173 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I found DA:O tactical even on normal.  With all of the utility spells that mages got in that game, it couldn't help but be tactical.  All the hexes and the curses were awesome, and it was a mistake to take them away from the mages. 

 

The only difference between difficulties in DA:I is how much damage the enemies take and dish out.  DA:I enemies are the sword and sorcery version of bullet sponges.  I also don't think I ever paused the combat outside of using potions.  There simply was never any reason to do so.

 

That's not what makes a game tactical. Those spells were pointless, because Fireball x3 was far more effective. A knockown effect, with a powerful AOE, and you're just batting clean-up on any mob after that one. Add in a paralyze spell, and you're done. The only challenge on nightmare came from the random spell resistance enemies got. 

[Abyss108]

None of the games have ever required any kind of tactics, all of them can be easily beaten on any difficulty with spamming.

[Akrabra]

Not at all. BGII was all about rock-paper-scissors magic. Well, either that or facerolling the game with a Kensai-Mage (well, that's not true either - this is a really tough combination to get right in terms of understanding the game, but still). DA:O's magic system is nothing like BGII's, and that's where all the action was really.

I didn't really mean gameplay though. I meant the way the story and game is structured reminds me the most of Baldurs Gate II, we were after all talking about how DA:O was meant to be a spiritual successor. 

[Wolven_Soul]

I always scout out the use of terrain. Maybe because I am use to playing board and video wargames where elevation can be key. I scout the area out finding where a hilltop will lead.

Path finding has been a problem in most if not all crpgs. It would not matter in this case because the enemy would have to find a way up sheer cliffs or find the way my party came up. The first way just opens them up to my mages and archers taking them out. The second way will have the mages and archers picking them off long before they reach the party.

 

So I make effective use of terrain.

 

The combat in DAO is just as basic. You really do not need hexes or curses for the mages. It may be more interesting for the player, but really not necessary in combat.

If the warriors are holding aggro with a group of enemies that outnumber the party it tells me the enemy AI is lacking. Many of the battles in DAO I simply parked my archers and mages in a certain spot and rarely had to move them. DA2 and DAI does not allow that luxury.

 

On the higher difficulties those hexes and curses were quite useful.  And again all I can say is that we must have been playing a different game as mages and archers were almost always the first to die for me if anyone at all in my party dies.  The enemies came for my squishies, and that was when those hexes and curses shined the most.

[sjsharp2011]

Different strokes for picky folks, I guess. I enjoyed all three games on their own merits.

Also, Alistair made you 'work for it'? If you're female and civil to him, he's totally infatuated from the start.

As do i but there you go I guess.

[Wolven_Soul]

That's not what makes a game tactical. Those spells were pointless, because Fireball x3 was far more effective. A knockown effect, with a powerful AOE, and you're just batting clean-up on any mob after that one. Add in a paralyze spell, and you're done. The only challenge on nightmare came from the random spell resistance enemies got. 

 

First of all, I will take the spell that can paralyze dang near every enemy on the battlefield over the fireball spell any day of the weak.  And for another, a spell that reduces the enemies resistance to fire before hitting them with the fireball spell in the first place makes it far more effective.  So yeah, not at all pointless.  I dominated battlefields far more effectively using the hexes and curses than I ever did throwing nothing but damage spells at them with my mage.

[animedreamer]

First of all, I will take the spell that can paralyze dang near every enemy on the battlefield over the fireball spell any day of the weak.  And for another, a spell that reduces the enemies resistance to fire before hitting them with the fireball spell in the first place makes it far more effective.  So yeah, not at all pointless.  I dominated battlefields far more effectively using the hexes and curses than I ever did throwing nothing but damage spells at them with my mage.

