456 réponses à ce sujet

[Selea]

No, because wasting time developing a completely useless "tactical" cam is clearly worse than putting those resources elsewhere.

 

 

Right, because, you know, giving the players an option via the camera to play the game as an action RPG control scheme or a tactical one (old school, point and click) is "wasting time and resources". You are right. Giving choices to the players is a waste because it's obvious that everybody HAS to like what YOU like and other that don't think as you do are idiots. God forbid that in a PC some players would like a more actiony experience (likely tied to lower difficulties) because elitists (or fake ones) pretend their game to not be corrupted by "casuals", even if that "casualty" is tied to an option and it's not forced on you.

[Darkly Tranquil]

And I imagine how much you complained about the input scheme controls of W2, isn't it? Naturally those are muuuuuch better than DA:I, lol (to the point that without the later mod the game is almost unplayable using signs intermingled with attacks and when the game came out the targeting was so erratic and the input response so laggy that it was one of the objectively worst control schemes probably ever published in an AAA title, and it is STILL not corrected to work fluidly - this for greatly decanted CDPR fan support).

Seriously, complaining about DA:I gameplay input scheme controls when you are a Witcher 2 fanboy is like going in a hard rock forum and complaining that Kiss are "too pop" when you are a diehard fanboy of Justin Bieber. It's so hypocritical it makes all the hairs on your body stand still for protest.

I didn't really mind TW2's controls. They were kind of odd and took a bit of getting used to, but having not played TW1, I just assumed that's how they worked. Now you're telling me they were broken? Go figure. I still found them easier to use and more intuitive than DAIs, but I'm no Witcher fanboy (only played it the once).

[Selea]

I didn't really mind TW2's controls. They were kind of odd and took a bit of getting used to, but having not played TW1, I just assumed that's how they worked. Now you're telling me they were broken? Go figure. I still found them easier to use and more intuitive than DAIs, but I'm no Witcher fanboy (only played it the once).

 

When you played TW2? Because later the controls were adjusted a lot (but it took a while) and if you play a normal sword character it plays well nowadays (the real problems that are still present are if you use signs via hotkeys intermingled with attacks; there's input lag, the animations are not chained together, sometimes the hotkey doesn't work at all etc. etc.)

I was talking in the beginning, when the game came out. The targeting system was so crappy that you could point in a direction and Geralt attacked on another (and in higher difficulties this could mean death as he often jumped in the middle of a group of enemies without motive), there was a lot of input lag (especially with vsync) and neither attack animations were properly chained together (you couldn't properly chain attacks together because you had to wait the previous animation to totally finish before using the next one, similar to what happens to DA:I, in fact). A total mess.

[Darkly Tranquil]

When you played TW2? Because later the controls were adjusted a lot (but it took a while) and if you play a normal sword character it plays well nowadays (the real problems that are still present are if you use signs via hotkeys intermingled with attacks; there's input lag, the animations are not chained together, sometimes the hotkey doesn't work at all etc. etc.)
I was talking in the beginning, when the game came out. The targeting system was so crappy that you could point in a direction and Geralt attacked on another (and in higher difficulties this could mean death as he often jumped in the middle of a group of enemies without motive), there was a lot of input lag (especially with vsync) and neither attack animations were properly chained together (you couldn't properly chain attacks together because you had to wait the previous animation to totally finish before using the next one, similar to what happens to DA:I, in fact). A total mess.

I played it when it launched (I'd just finished playing Origins a few times and was looking for a similar sort of game). I do recall that changing targets was quite awkward, but I don't recall noticeable input lag. Maybe I just didn't notice or didn't know it wasn't supposed to be that way.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i've seen his gameplay once, it was so awkward and chaotic... gah. well, i'm for one glad DAI has casual's approval, makes me warm and fuzzy

[JPR1964]

The game is a single player mmo-style grindfest occasionally interrupted by a story mission with stylish controller-optimized gameplay. Absolutely my game of the year. I agree with Angry Joe.

