157 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

I agree with you OP but combat style and nuance are things I can easily ignore if the story, roleplaying ability, choices, and sidequests are all top notch...sadly in my book they weren't. I didn't care about what happened to the inquisitor after I beat DA:I and I didn't care about or want DA4 either but then they made Trespasser and I want DA4 so badly and I only want to play the Inquisitor in it

[Dai Grepher]

Lmao what how is the combat to difficult?

 

His complaint is about the combat controls. He says it is too difficult to issue commands and change views of the battlefield.

[TraiHarder]

His complaint is about the combat controls. He says it is too difficult to issue commands and change views of the battlefield.

 

What's hard about it lol you select a companion select the ability or where they move to.

 

As for view its like any other game

[cJohnOne]

Since DA4 will be different than DAI I think you just need to try DA4 to see if you like it.  Besides I think Solas will be a great villian.

 

 

I sort of like the simplified tactics.  Worked fine for me.  

 

 

Although I don't like replaying DAI 'cause it is bit of a slog to get though.

[Wolven_Soul]

You only have to do very, very, very little side content to gain enough power to advance. The power requirements are so ridiculously low, that I can't fathom how anyone can find it too arduous a task to achieve those levels. 

 

Because any amount of this game's terrible side content is arduous.  

[Wolven_Soul]

That's only on normal.

 

No, it's not.  Played it on hard, did the same thing.  Can't imagine tactics are anymore necessary on Nightmare.  

[Wolven_Soul]

I had companions leave if they where pissed at me (along with a cinematic cutscene too) like in DAO, and companions even having slightly different dialog if they where upset with me with even certain scenes being locked out. Hell I even had the chance to punch Solas right in the face in his crisis scene or see Cass reduced to a drinker.

 

So explain to me how this approval system is "missing" stuff when it's far better then that horrible friend/rival system in DA2 and asystem can't be manipulated like DAOs.

 

The friend/rival system was not at all horrible in DA2.  In fact, I think it was the best system they have ever had.  If someone joins the Inquisition, that means that they want to help save the world.  They might not like the way that you do it sometimes, but I imagine that they want to see it done.  So leaving because they disagree with your decisions makes them seem petulant.  At least until the job is done.

 

The friend/rival system also made it so that I don't always feel like I have to try and please as many people as possible, and I could just pick the choices based on how I wanted to play my character, rather than trying to anger as few as possible.  And getting a different character bonus when you reach the end of either spectrum was nice as well.  

 

One other thing about Inquisition's approval system that sucked was that if they don't like you, then you don't get their personal quest.  Just because someone doesn't like you doesn't mean they can't ask for help.

[Wolven_Soul]

In my original playthrough, I hated these "fetch quests", because I was expecting the cinematic storytelling Dragon Age usually offers.

 

However, on my 2nd playthrough ( I currently have the entire Hinterlands, Fallow Mire, Storm Coast and The Western Approach cleared) I found myself IMMENSLY enjoying the "fetch quests". Why? Because the story is told in a different way, it is told mostly visually and via non-verbal writing(ala codex.).

 

Some stories in the world are sooo interesting once you start reading all of the texts. For example, In the Western Approach, you can find out all about a certain Venatori Mage's evil plan, and how he's responsible for almost all the sh*t that's going on there by reading all the texts. Every storyline falls into place and connects in one big plot. There's also a part where you capture a keep, and use the war table to gain a stronger foothold in the zone, and remove the obstacles standing in your way to catch this Venatori Mage. In the end you can capture him and judge him back in Skyhold. Too bad there's no classical verbal dialouge(with the regual Dragon Age camera) to tell these stories. Regardless, I thoroughly enjoy the world atm. You just need to get use to a different pace.

 

+ the combat and crafting are amazing and tons of fun to me. Not to mention the awe-inspiring main storyline, but that's to be expected from the Dragon Age games.