 

Now that I think about it, they could have made mages entirely like that, basically them being entirely support in that they use subtle spells to influence the battle making it easier for the warrior and rogues to sweep the enemy. like you said between hexes and curses, spell traps, wards, healing, buffs and the occasional direct damage spell. mages could have been so much better in DA:I. it seems like games these days are trying to put less effort into design a actual mage job and are simply throwing elemental spells on a archer  job and saying its a mage.

[In Exile]

First of all, I will take the spell that can paralyze dang near every enemy on the battlefield over the fireball spell any day of the weak.  And for another, a spell that reduces the enemies resistance to fire before hitting them with the fireball spell in the first place makes it far more effective.  So yeah, not at all pointless.  I dominated battlefields far more effectively using the hexes and curses than I ever did throwing nothing but damage spells at them with my mage.

 

No, completely pointless. A spell that reduces resistance to fire is pointless, because enemies aren't resistant to fire to begin with, and the time wasted in casting that spell just allows enemies to either close in or attack. The glyph, which doesn't have leap-up time to CCC, is inferior to fireball, because fireball has a knockdown effect anyway. You get damage and CCC rolled into one spell, which is what makes it so potent. 

 

DA:O works on pure damage. All utility spells do is draw out a fight that doesn't need to be drawn out. It's like using a rogue. 

[AlanC9]

I've seen this dynamic in some strategy games too. A lot of complicated build strategies, but it turns out that it's all noise. The difference is that your typical Paradox fan won't fool himself into thinking that you're, say building a historical force mix in HoI3 because it's an efficient strategy.

You don't see it on the RTS side too often, probably because there are too many iterations while balancing MP.

[HoneyBadger]

story telling and good party members like origin

combat like dragon age 2

only thing good from DAi was the size of the world

[Abyss108]

Hmm I thought the plot to Origins was pretty bad, and the gameplay for 2 was terrible. I'll take another Inquisition instead.

[HoneyBadger]

Hmm I thought the plot to Origins was pretty bad, and the gameplay for 2 was terrible. I'll take another Inquisition

 

Didnt you think that DAi was just really easy in terms of combat even on nightmare?

i like DAo combat better then DAi, then DA2 added in the animations and pulled it closer to being perfect.

DAi was a f**king joke.

[Abyss108]

Didnt you think that DAi was just really easy in terms of combat even on nightmare?

i like DAo combat better then DAi, then DA2 added in the animations and pulled it closer to being perfect.

DAi was a f**king joke.

 

Both games were ridiculously easy on nightmare. This isn't unique to Inquisition.

[Realmzmaster]

The most difficult points in Origins and DA2 came not from the enemy but your own people especially in DA2. DAO had friendly fire that changed with difficulty. DA2 only had one level of friendly fire and that was 100% on nightmare. The pary members were far more likely to take each other out especially if rogues got next to two-handers.  Even throwing certain spells in either Origins or DA2 got party members knocked unconscious. Inquisition suffers somewhat from the same condition.

 

The good point about Inquisition is that the wildlife (especially bears) attacks everyone equally which can be put to a party's advantage.

 

The combat in all the DA games even on nightmare is not that tasking.

[Wolven_Soul]

No, completely pointless. A spell that reduces resistance to fire is pointless, because enemies aren't resistant to fire to begin with, and the time wasted in casting that spell just allows enemies to either close in or attack. The glyph, which doesn't have leap-up time to CCC, is inferior to fireball, because fireball has a knockdown effect anyway. You get damage and CCC rolled into one spell, which is what makes it so potent. 

 

DA:O works on pure damage. All utility spells do is draw out a fight that doesn't need to be drawn out. It's like using a rogue. 

 

Again, disagree.  Even if they are not resistant to fire, decreasing it is still going to cause extra damage.  And on higher difficulties, it was so very helpful.  And that is but your opinion on the glyph spell, because they get up fairly quickly after getting knocked down by the fireball, freezing them with the glyph lasted longer.  And once you freeze them, you can then blast them with the fireball if you so choose, and then still pound on them for a couple seconds afterwards.  Also if you freeze them, you can get a greater concentration of enemies than if you just launch the thing in there and hope for the best.  And if your playing with friendly fire on, it's even more helpful.

