68 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

1. "tactical" doesn't mean "hard". well, maybe it does if you like action-oriented experience more.

2. the existence of "sunny day" scenario (using the 'right' starting class) doesn't imply low number of possible ways of defeating enemies - it's a player's choice, not game devs

 

Tactical means that it actually requires tactics. Having more options doesn't make something tactical, which is the realm within which POE falls in. We're not talking Hearts of Iron 3 here. 

 

If a game gives you 20 options to faceroll the game instead of 5 it isn't tactical. 

[Vanth]

Are you saying PoE is not tactical? I think it is. You certainly can't win by just button mashing or auto attacking. 

[Terodil]

Tactical means that it actually requires tactics. [snip]

Objection, your honour. Tactical means that you *can* use tactics, whether you need to is an entirely different matter.

'Tactical warheads' mean that you can use them for tactical purposes. It doesn't mean you can only use them for tactical purposes, or that the absence of a specific tactical need makes them 'non-tactical warheads'.

[In Exile]

Are you saying PoE is not tactical? I think it is. You certainly can't win by just button mashing or auto attacking. 

 

I'm saying there's a huge gap between facerolling and actually tactical. You can't win by button mashing, but short of path of the damned (because of the stat bumps), the game isn't hard on any difficulty. It doesn't require actually strategy, every encounter is suspectible to exactly the same strategy. The majority of nifty elements (like armour types, etc.) are largely superflous with the exception of a few enemies (like dragons) that have HUGE resistances to one damage type. 

 

Almost every encounter in the game is pretty easy, with the notable exception being the adra dragon because it has a huge number of powerful adds and basically 1-hit AOE KOs. 

[In Exile]

Objection, your honour. Tactical means that you *can* use tactics, whether you need to is an entirely different matter.

'Tactical warheads' mean that you can use them for tactical purposes. It doesn't mean you can only use them for tactical purposes, or that the absence of a specific tactical needs makes them 'non-tactical warheads'.

It absolutely does not. Tactical presumes careful planning. 

 

tac·ti·cal

ˈtaktək(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: tactical

1. of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.

   "as a tactical officer in the field he had no equal

[Terodil]

It absolutely does not. Tactical presumes careful planning. 
 
tac·ti·cal: of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.

Sorry, that quote says nothing about the NEED for careful planning, just that careful planning is involved, whether needed or not.

[Wulfram]

PoE is "tactical" in the sense that the chosen tactics decide victory, rather than reflexes, hand eye coordination etc.

It's not especially deep because of balance issues.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that really good tactical play needs to be turn based, even if in theory RTwP should work fine.

[In Exile]

PoE is "tactical" in the sense that the chosen tactics decide victory, rather than reflexes, hand eye coordination etc.

It's not especially deep because of balance issues.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that really good tactical play needs to be turn based, even if in theory RTwP should work fine.

That's always been my view. In POE, to implement certain abilities I have to very much fight the disengagement mechanics and pathfinding AI, which of course gives an edge to the AI on higher difficulties since it gets pot-shots not for legitimate reasons but for the UI. 

 

As to POE v. DA:I, I think with your definition we can include DA:I under the aegis of tactical on the (admittedly quite easy) nightmare which requires minimal forethought. 

[AppalachianApex]

I can deal with the lack of ability slots, but the companion AI in this game really is pretty awful :/

[Gothfather]

What game are you people playing? I have had zero problems with the companion AI, I am able to tweak the tactics so I get results I want.

 

The tactics system in Origins was TERRIBLE because it was so detailed it allowed you to start a combat go afk, return and pick up the loot. A game that can play itself is poorly designed. A game should not be able to play itself, well designed game play should REQUIRE a human. This assumption that they dumbed it down because of new players is just ego masturbation. So you can feel oh so superior.

 

The tactics system in Inquisition requires that you manage your party to some extent because this is a game and games should not be able to play themselves. I change my tactics in combat because it allows for more subtle manipulation and this gives better results for nightmare play throughs. Results that actually require me to be a participant of the game.

 

I suggest looking on youtube for videos explaining how to tweak your party performance in combat to get better results. You are never going to get a set and forget system again because any system that lets you win a levelled combat without doing anything is a poor design for a game. sure it made combat easy but that doesn't actually mean it made the game play better. If you don't need to actually play then the system has poor game play design.

[Terodil]

A game that can play itself is poorly designed. [snip]

If I counted right, you said this three times in your post, without providing a single reason why that should be the case.

You talk as if setting tactics was not part of the game. This is quite ostensibly wrong. It is. The inability to set tactics properly (i.e. conditional actions) is no advancement in game design, it's just a step back and an annoyance.

You can always choose not to use tactics if you feel that using them yields a playstyle that's too passive for you. That's why there were little checkmarks in DA:O and in DA:KW! Untick = micromanagement heaven.

