Dragon Age: Inquistion

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

I think its silly in a good way. No one needs more cowled wizards with mystic runes all over, looking like they couldn't find better garments than someone's curtains.

 

Really walking around with a cowl and a long robe there'd be more dead wizards due to tripping and hitting their heads on the pavement or being blindsided by donkey carts than due to enemy action.

 

 

How about mages wear armor?

 

No silly dresses, no cowl and no silly hats. Just plate mail and chain mail.

 

 

 There is no reason a mage shouldn't be able to wear armor all they do is babble and wave their arms around and chain mail isn't exactly a straitjacket. Clerics wear what they please and they're another type of mage. Everything is a contrivance for the sake of "balance".

 

I think, since the game isn't really about specialized class roles all that much they could have just made the system classless with skill trees so you could just pick and choose. Want a mage that can wear armor and cast spells? Buy it. Want a rogue that can fight like a champ? Buy it. Problem solved. It always made more sense anyway. 

[Drowsy Emperor]

^ I don't know if I qualify as an average gamer in the sense you mean, but I know that indeed, failed backstabs were some of the most frustrating occurrences in the IE games (until I discovered they had found a way to enable facestabbing for the player, anyway). I don't know, that and the extremely user-unfriendly way traps were implemented made me feel that somebody in the design team had a beef with thieves. After a few tweaks I found especially thief hybrids to be pure awesomeness, but I think the skills a rogue brings to the table are systematically underplayed, when compared to a P&P environment.

 

Yes it took a lot of work to position the rogue and then they missed more often than not and ended up as a stain on the carpet.

[Oner]

I don't know, my shortbow thieves in the IE games were always effective. Granted, no backstabbing that way, but the corpses still piled up.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Bows were more effective in the game than melee due to the AD&D rules/implementation, can't remember which. Especially in BG 1 where you could kill most things by outfitting the whole party with ranged weapons.

[Hassat Hunter]

It's obvious.

 

You pick mage, dye your armor pink, get 2 (3?) female NPC's as "ho's" and then offer them as 'romance option' to every NPC you come across.

 

The way DA:I mages are meant to be played. Romance for all!

It's going to be the best RPG ever...

[HoonDing]

Bows were great all the way to ToB endgame, especially with archer kit and/or Mazzy with Gesen's bow around.

[marelooke]

 

I want that outfit for a rogue, so I can roleplay as a Swashbuckler Errol Flynn-type, instead of that atrocious-tacky-cartoonish-looking one that looks like it was ported over from DA2's silly armor design department, currently showcased on their site.

One of their problems is their approach to rogues isn't what most people associate with rogues. The classes are Warrior, Also Warrior, and Mage.

 

Haven't looked closely at DA:I's classes yet but often I feel that there is: tanks, healers (luckily one can often get away without a dedicate healer role), ranged dps, melee dps, just like in MMOs.

 

Whether said ranged dps is a mage or a warrior specialized in archery makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things as aside from "flavour" they often play pretty much the same in combat. On top of that they usually give every melee class insane distance closing abilities such that being melee (rather than ranged) becomes rather irrelevant (eg. DA2's rogue/thief/whateveritwascalled) since getting around the battlefield is so easy that zero thought is required about positioning and the like (it's why I swapped my mage for a rogue in DA2, sturdier, same amount of damage and didn't run into LoS issues due to being on the edge of the battlefield).

 

I especially dislike specialized tank/healer roles (the addition of such to DA:O is one of the things I dislike most about that game, especially since you already have such a small party of which one will pretty much have to be a tank, iow Alistair or Shale (or the PC)).

The idea of a "tank" that "taunts" enemies (always wondered how you'd taunt something undead, "Hey you, zombie dude! Yer mom!") but does about zero damage is a (mostly) MMO mechanic that's been bleeding through to single player games.

 

It might've been an overly simplistic mechanic, but in that respect I preferred the IE games' "first come first get punched" attitude to encounters, especially combined with the enemies going for whoever hurt them the most, resulting in the player not being able to go bananas with their wizards unless they wanted to get more attention of $ENEMY than was healthy.

 

EDIT: a quick look at the (horrendously slow loading) DA:I website tells me that the holy MMO trinity will be present again, just like in DA2.

Edited April 28, 2014 by marelooke

[NOK222]

I just noticed Bioware finally got on the "Bows have strings" bandwagon. 

 

Bout' time

[Orogun01]

It's obvious.

 

You pick mage, dye your armor pink, get 2 (3?) female NPC's as "ho's" and then offer them as 'romance option' to every NPC you come across.

 

The way DA:I mages are meant to be played. Romance for all!

It's going to be the best RPG ever...

