247 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Most encounters had me using maybe 2 active abilities per character.

[Wulfram]

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.

I don't have the DLC for Aegis of the Rift, so I can't really comment on that. Though I do think there's a good case for the PC getting an extra slot for their rift abilities.

7 slots (with one focus ability) is enough for pretty much any combat, I've found. Because DAI talents have relatively short cooldowns, and stamina/mana is relatively scarce (outside of specific builds like Rift Mage), I find the preferred strategy is to use a few optimal talents repeatedly, rather than to deploy your whole repertoire.

Admittedly, I don't tend to play that much at levels where this is relevant anyway. After all, you can kill Corypheus at Level 16, and currently I'm at level 13 and haven't filled up any of the party's bars.

I don't really think the shorter bar has much in the way of advantages, but its negative aspect also seems pretty minimal.

[correctamundo]

I don't really think the shorter bar has much in the way of advantages, but its negative aspect also seems pretty minimal.

 

Yes that pretty much sums it up. I wouldn't mind more than 8 slots but I don't really miss that overgrown thing from DAO.

[Paul E Dangerously]

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.

 

Please stop blaming the consoles. Bioware had a perfectly functional UI that allowed for more than eight abilities for DAO and DA2 on consoles.

 

I'm more inclined to point the finger at multiplayer, since so much of DAI was focused toward that.

[Wulfram]

I think the essential problem with DA:I is that it's trying to be both Dark Souls (or perhaps Guild Wars) and Chess.

The problem is that the two things mostly just get in the way of each other. Trying to play from a "Chess" perspective gets frustrating because (on higher difficulties at least) you need to drop down and play "Dark Souls" with your melee characters if they're to be effective. While trying to play from a "Dark Souls" perspective can get frustrating because you have to frequently switch over to other characters to bail them out from the AI's deficiencies.

The way I have found the most enjoyable to deal with this is essentially to play "Dark Souls" with a single tanky melee character, while backing them up with 3 ranged characters who the AI can generally play half decently at least as long as I do a decent job keeping the enemy's attention. But this still heavily limits my party options, and it doesn't really deliver on the promise that I could play the game as "Chess" as well as "Dark Souls".

I tend to feel that since Bioware is likely unwilling to drop the Action-RPG side and go for something that's focused on the tactical side, it might be better off embracing it fully and abandoning the tactical play. Dropping the full control of squadmates for something that's more a medieval Mass Effect, perhaps.

And then they could make a turn-based XCom style spin-off, just for me.

[Eelectrica]

Please stop blaming the consoles. Bioware had a perfectly functional UI that allowed for more than eight abilities for DAO and DA2 on consoles.

I'm more inclined to point the finger at multiplayer, since so much of DAI was focused toward that.

I noticed in the D:OS 2 kickstarter video they were playing the game using controllers with PC's hooked up to big screen TV's. More and more PC games will have controller support.
I'll probably look at the Steam controller myself when that comes available.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I think the essential problem with DA:I is that it's trying to be both Dark Souls (or perhaps Guild Wars) and Chess.The problem is that the two things mostly just get in the way of each other. Trying to play from a "Chess" perspective gets frustrating because (on higher difficulties at least) you need to drop down and play "Dark Souls" with your melee characters if they're to be effective. While trying to play from a "Dark Souls" perspective can get frustrating because you have to frequently switch over to other characters to bail them out from the AI's deficiencies.The way I have found the most enjoyable to deal with this is essentially to play "Dark Souls" with a single tanky melee character, while backing them up with 3 ranged characters who the AI can generally play half decently at least as long as I do a decent job keeping the enemy's attention. But this still heavily limits my party options, and it doesn't really deliver on the promise that I could play the game as "Chess" as well as "Dark Souls".I tend to feel that since Bioware is likely unwilling to drop the Action-RPG side and go for something that's focused on the tactical side, it might be better off embracing it fully and abandoning the tactical play. Dropping the full control of squadmates for something that's more a medieval Mass Effect, perhaps.And then they could make a turn-based XCom style spin-off, just for me.

I tend to agree with this. I think the biggest problem with DAI's combat is that the "Dark Souls Lite" combat does not mesh well with a party based system. Action combat is fine when you only have to control one character and can focus on dodging, parrying, and timing attacks, but unless your companion AI is really well programed, having companions that depend on that kind of system is likely to be an exercise in frustration. One need only look at how poorly Cole operates with his position dependent attacks when controlled by the AI to see the problem; an AI just isn't smart enough to react the way a human player would, and fails badly as a result. Pathing and line of sight for ranged attacks is another area where the AI falls over what should be a fairly basic functionality. To me, this seems indicative of a combat system that was devised primarily as one where each character is human controlled (multiplayer).