 

Immensely enjoying the fetch quests?  That's just insane to me.  Telling a story through almost nothing but the codex entries is a terrible way of telling a story.  There is a place for that kind of storytelling, and it's called books.  This is a video game, and in a video game a story should be experienced, not read about.  

 

Also, I have to disagree that the main story line is awe inspiring.  It is chock full of flaws in logic when you look at it closely.  

[MaaEnyo]

It's the year 2531. People are still whining because the latest DA game is not DAO. 

 

Jfc, get a grip, you're all a broken BORING record. Acknowledge that DA:I is not DAO or DA2 and doesn't have to be, and that not every player plays the game for the same reasons, or enjoys the exact same elements. I personally don't care for the 8 abilities limit, find it to be more challenging actually, and never cared much for tactics, not even in DAO, because that's not my main focus on these games. Simple as that.

There's always room for improvement, sure, with any game (including DAO, i found the guilds quests boring and unnecessary for my game, much like many think of DA:I's fetch quests), but getting your heads stuck up in the past is not what anyone would call improving. You guys always want everything right now, but it doesn't seem like the ones complaining so vehemently care for an objectively good game, just for what you think makes a good game. Complaining a game isn't how you want it to be, and then pretend your personal opinion is undeniable unquestionable fact, that's just hilarious.

I'm on console, the DAO tactics didn't work well for me in console as they later did on pc, for what little use i had for them anyway. Bioware is clearly trying different things, new things, things people might not like much or at all, but that's the joke, isn't it? In order to find what really works you have to try different options first. Whether some of you want to admit it or not, there is no one right way of making a DA game be a DA game. You know who decides what's a DA game? Bioware. You only get to decide if you like it or not. It's 2015, how about you get your arses back from 2009 for a change???

 

For OP, my advice is just keep playing the game, keep exploring and seeing if it works for you, and try to judge it as its own game and not "the DAO that wasn't" lest you want to reach your 70's still bitter DA:I isn't like DAO. Asking other players for opinions or guidance is fine, but letting others define your own thoughts on the matter is not something i'd recommend, ever. DA:I has its strengths and flaws, like any game. Keep playing and discover them yourself.

[ThePhoenixKing]

A couple weeks ago I hit upon the main reason why I am so disappointed in Dragon Age: Inquisition.  And that reason, is that in the end, it barely feels like a Dragon Age game.  

 

They changed a lot between DA:O and DA2, but they kept the main things that made Dragon Age feel like Dragon Age.  The awesome tactics, the darker tone, solid side missions.  

 

Yes Inquisition is set in the same world, same history, same cultures, but in some ways, it just doesn't feel like Dragon Age.  I am not even sure Bioware and EA know what Dragon Age is at this point.  All three games just feel so different.

 

And that's one of the central problems I see developing in the franchise, if not Bioware itself: it lacks confidence in what it is. Bethesda, CDPR, 343i, all of these developers know what kind of games they want to make, know what they want players to get out of the experience, and then they go ahead and do it. Inquisition was, by comparison, a frantic effort to emulate a much better game (in this case, Skyrim), while completely missing the point about what made it so great in the first place. It's like the Monkees of role-playing games; why bother with a cheap knock-off when you can have the real thing?

 

Now, I'll admit, while Trespasser didn't necessarily redeem the game, it certainly was a step in the right direction, and I hope it's a sign that Bioware can get back on track. But at the end of the day, between the thin main plot, the arbitrary characterizations, the often contrived conflicts and plot points, the hollow quest design, the unengaging combat, the lousy villains, and the general sense that Bioware was cutting corners whenever possible to make it, Inquisition just wasn't plain fun. (GOTY, my rear.) Unless DA4 really impresses me from the word "go", I'll probably end up skipping it.

 

Because any amount of this game's terrible side content is arduous.  

 

Exactly. One of the things that made Skyrim really work (and Inquisition failed to understand) was that there was always something engaging to do in the open world they had created. Doing the quest chains for the larger guild factions like the Companions, hunting down Daedric artefacts, resolving the civil war plot (which was excellently written, by the way), exploring Dwemer ruins, searching for Word Walls, even the homesteading they introduced in Hearthfire; there was always something to sink your teeth into. Inquisition, by comparison, feels far less than the sum of its parts.