 

My sarcasm detector just blowned!!!!

 

JPR out!

[JPR1964]

Oh great. So you are saying that DAI should remove the Tactical Cam and revert to DA2 with only a pause option. Because having a tactical cam that is hard to navigate is clearly better than it not existing at all. You do not realize that just tweaking behavior and pausing the game without using the tactical cam makes the game basically the same as DA2?

 

For all the problems some are facing with the seemingly broken DAI tactical camera, there are many of us who agree that it is hard to navigate but has no problem whatsoever in getting it to work after a couple of hours.

 

Claiming DA2 to have better "tactical experience" is a measurable game experience with game design? Right~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

 

Actually, DA2 with the latest patch is a better tactical option than DAI...

 

And has added sugar flavor, we have a working automove, auto attack option...

 

Personnaly, I think that we should play always DAI in tactical mode, with a protagonist that could be AI controlled for all the useless fight we could have in this game... Just to have a more streamlined experience...

 

The controller scheme for PC reeks the bad console port... For me It's usable with a ranged dps, and totally game breaking experience  with a melee : I just played a rogue dual wield and a warrior 2handed 40 hours to learn that, (and a rogue archer 170h)...

 

I can understand that the game feels good on console, but for me, after trying a pair of hours on a PC, 2 feet behind my 27" screen, it's a nogo... It doesn't feel right...

 

The game is not bad, but actually, on PC, it feels not right...

 

About AJ review, I don't care anymore about his "notation" : I just Watch them for the game contents...

 

JPR out!

[Jayce]

I think Game of the Year is fair. It's not like it was up against stiff competition. There was what? Five real contenders?  Advanced Warfare, Destiny, Far Cry 4 and Alien: Isolation... and they all had issues of their own.

[BammBamm]

I think Game of the Year is fair. It's not like it was up against stiff competition. There was what? Five real contenders?  Advanced Warfare, Destiny, Far Cry 4 and Alien: Isolation... and they all had issues of their own.

 

just if you think only an aaa title from a big studio have the right to be goty

[Darkly Tranquil]

I think Game of the Year is fair. It's not like it was up against stiff competition. There was what? Five real contenders?  Advanced Warfare, Destiny, Far Cry 4 and Alien: Isolation... and they all had issues of their own.

Shadow of Mordor, Bayonetta 2, Dark Souls 2, South Park: The Stick of Truth, and Hearthstone all got a lot of positive press around GotY time. And that doesn't even include all the great indie titles that came out this year that put most of the AAA's to shame, but which get minimal attention because they are not backed by big publishers with big advertising budgets - This War of Mine, Transistor, The Binding of Isaac, Shovel Knight, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, and Legend of Grimrock 2 being chief among them.

[Jayce]

Oh there's plenty of Indies who beat the pants off the AAAs... but we all know how these things tend to be awarded.

[His Majesty Lord Crash]

the ui is fine. The combat ui is a cleaner version of origin. The system ui is fine as well.(And your complaining after what we got with dai?) limited zoom is a preference with it being an issue and can be worked around using the min-map and looking around. And speed is pointless to complain about in a game you can pause time, you just need to move you character from time to time and watch your back. the complain is basically "this is not orgins so it must be bad." Really, da2 tactics are not bad at all if stop playing it like dao.

 

I never said that there aren't tactics in DA2. They are still better than in DAI. The combat UI is not a cleaner version of Origins, it's a dumbed down version with lesser options. The sytem UI is console oriented with less flexibility and options. Limited zoom is indeed an issue (and not a preference) for tactical gameplay and you admit it even yourself by stating that you "can work around that". Speed is not pointless at all. It's a great difference whether you have the pause every half a second or every two seconds if you want to play it properly with "full" tactical control of almost every action. It's a question whehter you actually want people to control the full game or whether you just want them to watch and only control your characters from time to time. I agree that this at least works in DA2 since it has sufficient AI controlled tactics but that's not what I call tactical game. That's just one part of if. The other part is the full manual control of every action in my party (like in a classical turn-based game) and DA2 was never made for that. The super fast combat speed is the best prove for that.

