542 réponses à ce sujet

[ThreeF]

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.

Nope, the difference between DAO and DAI is that in DAI instead of manually allocating points you have passives to manage, but the consideration that is needed for these things is about the same. There is a difference between absolutely needing to do something and have an option. You can ignore behavior management in DAO and play it the way you want it, and you can just button-mash like crazy in DAI if you want to (probably, never done this), but in both cases you don't need to do it.  And Rawgrim earlier suggested that spamming potions in DAO is a game breaking ability, I never used it like that,  but it goes to show that people see and play games differently.

 

 

 Yeah, it wasn't that much intricate as it could have been, but it was still unique in its genre.

You are finally arriving at the right argument here. Finally. Use it.

 

Next time, who knows, I might take a peek  in this thread and not even see "dumbing down" and "game for stupid people" thrown around (crazier things have happened, right?)

[Farangbaa]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the AI in this game really isn't that bad if you just fiddle with the targetting behaviour and the preferred/disabled skills.

Hell, I've managed to play Iron Bull as a pure two hander, not a single vanguard skill, and I never took control of him, aside from having him drink potions.

I honestly can't believe you guys went out of your way to set up the tactics in DA:O, but somehow can't find your way around the DA:I tactics screen. It's just baffling.

[PhroXenGold]

We can find our way around the tactics screen. It just sucks.

[Jeffry]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the AI in this game really isn't that bad if you just fiddle with the targetting behaviour and the preferred/disabled skills.

Hell, I've managed to play Iron Bull as a pure two hander, not a single vanguard skill, and I never took control of him, aside from having him drink potions.

I honestly can't believe you guys went out of your way to set up the tactics in DA:O, but somehow can't find your way around the DA:I tactics screen. It's just baffling.

And even whet you fiddled with the tactics you were simply not able to make a character use an ability in certain conditions only, no matter how much you fiddled with the targeting and preferred options. And that subtracted a lot from the game's tactical element, more so because there was absolutely no reason for the removal of this feature.

Every party member can survive any encounter being controlled by AI just because you have potions left or you can drop a barrier on them. Or create a weapon / armour with guard / heal on hit. And then you have heal on kill items / upgrades. Or you help them with CC and so on.

This more than AI being capable and good points to the fact the game is easy and can be even easier than ever before if one takes advantage of its imbalance.

 

You are finally arriving at the right argument here. Finally. Use it.

 

Well, it is only a part of the overall argument. When something wasn't as good as it could have been doesn't mean it needs to be gutted for everybody. If anything, it needed an improvement in the way DA2 improved upon DAO in this aspect. What DAI managed to turn it into is an abomination for one reason only - not because more intricate system was not needed, but because the new desired EA audience might be discouraged from playing an 100 hours long game if they - God forbid - would have to learn something new for a while in order to use it.

[ThreeF]

Well, it is only a part of the overall argument. When something wasn't as good as it could have been doesn't mean it needs to be gutted for everybody. If anything, it needed an improvement in the way DA2 improved upon DAO in this aspect. What DAI managed to turn it into is an abomination for one reason only - not because more intricate system was not needed, but because the new desired EA audience might be discouraged from playing an 100 hours long game if they - God forbid - would have to learn something new for a while in order to use it.

And it never even crosses your mind that the reasons could be something else, or at least not only that one.  EA has an evil masterplan, no need to think outside of that. This argument  reminds me of a horse with blinders.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Nope, the difference between DAO and DAI is that in DAI instead of manually allocating points you have passives to manage, but the consideration that is needed for these things is about the same. There is a difference between absolutely needing to do something and have an option. You can ignore behavior management in DAO and play it the way you want it, and you can just button-mash like crazy in DAI if you want to (probably, never done this), but in both cases you don't need to do it.  And Rawgrim earlier suggested that spamming potions in DAO is a game breaking ability, I never used it like that,  but it goes to show that people see and play games differently.

 

Next time, who knows, I might take a peek  in this thread and not even see "dumbing down" and "game for stupid people" thrown around (crazier things have happened, right?)

interesting, in DA:I you cannot click a magical button for character points distribution screen to show. it's hard to manage passives when more than half of them don't work or have misleading tooltip information. it's not an option, things got removed. sure you can still play the game but such style of playing is not the reason why i chose this genre/franchise. removing character and resource management is not dumbing down? what is dumbing down then? i personally don't care if it's done for stupid people, lazy people, or maybe people with families who don't have the time to play games. in the long run it's basically changing one target demographic to another, a bigger one - in my opinion a less stable one as well.

 

and yeah, EA is a corp with a bad rep... DreamWorks Interactive, Origin, Maxis - your creations will live forver, even if EA butchers them with f2p multiplayer bs

[ThreeF]

interesting, in DA:I you cannot click a magical button for character points distribution screen to show. it's hard to manage passives when more than half of them don't work or have misleading tooltip information.

