Dragon Age III: Inquisition

[Vexx]

Yeah, if anything I kept feeling like I was having a Pools of Radiance (original DOS version) flashback to turn-based stuff. (waaaaay back, Sherman)

[DragoonKain3]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

ACTUAL REAL TIME COMBAT. STOP GIVING ME RPGs WITH MENU/CLICKY PSEUDO TURN BASED CRAP. Give me something visceral--if I want to hit an enemy with a spell, I need to aim it. If I want to block an attack, I need to block it. More Mass Effect, less Baldur's Gate, please.

I personally am against this. If I wanted something like this, I would play Mass Effect or Dark Souls. No, I want Dragon Age to focus more on the group party tactics perspective, and this is best done via turn based combat or MMO style system. I mean, if X-com has shown, THERE is a market for such a combat system since barely anyone does it for high budget games anymore.

[synaesthetic]

Those menu-based, click-tile based combat systems were an artifact of technological limitations. Those limitations no longer exist. Why are they still here? They don't need to be. They aren't engaging; they're dull and frustrating. Combat is the one thing I absolutely hate about Dragon Age. It's slow. It plods. It's boring and annoying.

Contrast to Mass Effect, where combat was just as engaging as the story--even in ME1, where the combat is easily one of the weakest aspects of the game.

[Dirty_Harry]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Those menu-based, click-tile based combat systems were an artifact of technological limitations. Those limitations no longer exist. Why are they still here? They don't need to be. They aren't engaging; they're dull and frustrating. Combat is the one thing I absolutely hate about Dragon Age. It's slow. It plods. It's boring and annoying.

Contrast to Mass Effect, where combat was just as engaging as the story--even in ME1, where the combat is easily one of the weakest aspects of the game.

I agree they are technological limitations. But I dont think we surpassed this technological barrier completely. At least not for group combat without the use of AI. (Mass Effect AI is dull)

When you get to do a combat like Dark Souls for example, in a group, then the barrier will have been broken.

Real-time combat doesnt allow so easily strategic combat group.

[synaesthetic]

ME's AI was a little silly, but the UI allowed you to quickly and easily tell them when to use powers. Honestly, the main problem with ME's AI was that they had to be told to take cover most of the time. I really relied on my squadmates a lot, especially for setting off biotic detonations (as opposed to games like Skyrim, where I never bothered to get a follower because they'd just kill themselves).

[Dirty_Harry]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

ME's AI was a little silly, but the UI allowed you to quickly and easily tell them when to use powers. Honestly, the main problem with ME's AI was that they had to be told to take cover most of the time. I really relied on my squadmates a lot, especially for setting off biotic detonations (as opposed to games like Skyrim, where I never bothered to get a follower because they'd just kill themselves).

What you think the combat of the indie rpg Wasteland 2 it will be released? The combat is turn-based. If one day they manage to make a tactical combat group like that in real time, I'll be happy.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Are you guys talking about the pc or console versions?

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Are you guys talking about the pc or console versions?

Both versions are essentially the same. The console version has the camera locked behind you and auto-attack was inexplicably left out in the console version of DA2. The mechanics of combat are not any different, though.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Compare to first DA, the difference is massive.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Compare to first DA, the difference is massive.

The "massive difference" is that they don't let you pull your camera way out for the "isometric view" like Infinity Engine games. They also didn't allow you to directly issue orders to your party members. So basically it's the same with features disabled. It doesn't make it better (actually, it makes it much worse--the fight with Ser Cauthrien is probably nigh-impossible on consoles but was actually pretty easy to cheese on PC).

[Terrestrial Dream]

That disabled feature is rather big deal for me. I enjoyed the ability to zoom out and get more tactical view, it also allowed to have more options in tactic. (early to mid game this mattered more as your characters weren't so over powered). You could describe it as simple things, but they made a huge difference in combat and made it better.

DA2's lack of such ability annoyed me and one of the reason why I detest it. It was clear that Bioware was shifting focus away from more suited pc controls to more clunky console one. Dragon Age needs to be more like first one. If Bioware is thinking of deviating from the first one, they should just develop a different game.

[Eragon]

Seems like I definitely will not be able to play this game unless I get a new machine - which is pretty much impossible in the near future

[-Sho-]

Morgana is back woot.
Well , wait & see , DA2 was painful , ME3 was WTF.

