15 réponses à ce sujet

[SafetyShattered]

I loved DA and most of my friends know it is one of my favorite games of all time and I know that you guys are very confident with the combat improvements, but was combat the focus?

I read somewhere(I Think it was giantbomb but i dont remember for sure) that combat was similar to Ninja Gaiden, please tell me this was just some dude who got the facts wrong. NInja Gaiden combat was pretty good but the story for me was just average.

 How would you compare the story of DA2 to the original because if it was half as good I will scream for joy!

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...
 From what Laidlaw has said, its still autoattack, click on the enemy and your character will continually attack. You can still pause and play. Its seemingly just that the time between clicking on the enemy your character is targeting and your character actually hitting the enemy is greatly reduced, such that they don't shuffle up to attack anymore.

Correct.

But on the consoles...it sounds sort of hack and slash-ish.

I can see how it would sound that way, but the only functional difference between the two is that you press-to-attack on console and auto-attack on PC. I don't think pressing a button to swing your sword inherently makes for a hack and slash game.

Of course, as Brock points out, often, until there's gameplay footage out there for the public to consume there is no way to tell.
I could be lying to you. About everything. Forever.

[Mike Laidlaw]

andar91 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I can see how it would sound that way, but the only functional difference between the two is that you press-to-attack on console and auto-attack on PC. I don't think pressing a button to swing your sword inherently makes for a hack and slash game.

I definately agree with this.  It seems like a lot of people equate the button press to God of War or Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance style gameplay, but we've been told by those who play the demo that you can still only attack so fast since attacks still have speeds associated with the various weapon types (correct me if I'm wrong).  And I keep thinking to myself:  "Whenever I was using the normal attacks on console, what else was I doing?  Oh yeah...nothing.  So having to hit a button can only make me feel more connected to my character. 

Or so I expect.  :happy:

I've comment on this before, but I'll note it again. I see "hack and slash" or "brawlers" or "action games" as being defined by the way you engage with combat, insofar as the idea of the "combo" is king. Dante's Inferno or Ninja Gaiden, for instance, has more than 30 combos you can pull off by pressing things like XXX, XYX, AYYXXY and so on. That is where the sense of timing, and the feeling of "mashing" buttons comes from. Though skilled players of either game will tell you it's far from a mash. Mashing is for novices.

Dragon Age, for all you you press the A or X button (Xbox and PS3 respectively) to attack does not require awareness of extensive combos. There is no concept of light attack, heavy attack, aerial attack, etc. Instead, our focus is on abilities, which you acquire through leveling up, and which you can then upgrade, and which require stamina or mana to activate. The gameplay, then is more strategic, in that you have to manage resources (Kratos and Ryu never get tired). It's also more tactical, in that you have to make equipment choices, ability choices and party-composition choices well in advance of the combat, requiring a mix of planning and of-the-moment thinking.

Sound familiar? If you're thinking "Origins," you'd be pretty close. It's just faster, and more punchy.

So, it's probably best to think of the improvements to DA's combat as focusing on pace, responsiveness and improved visualizations. I remember people ranting about how it wasn't good that the Sacred Ashes trailer showed Leliana being acrobatic when she couldn't be acrobatic in the game. Fair complaint! And as a rogue player, one I specifically set out to rectify with the help of my excellent combat team.

It seems a much smaller contingent of people are now concerned that their rogue might actually be that acrobatic.Probably out of fear that jumping must inherently mean we've fundamentally changed the game. Well, we have, but in very aesthetic ways. Hopefully the above explanation relieves some concerns.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...

So if the more responsive combat means less chasing, I guess that sounds good. But on the flip side, how does it work if I pause, right click an enemy thats far away with my 2 handed warrior to attack, and then unpause? Obviously things are supposed to be "press button and somthing awesome happens." So does that mean when I unpause after clicking on an enemy to attack, Hawke will do some crazy anime style leap across the map so that he can attack the enemy instantly?

No, presuming you're playing on PC, or issuing it as an order via radial menu, your character will run towards the foe until they reach a point close enough to do what we call a closing attack. In the case of a two-handed sword, this is a fast dash forward, coupled with a slash of the blade. This closing attack will put you into basic melee range, which means you may either atack, or start using your talents. Your call.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Sound familiar? If you're thinking "Origins," you'd be pretty close. It's just faster, and more punchy.

So the characters now move at unrealistic speeds?

It seems a much smaller contingent of people are now concerned that their rogue might actually be that acrobatic.