 

I also reject this notion that doing less of the side stuff somehow validates Bioware's design choices. Games should not be "conditionally" good; you'd never accept a film reviewer saying that a movie is a Oscar-worthy masterpiece... so long as you only watch the fight scenes and ignore the majority of the film where the characters are standing around talking. If Bioware didn't think that a gameplay element or quest idea was meant to be experienced and enjoyed by the player, then why put it in to begin with?

 

Immensely enjoying the fetch quests?  That's just insane to me.  Telling a story through almost nothing but the codex entries is a terrible way of telling a story.  There is a place for that kind of storytelling, and it's called books.  This is a video game, and in a video game a story should be experienced, not read about.  

 

Also, I have to disagree that the main story line is awe inspiring.  It is chock full of flaws in logic when you look at it closely.  

 

I must agree with you here; "show, don't tell" was a major problem the game had, and one of the reasons why the War Table sucked immensely. In the end, the player should be having these adventures and learning the answers themselves, not experiencing them second-hand.

[Elhanan]

Trespasser was much like the Vanilla game, but was more focused on a single quest line; little side content. Both had cut-scenes for Companions and the Main Quest. And while I enjoy Skyrim, I much prefer the dungeons, ruins, etc to be jammed up against each other. If one followed the assigned quests, spacing was generally fine, but if one explored, it was easier to remain on foot.

Personally enjoy the exploration, and the terrain adding tactical applications for assaults. Also like the design of leaving much of the content for the indv Player to choose what to take/ skip. Player freedom is a key element, and avoids a linear path line throughout the game.

In Skyrim, many of the Journals and book entries are often better stories than the ones told by the NPC's. Much prefer the content be given this way than to render unnecessary cut-scenes after another for secondary content. Now while I skip most Codex entries myself, I still enjoy the notes and shorter missives granting more info to the Player.

I also accept the notion that it is on me if I skip such content, and the game would be more complete if everything was read by the Player. Cut-scenes and visuals are not required to be repeated to gather minor concepts such as closing rifts, returning items, and discussions with minor quest givers.

[Wolven_Soul]

And that's one of the central problems I see developing in the franchise, if not Bioware itself: it lacks confidence in what it is. Bethesda, CDPR, 343i, all of these developers know what kind of games they want to make, know what they want players to get out of the experience, and then they go ahead and do it. Inquisition was, by comparison, a frantic effort to emulate a much better game (in this case, Skyrim), while completely missing the point about what made it so great in the first place. It's like the Monkees of role-playing games; why bother with a cheap knock-off when you can have the real thing?

 

Now, I'll admit, while Trespasser didn't necessarily redeem the game, it certainly was a step in the right direction, and I hope it's a sign that Bioware can get back on track. But at the end of the day, between the thin main plot, the arbitrary characterizations, the often contrived conflicts and plot points, the hollow quest design, the unengaging combat, the lousy villains, and the general sense that Bioware was cutting corners whenever possible to make it, Inquisition just wasn't plain fun. (GOTY, my rear.) Unless DA4 really impresses me from the word "go", I'll probably end up skipping it.

 

 

Exactly. One of the things that made Skyrim really work (and Inquisition failed to understand) was that there was always something engaging to do in the open world they had created. Doing the quest chains for the larger guild factions like the Companions, hunting down Daedric artefacts, resolving the civil war plot (which was excellently written, by the way), exploring Dwemer ruins, searching for Word Walls, even the homesteading they introduced in Hearthfire; there was always something to sink your teeth into. Inquisition, by comparison, feels far less than the sum of its parts.

 

I also reject this notion that doing less of the side stuff somehow validates Bioware's design choices. Games should not be "conditionally" good; you'd never accept a film reviewer saying that a movie is a Oscar-worthy masterpiece... so long as you only watch the fight scenes and ignore the majority of the film where the characters are standing around talking. If Bioware didn't think that a gameplay element or quest idea was meant to be experienced and enjoyed by the player, then why put it in to begin with?

