170 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolven_Soul]

Limitations are pretty arbitrary, but I find I can fit a number of abilities into 8 slots that fit every scenario. It requires planning and considerate builds, but it's definitely doable.

 

Restricting a player's abilities is a completely valid design choice meant to encourage thought when building your character. Whether or not you enjoy working within those parameters is really up the player, but Inquisition isn't the first rpg to do this and it definitely won't be the last. 

 

 

 

No, it is not a valid design choice for encouraging thought in building characters.  In fact, I put more thought into my builds in both previous games than I did in Inquisition, games that did not have these limitations.  Mostly because both previous games had more variety in skill choice, but also because I knew that I would have access to every ability I would have, so I made certain to choose abilities that I knew I would use.  In Inquisition, once I had all the abilities that I knew I would most likely have in my eight slots for the rest of the game I started throwing my skills points pretty much where ever.  Because I knew at that point it didn't really matter.

[Wolven_Soul]

For me, there's a huge disconnect between the combat of Origins (which was gaudy, slow, and frustrating) and the skill trees and available options (which were amazingly varied) and the access to the radial menu spells (which was in both Origins and DA2 and thus just a Dragon Age thing in general). I can't even go back and play Origins any longer because the slow combat eats away at my patience. But at the same time, being faster-paced in DA2 wasn't much of an improvement - especially with the ridiculous "enemies dropping out of thin air" mechanic it had going on during battles.

 

I like the way battle works in general in DAI. It's the lack of options with spells and the small ability limit that irks me.

 

But then, I play on casual because I'm not a fan of difficult combat and prefer the adventure and story of RPGs (odd, I know, considering I love both Mass Effect and Fallout as well; but I do play those on low difficulty so there's that). I don't appreciate having added difficulty shoehorned on top of me when it goes against what the previous games offered and makes absolutely zero sense in lore. I honestly would even be happy if it became a custom difficulty modifier of some kind. No clue if they could actually do that to DAI, though, as it would require totally reworking the radial menu to include spells and such. But for any future game/s, giving us the option of whether to be forced into that added difficulty which makes certain classes and builds less entertaining and fun would be much appreciated.

 

Personally I liked the slower combat a lot better.  It was far more tactical, far more strategic.  The faster combat looks flashy and exciting at first, but there is just not as much depth in Inquisition's combat.  DA2 had the best tactics system though.    

[actionhero112]

No, it is not a valid design choice for encouraging thought in building characters.  In fact, I put more thought into my builds in both previous games than I did in Inquisition, games that did not have these limitations.  Mostly because both previous games had more variety in skill choice, but also because I knew that I would have access to every ability I would have, so I made certain to choose abilities that I knew I would use.  In Inquisition, once I had all the abilities that I knew I would most likely have in my eight slots for the rest of the game I started throwing my skills points pretty much where ever.  Because I knew at that point it didn't really matter.

 

I used to play a lot of competitive pokemon (you can laugh) and in that game you can only have 4 moves per monster. Each individual monster has the possibility of learning dozens of moves. So maybe I see the situation differently than you do because I played around the mechanic in more games.

[Wolven_Soul]

You may have fun playing an absolutely awful combat system, but that doesn't mean it's good or better than Inquisition's. 

 

The most effective dps classes in origins didn't use abilties at all and just auto'd everything to death with dual striking. 

 

Or how about Archers, whose abilities were functionally useless and was only usuable if you had the RtO dlc, even then the class didn't work with haste, the best team buff in the game. It was also more effective to just auto attack and use arrow of slaying once per fight than to actually use abilities constantly.

 

Or maybe the 2h warrior, which all you did was spam sunder arms and sunder armor over and over. Which were functionally just faster auto attacks. 

 

I'm sorry but it was awful. 

 

That's your opinion.  I liked it a lot, I thought it was great.  I certainly did a lot more with my 2h warrior than sunder arms and armor.  The mages were absolutely fantastic.  And I liked the dual wielding rogue as well.  I will agree with you on the archers in Origins though, they were basically useless.  But that was because of the way that they were designed rather than the combat itself.  

[Wolven_Soul]

While I certainly don't think Inquisition has a, "good" combat system. It's certainly better than Origins or II. 

 

Origins didn't have anything like Wall of Ice and the fuctionality that provides. It had nothing like Pull of the Abyss, Grappling Chain, Fade Step or Hook and Tackle. These strategic abilities and spells make Inqusition a far better combat system than it's predecessors. Force mage had something similar to Rift Magein DA2, but that only one specialization, the rest was just fire and forget spells or fire and forget buffs. None of it had any strategic element to it whatsoever. Inquisition has much more ways to re-position your mage around the battlefield, create defensive barriers and create zones of power (abilities like Static Cage) that Origins and 2 simply lacked. 

 

Old CRPG's are largely as bad as Origins. Buff stacking and heal spamming does not make a game more strategic. They are not good combat systems. 

 

As for the availability of mods to fix Origin's combat, doesn't that speak for itself on how bad it was?  They also largely didn't fix the fact that no abilities in the Warrior or Rogue trees really had any depth to them, and they were just fancy auto attacks with maybe a cc ability or aoe attached to them. And that's not inducing tactical variety. 

