247 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Ishtar]

I basically want RPGs to play like turn-based strategy games. To simulate that, I usually let the game run for less than 2 seconds between pauses. I never make decisions or give orders in real time. And I use the Tac Cam in every encounter.

I can't do it in DAI, and I admire you for being able to do it, seriously. I just can't feel/imagine myself doing it in most of the maps. In the few open plain areas I think I could, but issuing commands only to see characters struggle to move is way too much for me.

[Morroian]

No, roleplaying makes the game a roleplaying game. Deus Ex allows you to take on and shape the characters and personality of JC Denton, Alex Denton or Adam Jensen. 

 

But you don't shape their personality, you shape how they achieve objectives, their personality remains largely the same. Look I'm not criticising the games, I love them, they are amongst the greatest games ever. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't do it in DAI, and I admire you for being able to do it, seriously. I just can't feel/imagine myself doing it in most of the maps. In the few open plain areas I think I could, but issuing commands only to see characters struggle to move is way too much for me.

The pathfinding is dreadful, so I give short distance move orders.

This first became necessary during DA2:Legacy, and persists in DAI.

[Rawgrim]

Because it is hardly a combat system at all. When you can cast barrier and button mash past every enemy (if you really want to), it just isn't a well developed system.

[The Hierophant]

Why the team gutted out the tactics system, despite it being the only combat related feature that saw mechanical improvements, is beyond me.

[Elhanan]

Because it is hardly a combat system at all. When you can cast barrier and button mash past every enemy (if you really want to), it just isn't a well developed system.

Possibly, but have read the same thing about TW3. One may use the same repetitive series to get past almost every encounter. Or they can read the Bestiary, utilize some varied tactics, etc. This is on the Players; not the design team.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because it is hardly a combat system at all. When you can cast barrier and button mash past every enemy (if you really want to), it just isn't a well developed system.

I would disagree. As long as there are several other ways to approach combat, I don't see why having an overly simple one is bad.

I prefer more elaborate tactics, so I build charactrrs for that, and I play them appropriately.

[Hiigo]

Felt always like i was not in control of my group and ai behaved strangely (ranged running to frontlines) and game bugged more than occasionally (character stuck or did not move at all in combat). it was quite horrible. hoping they fix those kind of issues if they are going to use frostbite in future.

[kimgoold]

BRING BACK DAO, just upgrade the games graphics. It had by far the best combat and tactics of all three games, but I will admit I loved the speed of DA2's combat and that the mages actually fought and didn't just statically shoot at enemies. It just seems ridiculous that as a mage who has rigorously trained all their lives having eight spells - come on that is just stupid! Give me back the Radial Menu to access all the spells and talents you earned as your character.

[dsl08002]

First its the tactics , secondly it doesn't seem to run fluently, don't know how I else could describe it.

And by not having finishing moves it doesn't seems as exiting as it was in DAO

[Sylvius the Mad]

BRING BACK DAO, just upgrade the games graphics. It had by far the best combat and tactics of all three games

The Tactics system in DA2 was significantly more robust than in DAO, as it incorporated several advancements which were only available in DAO through modding.

But I'll agree that DAO had the best combat of the series, though I also prefer the speed of DAO's combat, and the behaviour of DAO's mages (I don't want my mages waving their staves around - I don't even want my mages using staves).

[Rawgrim]

Possibly, but have read the same thing about TW3. One may use the same repetitive series to get past almost every encounter. Or they can read the Bestiary, utilize some varied tactics, etc. This is on the Players; not the design team.

 

The Witcher isn't party based. And the developers of the game never claimed the game was to be very tactical. The DA:I devs said nothing but.

 

When you are limited to 8 abilities, and none of them except Barrier is needed, its not on the players. It is on the system. Some players, like you, could chose to pretend they are being tactical and use every ability, of course. But it really isn't nessecary to win any fight in the game.

[Rawgrim]

I would disagree. As long as there are several other ways to approach combat, I don't see why having an overly simple one is bad.

I prefer more elaborate tactics, so I build charactrrs for that, and I play them appropriately.

 

Just saying that if tactics aren't required at all, the system has something wrong with it. And it being overly simple is pretty bad when the devs claimed the game would require thinking and the use of tactics to beat.

[correctamundo]

Just saying that if tactics aren't required at all, the system has something wrong with it. And it being overly simple is pretty bad when the devs claimed the game would require thinking and the use of tactics to beat.

 

I am not sure what game in the series has really required thinking beyond what DAI requires you to.

[ApostleinTriumph]

8 ability slot limitation and absence of tactics. That's all for me.

 

The game is too console-like. Menus, tactics screen, being limited to 4x2 buttons because that's what the console peasants can afford to etc.

[Wulfram]

I really don't see why the 8 slot limit matters much. It's irrelevant for most of the game.

Even when it's relevant, I can't see you'd be using the extra abilities all that much.

[Lady Ishtar]

I really don't see why the 8 slot limit matters much. It's irrelevant for most of the game.

Even when it's relevant, I can't see you'd be using the extra abilities all that much.

Maybe you don't know good games... but probably it is the fact that you are right, because this game sux so much you barely need more than autoattack with some builds.
But a lot more people like playing in an interesting way, or in DAI case, pretending game needs you to do something interesting. In this case of insanity where we pretend a game is somehow interesting we wish we could have more abilities to create interesting battle scenarios. But again, ultimately you are right, it is all pointless.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Just saying that if tactics aren't required at all, the system has something wrong with it. And it being overly simple is pretty bad when the devs claimed the game would require thinking and the use of tactics to beat.

You have a point there. Inquisition is probably the easiest game BioWare has ever made.

[Elhanan]

The Witcher isn't party based. And the developers of the game never claimed the game was to be very tactical. The DA:I devs said nothing but.
 
