inherit
2652
0
56
leomerya12
27
January 2017
leomerya12
|
Post by leomerya12 on Mar 15, 2017 4:23:14 GMT
Dragon Age: Inquisition was a headache. I avoided combat at all costs. Why?
1) Bugs (ie: the freezing one) or characters not being able to access certain areas, unless directly controlled. AND THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM.
2) Lack of Responsiveness (missed detonations because of... virtually anything; this is a nightmare, because things happen so fast, and your party can go down in an instant because of a misfire.)
3) Unbalanced enemies (they were often quicker and stronger, particularly the rogues)
4) A clear port. Unacceptable.
So, I personally believe BioWare should abandon having us control four party members. It worked fine with their earlier, simpler games. But as their games get bigger, they need move past this concept, because, quite frankly, it's a chore. Their AI and responsiveness make coordinating attacks damn-near exhausting. I'm dehydrated after every encounter.
This reminds me a bit of why Final Fantasy has changed so much; its stop-start combat made sense, earlier on, given technological limitations, but now things move quicker, and the need to micromanage is reduced. The party size must be reduced to three, or only one party member (the main character) should be given sole human control (a la Mass Effect).
UNLESS, BioWare gets their act together, and delivers another installment of the franchise that is at least as smooth as Dragon Age 2 was.
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
24,190
phoray
Dreadnaw Rising
12,573
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by phoray on Mar 15, 2017 5:12:34 GMT
*Stands before OP*
*Removes one glove and flings it at his feet.*
A duel, sir, for the very suggestion.
I HATE ME's restriction of two companions.
Can stand having just the three, when sometimes I want four, in DA.
|
|
inherit
813
0
Jun 26, 2019 23:40:38 GMT
5,054
thats1evildude
2,478
August 2016
thats1evildude
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by thats1evildude on Mar 15, 2017 5:18:12 GMT
What do you mean by a "clear port"?
Anyways, I disagree. The four-man party is a staple of the series.
A three-man party would mean you would be undermining yourself if you brought along a party member who was the same class as yourself.
|
|
inherit
401
0
1
Apr 26, 2024 11:23:14 GMT
41,533
DragonKingReborn
20,505
August 2016
dragonkingreborn
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/1myVt9D.jpg
DragonKingReborn
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
887
590
|
Post by DragonKingReborn on Mar 15, 2017 6:46:55 GMT
What do you mean by a "clear port"? Anyways, I disagree. The four-man party is a staple of the series. A three-man party would mean you would be undermining yourself if you brought along a party member who was the same class as yourself. Pretty sure they mean "made for console and then ported to PC and thus inferior to a game built on PC and ported the other way".
|
|
Kantr
N3
Playing a lot of Divinity Original Sin 2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: Kantraah
Prime Posts: 8716
Prime Likes: 3503
Posts: 379 Likes: 370
inherit
927
0
Aug 28, 2020 15:38:07 GMT
370
Kantr
Playing a lot of Divinity Original Sin 2
379
Aug 12, 2016 12:56:34 GMT
August 2016
kantr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Kantraah
8716
3503
|
Post by Kantr on Mar 15, 2017 8:41:28 GMT
Haven't you learnt? Three member parties are bad, that's what got Frodo and Sam into all the trouble. No-one to watch gollum closely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
2726
0
Apr 26, 2024 13:45:11 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 13:45:11 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 10:07:40 GMT
Changing iconic things in games have always resulted badly
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 15, 2017 11:42:43 GMT
Dragon Age: Inquisition was a headache. I avoided combat at all costs. Why? 1) Bugs (ie: the freezing one) or characters not being able to access certain areas, unless directly controlled. AND THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM. 2) Lack of Responsiveness (missed detonations because of... virtually anything; this is a nightmare, because things happen so fast, and your party can go down in an instant because of a misfire.) 3) Unbalanced enemies (they were often quicker and stronger, particularly the rogues) 4) A clear port. Unacceptable. So, I personally believe BioWare should abandon having us control four party members. It worked fine with their earlier, simpler games. But as their games get bigger, they need move past this concept, because, quite frankly, it's a chore. Their AI and responsiveness make coordinating attacks damn-near exhausting. I'm dehydrated after every encounter. This reminds me a bit of why Final Fantasy has changed so much; its stop-start combat made sense, earlier on, given technological limitations, but now things move quicker, and the need to micromanage is reduced. The party size must be reduced to three, or only one party member (the main character) should be given sole human control (a la Mass Effect). UNLESS, BioWare gets their act together, and delivers another installment of the franchise that is at least as smooth as Dragon Age 2 was. The key element here is for Bioware to create a more robust Custom AI tool, that allows players to set AI behaviours within more defined terms than we saw in DA:I, it's one of the areas I feel the series has been steadily regressing rather than progressing. I suspect it's a tricky balancing act, with the gradual move towards more action focused combat, the increased pace, more streamlined abilitys (this is my covert way of moaning about the lack of abilities and the poor ability slots available ) getting an AI that can be effective both in combat and outside of it, can be challenging. I think your right to point out DA:I's short coming in this regard, but suggesting the way forward is to remove