645 réponses à ce sujet

[Theagg]

Reaverwind wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

and im not talking of the speed combat im talking about the sword animations the raise slower and its right.. but when they hit the animation must be faster.. But lets talk the longsword too the movements are much slower.. the longsword its not that heavy... In real life i make medieval combat.. I have a true sword too a longsword.. And its not so slower.. It can be used faster.. But its not a problem of time of attacks its a problem of animation..

The animations are pretty bad - the characters swing swords like they're sledgehammers - throwing themselves off-balance, leaving themselves wide open, not to mention not even real claymores were swung that slow. The non-hafted weapons are much better balanced than depicted in-game, and the longer weapons had the advantage of reach, which is not depicted by the game mechanics at all. There's no getting in 20 hits with a dagger for every swing of a claymore with the real things.

Now you are taking it too seriously

Twenty was just a number to make a point about the difference.

[Theagg]

slimgrin wrote...

condiments1 wrote...

 Introduce the need to control your party members and utilize their skills while engaging in "twitch" oriented combat with blocking, slashing, dodging is nigh impossible. The more twitch oriented the game is, the less control you will have over your party and by extension the less tactical the game will be.

I thought ME2 did precisely this. Twitch oriented combat with party-based tactics.

Hmm, well I can safely say I used virtually no 'tactics' when playing ME2. The other party members were basically left to do their own thing for the whole game. That being on NG+ on Insanity level.

[In Exile]

Merced256 wrote...


Aren't you the same bro who has gone on and on about how the important parts of an RPG are story and roleplay. So you're going to tell me that you are also a hardcore metagaymer that min/maxes and only rolls with NPCs that buff your character rather than characters who you like. Quite the contradiction there i think. 

There is no contradiction there. I'm not some PnP gamer. You're talking to the person that thinks ME and ME2 are superior in every possible aspect of role-play to DA (because VO is superior to non-VO, restricted choice and limited personality is better than freedom), so avoid trying to fit me into your nice little box, because you're wrong. More to the point, if you really read my posts, you'd know that there is no bigger fan of storyline vs. gameplay segregation than me (see JRPGs). In other words, I absolutely min-max the party versus use characters that I like. I also happen to think shooter combat is superior to RPG combat. Don't chest thump just because you play a game a particular way.

That being said, even if I didn't, that's not the point. Because intentionally gimping yourself doesn't make the game tactical.

I'll give my most recent play through as an example. I wanted to play a 2H warrior, this meant i essentially had to bring leliana for lock picking and SoC.

I don't use rogues. Lockpicking is useless aside from XP farming. I also think 2H suck (per above) so I never used them.

Wynne for heals since 2h's only defense is armor and avoidance via CC. For the last slot i could've went with any of the other characters. I chose to have morrigan tag along almost exclusively because she was my characters LI. That group by your definition is super sub optimal amirite? I mean you just said a shield warrior can out dps a 2h warrior and take less damage doing it. Obviously my play through would've been easier had i went that route or chosen to take alistair.

Yes, it is sub-optimal. Except for Morrigan, who is a mage, so if you spec. her right she's an absolute beast.

I DIDN'T. I also went with a slightly sub-optimal stat allocation in order to survive a little better, gearing was also changed to aid in this. So clearly not everyone min/maxes and those that do probably should have a easier time beating the game on whatever difficulty. A game that emphasizes Story and Roleplay, as you apparently wish for it to be, should never really be balanced - at least not exclusively, around min/maxing.

That has nothing to do with anything. I'm saying quit simply: if you want to claim that a game is tactical, it needs to actually require tactics to beat. Gameplay is completely different from story and roleplay. We're talking about a game where an ogre can crush Cailain in 3 seconds in a cut-scene whereas he can pound your sorry behind on nightmare for 3 minutes and with crowd heals from spirit healers in gameplay.

So if you gimp yourself and then say the game is tactical, the same applies to ME2.

So what exactly is your beef here? ME2 had virtually no min/maxing, and even had you done it you'd really only be slightly better off than you were beforehand. The game could be beaten with out ever leveling, let alone actually activating a skill, yours or your ally's. Are you really going to try and compare that with DA:O?

Have you played ME2 on insanity? You need effective weapon load outs to begin with; using  SMGs on armoured opponents while you get swarmed is a quick way to die. Powers become effective. Without research, the game is absolutely brutal; one YMIR mech is very difficult to tear down.

That being said, I absolutely compare ME2 to DA. If you play both games to win, there's nothing tactical about either. If you happen to suck at them (poor builds vs. poor aiming/no research), then you can come up with some argument about the game being tactical, but that's just gimping yourself.

