62 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

One of the reasons you raise your abilities(Strength,Constitution,Intelligence etc) is to increase your to hit chance. This was more important in D&D.

You also increased your score to get heavier armor, do more damage, and get more hit points. In D&D you also got saving throws but I don't remember what they are for.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I also dislike that we can no longer miss. Combat should have more RNG in it.

[eyezonlyii]

I agree with the secondary raises, like armor and stuff, but I not the RNG for combat. Especially not if it's not turn based where actual reaction counts.

[Wulfram]

The primary attack stat in the previous two games was overpowered, so this is no bad thing in and of itself.

 

Though in practical terms DAI might as well not have attributes.  Since they're no longer directly assigned by the and there's no stat checks, they might as well just give us the stat boosts straight out.  Just tell us that the item gives us +0.5% attack and +0.5% Mag Defence, rather than messing around calling it +1 Willpower.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Stats are basically redundant in DAI. Pretty much all the traditional RPG elements have been ditched in favour hack'n'slash action combat. If you want an RPG where stats and builds matter, go elsewhere; that kind of thing is too technical for the audience Bioware is aiming at these days.

[Koneko Koji]

If I'm totally honest, I have no idea what the stats do in DA:I or what they correspond to - so I just craft and equip my people with whatever has the highest damage resistance or damage per second.

 

I do miss being able to craft my character the way I wanted - I pretty much always play as a rogue because of being able to lockpick etc, and I enjoyed evolving my skill trees so that I was the fastest, sneakiest, theive-iest person around.

 

For now, I'm taking a break from Inquisition and I'm back to Fallout New Vegas, where I'm thoroughly enjoying leveling up my character to be sneaky, persuasive and adept at opening everything they shouldn't...

[Darkly Tranquil]

If I'm totally honest, I have no idea what the stats do in DA:I or what they correspond to - so I just craft and equip my people with whatever has the highest damage resistance or damage per second.

Pretty sure that's how it's supposed to work. Modern console gamers have too short an attention span to do anything that requires actual thought.

[wepeel_]

As has been stated, with DAI's departure from round-based combat follows the question whether things like initiative, hitrolls and so on should remain. The D&D system of thac0 and AC works fine within its ruleset, but as it is an approximation of combat it doesn't play out as well in a setting with independent and unlimited actions and movement.

 

Still, I agree that ranged autoattacks in particular would benefit from either a limited range or a limited chance to hit, as right now they're guaranteed to hit from across the map unless there's something in the way. With the way enemies tend to move around, melee attacking and positioning is likely tricky enough already without adding a miss chance on top of it.

[eyezonlyii]

Pretty sure that's how it's supposed to work. Modern console gamers have too short an attention span to do anything that requires actual thought.

Ugh...not this statement again. It is not for the benefit of "console gamers" that Dragon Age Inquisition was designed the way it was. I know someone will bring up the 8 ability limitation, and to that, I point to the fact that the older DA games had it on radial menu for consoles. I will also direct you to Final Fantasy XIV, where not only can you have up to 32 active abilities on 4 hotbars, but you can also program macros for your character to carry out automatically, even on the *gasp* lowly PS3!

 

But then someone will point out that the tactics system was removed and the AI dumbed down. I will now point you to a PS2 game. Final Fantasy 12 had the gambit system, that put the "tactics" in DA:O and 2 to shame. The only issue was you had to find them, I believe on weapons and items and such, but even then, they were much more specific and robust from what I remember having in Origins. 

 

And lastly I will add that the "herp derp" shooter crowd isn't solely found among console gamers. If that were the case the the CoD franchise, Counterstrike and many other FPS's wouldn't be released on the PC (and trust me, there are enough comments about how point and click is so much better than a console, so there are people who play those games on that platform). 

 

It's just irritating that so many on the forum blame "console" limitations when the true statement should be "Bioware" or "EA" limitations. 

[katokires]

It is console limitations. And it is worse it is CONSOLE PLAYERS limitations. And that's why your answer answers nothing. Final Fantasy is japanese, japanese are not known for the western dumbness of wanting easy games, on the contrary, they love complexity, obsessively. Now western console players like button -> awesome philosophy where everytime you press a button something awesome happens, BUTTON -> AWESOME!11!

So not software or hardware limitations, DUMB PEOPLE WHO PLAY CONSOLE GAMES limitations. Because they are to dumb to understand anything more complex than using their fingers to count to them.

[wepeel_]

 

[Darkly Tranquil]

It is console limitations. And it is worse it is CONSOLE PLAYERS limitations. And that's why your answer answers nothing. Final Fantasy is japanese, japanese are not known for the western dumbness of wanting easy games, on the contrary, they love complexity, obsessively. Now western console players like button -> awesome philosophy where everytime you press a button something awesome happens, BUTTON -> AWESOME!11!
So not software or hardware limitations, DUMB PEOPLE WHO PLAY CONSOLE GAMES limitations. Because they are to dumb to understand anything more complex than using their fingers to count to them.

While might not have put it in quite those terms, that's not a bad summation of the situation. Consoles themselves are less of an issue that the laziness of the modern casual (overwhelmingly console) gamer; they have little to no tolerance for difficulty, so developers cater to this whining, entitled, lazy demographic by spoon feeding them easy content that handholds them through the entire game. Spunkgargleweewee shooters like CoD and BF are simply the most extreme expression of this tendency to cater to idiots with simplicity (the worst thing that ever happened to gaming was when frat boys discovered fps games; it's been all downhill since then).

