1012 réponses à ce sujet

[The Drwal]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

_KamiliuS_ wrote...
And this silly advertising campaign confuse me even more. Can't you just skip all this bullsh*t and say what DA2 REALLY is?

It is a video game.

Done and done.

Damn, you got me...

But I was thinking about things like:
 - Does it requires tactics and planning on higher difficulties?
 - Do we get more fights similar to final battle in Golems of Amgarrak?
 - Does DA2 has to be in manga style? etc.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

_KamiliuS_ wrote...

I agree with you, Phoenix. The fight was so fast and chaotic I had no idea where Hawke is. It seemed he was teleporting from one position to another. And if BioWare really want it to be in that way, well...

You sound like you should turn on ground rings. Though they may ship on by default in the PC version. Helps with targeting.

I thought there won't be ground rings. Nice to hear that. Now I realize I was actually keeping my eye on rings in DAO...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

_KamiliuS_ wrote...
PS. Do you think BioWare team reads all our concerns, doubts - and laughs?

No, we don't. That would make us colossal dicks, and as a general rule, the Doctors don't employ dicks.

And THAT question was just a joke

Modifié par _KamiliuS_, 19 décembre 2010 - 01:24 .

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

In testing, we found that if the pace of each hit was identical, it would create a sense of repetition, and disengagement in the people playing. "I hit, I hit, I hit, I hit, I hit, I hit..." and so on. Looking at how to break that up, we elected to create moves that took slightly longer to execute (via flourish, twirl or what have you), but that inflict higher than usual damage. (..)

I'm prepared to live with a few complaints about twirl if it results in an experience that has tested better in terms of overall feel and pacing any day. To my mind, the important part is that we MADE a choice, backed it up with data and built a game that works well with that choice.

Just curious, but if it's steady pace that was the issue, then wouldn't making the "flourish moves" actually play longer (by say, turning them into swings with a bit of preparation and more force put into them) ... result in achieving the same effect (breaking up the steady pace) but at the same time possibly avoiding the complaint about Hawke itching to get back to his/her cheerleader practice?

[Mike Laidlaw]

tmp7704 wrote...
Just curious, but if it's steady pace that was the issue, then wouldn't making the "flourish moves" actually play longer (by say, turning them into swings with a bit of preparation and more force put into them) ... result in achieving the same effect (breaking up the steady pace) but at the same time possibly avoiding the complaint about Hawke itching to get back to his/her cheerleader practice?

Sure. And then you'd be missing people who ran past you because you took forever to wind up your swing, since they'd move out of range, which would suck.

And as to complaints that our combat looks flashy or cheerleadery, please refer to my earlier post. I'm well aware that there are people who preferred the deliberate movements of Origins. I'm also aware that there are people who found those same movements to be glacial.

[Piecake]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Doing so creates more visual
variety, gives the combat a sense of pacing that was absent in origins
and generally give the characters more personality than just going "I
swing my sword left. Now I swing my sword right."

Yea,that was one thing I didnt really like about origins.  Even when I usedmy rogue's abilities it really didnt feel like my character was doing anything particually visually interesting, just more of the stabby stabby same.  It got rather repetitive. 

I never played a two-handed warrior so I can't comment on that.  Ironically, the reason why i never played one was the "*swing* wait 5 seconds, *swing* wait five seconds, *swing* fall asleep" animation style.

Modifié par Piecake, 19 décembre 2010 - 01:05 .

[The Drwal]

And about interface - what we can see in video will be in final game? I personally think those health+mana/stamina rings around portraits were pretty cool. Better than bars.

[TMZuk]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

If you do not like that personality, there's little I can do about it, and even less I would want to do about it. As with so many things, it's largely an aesthetic choice, and when you make an aesthetic choice there will always be people who do not match your opinion, which is why it is aesthetic, and not emperical. I'm prepared to live with a few complaints about twirl if it results in an experience that has tested better in terms of overall feel and pacing any day. To my mind, the important part is that we MADE a choice, backed it up with data and built a game that works well with that choice.

