150 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

"Another wave!" So simple that placing enemies is not even a consideration.

 

Jokes on the side, though, DAO did not failed to deliver something it was not intended to do. It was only intended to be a better version of Baldur's Gate - more responsive, with more options, better path finding and so on. It was too slow for the console crowd, however, hence the changes in DA2. The innovative use of the AI customization would make things faster naturally because you would need to pause less.

 

That said I actually like combat in DA2. If they only had more time to make better arenas and better enemy placement... Also everything was straightforward: armor, weapons, spell trees, items. I liked my heavy armored mages and party of archers that I could build in DAO.

 

But there is something to be said that the decision to make everything more accessible was actually a sensible one, since the franchise grew a lot, and would not have lost too much if the rest of the game was better. I am not condemning the combat - I am quoting the developer and saying that it was different than DAO.

 

DA:O was so mechanically different from BG2 that the comparison is silly. DA:O was intending to have a similar feel to BG, just like ME tried to have a similar feel to KoTOR. Both are "spiritual successor" games. Bioware looked to a lot of sources in creating the combat system. If you were actually around leading up to the release to DA:O you would recall the series of explosive and highly critical posts accusing DA:O of amount to a betrayal of everything that made BG2 good: 

 

1) Regenerating health/mana rather Vancian casting, which both dumbs down combat and removes any strategic choice.

2) MMO-like ability on level up rather than D&D style (largely) set ability scores. 

3) Cooldown that allow for ability spam instead of tactical per/ecounter or per/day type abilities (cf. POE). 

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

There were a lot of very clever and very good changes on the mechanics side from DA:O to DA2. People obsess over the poor encounter design in DA2 (waves!) or the artstyle (hot rod samurai!) without every looking at the mechanical innovations over DA:O. Everything from the abilities, to the trees, to the unique type of spells and CC (e.g. force mage), to the cross-class-combo system, was quite mechanically clever. There were issues, which makes sense since we got DA2: the Alpha Release instead of a proper game, but it just frustrates me to see a lot of clever design fall by the wayside and not get a fair shake. 

[Saphiron123]

Or it was a deliberate choice because cities are expensive to do well (Dragon Age has never done this).

If they're too cheap to design cities for their rpg world, maybe they're in the wrong line of work... val royeaux will go down in history as one of the laziest attempts at city creation in history.

I was excited to see the capital of orlais. Maybe one day i'll actually get to, instead of a screen or two.

[In Exile]

If they're too cheap to design cities for their rpg world, maybe they're in the wrong line of work... val royeaux will go down in history as one of the laziest attempts at city creation in history.

I was excited to see the capital of orlais. Maybe one day i'll actually get to, instead of a screen or two.

 

Waterdeep in HoTU was worse, though HoTU was otherwise phenomenal. 

[AresKeith]

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

There were a lot of very clever and very good changes on the mechanics side from DA:O to DA2. People obsess over the poor encounter design in DA2 (waves!) or the artstyle (hot rod samurai!) without every looking at the mechanical innovations over DA:O. Everything from the abilities, to the trees, to the unique type of spells and CC (e.g. force mage), to the cross-class-combo system, was quite mechanically clever. There were issues, which makes sense since we got DA2: the Alpha Release instead of a proper game, but it just frustrates me to see a lot of clever design fall by the wayside and not get a fair shake. 

 

I really did like the cross class combo system and definitely wanna see Force Mage return

[wolfhowwl]

If they're too cheap to design cities for their rpg world, maybe they're in the wrong line of work... val royeaux will go down in history as one of the laziest attempts at city creation in history.

I was excited to see the capital of orlais. Maybe one day i'll actually get to, instead of a screen or two.

They have a studio in Montreal now, maybe they can poach some of Ubisoft's AssCreed people.

[AresKeith]

If they're too cheap to design cities for their rpg world, maybe they're in the wrong line of work... val royeaux will go down in history as one of the laziest attempts at city creation in history.

I was excited to see the capital of orlais. Maybe one day i'll actually get to, instead of a screen or two.

 

[blahblahblah]

DA:O was so mechanically different from BG2 that the comparison is silly. DA:O was intending to have a similar feel to BG, just like ME tried to have a similar feel to KoTOR. Both are "spiritual successor" games. Bioware looked to a lot of sources in creating the combat system. If you were actually around leading up to the release to DA:O you would recall the series of explosive and highly critical posts accusing DA:O of amount to a betrayal of everything that made BG2 good: 

 

1) Regenerating health/mana rather Vancian casting, which both dumbs down combat and removes any strategic choice.

2) MMO-like ability on level up rather than D&D style (largely) set ability scores. 

