Dragon Age III: Inquisition

[synaesthetic]

If it's more of DAO's Infinity Engine 1998-era combat, then yeah, I'll just have to pass. If I want retro style, I've got loads of old games to play.

[ArchmageXin]

Turn-based combat has its place--in Civ/MOO-style strategy games where you're controlling way, way, way too many variables to possibly manage in real-time. For everything else, there's real-time visceral gritty combat.

There is a game called Chess, which is over 1000 years old. People still play it, and guess what, IT IS TURN BASED

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

There is a game called Chess, which is over 1000 years old. People still play it, and guess what, IT IS TURN BASED

Technological limitations.

[Dirty_Harry]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

If it's more of DAO's Infinity Engine 1998-era combat, then yeah, I'll just have to pass. If I want retro style, I've got loads of old games to play.

So you think party tactical and strategical combat is currently possible in real time?

[synaesthetic]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said I'd rather have to actually get better at the game--know when to block, when to attack, how to aim spells, how to dodge--rather than let dice rolls decide all of these for me.

The skill aspect is what makes gaming fun for me, but when everything is a statistic and every event is determined by the Random Number God, it's not quite so skill-based, now is it?

[Dirty_Harry]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said I'd rather have to actually get better at the game--know when to block, when to attack, how to aim spells, how to dodge--rather than let dice rolls decide all of these for me.

The skill aspect is what makes gaming fun for me, but when everything is a statistic and every event is determined by the Random Number God, it's not quite so skill-based, now is it?

Tactical planning can't be considered a skill? Not a physical skill sure, but a mental skill.

But I agree that the real-time combat is more fun and engaging. But I think there is still room for turn-based combat in some rpgs.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Technological limitations.

But, but where is the 3D dodging high speed combat chess that replace the current?

Right, a game don't need to have 3D graphics, riveting combat to make it work. Look at world of Warcraft. There is still an Dice and combat game~~

[synaesthetic]

World of Warcraft's combat is not a good example. It's the most boring crap I've ever endured in my entire life. Stand still, roll face on keyboard repeatedly until your Recount numbers go up. When DBM tells you to move, you move. It requires zero thought and less than zero skill.

[killer3000ad]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said I'd rather have to actually get better at the game--know when to block, when to attack, how to aim spells, how to dodge--rather than let dice rolls decide all of these for me.

The skill aspect is what makes gaming fun for me, but when everything is a statistic and every event is determined by the Random Number God, it's not quite so skill-based, now is it?

Your description of "know when to block, when to attack, how to aim spells, how to dodge" sound more like The Witcher or Dark/Demon Souls sort of game. DA was meant to be the spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale RPGs of the 1990s and early 2000s which were isometric party-based games where you manage your peoples' skillset and exercise tactical control of their positioning.

If you went into Dragon Age expecting Dark Souls sort of combat, I think you probably needed to have watched some gameplay videos first. The two systems are totally different, one geared towards party-based combat and the other for solo-type games with control over only one character. But I get what you are saying, you want more control and more reflexive and reactive combat from the game. It's not impossible to make this work in party system I admit but I personally found what Bioware attempted with DA2 to be atrocious, what with all the frigging waves and people dropping from the sky and ceiling.

[Eragon]

I, for one, do not want the DA:O combat system. It felt too disconnected. Right click on enemy and stare at screen -_- The character is too dependent on stats rather than on the player.

Plus, I don't think its reasonable to expect that a next-gen console game is going to employ a dull combat system like that

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Eragon

I, for one, do not want the DA:O combat system. It felt too disconnected. Right click on enemy and stare at screen -_- The character is too dependent on stats rather than on the player.

Plus, I don't think its reasonable to expect that a next-gen console game is going to employ a dull combat system like that

I think that kind of combat would be perfect on PC instead of console.

