158 réponses à ce sujet

[shubnabub]

Simple statement on this one.... Watch.... ME..... Play!!! EPIC is going right over your head and between your legs. Just cause it isn't easy doesn't mean it isn't good or broken. GIT SUM

What in the **** was that?

[StrayChild83]

Thats not bad idea, but even better would be drop main char as well, and all combat. Dragon age could go in direction of sims of castle building, except that it wouldn't allow players to build their castle fully upgraded but leaves em incomplete some empty areas and not fully repaired.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Hey guys,

 

Whether you like DA:I combat or not, it is quite apparent that Bioware does not consider tactical party RPG's to be financially feasible for this generation of hardware. Right now, most people will have to agree that the combat system in DA:I is 'acceptable' at best. It doesn't have quite the weight of Dark Souls combat or the accuracy/timing of Skyrim combat. A large reason the combat is like this is because it allows for some degree of tactical control utilizing all your party members. 

 

To me, the next logical step which could actually improve the combat greatly, is removing party members (who can be controlled manually) from the equation. I know, Bioware games usually lean heavily on party banters and such - that's why I think it might still be feasible to have perhaps one non controllable NPC with you in the next DA games. It would be a heckuva lot easier to make responsive, skill based combat when Bioware only has to consider one or two party members in all.

 

The Mass Effect series has the benefit of FPS mechanics which invoke skill. The Dragon Age series used to have it's (old school) tactical mechanics - which have since then been stripped away. I'm trying to form a concept in my head on how this will evolve over their next games. Again, I'm not trying to say it's inherently bad they they aimed for more action oriented combat, I just think they should go the full mile.

 

What do you guys think? 

 

[Angloassassin]

Hey guys,

 

Whether you like DA:I combat or not, it is quite apparent that Bioware does not consider tactical party RPG's to be financially feasible for this generation of hardware. Right now, most people will have to agree that the combat system in DA:I is 'acceptable' at best. It doesn't have quite the weight of Dark Souls combat or the accuracy/timing of Skyrim combat. A large reason the combat is like this is because it allows for some degree of tactical control utilizing all your party members. 

 

To me, the next logical step which could actually improve the combat greatly, is removing party members (who can be controlled manually) from the equation. I know, Bioware games usually lean heavily on party banters and such - that's why I think it might still be feasible to have perhaps one non controllable NPC with you in the next DA games. It would be a heckuva lot easier to make responsive, skill based combat when Bioware only has to consider one or two party members in all.

 

The Mass Effect series has the benefit of FPS mechanics which invoke skill. The Dragon Age series used to have it's (old school) tactical mechanics - which have since then been stripped away. I'm trying to form a concept in my head on how this will evolve over their next games. Again, I'm not trying to say it's inherently bad they they aimed for more action oriented combat, I just think they should go the full mile.

 

What do you guys think? 

 

 

 

A) Swinging wildly like I'm flailing noddles, in some of the most lazy animations I've ever seen - Usually in the rhythm of "In, swish, out , clang" is not what I'd consider "Accurate" or proper "timing", most of the game (Especially if you Meta'd), you could waltz in, pull the attack trigger, and win. 

 

Just because they went for Action Oriented Combat, doesn't make the party any less relevant. Short of them Standing in the Dragon's Breath sometimes, my AI has been rather responsive - and I'd prefer to keep things as they were.

 

A1 Steak Sauce) While I do like Dragon's Dogma approach to Combat, being able to grab onto an enemy or climb large-scaled monsters; truly the best thing since Shadow of the Colossus. The AI There was much much much worse.

 

Pawns attempting to use useless spells/attacks for the encounter at hand, riding monsters off a ledge because their AI tells them to hold onto it for an advantage, repeating the same five lines of dialogue about an enemy in a single fight. I even had one pick me up and almost throw me off a ledge once. Then I proceeded to reciprocate by throwing him off a ledge.

 

Next thing we know it'll be "Ramirez, Do this!"

[Andraste_Reborn]

This is a terrible idea. It's one of the two things BioWare could do that would make me, a die-hard fangirl, abandon the series. The companions and party combat are half the reason I play these games!

 

(The other terrible thing they could hypothetically do is getting rid of the pause function, for the record.)

[Hazegurl]

That's what I hated about Skyrim, in addition to the lifeless world. Terrible "companions" that just stand around. I agree about Dragon's Dogma. I cannot understand why BW will try to copy everyone else but a game that has given us successful rpg combat. Fighting larger foes is better, AI companions are better (in combat), skills are better. How hard is it?

[level4paperboy]

@OP- The sad thing is that it'll alienate the people that play DA for the character driven story it's known for. In stead of using DA:I as an example of how things should be in the future, I believe that they should see it as an example on how to better improve the next game to be truer to it's original purpose. With the way things are shaping up in the world of RPGs, people are already hard-pressed to find good RPGs that aren't action-RPGs.

[yeldarbnotned]

Doesn't bioware have a game like that?  SWTOR!  You have one party member that you have limited control over.  You can select their abilities during combat and assign which spells are active but can not take direct control of companion.

 

But, anyways, I have to admit while playing this game that I actually wondered, "why do we even have party combat in this game?"  I would prefer them improving upon the party combat, camera, AI, and tactics rather than doing away with party.

[Meepichi]

Heck no! The party mechanic and story are the main reasons I enjoy Dragon Age.  Combat is secondary.  I just play on standard difficulty so the party AI works just fine for me once I pick the skills I want them to use the most. I'm sure it'd work fine with higher difficulty as well but with more micro managing, however I don't play these games for an extreme challenge. 

