848 réponses à ce sujet

[Zered]

I enjoy Inquisition but I wished future DA games were more like Origins.

[AlanC9]

I played BG1 (back when Bioware was still Black Isle). I can see the relationship--but no, I'm not sure DA:I goes back to that. Having said that, I haven't touched either BG game for 10-odd years, so my memory may be fuzzy.

Obviously somewhat fuzzy, since Bioware was never Black Isle.

[Ultim Asari]

I guess I'm the only one who remembers the boring combat and technical functions of Origins... meh

[ironhorse384]

  Bioware was never Black Isle.

True but I think it's worth mentioning that Black Isle was the publisher for BG1 and BG2.

[Maverick827]

I guess I'm the only one who remembers the boring combat and technical functions of Origins... meh

Inquisition's AI makes combat even more boing. You have to babysit everything.

[Chaos17]

What Skyrim clone? Bioware went back and updated BG1.

 

BG 1 and 2 are 100% c-rpg wich Da:I is not and that's why pc gamers are pissed off.

Go play real c-rpg games before saying nonsense.

[Ultim Asari]

Inquisition's AI makes combat even more boing. You have to babysit everything.

 

Yes, because Origins wasn't slow and the companion AI's weren't stupid...

[dreamgazer]

I guess I'm the only one who remembers the boring combat and technical functions of Origins... meh

You're not. I love the experience of Origins, but I don't have very much fun playing it.

I'm enjoying both in Inquisition, in healthy doses.

[Sondermann]

Inquisition's AI makes combat even more boing. You have to babysit everything.

Not at all. I'm playing a DW rogue on nightmare and I very rarely have to switch to tactical view. It's all a question of setting up your party members correctly.

I would however agree that for all their talk about "tactical view is coming back" the game was obviously designed to be mainly played in "action" mode.

[ironhorse384]

Yes, because Origins wasn't slow and the companion AI's weren't stupid...

This is one constant across all three titles. I set the my companions to all follow themselves in the hopes that would act a little more intelligently. No no, Cassandra, I don't need you to follow me while I'm taking out the archer you take on the guy swinging the mallet.

[Maverick827]

Not at all. I'm playing a DW rogue on nightmare and I very rarely have to switch to tactical view. It's all a question of setting up your party members correctly.
I would however agree that for all their talk about "tactical view is coming back" the game was obviously designed to be mainly played in "action" mode.

I prefer to play optimally. If my party takes any damage, I've failed. You can't do that in this game without far more babysitting than DAO and DA2 required.

Every video I've seen of a DW rogue being played in action mode and ends up with the rest of the party half dead or chugging potions. I don't like to play that way.

[Sondermann]

I prefer to play optimally. If my party takes any damage, I've failed. You can't do that in this game without far more babysitting than DAO and DA2 required.

Every video I've seen of a DW rogue being played in action mode and ends up with the rest of the party half dead or chugging potions. I don't like to play that way.

"If you don't want your party to take damage at all you have to micromanage everything - therefore combat is boring" is a bit more specific than what you originally wrote. You can always introduce constraints which break the system.

Modifié par Sondermann, 16 décembre 2014 - 05:02 .

[AlanC9]

BG 1 and 2 are 100% c-rpg wich Da:I is not and that's why pc gamers are pissed off.
Go play real c-rpg games before saying nonsense.

Depends on the definition of CRPG, doesn't it?

[tmp7704]

BG 1 and 2 are 100% c-rpg wich Da:I is not and that's why pc gamers are pissed off.

Don't misrepresent your own tastes as some sort of universal "pc gamers" thing.

[AlanC9]

I prefer to play optimally. If my party takes any damage, I've failed. You can't do that in this game without far more babysitting than DAO and DA2 required.
Every video I've seen of a DW rogue being played in action mode and ends up with the rest of the party half dead or chugging potions. I don't like to play that way.

So the problem with DAI is that we have to play it the way we played BG2? I agree that the companions aren't as autonomous as they were before; my preferred DA:O/DA2 playstyle is to let the companions run on their own unless it's a boss fight. But it's a funny way to complain about DAI not being tactical enough, or a CRPG, or whatever.

[dreamgazer]

I prefer to play optimally. If my party takes any damage, I've failed. You can't do that in this game without far more babysitting than DAO and DA2 required.

I don't know how you'd get through DA:I like that even with previous control schemes, especially considering the giants.

[ironhorse384]

"If you don't want your party to take damage at all you have to micromanage everything - therefore combat is boring" is a bit more specific than what you originally wrote. You can always introduce constraints which break the system.

Agreed, I, initially, played with the tac cam and it quickly became a pause fest, for me. I now play full no pause and only switch, occasionally, to my archer or mage when they wade to close to melee combat, other than that I control my rogue throughout the whole engagement.

[tmp7704]

I don't know how you'd get through DA:I like that even with previous control schemes, especially considering the giants.

Between barrier, CC, blocking/guard and sensible positioning it's pretty doable in tactical mode. On hard anyway, didn't try on nightmare and no real intention to.

[In Exile]

None of those are sequels. Or if not sequels, in the same franchise.

At least with BG and KOTOR you're running on rule sets (D&D 2e and D20 respectively). They wouldn't handle the same because of that.