[Wolven_Soul]

Hmm I thought the plot to Origins was pretty bad, and the gameplay for 2 was terrible. I'll take another Inquisition instead.

 

You mean the game where the plot was so full of flaws of logic?  Nah, no thanks.

[Wolven_Soul]

The most difficult points in Origins and DA2 came not from the enemy but your own people especially in DA2. DAO had friendly fire that changed with difficulty. DA2 only had one level of friendly fire and that was 100% on nightmare. The pary members were far more likely to take each other out especially if rogues got next to two-handers.  Even throwing certain spells in either Origins or DA2 got party members knocked unconscious. Inquisition suffers somewhat from the same condition.

 

The good point about Inquisition is that the wildlife (especially bears) attacks everyone equally which can be put to a party's advantage.

 

The combat in all the DA games even on nightmare is not that tasking.

 

I would say that there were just as many difficulties in DA:I with your companions.  As I have said before mages and archers tend to charge into melee range to use their spells and bows no matter how many times you try and tell them to hold their ground in a specific place.

[Abyss108]

You mean the game where the plot was so full of flaws of logic?  Nah, no thanks.

 Examples?

[Wolven_Soul]

 Examples?

 

Most of the examples admittedly fall around Corypheus himself.  The end of the game really bothered me.  The dude's immortality is tied to his dragon, but the idiot brings it to the final battle?  Granted a dragon is a pretty powerful thing, but by that point in the game, the players have shown their skills in dragon slaying.  But he brings it to the fight anyway.  And he doesn't even help the dragon when the players are killing the thing.  He just stands back and watches.  

 

I'm sorry, but if I am immortal and able to keep coming back no matter how many times I am killed, and that ability is tied to a living creature, I am not going to bring said creature to a fight involving one of the few people in the world that might be able to defeat me.  And if I am stupid enough to do it, I am gonna defend the thing while that person is wailing on it.

[Realmzmaster]

Most of the examples admittedly fall around Corypheus himself.  The end of the game really bothered me.  The dude's immortality is tied to his dragon, but the idiot brings it to the final battle?  Granted a dragon is a pretty powerful thing, but by that point in the game, the players have shown their skills in dragon slaying.  But he brings it to the fight anyway.  And he doesn't even help the dragon when the players are killing the thing.  He just stands back and watches.  

 

I'm sorry, but if I am immortal and able to keep coming back no matter how many times I am killed, and that ability is tied to a living creature, I am not going to bring said creature to a fight involving one of the few people in the world that might be able to defeat me.  And if I am stupid enough to do it, I am gonna defend the thing while that person is wailing on it.

 

The assumption being made is that the dragon does not have to be within proximity of Corypheus for the immortality to work. The immortality Corypheus has relies on a blighted creature to be nearby. There are no wardens at the final confrontation because they are no longer under his control. There are no darkspawn to jump into. Corypheus never commanded any darkspawn. 

 

The other point is that Corpheus power is divided between the dragon and Corypheus. At the final confrontation Corypheus has to fight on two fronts. His dragon must fight the guardian and Corypheus must fight the party. Corypheus may not have the power left to fight on two fronts therefore he must retreat to regain strength hoping the dragon can finish the party off. 

 

Also his arrogance and pride would not allow him to believe that the party could kill his dragon no matter how many dragons the Inquisitor killed. You are trying to apply logic to a creature that is trying to obtain Godhood. Pride and arrogance have long blinded people to logical thinking. If Corypheus was thinking logically he would have gone into hiding, but that would mean admitting defeat from someone he considers his lesser.

 

Corypheus after all was once a mortal man with all the failings that represents.

[animedreamer]

Maybe if we started a Kickstarter we could get them to make a Origins like game in feel with Inquisition style graphics.

