1664 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Guess how many hours I have in Skyrim, Elhanan? Zero.

That's because I don't generally like exploring for the sake of exploring, or pressing one button to slash my sword.

I like a strong narrative, tactical gameplay, and compelling characters to interact with. 

Would you deprive us of the one game that gives us those things, when you already have so many other games to choose from? 

Have a heart, Elhanan. I can tell you're a good person. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children oldschool BioWare fans! lol

Then you may be missing the best example of Archery mechanics experienced in cRPG's ever. Hardly a one-button push system, but easy enough for this disabled gamer to utilize for such a time. While I am not such a fan of S&S, the 2H melee was quite effective, and both systems offer Blocking and Power Attacks.

And while the written dialogue is not always as keen as Bioware titles, some of the conversations and VO are of the same high standards (eg; Paarth, Arngeir, Ebbern). And some of the written quests are outstanding (eg; Frostflow Lighthouse).

To see if some BSN posters other than myself care for the game or not, check out one of the longer threads in the OT forums.

It seems that what is being compared is a stereotype of what is thought to be Skyrim, as well as MMO gameplay. While the latter is somewhat accurate, SWTOR offers story driven campaigns for eight classes, and is a lot of fun, IMO. As for MMO style gameplay in DAI, I also skip that which I disagree (eg; No chain tossing, 2H earthquakes). Still enjoy both Bioware games; still dislike most MMO's.

Personally, I hope for the sake of children and old school gamers everywhere that they do not learn to prejudge.

[Rizilliant]

I think we've all remained remarkably civil and polite and argued our case sensibly.

 

I'm sure most visitors to the thread would agree (even if they disagree with our viewpoint). 

And I'm quite glad people are keeping the debate alive, because it increases the likelihood that BioWare will notice and take our concerns into consideration.

Unfortunately for most who voice their negative opinions of the game, it doesnt always require being uncivilized, or breaking ToS to get a visit from a kid on a power trip.. I mean a Mod....

[Rekkampum]

I disagree. While there is a boatload of grinding, there are some hidden gems in the game that make searching somewhat rewarding, Sulevin blade being one of them. I also liked the Dwarven Ruins in the Hissing Wastes.

[Lee T]

Guess how many hours I have in Skyrim, Elhanan? Zero.

Your loss, but I do not see the point here. I often see people bored by DAI likening it to Skyrim and I see no commonality.

I've spent countless hours in Skyrim, as much as I did in Oblivion and DAO. I love both those school of game making and I like what both bring to the table. I do not wish them to fuse, but there are good ideas in each other that each school could take a cue from.

This is not what I find in DAI, this game is as much like Skyrim as it is like DAO. What I do not like in DAI is very specific to this game and the fun I had in both is absent from this game, kinda like the worst of both worlds.

[Regan_Cousland]

[Not playing Skyrim is] your loss, but I do not see the point here. I often see people bored by DAI likening it to Skyrim and I see no commonality.

 

Please don't think me ignorant when it comes to Bethesda games. I own a few.

I didn't purchase Skyrim because both Oblivion and Fall Out: New Vegas, which I did buy, bored me, and I could never get more than about twelve hours into either.

I couldn't get into them for the exact same reason I now struggle to get into Inquisition. Because once you're let loose in the open world, there's no compelling reason to do anything except explore for the sake of exploring, acquire new gear and level up.

Even though some of the writing in Bethesda games is quirky and fun, none of the characters are deep enough or physically present enough to form meaningful relationships with.

(Strangely, I did like Fallout 3. A lot. The origin of the vault dweller and the oppressive atmosphere of the Capitol Wasteland set my imagination on fire. That's one of the best purely-headcannoned RP experiences I've had. lol

 But I'd still rank Fallout 3 below just about every BioWare game.)

Also, it's not illogical to liken Inquisition to Skyrim, despite what people on this forum keep telling me, because BioWare themselves said that they were "aggressively investigating Skyrim" while making Inquisition. By BioWare's own admission, Skyrim has been hugely inspirational. 

P.S. I do think that Inquisition's so-called "quests" are less interesting than the sidequests I've encountered in Bethesda games, though. Bethesda rely heavily on the quality of those quests because their main storylines are so thin; I think BioWare assumed, unconsciously or not, that they could get away with weaker sidequests because their central story and characters are stronger. 

And maybe BioWare could have gotten away with dull sidequests had those sidequests not accounted for about two thirds of the whole game.

