I think that's the target.Wonder when were going to get console impressions. I'm hoping for a stable 30 fps on the PS4.
I think that's the target.Wonder when were going to get console impressions. I'm hoping for a stable 30 fps on the PS4.
Hey guys, check this out. Mass Effect 2, widely considered one of the greatest games ever made, was actually really disappointing. Who knew?
EDIT:
I also cringe every time people talk about Inquisition in negative terms. Dragon Age: Inquisition was TGA's GOTY, #4 GAF GOTY (after the Nintendo Sweep), GAF's RPG of the Year (beating out "classical" RPG's like Divinity), and has a MC score of 85, I believe. So, either accept the fact that you disliking Inquisition and thinking it was crap is the minority opinion or learn to admit that DAI was actually a good game. It was also a last-gen title and BioWare's first real attempt at open world. I think they've learned a bit since then regarding its flaws.
If it is a crutch, it is because the squad mate AI is fucking braindead. Gimme competent AI that does exactly what i want when i want and i'll have no problem not having control over them. Until then, let me do things.
Yeah, if you play these games on easy then I can see it being no problem because you can just run around like a headless chicken and never die. But as soon as you step up the difficulty, there was a lot more man management involved in the previous trilogy. I also needed to pause and assess the situation a whole lot more on Insanity, and force the AI to use what I need to get me out of a rough situation.
The AI better decent in this one.
I think you may need to get your eyes checked.
So we've reached the point of complaining about beard hair follicles. Good God.
I don't think DA:I is a bad game, but it's definitely not a great game imo and has a lot of obvious flaws.
You shouldn't cringe at anything but the hyperbole surrounding games like these:
XV is an incomplete garbage beta.
DA:I is the worst RPG I've ever played!
etc...
I love XV, but I completely understand many of the critiques levelled at it. Same with ME2, which is possibly my GOAT.
DA:I is not high-end Bioware, and it makes a /lot/ of mistakes. And while the average gamer is probably able to overlook these things, those of us who frequent places like gaf hold games to higher scrutiny.
DA:I gets a lot of hyperbolic shit flung its way, but it also gets a lot of valid critique. It's a flawed game, and one that's below the average for the devs output in an overall sense even if their average output is above the industry's average as a whole.
As someone that is super deep into the narative and lore of DA, I found it to be merely "good". I really feel like they didn't really understand how to make good open-world areas. Even "Jaws of Hakkon" that came out later felt already improved, in that it gave you more direction and was less overwhelming. It was almost painful to play Trespasser because it reminded me so much of how good a linear Dragon Age game can be. I really hope they completely overhaul their design of open world areas and try to give more meaning to exploration and side content. Inquisition feels too much like an MMO, and less like story-heavy RPG.Lol, GAF gave it RPG of the year. And, every game makes mistakes or has flaws. But, DAI is still a great game despite these flaws.
Lol, GAF gave it RPG of the year. And, every game makes mistakes or has flaws. But, DAI is still a great game despite these flaws.
You mean you dont wanna play what used to be an RPG as a simplistic shooter? I never would have thought.
Mass Effect played like shit, ME3:s multiplayer mode was amazing with a nice level up system and tens of classes and races adding depth and build variety. Luckily Bioware took inspiration from the latter and not the former when designing the combat in MEA.
You mean you dont wanna play what used to be an RPG as a simplistic shooter? I never would have thought.
Here's the PR reason why:
Unless it's a technical issue, I don't see a reason to have it removed.
Brad from Giant Bomb mentioned that there is no level cap and you can unlock all skills from all profiles (classes). He even said there is enough content to do so on a single play-through.
What is this nonsense?
I swear some people have crazy rose tinted glasses when it comes to ME1. Have these people played it lately? The combat was pretty iffy at launch to begin with; playing it more recently it REALLY doesn't hold up. I love the game but the combat is hard to go back to at this point.
Why is it nonsense?
Okay, so a giant middle finger to people who actually liked the strategy of the higher difficulties in the original trilogy.Yes & 2, just like in original trilogy. They just limited your ability to control them. Now you can point location to be in or enemy to attack, but not with what or how.
Brad from Giant Bomb mentioned that there is no level cap and you can unlock all skills from all profiles (classes). He even said there is apparently enough content to do so on a single play-through.
What is this nonsense?
That goes against what the Lead Designer said, he you need a NG+ for that. Gonna find the tweet in a sec.
Okay, so a giant middle finger to people who actually liked the strategy of the higher difficulties in the original trilogy.
Okay, so a giant middle finger to people who actually liked the strategy of the higher difficulties in the original trilogy.
Brad from Giant Bomb mentioned that there is no level cap and you can unlock all skills from all profiles (classes). He even said there is apparently enough content to do so on a single play-through.
What is this nonsense?
That goes against what the Lead Designer said, he you need a NG+ for that. Gonna find the tweet in a sec.
