542 réponses à ce sujet

[Bioware-Critic]

Darn it, my dictionary just doesn't seem to show that distinction between Tactics and tactics.
 
Now, explain to us again how DA:O's tactics available in Tactics aren't really Tactics ... or was that tactics? ... because it's so much better to pause the action every 1.5 seconds of game time and manually and tell your party members to do what the game AI and Tactic (tactics?) ought to be doing instead.
 
I'll give you that you HAVE to do this in Inquisition to simulate tactical play as it has the AI of a rutabaga and no tactics (Tactics?) to speak of.

THIS !!!

DA:I is a chore and a joke when it comes to tactics! (tactics?)
But then again it falls utterly short in a lot of areas ...

[Il Divo]

lol, what? How does phd make you smart(er)? Ability to memorize text =/ intelligence. I know plenty of people who have some title and are dumb as half full glass of water... you are denying one stereotype and replacing it with another

 

[Bioware-Critic]

lol, what? How does phd make you smart(er)? Ability to memorize text =/ intelligence. I know plenty of people who have some title and are dumb as half full glass of water... you are denying one stereotype and replacing it with another

DUDE ... you should rewrite your whole posting!
'Cause you misunderstood quite fundamentally

[Meave]

DUDE ... you should rewrite your whole posting!
'Cause you misunderstood quite fundamentally

 

no I didn't

[Rawgrim]

By that standard DAO has no tactics either on Normal difficulty.

 

And that's a rather obvious topic switch you pulled there. Just because you prefer to play DAI like an action game doesn't make it an action game. I play most of  DAO like it's an action game too -- once you set up companion tactics it's every bit the button masher that DAI is.

 

You have to set up your tactics in DA:O. Who does what under which conditions etc. You also have to plan your stat allocation a bit.

 

In DA:I nothing like that is required. The game is winnable by mashing your buttons.

 

And no. You don't mash buttons in DA:O at any time, since the game has auto-attack. It is all about the character on the screen doing what he can do. Not about the player's timing when mashing buttons or jumping around.

[ThreeF]

You have to set up your tactics in DA:O. Who does what under which conditions etc. You also have to plan your stat allocation a bit.

 

In DA:I nothing like that is required. The game is winnable by mashing your buttons.

 

And no. You don't mash buttons in DA:O at any time, since the game has auto-attack. It is all about the character on the screen doing what he can do. Not about the player's timing when mashing buttons or jumping around.

You don't need timing button mashing in DAI and you most definitely don't need to set up tactics in DAO to play.

[Jeffry]

The conversation generally has derailed.

 

You said that expectations were not the only reason for you buying this game, but what you listed after, especially that part about being  "huge fan", points to the contrary, you bought the game because you are a fan (ie you already hold certain personal standards) and you think that the company's name brings certain assurances, those are some very specific expectations and I'm guessing they just  got reenforced by the advertisement.

 

Ah, thank you for the explanation, got it, I can see my mistake now. I should have said something along the lines that there were many reasons why my expectations were set so high and then follow with my list and add that the hype and (false) promises were not the only reason why I bought the game.

 

 

What makes a game "good" besides liking it?

 

I'm also not convinced there can be an objective criterion for GOTY besides whether people liked that game more than any other game released in the year in question. If you've got one, now's the time.

 

A good game can for example stand the test of time when people 10 years from now will still praise it as one of the best they have ever seen (like it happens to this day with BG2 or HL2 and many others). Said game also has a universally positive reputation, good word of mouth and so on.

 

Unfortunately nothing from what I just wrote helps to decide the current GOTY. But there are still some aspects that can be examined as objectively as possible (truly objectively): bugginess, how the game runs on every platform released (not just the main ones), the quality of post-launch service, the level of originality and inovative mechanics, the production quality, how the devs lived up to their promises, if there were shady practices surrounding the game and many others. Whether one liked the game or not, all of this should be taken into account, since everybody can see it clearly if they are not blind or don't wish to see it. But in today's GOTY awards environment all of this is pushed aside in favor of big corporations and popular game IPs.

