257 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

Steffen wrote...

MorrowRail wrote...

Steffen wrote...

 just because something is intense and engaging doesn't mean it has been dummed down,

That is hilarious.

how so?

Its "dumbed" not "dummed". I am guessing that might be the reason why he found your post hilarious.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Can you look at your tactics screen? What behaviour are characters set to?

I'll check that tonight and get back to you.

Worst case you can just select multiple characters.  Characters you have active won't do anything without instructions from you.  It's clumsy, but that's how I did it in DAO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MorrowRail wrote...

Skyrim will be a first person RPG with realtime combat,

But it's still twitch-based, so I don't want to play it.

Bethesda has made one game with a decent combat system in the past several years, and that was Fallout 3.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'll check that tonight and get back to you.

Worst case you can just select multiple characters.  Characters you have active won't do anything without instructions from you.  It's clumsy, but that's how I did it in DAO.

DA:O had a toggle for tactics, though. But this is a good idea. I might just have to always have everyone selected.

[Maria Caliban]

Gamer Xtreme wrote...

Does anyone WANT Dragon Age to be more action oriented?

Is action here defined as combat? I want combat that's better than DA:O and DA II appears to do that.

If we're talking more radical requests, I'd like a single person RPG from BioWare. No party at all. I'd like them to spend as much time on non-combat skills and solutions as combat oriented ones, which would probably result in less action depending on how you define the term.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Bethesda has made one game with a decent combat system in the past several years, and that was Fallout 3.

I like VATS as well, if that's what you're referring too.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 25 février 2011 - 12:38 .

[MorrowRail]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MorrowRail wrote...

Skyrim will be a first person RPG with realtime combat,

But it's still twitch-based, so I don't want to play it.

Bethesda has made one game with a decent combat system in the past several years, and that was Fallout 3.

You talking VATS?  Because that's one of the few direct holdovers from Fallout 1 and 2.  Awesome games, BTW.

[ALVIG824]

 i find the combat system to be extremely amusing (yes, i know im the minority. insult me and i'll report you). just because the combat is faster doesnt mean that anything else is different. all they did was take origins' combat, turned up the speed to 200%, and added in more foes per encounter. 

the radial menu (or quickbar for you PC folks) is still there. tactics are still there. huge RPG-esque desisions are still there. the well-written storyline is still there. if you can't see that then your blind, or too stubborn to accept change.


"sometimes change is what they need most"

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

But this is a good idea. I might just have to always have everyone selected.

The downside is, obviously, that you have to pause to issue any orders at all, unless you want everyone to do the same thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MorrowRail wrote...

You talking VATS?  Because that's one of the few direct holdovers from Fallout 1 and 2.  Awesome games, BTW.

As I'm well aware.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote..
The downside is, obviously, that you have to pause to issue any orders at all, unless you want everyone to do the same thing.

I do that anyway, so while this is true, it isn't a problem.

I saw your previous post about ''passive'' . I'm going to check for that option. I don't recall seeing that behaviour.

[Tyler18]

it would be nice to not continuously press A or X or whatever to issue the default attack

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I saw your previous post about ''passive'' . I'm going to check for that option. I don't recall seeing that behaviour.

It might not exist.  There was Aggressive, so I figured Passive was likely.

I'm pretty sure I'm using Default, which is oddly not the default setting.

[88mphSlayer]

MorrowRail wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i think you're out of luck this year if you dont like rpg's going a little more action-focused, ME3 no doubt will be tps with rpg elements, Skyrim is a bethesda fps/rpg obviously, The Witcher 2 has more enemies and is more action focused, even Dark Souls has quick-time events if you know when to pull them off

Skyrim will be a first person RPG with realtime combat, but none of the Elder Scrolls games are FPS/RPGs.  That's the one TRUE RPG I'm really excited for this year.

eh, i beat all of Oblivion (didn't really get around to the DLC) with the bow + invisibility, just basically spent 90% of the time running, then crouch, snipe, run, crouch, snipe, rince & repeat... the sandbox nature of Bethesda's games are why i love them than the combat itself

[AdmiralCheez]

Why the hell does everyone on these boards think that you have to choose between either a good story or good combat? Can't you have both?

[Sabresandiego]

Yes, to give you an example I loved Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 2. The difference is I played through dragons age only about one and a half times, because the gameplay wasnt very good, just the story was good. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand I beat 3-4 times because the game was FUN TO PLAY besides just the story.



Bottom line, DA2 looks way more fun to play than DA: Origins which had a good story but awful gameplay.

[ALVIG824]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Why the hell does everyone on these boards think that you have to choose between either a good story or good combat? Can't you have both?

Thank the maker, a post by a person with a brain.....