[pinkjellybeans]

'Dumbed Down' suggests simplification made to a wider audience.

 

Yes, you're right, and that's exactly what they did to DAI, a franchise that used to be all about tactical combat is now a hack and slash game to appeal to bigger audiences. I can give you a few examples.

 

Like, no tactics, something that has been there since the beginning. It makes no sense for them to remove it unless, you know, they wanted to make the game as simple as possible for new players. No attribute points. Don't worry, it's all done for you. Mages have less spells. Now you only have elemental spells plus a few others. In Origins you have so much choice, there were so many different ways you could fight enemies as a mage. Now is just, spam some fire over here, and some ice over there. Even DA2 that was a rushed game had more options than DAI.

 

There's other things like removing coppers and silvers from the currency. Their excuse is that we are playing as a big organization that doesn't deal with anything lower than gold but I don't bite that, specially since everything is so damn expensive all of a sudden. It doesn't make any sense. In my opinion they simplified it because new players could get confused, the poor things. And now a single elfroot can cost 20 gold, while in previous games it would cost only a few coppers. Talk about inconsistency. 

[Elhanan]

Yes, you're right, and that's exactly what they did to DAI, a franchise that used to be all about tactical combat is now a hack and slash game to appeal to bigger audiences. I can give you a few examples.
 
Like, no tactics, something that has been there since the beginning. It makes no sense for them to remove it unless, you know, they wanted to make the game as simple as possible for new players. No attribute points. Don't worry, it's all done for you. Mages have less spells. Now you only have elemental spells plus a few others. In Origins you have so much choice, there were so many different ways you could fight enemies as a mage. Now is just, spam some fire over here, and some ice over there. Even DA2 that was a rushed game had more options than DAI.
 
There's other things like removing coppers and silvers from the currency. Their excuse is that we are playing as a big organization that doesn't deal with anything lower than gold but I don't bite that, specially since everything is so damn expensive all of a sudden. It doesn't make any sense. In my opinion they simplified it because new players could get confused, the poor things. And now a single elfroot can cost 20 gold, while in previous games it would cost only a few coppers. Talk about inconsistency.

Not quite....

There are still Tactics, and I do believe it was an attempt to make the past If/ Then hierarchy charts less complicated. And while I also prefer the former versions (I have an Ancient Knowledge of coding; many do not), this one does seem to work well in cadence with Behavior.

By placing Defensive abilities as Preferred in Tactics allows for self-defense as a priority over offensive skills. Then setting Follow to themselves appears to increase this defensive posture. Then by lowering Mana, Stamina, and Potion Usage to 20% or less allows for greater participation in combat with a lesser drain on resources.

But simplified? This is a common question in the Combat section, and one I have tried to help answer many times. It is not so simple for many.

And while Spells are now combined with some upgrades and Passives, there are still quite a lot (uncertain of numbers). What is less are quickslots; something I also hope changes.

And while Attribute allocation has been taken away, the choosing of Passives and items with additions again seems to be somewhat complicated for many based on questions about them.

But the gold vs past economic state is pardonable; easily explained based on a War inflated economy. Only a picker of nits needs to look at past World War settings to see a comparison.

[AlanC9]

@everyone addressing these fellows.. They are baiting you into heated debates, in an attempt to get you to break ToS.. Just read any of the posts made by  those 5 or so (you know who the apologists are)...Mr. 03 will see to the execution...

Who's Mr. 03?

[AlanC9]

Yes, you're right, and that's exactly what they did to DAI, a franchise that used to be all about tactical combat is now a hack and slash game to appeal to bigger audiences. I can give you a few examples.
 
Like, no tactics, something that has been there since the beginning. It makes no sense for them to remove it unless, you know, they wanted to make the game as simple as possible for new players.

How does removing Tactics in itself make things simpler? All Tactics ever did was automate stuff for the player. When something isn't automated for me anymore, I'm not doing any less thought than I was doing when that thing was automated.

[Realmzmaster]

Who's Mr. 03?

 

I do believe that would be Bioware Moderator 3.

[AlanC9]

You know what was great about ME1?
That you could without problem completely skip optional planet exploration missions and still get great RPG experience.

Unlike DAI, where some of the companion guest are are positioned deeply into optional areas that are boring.

This is a good point. The ME1 exploration was almost wholly separate from the plot. (So was almost everything on the Citadel, though that's not really the same issue.) You didn't need to do side missions for anything, since the loot drops and scaling made cash and XP worthless.