the number of companions.... well, I'm with phoray! Aghast! By allowing players a greater degree of control over companion ability usage, when to use certain abilities, range of attack, party positioning at the start of engagement, many of the issues you raise, go away. I know that some of this is present but in only the most simplistc terms and with a far lesser degree of control than in previous installements (well DA:O anyways ) We can more comfortably leave our companions to their own devices and focus on the action of combat for our main, while being assured our party doesn't get wiped. As to pathing issues and certain actions requiring to-ing and throwing between different companions, that just needs a little tweek here and there. I'd be really pleased to see companions pick a lock (if they are able to) just from the PC interacting with the object in question, or knock down a wall etc. As to the port issue, we have to accept that some concessions in design have to be made when your talking about a cross platform game like this. I too would like to see a more pc friendly UI, DA:I wasn't that bad, it showed that it was desgined primarily for console, but it took into account pc usage aswell. Menus could be awkward to navigate in comparison to some PC only titles, but then, if the game was tailored solely towards the pc market, the console fans would be having just as many, if not a hell of alot more, problems than we might see as PC players. The truth is, that without the console market, DA might not exist today, certainly not as a AAA title. I'll leave it upto each individual to ponder whether that would be a good thing or not, it's purely subjective and I'm just happy to be getting more Dragon Age.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:48:00 GMT
24,259
themikefest
14,809
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 15, 2017 12:35:57 GMT
Noted.
I'm sure the next DA game will have the same. The player being able to control the 3 companions. My suggestion is don't buy the next DA game
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1255
0
Apr 26, 2024 13:45:11 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 13:45:11 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 13:31:16 GMT
Well, we already went from 6 to 4. And, back in the olden time, you gave each and every one of them something to do every urn.
I don't take 4 companions in DA as an invitation to continuously orchestrate all 4. I take it as an ability to control whichever one is crucial at the point. At all other times, the AI does fine. Sometimes one of them does freeze up. The other three pick up the slack, as they should, because they are a team.
I play on the difficulty level that makes the game enjoyable to me, a bit challenging but not frustrating and not boring, and 4M party works well, with AI doing its job. I did like DA2 more, because it was easier to play as a party, selecting everyone, and they seem to depend more on each other in terms of CC's and stuff. But DA:I style is not that bad and still works.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 15, 2017 13:38:16 GMT
Noted. I'm sure the next DA game will have the same. The player being able to control the 3 companions. My suggestion is don't buy the next DA game Harsh, that was one of the OP's first posts on this forum, no need to be so dismissive of his frustrations, espcecially when he has a point that Bioware could do with tightening up the AI as they move towards the action based combat we are seeing in DA:I and will likely get in future titles. It can be constructive to talk about, even if only to vent some frustration and get other peoples considered opinions and experiences.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:48:00 GMT
24,259
themikefest
14,809
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 15, 2017 13:41:10 GMT
Harsh, that was one of the OP's first posts on this forum, no need to be so dismissive of his frustrations, espcecially when he has a point that Bioware could do with tightening up the AI as they move towards the action based combat we are seeing in DA:I and will likely get in future titles. It can be constructive to talk about, even if only to vent some frustration and get other peoples considered opinions and experiences. Nothing ha rsh about it. I made a suggestion. Its up to the poster to purchase the next game or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1255
0
Apr 26, 2024 13:45:11 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 13:45:11 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 13:43:54 GMT
Noted. I'm sure the next DA game will have the same. The player being able to control the 3 companions. My suggestion is don't buy the next DA game Harsh, that was one of the OP's first posts on this forum, no need to be so dismissive of his frustrations, espcecially when he has a point that Bioware could do with tightening up the AI as they move towards the action based combat we are seeing in DA:I and will likely get in future titles. It can be constructive to talk about, even if only to vent some frustration and get other peoples considered opinions and experiences. maybe, but save for 4M mechanics and ability to play non-humans, DA:I has little to offer that makes it more desirable than the other SP franchises & MMOs. So, dropping that element will make the game less original and appealing.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 15, 2017 13:48:07 GMT
Harsh, that was one of the OP's first posts on this forum, no need to be so dismissive of his frustrations, espcecially when he has a point that Bioware could do with tightening up the AI as they move towards the action based combat we are seeing in DA:I and will likely get in future titles. It can be constructive to talk about, even if only to vent some frustration and get other peoples considered opinions and experiences. Nothing ha rsh about it. I made a suggestion. Its up to the poster to purchase the next game or not.Fair enough, tone can be hard to interpret online, I read your post as being dismissive, in which case, why bother replying at all, but since you meant it as constructive advice, I'll take it as being how you meant it, hopefully the OP feels it was constructive too.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 15, 2017 14:00:08 GMT