 

 

I must agree with you here; "show, don't tell" was a major problem the game had, and one of the reasons why the War Table sucked immensely. In the end, the player should be having these adventures and learning the answers themselves, not experiencing them second-hand.

 

I haven't played Trespasser yet, but I have heard a lot of good things about it, even from people who are critical of the game.  I don't much care for the fact that they left out a lot of the resolutions for characters, and for choices that you make, so that they could put it in a paid DLC, but like you I hope it is a step in the right direction, that they finally give this franchise the identity that it so desperately needs.

 

I also wish that we could move away from the whole, save the whole world plot for a game or two.  Not every story needs to be about saving the world.  I look at a game like Dishonored which was a simple revenge and save the princess story, yet it was solid and really good for what it was.  It's one of the few things I liked about DA2.  It was a rambling, incoherent story at times, but it was a more personal story.   

 

In Skyrim, the side content was actually a lot more fun than the main plot, and as you said, even outside of the quests, there was things to do and it felt like there was a good reason to explore the world.  Word walls, stumbling across the Daedric shrines, interesting ruins and the like.  Bethesda also gives you a lot more value for the price in their DLC.  Side content is almost as important as the main plot in an RPG.  Especially when it is open world.  

[Heimdall]

And that's one of the central problems I see developing in the franchise, if not Bioware itself: it lacks confidence in what it is. Bethesda, CDPR, 343i, all of these developers know what kind of games they want to make, know what they want players to get out of the experience, and then they go ahead and do it. Inquisition was, by comparison, a frantic effort to emulate a much better game (in this case, Skyrim), while completely missing the point about what made it so great in the first place. It's like the Monkees of role-playing games; why bother with a cheap knock-off when you can have the real thing?

 

Now, I'll admit, while Trespasser didn't necessarily redeem the game, it certainly was a step in the right direction, and I hope it's a sign that Bioware can get back on track. But at the end of the day, between the thin main plot, the arbitrary characterizations, the often contrived conflicts and plot points, the hollow quest design, the unengaging combat, the lousy villains, and the general sense that Bioware was cutting corners whenever possible to make it, Inquisition just wasn't plain fun. (GOTY, my rear.) Unless DA4 really impresses me from the word "go", I'll probably end up skipping it.

To be fair to Bioware, they had just come off of DA2 criticism, where its constant reuse of small environments was universally loathed.  There were actually people comparing it to Skyrim for this reason, if only to show the extreme disparity.  I don't think they can be blamed for trying to create something that captured what worked about Skyrim and didn't in DA2.  They didn't do it very well, obviously, but I wouldn't call it "a frantic effort to emulate a much better game".  Because they weren't trying to emulate Skyrim, they were trying to hybridize the fun of exploration that appealed to people in Skyrim and the narrative experience they're known for.

 

They failed utterly to balance the two and both suffered, but the idea wasn't a bad one.

[ArianaGBSA]

You hate the game yet u come on their website on the games thread you hate just to add nothing to a conversation? Please stfu

Well, they try but I keep creating new accounts so there will be a lot more from me in the next 4 years.

[Dai Grepher]

What's hard about it lol you select a companion select the ability or where they move to.

 

As for view its like any other game

 

The tactical view put you in a wall or in some character's butt crack unless you position it in certain ways so as it doesn't collide with anything. The "invisible fifth party member" is also a confusing replacement for edge scrolling.

 

I'm an expert gamer, and it even took me a while to get the hang of going into and out of the tactical view. My friend is in his late 40's. Imagine what it's like for older people like him. They don't want to have to master some new control system in order to play a game.

 

Also remember that the keybindings aren't the same as Origins. I set my key bindings before playing, and I still had a little trouble with it. I'm used to it now, but when I go back and play Origins that game just "feels" so much better to play. No, the view in Origins zooms way out and removes all obstructions blocking the camera. Inquisition does not.
 

