371 réponses à ce sujet

[Jarigan]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...
realism in fantasy worlds just dont exist.  Not many people are going to notice or care like the OP.  I do see OPs note.  Which makes me wish there was a realistic medival combat set in historic times.  The setting as is is set with Magic, Metals that are lightweight and durable(mithral, etc), with Elves, dwarves, and dragons.  To say that how a sword is weilded as being unrealistic in its mechanics? why my friend, thats just ludicrous.

And I'd view that as a non-sequitor.  The fact Thedas is a fictonal realm with magic has nothing to do with what size the weapons are unless they bother to explain how humans in Thedas are stronger per pound than real world humans.  I see nothing that would suggest this, and since the weaponry of Thedas is inspired by those of real world humans then any departure from them is an artistic decision and therefore one that is open to criticism over its aesthetics.

Real weapons were designed to be wielded by humans.

These weapons were designed because the art department thinks they look cool.  And they're welcome to their opinion.  I'm just as welcome to say that they look stupid.

Yes weapons were designed to be used by humans but they were also made out of bronze, iron or steel.  They weren't made out of mithril, adamantium or dragon bone. No real armor enhanced the wearer's strength or made him more nimble. There is also no way someone can utter a couple of words and wave in the air a little to make him a lot stronger.
In the real world swords have their size due to practicality. A 2-hander would do more damage if it weighed twice as much (if you could swing it almost as fast when it mattered) but it would be impractical. If you have a more durable alloy that is lighter you might want to make the sword bigger in order to get the best practical use out of it.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Firky wrote...

On that armour point, it did cross my mind that it was kinda silly the way you could get a good piece of armour, equip it on a girl and then a guy and it would look totally different. Maybe someone at camp was doing speedy alterations.

It would be good to have elf/dwarf/human/male/female specific armour, but how?

Well, I don't think it'd be hard mechanically to have armour restricted to certain species or genders, it's just a check on flags after all, like restricting weapons/armour to classes, but it poses problems for design. When it comes to finding armour as loot, it could be ages until you find a full set of armour your female dwarf can wear.

While it's more realistic to have armour restricted to more than just class and stats (like strength), it's probably far too annoying to implement and only die-hard realists would enjoy the feature. XD

DarthCaine wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

I don't really see the problem everyone see with this. It looks exactly the same size as in Origins to me. (I'm playing through Origins right now)

To me, it seems people are just determined to nit pick everything and see things that aren't there just 'cos they WANT to hate it

Here's to prove my point it's all in your head people

Put that same sword on a dwarf, then say it's not too big. There's like three inches of steel clipping through the ground behind them when they run. ;D

[Lotion Soronarr]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Eh. It's a fantasy game. Oversized weaponry and ridiculous armour have been around for much longer than Dragon Age. If you want realism, consider: you won't be able to just strip someone's armour and put it onto yourself. One size does not fit all.

Especially if you ask Sten to put on dwarven armour.

And if I were making a game, I'd take that into account. Finding a set of armor for yourself would be more difficult (rarer), and ergo, more rewarding.
Well, that or take the armor to a blacksmith to re-fit it for ya.


Fantasy - up to a point.
I prefer fantasy that feels like it could almost be real (or ancient history), rather than the "Rainbow Unicorn" version. You ALWAYS draw a line SOMEWHERE.

Would you like it if the devs added talking rabbits and singing swords and nuclear farts? After all "it's only a video game!" "It's fantasy!"
Just cause you can, doesn't mean you should.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 11 octobre 2010 - 11:50 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I wonder why people havn't complained about how mages are an unrealistic representation of humans, since we can't shoot fireballs in real life....

Because mages are mages? The whole point of mages is to fling magic? Because they don't exist in RL so there's nothing to compare to?

The whole point of swords is to efficiently kill. And if a sword is such that it doesn't look like it can perorm that core function...yes, one can complain.

And DA:O swords were oversized too...The PC/NPC models even had enlarged hands just so they could grasp them. Art style? :lol::lol:

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...
But to be the devil's advocate to the large swords, one reason they're so sizeable is because we need to see them, think about them and react to them. Some things cannot be portrayed the same in artisitic media (like games) as in real life.
The weapons are given their size increase to put emphasis on them, to show us that it is the sword that kills. To make us react to it and think about it. It's like when painters put certain things at certain positions in their paintings so that you'll notice just that. Or when a writer builds up to something for emphasis (or go out of their way tomention or describe something).