Harsh, that was one of the OP's first posts on this forum, no need to be so dismissive of his frustrations, espcecially when he has a point that Bioware could do with tightening up the AI as they move towards the action based combat we are seeing in DA:I and will likely get in future titles. It can be constructive to talk about, even if only to vent some frustration and get other peoples considered opinions and experiences. maybe, but save for 4M mechanics and ability to play non-humans, DA:I has little to offer that makes it more desirable than the other SP franchises & MMOs. So, dropping that element will make the game less original and appealing. Thats one reason I'd like to see the companions used more tactically during combat. In one respect, it's great to be able to ignore the companions, sure in the knowledge we've specced their behaviours to deal with most bread and butter engagements, leaving us to focus on our part in the combat. I think the systems in place DA:I could have been more robust in that regard. I could set when a companion used a potion or used a particulr ability, what range they could engage at (i think) But I would like to have seen more options regarding targeting priorities in certain situations, not entiretly sure how hard that would be to implement in any greater detail. But I'd like to see it regardless as it would give us a sense that we have some measure of control over what is going on in combat. Priority for healing or resurrecting downed party members and such. In another respect, if we get to have control over companions during combat (an outside of it) I'd like there to be an element of tactical usage and certainly some degree of control when I switch back to my main. It really frustrated me when I'd switch to another companion, tell them to go someplace on the battlefield, only to have them move off again once I went back to my main *groan* At low levels, I found I had to control Cole myself during combat to get the most use out of him as a companion, at low levels he was too squishy and non too bright to be an effective flanker, crit backstabber type, without dying over and over. I feel Bioware hasn't yet made up it's mind if it want to continue with full companion control or move more towards automated companions, ala ME style. So we have a hodge podge of both systems at the moment, neither doing the job very well. EDIT: and I should add, that I don't think reducing party size is the answer, but I CAN understand how someone might come to that conclusion, when in the earlier tougher engagements, the control we could do with over companions, in order to get through combat comfortably, is missing and at later levels, the combat becomes a short lived blitz that requires little to no input of any kind, save for boss level opponents, such that having 3 companions seems like over kill, making combat less engaging and more of a chore, leading to the conclusion, that maybe less companions might be answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1255
0
Apr 26, 2024 13:45:11 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 13:45:11 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 14:11:05 GMT
maybe, but save for 4M mechanics and ability to play non-humans, DA:I has little to offer that makes it more desirable than the other SP franchises & MMOs. So, dropping that element will make the game less original and appealing. Thats one reason I'd like to see the companions used more tactically during combat. In one respect, it's great to be able to ignore the companions, sure in the knowledge we've specced their behaviours to deal with most bread and butter engagements, leaving us to focus on our part in the combat. I think the systems in place DA:I could have been more robust in that regard. I could set when a companion used a potion or used a particulr ability, what range they could engage at (i think) But I would like to have seen more options regarding targeting priorities in certain situations, not entiretly sure how hard that would be to implement in any greater detail. But I'd like to see it regardless as it would give us a sense that we have some measure of control over what is going on in combat. Priority for healing or resurrecting downed party members and such. In another respect, if we get to have control over companions during combat (an outside of it) I'd like there to be an element of tactical usage and certainly some degree of control when I switch back to my main. It really frustrated me when I'd switch to another companion, tell them to go someplace on the battlefield, only to have them move off again once I went back to my main *groan* At low levels, I found I had to control Cole myself during combat to get the most use out of him as a companion, at low levels he was too squishy and non too bright to be an effective flanker, crit backstabber type, without dying over and over. I feel Bioware hasn't yet made up it's mind if it want to continue with full companion control or move more towards automated companions, ala ME style. So we have a hodge podge of both systems at the moment, neither doing the job very well. Both of their latest games moved towards more automated ones, ME:A and SWTOR. It is likely that's what we will see. I like the fairly sophisticated scripts in DA2. But I also do not mind that as a Main my role is not only to fight myself, but to continuously monitor the battlefield, and give orders to the other 3 comps when they are not doing what I, as a commander, like them to. That special awareness is a valuable skill in gaming. So, I am fine with both, and I don't mind pausing. And, yep, I like having 4M party. IMO, the game is set up for it, which is the main thing. If you could not pause or take control of your companions at any time. Then, yes, I would object.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 15, 2017 14:14:36 GMT
