57 réponses à ce sujet

[Rubbish Hero]

Controller support mean console UI. e.g. Oblivion....
No thank you.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 17 juillet 2010 - 02:02 .

[ITSSEXYTIME]

*Plays 2 handed warrior and apparently doesn't put enough points in strength*



*Wonders why he's swinging slow and missing frequently*



You can get through Nightmare with minimal pausing if you spec your chars right and occassionally pause to line up a spell or issue an important order.



If you pick up a game like Quake 3, you don't demand that it is changed to a slower pace: You accept that it is simply a fast paced game and it isn't for you. It baffles me that you think Bioware should accomodate a different gameplay pacing because you don't like it. If it's truly untolerable, then don't play the game.



The console versions of DA:O really aren't much quicker, although you may get lucky with DA2.

[Grosbouba]

Quake 3 is all about gameplay. It's a FPS game, it has no story - it's pure, 100%, gameplay. RPGs have a lot more going for them than the combat. Quake 3 isn't being developed right now either. It's been out for years. The pace has already been established and there's no going back. You really picked the wrong game to make a comparison.



By the way, I'm not so thick that I don't associate strength to warriors. You're making assumptions, and terrible ones at that. Also, I don't know if we played the same game, but I still had trouble getting through hard without pausing often and thinking each battle through.



I never mentioned the DA:O console versions either - they were never 'advertised' as having faster paced combat than the PC version afaik.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

Grosbouba wrote...

Quake 3 is all about gameplay. It's a FPS game, it has no story - it's pure, 100%, gameplay. RPGs have a lot more going for them than the combat. Quake 3 isn't being developed right now either. It's been out for years. The pace has already been established and there's no going back. You really picked the wrong game to make a comparison.

By the way, I'm not so thick that I don't associate strength to warriors. You're making assumptions, and terrible ones at that. Also, I don't know if we played the same game, but I still had trouble getting through hard without pausing often and thinking each battle through.

I never mentioned the DA:O console versions either - they were never 'advertised' as having faster paced combat than the PC version afaik.

I can think of many other examples, such as Jade Empire, Mass Effect 2 or even Alpha Protocol.  Sometimes you either have to pass a game up because the gameplay doesn't appeal to you or you need to suck it up if you really want to see the story.  

At the end of the day you don't want movies for interactivity and you don't play games for the story.  Bioware games are more story focused than most of course, but it's still about the gameplay.  You don't like the gameplay in DA:O and that's fine, but a lot of people (like myself) love it.  Why should Bioware redesign the combat to be a faster pace when there's so many other games (including several of their own, such as Mass Effect or Jade empire) that use faster paced systems?  Some people like variety you know.  They're already going halfway with the console version of DA2 trying to make it more responsive and more adjusted to the platform, if you really want mods but can't enjoy the tactical combat then I don't know what to tell you other than play a different game and watch a Let's Play for the story.  (Or find a way to enjoy the combat, maybe even mod it yourself to be a bit more action focused)

I wasn't trying to imply that you couldn't figure out that you needed Strength on warriors, but you were complaining about missing which isn't an issue after lvl 5 or so when your character should have enough strength that missing should be a rarity.  Really though, 2 hander is a terrible class to play when you want faster paced combat.  Try out a dual wielder you may enjoy it more.


I misread your original post (as I didn't realize this was the DA2 board initially) I figured since you were complaining about the PC having a slower pace that the console versions were somehow faster paced and more enjoyable.  

[epoch_]

Grosbouba wrote...

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

[uberdowzen]

I agree that parts of DAO's combat felt clunky (though I still loved it) but Bioware have said that they're fixing that. That's what the dynamic combat is, characters no longer have that awkward shuffling to get into the right place anymore. And I have a suspicion that the console combat isn't going to be turning the game into some kind of amazing action RPG experience. I'd guess that they're just going to polish up the companion AI and change the interface.



Also I apologise for any mistakes, I'm being put off by Jack Nicholson giving the finger over and over again.

[Grosbouba]

Yeah, that image is amazingly annoying. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, there's no need to get rude though.

