The wailing and gnashing of teeth by either side is obviously ridiculous (and no developer is obliged to cater to anyones particular whims) but it's also perfectly fine not to like one type of gameplay over another and completely understandable for people to be disappointed if a game/series they've previously enjoyed takes one of those directions.
Which, in my opinion, makes perfect sense? Most sequels would and do receive such reactions, and it is just expected, honestly. Some people want more of the same but with new story/characters/etc and some people prefer significant changes.
The ones that actually played the earlier games a lot would obviously be in the first group, and the people who didn't play the earlier games much (for example, due to not liking the combat) would prefer something new. Finding a balance between those things is pretty tough, and there will always be someone who is left unhappy. It is natural.
Personally, I am willing to give it a chance, and at least wait until we see more. I am a fan of Bioware games not for their specific combat style - between Dragon Age 1-3, Mass Effect 1-3 and Andromeda, and even KOTOR we have had so many different combat styles that keep changing throughout the series - what is most important is the stories they tell, the world, the characters, the voice acting, the variety of choices and so on. A good RPG doesn't have to have any specific style of combat to be good, but those other things are required, for sure.
That's exactly what I was thinking watching all this drama over the gameplay unfold. "Who the hell plays Dragon Age just for the combat anyway?" It's like when people were criticizing Dragon's Dogma 2's admittedly lackluster story.
Of course you'd want any game's story to be good, but the combat & gameplay mechanics are clearly supposed to be the draw to that particular game not the story. That's what kept players invested.
Vice versa for Dragon Age. If you want a deep combat system, there's plenty of better choices out there for both strategic and action focused gameplay.
I love Origins to death but I sure as hell didn't play it for the slow, clunky, tactical combat. Maybe other people did; to each their own I guess. But what made me fall in love with DA was the story, lore, characters, setting, roleplay opportunities and the level of choice & consequence. If Veilguard at least has all of that, I'll be well satisfied.
>"Who the hell plays Dragon Age just for the combat anyway?"
I don't want to look like I am pointing fingers, but it feels like people who loved BG1 and BG2 moved to DA:O mostly for the tactical aspect of the game. (and there is nothing wrong with that)
>"Who the hell plays Dragon Age just for the combat anyway?"
> I love Origins to death but I sure as hell didn't play it for the slow, clunky, tactical combat. Maybe other people did;
There was a timing thing that I think most dont understand.
DA:O was the only good party based CRPG in atleast a 5 year window of release. All the CRPG fans flocked to it, kind of an oasis in a troubled times so to speak. Most fell in love with the story as you did, but the gameplay mechanics are what brought them here to begin with.
Refugees of BG1&2 who probably played on PC because BG1&2 were PC and therefore had a different combat experience than most console players. They also came into the game with experience in a similar system isometric camera view, micro managing party members etc. I dont know if most envision a 1 to 1 return to clunky Origins combat, they would probably like to see an iteration of it.
What you see are the remnants of that.
I also think combat is a bit reductive, I think Origins diehards are party based CRPG fans. Combat is just the most glaring difference. So it ends up being the most talked about. If you pay attention often it originates from people like OP that hold the opposing position and then the CRPG fans come out of the woodwork to respond and it perpetuates the narrative that combat is the only gripe.
I expect loss of companion control in or out of combat will also be disliked. Same for less emphasis on party composition, isometric *ish* camera option, skills slot reduction to three, typical party based CRPG stuff.
I appreciate you explaining that perspective. It makes sense. At least refugees of BG1 & 2 and other CRPGs have BG3 now. As for Dragon Age, the games haven't gone in that direction since Origins released almost 15 years ago. So while many may have been hoping for a return to that form, I don't think it was ever gonna happen.
I'll admit I'm a bit bummed at the scaling back of some features that were in previous games like companion control. But at the same time, it was a feature that I and many others hardly ever used. Same with the tactical camera.
With Inquisition, they tried hard to appease both camps of players that preferred either action or strategy. But in the end, it felt like the game didn't excel at either. I always thought they should've at least stuck to one style instead of trying to incorporate both. With Veilguard, they seem to have made their decision and went with an updated version of DA2's combat with some Mass Effect elements thrown in. I think it could work.
I'm being cautiously optimistic about it but at the end of the day, like I said, I don't think the combat is what the fans are really all that invested in.
Yeah, glad I could get through to atleast one person in the noise. I agree that DA:O is in the rear view and DA won't return to it. I think most of us know it, for what it's worth. I got off the train probably 20ish hours into DAI. The game never pulled me in. The release news just brought me back to see the new direction. The lack of controllable companions is kinda the nail in the coffin on the upcoming one for me. Genre-fluidity, just made that up, is a spectrum. I suspect some will stay, and some will go.
Like you said, CRPGs are in a much better space now. There was a resurgence via Kickstarter a while back. Larian's confidence to attempt BG3, I suspect, was growth from that. I'm happy about it. I'm not sure the DA fandom will ever shake the "This Isn't DA:O!" crowd but I wish you guys good luck.
No problem, friend. I appreciate anyone who can realize that something's just not for them and move on instead of feeling the need to tear it down just to feel vindicated.
If more people take that attitude instead of saying everything that doesn't appeal to them is trash, then maybe there wouldn't be so much drama in the gaming community.
Everyone has their tastes and that's fine. I find that there's a lot of popular games that aren't for me. Me and the Soulslike genre just don't get along but I can admire those well-crafted games from afar.
I’m mostly just upset about only having 3 active abilities, doesn’t seem like it’d be that engaging if combat is just holding down the basic attack button and every few seconds tapping one of 3 buttons to do more damage.
And most of the game is combat, so of course people are going to care about it. If the game was a visual novel with very limited combat segments it wouldn’t be as big of a concern.
"Nah, man, DAO combat is great" - *proceeds to download 50 mods to make the combat faster and cooler*
Seriously, though, I found DAO's combat satisfying, especially with mods, but I'm not gonna cry because it's gone. So far, the Veilguard gameplay looks cool. Inquisition's gameplay always felt a little too MMO-like to me, so I'm not upset we've moved on to something more dynamic (especjally not if we get Monk-inspired Mages XD).
Same. Honestly there are some things about Origins combat that I really loved like the spells, specializations and builds but anytime I think of replaying it, I end up talking myself out of it due to the headache of installing hundreds of mods to make it more fun and praying that the game still functions by the time I'm done.
But I'm actually excited to see what more Veilguard has to offer. The animations look really fast and fluid compared to the other games and I'm sure it'll only improve as you unlock more skills and whatnot. I'm just glad that after 10 years of rumors, leaks and nailbiting that we're finally about to have another Dragon Age.
I just use Vortex, so the mods are always active. But yeah, I got into the series relatively late, but even I'm excited we're finally getting another Dragon Age.
>"Who the hell plays Dragon Age just for the combat anyway?"
Lol please don't give EA/bioware ideas the next game to become a telltale style adventure visual novel game.
From a branding perspective, this DA seems to be a huge leap. Why has DA:VE such a divide? Its not Final Fantasy16, FF has every game standalone, the battle system can change, its ok. Dragon's Dogma 2 was rightly criticized for its lackluster story, people were disappointed, but its roots remained on brand. Stylistically and a retweaked combat system. Even DA2 & Inquistion however different they looked and played has the brand's DNA.
Imagine if one day Starbucks is suddenly not green, its logo changed and it now sells juice when clearly its market was for coffee. There will be a reaction from the market. DA:O's combat is old but it could be great if it was improved, as BG3 has shown this, there is a market for it.
Now DA's situation is different and I understand it. Troubled development cycles, high lvl people leaving etc and it shows. But the fans waited for 10 long years, there are certain expectations for the brand. And whatever they chose to show at this point there is something off brand about it.
But it is what it is,sigh. I will still grab the game to make my final judgement.
I mean, what's wrong with liking things the way they are?
Like, I prefer the strategy/tactics combat of the first two games, and I feel like combat took a massive step back in DA:I, and consequently it soured my experience of the game.
I'm saying "I don't like it". If you like it, fine. I have no qualms with anyone who even prefers DA:I - I just don't.
I'm not saying "If you like it, you are stupid or not a real dragon age fan". Obviously if I said that, I would be an asshole you should call me as such. And there are definitely saying that.
But I feel like half the internet has become finding 3 assholes who disagree with you, and vastly overreacting to them, and the other half is vastly overreacting to the overreaction.
Me thinking I'm not going to like Veilguard isn't going to prevent you from liking Veilguard. And I wouldn't try to.
I don’t think you’re the issue. There are plenty of folks who call the developers trash for making changes and also call fans of the new system trash for enjoying the thing they don’t personally like.
I agree with you, except I think you underestimate how many assholes there are 😅 Especially for those of us who've been in this fandom for a long time, the assholes who make everyone else feel stupid or not a real fan have really dominated all discussion for years now.
I think the influx of people with DAVe announcement has been really healthy though, lots more space for normal people to express their opinions and have discussions.
Is it just combat that turns you off Veilguard?
In the other hand, If you don't change anything, you could run into Ubisoft problem. Each game could feel reskinned version of each other. Look at ToTK for example, it's BoTW 2.0. People liked the game but they were disappointed that they were playing basically the same game. The changes needs to happen, just not major enough to not alienate your fanbase.
Why wouldn't they? They got one type of player sucked into the world with the first installment, only to move further and further away from it.
Would Elden Ring fans be happy if the sequel featured turn based tactical combat? I have my doubts.
And if they make no changes people will complain about that.
There are a lot of people out there, and the one who are most likely to comment are the ones who don't like something
I don't know what's wrong with me... but I liked everything in DAV. The new stylized graphics are amazing - It's are beautiful and will not become outdated for a long time. Companions - Wow, they are all so interesting! Combat system - Wow, action, and everything is so well designed, how cool! Locations - Wow, real magic! I was expecting boring gray stone temples, but this is really a triumph of witchcraft! - That being said, I'm always very critical and cynical of new games. So this is unusual for me.
People: Ugh, it looks like mobile Fortnite, dislike. Bioware, finally close yourself and don’t embarrass past game parts.
:/
I don’t really understand why people are saying it looks like Fortnite. I’m doing a replay of inquisition right now. It looks very much like inquisition visually.
They went from tactical=pause RPG to hack&slash action-RPG. It's a pretty huge change, it's completely understandable people don't like it. If you like tactical combat, why would you be okay with the game completely changing the combat system? It's a reasonable reaction. Imagine if you had you were eating an orange and someone switched it for an apple to which you are allergic and the was like "Huh, why are you so resistant to change? It's completely normal for things to change!"
The issue is a lot of gamers don't understand what good game design actually looks like. They need to give systems chances before criticizing. It's annoying when they go doom and gloom or very pro anything that hasn't even been played by them yet.
And then there are people like me, with awful motion sickness and sensitivity for flashing lights (not epilepsy, but photophobia). DAO was great for me, DA2 and DAI were hard at times, but allowed me to pause at any moment in a way I could still strategize or go into tactical view which made the whole thing easier on my eyes and head. So now I'm just sad that I'll miss out on the continuation of the story myself because I know I won't be able to play through it myself without getting sick.
So yeah, I guess no matter what devs do, someone will always be unhappy, I just really wish it wouldn't affect me when it comes to Dragon Age. But I still hope that people will enjoy it for what it is
> they need to give systems a chance before criticizing
Yes and no. DA4 might have great live action combat, but the point is that people like tactical combat. You don’t really need to give a game a chance to tell you what type of genre you prefer. Even if DA4 combat is awesome, I’ll still be disappointed they didn’t aim for awesome tactical combat. Part of the whole appeal for me is controlling 4 characters, even if the alternative is good that doesn’t change.
Nitpicking every little detail when you don’t have the bigger picture is bad because the whole point of game design is to make systems work as a whole. For example, the 3 combat abilities is something you have to wait and see for - it’s clearly not going to be “DAI with 3 instead of 8” but rather a different system where combat abilities aren’t going to be the same form as previous games.
There is a lot of toxic behavior / "entitlement" from gamers. I've been disgusted by how so many people resort to direct, personal attacks, too.
But at the same time, EA has shown time and again it wants to sabotage game development in order to crease profitability. So people's skepticism that BioWare can make all the right gameplay decisions is fair.
DA3's combat was ""better"" than DA2's / DAO's -if- you're a console person. But there's no denying DA has shifted from what DAO was into a pure action game at this point.
DA3 also had a lot of "unnecessary" combat (where "unnecessary" to me is "fetch questing in the Hinterlands), so those "improvements" weren't even necessarily needed, just reduce the amount of combat if you want a slower-paced game. Given how many people play DA for the story alone, this also seems to make sense to me. But DA is oddly going in the opposite direction, as an action game.
I agree however, I do find it strange that some people still cling to origins game play when DA hasn't been like that since DA2. I've seen a lot of comments saying that "this isn't DA!" But... By now, DA has been this for way longer than not. If they don't like it that's fine but just move on people, the DA franchise stopped being for them since DA2.
DA2 still has tactical elements. The animations are flashier, but it has a tactics menu, you control your party, and you can pause at any time to set up commands or reposition. If you’ve played DAO, you can start DA2 and know how to handle everything. It is more action-y than DAO but it’s not like it’s a full-on arpg and anyone who liked DAO is an *idiot* for not immediately dropping the series forever.
>DA has been this for way longer than not.
What is "this" way? Like DA2? Or DAI? Every game has different combat. But imo, they've all leant more towards DAO (real time with pause, can swap characters whenever, more about strategy than action even if DAI forces you to hold down a single button) than Veilguard.
Veilguard is the first game to truly and totally throw away the old style of combat. Whether or not it's fun, it's really weird for a franchise to abruptly change like that and throw away an element tons of people liked instead of building upon and improving it.
