Nope. Spirit Healers are busy dealing with War refugees. This is mentioned in the Hinterlands with a cut-scene and everything....
Don't need spirit healers to heal. The basic heal spell is a first tier spell. It is featured in every DA product before DA:I.
Don't need spirit healers to heal. The basic heal spell is a first tier spell. It is featured in every DA product before DA:I.
Must be a Circle thing; too bad they are defunct....
Must be. None of the mages in the game has ever set foot in a circle, it seems.
Wow, who would have thought that turn-based tactical games are better at the tactical element than BW RPGs. You know what is also a prety good tactical rpg-ish game? Crusader Kings 2, it really requires so much more thought to play than the gameplay in anything BW has ever done. Is Crusader Kings 2 relevant in the discussion about DAI being obviously dumbed down and stripped of core features from previous games in order to bring in much larger crowd? No, it is not, just as your post.
DAO was not really hard once you got the hang of it and that same goes for other BW RPGs. Nobody is saying any of their games were really difficult. We are only saying they required more thought than DAI and they allowed you to play them in many different ways. Which is true. You are not even defending DAI (why is that? could it be there is not really that much to defend?), you are unfairly bashing DAO and BG for not having the tactical depth of frikkin turn-based strategies and wargames
DA in general is not very combat oriented, and by that I don't mean that it's not action-y enough, players are given a lot of room to win with rather little effort. I'm not sure how much AI can take with current uneven terrant, so there is definitely that hurdle, otherwise it would be interesting if the combat took advantage of the surroundings more, it would be also nice to see enemies adapting to your attacks.
But there are ways to spice things up, regardless and in a very RPG way too. For instance there are tactical games that have combat dependable approval systems. Units that work together often enough generate bonuses for each other, perhaps trigger more combos. There are systems that penalize death, if unit die too often it will hate your guts and may leave. There are systems that penalize fighting same faction, put a mage to fight a mage, do it enough times and the approval will dive. These are all restrictions with an actual RPG meaning and they make you plan your fights more carefully less you fail. And planing is what tactics is about.
So saying that a non-turn based RPG can't learn anything or take anything from a turn based one is simply not true.
DA:I is VERY combat oriented. Every class has been reduced to what they can do in combat. Every skill and ability is tied to combat as well.
DA:I is VERY combat oriented. Every class has been reduced to what they can do in combat. Every skill and ability is tied to combat as well.
I was speaking in terms of tactical combat. Tuning up AI is not much of tactics, it's definitely not the best thing ever when it comes to tactics, especially in a game that you can play without using this system.
When I look at this tactically dead games my preference is for the ability to fail. DAI offers a lot more chances to fail than DAO ever dreamed of. DAO does offer a richer variety of guaranteed win buttons for those for whom that is their jones.
DAI offers a lot more chances to fail? Seriously? In the terms of combat or during the story portion of the game (being kicked out of the Orlais Ball for example)? And a richer variety of guaranteed win buttons?
Ok, DAO had Force Field, heals, gazillion of potions, DW Warriors, all Archer/Mage party with Shale, Mana Clash, Wynne, immortal Arcane Warriors / Blood mages that could solo the game with ease (but they required some basic timing for switching BM off, healing themselves, etc).
DAI has Barriers, all Mage party, all Archer party with a Mage. immortal Champion Warrior, focus abilities, the Templar combo, 2 aoe healing potions, Full Draw, Hidden Blades, Mark of Doom, guard on hit for every class, heal on kill for every class, heal on hit for every class.
And then we have the famous Knight Enchanters, that unlike DAO's Arcane Warriors don't require any timing or any planning when to use a ability whatsoever, you can literally just bind 2 abilities to your keyboard and play on it like a piano. 2 abilities, without any thought when to use them, even against dragons.
And the most OP thing any DA game has ever seen is the Tempest. His gatling gun ability Flask of Lightning or the combo of Flask of Fire + 4 Leaping Shots alone would guarantee him a place among the most OP classes. But then there is Thousand Cuts. An ability and I kid you not, that can instakill ANY enemy in the entire game on nightmare. I was on the same level as the last High Dragon in Emprise du Lion and his 310k HP were gone in less than 5 secs without my party doing any dmg. And if that was not broken enough, you can use this every 32 seconds.
I am sure I left out many OP things in both games, it is not an exhaustive list and I don't have the time to go through DA wiki and check every class. I just posted it to show you, that in DAO there is not really more win buttons and when there are, they are not as ridiculous like a class that can be played solo by sitting on a keyboard or a class able to instakill all the things.
CK2 is a brilliant game...but it is a strategic game not tactical so it has zero bearing on anything.
The other games are relevant because they highlight the grotesque short coming of combat in this series. No DAI is no great shakes but trying to argue preference in terms of depth among DAI and DAO is like trying to argue you'd rather be choked than suffocated.
When I look at this tactically dead games my preference is for the ability to fail. DAI offers a lot more chances to fail than DAO ever dreamed of. DAO does offer a richer variety of guaranteed win buttons for those for whom that is their jones.
