299 réponses à ce sujet

[Saraphial]

In Exile wrote...

Ulous wrote...

No. NOT into Exile. I'm sorry, but that sounds very painful and I'd rather pass.

*chuckles* I see what you did there.  

[TJPags]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...

Everyone keeps telling me that the only thing changed is the responsiveness. And I'm thinking everyone must be blind. It looks like a totally different game. I would have never guessed it was the sequel to DA:O when i first saw this game.

If a man calls you a jackass, kick him in the shins.
if another man calls you a jackass, punch him in the gut.
If a third man calls you a jackass . . . well . . . it's time to start looking for a saddle

Basically . . . take our word for it.

I have more sense than listening to people here. Fanboys are the only word you can describe some of them really.

yes we're all fanboys, what do we know? after all, some of us only played a 15 minute demo of DA2 in which the gameplay felt like a faster version of origins.

With all due respect, why should those of us who have not played the game, nor even seen non "exagerated" gameplay take your word for it over the word of the devs or any of the previews we've read?

We can only go by what we have seen.  Why is that so hard for people to accept?

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Vital points don't include kidneys? That "armor" is thiner than paper mache & I'm here arguing that Bioware needs to fix the two hander, or are you not paying attention?

If you're in a position where your enemy has a clear shot at your back, you are very likely dead, armour or no. All that armour does is protect you in case of a screw-up, where you walk away with an injury instead of death.

Not to mention that the outrageously unrealistic Dragon Age combat is at least flashy this time instead of pretend realistic.

Armor will protect you from most all blows, where anyone gets the idea that it only protects from "minor" scrapes is beyond me.

You do not have to be facing someones back to wound them in the back, not to mention it's his sides that are exposed not necessarily his back.

I'd just give up in trying to argue with Aermas about armor.  He seems to think that armor only existed during the small window of time between when amor evolved to the point where it didnt get wtf pwned by crossbows/longbows and the invention of guns, and all fantasy should reflect that glorious time period.

and how do you wound someone's back if you're facing them from the front?  Some sort of uber flail?

[AmstradHero]

DarthCaine wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

But what about swords?  Stabbing people and all....

Good fun, I say.

I love DMC or God of War combat. I find DAO style combat boring, which is why I usually play on easy only. I even found The Witcher's QTE combat more fun.

Diablo's combat was just repative mindless clicking which got boring extremly quickly

I'm going to guess you played a barbarian. They got boring fast.  I had a lot of fun playing as a sorceress. At lower levels you had to run around, kite enemies and dodge a lot to survive. At higher levels you did a similar thing but were using a myriad of spells at the same time.

The next best character was the assassin, which quickly had you going hot-key crazy and manipulating your skills and timing your attacks to get off various combos to deal damage, drain life/mana, use a stun for crowd control, etc, etc.

The fun of playing those two classes spoiled me for most diablo-clones.

[In Exile]

Aermas wrote...
Armor will protect you from most all blows, where anyone gets the idea that it only protects from "minor" scrapes is beyond me.

Neither do I, since I never said "minor" at all.

All that I said was that armour is not some magic invincible panacea (well, it is in DA, but not in reality). At best, armour will protect you from glancing blows and maybe a serious screw-up or two if you're lucky where you walk away with broken bones instead of missing limbs.

If you think armour will protect you from all blows, then how about we play a game. You stand up straight and don't move in armour and I grab a warhammer. We can then see if you're still alive after I get 3 blows.

You do not have to be facing someones back to wound them in the back, not to mention it's his sides that are exposed not necessarily his back.

Kidneys aren't facing your sides. You can certainly gut the guy because of the hilariously exposed abdomen, but you specifically mentioned kidneys, and in that case, you're dead.

As for not having to be behind someone to injure their back, I would honestly like to how this is possible without basically cutting through them.

[upsettingshorts]

TJPags wrote...

We can only go by what we have seen.  Why is that so hard for people to accept?

