262 réponses à ce sujet

[Dubya75]

Yes, I find the "realism" argument quite amusing!
In reality (real life that is), if you're struck with a sword and blood splashes everywhere it pretty much means game over for you.
How many games do you know that is GAME OVER after you're hit once? Not many I'd say.
In fact, I find DA2 combat more realistic than Origins because now at least when your great sword connects with an enemy, there is a good chance they will go down.
But we can go on and on about this...bla bla bla...just another opportunity for people to argue.

Modifié par Dubya75, 27 février 2011 - 04:21 .

[Boombear]

The idea of a realistic fantasy is that you accept the fact that ogres, magic, darkspawn etc. exist, but you're still human (or elven, or dwarven). The problem is that a lot of the moves break the laws of physics. My point is that it is possible to have a realistic fantasy where the fantasy material functions as it would if it could/did exist in real life.

[slimgrin]

Someone should link Todd Howard's response to why JRPG's don't interest him and WRPG's do. He uses the word 'realism' quite a bit, and this is the lead director for Skyrim. Here it is, click third video at 3:10:

http://www.gameinfor...-interview.aspx

Modifié par slimgrin, 27 février 2011 - 05:44 .

[elearon1]

simfamSP wrote...This post is about how idiotic the fact that people want realistic combat in a fantasy game. Not "Why is diz like teh ninja gaiden". 

While I agree that arguing the minutia of realism in a game is pointless, I don't believe starting your post by calling people (or their opinions) idiotic is a good opening move ... it really makes me want to stop listening.  (and, yes, I did do this in a thread yesterday, but that thread wasn't meant to be taken seriously)

>>Whenever I read someone talk about realism on the forums .... I always mentally replace it with "realism as Hollywood and other games have led me to understand it." <<

This isn't always the case.  I, and a few others, have actually had training in pre-modern weaponry; swords of varied sorts, spears, use of armor, etc.  There are real places in the U.S. where you can get this kind of training, (and not just the SCA, whose quality really varies from location to location) just as you can learn any number of other martial arts.  

That said ... I don't come on here screaming for realism - I don't want it in my games ... I don't come to a video game looking for realism: It's a VIDEO GAME for Chrissakes!  I come here looking for good writing and good storytelling ... and hopefully a decently fun mechanical system to back them up.  If you really come here looking for realism and mechanics first ... you know what?  Good for you, I hope the game can find some ways to please you in those regards as well; because, Ideally, I'd love to hear the vast majority of people on these forums walked away from the game loving it.

The only time I ever get in discussions about realism is to either correct someone else's gross misunderstanding of what actual combat is like, or to discuss minutia with the handful of other people on these forums who share in my hobby.  

Modifié par elearon1, 27 février 2011 - 04:38 .

[Ravenfeeder]

People aren't looking for realism they are looking for the appearance (or illusion) of realism. Since DA uses many medieval references, including a form of feudalism, a medieval type church, armour and weapons, there is no reason not to presume those same elements are used in a western medieval fashion. If they are not used in that fashion, then the point of using them at all becomes questionable.

If the OP thinks that DA uses C16th references then he needs to re-visit his history books. The technology seems to be C15th and the social structures C13th.

[abat223]

I can swing an axe slowly in real life chopping wood..

Maybe when I'm playing a game it is nice to be a ridiculous badass who has supernatural powers

[Ziggeh]

abat223 wrote...

I can swing an axe slowly in real life chopping wood..

I'm not sure it would go through. The idea is to hit it with some force.

[pumpkinman13]

Dragon Age didn't have very many Dragons in. I thought that was pretty realistic. Y'know, what with Dragons not being real and everything.

[Twaddlefish]

So, how 'bout that MW2 for realism?

But you're right, this game is totally unrealistic. That dragon looks nothing like the ones that live in castles.

[Nashiktal]

I say we all put on the ritz and march down the street.

[Maconbar]

abat223 wrote...

I can swing an axe slowly in real life chopping wood..

Maybe when I'm playing a game it is nice to be a ridiculous badass who has supernatural powers

Sadly a 2hander in DA:O was slower than me chopping wood.

[pezit]

Most responses are clearly from people who haven't read most replies still saying stuff like "but there's ogres how can it be realistic!!!". Compare it to the previous game, now tell me what happens in DA2 is believable? bioware has already shown us the world and how it works and it's NOT the same world in DA2. If in the second star wars movie all the jedis suddenly threw fireballs and started flying people would have been confused.

[Shinimas]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

maybe the dealiest warriors crew on spike should take a look to solve this!!!!!