Bollocks. Played games where cahracters were even smaller on screen and weapons were normally scaled - never had trouble seeing anything. The visibility excuse is just that - a poor excuse.

In real life we don't need things like that. We see it anyways, we
analyse it on our own. To get the same impact of a real sword they need
to be made bigger. We need to see that it's a really big sword, whereas
in reality we can see a sword that is a lot smaller and nibler and
think: "Whoa! that's a impressive weapon". But in the game it needs to
be bigger for the same effect.
Hawke isn't just any warrior, he's a
mighty and powerful champion woe to any in front of him. How do we
know? Because he got a big sword. That's why.

We may think
that it's ridiculous, but due to how our minds work... if the sword was
smaller Hawke would not give us (yes, all of us) the same impression.

And emphasis by making things stand out? False kind of emphasis. I don't need the game to mark thing with bright red arrows or oversize them for me to notice them. The gamers aren't stupid and don't need the baby treatment.
The sword doesn't NEED to be bigger in a game.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 11 octobre 2010 - 12:04 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

DarthCaine wrote...

Here's to prove my point it's all in your head people

Too thick, too broad.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


Well, I don't think it'd be hard mechanically to have armour restricted to certain species or genders, it's just a check on flags after all, like restricting weapons/armour to classes, but it poses problems for design. When it comes to finding armour as loot, it could be ages until you find a full set of armour your female dwarf can wear.

While it's more realistic to have armour restricted to more than just class and stats (like strength), it's probably far too annoying to implement and only die-hard realists would enjoy the feature. XD

I think that would be a great idea. Armor would be rarer - it would be something you'd be FAR more likely to buy than loot.

[Sir JK]

vilnii wrote...
Twirling a 2Hander like a wand is just plain wrong...

Hilariously, that's exactly what one should do. One is supposed to twist and shift the blade and turn it over it's point of balance (like lever and a fulcrum), it should never ever not be in front of you. Swinging it like a baseball bat is a great way to commit suicide (this is because not only is the sword your only offense, but also you primary defense. If it leaves your front you're completely open to attack).
At all times it need to be in front of you (except if you're completing a killing blow, then it's okay)

[nightcobra]

in my opinion, i'm a bit tired of nowadays games having to be as realistic as possible...don't get me wrong i still enjoy some of those games but i want to see more games in which you can see the creativity in the art design and imagination of the developers. ico, shadow of the colossus, okami, muramasa, and lots of others. if all we got were designs we could see in real life i think some people would like it i have no doubt of that but other people might feel like they're "meh, they look good but it's not something i haven't seen before" and that reaction might actually be the worst one as it implies indifference towards the game.

and before you try to ram this statement to the ground keep in mind that is my viewpoint on the issue and i'm sticking to it like you'll be sticking to yours, so no trying to pick fights.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


Well, I don't think it'd be hard mechanically to have armour restricted to certain species or genders, it's just a check on flags after all, like restricting weapons/armour to classes, but it poses problems for design. When it comes to finding armour as loot, it could be ages until you find a full set of armour your female dwarf can wear.

While it's more realistic to have armour restricted to more than just class and stats (like strength), it's probably far too annoying to implement and only die-hard realists would enjoy the feature. XD

I think that would be a great idea. Armor would be rarer - it would be something you'd be FAR more likely to buy than loot.

Meaning an annoying situation of having to travel to X location whenever you want to upgrade your armour, really. It won't be rarer, it'll just be frustrating to acquire. There are only so many merchants in the game.

Look at it this way...you can choose to roleplay armour realism if it's realism you're after. If you're playing a human, restrict yourself to not wearing armour made for dwarfs or elves. If you want to roleplay armourers having the ability to modify armour you've acquired to fit you, then hold off wearing it until you've visited an armourer.

If I was writing a story/fanfic I wouldn't have a human female character strip a dwarf male corpse and put his armour on, but that's a story. In a game where I just want to get on with the damn game, I couldn't care less unless I was *really* roleplaying.