Thats one reason I'd like to see the companions used more tactically during combat. In one respect, it's great to be able to ignore the companions, sure in the knowledge we've specced their behaviours to deal with most bread and butter engagements, leaving us to focus on our part in the combat. I think the systems in place DA:I could have been more robust in that regard. I could set when a companion used a potion or used a particulr ability, what range they could engage at (i think) But I would like to have seen more options regarding targeting priorities in certain situations, not entiretly sure how hard that would be to implement in any greater detail. But I'd like to see it regardless as it would give us a sense that we have some measure of control over what is going on in combat. Priority for healing or resurrecting downed party members and such. In another respect, if we get to have control over companions during combat (an outside of it) I'd like there to be an element of tactical usage and certainly some degree of control when I switch back to my main. It really frustrated me when I'd switch to another companion, tell them to go someplace on the battlefield, only to have them move off again once I went back to my main *groan* At low levels, I found I had to control Cole myself during combat to get the most use out of him as a companion, at low levels he was too squishy and non too bright to be an effective flanker, crit backstabber type, without dying over and over. I feel Bioware hasn't yet made up it's mind if it want to continue with full companion control or move more towards automated companions, ala ME style. So we have a hodge podge of both systems at the moment, neither doing the job very well. Both of their latest games moved towards more automated ones, ME:A and SWTOR. It is likely that's what we will see. I like the fairly sophisticated scripts in DA2. But I also do not mind that as a Main my role is not only to fight myself, but to continuously monitor the battlefield, and give orders to the other 3 comps when they are not doing what I, as a commander, like them to. So, I am fine with both. And, yep, I like having 4M party. I think your right, We can see what way combat is going and if they give us a system that works well. I'm happy to see it go that way, especially as I, do like to wade in. Unless playing a mage, and even then I sometimes like to wade in lol I did however feel that taking on the commander role, was abit flimsy this time around, compared to DA:O and DA:2, both of which had much better tactics options in the AI behaviours and companions stuck to doing what you told them to when you resumed control of your main.
|
|
inherit
Friend of Red Jenny
90
0
18,890
vertigomez
5,281
August 2016
vertigomez
|
Post by vertigomez on Mar 15, 2017 14:32:07 GMT
Combat shmombat, more party members means more banter.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
24,190
phoray
Dreadnaw Rising
12,573
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by phoray on Mar 15, 2017 17:23:13 GMT
Combat shmombat, more party members means more banter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ hear hear! The problem is not 4 companions, the problem in DAI is the Banter Bug and the lack of AI control. These two problems weren't present in the first two games, why are we all of the sudden blaming the four companions?!
|
|
House Targaryen
N5
The night is dark and full of terrors, but the fire burns them all away.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: gscott7833
Prime Posts: 1,584
Posts: 4,535 Likes: 10,214
inherit
621
0
10,214
House Targaryen
The night is dark and full of terrors, but the fire burns them all away.
4,535
August 2016
thehound
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
gscott7833
1,584
|
Post by House Targaryen on Mar 15, 2017 17:34:25 GMT
Should have six party members like the BG games. You don't need to control each member, the AI is smart enough to do the job for the most part. I think some of the fighter abilities are a little buggy because I have fighters just stand there as if the computer is over thinking on what to do next.
|
|
inherit
✜ Forge Mechanic
352
0
Aug 30, 2023 16:01:17 GMT
6,256
PapaCharlie9
3,851
August 2016
papacharlie9
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by PapaCharlie9 on Mar 15, 2017 18:10:10 GMT
What do you mean by a "clear port"? He meant, "Here is how I lose all credibility and make the rest of my post worthless."
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 16, 2017 12:20:07 GMT
Combat shmombat, more party members means more banter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ hear hear! The problem is not 4 companions, the problem in DAI is the Banter Bug and the lack of AI control. These two problems weren't present in the first two games, why are we all of the sudden blaming the four companions?! As I said previously, I think it's an understandable conclusion to come to, from a certain perspective. One I disagree with, I see the root problems being the same ones you mentioned. Hell, if I had my way, I'd have the party size be large enough that ALL of the companions are out with the PC at all times and adjust enemy difficulty and numbers to compensate, provide really comprehensive tools for controlling complex AI companion behaviours and tailor just about every aspect of combat towards such a model, so as micro-management isn't a concern and players still have some idea of what the hell is going on on screen. Its a pipe dream I know, but could you imagine the complexity of even the smallest conversations, when all of your companions are there to chime in at once and engage with eachother as a group. It would be phenominal! A supreme pain in the ass to design and code. But it would be soooo worth it!