 

Did for example South Park and Dark Souls II delivered more of what was expected and promised than DAI? Yes, they both have and they are really objectively better at what they set out to be. But they are not the mainstream, so they stood very little chance.

[Jeffry]

You don't need timing button mashing in DAI

 

Yeah, you don't need any timing, since you can literally faceroll on your keyboard to victory from a very early point in the overall game. That is not really a positive thing.

[ThreeF]

Yeah, you don't need any timing, since you can literally faceroll on your keyboard to victory from a very early point in the overall game. That is not really a positive thing.

Same can be said for DAO. I never bothered with AI tuning there. It's the thing most rpg I've played so far have in common, the only exception I can think of are couple places in IW2 where the terrain would make things sort of tricky, but once I did it once there was no appeal in it anymore, it was static. DAI at least let you use different sort of tactics in a combat that is more chaotic (in comparison to older games not DAO, which I played more or less in the same way as DAI) and I don't mind that.

 

And yet I must note that there are players who find it all challenging or at least a challenge enough.

[Il Divo]

Unfortunately nothing from what I just wrote helps to decide the current GOTY. But there are still some aspects that can be examined as objectively as possible (truly objectively): bugginess, how the game runs on every platform released (not just the main ones), the quality of post-launch service, the level of originality and inovative mechanics, the production quality, how the devs lived up to their promises, if there were shady practices surrounding the game and many others. Whether one liked the game or not, all of this should be taken into account, since everybody can see it clearly if they are not blind or don't wish to see it. But in today's GOTY awards environment all of this is pushed aside in favor of big corporations and popular game IPs.

 

 

Your criteria has problems on multiple fronts.

 

One being that half of them are directly in conflict with standing the test of time. For any product that is held in that sort of regard, factors like: devs living up to their promises and shady practices don't exist 10-20 years down the line. If I told somebody right now to go and play System Shock 2 (a game I absolutely love) I couldn't even tell them the history of the product's development or the design intent. The game's quality would exist independently of any factors lying behind its development. Likewise, someone playing Mass Effect 3 for the first time 30 years from now won't be exposed to the same market forces that everyone who bought it day 1 would be. 

 

And on the other front, your criteria here pretty much annihalates most RPG's I've ever played from the running, particularly Obsidian games which are often bug-fueled, compared to, say, the fps genre. 

 

Also, if "universal approval" is a factor for a game to be objectively superior, then no Dark Souls II and South Park, which you acknowledge as niche, might very well be out of the running compared to DA:I on that criteria alone. I personally would never use that as criteria, since I think Dark Souls is probably the greatest game ever made, but universal approval is in direct contrast with your criticism of "popular game IPs". 

[Jeffry]

Your criteria has problems on multiple fronts.

 

One being that half of them are directly in conflict with standing the test of time. For any product that is held in that sort of regard, factors like: devs living up to their promises and shady practices don't exist 10-20 years down the line. If I told somebody right now to go and play System Shock 2 (a game I absolutely love) I couldn't even tell them the history of the product's development or the design intent. The game's quality would exist independently of any factors lying behind its development. Likewise, someone playing Mass Effect 3 for the first time 30 years from now won't be exposed to the same market forces that everyone who bought it day 1 would be. 

 

And on the other front, your criteria here pretty much annihalates most RPG's I've ever played from the running, particularly Obsidian games which are often bug-fueled, compared to, say, the fps genre. 

 

Also, if "universal approval" is a factor for a game to be objectively superior, then no Dark Souls II and South Park, which you acknowledge as niche, might very well be out of the running compared to DA:I on that criteria alone. I personally would never use that as criteria, since I think Dark Souls is probably the greatest game ever made, but universal approval is in direct contrast with your criticism of "popular game IPs". 

 

The first and long-term criteria were meant for deciding what is truly a great game. The second group of criteria were for deciding what I think should be taken into account (among other criteria) for GOTY awards. You are right that shady practices like ridiculous review embargoes won't mean much in a few years, but as I said, those criteria were meant for GOTYs when they are actual. Also ME3 is not a really good example here, since the game received really good post-launch care and anyone who will be playing it several years from now will be playing the complete (and much better) game.

