57 réponses à ce sujet

[Grosbouba]

So, I know a lot of people like the pause-and-play approach, but why force it onto PC players? I really liked Dragon Age : Origins at first; the story was engaging, the voice-overs were awesome and it was overall pretty fun. My major gripe was the combat, and I know I'm not alone on this.

Making a two-handed sword wielding warrior was simply frustrating.The fact that you have to pause isn't the problem, it's the pace of the combat and the responsiveness. Things felt clunky - characters would attack so slowly that you'd be left wondering if you had misclicked or something. And when he finally DOES attack, it ends up as a miss. Another 5 seconds to wait. I understand that the use of abilities helps with this, but it's simply not enough. The positioning still feels clunky, abilities don't have any 'visceral' feel to them (few exceptions aside), and this is important :

You don't feel powerful, or mighty, at all. The combat gets no emotions out of me whatsoever, except maybe frustration. I feel more emotions run through me watching a Starcraft replay than fighting in DA:O. It's too slow. It's not satisfying enough to beat your enemy. 

I did try to like the pause-and-play approach. I've had a few good shots where I completely destroyed my opponents. Those few minutes of thinking for ONE SINGLE BATTLE weren't worth it. Not with monsters coming out of every single doors threatening to destroy your party with one well placed AoE spell. It becomes tedious, annoying, and eventually, like many others I presume, I cranked the difficulty to the easiest and just let the AI do the job (minus hitting a few abilities here and there). 

When I heard about the console versions changing towards something faster, more responsive, I was excited - and then I read that the PC was being treated differently. It's going to keep that pause-and-play approach that turned off so many people from what is otherwise an amazing game. 

Why do I care so much? Why not buy the 360/PS3 version? Well, my dog decided it would be a good idea to pee on my xbox 360, so that's long gone. As for the PS3, my brother paid 80% of it, so it's in his living room, in his house right now. I don't see why you should be forced to buy a specific version, unless it's an actual blunder by the developers. But intentionally? That's just cruel. I love the keyboard and mouse. I love it because it feels more natural to me. Not because it allows me to play pause-and-play games. 

Now, the inevitable comparison with Mass Effect. It had to happen. By the way, I'm a huge ME fan. I played 11 hours of the first one in my first sitting (skipped class >.> ) and finished it a few days later. When ME2 came out, I played through the first one a second time just to have everything fresh in my memory when I start ME2 (and I had oh-so-much fun too). ME2 was a delight, of course. The improvements to the combat were amazing (headshots are so satisfying). I did have a few minor gripes with the game, but that's not the point of my post. 

I did hear that DA : O had more success than the ME series. Some people will right away associate that fact with the most obvious difference : the combat. I don't think that's the reason why at all. So many people I talked to on online games, msn, gtalk, and yes, even real life, said they passed on/stopped playing DA:O because of the combat. Truth is, fantasy sells more than sci-fi. 'Spiritual successors' sell more than brand new series. It could even be the marketing that was simply better, who knows? I have huge doubts the game had more success because of the 'strategic' approach. 

Yes, that style is a better fit for the PC than for the consoles. But the 'faster, more responsive' approach is in no way 'a better fit' for the consoles than the PC. Just look at Mass Effect, DotA / Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, League of Legends, and so many more. All of these are fast-paced, satisfying, dynamic, and responsive. So why, why do you force PC players to play a specific style (an old school style that yes, many people appreciate, but many people hate as well) ? People who love the P&P approach are usually 'hardcore'. It's not an easy way to play. They are also the most vocal gamers because they are so passionate about it. The others, those who like the more fast-paced approach, usually don't voice their concerns. They simply pass on the game. That's probably why most of what you heard about DA2 when the first details were revealed (when the console vs PC differences weren't clear) was ranting about how they shouldn't change the combat. 

Now I'm not telling anyone how to develop the game. I'm simply concerned, and hopefully all of those who agree but stayed silent so far will finally find the time to make their position known. 

