Why are consoles more interactive?
Not the console itself, but I meant that the controller, because of the way it's held and manipulated by the hands, may lead to the presumption that it is a more interactive interface, and thus requires the the gameplay to simulate that interactivity. Essentially, right trigger=sword slash because the right trigger is taking the place of the right arm in the virtual world.
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.
I don't think it is console player vs pc player issue more than each individual person combat mechanic's preferences, because ...
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.
... what you described here is what differentiate action mechanics vs traditional mechanics. It's your skill vs your PC skill. When PC misses it is not because you did that, it's because his skills (attributes, attack stat etc) weren't enough in this particular case. In action game character stats(if there are any) are far less important since your RL skills are what matters most.
So you want more of an action RPG experience. Nothing wrong with that IMO. I do like both types - action games (Dynasty Warriors, VtM:B, Jade Empire) and those with more traditional RPG mechanics (NWN, KOTOR, VtM:R). There is place for both types. I just somehow don't like it in DA, it just doesn't work for me in party based RPG.
As for playing on consoles can't say much other than I played few RPGs on PSP with non action combat like DnD Tactics, Lord of the Rings tactics, Jeanne d'Arc and few more i can't remember now, and it didn't feel that bad. Is it much different to play these type of games on normal console ?
I don't think it is console player vs pc player issue more than each individual person combat mechanic's preferences, because ...
... what you described here is what differentiate action mechanics vs traditional mechanics. It's your skill vs your PC skill. When PC misses it is not because you did that, it's because his skills (attributes, attack stat etc) weren't enough in this particular case. In action game character stats(if there are any) are far less important since your RL skills are what matters most.
So you want more of an action RPG experience. Nothing wrong with that IMO. I do like both types - action games (Dynasty Warriors, VtM:B, Jade Empire) and those with more traditional RPG mechanics (NWN, KOTOR, VtM:R). There is place for both types. I just somehow don't like it in DA, it just doesn't work for me in party based RPG.
As for playing on consoles can't say much other than I played few RPGs on PSP with non action combat like DnD Tactics, Lord of the Rings tactics, Jeanne d'Arc and few more i can't remember now, and it didn't feel that bad. Is it much different to play these type of games on normal console ?
My sentence about the feeling was supposed to be more of a general console player feeling, rather than a specific opinion on my preference. In my opinion, it depends on the game as to how I feel about the combat, as you stated in the first part of your post. For instance, when playing a turn based rpg, I can deal with the RNG hit/miss. When I first played DA:O I didn't know about the RNG of the battles at first, so I was kind of frustrated, eventually after a few battles, I figured out what was going on and enjoyed myself. I think that if the game wants to be faster paced, it need to have the action responsive controls, and if that is the route they're going, then they should really look at Dragon's Dogma for inspiration.
If they want to remain true to the D&D system, then they need to slow the combat back down, and reinstate an attribute and leveling system.
Either way, they need to unlock weapon and armor classes for everyone and have them be stat based again.
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.
I play far more on the PC than I do my Xbox, and I vastly prefer a more active, skill based combat system as opposed to the archaic d20 rolls. I hate starting out in KOTOR because the combat in the beginning is "miss, miss, miss, hit, miss, hit, dead". Any element in combat (besides things like status effects or in-game injuries) that takes away control or introduces an element of randomness in combat is poor design to me, especially in video games. They can get away with it in DnD, because that's the most viable system.
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.
I remember Bioware stating that they'd never do another game like Baldur's Gate 2 again, not that it wasn't good, it was the perfect RPG, but with their games now being released to cater as big a crowd as possible, ("Skyrim sold 20 million "), and to a new generation that has no idea what a classic RPG is, well, suffice to say that Baldur's Gate 2 is far too complex for your average modern gamer 
I remember Bioware stating that they'd never do another game like Baldur's Gate 2 again, not that it wasn't good, it was the perfect RPG, but with their games now being released to cater as big a crowd as possible, ("Skyrim sold 20 million "), and to a new generation that has no idea what a classic RPG is, well, suffice to say that Baldur's Gate 2 is far too complex for your average modern gamer
And that is why games these days are mostly crap...
How did you build your Warriors back in the day? Did they have more Strength or Constitution? I don't remember my early builds. I probably took a party of Pre-built characters that they provided for us.
How did you learn to build your characters?
For me it was Primarily Str, Dex, Con, and some Charisma, gotta be likeable man..
Maybe one point in Int - he knew it was raining but wasn't smart enough to get out of it...
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 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...
The whiny console player stereotype is definitely balanced out by the condescending PC gamer who knows what "true gaming" is about.