The level of acrobatics in the Sacred Ashes trailer (which I never watched until after I'vd finished DAO for fear of spoilers) was incredibly silly.

That is where the sense of timing, and the feeling of "mashing" buttons comes from.

that sense of timing also needs to be avoided.  That sense of timing was why I uninstalled The Witcher after 10 minutes of play.

Sylv, let's be honest here, buddy. From what I can tell, you're not going to like a lot about DA2. There's lots you might like, but your rigidly-defined standards of what game I should be making are wildly divergent from the game I am making. And you know? I'm pretty damn sure neither one of us is budging.

Not to say the game you want to play wouldn't be good. It might. I have copies of some classic RPGs on a shelf 10 feet from me that suggests I have as much a taste for the old school as you do, but that's not the game I'm making.

So lets just agree to disagree and we can all get along. Or, I suppose, you can wander in and type snarky one-liners if that makes you happy. Free forum!

[Mike Laidlaw]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

So if the more responsive combat means less chasing, I guess that sounds good. But on the flip side, how does it work if I pause, right click an enemy thats far away with my 2 handed warrior to attack, and then unpause? Obviously things are supposed to be "press button and somthing awesome happens." So does that mean when I unpause after clicking on an enemy to attack, Hawke will do some crazy anime style leap across the map so that he can attack the enemy instantly?

No, presuming you're playing on PC, or issuing it as an order via radial menu, your character will run towards the foe until they reach a point close enough to do what we call a closing attack. In the case of a two-handed sword, this is a fast dash forward, coupled with a slash of the blade. This closing attack will put you into basic melee range, which means you may either atack, or start using your talents. Your call.

That actually doesn't sound terrible. Thanks for the detailed info Mike.

Not a problem.

[Mike Laidlaw]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Honestly Mike, if you could just assure the PC folk that the PC version won't be too far a stretch from Origins and won't feel "consolized" like alot of past cross platform titles where the PC isn't the lead sku (Oblivion comes instantly to mind) I know it would set my mind at ease at least.

*Chuckles* I'm running out of ways to try. I'll give it one more shot:

• PC gets its own GUI
• PC gets its own interface (right click to attack = auto attack, not pressing repeatedly)
• PC drags and drops in stores and inventory, or double clicks to do things. No faux menubuttonthing

I'm not sure what else to say. It's a custom interface for PC, and custom interface for consoles, both are similar to the interfaces we rolled out in Origins. Why? Because people liked them.

As to how it feels in terms of stretching away from Origins? That's kind of a personal thing. The player VO is a sticking point for some. Not being the warden is a sticking point for others. Hearing that the combat is faster is a sticking point for still more. So will it be different? Yep.

Do I think it still feels like I'm playing a Dragon Age game when I slap spacebar to pause and line up a fireball with Bethany because Hawke just stunned a bunch of guys in a cluster? Hell yes.

[Mike Laidlaw]

slimgrin wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

but the only functional difference between the two is that you press-to-attack on console and auto-attack on PC.

If you 'press to attack' then that does make it twitch-based, does it not? In fact, I personally wouldn't mind this and was hoping the pc version would have both options: press to attack and auto attack.

Not by my definition of a "twitch" game. As far as I'm concerned, to be a twitch game the game must have events that require exacting timing. Our enemies don't block and then drop their guard so you have to attack exactly within that 3-5 frame span of animation. You don't counterattack after a parry like in Demon's Souls. You don't roll to the side to dodge projectiles like in Zelda or God of War.

Instead, you equip better armor, manage your sustained abilities and heal your party with potions or spells. The addition of push to attack makes targeting work better on the consoles, as I explained in another thread in some detail. I believe it's linked off Occam's "what do we know" post, under the link to me where I talk about push to attack.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Burdokva wrote...

Will there be an option to slow down combat? Or alternatively, slow down game time outside conversations. I know it may sound crazy, but I'm one of those who are not looking forward to the fast-paced combat style. Shooters, sure, but I prefer taking my time with RPGs. They are the type of game I like to play for escapism and relaxation when I'm tired.

Even an option to somehow slow things down so I don't have to be constantly focused on the game would be appreciated.

Not officially, no. I don't think you'll have trouble adjusting if you played Origins. Just because you close faster doesn't mean that you will kill an enemy every half-second and have to frantically click your mouse. Well, except when Varric is exaggerating.