The reason why I started this post is so we could have a discussion about it. I know it probably won't get anywhere, but the forum is here to discuss the game, your likes, your dislikes, and all of that. If everything could end with 'suck it up or play another game' then hell, why are forums like these even needed? Are love letters the only things allowed here? If I don't throw flowers at the developers saying they're doing everything perfectly, am I going to get banned?

A lot of posts here are about dislikes. This is one of them. It's to let the developers know things like: for all the amazing Bioware RPGs that are set in a fantasy setting, none of them play like Mass Effect. Why? There are tons of third person action RPGs out there, sure. But none of the good, AAA ones are set in a fantasy world. Or to let them know that some people who play their games think the sequel could be improved by doing certain things the developers may not have thought about.  

Obviously, I'm bringing up an entirely different matter, but I'm mostly trying to answer these 'Well, go play another action RPG and leave this game alone!'. You would whine just as much as me if you were in my position. Stop telling me to just mind my own business or to 'suck it up'. The game isn't out yet. If it was, I would gladly leave these forums to go play Mass Effect for the 10th time.

I'm just glad someone here is able to actually discuss/debate about something without constantly trying to insult or shoo away the other person. Uber, if they made the combat a lot less clunky, then yes, that would be amazing. I'm glad they're actually aware of the positioning problems. Besides, most of my gripes are with the 'somewhat poor' implementation of the system. If they can design a pause-and-play system with more responsiveness, less running around looking like retards, and a more visceral feel to it, then I'm sure tons and tons of people who were turned off by the original game will swarm Walmarts to buy the game.

EDIT : I never understood why warriors wielding two-handed swords attack so slow. It's the same in all RPGs except a few select ones. A real person who has had practice in two-handed weapons isn't going to wait 4 seconds before landing his next attack. It just feels sluggish and outdated. What's wrong with attacking a bit faster? It's just about tuning numbers at this point, but for the player, it feels so much better.
I wouldn't mind as much if my character's swings actually looked like huge, 3-4 seconds swings, and dealt a very great amount of damage. There's just too much standing around (think retribution paladins 1-60 in world of warcraft). 

Modifié par Grosbouba, 17 juillet 2010 - 06:05 .

[uberdowzen]

Grosbouba wrote...

Uber, if they made the combat a lot less clunky, then yes, that would be amazing. I'm glad they're actually aware of the positioning problems. Besides, most of my gripes are with the 'somewhat poor' implementation of the system. If they can design a pause-and-play system with more responsiveness, less running around looking like retards, and a more visceral feel to it, then I'm sure tons and tons of people who were turned off by the original game will swarm Walmarts to buy the game.

EDIT : I never understood why warriors wielding two-handed swords attack so slow. It's the same in all RPGs except a few select ones. A real person who has had practice in two-handed weapons isn't going to wait 4 seconds before landing his next attack. It just feels sluggish and outdated. What's wrong with attacking a bit faster? It's just about tuning numbers at this point, but for the player, it feels so much better.
I wouldn't mind as much if my character's swings actually looked like huge, 3-4 seconds swings, and dealt a very great amount of damage. There's just too much standing around (think retribution paladins 1-60 in world of warcraft). 

http://social.biowar...-3127248-1.html

The above link is the best description I've found of how the combat is going to work.

Even if you didn't like the combat of Origins I'm sure you'll agree that the underlying systems are good. Hopefully the "dynamic combat" will make it more to your liking.

I'd assume that the reason 2 handed swords have a slower attack speed is just down to balance. 2 handers cause much more damage but inflict it less often. You're correct in saying that you probably wouldn't attack any slower in reality (the slower attack speed could represent the increased awkwardness of handling such a big sword) on the other hand you'd proably cause the same amount of damage too (I mean a sword is a sword, in reality one good hit with any kind of sword is going to dismember the target).

[Narreneth]

Why does everyone seem to believe that combat is either pause and play or twitch? There's a multitude of different types of combat in varying genres of games that don't fit under either. Who's to say the combat system on console isn't going to be an example of this?

