218 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Alodar wrote...

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

I'm not saying the death mechanic should work any differently.  Shattering wouldn't require premadeath.

After all, all the happens when you shatter darkspawn is that they die.  They can die by other means, but shattering is just a way to kill them without first reducing them to zero hit points.

The same could be true of the party members.  If Alistair gets shattered, in your example, he'd still get up at the end of the battle just like he always does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

For that matter, why is the death mechanic asymmetrical?  The darkspawn should get back up after the battle too if we don't kill them all.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 septembre 2010 - 09:43 .

[TimelordDC]

The Masked Rog wrote...

TimelordDC wrote...

<snip>

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. 

I like that kind of combat too and I am not fixated on a death/revival/rest system. I just want the combat to have more strategic depth or if that is too much to implement, more tactical depth. Perhaps on higher difficulties, the enemies could switch to a different AI table?
Question - if you do not want to worry about the health of your party, why do you want to plan it tactically? You do care but don't mind trying out different tactics because you know your party members won't die anyway. If they had made it so you care a little more (perhaps extending the Injury system or some other effect of too many deaths like the party member wishing to stay at camp for a while to rest), wouldn't you find the tactical planning a little more enjoyable? Perhaps cumbersome too - I don't know.

[Herr Uhl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Alodar wrote...

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

I'm not saying the death mechanic should work any differently.  Shattering wouldn't require premadeath.

After all, all the happens when you shatter darkspawn is that they die.  They can die by other means, but shattering is just a way to kill them without first reducing them to zero hit points.

The same could be true of the party members.  If Alistair gets shattered, in your example, he'd still get up at the end of the battle just like he always does.

Well, lieutenants are supposed to be the same level as the party, and they don't shatter. There is no real inconsistency there.

At least I've never experienced a lieutenant shattering.

[The Masked Rog]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Alodar wrote...

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

I'm not saying the death mechanic should work any differently.  Shattering wouldn't require premadeath.

After all, all the happens when you shatter darkspawn is that they die.  They can die by other means, but shattering is just a way to kill them without first reducing them to zero hit points.

The same could be true of the party members.  If Alistair gets shattered, in your example, he'd still get up at the end of the battle just like he always does.

Well, lieutenants are supposed to be the same level as the party, and they don't shatter. There is no real inconsistency there.

At least I've never experienced a lieutenant shattering.

They don't shatter as of a patch, I think it was the 1.04 though I can't be sure.

[The Masked Rog]

TimelordDC wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

TimelordDC wrote...



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. 

I like that kind of combat too and I am not fixated on a death/revival/rest system. I just want the combat to have more strategic depth or if that is too much to implement, more tactical depth. Perhaps on higher difficulties, the enemies could switch to a different AI table?
Question - if you do not want to worry about the health of your party, why do you want to plan it tactically? You do care but don't mind trying out different tactics because you know your party members won't die anyway. If they had made it so you care a little more (perhaps extending the Injury system or some other effect of too many deaths like the party member wishing to stay at camp for a while to rest), wouldn't you find the tactical planning a little more enjoyable? Perhaps cumbersome too - I don't know.

For me, the game should challenge me in a way that makes every fight is possible to loose (which Origins did though YMMV). I think the injury system allowed me to care a bit about keeping my chars alive through the fight but was not so penalyzing that I constantly had to rest/return to camp/perform any backtracking for cure. I was simply at a disadvantage in other fights. I could plan strategically and bring a injury kit with me.

And I thought the combat in Origins had a good tactical depth. Can you be a little more specific?

[Sago_mulch]

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

that happened in baldurs gate and the second one, if you killed important plot characters an npc called ''biff the understudy'' would say their lines. also morrigan and alistar don't have much affect on the plot right until the end.

also why do you keep typing alodar after every post you make? its like my rage and my capslock but raging mod seagloom took them away

Sago_mulch

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Alodar wrote...

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

I'm not saying the death mechanic should work any differently.  Shattering wouldn't require premadeath.

After all, all the happens when you shatter darkspawn is that they die.  They can die by other means, but shattering is just a way to kill them without first reducing them to zero hit points.

The same could be true of the party members.  If Alistair gets shattered, in your example, he'd still get up at the end of the battle just like he always does.

Well, lieutenants are supposed to be the same level as the party, and they don't shatter. There is no real inconsistency there.

At least I've never experienced a lieutenant shattering.

They don't shatter as of a patch, I think it was the 1.04 though I can't be sure.

1.03.  As of 1.03 they don't shatter.

But thanks for that piece of reasoning.  If Lieutenants are equivalent to PCs, and PC's don't chatter, then it makes sense that Lieutenants wouldn't shatter either.

I've actually avoided installing 1.03 because of the removal of Lieutenant shattering (I like the tactical flexibility it offers), but if I can justify it within the lore it wouldn't bother me at all.

You've just allowed me to install 1.03 (and thus play Awakenings and Witch Hunt, both of which require at least 1.03).

[Nerevar-as]

Something I´m afraid of is how enemies will be rebalanced. Giving any warrior´s melee AoE hits wouldn´t work with how fights were in Origins, the PC advantadge is obvious. Yet rogues are ranged and double wielding fast close combat (elf rogue is like Legolas from LotR movies then?) one on one, so balacing warriors with zerg rushes is not likely.