Now all I need is a Kat Williams voicepack to roleplay A pimp named Slickback.

[Meshugger]

 

The idea of a "tank" that "taunts" enemies (always wondered how you'd taunt something undead, "Hey you, zombie dude! Yer mom!") but does about zero damage is a (mostly) MMO mechanic that's been bleeding through to single player games.

 

 

"Yo, Zombie-bro! Looky here! BRAAAAAAAINS!!!"

[Enoch]

 

I especially dislike specialized tank/healer roles (the addition of such to DA:O is one of the things I dislike most about that game, especially since you already have such a small party of which one will pretty much have to be a tank, iow Alistair or Shale (or the PC)).

The idea of a "tank" that "taunts" enemies (always wondered how you'd taunt something undead, "Hey you, zombie dude! Yer mom!") but does about zero damage is a (mostly) MMO mechanic that's been bleeding through to single player games.

 

It might've been an overly simplistic mechanic, but in that respect I preferred the IE games' "first come first get punched" attitude to encounters, especially combined with the enemies going for whoever hurt them the most, resulting in the player not being able to go bananas with their wizards unless they wanted to get more attention of $ENEMY than was healthy.

 

 

Agreed.  I couldn't get over the idea that the big lunk in front of the party was essentially exercising a limited type of mind control over every enemy we faced, regardless of their intelligence and training, their leadership and discipline, or their ability to comprehend human speech.

 

I couldn't help but imagine how much more interesting and fun the game would be if tactical positioning were a more realistically effective way to manage which party members faced the brunt of enemy attacks.  Of course, such an approach would've forced everybody to play the game the way I played it-- zoomed all the way out in the overhead tactical view and pausing every 4 seconds on average. 

[TheChris92]

It's obvious.

 

You pick mage, dye your armor pink, 

Lol, I remember when I heard about that option in ME2. So INOVATIVE and HEAVY CUSTOMIZABLE!

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

I especially dislike specialized tank/healer roles (the addition of such to DA:O is one of the things I dislike most about that game, especially since you already have such a small party of which one will pretty much have to be a tank, iow Alistair or Shale (or the PC)).

The idea of a "tank" that "taunts" enemies (always wondered how you'd taunt something undead, "Hey you, zombie dude! Yer mom!") but does about zero damage is a (mostly) MMO mechanic that's been bleeding through to single player games.

 

It might've been an overly simplistic mechanic, but in that respect I preferred the IE games' "first come first get punched" attitude to encounters, especially combined with the enemies going for whoever hurt them the most, resulting in the player not being able to go bananas with their wizards unless they wanted to get more attention of $ENEMY than was healthy.

 

 

Agreed.  I couldn't get over the idea that the big lunk in front of the party was essentially exercising a limited type of mind control over every enemy we faced, regardless of their intelligence and training, their leadership and discipline, or their ability to comprehend human speech.

 

I couldn't help but imagine how much more interesting and fun the game would be if tactical positioning were a more realistically effective way to manage which party members faced the brunt of enemy attacks.  Of course, such an approach would've forced everybody to play the game the way I played it-- zoomed all the way out in the overhead tactical view and pausing every 4 seconds on average. 

 

 

You play like a Man, and I approve of this post.

[Enoch]

 

 

 

I especially dislike specialized tank/healer roles (the addition of such to DA:O is one of the things I dislike most about that game, especially since you already have such a small party of which one will pretty much have to be a tank, iow Alistair or Shale (or the PC)).

The idea of a "tank" that "taunts" enemies (always wondered how you'd taunt something undead, "Hey you, zombie dude! Yer mom!") but does about zero damage is a (mostly) MMO mechanic that's been bleeding through to single player games.

 

It might've been an overly simplistic mechanic, but in that respect I preferred the IE games' "first come first get punched" attitude to encounters, especially combined with the enemies going for whoever hurt them the most, resulting in the player not being able to go bananas with their wizards unless they wanted to get more attention of $ENEMY than was healthy.

 

 

Agreed.  I couldn't get over the idea that the big lunk in front of the party was essentially exercising a limited type of mind control over every enemy we faced, regardless of their intelligence and training, their leadership and discipline, or their ability to comprehend human speech.

 

I couldn't help but imagine how much more interesting and fun the game would be if tactical positioning were a more realistically effective way to manage which party members faced the brunt of enemy attacks.  Of course, such an approach would've forced everybody to play the game the way I played it-- zoomed all the way out in the overhead tactical view and pausing every 4 seconds on average. 

 

 

You play like a Man, and I approve of this post.

 

 

To continue my rambling, I am now vividly reminded how especially infuriating I found all this, because the game clearly had the potential to be the kind of tactical combat experience I really wanted. 