[Crimrui]

The only worthy thing about Dragon Age 2 for me was the fast and dynamic battle. The visuals were also nice. The game ended up like a halfway through, not that the whole journey to that point was particularly interesting. Compered to epic Origins, DA2 isn't even worth it's name.

Oh I forgot, Champions armor is worth a mention, it was stylish, made my mage look much more badass then a little sissy when running in a shiny skirt. And speaking of clothing, I absolutely hate the armor designs in DA. I don't know why, they are just ugly and uninteresting. I don't need to have those revealing/sexy ones like in those Korean MMOs, but more variety would do much good.

So yeah, Dragon Age III better to be more like the first then second. And for Christ sake, put a longer and more informative ending.

[Waven]

I recentely re-played DA:O (+Awakening) and DA2 one after the other and I gotta say, DA2 may not live up to Origins but it's not even close to the mess some people make it out to be, it's actually still a good game. Most of the core mechanics are still there, the characters are memorable and the main and side plots are often even superior and less predictable than the DA:O ones, especially due to the fact that there's no cheesy ancient evil trying to destroy everything main plot but for the most part it's about the people of Kirkwall, hence the final boss fight.

The problems it has is mainly due to bioware obviously rushing the thing (compare development time of Origins to DA2, it's ridiculous) and thus having to water down many features and aspects (e.g. repeating/cloned zones, limited companion equipment).

As for Inquisition, they seem to have taken much more time again which is a good sign. I'm not too sure about the open world aspect, though, it's certainly not Bioware's expertise so far. The prospect of having an open world DA is promising but it's also a risk as many ressources will flow into it.

[MeoTwister5]

One thing I liked in DA2 over DA was... well Hawke wasn't a silent protagonist. Likewise the most awesome part of him was t his character scripts were so well written that I found it extremely difficult NOT to play his as a snarky and sarcastic badass.

To me it was the only way to play him. Actually I rather see DA3 as either a continuation of the events of DA2 or a whole new game. DA1 wrapped itself up pretty nicely IMO.

[Crimrui]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

One thing I liked in DA2 over DA was... well Hawke wasn't a silent protagonist. Likewise the most awesome part of him was t his character scripts were so well written that I found it extremely difficult NOT to play his as a snarky and sarcastic badass.

Really? I would prefer 4-5 different things to choose from then a good, neutral and bad/violent/badass choice option only. Plus the silent hero kinda makes you feel to be more of you. In Mass Effect and DA2 it felt like I was just leading another character. Not to mention the zero passion and robotic feeling during the conversations that require a bit more emotion. *cough*... expressing love to your companions... *cough*...

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Those menu-based, click-tile based combat systems were an artifact of technological limitations. Those limitations no longer exist. Why are they still here? They don't need to be. They aren't engaging; they're dull and frustrating. Combat is the one thing I absolutely hate about Dragon Age. It's slow. It plods. It's boring and annoying.

Contrast to Mass Effect, where combat was just as engaging as the story--even in ME1, where the combat is easily one of the weakest aspects of the game.

Because I like to sip coffee while playing my classic D&D style RPG games, thank you very much. I don't need high speed action, I like a relaxing pace where I can can pause and enjoy life.

Let the ME players of the world have their speed shooters.

So yeah, Dragon Age III better to be more like the first then second. And for Christ sake, put a longer and more informative ending.

The ending was not bad at all, the hero's actions trigger a Mage's uprising through either supporting or crushing the mages. What else do you expect?

[synaesthetic]

I don't agree and I think most of the game-purchasing public doesn't agree either. There's a reason JRPGs are selling like shit right now and Skyrim and Mass Effect and Deus Ex games are selling like crazy--most Western gamers don't want to deal with attack-item-magic-run crap. They want to feel like they're actually in the game, and you don't get that crap from clicky-tile or menu-selecting "combat."

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.

And ME is over, dude. What the hell else is there besides Dark Souls and Skyrim? Not a thing.

[DragoonKain3]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

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.

As I have said before, X-com would like to have a word with you. You control at most 6 guys in the field, and it wouldn't be half the game it is if it was made real-time combat. That kind of group tactic play is what I want DA3 to be like because that's what made DAO combat fun for me, not just merely another ME clone (although I did like ME combat, DA is not ME).