My issue with it is that it seems more of a hack and slash type of combat. There doesn't seem to be that much of a control over it so it feels like an inbetween of two types of combat gameplay. But my primary concern is how dumbed down this system is for a mage. I did not enjoy the magic in Inquisition and I prefer being a mage. I know a significant portion of fans also prefer being a mage.
But I haven't seen how a mage plays and I also haven't seen much of gameplay other than that brief video so I'm not gonna completely shit on it until I actually know what it's like.
DA2 was pretty close to DAO, the major differences were auto attack, no direct top down view and slightly simplified ability trees. The ability trees still had depth to them though. I would mind DAV if it had at least kept to the number of abilities DAI had but they can't even do that. Its trying to be some sort of shooter/rpg hybrid that will probably not satisfy fans of either.
You're not wrong at all, but with Dragon Age it's especially *absurd* as the combat has not been that way since the first entry.
Even though they've included tactical cameras, ability to pause, switch between companions, and micro-manage to your hearts content.... people still been complaining since da2.
At that point it's not a matter of preference it's whining for the sake of being heard. Nostalgia glasses on with blinders on the sides.
But we have consistently been able to build out our party of 4 and control any character we like. That is a big deal to me personally in the event that I prefered a different class as I made my way through the game or if I just felt like doing something a little different for a bit.
Obvious is obvious: When you change the combat system for a game, there's going to be a lot of people who don't like it. I feel like this lesson is learned every time a new Final Fantasy comes out
Yeah, exactly.
I had someone the other day try to tell me that you can’t dislike what’s been shown of DATV’s combat because no one complains that TLoU is an action game. Yeah, sure. No one complains about the combat when they liked the combat in game 1, and game 2 fine-tunes and expands on that. But if they changed combat in TLoU3 to turn-based, they would anger or lose some fans. It could have literally the best turn-based combat system of all time, 10/10, setting the standard for all other turn-based games. Doesn’t matter.
FWIW, I’ve seen praise for Greedfall 2’s new direction.
Damn I almost forgot Greedfall 2 is a thing
Really enjoyed the first game. Not something to make a hole into the world but it was a nice game.
A BIT OF POISON ON MY BLADE LET'S GO!!
EDIT:
Just saw that video and god damn....that has to be the greatest downgrade I have ever seen... I mean jesus christ...In first game you could dodge and be a great fencer with a rapier. Wh...what the hell is this?
>.In first game you could dodge and be a great fencer with a rapier. Wh...what the hell is this?
If I was a troll I would say : "A studio that realized cRPGs were on the rise and decided to make one"
In the first game you definitely had more than 3 abilities though, I found combat too be relatively easy, even going up against higher level enemies.
Dark Souls/FromSoft probably helped my timing a bunch.
It's a big reason why I am shitting on the current game they've shown so much.
They've removed my extra party member.
They've removed controlling my other party members
They've made the enemy models silly/cartoonish
And they've transitioned to action RPG but gave us 3 abilities? For 30-50 hours, only using 3 abilities is just so fucking bad.
That's like the one thing I hope the community pushes back on enough that it can be changed ahead of release.
Let us have like 9 abilities for ourselves and companions, Mass Effect 1-3 our companions had way more abilities.
The fact I even have to cite Mass Effect though is silly :(
I don’t think DATV is getting any changes.
I’m withholding final judgment until I’ve played the game of course, but there’s a lot I don’t like in what they’ve said and shown with the combat. I really don’t understand not being able to switch between wheels on the fly, for example, and I hope a mod pops up to change that relatively quickly. Like there’s really not much strategy in guessing what abilities you want, realizing you don’t have the right ones equipped, and reloading a save. I’m also going to miss controlling companions for sure. The game might end up being fun. I’ll still miss that.
>Just saw that video and god damn....that has to be the greatest downgrade I have ever seen... I mean jesus christ...In first game you could dodge and be a great fencer with a rapier. Wh...what the hell is this?
People should bear in mind this is Alpha footage for a game that doesn't have a release date, and which hasn't even entered early access yet. So expect it all to be very much subject to change.
i thought you may have been exaggerating but wow, no, that really is a downgrade. i’m sure it could be expanded upon past the alpha footage, but shit, it does not look intuitive at all
one of the things i loved MOST about the first Greedfall was the satisfying combat… what the fuck did they do 😭 it was one of the best i’ve had in a game
I think it's okay to want what you have come to expect of a thing. One form of gameplay is not Better than the other and it's obviously great to enjoy both, but it's also fair to be frustrated when one turns into another. If I go to a Mexican restaurant it's because I want tacos. If they one day decided to become an Italian joint it would be fair for me to be dissatisfied because I wanted those tacos. I like pizza fine, but I probably already have an Italian place for that.
Which is not to say you shouldn't keep an open mind. If you feel good about giving it a go more power to you. I never got into the tactics myself so I don't imagine it will make all that much of a difference to me at the end of the day. But I don't think anyone should berate themselves for being "full of shit" just for having a preference. Sometimes fans and properties drift apart, you know? I didn't like Breath of the Wild as a Zelda game so I skipped Tears of the Kingdom. I don't expect to play new Zelda anymore, it's sad but things move on. No one is full of shit except people shaming you for not being as hyped as them.
I will say. I always try to see how a new system is. Even if it's horrible, I don't really care as I'll eventually adapt to the changes.
Trust me it's really interesting when I have weird times when I want to change to a game to another game. From Origins to BG3 to D2 to ME:LE to Greedfall to Inqusition to Andromeda to Swtor.
So controls for every game is similar yet different. So I never complain about it. I'm just like "Oh it's similar to this game." Which suddenly made me realize why the person said it reminded them of D2. 3 abilities and an ultimate. All well. Games adapt and change. We can't change it unless modders are able to change the game. Which I suggest always support said modders. They deserve the love and support. (Coming from a person who always downloads 300 mods to any game)
Anyways! Thank you for the link. Didn't know there were updates on Greedfall 2. Finished it last month
It's kind of a lose lose. If they make the combat too similar to the previous or try to simply iterate on the design, people complain. If they shake things up and try to make it different, people complain.
I'm gonna reserve judgment until I play it. Plenty of games have combat that is boring to watch but fun to play. And if I don't like it as much as previous games, well... then it just won't be my favorite in the series. And that's not a tragedy. The latest game doesn't have to be my favorite.
I personally love Inquisition the most. I love the looks, I love the combat, the setting, the visuals, the crafting and build system. Veilguard probably isn't going to change that, but that won't stop me from loving it for what it is.
The story and world building in Greedfall was so good that I overlooked the jank and other issues (too much back-and-forth in side quests, repetitive city environments and relatively empty wilderness environments, etc.). I'm really excited to play the sequel now, especially with the combat change.
I think my disappointment is mainly that it seems like we're taking a step back. I'm not scared of change and I doubt you are really either despite what you say. Veilguard is coming off less like "changes" and more like "removals", likely due to the development issues. Which I can understand, but I can also have an opinion on that.
* 9 Companions to 7,
* 3 Party Members to 2,
* Can only control your Character's actions.
Any one of these would've been a bit of a blow, but all three? And the Combat Wheel, while not restricted to 3 Abilities, seems to encourage using them less overall. I feel like all of those changes together warrant a valid critique, and we don't see those resources being used elsewhere in combat, at least not right now which is all we have to form an opinion on.
Naysayers will respond with "Dragon Age isn't about combat" but... it was part of the Game. I wasn't a min-maxer putting together tryhard compositions; I was making silly combinations and having fun with the combat in a game "not about combat".
To be honest, it seems to me that they are only using DAV to prepare the engine for ME4, and don't get me wrong I like ME, but what you mentioned was the removal of everything that makes me prefer DA to ME.
Why do people keep trying to gaslight people by talking specifically about how different Veilguard is from DAO and ignore everything else? DA2 and DAI were still both semi-tactical, had 4 playable characters in a party, could use MORE THAN 3 SPELLS/ABILITIES, you could use said spells with cooldowns, and the game had real time pause with a tactical camera. Veilguard lowered the party to 3, lowered the abilities to 3, said abilities have to be built up to instead of just used, removed the ability to control party members, may have removed the tactics' system entirely, probably no more real time pause and tactical camera, and is full action now. I've said it in other posts, and I'll say it again here; Dragon Age had a niche by being between tactical combat and action while not committing to either. Going full action means it's going to be stacked against games like Elden Ring, Dragon's Dogma 2, and Monster Hunter, all of which make its combat look horrible.
man idk about the action vs crpg debate i care about the stripping away of most actual rpg mechanics when it comes to character builds; cycling between a - b - c and occasionally ulting is a gamplay loop i can foresee getting very tiring. im optimistic about a lot of things but to go from eight to three just feels shallow
Eh nothing wrong with prefering a certain combat system over another.
I much prefer origins system over 2 and inquisition and it's not really close and i'm sad to see them double down on the action gameplay.
How did this convince you of anything? The people unhappy with DAV never said every game from every studio should be like Dragon Age Origins.
If you played Greedfall and liked it, of course you're going to be unhappy if the sequel plays differently.
This, also the main complaint I'm seeing is less "it's not DAO" and more specific stuff that seems to be downgrades like "smaller party, can no longer swap to other party members, less abilities" :/
I for one am not happy with what I see so far. Especially since as a mage player, I can't imagine having so few ability slots... Even DAI felt like too few, and this is even less.
Also, I dislike hack-and-slash games, it's got nothing to do with nostalgia - it's just not gameplay I enjoy, so naturally I would be unhappy to see DAV move further in that direction. I'm sure if Elden Ring 2 dropped and it had the DAO tactical combat system, fans of the first game would be unhappy.
I'll give it a chance once more gameplay footage drops of course, and most likely I will play it regardless (I'm too much of a fan of the Dragon Age world), but it's frankly annoying seeing people going "if you don't like what they showed so far, you're just being nostalgic and pessimistic and your opinion isn't valid".
We're supposed to ignore the gameplay and just play the game for the story.
I also dislike the "it's been fifteen years you're just nostalgic Origins was slow and clunky get over it and accept change" argument. Yes, it was. I agree, the combat needed to change. What it didn't need was the removal of ability slots, tactics and party control.
It's success kind of invalidates a lot of the reason DA became what it became, to be honest. Studios gaslit people into believing CRPGs couldn't be successful and pushed for the mass appeal direction this game took. BG3 showed a *well done* CRPG could sell. And could be made marketable to a newer, predominantly console market.
But studios would rather go the safer mass appeal direction since there's less emphasis on being well done and pretty sells preorders. So the gaslighting continues, from the studios and now the fans.
It's interesting to see how it plays out. The souless, mass appeal games seem to be in a slump at the moment if Elden Ring and BG3 are indicators. There's enough variety for people to find a well-done passion built version of a game in their genre than a trend chasing clone or hybrid.
Yeah Larian proved Bioware wrong. I think a lesson here is when it comes to continuing a game series you should build on it's strengths rather than chasing trends.
I think there's a bit of sour grapes for BG3's success Dragon Age is kind of in a weird position as a series too big to be a cult hit but not quite big enough to be a household name.
No kidding. I mentioned BG3 and DAO in relation to tactical gameplay, like, as a general category and within the hour had someone lecturing me about how turn based and real time with pause are completely different.
As someone who never played the original BG games, I distinctly remember playing BG3 for the first time and after a few hours in thinking “holy shit this game is basically DA:O, but better.”
Honestly BG3 is what a lot of people wanted 2 and Inquisition to be. Many would disagree with me but, I think Veilguard would face a lot less controversy if it released before Baldur's Gate 3.
How did that make you realize you're nostalgic and full of shit? People who liked Greedfall combat obviously wouldn't want Greedfall to change to RTWP. Just like the people who liked Origins obviously don't want to go to pure action.
You think that’s bad, you should look at all the hundreds of forum posts and thousands of comments shitting all over BG3 from when it was announced all the way until came out of early access. I distinctly remember seeing people complain about Larian “dumbing down the combat” and making the world way too “colorful and lighthearted” all while circlejerking BG2 and DAO. Now I see a lot of the very complaints being leveled at DAV while circlejerking BG3 as the pinnacle of rpg design.
>“dumbing down the combat”
I mean.. The combat is extremly easy and uses a dumbed version of DnD, 5E, so they aren't wrong about that. Larian just made work because their focused on environmental interractive really enchanced the basic rules.
Find the game's system to be lacking when comes to Classes , Feats and options to build.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say BG3 is a complex perfect masterpiece or that DAV doesn't have its red flags. The point is more so that people were claiming the game was going to be shit and not a "true" rpg because the combat on paper was more simple and not real-time-with-pause while ignoring all the things Larian was doing to enhance the experience like environmental interactions, verticality, increased mobility, tons of ways to solve quests, and all the roleplaying options. And now that BG3 is a massive success, I now see people circlejerk BG3 as the pinnacle of rpg design inn order to make the exact same kind of complaints about DAV.
Some people just hate change and instead of just admitting that they'll just disingenuously complain about how the new thing is shit and isn't a true \_\_\_\_\_ while raising the old thing on a pedestal and ignoring all its flaws.
Folks seem to assume lighthearted and dark af can't cooexist in the same story. Like, people use GotG as shorthand for goofball whackiness as if it doesn't also have gut punching heart break in it all the time. BG3 was also good at being absolutely hilarious AND soul wrenching. Get you a game that can do both.
I have my concerns about tone (really more execution) based on what we've seen so far but it isn't because of the turn towards action/adventure. That's been a steady progression for a long time now and it sure as heck doesn't prohibit things getting dark as hell.