[Malanek]

I like action games and I like strategy games. I like games that offer both. However DA is a strategy game... at least the combat part of it. It is designed around pausing and issuing orders to a squad, it is in no way a twitch based. As a strategy game, to be good, it has to have a certain strategical depth. I am a bit concerned that after seeing the demo, they have built a strategy game in which you don't have to think. Hopefully nightmare (and maybe even hard) will make you think (without being tediously frustrating) because the demo didn't make you at all.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MorrowRail wrote...
Skyrim will be a first person RPG with realtime combat,

But it's still twitch-based, so I don't want to play it.

Bethesda has made one game with a decent combat system in the past several years, and that was Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 would be okay if I could be in VATS always during combat.  I stopped playing Fallout 3 after being annoyed at getting killed repeatedly while I was waiting for the stupid VATS meter to recharge.  Though there's probably a mod to fix that, I didn't bother looking for it...largely because I was annoyed that even though I had a very high gun skill for my level, I couldn't seem to hit the broad side of a barn from more than 2 steps away.

Anyway...on topic...no, I don't want it to be more aciton oriented.  I want it to be turn-based and occur on a hexagonal grid outdoors, and a square grid indoors.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Fallout 3 would be okay if I could be in VATS always during combat.  I stopped playing Fallout 3 after being annoyed at getting killed repeatedly while I was waiting for the stupid VATS meter to recharge.

I engaged everything at long range, and while the meter was recharging I just backed up.

But yes, I agree.

Though there's probably a mod to fix that, I didn't bother looking for it...largely because I was annoyed that even though I had a very high gun skill for my level, I couldn't seem to hit the broad side of a barn from more than 2 steps away.

There's certainly a mod for that with New Vegas.  New Vegas Nexus has an Infinite Action Points mod.

I want it to be turn-based and occur on a hexagonal grid outdoors, and a square grid indoors.

I can't say I'm with you on the turn-based combat.  I do enjoy turn-based combat, but I think BiOWare's pausable real-time combat was a genuine improvement.

Hey, look!  Sometimes I do like new features.  And that one was new... in 1998.

[Samurai Pumpkin]

I wouldn't mind if the dialog was pretty good.



The problem is that even with the hand picked footage that they gave us in the demo the dialog seems really clumsy.



And really, if we are going to go with the Mass Effect route of things why can't they make it so that we can't move the mouse wheel slightly to pick what we want? They had a good system going in Mass Effect 2.



At higher resolutions it becomes burdensome to move the mouse to the bottom center of the screen on dialog choices. Being able to nudge the mouse a millimeter much easier.

[yhishtchie]

No. There was too much combat in the first one. I prefer character development, choices and their, consequences, strategic long-term planning, dialogue, to straight-up fistfighting/ blasting/ weapon combat/ shooting things.

[MannyJabrielle]

I personally don't like the *animations* of the combat. The combat itself... I'm not seeing anything significantly different from DA:O yet. It IS a bit faster where I had to make much more use of the pause button compare to origins, but it's still essentially the same to me.



The more active pausing is a pest though... hopefully in the full game, I'll not have to as closely micromanage the party (ie, pause every few seconds) though building their skills right.



ALthough I find those drawbacks to be noteworthy, I do look forward to the game.



And I agreee. PC vs Console bashing is silly. What's the difference between PC and console really? Controllers used? Size of the screen played on?

[ALVIG824]

MannyJabrielle wrote...

And I agreee. PC vs Console bashing is silly. What's the difference between PC and console really? Controllers used? Size of the screen played on?

yupp thats about it. idk why people argue so much (im an xbox guy myself). im certaintly no 12 year old kid who likes to kill teh dragonz.

[hawat333]

I certainly don't.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
Fallout 3 would be okay if I could be in VATS always during combat.  I stopped playing Fallout 3 after being annoyed at getting killed repeatedly while I was waiting for the stupid VATS meter to recharge.

I engaged everything at long range, and while the meter was recharging I just backed up.

But yes, I agree.

I got sick of how much I missed doing that.  Probably a holdover from Fallout 1/2 where I was always concerned with running out of ammo (though that doesn't seem to be an issue in Fallout 3.)

Though there's probably a mod to fix that, I didn't bother looking for it...largely because I was annoyed that even though I had a very high gun skill for my level, I couldn't seem to hit the broad side of a barn from more than 2 steps away.

There's certainly a mod for that with New Vegas.  New Vegas Nexus has an Infinite Action Points mod.

I need to pick that up one of these days.  Probably still waiting for a game of the year edition, though.

I want it to be turn-based and occur on a hexagonal grid outdoors, and a square grid indoors.

I can't say I'm with you on the turn-based combat.  I do enjoy turn-based combat, but I think BiOWare's pausable real-time combat was a genuine improvement.

Hey, look!  Sometimes I do like new features.  And that one was new... in 1998.

Glad I could be of help.

The advent of AoE targeting rings has greatly improved my opinion of real-time with pause, but I still find it less tactical than turn-based.  I miss having to plan ahead, moving people into positions that would allow them to do what I wanted the next turn, moving people out of range of enemies, setting up AoE attacks to dissuade enemies from moving into certain areas, etc.