262 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Ivolon wrote...

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.

No it didn't.  It felt practically turn-based.  I was going to point to a game on my shelf where the combat felt gritty and visceral, but I realized that I don't have one, because I'm not much interested in playing a game so I can almost feel the thwack when I knock gobs of blood and broken teeth out of people's mouths with a golf club.  Actually, I'd probably find that pretty disturbing.  The Prince of Persia games are probably the closest ones I've got, and I'm well aware that isn't saying much.  I do have Fallout 3, but combat in that game only really had "guts" (metaphorical guts) when you used VATS and I don't think slow-mo should count either.

Granted, I may have high standards for visceral because I used to chop half-frozen chunks of muscle, fat, and connective tissue off human bones with a sharpened piece of metal for a living.  When you've done that for a year or so, watching some spiky-haired douche whanging his shield off people just doesn't impress.

[Briallen]

Hahaha. You've gotta love someone presumptuous enough to put *READ* in his subject line, then spend his whole post calling people with differing opinions idiots and whiners.

If you're willing to suspend disbelief when you play a game, fine. More power to you. For some people, the more believable a game is, the more enjoyable it is. The opinions of the latter group are just as valid as those of the former group. Shocking and dismaying, I know.

[Briallen]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

[Granted, I may have high standards for visceral because I used to chop half-frozen chunks of muscle, fat, and connective tissue off human bones with a sharpened piece of metal for a living.  When you've done that for a year or so, watching some spiky-haired douche whanging his shield off people just doesn't impress.

Might I ask what your job title was?

[PsychoBlonde]

Archereon wrote...

In my opinion, it crosses the line between cool and hilariously over the top.

Hilariously over the top IS cool.  I think I may actually play the game on Hard, though, depending, so I get a chance to actually feel like I'm participating in the fight in a meaningful way.  Too many times in the demo, I'd think, oh, I should get rid of this archer over here . . . oh, he's already dead.  Who killed him?  Oh, it was you.  I had you shooting the boss.  Oh, he's dead too.  Well fooey, fight's over.

I'm more interested in a balance between "I didn't even get to swing at it!" and "turn on auto-attack, go take a shower, come back, oh, it's still not dead yet?"  If it looks a bit goofy, I don't care.

[Mulsanne Blue]

There will always be a complaint of some sort about every game simply because you cannot please everyone. Sometimes though, constructive criticism is mistaken for a complaint because it is hard to glean meaning from written text (you miss all the clues like tone of voice and nonverbal body language).

That being said, I think it is silly that people make a big deal about realism in fantasy games. Key word there is fantasy...If someone is looking for realism, perhaps he/she should look to simulation games?

[RPGamer13]

Wolverine vs a whole bunch of sticks!? Where? I'd love to see Wolverine vs a bunch old guys with sticks.

you can't say you want realism in one thing and be acceptable with other things in the same setting that are fanciful.

Also, realism sucks. The whole point of video games if for the characters to DEFY the laws of physics, it's the only real reason to play video games. The obvious exception being sports games, those are meant to have realistic physics.

Everything else: to hell with that noise. and you people using anime as an insult: to he with you too, anime compared to most US cartoons is 100x better. It's because US cartoon makers and those who watch them expect the cartoons to be family oriented and anime isn't constrained by such notions.

[PsychoBlonde]

Briallen wrote...

Might I ask what your job title was?

You may, but it's not very enlightening:  I was a Tissue Processing Technician.  I took tissue, and processed it.  In a technical sort of way.  (Hah.)  They should have called the position "Chisel-wielding Maniac Covered in Paper with Carpal Tunnel From Gripping Too Hard With Slimy Gloves" if they were going for accuracy.

I worked in a tissue bank making cadaveric grafts for transplant into patients.  Really awesome job if a little gore (all right, a LOT of gore) doesn't bother you.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

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.

Wait a minute. So you are saying they are both unrealistic in the opposite extremes!!!!! So it would come down to merely preferance!!! But then its like this whole topic is pointless!!!

[0rz0]

I think some semblance of "realism" is required in every single story driven rpg. The point is to establish a connection to the player, through which you can then convey emotions. This does not work if the player is constantly reminded that it's all fake.
This kind of realism is mostly shown through world coherence and continuity.
The thing most people are bothered by I think is that while you can explain most stuff with magic, you can't do that for non magic users. So it loks kinda weird when people are teleporting arround and making enemies explode by hitting them with a piece of steel. Mechanichally wise I can say the combat in DA2 looks much much improved. Just the feel of it is kinda eh. Sometimes I can really immagine score points popping up every time I hit a darkspawn :/ . I don't think there's much to do about it though. Me personally, I'd get rid of the weapon trails (or change them) and change the sounds and that'd take care of it most elegantly.