I would really love being able to enjoy Dragon Age 2 on the PC to the same extent I enjoyed ME and ME2. Not many developers make games with engaging stories, so I think we're very lucky Bioware is so passionate. I just don't want another Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age : Origins, where the story was as amazing as ever, but the combat turned me off. I believe it's possible to achieve a compromise between the strategic / pause-and-play approach and dynamic/reactive approach. If that's been done on the console version already, dear god do the same for the PC please, or make it a choice in the options or something. 

TL;DR version: PC version needs to have the same combat as the console versions >.>

[Lord_Saulot]

That would be a dealbreaker for me.

[Grosbouba]

Then be glad, because I doubt this plea is going to go anywhere. I'm basically just crossing my fingers, hoping for a miracle to happen.

[Lord_Saulot]

Oh, just to be clear, I meant if they switch the PC combat completely it would be a dealbreaker. If they could make an option and accomodate both of us, I would naturally be fully supportive.

[Grosbouba]

It would be indeed



The only thing I fear is that doing so would involve too many complications to implement. I don't know enough about programming to really get an (informed) opinion.

[Rubbish Hero]

Grosbouba wrote...You don't feel powerful, or mighty, at all.

Yea you do, as an Arcane Warrior./Blood mage you are pretty much god swatting fly's.
If you want to play one of the many, many, many steamlined twitch RPGS, buy a console or play one of the pc's many ports.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 16 juillet 2010 - 11:28 .

[Lord_Saulot]

Yeah, agreed - no idea how they program this for me either.



And FWIW, I understand that the style of game may not be preferred by everyone. But I just don't want DAO to be the of a style of game that I like.

[Grosbouba]

Rubbish Hero wrote...
Yea you do, as an Arcane Warrior./Blood mage you are pretty much god swatting fly's.
If you want to play one of the many, many, many steamlined twitch RPGS, buy a console or play one of the pc's many ports.

So I'm forced to play specific classes to feel powerful? What happened to being able to choose your class based on your preference, not on what allows you to enjoy the game? I don't even know what an arcane warrior is anyway ^_-

And when did dynamic, fast-paced combat = streamlined twitch RPG? 

Thanks for your constructive addition to the post, though. I will definitely spend 200-300$ on a console just to play a single game.

Modifié par Grosbouba, 16 juillet 2010 - 11:38 .

[Rubbish Hero]

Grosbouba wrote... So I'm forced to play specific classes to feel powerful?.

No, mages also over-powered. In Awakening, Rogue over-powered.
Basically, everyone is over-powered and game balance is out of wack. Still, pause
and play over twitch any day. Big AAA games move towards console, which  means games like Dragon Age with a budget, are  all but dead. Do you really want to get rid of that style of play when there are so many streamlined twitch games out there already? Do you want to be a murderer? Because that's basicaly what you would be doing, killing it.

Grosbouba wrote... And when did dynamic, fast-paced combat =
streamlined twitch RPG?

Since always for the most part.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 16 juillet 2010 - 11:46 .

[Grosbouba]

There's a reason why those 'streamlined twitch RPGs' are replacing the old school pause-and-play games. It appeals to a wider audience. From a business standpoint, it would make more sense to switch to that type of gameplay. We all know Bioware isn't Activision, so that's why I bothered to make a huge post on the forums. I don't think they'll just go wherever the biggest pile of cash is. As I thought though, most people who use this forum and actually bother to voice their opinion are the old-school loving ones. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I can probably expect this 'request' to just be ignored. If anything, I'd love a clear answer as to why the PC version has to be different (something with actual arguments, not just 'lol u a murderer' stuff).

[Rubbish Hero]

Grosbouba wrote...

There's a reason why those 'streamlined twitch RPGs' are replacing the old school pause-and-play games. It appeals to a wider audience. From a business standpoint, it would make more sense to switch to that type of gameplay..

Odd thing is, Baldurs gate series sold 5 million copies and Dragon Age (from what I hear) outsold Mass Effect, seems somewhat contradictory.  Wouldn't be surprising if the sales for Dragon Age were partly down to a "core Audience" not getting a "core RPG game" rather, many diluted ones specifically designed for a mass audience, on consoles, templated to the pc like an ill-fit.

