1012 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Well, considering a majority of the game length for people seems to be combat (especally if you choose not to talk to everyone), that would make it combat quite the focus of the game which explains why they want to spice it up so much.

I think that's a poor standard for determing what the focus of the game is.

That reasoning would suggest that the focus of your life is sleeping.  Sleeping is what your life is all about - the most important things you do in your life will involve sleeping.  Everything else you will ever do is merely ancillary to sleeping.  Indeed, this is true for all humans always, with the possible exception of subsistence farmers.

Is that true?  If not, then your standard for determining the focus of DAO is flawed.

[Wissenschaft]

Didn't say it was the only focus. But to say the opposite is true, that combat is unimportant to Dragon Age is just as incorrect. If your going to spend many many hours in combat then the devs must consider it an important part of the game or they wouldn't have put so much grinding into the game. Therefore, it stands to reason that the devs will want to make that combat as exciting as possible.

Unless your saying that the Devs are not trying to spice up the combat for DA2, I have no idea why you arguing with me. For some combat is unimportant but for many others the gameplay of Dragon Age is a big appeal to the game. The Devs got to take into account as many gameplay styles as possible after all if this game is going to have any freedom of playstyle.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 21 décembre 2010 - 12:46 .

[Graunt]

Clovis- wrote...

Am I the only one who thinks the updated combat looks rather.... silly? I mean, I was one of the quiet majority who thought DA:O had terribly slow combat and could use an overhaul to make it more action oriented. But this combat video just makes DA: 2 look like a Saturday morning cartoon.

Flip kicks, black flips from a well armored individual; and thousands of arrows coming from one crossbow? (Within a matter of seconds) I know the point is not to be realistic, but perhaps this is a taaad overboard? It all just strikes me a bit too much like "SICK BRO!", if that makes sense to anyone. My suspension of disbelief can only go so far, and I just can't imagine the characters from Origins and David Gaider's novels to exist within the DA:2 universe. It honestly feels like DA:2 is the Force Unleashed of the Dragon Age universe, and while I think the the suped up combat of Force Unleashed makes for an interesting game mechanic, it does not lend well to the established Star Wars fiction.

I just hope the combat plays better than it looks; and who knows, maybe it will sell really well and my opinion will be worth jack. If it does not however, I'd go back to the drawing board Bioware, because so far the combat is the least impressive feature of your games. Mass Effect 2 was a step in the right direction though!

This mirrors my post with different words.  If it's fun, great -- but so far I'm nowhere near impressed and it just looks like more of the same boring combat that was in Origins...with just extra pixels, not actual strategy or better AI.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think that's a poor standard for determing what the focus of the game is.

That
reasoning would suggest that the focus of your life is sleeping. 
Sleeping is what your life is all about - the most important things you
do in your life will involve sleeping.  Everything else you will ever do
is merely ancillary to sleeping.  Indeed, this is true for all humans
always, with the possible exception of subsistence farmers.

Is that true?  If not, then your standard for determining the focus of DAO is flawed.

Considering there's nothing new to see after playing the game twice (and the first 30 minutes of each Origin), the only thing that is left is combat, unless you suppose you're magically going to unlock new and exciting dialogue options you've never seen before previously.  There's also a reason classes exist as do spells and abilities.  The game is entirely combat oriented.  

Bioware is on this nasty downward spiral of trying to hybridize every new RPG and it's only worked moderately well so far with Mass Effect.  DA2 looks like it's going to suffer the same fate ME2 did in terms of choice, but even less so and will be even less fun to replay simply because of how the combat is handled.  ME2 is at least still fun even after multiple playthroughs even if you don't choose to watch every cutscene or speech option.  Why?  Because they refined the combat and it's solid on it's own.  Games are about playing them, not watching them.  Too bad party AI has always been an extremely weak point in their games however.

Modifié par Graunt, 21 décembre 2010 - 03:01 .

[Ramus Quaritch]

That was really cool! And keep in mind they are still working on it, so they will continue to tweak and improve the combat animations. So I wouldn't worry too much if some of those animations looked awkward. It looks much better and smoother than Origins. It may be flashy, but it still looks like an rpg to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Graunt wrote...

Considering there's nothing new to see after playing the game twice (and the first 30 minutes of each Origin), the only thing that is left is combat, unless you suppose you're magically going to unlock new and exciting dialogue options you've never seen before previously.  There's also a reason classes exist as do spells and abilities.  The game is entirely combat oriented. 

DAO accommodates a wide range of roleplaying without ever offering what you would call new content.  the very same dialogue option in the very same circumstances can be a very different gameplay experience based on your roleplaying choices (of which the game is unaware).

