80 réponses à ce sujet

[Sondermann]

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone else get the feeling that maybe the real design issue is that it's so binary? It's like Bio figured that there were two major classes of players. You have the action players who will play DAI like it's a straight-up action game, and on the other side you've got the tactical players who are going to micromanage everything anyway. I can see how the detailed Tactics system fell out of scope if that really was the thinking -- micromanagers won't use them anyway, and action guys won't really care.

Not sure. I think they figured out THE main class of players would play it as an action game foremost and added the tac-cam as an afterthought to appease the quite vocal minority who preferes such an approach.

I tried to micromanage in my 1st playthrough but after trying the action approach the game felt much better. That's not to say you cannot play the game by micromanaging and using KB/M (some people obviously do it quite successfully) but to me it feels like kind of playing against the game mechanics. Once I switched to controller and action play most of the awkwardness went away (The autocentering in tac cam which is a huge time waster, the cumbersome way where you can't simply place the targeting circle directly onto an enemy but have to navigate through the terrain, the inability to queue commands, the fact that some abilities simply don't work in tac-mode (whirlwind or charging bull)).

I was fine if the game was binary, but I don't think it is. And I'm not sure one can successfully make a game that excels both at tactical and at action combat since you'd probable design the encounters with enemies, and the game world (no ceilings) differently (I might be wrong though).

[In Exile]

Not sure. I think they figured out THE main class of players would play it as an action game foremost and added the tac-cam as an afterthought to appease the quite vocal minority who preferes such an approach.
I tried to micromanage in my 1st playthrough but after trying the action approach the game felt much better. That's not to say you cannot play the game by micromanaging and using KB/M (some people obviously do it quite successfully) but to me it feels like kind of playing against the game mechanics. Once I switched to controller and action play most of the awkwardness went away (The autocentering in tac cam which is a huge time waster, the cumbersome way where you can't simply place the targeting circle directly onto an enemy but have to navigate through the terrain, the inability to queue commands, the fact that some abilities simply don't work in tac-mode (whirlwind or charging bull)).
I was fine if the game was binary, but I don't think it is. And I'm not sure one can successfully make a game that excels both at tactical and at action combat since you'd probable design the encounters with enemies, and the game world (no ceilings) differently (I might be wrong though).

I tried a controller but I think it plays like crap with one. I much prefer KBM with all its issues. Giving up the mouse is not possible for me.

[Sondermann]

I tried a controller but I think it plays like crap with one. I much prefer KBM with all its issues. Giving up the mouse is not possible for me.

That's ok. But I think there are many more people who switched from KB/M to controller and thought it was an improvement (even though generally they might prefer KBM to controller) than the other way around.

[otis0310]

But in DAI it's not the PC. If the player is skilled, it's the player-controlled character that excels. If the player is not skilled, it's the AI characters who excel.

 

This is why it is not a true RPG. 

 

 A true RPG cares most about immersion, the feeling that you are the person on the other side of the screen.  As a result the skill of the person running around on the screen is more important than the skill of the person at the controls. There is huge difference between my skills as a player, and the skills of the character I am playing.

 

Ie. I hit the guy because my character is a good swordsman, even though I cannot swing a sword to save my life.

Therefore my skills in real life, or at the controls, don't matter.  What matters is that my character knows how to hit, and therefore he hits the enemy.

 

This is the mentality of true a RPG game.  Which is why DAI is not one.  It is an arcade game who's mentallity is the person who plays it has to be skilled.

 

Ie. I miss the guy altthough my character is a very good swordsman, just because I timed it wrong.

My character logically would have hit the enemy because he has high dexterity and is a good swordsman.  But his skills don't matter, only my skills as a player, and I didn't hit button at the right time.

 

This is the mentality of an arcade game, not an RPG.  It is also the main reason why DAI does not qualify for a true RPG. The skill of your character is meaningless, as long you know how to use the controller you'll do fine.  A mindset that is born from the arcade genre, not the RPG genre.

[AlanC9]

Oh, good. Another round of "what is an RPG." Nice to start this one with diametrically opposed concepts.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is why it is not a true RPG.

