218 réponses à ce sujet

[nightcobra]

Eldragon wrote...


I'm not worried about the speed of combat, I'm looking foward to 2h
weapon swingings being fast and furious instead of a guy trying to swing
a telephone pole. I'm more concerned over how the classes have been pigeonholed in order to make them distinct.  Now the Fighters MUST use 2h swords or Sword and board, no bows, no dual hand-axes. And rogues MUST do bows or two weapons, no shields. Its flat out depressing.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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...

Mass Effect is more than a '3rd person, cover-based shooter', but an rpg where the protagonist  has been chosen for you. e.g. You don't pick your dialog in Mass Effect, you nudge shepard into a response, and often times what you get is not what you expected.

Those who say "You have turned Dragon Age into Mass Effect" are reacting to a feeling that they will no longer be playing their character, but one assigned to them.  The Witcher is a fun RPG, I really liked it, but at no point did I ever feel I was playing "Eldragon of Rivia" I was playing "Geralt of Rivia", and happened to make a few choices for him. DA2 is going to feel the same way. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, its just a simple fact that when the developers pick the PC's name, voice and words, it takes a little of the Role Play out of RPG.

from what i've seen so far i have no reason to believe that hawke's intro will be no more different than one of the warden's origins.

[Wulfram]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

from what i've seen so far i have no reason to believe that hawke's intro will be no more different than one of the warden's origins.

I can't say I was happy with amount of freedom left by some of the origins in DA:O.  Dwarven Commoner, for example.

I also suspect that they will use the fact that they don't have to cater for multiple origins to keep Hawke's background more relevant throughout the game - which is in principle a good thing, but isn't if you don't like the background you're given.

[nightcobra]

Wulfram wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

from what i've seen so far i have no reason to believe that hawke's intro will be no more different than one of the warden's origins.

I can't say I was happy with amount of freedom left by some of the origins in DA:O.  Dwarven Commoner, for example.

I also suspect that they will use the fact that they don't have to cater for multiple origins to keep Hawke's background more relevant throughout the game - which is in principle a good thing, but isn't if you don't like the background you're given.

i always wanted to start as a human commoner in origins, not as an noble and it looks like i'll be having just that so for me at least i'm pleasantly surprised.

[Eldragon]

nightcobra8928 wrote...
from what i've seen so far i have no reason to believe that hawke's intro will be no more different than one of the warden's origins.

I don't think I understand your statement. I was not referring to origins (I'm sure Hawkes origin is going to be great). I'm trying to explain why so many people don't like the Mass Effect style voiced protagonist and dialog tree in a RPG.

[Nerevar-as]

A doubt I got in the recently locked gameplay forum before I could ask. In normal gameplay, can non magical attacks miss as in Origins, or do we always hit?

[The Masked Rog]

Nerevar-as wrote...

A doubt I got in the recently locked gameplay forum before I could ask. In normal gameplay, can non magical attacks miss as in Origins, or do we always hit?

I think you don't miss. If the stat calculation would make you miss (the hitting chance is stat based) then you "glance" inflicting minimal damage. Look it up in the old gameplay thread.

[nightcobra]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

A doubt I got in the recently locked gameplay forum before I could ask. In normal gameplay, can non magical attacks miss as in Origins, or do we always hit?

I think you don't miss. If the stat calculation would make you miss (the hitting chance is stat based) then you "glance" inflicting minimal damage. Look it up in the old gameplay thread.

strange, i'm sure magical attacks have missed my warrior, the effect looked like that bullet deflecting gadget from fortune in mgs2.

[The Masked Rog]

Well, he was talking about non magical attacks, which I assumed as melee attacks. Memory could be playing tricks on me, but I am reasonably sure.

Edit: Enenmies do miss though, or so I remember.

Modifié par The Masked Rog, 29 septembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[Nerevar-as]

Thanks. I´ll check that thread, but I was afraid of this.

[Wulfram]

There's still a defense stat I think, which would imply people could miss.

