TT Kairen said:
I'm the type that likes to crunch numbers and min/max in these sorts of games, and thus play on the hardest difficulties most of the time. I enjoy the challenge, and the satisfaction that comes from finding the right answer rather than looking it up. The problem with Origins was the fact that the answers to the min/max question were so damn simple. But this all comes back to your argument of people playing the game in different ways, which is completely true. However, the implication that being unable to go outside your weapon-type in II and Inquisition somehow makes them worse is not. Also Skyrim can kiss my pucker. Just putting that out there. So dull.
I hear you, and sometimes I'll do just that, but there's also a lot of fun in just messing around, especially in a proper RPG environment. Origins was pretty simplistic if you wanted to min/max things, though as some have posited that was possibly a symptom of it starting the move that Bioware's been slowly nudging along for a while now, from OSRPG to ARPG. Some more ambiguity in how to most effectively build a character would have been great, as you'd have the freedom to do what you want with your character, whilst also having the challenge of not easily figuring out the min/max on the spot, which IMO would help both sides equally; min/maxers have a harder time finding that max, whilst those who go for non-optimal builds aren't punished as heavily for it, as their build is likely simply between two possible good builds, rather than off somewhere to the left of it all.
I also didn't mean the restricted weapon thing as objectively bad, it does have its merits. Its more something I'm not personally a fan of though.
Definitely agreed on Skyrim though. I've said it many times; DAI is what Skyrim should have been. Combat that's more than spam the left click button, wide open world to explore, ACTUALLY gorgeous, unlike Skyrim where really low res textures ruined that a bit, and everything major that you do, and some minor things, actually change the world.
The Weapon and Shield and Dual Weapon trees used Dexterity to learn some of the talents there. My earlier post did include the addendum about Weapon and Shield, but I spaced on Dual Weapon, my mistake. However, in the case of both trees, the correct answer is simply putting barely enough Dexterity to learn the talents and then focusing entirely on Strength in the case of Dual Weapon, or enough Strength to wear Dragonbone gear and then full Con in the case of Weapon and Shield. No talents required Cunning, however the Skills trees do require Cunning for some of them. 18 to be precise to learn max level Persuasion. Templars kinda suck, their skills either being rarely needed or passive (sort of like every skill for a non-mage in the entire game).
Yeah, I kind of figured that with Templars. Only real mage focused bit was the tower, and even that was more demons than mages. Otherwise they're pretty rare and squishy, so a mage-hunter would be of limited use compared to the more fun classes.
As said though, Origins isn't exactly the prime example in terms of stats. Higher requirements for some skills would have ended in an some more interesting trade offs, but it probably needed a bit of an overhaul, though not the gross simplification II gave it IMO.
Willpower is actually needed for more than being able to simply cast a spell. Sustained modes are king in Origins, so the more you can support and still cast, the better. Generally you always wanted to have at least Haste and Telekinetic Weapons up. These also increase fatigue making spells cost more. Willpower is... acceptable, but not required, for a two-handed warrior. Stamina regenerates on its own mid combat, you can cast spells with your mage to restore it, and the Death Blow talent when utilized properly should all give plenty of Stamina to throw around without using a jot of Willpower. And yes, placing greater dependency on abilities rather than passive combat would fix almost every problem I have with Origins, but then wouldn't it become the dreaded action game?
Haha, wow, yeah. I had completely forgotten about the sustained modes. Still, the answer would be to figure out realistically how much Mana you needed to hold your core sustained spells spread on two mages [As mage was just OP in origins, better using 2 of them than any other class], and then once you'd achieved that, spam intelligence. Once you'd gotten the primary sustained spells, more would be nice, however often some crowd control and disables like crushing prison were good to keep mages or minibosses out of the fight early on whilst you mopped up the weaker minions.
A greater dependency on abilities wouldn't make it an action game. The difference between an action game and a more tactics oriented one isn't in how many buttons you have to press, its in what each press means, and sometimes how closely spaced they are.
Dragon Age Inquisition could easily become a more tactics oriented game, though it won't because that'd make the PC the likely better experience and alienate console players as the UI advantage would swap from crappy PC UI, to more similar to Origins with a crappy console UI. Maybe they'd figure something out, but I wouldn't put my money on it.
First thing would be to fix the tactical view. Its just useless as is now.
Second would be to add auto-attack/loot/move.
Third, add queued commands and make your party actually follow them, rather than just changing targets every few seconds to whatever you're attacking.
