539 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Lukertin wrote...

Sharuko wrote...

I am not knocking DA:O, it is my top 3 games of all time along with Mass Effect. But when I say unresponsive I mean, I issue a command and it does not do it. Not because of a bug, not because I had no stamina, not because I was in the middle of any action. It didn't respond and didn't respond quickly enough when it did. This happened pretty frequently. It wasn't "it didn't respond the way you want it to respond".

I had problems like that, too.  Issues where I would do something like cast heal, or eat a health pot, and the caster would use the mana, or the health pot would be consumed, and the character I was trying to save would die anyway.

Or in other instances, where I would be using abilities and no damage would register for 5 seconds, meanwhile all the enemies are attacking me and doing damage.  This happened even in instances where the enemies were weak and died in one hit.

Computer problem?  Maybe.  But it seemed pretty odd, especially when I run much more graphically demanding games that don't play as sluggishly.

Did you meet the minimum requirements? Because that sounds like you not meeting the requirments issue.

[soteria]

Let us say DA:O the game stays exactly the same, but combat is improved to be way better. Does that some how make the game less good?

That would depend on what you mean by "improved," wouldn't it? Your "improved" might be their "ruined forever." What he means by "pure" vs "action" RPG is really "tactical" (RTS combat) vs "action" (twitch combat).

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
*shrug* It's never come up for me. I've seen them rotate when I tell them to change targets. And I've seen the two-handers fall horribly behind the rest of the party because everything they do is really slow. But that's about it, really.

How often do you pause, and what is the proportion of melee to non-melee you use? Maybe that's a factor?

I pause frequently. Like every few seconds if not more. I'm almost entirely ranged, usually. For DA:O I used my rogue, Leliana on the bow and Morrigan and Wyne.

[In Exile]

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...
How often do you pause, and what is the proportion of melee to non-melee you use? Maybe that's a factor?[/quote]
I pause frequently. Like every few seconds if not more. I'm almost entirely ranged, usually. For DA:O I used my rogue, Leliana on the bow and Morrigan and Wyne.

[/quote]

That may be it. I find the game is more responsive with pause than absent pause.

[upsettingshorts]

See, that's why everyone should just use my definition - including Dr. Ray. "Action RPG" means it has twitch! It's simple and draws the line very clearly. Mass Effect 2 and Fallout New Vegas are therefore action RPGs, and by no stretch of the definition is DA:2 an action RPG.

Okay, I'm not that arrogant, but still. Less debate over a demarcation like that. Right now the notion of an action RPG, even among Bioware employees and people on the forums seems wildly different and more or less based on each one's personal idea of what defines "action."

In Exile wrote...
That may be it. I find the game is more responsive with pause than absent pause.

It's odd.  I'm a pause **** almost to a fault in Total War games but much prefer setting up tactics in DA:O to the point that I can be almost hands-off my companions.  With mods, doing that is totally possible without really giving up too much control as long as they're accurately programmed to do what you'd pause and tell them to do anyway.  That's almost a minigame of itself to me, sort of like levelling up and inventory:  "How can I replicate manual instructions via the Tactics?"  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:39 .

[Monica83]

Anyways i begin to lose hopes for dragon age 2 after seen the rougue gameplay...



Teleport here 6 slash in a second teleport there 6 slash in a second.. AAnd the anims AGAIN seems very ridicolus they fits perfectly for a teenager 16+ game but not for an adul 18+ game... Im sorry but i see only cut features huge stepback and some add on on fashionist way for console gamers,, At that point have a dragon age sequel for pc is useless if the gameplay with dialogue wheel and pharaprase schematic limitations.. with a forced protagonist.. no race selection no origin story.. Static classes with upgradable skills... and again those ridicolus naruto teleporting effect anims of rougue and the bad two handed fighter animation with no sense end poses... I don't see alll this improvement compared from the first game.. for me at this point dragon age 2 its not dragon age im sorry of that but more i read more i see disappoint me... Bioware slapped in face the old rpg lovers.. Only to go to the console audience.. This is not bad per se.. But at that point when the last team of making nice rpg sorround at the fashionist way to make them all i have to say is R.I.P bioware.. Only that.. I hope to be wrong and i hope bioware shows me i'm wrong in it.. but at that point this is my feeling

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

See, that's why everyone should just use my definition - including Dr. Ray. "Action RPG" means it has twitch! It's simple and draws the line very clearly. Mass Effect 2 and Fallout New Vegas are therefore action RPGs, and by no stretch of the definition is DA:2 an action RPG.