I don't like it personally, to say the least. It looks silly, but worse than that... : These animations, not just the twirls and whatever, but the flips and rolls and all the rest of the kung fu stuff you have put into the game, AOE effect for warriors, teleports for rogues and what have we; they are the reason why I can no longer make a warrior that dual-wields, or a rogue with buckler and sword? In that case it is a ~very~ poor tradeoff, and by far the most off-putting in a long range of off-putting descisions made in this game.

David Gaider has on several occasions stated that one of his inspirations for the storywriting is George R. R, Martin's: "A Song of Ice and Fire". Now, the combat as it is described in these books is anything but over the top and cartoonish. It is brutal, unpleasant and very much down to earth. In short, dark and gritty, excactly what you keep marketing DA2 as.

There's nothing dark and gritty about this gameplay. It is simply looking like a japanese console-game, where immersion and any attempt of creating something believable is out the window.

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Sure. And then you'd be missing people who ran past you because you took forever to wind up your swing, since they'd move out of range, which would suck.

How is this different from missing people who ran past you because you took forever to twirl the weapon at the end of your move instead, delaying the next swing to happen to the same extent? Additionaly, isn't the damage of Hawke & co front-loaded now with the animation following rather than being a trigger, to avoid exactly this effect?

Not that i know why that swing should take forever when the extra twirl doesn't...

edit: on a different note, and less theoretical. There seems to be some issues with the animation quality in the video -- the moves occasionally appear to stutter and just jump from end of one into middle of another, glitches like that. Is this a side-effect of capturing the video, or is this what the game plays like at the moment? And if it's the latter, is that going to improve..?

Modifié par tmp7704, 19 décembre 2010 - 01:16 .

[Brockololly]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Looking at how to break that up, we elected to create moves that took slightly longer to execute (via flourish, twirl or what have you), but that inflict higher than usual damage. Doing so creates more visual variety, gives the combat a sense of pacing that was absent in origins and generally give the characters more personality than just going "I swing my sword left. Now I swing my sword right."

Maybe its just that walkthrough, but it looked to me that Aveline and Hawke both do the same twirl when sort of finished with combat or as a sort of segue into their idle animation. The thing that was goofy looking to me was with Aveline, how she seemingly goes into her idle pose does the twirl, then goes right back to slashing.

And then there was that one leaked video with Bethany kiting with th the Ogre and contantly twilring her staff as she ran around.

I guess, from what I've seen it doesn't look that "unique" if everyone is doing the same cheerleader baton twirl.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
If you do not like that personality, there's little I can do about it, and even less I would want to do about it. As with so many things, it's largely an aesthetic choice, and when you make an aesthetic choice there will always be people who do not match your opinion, which is why it is aesthetic, and not emperical.

Sure, its aesthetic- like so much else in the game. For me at least, the "twirl" just seems symptomatic of all the other over the top animations, which when all you're seeing is over the top animations and flipping and spinning and twirling, doing over 9000 damage....meh.

Its like listening to music, cranking the volume to 11- it might seem cool when you first start but you're not hearing the whole range of the audio, so you can't appreciate everything going on in the music if its just making you deaf. I'd have just preferred more grounded animations with a bit more heft with maybe the occassional "Oh snap!" crazy animation, like the killing blows in Origins- the floaty over the top stuff I've seen thus far just doesn't jive with the overall grounded and gritty world and feel from Origins, which to me is pretty disappointing.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
And as to complaints that our combat looks flashy or  cheerleadery, please refer to my earlier post. I'm well aware that there are people who preferred the deliberate movements of Origins. I'm also  aware that there are people who found those same movements to be  glacial.

I think there is a middle ground to be had between Origins more deliberate pace and the speed dashing antics in DA2. I just think the really over the top stuff hurts my suspension of disbelief in whats supposed to be a fairly grounded low magic fantasy universe.

I could bring up Arkham Asylum again in terms of solid, grounded, weighty animations that are over the top yet satisfying and feel realistic.... but yeah;)

Modifié par Brockololly, 19 décembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[Revan312]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

And as to complaints that our combat looks flashy or cheerleadery, please refer to my earlier post. I'm well aware that there are people who preferred the deliberate movements of Origins. I'm also aware that there are people who found those same movements to be glacial.

