645 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMadCat]

TMZuk wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...

TMZuk wrote...


Look here!

THAT is medival combat. Blindingly fast and wickedly brutal. If they were wearing armour but still using longswords (yes, that -is- longswords they are using.) they would have one hand on the hilt, and the other halfway down the blade, to get the power to punch through the plate.

Now, with that out of the way, can we PLEASE forget all comparisons between FANTASY RPG combat, and medieval combat? The only thing they have in common is that they use swords. A good fantasy rpg combat systemis a system that is entertaining. Forget realism.

That's not medieval sword combat.

This is much closer to actual combat. Notice it's much slower with many pauses in between spars. Swinging a heavy sowrd in steel armor is an exhausting feat no matter what kind of shape you're in.

Very funny! I'll not derail the thread with this discussion. Suffice it to say, that if you are truly interested, I recommend the original manuals, written in the 13th, 14th and 15th century. I33, Talhoffer, Codex Wallenstein, Ringeness and Lichtenauer, who's the one they use in the video I linked.

Those two clowns you showed have no clue how to hold a sword, how to use it, and least of all, how you penetrate plate-armour. A swordfight that lasts more than thirty seconds is -extremely- rare. Usually, either the first attack get through, and the opponent is killed right out, or it is blocked, and the attacker is killed by the counter.

There's a video with armoured freeplay somewhere on Youtube. I will see if I can find it and pm it to you.

It's not meant to be a direct imitation, it's a friendly full-contact spar, they're not looking for penetration rather square hits (Which is why you saw multiple sessions there, no session there lasted more then a few seconds). All I said is it was much closer then what you originally showed, which was a martial artist in a choreographed setting with no armor and an aluminum sword (Or whatever that was was made of, iron and tempered steel doesn't wobble as much as that one did.)

Modifié par TheMadCat, 30 août 2010 - 09:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Are one-on-one fights really relevant? How often did they occur?

What about massed combat with dozens of combatants per side?  For how long did one man need to sustain his activity during those?  And at what speed could he do it?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 août 2010 - 09:20 .

[TheMadCat]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Are one-on-one fights really relevant? How often did they occur?

What about massed combat with dozens of combatants per side?  For how long did one man need to sustain his activity during those?  And at what speed could he do it?

Nah, it's not really relevant in this case. The styles and equipment used in duals and such aren't even close to what was used in real battles during the Middle Ages. I was just challenging the notion that the original battle was exactly how medieval combat went.

[Theagg]

TMZuk wrote...

Very funny! I'll not derail the thread with this discussion. Suffice it to say, that if you are truly interested, I recommend the original manuals, written in the 13th, 14th and 15th century. I33, Talhoffer, Codex Wallenstein, Ringeness and Lichtenauer, who's the one they use in the video I linked.

Those two clowns you showed have no clue how to hold a sword, how to use it, and least of all, how you penetrate plate-armour. A swordfight that lasts more than thirty seconds is -extremely- rare. Usually, either the first attack get through, and the opponent is killed right out, or it is blocked, and the attacker is killed by the counter.

There's a video with armoured freeplay somewhere on Youtube. I will see if I can find it and pm it to you.

Well, in truth it was very difficult to penetrate full plate armor with a sword, fancy 'martial art' penetrating and thrusting moves or otherwise were just not that succesful. And towards the latter days of plate armor technology, it was even fairly resilient to close up crossbow and early gun shots.

Most combat in plate armor usually degraded to a wrestling match, at which point one of the combatants would be brought to the ground. Once there, he would be finished off with a dagger or sword through the visor or other opening.

Most successful damage otherwise would be accrued by applying concussive force to the plate armor. ( Maces, hefty hammers etc ) Or bringing out the big stuff, polearms and Halberds, which were large enough to penetrate armour or apply massive impact forces.

Or it would be a case of spears wielded so as to get through gaps in armor, or daggers. But swords, no, not that effective against high end plate, no matter how held. So it would be much like the video of the 'two clowns' you mention

But yep, Zelda.....hmmm

Modifié par Theagg, 30 août 2010 - 11:31 .

[Raxxman]

Great swords were often used to trip by holding the bladed and using the guard as a hook.

[Nighteye2]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
I don't even think Zelda is classified as an RPG by it's devs.

Zelda games are typically classified as adventure games - which inherently have a limited few similarities with RPG games.

[Vandrayke]

I wonder why real medieval combat is even mentioned here. I only need enough realism to suspend my disbelief. After that, make it David Gemmell-heroic and go with that!