[slimgrin]

The new style of animation lacks visual continuity to DA. There is none. Whatsoever. So every time I see an arrow explode an enemy into bloody bits, or a two handed whirlwind attack leave nothing but standing pairs of legs, I think 'that would look cool...in another game' I was constantly reminded of other games when playing the demo, not DA. Which other games? Hack and slash, and particularly, Japanese style hack and slash, which makes Myzuka's comments on JRPG's all the more hypocritical.

[Ivolon]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ivolon wrote...

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.

No it didn't.  It felt practically turn-based.  I was going to point to a game on my shelf where the combat felt gritty and visceral, but I realized that I don't have one, because I'm not much interested in playing a game so I can almost feel the thwack when I knock gobs of blood and broken teeth out of people's mouths with a golf club.  Actually, I'd probably find that pretty disturbing.  The Prince of Persia games are probably the closest ones I've got, and I'm well aware that isn't saying much.  I do have Fallout 3, but combat in that game only really had "guts" (metaphorical guts) when you used VATS and I don't think slow-mo should count either.

Granted, I may have high standards for visceral because I used to chop half-frozen chunks of muscle, fat, and connective tissue off human bones with a sharpened piece of metal for a living.  When you've done that for a year or so, watching some spiky-haired douche whanging his shield off people just doesn't impress.

You miss missunderstood me, i wasn´t refering to the gore, but to the general nature of combat. In DAO fighting was shown to be a brutal, dangerous buisness for everyone involved, there was a sense weight and effort when weapons were swung. All I see in DA2 is a fancy dance, are those people really fighting for their lives? To me they seem to be some super beeings slaughtering completly outmatched cattle.

[Archereon]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Archereon wrote...

In my opinion, it crosses the line between cool and hilariously over the top.

Hilariously over the top IS cool.  I think I may actually play the game on Hard, though, depending, so I get a chance to actually feel like I'm participating in the fight in a meaningful way.  Too many times in the demo, I'd think, oh, I should get rid of this archer over here . . . oh, he's already dead.  Who killed him?  Oh, it was you.  I had you shooting the boss.  Oh, he's dead too.  Well fooey, fight's over.

I'm more interested in a balance between "I didn't even get to swing at it!" and "turn on auto-attack, go take a shower, come back, oh, it's still not dead yet?"  If it looks a bit goofy, I don't care.

Hilariously over the top is, by definition, hilarious, it might be cool at the same time, but the fact remains that it's so unrealistic, unbelievable, and otherwise suspension of disbelief shattering that it's funny.  If cutscene combat is equally over the top, then it becomes hard to take the game seriously, even as Bioware insists that it's [semi] Mature fantasy.  That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but I don't think I'll be able to derive much enjoyment from a Bioware game that can't be taken seriously.

However, if cutscene combat is toned down, that makes for a massive discrepancy between "story" and "gameplay."  It's not as bad as the above case, but it still strains suspension of disbelief.

[Mezinger]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Archereon wrote...

In my opinion, it crosses the line between cool and hilariously over the top.

Hilariously over the top IS cool.

Not for all of us. 

[Sir Edric]

The OP is right. In the Medieval wars, even soldiers died by people throwing stones against them. Very heroic indeed

[silent bumblebee]

A lot of people seem be replying the realism argument by saying “It’s a fantasy game!” However, I don’t think people arguing for realism are trying to make the case that there should not be fantastical elements in the game. Furthermore I don’t think the people saying “It’s a fantasy game!” would be willing to stand by that response for a lot of scenarios that we could come up with.

Dragons, mages shooting fireballs, etc. don’t exist in the real world. No one is any position to say those things existing is ridiculous because we have no criterion or reference to judge them by. There comes a point where those things may be so disproportionately powerful that most people would probably say “that’s a bad gameplay mechanic” or “that’s bad writing” and decide not to play.

The problem a lot of people have is when things like humans start doing all kinds of extraordinary and over the top things. Humans actually exist and many feel it looks ridiculous when they start lunging halfway across the map and teleporting behind enemies. At that point they’re not even acting like humans anymore and there is an off-putting feel to that for many people.

I also think there is a case to be made for the loss of good contrast the fantasy elements had with well-grounded and real life fundamentals, but this port is already getting way longer than I anticipated. 

Anyway, I don’t necessarily mind all the new animations and what not, but seeing the “What do you expect? It’s a fantasy setting!” response so many times enthused me enough to delurk and say something. Hooray for me. :happy:

Edit: reformat post

Modifié par silent bumblebee, 27 février 2011 - 06:10 .

[AlexXIV]

Well nobody expects total realism, but I think in games like dragon age people expect the in-game reality not to be too far of the perceived medivial reality/myths/legends. I mean they want to recognize the setting. I don't really see the use for over-the-top stuff in the way DA2 does it a times. With all the splatter effects, the huge weapons, all the jumping, etc. I think a game can be fast paced, good-looking and 'awesome' even without that.

[PsychoBlonde]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

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.

Wait a minute. So you are saying they are both unrealistic in the opposite extremes!!!!! So it would come down to merely preferance!!! But then its like this whole topic is pointless!!!

