178 réponses à ce sujet

[boohead]

The combat in DAO1 was so slow and clunky that I honestly do not mind this speed one bit.

Srsly, the worst part about DAO was easily the combat. Anyone who says this is not an improvement is just being silly and biased.

Modifié par boohead, 09 février 2011 - 11:21 .

[Gabey5]

im glad. Rouges and Warriors were ripped last game. Way too slow

[Dayshadow]

Martanek wrote...

Does anybody else think that DA2's combat speed is a little exaggerated? To me, it looks too cartoonish, almost ridiculous, particularly when compared to the first DA game. I mean, is it realistic to have a Rogue Hawke flying like a ninja all over the battlefield, a Warrior Hawke swinging his sword extremely fast like it is a kitchen knife and so on. Unlike Bioware, I do not believe that the combat needed to be sped up. It needed to be polished and improved in certain areas but why speed it up like that and make it look almost like an animated cartoon action hack'n slash game?
BTW: Have you seen the way Varrick with his crossbow moves (hops) around the battlefield in one of those combat videos? Comments please...

Yes! More QQ. I was starting to starve without some kind of whinning to sait my trollish hunger.

And aren't Hawke's teeth TOO white and perfect? I mean, come on!!! This game is gonna suck!!!

[Noviere]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For example, we know that the backstabbing someone no longer requires you be behind him.  You just need to be in range, and you'll automagically appear behind him for the attack.

There's no detail there.  That makes positioning irrelevant for backstabbing.

In one of the videos yesterday(maybe the Giantbomb one?) it showed the level-up screen for the rogue, and he moused over several of the abilities. One of them made it so that you got an automatic critical(or something similar) if you were attacking something that was focusing on someone else. It's not DAO's passive backstabbing, but it's pretty close.

[Jzadek72]

DJBare wrote...

Daniteh wrote...

I mean we haven't played it yet, but it seems to me that the game will be alot more entertaining with less tactics and more DOING.

Not a good thing for those of us who prefer tactics.

Yes, I'm glad that first guy was wrong, and this game is actually MORE tactical, with things like positioning being far more important.

[Meltemph]

Martanek wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

"Cartoony" is not the same as "fantasy". What DA2 shows in combat is a supernatural RPG derivate of a Devil May Cry game. I really dislike any smell of cartoon in an RPG. But maybe I am getting old...

Just because you "say" it is, does not mean it is. Also, Devil May Cry was not cartoony, it was over the top. Hell Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon had a crap ton of " supernatural" combat, and "cartoony" is not how I would describe it.

So how would you do describe it then?

Styalized.  Different strokes for different folks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Noviere wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For example, we know that the backstabbing someone no longer requires you be behind him.  You just need to be in range, and you'll automagically appear behind him for the attack.

There's no detail there.  That makes positioning irrelevant for backstabbing.

In one of the videos yesterday(maybe the Giantbomb one?) it showed the level-up screen for the rogue, and he moused over several of the abilities. One of them made it so that you got an automatic critical(or something similar) if you were attacking something that was focusing on someone else. It's not DAO's passive backstabbing, but it's pretty close.

That would be interesting.  That moves the tactical complexity from positioning to target selection.

That's consistent with their desire that the player "push a button and something awesome happens", but that approach to implementing that appears to deprioritize planning and forethought.

Of course, DAO already did that to some degree by focusing on tactics over strategy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Styalized.  Different strokes for different folks.

Beyond being stylised, it's also implausible.

That, I think, is why people complain.

[Meltemph]

Beyond being stylised, it's also implausible.

That, I think, is why people complain.

Well, half the weapon animations that killed darkspawn was just as implausible to me if people are going that route. I mean, to me it is a weird time to "draw that line", considering how implausible things were in DAO. I guess if we were talking about Mount and Blade I could see where the complaint was coming from, I just don't see the "huge" change" in terms of believability.

Neither seem to try and fit the mold some are trying to put it in.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 février 2011 - 12:02 .

[Fidget6]

Brockololly wrote...
I'm more or less ok with mages looking over the top, since you know, they have magic and stuff. But the warrior and rogue animations look far too floaty and lacking in any weight or "oomph."

Give me "floaty" action any day over the clunky reptitiveness that was Origins. Origins was basically a masterpiece aside from the clunky battle system. Now that they've ironed it out and made it much more smooth and stylized I think I'll have very little to complain about in DAII.

Modifié par Fidget6, 10 février 2011 - 12:05 .

[Fidget6]

*double post* 

Modifié par Fidget6, 10 février 2011 - 12:07 .

