75 réponses à ce sujet

[samuelkaine]

All flash and no substance. It's not just Dragon Age, either. This is an issue for the AAA game scene as a whole. In a few years time you won't even be able to play the games. They'll play themselves and ask you to make a story decision every once in a while... and it'll probably be who you want to have digital sex with.

 

 

Tactical combat has been removed and replaced with button mashing action combat, because of "progress" or something.

 

 

Can I just point out these criticisms are utterly contradictory?

 

Combat which demands you hit a button and is increasingly 'twitch' based may well not be your cup of tea, but it's the opposite to the 'interactive movie' system. The closest thing to games which play themselves are the Final Fantasy series, where the AI can do that based on gambits and pre-programmed tactics, precisely the tactics the Origins cultists bemoan the absence of. 

 

You can't, by definition, have a hands-off button masher. 

[Sidney]

This exactly.
It's not about combat being easy or difficult (a.k.a. "challenge"), but rather about how the mechanics were simplified by having less options so the game feels more like an action game.

Right, the game where at the end I had 300 health potions wasn't simple. The game I finished on hard with exactly 2 tactical commands on all allies 1. Heal < 20%, 2. Attack Nearest wasn't simple?

DAO might have allowed you more ways to think it was complex but it wasn't and in the end all the discussions of tactics can come down to one answer....you are right -- because there was no way to be wrong in that game.

[samuelkaine]

Right, the game where at the end I had 300 health potions wasn't simple. The game I finished on hard with exactly 2 tactical commands on all allies 1. Heal < 20%, 2. Attack Nearest wasn't simple?

DAO might have allowed you more ways to think it was complex but it wasn't and in the end all the discussions of tactics can come down to one answer....you are right -- because there was no way to be wrong in that game.

 

As demonstrated of course by the fact you could solo it on Nightmare, which rather shows the superfluousness of the companions!

[Kortok]

I really miss the basic things that were inexplicably removed.  Select all, mouse box to select certain groupings, auto-attack outside of tac view, overhead view that actually zooms out, etc.

[ApocAlypsE007]

Sigh

All DA games suffer from the same problem. The difficulty of the games is only knowledge based (with no real skill requirement): know the right build, use the right runes (DA:2 I'm looking at u, Blood mages without spirit rune are almost impossible, need to knock them down ASAP, with spirit rune are a joke) and the games become laughably easy.

 

DA:O on Nightmare is soloable, which shouldn't be practically possible when the game built around having 4 member party, which makes concepts of highground positioning, target firing, concave/convex formations and eliminating overkill rather pointless. Not talking about awakening, where every character became a living god with the aditional totaly broken skills. In DA:O the only challenging fights are the fight in the end of Witch Hunt and the Harvester.

 

DA:2 was also soloable, but much more tidious because of the bloated enemy HP pools. The fights were mostly about hoarding enemies around corners and smacking them around with AOE attacks, occassionaly having the right rune to deflect mage attacks.

 

So no, DA:I isn't any less tactical than the previous games which weren't very tactical to begin with. The only recent Bioware game that required skill at the highest difficulty is Mass Effect 2. You had to have quick tactical thinking and good aim. ME3 on nightmare was too easy because of the OP combos and lack of shields for many enemies.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

http://forum.bioware...eplay-elements/

[Darkly Tranquil]

Origins was easy mode honestly after they patched it due to whining.
But anyways, the only thing I really see as being a pain is the ai not staying on target.

I have to pause more in inq personally, I just set tactics in origins and stayed on my warden.

 

Isn't the fact that you have to pause more indicative of what we are talking about? The poor implementation of the tactics and the companion AI is why you have to pause more. Its the weakness of these control elements that hinders the controlability of your party, which in turn limits your tactical options because your companions are harder to control and less reliable in their actions.

[DemGeth]

No wouldn't say it limits my tactics I still do what I like.

To me that's a buggy ai not a design feature. I assume it will be patched at some point. Same as the tac cam not letting me send in my tank cause ceilings once in awhile. Least I hope thats not a feature

Basically a poster above me described the progression through the games better. Yes they're easy once you understand the mechanics. I'd agree that me2 was the toughest. ME3 could have been with a couple tweaks. Started a thread asking for insanity tweak back when it came out but...wasn't a popular sentiment I guess.