Okay, so a giant middle finger to people who actually liked the strategy of the higher difficulties in the original trilogy.
I think he means it is giving him a very Dragon Age Inquisition vibes. That game had so many meaningless quests and meaningless progression that it felt like playing a single player MMO.
I can tolerate that more with Mass Effect because I prefer Sci-fi over Fantasy, and I think the gameplay is going to be more action heavy. But if it is filled with boring (meaningless) side quests than oh boy, gaf is going to turn on it hard.
I'm not writing it off, just tempering my expectations. Don't have much faith left in modern BioWare. The only games with good combat had it designed by someone who left for Riot.How about, before writing off the tactical nature of higher difficulties in Andromeda, we wait for the game to actually come out?
I think they made the right decision. Having to constantly use the powerwheel interrupts the flow of combat, and I feel like what they achieved with the wheel can be achieved without it, in terms of combos.
I'm not writing it off, just tempering my expectations. Don't have much faith left in modern BioWare. The only games with good combat had it designed by someone who left for Riot.
I don't buy that.
Looking at the latest video, pausing to swap out favourites takes even more time to do and constantly breaks up the flow of combat anyway. At the same time, when you've swapped out your favourites, it doesn't achieve anything immediate other than a cooldown so you're back to just firing your guns for however long.
With the power wheel, pausing to give a squad command was a part of the combat, and as such it had a direct and immediate consequence that this pause-select-new-favourite system doesn't have.
Watching that video, the favourites system looks to break up combat in a far more awkward way than pausing to command your squad's powers ever did, and I used it for almost every attack.
Why is it nonsense?
There's a video showing that if you prime anything and point a teammate to attack, they'll use their corresponding ability if off of cooldown to detonate it. I would think this means that telling them to attack an enemy with say shields would make them use overload if off cooldowns but we'll see.
Why is it nonsense?
Has any preview mentioned how the games questing/world is? As in is it MMO'ish like DAI or have they really improved the side quest formula and are actually following Witcher 3's deep narrative for side stuff as well? I cant watch and read every preview for spoiler reasons but I'm very interested in this aspect, because I have a very bad feeling its going to be just a simple upgrade over DAI's terrible side stuff.
But really, its just by play thats how we went back we spent time building those, but each time we had a controller, going through those planets. At the beginning youre excited. I can see anything, I can land on anything, for example. Then you go there, but after two or three youre like, okay, theres nothing I remember. Even if you put content in. But theres nothing memorable. That term is important memorable. I want to be able to tell you something, like floating rocks, and youre like thats that planet. But building that means you have to craft it.
We heard the players specifically over the recent years saying that meaningless quests dont really interest them any more. We all come from, at Bioware, classic RPGs a long time ago, and doing those quests where you go fetch things in order to craft better stuff. Its a part of it, but the player doesnt really want that any more, and again for the type of game were making it didnt feel right either.
We wanted to make sure that even a very minor quest has at least at the very least a narrative touchstone. You will learn something. A character name, the existence of something.
For many of the same reasons you shouldn't be able to be a Fighter, Thief, Druid, Cleric, Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Monk, Warlock, Ranger, and Paladin all at once (i.e. a God) in most RPGs. It undermines player-choice in terms of skill-related gameplay and party composition. Or said in another way, it removes consequences from those choices by allowing the player to just do it all.
This appears to be a growing trend of some people wanting all content to be available to them in one play-through, but for their to be good reactivity, you need to withhold content (whatever that may be in the context) for choices to matter. Both in the narrative and in combat.
.
I wonder if they are going to release the minimum requirements for the game? I don't think they will be much different than BF1 but it would great for people to gauge the level of performance they are going on to see on their hardware.
For many of the same reasons you shouldn't be able to be a Fighter, Thief, Druid, Cleric, Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Monk, Warlock, Ranger, and Paladin all at once (i.e. a God) in most RPGs. It undermines player-choice in terms of skill-related gameplay and party composition. Or said in another way, it removes consequences from those choices by allowing the player to just do it all.
This appears to be a growing trend of some people wanting all content to be available to them in one play-through, but for their to be good reactivity, you need to withhold content (whatever that may be in the context) for choices to matter. Both in the narrative and in combat.
You can't though. You have access to all the skills, but not while in combat. In combat you have access to four presets of three skills, that you must switch between and whose switching has a cooldown. The system is designed so you can have a handful of custom builds that you can switch around depending on your situation, kind of like the Paradigm system in FFXIII.
Otherwise i don't remember Brad saying that, iirc he only said that Bioware said players could ng+ into full builds. Oh he says maybe you can grind enough to do it, but he doesn't sound very sure.
He also mentions that the walk by some people, overhear a conversation, and have a quest appear in your journal is still a thing, which I thought was a terrible way to receive quests in Mass Effect 3.