1664 réponses à ce sujet

[pinkjellybeans]

Again, how is setting tactics poorly any different from playing the game poorly myself?

 

So if I want the AI to do dumb things, then AI will do that for me? Well, sure, but that is no different from DA:O. If I wanted the AI to do dumb things in that game I'd leave the default Tactics on. The difference is when you don't want the companions doing dumb things.

 

That's not the point. This whole conversation is why no tactics made the game simpler. And like I said "without it, most people aren't going to pause every 2 seconds to give instructions to companions like tactics automatically did, so consequently they will rely on the AI most of the times", which automatically makes all the decisions for the player, instead of you giving the orders through tactics. Sure you can still apply tactics manually, but how many people actually micromanage their entire party every few seconds? Specially since DAI's combat is so focused on action and less pausing. And sure, in DAO you had defaults, which is a plus, because then people who don't like to deal with tactics themselves had the option to just choose one of those. My point is, in DAI we have no choice, we're stuck with the default, it's like the game assumes we're not intelligent enough to set tactics ourselves. The same goes to attribute points. 

 

 

I said no such thing. 

 

Don't worry, I wasn't talking about you.

[line_genrou]

There are no pre set tactics in the game, you have to control each party member whenever there is a battle

it's fun that way, I liked it. To combine abilities and make that combo happen

even more so on nightmare difficulty which is the only difficulty that should be played to be honest

I don't let party members use any ability on their own basically

I decide when they use them

 

the battle is not the problem for me in this game

there are a lot of issues though

 

8 slots for skills in an RPG game is beyond ridiculous

[Regan_Cousland]

I said, "Keep your Skyrim out of my Dragon Age, please," in the original post.

To which you responded:
 

I wish I hadn't had to read through the other rubbish [in the original post] to identify which type of post this actually was...

 

That's totally unfair. You may not agree with my opinion, but please don't classify my original post as a mindless hate post. I explain clearly why I personally feel Inquisition is inferior to Origins in certain areas.

I'm not trashing Skyrim, either.

I'm simply saying that as a BioWare fan, I would appreciate BioWare-like content to form the bulk of a BioWare game; not Skyrim-like content. 

[AlanC9]

That's not the point. This whole conversation is why no tactics made the game simpler. And like I said "without it, most people aren't going to pause every 2 seconds to give instructions to companions like tactics automatically did, so consequently they will rely on the AI most of the times", which automatically makes all the decisions for the player, instead of you giving the orders through tactics.Sure you can still apply tactics manually, but how many people actually micromanage their entire party every few seconds?

So the argument's about how most people play? How many people actually used custom Tactics? Edit: more specifically, how many people used to use custom Tactics and now just let the AI characters do whatever they want? Do you know? I don't. At Normal difficulty DA:O plays just fine with default tactics. DA:A plays just fine on Nightmare that way, though that has more to do with how broken the system gets at high levels.

Unless your argument is maybe that DAI is easier than DAO because Tactics were removed, I don't see the case.
 
Maybe my question should be how you personally play the game.

My point is, in DAI we have no choice, we're stuck with the default, it's like the game assumes we're not intelligent enough to set tactics ourselves.

This strikes me as projection. You'd have a case if the default AI was actually good.

[Realmzmaster]

I said, "Keep your Skyrim out of my Dragon Age, please," in the original post.

To which you responded:
 

 

That's totally unfair. Please don't classify my original post as a mindless hate post. I explain clearly why I personally feel Inquisition is inferior to Origins in certain areas.

I'm not trashing Skyrim, either.

I'm simply saying that as a BioWare fan, I would appreciate BioWare-like content to form the bulk of a BioWare game; not Skyrim-like content. 

 

I am also a Bioware fan. I do not consider it Skyrim-like content but Baldur's Gate 1-like content which is arguably one of Bioware's best game series IMHO.

 

BG1 basically required micro managing the party as a whole. Much like Icewind Dale I & II, Planescape Torment or any other games built on the Infinity Engine.

