299 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Lusitanum wrote...

No he wasn't, apart from the ridiculous Power Attack that we kind of turned a blind eye towards because, at the time, the rest of the animations were pretty solid.

Over the top is over the top. Turning a 'blind eye' because it was a brand new animation doesn't justify its inclusion. You don't need a somersault attack to show people new animations.

This is still ignoring all the other aspects. Force wave? You raise your hand in the air and throw every opponent in the room into a wall? Force storm lets you conjure a lightning storm on all your enemies.  Master Force speed which allows your character to move 8 times faster than a normal human being? Force jump in which you move 50 ft in a single jump?

Kotor, awesome as it is, takes everything in Star Wars ands puts it on steroids. It falls well within the category of over the top.

AlexXIV wrote...

Kind of, yes, but that was kind of the whole point in a mystical kung-fu setting. And even then I would call BS if he started kicking fragile flasks of poison toward his enemies.

And fantasy, like the kung fu setting, can be just as over the top. There's no rule saying 'All fantasy must be handled this way'. Not all fantasy has to be 'down to earth'. I can just as easily use your point to say that Jade Empire was simply trying to look 'cool and mature' and failing, which wasn't the case. Despite the stylized combat, Jade Empire was still able to demonstrate a mature story and characters. During the battle with the Emperor, I did not find myself saying "Gee, this is so over the top, I can't take this fight seriously at all".

[SoleSong]

Folks!!... It is a Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame!... not reality... but dots of blood on the whole armor (or not) cald body, was over the top funny... I kept a traight face.

Dont mind bad spelling

Modifié par SoleSong, 16 janvier 2011 - 04:06 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IAmTheVoid wrote...

Why is the ideal Dragon Age for some people is a setting which is lacking in any distinct flavour at all? Is a rogue round-housing a flask into combat really such a bad thing?

What you call flavor, I call purified crap. So yes. A bad thing.

It adds 'zing' (breaking out the technical term here) to what would otherwise be a boring animation, and if there's one thing that's been shouted across from BioWare recently, it's that they want every attack to be awesome, as opposed to DA:O.

Hawke doesn't come off as awesome, he comes off as retarded...kicking flasks..not only is it less accurate than throwing, it's also more dangerous nad showy. In short, Hawke doesn't come off as a profesional, serious warrior.

[RavenStorm]

So don't play as a Rogue or don't kick flasks. Every one can be Happy.

[Il Divo]

Liable****sman wrote...

I'm quite certain you didn't kick flasks either, in DnD, but I see your point here.
Who knows how Baldur's Gate would have looked, if it was developed in 2010? It's impossible to tell.

Indeed. I do hope Bioware never tries to update Baldur's Gate, the old school top down view is part of the charm.

Yes, and all those instances you mention are the exception, rather than the rule.

To attach a few words to the Sacred Ashes trailer (Having just rewatched it) I like most of it. I take issue with the fact that characters can jump 20 feet into the air, however, and both Leliana, Morrigan and Sten(He appears to just jump-attack the dragon at no exceptional height, but at cut-away you can say he started slicing into it scales at quite a considerable height) so I don't think Sacred Ashes is a good example for justifying your point, given that it was in no way a representative of the style within Dragon Age (Which I liked more than I will like what appears to be DA2 system, despite its flaws) and I fail to see the relation, if I can be honest with you.

My point with the Urn of Sacred Ashes combat wasn't that Dragon Age Origin's combat was over the top, it definitely was very down to earth. My point was rather that 'over the top' fantasy is not entirely unheard of and does have a precedent for it. The Urn of Sacred Ashes trailer for example features the types of moves/abilities that I would expect during a game of DnD. (Sten pushing 8 darkspawn off a cliff, Morrigan backflipping while turning into a giant spider, etc). There's nothing wrong with less flashy combat, but the actual flask-kicking move aside I'm not really bothered by backflipping rogues and the like because it is simply an aesthetic choice to portray the rogue as the agile/acrobatic archetype.

Exactly. While you could argue that "It would make for a better movie-going experience", it wouldn't fit into the setting originally planned and written for the characters.

That was all I meant by that. I have read enough Tolkien to know that even what was portrayed in the movies was a fair exaggeration to how is books were written.

Again, given that it wouldn't have fit the setting in which the characters were written, the characters themselves, or the plot (Some plot elements have to with combat, Imoen(Or whatever the kings daughter is named) and the witch-king of the nazgûl to name one. Boromirs death-scene would have to be rewritten, possibly be omitted (would it even have made sense for him to die, if he could do back-flips, and whirlwind attacks?) then again, if all the main characters can do backflips and jump around like wild monkeys - why can't the Uruk-hai, the goblins and the orcs? Etc. etc.