Assuming Bio sticks with open-world, should they disassociate plot and exploration? It's pretty ckear that they went out of their way to avoid this in DAI.

[AlanC9]

I do believe that would be Bioware Moderator 3.

Oh. Right. They're supposed to be working with us, yeah.

[Regan_Cousland]

How does removing Tactics in itself make things simpler? All Tactics ever did was automate stuff for the player. When something isn't automated for me anymore, I'm not doing any less thought than I was doing when that thing was automated.

 

Tactics don't "automate stuff" for the player (unless you go with the presets).

 

Tactics entrust the player to make wise decisions and assign automatic behaviours to her allies. 

There's a difference. You're assuming that setting tactics makes combat easier, but that's not the case if the player gets her tactical decisions wrong. 

The Origins tactics system doesn't treat the player like a fool. It puts complete responsibility into her hands.

If the enemy wipes out your party in Inquisition, you're always somewhat justified in crying, "Unfair!" ... because your party members aren't doing exactly what you told them to do. They're just kinda, sorta, "if-I-feel-like-it", "maybe-in-a-minute" doing what you advised them to do. 

That's why combat in Inquisition feels so chaotic (and, at times, frustrating). There's too much chance involved.

Conversely, if the enemy wipes out your party in Origins, that failure is all on you. You gave the orders, you told who to use which spell when.

The upside of that is that if you win in Origins, you get all of the glory for the victory. There's very little chance, very little automation.

And that's rewarding!


P.S. I haven't got my nostalgia goggles on, honestly. I don't think Origins was perfect. I think DA2 actually improved tactics in one crucial way: it gave us pinpoint control over the movement of all of our party members. We could pause and direct squishies away from harm in a second, without fuss. 

Inquisition, however, butchered everything. The new system isn't broken, exactly. It's viscerally gratifying in ACTION MODE (which I imagine is the reason for the change). And even for the strategists amongst us, it can be fun and somewhat mentally taxing. But, on a purely technical level, it's undoubtedly inferior to both previous combat systems.
 

[Realmzmaster]

How does removing Tactics in itself make things simpler? All Tactics ever did was automate stuff for the player. When something isn't automated for me anymore, I'm not doing any less thought than I was doing when that thing was automated.

 

Removing tactics does not make things simpler. The only point that tactics removed was the micromanaging of the party for some gamers. The idea being that the gamer would develop the necessary script of commands along with the If then statements to guide the party member. 

The point is that the gamer can spend as much time building the script as it would be micromanaging the party. The script also would have to be refined if more conditions were necessary to take into account new abilities, potions, poisons or traps. Refinement would be necessary as the game progressed.

 

Also some gamers like building scripts and watching how well it works.

 

For me the system in DAI works as well as the system in DAO especially when used in conjunction with behavior. And before anybody asks I have an extensive knowledge of programming languages. So IF Then Else statements were my bread and butter. I started way back with FORTRAN, BASIC and COBOL. So I am quite comfortable with DAO's tactics screen. So the dumbed down comment in regards to tactics always has me scratching my head.

[Elhanan]

Removing tactics does not make things simpler. The only point that tactics removed was the micromanaging of the party for some gamers. The idea being that the gamer would develop the necessary script of commands along with the If then statements to guide the party member. 
The point is that the gamer can spend as much time building the script as it would be micromanaging the party. The script also would have to be refined if more conditions were necessary to take into account new abilities, potions, poisons or traps. Refinement would be necessary as the game progressed.
 
Also some gamers like building scripts and watching how well it works.
 
For me the system in DAI works as well as the system in DAO especially when used in conjunction with behavior. And before anybody asks I have an extensive knowledge of programming languages. So IF Then Else statements were my bread and butter. I started way back with FORTRAN, BASIC and COBOL. So I am quite comfortable with DAO's tactics screen. So the dumbed down comment in regards to tactics always has me scratching my head.

Excellent point! How can any code be considered 'Dumbed Down' when it uses something other than COBOL?

* For those not familiar with this Ancient script, one wrote equations in long hand so that non-programmers could understand (eg; Six Times X Equals Thirty-Six). It took six pages of code for about a single equivalent page of Basic or Pascal*

[Falcon084]

Boring? Are we playing the same game? 

[Regan_Cousland]

Boring? Are we playing the same game? 

 

I'm sure we're playing the same game when we play the story or Skyhold segments. They're a lot of fun!