 

The whole "tactics" system could easily be set up to do things like "Form a line of battle" or "Have these 2 characters guard each others' backs."  Flank attacks would be made extra dangerous for everybody-- not just Rogues-- in my Dream-DAO.  (Rogues would still have advantages in getting into and out of Flanking position.)  In place of threat-based mechanics, Fighter types would get abilities limiting opponent battlefield movement, pushing opponents around, and projecting defensive bonuses to other nearby characters.  

[Azure79]

I guess a few things I don't want to see in combat are:

 

Enemies running past my strategically placed warrior without facing any consequence or somehow running past even though the warrior is placed at a chokepoint like a door or narrow hallway. Have party positioning actually mean something.

 

HP Bloat in humanoid enemies. I expect dragons and demons to take a beating, but not regular humanoid enemies. They should have roughly the same HP as your party. 

 

Enemies and your party should have access to the same combat skills. This was my main gripe with DA2, even more than the parachuting enemies and reused areas. I hated that enemies seemed to have one set of skills and your party another. 

[Monte Carlo]

Enoch, marry me.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[Orogun01]

Enoch, marry me.

This post is still relevant in a DA thread.

[kirottu]

So even Monte falls to the deathly trap of romance.

[tajerio]

 

 

 

I especially dislike specialized tank/healer roles (the addition of such to DA:O is one of the things I dislike most about that game, especially since you already have such a small party of which one will pretty much have to be a tank, iow Alistair or Shale (or the PC)).

The idea of a "tank" that "taunts" enemies (always wondered how you'd taunt something undead, "Hey you, zombie dude! Yer mom!") but does about zero damage is a (mostly) MMO mechanic that's been bleeding through to single player games.

 

It might've been an overly simplistic mechanic, but in that respect I preferred the IE games' "first come first get punched" attitude to encounters, especially combined with the enemies going for whoever hurt them the most, resulting in the player not being able to go bananas with their wizards unless they wanted to get more attention of $ENEMY than was healthy.

 

 

Agreed.  I couldn't get over the idea that the big lunk in front of the party was essentially exercising a limited type of mind control over every enemy we faced, regardless of their intelligence and training, their leadership and discipline, or their ability to comprehend human speech.

 

I couldn't help but imagine how much more interesting and fun the game would be if tactical positioning were a more realistically effective way to manage which party members faced the brunt of enemy attacks.  Of course, such an approach would've forced everybody to play the game the way I played it-- zoomed all the way out in the overhead tactical view and pausing every 4 seconds on average. 

 

 

You play like a Man, and I approve of this post.

 

 

Hey now, Monte, my girlfriend played the exact same way.  Can't have you being gender exclusive in a BioWare game thread.

[Azure79]

I like Enoch's idea. 

 

I've always wanted to play a story driven single player RPG where your party is composed of eight individuals and they travel with you throughout the entire game. Combat would consist of having different party formations for different combat encounters and half the challenge would be getting to the enemy lines before combat even starts. 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Actually being weaned on the Myth series I rather like tactical positioning. Selecting formations was half the fun of that game. The other half was watching the enemy butchered as he charged my three deep line of braveheart berserkers, while dwarves lob explosive beer everywhere and gibs fly in all directions and the narrator, in a gleeful voice exclaims: Casualties!  

 

bwaahahahha.

 

Now that was a manly man's teenage fantasy game!

Edited April 28, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[213374U]

 

 

 

 

I especially dislike specialized tank/healer roles (the addition of such to DA:O is one of the things I dislike most about that game, especially since you already have such a small party of which one will pretty much have to be a tank, iow Alistair or Shale (or the PC)).

The idea of a "tank" that "taunts" enemies (always wondered how you'd taunt something undead, "Hey you, zombie dude! Yer mom!") but does about zero damage is a (mostly) MMO mechanic that's been bleeding through to single player games.

 

It might've been an overly simplistic mechanic, but in that respect I preferred the IE games' "first come first get punched" attitude to encounters, especially combined with the enemies going for whoever hurt them the most, resulting in the player not being able to go bananas with their wizards unless they wanted to get more attention of $ENEMY than was healthy.

 

 

Agreed.  I couldn't get over the idea that the big lunk in front of the party was essentially exercising a limited type of mind control over every enemy we faced, regardless of their intelligence and training, their leadership and discipline, or their ability to comprehend human speech.

 

I couldn't help but imagine how much more interesting and fun the game would be if tactical positioning were a more realistically effective way to manage which party members faced the brunt of enemy attacks.  Of course, such an approach would've forced everybody to play the game the way I played it-- zoomed all the way out in the overhead tactical view and pausing every 4 seconds on average. 

