262 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Joy Divison wrote...

Well here's the thing.  Using the physical laws I'm familiar with (i,e, earth), a 5' 9" human weighing 170 pounds with a sword and shield wouldn't be able to kill a 60 foot dragon weighing 50 tons; the human would not be able to even reach any of the dragon's vital areas, to say nothing of having the strength necessary to inflict anything more than a superficial wound.  Even a glancing blow from the 50 ton dragon would have enough kineic force to instantly incapacitate the human's ability to fight and would most likely kill him.  Humanoids need to be able to break physical laws in order to live up to the deeds the bards sing of and RPGs simulate.

I would be fine if human wasn't able to kill dragon the normal ways. How ever, I try to explain my point.

In Demo:

The warriors and rogues jump very high. This could be explain just by magic or low gravity. Two handed warrrior hits enemies around and cut multible enmies like they where paper. Can also be explain many ways, materials, magic and so on.. Rogue keeps teleporting or move very fast, but where all those "smoke bombs" come? Is rogue carrying 200 of them or are they "just" magic?

Now if you have looked tv-serie 24, you know how in one day really amazing can happen to one person. Thats' my problem with stuff, when there is one or two amazing thing, I'm still fine. How ever, when there is alot of those moments and stuff what happen to one person or breaks reality, then it starts to lose credibility. It's not anymore realistic.

So, having magic isn't problem at all or doing stuff what can't be done, but everyting has to make some sense how it's done. Have sertain amount of "realism" as logical reason how it's done, does make it better. Just say, it's magic, isn't good enough for me, when the situation isn't magical. If you walk in ground I gonna assume it's because gravity, not by some magical force.

Little like you dragon case.

[CroGamer002]

^Realism is overrated.

[Melness]

So, its not 'unrealistic' because it happens, but because it happens often?

Well, you must have hated DA:O's combat with a passion then. Or, pretty much, every RPG out there.

Modifié par Melness, 03 mars 2011 - 06:08 .

[Melness]

but where all those "smoke bombs" come? Is rogue carrying 200 of them

Let me get this straight, one of the most celebrated RPG mechanics out there is an inventory that is a portable TARDIS and you're nitpicking on this?

[Rawgrim]

If something happens\\can be done in the first game, its whats real for the setting. If something happens in a sequel, that is completely at odds with the "rules", and "realism" established in the first game, its unrealistic in that setting. Each setting establishes its own rules and laws. its just the way it is. Its like Frodo suddenly being able to fly during The Two Towers (extreme example, but you get the picture, I am sure).

[Rawgrim]

Lumikki wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Well here's the thing.  Using the physical laws I'm familiar with (i,e, earth), a 5' 9" human weighing 170 pounds with a sword and shield wouldn't be able to kill a 60 foot dragon weighing 50 tons; the human would not be able to even reach any of the dragon's vital areas, to say nothing of having the strength necessary to inflict anything more than a superficial wound.  Even a glancing blow from the 50 ton dragon would have enough kineic force to instantly incapacitate the human's ability to fight and would most likely kill him.  Humanoids need to be able to break physical laws in order to live up to the deeds the bards sing of and RPGs simulate.

I would be fine if human wasn't able to kill dragon the normal ways. How ever, I try to explain my point.

In Demo:

The warriors and rogues jump very high. This could be explain just by magic or low gravity. Two handed warrrior hits enemies around and cut multible enmies like they where paper. Can also be explain many ways, materials, magic and so on.. Rogue keeps teleporting or move very fast, but where all those "smoke bombs" come? Is rogue carrying 200 of them or are they "just" magic?

Now if you have looked tv-serie 24, you know how in one day really amazing can happen to one person. Thats' my problem with stuff, when there is one or two amazing thing, I'm still fine. How ever, when there is alot of those moments and stuff what happen to one person or breaks reality, then it starts to lose credibility. It's not anymore realistic.

So, having magic isn't problem at all or doing stuff what can't be done, but everyting has to make some sense how it's done. Have sertain amount of "realism" as logical reason how it's done, does make it better. Just say, it's magic, isn't good enough for me, when the situation isn't magical. If you walk in ground I gonna assume it's because gravity, not by some magical force.

Little like you dragon case.

Good point about the smokebombs.

[Melness]

Rawgrim wrote...

If something happenscan be done in the first game, its whats real for the setting. If something happens in a sequel, that is completely at odds with the "rules", and "realism" established in the first game, its unrealistic in that setting. Each setting establishes its own rules and laws. its just the way it is. Its like Frodo suddenly being able to fly during The Two Towers (extreme example, but you get the picture, I am sure).

When did DA:O estabilish anything different from DA2?

When the archers could cause a Hail of Arrows alone in Awakening? When Rogues could enter stealth in a corridor? When warriors could bash the legs of a hulking behemoth and somehow cause his arm to paralyse? When rogues could unleash an 'airborn toxin' that is unable to affect enemies? When warriors could cause legions of enemies to fall down by yelling? When bards could stun people by singing? When people can actually stand before a dragon without magic? When rangers can magically enthrall wolves, sometimes in the underground? When non-magical rogues can simply turn immune to magic, somehow? When non-magical warriors can, somehow, create shields around their allies? With the Aggro mechanic?

[Rawgrim]

Melness wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

If something happenscan be done in the first game, its whats real for the setting. If something happens in a sequel, that is completely at odds with the "rules", and "realism" established in the first game, its unrealistic in that setting. Each setting establishes its own rules and laws. its just the way it is. Its like Frodo suddenly being able to fly during The Two Towers (extreme example, but you get the picture, I am sure).

