178 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...
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.

They said something similar for DAO.  They wanted the weapons to be visible from the high tactical camera so you'd know what it was you were facing.

But in DA2 they eliminated the high camera, so that justification is gone.

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

So essetnially the DnD equivalent of a rune caster, but needing specific materials?  I would think that would be a great way of putting a "Dwarven Mage" into the setting.  I like that idea.

[Meltemph]

But in DA2 they eliminated the high camera, so that justification is gone.

Assuming that was their only justification. It appears that they have many reasons, that they have in their head.

[twincast]

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.

Same core reason with a different game-specific spin to it. Basically they like 'em big and we've got to deal with it.

[slimgrin]

The only animations that look outright bad to me are the rogue's. The mages and warriors seem like an improvement.

Modifié par slimgrin, 10 février 2011 - 01:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

So essetnially the DnD equivalent of a rune caster, but needing specific materials? 

I have no idea what a Rune Caster is.  I'll have to look that up.

[PsychoBlonde]

Do you think, just for a change, that someone could try to come up with an ORIGINAL complaint about the game? Wait, I'll go do it myself.

[Tinxa]

The combat does look a bit odd to me because it's so fast but I think that will change once I play the game myself and am actually invested in what happens on screen. It's always a bit strange just watching someone else play. I think it just takes some gitting used to.

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

So essetnially the DnD equivalent of a rune caster, but needing specific materials? 

I have no idea what a Rune Caster is.  I'll have to look that up.

Ya, I wasn't sure if you did.  You "sorta" described what they can do, and my mind went there, simply becasue runes are associated with dwarves a lot of the time.  I imediatly saw that idea as an excuse to give dwarves magic, I rather like the idea a good lot.

[Nonoru]

You can't please everyone i guess.

[ALVIG824]

hey, anythings better than that "i have a wedgie" walk from origins. really. no one walks into a @#$%^&* BATTLE like that.

[Ghost8472]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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

While that would make spells more rare and valuable, it would also make wizards more defined and limited by gold than level, and the effort of players to craft.  Currently the Rouge can already fill this role with the extensive options of traps and poisons thrown and used.  For a lot of players (myself included) they would consider the extra resources and crafting as an unnecessary nuisance that would significantly slow the game.  Even in D&D the more tactical RPG's such as Baldur's gate spells can be learned (you can use scrolls as well, but those generally count as extra's once you used up your limited spells).

However, that being said I do prefer a more tactical/strategic game play and would be disappointed if they did too much streamlining and in the process significantly reduce the tactical aspect of the game play.  For those that say play it on nightmare I have; and while admit I did have to reload once or twice, for the most part I was able to defeat it without much trouble (the expansion was too easy for me even on nightmare).  Also difficulty level in and of itself does not mean tactics, many games give you tight margins for error and require a singular method of obtaining victory and while they may be good games require little tactics.  While not difficult some of the more well known with this type of formula are Zelda and Darksiders amongst others where you use x do y to defeat enemy (or boss) z.  Tactics requires there to be meaningful decisions to be made that will affect the outcome of the battle if there is only one approach then there are no tactics, if there is absolutely no difference in doing any of the available approaches then there are no tactics.

[ALVIG824]

@Ghost8472



crafting sucks. tried it in origins a little. stupid mistake. ENCHANTMENT is worth the effort and the gold.

[Ghost8472]

yes crafting consumables does suck, thats why I would not like the rune or scroll based mage class the only things I ever crafted where lyrium and elfroot pots oh, and of course enchanting weapons/armor in the exp

Modifié par Ghost8472, 10 février 2011 - 01:44 .

[unlasheddeer]

i think it's too late to change anything in da2 and too early to change anything in da3, so this discussion is useless.

[Revan312]

Ghost8472 wrote...
While that would make spells more rare and valuable, it would also make wizards more defined and limited by gold than level, and the effort of players to craft.  Currently the Rouge can already fill this role with the extensive options of traps and poisons thrown and used.  For a lot of players (myself included) they would consider the extra resources and crafting as an unnecessary nuisance that would significantly slow the game.  Even in D&D the more tactical RPG's such as Baldur's gate spells can be learned (you can use scrolls as well, but those generally count as extra's once you used up your limited spells).

I take it you never played Ultima Online.. That was the best mage system I've ever played.. nothing like facing a dragon down and he's at 5% health when suddenly you run out of black pearls, talk about "oh sh*t!". Or a thief jacked all your reagents right before he starts to stab you, rendering you powerless.. But if you had all the regs you needed, you were by far more powerful than any other combat skill.

On topic, I notice the animation stuttering pretty badly in the new videos. If the motions were smooth I could get used to the over the top movements and the crack head level of speed, but when it's choppy, with no follow through and no seeming amount of weight to any of the weapons it's jarring and hard to ignore, let alone enjoy..

Modifié par Revan312, 10 février 2011 - 01:50 .

[Dr. wonderful]

No.



I think it looks, more natural and less robotic.

[Revan312]

Dr. wonderful wrote...

No.

I think it looks, more natural and less robotic.

I'm the exact opposite.. 

[slimgrin]

Does the dev team for SF4 outsource their animators? Bioware could benefit.

Modifié par slimgrin, 10 février 2011 - 01:55 .

[Varus Praetor]

It seems extremely jerky to me and really reminds me of Guild Wars....the old one. Fast is fine, but at least be smooth, the way real humans move. I feel like all the characters in DA2 have been replaced by androids capable of starting and stopping all motions and acceleration instantly. Not only does it violate the laws of physics unless Hawke has God-like strength, it just looks bad and unnatural.

[Dr. wonderful]

Revan312 wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

No.

I think it looks, more natural and less robotic.

I'm the exact opposite.. 

See? That's good.

[TJPags]

unlasheddeer wrote...

i think it's too late to change anything in da2 and too early to change anything in da3, so this discussion is useless.

I get your point - assuming you're not just being flippant about the complaining - but honestly, following this logic, there would never be a point where the consumer can provide feedback.

I don't think anyone expects DA2 to change at this point.  I think what people hope - and I'm one of them - is that Bioware take our opinions into consideration when working on DA3.

[boohead]

they could copy streets of rage 2 combat and it would be superior to DOA1's

[Walker White]

In the gameplay videos and interviews, they point out that DA2 has positional combat. You can hide behind cover. This a world of improvement over the horrible DA:O combat where attacks could penetrate walls (I killed the dogs in the Alienage orphanage without ever opening the doors); there was was no sense of cover in that game at all. Regardless of what you may think of backstab, it appears that position matter more and not less.

[Azazel005]

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

Yes, it does.

All of the actions look jerky because everything cuts from point a to point b, with all of the in between "transitionary" movements cut out to make it look faster, and I guess per the devs, more "awesome".

Looked really bad to me. This game is a sequel in name only, made to please the action crowd.

An unusual supposition, the animations are faster hence it's nothing like the original? Rather a grand leap of logic. We will see how it plays, I like the improved more 'fantastic' animations and prefer the flicking cuts to the painful shuffling of Da:O. Still it it's not fun and mentally challenging to play that will be disappointing, until I have played it that will not be clear. Still I prefer optimism to pessimism.