All these are bugs related problems and UI related problems, things not working properly is a completely different beast.

 

 i personally don't care if it's done for stupid people, lazy people, or maybe people with families who don't have the time to play games.

Good for you?

 

and yeah, EA is a corp with a bad rep... DreamWorks Interactive, Origin, Maxis - your creations will live forver, even if EA butchers them with f2p multiplayer bs

Doesn't mean one should be picking pitchforks and not think, unless it's just done to moan, then no thinking is necessary of course.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

(...)

Good for you?

(...)

hah! i hoped for an interesting discussion about what exactly 'dumbing down' means or some interaction on how DA:I doesn't dumb down things, not childish lines like these, but that's internet i guess 

/sigh

[ThreeF]

hah! i hoped for an interesting discussion about what exactly 'dumbing down' means or some interaction on how DA:I doesn't dumb down things, not childish lines like these, but that's internet i guess 

/sigh

I'm tired of having "meaningful" discussion about this in this thread, I think I've had it 3 maybe 4 times? It has become a circle jerk.

 

Wanting to have an intuitive gameplay is not the same as dumping down.

Not succeeding at making an intuitive gameplay is not the same as dumping down.

Having behavior management tool does not make the game "intelligent" and the players "smart"

Not wanting to use the said behavior management tool does not make the player "stupid"

 

I dunno.... I've had my fill, I'm good.

[Jeffry]

And it never even crosses your mind that the reasons could be something else, or at least not only that one.  EA has an evil masterplan, no need to think outside of that. This argument  reminds me of a horse with blinders.

 

It is the only reason why - money. Which doesn't make it a bad reason per se. It is even a logical reason, every company out there seeks the highest revenue possible with the lowest costs possible and both larger audience and less complex mechanics follow this simple econ rule pretty well. But the way the company manages to do it matters. And the fact reamains BW/EA screwed it up to some extent. Sure, there are people who even like the change or don't care, but from a simple comparison you can clearly see what was done better, if you don't choose to be completely oblivious to it for some reason. More options alone are always better and they can be implemented in such a way nobody feels overwhelmed by them*. But that costs extra resources and more thoughts during the development. It is just easier to screw complex mechanics and produce a run-of-the-mill action RPG with token complexity left in it (so it can be used for PR).

 

*And we don't exactly have to go far for such an example, we have DA2. On easy or normal (or hard with some rudimentery knowledge) one could play the game as an action one without being slowed down by pausing or by being forced to learn something for a long time. But crank it up to nightmare and suddenly it was almost a different game. Granted, the nightmare wasn't in all regards done perfectly, especially the HP pools of bosses were completely ridiculous, but it was there for people enjoying a bit more challenge than a standard action game can provide. DAI doesn't provide any challenge at all no matter the difficulty, unless you basically gimp and restrict yourself - and that is bad design.

 

Btw about the horse with blinders, I could easily say that about your (and some other people's) argumentation here Which so far hasn't offered anything of value. Like the game all you want, that is fine by me, but you won't do it any justice (you won't do any justice to BW or to the future DA game either) if you remain ignorant to its obvious shortcomings. You would do it more justice if you acknowledged them (and they are there regardless or preferences or how much one liked the game as a whole).

 

hah! i hoped for an interesting discussion about what exactly 'dumbing down' means or some interaction on how DA:I doesn't dumb down things, not childish lines like these, but that's internet i guess 

/sigh

 

Don't hold your hopes high for an interesting discussion in this thread with people defending the dumbing down process, when they are mostly deflecting arguments, but not offering any real counter-arguments themselves, because they don't really have anything of value to say in the game's defense. (It is hard trying to defend something that has failed in so many aspects) What can we found in the last few pages? I am paraphrasing: "I have never used tactics much, therefore they are not needed and not missed", "it doesn't matter if DAO was more complex than DAI or not, they are equally failing at this aspect compared to wargames", "the tactics in DAI are absolutely fine, I managed to set them up in a way my characters work great" (but forgetting to add that no matter what you do, you can't set them to use abilities in certain conditions only) and stuff like that over and over again.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Saying that, I don't really have anything more to add here without repeating myself in different words trying to reason with people who can't reasoned with. Now I'll wait if someone can come up with an actual counter-argument - not a half-truth, not a deflection, etc. But I am not holding my breath.

[Elhanan]

Because there is no such process in DAI.

[Farangbaa]

And even whet you fiddled with the tactics you were simply not able to make a character use an ability in certain conditions only, no matter how much you fiddled with the targeting and preferred options. And that subtracted a lot from the game's tactical element, more so because there was absolutely no reason for the removal of this feature.