[TraiHarder]

The tactical view out you in a wall or in some character's butt crack unless you position it in certain ways so as it doesn't collide with anything. The "invisible fifth party member" is also a confusing replacement for edge scrolling.

 

I'm an expert gamer, and it even took me a while to get the hang of going into and out of the tactical view. My friend is in his late 40's. Imagine what it's like for older people like him. They don't want to have to master some new control system in order to play a game.

 

Also remember that the keybindings aren't the same as Origins. I set my key bindings before playing, and I still had a little trouble with it. I'm used to it now, but when I go back and play Origins that game just "feels" so much better to play. No, the view in Origins zooms way out and removes all obstructions blocking the camera. Inquisition does not.
 

 

Lmao expert gamer oh my

 

Obviously not it wasn't a complex system in any sense just freaking move the camera till u get a good angle oh my so hard.
 

[Meredydd]

A couple weeks ago I hit upon the main reason why I am so disappointed in Dragon Age: Inquisition.  And that reason, is that in the end, it barely feels like a Dragon Age game.  

 

They changed a lot between DA:O and DA2, but they kept the main things that made Dragon Age feel like Dragon Age.  The awesome tactics, the darker tone, solid side missions.  

 

Yes Inquisition is set in the same world, same history, same cultures, but in some ways, it just doesn't feel like Dragon Age.  I am not even sure Bioware and EA know what Dragon Age is at this point.  All three games just feel so different.

^ This. One of the biggest problems with the Dragon Age franchise in general is it's lack of cohesion. Each game feels vastly different, with each one sporting a different tone, combat style (incl tactics), protagonist and always includes a time skip of a few years. Not that I have a problem with this, but I do believe a gaming franchise should be cohesive enough so that it remains recognizable to fans. Especially an RPG.

For example, my dad and I both played DA:Origins when it came out and we loved it. My dad never played DA2 but he did play Inquisition. When he played it, he could not believe that it and Origins were from the same series. They were so different from one another. He expected something like Origins but got something completely different. This is a problem. To solve it, Bioware needs to define what makes a Dragon Age game and stick to it. They can't keep fluctuating like they have been or they will loose long term fans. 

[AlanC9]

I also reject this notion that doing less of the side stuff somehow validates Bioware's design choices. Games should not be "conditionally" good; you'd never accept a film reviewer saying that a movie is a Oscar-worthy masterpiece... so long as you only watch the fight scenes and ignore the majority of the film where the characters are standing around talking. If Bioware didn't think that a gameplay element or quest idea was meant to be experienced and enjoyed by the player, then why put it in to begin with?

That's not a great metaphor. Watching only parts of a movie isn't really a thing, but only playing a portion of the content in an RPG definitely is. How many players don't ever "complete" a TES game? Hell, a large percentage don't even finish the main quest.

I don't see an effective difference between Skyrim and DAI in this regard. Both of them have tons of content that would bore me to tears if I forced myself to play through it. Since I don't, it's a nonissue.

[AlanC9]

I'm an expert gamer, and it even took me a while to get the hang of going into and out of the tactical view. My friend is in his late 40's. Imagine what it's like for older people like him. They don't want to have to master some new control system in order to play a game.

Huh? The older a gamer is, the more likely it is that he's played many different systems. DAI combat is built from stuff that I've seen before.

[Donk]

[kensaileo]

OP needs The Witcher 3

[correctamundo]

No, it's not.  Played it on hard, did the same thing.  Can't imagine tactics are anymore necessary on Nightmare.  

 

Maybe not for end-game when you have broken the game through farming, duping, overleveling and crafting. The early game however. I would like to see you prove your "no tactics needed" stance against the pride demon, preferably with a warrior on nightmare. With friendly fire on.

[correctamundo]

The tactical view out you in a wall or in some character's butt crack unless you position it in certain ways so as it doesn't collide with anything. The "invisible fifth party member" is also a confusing replacement for edge scrolling.