[Narreneth]

Grosbouba wrote...

Yeah, that image is amazingly annoying. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, there's no need to get rude though.

The reason why I started this post is so we could have a discussion about it. I know it probably won't get anywhere, but the forum is here to discuss the game, your likes, your dislikes, and all of that. If everything could end with 'suck it up or play another game' then hell, why are forums like these even needed? Are love letters the only things allowed here? If I don't throw flowers at the developers saying they're doing everything perfectly, am I going to get banned?

A lot of posts here are about dislikes. This is one of them. It's to let the developers know things like: for all the amazing Bioware RPGs that are set in a fantasy setting, none of them play like Mass Effect. Why? There are tons of third person action RPGs out there, sure. But none of the good, AAA ones are set in a fantasy world. Or to let them know that some people who play their games think the sequel could be improved by doing certain things the developers may not have thought about.  

Obviously, I'm bringing up an entirely different matter, but I'm mostly trying to answer these 'Well, go play another action RPG and leave this game alone!'. You would whine just as much as me if you were in my position. Stop telling me to just mind my own business or to 'suck it up'. The game isn't out yet. If it was, I would gladly leave these forums to go play Mass Effect for the 10th time.

I'm just glad someone here is able to actually discuss/debate about something without constantly trying to insult or shoo away the other person. Uber, if they made the combat a lot less clunky, then yes, that would be amazing. I'm glad they're actually aware of the positioning problems. Besides, most of my gripes are with the 'somewhat poor' implementation of the system. If they can design a pause-and-play system with more responsiveness, less running around looking like retards, and a more visceral feel to it, then I'm sure tons and tons of people who were turned off by the original game will swarm Walmarts to buy the game.

EDIT : I never understood why warriors wielding two-handed swords attack so slow. It's the same in all RPGs except a few select ones. A real person who has had practice in two-handed weapons isn't going to wait 4 seconds before landing his next attack. It just feels sluggish and outdated. What's wrong with attacking a bit faster? It's just about tuning numbers at this point, but for the player, it feels so much better.
I wouldn't mind as much if my character's swings actually looked like huge, 3-4 seconds swings, and dealt a very great amount of damage. There's just too much standing around (think retribution paladins 1-60 in world of warcraft). 

Don't worry about it, epoch is one of the few people who is always an ass to everyone.  Most other regular posters have been on and off at the most.

[uberdowzen]

Narreneth wrote...

Why does everyone seem to believe that combat is either pause and play or twitch? There's a multitude of different types of combat in varying genres of games that don't fit under either. Who's to say the combat system on console isn't going to be an example of this?

That's sort of what I was implying in my first post. I suspect the combat is actually going to be the PC versions combat but simplified so you don't have to pause.

[Solid N7]

again all of you said that DA: O outsell mass effect 2 butall of you forget one important thing DA:O is multiconsole= pc,360 and ps3 then mass effect 2 =pc and 360 only so that the reason.

[Solid N7]

epoch is pc gamer otaku don´t mind him

[TheJist]

You obviously got about fine going on the easy difficulty and saw the story which is pretty much the point of bioware games so why change it I mean sure a bit faster pace but no need ot make it like arpg to many of them as it is.

[Rubbish Hero]

I don't get change either. People say it, best selling Bioware game ever, even more so than Mass Effect. So... why change it to, Mass Effect? Or at least, what appears to be, like Mass Effect? Very odd.

[Narreneth]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

I don't get change either. People say it, best selling Bioware game ever, even more so than Mass Effect. So... why change it to, Mass Effect? Or at least, what appears to be, like Mass Effect? Very odd.

The whole "changing it to Mass Effect" thing is really overplayed and overblown.  If you look at the game as a whole it is decidedly not Mass Effect.  The most common reasons people are comparing the two are because of having a voiced lead character, the conversation wheel, and the fact that combat isn't going to be 100% identical to Origins.  Out of the many facets of Dragon Age, that's a very large minority of the system.  There's no reason to get into a huge debate on the topic here because it's going on in so many other threads; but, whether you're in favor of what the changes sound like or not, DA:2 is not going to be like Mass Effect.