 

Yeah, bugs are problems for some overall good games, but again I don't think Obsidian is a good example here. Despite enjoying some of their other games, South Park is at least to me their first game that should be a serious contender for the RPG of the year category. Unfortunately the buggines was not often Obsidian's fault, they were forced to rush their games to make ridiculous deadlines, but that is not the point. Also, not all criteria should regarded as absolutely equal, I should have mentioned that and if a game slips up in one aspect and excells at many others, it is forgivable to some extent. Alas this is not the case of DAI, the game slipped up more than in one aspect and doesn't really excell at anything except companions, voice acting and soundtrack, which doesn't really scream "game of the year" for me.

 

I don't know if I understood your last paragraph correctly, my mistake, so please correct me if I am talking about something else. Universal approval and "popular game IPs" can sometimes go hand in hand (e.g. GTA V), but sometimes not at all (e.g. Assassin's Creed Unity). By "popular game IPs" I meant huge franchises that millions of people play, rather than popular meaning well liked. CoD series is very popular for example, but those games are hardly GOTY material or universally approved as good games. That is why universal approval is saying more than what is popular. The percentage of people liking a game is more important than a sheer number of people liking a game, but that is not the way GOTY awards are usually won.

[Archerwarden]

You have to set up your tactics in DA:O. Who does what under which conditions etc. You also have to plan your stat allocation a bit.
 
In DA:I nothing like that is required. The game is winnable by mashing your buttons.
 
And no. You don't mash buttons in DA:O at any time, since the game has auto-attack. It is all about the character on the screen doing what he can do. Not about the player's timing when mashing buttons or jumping around.

That's exactly what I did in DAO and one of the many reasons why combat was so great. Each PT was different because I could stack the tactics differently and use different conditions.

Mashing buttons in DAI is what I did - didn't even think twice - not as fun for me.. Really miss the DAO tactics.

[Hexoduen]

This is still a joke:

ON, OFF, and PREFERRED, a whopping 3 options   

 

There we go, 200+ different condition settings. Bioware, please add this back in Dragon Age

[Saphiron123]

lol, what? How does phd make you smart(er)? Ability to memorize text =/ intelligence. I know plenty of people who have some title and are dumb as half full glass of water... you are denying one stereotype and replacing it with another

Dude, the amount of dedication and work and thought required to attain a PHD is staggering. That means original dissertations, 7 years if not more of upper level course work. Memorizing text it is not.

It's also not a "title". 

It is however a degree held by the majority of the greatest and most educated minds on our planet though.

[Saphiron123]

This is still a joke:

ON, OFF, and PREFERRED, a whopping 3 options 

 

There we go, 200+ different condition settings. Bioware, please add this back in Dragon Age

This. 1000 times this. Wynne can hold her spells on her own to target a group of enemies with a battle turning spell. Solas can't start a fight without casting a barrier that's 90% gone before i get to swing my sword. Morrigan can take boss monsters out of a fight so we can handle his backup intelligently. Dorian starts with AOE spells like blizzard set to off because he'll waste all his mana and get slaughtered.

[R0vena]

lol, what? How does phd make you smart(er)? Ability to memorize text =/ intelligence. I know plenty of people who have some title and are dumb as half full glass of water... you are denying one stereotype and replacing it with another

Not exactly what I meant. I really didn't replace anything with anything.

 

However, my point was if one prefers shooters over RPG it doesn't mean anything else besides this particular person enjoys shooters more than RPG. Period. It does not tell anything about his/her intelligence, education or whatever.

[Hexoduen]

This. 1000 times this. Wynne can hold her spells on her own to target a group of enemies with a battle turning spell. Solas can't start a fight without casting a barrier that's 90% gone before i get to swing my sword. Morrigan can take boss monsters out of a fight so we can handle his backup intelligently. Dorian starts with AOE spells like blizzard set to off because he'll waste all his mana and get slaughtered.

 

And when I play with friendly fire on I can setup Iron Bull to only smash enemies to pieces when they're clustered. As it is now, he just smashes everyone to pulp

[Saphiron123]

And when I play with friendly fire on I can setup Iron Bull to only smash enemies to pieces when they're clustered. As it is now, he just smashes everyone to pulp

Of course seconds later they cluster, and he has no attack, you could have won twice as fast...