[DarthCaine]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

I don't really see the problem everyone see with this. It looks exactly the same size as in Origins to me. (I'm playing through Origins right now)

To me, it seems people are just determined to nit pick everything and see things that aren't there just 'cos they WANT to hate it

Here's to prove my point it's all in your head people

Put that same sword on a dwarf, then say it's not too big. There's like three inches of steel clipping through the ground behind them when they run. ;D

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Too thick, too broad.

My point is, the swords in DA2 are no different than in Origins, so why all the whining ?

[AngryFrozenWater]

The over sized weapons, the SFX that they produce (like the after images when a sword is swung - the swoosh effect for the lack of a better word) are there intended to attract gamers who like similar stuff in other flashy games. And when we are used to it then in DA3 we'll probably see over sized armor and that the small numbers which indicate damage are replaced by huge flashing colored ones that fly to the sky. I wonder how many people really like this. To me things like these only distract from the game.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 octobre 2010 - 12:59 .

[Wulfram]

DarthCaine wrote...

My point is, the swords in DA2 are no different than in Origins, so why all the whining ?

Firstly, I don't see why it being the same in DA:O means we can't complain about it.  There certainly were complaints about it before DA:O was released.

Secondly, the animations are different.  DA:O's annoyingly slow two handed animations at least fit the giant weapons.  But now the weapon is the same, but it's being twirled around like a baton.

[Icinix]

I don't see the issue...



you know what they say about men with big swords...

[Nerevar-as]

vilnii wrote...

This is a fantasy game! The problem is not the weapon size but the animation...

Twirling a 2Hander like a wand is just plain wrong...

Otherwise weapons can be any size.

I would probably accept it if it were a final level up you had to work hard to get, but not if it is the default swing. Besides, fighting styles must look coherent between themselves. If 2H can go that fast, then how much faster should SS be? And rogue DW, who is supposed to focus on fast attacks? If it is proportional to what 2H was, it will go well beyond my SoD for the DA setting. The "rules" of how thigs looked were set in Origins, there´s a limit to how much they can change that before it all looks like Varrick´s fantasy. Awakenings was already going a bit too far fo me.

[AlexXIV]

Icinix wrote...

I don't see the issue...

you know what they say about men with big swords...

They have big hands?

[Bullets McDeath]

Man, you gotta love how every third fantasy geek is also an expert in real life sword combat and construction. Mmmmhmmmm.



As was pointed out to me in another thread, and has been mentioned in this thread several times, the 2H weapons are exactly the same size. This is all sound and fury signifying a severe lack of something better to do.

[Faz432]

Some interesting videos for you lot.

The largest of the medieval swords
Zweihander
Varric starts swinging at 0:35.


Slightly smaller but still big
Scottish Claymore cutting

Things to note are the swing speeds and momentum carried through the swing.

I think this shows that the length of the 2 handed swords in DA aren't unrealistic for Humans. Dwarfs and Eleves might be another story though.

I think the main problem is in the broadness of the blades which would probably double the weight and make them almost impossible to wield realistically.

Modifié par Faz432, 11 octobre 2010 - 02:13 .

[Heimdall]

Faz432 wrote...

Slightly smaller but still big
Scottish Claymore cutting

It's official, we need kilts for DA3

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I wonder why people havn't complained about how mages are an unrealistic representation of humans, since we can't shoot fireballs in real life....

Because mages are mages? The whole point of mages is to fling magic? Because they don't exist in RL so there's nothing to compare to?

The whole point of swords is to efficiently kill. And if a sword is such that it doesn't look like it can perorm that core function...yes, one can complain.

And DA:O swords were oversized too...The PC/NPC models even had enlarged hands just so they could grasp them. Art style? :lol::lol:

So you are willing to suspend your disbelief for fireball tossing, lightning shooting maniacs but not for oversized-swords?

[Amioran]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Fantasy - up to a point.
I prefer fantasy that feels like it could almost be real (or ancient history), rather than the "Rainbow Unicorn" version. You ALWAYS draw a line SOMEWHERE.

What you like or you don't like, or better, what you understand or you don't understand, have nothing to do with it being more or less correct. As a said to the OP, care about this type of "reality" (i.e. the lack of knowledge and basis to really understand if a thing could be correct or not), it would be better.