[Realmzmaster]

I think that's a strength, not a flaw.

And I also think BG did it better by not telling us which quests were plot-related.

 

I agree. I think DAI would be better served by not telling which quests were plot-related but let the party and gamer discover those quests.

 

I like the fact that the party can discover quests by talking to individuals or picking up notes and not necessarily the individual that is the trigger point for the quest.

 

For example, I ended up talking to the hunter, the private, stopping the mages/templars and clearing out the bandits before talking to Corporal Vale. I did those side quests so that by the time I reached Corporal Vale he was asking the Inquisitor what kind of reward he/she wanted (influence, money or agents).

 

I also like the exploration in DAI which is more akin to BG1.

[RMP _]

 

The enemy spawns are quite rare and occur far enough away for the PC to spot them in advance.   

 

 

Last night I was playing and a bear poofed into existence right beside me. No exageration, I mean literally spawned right beside me. That was the worst, but I've also seen plenty of times where I kill them, wander a short ways, wander back and there they are again. One time, I killed mobs, saved and exited the game, and on loading the game back up, my characters and the mobs were all right there again.

 

It's like they don't have code to check how long those mobs have been dead and how close my group is to the spawning point. It's more like all the mobs are on a rigid timer and automatically get re-spawned at a set time and place with no regard for anything else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So...you are actually in favor of less main story content, do I understand that correctly? You prefer the game to be less story-driven rather than exploration-driven, similarly to Skyrim? If so, we can only agree to disagree.

Not at all. But I'm less in favour of that story content being presented in a heavy-handed way. I'd much rather discover that content on my own rather than have it be spoonfed to me.

Honestly, I think DAI does a much better job of it than Skyrim does, because Skyrim has so little dynamic content. Very little is actually happening in the game world. DAI is much better, I think.

Having a strong story is important because it gives you things to do that make a difference. But being told to do it makes it less my decision.

The story shouldn't be the only reason the world exists. That's the mistake most BioWare games have made.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think it was a big problem for DA:O and KotOR since the PC knows for most of the game what he needs to do and where he needs to do it.

That makes for a less fun game, I think.

I would rather not know.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hmm. Why less likely? I'd have thought you'd want to ignore the incentive, not actively reject it.

It's difficult to know whether you're letting metagame information influence your decisions. My preference would be to ignore it, but resisting it is safer.

Also, I want games to support an off-leash approach, so if I intentionally work against the developers' intent I'm better able to give meaningful feedback. I'll find the areas where the game behaves strangely.

Also, I like breaking the game.

[theflyingzamboni]

I think that's a strength, not a flaw.

And I also think BG did it better by not telling us which quests were plot-related.

Not arguing the sentiment of this, but BG was quite clear on which quests were related to the main plot. I mean, they weren't labeled "main plot" in the journal, but you were led narratively from location to location. Leave Candlekeep: "Meet friends at the Friendly Arms!"; leave Friendly Arms: "Stuff is happening in Nashkel!"; Complete Nashkel: "There's a huge mining operation in the Cloakwood." Or maybe it was the bandit camp next, I can't remember. Anyway, same sort of thing for BG2; they definitely let you know which quests were plot related. Which is good, I think. In my case, and I'm guessing yours as well, telling us which area continues the plot makes it "The place to avoid until I've explored a bunch of the other stuff." Accidental plot happening isn't an issue.

[BabyPuncher]

It's difficult to know whether you're letting metagame information influence your decisions. My preference would be to ignore it, but resisting it is safer.

Also, I want games to support an off-leash approach, so if I intentionally work against the developers' intent I'm better able to give meaningful feedback. I'll find the areas where the game behaves strangely.

 

That sounds to me like the equivalent of asking someone to tell you a story and then putting your hands over your ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING I'M NOT LISTENING"

 

If you don't want to experience the story to developers intend to tell you...then don't experience it.

[theflyingzamboni]

It's difficult to know whether you're letting metagame information influence your decisions. My preference would be to ignore it, but resisting it is safer.