I'm personally not a fan but I can see why you did it, as 300 is still on teenage minds everywhere, even though it was completely unrealistic if not contrived.. Sold like hotcakes though and made a major impact on pop culture, that's for sure.. The anime and manga explosion is also extremely popular still, which the combat moves remind me of that sort of medium, not the artistic style, but the animations.  Ninja Gaiden/Final Fantasy comes to mind..  To me Final Fantasy =I= dark western fantasy, but again, that's not what the market pays for, they pay for over the top bravado..

Modifié par Revan312, 19 décembre 2010 - 01:21 .

[Schneidend]

Hm. Was Aveline hurting all of the paralyzed guys with each swing in the "Pause-and-play" portion? If so, awesome. If not, a couple of them were apparently bleeding for no reason. =P

Modifié par Schneidend, 19 décembre 2010 - 01:23 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Schneidend wrote...

Hm. Was Aveline hurting all of the paralyzed guys with each swing in the "Pause-and-play" portion? If so, awesome. If not, a couple of them were apparently bleeding for now reason. =P

Warriors are capable of performing arc attacks in melee. Two handers can hit roughly three targets even with a basic swing, if the targets are clustered up.

[Piecake]

I personally have a hard time reconciling dark, gritty, down-to-earth fantasy with killing hordes and hordes of enemies while being vastly outnumbered. I guess that is one of the reasons why I dont mind the new over-the-top animations so much, and prefer them to the slow, repetitive ones we got in DAO. I probably would prefer if they were slightly less over-the-top though

[Mike Laidlaw]

Piecake wrote...

I personally have a hard time reconciling dark, gritty, down-to-earth fantasy with killing hordes and hordes of enemies while being vastly outnumbered.

I believe that if we were -really- going to go gritty, we would have to fundamentally re-examine combat from every aspect. The first step would be to cut mages, or to drastically reduce them in effect. So long as we are working in a world where mages can throw fireballs (or at least more than one a week, or something very limiting), there will be SOME element of the world that's over the top.

I think Dragon Age II does a much better job of simply accepting that, and in response it brings parity to the classes. Rogues and warriors receive some degree of over-the-top as well, which I think makes for a stronger visual presentation, and a better feel, because all three classes are consistent.

The other step we could have taken would have been slapping mages with harsher and harsher realism, and I am quite certain that a number of people here would have loved that. I'm also quite certain that you could make an excellent game by doing exactly that, just as I firmly believe that you can make an excellent game by doing what we did.

And no, I do not, and did not expect everyone to embrace the changes. I'm too much of a realist for that, but so far the people who have enjoyed the game after playing it have vastly outstripped the people who have not, which is as good a response as a game designer could ever hope for.

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I think Dragon Age II does a much better job of simply accepting that, and in response it brings parity to the classes. Rogues and warriors receive some degree of over-the-top as well, which I think makes for a stronger visual presentation, and a better feel, because all three classes are consistent.

Personally, i feel making every class over the top like that mostly runs somewhat at odds with the game's settings/lore -- that is, if warriors and rogues are just as over the top as the mages, then it makes the mages in comparison fairly mundane ("when everyone is special then no one is") ,,, and that in turn makes the whole mage persecution that the game makes lot of fuss about less believeable.

I mean, people in the settings freak out over the mages because zomg, fireballs, but then when any warrior or rogue casually flips out bringing as much destruction as any of these supposedly so terrifying mages... well.

So yeah, i guess i'd be rather in the "make the mages special but slap them with special limits, too" (say, some sort of the lyrium addictions mechanics) and keeping rogues/warriors fairly down to earth in comparison.

[Schneidend]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Warriors are capable of performing arc attacks in melee. Two handers can hit roughly three targets even with a basic swing, if the targets are clustered up.

I had heard that, but even one-handers get arc swings? Does each "hit" generate threat/aggro?