As Kakories rightly points out, this laziness and entitlement is not found in Japanese gamers, who have never forgotten that that challenge lies at the heart of a satisfying gaming experience (something those of us who grew up gaming in the 80's also never forgot). Yes, the devs and publishers are at fault for catering to the whining, but gamers are at faulting for whining instead of taking up the challenge.

[eyezonlyii]

It is console limitations. And it is worse it is CONSOLE PLAYERS limitations. And that's why your answer answers nothing. Final Fantasy is japanese, japanese are not known for the western dumbness of wanting easy games, on the contrary, they love complexity, obsessively. Now western console players like button -> awesome philosophy where everytime you press a button something awesome happens, BUTTON -> AWESOME!11!

So not software or hardware limitations, DUMB PEOPLE WHO PLAY CONSOLE GAMES limitations. Because they are to dumb to understand anything more complex than using their fingers to count to them.

Unless you have a typo, then you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say it's the console, but then you bring up Japanese developers. On the other hand you bring up players, and then talk about how Japanese players love complexity. Of course after that, you specify Western players, but then again, even that isn't an accurate assessment. Because (and this is off the top of my head so bear with me), the highest selling Western games are probably shooters, followed by sports games. Shooters have a fairly simple mechanic system, I will grant you, but sports games have button and stick complexities that surpass DA:I. So maybe the issue isn't the level of complexity for most players, but where that complexity lies.

 

I'm a console player. I love stats and spells and all that jazz, but at the same time, because of the controller interface, I want to feel as if I'm part of the action too. I didn't mind the combat in Origins, but I felt more like I was watching something happening most of the time. I can agree that there should be more challenging games ( I loved Demon's Souls for instance) but not to the detriment of having fun and being able to experience the game (I hated Dark Souls). 

 

The whiny console player stereotype is definitely balanced out by the condescending PC gamer who knows what "true gaming" is about. To be honest, I don't play shooters or sports games, mostly because I don't have the twitchiness to play the former and have a profound lack of interest in the latter. But you cannot deny the fact that the fast paced shootem ups started on PC. They were just easier to share with your friends on consoles due to split screen capabilities. 

 

I know I'm not going to win any hearts and minds on this forum, but this PC holier than thou attitude towards console gamers is infuriating. Especially knowing that it hasn't even been that long since PC gamers were the ones being looked down upon just for gaming in the first place. 

[cJohnOne]

I'd also put in Saving throws: Fortitude, Reflex and Will. Adding those sounds important. It would make it more likely to have the Classes Paladin and Monk. Your Dungeon Master could get you into nice trouble than.

I remember in Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor The paladin they gave you always had better stats than what you could make. That sort of annoyed me. Too bad that game doesn't run for me anymore.

Oops I guess you'd would also need Charisma for a Paladin.

[cJohnOne]

Isn't there console games with levelup screens? Doesn't sound that difficult.

[In Exile]

One of the reasons you raise your abilities(Strength,Constitution,Intelligence etc) is to increase your to hit chance. This was more important in D&D.

You also increased your score to get heavier armor, do more damage, and get more hit points. In D&D you also got saving throws but I don't remember what they are for.

I disagree. I always found making hitting so dependent on primary stats (for non-casters) a bit silly. Attributes are valuable and I think they need to be in as modifiers to many aspects of an RPG but we really need to separate what should be a skill from a base attribute.

[cJohnOne]

@In Exile Than how would you increase your to hit rate or are saying they should always hit?

[In Exile]

@In Exile Than how would you increase your to hit rate or are saying they should always hit?

Skill points. It amounts to a similar mechanic except you can get more interesting interactions. For example STR might not modify to hit for melee weapons but rather what weapons you can use (e.g. some are heavier than others including mage staffs). Your actual skill with a weapon would influence hit%.

[o Ventus]

Combat should have more RNG in it.

Good one. Got a chuckle out of me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Good one. Got a chuckle out of me.

 I wasn't joking.

[o Ventus]

 I wasn't joking.

Then I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Fade-Touched-in-the-head]

For now, I'm taking a break from Inquisition and I'm back to Fallout New Vegas, where I'm thoroughly enjoying leveling up my character to be sneaky, persuasive and adept at opening everything they shouldn't...

Hey, same here! I've played the hell out of that game since it's release so now I'm just fiddling with different RP styles. Currently doing a "low-profile" run, which is to say I'm trying to do as much as possible without getting positive or negative reputation with any faction. There's surprisingly quite a bit you can do.

[cJohnOne]

Using skill point to increase skills is an interesting idea but it would probably look more complicated in implementation. Like a list with numbers. The attribute system is already familiar to a lot of us and wouldn't require explanation.



Different subject: The change from missing to not missing only started with DA2. It seems like a doable change. The next question is it a desirable change? If it brought back being able to pick attributes manually I think I would enjoy the game much more.

[eyezonlyii]

I think this one issue speaks to the heart of the problem with DA:I: who was this game made for?

 

It seems like (and I'm generalizing I know) that more people who play on PC would like a more attribute/dice roll/D&D type system whereas, I'm pretty sure the change was made when they realized that many people were playing on consoles. Now before we start with the console shaming, hear me out. I think the change was made because the console game to user interface, or the controller, inherently lends itself to the idea of more interactivity, just by its design, therefore to have a system in which one can miss, even though one pushed the attack button within range of the enemy would be seen by those console players that they were trying to pick up as a negative. It's the feeling of if I miss an attack, I want it to be because I screwed up, not because the game decided that that sword swing was too narrow.

[AlanC9]

Why are consoles more interactive?