Well, because we've seen the same stuff and have no idea how some people have reached an entirely different conclusion. 

[Aermas]

Piecake wrote...

Aermas wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Vital points don't include kidneys? That "armor" is thiner than paper mache & I'm here arguing that Bioware needs to fix the two hander, or are you not paying attention?

If you're in a position where your enemy has a clear shot at your back, you are very likely dead, armour or no. All that armour does is protect you in case of a screw-up, where you walk away with an injury instead of death.

Not to mention that the outrageously unrealistic Dragon Age combat is at least flashy this time instead of pretend realistic.

Armor will protect you from most all blows, where anyone gets the idea that it only protects from "minor" scrapes is beyond me.

You do not have to be facing someones back to wound them in the back, not to mention it's his sides that are exposed not necessarily his back.

I'd just give up in trying to argue with Aermas about armor.  He seems to think that armor only existed during the small window of time between when amor evolved to the point where it didnt get wtf pwned by crossbows/longbows and the invention of guns, and all fantasy should reflect that glorious time period.

and how do you wound someone's back if you're facing them from the front?  Some sort of uber flail?

Armor was only done away with because of economics, not because of penetration power, it cost more to outfit an army with arms & armors & train them to use it than to give every commoner a musket & telling 'em to shoot, there was a thing called Proved plate, where a armorsmith would shoot a breast plate in point blank range to show that it could protect you from it.

When having your shield up one could swing down from above when you try to get in close & open up your back. It's not an uncommon tactic.

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Armor was only done away with because of economics, not because of penetration power, it cost more to outfit an army with arms & armors & train them to use it than to give every commoner a musket & telling 'em to shoot, there was a thing called Proved plate, where a armorsmith would shoot a breast plate in point blank range to show that it could protect you from it.

When having your shield up one could swing down from above when you try to get in close & open up your back. It's not an uncommon tactic.

Sorry if I don't take your word for it when your idea of a historical source is movie costumes and cosplay outfits.

There was a reason why armor kept getting more tankified over the centuries, and that was because of ranged penetration power.  I mean, there was a reason why the pope banned crossbows as an unfair weapon

[thegreateski]

Piecake wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Armor was only done away with because of economics, not because of penetration power, it cost more to outfit an army with arms & armors & train them to use it than to give every commoner a musket & telling 'em to shoot, there was a thing called Proved plate, where a armorsmith would shoot a breast plate in point blank range to show that it could protect you from it.

When having your shield up one could swing down from above when you try to get in close & open up your back. It's not an uncommon tactic.

Sorry if I don't take your word for it when your idea of a historical source is movie costumes and cosplay outfits.

There was a reason why armor kept getting more tankified over the centuries, and that was because of ranged penetration power.  I mean, there was a reason why the pope banned crossbows as an unfair weapon

Here's a crazy idea. It was BOTH of those things.

Penetration and economics.

[TJPags]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TJPags wrote...

We can only go by what we have seen.  Why is that so hard for people to accept?

Well, because we've seen the same stuff and have no idea how some people have reached an entirely different conclusion. 

That's fair - you can draw your conclusions.

What needs to be understood is that not everyone liked the same things about DAO, and not everyone likes the same things in an RPG, period.  Something you like I may not like, and vice versa.  I'm happy that you like what you see.

But I look at that gameplay trailer, and I see FemHawke practically transporting herself in different directions, swinging a two-handed sword like it's a wiffle ball bat, tossing enemies aside with each swing, taking out 3 and 4 people at a time, jumping up for an over-the-head chop that takes people down, with the shock wave of her landing knocking more people down, and, well, I think hack and slash - the kind of hack and slash that I don't personally care for.

Now, fine, that's supposed to be from the exagerated part of the combat, I understand, before Cassandra calls Varric out on it.  But I've yet to see the non-exagerated part, so it's all I have to go on.

You may like what that shows, and I respect your right to that opinion.  I don't like it, and all I ask from you is that you respect my right to that opinion.