The combat in DAO serves only to facilitate that roleplaying, which I would call the core of the game.

Just as sleeping serves to facilitate whatever is important in your life.

[AlanC9]

Graunt wrote...
DA2 looks like it's going to suffer the same fate ME2 did in terms of choice, but even less so and will be even less fun to replay simply because of how the combat is handled.

What do you mean there by "choice"?

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO accommodates a wide range of roleplaying without ever offering what you would call new content.  the very same dialogue option in the very same circumstances can be a very different gameplay experience based on your roleplaying choices (of which the game is unaware).

Please, God, don't let In Exile see this post....

[Graunt]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Graunt wrote...

Considering there's nothing new to see after playing the game twice (and the first 30 minutes of each Origin), the only thing that is left is combat, unless you suppose you're magically going to unlock new and exciting dialogue options you've never seen before previously.  There's also a reason classes exist as do spells and abilities.  The game is entirely combat oriented. 

DAO accommodates a wide range of roleplaying without ever offering what you would call new content.  the very same dialogue option in the very same circumstances can be a very different gameplay experience based on your roleplaying choices (of which the game is unaware).

The combat in DAO serves only to facilitate that roleplaying, which I would call the core of the game.

Just as sleeping serves to facilitate whatever is important in your life.

It's great that you really believe this, it's just too bad that 75% - 85% of the game time is spent fighting -- regardless of your belief on the contrary.

AlanC9 wrote...
What do you mean there by "choice"?

Options.  There's a lot less in ME2 than there was in Mass Effect, but the game is generally better overall anyway.  It remains to be seen if DA2 is "streamlined" in a good way, but considering it's a group based game and also considering it's not a pseudo FPS, it still needs to retain much more options than what ME2 gave in the end.

Modifié par Graunt, 21 décembre 2010 - 08:22 .

[upsettingshorts]

Graunt wrote...

It's great that you really believe this, it's just too bad that 75% - 85% of the game time is spent fighting -- regardless of your belief on the contrary.

Well, if you played the game on Easy or Normal and then min-maxed an optimized party with pre-programmed Tactics precisely aimed at thrashing 90% of the mook encounters in the game - I'd say that 75%-85% number drops quite a bit.

I know I did at least one playthrough like that. 

[Graunt]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Graunt wrote...

It's great that you really believe this, it's just too bad that 75% - 85% of the game time is spent fighting -- regardless of your belief on the contrary.

Well, if you played the game on Easy or Normal and then min-maxed an optimized party with pre-programmed Tactics precisely aimed at thrashing 90% of the mook encounters in the game - I'd say that 75%-85% number drops quite a bit.

I know I did at least one playthrough like that. 

Tactics never "thrash" encounters, no matter how well you set them up.  Your party should be focus firing, but half of the time aren't, so you have to either manually control them or just let them run amok hitting whatever target they want -- which is good enough for Easy and Normal really.  I haven't played on anything less than Nightmare after my very first playthrough though.  Maybe if you watch the same cutscense over and over and over and over again that you should have already memorized the first five times you've seen them your non combat time is extended too.

[upsettingshorts]

Graunt wrote...

Tactics never "thrash" encounters, no matter how well you set them up.

I guess it depends on one's definition of thrash.  I mean kill them quickly witout much effort.

Graunt wrote...

Your party should be focus firing

Mooks die too quickly on Easy or Normal for this to matter.

I always switched to pause and play for boss fights, for reasons you can probably imagine. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 décembre 2010 - 08:29 .

[Dave of Canada]

Silly question about the combat, will blue circle NPCs die if I use any AOE around them?



Imagine my surprise when my mage killed everybody in the defense of Redcliffe.

[Bryy_Miller]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silly question about the combat, will blue circle NPCs die if I use any AOE around them?

Imagine my surprise when my mage killed everybody in the defense of Redcliffe.

I just looted the corpses. More money for me. Yay selective metagaming!

[MutantSpleen]

Not liking all the area effect attacks from archery. Seems way too unrealistic taking out several enemies with one super volley from one archer. Stealthed while in combat? No friendly fire either? Seems less tactical and more action oriented. Seems like they started incorporating these over the top powers in Awakening and are continuing in that direction.

[The Masked Rog]

MutantSpleen wrote...

Not liking all the area effect attacks from archery. Seems way too unrealistic taking out several enemies with one super volley from one archer. Stealthed while in combat? No friendly fire either? Seems less tactical and more action oriented. Seems like they started incorporating these over the top powers in Awakening and are continuing in that direction.

Some of us like over the top abilities. I for one thought that the volley of arrows was just incredibly badass. The animations look really cool and over the top now, which helps. And I still don't understand how giving rogues the chance to stealth during combat and have AoE (there were archery AoEs in vanilla DA:O) decreases the tactical experience. It increases it.