[Bladenite1481]

Sigh

All DA games suffer from the same problem. The difficulty of the games is only knowledge based (with no real skill requirement): know the right build, use the right runes (DA:2 I'm looking at u, Blood mages without spirit rune are almost impossible, need to knock them down ASAP, with spirit rune are a joke) and the games become laughably easy.

 

Isn't this the idea of an RPG though? Start weak, get strong, conquer? I have never played an RPG where it was truly difficult once I was fully geared and leveled.

 

I mean skill based games are action games. Like Dark Souls is skill based. I control if you hit me, I control if I can parry you or roll through your weapon at the right time and launch a counter. The problem to me with wanting DA to do this is that it shouldn't but it's trying. There are reactive skills that roll or jump back, its kinda obvious what they are attempting to simulate there, but its stupid. People wanted flashy combat, so now there is simplified aiming, simulated evasion skills instead of evasion percentage and animation,and the illusion of an action game is created. It's this strange silly hybrid that really shouldn't exist but it does because just like the story gives you the illusion of choice, the game play gives people the illusion of control. 

 

I suppose what I am saying is that if I want an action based game where my own reflexes matter then I will play one. The real issue is that DA has always been a hybrid..it used to be part RTS and part RPG, now its part RPG and part Action/adventure..and people want their RTS back because frankly there are other companies who do the whole Action/Adventure thing much better. 

[FrontlinerDelta]

The hyperbole is this thread is truly laughable. Good entertainment though. 

[ApocAlypsE007]

Isn't this the idea of an RPG though? Start weak, get strong, conquer? I have never played an RPG where it was truly difficult once I was fully geared and leveled.

 

I mean skill based games are action games. Like Dark Souls is skill based. I control if you hit me, I control if I can parry you or roll through your weapon at the right time and launch a counter. The problem to me with wanting DA to do this is that it shouldn't but it's trying. There are reactive skills that roll or jump back, its kinda obvious what they are attempting to simulate there, but its stupid. People wanted flashy combat, so now there is simplified aiming, simulated evasion skills instead of evasion percentage and animation,and the illusion of an action game is created. It's this strange silly hybrid that really shouldn't exist but it does because just like the story gives you the illusion of choice, the game play gives people the illusion of control. 

Thats not my point. It's not just while fully geared and leveled, it's the entire game.

 

And no, games with skill factor don't have to be action games. Case in point- all Starcraft games (small army control in Protoss vs Protoss matchup in SC2 comes to mind), and actually I think the less random rolls evolved the better.

[samuelkaine]

Isn't this the idea of an RPG though? Start weak, get strong, conquer? I have never played an RPG where it was truly difficult once I was fully geared and leveled.

I mean skill based games are action games. Like Dark Souls is skill based. I control if you hit me, I control if I can parry you or roll through your weapon at the right time and launch a counter. The problem to me with wanting DA to do this is that it shouldn't but it's trying. There are reactive skills that roll or jump back, its kinda obvious what they are attempting to simulate there, but its stupid. People wanted flashy combat, so now there is simplified aiming, simulated evasion skills instead of evasion percentage and animation,and the illusion of an action game is created. It's this strange silly hybrid that really shouldn't exist but it does because just like the story gives you the illusion of choice, the game play gives people the illusion of control.

I suppose what I am saying is that if I want an action based game where my own reflexes matter then I will play one. The real issue is that DA has always been a hybrid..it used to be part RTS and part RPG, now its part RPG and part Action/adventure..and people want their RTS back because frankly there are other companies who do the whole Action/Adventure thing much better.

Except that "part rts" was never there for the vast majority of players. 89% of those who purchased DA:O bought it for a console, which never had the isometric camera. They always played in the third person 'action rpg' view, where the slow and clunky nature of dice-based combat is more obvious.

I think this fundamental difference in experience is behind a great deal of the friction over what Dragon Age should be.

[Tensai]

Challenge =/= complexity. Challenge =/= tactical.

 

Agree. 

