Wow. People are actualyy complaining over DA:O combat.
And I gotta say I've played my first ten playthroughs in DA:O with tactical cam only. And I enjoyed it.
..Because it was boring? Turned based combat doesn't bother me, but the whole auto-attack bit needs to be a thing of the past
to what are you referring to? please elaborate
You responded to a complaint about hyperbolic posts with a hyperbolic post.
You responded to a complaint about hyperbolic posts with a hyperbolic post.
i know you're calling my post hyperbole, i'm not a ****** idiot...
specifically what part of my comment are you referring to as hyperbole, bearing in mind that hyperbole is a step above merely exaggerating, which is a step above a genuine opinion... it's a bit of a leap to call hyperbole in such a way without explaining your reasoning at all
..Because it was boring? Turned based combat doesn't bother me, but the whole auto-attack bit needs to be a thing of the past
not seeing why you focus on that one factor, the autoattack... at first i thought you meant the basic attack where you would choose a target to receive the attack and then slog it out until that target was dead... but do you mean the entirety of the tactics system, where you could program your AI teammates to act based on a plethora of conditions?
you did have the choice to not use the tactics at all, however this was a choice that was taken away from us with DA:I, which was a saddening move... less freedom is not more
specifically what part of my comment are you referring to as hyperbole, bearing in mind that hyperbole is a step above merely exaggerating, which is a step above a genuine opinion... it's a bit of a leap to call hyperbole in such a way without explaining your reasoning at all
"May very well end the franchise"?
"May very well end the franchise"?
do you know what cherrypicking means?
and i did say may, not that it will
do you know what cherrypicking means?
and i did say may, not that it will
Well, the rest of your post is largely subjective so I was going to leave it alone. But it did illustrate his/her point of "Its not the game I wanted so its the worst thing ever" part as well. There is also no way in hell this will end the franchise. The game is selling well and appearing on game of the year lists. There's no basis whatsoever for the hyperbolic end of the world posts on these forums.
As for cherrypicking, sorry, you don't get to use that when you end your post on a statement like "may end the franchise" when discussing hyperbole. The statement was absurd. DA2 didn't end the franchise. The ending of ME3 didn't end the franchise. There's no basis in reality for that statement beyond you personally not liking it.
*looks at title*
", said no one ever.
I won't claim that DAI was everything it cracked up to be, especially with the changes made since their alpha build. But 'worst ever'? ME3 had a far worse ending. DA2 had far worse story. And the gameplay for ME1 was hardly innovative or intuitive.
i know you're calling my post hyperbole, i'm not a ****** idiot...
specifically what part of my comment are you referring to as hyperbole, bearing in mind that hyperbole is a step above merely exaggerating, which is a step above a genuine opinion... it's a bit of a leap to call hyperbole in such a way without explaining your reasoning at all
not seeing why you focus on that one factor, the autoattack... at first i thought you meant the basic attack where you would choose a target to receive the attack and then slog it out until that target was dead... but do you mean the entirety of the tactics system, where you could program your AI teammates to act based on a plethora of conditions?
you did have the choice to not use the tactics at all, however this was a choice that was taken away from us with DA:I, which was a saddening move... less freedom is not more
Yes that's what I mean. Sit there and watch your guy auto-attack something with the only control being who you target and the use of abilities. It was a breath of fresh air when DA 2 changed that by letting you control the combat in a more action sense. I prefer combat of games like Kingdom Hearts compared to something like WoW. Ironically, turn based doesn't bother me
Well, the rest of your post is largely subjective so I was going to leave it alone. But it did illustrate his/her point of "Its not the game I wanted so its the worst thing ever" part as well. There is also no way in hell this will end the franchise. The game is selling well and appearing on game of the year lists. There's no basis whatsoever for the hyperbolic end of the world posts on these forums.