When did DA:O estabilish anything different from DA2?

When the archers could cause a Hail of Arrows alone in Awakening? When Rogues could enter stealth in a corridor? When warriors could bash the legs of a hulking behemoth and somehow cause his arm to paralyse? When rogues could unleash an 'airborn toxin' that is unable to affect enemies? When warriors could cause legions of enemies to fall down by yelling? When bards could stun people by singing? When people can actually stand before a dragon without magic? When rangers can magically enthrall wolves, sometimes in the underground? When non-magical rogues can simply turn immune to magic, somehow? When non-magical warriors can, somehow, create shields around their allies? With the Aggro mechanic?

That its smart to wear armour while fighting dragons. That warriors, in fact, are able to hold a weapon in each hand, or lift and fire a bow. That rogues can use other melee weapons than daggers. That a fireball will hurt a friend if you throw it at his face.

And yes: there are alot of lame stuff in DA:O as well. No question about it.

[Melness]

Rawgrim wrote...

1)That its smart to wear armour while fighting dragons. 2)That warriors, in fact, are able to hold a weapon in each hand, or lift and fire a bow. 3)That rogues can use other melee weapons than daggers. 4)That a fireball will hurt a friend if you throw it at his face.

5)And yes: there are alot of lame stuff in DA:O as well. No question about it.

1 - As far as I know, armor wearing classes wear armor.

2 - So is any human being, the question is if they are trained to do so - what the Warrior class of DA2 isn't. By becoming a warrior, you've trained into a style of fighting that doesn't include bows or arrows - which takes years to learn.

3 - So is any human being, the question is if they are trained to do so - what the Rogue class of DA2 isn't. By becoming a rogue, you've trained into a style of fighting that, in melee, only includes daggers and short swords.

4 - You're confusing Gameplay Mechanics and Lore, a common mistake. In the setting, Fire burns. In the gameplay mechanics or non-nightmare mode, it may not.

5 - My point is: Your immersion wasn't broken with all the obvious lame in DA:O, and not even with the obvious lame in the RPG genre. It will only break in DA2 because you want it to.

[Rawgrim]

Melness wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

1)That its smart to wear armour while fighting dragons. 2)That warriors, in fact, are able to hold a weapon in each hand, or lift and fire a bow. 3)That rogues can use other melee weapons than daggers. 4)That a fireball will hurt a friend if you throw it at his face.

5)And yes: there are alot of lame stuff in DA:O as well. No question about it.

1 - As far as I know, armor wearing classes wear armor.

2 - So is any human being, the question is if they are trained to do so - what the Warrior class of DA2 isn't. By becoming a warrior, you've trained into a style of fighting that doesn't include bows or arrows - which takes years to learn.

3 - So is any human being, the question is if they are trained to do so - what the Rogue class of DA2 isn't. By becoming a rogue, you've trained into a style of fighting that, in melee, only includes daggers and short swords.

4 - You're confusing Gameplay Mechanics and Lore, a common mistake. In the setting, Fire burns. In the gameplay mechanics or non-nightmare mode, it may not.

5 - My point is: Your immersion wasn't broken with all the obvious lame in DA:O, and not even with the obvious lame in the RPG genre. It will only break in DA2 because you want it to.

1. Rogue Hawke can equip leather armours. Isabela is a rogue and wears a shirt. and a thong. Varric wears a coat, and his chest is bared.

2.  Sure it takes years to learn in real life. Took 5 minutes in-game to learn the first part of a new style though. And since DA2 spans over 10 years...well...plenty of time to learn how to lift and fire a bow, for a warrior.

3. Who trained the rogue? Do they have some sort of academy? Rogues in Ferelden can use swords, axes, two-handed axes, and whatsnot. Hawke is from Lothering. Also isabela used 2 swords at the Pearl. Ergo she is trained to use two swords.

4. Fire still burns an enemy`s friends if he tosses it into their faces. On any difficulty.

5. Never said it broke my immersion. Thats just your assumption.

[Chadthesad]

simfamSP wrote...
Seriously. Since when does any Western RPG give us 'real' combat.

Drakensang which is a German RPG, gives fencing style combat. Mount & Blade gives a medieval combat feel. Dragon Age Origins, wasn't completely far fetched in it's combat animations. Just to name a few.

[Rawgrim]

Chadthesad wrote...

simfamSP wrote...
Seriously. Since when does any Western RPG give us 'real' combat.

Drakensang which is a German RPG, gives fencing style combat. Mount & Blade gives a medieval combat feel. Dragon Age Origins, wasn't completely far fetched in it's combat animations. Just to name a few.

Good point on Drakensang. The combat in Drakensang 1 and 2 was kind of a mix between BG2 and Dragon Age, actually.

[Lumikki]

Melness wrote...

So, its not 'unrealistic' because it happens, but because it happens often?

Well, you must have hated DA:O's combat with a passion then. Or, pretty much, every RPG out there.

No, you as player can ignore one or two unrealistic stuff and maybe even invent some reasons for it, but when there is a lot more of them and easy to notice, it's hard to keep ignoring them all. I don't hate anyting, hating is waste of time. DAO had few stuff too, like many other RPG's, but DA2 style is even more over done.  This is more like having some tolerant, as how much every player can tolerate these stuff without losing feel of credibility of world setting is personal. It's little like when something feels right or fine, even if it's not allways so and when it can feel "cool" but some how wrong, then player starts wonder about it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 mars 2011 - 07:33 .