1012 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

I don't think that's the only way -- it's the only way if you approach it with the view that no one would possibly ever want to play a "mundane" class if they could instead be an all-powerful mage.

But this view isn't universal, with the alternative being some people may want to play less powerful class precisely because it's not as powerful. It's like having secondary difficulty slider in a way, which allows to finetune the game experience closer to what you personally prefer.

[tmp7704]

Piecake wrote...

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

That's true, it's based on the info we were given so far. It's possible they've given the enemies far larger hp polls to counter that, which would explain these huge damage numbers we see in the skill descriptions.

In any case, the gameplay video we were shown demonstrates it's possible in DA2 to decimate decently sized group of foes with no healing needed, and using barely any tactics. With the rogue effectively tanking, no less. It'd be interesting to know what difficulty level was used for it.

Modifié par tmp7704, 19 décembre 2010 - 03:01 .

[Crimson Invictus]

tmp7704 wrote...
But this view isn't universal, with the alternative being some people may want to play less powerful class precisely because it's not as powerful. It's like having secondary difficulty slider in a way, which allows to finetune the game experience closer to what you personally prefer.

That. at the least, assumes people don't have a favoured class. Some people enjoy playing as a mage and no others, for some it is a warrior. For those who don't favour mages they are forced into choosing a more difficult game.

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 19 décembre 2010 - 03:01 .

[Piecake]

tmp7704 wrote...

Piecake wrote...

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

That's true, it's based on the info we were given so far. It's possible they've given the enemies far larger hp polls to counter that, which would explain these huge damage numbers we see in the skill descriptions.

In any case, the gameplay video we were shown demonstrates it's possible in DA2 to decimate decently sized group of foes with no healing needed, and using barely any tactics. It'd be interesting to know what difficulty level was used for it.

Or simply better AI

[Revan312]

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.

Game "casualty" mechanics aside, tactics make all the difference in scenarios.. Alexander the Great outnumbered by the Persians, Genghis Khan outnumbered by the Chinese, the Roman empire outnumbered by Gauls, Sun Tzu's command of the Wu, Napoleon's defeat of the Mamelukes etc etc

Tactical ability and formal training and discipline are far more important than numbers.. Technology too, but still, discipline and strategy are the real jewels to a good force or group of combat oriented individuals.

Modifié par Revan312, 19 décembre 2010 - 03:10 .

[tmp7704]

Piecake wrote...

Or simply better AI

Better AI on whose part? If you mean the enemies, there didn't seem to be any display of that, and the way they got slaughtered would indicate it's not the case.

If you mean better AI for Hawke & co, this would only further tip the scales in the player's favour.

If you mean better AI on both sides, this would effectively meant maintaining the balance as it is, i.e.in the player's favour.

[tmp7704]

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

That. at the least, assumes people don't have a favoured class. Some people enjoy playing as a mage and no others, for some it is a warrior. For those who don't favour mages they are forced into choosing a more difficult game.

That's true.

[Maria Caliban]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

I don't think that's the only way -- it's the only way if you approach it with the view that no one would possibly ever want to play a "mundane" class if they could instead be an all-powerful mage.

But this view isn't universal, with the alternative being some people may want to play less powerful class precisely because it's not as powerful. It's like having secondary difficulty slider in a way, which allows to finetune the game experience closer to what you personally prefer.

Okay. And when someone playing a warrior PC meets a mage NPC and dies as soon as they get hit by a fireball, they'll think it's wonderful?

When people say "I have no problem playing a mundane class," they usually think they'll play Batman in a Justice League game. But in this setting, they'd be playing Aunt Mae.

[Ashbery]

The combat speed is a real immersion killer.It needs to be slowed down as it looks like someone pressed fast forward.

[Crimson Invictus]

Revan312 wrote...
Game "casualty" mechanics aside, tactics make all the difference in scenarios.. Alexander the Great outnumbered by the Persians, Genghis Khan outnumbered by the Chinese, the Roman empire outnumbered by Gauls, Sun Tzu's command of the Wu, Napoleon outnumbered by the Mamelukes etc etc

Tactical ability and formal training and discipline are far more important than numbers.. Technology too, but still, discipline and strategy are the real jewels to a good force or group of combat oriented individuals.

That is a strange argument, are you suggesting no one died? Regardless of how good you are eventually the odds are going to catch up with you.

The way to live a long life in DA would be to avoid every fight you can.

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 19 décembre 2010 - 03:10 .

[Piecake]

Revan312 wrote...

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.

