299 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Da_Lion_Man wrote...
And the characters were rather down to earth, sure some had their quirks but that's about it.

However Dragon Age 2 as a whole strikes me as over the top.

Shale was down to earth? (and not in a literal sense)

How did you feel about the DA:O characters from the preview trailers alone, that would be a far better (read: valid) comparison.

[coolide]

I find the flashiness gives the combat some flare, like in gun fu movies like The Matrix and Face/Off. Aint nothing wrong with that.

[Liablecocksman]

coolide wrote...

I find the flashiness gives the combat some flare, like in gun fu movies like The Matrix and Face/Off. Aint nothing wrong with that.

That's pretty silly.

Ask yourself instead, when drawing comparisons to movies: How would the "flashiness" look say, in the universe of Tolkien (Lord of the Rings), or maybe in a movie such a Eragon?

I agree with you, that ninja-like, flashy moves look cool in a movie such as the Matrix... But try imagining Aragon doing those moves. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[Il Divo]

Liable****sman wrote...

coolide wrote...

I find the flashiness gives the combat some flare, like in gun fu movies like The Matrix and Face/Off. Aint nothing wrong with that.

That's pretty silly.

Ask yourself instead, when drawing comparisons to movies: How would the "flashiness" look say, in the universe of Tolkien (Lord of the Rings), or maybe in a movie such a Eragon?

I agree with you, that ninja-like, flashy moves look cool in a movie such as the Matrix... But try imagining Aragon doing those moves. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

You mean like Legolas taking down the giant elephant singlehandedly, using a shield like a skateboard during the battle of Helmsdeep, and Aragorn leaping off a tower on a ladder into a crowd of enemies? That kind of over the top?  

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 janvier 2011 - 04:53 .

[Liablecocksman]

Il Divo wrote...
You mean like Legolas taking down the giant elephant singlehandedly, using a shield like a skateboard during the battle of Helmsdeep, and Aragorn leaping off a tower on a ladder into a crowd of enemies? That kind of over the top?  

Yes. That kind of over-the-top.
Lord of the Rings got away with it, because it happens relatively (relative to the amount of more "normal" looking combat movement) few times. Very few times.

That being said, I thought both aforementioned cases of "over-the-top" looked ridiculous. I am, however, not speaking of (my) personal taste, but rather asking a question.
You may answer it too:
What you think if the over-the-top combat was the norm, rather than the rare exception, of combat in a movie such a Lord of the Rings?

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 15 janvier 2011 - 04:57 .

[TheMadCat]

Il Divo wrote...
You mean like Legolas taking down the giant elephant singlehandedly, using a shield like a skateboard during the battle of Helmsdeep, and Aragorn leaping off a tower on a ladder into a crowd of enemies? That kind of over the top?  

You are aware how much flak Peter Jackson took for that scene by the purists right? Kind of like what you're seeing here.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 15 janvier 2011 - 05:00 .

[Gavinthelocust]

I like it better when it's on the stylish cliff of the uncanny valley, very willing to give up realism as long as it's fun.

[Il Divo]

You may answer it too:
What you think if the over-the-top combat was the norm, rather than the rare exception, of combat in a movie such a Lord of the Rings?

Honestly, it probably wouldn't have changed my perception all that much. Say for example if the action scenes had been more in the style of Troy (which is probably even worse in terms of unrealistic combat mechanisms). It's a style issue, one which even your typical fantasy archetype such as DnD involves. Rogues backflipping into and out of combat, archers hitting giant monsters right between the eyes every shot, fighters dual wielding long swords like they're paper, etc.

I think one poster earlier used the phrase that it is impossible for combat to be both "stylish" and "realistic" and I think that does apply here. People often mistake what "seems" realistic for actually being realistic. Even if something is not shown as 'flashy' it is not necessarily realistic. Combat for example is rarely so fluid as portrayed in Lord of the Rings. I will say that 'flask kicking' is itself unnecessary, but the overall style as portrayed by Dragon Age 2 is nothing outside of a typical video game, even a Bioware game.  