The reason the pc version have pause and play probably because they don't  want to alienate that audience, the majority of which (probably) want  tactical pause and play and not "press X to win". Saying that though, it does appear regardless of combat that audience is getting alienated  with color coded, things no longer requiring the player to read and  Mass Effect in magical land. It's all wrong.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 17 juillet 2010 - 12:12 .

[Lord_Saulot]

Grosbouba wrote...

There's a reason why those 'streamlined twitch RPGs' are replacing the old school pause-and-play games. It appeals to a wider audience. From a business standpoint, it would make more sense to switch to that type of gameplay. We all know Bioware isn't Activision, so that's why I bothered to make a huge post on the forums. I don't think they'll just go wherever the biggest pile of cash is. As I thought though, most people who use this forum and actually bother to voice their opinion are the old-school loving ones. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I can probably expect this 'request' to just be ignored. If anything, I'd love a clear answer as to why the PC version has to be different (something with actual arguments, not just 'lol u a murderer' stuff).

The thing is the whole "wider audience" thing is a very sore point on these boards.  For a little while, people were very afraid that Bioware was going to get rid of the pause and play combat and cater to the supposed "wider audience" you refer to.

Its far from clear, of course, what the actual monetary consequences of that move would be, but its been disputed quite a bit on this forum whether ME or DA did better money-wise.  But there is no doubt that DA did very well for itself even in the form it took.  But you have to understand that to some people on the forum, your comment essentially came across as "why can't they stop making games you like and make the game I want instead?"  I hope my earlier responses made it clear that that was not how I saw your post, but and I understand where you are coming from.  At the same time though, I don't think that gambling that you might get fans of other genres on board at the risk of losing your "sure thing" customers is a strategy Bioware is likely to pursue.

In any case, I think you are looking at it backwards.  It is not the PC version that is something different.  The PC game is the game that Bioware wanted to make; they wanted to make the pause and play traditional RPG, and they did it.  Later in development, they decided to make it console as well, but some felt that the console implementation was weaker and more limited.  So they are trying to tweak the system for the consoles to fit their strengths better this time around.  They aren't changing the PC version as much because it worked, it was popular, and does what they wanted it to.  In any case, they are still using a pause in the console versions - they are just trying to make a system that works better for the consoles, and to make combat over all feel more vital and dynamic.

For what its worth, I felt very differently from you about the game - I didn't feel my characters felt weak or any of those things.  I felt delighted by the combat for the first time in a very long time.  I wanted to play a traditional RPG, and if I lose that option and have to play an action game, I probably won't care about Dragon Age anymore.  But that point is moot, since the developer comments seem to be clear that while they are trying to improve the combat, they aren't changing the format drastically on PC, and its yet to be seen how big the changes are on console.  But I do hope that whatever changes/improvements they make, with the interest of making the game dynamic and active, will make the game more fun for you, even if you don't like the current style of the series.

[Haexpane]

Shorter posts would make for better discussion

[Grosbouba]

You two brought up the DA vs ME matter, which I talked about. Regardless of which game made more money, I don't think the main selling point of Dragon age was the combat for a lot of people . People like you two, sure. But you're obviously not alone. Many gamers neither like nor dislike that type of combat - they just love the stories Bioware puts out, the RPG elements, the voiceovers, etc. Besides, when comparing sale figures, you can't just consider one aspect of the game. The whole package has to be taken into account, and even though both ME and DA:O are RPGs and are made by the same company. The combat is what's being talked about a lot, but the setting, the storytelling, the history of the franchise (brand new series vs 'Spiritual successor'), and so on, can't be overlooked. Even stuff like marketing, which I mention in my first post, has a huge impact on a game's success.



Saulot, I understand that it went from 'This game is a pause-and-play' to 'wait that doesn't work on consoles, so let's do something different there'. It still doesn't justify locking the PC version to a specific style of play when the keyboard and mouse can very well support the console's style of play. Like I said earlier, having the choice would be great, but I don't know what that involves in terms of money, development time and stuff. That's why an official answer would be nice.



P.S. : Baldur's gate sold very well, but so did Diablo 1 & 2. It doesn't mean anything.

[Grosbouba]

Haexpane wrote...