[FedericoV]

I'm not a great fan of discussions about genre definitions since those kind of arguments are mostly subjective and their meaning changes a lot over time. Genres are conventions used for marketing reasons mostly that fans use just to look like they're expert of the field. But at the end genres do not say anything about a game, a book or a musical group (look at the Heavy Metal press... they have a genre for each single band on the planet). You could label Diablo 2 and The Witcher as action-rpgs but the games could not be more different in terms of design and approach.

Having said that, for me there is only one definition of Action RPGs and classic RPGs that makes some kind of sense. My definition have nothing to do with branching stories, interaction with the setting or NPCs, choices and consequences or the dialogue system. Those elements could be or not in an action/classical RPG without changing much. Maybe, you could say that an RPG that do not have those kind of element and that is based mostly on combat is Hack & Slash. So, back to my definition:

- classic RPGs are mostly turn based and aimed to duplicate the gameplay of pen & paper RPGs they are based upon. Those kind of games focus on the the knowledge of the rule system (and how to abuse it), tactical and/or strategical skills of the player and stats.

- Action RPGs are in real time and are more influenced by videgames proper design. In term of gameplay they have some kind of mix between rule system, stats, tactics/strategy and players skills/reflexes (with different degrees).

Baldur's Gate for example was a mix between classic and action rpg's features. Because it has a turn based system running underground and rely heavily on stats and the D&D's rule system, even if it was played in real time (with pause). Still, at the time it was published, there were a lot of RPGs fans that criticize BG as being an Action RPG or an H&S game because of its real time gameplay. "They dumbed it down for the Diablo II kids" they said... it's ironic that something never changes!

So, for me Mr Gaider is mostly right. DA:O was allready an action RPG in many terms, at least it was more oriented toward action than BG ever was. Its design was influenced more by MMORPGs than BG or D&D. It was not turn based. It was not meant to be played with the intensive use of the pause feature. I micro all the charachters in the party with tactics off and I must say that the gameplay is not that great with my style. So i suppose that it was not meant to be played with tactics off... DA:O was all about tactics and there wasn't a single strategic element (if not for charachter builds that were a no brainer for an RPG player). Iso view, party combat and the pause feature are not enough to label DA:O as a true classic RPG.

I would add that imho DA:O's mix between classic and action gameplay was not successfull or particularly enjoyable. Yep, it's fun and all, there are lot of worse games, but imho it could have been even better if BW would have not designed DA:O with BG in mind. I think that DA2 is the game that BW would have make all along from a creative point of view (still, in terms of gameplay). So I think that it will be a better RPG than DA:O even if more focused on action and real time gameplay. I do not believe that it will be a ME2 clone (mind, I love ME2: a great game and all... but it's the lightest action RPG I've ever played).

Last thought: action/real time is the direction taken by the whole video gaming industry. That's the way videogames work at their best (then, they also sell more because they are more enjoyable to the market... just look at the success of the Wii in the casual market). So, that's the reason why the classic RPG genre is mostly dead if not for indie and D&D, while most games are action RPGs. It's an outdated desing approach for computer RPGs that tries to simulate a rule system's inner workings instead than crafting a videogame that relies on the strenght of the media.

Modifié par FedericoV, 28 août 2010 - 01:39 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

Merced256 wrote...


Aren't you the same bro who has gone on and on about how the important parts of an RPG are story and roleplay. So you're going to tell me that you are also a hardcore metagaymer that min/maxes and only rolls with NPCs that buff your character rather than characters who you like. Quite the contradiction there i think. 

There is no contradiction there. I'm not some PnP gamer. You're talking to the person that thinks ME and ME2 are superior in every possible aspect of role-play to DA (because VO is superior to non-VO, restricted choice and limited personality is better than freedom), so avoid trying to fit me into your nice little box, because you're wrong. More to the point, if you really read my posts, you'd know that there is no bigger fan of storyline vs. gameplay segregation than me (see JRPGs). In other words, I absolutely min-max the party versus use characters that I like. I also happen to think shooter combat is superior to RPG combat. Don't chest thump just because you play a game a particular way.

That being said, even if I didn't, that's not the point. Because intentionally gimping yourself doesn't make the game tactical.

I'll give my most recent play through as an example. I wanted to play a 2H warrior, this meant i essentially had to bring leliana for lock picking and SoC.

I don't use rogues. Lockpicking is useless aside from XP farming. I also think 2H suck (per above) so I never used them.

Wynne for heals since 2h's only defense is armor and avoidance via CC. For the last slot i could've went with any of the other characters. I chose to have morrigan tag along almost exclusively because she was my characters LI. That group by your definition is super sub optimal amirite? I mean you just said a shield warrior can out dps a 2h warrior and take less damage doing it. Obviously my play through would've been easier had i went that route or chosen to take alistair.

Yes, it is sub-optimal. Except for Morrigan, who is a mage, so if you spec. her right she's an absolute beast.