[Ziggeh]

Liable****sman wrote...
You may answer it too:
What you think if the over-the-top combat was the norm, rather than the rare exception, of combat in a movie such a Lord of the Rings?

Generally in film, when combat is stylised the movie is largely built around it. The story will be generated to create combat set pieces, rather than combat being an element of the story.

Now, games operate differently and so a direct comparison isn't going to hold a good deal of weight, but I suppose the argument could be made that the combat in a combat driven game is more likely to be stylised.

[Liablecocksman]

Il Divo wrote...
Honestly, it probably wouldn't have changed my perception all that much. Say for example if the action scenes had been more in the style of Troy (which is probably even worse in terms of unrealistic combat mechanisms). It's a style issue, one which even your typical fantasy archetype such as DnD involves. Rogues backflipping into and out of combat, archers hitting giant monsters right between the eyes every shot, fighters dual wielding long swords like they're paper, etc.

I don't think Troy-like combat movement would have fit the Lord of the Rings at all.
And how does DnD factor into this?
I am asking about what makes sense in what setting, and what does not.

I think one poster earlier used the phrase that it is impossible for combat to be both "stylish" and "realistic" and I think that does apply here. People often mistake what "seems" realistic for actually being realistic. Even if something is not shown as 'flashy' it is not necessarily realistic. Combat for example is rarely so fluid as portrayed in Lord of the Rings. I will say that 'flask kicking' is itself unnecessary, but the overall style as portrayed by Dragon Age 2 is nothing outside of a typical video game, even a Bioware game.  

Okay then, did you see me disagreeing with whater post you're talking about? No? Well, that because I'm not.
I asked myself, if you read my original post in this thread (one page ago, I imagine) why Bioware hadn't just found some middle ground (between "Stiff and uninspired" and "Over-the-top ninja-like moves").

I'm not "People" as you describe them in your point, which is why it is entirely nonsensical to bring such up. You are arguing with me, not another guy who thinks "Stylish" and "Realistic" blends without worry. I never said Lord of the Rings is entirely realistic, I just asked if a flask-kicked approach to combat mechanics would benefit the movie, or if it would be out of place.

You replied that you thought another, less over-the-top movies approach would have been better (Troy). While I do not agree with that, I can easily see where you're going. You are not answering the question though:

Would flask-kicked make sense in Lord of the Rings?

[Liablecocksman]

Ziggeh wrote...
Generally in film, when combat is stylised the movie is largely built around it. The story will be generated to create combat set pieces, rather than combat being an element of the story.

Now, games operate differently and so a direct comparison isn't going to hold a good deal of weight, but I suppose the argument could be made that the combat in a combat driven game is more likely to be stylised.

While I would have made a similar point, I (most likely) wouldn't have phrased it as well.
Thank you, my eloquent friend.

Yes, Lord of the Rings is a story-driven movie, and as such the story takes centre-stage. The setting, surroundings and feel of the story are essential to establishing the characters and their journey. If the combat disrupts any of these elements, the combat itself feels out of place.

Had it been a kun-fu movie, the story would take the back-seat to the ass-kicking action.

Dragon Age is a story-driven game, and as such, the combat ought to take the backseat - it appears, however that is does not. It is somewhat justified in the description of this an "Action RPG", rather than a normal, standalone "RPG" - but I do not think it fits the setting at all, regardless.

[Il Divo]

Liable****sman wrote...

I don't think Troy-like combat movement would have fit the Lord of the Rings at all.
And how does DnD factor into this?
I am asking about what makes sense in what setting, and what does not.

Dnd is one of the prime 'fantasy settings'. Swords and sorcery, knights, rogues, etc. Dragon Age 2 is a fantasy setting. DnD for example has never wielded 'realism' as a defense. Most things you do in DnD are over the top, and it's something that's usually accepted as part of the experience. Hence, I don't find 'flask kicking' or rogues doing backflips non-sensical with regards to the setting in an RPG fantasy video game.