I hate that show. They spread misinformation while claiming to be scientific, which turns out to be just plain lying.

[Thullon]

It would be more like if in the newer movies the Jedi suddenly became more agile and fast... oh wait.

[Mezinger]

simfamSP wrote...

This post is about how idiotic the fact that people want realistic combat in a fantasy game. Not "Why is diz like teh ninja gaiden".

I'm sorry but it appears that people have gone back in time, watched every major 16th century battle and have become experts in medieval combat.

Seriously. Since when does any Western RPG give us 'real' combat. DA:O was no different. There is no such thing as 'realistic' combat in any game.

I think people get the picture that swords weighed 50kg and it took 10 seconds to swing one. Or that every battle was an amazing duel to the death. Fantasy is fantasy, there are certain realistic aspects to Western RPGs, but you cannot bash DA2 for having 'non realistic' combat then praise DA:O for it's 'realistic' combat. Both have their pros and cons. DA:O didn't go over the top, DA2 does. But to judge a game for one single flaw? Why do I still play Morrowind? Or Gothic 3? Because they are good games.

Combat is as relevant to an RPG for me as Graphics, they score pretty low. Look at Planescape: Torment, how many people can say it had the best combat ever made? Not many. But how many people can say, it had the best writing in an RPG ever? Quite a few.

I'm sure DA2 will be a good game, but please, if your going to whine about anything, don't let it be about 'realism'.

Sorry, you are implying realism is black or white, you either have it or you don't, and that is a glaring logical fallacy.

It's a spectrum, it's shades of grey. Was DA:O realistic? No. Is DA2 realistic based on what we've seen so far? No. Is DA2 less realistic than DA:O? I think the glaring answer to that question is yes, DA2 is less realistic. Just look at the speed at which massive two handed swords are twirled around... how the big weapons don't feel slower than the smaller ones, how large distances are closed in an instant regardless of bulk of armour. The list goes on. 

This shift in relative realism is ripe for criticism for those of us who preferred the predecessor's approach. 

I think a great vinette to demonstrate the crux of the matter is the duel with Loghain in DA:O.

In that fight you "felt" the weight of your shield bashing into your opponent, the long arc of the sword swing was dramatic, the clank of steel on steel reverberated throughout the chamber. It was an epic game moment because it was so long in the making and because it had a certain level of realism that allowed you to be immersed in the encounter. 

I have a hard time imagining a similarly satisfactory duel in DA2, it will all be super fast animations, and swishing noises and repetitive animation eye candy that's disconnected from the stat based mechanics and what's really going on. 

I'm prepared to be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but ultimately this shift in relative realism is a concern to me and others.

[abnocte]

pezit wrote...

Most responses are clearly from people who haven't read most replies still saying stuff like "but there's ogres how can it be realistic!!!". Compare it to the previous game, now tell me what happens in DA2 is believable? bioware has already shown us the world and how it works and it's NOT the same world in DA2. If in the second star wars movie all the jedis suddenly threw fireballs and started flying people would have been confused.

"believable" you nailed it.

realistic =/= beliavable

Dragon Age is fantasy with magic, monsters, etc. you can't say it's realistic, but ( in my opinion ) combat animations in DAO were far more believable than the ones we have seen in the demo... I mean when I played as a warrior he literally slided up hill to close in melee range, couldn't there be an sprint or jumping animation?

[pezit]

Thullon wrote...

It would be more like if in the newer movies the Jedi suddenly became more agile and fast... oh wait.

Yeah and we all know how well received that was. Especially in the more extreme cases like Yoda (rogue in DA2).

[abnocte]

Mezinger wrote...
*snip*
*
In that fight you "felt" the weight of your shield bashing into your opponent, the long arc of the sword swing was dramatic, the clank of steel on steel reverberated throughout the chamber. It was an epic game moment because it was so long in the making and because it had a certain level of realism that allowed you to be immersed in the encounter. 

I have a hard time imagining a similarly satisfactory duel in DA2, it will all be super fast animations, and swishing noises and repetitive animation eye candy that's disconnected from the stat based mechanics and what's really going on. 

I'm prepared to be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but ultimately this shift in relative realism is a concern to me and others.

I coulnd't agree more here. With the new animations I don't have time to pay attention at what's going on, it's like i'm no playing att all ( may be difficulty level may change things... )

And here I was  a total fan of shield bash.....now it looks as if they are chasing away some flies....

[Thullon]

pezit wrote...

Thullon wrote...

It would be more like if in the newer movies the Jedi suddenly became more agile and fast... oh wait.