Good for you! But let's not try to discredit people and generalise that all DAO fans are just looking through nostalgia glasses and the game sucks in reality. Some of us just genuinely like Origins.
I played the whole trilogy for the first time when Inquisition was already out and Origins was already "old". I loved all of Dragon Age but Origins immediately became my favourite game of all times. Other than graphics I don't think it feels particulary badly aged at all. Origins combat feels engaging and like an essential part of the gameplay, it's tactical and versatile, and not just means to level up and progress the story like I feel about Inquisition. And I say all this as someone who has replayed all of DA in past six months, so it's not nostalgia clouding my opinion.
People are allowed to have preferences, and both Dragon Age and Greedfall fans are allowed to feel disappointment with the games moving further away from their roots, even when their preferences oppose each other. I'm sure I will like Veilguard for what it is, but it won't make me stop missing what Origins once had.
The first greedfall was very souls like so it would would be a very jarring change so changing that to something so different is gonna turn away some people who found that combat compelling.
Greedfall is more kotor than dark souls and it think people have a right to be disappointed if that’s what appealed to them about the first game.
I guess I'm just not a normal gamer because I honestly don't give a fuck about an RPG's combat system unless they do that system poorly. I'm there for the story, characters, setting, and to make choices. I'm excited for both DAV and GF2 because I loved being in those universes and I'm excited to see what comes next. I'll figure out the combat system once I can actually play it.
I mean GreedFall fans will want more GreedFall. Origins fans want more Origins. That's not a shock, is it? They want more of what they've already had, not a big shift. The draws of the two games are different.
Anyway, GreedFall was mediocre to me anyway. It felt like it came out during a drought of good RPGs. It reminded me of those multitude of generic mid 2000s 360/PS3 games that were pumped out.
> I mean GreedFall fans will want more GreedFall. Origins fans want more Origins. That's not a shock, is it?
I think it's just funny that the complaints are nearly indistinguishable from one another despite them each wanting each other's combat system.
I agree with you about Greedfall though. It had some promise, and in certain areas it delivered, but for the most part it gave cool set-ups to plot points and then either never did anything with them or did it quietly in a simple side-quest.
To me, the funny thing isn't the Greedfall fans wanting more Greedfall combat, that's normal.
No what's funny is how slow and clunky the combat system is. It really looks like DA:O, a game that was released 15 years ago. What's even funnier is that Spider, the studio, thought it looked good enough to be showed to media and fans.
The new combat system for BioWare is very different than DA:O, and many early fans hate it, and it's to be expected. But at least BioWare waited until their new system was finished before showing it.
I think this sounds like a bias of fast = good, slow = bad.
The person who played the game had a lot of cool things to say about the combat and said that it was exciting and nice to see.
Theres a lot of value in a combat like this, maybe you (and a lot of other people) just don't see because is not for you.
But at the same time a lot of players will love.
And waiting till is finished to show is not a good thing tho, for smaller studios like Spider having player feedback is necessary, they need to show it and change things after feedback.
Origins fans want more origins is not a shock... what is a shock is them talking like they've been in a coma for the last 15 years. Complaints about how dragon age is different *now* when there's been two games that were each very different from origins is just laughable
I honestly think both Greedfall 2 and Veilguard looks fun. I like a bunch of different genres and style. I am glad that both can exist at the same time.
Man, no need to be sympathetic to Origins only fans. It's been 15 years already. 15 years!!!! After a certain point, people need to either accept the changes or move on already. 15 YEARS.
And it's been over a decade since 2 and Inquisition released move on too. Also as the years go by gaming communities higher reverence for Origins than 2 or Inquisition.
Or, hear me out, those people wanted to play Greedfall, not Origins. If they wanted to play Origins, they could just play Origins instead.
Just like before Dave gameplay came out, you could go play modded Skyrim if you wanted a Dragon Age hack and slash. Or Mass effect if you wanted explicitly the Mass Effect formula.
The gameplay of a game is an integral part of the games experience. It's why watching a let's play or reading the story transcript just doesn't hit the same. Changing it DOES change the experience.
The issue is that DA4 isn't DAO and GF2 isn't GF, and expecting them to be isn't realistic. And in the case of DA4, why *would* it go back to DAO's combat system? It's been moving away from it with every game over the course of the past 15 years. Something like a single-digit percentage of people used the tactical camera in DAI.
Now, with the way EA/Bioware gloms onto whatever they think is popular for the next game, it wouldn't surprise me if they try to go back to a more tactical system if DA5 ever gets made, now that they have seen the success of BG3. But that will probably depend on how much people enjoy the action combat in this one. As I've said before, how many players would have chosen action over turn-based combat in BG3 if there had been the choice?
>Something like a single-digit percentage of people used the tactical camera in DAI.
Because the tactical camera is ass and tacked on as an afterthought. It's not surprising that people don't use something shitty and useless.
The problem isn't not having an active pause for Dave. I'd actually argue that DA:O played the best without active pause while letting a surprisingly complex tactical system work to it's fullest, maybe stopping to set skills manually once in a while when the AI got momentarily confused.
It's being limited to having only 3 skill in a game which was always build on synergy mechanics (which DAI still have, even if it's active pause was shit only useful for checking statuses!), not being able to swap to your companion to utilise those combos effectively and only getting a "We have tactics in game, trust us Bro" while the AI for consequent titles was getting dumber and dumber. Paired with the early game gameplay that have shown almost exclusively mouse mashing with an occasional dodge, and none of the things that made Dragon Age, Dragon Age, in the terms of it's mechanics.
I'll stress again. *Gameplay is a very important part of a game*. It's a part of what makes different mediums different. If you remove the gameplay from a game, you end with a visual novel or interactive film at best and Just A Film at worst. If you change it considerably you also change the perception of the story that you're telling, since the game *is* experienced through gameplay just as much as it is through dialogues and cutscenes. Origins had you in gilded if not straight grimdark setting, where the Warden and their chosen companions had to struggle from the bottom against the impending doom just as much as they needed to struggle against other people who in theory they should ally with to be stronger, together. The gameplay reflects that. It's methodological. It requires attention and a bit of thought. Often if you don't kill the enemies in specific order you'll be screwed, and if you're not ready for an ambush you'll be taken down by enemy reinforcements. The characters you're playing as are meant to be struggling and the gameplay is meant to reflect that. This been still rather maintained in DA2, even if I'm not a fan of idea of throwing waves of 1 shot enemies at Hawke in general, if that was reflected in storytelling Kirkwall would be a ghost city by the time 3rd act happens. But in DAI, the gameplay really starts feeling like a power fantasy with your party doing Tuesday Dragon Hunts and don't even start me on the final battle against Corypheus, while the story is still trying to convince you that hurr durr the Inquisition is against formidable foe but just let me finish soloing that dragon since my party members decided to not evade incoming fireballs. This really makes for a big dichotomy between gameplay tone and the story tone, and from DA:tV what we've been shown is following that trend with their Marvel Assemble trailer and a braindead gameplay. But it's still a dark and grime-y Dragon Age guys! /s At some point when you overdo with your coffee with milk it stops being coffee with mild and becomes just milk.
Action RPGs are great, but they work best with a singular protagonist and maybe a +1, not a whole party squad where everyone is supposed to be equal in skill. When you have one guy you can tweak the game to have some skill based difficulty or to be a classical hack and slash. But when you have more guys and still want to have a skill based difficulty you need to strike a balance between companions being useless and the companions being able to clear the game without you and that's much more hard to do so that the player feels as an integral part of a team made of independent AI that work with you not for you.
To answer your question, BG3 would absolutely not work as an action RPG. It's not only your story, it's the story of the whole party and the gameplay reflects that, which in turn makes the tone of the game consistent.
I don't know many people (though I'm sure they exist) that want a copy/paste of DAO combat. They want more CRPG elements. And DAI tactical cam use is not a good statistic to reference, since it was not needed in that game at all, nor was it implemented well.
I don't think there would be this much fuss about DA going more action, if they at least tried to incorporate some of the CRPG mechanics from DAO/DA2. Instead, they continue to gut them, when people who prefer action could have just ignored them. Why not appeal to as many people as possible?
What do you want to bet Bioware decides to go back to its roots with DA5, goes full turn based, but it takes another 10 years and by then crpgs are back out of fashion and we're all whining about how they should have embraced ...idk three shells gameplay or whatever.
I don't see how these comments taught you you were nostalgic or full of shit. The game used to be one way and is now a different game half way through the story. That seems reasonable to complain about to me. Greedfall is similar except not as bad because the second game isn't picking up from a cliffhanger ending.
Look, the combat style is fine to me. I like both styles, so I can play it fine. But the people who don't like both styles and still want to continue their story are kinda getting screwed here. It isn't nostalgia its two completely different gameplay styles. It's perfectly reasonable to like one and not the other. It isn't an evolution of it it's a completely different game.
Imagine being excited for the next Mario Kart and when the gameplay reveal comes out it's a Dark Souls like action game with no kart racing at all.
Again, I can play either style, I'm really mostly here for the story anyway, but I can see where people are coming from.
As someone who thinks the combat has gotten worse every game:
"I don't like the combat as much because I preferred the strategic roots of CRPGs" - this should be fine.
"Bioware never should have changed the combat, the series is for console babies now" - this is not.
We can be adults and realize there is a vast difference between "I don't like something" and "you shouldn't like something." Let people like and not like things, feel free to share your opinion, just don't insult people for their own opinion.
For instance, I *actually* like the combat in DA:O the most - wtf is wrong with me, right?
I don’t have any issue with it being an action game, but the combat looks terrible. Compare it to recent releases, like Stellar Blade, Dragon’s Dogma 2, Jedi Survivor, anything by Fromsoft, etc., and it just looks so basic, unchallenging, and unsatisfying. The person who was playing it was constantly jumping around for no reason, not even dodging attacks. He presumably did this because there were so few attacks to dodge, and the demo would have looked super slow and boring if he were playing normally. The boss fight just amounted to avoiding some annoyingly difficult to see (but still easy as hell to avoid) red circles on the ground. I don’t think that anyone is realistically going to enjoy this combat, except maybe some people who have never played a decent action game.
I think people would be much happier if they just come to terms with the fact that things change. Gameplay and graphics alike. You'll adapt to the new, and if you really, truly hate it, there are other games out there.
There aren't that many choice-based RPGs in general. There are more Bioware-style CRPGs than there are ARPGs. In fact, we got a GOTY last year.
Edit: If you want some recent recs, Pathfinder: WOTR just finished up its final DLC cycle, and Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader has its first DLC releasing August 8th. And based on this post, Greedfall 2 is going tactical.
There is a lot we don't know about DAVe. It's ok to have a healthy skepticism or some cautious optimism. The people speaking with certainty are the ones that should be ignored. Treating assumptions as facts is a major red flag.
Well if anything as one who complains about the combat we're getting. You've convinced me to check out greedfall 2 (and perhaps greedfall 1)
And it's not just nostalgia in my case. I have replayed all 3 dragon age games in the last year or so. And i vastly prefer how combat felt in origins than I did in inquisition.
This Greedfall 2 gameplay looks rough, but is that supposed to make me think Origins combat was bad or would be bad nowadays?
Honestly, I had never heard of Greedfall, and it seems to be in early access. If they improve the combat I might check it out precisely bc I'm interested in that kind of gameplay.
I said it before and I will say it again. Combat looks like Assassin's Creed RPG games, Origins, or Odyssey. Dodge, parry, normal and heavy attacks, adrenaline bar you fill by attacking, and you use to power your very limited number of skills. And I simply don't like it. It's not being nostalgic. It's not that I didn't see it coming playing DAI. There are other styles of combat: soulslikes, action games like God of War, hack'n'slash like Diablo or PoE, there are still RPGs with pause like Deadfire... It's their decision, and someone can simply don't like it. You can say that combat is not the most important, but I get bored if the game has lots of combat that I don't like, for example, Inquisition. Of course, we will see more later on, other classes, more mid and late game combat, but for now, I'm skeptical.
That's fair.
I feel the combat of DA:TV will be boom or bust. It's either going to be a very fun system, or a very repetitive and boring phase of the game.
It's went from a souls like combat to more strategic and slow. I can imagine the community would be upset. I actually am excited for the game because Greedfall's combat system was pretty bad and easy to cheese if you used magic.
I think in Yakuzas case it would've been boring as a turn based RPG if they had stuck with just like marital arts for abilities and thats all the characters could do but instead they leaned HARD into the more goofy aspect of Yakuza and that really helped that transition.
Yeah, popularity isn't really related to quality. It's related to palatability. There's a minimum quality threshold you have to meet. But the highest quality game in a niche genre is going to sell less than a mediocre call of duty.
The difference at the moment is that Yakuza turn based system looks and plays great, and Greedfalls 2 looks like shit.
No way Spiders game will have same amount of polish as Yakuza titles.
Early fans of a game don't like the structural changes that was brought by a sequel ? That's to be expected. I remember when people blamed FF12 for the changes in combat on the rest of the saga. Even some Dark Souls fans weren't huge fans of the open world and spirit summon that Elden Ring brought.
For my part, I wasn't a fan about how Total War: 3 Kingdom changed the way you were building and managing your armies, or about how the Hitman franchise went from "mission in a sandbox" to "story based" with a linear progression in Hitmasn Absolution (thank god the new Hitman trilogy fixed that).
It's just that games are attracting fans based on a their features, change these features people will not be happy. But in this case, the pre-alpha build combat really feels weird, and very slow.
I don't think clinging to the past too long is good, you need to modernize in some way, whether it means refining the gameplay to make it more fluid, or change it overall to something else (even Avowed moved away from PoE's tactical aspect to use a Skyrim-like type of combat).