Okay, I'm not that arrogant, but still. Less debate over a demarcation like that. Right now the notion of an action RPG, even among Bioware employees and people on the forums seems wildly different and more or less based on each one's personal idea of what defines "action."

Action's a very vague word.  Maybe an action RPG is one where the protagonist gets some lovin'.

[Sharuko]

soteria wrote...

Let us say DA:O the game stays exactly the same, but combat is improved to be way better. Does that some how make the game less good?

That would depend on what you mean by "improved," wouldn't it? Your "improved" might be their "ruined forever." What he means by "pure" vs "action" RPG is really "tactical" (RTS combat) vs "action" (twitch combat).

Ah I see, makes sense. 

[Monica83]

Anyways i begin to lose hopes for dragon age 2 after seen the rougue gameplay...



Teleport here 6 slash in a second teleport there 6 slash in a second.. AAnd the anims AGAIN seems very ridicolus they fits perfectly for a teenager 16+ game but not for an adul 18+ game... Im sorry but i see only cut features huge stepback and some add on on fashionist way for console gamers,, At that point have a dragon age sequel for pc is useless if the gameplay with dialogue wheel and pharaprase schematic limitations.. with a forced protagonist.. no race selection no origin story.. Static classes with upgradable skills... and again those ridicolus naruto teleporting effect anims of rougue and the bad two handed fighter animation with no sense end poses... I don't see alll this improvement compared from the first game.. for me at this point dragon age 2 its not dragon age im sorry of that but more i read more i see disappoint me... Bioware slapped in face the old rpg lovers.. Only to go to the console audience.. This is not bad per se.. But at that point when the last team of making nice rpg sorround at the fashionist way to make them all i have to say is R.I.P bioware.. Only that.. I hope to be wrong and i hope bioware shows me i'm wrong in it.. but at that point this is my feeling

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It's odd.  I'm a pause **** almost to a fault in Total War games but much prefer setting up tactics in DA:O to the point that I can be almost hands-off my companions.  With mods, doing that is totally possible without really giving up too much control as long as they're accurately programmed to do what you'd pause and tell them to do anyway.  That's almost a minigame of itself to me, sort of like levelling up and inventory:  "How can I replicate manual instructions via the Tactics?"  

I do not understands tactics. I will be honest. That's like having the game play itself. What's the point? The beauty of DA:O is the party control and being able to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL. My nightmare for DA2 is that party control is removed in favour of tactics.

[tmp7704]

maxernst wrote...

Action's a very vague word.

Think a definition which works fairly well is, "action rpg" would be game where player's own manual skills substitute at least to some degree for character's emulated "skills", while a regular rpg is pretty much all about the latter approach I.e. instead of "chance to dodge" that's a result of character's attributes in regular rpg you have player dodge hits manually in action rpg. Similar when it comes to parrying/blocking or aiming shots, etc.

[soteria]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...
How often do you pause, and what is the proportion of melee to non-melee you use? Maybe that's a factor?[/quote]
I pause frequently. Like every few seconds if not more. I'm almost entirely ranged, usually. For DA:O I used my rogue, Leliana on the bow and Morrigan and Wyne.

[/quote]

That may be it. I find the game is more responsive with pause than absent pause.

[/quote]

Most of my complaints have to do with melee combat.  The problems are most visible when "driving" in over-the-shoulder view--in the overhead mode you're usually too busy watching everything to notice the melee shuffle.

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...
I do not understands tactics. I will be honest. That's like having the game play itself. What's the point? The beauty of DA:O is the party control and being able to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL. My nightmare for DA2 is that party control is removed in favour of tactics.

I like keeping direct control w/ the protagonist only, it's more immersive for me.  The notion that I'm playing the party through some kind of Harbinger-type control when we're fighting or moving around but playing the protagonist when talking to the party has always been one of those things I've never liked about the genre.  

That isn't to say I want them to go so far as to introduce Mass Effect 2 level minimalism to the squad tactics, but I am glad they are looking to make Tactics more viable. It does demand a different way of selecting skills and spells though, especially for mages.  In DA:O I couldn't really add Friendly Fire spells to the Tactics because the AI was stupid bad at using it.  I either didn't take them at all, or left them off automatic and ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL when I needed to use them.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I do not understands tactics. I will be honest. That's like having the game play itself. What's the point?