Okay then, did you see me disagreeing with whater post you're talking about? No? Well, that because I'm not.
I asked myself, if you read my original post in this thread (one page ago, I imagine) why Bioware hadn't just found some middle ground (between "Stiff and uninspired" and "Over-the-top ninja-like moves").

In your post I replied to you commented how wanting flashier animations was 'silly' and that it wouldn't work in LOTR. I'm saying I think it would have worked and would not have really changed my perception of the series.

You replied that you thought another, less over-the-top movies approach would have been better (Troy). While I do not agree with that, I can easily see where you're going. You are not answering the question though:

Would flask-kicked make sense in Lord of the Rings?

You misread my post then. My point was that Troy does feature more 'over the top' style combat than even LOTR. Just watch the sequence where Brad Pitt storms the beach of Troy. The man cuts an arrow in half mid air.  My point is that if LOTR featured even more combat sequences in this style I would not have blinked twice. I would have said 'it's a style thing' and moved on.  

[pizoxuat]

Well, my favorite tabletop role playing game is Exalted, so I'm a big fan of mixing eastern and western themes and then driving all of it over the top. There is a disconnect in what we saw from DAO and what we see currently from DA2, but taking DA2's style on its own, without the context of the previous game, I rather like it. I suspect that after a few hours playing it, I'll forget all about the disconnect and just have fun.

[Liablecocksman]

Il Divo wrote...

Dnd is one of the prime 'fantasy settings'. Swords and sorcery, knights, rogues, etc. Dragon Age 2 is a fantasy setting. DnD for example has never wielded 'realism' as a defense. Most things you do in DnD are over the top, and it's something that's usually accepted as part of the experience. Hence, I don't find 'flask kicking' or rogues doing backflips non-sensical with regards to the setting in an RPG fantasy video game.

Indeed, but now we are talking movies and not games.
Still, DnD was developed from a non-visual standpoint, and a lot of flair was added to each class to make is distinct from the next.

Take Baldurs Gate as an example of how to make the combat look like DnD, without turning it into some crazy over-the-top moves.

In your post I replied to you commented how wanting flashier animations was 'silly' and that it wouldn't work in LOTR. I'm saying I think it would have worked and would not have really changed my perception of the series.

You misread my post then. My point was that Troy does feature more 'over the top' style combat than even LOTR. Just watch the sequence where Brad Pitt storms the beach of Troy. The man cuts an arrow in half mid air.  My point is that if LOTR featured even more combat sequences in this style I would not have blinked twice. I would have said 'it's a style thing' and moved on.  

Okay.
As a side question: Have you read Tolkiens books? The first reason "Troy-like" wouldn't make sense, it because it doesn't fit the books. Not at all. That is the first, biggest and more glaring reason.

"Troy" is a combat-centric movie. It is very stylized. Not much if it makes sense in terms of "Realism". The combat and style of the movie is very, very central to the movie as a whole.

That is not the case with Lord of the Rings.
While the characters certainly did a lot of battle, the mayor conflicts were never in battle. The setting, style and tone of the movie was that the characters were human, with human flaws, and that they were, by no means, invincible in combat.

You would not have blinked twice, perhaps, but that still does not answer my question. I am not asking something to like of "If Lord of the Rings featured more combat in the style of Troy, would it make sense?" but instead "If Lord of the Rings featured characters backflipping spontaneously, jumping 10 feet into the air, and moving around in flashes, would it make sense?"

[Ziggeh]

Liable****sman wrote...

Dragon Age is a story-driven game, and as such, the combat ought to take the backseat - it appears, however that is does not. It is somewhat justified in the description of this an "Action RPG", rather than a normal, standalone "RPG" - but I do not think it fits the setting at all, regardless.

I don't think that holds in the same way it does for a movie. Games work very differently and are approached with greater flexiblity as there are fewer conventions across the medium. It's not a contradiction for a game to be both action and story based, while it might be in film. We allow for a good deal of inconsistency and disconnect, not just within bioware games, but almost all of them (given a certain level of complexity, pacman was pretty consistent).