Final thing would be to remove the missing aspect of attacking ATM - where, if you're not next to them, you miss - and change that to a percentage miss probability, with auto-attack not happening if they're not next to you. If you start an attack and they move, then sure, you'll miss, but none of this standing right next to them, and swinging at them, but because they're on some rock and I'm 0.1m lower than them, my swing somehow doesn't get their hitbox, or maybe I'm just 0.01m to far left or something.
It still has a fair emphasis on abilities, however now you aren't spam clicking to attack, and its easier to actually control your character with commands. Kind of like how tactical view is, but in real time too. Sure, leave in the option of action gameplay, but by doing this the game becomes a lot more tactical, as the focus is no longer on you spamming the left mouse button and trying to manipulate the 3PS controls, and more on how you approach and deal with each situation. DAI has the potential for tactical play, however its just heavily unfavoured due to how the game is controlled. Most of the game is really simplified OSRPG mechanics, what makes it actiony is its DDO styled gameplay, but DDO had more forgiving hitboxes and better controls.
You're kind of going back and forth with your arguments here. You say it's boring and tedious to learn every skill, but then praise Origins for making you learn every skill. You compare and contrast immersion to gameplay, but then deride Inquisition for just giving you the item you had crafted rather than making you sit around waiting for Dagna and what's-his-face to physically smith it right there. Also who's to say your Inquisitor knows nothing of these things besides you? There's nothing stopping you from NOT grabbing every Elfroot and Iron you happen across. In fact, it's completely possible to just send your agents to gather materials for you. Additionally, you can actually improve your herbalism abilities in Inquisition with the Optimal Cutting perk in the Secrets tree.
That first statement is kind of ambiguous, so I'll cover both points.
In the case of the talking to people for 90% of the game, that was less a 'its boring and tedious to learn every skill', and more a 'some players play for the story and action, and wouldn't appreciate needing to grind 20 hours of conversations to improve their persuade skill and get the good ending'. Personally, I love that sort of thing. RPGs where fighting isn't the core option are the ones I love the most. Had a DM last game I played where everything was persuade, stealth, and obstacle skills up until the last part of the campaign where there was finally a fight, and it was fresh compared to CRPGs where the answer to everything is just swing a sword at it. The optimal option, of course, is one more like in Mass Effect 1 'Falling Sky' or W/E DLC, where you went into the second compound, and the guards came up to you saying 'we don't have to fight'. You could either shoot and kill them, and achieve your goals that way, or you could talk to them. Another, more general, example would be needing to get into a castle. You could do this by fighting your way through all the guards, or you could sneak in through the dungeon, or use your influence in conversations to get invited to the ball the next night. Inquisition does this with its War Table stuff, it'd be great if it was more in general gameplay too.
In the case of my complaints with Skyrim, its less in having to learn the skills, more in that they longer you go on in Skyrim, the more restricted you are in what you can do. I don't remember if there was a skill/attribute resetting tome in Origins, though I'm pretty sure there was, but there is in Inquisition. In Inquisition, you use that tome, and you're able to respec from a Sword and Board to a Two hander without issue. In Skyrim, you could use that tome... And get nowhere. Literally nothing would change, as you haven't done any 2 hander training. Its not in having to learn skills that's the problem, that's just progression. Its more how it locks you out of changing the skills you've learned, as they're all segmented and separated behind so many different XP bars that there's not a lot you can do. Personally, as I generally don't respec, it doesn't affect me, but there are certainly some who would take it pretty seriously.
I'm also not deriding Inquisition for just giving you the item. I'm not sure if I'd prefer it taking a little time to make, as that'd be more immersive, and could potentially add some choices as to whether you need that sword or the armour more for your next mission, though it could also just turn into a pointless waiting game if the balance isn't struck. That was more to show that, regardless of the 'technicalities', it really is you who is behind crafting all this stuff, not your friends who just stand in the corner.
The main thing with this is your Inquisitor is all knowing, and can do everything. You find your combat experience allowing you to make poisons better weird, I find it weird that the inquisitor is naturally gifted in literally EVERYTHING. Yes, I technically could not pick up any elf root and have the Inquisition do it for me [Are those missions repeatable BTW? Haven't done one yet], however not only is that similar to Skyrim's fast travel problems - its a convenient system that's there, so you'll use it, but the game would have been more enjoyable had it not been there, and it had instead been designed for you to travel the countryside rather than just warp everywhere - it also locks off a lot of quests either entirely, or until you hit Skyhold. That's a LOT of gameplay time without being able to do any crafting [Even if it is worthless at that stage], no potion making, no requisitions filled, and a lot of quests on your map you won't finish any time soon. It also means your Inquisitor is still a master organ harvester and tanner, otherwise you ain't getting any research, and no non-warrior crafting, and no finishing several quests too. Artificial gimping really can't replace actual challenge, and as a Min/Maxer I'm sure you could appreciate this. You could make Origins much more challenging were you to say you had to have equal Cunning and Intelligence on a character. Rogues and Mages would suffer greatly from this, losing valuable attribute points to a useless stat. But that sort of artificial gimping isn't how the game was designed, and even if it'd make it more challenging, and make the optimal stat path harder to see and therefore more fun [A better example may be needed for this], it doesn't replace the game actually having that challenge there.