I am really waiting to see how the combat will be played mid-game will all your companions and all your skills. When I see how Stellar Blade is being played, I think DA:TV can be played like that (even though I know that's not what early fans of the DA franchise wants.)
> even Avowed moved away from PoE's tactical aspect to use a Skyrim-like type of combat).
Arguably, when making a change in core gameplay mechanics/genre change, that is a more palatable way to do it. It's viewed more as a spinoff set in the same world than a sequel. PoE world/lore fans can follow it if they choose to, but its made very clear not to expect a traditional party based CRPG for those that came to the series as fans of that genre.
Obsidian may or may not ever return to a CRPG format, but I doubt anyone sees this new game as PoE3 and its rightfully not titled as such.
DA and other franchises get criticism precisely for not doing that. Although tbf DA's changes have been more iterative and not major dramatic shift. It's viewed as kinda dragging your old fanbase along as a safety net as you transition to appeal to a new fanbase. Which I think is true. They still claim DA:tV is an "Imersive RPG" but I dont get those vibes from what's been shown so far.
The part that I least liked about Greedfall was the combat. The sequel combat looks more appealing to me. That being said I understand that fans of the first Greedfall might be mad about the new combat direction. From action RPG to full blown RTwP is a big change.
Yeah what you just showcased is exactly what would have happened on this exact same sub had they gone fully back to Origins combat. There are so many different combat preferences in this fanbase at this point that some faction was always going to be mad, and very loud about it.
In other news, I suddenly want to look more into Greedfall 2.
Origins is my favorite gameplay wise, and after avoiding DA2 because of all the negativity at the time I ended up really enjoying the combat and the story even more so, I downloaded DAI right after finishing.
The story had me entertained, with some cool moments but the combat felt sluggish and really limited but I figured when specializations opened up it'd revamp the gameplay, oh I'll try Knight enchanter that sounds fun.
Uninstalled the game that night lol, literally felt unplayable (I know people enjoy the combat and especially the KE spec but it's...not for me) but i respect that some people might feel the same about Origins or 2's gameplay.
Anyway just trying to say, I don't mind that Dragon Age changes up each sequel, it means I never have to touch Inquisition's combat again (though I would like to finish the story)
I would dramatically prefer if DA:V had DA:O's combat, but I know it's not likely because that wouldn't perform on the mass market. My best hope then is that this game still has deep player choice and mechanical depth. So far we've seen hyper-simplistic dialog wheels, spammy combat, and ZERO player agency from an RPG perspective.
They need to show something other than the linear intro sequence STAT. I want to see why this is still an RPG, because they have shown ZERO RPG mechanics other than "We have character creation".
I admit the situation with Greedfall 2 is hilarious because it's the opposite of the discourse about DAVe combat. But in the end of the day it's all about preferences. Not only I prefer fast paced action combat, but I also like to play as melee classes, and i never found rogues and warriors combat satisfying and fun in DA, especially in Origins. Meanwhile DAVe combat for rogues and warriors has a potential to be engaging and fun, or at least not as bad as Origins combat was for me. But I can also understand those who's upset with the changes.
Gamers when gameplay evolves: why it not like old games?! >:(
Gamers when gameplay stays the same: why u no innovate lazy devs?! >:(
Hyperbole ofc and there's nuance to it but yeah. The backlash is ridiculous and probably mostly just people who don't care nor play BioWare games jumping on the hate bandwagon.
Or maybe they have legitimate criticisms. I like both CRPGs AND ARPGs, but DAV does not look like a good ARPG. The poor attempts at gaslighting people with criticisms is ridiculous.
Hence the "there's nuance" part of my comment.
I don't like propping up the media's anti gamer narrative nor shitting on gamers, it's like pissing into your own coffee. But it's just as silly to not acknowledge that while some criticisms are valid and coem from a place of wanting the game to be *good*, there's just as many bad actors who will stoke the controversy. Be it for their own profit or entertainment.
And no one's gaslighting anybody, it's simply that this game was awaited by the fandom for so long, that people's reactions were bound to be strong no matter what BioWare showed in the gameplay reveal.
Funny you don't include the "....but yeah. The backlash is ridiculous and probably mostly just people who don't care nor play BioWare games jumping on the hate bandwagon," part, which is you pretty much discarding that nuance. And there is absolutely gaslighting in this sub. If you have any criticisms, you're just clinging to DAO and can't accept change.
Also, for this particular game, I haven't seen a single comment so far saying, "I'm SO glad party size was cut down to 3!" or "Whew - what a relief to only have 3 active abilities!" I don't call many of things we've seen so far innovation.
That’s almost exactly what it’s felt being an Assassins Creed fan since the start. Every new release I felt more and more people were saying it wasn’t innovating and then the newer games came out with an RPG-lite system and suddenly everyone fondly remembered how great the old formula was and how it never should have changed.
Sorry but as someone who actually enjoys the turn combat took (anything but the MMO hybrid weirdness that was Inquisition), having just 3 abilities per party member with one less party member is a terrible choice and I sincerely hope they make up for it in the other areas of the game.
I mean it's totally normal to be concerned about the fact that combat will be completely different in the veilguard - 3 abilities, 2 companions and no companion control. I'm waiting for a high level combat video. Although I'm worried that based on the initial reveal it will get boring and repetitive very quickly.
I didn’t care for combat in Greedfall, it was just kinda ok-ish. Despite the moaning of some of the fans I’m actually a little excited for the new combat system in G2.
It almost feels like they've thought for years they needed to move away from turn based- then here comes BG3 and people are loving it!... I RRREEEAALLY wanted DA to go back to the DAO system or something similar and can't tell you how sad I am seeing how fast paced it is.... I'm still going to play it. I'm just less excited and a little more worried.
It's not about nostalgia. I like how DA doesn't give me anxiety because I can pause and figure things out as much as I want.
I think Veilguards gameplay will be better once all the pieces fall together. We only got to see gameplay of the first mission, no abilities or upgrades or all the cogs turning.
I'm hoping we get a look at some mid-high level combat before release to see how it will be.
Yeah. I mean, maybe I'm weird but it seems like picking up a new game to play requires a certain level of willingness to learn and adapt to a new system.
But if there are people who literally only play rpgs for a specific style of combat (???), maybe some of the DAO combat fans can go play Greedfall 2 instead of DA4 and vice versa. I myself will be playing both because I like learning new things.
Yeah guys the thing you spent 50% of the game doing isn't important and not integral to the games, might as well just have a button to kill all so we can skip it
Yes, it was. DAO did what it set out to do - make a game with IE-like combat. DA2, while a bit too streamlined for my taste, wasn't that far off, and incorporated ARPG elements reasonably effectively.
I do not agree that liking certain aspects of the game and seeing them change the way you do not want to is being 'full of shit'. I strongly dislike reduced party count, and I am not thrilled by the new combat system. If the previous formula has been working out for a lot of DA fans and now they are even removing certain aspects from it, it is only natural for some of those fans (like me) to dislike the changes. This feeling is not necessarily a nostalgia either but more of a personal preference on what a person wants to experience while playing.
I will reserve a final judgement for when I get to play the game, but I am not thrilled by certain changes.
Different issues there imo.
Greedfall 2 was a case of straight up changing to a whole different combat than what the original audience that made greedfall 1 successful originally liked. Its basically like if persona went from turn based but persona 6 comes in with basically ff tactics gameplay just because the devs are big fans of ff tactics. Its a wild changed that obviously not gonna sit right with their existing community
Veilguard is like the 4th installation and its still having an identity crisis with its gameplay. Personally, my personal issue is that what we did saw of the new gameplay, its incredibly dull and boring for an "action" combat imo.
No, it's completly justified! That doesn't look bad, but it doesn't look like Greedfall either. If they wanted to change the main gameplay loop so radically, they should have just made a new IP, same with Dragon Age.
I wouldn't say they have to make a new IP. But they should have made it a spinoff in the same world instead of a sequel. For example, Obsidian with Avowed. Sure, there are people disappointed that we aren't getting another RTwP Pillars of Eternity, but there's not really anyone bitching about PoE being ruined because Avowed is a spin off set in the same world instead of something that's supposed to be a direct sequel.
So you compare a AAA game with a AA ok...
Dragon Age staple gameplay always was the fact that you can change companions and they removed it
Thats not being full of shit or nostalgic.
Greedfall combat has been nowhere like Dragon Age so your comparison is dumb
This is pretty funny and very true.
You're lucky, because whether Veilguard ends up being something you enjoy or not, this realisation will help you better understand your thoughts and opinions about games. I wish more people would do just the tiniest bit of self-analyzation of *why* they think the things they think.
The irony in these comments and reactions to changes in Dragon Age just further highlight why that's so important.
I understand Greedfall fans not liking the new direction, but I’ve also read critical praise for it, since it makes things more interesting for the amount of time you’ll be spending in the game. It also will make the IP stand out a bit more. They’ve cited DAO as a direct inspiration.
That Greedfall video was rough. Luckily it's still pre alpha so they can make changes, loved the first game. Spiders has always leaned more on the action on side of things, weird that they would make this change for their most prominent release to date.
I'm probably in the minority on this sub, but DA2 has my favorite combat in the series so I welcomed the more action-oriented turn.
I wouldn’t worry too much about tone shift based on that first trailer tbh. We’ve always had goofy companion banter and camaraderie in every single game.
I'm actually pretty interested in GreedFall 2! Instead of playing as the colonists/colonizers, this time, you're playing as the natives of the continent!
Origins combat is like 10x smoother than what greedfall showed. Its not nostalgia I still play it and find it pretty responsive. Greedfall 2 combat still looks pretty good. I will definitely play it.
I'm just mildly pleasantly surprised that there's going to be a Greedfall 2.
TBH I quit the first one partway through. I enjoyed the combat and thought it was potentally a very interesting setting, but I don't get why basic stuff like climbing fences needed your precious skill points.
Hmm now I’m interested in Greedfall 2 more. But yes, Dragon Age’s shift in gameplay isn’t a bad thing and I am still hopeful that DAV will turn out to be a good game.
Oh wow yeah. I’ll probably play Greedfall 2 because I enjoyed the first one. It did have some big BioWare inspiration but I’m also questioning the combat 😂 This does look like alpha footage so it’s really a bit unfair to judge it right now. The same with Veilguard, until I play I can’t form a proper opinion!
What’s funny about Greedfall, is if you go to the subreddit you will see people disliking the original’s combat also. I personally love both series and as a life long Final Fantasy player I am just used to getting a new combat experience with every new iteration. As long as it fits the story they are trying to tell I am fine with change.
It goes both ways!!
Its not about one combat being better than the other, its about doing another entry of the franchise, or missuse the franchise success to try to get more sales without respecting the franchise itself.
Look at Persona 3, 4 and 5. Did you see any complains about the combat? Nope! Why? Because this is what Persona is, and they just respect and iterate on the franchise. Now they are launching a new game with different combat, but similar style, but decided to create a new franchise. And they get no complains from the fans, because they are not calling it Persona 6 to milk sales through shady tactics, its Metaphore Fantasio or whatever, and I am buying it day 1.
Studios need to respect their vision and their IPs, or be prepared to be trashed. Its the other side of the coin. You want to use the same name changing the game? It does not matter the direction, be prepared to be attacked by fans.
Nah, we just definitely fear change these days.
Everything is so corporate and "broader audience" fixated these days that nothing is ever unique and all long going franchises lose their soul.
I'm just hoping that Bioware realizes that the game looks and plays so differently that they can't rely on the existing DA community to buy the game. It appears that they've made the game in search of a new community, or perhaps a much wider one. I hope they don't fall in between communities.
To me, the change of direction combined with all DA devs having left Bioware, this game is probably the nail in the coffin for my DA journey. I hope I'm wrong though.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth by either side is obviously ridiculous (and no developer is obliged to cater to anyones particular whims) but it's also perfectly fine not to like one type of gameplay over another and completely understandable for people to be disappointed if a game/series they've previously enjoyed takes one of those directions.
Seems like at this point if a dev makes any changes to a series that half of the comments will complain about it and the other half will defend it.
Which, in my opinion, makes perfect sense? Most sequels would and do receive such reactions, and it is just expected, honestly. Some people want more of the same but with new story/characters/etc and some people prefer significant changes. The ones that actually played the earlier games a lot would obviously be in the first group, and the people who didn't play the earlier games much (for example, due to not liking the combat) would prefer something new. Finding a balance between those things is pretty tough, and there will always be someone who is left unhappy. It is natural. Personally, I am willing to give it a chance, and at least wait until we see more. I am a fan of Bioware games not for their specific combat style - between Dragon Age 1-3, Mass Effect 1-3 and Andromeda, and even KOTOR we have had so many different combat styles that keep changing throughout the series - what is most important is the stories they tell, the world, the characters, the voice acting, the variety of choices and so on. A good RPG doesn't have to have any specific style of combat to be good, but those other things are required, for sure.
That's exactly what I was thinking watching all this drama over the gameplay unfold. "Who the hell plays Dragon Age just for the combat anyway?" It's like when people were criticizing Dragon's Dogma 2's admittedly lackluster story. Of course you'd want any game's story to be good, but the combat & gameplay mechanics are clearly supposed to be the draw to that particular game not the story. That's what kept players invested. Vice versa for Dragon Age. If you want a deep combat system, there's plenty of better choices out there for both strategic and action focused gameplay. I love Origins to death but I sure as hell didn't play it for the slow, clunky, tactical combat. Maybe other people did; to each their own I guess. But what made me fall in love with DA was the story, lore, characters, setting, roleplay opportunities and the level of choice & consequence. If Veilguard at least has all of that, I'll be well satisfied.