 

 

You play like a Man, and I approve of this post.

 

 

To continue my rambling, I am now vividly reminded how especially infuriating I found all this, because the game clearly had the potential to be the kind of tactical combat experience I really wanted. 

 

The whole "tactics" system could easily be set up to do things like "Form a line of battle" or "Have these 2 characters guard each others' backs."  Flank attacks would be made extra dangerous for everybody-- not just Rogues-- in my Dream-DAO.  (Rogues would still have advantages in getting into and out of Flanking position.)  In place of threat-based mechanics, Fighter types would get abilities limiting opponent battlefield movement, pushing opponents around, and projecting defensive bonuses to other nearby characters.  

 

 

Ideally combat would play like this, if anyone bothered to build an AI that took positioning, roles, equipment and specific vulnerabilities into account while forcing enemies to act in character ("hmm... if I try to break the line to get to that wizard, I can *maybe* get one shot in before they cut me down. Sounds good, let's do it!"). I have yet to see one "tactical" game that does this and frankly I don't think it's easy at all: if you are familiar with SCS, you know that the mod follows this design—to accomplish it some AI scripts that govern complex enemy behavior are several thousand lines long, whereas the original BW AI was a few hundred lines at best. And due to engine limitations, it still cannot very well take stuff like formations and LOS into account.

 

It's kinda sad because graphics have evolved incredibly in the last decade, but we're stuck with, at best, the same barebones AI.

[Bryy]

 

It's obvious.

 

You pick mage, dye your armor pink, 

Lol, I remember when I heard about that option in ME2. So INOVATIVE and HEAVY CUSTOMIZABLE!

 

To be fair, the armor customization in ME2 was really, really great.

[Drowsy Emperor]

In ME 2 you could customize everything apart from the important things. They were either blue or red and it didn't matter which pill you picked cos you weren't going to wonderland anyway.

[Gromnir]

 

 

I especially dislike specialized tank/healer roles (the addition of such to DA:O is one of the things I dislike most about that game, especially since you already have such a small party of which one will pretty much have to be a tank, iow Alistair or Shale (or the PC)).

The idea of a "tank" that "taunts" enemies (always wondered how you'd taunt something undead, "Hey you, zombie dude! Yer mom!") but does about zero damage is a (mostly) MMO mechanic that's been bleeding through to single player games.

 

It might've been an overly simplistic mechanic, but in that respect I preferred the IE games' "first come first get punched" attitude to encounters, especially combined with the enemies going for whoever hurt them the most, resulting in the player not being able to go bananas with their wizards unless they wanted to get more attention of $ENEMY than was healthy.

 

 

Agreed.  I couldn't get over the idea that the big lunk in front of the party was essentially exercising a limited type of mind control over every enemy we faced, regardless of their intelligence and training, their leadership and discipline, or their ability to comprehend human speech.

 

I couldn't help but imagine how much more interesting and fun the game would be if tactical positioning were a more realistically effective way to manage which party members faced the brunt of enemy attacks.  Of course, such an approach would've forced everybody to play the game the way I played it-- zoomed all the way out in the overhead tactical view and pausing every 4 seconds on average. 

 

am suspecting that what ruined squad-based tactical combat, were something ridiculous simple-- nomenclature. d&d 3e, originally, didn't have to contend with mmo vocabulary, so when you looks at a game like toee, there ain't no specific tank abilities or some kinda distinction 'tween a barbarian as dps or a paladin as tank. you scout ahead with your sneaky character and see a giant mob o' bugbears in a room, so what does you do? plant your most heavily armoured guy in the doorway and then lob a fireball into the room? is one way to do it. and perhaps your barbarian would actual be the guy playing as your door. when bugbears try to get past your door to reach your spellcasters, you gots folks with reach weapons or ranged turning the goblinoids into kibble. is other tactics that would work... and if enemy has spell casters too, then you has need o' changing your tactics. all this were possible in a pre-mmo world. the thing is, once tank/dps/heal distinctions became the norm, developers were able to use abilities to substitute for crafting complex tactical scenarios to challenge players. is much more difficult to come up with complex geography or scenarios in a game than it is to tweak ai a bit and add waves of mobs to challenge a party. mmo nomenclature made design easier for developers 'cause it added a layer o' tactical complexity, but it did so in a way that was much more simple to add into games than were considerations that, particularly w/o a meaningful z-axis, were technically demanding.  

 

am thinking that if mmo nomenclature hadn't become popular, developers wouldn't have been so quick to use it as a crutch. mighta happened anyway, but am doubting the change woulda been so stark and ugly.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 28, 2014 by Gromnir