I DIDN'T. I also went with a slightly sub-optimal stat allocation in order to survive a little better, gearing was also changed to aid in this. So clearly not everyone min/maxes and those that do probably should have a easier time beating the game on whatever difficulty. A game that emphasizes Story and Roleplay, as you apparently wish for it to be, should never really be balanced - at least not exclusively, around min/maxing.

That has nothing to do with anything. I'm saying quit simply: if you want to claim that a game is tactical, it needs to actually require tactics to beat. Gameplay is completely different from story and roleplay. We're talking about a game where an ogre can crush Cailain in 3 seconds in a cut-scene whereas he can pound your sorry behind on nightmare for 3 minutes and with crowd heals from spirit healers in gameplay.

So if you gimp yourself and then say the game is tactical, the same applies to ME2.

So what exactly is your beef here? ME2 had virtually no min/maxing, and even had you done it you'd really only be slightly better off than you were beforehand. The game could be beaten with out ever leveling, let alone actually activating a skill, yours or your ally's. Are you really going to try and compare that with DA:O?

Have you played ME2 on insanity? You need effective weapon load outs to begin with; using  SMGs on armoured opponents while you get swarmed is a quick way to die. Powers become effective. Without research, the game is absolutely brutal; one YMIR mech is very difficult to tear down.

That being said, I absolutely compare ME2 to DA. If you play both games to win, there's nothing tactical about either. If you happen to suck at them (poor builds vs. poor aiming/no research), then you can come up with some argument about the game being tactical, but that's just gimping yourself.

Having  VO's does not = Roleplaying   Thats prolly the most rediculous statement I think I've ever seen made.. Though from your posts you seem like the epitome of the new target audience Bioware is going for anyway.

[Dr. wonderful]

You know, I don't get why people argue over small stuff. So, it's a Action RPG, still the same game that will be in my Playstation 3 in March or April.

Also, thank you Bioware for speaking with your fanbase...except David and Chris...Those two are evil.

[Loc'n'lol]

Dr. wonderful wrote...

You know, I don't get why people argue over small stuff. So, it's a Action RPG, still the same game that will be in my Playstation 3 in March or April.

Your just a console player, you cannot possibly understand.
*manly PC elitist tears*

[nightcobra]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

You know, I don't get why people argue over small stuff. So, it's a Action RPG, still the same game that will be in my Playstation 3 in March or April.

Your just a console player, you cannot possibly understand.
*manly PC elitist tears*

have an issue?
here's a tissue 

[Sylvius the Mad]

slimgrin wrote...

Shooting feels so much more immediate and visceral.

Yes.  I hate that.  A visceral experience is exactly what I don't want.

[Dr. wonderful]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

You know, I don't get why people argue over small stuff. So, it's a Action RPG, still the same game that will be in my Playstation 3 in March or April.

Your just a console player, you cannot possibly understand.
*manly PC elitist tears*

Meh, I'm going to Get origins for PC...Later, and then just used it for the toolset.

[AlanC9]

Theagg wrote...
Now you are taking it too seriously

Twenty was just a number to make a point about the difference.

This is something I've never understood about how people use message boards. Someone makes up a number to exaggerate something, someone else calls him on making up his numbers, and we end up discussing something that even the poster didn't want taken seriously.

This bit of rhetoric never works, but people keep doing it.

[Theagg]

slimgrin wrote...

Theagg wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

condiments1 wrote...

 Introduce the need to control your party members and utilize their skills while engaging in "twitch" oriented combat with blocking, slashing, dodging is nigh impossible. The more twitch oriented the game is, the less control you will have over your party and by extension the less tactical the game will be.

I thought ME2 did precisely this. Twitch oriented combat with party-based tactics.

Hmm, well I can safely say I used virtually no 'tactics' when playing ME2. The other party members were basically left to do their own thing for the whole game. That being on NG+ on Insanity level.

That's an exaggeration. Combat on insanity went much smoother if you effectively managed your team.

Also, you loaded them with weapons pre-mission based on the type of enemy you would be encountering. You told them what weapons to use moment to moment, as well as guiding them to way points. You equipped their ammo, and again, that made a difference.  Combo's were possible, just like in DA. Don't tell me all of this isn't tactical. I would go into why ME2 was nerfed in abilities and leveling your character but my point is: fast-twitch doesn't preclude strategy.

Oh, and Rage is right about TW. The timing based attack is not the most sophisticated part of the system, but your choices in preparation, researching monster types, coating and enhancing your weapon, integrating magic - it was very ambitious and did alot of the things right and it was contingent on your knowledge of the game. Unfortunately they made the difficulty too easy, even on hard, which undermined everything. But the ideas CD Projekt used could be greatly expanded on.

If Bioware took a good long look at the action genre - specifically TPS games - for ME2, I suspect they will try and integrate Hack and Slash elements for DA2. And they might as well do it in a sophisticated way.  