I certain recall DA:O as a story with some combat, but given the extent of playtime combat made up, it could be argued that it's a largely combat defined game - indeed I know people who see it this way, with all that talking being filling in between. Delicious filling perhaps, but not the defining element. And the thing is, neither of us would be wrong.

Does stylised combat create a problem for those who percieve it wholey as a story? Perhaps, but I think it's not detracting from what I see as the major elements; the interactions, but I imagine it does represent a marked improvement for those who do not. Can it be all things to all people? Probably not, but I don't see why it shouldn't try.

[Lusitanum]

Saibh wrote...

You know, I responded to everything you said, but then...it's not worth it. But this? Seriously?

No they didn't. You probably just chose to ignore it (although it was a good thing that there was no Marilyn Manson in the game, thankfully).

...Yahtzee complains about everything! Are you insane? He even admitted it was an excellent game. But his job is to make people laugh by ****ing at every little thing.

And when the hell did I pointed that review out as proof that the game wasn't good? I was talking about the maturity of the game, but unfortunately I can't just copy/paste that section of the video (and it's not like you lose anything by watching the rest)

So you're right. If you're not even going to read things in their proper context, it really isn't worth responding.

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

...and summoning trains out of nowhere.

Damn, Final Fantasy sucks monkey testicles.

Something tells me you'd love The Spoony Experiment  . I know I do, especially because of how much I love it when he bashes on the FF series (and I don't even dislike it all that much) .

Liable****sman wrote...

So in a sense, you should erase
that word from your post altogether. "Cool" is an, to me, entirely
undefinable word. What is "Cool"? I have different definitions than you,
and I'm not going to find everything "Cool" that you find "Cool".

Now, if you're asking me if the animations look over-the-top and void of realism
I'm going to agree. I realised during the first pieces of information
revealed about DA2, however, that that wasn't where I would get my
biggest kick, in terms of animations or sense of "realism".

[...]

In
short: I agree with you, that the animations look stupid. They aren't
"Cool", however (to me), and they are by no strecth "Mature" - given
that that would make little sense.

Yeah, I know, it's very subjective what "cool" and "mature" mean, but people have already complained that my original post was too long, can you imagine how worse it would be if the title was two paragraphs long?

Liable****sman wrote...

To
add to that, I don't think Dragon Age 2 is "trying too hard" to appeal
aesthetically to youngins, I think it's doing exactly what it set out to
do. Hell, you knew where all this was going from the minute "Fight like
a ninja, command like a spartan", or was it just "Rogues are more like
ninjas" "Turn-based chess-like games are boring", and "Fight like a
spartan, command like a general"? where it was all going.

I still think they could do something with that. I wasn't holding my breath, given Bioware's track records of making great games that somehow always fall somewhat short on the gameplay department (ME1, DAO, freaking Sonic: The Dark Chronicles... <_< ) but I still believed they could have done something that, while not mind-numbingly strategic (I like my Company of Heroes and whatnot well enough, but that's not what I'm looking for on an RPG), would at least have some semblance of depth along with a fairly enganging combat system.

As it stands, the tactics are the same (meaning: virtually non-existant), the real-time combat seems a bit hard to follow (though maybe that's just my POV as a spectator and it might change when I actually play it) and the animations are ridiculous. I'm still expecting a pretty good game, but it looks like the gameplay will just be a means to progress with the game and not the thing that keeps me hooked, like it should be.

Liable****sman wrote...

I just hope, as stated, that the story offers me more than DA:O, hell - I would really
like to see some kind of interesting twist to the storyline, or any
kind of awesome storyline at all. While the writing has been awesome in
every Bioware game I can remember - the story and plot has certainly
not. There was nothing interesting about the overarching storyline in
DA:O. At least not to me.