My problem tends to begin after about fifteen to thirty minutes of grinding in any open-world zone that contains no roleplaying opportunities and next-to-no relevance to the plot -- I think that's when our realities might diverge and we end up playing different games. 

[AlanC9]

and assign automatic behaviours to her allies. 

There's a difference. You're assuming that setting tactics makes combat easier, but that's not the case if the player gets her tactical decisions wrong.

But how is that any different from making bad tactical decisions when controlling the characters directly? I'm making the decisions with or without Tactics. The only difference I see is that I'm pushing fewer buttons if I'm using Tactics. OK, there is a minor additional difference in that I have to conform my decision-making to the command syntax of the Tactics system. I wouldn't call that thought, exactly; it's more like learning an interface.

The Origins tactics system doesn't treat the player like a fool. It puts complete responsibility into her hands.

Wait... there's obviously something I'm missing here. Are you saying that tactical mode doesn't work?

[Saphiron123]

Not quite....

There are still Tactics, and I do believe it was an attempt to make the past If/ Then hierarchy charts less complicated. And while I also prefer the former versions (I have an Ancient Knowledge of coding; many do not), this one does seem to work well in cadence with Behavior.

By placing Defensive abilities as Preferred in Tactics allows for self-defense as a priority over offensive skills. Then setting Follow to themselves appears to increase this defensive posture. Then by lowering Mana, Stamina, and Potion Usage to 20% or less allows for greater participation in combat with a lesser drain on resources.

But simplified? This is a common question in the Combat section, and one I have tried to help answer many times. It is not so simple for many.

And while Spells are now combined with some upgrades and Passives, there are still quite a lot (uncertain of numbers). What is less are quickslots; something I also hope changes.

And while Attribute allocation has been taken away, the choosing of Passives and items with additions again seems to be somewhat complicated for many based on questions about them.

But the gold vs past economic state is pardonable; easily explained based on a War inflated economy. Only a picker of nits needs to look at past World War settings to see a comparison.

That's not excuse to cut it. Most of us can handle it, and those who don't can do without... there's no reason to cut the best systems from the game because some people don't follow. And dude, every rpg ever almost has attribute points. it isn't new, it isn't complicated, and it's easy to toggle for people who prefer not to do it. Most of the people here enjoy these things though, we aren't idiots, most of us are educated. These are staples of the dragon age series, things that made it unique, and cutting them absolutely sucks... there's no reason for it.

Bioware can include people who can't handle a basic RPG by simple having an "auto level" or "auto-fight" tactic. Hell there are people who can't handle THIS combat system? Should that be automated too? Maybe it should choose our dialogue options for us?

And attribute points and tactics in origins were something I was capable of understanding in grade school... it's not rocket science. And games are going to be pretty lame if their defining feature is "so simple a 10 year old can play it".

Also, in dragon age origins, an elfroot is one copper, 100 copper is a silver, 100 silver is gold... so the price of elfroot has now inflated 10,000x. Definitely NOT easily explained by wartime inflation. The entire kingdom would have starved to death.

 

But how is that any different from making bad tactical decisions when controlling the characters directly? I'm making the decisions with or without Tactics. The only difference I see is that I'm pushing fewer buttons if I'm using Tactics. OK, there is a minor additional difference in that I have to conform my decision-making to the command syntax of the Tactics system. I wouldn't call that thought, exactly; it's more like learning an interface.


Wait... there's obviously something I'm missing here. Are you saying that tactical mode doesn't work?

Origins tactics and tactical mode aren't the same thing. In origins you could tell your guys how to respond to a variety of situations, such as casting a certain spell when a certain number of enemies cluster, or something attacks your mage. 10 years ago bioware had a system that would prevent solas from casting barrier 30 seconds before you reach the enemy, or varrick from using his backflip escape attack when it makes zero sense to use it. You could prioritize different responses to different encounters, and make your party fight your way even when you had control of another character,

It was a great system, and for all it's flaws, DA2 improved on it. it was a great, very simple system that I was able to understand as a kid and that made the AI 20x smarter then it is now. Imagine never having barrier autocast except when you're actually fighting... it'd be huge. And the technology required is 10 years old and already exists.

Incidentally, no, tactical mode doesn't work in DAI. I tell them to resurrect a fallen companion, they change direction halfway and attack. When you tell them to hold position they chase you and get killed. They could hold in the other dragon age games... why not now?