[MutantSpleen]

I really hated the way the combat began to go way over the top in Awakenings, it made everything too easy and blew my suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately this seems to be following that trend.



As far as stealth in combat, there is nothing tactical about being invisible while you shoot a hundred arrows in mere seconds. Tactical would be using stealth before you attack to maneuver into a position to snipe the leader.

[The Masked Rog]

MutantSpleen wrote...

I really hated the way the combat began to go way over the top in Awakenings, it made everything too easy and blew my suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately this seems to be following that trend.

As far as stealth in combat, there is nothing tactical about being invisible while you shoot a hundred arrows in mere seconds. Tactical would be using stealth before you attack to maneuver into a position to snipe the leader.

What you described first seems as tactical as the second. Use stealth to get in position and the use an AoE ability to weaken the mobs, conveniently imobilized by a stun attack, while you then snipe the backrow archers. How is this less tactical than approaching the leader from stealth and sniping him. And how are you sure it won't be possible to do that in DA2?

[MutantSpleen]

In truth its all tactical because your using the tools you have available to achieve an outcome. My real problem is the tools have reached a level that exceeds my willing suspension of disbelief.

[The Masked Rog]

I for one think that the more over-the-top it is, the better. It makes it much more cool to watch.

[Graunt]

The Masked Rog wrote...

MutantSpleen wrote...

Not liking all the area effect attacks from archery. Seems way too unrealistic taking out several enemies with one super volley from one archer. Stealthed while in combat? No friendly fire either? Seems less tactical and more action oriented. Seems like they started incorporating these over the top powers in Awakening and are continuing in that direction.

Some of us like over the top abilities. I for one thought that the volley of arrows was just incredibly badass. The animations look really cool and over the top now, which helps. And I still don't understand how giving rogues the chance to stealth during combat and have AoE (there were archery AoEs in vanilla DA:O) decreases the tactical experience. It increases it.

I really think it comes down to a matter of what style of RPG someone really wants to be playing.  Take fighting games for instance; Street Fighter 4 vs Marvel vs Capcom 3 (Youtube them if you don't know what they are).  Both are fighting games, both are developed from Capcom, but both are very different from one another in terms of style and gameplay.  Personally I like both, but not everyone does.

Also, like I said previously, Dragon Age was never about tactics.  Or at least, it was never about anything deep like a real tactical game.  The only reason it appeared to be "tactical" is because of the horrible AI forcing you to maneuver everything they did.

1. Room full of clustered enemies you want to kill?
If Mage then hold party, proceed to double AE the room to death.
If Melee focused group, proceed to whirlwind/Flurry the room to death.

2. Room full of mixed units with a lot of Archers?  Simply line of sight around a corner to make them all single file out and die.

3. Enemy Emissary or Mage?  Proceed to Mana Clash/Prison/Force Field then mop up.

4. Is it a boss?  Send the tank in, then stack debuffs and go to town repeating the same attacks over and over again while healing.

That's as "tactical" as the game gets.  Rogue scouting is another element, but that's more pre-battle than anything else.  There are more "options" than that, but nothing as efficient and a lot of spells and abilities are so situationally useful that it's almost never worth taking them.

Modifié par Graunt, 21 décembre 2010 - 02:56 .

[Warheadz]

My question isn't exactly about the video, but here goes:

Does anyone have any idea will I be able to play the trailer Hawke? Not the looks, but the combat style? Big spear/staff, mixing close quarter warrior combat with fancy magic?

Or is that a sacred ashes-style exaggeration?

[Snoteye]

It is less Sacred Ashes-style exaggeration than Sacred Ashes was, but the precise extent to which you can remake trailer-Hawke is unknown. Several of the movements have appeared in gameplay footage, however.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Graunt wrote...

75% - 85% of the game time is spent fighting 

This is absolutely true.

It's also unrelated to the issue of what the focus of the game is.

[AlanC9]

Graunt wrote...
Options.  There's a lot less in ME2 than there was in Mass Effect, but the game is generally better overall anyway.  It remains to be seen if DA2 is "streamlined" in a good way, but considering it's a group based game and also considering it's not a pseudo FPS, it still needs to retain much more options than what ME2 gave in the end.

I don't really see that, but I'm not sure the DA2 board needs any more discussion of ME2 either.

[Wulfram]

MutantSpleen wrote...

Not liking all the area effect attacks from archery. Seems way too unrealistic taking out several enemies with one super volley from one archer

I don't think they'll have many effects like that, since rogues' thing is supposed to be single target DPS

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 décembre 2010 - 08:57 .