Well, its not an exaggeration. Its how it happened, smoothly with no need for micro management whilst in combat ( hence 'tactical combat' ) with one exception, that being Horizon.

On the other hand, I needed to time and micro manage DA:O quite often on Nightmare. From the simplest situations where without that timing Morrigan would 'Cone of Cold' myself and other NPC's in a melee, ( using the Mage army in the finale was laughable without that kind of in combat tactical option ), to timing a runaround/kiting situation so a spell would arrive on target just after that tank or archer had safely moved out of range.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
In other words, I absolutely min-max the party versus use characters that I like.

Without interfering with your role-playing, right? Your PC would be trying to min-max his team in order to, um, not die.

That being said, I absolutely compare ME2 to DA. If you play both games to win, there's nothing tactical about either. If you happen to suck at them (poor builds vs. poor aiming/no research), then you can come up with some argument about the game being tactical, but that's just gimping yourself.

So "tactical" as used here excludes builds, equipment, and party composition? Those are strategy? Technically, I suppose we should be talking about operational level.

[Theagg]

AlanC9 wrote...

Theagg wrote...
Now you are taking it too seriously

Twenty was just a number to make a point about the difference.

This is something I've never understood about how people use message boards. Someone makes up a number to exaggerate something, someone else calls him on making up his numbers, and we end up discussing something that even the poster didn't want taken seriously.

This bit of rhetoric never works, but people keep doing it.

Probably because DA is not an actual, historically accurate reeenactment game. So exaggeration is in order now and again to make a point

I mean, look at all those exaggerated remarks when a trailer or clip goes up.

Plus perhaps we can make a bet on the following. If a dual wielding dagger expert has successfully got up really close and personal with a two handed axe artisan and the axeman cannot disengage safely, how many times do you think the dagger wielder can stab, slash and cut said axeman before he gets his axe up for a chop ( and not a pummel ) ?

Then real combat experts and historians could give us an opinionated answer

[Theagg]

AlanC9 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
In other words, I absolutely min-max the party versus use characters that I like.

Without interfering with your role-playing, right? Your PC would be trying to min-max his team in order to, um, not die.

That being said, I absolutely compare ME2 to DA. If you play both games to win, there's nothing tactical about either. If you happen to suck at them (poor builds vs. poor aiming/no research), then you can come up with some argument about the game being tactical, but that's just gimping yourself.

So "tactical" as used here excludes builds, equipment, and party composition? Those are strategy? Technically, I suppose we should be talking about operational level.

Hmm yes, strategy is the 'big pictuure' look. Its what you set down in advance and is immutable in that respect.  Tactics sees the little details, its about the manouvering required, adapting to a changing situation of the battlefield

Strategy in gaming would be "Who am I taking on this mission", tactics would be "What do I have them do whilst fighting.

[Theagg]

slimgrin wrote...

It's highly possible Ray was just speaking off the cuff and he threw the term out there without much thought.

Lets say that combat isn't real time, eg. press button for immediate action. Lets say you issue orders and still wait for them to be carried out, but now, they are carried out much quicker, forcing the player to be on his toes more.

Would people still be opposed to this? Cause thats pretty much how Laidlaw has described it. Overall faster combat.

I will wait to see actual in game footage etc but on that note I'm still wholly unconvinced that the combat actions ( not animations ) needed to be faster. That just wasn't a particular problem, from a PC perspective anyway.

It just seems like this is a non issue that has been 'fixed for all' because some people couldnt wait a few seconds ( ie, were impatient ) for things to unfold.

[Raxxman]

AlanC9 wrote...

So "tactical" as used here excludes builds, equipment, and party composition? Those are strategy? Technically, I suppose we should be talking about operational level.

Your right in that they're strategy.

The issue with DA:O is the scope of the tactic's. Every strategy is fundamentally very simple, and every effective tactic works on every opposition (bar the nightmare bosses, where there aren't really any tactics other than tank and spank due to immunity to basically everything). Now you can chop and change things around to keep yourself entertained, but you don't need to.

Also the game was easy, builds helped but I rocked through the game with suboptimal builds, suboptimal class composition and suboptimal equipment. I was able to do this because the tactics are very basic, and all the difficulty levels do is reduced the margines of error.

[NvVanity]

"finishes first bag of popcorn"



Gotta say i'm impressed how one article can lead so many people into rants/debate/BS-speculation over whether or not RPG has an A or C in the beginning for DA2.



"Goes to get second bag of popcorn"

[NvVanity]

slimgrin wrote...

NvVanity wrote...

"finishes first bag of popcorn"

Gotta say i'm impressed how one article can lead so many people into rants/debate/BS-speculation over whether or not RPG has an A or C in the beginning for DA2.

"Goes to get second bag of popcorn"

This is a forum. Where people discuss stuff.

Go eat your popcorn elsewhere.

Would you like some? I also have some gatorade if you thirsty.