They are useful if you want to play more as single character co-operating with other characters that have minds of their own. That's for the setup where you allow tactics to manage the companions and you focus on controlling the protagonist.

Though letting everyone just use tactics can have appeal to some people, too -- the challenge is then in coming up with tactics efficient enough to get the actual job done. It's then like these games which allow you to program rules/routines for AI and then see how well it fares in overcoming obstacles.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
I do not understands tactics. I will be honest. That's like having the game play itself. What's the point? The beauty of DA:O is the party control and being able to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL. My nightmare for DA2 is that party control is removed in favour of tactics.

The beauty of it is in that it's like being a comander. (perhaps of a space ship) And so you put together your team and you give them instructions. Take them on missions. Then watch their performance based on your leadership.

Ok that was kind of silly, but really it's a matter of the pride and pleasure that comes from watching them perform in battle due solely to the AI that you gave them. And it's variable. I don't let the game play itself. I set up buffs, intercepts  and maintenance for health and magic and give all attack commands on my own.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

They are useful if you want to play more as single character co-operating with other characters that have minds of their own. That's for the setup where you allow tactics to manage the companions and you focus on controlling the protagonist.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ok that was kind of silly, but really it's a matter of the pride and pleasure that comes from watching them perform in battle due solely to the AI that you gave them.

Those posts are also pretty good explanations of the same idea I was trying to get across, put in a different way.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:49 .

[MerinTB]

Ryzaki wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

Sharuko wrote...

I am not knocking DA:O, it is my top 3 games of all time along with Mass Effect. But when I say unresponsive I mean, I issue a command and it does not do it. Not because of a bug, not because I had no stamina, not because I was in the middle of any action. It didn't respond and didn't respond quickly enough when it did. This happened pretty frequently. It wasn't "it didn't respond the way you want it to respond".

I had problems like that, too.  Issues where I would do something like cast heal, or eat a health pot, and the caster would use the mana, or the health pot would be consumed, and the character I was trying to save would die anyway.

Or in other instances, where I would be using abilities and no damage would register for 5 seconds, meanwhile all the enemies are attacking me and doing damage.  This happened even in instances where the enemies were weak and died in one hit.

Computer problem?  Maybe.  But it seemed pretty odd, especially when I run much more graphically demanding games that don't play as sluggishly.

Did you meet the minimum requirements? Because that sounds like you not meeting the requirments issue.

That is a hardware compatibility error.  Either you had settings too high for your rig, your exact combination of computer parts didn't match what all the testing and patching of DA:O had addressed, or you had background programs running... whatever...

slow responsiveness of damage registering was not a game mechanic - that's more bugginess due to glitching for whatever reason (sounds like resources not matching demands to me)...

---

and earlier when someone was complaining about responsiveness and said the words "radial menu" I could stop reading.  It has been fairly well established that the console ports were poorly done.

---

Neither of the above are actual game mechanic issues.  None of that kind of issue has anything to do with the "shuffle step" that keeps getting mentioned.

Modifié par MerinTB, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I do not understands tactics. I will be honest. That's like having the game play itself. What's the point? The beauty of DA:O is the party control and being able to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL. My nightmare for DA2 is that party control is removed in favour of tactics.

I like keeping direct control w/ the protagonist only, it's more immersive for me.  The notion that I'm playing the party through some kind of Harbinger-type control when we're fighting or moving around but playing the protagonist when talking to the party has always been one of those things I've never liked about the genre.  

I actually agree with that in theory, but I've yet to see a game where the A.I. was good enough for it to work well in combination with nasty area of effect weapons like fireballs and cone of cold.  Hell, I freeze my own party members once in a while.

I think I mentioned this elsewhere but the concept of having squadmates you have no control over brings back memories of being blown to bits repeatedly by Marcus in Fallout 2. 

[adembroski11]

Ultimately, if the story is great and I have control over Hawke as a character, I don't really care what the combat system is so long as it doesn't shake my suspension of disbelief.

[MerinTB]

maxernst wrote...
I think I mentioned this elsewhere but the concept of having squadmates you have no control over brings back memories of being blown to bits repeatedly by Marcus in Fallout 2. 