Disable the skill; and use it manually. There aren't that many skills that are situational, and again, even if they are, the AI handles them rather well.
(this might be something I don't really care about to do, because, as said, I disabled tactics in DA:O, I only did manual inputs there)

Cassandra, for instance, will not use War Cry on a single enemy, but use Challenge instead. Inversely, if there's multiple enemies around, she will use War cry, and not Challenge. Like she should. Even if both are set to preferred she will pick the right skill to use, 99% of the time.
 

Every party member can survive any encounter being controlled by AI just because you have potions left or you can drop a barrier on them. Or create a weapon / armour with guard / heal on hit. And then you have heal on kill items / upgrades. Or you help them with CC and so on.

I fail to see the point here. How is this different from DA:O, where you had heal spells, lifeward, and a gazillion potions?

Oh and lets not forget Force Field and 20 second (!!!) massive AoE stuns, like.. screenwide stuns. (equates to 12 on Nightmare I think, which is still ridiculously long)

[ThreeF]

<snip>

It would be nice to have more options, but more options mean more developing time, so there is that. At this point I rather have less options, but well thought out and polished (to be clear I'm not saying that DAI has them, not at all.)

 

The AI is pretty busted, I've seen Sera attacking rocks for no reason than the AI being 'confused', companions stumbling upon each other. There are some some issue with pathfinding, which probably happens because the ground is no longer flat and enemies can fly. And that all generally brings me to think that with such busted AI perhaps there were problems with adding more options to the behaviors, it is a possibility one must consider, before getting the pitchforks out for EA. The fact that for some reason they decided to switch engines mid production, seems to have impacted the production and the timeline. The game is unpolished in many places. You might say that it should not be released like that....maybe, but there is certain point that when exceeded makes no sense in terms of cost, it doesn't make it right, but it is a reason.

 

I don't think anyone in here said that the game is without problems. I'm not even arguing to defend the game itself, mine problem with this thread is that people seem to need to put other categories of players below them to make their argument and to feel justified for their dissatisfaction. And, btw, saying that a company like BW can survive by targeting only the niche market is naive at best, it can't, it is too big, it's natural for it too look for ways to expand.

[Farangbaa]

Pathfinding seems to be fixed in the latest patch. At least, Archers now realize they can shoot over a rock, instead of having to get in front of it

[ThreeF]

Pathfinding seems to be fixed in the latest patch. At least, Archers now realize they can shoot over a rock, instead of having to get in front of it

I had Sera attacking rocks when the enemy was in the opposite direction and with no Fennecs in sight. Leliana seems to do this sometimes in the prologue too (but maybe she doesn't do any damage there anyways and is for show). It is good, though, if they at least fixed the pathfinding.

[Jeffry]

It would be nice to have more options, but more options mean more developing time, so there is that. At this point I rather have less option but well thought out and polished (to be clear I'm not saying that DAI has them, no at all.)

 

The AI is pretty busted, I've seen Sera attacking rocks for no reason than the AI being 'confuced', companions stumbling upon each other. There are some some issue with pathfinding, which probably happens because the ground is no longer flat and enemies can fly. And that all generally brings me to think that with such busted AI perhaps there were problems with adding more options to the behaviors, it is a possibility one must consider, before getting the pitchforks out for EA. The fact that for some reason they decided to switch engines mid production, seems to have impacted the production and the timeline. The game is unpolished in many places. You might say that it should not be released like that....maybe, but there is certain point that when exceeded makes no sense in terms of cost, it doesn't make it right, but it is a reason.

 

I don't think anyone in here said that the game is without problems. I'm not even arguing to defend the game itself, mine problem with this thread is that people seem to need to put other categories of players below them to make their argument and to feel justified for their dissatisfaction. And, btw, saying that a company like BW can survive by targeting only the niche market is naive at best, it can't, it is too big, it's natural for it too look for ways to expand.

 

Ok, we are getting somewhere and we can find at least some middle ground, that is always good. Good post btw.

 

Yup, more developing time, I believe I have said something similar in one of my previous posts. But is not completely unrealistic to want to have features, that were present in previous games, worked well and were liked among almost all the fans.

 

Well, I have the feeling some people certainly argumented in the way that problems and shortcomings of the game are not an issue, because they enjoy the game despite them. But that is not the main point, just mentioning it.

