Aller au contenu

Photo

Dragon Age 4 should drop the party


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
158 réponses à ce sujet

#151
Akka le Vil

Akka le Vil
  • Members
  • 1 466 messages

I think the OP is right on one thing : DA:I combat is terrible by trying to merge two designs which clash horribly together and ends up having the strength of none and the flaws of both (plus a good deal of additionnal flaws created by this clash on top of it).

 

So yeah, having a full-blown action gameplay would be better than the catastrophic garbage we've now.

 

BUT where I disagree is that the opposite decision, full-blown tactical combat, is not a good choice. Hello, remember what's the name of the franchise ? It STARTED (and, so far, had its biggest hit) with DAO, which was much more in the tactical side. I have a hard time understanding the reasoning "the best-selling and most critically acclaimed title of the serie was the most tactical, so we should do the exact opposite, even if twice in a row it ended poorly".

 

Wut ?



#152
VelvetStraitjacket

VelvetStraitjacket
  • Members
  • 1 110 messages

What...

tumblr_mkdq3bbflK1rdvztso1_500.gif

No. Just no.



#153
Guest_Stormheart83_*

Guest_Stormheart83_*
  • Guests

No. Because tactics don't work except the barest minimum. My party just acts like crappy AI. I don't give a rat's butt about whatever audience you think I am from. I simply want AI that isn't stupid. AI in this game is kind of stupid. No, it's incredibly stupid. I would like it to behave like relatively good AI. Of course, I'm spoiled by Dragon's Dogma where the AI there was superior to anything currently on the market. It was trainable. It was smart enough to know what to do and when to do it. It behaved like actual intelligent beings rather than dumb game AI which is what goes on here. What happens here is they use whatever abilities they have and then cycle back through them once they are cooled down. Anyone can do that. It's poor design. In DD they would choose the right tactics. In DAO you could set up tactics so that they would respond in certain ways making them appear relatively intelligent. This? Horrible.
 
Tsunami Chef - not even close to a fanboy. I just know good AI from crappy AI. This is crappy AI - some of the worst I've seen in years.
 
Apologies to Dreamer for my rant at you! Didn't realize that was sarcasm and you agreed. I am awful at getting sarcasm online. Always mistake it for something else. My bad.

I loved Dragons Dogma but, my pawns always pissed me off. The AI was horrible and had a bad habit of jumping off cliffs etc.

#154
eyezonlyii

eyezonlyii
  • Members
  • 1 715 messages

That it's action combat.

I paused to aim in ME. Nearly every shot. I modded New Vegas so I could use VATS for every shot. I think Skyrim would have been vastly better if it had had VATS. I play every DAI encounter using the Tac Cam, pausing every second.

If I were playing a plotless all-combat dungeon crawler, I would rather it had turn-based combat rather than action combat.

Action combat is unacceptable.

The bolded is entirely opinion though, as many people do prefer action combat (and yes I am one of them) because to me anyway, it makes the game seem more interactive, which is what I enjoy about a video game. 

This design assumes a great many things about the player, and those assumptions are not universally true.

There is no "best way" to deal with an encounter. The player should be able to choose how his party approaches an encounter, without being forced into some optimal approach by a gimmicky encounter design. I don't think combat encounters should be designed as a challenge for the player. They should be designed as a challenge for the characters. If I choose the tactics I think my character would choose, he should then succeed or fail based on the merits of those tactics. But if the encounter is designed as a challenge for the player, or has a specific gimmick necessary to defeat it, then those roleplayed tactics are less likely to be effective.

I also prefer that for any actual challenge posed to the player, that challenge be entirely mental. Never should my ability to press buttons at a specific rate be relevant.

But that's just the thing, you did get to chose how to set up your party in Dragon's Dogma, and I dare say it was more engaging because of the fact that you could switch between classes/jobs as often as you wanted. When you switched classes, you assigned their abilities (and were even more limited because you only could hold six at at time instead of eight). Personally, the reason I enjoyed the combat system was because while there were abilities for both melee and magic characters (and ranged as well) there were also upgrades to regular attacks so that combat actually had a feel and flow to it. Instead of just holding down the attack button, and having your character swing her greatsword, different combinations of presses and holds produced different results. And even better was the fact that you weren't forced to play this way. If you wanted to just swing a basic combo and use your stamina to use ablities, that was possible too. 