Shorter posts would make for better discussion

Seriously? 

It's hard to say if this is a troll or not.

[Lord_Saulot]

Grosbouba, I only mentioned Mass Effect since you were discussing it. I understand that there are a lot of elements that contribute to a game's success - my only point was that we can't really say that changing the combat would cause it to sell more. That's far from clear.  (Oh, I realize now that I misinterpreted your first post - I thought you were stating that Mass Effect sold better and the combat was a reason - I was responding to that - my fault for reading through too fast without thinking)

And like I said before, if they can give you the choice, I fully support that. But I don't see why there is any need to "justify locking the PC version to a specific style of play." For pretty much any game, the developers choose a certain style of play and Bioware chose the style of game they wanted to make. You mention money, development time, and other stuff yourself, so I guess I don't see what still needs to be justified? In any case though, I hope that whatever changes they are making make the game more satisfying for you.

Modifié par Lord_Saulot, 17 juillet 2010 - 01:19 .

[Grosbouba]

There is a need to justify it because the versions are different. It's not just two different games. It's the same game, with two different version, on two (three, really) different platforms. There is a need to justify it because some gamers will pay the price of that decision (like me - and I'm definitely not alone).

[tuca]

o veio fala como estala o mass

[Lord_Saulot]

Grosbouba wrote...

There is a need to justify it because the versions are different. It's not just two different games. It's the same game, with two different version, on two (three, really) different platforms. There is a need to justify it because some gamers will pay the price of that decision (like me - and I'm definitely not alone).

Wouldn't some gamers pay a price no matter what decision they make?  (Except, I guess, people with all three platforms who can get whatever version they want)

[Grosbouba]

There's a difference between making a decision that affects all versions of the game in the same way and a decision that affects only one version (or both version in a different way). This forces some users to make a compromise (dish out 300$ for a console or skip on the version you'd rather play in this case).

[Fishy]

Age of Conan combat system was just epic . It's suck that no one copied their system.

No point and click .. geez it's was orgasmic



Bioware i guess are simply hardcore addicted to point and click.

[Lord_Saulot]

Well, I still am not fully understanding, but we're coming from pretty different perspectives, so I guess that's to be expected. Anyway, we still don't know just how different the console and PC versions actually are. Anyway, I hope the developers will clarify what they intend and and why they made the decisions they did.

[Rubbish Hero]

Suprez30 wrote...

Age of Conan combat system was just epic . It's suck that no one copied their system.
No point and click .. geez it's was orgasmic

Bioware i guess are simply hardcore addicted to point and click.

Got abit tiring after a while though.  Street Fighter IV has a good combat system. It's ultra combo and focus attacks and alike would work great in an  action RPG.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 17 juillet 2010 - 01:52 .

[Grosbouba]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Suprez30 wrote...

Age of Conan combat system was just epic . It's suck that no one copied their system.
No point and click .. geez it's was orgasmic

Bioware i guess are simply hardcore addicted to point and click.

Got abit tiring after a while though.  Street Fighter IV has a good combat system. It's ultra combo and focus attacks and alike would work great in an  action RPG.

Thank god we agree on one thing. I always wanted to see an RPG incorporate combat systems that are used in either fighting games or action games (Ninja gaiden, Devil may cry, God of war, etc.). Something with combos and all that jive. That would be neat.

edit: and yes, the AoC combat did get a bit tiring after a while. It was still pretty fun though. What mostly got tiring though was post level 20's lack of quests and content.

Modifié par Grosbouba, 17 juillet 2010 - 01:55 .

[Dansayshi]

I do agree with the op, I'd love to have the option to use the more "consolised" combat. While I did enjoy DOA, the combat was simply too boring and barely involving if you had good tactics set up aswell as good equipment, even on hardcore mode. It also made DOA sometimes feel very slow paced.



It'd be great to have something like star ocean 4's combat system, which was very entertaining throughout the game.



Since their designing it for the console though, would it be that much effort to copy that part of the code over, and then provide it as an option tailored for a PC interface? Even better, to add controller support?



I know many would simply say, get the console version, but mods are too much to loose.