3) Cooldown that allow for ability spam instead of tactical per/ecounter or per/day type abilities (cf. POE). 

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

There were a lot of very clever and very good changes on the mechanics side from DA:O to DA2. People obsess over the poor encounter design in DA2 (waves!) or the artstyle (hot rod samurai!) without every looking at the mechanical innovations over DA:O. Everything from the abilities, to the trees, to the unique type of spells and CC (e.g. force mage), to the cross-class-combo system, was quite mechanically clever. There were issues, which makes sense since we got DA2: the Alpha Release instead of a proper game, but it just frustrates me to see a lot of clever design fall by the wayside and not get a fair shake. 

Exactly, many people complain that DAI is a single player MMO but ignore that DAO itself has a lot of MMO elements you listed and consider as a spiritual successor of BG but mechanics wise its not. 

[Vit246]

I really did like the cross class combo system and definitely wanna see Force Mage return

 

I despise the cross class combo system

[wolfhowwl]

Exactly, many people complain that DAI is a single player MMO but ignore that DAO itself has a lot of MMO elements you listed and consider as a spiritual successor of BG but mechanics wise its not.

I think the DA:I MMO criticism is more directed towards the content of the zones and the quests rather than the combat mechanics as was the case with DA:O.

[blahblahblah]

I think the DA:I MMO criticism is more directed towards the content of the zones and the quests rather than the combat mechanics as was the case with DA:O.

DAO has fetch quest like those but most of them can be ignored or within the main quests.

[Hiemoth]

Throwing things out is fine. The issue is replacing it with something worse, but that doesn't always happen. The example here is ME3 over ME1. 

 

Wait, are you arguing that ME1 system was better than the ME3 system? Or am I misunderstanding?

[wolfhowwl]

Wait, are you arguing that ME1 system was better than the ME3 system? Or am I misunderstanding?

He's saying that cutting the ME1 combat system and restarting from scratch with ME2 was an example of throwing things out working.

[In Exile]

Wait, are you arguing that ME1 system was better than the ME3 system? Or am I misunderstanding?

He's saying that cutting the ME1 combat system and restarting from scratch with ME2 was an example of throwing things out working.

 

The grammer was crazy wonky in that sentence. As wolfhowwl says, my intention was to say that the combat in ME1 wasn't very good, and that while it may well have been possible to refine it to produce a better version of the same type of combat, the decision to scrap it led to the combat system in ME3 which was, IMO, quite strong. 

[Hiemoth]

I absolutely love that how many times I see people discuss the DA developmental team representing the whole of Bioware despite the fact that ME and DA developmental teams were, as far as I can tell, pretty separate. Casey Hudson had little input on DA and vice versa. Also, this whole argument on a Bioware level requires to utterly ignore the fact that ME3 kept the same system than ME2, focusing on improving it and adding stuff to it. Thus, in order to keep this argument flowing, the argument suddenly shifts to Bioware is overcompensating with changes, just look the change from ME1 to ME3 and let us completely ignore the game in between.

 

Also, the second problem with framing the question like this is that it basically forces us to ignore that maybe the developers themselves just didn't like the way the original system worked. That is, for example, the reason I understood behind the shift in the system from ME1 to ME2 because the developers wanted to focus the system in a different way. Obviously they were happy with the result, as the kept focusing on that instead of caving to the demands from all the vocal fans who wanted a return to ME1 system.

 

Now, if we are discussing DA dev team alone, then I partially agree, but not for all the reasons listed here. Some of the design decisions are to me consistant with what they wanted to do with the switch from DAO to DA2, some as just due to limitations of the new engine and some with just as practical consequences of design choices. However, there are a lot of really bizarre design decisions that I can only really rationalize with DA team reacting to criticism for DA2 just going full steam to the other direction, at times completely ignoring that some things were liked or that the reactions weren't as universal. It seemed to almost aim to satisfy the most vocal complainers. It doesn't help that the main developers keep referring to DA2 as a mistake.

 

I also agree with that a lot of it seems to do with their lack of certainty of what is their system. I know some disagree, but with ME series, following interviews and having played the games, it feels that Hudson did have a vision and made changes to the system to benefit that vision, to push it onwards. With DA, to me it comes across that while they were some ideas what they want to do, their primary concern is the vision they feel the fans want, which is a subtle change, but a really crucial one. If that makes any sense.

[Hiemoth]

The grammer was crazy wonky in that sentence. As wolfhowwl says, my intention was to say that the combat in ME1 wasn't very good, and that while it may well have been possible to refine it to produce a better version of the same type of combat, the decision to scrap it led to the combat system in ME3 which was, IMO, quite strong. 