 

Fights were tactical in the sense that each enemy had weakness to elements, as well as weakness on their physical bodies. A cyclops would be stunned by a mage's lightning, and an archer could take out it's eye, while your warrior would climb it's back and trick it into removing it's helmet. These are the things pawns learned, not just from trial and error, but in how you played the game. Also, you could set their overall "disposition" which determined how they acted in battle. If Capcom were able to add a tactical cam, I'm sure many people in this thread would love the way the battle played out.

 

And this last point isn't directed at you at all, but I see many posts in this thread and others bemoaning the fact that Bioware is "catering to the console/COD crowd" like we're all one group of people.

 

[rant]The level of condescension aimed at those of us who play on consoles really grates on the nerves. Not everything that was changed in the game (and probably not anything) was because the console couldn't handle it. My PS3 played Origins, Awakening, and 2 just fine, even if they were made as "PC ports". We still had the radial menus, the tactics systems and and everything else. Also for those who are saying the ability limit is because of consoles, please check yourself. FFXIV 4 had multiple sub-menus of 8 abilities layered on a PS3/4 controller, so that isn't the issue. This was a design decision, nothing more, and as people like to throw around on here: l2p. You have 8 abilities, deal with it. Like I said earlier, you had six in Dragon's Dogma, and seriously you only had 4 in Pokemon, and people are obviously able to play with that.[/rant]



#155
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 108 messages

The bolded is entirely opinion though, as many people do prefer action combat (and yes I am one of them) because to me anyway, it makes the game seem more interactive, which is what I enjoy about a video game. 

I don't enjoy video games.  I don't even play them.

 

First of all, I find the term confusing.  I remember "video game" referring specifically to something played on a console or an arcade cabinet.  Games played on a computer were computer games.  I arguably play computer games.

 

But really I just play roleplaying games, which I don't even think count as games.  I have almost no experience with "video games" outside the CRPG genre.  To the extent that I do play games, I prefer games that simulate things.  Realistic racing games.  Sports management games.  But anything that consists of me frantically hitting a button (or calmly hitting a button is a specific timed sequence) just isn't fun.  I don't enjoy action.  At all.

 

So I don't play it.

 

But I do really like DAI.  I think it's BioWare's best game since Baldur's Gate.  I think it's the best game released in the last 10 years (with the possible exception of Crusader Kings II).



#156
wolfhowwl

wolfhowwl
  • Members
  • 3 727 messages

They can keep the party but abandon the pretenses of "tactics" and just go full action. We already have things like blocking, parrying, and rolling, but for some reason they're just buried in the skill trees.

 

AAA published games will be focusing on the console space. If DA:O, which was **** on consoles, is the best effort at bringing a "PC tactical RPG" experience over then that is not going to fly. However going in the other direction there does seem to be an audience for ARPGs on PC.

 

The hybrid system in DA:I ended up being too clunky and simplistic of an action game and not a good tactical game either.

 

Sure you'd be writing off any interest from the "tactical RPG" crowd but really are they worth catering to anyways?



#157
Mes

Mes
  • Members
  • 1 975 messages

This, all of it. DD was the best fantasy RPG I've ever played, and the combat; hands down best combat in a fantasy game ever.

 

Can you imagine a game with Dragon Age story/characters paired with Dragon's Dogma combat?  :wub: Heaven.

 

I guess you can only have one or the other in an RPG... combat or story.  :huh:



#158
Nemesis788450

Nemesis788450
  • Members
  • 95 messages

a huge part of bioware's recent series have always been about getting to know, doing quests and interacting with/for your party members - if that would drop, i dont think that void could be filled...so no...meeting and having interesting party members gives you not only much more needed variety in combat it is also interesting and extremely entertaining. Besides we already have a company that does very strong single player series - bethesda.... they should keep doing what theyre doing and bioware should keep the series they had...best of both worlds.



#159
metatheurgist

metatheurgist
  • Members
  • 2 429 messages

Sure you'd be writing off any interest from the "tactical RPG" crowd but really are they worth catering to anyways?


The problem with only making games for the one profitable market is that games become identical and boring. This is the same problem that gives us Hollywood blockbusters. And in the end even the producers lose out because they're all chasing and failing to get the same jackpot (like the subscription MMO dream) instead of getting a loyal and reliable market, even if it's less lucrative.