 

I'm an expert gamer, and it even took me a while to get the hang of going into and out of the tactical view. My friend is in his late 40's. Imagine what it's like for older people like him. They don't want to have to master some new control system in order to play a game.
 

 

Oh really? Us poor demented older guys in the late 40s. Well we do seem to be able to adapt and have far more plasticity in our neural circuitry than you expert gamers. From my point of view anyway. And sure you can get used to edgescrolling as well but it is no less confusing than controlling the camera with the keyboard.

[Elhanan]

The tactical view out you in a wall or in some character's butt crack unless you position it in certain ways so as it doesn't collide with anything. The "invisible fifth party member" is also a confusing replacement for edge scrolling.
 
I'm an expert gamer, and it even took me a while to get the hang of going into and out of the tactical view. My friend is in his late 40's. Imagine what it's like for older people like him. They don't want to have to master some new control system in order to play a game.
 
Also remember that the keybindings aren't the same as Origins. I set my key bindings before playing, and I still had a little trouble with it. I'm used to it now, but when I go back and play Origins that game just "feels" so much better to play. No, the view in Origins zooms way out and removes all obstructions blocking the camera. Inquisition does not.

And I am not an expert gamer, am 58, have neuropathy in my limbs, have had a stroke, and yet have had little trouble using the controls. They are better than those in Skyrim and the ME series, and on par with those used in SWTOR.

And I also re-mapped the keys before starting play; recommended.

[Bhryaen]

Someone should write a Player's Guide to Making the Most of Your DAI Experience- with respect, of course, to the fact that everyone enjoys different aspects of a game differently. DAI is very different gameplay-wise from DAO/DA2. The only thing that remains decisively consistent is the fun of companion interactions and the deepening of lore. Everything else continues to get entire overhauls or scrapped and reintroduced. Not necessarily a complaint, but definitely something to be prepared for...

 

OP, like others I had the same exact experience of frustration with the combat. I don't think I had a lot of things down particularly well until... I almost don't want to say... about 100hrs into it. My biggest suggestions at this point:

 

1. Learn crafting. In the early game found armor and weapons are usually nowhere near as good as what you can make. I'm near the end of the game now and still find that to be true. Once you get a good range of mats (metal, leather, and cloth materials) you'll be able to make just the kind of gear that offsets your combat preferences.

 

2. Set your AI Tactics/ Targetting Behaviors to Follow and Controlled Character. I don't know if those are the "best," per se, but that's what ultimately has gotten the characters to behave (more) properly. I had the same problem of ranged characters running into melee range of melee opponents, but now mages and archers usually maintain their distance (unless the enemy goes behind an obstacle in which case they'll auto-run up to right at the obstacle which, yes, is in melee range of the target). They'll still sometimes be wonky, but usually their AI is sufficient, sometimes quite good, and I don't bother possessing other characters than my own in DAI, unlike in DAO.

 

3. Do proceed as soon as you can to Val Royeaux and then the next main story, as swordfishtrombone was suggesting. At least in order to open content that doesn't open until later and get new companions (and the content that comes with them). I did what you're doing: explored all of the Hinterlands, explored everything prior to main missions. It did help me learn the game mechanics, so I can't say it was bad, but if you're feeling a bit dry on content, don't look for it in the large areas. The side quests are rarely rewarding to play in terms of immersion in DAI: they have very little NPC interaction and a lot of repetitive combat.

 

4. Make the most of the masterwork slot. You haven't gotten there yet- will take doing #3. When you do you'll be able to make use of Fade-Touched materials. These add a lot to your crafting and thus the survivability of your group. Keep in mind that they're relatively rare, however. To get enough of what you want you typically have to farm areas or get a mod. Since I refuse to farm next game, I'm getting the mod.

 

5. Establish a routine of talking to companions after every main story mission. In the beginning it's not always eventful, but the devs put a lot of content there, particularly as the main story progresses. Quests open and you also simply get fun interactions. That and the scenery are what are keeping me endeared to the game.