You can't fail in DA:I. If you cast barrier, that's it. You win every fight. During the rest of the game you suffer zero setbacks based on choices. It is impossible to screw up anything at all.
So saying that a non-turn based RPG can't learn anything or take anything from a turn based one is simply not true.
Nobody here has said non-turn based RPGs can't learn anything from turn-based strategies. I simply said it is ridiculous to bash and RPG game for not having the same tactical depth as those games, since they are a different genre for very different audience.
Nobody here has said non-turn based RPGs can't learn anything from turn-based strategies. I simply said it is ridiculous to bash and RPG game for not having the same tactical depth as those games, since they are a different genre for very different audience.
But there was no bashing of one game over the other. The point was that DA games are more or less the same as far as difficulty goes. DAO was no more difficult than DAI, it did not needed more "thinking" or whatever. DAI is missing a component you want , but that's about it, this component wasn't all that complex and intricate, it didn't provide "better" tactics, it provided other things, like control over your units. DAI also doesn't have mind blowing tactics but the lack of control give you an opportunity to use a different kind of tactics and never mind the fact that I've seen and been told that there are people who actually have managed to finetune DAI behavior to perfection and make the companions work for them in the similar fashion as DAO.
But there was no bashing of one game over the other. The point was that DA games are more or less the same as far as difficulty goes. DAO was no more difficult than DAI, it did not needed more "thinking" or whatever. DAI is missing a component you want , but that's about it, this component wasn't all that complex and intricate, it didn't provide "better" tactics, it provided other things, like control over your units. DAI also doesn't have mind blowing tactics but the lack of control give you an opportunity to use a different kind of tactics and never mind the fact that I've seen and been told that there are people who actually have managed to finetune DAI behavior to perfection and make the companions work for them in the similar fashion as DAO.
DA games are not more or less the same as far as difficulty goes. The most difficult of them is DA2, by far. I believe it was PhroXenGold who pointed it out a few pages ago. Again, it was not that much difficult once you got the hang of it, but still more than DAO and especially DAI.
And here you are wrong, because DAO required more thoughts. Especially for new players, which is not a bad thing, one was much happier after mastering the DAO system than during the playthrough of DAI, since there was nothing to master. Nothing at all, not character builds, not party combinations, not the combat itself, nothing. The game held your hand along the way and the only thing you really needed to know is that Barriers are the way to victory. Then you could just button-mash like crazy with every class. There wasn't one such game breaking ability in DAO or DA2.
Oh, DAI is not just missing a component, DAI is missing a buttload of them to the point the gameplay doesn't even feel like it is coming from a Dragon Age game anymore. That is my main issue with it. So many features and options are gone from what was a pretty unique concept among high budget AAA RPGs. Yeah, it wasn't that much intricate as it could have been, but it was still unique in its genre. There is nothing unique about DAI's gameplay.
You can't fail in DA:I. If you cast barrier, that's it. You win every fight. During the rest of the game you suffer zero setbacks based on choices. It is impossible to screw up anything at all.
Yes but you have to cast barrier. DAO didn't even have THAT level of a bar to clear. 
Plus, don't sell it short you have to upgrade your armor too, barrier alone isn't enough.
Yes but you have to cast barrier. DAO didn't even have THAT level of a bar to clear.
Plus, don't sell it short you have to upgrade your armor too, barrier alone isn't enough.
Well yeah, but you have to upgrade your equipment in every rpg anyway.
But I seriously doubt you managed to beat DA:O on normal without using any tactics. Bossfights included. I certainly had to try different tactics for quite a few fights.
CK2 is a brilliant game...but it is a strategic game not tactical so it has zero bearing on anything.
The other games are relevant because they highlight the grotesque short coming of combat in this series. No DAI is no great shakes but trying to argue preference in terms of depth among DAI and DAO is like trying to argue you'd rather be choked than suffocated.
When I look at this tactically dead games my preference is for the ability to fail. DAI offers a lot more chances to fail than DAO ever dreamed of. DAO does offer a richer variety of guaranteed win buttons for those for whom that is their jones.
Well yeah, but you have to upgrade your equipment in every rpg anyway.
But I seriously doubt you managed to beat DA:O on normal without using any tactics. Bossfights included. I certainly had to try different tactics for quite a few fights.
I didn't beat it on normal, I beat it on hard -- 3rd playthrough. Tactics settings:
1. Heal < 20%
2. Attack > Target > Main Character
3. Attack > Nearest
If you really want to trick it out you can do what I did in my second playthrough and setup a much more elaborate set of tactics and have the game run the exact same gameplan for every fight which, again, shows how little you really have to pay attention.
Again, DAI isn't magnificently brilliant it requires a bit more user interaction to manage but neither game really is a deep experience in combat. They are both very much in the vein of all RPG combat.
I didn't beat it on normal, I beat it on hard -- 3rd playthrough. Tactics settings:
1. Heal < 20%
2. Attack > Target > Main Character
3. Attack > Nearest
If you really want to trick it out you can do what I did in my second playthrough and setup a much more elaborate set of tactics and have the game run the exact same gameplan for every fight which, again, shows how little you really have to pay attention.