And all I ask from Bioware is something I can use to make up my mind beside that.

[nightcobra]

thegreateski wrote...


Here's a crazy idea. It was BOTH of those things.

Penetration and economics.

why did the image of a pimp come into my head?

[Piecake]

thegreateski wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Armor was only done away with because of economics, not because of penetration power, it cost more to outfit an army with arms & armors & train them to use it than to give every commoner a musket & telling 'em to shoot, there was a thing called Proved plate, where a armorsmith would shoot a breast plate in point blank range to show that it could protect you from it.

When having your shield up one could swing down from above when you try to get in close & open up your back. It's not an uncommon tactic.

Sorry if I don't take your word for it when your idea of a historical source is movie costumes and cosplay outfits.

There was a reason why armor kept getting more tankified over the centuries, and that was because of ranged penetration power.  I mean, there was a reason why the pope banned crossbows as an unfair weapon

Here's a crazy idea. It was BOTH of those things.

Penetration and economics.

/bow

[Daewan]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

thegreateski wrote...


Here's a crazy idea. It was BOTH of those things.

Penetration and economics.

why did the image of a pimp come into my head?

The best game to ever leave the White Wolf Studios.

Modifié par Daewan, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:05 .

[SnakeHelah]

Ah well. I got bored of God of War anyway.

[thegreateski]

Daewan wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

thegreateski wrote...


Here's a crazy idea. It was BOTH of those things.

Penetration and economics.

why did the image of a pimp come into my head?

*snip*

The best game to ever leave the White Wolf Studios.

[Aermas]

 .Since the 15th century, most parts of the human body have been fitted with specialised steel pieces, typically worn over linen or woollen underclothes and attached to the body via leather straps and buckles and points. Mail protected those areas that could not be fitted with plate; for example, the back of the knee. Well-known constituent parts of plate armour include the helm, gauntlets, gorget or 'neckguard', breastplate, and greaves worn on the lower legs.For the elite, full-body plate armour was custom-made for the individual. Most armour was bought off the shelf and some was modified to fit the wearer. The cost of armour varied considerably with time and place as well as the type of armour, coverage it provided and the cost of decoration. In the 8th century a suit of Frankish mail had cost 12 oxen; by 1600 a horseman's armour cost 2 oxen.[1] A typical suit of full plate harness cost around 1 pound sterling in 14th century England[2] and a man-at-arms in the same period made 1 shilling per day and so his armour cost about 20 days pay.[3] Plate armour was limited to those who could afford it: the nobility, landed classes and mercenary professional soldiers, who did most of the fighting in the Medieval period. Soldiers of lower standing generally wore less armour. Full plate armour made the wearer virtually impervious to sword blows as well as providing significant protection against arrows, bludgeons and even early firearms. Sword edges could not penetrate even relatively thin plate (as little as 1 mm). Also, although arrows shot from bows and crossbows and bullets fired from early firearms could occasionally pierce plate especially at close range, later improvements in the steel forging techniques and armour design made even this line of attack increasingly difficult. By its apex, hardened steel plate was almost impregnable on the battlefield. Knights were instead increasingly felled by polearms such as the halberd and blunt weapons such as maces or war hammers that could send concussive force through the plate armour resulting in injuries such as broken bones, organhaemorrhage and/or head trauma. Another tactic was to attempt to strike through the gaps between the armour pieces, using daggers, spears and spear points to attack the man-at-arms' eyes or joints.It is likely that a full suit of medieval plate must have weighed a little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average; lighter than the equipment often carried by today's armies, which averages at around 90 pounds.[4]

Modifié par Aermas, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:13 .

[Piecake]

fascinating, though that really doesnt contradict what I said, since I told you you are simply interested in that small sweet spot in history where plated evolved to the point where crossbows/longbows failed to own them and want all fantasy games to reflect that time period.



Ive already said as much that it was both economics and penetration power, and heck, you are probably right that it did have to do more with economics since if you have a limited number of time/resources any sane general would take the cheaper, so much more numerous, gun army every time.