P.S. Talking about DA:I tactics as 'subtle' is... innovative. I would never have thought of *that* word. Kudos.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Gothfather, for many of us, designing the perfect tactics build so that the party would run on autopilot was a huge part of the fun of Origins combat. The act of fighting various battles and tweaking the setting from fight to fight to eke out a bit more performance was one of my favourite activities during my many playthroughs.

The Tactics system in Origins was a thing of design beauty that other games should replicate to supplement their own (often flawed) AI. Neatly all the major AI issues in DAI could have been easily solved if the Origins tactics system had been implemented. Perhaps if the tactical camera implementation had been less terrible and party commands actually worked properly, Tactics might not have been strictly necessary, but given the poor design of the micromanagement tools, a full AI customisation suite would have gone a long way to alleviating these issues.

[Vanth]

A game that can play itself is poorly designed.

 

You can't do this in DA:O for the more challenging fights. But even if it were the case that one could just set the tactics in DA:O and 'let the game play itself', this would not make DA:O badly designed because setting up the tactics so that the companions all work well together was part of the game.

[Shevy]

Setting everyone on "follow yourself" improves the A.I. immensely. Sure, they keep doing useless crap but since the game is sooooo poorly balanced and outright easy even on nightmare, it doesn't matter in the end.

Assigning commands one by one often results in worse situations than just let them do their stuff. Tanks do their job more or less "okay-y", mages are feasible, rogues have to be controlled directly.

 

The lack of adjustable tactics is one of the worst failures of DA:I. Even Dragon's Dogma's pawns are better than the A.I. in this game.

[AWTEW]

Are you talking about DA:A ? Because according to hundreds of polled PTs that's the only game in DA franchise that comes close to this

http://howlongtobeat...me.php?id=11627

 

That's without the power-glitch (it's been patched now). If you played it, with the power glich, you could easily do the main-story: in 15 hours. The best thing about the glitch, is that it exposed how ridiculously short the main story is.

[Saphiron123]

Tactical means that it actually requires tactics. Having more options doesn't make something tactical, which is the realm within which POE falls in. We're not talking Hearts of Iron 3 here.

If a game gives you 20 options to faceroll the game instead of 5 it isn't tactical.

Cool, you think the game is easy and tactics aren't necessary. I honestly don't see how a great system that makes your party fight in the style you want it to is in any way a negative though, especially when it's replaced with "on", "off", and "use often".

Setting up strings of techniques that play off each other to deal more effectively with your enemies and make your team fight like a unit, or react to unique situations in a more effective manner IS tactical.

One lets you control how your party reacts most effectively to situations, DAI takes that control away. And on, off, and use more often which gives you no options is certainly less tactical then being able to choose.

The fact it, origins and da2 were as tactical as you wanted them to be. DAI is just crappy ai.

Anyway, it should be added because it's a dragon age staple and many of us love it. If tactics weren't your thing, to each your own, but may of us loved that control and customization.

[Saphiron123]

Gothfather, for many of us, designing the perfect tactics build so that the party would run on autopilot was a huge part of the fun of Origins combat. The act of fighting various battles and tweaking the setting from fight to fight to eke out a bit more performance was one of my favourite activities during my many playthroughs.

The Tactics system in Origins was a thing of design beauty that other games should replicate to supplement their own (often flawed) AI. Neatly all the major AI issues in DAI could have been easily solved if the Origins tactics system had been implemented. Perhaps if the tactical camera implementation had been less terrible and party commands actually worked properly, Tactics might not have been strictly necessary, but given the poor design of the micromanagement tools, a full AI customisation suite would have gone a long way to alleviating these issues.

I loved tactics. DAI feels like I'm playing a graphically updated hack and slash from the 90s in comparison.

[laoch101]

Personally I think it's fine. Yes it's different. As a warrior it was easier cause everyone followed my lead. Now playing as a mage I have to use the tactics screen more. To send the warrior to attack first and taunt etc.
Also setting the preference settings for each spell helps immensely.
I look at as I'm coordinating the party. Yes ai settings were nice but this isn't horrible. Just different.
The only thing I miss is a setting for regeneration/lyrium potions but it's not a deal breaker for me.
In a big battle you just look at the whole picture and control it all. Makes the game more challenging.
And it's ok if you don't like the way it is. I just wanted to chime in a different perspective.

[Saphiron123]

Personally I think it's fine. Yes it's different. As a warrior it was easier cause everyone followed my lead. Now playing as a mage I have to use the tactics screen more. To send the warrior to attack first and taunt etc.
Also setting the preference settings for each spell helps immensely.
I look at as I'm coordinating the party. Yes ai settings were nice but this isn't horrible. Just different.
The only thing I miss is a setting for regeneration/lyrium potions but it's not a deal breaker for me.
In a big battle you just look at the whole picture and control it all. Makes the game more challenging.
And it's ok if you don't like the way it is. I just wanted to chime in a different perspective.

I see what you're saying, but origins felt ahead of it's time, and DAI removed anything with any complexity. It feels like a hack and slash game from the 90s with better graphics.

It's dumbed down, plain and simple. Fitting into EAs idea that players aren't smart enough to learn their games.