[Saphiron123]

Not quite....

There are still Tactics, and I do believe it was an attempt to make the past If/ Then hierarchy charts less complicated. And while I also prefer the former versions (I have an Ancient Knowledge of coding; many do not), this one does seem to work well in cadence with Behavior.

By placing Defensive abilities as Preferred in Tactics allows for self-defense as a priority over offensive skills. Then setting Follow to themselves appears to increase this defensive posture. Then by lowering Mana, Stamina, and Potion Usage to 20% or less allows for greater participation in combat with a lesser drain on resources.

But simplified? This is a common question in the Combat section, and one I have tried to help answer many times. It is not so simple for many.

And while Spells are now combined with some upgrades and Passives, there are still quite a lot (uncertain of numbers). What is less are quickslots; something I also hope changes.

And while Attribute allocation has been taken away, the choosing of Passives and items with additions again seems to be somewhat complicated for many based on questions about them.

But the gold vs past economic state is pardonable; easily explained based on a War inflated economy. Only a picker of nits needs to look at past World War settings to see a comparison.

And dude, there aren't tactics in DAI. On, off, and use more often isn't tactics. there's more tactical options in the 10mb mobile games on my iPad.

[Regan_Cousland]

 

The Origins tactics system doesn't treat the player like a fool. It puts complete responsibility into her hands.
 

 

 

Wait... there's obviously something I'm missing here. Are you saying that tactical mode doesn't work?

 

 

No. If the tactical mode didn't work, then the player would have to micromanage everything, wouldn't he?

Assigning tactics eliminates some of the tedium of micromanaging, while still granting the player considerable control over the behaviour of his companions.

Much more control than the player has over his companions in Inquisition. 

For instance, in Origins, you can instruct Morrigan to use her ice spell to freeze only enemies who are attacking her, thus protecting herself from harm.

No such luck in Inquisition. To achieve the same effect, you have these three (terrible) options:

1. You can disable Solas's ice spell on the tactics screen, pay attention to him at all times during combat, enter tactics mode when he's about to be attacked, and then manually use his ice spell on his attacker (sheesh, I got tired just typing that out!).

2. You can ignore tactics mode and just ... y'know ... hope that Solas's ice spell is ready to go, and that he uses it on the right person, before getting boshed in.

3. You can take manual control of Solas and let your Inquisitor and your other friends buuuurn. Mwahaha.

Of course, if that nifty ice spell manoeuvre doesn't work out, don't worry! Mages in Inquisition always keep a safe distance from brutes with swords. Be grateful that BioWare didn't get rid of the common-sense behaviour settings.

Oh ... wait ...

Starting to see how useful tactics are now? 

Although, if you've played Origins or DA2, you already know this stuff. Don't play dumb.

[AlanC9]

Origins tactics and tactical mode aren't the same thing. In origins you could tell your guys how to respond to a variety of situations, such as casting a certain spell when a certain number of enemies cluster, or something attacks your mage.

I'm sorry I confused you by saying "tactical mode." My point had nothing to do with the camera, it had to do with exercising full control over the party.

[AlanC9]

No. If the tactical mode didn't work, then the player would have to micromanage everything, wouldn't he?

Now we're getting somewhere. Tactics is about reducing tedium in combat, not about making combat more intelligent. I've never said that the Tactics system wasn't useful; I'm objecting to the confusion about what it's useful for.

 

1. You can disable Solas's ice spell on the tactics screen, pay attention to him at all times during combat, enter tactics mode when he's about to be attacked, and then manually use his ice spell on his attacker (sheesh, I got tired just typing that out!).

Sure. Why not micromanage everybody all the time? I remember when that was the only way to play a Bio game. And back then we had to manage six characters, not four.

[C0uncil0rTev0s]

Now we're getting somewhere. Tactics is about reducing tedium in combat, not about making combat more intelligent. I've never said that the Tactics system wasn't useful; I'm objecting to the confusion about what it's useful for.
 
Sure. Why not micromanage everybody all the time? I remember when that was the only way to play a Bio game. And back then we had to manage six characters, not four.

My dear Alan, I need you elsewhere. Could you please visit this topic? I need your fangirly expertise constructive opinion there.

[Ncongruous]

Sure. Why not micromanage everybody all the time? I remember when that was the only way to play a Bio game.

Because there was a system actualized at this franchise's start that obfuscated this limitation of its predecessors. Why devolve at this point? Was, or is the system impractical?