode, so I've had no personal experience of the melee side of things, and consequently am not as bothered by the controls as those who play melee rogues or warriors.

 

I do see myself replaying the game a lot though, and picking up a melee character too, so I wish they'll improve it and smooth out the irritations by the time I get to it.

[IST]

I'm finding the combat great, 69 hours over 2 characters so far - Mage & Rogue.

 

Frost Step is to die for as a mage... can see how you might not like this style of combat if you are 100% turn-based normally or similar in your RPGs.

[Shelled]

Combat was the weakest point in Origin, IMO, I can't play it again because of this.

Maybe on consoles but on PC the tactics you could implement was awesome. Classic case of being a casual.

[IST]

Maybe on consoles but on PC the tactics you could implement was awesome. Classic case of being a casual.

 

Hardly... the combat was (IMO) the weakest part in Origins... and I played all of my 6 full playthroughs on a beast non-casual master race rig.

 

Then again, I use a console shill controller to play Inquisition, so my opinion may or may not be welcomed

[gay_wardens]

Maybe on consoles but on PC the tactics you could implement was awesome. Classic case of being a casual.

 

No, it's the same on consoles. You just can't use 1-0 on the keyboard, it's a rotating wheel instead.

 

Anyway I like that a lot of people are agreeing with me, at least some DA customers still have some sense.

 

You know maybe if they made the 8 ability limit OPTIONAL so you could toggle an abilities list in the radial menu on or off, just maybe, it wouldn't alienate half of DA's fanbase and you could still have your convoluted "Pikachu can only learn 4 moves. Delete an older move to make room for Chain Lightning?" gameplay.

 

Look.

 

A lot of the new stuff in Inquisition is cool. I like most of it. The new abilities are great, and honestly I never cared much for the AI tactics - although I agree they are a massive downgrade - because I prefer to constantly puppeteer the party on Nightmare. Takes a while but is thrilling in its own right. I just made my party Iron Bull, Blackwall, Varric and my Mage and it was really cool to watch the two warriors with different skill trees working in tandem.

 

But where am I going to put my special abilities when I unlock Templar/Reaver/whatever? Why do I have to sacrifice a whole ability point just to unlock skill trees with abilities that I can't always use?

 

Eight abilities, each with an upgrade. That's 16 levels. Add a couple passive abilities and you can already start to see that the endgame is very limited when it comes to character progresson. By putting the stats like Constitution in the ability trees they're effectively making the abilities you can unlock very limited and I can see where I will get bored quickly of using the same ones over and over.

[CapivaRasgor]

@gay_wardens

I normally don’t bother entering in a discussion of this kind but you have somewhat inspired me. Seriously, is it so hard for you to grasp that different people have different tastes? That it’s perfectly fine if you dislike DA: I’s combat for whatever reasons you see fit, it’s not fine however to try and impose your own tastes and opinions over others, to demand that everyone share your passionate hatred for the combat aspect of DA: I. You mentioned that your point is to get the message across that BioWare screwed combat, tatics and level progression over… fine.. mission accomplished we get the message, we just don’t happen to agree with it (in my case not entirely at least) so please, for the sake of civility, don’t get so “stick up the butt” with this fact, will you? Show some respect to those who don’t share your opinion, no offense, but the way you are reacting and responding to people here.. it’s kinda hard not to imagine you a spoiled and entitled person.. or a fanboy.

Also, if we hate Origins, by what miracle we bought DA: I then? Does that even make any remote sense? Are we masochists? We must be, investing money and time in a franchise which it’s first title we hated lol.

Now regarding the lore. Of course Origins “has more lore” than 2 or Inquisition, as it will always have when compared to any sequel that is yet to come. As the first contact we have with the franchise (in most cases) it’s part of it’s friggin job to “have more lore” than it’s sequels, being the first in a planned franchise means that the game will be concerned with introducing us to as many elements of the lore as it can, a big showcase designed to captivate us into the big world they crafted for the franchise. Besides, if you admittedly didn’t get very far in the game, how in the friggin hell do you know if a game “has more lore” than another? I know I said the first entry is usually the one with the “most lore” , but sequels ofthen enrich aspects of the lore, and in this regard DA: I has done so impeccably.

[castle]

I'm really angry that they changed the combat from the prievous games

I just dont like it at ALL

[wrdnshprd]

the game by itself is actually awesome.. the problem is its no longer a cRPG.. sorry its not.  its more of an action-RPG hybrid..  and thats ok.. but they should have advertised it as such from the beginning IMO.  you were going to upset your core fans of the series regardless with this change, so you mind as well have done so from the start.. that way people knew what they were buying.. they either would have accepted it.. or not.

 

personally, after beating the game (on normal), i can say the combat itself is ok with a controller... at least for ranged..  i didnt care for melee that much though.