Who draws the line anyway? You? (Just so you know, all critics that have tried in the past to draw a "line" - in absolute - were always proven wrong after) Where is the line, where it should be? I tell you: there's no "line" as you want it, it depends if the style is correct on a whole (in its parts and execution), not if the style is correct compared to another (being "reality" or whatever else). If you took a paint of Rousseau by itself it seemed silly, if you took all of his works you had a genius. It all depends on the artistic background style of the game and if the parts fits nicely togheter, the rest is just dogmatism and thinking you know the truth of what can or cannot be.

Would you like it if the devs added talking rabbits and singing swords and nuclear farts? After all "it's only a video game!" "It's fantasy!"
Just cause you can, doesn't mean you should.

If the talking rabbits, singing swords and nucler farts (that anyway have NOTHING to do with artistic style, you seem to have a bit of confusion in your head on what you are talking about, it seems) it would be appropriate for the lore (also if difficult) then there will be nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" about it. Some will like it, some others won't, as with everything. However if some people would not like it, it wouldn't mean that it would be incorrect. What could tell it are other factors, that you neither take in consideration (probably because you don't either know them, and you pretend to have a voice in the matter).

A video game is not only a video game, but it is neither more. A medium is what it is, it contains a world in itself but just as a microcosm it will never be a macrocosm. With a medium that represent aspects of what you want to represent what matters it's the idea behind the same, not the more or less reality of it, or if it is "correct" on a virtual line (that doesn't either exists, as truth).

As for the sentence "just cause you can, doesn't mean you should" that's used a lot by people that have to justify their lack of accomodating to changes, masking the same with good words in themselves but without a real meaning, in practicity. In fact in real practice, usually, when you can do a thing then you should also do it.

Modifié par Amioran, 11 octobre 2010 - 04:06 .

[tmp7704]

Sir JK wrote...

Amusingly enough, daggers are that long. A european dagger is by definition dual-edged, pointed and between 12'' and 24''. One or two feet, ~30 to ~60 cm. Got one back home that's as long as my forearm (yes, it's a dagger). Anything shorter than that is a knife, not a dagger.

Thing is the DAO daggers are larger than that still -- 70cm and up (27" and more) meaning they noticeably exceed even the biggest sizes you mention

[Sir JK]

Yes, but that is due to the exponential size increase of each category of sword. A dagger needs to be large enough to be seen, so it's slightly larger than in RL. A short sword needs to be clearly larger than a dagger, so it is sized up "twice" as much to make the distinction clear. A one-and-a-half sword ("long sword") is sized up further to make it stand out to the short swords and the twohanders are sized up to ridiculous degrees to make us see the difference between those and one-and-a-half swords.

In RL most twohanders aren't that long, starting at 1 m blade and up. To clarify, that makes them only twice as long as daggers. The really big ones that one see pictured, like the largest claymores and the largets german greatswords.... were ceremonial and never used in combat. The combat swords are really much smaller than one expect them to be (it's because swords are bloody heavy and exert a lot of force on the shoulders, anything above 3,5 kg can completely ruin the shoulder forever after extended use).

But if we'd picture accurate sizes in game... we'd hardly tell the difference between the different types. Sure, a dagger and a zweihander... we could tell that difference. But a long sword is just a few inches from a twohander, telling the difference would be difficult.



So they're sized up, each step exponentially. To really put emphasis on that: this sword is bigger than the last category. It isn't enough that they're slightly larger in a side by side comparison, we must at all times see that they're larger. To compensate for our own minds equating the two.



The other part is like I mentioned... we need to see that it's the sword that kills. Thus it needs to be big enough to be noticeable. This is coupled together with the darkspawn exloding in cascades of blood, in rl cuts would be much much cleaner... but we need to be shown that the sword cuts them by slicing througfh them... so they add lots and lots of blood.

It's just like firearms in movies and games... they toss their target back to show the force in them. In RL they couldn't possibly do that (newton's law... if they toss their victim back... they also toss their shooter back), but they show it to portray the force in the gun.



It's for emphasis... to compensate for lack of other senses perfecting the picture.

[ErichHartmann]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

That big sword is badass. Nobody would frak with Hawke if they saw him/her strutting around with it on their shoulder.

More like - they'd die from laughter...or be even more determined to kill him, knowing he can't even swing it properly:P

Not an issue since DA isn't based on real world physics.

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 11 octobre 2010 - 11:43 .