Also, I want games to support an off-leash approach, so if I intentionally work against the developers' intent I'm better able to give meaningful feedback. I'll find the areas where the game behaves strangely.

Huh, I would've guessed you preferred being able to intentionally ignore the main plot, but I guess this makes sense. Not my personal preference, but I see where you're coming from.

[Regan_Cousland]

I am also a Bioware fan. I do not consider [Inquisition] to have Skyrim-like content, but Baldur's Gate 1-like content which is arguably one of Bioware's best game series IMHO.

 

BG1 basically required micro managing the party as a whole. Much like Icewind Dale I & II, Planescape Torment or any other games built on the Infinity Engine.

 

BioWare themselves stated that they were "aggressively investigating Skyrim" while creating Inquisition. 

BioWare might have drawn elements from Baldur's Gate, but I believe making Inquisition more like Skyrim was their greater goal (successful or not).


 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not arguing the sentiment of this, but BG was quite clear on which quests were related to the main plot. I mean, they weren't labeled "main plot" in the journal, but you were led narratively from location to location. Leave Candlekeep: "Meet friends at the Friendly Arms!"; leave Friendly Arms: "Stuff is happening in Nashkel!"; Complete Nashkel: "There's a huge mining operation in the Cloakwood." Or maybe it was the bandit camp next, I can't remember. Anyway, same sort of thing for BG2; they definitely let you know which quests were plot related. Which is good, I think. In my case, and I'm guessing yours as well, telling us which area continues the plot makes it "The place to avoid until I've explored a bunch of the other stuff." Accidental plot happening isn't an issue.

In BG, knowing that chain requires both luck and genre-savvy. And I try never to use genre-savvy, because it breaks my character. He doesn't know he's in a story.

So, if you don't go to the Friendly Arm (and why would you - Gorion's last decision led you into an ambush), you might have a reason to visit Nashkel if you meet Xzar and Montaron on the road, of it you decide on your own to investigate the iron shortage, but you might just as easily think that the disappearance of Brage or Bassilus is the start of the main quest, or that the Gnoll Stronghold is somehow relevant. You also have no reason to believe that the ambush that killed Gorion is plot relevant (just as similar events in the origins of DAO are not).

[Sylvius the Mad]

BioWare themselves stated that they were "aggressively investigating Skyrim" while creating Inquisition.

I don't think statements like that are at all useful once the game is out. Sure, they said that, and without the actual game to examine the statement might be worth investigating, but now we have the game I think it's more useful to use the game as our source when trying to describe it.

[Regan_Cousland]

Let me remind you again that the fetch quests are entirely optional and are not necessary to complete the story since there are a wide variety of alternative methods to accumulate power that are trivial..

 

These side-quests also make up the vast majority of the game. Are you saying I should ignore eighty percent of the game that I paid for?

As I said before, the onus is on the developer to make most of the game's content fun, not on the player to avoid two thirds of said content. (You clearly ignored that or completely disregarded it the first time I said it.)

Moreover, on the Nightmare difficulty setting, you need more than just Power to progress the story (and survive). You need XP and you need high-quality gear. Neither of which can be attained in sufficient quantities without completing side quests, exploring or gathering herbs. 

 

 

And like I have mentioned to pinkytwist already, the "mindless exploration" is on you, since it is you who chooses to wander around the world aimlessly without a goal in mind, not Bioware.

 

I recently spent hours wandering around Crestwood looking for mobs carrying tokens, and then another hour searching a desert for deathroot -- all so that I could acquire the assassin specialization for my rogue.

That mindless wandering certainly isn't on me. The quest was designed that way.

In fact most of the game, when you're not in a story mission or at Skyhold, encourages mindless wandering. Find this, find that, press the stick to search, find hidden treasure at this vaguely drawn location, etc. Having a "goal" doesn't make the wandering feel any less mindless, especially when accomplishing that goal yields such negligent rewards.
 