You know, I felt the exact same way. It's amazing how much I loved the characters, the setting and the writting but the story was so bland, I honestly couldn't care a bit. I knew exactly what was going to happen and frankly, how many times have we seen a medieval-fantasy story that revolves around a small group of warriors travelling the land in order to defeat some impending all-powerful threat that is about to bring an age of darkness or whatever?

Hell, even to this day, I still keep calling the world of Dragon Age as "Faerun". And at the time that I'm writting this, I honestly can't remember how the world is actually called. And I'm replaying the game right now!

Liable****sman wrote...

Again, in short:
Dragon
Age 2 is achieving exactly what it set out to achieve. Have people like
you complain - that, most likely, means they hit the nail on the head
when they wanted to cater to the "Likes over-the-top animations" kind of
crowd.

Oh they could still draw me in with some cool animations. In theory, I love the idea that a Warrior and a Rogue having completely different fighting styles, even if they're using the exact same kind of weapon. It's just the over-the-top aspect that rubs me the wrong way and it's not like toning it down a little would annoy the other side of the market they're aiming towards.

Liable****sman wrote...Ask yourself instead, when drawing
comparisons to movies: How would the "flashiness" look say, in the
universe of Tolkien (Lord of the Rings), or maybe in a movie such a
Eragon?

Oh, I don't know about Eragon. It would at least make it somewhat less dreary that it already is and it's not like it would make it anymore stupid than it already is.

(I'm sorry, I see your point but I just had to vent my hatred of that series... )

[Liablecocksman]

Ziggeh wrote...

Liable****sman wrote...

Dragon Age is a story-driven game, and as such, the combat ought to take the backseat - it appears, however that is does not. It is somewhat justified in the description of this an "Action RPG", rather than a normal, standalone "RPG" - but I do not think it fits the setting at all, regardless.

I don't think that holds in the same way it does for a movie. Games work very differently and are approached with greater flexiblity as there are fewer conventions across the medium. It's not a contradiction for a game to be both action and story based, while it might be in film. We allow for a good deal of inconsistency and disconnect, not just within bioware games, but almost all of them (given a certain level of complexity, pacman was pretty consistent).

There is truth in this.

I certain recall DA:O as a story with some combat, but given the extent of playtime combat made up, it could be argued that it's a largely combat defined game - indeed I know people who see it this way, with all that talking being filling in between. Delicious filling perhaps, but not the defining element. And the thing is, neither of us would be wrong.

I can see how some might think of DA:O as a combat-driven game, but those people would then have to think of just about every other game ever made, as combat-driven.
Take Baldur's Gate as an obvious example. There wasn't less combat time pr. hour than Dragon Age, so that would also have to have been combat-driven, right?
Hell, even Planescape:Torment had hours upon hours of combat, does that mean it was a combat-driven game, because a player could click himself faster through an NPC-interaction than he could a combat encounter?
That is a futile discussion to have, and completely a matter of perspective.
An idiotic perspective, I would say, but that is neither here nor there.

Does stylised combat create a problem for those who percieve it wholey as a story? Perhaps, but I think it's not detracting from what I see as the major elements; the interactions, but I imagine it does represent a marked improvement for those who do not. Can it be all things to all people? Probably not, but I don't see why it shouldn't try.

I completely agree.
The stylized combat will make for a better game for those who percieve it as being mostly combat-centric.
It does not for those who do not.

Wasn't that my main point, though?

Lusitanum wrote...
SNIP

I'm glad we are mostly in a agreement.
I have to concede that Eragon wouldn't have been hurt so much, perhaps, given that it is one thick, unfiltered, slice of **** to begin with.

That doesn't mean it would make sense in the universe, though, as I'm sure you know

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 15 janvier 2011 - 06:47 .

[AlanC9]

TheMadCat wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
You mean like Legolas taking down the giant elephant singlehandedly, using a shield like a skateboard during the battle of Helmsdeep, and Aragorn leaping off a tower on a ladder into a crowd of enemies? That kind of over the top?  