[TheMadCat]

slimgrin wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

I wonder why real medieval combat is even mentioned here. I only need enough realism to suspend my disbelief. After that, make it David Gemmell-heroic and go with that!

Agreed. Literal realism has no place in a video game.

So they shouldn't look like us, act like us, speak our language, share the same morale values, share the same architecture, share the technologies, etc? I mean those would fall under your "literal realism" category since they copied directly from our reality.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ibortolis wrote...

I'm not sure why Ray Muzyka is suddenly calling the sequel an action-RPG, but I suppose we ll find out sooner or later

Source:

http://g4tv.com/vide...Access-Preview/

That was clear from the very beginning.

Hopefully it doesn't swing into too much action and compeltely leave the RPG element.

[AlanC9]

TheMadCat wrote...
So they shouldn't look like us, act like us, speak our language, share the same morale values, share the same architecture, share the technologies, etc?

By us do you actually mean us, or some version of our ancestors, or some sort of pastiche combining elements of both and other cultures besides?

Realism in popular F&SF is an old argument. IIRC the Star Trek writer's guide (TOS era) specifically told writers to avoid attempting to portray the future human society as different in any way from 1960s America, or at least what 1960s America thought itself to be. The argument was that Westerns that tried to depict the 1870s as they really were had looked silly to most moviegoers, and a SF show that was actually SF would fail as well.

Would most players appreciate more realistic combat? Or would it just look weird to them?

[TheMadCat]

AlanC9 wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...
So they shouldn't look like us, act like us, speak our language, share the same morale values, share the same architecture, share the technologies, etc?

By us do you actually mean us, or some version of our ancestors, or some sort of pastiche combining elements of both and other cultures besides?

Humanity as a whole, our history and our present selves, etc.

Realism in popular F&SF is an old argument. IIRC the Star Trek writer's guide (TOS era) specifically told writers to avoid attempting to portray the future human society as different in any way from 1960s America, or at least what 1960s America thought itself to be. The argument was that Westerns that tried to depict the 1870s as they really were had looked silly to most moviegoers, and a SF show that was actually SF would fail as well.

Would most players appreciate more realistic combat? Or would it just look weird to them?

I don't see why not, honestly I'm not sure people would notice. It's not like medieval combat was boring, it was slower then a game like The Witcher depicts it but it was still brutal and bloody which ultimately is what attracts people. If they were willing to leave everything to autoattack (Minus skills of course) and did the combat animations justice and actually have a fight with visual parries, blocks, and so on rather then just having everyone constatly hacking away in their general direction sure, I think people would actually praise it for attempting to get closer to reality. Afterall Mount & Blades sole success stems from them trying to get combat as close to reality as technically possible (Different genres I know, but the idea and effect should be the same).

Modifié par TheMadCat, 31 août 2010 - 05:48 .

[Theagg]

Vandrayke wrote...

I wonder why real medieval combat is even mentioned here. I only need enough realism to suspend my disbelief. After that, make it David Gemmell-heroic and go with that!

That will be the wonderful nature of forums where sometimes the conversation goes off on an interesting ( for some ) tangent.

That medieval combat is being mentioned doesn't mean that those discussing it expect the game to reflect that level of accuracy. ( Certainly not me, DA Origins is not a simulator after all ) but that the game take place in a medieval setting and has combat naturally leads to a little meander through the topic.

[Nighteye2]

slimgrin wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...
I wonder why real medieval combat is even mentioned here. I only need enough realism to suspend my disbelief. After that, make it David Gemmell-heroic and go with that!

Agreed. Literal realism has no place in a video game.

Actually, there is a video game genre called 'simulation'...

[adi4444]

sham on you ray!

[Theagg]

And 25 pages on, I'm still left perplexed by what he means when he says "right click on you mouse and instead of your character shuffling forward awkwardly, they will leap into action and attack instantly"

Again, there is no point in Origins where I felt any character was moving in such a clumsy manner. So what exactly is this particular improvement being hyped up. what exactly was the complaint and where are there examples of this terrible "awkward shuffling forward"  in DA : O that needed fixing ?

( As opposed to characters simply moving forward at a certain pace because well, they have only got legs, not magic "leap to it" buttons )

I'm assuming that since Hawke 'leaps' in the trailer, its something along those lines.....cheesy.