Modifié par Wulfram, 29 septembre 2010 - 05:29 .

[The Masked Rog]

Wulfram wrote...

There's still a defense stat I think, which would imply people could miss.

Again, I'm speaking from memory. There is a defense stat, but a miss, instead of being completely useless deals really minimal damamge. That is for the pc attacks. Enemies miss like normal.

[Nerevar-as]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

There's still a defense stat I think, which would imply people could miss.

Again, I'm speaking from memory. There is a defense stat, but a miss, instead of being completely useless deals really minimal damamge. That is for the pc attacks. Enemies miss like normal.

Don´t like this nor the telegraphing enemies - instant PCs. Too forgiving.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Again, I'm speaking from memory. There is a defense stat, but a miss, instead of being completely useless deals really minimal damamge. That is for the pc attacks. Enemies miss like normal.

I recall this, as well'.

I have no idea why the rules aren't being applied equally.  Why can't the PC miss?  Why do the darkspawn?

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Again, I'm speaking from memory. There is a defense stat, but a miss, instead of being completely useless deals really minimal damamge. That is for the pc attacks. Enemies miss like normal.

I recall this, as well'.

I have no idea why the rules aren't being applied equally.  Why can't the PC miss?  Why do the darkspawn?

Well to be fair it is consistent to the asymetric design they took in DAO. Plenty things only applied to the enemies. Most evident would be shattering. See here for more.

Modifié par The Masked Rog, 29 septembre 2010 - 08:39 .

[Sago_mulch]

combat is usually a focus of rpgs otherwise you'll running around and talking alot.

[The Masked Rog]

Sago_mulch wrote...

combat is usually a focus of rpgs otherwise you'll running around and talking alot.

For me the focus of an rpg is walking around and talking a lot. And fight while you are walking around and after you talk alot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Well to be fair it is consistent to the asymetric design they took in DAO. Plenty things only applied to the enemies. Most evident would be shattering. See here for more.

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

I'm going to keep asking for in-game explanations for this asymmetry, even though I know there isn't one, just to highlight how absurd they are.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sago_mulch wrote...

combat is usually a focus of rpgs otherwise you'll running around and talking alot.

The talking is the RP part of RPG.

[tool_bot]

Sago_mulch wrote...

combat is usually a focus of rpgs otherwise you'll running around and talking alot.

what everyone else just said.

[Alodar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Well to be fair it is consistent to the asymetric design they took in DAO. Plenty things only applied to the enemies. Most evident would be shattering. See here for more.

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

I'm going to keep asking for in-game explanations for this asymmetry, even though I know there isn't one, just to highlight how absurd they are.

Let's say the party could be shattered.

While looking for Darkspawn blood in the wilds you meet the hurlock mage on the bridge. The hurlock petrifies and shatters Alistar.

Later when leaving Lothering the hurlock Mage petrifies and shatters Morrigan.

Now what.

The entire plot of the game is blown away because of two failed resistances.

Essentially what you are asking for is multiple NPCs that have no depth and have no bearing at all on the over all story. That way they can die and be replaced seamlessly without ever affecting the plot.

Is that what you really want?

Alodar

[Sago_mulch]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sago_mulch wrote...

combat is usually a focus of rpgs otherwise you'll running around and talking alot.

The talking is the RP part of RPG.

just because Modern warfare 2 had conversations between characters, doesn't make it an rpg. go back to your forest and pretend your druid by yelling ''lightning bolt, lightning bolt''

Modifié par Sago_mulch, 29 septembre 2010 - 09:19 .

[TimelordDC]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Again, I'm speaking from memory. There is a defense stat, but a miss, instead of being completely useless deals really minimal damamge. That is for the pc attacks. Enemies miss like normal.

I recall this, as well'.

I have no idea why the rules aren't being applied equally.  Why can't the PC miss?  Why do the darkspawn?

Well to be fair it is consistent to the asymetric design they took in DAO. Plenty things only applied to the enemies. Most evident would be shattering. See here for more.