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:12:44 GMT
26,665
gervaise21
10,785
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Mar 16, 2017 20:42:32 GMT
I also feel the number of companions is not the problem but how the combat system is set up. I remember back to Baldurs Gate when I had a party of six and was sad to discover that party size had been reduced to four in Dragon Age. The problem with smaller parties is that companions do spend much of their time just standing around back at base instead of being out there in the field interacting with one another. What is even stranger is that conversations back at base often spoke as if they had still been in the situation with you but you just weren't aware of it. So if anything I would rather they had a larger party size that actually allowed you to see and use more companions each time.
In DAI I didn't micro manage my team much of the time (I hated the tactical camera) and they seemed to manage okay for the most part without my input telling them what to do. Occasionally I would stop the action at the beginning of a battle, to give orders as to what I wanted each person to do but after that I would just focus on what I was doing, which actually seemed more realistic to me. The only real frustration I had was when fighting dragons as the other people just didn't seem to have the good sense to dodge out of the way when the dragon fired something at them and also seemed to have no idea that you don't stand knee deep in water when combating an electric dragon. I think this was the only time that I micro managed the battlefield.
So please, no, don't reduce the party size any further, just improve the way the AI reacts to situations.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 18, 2017 9:17:35 GMT
I also feel the number of companions is not the problem but how the combat system is set up. I remember back to Baldurs Gate when I had a party of six and was sad to discover that party size had been reduced to four in Dragon Age. The problem with smaller parties is that companions do spend much of their time just standing around back at base instead of being out there in the field interacting with one another. What is even stranger is that conversations back at base often spoke as if they had still been in the situation with you but you just weren't aware of it. So if anything I would rather they had a larger party size that actually allowed you to see and use more companions each time. In DAI I didn't micro manage my team much of the time (I hated the tactical camera) and they seemed to manage okay for the most part without my input telling them what to do. Occasionally I would stop the action at the beginning of a battle, to give orders as to what I wanted each person to do but after that I would just focus on what I was doing, which actually seemed more realistic to me. The only real frustration I had was when fighting dragons as the other people just didn't seem to have the good sense to dodge out of the way when the dragon fired something at them and also seemed to have no idea that you don't stand knee deep in water when combating an electric dragon. I think this was the only time that I micro managed the battlefield. So please, no, don't reduce the party size any further, just improve the way the AI reacts to situations. I think DA:I did endeavour to overcome that inaccuracy, with certain characters expressing dismay, that they weren't on a given mission, but it was abit spotty. It's never made a whole lot of sense to me, why, when facing a super adversary like corypheus and the insurmountable odds, the inquisition faces, the Inquisitor would choose to leave the majority of his/her agents/companions behind on any given mission. I know its for game design reasons, but I would've hoped that a developer would have sought to find a way to bring everyone along by now and still have combat and scripting conversation work well, in doing so. I also couldn't agree more with the the tactical camera, soooo zoomed in. The control scheme for the tac cam was also the chunkiest and least intuitive on my pc. It felt cumbersome. I also share your pain with the dragon fights lol I'd dodge the scorching fireball of doom, only to have my companions follow me, and get roasted, since they are now standing, where I was previously lol Ouch
|
|
linksocarina
N5
Always teacher, sometimes writer
Teaching Mode Activated
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: LinksOcarina
Posts: 3,179 Likes: 4,063
inherit
Always teacher, sometimes writer
370
0
4,063
linksocarina
Teaching Mode Activated
3,179
August 2016
linksocarina
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
LinksOcarina
|
Post by linksocarina on Mar 20, 2017 1:16:17 GMT
Can we go to six person parties?
No?
|
|
inherit
1836
0
221
doflamingodonquijote
440
Oct 22, 2016 22:16:46 GMT
October 2016
doflamingodonquijote
|
Post by doflamingodonquijote on Mar 20, 2017 1:54:44 GMT
What do you mean by a "clear port"? Anyways, I disagree. The four-man party is a staple of the series. A three-man party would mean you would be undermining yourself if you brought along a party member who was the same class as yourself. Pretty sure they mean "made for console and then ported to PC and thus inferior to a game built on PC and ported the other way". Made for PC Gamers by PC Gamers they said...
|
|