Again, DAI isn't magnificently brilliant it requires a bit more user interaction to manage but neither game really is a deep experience in combat. They are both very much in the vein of all RPG combat.
The user interaction in DA:I being the button mashing?
Yes but you have to cast barrier. DAO didn't even have THAT level of a bar to clear.
Plus, don't sell it short you have to upgrade your armor too, barrier alone isn't enough.
I didn't beat it on normal, I beat it on hard -- 3rd playthrough. Tactics settings:
1. Heal < 20%
2. Attack > Target > Main Character
3. Attack > Nearest
If you really want to trick it out you can do what I did in my second playthrough and setup a much more elaborate set of tactics and have the game run the exact same gameplan for every fight which, again, shows how little you really have to pay attention.
Again, DAI isn't magnificently brilliant it requires a bit more user interaction to manage but neither game really is a deep experience in combat. They are both very much in the vein of all RPG combat.
Ok, you should have said sooner it was on hard. Hard and nightmare is really different in DAO and even more so in DA2, in DAI not so much (especially during mid and late game I couldn't tell the difference). I was talking about nightmare comparisons only in all my posts. While you can make your party run almost by themselves in DAO, you really have to put some thoughts in the party composition or the characters' builds. You don't have to do that in DAI on nightmare. Barrier is the only thing you need. You needed more than that in DAO on nightmare and especially in DA2. While you could build such a strong party that even on nightmare you could just autoattack to victory (my last playthrough, Leliana bard archer and DW warrior boosted by Wynne's haste), you first had to thought about the synergy between different classes etc. and once again you don't need that in DAI.
Sounds like I might have been one of the few that never used tactics in DAO and micromanaged the entire party? Honestly seemed the best way to get the most out of it at the time, maybe I should go back and try the tactics. 
Sounds like I might have been one of the few that never used tactics in DAO and micromanaged the entire party? Honestly seemed the best way to get the most out of it at the time, maybe I should go back and try the tactics.
No you are not alone. I had several playthroughs of DAO where I never touched the tactics on normal to Nightmare. DA2 was more difficult on Nightmare than DAO or DAI. There were simply certain abilities you could not give to certain members in the party unless you micromanaged the party.
For example giving Fenris Scythe on Nightmare and letting tactics run him was not a good idea.
DAI actually allows for toggling of FF so it is not as bad on Nightmare. Still if FF is on Charging Bull is still no fun for a party member in the way as an example.
Sounds like I might have been one of the few that never used tactics in DAO and micromanaged the entire party? Honestly seemed the best way to get the most out of it at the time, maybe I should go back and try the tactics.
It took me several days to even realize they were there, and several more to puzzle my way through them ... no internet connection at the time.
Properly implemented they simply automate all that you are doing with micro-management.
If the default T/tactics are not too daunting you should consider the Advanced Tactics mod for even more gaming goodness.
I beat DA:O several times without even touching the tactics screen.
Oh wait, no, I'm lying. I did touch the tactics screen at least twice (and for some three times) per character: once to turn them off, once to turn them back on again before going to the final fight in Denerim, using only the most basic tactics they had when I recruited them... and then turning them off again as soon as I got control of my party again.
At least in DAO if it had barrier I could say "cast barrier when ally attacked by melee" or whatever conditions I wanted to apply. In DAI it comes down to "solas sees enemy in the distance, solas casts barrier, barrier is 90% gone before anyone swings a weapon, solas missed your melee fighter anyway".
Solas proceeds to cast blizzard, but can't, because even the dev knows he's too dumb to use a constant mana drain spell and it's set to "never".
This is not how targeting in the game works, at all. AI controlled characters will not do anything at all, unless:
1: they are attacked.
2: you are attacked and their behaviour is set to defend PC. (or, obviously, I hope, if they're set to defend someone else and that character is attacked)
3: you attack and their behaviour is set to follow PC.
(this is why if you set their behaviour to 'follow self' they will, a lot of the times, won't do anything at all, cause nothing is triggered)
Or in other words, their targeting has to be triggered. They will not, ever, attack an enemy just because they see them. Or cast a barrier just because they see an enemy.
It's a tad different for Dragons, I think, not sure. It's been a while since I've done a long fight with dragons, I usually just go for the quick kill.
Sounds like I might have been one of the few that never used tactics in DAO and micromanaged the entire party? Honestly seemed the best way to get the most out of it at the time, maybe I should go back and try the tactics.
I used my tactics in DAO for buffs, heals and sustainable abilities only. Behaviour was set to default. Both for the reason I don't like the idea to play with a fully automated party, I like some level of control, and because with my OP party built for highest autoattack dps possible they were not really needed, since using dmg or crowd control abilities was not needed. Taunt was best handled by me.
In DA2 I didn't use them (except for sustainables) because I needed a complete control over my party's cooldowns. The CD management became important with all those extra enemies joining the fight.
In DAI I didn't use them because of the lack of options, weird AI and because they were not needed at all.
Mostly it boils down to the fact the tactics settings didn't fit my playstyle, but I still appreciate how they were done in DAO and DA2, because if I ever want to use them (with different parties for example) I can count on them to get the job done.
Retour en haut