 

Okay, now I understand and I agree completely with your sentiment on the matter.

[In Exile]

I also agree with that a lot of it seems to do with their lack of certainty of what is their system. I know some disagree, but with ME series, following interviews and having played the games, it feels that Hudson did have a vision and made changes to the system to benefit that vision, to push it onwards. With DA, to me it comes across that while they were some ideas what they want to do, their primary concern is the vision they feel the fans want, which is a subtle change, but a really crucial one. If that makes any sense.

 

I wouldn't want to focus this on ME, so let me just say that I think the exact opposite is the case between the two series, and I think it shows in essentially every feature of the narrative, character-design and even quest design and dialogue. 

 

That said I generally agree with your comments, but I think it's important to qualify them in the following way: While Bioware does not wholesale change everything about a product they have, in their last few iterations, made radical changes when they have decided to make a change. 

[Hiemoth]

I wouldn't want to focus this on ME, so let me just say that I think the exact opposite is the case between the two series, and I think it shows in essentially every feature of the narrative, character-design and even quest design and dialogue. 

 

That said I generally agree with your comments, but I think it's important to qualify them in the following way: While Bioware does not wholesale change everything about a product they have, in their last few iterations, made radical changes when they have decided to make a change. 

 

I course disagree with the first statement, but that would be a discussion for another forum. Although, if you don't mind me asking, why do you feel the DA team has a vision they are committed to over what they feel what the fans would want?

 

With the second statement I agree with and in a way I respect them for it. The shift from ME1 to ME2 was a good example, for me, is a great example of this to leading good things.

 

I guess that this is the reason I feel so torn about DAI system. There a lot of things I dislike about it, but I would also like them to just stick with a system and improve upon on that instead of just doing something completely different again, even if I consider DA2 combat system the best of the DA games thus far. The sad thing is, that based on their pre-release interviews and ambitions, I am not completely certain even this system was what they really wanted to do.

[In Exile]

I course disagree with the first statement, but that would be a discussion for another forum. Although, if you don't mind me asking, why do you feel the DA team has a vision they are committed to over what they feel what the fans would want?

 

With the second statement I agree with and in a way I respect them for it. The shift from ME1 to ME2 was a good example, for me, is a great example of this to leading good things.

 

I guess that this is the reason I feel so torn about DAI system. There a lot of things I dislike about it, but I would also like them to just stick with a system and improve upon on that instead of just doing something completely different again, even if I consider DA2 combat system the best of the DA games thus far. The sad thing is, that based on their pre-release interviews and ambitions, I am not completely certain even this system was what they really wanted to do.

 

I generally agree with your sentiment on how the DA:I system went, including the fact that (given the pre-release materials and even interviews the developers have given) the system was not entirely the one that they wanted to offer on release. 

 

In response to your question I should give the caveat that I think that gameplay is a bit of a contrived and contingent feature of games and that changes to gameplay are not something I think are central to the series having a coherent vision. Generally, I think the difference is that DA has had a pretty coherent view of what the setting is about and what the themes governing it are, and in that regard the developers have generally tried to ensure that whatever gameplay system they design is consistent with this overall vision of the series (even where they've switched that system up). Whereas I think in ME there were conceptual differences following from ME1 to ME2 that led to a pretty radical change in direction, largely responding to the reception of ME1. 

[Hazegurl]

I think the Mass Effect series had a clear identity.  They had a solid Protag and didn't stray from their own lore.  The ending to ME3 sucked but that's the only major negative I can think of.  Although people did complain about how there was too much auto dialogue.

 

DA on the other hand is just all over the place.  The lore is changeable, the design of certain locations is changeable,  Qunari look different from DAO then DA2 now DAI.  Elves look different from across the three games, too.  They just can't decide what the heck they want of out this franchise.

 

In Mass Effect, the Asari looked the same, the Krogan, Turians et al.  So I can't blame all of BioWare. Just the Dragon Age team.

[blahblahblah]

I think the Mass Effect series had a clear identity.  They had a solid Protag and didn't stray from their own lore.  The ending to ME3 sucked but that's the only major negative I can think of.  Although people did complain about how there was too much auto dialogue.

 

DA on the other hand is just all over the place.  The lore is changeable, the design of certain locations is changeable,  Qunari look different from DAO then DA2 now DAI.  Elves look different from across the three games, too.  They just can't decide what the heck they want of out this franchise.

 

In Mass Effect, the Asari looked the same, the Krogan, Turians et al.  So I can't blame all of BioWare. Just the Dragon Age team.

Eh, Lazarus and Crucible are lore breaking.