As for cherrypicking, sorry, you don't get to use that when you end your post on a statement like "may end the franchise" when discussing hyperbole. The statement was absurd. DA2 didn't end the franchise. The ending of ME3 didn't end the franchise. There's no basis in reality for that statement beyond you personally not liking it.
it wasn't a statement at all, more conjecture... franchises have flopped for less
i do get to call your post cherrypicking... and of course an opinion is subjective, what are you hoping to achieve by stating the obvious and entirely ignoring the points i made? DA2 wasn't all that bad a game, the plot is very similarly put together... ME3 ending wasn't bad either, i haven't seen the patched ending but i found no issue with the morally influenced trio of endings... what i do find issue with is reinventing the wheel in the form of DA:I, a game lacking several core features that were present in the previous iterations
what's absurd is your irrational defense of this game without listing what you think are merits
Yes that's what I mean. Sit there and watch your guy auto-attack something with the only control being who you target and the use of abilities. It was a breath of fresh air when DA 2 changed that by letting you control the combat in a more action sense. I prefer combat of games like Kingdom Hearts compared to something like WoW. Ironically, turn based doesn't bother me
i suppose i can see the turn off, but the scope of combat was bigger than that... you had your abilities to use as you saw fit, and you could position yourself when it was appropriate, and at times you could take control of your teammates if you saw a better use for their abilities than the tactics would allow... is that not the same with most games? you pick a target and bash it till it dies, the only difference being your finger constantly hitting the attack button, or holding it in some game's cases (like DA:I)
DA2 didn't change all that much, autoattack was still there if i'm remembering correctly...
the combat style of kingdom hearts has it's own charm i'll admit, but this is/was dragon age, not to be blunt but if you really didn't like it then you had the option to stop investing your time in the franchise and forget it ever existed... i too have games that i simply can't get into because their combat systems are either too complex or too frustrating to tolerate, and when this happens, i stop playing them
it wasn't a statement at all, more conjecture... franchises have flopped for less
i do get to call your post cherrypicking... and of course an opinion is subjective, what are you hoping to achieve by stating the obvious and entirely ignoring the points i made? DA2 wasn't all that bad a game, the plot is very similarly put together... ME3 ending wasn't bad either, i haven't seen the patched ending but i found no issue with the morally influenced trio of endings... what i do find issue with is reinventing the wheel in the form of DA:I, a game lacking several core features that were present in the previous iterations
what's absurd is your irrational defense of this game without listing what you think are merits
You can call it whatever you want it doesn't change that it had no grounds in reality and was only there to make your subjective opinion seem more serious through ominous portent. Plus, you are arguing with the wrong person. I only made an observation. You should probably rein it in and go respond to the person that actually said everything to begin with. A narrative that you continue to play in to even now seeing as you're now dragging me into it.
If you seriously think simply bringing reality into perspective is offering an "irrational defence" of the game then you're far more gone in your position than just hyperbole. There was no onus on me to "defend" the game from you to begin with when my only interjection was to observe you were doing precisely what the person you responded to was complaining about. But you seem to have forgotten entirely about that person to focus your ire on me in your eagerness to be right on the Internet.
You can call it whatever you want it doesn't change that it had no grounds in reality and was only there to make your subjective opinion seem more serious through ominous portent. Plus, you are arguing with the wrong person. I only made an observation. You should probably rein it in and go respond to the person that actually said everything to begin with. A narrative that you continue to play in to even now seeing as you're now dragging me into it.
If you seriously think simply bringing reality into perspective is offering an "irrational defence" of the game then you're far more gone in your position than just hyperbole. There was no onus on me to "defend" the game from you to begin with when my only interjection was to observe you were doing precisely what the person you responded to was complaining about. But you seem to have forgotten entirely about that person to focus your ire on me in your eagerness to be right on the Internet.
i suppose a thanks is in order, i expected a reasonable response and what i got was an outburst
don't blame me for dragging you into this when you cherrypicked a fragment from my initial comment, and still to do so to bash an opinion i'm well within my rights to form... i still don't think it was hyperbole to push an idea that in reality seems plausible... yet you are saying i've gone even above hyperbole (which is already an extreme)
i have not forgotten about the person i responded to, but he's not here right now is he? you responded to my comment and i responded to yours, that is the basis of communication
They are all opinions, people are allowed to have opinions, wither or not you agree with there opinions is one thing, attacking people because they have those opinions is imo childish
If they don't like the game because of reason X, doesn't make them wrong. unless they are stating something that is factually untrue. It would be like he hates the game because the Inquisitor wears green pjs around skyhold. That would be factually unturn as the Inquisotor has that bagie colored pj thing..
Also I think people take it that people "HATE" the game completely because of X. I think is assuming too much. Its just the way we speak on the internet has gotten so extreme that there is no more middle ground.
Honestly, Bioware is so good (or use to be anyway) at putting out amazing RPG's that this game is still a 7 in my opinion, but they were constantly putting out 9's or higher in the past, so I guess I just expected more.