Honestly, they DA would have been better by just staying on pc.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Your description of "know when to block, when to attack, how to aim spells, how to dodge" sound more like The Witcher or Dark/Demon Souls sort of game. DA was meant to be the spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale RPGs of the 1990s and early 2000s which were isometric party-based games where you manage your peoples' skillset and exercise tactical control of their positioning.

If you went into Dragon Age expecting Dark Souls sort of combat, I think you probably needed to have watched some gameplay videos first. The two systems are totally different, one geared towards party-based combat and the other for solo-type games with control over only one character. But I get what you are saying, you want more control and more reflexive and reactive combat from the game. It's not impossible to make this work in party system I admit but I personally found what Bioware attempted with DA2 to be atrocious, what with all the frigging waves and people dropping from the sky and ceiling.

Oh I agree, DA2 was just bad. The combat was like a watered-down version of World of Warcraft's combat... stand still and watch cooldowns. DAO's combat was more engaging by far (though that's not really saying much).

Originally Posted by Eragon

I, for one, do not want the DA:O combat system. It felt too disconnected. Right click on enemy and stare at screen -_- The character is too dependent on stats rather than on the player.

Plus, I don't think its reasonable to expect that a next-gen console game is going to employ a dull combat system like that

Agreed.

[killer3000ad]

I get that the isometric top down party combat that DAO had was not everyone's cup of cake. I agree that to newcomers who didn't grow up with Baldur's Gate, it appeared very clunky and dependent on behind the scenes RNG. And I somewhat agree to a certain with that sentiment and I think there are combat systems that can do better and bring DA forward abit although a pure twitch combat system is undesirable to me. I personally think something like Dragon's Dogma would work well, too bad that game had a terrible writing that I barely grasped. I personally say if it had Bioware or Obsidian level of writing and party interaction it'd my favourite RPG.

[Eragon]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

I think that kind of combat would be perfect on PC instead of console.

Honestly, they DA would have been better by just staying on pc.

Well, console market is greener, I suppose.

And, honestly, the rate at which the graphics are being glorified in recent games, gaming on your PC is becoming that much more costly (at least for me). I only play games on my laptop because I live at my college dorms, so consoles are out of the question. Console gaming is cheaper, IMO

[synaesthetic]

Gaming on the PC has become cheaper than it ever was. Back in the mid to late 90s when dedicated GPUs started really hitting the market, being a PC gamer was horribly expensive. Now it's not so bad since consoles lead the high end of gaming.

[Eragon]

Well, the hardware requirements for games just keeps growing like a tornado. With consoles you don't have to worry about upgrading your hardware to play a game as long as it comes out for it. That's how I see it anyway.

[Waven]

I don't see how skill-based combat that relies on reaction, timing and precision could be integrated in 4-character group combat (except it being 4-player coop). The only way to pull that off would be to limit it to one playable character at a time which quite frankly would mean throwing away one of DA's core mechanic.

[Eragon]

Bioware managed to improve ME's combat system over the trilogy so, I have hope they will figure out a suitable compromise.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Eragon

Well, the hardware requirements for games just keeps growing like a tornado. With consoles you don't have to worry about upgrading your hardware to play a game as long as it comes out for it. That's how I see it anyway.

Wrong. You only need to keep upgrading if you want to play at the absolute best graphics settings. However, you can tweak the graphics to low, medium, high or even ultra in 99% of the games and guess what, a PC game looks ways better on medium or even low settings when compared to its console counter part.

You also spend more money per game on consoles. So all around, console gaming is way more expensive than PC gaming. For $600 I can built a decent gaming pc that will play anything you trow at it.

[synaesthetic]

I don't know what you mean by hardware requirements growing like a tornado. I built this PC almost two years ago and I can run basically anything at native resolution with all the bells and whistles turned on...

... except for shadows...

Damn it NVIDIA, fix your god damned shadows. I've had broken, jaggy, horribly pixelated shadows ever since I switched to the GTX 570. Every time a new driver comes out I hope they're going to get fixed and they don't.