[Hexoduen]

Of course seconds later they cluster, and he has no attack, you could have won twice as fast...

 

Yes *sigh* could've done so much.... My avatar is the perfect mood for my feelings of this game. I really want it to be good, and in many ways it is, but then there are these stupid design moves that dumbed down several features of Dragon Age. Trying to be calm about it, but it's just sad

[200Down]

lolz didn't even bother mentioning behavior improvements cuzz it fealt to me like it was ither this:

Bioware: "You want tactics? You want AI priority control? Here! Take this you whiney bitches!"

Or this:

Bioware: "Uggg man I'm tired of working on this game lets just release it as-is. Players can suck it"

Or this:

Bioware: "Man all we gotta do is make it look good enough on stream. There's no need to finish it really is there? Nah..."

[AlanC9]

Darn it, my dictionary just doesn't seem to show that distinction between Tactics and tactics.

Nope, it doesn't. Blame Bio for not giving the Tactics system a more distinctive name. But really, you should have realized that what we were talking about wasn't the AI control system.

Now, explain to us again how DA:O's tactics available in Tactics aren't really Tactics ... or was that tactics? ... because it's so much better to pause the action every 1.5 seconds of game time and manually and tell your party members to do what the game AI and Tactic (tactics?) ought to be doing instead.

I know you're just trying to be snarky here, but this question doesn't make enough sense to answer. But yeah, I don't have any problem pausing after every character acts. That's how I play the BG games. I'd play the DA games that way if I needed to. As it happens, though, I don't.

[Jeffry]

lolz didn't even bother mentioning behavior improvements cuzz it fealt to me like it was ither this:

Bioware: "You want tactics? You want AI priority control? Here! Take this you whiney bitches!"

Or this:

Bioware: "Uggg man I'm tired of working on this game lets just release it as-is. Players can suck it"

Or this:

Bioware: "Man all we gotta do is make it look good enough on stream. There's no need to finish it really is there? Nah..."

 

I think it was more along the lines BW being forced to make the game more "accessible". They were also definitely forced to release the game sooner than would be ideal, but EA wanted the game to be released in november (both for increased sales and for higher chance at GOTY awards). So they had to make a lot of cuts because of it.

 

I honestly think we should blame EA more, since they are the ones in charge. BW are not at all guiltless though, unfortunately we will never truly know if some of those questionable design decisions were because BW thought they will turn out great or because they had orders from EA and simply had to meet the goals.

 

It doesn't matter much for us in the end who is to blame here more, but we should try to be at least somewhat fair.

[blaidfiste]

Yes *sigh* could've done so much.... My avatar is the perfect mood for my feelings of this game. I really want it to be good, and in many ways it is, but then there are these stupid design moves that dumbed down several features of Dragon Age. Trying to be calm about it, but it's just sad

You forgot the "tactical" cam

 

[AlanC9]

You have to set up your tactics in DA:O. Who does what under which conditions etc. You also have to plan your stat allocation a bit.

On the higher difficulty levels, I suppose. The only thing I bothered to do last time I played DAA on Nightmare was to turn off AI abilities that cause friendly fire, but that has more to do with how broken the system gets at high levels.

As for stats.... planning? I've got a couple of rules of thumb, but I wouldn't call that planning.
 

In DA:I nothing like that is required. The game is winnable by mashing your buttons.

And no. You don't mash buttons in DA:O at any time, since the game has auto-attack. It is all about the character on the screen doing what he can do. Not about the player's timing when mashing buttons or jumping around.

You're correct. Winning in DAO at lower difficulty levels is even easier than in DAI, since you don't even need timing. Again, assuming you're not just playing DAI in tactical mode, where the timing issues go away.

[Duelist]

You're correct. Winning in DAO at lower difficulty levels is even easier than in DAI, since you don't even need timing.

Three mages and a walking lockpick/archer or my personal favourite, the Dexterity based Rogue.

Either kill everything before even entering a room or get into range with the former or stand in front of enemies as they miss.
For all the talk of DAO being "tactical", it really wasn't.