Second, any plans for fixing archery? It seems to be "broken", in a sense, in all games involving melee. Archers are the weakest class (or specialization, it's irrelevant what you call it) even when properly leveled; it just feels week. Seeing all those descriptions of swords ripping enemies apart and spells blasting away has me somewhat concerned that archery will be even weaker. I'd appreciate some light shed on this - so far I haven't seen anything mentioned on the subject.

I can say we're working on archery right now.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But I really was asking a serious question there.  Would you describe the speed of the characters in the game as unrealistic (using DAO's speeds as realistic to slow)?

I'm also very curious to see how acrobatic these acrobatics are.  If
they're Sacred Ashes level acrobatics, then they're incredibly stupid. 
But it they're Jade Empire level acrobatics that's wholly acceptable.

There's a line.  I want to know if you crossed it.  DAO was safely inside the line, so you have significant wiggle room.

I would say that the ground traversal speeds of the closing attack are past the upper edge of humanly possible, so it depends on where you draw that line. It's a pretty personal preference. I would say that if you felt Jade was within the realms of acceptable, you'll be fine.

Basic movement speeds, etc. are a bit faster than Origins, but only because of the animations. Nothing too significant.

Acrobatics are pretty much on par with Jade, though less common. At the most extreme I would equate them to leaping tiger.

Not to say the game you want to play wouldn't be good. It might. I have copies of some classic RPGs on a shelf 10 feet from me that suggests I have as much a taste for the old school as you do, but that's not the game I'm making.

Is that because you don't think new games with some of those featuers would sell?

DAO did.

Not in specific, no. But it's a slippery slope. Any feature can work, but it has to be woven into a larger whole. Let me risk opening the kimono for a moment:

My current thinking about RPG sales can be summed up like this: "We need to make mountains, not walls." To reference what I mean by a wall, take a look at this.

Now, I loved loved loved Ultima 4. I have my original boxed copy sitting right here. But I'm in my thirties. The old school games that an entire generation of us grew up and loved are, by today's standards, borderline inpenetrable. It's a wall you have to scale. No gentle slopes of increasing complexity.

Is the new generation of gamers incapable of understanding them? Not at all. But the barrier to entry is exceptionally high. You have to read, study, ponder and so on before you can even begin to engage with a game on the level it's meant to be played.

By contrast, if you've ever played World of Warcraft, whether you love it or hate it, that game does an exceptional job of easing you into the gameplay. Those convoluted talent trees that you use to spec your character are absolutely core to the WoW experience, and yet it's not that you don't get talent points until level 10...

...you cannot even open the menu until you have a point to spend.

It's rather brilliant. Those talent trees are complex. As a new gamer, or one new to RPGs, seeing one of those might scare me off, and drive me back to something simpler.

What Blizzard has chosen to do is create an experience that has emergent depth. The more you engage with the game, the more complexity it opens up for you, dragging you forward into someone who is suddenly participating in co-ordinated 20-person raids.

Setting aside any personal feelings people have about WoW, I think their subscription numbers make it self-evident that WoW does a very good job at bringing people into the fold. WoW walks its players up a hill. They might be a little winded at first, but they
don't have to worry about the rope breaking until they're into the end
game. Old school RPGs do a reasonably poor job of bringing people into the fold, becuase they present a cliff-face of comprehension that must be scaled before you can engage and see the fun. To be clear, that climb is (almost always) totally worth it, but it's still a climb.

So, then, take that as my thought process and look at everything you know about DA2 through that lens. How does the game open? With an over-the-top combat where enemies are blown apart in single swings. Why? Because people can get that. They can register that the essence of the game is about exploding hurlocks. It's not, really. It's about exploding a wide variety of people and creatures in exotic locales and in the context of a rich, decade-spanning story, but at the very least, they're engaging with one of the core elements of the game without having to worry about a single statistic or talent tree. Those all come later, once the player's a little invested and has developed a keen interest in exploding foes.

So, then, with that in mind, let's circle back to the original question: do I think that the very hard-core features would sell? Yes, absolutely, if woven into a game that's reasonably accessible in a seamless manner. The danger, of course, is that if you have an extremely dense block of hardcore features, you will eventually find yourself having to weave more and more of them into the early game. Because it's not very fair to the player to keep the majority of features locked away until they're half way through the game, right? But then, by my rationale above, it's not great pacing to overload a player with feature after feature too early.

The tension between how quickly you get a feature into players' hands and how much systems overload you present is a constant balancing act, and very hard to get right. Even when we were trying to make Origins more friendly, I still think we overloaded a bit.