[Zinho73]

DA:O was so mechanically different from BG2 that the comparison is silly. DA:O was intending to have a similar feel to BG, just like ME tried to have a similar feel to KoTOR. Both are "spiritual successor" games. Bioware looked to a lot of sources in creating the combat system. If you were actually around leading up to the release to DA:O you would recall the series of explosive and highly critical posts accusing DA:O of amount to a betrayal of everything that made BG2 good: 

 

1) Regenerating health/mana rather Vancian casting, which both dumbs down combat and removes any strategic choice.

2) MMO-like ability on level up rather than D&D style (largely) set ability scores. 

3) Cooldown that allow for ability spam instead of tactical per/ecounter or per/day type abilities (cf. POE). 

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

There were a lot of very clever and very good changes on the mechanics side from DA:O to DA2. People obsess over the poor encounter design in DA2 (waves!) or the artstyle (hot rod samurai!) without every looking at the mechanical innovations over DA:O. Everything from the abilities, to the trees, to the unique type of spells and CC (e.g. force mage), to the cross-class-combo system, was quite mechanically clever. There were issues, which makes sense since we got DA2: the Alpha Release instead of a proper game, but it just frustrates me to see a lot of clever design fall by the wayside and not get a fair shake. 

To me, a better version of something is when you add, subtract and change stuff in order to maintain the same feel, but gaining something on the process. That's what I said I just didn't got into details.

 

Well , English is not my first language and I kind of rushed the point because I was discussing something completely different - I was just saying that DAO combat engine didn't have the objective to be fast paced.

 

And Baldur's Gate surely was a point of reference for the whole DAO game so I don't think comparing the two combat systems is silly, they did have the same principle. They were trying to say the same thing, but using a different language - there is common ground, for sure.

[Zinho73]

I think the Mass Effect series had a clear identity.  They had a solid Protag and didn't stray from their own lore.  The ending to ME3 sucked but that's the only major negative I can think of.  Although people did complain about how there was too much auto dialogue.

 

DA on the other hand is just all over the place.  The lore is changeable, the design of certain locations is changeable,  Qunari look different from DAO then DA2 now DAI.  Elves look different from across the three games, too.  They just can't decide what the heck they want of out this franchise.

 

In Mass Effect, the Asari looked the same, the Krogan, Turians et al.  So I can't blame all of BioWare. Just the Dragon Age team.

I agree. The fact that the series was consistent surely help to make the ending even more out of place.

 

And I do think that the ending of DA2 was conceptually even worse.

[BansheeOwnage]

It seemed to almost aim to satisfy the most vocal complainers.

I wish they would aim to satisfy the vocal complainers about hair and the Skyhold outfit. Those complaints are about as universal as you can get.

Yep, devs should take out bad stuff and leave in good stuff. The trick is knowing which is which.

The Tactics menu was a really odd thing to remove. People could always ignore it.

val royeaux will go down in history as one of the laziest attempts at city creation in history.

Nah. More likely, it won't go down in history at all.

[Zinho73]

There were a lot of very clever and very good changes on the mechanics side from DA:O to DA2. People obsess over the poor encounter design in DA2 (waves!) or the artstyle (hot rod samurai!) without every looking at the mechanical innovations over DA:O. Everything from the abilities, to the trees, to the unique type of spells and CC (e.g. force mage), to the cross-class-combo system, was quite mechanically clever. There were issues, which makes sense since we got DA2: the Alpha Release instead of a proper game, but it just frustrates me to see a lot of clever design fall by the wayside and not get a fair shake. 

Yeah, 

As I said, the core combat system was actually good and the changes (like them or not) had a reason to it.

But it was like wearing a tuxedo in the McDonald's - everything around was not quite at the same level.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I think the Mass Effect series had a clear identity.  They had a solid Protag and didn't stray from their own lore.  The ending to ME3 sucked but that's the only major negative I can think of.  Although people did complain about how there was too much auto dialogue.

 

DA on the other hand is just all over the place.  The lore is changeable, the design of certain locations is changeable,  Qunari look different from DAO then DA2 now DAI.  Elves look different from across the three games, too.  They just can't decide what the heck they want of out this franchise.

 

In Mass Effect, the Asari looked the same, the Krogan, Turians et al.  So I can't blame all of BioWare. Just the Dragon Age team.

 

This. 

 

For DA4, the devs should be doing these things :-  

 

1) Ask themselves what is DA is all about ? What does it stand for ? What are the elements that make DA to be DA ?

 

2) Improve consistency in art, character designs, gameplay and lore.

 

2) Bridge the gap between gameplay and lore, not widen it further.