 

And no, it's not about "it's bad because it's Origins" at all. I don't think Origins was perfect, far from it. But the truth is that DAO was created as a tactical party RPG while both DA2 and DAI are basically action games with some tactical options you could use if you "work around" and accept the "shortcomings". But that doesn't mean that these games were great tactical games in the first place. DA2 is still far more enjoyable as a tactical experience due to DAI's dumbed down systems and its clunky tac cam...

[Rannik]

Right, because, you know, giving the players an option via the camera to play the game as an action RPG control scheme or a tactical one (old school, point and click) is "wasting time and resources".

 
Dragon Age Inquisition does not have an isometric cam, pulling the camera 2 meters from the ground to control some awkward pointer (someone please introduce neoBioware to the concept of mouse) that gets stuck on the ground 102% of the time is not "old school" nor "tactical", it's useless.
 
You can do the exact same things from third person, better in fact as you don't have to drag that stupid pointer around.
 

I think Game of the Year is fair. It's not like it was up against stiff competition. There was what? Five real contenders?  Advanced Warfare, Destiny, Far Cry 4 and Alien: Isolation... and they all had issues of their own.

Sounds like you play a lot of games.
 

[LinksOcarina]

My opinion?  This "Angry Joe" doesn't play the games....not for hours.  He's a shill.  His words can NOT be believed...he's more paid actor now than any sort of reputable gaming critic...if he ever was.  Too much flash, and no REAL critiques upon the actual games.  Too much video production....much too much.

 

Oh I can vouch he plays the games for a while at the very least. I did work for him at one point. 

 

Everything else I kind of agree with. 

[tself55]

Shadow of Mordor, Bayonetta 2, Dark Souls 2, South Park: The Stick of Truth, and Hearthstone all got a lot of positive press around GotY time. And that doesn't even include all the great indie titles that came out this year that put most of the AAA's to shame, but which get minimal attention because they are not backed by big publishers with big advertising budgets - This War of Mine, Transistor, The Binding of Isaac, Shovel Knight, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, and Legend of Grimrock 2 being chief among them.

Hearthstone, while very good doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in a video game list, because its a collectable card game, not a video game. Indie titles will never win big awards even though some of the best games every year are indies (hell my most played game each year for the past 6 or so has been a free roguelike dcss). And the others you listed are pretty much the other big contenders thrown around by most sites for GOTY, Bayonetta probably suffers from being Wii U exclusive.

[AlanC9]

Speed is not pointless at all. It's a great difference whether you have the pause every half a second or every two seconds if you want to play it properly with "full" tactical control of almost every action.

I don't follow this. Assuming your reflexes aren't so slow that pausing every half second rather than every two seconds is difficult for you to do, what's the problem?

[His Majesty Lord Crash]

Hearthstone, while very good doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in a video game list, because its a collectable card game, not a video game. Indie titles will never win big awards even though some of the best games every year are indies (hell my most played game each year for the past 6 or so has been a free roguelike dcss). And the others you listed are pretty much the other big contenders thrown around by most sites for GOTY, Bayonetta probably suffers from being Wii U exclusive.

 

LOL, Hearthstone does not deserve to be mentioned because it's a kind of video game or certain genre you don't enjoy? Guess what, it's not up to you to decide what might be called "video game" or not and that's probably a good thing.

 

And it's a real shame that indies rarely win big awards. That just shows how broken gaming outlets and game awards are. Just have a look at movies. You don't need to make a big blockbuster with a high "production value" to win awards. You just have to make a good movie. It's not all perfect in movies but it's at least a lot better than in video game. You can actually win awards there if you have a quality product, no matte how much production value it has or how it was funded. Nobody cares if 20th century fox made it or an unknown little studio. The "if you're not called AAA and funded by a big publisher then you're not a true, to-be-taken-serious video game" is a real bullshi* attitude in gaming and it has to die ASAP.