So, for DA2, we're putting a lot of effort into addressing complexity and how it's introduced into the game. Will there still be some hardcore features? Yep! The experience is very "Origins-esque," in terms of complexity, what with enchanting, tactics and so on still there in all their glory. Will I be adding even more hardcore features than Origins had? Probably not. After all, we've put a lot of effort into making combat better and figuring out how to best leverage player VO. Though once that work is done, there might be some room for more complexity in the future.

And as a final point, let's be frank. Hardcore features do not great marketing make. For every person who has mocked me saying "think like a general, but fight like a spartan" as over the top, or innaccurate, or whatever, there's a hundred people who hear that and come away with at least a vague impression that "it's like 300, but I have to think about it? Huh. I liked 300, so that's kind of cool."

Were I to go on stage and say: "Dragon Age 2 features X numbers of talents which may be upgraded by spending experience points so that you can coordinate up to four characters in combats that may be paused to give a tactical overview and provide a stronger mechanic for issuing orders such that the abilities you execute are done so in up-to-the-moment paradigm in which the animations have seen significant upgrades while the core combat remains largely the same," I would lose my audience about 5 words in. It would be more accurate, but hardly memorable.

The hard-core would be elated, but they would probably be less elated when the game sold 100,000 copies and never saw a sequel because our messaging was, just like Ultima 4, inpenetrable to an entire generation. And the simple truth is that for my favorite genre to thrive, I need to make games that don't actively push people away from it.

Speaking of which, this provides an interesting perspective on genre death. Another good read to bookend this epic post.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Alodar wrote...

That's a fantastic post Mike.

Thanks for taking the time to explain to us old fogeys why you've approached DA2 in the direction you have.

Considering all that is on your plate, your patience with those of us who are set in our ways is extremely commendable.
Alodar

I don't think it's that anyone's necessarily set in their ways, so much as that there's a fear that we've only talked in detail about things that are different from Origins thus far. The lingering impression could easily be "OMG: They have changed everything."

But the harsh truth is that saying: "Our sequel is not different from
our first game" will never, ever expand your audience. Or get anyone
excited. And in this case it wouldn't be true, anyway.

It's not that different from a raw mechanical perspective. It presents itself a lot better, and is more comprehensible to the average gamer. If we've succeeded, we've managed to make a sleeker, sportier version of DA, like the different between a family commuter car and a Porsche. They'll both get you to work, but one's a lot more fun.

But you guys, the forum folks, are pretty important to us, so Dave, myself, Sebastian, Peter and so on? We've been putting a little extra effort into being around here for some clarity.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Risax wrote...

Mr Laidlaw,
In one of the podcasts I heard how enemys are now more tactical themselves, will you be eased into this as well? Or do they do it early on in the game?

Eased in. The early foes, luckily, are darkspawn, who are a bit less...tactical than who you'll face later.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...
Or....you could show gameplay video and let the game do the talking!

That is an awesome idea! Why haven't you mentioned it sooner?

Fair enough, but I guess to further that analogy, is the Porsche an automatic or a manual? Is the car doing all the work or does the driver have to invest in things a bit too?

To this I answer, in all earnestness: "Who the hell wants to drive an automatic Porsche?"

[Mike Laidlaw]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO actually hda a ton of hardcore combat features in it.  The trouble was that the game hid them from the player for the entire game, so any players who hadn't happened to discuss the combat mechanics with Georg before release didn't know what they were.  The bonus to hit with an arrow when firing down a hill, for example - that's a terrific feature, and one that probabaly 95% of DAO players didn't ever know was there.

The hardcore fans would enjoy the game more if it had the option to be more transparent with its mechanics.

I think everyone who wants to play well would enjoy that, and my impression is that's a large majority of players. There's an awful lot of noise in the information a player gets when playing a complex game like an RPG or a strategy game like, say, one of the HoIs. You're not going to learn how to play better from watching the damage numbers come in unless you're running controlled tests, and that's more than we should expect of anyone.

I won't make promises until we're done, but I believe we will improve on that front. Origins was not as transparent to expert level players as it should have been.

[Mike Laidlaw]

ashwind wrote...
Hope they come up with something new and innovative that does not remind me of ME.

I have always maintained that the odds of Dragon Age becoming a 3rd person, cover-based shooter were quite low, even when asked, repeatedly "Did you turn Dragon Age into Mass Effect?"

Always thought that question missed a few, reasonably key details...

[John Epler]

Civility, people.



It's not that difficult to disagree without resorting to insults - blatant or otherwise.