A true RPG cares most about immersion, the feeling that you are the person on the other side of the screen. As a result the skill of the person running around on the screen is more important than the skill of the person at the controls. There is huge difference between my skills as a player, and the skills of the character I am playing.

Ie. I hit the guy because my character is a good swordsman, even though I cannot swing a sword to save my life.
Therefore my skills in real life, or at the controls, don't matter. What matters is that my character knows how to hit, and therefore he hits the enemy.

This is the mentality of true a RPG game. Which is why DAI is not one. It is an arcade game who's mentallity is the person who plays it has to be skilled.

Ie. I miss the guy altthough my character is a very good swordsman, just because I timed it wrong.
My character logically would have hit the enemy because he has high dexterity and is a good swordsman. But his skills don't matter, only my skills as a player, and I didn't hit button at the right time.

This is the mentality of an arcade game, not an RPG. It is also the main reason why DAI does not qualify for a true RPG. The skill of your character is meaningless, as long you know how to use the controller you'll do fine. A mindset that is born from the arcade genre, not the RPG genre.

But since the action elements of DAI are entirely optional (you can use the Tac Cam for every encounter, as I do), that alone wouldn't disqualify DAI.

If we accept your definition (which I do), DAI still qualifies since the player's skill only matters if the player decides it does.

[Big Metal Unit]

My definition of an RPG is the correct one because reasons.  If you disagree with me you aren't a true scotsman gamer.

[ApocAlypsE007]

Bah too much pride and corporate greed to fix this. Wait for Pillar of Eternity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bah too much pride and corporate greed to fix this. Wait for Pillar of Eternity.

Wasteland 2 is excellent.

[aries1001]

As far as I know, Allan Schumacher, one of the QA guys, are working hard on the kb+m issue with this game. Don't know when it'll get fixed, though. In the meantime, we just have to wait for and see...

Also, on the notion or Original Sin, I played it this summer. And yes, it is a very good game, I find. However, the journal was/is mess. There's no clear direction to what you're supposed to do. And if I didn't have access to the gamespressure game guide for this game, I doubt I would have finished it by now...

 

edit:

On the whole kb+m issue as well as the tactical cam issue, I have feeling that, yes, the tac cam was indeed added as an afterthought after so many players here on the BSN asked for it. As I understand, the reticule? (is that is correct?) is only shown in the tac combat screen. Even in FPS, there will be a reticule showing you precisely at what enemy you're pointing. I think the EA's execs and maybe the Bioware execs decided to make the combat in this game realtime action, since they thought, maybe this would attract more gamers to this game. I don't know this, of course, I'm guessing...

I don't think Bioware or EA realizes that maybe even FPS players play Bioware games for the story, the characters, the dialogue between the characters. And that even the FPS players which will play Bioware games are used to, or want, a tactical overview of the combat situation. Anyway, the Frostbite engine might have some diffuculties showing a tactical overview correctly; but isn't this required in say games like Battefield 3 or 4?
 

Modifié par aries1001, 22 décembre 2014 - 10:07 .

[In Exile]

That's ok. But I think there are many more people who switched from KB/M to controller and thought it was an improvement (even though generally they might prefer KBM to controller) than the other way around.

I didn't mean to challenge you. All I meant was that j prefer KBM cause I can't live without a mouse.

[Big Metal Unit]

That's ok. But I think there are many more people who switched from KB/M to controller and thought it was an improvement (even though generally they might prefer KBM to controller) than the other way around.

 

I'm actually this way.  I usually prefer a G13 / G600 combo (couch/recliner gamer here, device on each armrest, hands out like that kid in Flight of the Navigator) - but for DA:I the controller just feels so nice with the force feedback and analog control.

 

Then again I don't view the controller as inferior or superior to a mouse/kb anyways, just a different tool to be used to depending on the job, so I'm more than happy to drop the KB and pickup the controller or vice versa.

[Sondermann]

I didn't mean to challenge you. All I meant was that j prefer KBM cause I can't live without a mouse.

Ok, I misunderstood.

[elrofrost]

The PC race doesn't care. They'll just go play Original Sin if they want the latest and greatest RPG.

Shoddy controls from console game developers are nothing new to a PC gamer. They expect dysfunction from games like this, or Witcher 3. Or whatever else is coming down the pipe on console. The ones who are shocked and surprised by it, simply haven't been gaming long enough. I feel bad for them, but they'll catch on, in time.