[hexaligned]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Piecake wrote...

I personally have a hard time reconciling dark, gritty, down-to-earth fantasy with killing hordes and hordes of enemies while being vastly outnumbered.

I believe that if we were -really- going to go gritty, we would have to fundamentally re-examine combat from every aspect. The first step would be to cut mages, or to drastically reduce them in effect. So long as we are working in a world where mages can throw fireballs (or at least more than one a week, or something very limiting), there will be SOME element of the world that's over the top.

I think Dragon Age II does a much better job of simply accepting that, and in response it brings parity to the classes. Rogues and warriors receive some degree of over-the-top as well, which I think makes for a stronger visual presentation, and a better feel, because all three classes are consistent.

The other step we could have taken would have been slapping mages with harsher and harsher realism, and I am quite certain that a number of people here would have loved that. I'm also quite certain that you could make an excellent game by doing exactly that, just as I firmly believe that you can make an excellent game by doing what we did.

And no, I do not, and did not expect everyone to embrace the changes. I'm too much of a realist for that, but so far the people who have enjoyed the game after playing it have vastly outstripped the people who have not, which is as good a response as a game designer could ever hope for.

Along this same vein, can you say if you guys decided to keep the infinite resource mechanics for DA2?  As in you could craft 100000000000 poultices and mana pot's and never have to worry about running out of either in combat... which I personally found to be silly.

Modifié par relhart, 19 décembre 2010 - 02:09 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Schneidend wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Warriors are capable of performing arc attacks in melee. Two handers can hit roughly three targets even with a basic swing, if the targets are clustered up.

I had heard that, but even one-handers get arc swings? Does each "hit" generate threat/aggro?

Yes, and yes. Though one-handers hit a smaller arc.

[DadeLeviathan]

Honestly the only problem I had with the video, is the actions seemed a bit... rushed like the characters were on speed. Will that be regular speed, cause it seems a bit... fast. Will there will be a choice on how fast the game goes in that respect? I don't want my characters looking like faeries on speed during combat.

[Piecake]

tmp7704 wrote...

Personally, i feel making every class over the top like that mostly runs somewhat at odds with the game's settings/lore -- that is, if warriors and rogues are just as over the top as the mages, then it makes the mages in comparison fairly mundane ("when everyone is special then no one is") ,,, and that in turn makes the whole mage persecution that the game makes lot of fuss about less believeable.

I mean, people in the settings freak out over the mages because zomg, fireballs, but then when any warrior or rogue casually flips out bringing as much destruction as any of these supposedly so terrifying mages... well.

So yeah, i guess i'd be rather in the "make the mages special but slap them with special limits, too" (say, some sort of the lyrium addictions mechanics) and keeping rogues/warriors fairly down to earth in comparison.

I think the key point here is though that you(if you are a melee) and your melee companions are some of the very few or only special melee in Kirkwall.  I think that explains why you are able to defeat hordes and hordes or enemies while being vastly outnumbered.  I mean, if you want to have rogues and warriors normal and mundane, then the grey warden and Allister should have died about half-way into the first tower. 

Personally, I think a game that limited mages, and made rogues/warriors realistic and normal while getting rid of the enemy horde would be pretty interesting(not sure what it would look like or be anything fun though).  But until we eliminate horde enemy gameplay I'll continue to have a disconnect between normal, realistic warriors/rogues and them killing thousands of enemies. 

Modifié par Piecake, 19 décembre 2010 - 02:11 .

[Loc'n'lol]

I'm going to ask again, but is the fight in the tactical part of the video supposed to be significantly harder than the one in the first part ? Cause it didn't seem like there were many more enemies, but the result was pretty much the same in the end.

[tmp7704]

Piecake wrote...

I think the key point here is though that you(if you are a melee) and your melee companions are some of the very few or only special melee in Kirkwall.

I'm not sure if that's actually the case, though -- it'd rather appear the regular NPCs use the same skills and animations Hawke and the companions do. As such, it doesn't really convey the idea Hawke & co are some sort of unique snowflakes in this regard.