Asymmetric design? More like 'let's not make anything too difficult'.
If an RPG has combat to the extent DA does, the underlying system should be meaningful - not a hit-oriented system, as Georg puts it. IMO, they have made it simpler in DA2 by removing fatigue too. No rest system, no fatigue, no strategic deployment of abilities -> it's purely tactical since you go into each battle at full strength with everything you have. And then, they dumb down that tactical system by stacking the odds in favour of the player.
Faster combat or more blood/finishing moves or acrobatics don't make a better combat system. The depth should be there so as you understand the system more, you can play it better.

[John Epler]

Civility, people.



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

[TimelordDC]

Alodar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Well to be fair it is consistent to the asymetric design they took in DAO. Plenty things only applied to the enemies. Most evident would be shattering. See here for more.

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

I'm going to keep asking for in-game explanations for this asymmetry, even though I know there isn't one, just to highlight how absurd they are.

Let's say the party could be shattered.

While looking for Darkspawn blood in the wilds you meet the hurlock mage on the bridge. The hurlock petrifies and shatters Alistar.

Later when leaving Lothering the hurlock Mage petrifies and shatters Morrigan.

Now what.

The entire plot of the game is blown away because of two failed resistances.

Essentially what you are asking for is multiple NPCs that have no depth and have no bearing at all on the over all story. That way they can die and be replaced seamlessly without ever affecting the plot.

Is that what you really want?

Alodar

Obviously, you've taken the one example that won't fit (shattering into pieces vs just dying).
They should have made it so party members can really die and implemented a proper death system. Death doesn't mean perma-death but it definitely means no auto-revival after combat. And you know why they did this? It's a technical limitation -> the cutscene engine and the game engine function exclusive of each other. So, if someone died and there was a cutscene after that (which are created beforehand) which had those dead party members, it would be weird. So, they had to put in the auto-revival.
Result: We had to give up a death system not due to design considerations but due to technical limitations (the game has to be cinematic - if we have to make it a little unbelievable, that's ok!)

The other asymmetric features are likely more design-driven or balance-driven but that doesn't make those any better.

[The Masked Rog]

TimelordDC wrote...

Alodar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Well to be fair it is consistent to the asymetric design they took in DAO. Plenty things only applied to the enemies. Most evident would be shattering. See here for more.

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

I'm going to keep asking for in-game explanations for this asymmetry, even though I know there isn't one, just to highlight how absurd they are.

Let's say the party could be shattered.

While looking for Darkspawn blood in the wilds you meet the hurlock mage on the bridge. The hurlock petrifies and shatters Alistar.

Later when leaving Lothering the hurlock Mage petrifies and shatters Morrigan.

Now what.

The entire plot of the game is blown away because of two failed resistances.

Essentially what you are asking for is multiple NPCs that have no depth and have no bearing at all on the over all story. That way they can die and be replaced seamlessly without ever affecting the plot.

Is that what you really want?

Alodar

Obviously, you've taken the one example that won't fit (shattering into pieces vs just dying).
They should have made it so party members can really die and implemented a proper death system. Death doesn't mean perma-death but it definitely means no auto-revival after combat. And you know why they did this? It's a technical limitation -> the cutscene engine and the game engine function exclusive of each other. So, if someone died and there was a cutscene after that (which are created beforehand) which had those dead party members, it would be weird. So, they had to put in the auto-revival.
Result: We had to give up a death system not due to design considerations but due to technical limitations (the game has to be cinematic - if we have to make it a little unbelievable, that's ok!)

The other asymmetric features are likely more design-driven or balance-driven but that doesn't make those any better.

I see were you are coming from and I understand your opinion, but personally I like a more laid back combat system. Challenging to a point but not actually frustrating. And I'm not that big on a rest system or a revival system simply because they are not fun to me. I prefer going into battle with my full resources and then employ an appropriate tactic for the situation, not worrying about the health of my party or if my companions will die. That just seems a chore and not really enjoyable to me. But again it is a very personal thing.