The combat in this game is horrible. There is really no other way to put it. You can't go in depth with the behaviors of your companions, auto pause accomplishes nothing, tactical camera accomplishes nothing, and yet, despite the butchery of tactical combat, you still can't go all in and expect an amazing real time combative experience. The camera and movement just aren't set up to accommodate fast paced real time combat. It was like the developers decided to take the absolute worst characteristics of two different styles of combat and mash it all into a single, terrible combat system.
I enjoy games with great real time combat or games with great turn based, tactical combat (BG, DAO, etc) but this game has the worst traits from both styles of combat and none of the enjoyable traits.
The role playing is pretty bad too honestly. It's not immersive other than a couple cut scenes, none of the choices you make have any bearing on the state of the game, and the dialogue is lack luster. Granted, the dialogue isn't terrible a lot of the time, but it's certainly nothing to praise.
The other terribly annoying thing is how you have to do side quests to gain power, you can't just follow the main story line if you want to. Side quests are no longer optional and you're forced to grind areas for power. If I wanted a grind I'd go play an MMO. Bioware RPG's are supposed to be about role playing.
It really sucks to think about how all of the best games came out in the 90's and early 2000's and we'll probably never see anything like them again. Blizzard and Bioware use to rule the world of rpg's -- Blizz had the arpg market on lock down with the Diablos, and Bioware had the rpg market on lock down with the Baldur's Gate franchise, NWN was pretty good too (better than DAI for sure). The first Dragon Age showed amazing potential, but a couple of areas where they could afford to make improvements. Now? Well the first Dragon Age was easily the best of the three, and Bioware hasn't had a game like Baldur's Gate 2 since Baldur's Gate 2. Blizzard completely ruined Diablo, so I guess I should be thankful Bioware hasn't gone that far down hill.
I honestly have to force myself to play this game. Back in the day I couldn't wait to play a Bioware game. Even the first Dragon Age had me completely fixated on the story, but this game is something I do every now and then when I'm bored.
GG EA, thanks for ruining one of the last great video game developers.
While I agree that it is not as good as DA:O or DA2, I don't think this is the worst game they've released. ME3 has that title in my book, likely for eternity, since I will never touch another ME game as long as I draw breath. That is not to say that this game doesn't have glaring problems, because it does.
I agree that they nerfed the combat in the game, so much so that your party is basically worthless in the lower levels. Iron Bull, who should be the ultimate badass, spends more time on the ground, unconscious, than he does fighting, even at level 17, which is pathetic and does not do the Qunari justice. The fact that you can't lock onto a specific target and use auto attack to end him/her is irritating beyond belief. The ridiculously dumbed down tactics is pretty useless as well, which is why your companions are worthless in battles.
As far as the story part, the biggest problem I see is the lack of progress with companions if you spend a lot of time doing sidequests and exploring. Personally, I think their quests should be triggered by level, rather than you progressing in the main quest, or by approval (which means we need to actually be able to see where we stand with them at any given time so we know we have to suck up to get them to stop pouting or being non-responsive). That way, even if you dick around in the Hinterlands for 10 hours, you can go back and progress in your relationships with them. The depth of conversation could be expanded, too, giving you more opportunities to "chat" with them and get to know them better, but, in general, it is the lack of triggers that irritate me.
I don't mind the incessant side quests, but there are certain elements that ****** me off. First, the inability to get to all of the mosaics is beyond irritating. I picked up all the mosaic pieces for one of the things and it still shows me missing a piece. The mosaic in the Hinterlands is impossible to complete since one piece is hidden inside a frame, and one of them was freaking ridiculous to get to, requiring using a mount to jump up a part of a rock that was not meant to climb. For the fetch quests, they need to put things where you can reasonably and easily find them.
They also need to add a way to "autocollect" everything in an area so we don't spend hours picking frigging flowers and chipping away rocks. If need be, they could add it as an Inquisitor perk, so we have to waste a point on it. Make a third tier to the "eagle eye" thing, that allows you to spam 'v' and automatically collect all the crap around you. Time and effort would be saved for those of us who want it and those who enjoy looking for needles in haystacks can keep doing it their way. While they're at it, they could add a perk that opens up more fast travel points, since there are some places where you have to hoof it for ten minutes to get to where you want to go, even after all fast travel points are opened.
The other thing that hacks me off is the "missing" people. Iron Bull is hardly ever in his chair, Cole is forever missing from his spot, and some quests can't be completed because the person you have to report to suddenly disappears or the "eyeball" is shown in the wrong area or completely off the accessible areas altogether (like some captain douchebag in the exalted plains, to whom I'm supposed to deliver letters). These things are not minor and need to be fixed yesterday.