Or just generally watching them die.  In almost any game with computer AI allies.

Fallout 2 was pretty hard maintenance keeping those fools alive.  Fallout 3 is just as bad.

If with finely tweaked coded tactics, letting the companions in DA:O run too long on their own (and by too long I mean like, what, 5 seconds of combat time) and they are just getting in over their heads.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I like keeping direct control w/ the protagonist only, it's more immersive for me.  The notion that I'm playing the party through some kind of Harbinger-type control when we're fighting or moving around but playing the protagonist when talking to the party has always been one of those things I've never liked about the genre. 

In principle, controlling other characters is nonsense. But this is one case where story and gameplay segregation is more important. Not only is partry control just outright superior to AI control, but it's more fun (at least for me).

That isn't to say I want them to go so far as to introduce Mass Effect 2 level minimalism to the squad tactics, but I am glad they are looking to make Tactics more viable. It does demand a different way of selecting skills and spells though, especially for mages.  In DA:O I couldn't really add Friendly Fire spells to the Tactics because the AI was stupid bad at using it.  I either didn't take them at all, or left them off automatic and ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL when I needed to use them.

Why is it fun to have the game gimped? This is just a case of the rest of the party holding the idiot ball.

tmp7704 wrote...
They are useful if you want to play more as
single character co-operating with other characters that have minds of
their own. That's for the setup where you allow tactics to manage the
companions and you focus on controlling the protagonist.

Given the quality of AI, I insist that we use the word mind very loosely here. That being said, I understand the principle of it - I just don't understand why it is fun.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:58 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
The beauty of it is in that it's like being a comander. (perhaps of a space ship) And so you put together your team and you give them instructions. Take them on missions. Then watch their performance based on your leadership.

Ok that was kind of silly, but really it's a matter of the pride and pleasure that comes from watching them perform in battle due solely to the AI that you gave them. And it's variable. I don't let the game play itself. I set up buffs, intercepts  and maintenance for health and magic and give all attack commands on my own.

Right, I get how it's supposed to work. I just don't get why it's fun. To begin with, it seems like a tremendous amount of work to i) understand the system and ii) actually bother planning it out. It just strikes me as anti-fun.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...
If with finely tweaked coded tactics, letting the companions in DA:O run too long on their own (and by too long I mean like, what, 5 seconds of combat time) and they are just getting in over their heads.

I'd go through whole dungeons (almost) never touching my companions, didn't have an issue.  Never had a problem with them doing something dumb.  

Full disclosure:  After downloading a mod that added tons more slots than the default.  

In Exile wrote...

Why is it fun to have the game gimped? This is just a case of the rest of the party holding the idiot ball.

It's not gimped really.  It just means that I'm more likely to give Morrigan Sleep->Waking Nightmare type commands than Cone of Cold or Fireball as far as Tactics go.

In Exile wrote...

Right, I get how it's supposed to work. I just don't get why it's fun. To begin with, it seems like a tremendous amount of work to i) understand the system and ii) actually bother planning it out. It just strikes me as anti-fun.

For me?  Well for starters it improves pacing tremendously.  Pausing constantly may give the player more fine-tuned control over the precise actions of his or her companions, but it turns fights into slideshows as a matter of objective fact.  

As far as how much work it is, it's not that bad once you've figured out the rules.  Tactics at the top have higher priorities, etc.

I don't really like the Mass Effect system where my control over companions is minimal to practically nonexistent, but the Tactics system gives me tons of indirect control, and that's plenty for me.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 03:04 .

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
Right, I get how it's supposed to work. I just don't get why it's fun. To begin with, it seems like a tremendous amount of work to i) understand the system and ii) actually bother planning it out. It just strikes me as anti-fun.

At first I thought it was stupid too, back when I first tried it in FFXII. But once I actually started doing it I kind of fell in love. It's like putting together and engine and then watching it run. I don't know that you can really explain that kind of fun.

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
If with finely tweaked coded tactics, letting the companions in DA:O run too long on their own (and by too long I mean like, what, 5 seconds of combat time) and they are just getting in over their heads.

I'd go through whole dungeons (almost) never touching my companions, didn't have an issue.  Never had a problem with them doing something dumb.  

Full disclosure:  After downloading a mod that added tons more slots than the default.  

And presumably investing a lot of time in thinking about good tactical schemes.  I think it would make the game very hard for casual players.