[twincast]

Origins felt a bit slow, II feels a bit fast, but that's not really the problem. The (often choppy) over-the-top ubercool animations and sparkly non-magic effects (as well as the art style in general, though by itself it would be bearable) are what makes it look too cartoony. I like that in some games, Kingdom Hearts and God of War for example, but not in Dragon Age, a supposedly dark fantasy which other than WoW-sized hands had a fitting look to it in Origins. So yeah, The Witcher is admittedly a franchise with its own share of problems, but it supposedly aims for a similar feel to its universe and The Witcher 2 looks way better than Dragon Age II in every single aspect so far.

[Kileyan]

I know people hate the excuse that it is a fantasy world with magic to defend crazy melee moves and such.

But in a game that does include mages and magic, which can lay waste to enemies with storms of electric, ice and fire, what do you do with their more "realistic" melee counterparts? People want the moves to be toned down, no rains of arrows or flashy melee swings that hit 5 guys at once.

How does a game designer approach this, without just making it The Mage Ages, since mages are free to do anything outlandish, but everyone else must follow real world physics and some sort of realism?

Anyways, even if people do dislike or consider the melee animations as over the top, I don't understand the logic jump to faster more responsive animations must by gosh, equal that all tactical choices were removed from the underlaying gameplay which is still the same game engine, with mostly all the same spells, flanking bonus, healing, buffs, debuffs.....

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Well, half the weapon animations that killed darkspawn was just as implausible to me if people are going that route. I mean, to me it is a weird time to "draw that line", considering how implausible things were in DAO.

You mean the messy killshots?  I disabled those.

I guess if we were talking about Mount and Blade I could see where the complaint was coming from, I just don't see the "huge" change" in terms of believability.

DAO would have been alright, I think, if they'd shrunk the weapons by 20% (I still want to know why they didn't do that for DA2, given that their reason for making them so big in DAO went away).

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Well, half the weapon animations that killed darkspawn was just as implausible to me if people are going that route. I mean, to me it is a weird time to "draw that line", considering how implausible things were in DAO.

You mean the messy killshots?  I disabled those.

I guess if we were talking about Mount and Blade I could see where the complaint was coming from, I just don't see the "huge" change" in terms of believability.

DAO would have been alright, I think, if they'd shrunk the weapons by 20% (I still want to know why they didn't do that for DA2, given that their reason for making them so big in DAO went away).

Eh, I view both of them as styalized, at least comparitively.  Perspective, I guess.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kileyan wrote...

I know people hate the excuse that it is a fantasy world with magic to defend crazy melee moves and such.

But in a game that does include mages and magic, which can lay waste to enemies with storms of electric, ice and fire, what do you do with their more "realistic" melee counterparts? People want the moves to be toned down, no rains of arrows or flashy melee swings that hit 5 guys at once.

How does a game designer approach this, without just making it The Mage Ages, since mages are free to do anything outlandish, but everyone else must follow real world physics and some sort of realism?

Make mages more fragile,or somehow dangerous to use.

Again, I point to Baldur's Gate.  By the end of that game, characters were only level 7-9 (depending on class), so no one was overpowered, and while the mages were more powerful and more useful at the end, they were a lucky shot away from death for the first 2 levels.  That's good balance.

[Livetaswim06]

I think the reasoning that since mages can hurl fireballs, all physics need to go out the window is misguided. When we watched Star Wars it seems believable to see the lighting from the fingers, the lightsaber fights look pretty great as well especially in the new trilogy. The old trilogy was known for slow combat and in the new one it got faster, though never looked cartoonish. 

Moving away from the Star Wars analogy, and please don't concentrate on it, I was just trying to illustrate a point. The animations are lazy and it doesn't seem to me to be doing anything awesome, it is just silly and cartoonish. Watching the videos it looks like a 12 year old gamer designed the animations. Like others have mentioned it seems the weapons are weightless and the player swings them willy-nilly like they were paper. Why couldn't they have done motion tracking on actual human fighters and then used those. Not to mention the running with the hand back which I believe is a direct rip from The Force Unleashed.

For DA2 I wanted something more refined, better done, not this. I am holding out for the demo, but if there was no demo, my signature edition would be cancelled after seeing recent videos.

Modifié par Livetaswim06, 10 février 2011 - 12:46 .

[Kileyan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

I know people hate the excuse that it is a fantasy world with magic to defend crazy melee moves and such.

But in a game that does include mages and magic, which can lay waste to enemies with storms of electric, ice and fire, what do you do with their more "realistic" melee counterparts? People want the moves to be toned down, no rains of arrows or flashy melee swings that hit 5 guys at once.