I think this is what it would have to come down to. Let's go back to the example of Hero. We have Jet Li who is able to take on armies singlehandedly, but there do exist other characters as 'over the top' as himself who could realistically kill him. How would that affect Boromir for example? If they went down this road, it probably wouldn't be arrows that killed him if we're allowing 'over the top'. Instead, he'd probably have to be killed by that other Uruk-hai (forget his name) in some other fashion, probably single combat. But I'm starting to see what you mean in terms of how it might affect the setting.

How would Frodo even be trapped by the spider(Whose name escapes me), if he can move in bursts at the speed of light? Why wouldn't Samwise just kill the orcs and rescue Frodo straight-away...

But keep in mind that not every character would need to be portrayed like this. Frodo was never portrayed (to my knowledge) as an effective combat so even with Legolas taking down Mumakils (among other things), some characters can still be 'mortal'.

You see where I'm going with it?

While the grim and realistic(as opposed to fantastic) style in which the combat often pans doesn't necessarily add more realism to the movie, going in the opposite direction would certainly remove it.
Remember the audience are already suspending their disbelief - and if you stretch it too far, it won't work.

I do see what you're saying. What alot of this does come down to is the audience's suspension of disbelief, and I can see it eventually breaking. Perhaps it might not work best Lotr (but then, I thought the films were excellent, so maybe I just couldn't see it changed in any way). On the other hand, I still don't think fantasy as a whole is excluded from taking this direction. I'm just used to the portrayal of the rogue as being the type of character who rolls around, tumbling, jumping, into and out of combat that the new animations don't seem out of place for me.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 janvier 2011 - 04:29 .

[Liablecocksman]

Il Divo wrote...

SNIP

To me, the biggest problem isn't the animations.
You could probably make a case for the rogue actually acting like he is. Like you already done.

In another game, in another setting, I would certainly cheer the animations on, and like what I'd seen so far.

To me, the problem is about the internal consistency of the game.

You cannot make the most of the game grounded, down-to-earth, and display the characters, the setting, the environment in a realistical fashion, and then throw in some extremely "over-the-top" animations.

[Il Divo]

Liable****sman wrote...

To me, the problem is about the internal consistency of the game.

You cannot make the most of the game grounded, down-to-earth, and display the characters, the setting, the environment in a realistical fashion, and then throw in some extremely "over-the-top" animations.

Just to be clear, when you say internal consistency, do you simply mean all of Dragon Age 2's elements being consistent with each other, or do you mean the consistency between DA: O and DA2?

[xX N7 Xx]

I want to play as Chuck Norris, just dont like the blood.

[Liablecocksman]

Il Divo wrote...
Just to be clear, when you say internal consistency, do you simply mean all of Dragon Age 2's elements being consistent with each other, or do you mean the consistency between DA: O and DA2?

Oh, I mean the consistency within the game itself.
While I think there ought to be some consistency between the games too... There are, and that isn't my main complaint. I would have been arguing too, if the animations were equally cheesy in the first game.

[AlanC9]

nollanollakuusix wrote...

I im beginning to have bad feeling about this. Maybe consol owners like it, but we computer nerds....maybe not so much.

Again, we? You, maybe, but I'm as computer nerd as they come and I don't mind this.

[Ziggeh]

Liable****sman wrote...

I would have been arguing too, if the animations were equally cheesy in the first game.

I  would agree they would have been counter to the style presented in Origins, but, and while as I say, I feel they went a little too far for my personal preference, I think they're reasonably indicative of the more stlyised image they're presenting with DA2. I don't see the inconsistency, because they're not exhibiting a realistic setting.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:11 .

[In Exile]

Liable****sman wrote...
You cannot make the most of the game grounded, down-to-earth, and display the characters, the setting, the environment in a realistical fashion, and then throw in some extremely "over-the-top" animations.

Could you explain to me which part of the game is grounded and down to earth - suppose we are talking about DA:O, instead. What exactly was "grounded" and down to earth about non-material demons, monstrous perversions of existing races, every single character in the party, etc.

[Ziggeh]

Monica83 wrote...
Yes those anims don't have any battle sense most of them are really exagerated

I think exaggerated is the point. What's battle sense?

[slimgrin]

The rouges backflipping and playing soccer with flasks is something I could do without, but meh...it is what it is. Sometimes I wonder if Bioware is relying too heavily on focus groups. Rumor is, that's what spawned this monstrosity:

Modifié par slimgrin, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:16 .

[Il Divo]

Liable****sman wrote...

Oh, I mean the consistency within the game itself.
While I think there ought to be some consistency between the games too... There are, and that isn't my main complaint. I would have been arguing too, if the animations were equally cheesy in the first game.

