Yes, Origins was better. DAO combat was a good execution of a niche concept that filters modern gamers (RTwP). DA2 and 3's combat were a poor execution of generic modern hack and slash philosophies (Well, *were* modern. If three came out today it would probably have bamham or soulslike combat lol).
I've never really understood the complaints about spam. The only difference in attack animations between dragon age Origins and 2 or Inquisition is that in one game you click on an enemy once to auto attack them whereas in the others you have to hold the button to attack them.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Dec 12th, 2020 at 05:01 PM
I like pressing buttons man, I like actually having to get involved in every fight rather then clicking an enemy and letting my character do the rest.
2 executed this poorly, but 3 was a lot better, and oh yes, this is so much more exciting:
^ Pretty slow, weak effects, and on top of that I can't get involved as much as I'd like to. I wanna feel every dodge, every hit. Like I think Diablo II is leagues better then Diablo 3, but Diablo 3 did combat better there too.
Compare that to Inquisition:
So much more impactful, better effects, way more fast-paced, and way more intense. Every hit feels powerful and exciting. Even the sound effects as you smash or cut through flesh are leagues better. Despite this it still has the best of both worlds, you don't have to play one way or the other, you choose how you wanna play it.
Hell I think even 2, as boring as it was, had better combat then Origins, at least it requires you to get involved for every fight instead of watching the game.
Inquisition doesn't have nearly the strategic/tactical depth of Origins. And that's even without bringing mods in to play.
If you like your combat more fast-paced, then yeah, Inquisition (and even 2, which did some things better imo) is gonna be more your bag, but tactics wise? Origins is far superior imo.
Thanks for reminding me how god awful DAI's combat was. It tried to combine both DAO and DA2 but failed at capturing the best elements of either system.
People don't talk about how mangled the skill trees were in Inquisition either. Origins and 2 had some fantastic trees, especially for mages. In Inquisition... it was all right, but if you weren't speccing in to lightning, especially in some of the DLC, you were just playing the game wrong.
Knight Enchanter was one of the most broken builds in the game. You get the silverite armor and use that spec? You're dealing massive damage with each swing, can deflect all direct energy and magic attacks back at the caster for damage, and you heal yourself with every hit. Plus all the actual spells you have. It was unfair.
There has never once been a single Dragon Age that had combat I give a single shit about.
Dragon Age Inquisition failed for me because it was a haphazardly thrown together open world with tedious bullshit to do in it. The worst kind of open world game. The writing might have also been bad but I'll be honest, I'd actually have no idea because I got filtered by how mind-numbingly dull the Hinterlands are.
"Just leave the Hinterlands it gets better-" no, **** you. They shouldn't have made it an open world if they didn't want it to be explored and completed. Don't apologize for Bioware's poor game design.
If they either improve or drop the open world tedium this game could be worthwhile, but I doubt it.
What filtered me were the war points or whatever they were called. It forced you to play the dog shit side quests in order to advance the main plot. **** that.