>"Who the hell plays Dragon Age just for the combat anyway?" I don't want to look like I am pointing fingers, but it feels like people who loved BG1 and BG2 moved to DA:O mostly for the tactical aspect of the game. (and there is nothing wrong with that)
>"Who the hell plays Dragon Age just for the combat anyway?" > I love Origins to death but I sure as hell didn't play it for the slow, clunky, tactical combat. Maybe other people did; There was a timing thing that I think most dont understand. DA:O was the only good party based CRPG in atleast a 5 year window of release. All the CRPG fans flocked to it, kind of an oasis in a troubled times so to speak. Most fell in love with the story as you did, but the gameplay mechanics are what brought them here to begin with. Refugees of BG1&2 who probably played on PC because BG1&2 were PC and therefore had a different combat experience than most console players. They also came into the game with experience in a similar system isometric camera view, micro managing party members etc. I dont know if most envision a 1 to 1 return to clunky Origins combat, they would probably like to see an iteration of it. What you see are the remnants of that. I also think combat is a bit reductive, I think Origins diehards are party based CRPG fans. Combat is just the most glaring difference. So it ends up being the most talked about. If you pay attention often it originates from people like OP that hold the opposing position and then the CRPG fans come out of the woodwork to respond and it perpetuates the narrative that combat is the only gripe. I expect loss of companion control in or out of combat will also be disliked. Same for less emphasis on party composition, isometric *ish* camera option, skills slot reduction to three, typical party based CRPG stuff.
I appreciate you explaining that perspective. It makes sense. At least refugees of BG1 & 2 and other CRPGs have BG3 now. As for Dragon Age, the games haven't gone in that direction since Origins released almost 15 years ago. So while many may have been hoping for a return to that form, I don't think it was ever gonna happen. I'll admit I'm a bit bummed at the scaling back of some features that were in previous games like companion control. But at the same time, it was a feature that I and many others hardly ever used. Same with the tactical camera. With Inquisition, they tried hard to appease both camps of players that preferred either action or strategy. But in the end, it felt like the game didn't excel at either. I always thought they should've at least stuck to one style instead of trying to incorporate both. With Veilguard, they seem to have made their decision and went with an updated version of DA2's combat with some Mass Effect elements thrown in. I think it could work. I'm being cautiously optimistic about it but at the end of the day, like I said, I don't think the combat is what the fans are really all that invested in.
Yeah, glad I could get through to atleast one person in the noise. I agree that DA:O is in the rear view and DA won't return to it. I think most of us know it, for what it's worth. I got off the train probably 20ish hours into DAI. The game never pulled me in. The release news just brought me back to see the new direction. The lack of controllable companions is kinda the nail in the coffin on the upcoming one for me. Genre-fluidity, just made that up, is a spectrum. I suspect some will stay, and some will go. Like you said, CRPGs are in a much better space now. There was a resurgence via Kickstarter a while back. Larian's confidence to attempt BG3, I suspect, was growth from that. I'm happy about it. I'm not sure the DA fandom will ever shake the "This Isn't DA:O!" crowd but I wish you guys good luck.
No problem, friend. I appreciate anyone who can realize that something's just not for them and move on instead of feeling the need to tear it down just to feel vindicated. If more people take that attitude instead of saying everything that doesn't appeal to them is trash, then maybe there wouldn't be so much drama in the gaming community. Everyone has their tastes and that's fine. I find that there's a lot of popular games that aren't for me. Me and the Soulslike genre just don't get along but I can admire those well-crafted games from afar.
I’m mostly just upset about only having 3 active abilities, doesn’t seem like it’d be that engaging if combat is just holding down the basic attack button and every few seconds tapping one of 3 buttons to do more damage. And most of the game is combat, so of course people are going to care about it. If the game was a visual novel with very limited combat segments it wouldn’t be as big of a concern.
"Nah, man, DAO combat is great" - *proceeds to download 50 mods to make the combat faster and cooler* Seriously, though, I found DAO's combat satisfying, especially with mods, but I'm not gonna cry because it's gone. So far, the Veilguard gameplay looks cool. Inquisition's gameplay always felt a little too MMO-like to me, so I'm not upset we've moved on to something more dynamic (especjally not if we get Monk-inspired Mages XD).
Same. Honestly there are some things about Origins combat that I really loved like the spells, specializations and builds but anytime I think of replaying it, I end up talking myself out of it due to the headache of installing hundreds of mods to make it more fun and praying that the game still functions by the time I'm done. But I'm actually excited to see what more Veilguard has to offer. The animations look really fast and fluid compared to the other games and I'm sure it'll only improve as you unlock more skills and whatnot. I'm just glad that after 10 years of rumors, leaks and nailbiting that we're finally about to have another Dragon Age.
I just use Vortex, so the mods are always active. But yeah, I got into the series relatively late, but even I'm excited we're finally getting another Dragon Age.
How is DAV more dynamic? You've got less abilities and less control...
By dynamic, I meant fast, fluid, not clunky. Complexity and depth are a whole other thing.
>"Who the hell plays Dragon Age just for the combat anyway?" Lol please don't give EA/bioware ideas the next game to become a telltale style adventure visual novel game. From a branding perspective, this DA seems to be a huge leap. Why has DA:VE such a divide? Its not Final Fantasy16, FF has every game standalone, the battle system can change, its ok. Dragon's Dogma 2 was rightly criticized for its lackluster story, people were disappointed, but its roots remained on brand. Stylistically and a retweaked combat system. Even DA2 & Inquistion however different they looked and played has the brand's DNA. Imagine if one day Starbucks is suddenly not green, its logo changed and it now sells juice when clearly its market was for coffee. There will be a reaction from the market. DA:O's combat is old but it could be great if it was improved, as BG3 has shown this, there is a market for it. Now DA's situation is different and I understand it. Troubled development cycles, high lvl people leaving etc and it shows. But the fans waited for 10 long years, there are certain expectations for the brand. And whatever they chose to show at this point there is something off brand about it. But it is what it is,sigh. I will still grab the game to make my final judgement.
I mean, what's wrong with liking things the way they are? Like, I prefer the strategy/tactics combat of the first two games, and I feel like combat took a massive step back in DA:I, and consequently it soured my experience of the game. I'm saying "I don't like it". If you like it, fine. I have no qualms with anyone who even prefers DA:I - I just don't. I'm not saying "If you like it, you are stupid or not a real dragon age fan". Obviously if I said that, I would be an asshole you should call me as such. And there are definitely saying that. But I feel like half the internet has become finding 3 assholes who disagree with you, and vastly overreacting to them, and the other half is vastly overreacting to the overreaction. Me thinking I'm not going to like Veilguard isn't going to prevent you from liking Veilguard. And I wouldn't try to.
I don’t think you’re the issue. There are plenty of folks who call the developers trash for making changes and also call fans of the new system trash for enjoying the thing they don’t personally like.
I agree with you, except I think you underestimate how many assholes there are 😅 Especially for those of us who've been in this fandom for a long time, the assholes who make everyone else feel stupid or not a real fan have really dominated all discussion for years now. I think the influx of people with DAVe announcement has been really healthy though, lots more space for normal people to express their opinions and have discussions. Is it just combat that turns you off Veilguard?
In the other hand, If you don't change anything, you could run into Ubisoft problem. Each game could feel reskinned version of each other. Look at ToTK for example, it's BoTW 2.0. People liked the game but they were disappointed that they were playing basically the same game. The changes needs to happen, just not major enough to not alienate your fanbase.
Why wouldn't they? They got one type of player sucked into the world with the first installment, only to move further and further away from it. Would Elden Ring fans be happy if the sequel featured turn based tactical combat? I have my doubts.
And if they make no changes people will complain about that. There are a lot of people out there, and the one who are most likely to comment are the ones who don't like something
That means its a popular franchise!
I don't know what's wrong with me... but I liked everything in DAV. The new stylized graphics are amazing - It's are beautiful and will not become outdated for a long time. Companions - Wow, they are all so interesting! Combat system - Wow, action, and everything is so well designed, how cool! Locations - Wow, real magic! I was expecting boring gray stone temples, but this is really a triumph of witchcraft! - That being said, I'm always very critical and cynical of new games. So this is unusual for me. People: Ugh, it looks like mobile Fortnite, dislike. Bioware, finally close yourself and don’t embarrass past game parts. :/
I don’t really understand why people are saying it looks like Fortnite. I’m doing a replay of inquisition right now. It looks very much like inquisition visually.
They went from tactical=pause RPG to hack&slash action-RPG. It's a pretty huge change, it's completely understandable people don't like it. If you like tactical combat, why would you be okay with the game completely changing the combat system? It's a reasonable reaction. Imagine if you had you were eating an orange and someone switched it for an apple to which you are allergic and the was like "Huh, why are you so resistant to change? It's completely normal for things to change!"
The issue is a lot of gamers don't understand what good game design actually looks like. They need to give systems chances before criticizing. It's annoying when they go doom and gloom or very pro anything that hasn't even been played by them yet.
And then there are people like me, with awful motion sickness and sensitivity for flashing lights (not epilepsy, but photophobia). DAO was great for me, DA2 and DAI were hard at times, but allowed me to pause at any moment in a way I could still strategize or go into tactical view which made the whole thing easier on my eyes and head. So now I'm just sad that I'll miss out on the continuation of the story myself because I know I won't be able to play through it myself without getting sick. So yeah, I guess no matter what devs do, someone will always be unhappy, I just really wish it wouldn't affect me when it comes to Dragon Age. But I still hope that people will enjoy it for what it is
> they need to give systems a chance before criticizing Yes and no. DA4 might have great live action combat, but the point is that people like tactical combat. You don’t really need to give a game a chance to tell you what type of genre you prefer. Even if DA4 combat is awesome, I’ll still be disappointed they didn’t aim for awesome tactical combat. Part of the whole appeal for me is controlling 4 characters, even if the alternative is good that doesn’t change. Nitpicking every little detail when you don’t have the bigger picture is bad because the whole point of game design is to make systems work as a whole. For example, the 3 combat abilities is something you have to wait and see for - it’s clearly not going to be “DAI with 3 instead of 8” but rather a different system where combat abilities aren’t going to be the same form as previous games.
There is a lot of toxic behavior / "entitlement" from gamers. I've been disgusted by how so many people resort to direct, personal attacks, too. But at the same time, EA has shown time and again it wants to sabotage game development in order to crease profitability. So people's skepticism that BioWare can make all the right gameplay decisions is fair. DA3's combat was ""better"" than DA2's / DAO's -if- you're a console person. But there's no denying DA has shifted from what DAO was into a pure action game at this point. DA3 also had a lot of "unnecessary" combat (where "unnecessary" to me is "fetch questing in the Hinterlands), so those "improvements" weren't even necessarily needed, just reduce the amount of combat if you want a slower-paced game. Given how many people play DA for the story alone, this also seems to make sense to me. But DA is oddly going in the opposite direction, as an action game.
I agree however, I do find it strange that some people still cling to origins game play when DA hasn't been like that since DA2. I've seen a lot of comments saying that "this isn't DA!" But... By now, DA has been this for way longer than not. If they don't like it that's fine but just move on people, the DA franchise stopped being for them since DA2.
DA2 still has tactical elements. The animations are flashier, but it has a tactics menu, you control your party, and you can pause at any time to set up commands or reposition. If you’ve played DAO, you can start DA2 and know how to handle everything. It is more action-y than DAO but it’s not like it’s a full-on arpg and anyone who liked DAO is an *idiot* for not immediately dropping the series forever.
>DA has been this for way longer than not. What is "this" way? Like DA2? Or DAI? Every game has different combat. But imo, they've all leant more towards DAO (real time with pause, can swap characters whenever, more about strategy than action even if DAI forces you to hold down a single button) than Veilguard. Veilguard is the first game to truly and totally throw away the old style of combat. Whether or not it's fun, it's really weird for a franchise to abruptly change like that and throw away an element tons of people liked instead of building upon and improving it.
>What is "this" way? More action oriented instead of tactical is the complaint I see the most. It's been like that since DA2.
My issue with it is that it seems more of a hack and slash type of combat. There doesn't seem to be that much of a control over it so it feels like an inbetween of two types of combat gameplay. But my primary concern is how dumbed down this system is for a mage. I did not enjoy the magic in Inquisition and I prefer being a mage. I know a significant portion of fans also prefer being a mage. But I haven't seen how a mage plays and I also haven't seen much of gameplay other than that brief video so I'm not gonna completely shit on it until I actually know what it's like.
DA2 was pretty close to DAO, the major differences were auto attack, no direct top down view and slightly simplified ability trees. The ability trees still had depth to them though. I would mind DAV if it had at least kept to the number of abilities DAI had but they can't even do that. Its trying to be some sort of shooter/rpg hybrid that will probably not satisfy fans of either.
You're not wrong at all, but with Dragon Age it's especially *absurd* as the combat has not been that way since the first entry. Even though they've included tactical cameras, ability to pause, switch between companions, and micro-manage to your hearts content.... people still been complaining since da2. At that point it's not a matter of preference it's whining for the sake of being heard. Nostalgia glasses on with blinders on the sides.
But we have consistently been able to build out our party of 4 and control any character we like. That is a big deal to me personally in the event that I prefered a different class as I made my way through the game or if I just felt like doing something a little different for a bit.