Yeah and we all know how well received that was. Especially in the more extreme cases like Yoda (rogue in DA2).

Yeah, I was pretty annoyed when the everyone else in the theatre started cheering too.

[Ivolon]

simfamSP wrote...

This post is about how idiotic the fact that people want realistic combat in a fantasy game. Not "Why is diz like teh ninja gaiden".

I'm sorry but it appears that people have gone back in time, watched every major 16th century battle and have become experts in medieval combat.

Seriously. Since when does any Western RPG give us 'real' combat. DA:O was no different. There is no such thing as 'realistic' combat in any game.

I think people get the picture that swords weighed 50kg and it took 10 seconds to swing one. Or that every battle was an amazing duel to the death. Fantasy is fantasy, there are certain realistic aspects to Western RPGs, but you cannot bash DA2 for having 'non realistic' combat then praise DA:O for it's 'realistic' combat. Both have their pros and cons. DA:O didn't go over the top, DA2 does. But to judge a game for one single flaw? Why do I still play Morrowind? Or Gothic 3? Because they are good games.

Combat is as relevant to an RPG for me as Graphics, they score pretty low. Look at Planescape: Torment, how many people can say it had the best combat ever made? Not many. But how many people can say, it had the best writing in an RPG ever? Quite a few.

I'm sure DA2 will be a good game, but please, if your going to whine about anything, don't let it be about 'realism'.

When people complain about the lack of realism in combat, they usually mean the inconsistencies between tone, setting and the way combat is potrait. DAO had no "realistic" combat, but it had gritty visceral feel to it, that was in sync with setting and story.
The new combat is neither consistent with the story, setting or even with itself. Your flight from Lothering isn´t very convincing, when the fight against the darkspan boils down to Wolverine vs. a bunch of old men with sticks.

[PsychoBlonde]

simfamSP wrote...

I'm sorry but it appears that people have gone back in time, watched every major 16th century battle and have become experts in medieval combat.

Seriously. Since when does any Western RPG give us 'real' combat. DA:O was no different. There is no such thing as 'realistic' combat in any game.

Heh.  If you want to know just how unrealistic the combat was in Origins, you just need to look at the sword-and-shield warrior.  NOBODY waves their shield around dramatically in a real fight.  You may as well paint a big red target on yourself with a bunch of arrows pointing to it saying "HIT ME!!!"  And don't get me started on that little off-balance stumble the two-handers did after their ludicrously over-dramatic (and slow) swing.  All their opponent would have to do would be to sidestep a couple of inches and then skewer them while they're getting their balance back.

The combat in Origins was horribly unrealistic, and it didn't even look cool.  (That duck-waddle is a charge?  WTF.)  Combat in DAII is ALSO horribly unrealistic.  But it at least looks kinda neat.  I'm going with B.

[Archereon]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

I'm sorry but it appears that people have gone back in time, watched every major 16th century battle and have become experts in medieval combat.

Seriously. Since when does any Western RPG give us 'real' combat. DA:O was no different. There is no such thing as 'realistic' combat in any game.

Heh.  If you want to know just how unrealistic the combat was in Origins, you just need to look at the sword-and-shield warrior.  NOBODY waves their shield around dramatically in a real fight.  You may as well paint a big red target on yourself with a bunch of arrows pointing to it saying "HIT ME!!!"  And don't get me started on that little off-balance stumble the two-handers did after their ludicrously over-dramatic (and slow) swing.  All their opponent would have to do would be to sidestep a couple of inches and then skewer them while they're getting their balance back.

The combat in Origins was horribly unrealistic, and it didn't even look cool.  (That duck-waddle is a charge?  WTF.)  Combat in DAII is ALSO horribly unrealistic.  But it at least looks kinda neat.  I'm going with B.

In my opinion, it crosses the line between cool and hilariously over the top.  I would have preferred a balance between Dragon Age Origins and what we're getting now; Dragon Age Origins was slow, but not to the point of straining my suspension of disbelief.  Dragon Age 2 on the other hand is so over the top that it constantly strains and often breaks the suspension of disbelief for me, which, in a fantasy or soft sci-fi setting, is vastly more important than realism.

Modifié par Archereon, 27 février 2011 - 05:42 .

[steelfire_dragon]

realism bites

[Harcken]

When I refer to realism, I don't mean modern or medieval fencing. I mean: "I don't want over the top final fantasy combat in my dragon age!" There's a point where the combat becomes "cool," and "awesome," but there's a threshold, that once crossed, results in the combat being "comical," and "silly." I'd much prefer the former.

Modifié par Harcken, 27 février 2011 - 05:46 .