[Realmzmaster]

Maybe if we started a Kickstarter we could get them to make a Origins like game in feel with Inquisition style graphics.

 

First off, EA owns the brand and unless the Kickstarter raises enough money to cover a AAA budget it will not happen. The budget for most triple A games tops $30 million easily with some approaching 60 million.

[In Exile]

Again, disagree. Even if they are not resistant to fire, decreasing it is still going to cause extra damage. And on higher difficulties, it was so very helpful. And that is but your opinion on the glyph spell, because they get up fairly quickly after getting knocked down by the fireball, freezing them with the glyph lasted longer. And once you freeze them, you can then blast them with the fireball if you so choose, and then still pound on them for a couple seconds afterwards. Also if you freeze them, you can get a greater concentration of enemies than if you just launch the thing in there and hope for the best. And if your playing with friendly fire on, it's even more helpful.

Enemies are already clustered enough for an AOE fireball. Remember we have 3 potential mages each with the same spell - the sole source of difficulty in vanilla is that you can't respec. 3 fireballs will cover the field of any enemy because they don't spawn in big numbers. Then you can just DPS with spells the ever loving hell out of them. You don't ever need to turn it into an endurance contest. They dont get up after a fireball because they have so lite health concentrated fire kills them before they can stand. A glyph is useful for enemies immune to knockdown (think Ogre) but that's as far as CCC goes because without resistances enemies die too fast to make utility spells useful.

Utility spells are weak because they draw out fights. DAO enemies don't have enough health to make that a worthwhile approach. This is also the mistake people make on nightmare in DA2. Enemies don't actually have that much health if you use cross class combos right - the old stagger and chain lightning combo was aces at obliterating crowds before it was nerfed. Burst arrow from Varric and upgraded Winters Grasp had the same effect.

Friendly fire is incredibly easy to manage in both DAO and DA2. The fault for players is that they use taunt. Taunt is useless - it forces enemies to cluster around you and makes combat a chaotic mess.

What you need are chokepoints. Choke points trivialize combat in DAO and DA2. I've smoked DA2 ON nightmare with no tank (3 mages, Varric) just by using choke points effectively. The real value for warriors in DA2 was their mana regeneration abilities.

[MrCrabby]

Since all the talented people have long ago abandoned this company, and EA is allergic to hardcore RPGs a Dragon Age Origins type sequel will never happen. Inquisition was originally a multiplayer only game if that doesn't tell you how detached Bioware is from it's few remaining fans.

[Shechinah]

Since all the talented people have long ago abandoned this company, and EA is allergic to hardcore RPGs a Dragon Age Origins type sequel will never happen. Inquisition was originally a multiplayer only game if that doesn't tell you how detached Bioware is from it's few remaining fans.

 

The bias enumeration on your account aside, you are referring to this, yes?

 

"It was a Dragon Age game, multiplayer only, that was in development before Dragon Age II came out. That became the core of what became Dragon Age Inquisition, the techlines, more than any of the development so we've actually been looking at this for a time." - Mark Darrah

 

As far as I can tell, it seems to have been a Dragon Age game in development but not necessarily the Dragon Age game that was intended to be the sequel to Dragon Age II though that may be because I missed a quote that confirmed or denied it. 

 

From what I know, Dragon Age II was intended to have an expansion pack akin to Awakening but it fell through due to, I think, the poor reception and sales of Dragon Age II which was why plot elements from the expansion pack were merged with the plot elements of what became the sequel's story.

 

Basically, I think Inquisition was intended to be a multiplayer game but not the sequel, perhaps it had a connection to expansion pack's story as I think I heard something about the expansion pack's story supposedly involving Hawke being chased by the forces of the Divine but that may been fan speculation. After the cancellation of the expansion pack, Inquisition was changed to be the sequel game and so it gained a singleplayer component while retaining a multiplayer component. That's what I think might have happened.