Older (and current) party based CRPGs have used things like turned based or RTwP to get around the problem of controlling multiple characters simultaneously, but DAIs systems are just not up to handling things like positioning in a 3D environment in real time, and their efforts towards providing RTwP are poorly implemented, awkward to use, and often faulty.

I agree that Bioware need to pick a direction and go with it. Either DA is still a RTwP CRPG or it's a Dark Souls Lite ARPG that plays in real time. If they are going to do the latter (as seems likely since it's the more console friendly option and consoles pretty much ensure we can't have nice things), then going the full Fantasy Mass Effect seems the most viable option. Let the player focus on playing his character, and have the companions require little to no babysitting.

Perhaps if we wish really hard, Bioware might throw us tactical fans a bone and make something like Dragon Age: Tactics in the old style. I know I'd buy it and play the hell out of it. I'm playing Shadowrun: Hong Kong right now and it rocks. Turn based combat ftw.

[Elhanan]

I would love to see more games use XCOM turn based combat; perhaps an option to halt the action at the start of each turn. But I prefer DAI combat over DA2, and the pacing of it over DAO; feels more natural.

[Reznore57]

I would love to see more games use XCOM turn based combat; perhaps an option to halt the action at the start of each turn. But I prefer DAI combat over DA2, and the pacing of it over DAO; feels more natural.

 

You have the Shadowrun games.

I'm not fond of this type of playstyle , I have little patience.

[Elhanan]

You have the Shadowrun games.
I'm not fond of this type of playstyle , I have little patience.

They are OK, but disliked the writing; not for me.

[thewatcheruatu]

7 slots (with one focus ability) is enough for pretty much any combat, I've found. Because DAI talents have relatively short cooldowns, and stamina/mana is relatively scarce (outside of specific builds like Rift Mage), I find the preferred strategy is to use a few optimal talents repeatedly, rather than to deploy your whole repertoire.

 

I don't know...if I've got a large repertoire, I want to be able to use it. All abilities have their specific functions, and sometimes one ability really does serve your desired purpose better than another. 

 

It's just disappointing because all of my characters at this point seem to have at least one, sometimes two, abilities that I just can't justify putting onto the quick slot bar. But without fail, when I'm in combat, I'm saying to myself, "Damn it! If only I had that ability on my quick slot bar right now!"

 

And that's with me taking as many passives and upgrades as possible--even ones I didn't care about at all--just because I tried to avoid training another ability I wouldn't get to use. I mean, there are abilities I would take in an instant if my quick slot bars weren't already full up. That makes me sad.

[Morroian]

I agree that Bioware need to pick a direction and go with it. Either DA is still a RTwP CRPG or it's a Dark Souls Lite ARPG that plays in real time. If they are going to do the latter (as seems likely since it's the more console friendly option and consoles pretty much ensure we can't have nice things), then going the full Fantasy Mass Effect seems the most viable option. Let the player focus on playing his character, and have the companions require little to no babysitting.

 

At this point IMHO they should bite the bullet and do this if they aren't or can't backtrack back to what DAO and DA2 were like. They really should have done it with DAI.

[Wolven_Soul]

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.

 

You try to button mash in TW3 and your dead, just plain and simply dead.  And reading the Bestiary so that you can utilize the tactics described within...that's a strength, a big strength.  Especially over DA:I where no tactics are required at all.

[Wolven_Soul]

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.

 

Okay, we really don't need PC elitist jerks.  Especially considering both DA:O and DA:2 had tactics and more than eight ability options on console versions.  So don't come in here blaming DA:I's combat problems on consoles.  It just makes you look like an idiot.

[Wolven_Soul]

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

 

Yeah and informed gamers know to ignore GOTY awards given out by traditional games media.  Because they are pretty much worthless.  I mentioned it somewhere before, I hope it wasn't this thread, but one year Game Informer gave Bioshock: Infinity shooter of the year, because of it's great story.  Despite the fact that the game's shooting mechanics were weak.  The next year, they gave the same award to Destiny, because of it's fantastic shooting mechanics, despite the fact that their story was more than weak, it was terrible.

 

So yeah, traditional games media awards mean jack crap to me.  I care more about what actual gamers say about the games, and why I do all my research on a game with Youtube videos.

[Elhanan]

You try to button mash in TW3 and your dead, just plain and simply dead.  And reading the Bestiary so that you can utilize the tactics described within...that's a strength, a big strength.  Especially over DA:I where no tactics are required at all.

Not button mash, but use of the same sequence repeatedly for most encounters.

And utilizing Bestiary is indeed a strength, which some forgo; hence the comparison to those that choose to skip it and utilize repeated moves.