Game crashes, lag, and impossible quests (thanks to the inability to get to what you need or to where you need) are unacceptable. While Skyrim, Fallout NV, and various other games I love had the same problems in the beginning, mods remedied the problems, made the games more enjoyable, and increased the replayability of them. Not releasing a toolkit with DA:I was a huge mistake on BioWare's part. If they had, then, by now, modders would've already fixed some of the issues we have with the game. What's more, mods can enrich the story...one need to look no further than Dahlia's DA:O mods to realize that.
Anyway, I've rambled enough. My point is that this game is not horrible. It has problems that need to be fixed, and with a few additions via a small DLC, the annoyances of the fetch quests could be removed.
In a perfect world, sequels get better each time.
In a perfect world, sequels get better each time.
The only time I've seen this happen is in The Expendables movies, and that's sad...
i suppose a thanks is in order, i expected a reasonable response and what i got was an outburst
don't blame me for dragging you into this when you cherrypicked a fragment from my initial comment, and still to do so to bash an opinion i'm well within my rights to form... i still don't think it was hyperbole to push an idea that in reality seems plausible... yet you are saying i've gone even above hyperbole (which is already an extreme)
i have not forgotten about the person i responded to, but he's not here right now is he? you responded to my comment and i responded to yours, that is the basis of communication
That was not an outburst. This isn't worth an outburst. This is a web forum about a computer game. I have been perfectly reasonable. Also, no one said you had no right to an opinion and I clearly stated I had left your opinion alone as it was subjective to what you thought the game should be.
There is no plausible reality in DA:I ending the franchise. It is a commercial and critical success. Just because you personally do not like it does not make it a failure nor does it make it a failure on magnitude enough to end one of the better franchises in gaming.
There is no problem with us communicating, that was not my point. My point was that you seemed to be directing a previous argument you were in towards me. When originally my only point was you had ironically responded to a comment in the manner the commenter indicated they were tired of.
That was not an outburst. This isn't worth an outburst. This is a web forum about a computer game. I have been perfectly reasonable. Also, no one said you had no right to an opinion and I clearly stated I had left your opinion alone as it was subjective to what you thought the game should be.
There is no plausible reality in DA:I ending the franchise. It is a commercial and critical success. Just because you personally do not like it does not make it a failure nor does it make it a failure on magnitude enough to end one of the better franchises in gaming.
There is no problem with us communicating, that was not my point. My point was that you seemed to be directing a previous argument you were in towards me. When originally my only point was you had ironically responded to a comment in the manner the commenter indicated they were tired of.
that manner you deemed was the case because you cherrypicked a single not even a statement fragment of a comment that contained 2 paragraphs of text and multiple points...
you're being entirely unreasonable, dress it up however you like
Jade Empire, the NWN OC, Dragon Age II, and Mass Effect 1 (yes, deal with it) beg to differ.
Jade Empire, the NWN OC, Dragon Age II, and Mass Effect 1 (yes, deal with it) beg to differ.
a comment riddled with spite, how nasty of you 
What worries me is the bugs... The item system might be a bit stupid but I live with it. The combat system is bad but I live with it. THE BUGS - that is something unforgivable though !!
Well, the rest of your post is largely subjective so I was going to leave it alone. But it did illustrate his/her point of "Its not the game I wanted so its the worst thing ever" part as well. There is also no way in hell this will end the franchise. The game is selling well and appearing on game of the year lists. There's no basis whatsoever for the hyperbolic end of the world posts on these forums.
Well, a player can say that after DAI he's outta here. So I guess the franchise could end for him.
Well, a player can say that after DAI he's outta here. So I guess the franchise could end for him.
sure, a player could... but i didn't say that... i was clear in my intent and it got twisted
i did not "illustrate" anything but my disappointment in bioware, after enjoying 2 great games, they push out one that is neither here nor there... so as anyone is, i'm free to voice such disappointment in the form of negative feedback (of which i'm not limited to, mind you)... i don't think DA:I is the "worst thing ever", but i do think it's a stain on the franchise, flashy in visuals and mediocre in content...
that single quip at the end of the first of 2 paragraphs does not equate to an entire post about the end of the world, which in itself is hyperbole! there's the real irony
Comparing current Bioware with Bioware that made BG is like comparing current EA with 90-th EA.
Retour en haut