Game "casualty" mechanics aside, tactics make all the difference in scenarios.. Alexander the Great outnumbered by the Persians, Genghis Khan outnumbered by the Chinese, the Roman empire outnumbered by Gauls, Sun Tzu's command of the Wu, Napoleon outnumbered by the Mamelukes etc etc

Tactical ability and formal training and discipline are far more important than numbers.. Technology too, but still, discipline and strategy are the real jewels to a good force or group of combat oriented individuals.

I never said tactics werent important, I think its just absurd to claim that tactics will make 4 dark, gritty, down to earth warriors taking down thousands of enemies believable.  If you think so, then good luck going 4 on a thousand.  Im sure that will work great for you.  And no, I am not talking about each individual battle(since hey, that can be believable even if you are out-numbered), but the culmulative effect of all of those many battles put together.

[Piecake]

tmp7704 wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Or simply better AI

Better AI on whose part? If you mean the enemies, there didn't seem to be any display of that, and the way they got slaughtered would indicate it's not the case.

If you mean better AI for Hawke & co, this would only further tip the scales in the player's favour.

If you mean better AI on both sides, this would effectively meant maintaining the balance as it is, i.e.in the player's favour.

I meant better enemy A.I.

Your third claim is way too simpllistic.  You can't know the effects of improved A.I. on both sides until you play the game

Plus, i think if you were continuously issuing orders, companion A.I would matter less than improved enemy A.I

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Okay. And when someone playing a warrior PC meets a mage NPC and dies as soon as they get hit by a fireball, they'll think it's wonderful?

I think they'd perhaps think that mages are indeed as powerful as the game makes them seem, and it'd drive the point home it's crucial to take these cloth guys out as soon as one can. Preferably with anti-mage equipment -- like arrows which interrupt the spell casting, the templar abilities, potions which increase resistance to fire damage, anti-mage poisons etc. Essentially, tactics. Something that's supposed to be at the heart of this game?

[Revan312]

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

That is a strange argument, are
you suggesting no one died? Regardless of how good you are eventually
the odds are going to catch up with you.

The way to live a long life in DA would be to avoid every fight you can.

I wasn't arguing game mechanics, I was arguing that tactics trumps troop numbers, bottom line in almost every situation.

And yes, people died on both sides in those battles, many more on one side though. For instance, Alexander the Great never lost a battle during eleven years of fighting against mostly numerically superior forces.  Many of those he rode into the fray himself and never perished from combat injuries.

If DA was to go "realistic" then it wouldn't be such a stretch to have a small group of people take on around half again as many enemies in various fights, just not 35 against 4.  We're talking small engagements here where one can follow the flow of combat easier than 10,000 men battles, so I don't think having less horde like fights is a bad thing and it would actually make the individual engagements that much more meaningful if you are in danger from a handful of bandits..

In my opinion, having the combat as personal and deliberate as it can get is a good thing, jumping off willy nilly backstabbing and ninja porting around seems so far out of the realm of western fantasy it's a bit jarring to me.

[Cazlee]

Hawke had very low health after the "tactical" demonstration... why drag out the fight to be 5-10x longer when the results are the same?

[Maria Caliban]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Okay. And when someone playing a warrior PC meets a mage NPC and dies as soon as they get hit by a fireball, they'll think it's wonderful?

I think they'd perhaps think that mages are indeed as powerful as the game makes them seem, and it'd drive the point home it's crucial to take these cloth guys out as soon as one can. Preferably with anti-mage equipment -- like arrows which interrupt the spell casting, the templar abilities, potions which increase resistance to fire damage, anti-mage poisons etc. Essentially, tactics. Something that's supposed to be at the heart of this game?

Okay, so in this gritty, lore-based world, warriors will be loaded down with magical equipment and abilities.

Magical salves, magical healing potions, magical abilities. The end result is gameplay that doesn't reflect the lore and in which warrior take levels of physical damage that would easily kill a normal person.

There are games where you can die in a single sword blow, monster swipe, or magical blast. These are not games where you battle through hordes of creatures. If you want that sort of game, you have to introduce a wide range of unrealistic combat mechanics.

[In Exile]

Revan312 wrote...
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..

Could you let go of the condescension? Liking a particular artstyle or cinematic style does not say anything about you at all, other than the fact that you like a particular artstyle.

Personally, I have a horrid distain for the plodding realism of Western fantasy and am very excited for DA:O for introducing the kind of visual flair I like with the kind of gameplay/story/interface I like.