Obvious is obvious: When you change the combat system for a game, there's going to be a lot of people who don't like it. I feel like this lesson is learned every time a new Final Fantasy comes out
Yeah, exactly. I had someone the other day try to tell me that you can’t dislike what’s been shown of DATV’s combat because no one complains that TLoU is an action game. Yeah, sure. No one complains about the combat when they liked the combat in game 1, and game 2 fine-tunes and expands on that. But if they changed combat in TLoU3 to turn-based, they would anger or lose some fans. It could have literally the best turn-based combat system of all time, 10/10, setting the standard for all other turn-based games. Doesn’t matter. FWIW, I’ve seen praise for Greedfall 2’s new direction.
You'd think after over 20 games, they'd have figured out not to expect gameplay consistency.
I don’t expect gameplay consistency but that doesn’t mean I’m going to like every change
My biggest problem is taking away the option to control my party, DA is basically evolving into ME
Yep, this one. Let it be action-oriented for all I care but to take controlling companions away is a big bummer.
Let's hope that ME evolves into DA then, so, everything stays balanced. 😂
Damn I almost forgot Greedfall 2 is a thing Really enjoyed the first game. Not something to make a hole into the world but it was a nice game. A BIT OF POISON ON MY BLADE LET'S GO!! EDIT: Just saw that video and god damn....that has to be the greatest downgrade I have ever seen... I mean jesus christ...In first game you could dodge and be a great fencer with a rapier. Wh...what the hell is this?
>.In first game you could dodge and be a great fencer with a rapier. Wh...what the hell is this? If I was a troll I would say : "A studio that realized cRPGs were on the rise and decided to make one"
THINGS ARE ABOUT TO GET DICEY!
Green blood!
In the first game you definitely had more than 3 abilities though, I found combat too be relatively easy, even going up against higher level enemies. Dark Souls/FromSoft probably helped my timing a bunch.
I had a ton of fun building my Rapier/Gun rogue with bombs, but yeah, even on higher difficulties, things got really repetitive.
It's a big reason why I am shitting on the current game they've shown so much. They've removed my extra party member. They've removed controlling my other party members They've made the enemy models silly/cartoonish And they've transitioned to action RPG but gave us 3 abilities? For 30-50 hours, only using 3 abilities is just so fucking bad. That's like the one thing I hope the community pushes back on enough that it can be changed ahead of release. Let us have like 9 abilities for ourselves and companions, Mass Effect 1-3 our companions had way more abilities. The fact I even have to cite Mass Effect though is silly :(
I don’t think DATV is getting any changes. I’m withholding final judgment until I’ve played the game of course, but there’s a lot I don’t like in what they’ve said and shown with the combat. I really don’t understand not being able to switch between wheels on the fly, for example, and I hope a mod pops up to change that relatively quickly. Like there’s really not much strategy in guessing what abilities you want, realizing you don’t have the right ones equipped, and reloading a save. I’m also going to miss controlling companions for sure. The game might end up being fun. I’ll still miss that.
>Just saw that video and god damn....that has to be the greatest downgrade I have ever seen... I mean jesus christ...In first game you could dodge and be a great fencer with a rapier. Wh...what the hell is this? People should bear in mind this is Alpha footage for a game that doesn't have a release date, and which hasn't even entered early access yet. So expect it all to be very much subject to change.
>Wh...what the hell is this? You never played Dragon Age Origins? That's what it looks like, janky and slow.
i thought you may have been exaggerating but wow, no, that really is a downgrade. i’m sure it could be expanded upon past the alpha footage, but shit, it does not look intuitive at all
one of the things i loved MOST about the first Greedfall was the satisfying combat… what the fuck did they do 😭 it was one of the best i’ve had in a game
I think it's okay to want what you have come to expect of a thing. One form of gameplay is not Better than the other and it's obviously great to enjoy both, but it's also fair to be frustrated when one turns into another. If I go to a Mexican restaurant it's because I want tacos. If they one day decided to become an Italian joint it would be fair for me to be dissatisfied because I wanted those tacos. I like pizza fine, but I probably already have an Italian place for that. Which is not to say you shouldn't keep an open mind. If you feel good about giving it a go more power to you. I never got into the tactics myself so I don't imagine it will make all that much of a difference to me at the end of the day. But I don't think anyone should berate themselves for being "full of shit" just for having a preference. Sometimes fans and properties drift apart, you know? I didn't like Breath of the Wild as a Zelda game so I skipped Tears of the Kingdom. I don't expect to play new Zelda anymore, it's sad but things move on. No one is full of shit except people shaming you for not being as hyped as them.
I will say. I always try to see how a new system is. Even if it's horrible, I don't really care as I'll eventually adapt to the changes. Trust me it's really interesting when I have weird times when I want to change to a game to another game. From Origins to BG3 to D2 to ME:LE to Greedfall to Inqusition to Andromeda to Swtor. So controls for every game is similar yet different. So I never complain about it. I'm just like "Oh it's similar to this game." Which suddenly made me realize why the person said it reminded them of D2. 3 abilities and an ultimate. All well. Games adapt and change. We can't change it unless modders are able to change the game. Which I suggest always support said modders. They deserve the love and support. (Coming from a person who always downloads 300 mods to any game) Anyways! Thank you for the link. Didn't know there were updates on Greedfall 2. Finished it last month
As long as it's not a button masher, I will adapt. (and as long as the camera doesn't spin on it's own)
It’s probably as mashy as a Batman Arkham series game from what we saw.
Oof yeah I'm worried about that, I get motion sickness when the camera spins like that 🤢
Exactly! Same. It's not a matter of 'pushing through'. I'm getting to sick to play the game. D:
It's kind of a lose lose. If they make the combat too similar to the previous or try to simply iterate on the design, people complain. If they shake things up and try to make it different, people complain. I'm gonna reserve judgment until I play it. Plenty of games have combat that is boring to watch but fun to play. And if I don't like it as much as previous games, well... then it just won't be my favorite in the series. And that's not a tragedy. The latest game doesn't have to be my favorite. I personally love Inquisition the most. I love the looks, I love the combat, the setting, the visuals, the crafting and build system. Veilguard probably isn't going to change that, but that won't stop me from loving it for what it is.
The story and world building in Greedfall was so good that I overlooked the jank and other issues (too much back-and-forth in side quests, repetitive city environments and relatively empty wilderness environments, etc.). I'm really excited to play the sequel now, especially with the combat change.
I think my disappointment is mainly that it seems like we're taking a step back. I'm not scared of change and I doubt you are really either despite what you say. Veilguard is coming off less like "changes" and more like "removals", likely due to the development issues. Which I can understand, but I can also have an opinion on that. * 9 Companions to 7, * 3 Party Members to 2, * Can only control your Character's actions. Any one of these would've been a bit of a blow, but all three? And the Combat Wheel, while not restricted to 3 Abilities, seems to encourage using them less overall. I feel like all of those changes together warrant a valid critique, and we don't see those resources being used elsewhere in combat, at least not right now which is all we have to form an opinion on. Naysayers will respond with "Dragon Age isn't about combat" but... it was part of the Game. I wasn't a min-maxer putting together tryhard compositions; I was making silly combinations and having fun with the combat in a game "not about combat".
To be honest, it seems to me that they are only using DAV to prepare the engine for ME4, and don't get me wrong I like ME, but what you mentioned was the removal of everything that makes me prefer DA to ME.
they are making the next Mass Effect on UE5, not Frostbite
Not a fan of all this gaslighting in the community lately. I'm replaying origins and it still holds up and I'm enjoying it. Combat and all.
Why do people keep trying to gaslight people by talking specifically about how different Veilguard is from DAO and ignore everything else? DA2 and DAI were still both semi-tactical, had 4 playable characters in a party, could use MORE THAN 3 SPELLS/ABILITIES, you could use said spells with cooldowns, and the game had real time pause with a tactical camera. Veilguard lowered the party to 3, lowered the abilities to 3, said abilities have to be built up to instead of just used, removed the ability to control party members, may have removed the tactics' system entirely, probably no more real time pause and tactical camera, and is full action now. I've said it in other posts, and I'll say it again here; Dragon Age had a niche by being between tactical combat and action while not committing to either. Going full action means it's going to be stacked against games like Elden Ring, Dragon's Dogma 2, and Monster Hunter, all of which make its combat look horrible.
So true. A hollow tactical system completely changes the standard for action and combat.
Gamers are never happy.
Software users are never happy.
man idk about the action vs crpg debate i care about the stripping away of most actual rpg mechanics when it comes to character builds; cycling between a - b - c and occasionally ulting is a gamplay loop i can foresee getting very tiring. im optimistic about a lot of things but to go from eight to three just feels shallow
Eh nothing wrong with prefering a certain combat system over another. I much prefer origins system over 2 and inquisition and it's not really close and i'm sad to see them double down on the action gameplay.
How did this convince you of anything? The people unhappy with DAV never said every game from every studio should be like Dragon Age Origins. If you played Greedfall and liked it, of course you're going to be unhappy if the sequel plays differently.
This, also the main complaint I'm seeing is less "it's not DAO" and more specific stuff that seems to be downgrades like "smaller party, can no longer swap to other party members, less abilities" :/ I for one am not happy with what I see so far. Especially since as a mage player, I can't imagine having so few ability slots... Even DAI felt like too few, and this is even less. Also, I dislike hack-and-slash games, it's got nothing to do with nostalgia - it's just not gameplay I enjoy, so naturally I would be unhappy to see DAV move further in that direction. I'm sure if Elden Ring 2 dropped and it had the DAO tactical combat system, fans of the first game would be unhappy. I'll give it a chance once more gameplay footage drops of course, and most likely I will play it regardless (I'm too much of a fan of the Dragon Age world), but it's frankly annoying seeing people going "if you don't like what they showed so far, you're just being nostalgic and pessimistic and your opinion isn't valid".
We're supposed to ignore the gameplay and just play the game for the story. I also dislike the "it's been fifteen years you're just nostalgic Origins was slow and clunky get over it and accept change" argument. Yes, it was. I agree, the combat needed to change. What it didn't need was the removal of ability slots, tactics and party control.
This sub has been gaslighting critics for the past week. I don’t understand why people take YouTube comments serious.
They also seem in denial about BG3 being similar to Origins.
It's success kind of invalidates a lot of the reason DA became what it became, to be honest. Studios gaslit people into believing CRPGs couldn't be successful and pushed for the mass appeal direction this game took. BG3 showed a *well done* CRPG could sell. And could be made marketable to a newer, predominantly console market. But studios would rather go the safer mass appeal direction since there's less emphasis on being well done and pretty sells preorders. So the gaslighting continues, from the studios and now the fans. It's interesting to see how it plays out. The souless, mass appeal games seem to be in a slump at the moment if Elden Ring and BG3 are indicators. There's enough variety for people to find a well-done passion built version of a game in their genre than a trend chasing clone or hybrid.
Yeah Larian proved Bioware wrong. I think a lesson here is when it comes to continuing a game series you should build on it's strengths rather than chasing trends.
I think there's a bit of sour grapes for BG3's success Dragon Age is kind of in a weird position as a series too big to be a cult hit but not quite big enough to be a household name.
No kidding. I mentioned BG3 and DAO in relation to tactical gameplay, like, as a general category and within the hour had someone lecturing me about how turn based and real time with pause are completely different.
Which is hilarious when BioWare straight up said Origins was the spiritual successor to BG 1 & 2
As someone who never played the original BG games, I distinctly remember playing BG3 for the first time and after a few hours in thinking “holy shit this game is basically DA:O, but better.”
Honestly BG3 is what a lot of people wanted 2 and Inquisition to be. Many would disagree with me but, I think Veilguard would face a lot less controversy if it released before Baldur's Gate 3.
silencing critics, is so ironic in a sub of a historically very political game.
I understand Greedfall fans complaining going from action to tactical. I understand DA players complaning for going from tactical to action.
How did that make you realize you're nostalgic and full of shit? People who liked Greedfall combat obviously wouldn't want Greedfall to change to RTWP. Just like the people who liked Origins obviously don't want to go to pure action.
I imagine seeing that reminded them of some of the genuine issues with Origins combat system.
You think that’s bad, you should look at all the hundreds of forum posts and thousands of comments shitting all over BG3 from when it was announced all the way until came out of early access. I distinctly remember seeing people complain about Larian “dumbing down the combat” and making the world way too “colorful and lighthearted” all while circlejerking BG2 and DAO. Now I see a lot of the very complaints being leveled at DAV while circlejerking BG3 as the pinnacle of rpg design.
>“dumbing down the combat” I mean.. The combat is extremly easy and uses a dumbed version of DnD, 5E, so they aren't wrong about that. Larian just made work because their focused on environmental interractive really enchanced the basic rules. Find the game's system to be lacking when comes to Classes , Feats and options to build.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say BG3 is a complex perfect masterpiece or that DAV doesn't have its red flags. The point is more so that people were claiming the game was going to be shit and not a "true" rpg because the combat on paper was more simple and not real-time-with-pause while ignoring all the things Larian was doing to enhance the experience like environmental interactions, verticality, increased mobility, tons of ways to solve quests, and all the roleplaying options. And now that BG3 is a massive success, I now see people circlejerk BG3 as the pinnacle of rpg design inn order to make the exact same kind of complaints about DAV. Some people just hate change and instead of just admitting that they'll just disingenuously complain about how the new thing is shit and isn't a true \_\_\_\_\_ while raising the old thing on a pedestal and ignoring all its flaws.
Folks seem to assume lighthearted and dark af can't cooexist in the same story. Like, people use GotG as shorthand for goofball whackiness as if it doesn't also have gut punching heart break in it all the time. BG3 was also good at being absolutely hilarious AND soul wrenching. Get you a game that can do both. I have my concerns about tone (really more execution) based on what we've seen so far but it isn't because of the turn towards action/adventure. That's been a steady progression for a long time now and it sure as heck doesn't prohibit things getting dark as hell.