[Khavos]

Grosbouba wrote...

There's a reason why those 'streamlined twitch RPGs' are replacing the old school pause-and-play games.

True.

It appeals to a wider audience.

False.

Old-school RPG combat systems are losing out to "streamlined twitch RPGs" because old-school RPG combat systems are a tedious nightmare on consoles, and consoles are far and away the dominant game platforms today.  That's all there is to it.  

Another great word for those "streamlined" systems, by the way, is shallow.  Incredibly, incredibly shallow.  You can beat ME2 on Insanity without ever spending a skill point, and it's only slightly more tedious than beating ME2 on Insanity while spending skill points.  The pathetic attempt to keep SOME RP elements in ME2 doesn't work on a functional level; it's a perk rather than a requirement for successful gameplay.  ME2's a third-person shooter in terms of mechanics, nothing more.  If you're advocating for "streamlined" combat mechanics with DA2, what you'd get would be Ninja Gaiden gameplay with a similarly meaningless RPG facade.  

Personally, I think you're going to get it.  Bioware's already made the point that they want the combat to be more "actiony", and you don't come up with a tagline such as "Fight like a Spartan!" if you're making an actual RPG combat system.  I know they've said the PC combat will be "basically" the same, but Bioware operates in a zone of special relativity when it comes to the truthiness of such statements.   

[Khavos]

Narreneth wrote...

The whole "changing it to Mass Effect" thing is really overplayed and overblown.  If you look at the game as a whole it is decidedly not Mass Effect.  The most common reasons people are comparing the two are because of having a voiced lead character, the conversation wheel, and the fact that combat isn't going to be 100% identical to Origins. 

Not quite.  There's also the fact that they've stated they intend to make the combat more action-oriented, that they plan to have a "deep instead of broad" skill system - which is what they said about ME2.  There's the "streamlining" down to essentially only one possible character to be played, with the option to have a dong or not have a dong.  There's the obvious emphasis on cinematic presentation that the "story in pieces" motif will allow.  There's a lot of things, really.

Honestly, I think it takes more faith to believe it won't turn out to be medieval Mass Effect 2 than otherwise at this point.  They've pretty much stated that it will be. 

[uberdowzen]

Solid N7 wrote...

epoch is pc gamer otaku don´t mind him

I'm a PC Gamer and I really hate the stereotyping that goes on it relation to that. Just because I happen to prefer gaming on a PC to a console doesn't mean I'm some kind of elitist snob, in the same way that it doesn't mean you're some kind of Halo/Killzone worshipper.

[Daerog]

Fast paced combo system like Street Fighter IV in an action RPG? Sounds like a system for Jade Empire's prequel!!!

On topic: I really enjoy the combat system of DA:O. I hope they don't change the group tactic system. Maybe tweak it (vary encounters more, add more strategy, blah blah).

[Jimbe2693]

I enjoy DA:O's combat as it is. It's tactical, not some hack 'n' slash game. There are enough action RPG's as it is, don't kill this baby.

[joriandrake]

Narreneth wrote...

Why does everyone seem to believe that combat is either pause and play or twitch? There's a multitude of different types of combat in varying genres of games that don't fit under either. Who's to say the combat system on console isn't going to be an example of this?

I would prefer turn-based as in Fallout and Arcanum

[Arttis]

I rather have a massive Slow down so its not really Pause.Still gives you the urgency so you can not take ages to make a decision.

[Dansayshi]

Jimbe2693 wrote...

I enjoy DA:O's combat as it is. It's tactical, not some hack 'n' slash game. There are enough action RPG's as it is, don't kill this baby.

Problem is, at least to me, is that it gets incredibly boring after a while. If you knew what you were doing, you could simply run into a group of mobs and go make a cuppa, even on nightmare, only bosses required abit of micro.

I would prefer the more "dynamic combat" at least as an option from the menu. It may keep the game entertaining to some of us, and if its provided as an option, whats the harm?