You are aware how much flak Peter Jackson took for that scene by the purists right? Kind of like what you're seeing here.

Yep, and the purists didn't matter for Jackson's film any more than they'll matter for DA2. Purists never matter.

Personally, my least favorite scene was the collapsing stairs in Moria; they seem to be there only to set up the dwarf-tossing joke.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Yep, and the purists didn't matter for Jackson's film any more than they'll matter for DA2. Purists never matter.

Purism bothers me because of idiosyncratically selfish it is. Basically, it's the belief the IP could only be this one particular way or it is wrong and bad.

Personally, my least favorite scene was the collapsing stairs in Moria; they seem to be there only to set up the dwarf-tossing joke.

The only thing that bugged me was the whole Aragon getting Anduril in movie 3 versus 1, since I was under the impression he did get the sword in 1. It basically just confused the hell out of me.

[The Bard From Hell]

Dragon Age looked as mature as God of War IMO... Except it was 1000 times better. Dragon Age 2 looks no more "mature" than Origins for me. Looks never made anything look "more adult" for me, but story and setting did. Batman: Arkham Asylum was a very dark, gritty and mature game IMO, and it's about comic book characters, it didn't had boops and blood everywhere, it had flashy combat and great graphics. But the very fact that you where descending into the very lair of madness, and it got everytime worst, at every turn things got even more bizarre and twisted, that made the game very dark, and I dare say, mature. On the other hand, Splatterhouse is full of boops and blood and gore... And I can't stop laughing playing it, and I mean that as a good thing, I like laughing at lot's of gore and blood (yeah, I'm that much of a freak, how terrible...), but was it mature? No way in Hell.

To finish this, Dragon Age 2 is not trying to look mature, for being mature has nothing to do with visual presentation, it's trying to look "cool", and IMO, it is. Of course, you may dismiss everything I said sinse I'm 16 and a console player, which means I'm a retard. Seriously, saying with those kind of BS, and you people want mature things?

Edit: Sorry if I was offensive, I was in a terrible mood before I posted this.

Modifié par The Bard From Hell, 15 janvier 2011 - 07:19 .

[Lusitanum]

Liable****sman wrote...
I'm glad we are mostly in a agreement.
I have to concede that Eragon wouldn't have been hurt so much, perhaps, given that it is one thick, unfiltered, slice of **** to begin with.

That doesn't mean it would make sense in the universe, though, as I'm sure you know

You know, now that I think about it, I don't believe it would be all that out of place. Not if you remember the whole "get your own dragon to catapult you with its tail in an extremely improbale shot against another guy that is also riding a dragon at incredible speed". After that, I wouldn't be surprised if Eragon just started killing people by becoming some sort of dragon-propelled-human-canonball-thing, if it wasn't for the fact that the movie was (thankfully) over by that point.

OK, I'm going way off-topic, but it's just so hard to resist. I apologize, let's just get back on track .

[pprrff]

Wait and see I guess. if there is a lot of critical backlash against these styles, maybe they tone it down. There's always Dragon Age 3

[TheMadCat]

AlanC9 wrote...


Yep, and the purists didn't matter for Jackson's film any more than they'll matter for DA2. Purists never matter.

Did I say or even imply that they mattered? I just pointed out that that particular scene didn't recieve any large amounts of praise and got some flak by people who thought it had no business being there.

[In Exile]

TheMadCat wrote...

Did I say or even imply that they mattered? I just pointed out that that particular scene didn't recieve any large amounts of praise and got some flak by people who thought it had no business being there.

Among purists. But we don't have any hard data for how all audiences received the scene, i.e. the data that actually matters.

[TheMadCat]

In Exile wrote...
Among purists. But we don't have any hard data for how all audiences received the scene, i.e. the data that actually matters.

Didn't I just say the point of my statement was that these weren't unanimously accepted and that much like DA2 they took flak from the purist. Nothing about what matters and what doesn't, just a simple statement.

It's called drawing a parallel.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 15 janvier 2011 - 08:12 .