BG2 was a radical change from BG1. It kept the gameplay the same but design philosophy, NPCs, quests etc. were nothing alike. While BG2 was better loved lots of people disliked the changes.

[Sondermann]

Between barrier, CC, blocking/guard and sensible positioning it's pretty doable in tactical mode. On hard anyway, didn't try on nightmare and no real intention to.

I started a mage playthrough like that and played it until about level 13 but after my experience playing nightmare rogue in action mode I'm not sure I'd want to go back to tac cam micromanage. It wasn't bad, but it can get grindy (and obviously the tac cam could need some overhaul (no more autocentering please...).

[In Exile]

The similarities between BG1 and DA:I are just superficial, and in most cases, only on paper. Exploration in DA:I, by how it's controlled and played, resembles Bethesda's style more than old Bioware. Big maps which require not only walking, but constant jumping, "exploring" with a search button and taking insane amounts of products to keep item based gameplay rolling. In BG you could change attributes at the beginning ad this allocation had a deep impact in the way the game was played. This has nothing to do with DA:I, and is a difference, not a similarity.


The stat allocation BG offered at the beginning of the game had a deep impact in gameplay flow. In DA:I you play precisely by changing those attributes with items and crafting; the gameplay is radically different. If anything this is, again, a difference.


No regenerating health, no, but many ways to heal your characters during combat by magic. In fact, healing magic palyed a huge role in a class "roleplaying" and could impact deeply the way the game was played. DA:I has only potions.


The way those roles are handled in Inquistion have little to do with the way Bioware tend to devise those clases in the past. The only class that still works, more or less like the old role, is the warrior-tank. Both the thief and the mage have different roles that clearly diverge from their late cousins. Thieves left diversity for damage dealing; mages left damage dealing for "crowd control" roles. The way those new roles are handled are much more similar to the gameplay changes late rpg gaming added to viodegames.

This is not even close to being right. Your first paragraph is just a complaint that DAI has a z-axis. Which it does because this game isn't 2D.

The statistics angle is just the D&D mechanic. BG1 isn't defined by being D&D anymore than PS:T is defined by its D&D mechanics. Although that was what BG1 was lauded for at the time. Even if you're right, the fact that the mechancis are different is irrelevant to the comparison.

But you're very much wrong on health. Even in late game BG1 with 2 clerics in the party healing was VERY rare and you couldn't heal to full health without abusing resting.

[In Exile]

I don't know how you'd get through DA:I like that even with previous control schemes, especially considering the giants.

When I started DAI I played on normal because of the new UI on PC. I regularly took 0 damage per encounter. I only had to use potions when closing level 8 rifts at level 5.

[bEVEsthda]

When I started DAI I played on normal because of the new UI on PC. I regularly took 0 damage per encounter. I only had to use potions when closing level 8 rifts at level 5.

 

Yes, it's playable. Not so enjoyable, but I don't play these games for the combat anyway. I started out at hard, but despite fighting the UI more than the enemies, and being confused all the time, I haven't died yet. I switch between tactical and press-R as needed.

 

But they really should fix the PC-interface.

[Salaya]

This is not even close to being right. Your first paragraph is just a complaint that DAI has a z-axis. Which it does because this game isn't 2D.

The statistics angle is just the D&D mechanic. BG1 isn't defined by being D&D anymore than PS:T is defined by its D&D mechanics. Although that was what BG1 was lauded for at the time. Even if you're right, the fact that the mechancis are different is irrelevant to the comparison.

But you're very much wrong on health. Even in late game BG1 with 2 clerics in the party healing was VERY rare and you couldn't heal to full health without abusing resting.

 

Even if my 1st paragraph were just what you say it is, you wouldn't be right, since only the fact that this game is not 2d is a significant difference in control and gameplay flow. But I'm sure you know this, despite your words. You conveniently forget to mention the other point, though, because you know it weakens even deeper your statement.

 

The mechanics are different and that's irrelevant for the comparison? Wich comparison? You clearly don't understand what comparison I was judging. Stat allocation had a deep impact because it was scarce and only at the beginning -or with some very rare items. Inquistion revolves around artificial stat allocation with gear. The difference is radical, and relevant when you're trying to compare BG1 and Inquisition as similar, since both systems affect dramatically gameplay. The only "half truth" in that comparison is that none of the two games allow direct stat allocation ("half" because BG allowed some degree of direct allocation at the beginning).

 

That final statement is plainly false. I played BG1 and BG2 multiple times, and always with clerics. And healing magic was essential, and affected the gameplay flow radically. Abusing rest or feeling that healing magic is not relevant depends mostly on your gameplay style. But, as before, you know this already, I'm pretty sure of it.

[pdusen]

This thread reminds me of when I first started a new game of Origins. Daddy Cousland had just told me to go find Fergus, so I walk out of the room to look for him, only for the game to zoom all the way out into this weird overhead view that made the game look like I was playing with lincoln logs.

 

I immediately thought to myself, "This is stupid. Why would anyone want to play like this?" I zoomed back in and then proceeded to completely forget about that view, all the way until after I had finished DA2, when I came here and people were complaining that it was gone.

 

Of course, objectively speaking, I can now understand the value that people who want that kind of view see in it. I just feel no desire whatsoever to ever play a game that way. If Bioware didn't include it in DA4 I wouldn't miss it at all.