Ok, I see what you're saying now, but I still can't say I agree with it. Everyone here concedes that DA2's combat is non-realistic, but how is Bioware supposed to make every other aspect of the world (the environment, the characters, etc) suitably non-realistic? And how does that benefit the overall experience? Does this mean Bioware can't have forests, mountains, etc, characters that feel 'real'? It just sound somewhat fallacious. Samurai Champloo features very stylized action sequences, but the characters/environments were felt very human/emotional.

My question for you is, what kind of characters/environments/setting would have to accompany this 'over the top' style in order for it to be internally consistent?

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:26 .

[nollanollakuusix]

AlanC9 wrote...

nollanollakuusix wrote...

I im beginning to have bad feeling about this. Maybe consol owners like it, but we computer nerds....maybe not so much.

Again, we? You, maybe, but I'm as computer nerd as they come and I don't mind this.

We should have unity, you know
It just seems to me, that bioware just decided to ditch out old BG fans, and instead recruit more from Console world.

I feel betrayed   I mean "we"

And i pardon for any grammar errors.

[AlanC9]

I'm also an old BG fan, and I don't feel either ditched or betrayed. Just speak for yourself, nollanollakuusix, and leave me out of it.

[Lusitanum]

Saibh wrote...

Sure. I have a book on them. Want me to recite?

I though you were already doing that.

Saibh wrote...

His job is to insult things. This invalidates him. If my job was to praise everything BioWare does without question, you couldn't take me seriously--my job is to like everything. The bad parts I could just gloss over, or spin in a new light, or just lie about how I felt about it.

Same with insulting things. His job is to make people laugh by criticizing every little thing. His criticisms don't "count" because you can't tell where he's being authentic.

Again, they count as much as anything else. If I decided to make a post focusing solely on what sucked about DA:O (like, you know, the boring combat, the derivative story and setting, the fact that I couldn't relate one bit to my mute, expressionless PC that someone once called a "protagonist"), would that make my points any less credible? Just because I didn't thrown in an occasional "but I really liked the personality of the party members" to balance it out? Or if I was well-known for always bashing on the game?

No, it wouldn't. People might disagree with me, but that doesn't mean that I'm not being honest about it. Same thing with Yahtzee or any other critic.

Saibh wrote...

I don't care whether people didn't like the blood splatter. My point is, you tried using Yahtzee to prove a point. When his job is to hate on everything, he ceases being a reputable source as a professional.

Is he a reputable source for making a decision on wheter a game is good or bad? Maybe not, you should always rely on somone that points out the good, the bad and the so-so when you want to know the overall picture of something.

Now, is he a reputable source for pointing out exactly what might be wrong with a game, even if I might disagree with him more often than not? Yes, he is.

Saibh wrote...
Because that sentence incited a two paragraph response, I know you got offended. :happy:

That's a pretty stupid assumpiton to make.

I write a lot. I like to show exactly where I'm coming and be detailed on my reasons why I believe in some things. Maybe if you did that a bit more this conversation would be over and you wouldn't have to keep resorting to the kind of replies a 5-year old would make.

So, was I offended? Not really, I would have to care about your opinion and you would have to insult me a lot more to get to that point. I think "dissapointed on the intelectual level of this discussion" would be more apt. I mean, Liable****sman and Il Divo are over there having such an interssting argument and here I am stuck with you.

Il Divo wrote...

Over the top is over the top. Turning a
'blind eye' because it was a brand new animation doesn't justify its
inclusion. You don't need a somersault attack to show people new
animations.

Maybe, but that was pretty much all you got when it came to excessive flashiness, so we forgave it. Now a whole game filled with that kind of stupid somersaults and whatnot in a setting where it doesn't belong is kind of pushing it.

Il Divo wrote...

This is still
ignoring all the other aspects. Force wave? You raise your hand in the
air and throw every opponent in the room into a wall? Force storm lets
you conjure a lightning storm on all your enemies.  Master Force speed
which allows your character to move 8 times faster than a normal human
being? Force jump in which you move 50 ft in a single jump?

Force Wave and Force Storm are just Force powers and aren't doing anything that wasn't already established in the setting. In the Star Wars universe, you can use the Force to throw people away and can call in Lightning. Your character didn't start twirling his lightsaber around while doing backflips while he used Force Powers he just raised his hand and that was it.

As for Force Jump... yeah, that was also pretty stupid, forgot all about that one. So yes, the animation looked jerky and stupid back then, but it looks even worse when you see Hawke do the same almost a decade later to an enemy that is just 2 meters away.

Il Divo wrote...

Kotor,
awesome as it is, takes everything in Star Wars ands puts it on
steroids. It falls well within the category of over the top.

No it doesn't. Almost everything it does (apart from the aformentioned Power Attack and Force Jump) would have fit nicely into any of the (original) three SW movies.