 

I would trade every single ability that you mentioned for my hexes and curses back, as well as sustainables.  Those were far more strategic than anything that Inquisition had to offer.

[Wolven_Soul]

I used to play a lot of competitive pokemon (you can laugh) and in that game you can only have 4 moves per monster. Each individual monster has the possibility of learning dozens of moves. So maybe I see the situation differently than you do because I played around the mechanic in more games.

 

Not gonna laugh, people like what they like.  But the fact is, they are extremely different games, can't really compare them.  It makes more sense in a competitive game than it does in a single player RPG.  Though even there I think there would be more strategy in having access to most if not all of your abilities.  Makes it more of a chess match rather than picking your abilities and hoping that they match up against your opponent's well.

 

Also, I played with the mechanics A LOT, in both Origins and DA2, because they were much more complex, much more diverse than Inquisition's overly simplified approach.  Didn't really feel a need to play with the mechanics in Inquisition because it just didn't feel like it mattered.

[actionhero112]

That's your opinion.  I liked it a lot, I thought it was great.  I certainly did a lot more with my 2h warrior than sunder arms and armor.  The mages were absolutely fantastic.  And I liked the dual wielding rogue as well.  I will agree with you on the archers in Origins though, they were basically useless.  But that was because of the way that they were designed rather than the combat itself.  

You had the possibility of 5 abilities in Dragon Age Origins.

 

 You had Sunder Arms, Sunder Armor, Pommel Strike and Two Handed Sweep and Mighty Blow.

 

Even if you took a specialization, it would only be 8 usable actives you could actually ever use in the game. 

You never actually used more than 8 active abilities in origins to begin with on the 2h warrior  basically. 

 

As for rogues, you actually use less abilities than the warrior, because it's all about auto attacking to backstab. So maybe you'll throw out a Mark of Death, Dirty fighting, or Riposte, but you'll mainly be auto attacking.  In fact, in 2 of the specializations for origins, you don't actually get any actives at all. At most you'll be using 5 abilities as a rogue in origins, probably less. 

 

What I tell my friends about Origins is that it slaps you in the face and tells you to play a mage. Because that's the only class with any depth to it at all. 

[Alley Cat]

Personally I liked the slower combat a lot better.  It was far more tactical, far more strategic.  The faster combat looks flashy and exciting at first, but there is just not as much depth in Inquisition's combat.  DA2 had the best tactics system though.    

 

Incidentally, I actually don't like over-the-top flashy animation. For magic, it works (except when you've got blood mages pouring out enough blood to fill a dragon with every single spell and not dropping dead). For rogues and warriors, it just breaks the entire feeling because magic is supposed to be oh so taboo but I've got rogues turning invisible and warriors drawing up earthquakes with their sword strikes, etc.

 

It's honestly just the speed of it that turns me away from Origins' combat now, and I mean the speed of the animations more than I mean how long it takes to defeat enemies. I abused Haste so much even in my first playthrough, and that was before I'd had a taste of faster-paced combat in DA2. When I tried to make it through as anything other than a mage, I always ended up stopping not that far into the game; it felt far too sluggish. Especially with early-game warriors swinging their weapons.

[10K]

What is this I hear about archers in Origins being useless. They were as awesome in Origins as they were in DA2, and I'm speaking of just the vanilla game. If you spec them right in both DA2 and Origins their basic attack could render 1000-2000 pts of damage every attack and this is without stealth or any other damage modifiers. My warden and Leliana was a force to be recon with and this would be on nightmare difficulty. I found Inquisition to be the only game in the series were I couldn't do this because I couldn't allocate skill points.

Personally DA2 was my favorite combat wise. It was faster and more fluent than Origins, and it offered more options and has better AI than Inquisition. I feel the only thing Inquisition did great combat wise is add the tactical cam to console version of the game.

[Morroian]

While I certainly don't think Inquisition has a, "good" combat system. It's certainly better than Origins or II. 

 

Origins didn't have anything like Wall of Ice and the fuctionality that provides. It had nothing like Pull of the Abyss, Grappling Chain, Fade Step or Hook and Tackle. These strategic abilities and spells make Inqusition a far better combat system than it's predecessors. Force mage had something similar to Rift Magein DA2, but that only one specialization, the rest was just fire and forget spells or fire and forget buffs. 

 

DA2 had more tactical variety in terms of controlling the battlefield than DAI. Yes DAI has more mobility to aid in repositioning but for the rest of it DA2 is significantly better especially in terms of providing a greater variety of tactical options.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's a few abilities (and combinations of abilities) from DAI I'd want to Frankenstein into it, but for the most part my ideal DA combat is DAO combat.

I like the access to all the abilities, but I also vastly prefer the speed of DAO's combat. And the spell combos.

[Bowie Hawkins]

A fact is that almost everyone can select more than eight Active slots, but one can use only eight per battle. This is not an opinion.

 

No, the fact is that you get a total of 8 active slots, and no more. The fact that you can change was is assigned to those slots between fights does not in any way change the fact of those being the only 8 slots that you have.