And yes, I do know about that perk. I find it weird how an inquisition wide perk is needed to improve only your cutting skills though. Its kind of like you wanting to get better at sailing, so the ONLY way you can do this is to take the entire company you work for and get them better at sailing. No you and an instructor, and practice, just your company deciding to hold a sailing learning day. A bit weird.
You didn't actually need to grind craft, you can just buy endless flasks and elfroots from the Dalish camp, so you effectively have unlimited healing potions. I never even came CLOSE to running out of potions. As long as you make remotely sound decisions, you never should.
Yeah, but I always left the Dales until last for story purposes. To me it always made sense to do Redcliff, Tower, Finish Redcliff, a bunch of sidequests that eventually left me near Orzammar, so I did that, then Denerim for a bit because I was there, then the Dales, Urn of Sacred ashes, any remaining sidequests, Landsmeet and final fight.
Remotely sound decisions weren't always my speciality either. Sometimes I just wanted to have fun, and I could do that and run out of potions fairly quickly. Conveniently enough, even if he is carrying a sword, a mage is still pretty squishy without some cross classing and specialisations.
In Inquisition, mana regenerates fairly quickly, but not fast enough that you can just snap off infinite spells at will. Stamina is regenerated on-hit from Rogues and Warriors, so if you're somehow stopped from attacking, you can run out of Stamina, but not for long. The point of this is so you're always actively using abilities in response to the situation, rather than just autoattack spamming so you can hoard resources. This is part of the problem in Origins where the emphasis is placed almost entirely on passives and sustained modes to make your autoattacks more effective. And sure, you can fast travel back to your camp to replenish your potions for free unless you're in a dungeon or somesuch. The penalty here is having to run all the way back to where you were to continue now. Playing it that safe has the tradeoff of wasted time. Fair play in my book. There are not more healing options in Inquisition, as you asserted, however. Potions have no cooldown instead of 5 seconds yes, but no cooldown on 8 (12 if you upgraded) potions is sure as shit not as good as a 5 second cooldown on 50 weak potions, a 5 second cooldown on 20 strong potions, a 5 second cooldown on 10 very strong potions, and a 5 second cooldown on limitless healing spells. Guard and Barriers exist, yes, but the difference here is active mitigation as opposed to healing. Barriers can be dispelled, and have a time limit. Guard can be smashed by particularly powerful attacks. However, two points I will totally grant you: Regeneration Potions are beyond overpowered, and Normal difficulty is way too damn easy (started a playthrough on Nightmare and it is ball-bustingly hard, so fun).
Eh, whilst I don't primary a mage, and only control party member mages most of the time, I've never run into the issue. There always seems to be enough mana at present, with the main restriction being cooldowns. Same with warriors TBH. Yes, this does allow you to send off a constant flurry of abilities, but I find I only really use most of mine to close with the enemy, and thanks to the button mashing gameplay my focus is always on what used to be auto-attacks anyway, as I save my other hits for when I need guard, or when I need a knockdown. I still hoard resources, its just that what those resources are has changed.
I also don't really count time as a trade off here. All that that is is grind. There is no difficulty, there's just repetitive tasks if you don't play well. The trade off shouldn't be less enjoyment of the game, it should be an actual in-game trade off. You have a limited supply of potions, and your potion master needs time and resources to make more. That or you can have Josephine purchase them with missions. Your potions are now properly limited, and difficulty is actually increased as whilst there are multiple ways to get more potions, they take time for those more potions to replenish, and so you're shit out of luck if you run out of potions. This isn't an annoying 2 minute walk back to where you were time, this is a 3 hour unthinkable waiting that long time. If you run out of potions, you'll go out, grab some elfroot, and craft some yourself whilst you wait, as where the time trade off as is is simply annoying, but something you'll always do because its better than the alternative, the time trade off if its 3 hours is... Ridiculous. Nobody is going to sit for 3 hours, so you'll actually find something to do, and enjoy the game, and you CAN find something to do and enjoy the game in those 3 hours, rather than simply backtracking through what you've done with the 2 minutes at present.