[theflyingzamboni]

In BG, knowing that chain requires both luck and genre-savvy. And I try never to use genre-savvy, because it breaks my character. He doesn't know he's in a story.

So, if you don't go to the Friendly Arm (and why would you - Gorion's last decision led you into an ambush), you might have a reason to visit Nashkel if you meet Xzar and Montaron on the road, of it you decide on your own to investigate the iron shortage, but you might just as easily think that the disappearance of Brage or Bassilus is the start of the main quest, or that the Gnoll Stronghold is somehow relevant. You also have no reason to believe that the ambush that killed Gorion is plot relevant (just as similar events in the origins of DAO are not).

Personally, I think a young sheltered person would be panicked in that situation and defer to their only authority, as they know nothing else of the world outside Candlekeep. But that's an RP call, and a character could have good reasons for either. I get what you're saying though. Me personally, I prefer to combine RP with genre savvy. That's how I get the most enjoyment, since my preference is for making sure I complete all content prior to finishing the main quest. If I have to sacrifice RP to do additional content, I will. Different playstyles, eh? I'm not sure where the compromise is. I suppose they could always use the infamous toggle option to turn quest markers on or off.

[Elhanan]

These side-quests also make up the vast majority of the game. Are you saying I should ignore eighty percent of the game that I paid for?

As I said before, the onus is on the developer to make most of the game's content fun, not on the player to avoid two thirds of said content. (You clearly ignored that or completely disregarded it the first time I said it.)

Moreover, on the Nightmare difficulty setting, you need more than just Power to progress the story (and survive). You need XP and you need high-quality gear. Neither of which can be attained in sufficient quantities without completing side quests, exploring or gathering herbs. 
 
As for goals, the cursor may be manually placed to help make direct paths available. Not my first option, but have used it enough to know it works.
I recently spent hours wandering around Crestwood looking for mobs carrying tokens, and then another hour searching a desert for deathroot -- all so that I could acquire the assassin specialization for my rogue.

That mindless wandering certainly isn't on me. The quest was designed that way.

In fact most of the game, when you're not in a story mission or at Skyhold, encourages mindless wandering. Find this, find that, press the stick to search, find hidden treasure at this vaguely drawn location, etc. Having a "goal" doesn't make the wandering feel any less mindless, especially when accomplishing that goal yields such negligent rewards.

For the moment, let's say I agree with this imagined eighty percent figure. If there is nothing in there of RP interest at all that can be applied to the PC, then as some have said of others, perhaps this game is not for you.

It seems many here are able to find enjoyable motivation to progress w/o having to be enticed or coerced forward.

Have no idea of the directions which Assassin were mentioned, but the journal directions for Artificer and Knight-Enchanter were specific, and the Rift Mage, though harder due to locale, was still rather direct. And Deathroot is so easy to gather in the Western Approach, it literally grows on trees.

[Regan_Cousland]

For the moment, let's say I agree with this imagined eighty percent figure ...

 

"Eighty percent" is obviously an estimate, but do you deny that the game would be far, far shorter if I didn't do any sidequests?

Rhetorical question. No need to answer that. 

 

If there is nothing in there of RP interest at all that can be applied to the PC, then as some have said of others, perhaps this game is not for you.

 

I find some of the side-content and combat enjoyable. Or I would if it didn't feel so disconnected from the story. 

Give me a brief cutscene before or after a quest, and maybe a couple of crucial dialogue decisions, to make the quest feel worthwhile, and I'm there.

And I'm not asking for cutscenes and choices in every quest; just a few. Right now there are none.

Is that really too much to ask for? Almost every sidequest in every BioWare game from KOTOR to ME3 has done it.

 

 

It seems many here are able to find enjoyable motivation to progress w/o having to be enticed or coerced forward.

 

And I'm happy for them. Honestly. I'm not being sarcastic. 

I do enjoy the game to a point. If I didn't, I wouldn't have played it so much, and I wouldn't spend so much time here, perusing your lovely comments. lol

It just frustrates me that, with a few tweaks, the game could be so much better. The open-world questing in this game could be SO much more fulfilling if it served the story instead of providing a distraction from it.