How does a game designer approach this, without just making it The Mage Ages, since mages are free to do anything outlandish, but everyone else must follow real world physics and some sort of realism?

Make mages more fragile,or somehow dangerous to use.

Again, I point to Baldur's Gate.  By the end of that game, characters were only level 7-9 (depending on class), so no one was overpowered, and while the mages were more powerful and more useful at the end, they were a lucky shot away from death for the first 2 levels.  That's good balance.

Well the fragility could be focused on more, but I'm pretty sure that all game systems are done with the D&D game balance of being super weak for a few levels in return for becoming a god like character at later levels.

What really changed the idea of magic in computer games is having a full arsenal all the time. THere is no choices or attrition. At any point, you have a full load of magic. You never have to choose whether you want to use fireball for the 20 weakling opponents in the dungeon of The Dark Dude, or do you save your power for a more specialized spell against The Dark Dude himself.

Fragility is less of an issue, the largest issue is mages can spam their spells like a warrior can spam his sword. There is really no choices or consequences, and being fragile for levels 1-6 wouldn't fix that, it would just make it a chore to play until they got their cool stuff. I'm not sure that is balance.

[TJPags]

Surprised and pleased that only one person used the "shuffling" comment.

Also, agree with the person who expressed their dismay over Bioware trashing Origins to promote DA2.

On to the topic:  I agree with the OP, for the most part,  Cartoony isn't the word I would use, but I completely see the point.  We have rogues hopping around like their doing gymnastics routines, backflipping or simply teleporting into position for their attacks instantly.  We have warriors who can now dash forward at incredible speed to close with their enemies.  Every weapon now leaves speed trails behind it.  Mages are whirling staves like Shaolin monks.  Warriors swing 2 handed swords or enormous mauls as large as they are as if they're made of plastic.

I'd have been fine with speeding up movement speed a bit.  Characters could have simply moved faster though, as in, run.  IMO, they took that idea, and went way too far with it.

The ability to move so fast does make me question the need for tactical pause and play.  Sure, the option is there, I'm not disputing that.  In Origins, I used my tactics to position my party.  That no longer seems as necesary, to me.

And before people tell me "play it on nightmare and you'll see how necessary it is", please stop.  Have you played the game, on nightmare or any other setting?  No?  Didn't think so.  See, that works both ways. 

Yes, the devs have told us all how hard nightmare is.  We'll see when we play it if this is true.

[twincast]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
(I still want to know why they didn't do that for DA2, given that their reason for making them so big in DAO went away).

• Stylized Realism.
• Hot-Rod Samurai.

Pick your expression; same difference.

I had a longer post written complaining about DA:O "daggers", but Firefox is currently a bit of a beyotch, so I'm on IE and it just kicked me out of BSN like it often does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

twincast wrote...


[*]Stylized Realism.

[*]Hot-Rod Samurai.[/list]Pick your expression; same difference.

So they have a second, entirely new justification that just happens to produce weapons that are exactly the same size?

I don't buy it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kileyan wrote...

Well the fragility could be focused on more, but I'm pretty sure that all game systems are done with the D&D game balance of being super weak for a few levels in return for becoming a god like character at later levels.

This is why I didn't refer to D&D generally, but to Baldur's Gate, which had a shallower power curve and didn't produce god-like characters.

What really changed the idea of magic in computer games is having a full arsenal all the time. There is no choices or attrition.

This is also relevant.  I whole heartedly approve of eliminating on-the-fly spell selection.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 février 2011 - 12:59 .

[Melness]

This is also relevant. I whole heartedly approve of eliminating on-the-fly spell selection.

I'm curious, what system would to implement in this one's place?

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

twincast wrote...


[*]Stylized Realism.

[*]Hot-Rod Samurai.[/list]Pick your expression; same difference.

So they have a second, entirely new justification that just happens to produce weapons that are exactly the same size?

I don't buy it.

Well, I remember reading an article about the Star Wars MMO about a year or so back, and I think on of the reasons they have for having the weapons bigger then they normally are in the movies, was because it is harder to get a perspective of the fights, in a game or something to that effect.

Essentially they are bigger to accentuate the coriagrophy of the fighting if I remember correctly.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 février 2011 - 01:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Melness wrote...

This is also relevant. I whole heartedly approve of eliminating on-the-fly spell selection.

I'm curious, what system would to implement in this one's place?

I'd suggest a reagent based system, where spells require what is effectively ammo.  Bigger spells would require rarer ingredients, so you'd want to save those for when you needed them