Some seem to assume that I am down on TW3 for everything, and I have repeatedly denied it. Am against the lack of Pause and choice of excessive content.

[Elhanan]

Yeah and informed gamers know to ignore GOTY awards given out by traditional games media.  Because they are pretty much worthless.  I mentioned it somewhere before, I hope it wasn't this thread, but one year Game Informer gave Bioshock: Infinity shooter of the year, because of it's great story.  Despite the fact that the game's shooting mechanics were weak.  The next year, they gave the same award to Destiny, because of it's fantastic shooting mechanics, despite the fact that their story was more than weak, it was terrible.
 
So yeah, traditional games media awards mean jack crap to me.  I care more about what actual gamers say about the games, and why I do all my research on a game with Youtube videos.

Yet DAI received 100+ of them, as well as a major top award in the industry. TW3 could repeat it for 2015. It may mean nothing to some consumers, but appears to of worth to those in the industry itself.

[Wolven_Soul]

Not button mash, but use of the same sequence repeatedly for most encounters.

And utilizing Bestiary is indeed a strength, which some forgo; hence the comparison to those that choose to skip it and utilize repeated moves.

Some seem to assume that I am down on TW3 for everything, and I have repeatedly denied it. Am against the lack of Pause and choice of excessive content.

 

Fair enough.

[Wolven_Soul]

Yet DAI received 100+ of them, as well as a major top award in the industry. TW3 could repeat it for 2015. It may mean nothing to some consumers, but appears to of worth to those in the industry itself.

 

I have no doubt that TW3 will repeat that, but even that will mean squat to me.  I care about what gamers have to say about games.  Yes, traditional games media is made up of gamers, but they are in a lot of ways reliant upon the good will of the developers that they review.  That creates a bit of a tainted viewpoint.

[Elhanan]

I have no doubt that TW3 will repeat that, but even that will mean squat to me.  I care about what gamers have to say about games.  Yes, traditional games media is made up of gamers, but they are in a lot of ways reliant upon the good will of the developers that they review.  That creates a bit of a tainted viewpoint.

I agree with that. Do not use Awards to purchase games myself, though I do keep an eye out for GOTY editions for sales. Prefer to research and gain WoM reviews as much as possible; rarely pre-order either, except for a few Bioware titles and Skyrim thus far.

[House of Dexter]

I prefer DA:O combat system...It didn't have this Frankenstein mess of Tactical View and Combat View...The button mashing combat of an Action game...The loss of Click to Move and AutoCombat.  I still haven't finished this game...I think I'm 15th level...and not sure when I'll jump back in and give it another go...

[Elhanan]

I prefer DA:O combat system...It didn't have this Frankenstein mess of Tactical View and Combat View...The button mashing combat of an Action game...The loss of Click to Move and AutoCombat.  I still haven't finished this game...I think I'm 15th level...and not sure when I'll jump back in and give it another go...

I still enjoy DAO, but am not a fan of the speed of combat. 2H default swings were like being mired in syrup, and did not get much better until one selected Sunder abilities.

With DAI, the default Mage attacks are a bit fast - would rather have fewer attacks and less twirling, but higher damage - but are still the most immersive speeds of all the DA games, IMO.

[correctamundo]

You try to button mash in TW3 and your dead, just plain and simply dead.  And reading the Bestiary so that you can utilize the tactics described within...that's a strength, a big strength.  Especially over DA:I where no tactics are required at all.

 

Then I don't know what you mean by "button-mashing". Someone said that all that is needed in DAI is "barrier-spamming and button-mashing" - that to me that sounds exactly as what I do in TW3. And I am not plain and simply dead.

[Elhanan]

Then I don't know what you mean by "button-mashing". Someone said that all that is needed in DAI is "barrier-spamming and button-mashing" - that to me that sounds exactly as what I do in TW3. And I am not plain and simply dead.

Button mashing to me is Diablo click-fests; no tactical approach at all. Since one may apparently choose to do this if they desire in DAI, let them, but I hardly follow their example and dismiss their opinions. I prefer versatility and a more tactical approach to the game.

In TW3, reaction and reflexes may be needed; one seemingly cannot simply click their way through combat. However, it appears that one may adhere to the same series of actions for almost every opponent, so the similarity is extant.

[Darkly Tranquil]

At this point IMHO they should bite the bullet and do this if they aren't or can't backtrack back to what DAO and DA2 were like. They really should have done it with DAI.

DAI was a test run for dumbed down action combat that is neither tactical like its predecessors, nor punishingly difficult like Dark Souls. I expect they will go full retard in the next one, and that DA4 will have no Tac Cam, no tactics system, and minimal player control over companions other than gear load out. It will be DAI with even more awesome button.