[luism]

This new ai is bad but it's still slightly better than my wall shooting Ashley and Liara in me 1. Love both those girls dearly but they weren't much help for me on that entire mission.

[TheFamilyDog]

NO

[AlexiaRevan]

Skyrim combat was good ? All I remember was guard going hostile because they got in middle of a spell I was casting . And animals falling to their deaths all of a sudden because they can't climb a mountain proprely.....

 

No thanx . 

[CitizenThom]

The thing is, ever since Baldur's Gate, party banter is the one thing that always makes Bioware's games stand apart from the crowd. Mass Effect 2 did the best squad combat, in my opinion, afterall, the most challenging part of squad combat in DAI is that NPC's don't stick with the order you gave them. In ME2 that was never a problem... pathfinding, self preservation were problems, but NPC's always stuck with the orders you gave them.

[Althaz]

Skyrim combat was good ? All I remember was guard going hostile because they got in middle of a spell I was casting . And animals falling to their deaths all of a sudden because they can't climb a mountain proprely.....

 

No thanx . 

Playing as a stealthy archer was fun as hell, not about the rest of the combat methods, I didn't try them (but I enjoyed sword & board in Oblivion).

 

The combat in DA: I is a clear weak point. Tactical combat has lost all sense of positioning compared to DA: O and the Infinity Enginge games and it's not as responsive as genuine action games. I'm ok with either way (but tactical combat is better), but it needs to be improved.

That said, dropping the party would be a f***ing stupid idea - your party is the best part of the game. What they actually need to do is make them speak more and let us talk to them while we are out and about isntead of having to return to Skyhold to have a conversation.

[Dominus]

What do you guys think?

I'm thinking it'll never happen. One of Dragon Age's pillars of the franchise is tactical combat with multiple party members. I love Dark Souls, and they may take inspiration from the game series, but I don't think they'll ever go fully lone-wolf.

You can still technically beat the game by yourself if that's your thing. *Cough*

[Azazel185]

I wouldn't mind if they stole dragon's dogma's combat system with the grappling onto creatures and fatality moves again. I miss the old finishing moves from DA;O.

[Sartoz]

 Big Snip

---------

To me, the next logical step which could actually improve the combat greatly, is removing party members (who can be controlled manually) from the equation. I know, Bioware games usually lean heavily on party banters and such - that's why I think it might still be feasible to have perhaps one non controllable NPC with you in the next DA games. 

--------

Snip

 

Two?

Legacy Players like me won't go fo it.  Nope. I go for the story first with an accompanying good combat system. Bio has done it before and can do it again.

 

EA may see FPS games as milking the proverbial cow. Moving DA in that direction won't work very well. This franchise is not geared for FPS. The current franchise, that is. It may morph into one if EA keeps pushing for it and the MP component becomes a success. 

 

Personally. I'm looking forward towards upcoming non EA RPGs where I can actually Role Play.

[Sartoz]

I'm thinking it'll never happen. One of Dragon Age's pillars of the franchise is tactical combat with multiple party members. 

------

Snip

Yes, it's one pillar that EA, the publishing company, is chipping away at. 

[metatheurgist]

Why are tactical mechanics old school? Action games are as old as computer games themselves. If anything tactical games were an evolution and we're now devolving back to the 2-bit age.

[AlanC9]

As usual, I have no idea what we mean here when we say "tactical." Usually it just seems to mean "slow combat."

[lichg]

Might as well remove the dragon age part in the title along with it

[ShinsFortress]

Disagree.

 

1) subjectively I like party based stuff.  2) objectively of all the things that are so wrong with DA:I and DA2 before it, I think that there are way way worse issues to deal with.

[FiveThreeTen]

No. DAI party combat was unnecessarily streamlined and feels clunky but it's not a reason to get rid of it.

What I find really strange and annoying is that the simpliest thing like telling your companion to "Hold" was so messed up in DAI while it worked without major issues in previous games.

 

If anything, it needs improvements.

[Lianaar]

Please, please NO.

There are loads of games out there for fighting and tactics. Please, don't turn one of the few games, that I love into one that I don't enjoy.
I wouldn't mind if there were other games that I like, but there are so few. Don't take out the part I love the most and what in itself guarantees that I actually buy the game. It's not like there is not enough other options for games you described. Let's people like me have this.

[BlueElf2]

Hey guys,

 

Whether you like DA:I combat or not, it is quite apparent that Bioware does not consider tactical party RPG's to be financially feasible for this generation of hardware. Right now, most people will have to agree that the combat system in DA:I is 'acceptable' at best. It doesn't have quite the weight of Dark Souls combat or the accuracy/timing of Skyrim combat. A large reason the combat is like this is because it allows for some degree of tactical control utilizing all your party members. 

 

To me, the next logical step which could actually improve the combat greatly, is removing party members (who can be controlled manually) from the equation. I know, Bioware games usually lean heavily on party banters and such - that's why I think it might still be feasible to have perhaps one non controllable NPC with you in the next DA games. It would be a heckuva lot easier to make responsive, skill based combat when Bioware only has to consider one or two party members in all.

 

The Mass Effect series has the benefit of FPS mechanics which invoke skill. The Dragon Age series used to have it's (old school) tactical mechanics - which have since then been stripped away. I'm trying to form a concept in my head on how this will evolve over their next games. Again, I'm not trying to say it's inherently bad they they aimed for more action oriented combat, I just think they should go the full mile.

 

What do you guys think? 

I honestly don't think I would like a Dragon Age game without party members. The companion characters and their stories kind of make the games for me, so I think it just wouldn't appeal to me anymore if they removed the companion aspect.