[superwarrior]

It's clear the modern dev and "reviewer" ( i use that term grudgingly as i truly think a lot of them don't qualify as they can't even get genre IDs right and just boils down to whether they personally like it or not ). Many a good/great game in the past has been wrecked by these "reviewers". I mean, how would u rate a game if u r a stat-rpg fan and the game was clearly designed to be action-RPG? As several on this thread have pointed out, action-rpg and turn-based stat rpg r 2 DIFFERENT sub-genres. The distinction can't be clear enough; action rpgs r based on direct control/input, reflex and practised/applied combos which if sytem is done well can be well deep unlike what stat-purists ASSUME all the time that they r just mashers i.e. press button x/y all the way ( sadly a lot of these modern so-called action rpgs ARE MASHERS ). Both can be very enjoyable if the system is challenging and not shallow.



Case in point; Jade Empire. While i enjoyed it by virtue of its story ( way too short ) it can't decide what it wants to be. As an RPG its depth was abysmal; it's team management non-existent. As an action rpg it's combat system was shallow. Only the story and character dev kept me going.



If DA2 wants to be an action rpg, 3 words: Blade of Darkness. And i've heard good things about Demon's soul too (sadly ps3 only). Now there's deep fighting action rpg for u ( although rpg elements for BoD was not deep being an action game but it's fight mechanics was) Takes skills, timing and mastering, one can't just mash their way thru. If JE had that it would've been so much more.



Similarly if ME was like Appeal's Outcast; the action depth was way more complex, fun and challenging. Modern games r just child's play for the casual crowd.



At the risk of sounding like a troll; i can't stress or repeat myself often enough about how much this market needs a game like BoD and Outcast ( sadly both sequels were halted due to finance ). They were both ahead of their times in so many areas that they remain the pinnacle of their types EVEN today. Yes, u can still play it today to find out how much u miss it. And just check out how much bioware style "borrowed" from Appeal's Outcast. Testament to the game's strengths.



Was looking forward to Elveon ( action rpg ) which i thought would be the worthy successor to BoD. Sadly that folded too. Sigh...

[AlanC9]

superwarrior wrote...

It's clear the modern dev and "reviewer" ( i use that term grudgingly as i truly think a lot of them don't qualify as they can't even get genre IDs right and just boils down to whether they personally like it or not ). Many a good/great game in the past has been wrecked by these "reviewers". I mean, how would u rate a game if u r a stat-rpg fan and the game was clearly designed to be action-RPG?

We don't expect film reviewers to only like one kind of film, so why should we expect that of game reviewers?

And who cares if they get the genre ID right? If the review describes the gameplay accurately, the reader can form his own judgment. And if the review doesn't do that, it's an incompetent review regardless of what it calls the game's genre.

Case in point; Jade Empire. While i enjoyed it by virtue of its story ( way too short ) it can't decide what it wants to be. As an RPG its depth was abysmal; it's team management non-existent. As an action rpg it's combat system was shallow. Only the story and character dev kept me going.

Can't decide what it wants to be? You sound like my dad. He can't watch certain kinds of modern movies -- like Demme's Something Wild, or pretty much anything Tarantino's ever done  -- because he can't watch a film if he doesn't know how he's supposed to respond to it beforehand.

[superwarrior]

Alanc9. Learn to read. My comment on bad reviewers is called criticism not expectation. Genre IS important if the person judging is comparing it to a game in a DIFFERENT genre. You don't apply the same criteria on different genres when the game clearly aims at a DIFFERENT target,is a different genre and was designed as such. Apples and oranges. Case in point, the fool who reviewed BoD on the Edge gave it a 2/10 when he clearly graded it as a stat-rpg as in why can't i click my mouse the the guy just gets on with his tactics. It smacks of a lack of professionalism and bias and clearly he wasn't fit to rate games fairly in their proper sectors. I mean just because one may dislike a genre but he has to treat it unobjectively rather than a lazy "it's my right of opinion" which is amateurish since u r supposed to be a professional reviewer and not a forum hack. Which is why i've always preferred the reviews with an alternate reviewer. Surely even u can see the point.



I can't even fathom how u relate your dad's case to my comment. At least attempt to comprehend properly if u r to comment. JE is what it is; apart from bioware's usual polished story and character dev, it falls short as an RPG and an action rpg. The comparisons r valid if u have enough experience playing several types of types of these games and can compare objectively. Which was partly why JE had mixed reactions and the lack of sequel. I wasn't the 1st to make the same criticism and won't be the last. Did i enjoy the game? Sure. But it just felt like it could have been so much more had it decided whether it wants to be a squad RPG OR action rpg and develop some DEPTH there. I'd like to see a sequel with that.



Unless u consider JE deep and challenging of course...