 

 

Have no idea of the directions which Assassin were mentioned, but the journal directions for Artificer and Knight-Enchanter were specific ...

 

The quest log tells you that the assassin tokens are in particular regions of Crestwood. But those regions are not even marked on the map! So you have no damn option (unless you cheat and use the internet) but to wander the whole place like a lost orphan, in the hope that you stumble upon your quarry.

Who thought that was good quest design?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that BioWare created these big, beautiful environments and then had no way of filling them with meaningful content, given the time and resources at their disposal. So their solution -- to ensure that we saw every inch of their stunning landscapes -- was to implement hundreds of filler quests and quests that involve mindless roaming.
 

[Elhanan]

"Eighty percent" is obviously an estimate, but do you deny that the game would be far, far shorter if I didn't do any sidequests?

Rhetorical question. No need to answer that. 
 
 
I find some of the side-content and combat enjoyable. Or I would if it didn't feel so disconnected from the story. 

Give me a brief cutscene before or after a quest, and maybe a couple of crucial dialogue decisions, to make the quest feel worthwhile, and I'm there.

And I'm not asking for cutscenes and choices in every quest; just a few. Right now there are none.

Is that really too much to ask for? Almost every sidequest in every BioWare game from KOTOR to ME3 has done it. 
 
 
And I'm happy for them. Honestly. I'm not being sarcastic. 

I do enjoy the game to a point. If I didn't, I wouldn't have played it so much, and I wouldn't spend so much time here, perusing your lovely comments. lol

It just frustrates me that, with a few tweaks, the game could be so much better. The open-world questing in this game could be SO much more fulfilling if it served the story instead of providing a distraction from it. 
 
 
The quest log tells you that the assassin tokens are in particular regions of Crestwood. But those regions are not even marked on the map! So you have no damn option (unless you cheat and use the internet) but to wander the whole place like a lost orphan, in the hope that you stumble upon your quarry.

Who thought that was good quest design?
 
It seems pretty clear to me that BioWare created these big, beautiful environments and then had no way of filling them with meaningful content, given the time and resources at their disposal. So their solution -- to ensure that we saw every inch of their stunning landscapes -- was to implement hundreds of filler quests and quests that involve mindless roaming.

* Folks have been asking for fewer cut-scenes for about as long, too. But I am OK with the compromise of all MQ related quests, though I cannot speak for others.

* See above.

* Treasure maps are not quite as enjoyable if there are quest markers hovering over the literal X on the map. Discovery and solving such mysteries are the enjoyment for many. For the rest of us, there are walkthroughs, guides, etc.

[Melca36]

* Folks have been asking for fewer cut-scenes for about as long, too. But I am OK with the compromise of all MQ related quests, though I cannot speak for others.

* See above.

* Treasure maps are not quite as enjoyable if there are quest markers hovering over the literal X on the map. Discovery and solving such mysteries are the enjoyment for many. For the rest of us, there are walkthroughs, guides, etc.

 

 

I LOVE the treasure maps!!! They were great fun and if they removed that due to a bunch of whiny people who want things easily handed to them I am going to be mad.   

[Regan_Cousland]

Folks have been asking for fewer cut-scenes for about as long, too. But I am OK with the compromise of all MQ related quests, though I cannot speak for others.

 

The cinematic conversations I'm asking for wouldn't detract from the combat or exploration. They'd enhance it by giving it relevance, value and heart.

 

They'd only last a couple of minutes! And if you didn't want to play them they'd be skippable (as they've always been).

That isn't much to ask from a BioWare game, of all things. 

 

P.S. LOL. I can't believe I'm arguing for the inclusion of something that's been a staple in BioWare games for more than a decade, like it's some huge, controversial thing.

Next people are going to get upset because I want to shoot stuff in Call of Duty, or because I want to climb walls in Uncharted.

P.P.S. I ... don't play Call of Duty.