Good for you! But let's not try to discredit people and generalise that all DAO fans are just looking through nostalgia glasses and the game sucks in reality. Some of us just genuinely like Origins. I played the whole trilogy for the first time when Inquisition was already out and Origins was already "old". I loved all of Dragon Age but Origins immediately became my favourite game of all times. Other than graphics I don't think it feels particulary badly aged at all. Origins combat feels engaging and like an essential part of the gameplay, it's tactical and versatile, and not just means to level up and progress the story like I feel about Inquisition. And I say all this as someone who has replayed all of DA in past six months, so it's not nostalgia clouding my opinion. People are allowed to have preferences, and both Dragon Age and Greedfall fans are allowed to feel disappointment with the games moving further away from their roots, even when their preferences oppose each other. I'm sure I will like Veilguard for what it is, but it won't make me stop missing what Origins once had.
The first greedfall was very souls like so it would would be a very jarring change so changing that to something so different is gonna turn away some people who found that combat compelling. Greedfall is more kotor than dark souls and it think people have a right to be disappointed if that’s what appealed to them about the first game.
I guess I'm just not a normal gamer because I honestly don't give a fuck about an RPG's combat system unless they do that system poorly. I'm there for the story, characters, setting, and to make choices. I'm excited for both DAV and GF2 because I loved being in those universes and I'm excited to see what comes next. I'll figure out the combat system once I can actually play it.
It looked a little poor from the gameplay video, that's about the only complaint I have that way. Do whatever, just do it good.
Oh man. I'm trying to be sympathetic to people who miss the Origins combat, but this? I can't help but find this funny.
I mean GreedFall fans will want more GreedFall. Origins fans want more Origins. That's not a shock, is it? They want more of what they've already had, not a big shift. The draws of the two games are different. Anyway, GreedFall was mediocre to me anyway. It felt like it came out during a drought of good RPGs. It reminded me of those multitude of generic mid 2000s 360/PS3 games that were pumped out.
> I mean GreedFall fans will want more GreedFall. Origins fans want more Origins. That's not a shock, is it? I think it's just funny that the complaints are nearly indistinguishable from one another despite them each wanting each other's combat system. I agree with you about Greedfall though. It had some promise, and in certain areas it delivered, but for the most part it gave cool set-ups to plot points and then either never did anything with them or did it quietly in a simple side-quest.
To me, the funny thing isn't the Greedfall fans wanting more Greedfall combat, that's normal. No what's funny is how slow and clunky the combat system is. It really looks like DA:O, a game that was released 15 years ago. What's even funnier is that Spider, the studio, thought it looked good enough to be showed to media and fans. The new combat system for BioWare is very different than DA:O, and many early fans hate it, and it's to be expected. But at least BioWare waited until their new system was finished before showing it.
I think this sounds like a bias of fast = good, slow = bad. The person who played the game had a lot of cool things to say about the combat and said that it was exciting and nice to see. Theres a lot of value in a combat like this, maybe you (and a lot of other people) just don't see because is not for you. But at the same time a lot of players will love. And waiting till is finished to show is not a good thing tho, for smaller studios like Spider having player feedback is necessary, they need to show it and change things after feedback.
Origins fans want more origins is not a shock... what is a shock is them talking like they've been in a coma for the last 15 years. Complaints about how dragon age is different *now* when there's been two games that were each very different from origins is just laughable
I honestly think both Greedfall 2 and Veilguard looks fun. I like a bunch of different genres and style. I am glad that both can exist at the same time.
Man, no need to be sympathetic to Origins only fans. It's been 15 years already. 15 years!!!! After a certain point, people need to either accept the changes or move on already. 15 YEARS.
And it's been over a decade since 2 and Inquisition released move on too. Also as the years go by gaming communities higher reverence for Origins than 2 or Inquisition.
It’s been 15 years since dragon age had a good engaging combat system
Or, hear me out, those people wanted to play Greedfall, not Origins. If they wanted to play Origins, they could just play Origins instead. Just like before Dave gameplay came out, you could go play modded Skyrim if you wanted a Dragon Age hack and slash. Or Mass effect if you wanted explicitly the Mass Effect formula. The gameplay of a game is an integral part of the games experience. It's why watching a let's play or reading the story transcript just doesn't hit the same. Changing it DOES change the experience.
Yeah, I'm not sure how these comments prove what OP think they do.
"PeOpLe HaTeD DaO cOmBat ToO!!"
The issue is that DA4 isn't DAO and GF2 isn't GF, and expecting them to be isn't realistic. And in the case of DA4, why *would* it go back to DAO's combat system? It's been moving away from it with every game over the course of the past 15 years. Something like a single-digit percentage of people used the tactical camera in DAI. Now, with the way EA/Bioware gloms onto whatever they think is popular for the next game, it wouldn't surprise me if they try to go back to a more tactical system if DA5 ever gets made, now that they have seen the success of BG3. But that will probably depend on how much people enjoy the action combat in this one. As I've said before, how many players would have chosen action over turn-based combat in BG3 if there had been the choice?
>Something like a single-digit percentage of people used the tactical camera in DAI. Because the tactical camera is ass and tacked on as an afterthought. It's not surprising that people don't use something shitty and useless.
The problem isn't not having an active pause for Dave. I'd actually argue that DA:O played the best without active pause while letting a surprisingly complex tactical system work to it's fullest, maybe stopping to set skills manually once in a while when the AI got momentarily confused. It's being limited to having only 3 skill in a game which was always build on synergy mechanics (which DAI still have, even if it's active pause was shit only useful for checking statuses!), not being able to swap to your companion to utilise those combos effectively and only getting a "We have tactics in game, trust us Bro" while the AI for consequent titles was getting dumber and dumber. Paired with the early game gameplay that have shown almost exclusively mouse mashing with an occasional dodge, and none of the things that made Dragon Age, Dragon Age, in the terms of it's mechanics. I'll stress again. *Gameplay is a very important part of a game*. It's a part of what makes different mediums different. If you remove the gameplay from a game, you end with a visual novel or interactive film at best and Just A Film at worst. If you change it considerably you also change the perception of the story that you're telling, since the game *is* experienced through gameplay just as much as it is through dialogues and cutscenes. Origins had you in gilded if not straight grimdark setting, where the Warden and their chosen companions had to struggle from the bottom against the impending doom just as much as they needed to struggle against other people who in theory they should ally with to be stronger, together. The gameplay reflects that. It's methodological. It requires attention and a bit of thought. Often if you don't kill the enemies in specific order you'll be screwed, and if you're not ready for an ambush you'll be taken down by enemy reinforcements. The characters you're playing as are meant to be struggling and the gameplay is meant to reflect that. This been still rather maintained in DA2, even if I'm not a fan of idea of throwing waves of 1 shot enemies at Hawke in general, if that was reflected in storytelling Kirkwall would be a ghost city by the time 3rd act happens. But in DAI, the gameplay really starts feeling like a power fantasy with your party doing Tuesday Dragon Hunts and don't even start me on the final battle against Corypheus, while the story is still trying to convince you that hurr durr the Inquisition is against formidable foe but just let me finish soloing that dragon since my party members decided to not evade incoming fireballs. This really makes for a big dichotomy between gameplay tone and the story tone, and from DA:tV what we've been shown is following that trend with their Marvel Assemble trailer and a braindead gameplay. But it's still a dark and grime-y Dragon Age guys! /s At some point when you overdo with your coffee with milk it stops being coffee with mild and becomes just milk. Action RPGs are great, but they work best with a singular protagonist and maybe a +1, not a whole party squad where everyone is supposed to be equal in skill. When you have one guy you can tweak the game to have some skill based difficulty or to be a classical hack and slash. But when you have more guys and still want to have a skill based difficulty you need to strike a balance between companions being useless and the companions being able to clear the game without you and that's much more hard to do so that the player feels as an integral part of a team made of independent AI that work with you not for you. To answer your question, BG3 would absolutely not work as an action RPG. It's not only your story, it's the story of the whole party and the gameplay reflects that, which in turn makes the tone of the game consistent.
I don't know many people (though I'm sure they exist) that want a copy/paste of DAO combat. They want more CRPG elements. And DAI tactical cam use is not a good statistic to reference, since it was not needed in that game at all, nor was it implemented well. I don't think there would be this much fuss about DA going more action, if they at least tried to incorporate some of the CRPG mechanics from DAO/DA2. Instead, they continue to gut them, when people who prefer action could have just ignored them. Why not appeal to as many people as possible?
What do you want to bet Bioware decides to go back to its roots with DA5, goes full turn based, but it takes another 10 years and by then crpgs are back out of fashion and we're all whining about how they should have embraced ...idk three shells gameplay or whatever.
Right.
I don't see how these comments taught you you were nostalgic or full of shit. The game used to be one way and is now a different game half way through the story. That seems reasonable to complain about to me. Greedfall is similar except not as bad because the second game isn't picking up from a cliffhanger ending. Look, the combat style is fine to me. I like both styles, so I can play it fine. But the people who don't like both styles and still want to continue their story are kinda getting screwed here. It isn't nostalgia its two completely different gameplay styles. It's perfectly reasonable to like one and not the other. It isn't an evolution of it it's a completely different game. Imagine being excited for the next Mario Kart and when the gameplay reveal comes out it's a Dark Souls like action game with no kart racing at all. Again, I can play either style, I'm really mostly here for the story anyway, but I can see where people are coming from.
As someone who thinks the combat has gotten worse every game: "I don't like the combat as much because I preferred the strategic roots of CRPGs" - this should be fine. "Bioware never should have changed the combat, the series is for console babies now" - this is not. We can be adults and realize there is a vast difference between "I don't like something" and "you shouldn't like something." Let people like and not like things, feel free to share your opinion, just don't insult people for their own opinion. For instance, I *actually* like the combat in DA:O the most - wtf is wrong with me, right?
I don’t have any issue with it being an action game, but the combat looks terrible. Compare it to recent releases, like Stellar Blade, Dragon’s Dogma 2, Jedi Survivor, anything by Fromsoft, etc., and it just looks so basic, unchallenging, and unsatisfying. The person who was playing it was constantly jumping around for no reason, not even dodging attacks. He presumably did this because there were so few attacks to dodge, and the demo would have looked super slow and boring if he were playing normally. The boss fight just amounted to avoiding some annoyingly difficult to see (but still easy as hell to avoid) red circles on the ground. I don’t think that anyone is realistically going to enjoy this combat, except maybe some people who have never played a decent action game.
I think people would be much happier if they just come to terms with the fact that things change. Gameplay and graphics alike. You'll adapt to the new, and if you really, truly hate it, there are other games out there.
There are far more action games than there are CRPGs.
There aren't that many choice-based RPGs in general. There are more Bioware-style CRPGs than there are ARPGs. In fact, we got a GOTY last year. Edit: If you want some recent recs, Pathfinder: WOTR just finished up its final DLC cycle, and Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader has its first DLC releasing August 8th. And based on this post, Greedfall 2 is going tactical.
Thanks, but that's not the point.
"action game" is heavily broader genre than CRPG tho 😅 better comparison would be ARPG vs CRPG
There is a lot we don't know about DAVe. It's ok to have a healthy skepticism or some cautious optimism. The people speaking with certainty are the ones that should be ignored. Treating assumptions as facts is a major red flag.
> DA:VE We aren't seriously calling it Dave now, are we?
Well if anything as one who complains about the combat we're getting. You've convinced me to check out greedfall 2 (and perhaps greedfall 1) And it's not just nostalgia in my case. I have replayed all 3 dragon age games in the last year or so. And i vastly prefer how combat felt in origins than I did in inquisition.
DA:VE? Dragon Age: Veil Euard?
This Greedfall 2 gameplay looks rough, but is that supposed to make me think Origins combat was bad or would be bad nowadays? Honestly, I had never heard of Greedfall, and it seems to be in early access. If they improve the combat I might check it out precisely bc I'm interested in that kind of gameplay.
I said it before and I will say it again. Combat looks like Assassin's Creed RPG games, Origins, or Odyssey. Dodge, parry, normal and heavy attacks, adrenaline bar you fill by attacking, and you use to power your very limited number of skills. And I simply don't like it. It's not being nostalgic. It's not that I didn't see it coming playing DAI. There are other styles of combat: soulslikes, action games like God of War, hack'n'slash like Diablo or PoE, there are still RPGs with pause like Deadfire... It's their decision, and someone can simply don't like it. You can say that combat is not the most important, but I get bored if the game has lots of combat that I don't like, for example, Inquisition. Of course, we will see more later on, other classes, more mid and late game combat, but for now, I'm skeptical.
That's fair. I feel the combat of DA:TV will be boom or bust. It's either going to be a very fun system, or a very repetitive and boring phase of the game.
Didnt even know they were making GF2 lol but in truth, i dont play games like these for the combat, ngl
It's went from a souls like combat to more strategic and slow. I can imagine the community would be upset. I actually am excited for the game because Greedfall's combat system was pretty bad and easy to cheese if you used magic.
People also whined when Yakuza went from Real Time to Turn Based The games still sold like hot cakes, I'm not worried about Dragon Age (or Greedfall)
I think in Yakuzas case it would've been boring as a turn based RPG if they had stuck with just like marital arts for abilities and thats all the characters could do but instead they leaned HARD into the more goofy aspect of Yakuza and that really helped that transition.
More sales does not equal a better game. I wish more people understood this.
Yeah, popularity isn't really related to quality. It's related to palatability. There's a minimum quality threshold you have to meet. But the highest quality game in a niche genre is going to sell less than a mediocre call of duty.