Now The Force Unleashed, on the other hand, is a prime example of a crappy game trying so hard to be cool that it completely breaks the setting with an incredibly overpowered main character that can destroy whole armies of Stormtroopers, robots, space ships and whatnot with just his "incredible powers" and whole lot of unecessary backflips.

And all of this because the dev team tried so hard to make him look "awesome", so now you have a character that is able to manipulate entire battleships with his mind, send huge Force waves that desintegrate everything in their paths and all this just makes you wonder "why can't Luke, Darth Vader, Sidious or Yoda do anything even remotely like this"? Were they all just Force wimps? I mean, Luke had to try his hardest just to get a small spaceship out of a swamp but Starkiller can pull a freaking Star Destroyer in mid-air and send it crashing to the ground!

Now that is what Star Wars on steroids looks like. And that's what DA2 is being put through right now.

Il Divo wrote...

And
fantasy, like the kung fu setting, can be just as over the top. There's
no rule saying 'All fantasy must be handled this way'. Not all fantasy
has to be 'down to earth'. I can just as easily use your point to say
that Jade Empire was simply trying to look 'cool and mature' and
failing, which wasn't the case. Despite the stylized combat, Jade Empire
was still able to demonstrate a mature story and characters. During the
battle with the Emperor, I did not find myself saying "Gee, this is so
over the top, I can't take this fight seriously at all".

See, you're failling and kind of proving my point at the same time.

First off, Jade Empire got away with the stylized combat because it was a Kung-Fu setting. We are already expecting flips and sommersaults out of something like that, it's par for the course. Oh, and it also didn't have a prequel where combat was so much more realistic and down-to-earth that you'd think they belonged to two completely distinct genres.

And secondly, thanks for backing me up on the whole "mature" thing. Yes, Jade Empire was mature and it did that by giving us a believable setting and characters. It never needed to paint my characters red in blood and gore or keep throwing forced rape and murder in my face to show how "edgy" it was. Basically, it didn't look like it was trying too hard to be mature, it just was on its own merits.

RavenStorm wrote...



So don't play as a Rogue or don't kick flasks. Every one can be Happy.

And then completely block myself from having my favorite class to pick locks, backstab people, sneak around and scout and all that good stuff. That's brilliant, solve a problem by cutting out 1/3 of the available classes. Not to mention that Warriors (at least) are already twirling their weapons around more than I'd recommend during a battle (and Lord knows what else they're going to do with their special abilities). So maybe you're also going to suggest to just play as Mages, right?

Sometimes I wonder if certain people even try to come up with valid opinions instead of just posting random stuff.

[Saibh]

Lusitanum wrote...

I though you were already doing that.

No, because you would have conceded defeat by now. They're just that clever.

Again, they count as much as anything else. If I decided to make a post focusing solely on what sucked about DA:O (like, you know, the boring combat, the derivative story and setting, the fact that I couldn't relate one bit to my mute, expressionless PC that someone once called a "protagonist"), would that make my points any less credible? Just because I didn't thrown in an occasional "but I really liked the personality of the party members" to balance it out? Or if I was well-known for always bashing on the game?

It would make your post less credible if you started out by saying "I'm here to complain about everything to make you laugh". If you were simply listing complaints, fine.

But Yahtzee is paid to complain.

Is he a reputable source for making a decision on wheter a game is good or bad? Maybe not, you should always rely on somone that points out the good, the bad and the so-so when you want to know the overall picture of something.

Now, is he a reputable source for pointing out exactly what might be wrong with a game, even if I might disagree with him more often than not? Yes, he is.

No, he's not. As I've pointed out several times, if you make it your job to complain about things, you can't be taken seriously when you complain. You dislike everything because that's how you make your living. If someone paid me twenty bucks to say I hate peanut butter, does that mean I hate peanut butter? No, but I was paid to insult it, not to objectively critique it. If they paid me to tell them my honest opinion on peanut butter, that's different.

That's a pretty stupid assumpiton to make.

I write a lot. I like to show exactly where I'm coming and be detailed on my reasons why I believe in some things. Maybe if you did that a bit more this conversation would be over and you wouldn't have to keep resorting to the kind of replies a 5-year old would make.

So, was I offended? Not really, I would have to care about your opinion and you would have to insult me a lot more to get to that point. I think "dissapointed on the intelectual level of this discussion" would be more apt. I mean, Liable****sman and Il Divo are over there having such an interssting argument and here I am stuck with you.

Look at that, you wrote even more. I must really be getting to you.

[John Epler]

And this thread has veered off the road of civility and into the swamps of insults and ad hominems.



As such, I'm locking it. If you folks would care to discuss things civilly, feel free to create a new topic. If it returns to what this thread has become by its inglorious end, then I would say 'let it die'.