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.
1 - I care not for "active complexity", the only complexity I'm interested in is the one who involves no action. Action complexity and nothing are exactly the same for me. So unless you have stats, skills, feats, tactics and other thing to manage with your thinking without a timeframe to act, meaning actionless, I couldn't care less about these other things you call "complex".
2 - You want exactly what I hate. Exactly what I would expect from console player. Like 100% the expectation.
3 - It is not about true gaming, it is about gaming we had and because console marketing we don't have anymore, left true gaming for people who bother with gaming, I like stats distribution, multiple races, multiple classes, and so on, if this is gaming then it is, if it was called cooking then it would be cooking
4 - There is nothing that I would like more than the PC never becoming something big in game industry, games were MARVEOUS when consoles ruled absolute. These **** games like Inquisition are better off in consoles, this is the kind of game console players deserves. But ok, I know now where to look for good games: indie ones. They are exactly what PC gaming was before this megalomania bullshit of big companies You are so completely wrong if you thought this was about being the best or the biggest, on the contrary, I care not for whoever/whatever is bigger/better/greater/true/etc, I just want my stats back, my races variation back, my good number of classes back and so on, the rest is just useless.
1 - I care not for "active complexity", the only complexity I'm interested in is the one who involves no action. Action complexity and nothing are exactly the same for me. So unless you have stats, skills, feats, tactics and other thing to manage with your thinking without a timeframe to act, meaning actionless, I couldn't care less about these other things you call "complex".
2 - You want exactly what I hate. Exactly what I would expect from console player. Like 100% the expectation.
3 - It is not about true gaming, it is about gaming we had and because console marketing we don't have anymore, left true gaming for people who bother with gaming, I like stats distribution, multiple races, multiple classes, and so on, if this is gaming then it is, if it was called cooking then it would be cooking
4 - There is nothing that I would like more than the PC never becoming something big in game industry, games were MARVEOUS when consoles ruled absolute. These **** games like Inquisition are better off in consoles, this is the kind of game console players deserves. But ok, I know now where to look for good games: indie ones. They are exactly what PC gaming was before this megalomania bullshit of big companies You are so completely wrong if you thought this was about being the best or the biggest, on the contrary, I care not for whoever/whatever is bigger/better/greater/true/etc, I just want my stats back, my races variation back, my good number of classes back and so on, the rest is just useless.
As I have said before, it doesn't have to be on the PC that multiple races/classes/states and everything are located. I brought up FFXIV, which allows all that, multiple skill bars and even macros of complex actions on multiple systems, including the PS3.
Again, this is a developer limitation, not a console limitation. And yes, I choose to play on a console, and yes I would prefer to be part of the action in an action based game. Bioware decided to take the series in that direction, so I would hope that they would expand on those controls. Just because there are action mechanics does not mean there can't be skill points and attributes too. One of my favorite games is the Elder Scrolls Oblivion (didn't have xbox so I never played Morrowind) because there are multiple races and classes and skills and attributes, and so on and so forth. And the combat wasn't a dice roll there either. I would have loved Skyrim more if they had kept all that, but as people are apt to point out, it was simplified.
But I'm just going to bounce outta this topic.
How did they handle level ups in Dragon Dogma?
I know I said I was going to bounce, but I'll answer.
In Dragon's Dogma, you can switch classes at will (well, at the major city anyway), and this is important because whatever class, or vocation as they call it, you are when you your XP pushes into the level up, determines your stat allocation for that level. You have HP, Stamina, Magick Attack, Magick Defense, Strength, Defense, and I think that's it. So say you're playing as a warrior. It doesn't matter that you played as a mage and switched to warrior for this last fight. If you level up in that fight as a warrior, then whatever stat is assigned as the warrior's primary and secondary stats will increase in that fashion.
This continues at a fast pace until level 100, then slows down dramatically from then to 200 (and there are new game pluses and super bosses and all sorts of reasons to get that high). On top of this, you have points that let you buy new classes or abilities. you can do that at any time by going to the major city, though some abilities only show up after you've raised your current vocations' s level. So you have your personal level, and your vocation's level that determine your stats at any given time. So while it is possible to level everything up, it is also likely that you are able to either gimp yourself while doing so, or come up with an extremely powerful build. To make things even better, the game tells you nothing of this.
Lastly, though you didn't ask, I'll tell you this anyway. You're only allowed six abilities at once (and the aforementioned warrior only gets three for some reason), but it's not quite like Dragon Age in that your basic attacks can be varied for some different effects that don't need the abilities. Such as tap, tap, hold on the weapon button, will allow your character to knock an opponent down if you're using a one handed weapon, or tap, tap [pause] tap [pause] tap, with daggers delivers to stabs followed by two stunning kicks.