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 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

All three are independent, and I don't recall Dragon Age ever advertising itself as down to earth fantasy. Gritty and dark, to be sure, but not down-to-earth. How can it possibly be down to earth with magic and gods and demons?

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 issue with this is that people look at gameplay as indicative of the real world of the game instead of the filler for the player. I can't understand this mindset, but I started with JRPGs and not PnP. With a RPG, your combat system is entirely divorced from the actual reality of the game.

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

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.

No. The tactical part is supposed to be the same scene doen a different way. Weird for me, though, since they paused and then ordered everyone. Whereas I pause, order one character, pause, order one character, etc.

tmp7704 wrote...

I don't think that's the only way -- it's
the only way if you approach it with the view that no one would
possibly ever want to play a "mundane" class if they could instead be an
all-powerful mage.

But this view isn't universal, with the
alternative being some people may want to play less powerful class
precisely because it's not as powerful. It's like having secondary
difficulty slider in a way, which allows to finetune the game experience
closer to what you personally prefer.

The problem is that here gameplay gets in the way of RP. I power-game, but that's because that's fun for me. But I also have my RP preferences, and these tend to be oriented toward magic. I always play mages and use magic, even in settings where they are underpowered.

To an extent, gameplay has to ensure that it's always fun with every composition, and it can't be independent in that way.

With warriors, I just hate the aesthetic of faux realistic melee. Real combat is nothing like in DA:O. Having "realistic" (or at least unrealistic realistic ) combat like in DA:O is just aggravating when you have an HP mechanis and you basically have two dudes with swords or arrows repeteadly hit each other until one falls down.

If we cut HP mechanics and actually had the mechanism represent the lethality of fighting with a sword, that would be one thing. But we don't have that. So I prefer the over-the-top animation because it looks cool, and the entire setting with HP is absurd anyway.

tmp7704 wrote...
I think they'd perhaps think that mages are
indeed as powerful as the game makes them seem, and it'd drive the point
home it's crucial to take these cloth guys out as soon as one can.
Preferably with anti-mage equipment -- like arrows which interrupt the
spell casting, the templar abilities, potions which increase resistance
to fire damage, anti-mage poisons etc. Essentially, tactics. Something
that's supposed to be at the heart of this game?

As long as you have HP, this is all still absurdly unrealistic. A single fireball would murder an entire squad right away. In reverse, a warrior could kill a mage in a single shot with arrows or swords. But we have magical abilities like arcane shield/rock skin (or whatever that was called) that could make a mage literally invincible.

When you introduce reality breaking BS in the form of magic, allowing warriors any chance to survive (or making the equal to mages) is just a matter of where you put down your BS standard.

[In Exile]

Revan312 wrote...
And yes, people died on both sides in those battles, many more on one side though. For instance, Alexander the Great never lost a battle during eleven years of fighting against mostly numerically superior forces.  Many of those he rode into the fray himself and never perished from combat injuries.

Alex the Great got an arrow through his lung late in life, which nearly killed him. He also fought on horseback with a personal bodyguard unit. Fighting on horseback against ground-based troops was like being an overpowered mage in DA:O with magical equipment.

Having smaller numbers win is possible, but when you have small groups in ambuses, especially with magic, the entire thing borders on the absurd. One fireball would kill your party.

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Okay, so in this gritty, lore-based world, warriors will be loaded down with magical equipment and abilities.

Regular warriors no, i don't think so. It's not like they frequently get to fight against mages after all.

A player & co on the other hand, i'm not sure why it'd be weird for them to take such precautions -- the ability to better withstand the fire is just as useful against dragons and rage demons, both of these being part of the setting just as the mages are. And if nothing else, in DAO you get a free templar to assist you, for example. So an anti-mage specialist if there's ever one.

Magical salves, magical healing potions, magical abilities. The end result is gameplay that doesn't reflect the lore and in which warrior take levels of physical damage that would easily kill a normal person.

In what way exactly don't these things reflect the lore?

It's the same lore that has a pinch of ashes of dead woman imbued with power to instantly cure all ailments. The same lore which does in fact include existence of magical healing and protection. Yes, all this magical healing does result in people being able to take far more damage than a person lacking such healing would be able to take, but it is a natural consequence of how the settings are shaped and what they include. Not something that doesn't reflect the lore, imo.

[tdawg7669]

BTW the raining fireball spell looks awesome.

[Piecake]

In Exile 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 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

All three are independent, and I don't recall Dragon Age ever advertising itself as down to earth fantasy. Gritty and dark, to be sure, but not down-to-earth. How can it possibly be down to earth with magic and gods and demons? 