 

3.2+ M DAO copies sold in its first 3 months is not exactly what I would call a game for a niche market. Also the game started something which they have now very much deviated from, so you can't blame people for not liking it or even hating this new direction. When it certainly could have been done differently - innovating the game, bringing in more people, but without stripping features and taking away options that attracted people to the series in the first place - all at the same time with similar budgets (one has to wonder if this new direction was ordered to BW or they wanted to do this themselves). We can't really fault BW for hopping on the open world action adventure / action rpg bandwagon, but we can fault them for how they have done it and we can fault EA for not letting them to polish the game more. It is never right ro realese a clearly unfinished game, no matter the cost, since it is completely unfair to the customers. Sure, some bugs are forgivable, but game-breaking ones (that are not fixed to this very day) or rushed content is not, unfortunatelly we are dealing with EA here (BF4, SimCity, The Sims 4, FIFA, NHL, now DAI).

 

I have to admit I have not read the middle of this thread, so i have no idea what went on there. But criticizing the game for being dumbed down to bring in much broader audience does not mean that people that enjoy more streamlined / accessible / easier games are being criticized at the same time. It is and should be a criticism of the game itself and of those who made it, not of those who were brought in by it or enjoy it now more. If my posts ever seemed to criticize the players instead of the dumbing down process itself, then I am sorry.

[Elhanan]

Disagree. While pathfinding may occasionally glitch, it is much better than I have encountered in other games. Even with the more detailed tactics of the prior series, the NPC's seemed to prefer the longer way around a circle. While I also wish for the older Tacics to return, I can wait; this one works for now because Behaviors are also attached.

[Dinkledorf]

...

 

 

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. 

Sorry are you referring to DAI or DAO in the above?

[Saphiron123]

Sorry are you referring to DAI or DAO in the above?

I think he's referring to DAI... but all I know is solas seems an enemy 30 feet away, and it's barrier town. 20 seconds later I am in swinging distance, and my barrier is sadly absent....

This would never happen in origins, but apparently tactics are too hard to learn so... 

[Dinkledorf]

Hence why I asked Saphiron.  My experience with AI in DAI is not the same as what Psychevore describes and I have tried all of the possible options, I believe.  

[200Down]

Disagree. While pathfinding may occasionally glitch, it is much better than I have encountered in other games. Even with the more detailed tactics of the prior series, the NPC's seemed to prefer the longer way around a circle. While I also wish for the older Tacics to return, I can wait; this one works for now because Behaviors are also attached.

Well...... that's only because they where smart enough to just let them warp all over hell on a moments notice instead of tanking processors with a real pathing system. To hell with immersion right hahaha. Honestly I have zero problem with the way they did it.... would rather have that than people stuck in every other wall and crack in the ground. Besides the game is already very cpu intensive for an rpg.

[Sladarius]

If you want challenge play the game on nightmare with friendly fire on and dont abuse the knight enchanter class or masterwork guard on hit. Dragon age origins has really cool combos and a diverse range of attacks sure, but inquisition was very challenging with line of sight, kiting and battle micromanagement. On nightmare with friendly fire I had soo much fun in every single battle. If you dont play the game on the maximum difficulty you need to try before you judge the game on difficulty or challenge. The AI worked fine for me you cant expect them to do everything.

[Jeffry]

If you want challenge play the game on nightmare with friendly fire on and dont abuse the knight enchanter class or masterwork guard on hit. Dragon age origins has really cool combos and a diverse range of attacks sure, but inquisition was very challenging with line of sight, kiting and battle micromanagement. On nightmare with friendly fire I had soo much fun in every single battle. If you dont play the game on the maximum difficulty you need to try before you judge the game on difficulty or challenge. The AI worked fine for me you cant expect them to do everything.

The point is the game is easy on nightmare as well. Besides Knight-Enchanters you have barriers, immortal tanks, cc+aoe combos, OP potions, Tempests and so on... The game would only be challenging if you stopped using barriers, potions and focus abilities (like Thousand Cuts that allows you to IK every dragon on nightmare), but so would be DAO (and especially DA2) without heals and potions.

[Saphiron123]

There's a lot more talk in DA:I than in DA:O. Probably more than in DA:O and DA:A combined. It's just spread out over a lot more characters.

Oh and eh.. if you just pick investigate options the conversations can get pretty deep. In DA:O they just didn't flag the investigate options as such, making it seem like you have a 7 options, where in reality it's just 2 + investigate.

Nah, I have to disagree. Playing origins again I feel there's far far more dialogue. Especially because 8 playthroughs later i'm discovering entire trees of dialogue. Take wynne and loghain to ostagar, you'll get conversations you never heard between them. take the mages to redcliff to help conner and tell the first enchanter he owes you and you cna PLAY the first enchanter in the fade.

There's just so much. Meanwhile my companions have zero to say about most quests in DAI, and the story is pretty short so... yeah, I have to say DAI pulled way back on dialogue (and come to think of it, characters... I mean hell, redcliff is the biggest city in the game).

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

I blame consoles. And multiplayer.

Bethesda should have bought Bioware, not EA