Also, can we please have the PC and party also take glancing hits at least on Nightmare? I guess the reason for glancing is to apease the same kind of player who complained about ME1 skill based hits, but it may become too much of an advantage, especially against bosses.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 29 septembre 2010 - 10:45 .

[The Masked Rog]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Something I´m afraid of is how enemies will be rebalanced. Giving any warrior´s melee AoE hits wouldn´t work with how fights were in Origins, the PC advantadge is obvious. Yet rogues are ranged and double wielding fast close combat (elf rogue is like Legolas from LotR movies then?) one on one, so balacing warriors with zerg rushes is not likely.

Also, can we please have the PC and party also take glancing hits at least on Nightmare? I guess the reason for glancing is to apease the same kind of player who complained about ME1 skill based hits, but it may become too much of an advantage, especially against bosses.

In a real swords fight  (unless you are really bad with it) you rarely miss completely. Your strike is either well placed and not stopped by armor (hit) or shrugged by the armor (hit but armor sucks up most damage) or badly placed, but the sword still touches the enemy (glance). Makes sense to me, though I'd like to see enemies glancing too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Something I´m afraid of is how enemies will be rebalanced. Giving any warrior´s melee AoE hits wouldn´t work with how fights were in Origins, the PC advantadge is obvious. Yet rogues are ranged and double wielding fast close combat (elf rogue is like Legolas from LotR movies then?) one on one, so balacing warriors with zerg rushes is not likely.

Also, can we please have the PC and party also take glancing hits at least on Nightmare? I guess the reason for glancing is to apease the same kind of player who complained about ME1 skill based hits, but it may become too much of an advantage, especially against bosses.

The tactical response to AoE Warriors seems obvious:

Don't stand so close together.

I wonder if the AI will figure that one out.

[Nerevar-as]

Have my doubts. At least in open spaces they should have.



I hope they fix group AI so that if you attack one from far the whole group charges instead of only the one you hit.

[FieryDove]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For that matter, why is the death mechanic asymmetrical?  The darkspawn should get back up after the battle too if we don't kill them all.

Yes, they should.

I wonder how much more death would we have seen if the game was left as early designed hard-core.

Remember no health potions at all? No rez spell, no summons? To be turthful we never did get health potions...we drink health poultices....strange in-itself.

Modifié par FieryDove, 30 septembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Suicider_11]

We also drank tome of respecialization. hehehehe

[Danyu]

This thread is getting ridiculously long and since I want to get back to playing Origins I decided to scan some of it.



I absolutely love Origins with a passion and hump on the random moments when my girlfriend rolls to the other side of the bed. I love the storyline, the characters, the music, the choices that span from doing the right thing all the way to the funny insults, and of course - I love the combat. If there was any problem at all that I had with the game it would be that I feel like I'm playing a high-end graphical Xbox game, you know, before Xbox 360. Graphics feel slightly behind.



Either way, I've never been all about graphics. For me, it's usually about complexity, depth, character interaction and the need to feel like a hero.



If Dragon Age 2 gives me these things like Origins has already given me thus far, then I'll happily get Dragon Age 3, 4, and 5, possibly 6.



Plus, I'm always down for a game with more style.

[Sago_mulch]

Danyu wrote...

This thread is getting ridiculously long and since I want to get back to playing Origins I decided to scan some of it.

I absolutely love Origins with a passion and hump on the random moments when my girlfriend rolls to the other side of the bed. I love the storyline, the characters, the music, the choices that span from doing the right thing all the way to the funny insults, and of course - I love the combat. If there was any problem at all that I had with the game it would be that I feel like I'm playing a high-end graphical Xbox game, you know, before Xbox 360. Graphics feel slightly behind.

Either way, I've never been all about graphics. For me, it's usually about complexity, depth, character interaction and the need to feel like a hero.

If Dragon Age 2 gives me these things like Origins has already given me thus far, then I'll happily get Dragon Age 3, 4, and 5, possibly 6.

Plus, I'm always down for a game with more style.

sign up date

29/9/2010

get out

[Eldragon]

Sago_mulch wrote...

sign up date

29/9/2010

get out

A join date of a forum member has no bearing on the quality of their post. Since the person in question stated a simple opinion that wasn't flamebait in the slightest, I see no reason to make any attempt to disenfranchise them from the community.

[Maconbar]

Eldragon wrote...

Sago_mulch wrote...

sign up date

29/9/2010

get out

A join date of a forum member has no bearing on the quality of their post. Since the person in question stated a simple opinion that wasn't flamebait in the slightest, I see no reason to make any attempt to disenfranchise them from the community.

I usually feel this way but people that joined on November 8, 2009 often have bad ideas.

[Obadiah]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

I've never played Jade either. If you do download it, hit me up and let me know whether it's 'of' quality (not the game itself but the port to 360). I've played several Xbox games on the 360 and they always seemed nerfed in a way. Colors, sound and the like don't seem to carry over well, then again it could be my memory.

Ok, enough sidebar, carry on with 'em worries.

I'd advise getting the PC version if you can find it. It includes gamepad support, better graphics than the XBox versions, and a extra combat style.