 

For those who say "play on nightmare"

 

Dying in 2 hits and needing 20 hits to take down a single enemy is challenging, but not tactical demanding.

[Sidney]

Isn't this the idea of an RPG though? Start weak, get strong, conquer? I have never played an RPG where it was truly difficult once I was fully geared and leveled.
. 
 
I suppose what I am saying is that if I want an action based game where my own reflexes matter then I will play one. The real issue is that DA has always been a hybrid..it used to be part RTS and part RPG, now its part RPG and part Action/adventure..and people want their RTS back because frankly there are other companies who do the whole Action/Adventure thing much better.

There is no action to this. What action is there. I guess I have to mash the attack button but there is no skill to it. Skyrim had skill based combat, I had to aim to hit those cracked up ferret Necromancers and I had to time right to shield block attacks. The Witcher 2 has action because it is a timing based counter system, Fallout has action because it is a shooter at heart now in combat even with the VATS system grafted on. mass effect requires some measure of skill even with an adept type class. DA remains on of the few point n click (and now click and click and click) games where the character defines the results of the attack and not the player. It doesn't get less action-y than this. If this is an action game so is XCOM.

[Eggplant Hell Princess]

I just want AI a step above abysmally stupid.

 

Yes Dorian thank you for running right under the dragon's feet. Great thanks. Very grateful.

[Aver88]

There is no action to this. What action is there. I guess I have to mash the attack button but there is no skill to it. Skyrim had skill based combat, I had to aim to hit those cracked up ferret Necromancers and I had to time right to shield block attacks. The Witcher 2 has action because it is a timing based counter system, Fallout has action because it is a shooter at heart now in combat even with the VATS system grafted on. mass effect requires some measure of skill even with an adept type class. DA remains on of the few point n click (and now click and click and click) games where the character defines the results of the attack and not the player. It doesn't get less action-y than this. If this is an action game so is XCOM.

 

Whatever you want to call it, it's just semantics. The thing is you don't have to think when you play it, you also said that you don't have to be skilled to play it - so it seems that combat is just mindless button masher and it shouldn't be.

 

I know that combat in previous games weren't perfect. Yes, it needed more balance - BW should rework potion system and skills. They should have make it less clunky, more dynamic and improve controls on consoles, but they shouldn't have remove any depth that it had. After longer session of DA:I I don't pay attention to what is happening on the screen. Just pressing buttons in right order like it is one big, quick time event. 

 

Only thing that improved in DA:I is that the combat looks more impressive visually. "Awesome button" trailer feels like it was made fro DA:I.

[AlanC9]

Isn't the fact that you have to pause more indicative of what we are talking about? The poor implementation of the tactics and the companion AI is why you have to pause more. Its the weakness of these control elements that hinders the controlability of your party, which in turn limits your tactical options because your companions are harder to control and less reliable in their actions.

Does that limit your tactical options, or just your playstyle? Anything the AI could do in the earlier games could be done by hand if you cared to. Though I agree it's an issue - my preferred style is to only leave my PC or pause when absolutely necessary.

[AlanC9]

Whatever you want to call it, it's just semantics. The thing is you don't have to think when you play it, you also said that you don't have to be skilled to play it - so it seems that combat is just mindless button masher and it shouldn't be.

I know that combat in previous games weren't perfect. Yes, it needed more balance - BW should rework potion system and skills. They should have make it less clunky, more dynamic and improve controls on consoles, but they shouldn't have remove any depth that it had. After longer session of DA:I I don't pay attention to what is happening on the screen. Just pressing buttons in right order like it is one big, quick time event. 
 

Did you have to think more in the other games? I'm replaying DAA now while waiting for my new mobo, and I'm still looking for the depth. Hell, I'm playing on Nightmare and haven't bothered to either control the NPCs or change their default AIs, and the only battle I've had trouble with was Esmerelle because the archers kept stunlocking my party with Scattershot. OTOH, all that proves is that DAO's combat system breaks down at high levels, which has been true for just about every Bio game to date

[WillieStyle]

Agree. 

 

For those who say "play on nightmare"

 

Dying in 2 hits and needing 20 hits to take down a single enemy is challenging, but not tactical demanding.