Look at the PC gamers who bought Dark Souls before realizing it required a Windows Xbox controller to function properly. That kind of stuff only needs to happen to someone once before they realize what's going, and stop purchasing.

Thing is, it's not hard to pass on purchasing a console game. None of them are great games. They are all just Xeroxes of one another. A simple, quick, easy fix of punch-button fun. That's all they are, and all they'll ever be.

You know what you're getting when you buy a console game. It's the same every time.

From Mordor, to Creed. From Dragon Age, to the Witcher. It's all Kraft dinner.

To be fair, the PC port of Shadows of Mordor was the best I've seen. Not an issue out of the box.

[st0ra]

I play games to have FUN, not to fight with the control mechanism, guess no Christmas "patch" present fixing the controls, maybe next Christmas then...

[In Exile]

I played a fair bit with a controller recently. While the UI is clearly designed for a controller, I cannot for the life of me understand how any one could say that the game plays better with a controller. Everything is harder to do without KBM and a mouse in particular.

Even the menu UI, while more console friendly, is still hardest to navigate without the mouse.

[Asakti]

I gave a controller a whirl as well - but I've never used one before and it took a lot to get used to it.  I'd rather stick with keyboard and mouse.

 

...though we are over a month waiting for a fix.  And there hasn't been any word lately on the third patch, so who knows when we will actually get better kb+m controllers...probably next year at this rate (will it even be worth it then?).

[Olddog56]

That's ok. But I think there are many more people who switched from KB/M to controller and thought it was an improvement (even though generally they might prefer KBM to controller) than the other way around.

 

I for one.

[Angangseh]

I think I must be playing a different game to you guys. I have completed the game on a melee rogue and warrior (Both 60+ hour playthrough with keyboard and mouse) and have had no issues with the controls. Sure they take a bit to get used to but what game doesn't?

[pdusen]

I think I must be playing a different game to you guys. I have completed the game on a melee rogue and warrior (Both 60+ hour playthrough with keyboard and mouse) and have had no issues with the controls. Sure they take a bit to get used to but what game doesn't?

 

That's pretty much been my experience as well.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I think I must be playing a different game to you guys. I have completed the game on a melee rogue and warrior (Both 60+ hour playthrough with keyboard and mouse) and have had no issues with the controls. Sure they take a bit to get used to but what game doesn't?

That you have not had a negative experience with the controls does not invalidate the concerns of those who have. Clearly enough people have raised the issue that Bioware regards it as worthy of additional fine tuning.

[Remmirath]

If either the tactical camera would be zoomed out far enough to show the entire battlefield all at once, or there was some option for using the action-mode camera with the tactical controls, that would solve my largest annoyances with the combat. I want to play the game the way one can in the tactical mode, but the camera in that mode is simply too much of a hindrance for me to stay in it long -- for whatever reason, panning the camera with the keyboard is very awkward for me. I'd rather either have a set, far away camera so I can see everything that's going on all at once without panning the camera, or have the camera stuck somewhere behind the character so I don't have to be constantly adjusting it.

[In Exile]

If either the tactical camera would be zoomed out far enough to show the entire battlefield all at once, or there was some option for using the action-mode camera with the tactical controls, that would solve my largest annoyances with the combat. I want to play the game the way one can in the tactical mode, but the camera in that mode is simply too much of a hindrance for me to stay in it long -- for whatever reason, panning the camera with the keyboard is very awkward for me. I'd rather either have a set, far away camera so I can see everything that's going on all at once without panning the camera, or have the camera stuck somewhere behind the character so I don't have to be constantly adjusting it.

What do you mean panning the camera with the keyboard? I manipulate the angle using the mouse. WS just moves it up or down. It's the equivalent in DAO of using your cursor at the edge of the screen.

[GuyNice]

What do you mean panning the camera with the keyboard? I manipulate the angle using the mouse. WS just moves it up or down. It's the equivalent in DAO of using your cursor at the edge of the screen.

Except using the mouse cursor on the edge of the screen is (in my opinion) far more comfortable than using WASD (or whatever the default keys are).