We agree, I was just responding to the above posters that said DAO was(well, maybe not all or in so many words) and that that is what they want DA2 to be.  I guess i should have quoted a poster to make it more clear though

Modifié par Piecake, 19 décembre 2010 - 04:44 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

With warriors, I just hate the aesthetic of faux realistic melee. Real combat is nothing like in DA:O. Having "realistic" (or at least unrealistic realistic ) combat like in DA:O is just aggravating when you have an HP mechanis and you basically have two dudes with swords or arrows repeteadly hit each other until one falls down.

This is mostly an animation issue -- i suppose you'd find it less aggravating if these guys were just parrying or dodging each other's blows instead, until one of them couldn't carry on anymore or got otherwise bested? Which, as far as mechanics go, is very much identical; you just have the label on HP poll replaced with "endurance".

As long as you have HP, this is all still absurdly unrealistic.

But i'm not talking of realism here, but rather about the game staying consistant with its own settings. What's realistic about mages being absurdly powerful and being able to fling fireballs because they want to? Nothing. But it's what they're supposed to be like. So i'd like them to actually be like that, instead of being a speed bump for the player's team just like any other warrior or rogue you encounter. Heck, Ser Cauthrien makes far more impact on people than any mage. Maybe they should've locked her up in the tower, instead.

A single fireball would murder an entire squad right away. In reverse, a warrior could kill a mage in a single shot with arrows or swords. But we have magical abilities like arcane shield/rock skin (or whatever that was called) that could make a mage literally invincible.

And so it makes sense why there's actual warrior specialization focused on countering and taking out mages... of course, the implementation of that specialization may leave quite a bit to be desired.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Okay. And when someone playing a warrior PC meets a mage NPC and dies as soon as they get hit by a fireball, they'll think it's wonderful?

I think they'd perhaps think that mages are indeed as powerful as the game makes them seem, and it'd drive the point home it's crucial to take these cloth guys out as soon as one can. Preferably with anti-mage equipment -- like arrows which interrupt the spell casting, the templar abilities, potions which increase resistance to fire damage, anti-mage poisons etc. Essentially, tactics. Something that's supposed to be at the heart of this game?

*gasp* you mean actually using tactics and intelligent choices to win battles in the game rather than just click click mindless click? How dare you suggest that TMP! :happy:

[Mind-Locust]

After seeing the combat video, I start to understand the motto Bioware uses for this game, "you click a button and something awesome happens." The combat does have more flare to them than Origin. I'm also curious on whether all of your companions, including Hawke, use the same moves if they are in the same class? I hated this in Origins. At some point, all the character did the same thing (with the exception of Shale), it just didn't show character. There was only so many combinations I could go with.

In this game, I hope there's more personalized abilities for each of the characters, especially Hawke. He/she is the hero for a reason. If all he/she can pull off is the same thing the rest of the characters can do, then it kind of losses the point.

Modifié par Mind-Locust, 19 décembre 2010 - 04:58 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
This is mostly an animation issue -- i suppose you'd find it less aggravating if these guys were just parrying or dodging each other's blows instead, until one of them couldn't carry on anymore or got otherwise bested? Which, as far as mechanics go, is very much identical; you just have the label on HP poll replaced with "endurance".

I should have used a stronger word. I mean, gamebreaking. Entirely gamebreaking.

But i'm not talking of realism here, but rather about the game staying consistant with its own settings. What's realistic about mages being absurdly powerful and being able to fling fireballs because they want to? Nothing. But it's what they're supposed to be like. So i'd like them to actually be like that, instead of being a speed bump for the player's team just like any other warrior or rogue you encounter. Heck, Ser Cauthrien makes far more impact on people than any mage. Maybe they should've locked her up in the tower, instead.

Mages aren't locked up because of the power of magic. They're locked up out of i) fear of demonic posession and ii) fear of what allegedly happened with Tevinter and the blight, and iii) bloodmagic. That's the reason for the tower. And you heard some of the mages talk about how the tower protects them from the rest of the people as much as it protects the people from them.

It isn't the power difference between them and warriors so much as it is certain reality altering abilities of magic, at least lore-wise.

And so it makes sense why there's actual warrior specialization focused on countering and taking out mages... of course, the implementation of that specialization may leave quite a bit to be desired.

Certainly, but what I meant at least gameplay wise is that a mage can already be effectively countered by a warrior through inventory, just by wearing the right stat-boosting gear (even without spell resistance).