Yes, some really powerful attacks may dispel guard. They'd also dispel the majority of your health, hence the really powerful attack bit. Guard works basically just like Halo: CE's shield, but you have to manually recharge it instead of automatically. Some attacks are better against it, some better against plain health [Same goes for barriers there], but its really just an extension of your health. The portion that can be healed without potions. The game even basically explains it as an extension of your health. Its healable health, the biggest difference is its not ALL healable.
The only thing I take issue with here is the assertion that action RPG's do not require thinking, and are somehow "dumber" than pause-and-play tactical RPG's. Ever played The Witcher 2? That's my gold standard for ARPG's. Lots of thought and preparation in the form of brewing potions, crafting traps and bombs, and then analyzing your enemy at a distance (the journal entries helped too as they actually provided useful info rather than just fluff), and applying traps to the field. However during combat, it took just as much thought. Dodge rolling to a position that allowed a better choke-point to stop enemies from surrounding you while also clustering them for a bomb throw, when to use your very limited supply of throwing knives to stagger a particularly tough opponent, and exactly what distance you could safely begin a lunge (whiffed attacks were harshly punished, especially on the Dark difficulty).
Yeah, I have played the Witcher 2. Didn't really put much thought when going into fights beyond silver sword or iron sword. I just used dodge roll to constantly roll around and dodge, then strike before the enemy could. Only fight you couldn't do this for was Letho, and that's because only one tactic really works on him; Lots of knockback spells. I played it as pretty much purely an action game, and I never felt any trouble from doing it. I'd get swarmed, yes, but I'd roll and strike, and just not get surrounded. Yes, there is some thought involved, but its a very different style of thought. You thought Origins was simplistic in its tactics... Action games are simpler, even TW2. And that's the thing with action RPGs. Yes, you can technically play them tactically, just like you can with CoD. A lot of emphasis is on your own personal skills though, hence the 'action' part of it, and hence you can easily make up for NOT using tactics by using your own personal skills to make up for it. In OSRPGs, the emphasis is far and away on your characters skills, and no amount of your skills will make up for their lack of skills, and hence the focus is on the more intellectual side of what you choose to do and your tactics, rather than on having the reaction speeds to dodge most of the enemies attacks and counter attack.
As an aside, 4X strategy games are way, WAY more fun than RTS games. Just throwing that out there.
But there you go again with the assertion that slow-paced tactical RPG's are somehow better than ARPG's. They aren't. I'll agree with your statement in the very next paragraph that it's just a taste difference, not an inherent superiority. Perhaps the genre did shift between Origins and the later titles, but I'm of the opinion that it is an improvement. The balance was better, and the gameplay was far more engaging.
Again, definitely agreed in the taste departments here.
I'm not sure, however, where I asserted that slow paced games are better than action games. Was it in likening them to 4X games, which I feel is a valid comparison [More depth to systems, often poorly implemented, harder to get into, focus on the macro tactics rather than micro unit control], stating ARPG games have simplified and streamlines OSRPG systems [Which they do], likening that to the health regeneration in CoD or what? I'm pretty sure through all of this I've maintained that neither is better, they're just different styles. I've made it no secret that I prefer the slow paced tactical games, but that doesn't mean I'm saying they're better.
Personally, I've found the balance dropped massively in II, and even to some extent in 3. There are no really challenging enemies in either. Ok, the Dragon in Inquisition. The one in 2 was piss easy, except for the one thing that II used for all its 'difficult', that was absolute BS and a cheap excuse for difficulty. Lazy tactics rather than actually making decent enemies; Ministuns. In II, everything was ministuns. Only time I'd ever die was when swarmed by 3 times as many enemies as I had in my party, all with the ability to ministun and split 3 per party member, so it was a permastun. And no matter how I blocked the door, or protected the rest of my party with the tank, one of them would have a knockdown spell, knock my tank down, and let the others swarm my team. That's not difficulty, that's just cheap.
Inquisition I find largely the same, though, as said, Normal which is a cakewalk. Only enemies I have trouble with are swarms of those that are 5 levels higher than me, or ones who constantly knockdown those near them - which with stupid party member AI in Inquisition, is everyone. Oh, and Dragons thanks to the swarm of minis found with the one in the Hinterlands. That just made that battle Dragon Age II all over again.