[His Majesty Lord Crash]

I don't follow this. Assuming your reflexes aren't so slow that pausing every half second rather than every two seconds is difficult for you to do, what's the problem?

 

There is a difference between reflexes (typcial of skill based games like Dark Souls) and tactics (typical of strategical/tactical games like e.g. turn-based games). Skill based games are mostly about avoiding sudden, direct damage and putting out maximum, direct damage. Tactical games are about thinking a few "turns" in advance, about outsmarting your enemy not only for the next 2 seconds but for the whole battle/encounter. I don't see how fast-paced gameplay with attacks that hardly lasts a second support that type of gameplay or thinking...

 

It's like saying that speed-chess is more tactical than normal chess. But it isn't. And it's surely not more fun for most people. It might increase the stress level but not the fun if you play the game for the tactics.

[Elhanan]

Believe you may be confusing strategy (chess) with tactics (checkers); was terrific at the latter, but terrible at the former.

In any event, about the only non-RPG I have played in 20 yrs is XCOM; a turn based game.

[AlanC9]

There is a difference between reflexes (typcial of skill based games like Dark Souls) and tactics (typical of strategical/tactical games like e.g. turn-based games). Skill based games are mostly about avoiding sudden, direct damage and putting out maximum, direct damage. Tactical games are about thinking a few "turns" in advance, about outsmarting your enemy not only for the next 2 seconds but for the whole battle/encounter. I don't see how fast-paced gameplay with attacks that hardly lasts a second support that type of gameplay or thinking...

It's like saying that speed-chess is more tactical than normal chess. But it isn't. And it's surely not more fun for most people. It might increase the stress level but not the fun if you play the game for the tactics.

But, again, there's a pause button. If you can pause the clock in speed chess it isn't speed chess anymore, it's just plain chess.

[His Majesty Lord Crash]

But, again, there's a pause button. If you can pause the clock in speed chess it isn't speed chess anymore, it's just plain chess.

 

You really don't get it. People who want to play tactical games don't want an actiony, stressy experience. They don't want their reflexes to be challenged but their tactical mind. If I'm required to pause the game every half-second I'm stressed and that's not a comfortable tactical experience. Once RTwP followed the same principles as real turn-based games just without breaking the flow. But it was still slow enough to not being forced to have fast reflexes to just hit the button at the right time...

 

The speed of gameplay has a pretty huge effect on the overall experience of a game. That's just a fact and it changes how a game plays out.

 

Believe you may be confusing strategy (chess) with tactics (checkers); was terrific at the latter, but terrible at the former.

In any event, about the only non-RPG I have played in 20 yrs is XCOM; a turn based game.

 

You may have a point there although I think there is a fluid transition between tactics and strategy, especially in most video games (an RTS game for example isn't necessarily more strategic than a tactical turn-based game). But the chess example was probably not the best one...

[keyip]

 

If I'm required to pause the game every half-second I'm stressed and that's not a comfortable tactical experience. 

 

As a player of many tactical games... no. They're not.

[AlanC9]

You really don't get it. People who want to play tactical games don't want an actiony, stressy experience. They don't want their reflexes to be challenged but their tactical mind.

It's more accurate to say that I don't get how the games actually challenge your reflexes enough to provide an actiony, stressy experience in the first place. They're not that fast, are they?

But I'll admit that I'm not very sensitive to the issue. Actiony, stressy combat wouldn't bother me if I did get it in an RPG; if my PC's experiencing something actiony and stressy then I don't have a conceptual problem with having that experience myself.

[Kroitz]

In my opinion AJ is honest, blunt and loud like a sledgehammer.

 

I enjoy his videos.

 

But no MK8? That has to be against the law.

[His Majesty Lord Crash]

As a player of many tactical games... no. They're not.

 

I'm not sure if I understand. Do you agree or disagree with me?