But hey, even your own source contradicts the impression that you are giving off that if you wear full plate armor you are some invincible warrior impervious to all attacks

[Apollo Starflare]

TJPags wrote...

With all due respect, why should those of us who have not played the game, nor even seen non "exagerated" gameplay take your word for it over the word of the devs or any of the previews we've read?

We can only go by what we have seen.  Why is that so hard for people to accept?

Of course, but sometimes people don't even take the devs on their word, or choose to focus entirely on what one previewer said without compromise. Why should you listen to previewer X over anybody else? It is all opinion, and previewers have frequently been wrong in the past. When I see something being thrown around that doesn't reflect what I experienced when I played the demo I tend to say so, whether someone believes me is up to them, unfortunately people rarely seem to believe the people who have played it and 'defend' the game, preferring to disregard said people as fanboys.

Of course there are going to be aspects of the game that people don't like, the thing that makes no sense to me and that I personally tend to speak out about, is the comparison to some pretty hardcore twitch based hack n slash games and even JRPG's now. *shrugs* most of my posts in this thread have been me trying to think from the perspective of someone who hasn't played it anyway, I still don't see how some of the more OTT comparisons get thrown around (DMC, FF, Ninja Gaidan etc.)

They have block, dodge, jump buttons for starters, as well as combo's, combo metres and all manner of other tells. Not getting into what a JRPG early gameplay trailer usually looks like...
 

[Aermas]

I never said invincible, nothing is perfect


but plate comes close.

Modifié par Aermas, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:40 .

[Piecake]

whadaya know, found a source for my original claim of early firearms



"As low-velocity firearms, the arquebus was used against enemies who were often partially or fully protected by steel-plate armour. Plate armour was standard in European combat from about 1400 until the middle of the 17th century. Good suits of plate would usually stop an arquebus ball at long range. It was a common practice to "proof" (test) armour by firing a pistol or arquebus at a new breastplate. The small dent would be circled by engraving, to call attention to it. However, at close range, it was possible to pierce even the armor of knights and other heavy cavalry, depending highly on the power of the arquebus and the quality of the armor. This led to changes in armor usage, such as the three-quarter plate, and finally the retirement of plate armor from most types of infantry."



So, in conclusion, stop assuming that Fereldin is 15th century Europe

[Leonia]

I thought Ferelden was representing the 12th century? Anyway, I am surprised this thread spawned so many pages, was sure it would have gone off-topic ages ago.

[Clover Rider]

leonia42 wrote...

I thought Ferelden was representing the 12th century? Anyway, I am surprised this thread spawned so many pages, was sure it would have gone off-topic ages ago.

Want me to get it off topic I am somewhat good at that=].

[Maria Caliban]

leonia42 wrote...

I thought Ferelden was representing the 12th century?

Ferelden doesn't represent any specific time period. It may have elements from the 12th century, but the writers and artists aren't historians.

[Leonia]

Well, that's what I meant. Meh. Let me get some coffee so I can say what I really mean to say



It's certainly not 15th century.

[Maria Caliban]

BanditGR wrote...

The interesting thing about all these threads, at least when it comes to combat, UI, perhaps mechanics etc is that Bioware can easily eliminate them (or reinforce them, who know) by simply releasing some kind of PC gameplay footage. It really is as simple as that. The fact that they haven't done so yet, is also interesting in itself and until they do, speculation (in one direction or the other) will thrive.

They haven't given us any game footage. Not on PC, not on XBox, and not on PS3.

I could also start a rumor about how there's a fixed protagonist in Dragon Age 2, ignore the developers who say otherwise, and claim that the fact that they haven't shown us footage of the non-default PC is evidence in my favor.

Stupid ideas and baseless assumptions thrive on this forum like bacteria in a culture. Perhaps the developers have better things to do than cater to a group that frequently insults their game and their company, and often implies that the developers who do post here are either liars or ignorant of the game they've made.