 

6. When you meet all the companions, you might want to pick ones who you recognize are going to be friendly to the sort of decisions you're going to make and stick with those, saving others for a different kind of playthrough. I thought I had the right team at first, but then the decisions I was going with kept resulting in "Greatly Disapproves" so I reloaded, got a different team, and we've been together mostly since then. Learn who your strongest allies are going to be and make that playthrough get you all their content in the various different areas and situations. The approval system remains a bit... debatable... in the "logic" of the reactions you get, just as in DAO. So just prepare to act accordingly.

 

7. For starting out pick a ranged class. Mage sounds good, though I haven't tried it for an extensive period yet. The simplest class IMO is archer- so that's what I've been running. It keeps you from melee range and doesn't really have a lot of class skills to master. It may even be worth starting over as one if you like archers. I tried a number of classes, just kept failing until making my archer. Eventually you'll see how the AI is running your melee companions and get a feel for how to use skills effectively.

 

8. Make your tank (Cassandra at first) use Warcry and Challenge whenever possible to keep nasties off your ranged folks. I agree with many that the Tactics are miserably limited in DAI (again swordfishtrombone was correct: they should have had advanced tactics available for players that want them), but you can at least set your characters to not use things or to prefer some things over others. I've been having Warcry and Challenge on preferred since I learned about it, and it helps removing aggo quite a lot. Also make sure you send your tank in first. Ranged enemies will single you out if you have the party attack as one because your ranged attacks will ****** them off before your tank is even in their view. I'd make other suggestions regarding skills and tactics, but it's a lot to sum up quickly.

 

9. Go Casual. I never went casual in DAO, didn't even enjoy less than Nightmare in DAO after my first playthrough (on Hard), but I'm enjoying DAI much better on casual despite becoming one of those who, yes, can now play just fine on Nightmare. I was doing Nightmare for the middle 1/3 of the game and just got tired of it. I suggest it only for getting used to things: once you're more adept you may like combat more, and you'll certainly need potions less. Mind you, healing potions are free at camps, and you will be able to upgrade them so that they go further. Try Regenerations potions as well to reduce the need to use the Healing Potions, but you may not even need those at some point. One of the primary ways DAI makes enemies harder is simply giving them a lot more health, so the repetitive fights can start to wear on you. The limitations on quickslots are a pain. I don't want to argue with those who consider them a lovely challenge, but for sure going Casual makes that limitation less a burden. Having to change spells for each occasion- or more often needing to change them and not being able to because combat has begun- can be a bit of a drag. Meanwhile instead of posting a thread like this go to the Combat, Tactics, Gameplay section and look through the many combat threads where there are quite a lot of great discussions on which skills do what and work best.

 

10. Get used to the game's limitations, enjoy its strengths. This will be a matter of opinion entirely, but I'd say don't look for combat to be as fun as just enjoying the crazy critters you find and the environments they're in. Many basic functions are laborious to use, "Hold Position" isn't reliable, and often your companions won't be able to follow you past some terrain (until you've gone some distance past it). If you want the most out of DAI, enjoy the great scenery while you're there (the graphics artists are very talented) and get into the companion interactions, main story, and- to a lesser degree- War Room missions- where the bulk of the content in the game is. The tavern music is also wonderful to just stand around listening to if you like music. Oh, and for War Room missions, do Command-key out of the game to advance your computer's time/date forward (then back). Waiting on those missions often becomes akin to simply sitting in a waiting room when I have nothing else to do in-game- a chore I've never endured in a game before. I was doing it the hard way longer than I should have been.

 

11. Use Tactical Cam with tongue firmly in cheek. You can't look up hills, you can't "jump" your view over a rock or numerous terrains, it will often unpause if you switch to a different character to give orders, if you're safely on a rock and switch to Tactical Cam you could very well be auto-teleported off the rock because the TC's cursor doesn't work there. It works often enough and sufficiently, but be prepared for it not to.

 

12. Do take what I've suggested with a grain of salt. Posters after me certainly will.