NOOOOO WHATEVER WILL WE DO!?!??!11?!

[Thullon]

Once you add the ability to rain fire from the sky then any complaints about lack of realism don't really hold water.
It makes no sense to ignore something blatantly fantasy like magic but then be picky about how far someone can jump wearing x pounds of enchanted armor.
At that point you have to look at the context of the game itself, not the IP. We're talking about DA2, not DA:O. (Both of which are very much DA.)

[In Exile]

DA:O combat was ridiculous unrealistic in how it was designed, because it lacked grappling. Why is fighting a crowd hard? Because you can't hit multiple targets, and because they can drag you down and gut you. But DA:O treats characters as blocks that don't interact other than by whacking each other, which really makes the whole thing silly.

That's ignoring other things, like how a mages seems to be able to create fire or ice bursting from their hands without burning or freezing their fingers. Fire burns, right? Well, apparently not in DA:O.

That's leaving out silly things like how the same arrow can do triple damage based on whether or not you're using a special skill (like arrow of slaying vs. a normal hit).

[RPGamer13]

Magic for non-magic usets is called Spiritual Energy, that is found in all beings. It is just Dragon Age was decided that only magic users can use spiritual energy.

[Ziggeh]

RPGamer13 wrote...

Magic for non-magic usets is called Spiritual Energy,

I know a guy who runs a car on energy from spirits.

[Cobrawar]

when people talk about realism, they are talking about Imagined realism. What would it be like if people in a world really had to do such things. Even if you were able to get 2 people to fight it out today it would still not be like they had done so in the middle ages. The only way to see how people fought in the middle ages is to hop in a time machine and go back to the past and see, but since we cannot do that. we must use a tool in our minds, and it is called an imagination. Even if it was 50 percent wrong it still doesn't matter. When people say Realism they are talking about a certain style or point of view at looking at things.

the problem with being over the top in combat or anything else in generally is it often borders along the line of ridiculousness. In certain cases it can be Humorous and have the total opposite of the "cool" effect you are looking for.

People complaining about other people complaining about complaining is retarded and should be beaten with sticks out in the streets so everyone can see and before they can reproduce.

Modifié par Cobrawar, 27 février 2011 - 06:30 .

[In Exile]

silent bumblebee wrote...
The problem a lot of people have is when things like humans start doing all kinds of extraordinary and over the top things. Humans actually exist and many feel it looks ridiculous when they start lunging halfway across the map and teleporting behind enemies. At that point they’re not even acting like humans anymore and there is an off-putting feel to that for many people.

I find it ridiculous when Alistair is thrown and punched by an Ogre and doesn't get smooshed. Or when a wolf overwhelemd Morrigain and pieces of her throat didn't fly out. Or when Sten was peppered with so many arrows that he should have looked like a hedgehog but just happened to lose 100 health. Or when Oghren and my HNF were caught in a fireball and didn't have their skin and armour melt in a horrible, horrible death.

Oh! And there was that time the High Dragon caught Zevran in her jaws and started biting down, but instead of exploding him in two he was fine.

Seriously, HP breaks reality. Having intense acrobatis is no more or less ridiculous than HP. DA:O wasn't realistic. DA2 isn't realistic in a different way. You like a certain kind of fake combat. That's great, but none of it has to do with realism.

Modifié par In Exile, 27 février 2011 - 06:23 .

[Ivolon]

In Exile wrote...

DA:O combat was ridiculous unrealistic in how it was designed, because it lacked grappling. Why is fighting a crowd hard? Because you can't hit multiple targets, and because they can drag you down and gut you. But DA:O treats characters as blocks that don't interact other than by whacking each other, which really makes the whole thing silly.

That's ignoring other things, like how a mages seems to be able to create fire or ice bursting from their hands without burning or freezing their fingers. Fire burns, right? Well, apparently not in DA:O.

That's leaving out silly things like how the same arrow can do triple damage based on whether or not you're using a special skill (like arrow of slaying vs. a normal hit).

There was actually grappling and gutting, its called overwhelm and resulted very often in a dead party member. How many "crowds" did you fight in DAO?

[In Exile]

Ivolon wrote...
There was actually grappling and gutting, its called overwhelm and resulted very often in a dead party member. How many "crowds" did you fight in DAO?

Did you play DA:O? You were often outnumbered 2:1 by darkspawn/denerim thugs/werewolves.

I'm talking about getting dragged down and stabbed. That's how fighting works, usually. The hurlocks could easily have done this.

The only marginally realistic part of DA:O combat were the finishing blows, in that they basically took 1-2 quick moves to get the other person off balanced and then killed then. Particularly the warrior gut and shield to the face.

ETA:

And overwhelm was not a killer. The only time it got bad was the multiple overwhelms in a row, which is just about how combat should be.

Modifié par In Exile, 27 février 2011 - 06:28 .