When you are limited to 8 abilities, and none of them except Barrier is needed, its not on the players. It is on the system. Some players, like you, could chose to pretend they are being tactical and use every ability, of course. But it really isn't nessecary to win any fight in the game.

At least those eight slots do not need to include Passives, though I prefer more slots overall. And I try to use tactical gameplay instead of relying on exploits and button spamming like some others. And party or not, the need of Pause is rather crucial for me; even the basic Tactics system is generally quite capable of handling the party.

As for claims, right from the Official Site:

Witchers’ mutations endow them with incredible speed, reflexes and strength and enhance their senses, allowing them to see more, hear more, perceive more… With these augmented senses, Geralt can track a wyvern on the dark of night, follow the scent of weeks-old perfume and parry crossbow bolts whistling towards his back. Witcher’s Signs, another set of skills in Geralt’s repertoire, are powerful combat spells that take various forms, from protective barriers, through torrents of flame, to magic snares and more. Lastly there is Geralt’s wolf medallion, the symbol of his witcher school. This pendant hums to alert him of nearby magic and monsters -- invaluable help to a monster hunter. Most of these skills can be developed for additional effects and increased potency, making Geralt an even more fearsome fighter.

Now I do not fault them, as the World's Best Hamburger usually is not, and as I generally look into a game before purchase, I avoided the no Pause issues, but sales hype is extant.

If one does not vary their approach, it is on the Player.

[Elhanan]

Maybe you don't know good games... but probably it is the fact that you are right, because this game sux so much you barely need more than autoattack with some builds.
But a lot more people like playing in an interesting way, or in DAI case, pretending game needs you to do something interesting. In this case of insanity where we pretend a game is somehow interesting we wish we could have more abilities to create interesting battle scenarios. But again, ultimately you are right, it is all pointless.

Bias and prejudice are not evidence or proof; not even facts. GOTY 2014 is on the shelf.

[Lady Ishtar]

Bias and prejudice are not evidence or proof; not even facts. GOTY 2014 is on the shelf.

GOTY (or any prize, award or any acknowledgement at all for that matter, coming from anyone or any organization, including god almighty himself) is proof of what?

To know if something is or is not proof of anything first we must define what we are discussing, which we never did, so there is no telling if something is proof or not.
Do you have a degree or something like that?
A glass of frozen water is proof of a lot of things but is not related to another lot of things. Nothing is in itself proof of anything.

So GOTY proves what? That Inquisition was in 2014 the best game according to some people. What was analyzed? What was DAI compared to? And so on. Anyway none of the possible claims for which GOTY would be a fitting proof relate in any way to what I am discussing. So everytime you answer with GOTY you are but discussing with yourself. Because I would never discuss an overall, "generic", game quality, I have no interest in it. And I already explained it to you a thousand times. I know tranquils are not able to feel but it comes to me as a surprise that tranquils are unable to understand basic explanations.

You want to think about how great Inquisition is considering "game". Ok. Be happy.
I only discuss Inquisition related to how different (as in worse) it is compared to Dragon Age Origins (and other better RPGs).

Bias and prejudice are in fact the only evidences and proofs that concern one self. And unless you can show me an "ultimate observator" of the universe from which the point of view should be shared by all beings I call the very concept of fact the most stupid concept of mankind. The only thing that matters in the universe is what you think (I mean, for you), and what I think (for me), there is no other reality, there is nothing but one's own opinion. However in this matter I understand that tranquility probably damaged your ability to perceive the subjective reality since the fade builds the majority of one's perception of reality and you were cut from it by Bioware (which is cruel IMO, but I already had this debate with Owain and we just agreed to disagree). So I don't see it going anywhere from here, you believe fact means GOTY, I believe fact means "quality" would need to be defined by an absolute set of features that could be used to judge every and all games and with which everybody should agree given the absolute nature of this "judgement", which is far from truth since quality is as subjective as it gets, as is "quality"'s relevance to the matter of one's appreciation, so... in short... I can only see a tranquil bringing fact (I mean, as the meaning implies not as a figure of speech as I used) to a talk about preferences.

But again, if you really believe there is a "hard" fact in this story, should it not be measured by analyzing the game technically (which I am able to do) and not by saying "people like it thus it is amazing"?

[Zatche]

You have a point there. Inquisition is probably the easiest game BioWare has ever made.

I, personally, find DAO to be easiest of the DA games, though that's more a knock on DAI's pathfinding. And I found DA2 the easiest to learn.

Based on these forums, it seems this varies by player, meaning, the difficulty just doesn't scale very well across different types of players. Some players just want to pick abilities that seem cool or that make sense for their character and hack away. And they find that the game is either really hard or just long and tedious. Othe players craft really good gear, find synergy in the abilities they pick and the party they put together, and find the game is really easy.

[Elhanan]

GOTY seems to mean that the game does not suck, at least for those granting the award.

[ApostleinTriumph]

I really don't see why the 8 slot limit matters much. It's irrelevant for most of the game.

Even when it's relevant, I can't see you'd be using the extra abilities all that much.

 

Aegis of the Rift+A Focus Ability leaves you with 6 to play.

 

6 Slots are not enough for 2/3 trees worth of abilities. But that's what we have to put up with because of console mentality.

[Elhanan]

Aegis of the Rift+A Focus Ability leaves you with 6 to play.
 
6 Slots are not enough for 2/3 trees worth of abilities. But that's what we have to put up with because of console mentality.

For one combat. Then afterwards, they may be exchanged for two other desired abilities, and still have use of Passives and other abilities already placed on the Quickbar (eg; Mounts). I trade my Focus ability when drained for another useful choice.

While I prefer to have more slots myself, the current system is viable.