 

You don't need 20 hits to take out a single enemy on nightmare if you play....

 

...tactically!

[In Exile]

Isn't the fact that you have to pause more indicative of what we are talking about? The poor implementation of the tactics and the companion AI is why you have to pause more. Its the weakness of these control elements that hinders the controlability of your party, which in turn limits your tactical options because your companions are harder to control and less reliable in their actions.

No. I never even used the tactics menu in DAO or DA2 beside as a way to disable the AI entirely. Having NPCs on autopilot is one way to play the game but it is by no means the only "tactical" way to play it.

I will say though that with the PC ui in this game the lack of a tactics screen is insanely frustrating.

[Lee T]

The only recent Bioware game that required skill at the highest difficulty is Mass Effect 2. You had to have quick tactical thinking and good aim.

Or three characters spamming Warp, best with a sentinel character to have access to overload. ME2 system was as complex as rock paper scissors.

[Bladenite1481]

Thats not my point. It's not just while fully geared and leveled, it's the entire game.

 

And no, games with skill factor don't have to be action games. Case in point- all Starcraft games (small army control in Protoss vs Protoss matchup in SC2 comes to mind), and actually I think the less random rolls evolved the better.

Never played it, just looked. Yeah, that is a totally different kind of game. Its a true tactical sim, not an RPG. Its like warhammer not DnD. Tactical sims, controlling armies and empires were never my thing, but I can see how someone who tried DA thinks it incredibly easy, because it is. But difficulty isn't really the point of these kinds of games, it never has been. It's about if you had fun while destroying the enemy in your own way and enjoyed the story around your characters. If you didn't, then yeah this kind of game was never for you anyway. 

 

To me its all about this..story and game play elements in a game are sort of like offense and defense on a football team. What I mean by this is if your offense is good, then you can overcome a not as good defense and vice versa, but if both are subpar then you just lose. For me, neither the game play or the story is engaging so I'm just sort of "meh" about all of it. 

[Bladenite1481]

Did you have to think more in the other games? I'm replaying DAA now while waiting for my new mobo, and I'm still looking for the depth. Hell, I'm playing on Nightmare and haven't bothered to either control the NPCs or change their default AIs, and the only battle I've had trouble with was Esmerelle because the archers kept stunlocking my party with Scattershot. OTOH, all that proves is that DAO's combat system breaks down at high levels, which has been true for just about every Bio game to date

Yeah, most RPG games break down by the time you get to semi-godhood. Which is what you basically were by Awakenings. 

[Giantdeathrobot]

Isn't the fact that you have to pause more indicative of what we are talking about? The poor implementation of the tactics and the companion AI is why you have to pause more. Its the weakness of these control elements that hinders the controlability of your party, which in turn limits your tactical options because your companions are harder to control and less reliable in their actions.

 

See, this is what I don't get.

 

On the one hand, people say the game is less complex, with less abilities/spells to use, less customisation, basically less things to do in combat.

 

On the other hand, the same people also bemoan that you can't use the Tactics screen to basically have your party completely manage itself. Which one is it? 

 

I replayed Origins recently, on Nightmare. It was easier than DA:I on Hard with FF on, thanks to all the potion hoarding and easy to use healing spells. Outside of a select few fights with mass CC or heavy damage, Origins is a cakewalk, even moreso if you use crafting or min-max.

 

Inquisition on Nightmare requires planning (for me at least), and timing when it comes to using combos or barriers. Given that the more squishy party members die in seconds, positioning them well is also pretty important. I agree that Inquisition has less options (I found most of them superfluous but that's neither here nor there). I don't agree that it requires less tactics, and the far more interesting itemization makes up for a good part of the lost customization to me.

 

Hell, in terms of customization, we lost crossbows (well, semi lost, hello Varric), duel-wield on warriors, and weapons other than staves on Mages as well as some abilities (which might have been needed, Mages in Origins had lots of redundant spells, and all classes gained lots of interesting passives). The latter is really annoying, if sorta made up by Knight-Enchanter. Apart from that, we still have armor customization (more than before), we have a much better crafting system, and one look at the Combat & Strategy forum shows the game still has lots of possible builds.