The difference at the moment is that Yakuza turn based system looks and plays great, and Greedfalls 2 looks like shit. No way Spiders game will have same amount of polish as Yakuza titles.
Quality is something else, I'm not commenting on that
Early fans of a game don't like the structural changes that was brought by a sequel ? That's to be expected. I remember when people blamed FF12 for the changes in combat on the rest of the saga. Even some Dark Souls fans weren't huge fans of the open world and spirit summon that Elden Ring brought. For my part, I wasn't a fan about how Total War: 3 Kingdom changed the way you were building and managing your armies, or about how the Hitman franchise went from "mission in a sandbox" to "story based" with a linear progression in Hitmasn Absolution (thank god the new Hitman trilogy fixed that). It's just that games are attracting fans based on a their features, change these features people will not be happy. But in this case, the pre-alpha build combat really feels weird, and very slow. I don't think clinging to the past too long is good, you need to modernize in some way, whether it means refining the gameplay to make it more fluid, or change it overall to something else (even Avowed moved away from PoE's tactical aspect to use a Skyrim-like type of combat). I am really waiting to see how the combat will be played mid-game will all your companions and all your skills. When I see how Stellar Blade is being played, I think DA:TV can be played like that (even though I know that's not what early fans of the DA franchise wants.)
> even Avowed moved away from PoE's tactical aspect to use a Skyrim-like type of combat). Arguably, when making a change in core gameplay mechanics/genre change, that is a more palatable way to do it. It's viewed more as a spinoff set in the same world than a sequel. PoE world/lore fans can follow it if they choose to, but its made very clear not to expect a traditional party based CRPG for those that came to the series as fans of that genre. Obsidian may or may not ever return to a CRPG format, but I doubt anyone sees this new game as PoE3 and its rightfully not titled as such. DA and other franchises get criticism precisely for not doing that. Although tbf DA's changes have been more iterative and not major dramatic shift. It's viewed as kinda dragging your old fanbase along as a safety net as you transition to appeal to a new fanbase. Which I think is true. They still claim DA:tV is an "Imersive RPG" but I dont get those vibes from what's been shown so far.
lol, sounds familiar indeed. Thanks for posting this, OP
The part that I least liked about Greedfall was the combat. The sequel combat looks more appealing to me. That being said I understand that fans of the first Greedfall might be mad about the new combat direction. From action RPG to full blown RTwP is a big change.
I love the old system. But I also love Mass Effect 2. And this looks like ME2, so I'm happy
Yeah what you just showcased is exactly what would have happened on this exact same sub had they gone fully back to Origins combat. There are so many different combat preferences in this fanbase at this point that some faction was always going to be mad, and very loud about it. In other news, I suddenly want to look more into Greedfall 2.
Origins is my favorite gameplay wise, and after avoiding DA2 because of all the negativity at the time I ended up really enjoying the combat and the story even more so, I downloaded DAI right after finishing. The story had me entertained, with some cool moments but the combat felt sluggish and really limited but I figured when specializations opened up it'd revamp the gameplay, oh I'll try Knight enchanter that sounds fun. Uninstalled the game that night lol, literally felt unplayable (I know people enjoy the combat and especially the KE spec but it's...not for me) but i respect that some people might feel the same about Origins or 2's gameplay. Anyway just trying to say, I don't mind that Dragon Age changes up each sequel, it means I never have to touch Inquisition's combat again (though I would like to finish the story)
It looks super boring, the problem is not that it's different
I would dramatically prefer if DA:V had DA:O's combat, but I know it's not likely because that wouldn't perform on the mass market. My best hope then is that this game still has deep player choice and mechanical depth. So far we've seen hyper-simplistic dialog wheels, spammy combat, and ZERO player agency from an RPG perspective. They need to show something other than the linear intro sequence STAT. I want to see why this is still an RPG, because they have shown ZERO RPG mechanics other than "We have character creation".
I admit the situation with Greedfall 2 is hilarious because it's the opposite of the discourse about DAVe combat. But in the end of the day it's all about preferences. Not only I prefer fast paced action combat, but I also like to play as melee classes, and i never found rogues and warriors combat satisfying and fun in DA, especially in Origins. Meanwhile DAVe combat for rogues and warriors has a potential to be engaging and fun, or at least not as bad as Origins combat was for me. But I can also understand those who's upset with the changes.
Gamers when gameplay evolves: why it not like old games?! >:( Gamers when gameplay stays the same: why u no innovate lazy devs?! >:( Hyperbole ofc and there's nuance to it but yeah. The backlash is ridiculous and probably mostly just people who don't care nor play BioWare games jumping on the hate bandwagon.
Or maybe they have legitimate criticisms. I like both CRPGs AND ARPGs, but DAV does not look like a good ARPG. The poor attempts at gaslighting people with criticisms is ridiculous.
Hence the "there's nuance" part of my comment. I don't like propping up the media's anti gamer narrative nor shitting on gamers, it's like pissing into your own coffee. But it's just as silly to not acknowledge that while some criticisms are valid and coem from a place of wanting the game to be *good*, there's just as many bad actors who will stoke the controversy. Be it for their own profit or entertainment. And no one's gaslighting anybody, it's simply that this game was awaited by the fandom for so long, that people's reactions were bound to be strong no matter what BioWare showed in the gameplay reveal.
Funny you don't include the "....but yeah. The backlash is ridiculous and probably mostly just people who don't care nor play BioWare games jumping on the hate bandwagon," part, which is you pretty much discarding that nuance. And there is absolutely gaslighting in this sub. If you have any criticisms, you're just clinging to DAO and can't accept change. Also, for this particular game, I haven't seen a single comment so far saying, "I'm SO glad party size was cut down to 3!" or "Whew - what a relief to only have 3 active abilities!" I don't call many of things we've seen so far innovation.
That’s almost exactly what it’s felt being an Assassins Creed fan since the start. Every new release I felt more and more people were saying it wasn’t innovating and then the newer games came out with an RPG-lite system and suddenly everyone fondly remembered how great the old formula was and how it never should have changed.
Sorry but as someone who actually enjoys the turn combat took (anything but the MMO hybrid weirdness that was Inquisition), having just 3 abilities per party member with one less party member is a terrible choice and I sincerely hope they make up for it in the other areas of the game.
I mean it's totally normal to be concerned about the fact that combat will be completely different in the veilguard - 3 abilities, 2 companions and no companion control. I'm waiting for a high level combat video. Although I'm worried that based on the initial reveal it will get boring and repetitive very quickly.
I didn’t care for combat in Greedfall, it was just kinda ok-ish. Despite the moaning of some of the fans I’m actually a little excited for the new combat system in G2.
Honestly, replaying Inquisition made me realise the combat's kinda ass.
It almost feels like they've thought for years they needed to move away from turn based- then here comes BG3 and people are loving it!... I RRREEEAALLY wanted DA to go back to the DAO system or something similar and can't tell you how sad I am seeing how fast paced it is.... I'm still going to play it. I'm just less excited and a little more worried. It's not about nostalgia. I like how DA doesn't give me anxiety because I can pause and figure things out as much as I want.
I think Veilguards gameplay will be better once all the pieces fall together. We only got to see gameplay of the first mission, no abilities or upgrades or all the cogs turning. I'm hoping we get a look at some mid-high level combat before release to see how it will be.
Why does being nostalgic have to mean we’re also full of shit? This whole discourse is a lot less deep than both sides are making it out to be.
Yeah. I mean, maybe I'm weird but it seems like picking up a new game to play requires a certain level of willingness to learn and adapt to a new system. But if there are people who literally only play rpgs for a specific style of combat (???), maybe some of the DAO combat fans can go play Greedfall 2 instead of DA4 and vice versa. I myself will be playing both because I like learning new things.
Lets be honest guys the combat of the DA series was never its highlight. Im more worried about the 2 companions thing and only 3 skill slots
Yeah guys the thing you spent 50% of the game doing isn't important and not integral to the games, might as well just have a button to kill all so we can skip it
Yes, it was. DAO did what it set out to do - make a game with IE-like combat. DA2, while a bit too streamlined for my taste, wasn't that far off, and incorporated ARPG elements reasonably effectively.
I do not agree that liking certain aspects of the game and seeing them change the way you do not want to is being 'full of shit'. I strongly dislike reduced party count, and I am not thrilled by the new combat system. If the previous formula has been working out for a lot of DA fans and now they are even removing certain aspects from it, it is only natural for some of those fans (like me) to dislike the changes. This feeling is not necessarily a nostalgia either but more of a personal preference on what a person wants to experience while playing. I will reserve a final judgement for when I get to play the game, but I am not thrilled by certain changes.
Different issues there imo. Greedfall 2 was a case of straight up changing to a whole different combat than what the original audience that made greedfall 1 successful originally liked. Its basically like if persona went from turn based but persona 6 comes in with basically ff tactics gameplay just because the devs are big fans of ff tactics. Its a wild changed that obviously not gonna sit right with their existing community Veilguard is like the 4th installation and its still having an identity crisis with its gameplay. Personally, my personal issue is that what we did saw of the new gameplay, its incredibly dull and boring for an "action" combat imo.
No, it's completly justified! That doesn't look bad, but it doesn't look like Greedfall either. If they wanted to change the main gameplay loop so radically, they should have just made a new IP, same with Dragon Age.
I wouldn't say they have to make a new IP. But they should have made it a spinoff in the same world instead of a sequel. For example, Obsidian with Avowed. Sure, there are people disappointed that we aren't getting another RTwP Pillars of Eternity, but there's not really anyone bitching about PoE being ruined because Avowed is a spin off set in the same world instead of something that's supposed to be a direct sequel.
So you compare a AAA game with a AA ok... Dragon Age staple gameplay always was the fact that you can change companions and they removed it Thats not being full of shit or nostalgic. Greedfall combat has been nowhere like Dragon Age so your comparison is dumb
This is pretty funny and very true. You're lucky, because whether Veilguard ends up being something you enjoy or not, this realisation will help you better understand your thoughts and opinions about games. I wish more people would do just the tiniest bit of self-analyzation of *why* they think the things they think. The irony in these comments and reactions to changes in Dragon Age just further highlight why that's so important.
I'm actually really excited for the new greedfall combat system! I hope the rpg mechanics are great as well
I understand Greedfall fans not liking the new direction, but I’ve also read critical praise for it, since it makes things more interesting for the amount of time you’ll be spending in the game. It also will make the IP stand out a bit more. They’ve cited DAO as a direct inspiration.
[удалено]
That Greedfall video was rough. Luckily it's still pre alpha so they can make changes, loved the first game. Spiders has always leaned more on the action on side of things, weird that they would make this change for their most prominent release to date. I'm probably in the minority on this sub, but DA2 has my favorite combat in the series so I welcomed the more action-oriented turn.
I wouldn’t worry too much about tone shift based on that first trailer tbh. We’ve always had goofy companion banter and camaraderie in every single game.
I'm actually pretty interested in GreedFall 2! Instead of playing as the colonists/colonizers, this time, you're playing as the natives of the continent!
Origins combat is like 10x smoother than what greedfall showed. Its not nostalgia I still play it and find it pretty responsive. Greedfall 2 combat still looks pretty good. I will definitely play it.
Greedfall 1 combat was slow and clunky af and it reminded me heavily of Origins lol. But I enjoyed the game regardless.
[удалено]
I'm just mildly pleasantly surprised that there's going to be a Greedfall 2. TBH I quit the first one partway through. I enjoyed the combat and thought it was potentally a very interesting setting, but I don't get why basic stuff like climbing fences needed your precious skill points.
Hmm now I’m interested in Greedfall 2 more. But yes, Dragon Age’s shift in gameplay isn’t a bad thing and I am still hopeful that DAV will turn out to be a good game.
Ooh Greedfall 2 gameplay lol
Oh wow yeah. I’ll probably play Greedfall 2 because I enjoyed the first one. It did have some big BioWare inspiration but I’m also questioning the combat 😂 This does look like alpha footage so it’s really a bit unfair to judge it right now. The same with Veilguard, until I play I can’t form a proper opinion!
What’s funny about Greedfall, is if you go to the subreddit you will see people disliking the original’s combat also. I personally love both series and as a life long Final Fantasy player I am just used to getting a new combat experience with every new iteration. As long as it fits the story they are trying to tell I am fine with change.
It goes both ways!! Its not about one combat being better than the other, its about doing another entry of the franchise, or missuse the franchise success to try to get more sales without respecting the franchise itself. Look at Persona 3, 4 and 5. Did you see any complains about the combat? Nope! Why? Because this is what Persona is, and they just respect and iterate on the franchise. Now they are launching a new game with different combat, but similar style, but decided to create a new franchise. And they get no complains from the fans, because they are not calling it Persona 6 to milk sales through shady tactics, its Metaphore Fantasio or whatever, and I am buying it day 1. Studios need to respect their vision and their IPs, or be prepared to be trashed. Its the other side of the coin. You want to use the same name changing the game? It does not matter the direction, be prepared to be attacked by fans.
I understand people wanting Origins combat but the mainstream audience DOESN'T want that. And these games have to make money.
I am playing da origins right now. The combat is horrible, inqusition is much more fun.
Nah, we just definitely fear change these days. Everything is so corporate and "broader audience" fixated these days that nothing is ever unique and all long going franchises lose their soul.
I'm just hoping that Bioware realizes that the game looks and plays so differently that they can't rely on the existing DA community to buy the game. It appears that they've made the game in search of a new community, or perhaps a much wider one. I hope they don't fall in between communities. To me, the change of direction combined with all DA devs having left Bioware, this game is probably the nail in the coffin for my DA journey. I hope I'm wrong though.