* I actually enjoy MMO style gameplay sometimes, when all those other stupid players aren't around to ruin everything.
* I would like a good 100 hour chewing-gum game for the holidays. Doesn't have to be great; enjoyable and mindless will do in a pinch.
Many thanks Grunker. Yes, that is absolutely true. If you are not controlling the charcater in question, once they've done what you want them to do, they start to do whatever they want. I said that before, I think. But again, it's still a point & click system, just dumbed down to make it more comfortable to controllers and action players.
I agree with what you say. The "actiony" bits added to Inquisition, although most notorious with the 3rd person, it's obviously mildly present with the tactical camera. That's the thing when you try to appease to two totally opposite game styles, you end with a compromise that doesn't quite work for one or the other.Many thanks Grunker. Yes, that is absolutely true. If you are not controlling the charcater in question, once they've done what you want them to do, they start to do whatever they want. I said that before, I think. But again, it's still a point & click system, just dumbed down to make it more comfortable to controllers and action players.
It's not though.
Let me make this as simple as possible: in Dragon Age Origins you can't miss, no matter what. Click the enemy, hit them with every attack. If they move out of range the PC automatically moves too to keep the attacks hitting. In Dragon Age Inquisition not only can you miss an enemy, you often do because they move around so much and your attacks are somewhat clunky. This is in melee mind you, an archer or mage is easier to use in this respect, though they still miss somewhat frequently for a variety of reasons.
Now, if you play the ENTIRE GAME in tactics mode and let the AI control the walking and targeting then perhaps it could be an Origins style game, in that mode. The camera isn't well-suited to playing the entire game that way however, nor are the controls (in either version) comfortable enough for that to be 100% of your combat experience. Also trash mobs don't deserve that much attention.
I agree with what you say. The "actiony" bits added to Inquisition, although most notorious with the 3rd person, it's obviously mildly present with the tactical camera. That's the thing when you try to appease to two totally opposite game styles, you end with a compromise that doesn't quite work for one or the other.
Although I play almost every fight with more than two enemies with the tactical camera, not because of tactics or anything (I've yet to see that in this game, every combat is tanking with one or two characters and start spamming habilites without almost any though), but because it's easier to correct the estupid behaviour of the AI.
I only think that, despite the changes, it's still not an action game in my book, although it has definitely elements of it.
I see your point, and although for me it doesn't make me consider it more action game than tactical -trying to be, at least-, can't say I disagree with what you exposed.I agree with what you say. The "actiony" bits added to Inquisition, although most notorious with the 3rd person, it's obviously mildly present with the tactical camera. That's the thing when you try to appease to two totally opposite game styles, you end with a compromise that doesn't quite work for one or the other.
Although I play almost every fight with more than two enemies with the tactical camera, not because of tactics or anything (I've yet to see that in this game, every combat is tanking with one or two characters and start spamming habilites without almost any though), but because it's easier to correct the estupid behaviour of the AI.
I only think that, despite the changes, it's still not an action game in my book, although it has definitely elements of it.
Oh it's definitely trying to be a hybrid that appeals to both camps and ends up not being great for anyone. That's been Bioware's thing for a while now.
When I say it's an action game now I mean it's tipped the scales in my opinion into at least 51% action game. Dragon Age 2 made some random gestures toward action game but was still a tactical game for the most part to me. This one tips it over. And when I say that note there are other elements that cause me to in addition to direct control combat being what it is. The tactics menu has been stripped of almost all options, the abilities are much more active combat focused rather than crowd control focused, 95% of enemy encounters are random spawns and not designed in any way, since the enemies move so much position doesn't matter, since abilities are limited you have to turn them all off if you ever want to control your party's use of them. And, whether you think it works for 100% of combat time or not, I find the tactical mode limited, too close to the ground and limited in options. I can't even use it at all with my archer because it doesn't let me see far enough away.
It's not just the lack of auto-attack and having to aim that makes me call this one an action game.
Good advice, thanks for that. I do play GW2 but it gets samey pretty fast. DA:I might be a nice change of scenery. Plus I do like cheesy stories if they're good enough to make me care at least a little (DAO did, DA2 didn't). I cry at corny movies and so forth, so the better written of Bioware's pandering can be sufficiently good to be worth my time. From what I hear DAI's story at least makes sense, plus all the MMO quests at least attempt to tie in to the main mission of building the Inquisition's influence.Buy guildwars 2 - I've invested 500 hours into that game - better than what I've seen from inquisition pretty much all the way around unless you like really cheesy stories.
As someone who used to play World of Warcraft, I think its safe to say that you'll enjoy the game.Good advice, thanks for that. I do play GW2 but it gets samey pretty fast. DA:I might be a nice change of scenery. Plus I do like cheesy stories if they're good enough to make me care at least a little (DAO did, DA2 didn't). I cry at corny movies and so forth, so the better written of Bioware's pandering can be sufficiently good to be worth my time. From what I hear DAI's story at least makes sense, plus all the MMO quests at least attempt to tie in to the main mission of building the Inquisition's influence.Buy guildwars 2 - I've invested 500 hours into that game - better than what I've seen from inquisition pretty much all the way around unless you like really cheesy stories.
This phrasing works better for me.When I say it's an action game now I mean it's tipped the scales in my opinion into at least 51% action game.
Good advice, thanks for that. I do play GW2 but it gets samey pretty fast. DA:I might be a nice change of scenery. Plus I do like cheesy stories if they're good enough to make me care at least a little (DAO did, DA2 didn't). I cry at corny movies and so forth, so the better written of Bioware's pandering can be sufficiently good to be worth my time. From what I hear DAI's story at least makes sense, plus all the MMO quests at least attempt to tie in to the main mission of building the Inquisition's influence.
Sounds like some random DA:I trailer quote.Many things are possible until enough time passes to prove they aren't.
The actual bad thing about those was loss of additional effects of stats (like agility->better balance, more difficult to stagger or knock down) and loss of stat-based mobility.I am getting a deja vu from the time when Skyrim's dump-downiness was hit by the 'dex's rightious wrath. Stats gone, multipliers gone, where is ma acrobatix/athletix... funny thing was: it didn't bother me while playing. Having to use a skill you never wanted to use just to increase your manapool wasn't exactly an essential feature. Individuality was created through the "increase while using" skills. Loss of skill reqs for guilds still sucked though.
Fix'd.DA:O looks like an improved Neverwinter Nights 2 with a shitty toolset to me.