 

No, it is not a valid design choice for encouraging thought in building characters.  In fact, I put more thought into my builds in both previous games than I did in Inquisition, games that did not have these limitations.  Mostly because both previous games had more variety in skill choice, but also because I knew that I would have access to every ability I would have, so I made certain to choose abilities that I knew I would use.  In Inquisition, once I had all the abilities that I knew I would most likely have in my eight slots for the rest of the game I started throwing my skills points pretty much where ever.  Because I knew at that point it didn't really matter.

 

Origins having spells like Spirit Clash that were practically useless against non-Mages, but devastating against enemy casters was one of the things I loved and miss most about it. 

[Elhanan]

No, the fact is that you get a total of 8 active slots, and no more. The fact that you can change was is assigned to those slots between fights does not in any way change the fact of those being the only 8 slots that you have.
 
 
Origins having spells like Spirit Clash that were practically useless against non-Mages, but devastating against enemy casters was one of the things I loved and miss most about it.

And it is a fact that Players may choose to take fewer than eight Active selections, and place more emphasis on the Passives. While more slots may be preferential does not equate this gameplay to being boring, which is only an opinion.

[ottffsse]

Ithink that in the last patch, special enemy abilities on walking softly, and new unique items have greatly improved the game, there are great options for completwly different builds and playstyles now. Here is a more unusual way to play a mage for instance as a "striker" from flank and stealth rather than be either a stationary aoe nuker or the frontline arcane warrior/ ke.

Modifié par ottffsse, 17 septembre 2015 - 11:29 .

[Dai Grepher]

I play a mage as my main and I don't find it boring. It's a little tough when you have few spells, but once you level up a few times it's fine. I think the mage is the more challenging class to play as, that's all. The tactics system is not detailed, so you kind of have to micromanage them. There is a lot of pausing. The reason is because mage spells are often crucial to a battle's success.

 

But overall, I don't see what's boring about it. You can switch to other characters in your party if you want variety. The only boring part about any of it is the repetitiveness of the random encounters. But you have that in most RPGs.

[Bowie Hawkins]

And it is a fact that Players may choose to take fewer than eight Active selections, and place more emphasis on the Passives. 

 

That doesn't change the fact that having a limit of 8 slots is a worse design choice than allowing use of all abilities.

[Elhanan]

That doesn't change the fact that having a limit of 8 slots is a worse design choice than allowing use of all abilities.

That is also subjective. While I might agree, having fewer selections does not equate to a worse design.

And having eight selections of spells(possibly all offensive) does seem to be better than only having four for those of the other classes. Mages still have more versatility overall.

[Bowie Hawkins]

That is also subjective. While I might agree, having fewer selections does not equate to a worse design.

And having eight selections of spells(possibly all offensive) does seem to be better than only having four for those of the other classes. Mages still have more versatility overall.

 

Other classes being impacted even more heavily than mages by a bad design choice doesn't make it not be a bad design choice; to the contrary, it gives the fact that the design choice was bad even stronger emphasis.

[Elhanan]

Other classes being impacted even more heavily than mages by a bad design choice doesn't make it not be a bad design choice; to the contrary, it gives the fact that the design choice was bad even stronger emphasis.

Not for myself and many others. While I would prefer more Quickslots than eight, more does not mean better. When I played SWTOR, I had five quickbars on the HUD, yet preferred to hide two of them. And I also prefer DAO and DA2 to TOR.

And I would rather have eight Active slots than to also include Passives and misc abilities on twelve.

[Bowie Hawkins]

Not for myself and many others. While I would prefer more Quickslots than eight, more does not mean better.

 

I wasn't arguing that the number of quickslots is what made it a bad design choice. I was (and still am) arguing that imposing a limit on which skills can be used by using quickslots is a worse design choice than allowing access to all skills via the radial menu was.

[Elhanan]

I wasn't arguing that the number of quickslots is what made it a bad design choice. I was (and still am) arguing that imposing a limit on which skills can be used by using quickslots is a worse design choice than allowing access to all skills via the radial menu was.

And while I may agree does not define the current mechanic as a bad or 'boring' (Thread title) selection. It may or may not be as optimal as it had been previously, but that still does not mean this system is poor.

P.S. Do not recall ever using the Radial system myself, except for NWN.

[Forsythia77]

I really only miss mana clash.  I used to mana clash the hell out of other mages.  It was glorious because it was almost always an instant kill. If a Hakkonite mage can one shot kill me I want mana clash back.  *shakes fist at sky*  The rest, well, I got used to it.  The majority of my pts have been with mages.

[Bowie Hawkins]

And while I may agree does not define the current mechanic as a bad or 'boring' (Thread title) selection. It may or may not be as optimal as it had been previously, but that still does not mean this system is poor.

 

It imposes a completely unnecessary limit on available choices; therefore it is a case of bad design.

[Elhanan]

It imposes a completely unnecessary limit on available choices; therefore it is a case of bad design.

No, it represents a design that some do not prefer, which by itself is not bad. Opinions including my own do not make it factual.

[Bowie Hawkins]

No, it represents a design that some do not prefer, which by itself is not bad. Opinions including my own do not make it factual.

 

What need was there to limit the number of skills that could be used during combat?