I'm still confused does it add strength for you if you are a warrior? and also a secondary stat?
Yeah.....I am gonna say no.
If I am looking at it and I have it targeted I want it to hit every single time.
The last thing I need in a Dragon fight is the game telling me I didn't hit the 6 story tall bastard that is 15 ft in front of me with my bow.
I'm just glad that this kind of thing is very much being worked out of most games and is highly unlikely to make a comeback.
I read the documentation to find out how the rules worked and then went from there.How did you build your Warriors back in the day? Did they have more Strength or Constitution? I don't remember my early builds. I probably took a party of Pre-built characters that they provided for us.
How did you learn to build your characters?
But then you eliminate the possibility of the target dodging or parrying your attacks if you don't have the potential to miss. If it's just "see it, hit it", then any differentiation between the skill of the attacker and defend is irrelevant. The result is that the game becomes easier if the uncertainty associated with an action is eliminated. The chance for an attack to miss, or for the foe to shrug off damage through resistances is just like spell resistance, but for physical attacks. I suppose you want that removed too? Maybe the enemies should just stand there so you can line them up and shoot them? The uncertainty makes the game both more interesting and, I hazard to suggest, more realistic; you will miss a lot more than you hit in real combat, too. Sounds to me like you just want the game dumbed down until it's like a point and shoot fps.Yeah.....I am gonna say no.
If I am looking at it and I have it targeted I want it to hit every single time.
The last thing I need in a Dragon fight is the game telling me I didn't hit the 6 story tall bastard that is 15 ft in front of me with my bow.
I'm just glad that this kind of thing is very much being worked out of most games and is highly unlikely to make a comeback.
But then you eliminate the possibility of the target dodging or parrying your attacks if you don't have the potential to miss. If it's just "see it, hit it", then any differentiation between the skill of the attacker and defend is irrelevant. The result is that the game becomes easier if the uncertainty associated with an action is eliminated. The chance for an attack to miss, or for the foe to shrug off damage through resistances is just like spell resistance, but for physical attacks. I suppose you want that removed too? Maybe the enemies should just stand there so you can line them up and shoot them? The uncertainty makes the game both more interesting and, I hazard to suggest, more realistic; you will miss a lot more than you hit in real combat, too. Sounds to me like you just want the game dumbed down until it's like a point and shoot fps.
If it could be properly implemented I have no actual issue with it. I don't want to be told by a random roll of the dice that I am missing the guy that is standing directly in front of me.
But before you respond I just wanna say that we will have to agree to disagree. I am familiar with your overall stance entire subject and we are just too far apart in order to agree.
Not trying be a jerk or anything just trying to save you the time.
If it could be properly implemented I have no actual issue with it. I don't want to be told by a random roll of the dice that I am missing the guy that is standing directly in front of me.
But before you respond I just wanna say that we will have to agree to disagree. I am familiar with your overall stance entire subject and we are just too far apart in order to agree.
Not trying be a jerk or anything just trying to save you the time.
Fair enough.
But then you eliminate the possibility of the target dodging or parrying your attacks if you don't have the potential to miss. If it's just "see it, hit it", then any differentiation between the skill of the attacker and defend is irrelevant. The result is that the game becomes easier if the uncertainty associated with an action is eliminated. The chance for an attack to miss, or for the foe to shrug off damage through resistances is just like spell resistance, but for physical attacks. I suppose you want that removed too? Maybe the enemies should just stand there so you can line them up and shoot them? The uncertainty makes the game both more interesting and, I hazard to suggest, more realistic; you will miss a lot more than you hit in real combat, too. Sounds to me like you just want the game dumbed down until it's like a point and shoot fps.
Currently playing the KOTOR series again, I wish DAI attributes were as important as those games.
I get the dice roll for elemental resistances and even status effects. But for the physical attacks themselves, why not give enemies access to the same abilities as the player, with shield wall, parry, the leap that rogues get, and heck, through in a fade cloak every once in a while. This ties into the other thread where enemy mages had more oomph, with curse of mortality and when they had crushing prison as well.
I'd even like for them to get a dispel for our buffs too. And while we're at it, if we get healing magic (because that what some people want), then so should the enemies.
Completely even the field for a challenge. Not just give them my HP and let them hit harder.
How did you build your Warriors back in the day? Did they have more Strength or Constitution? I don't remember my early builds. I probably took a party of Pre-built characters that they provided for us.
How did you learn to build your characters?
Retour en haut