This is difficult to say when it comes to rogues because the video shows just warriors and couple archers (and camera doesn't focus on Aveline much making the comparison harder) but we did get some screenshots of the qunari jumping in the air just like Hawke, so, dunno.

I think that explains why you are able to defeat hordes and hordes or enemies while being vastly outnumbered.  I mean, if you want to have rogues and warriors normal and mundane, then the grey warden and Allister should have died about half-way into the first tower. 

Sure, if we overlook that grey warden and Alistair had a mage with them (either the player is mage or you get one mage NPC if your character is melee) plus, wouldn't ability to defeat numerically superior enemies come as result of using better tactics rather than being able to flip out better? The whole "think like general" thing...

[Piecake]

tmp7704 wrote...

Sure, if we overlook that grey warden and Alistair had a mage with them (either the player is mage or you get one mage NPC if your character is melee) plus, wouldn't ability to defeat numerically superior enemies come as result of using better tactics rather than being able to flip out better? The whole "think like general" thing...

No amount of tactics is going make killing thousands of enemies over the game without losing a single companion believable if you are going for a dark, gritty, and down to earth style combat.

I forgot about a mage being in your party.  Though I guess you can switch my example to the Korkari wilds then since I dont think automatically get a mage there. 

Modifié par Piecake, 19 décembre 2010 - 02:37 .

[tmp7704]

Piecake wrote...

No amount of tactics is going make killing thousands of enemies over the game without losing a single companion believable if you are going for a dark, gritty, and down to earth style combat.

As long as they come in groups no larger than ten-dozen, it is quite believable when you also take into account access to the healing which the enemies for whatever reason mostly lack.

Personally, i found the DAO combat quite interesting precisely because if you had the party composed just from rogues and warriors (and refrained from healing pots) and your party would be equipped with gear on level comparable to that of the opponents ... then every encounter which would have you face 2-3x as many enemies actually was tricky to get through, and required decent coordination and tactics which the NPCs would generally lack. It was believable because it did involve some actual effort, and just letting your party try to duke it out without a thought would in fact result in a defeat. As such you could plainly see your tactics make the crucial difference.

If this is removed in favour of making Hawke & co special and elevated to the level of a mage, which would essentially turn it into game with party of 4 mages, just using different animations (and in addition to that giving  the both sides different rules of engagement) then i fear the new game may wind up quite boring in comparison -- slaughtering mooks by dozens when it takes no effort and the game continually reinforces just how much better your characters are ... loses appear very quickly, no matter how outrageously flashy animations accompany that.

Modifié par tmp7704, 19 décembre 2010 - 02:51 .

[Maria Caliban]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I think Dragon Age II does a much better job of simply accepting that, and in response it brings parity to the classes. Rogues and warriors receive some degree of over-the-top as well, which I think makes for a stronger visual presentation, and a better feel, because all three classes are consistent.

Personally, i feel making every class over the top like that mostly runs somewhat at odds with the game's settings/lore -- that is, if warriors and rogues are just as over the top as the mages, then it makes the mages in comparison fairly mundane ("when everyone is special then no one is") ,,, and that in turn makes the whole mage persecution that the game makes lot of fuss about less believeable.

You're always going to have a divide between in-setting reality and gameplay. If you want to go by lore, mages ought to vastly overpower other classes. After all, being hit by a single fireball or lightning bolt should either kill you or immediately incapacitate you.

The only way to make that work would be to have the PC only play a mage. But then you'd have the same 'dynasty warriors' feel as your mage is the walking equivalent of heavy artillery on a dark ages battlefield.

[Piecake]

tmp7704 wrote...

If this is removed in favour of making Hawke & co special and elevated to the level of a mage, which would essentially turn it into game with party of 4 mages, just using different animations (and in addition to that giving  the both sides different rules of engagement) then i fear the new game may wind up quite boring in comparison -- slaughtering mooks by dozens when it takes no effort and the game continually reinforces just how much better your characters are ... loses appear very quickly, no matter how outrageously flashy animations accompany that.

You're assuming that everything else remains the same, which might not be the case.