262 réponses à ce sujet

[PatT2]

I'm going to go make a sandwich. No matter what the reason for it, it's mine and you can't have it!

[Superposition]

 This is a tricky subject. However several posters in this thread have already nailed the problem. Personally I believe that the issue revolves around these two intimately related key points : (1) supspension of disbelief and (2) consistency of the Dragon Age Setting. Unfortunately point (1) is highly subjective. Point  (2) suffers from the fact that we have a somewhat limited presentation of the setting. This implies that different players of Dragon Age : Origins may have different perceptions of the setting. Let me now share with you some thoughts.

Lets start with the Dragon Age Setting. If I had to describe the setting by using only one phrase it would be "low(ish) magic fantasy version of medieval Europe". The term "low magic" when used to describe a fantasy setting usually means that the presence of supernatural elements are rare and/or limited  and/or suppresed. An easy way to see why I classify THEDAS low magic is to compare it to Faerun.

Many of the older fans of Bioware have already their share of adventures there while playing Baldur's Gate 1,2 and Neverwinter Nights 1. In Faerun deities exist and can impact the world in significant ways  either directly  ( Bhaalspawns featured in BG storyline ) or indirectly ( spellcasting abilities of clerics, which include ressurection ). Additionally mages aren't rare or supressed and can reach tremendous levels of power compared to the average inhabitant of the world including immortality and even limited forms of divinity ( Elminister, Liches, Karsus, etc...). Magical items are fairly common too.

Throughout Dragon Age : Origins we haven't witnessed anything like that. We don't have any proof that a pantheon exists, only legends. Mages are restricted and always in danger of becoming possesed. Most poweful mage so far is Flemeth and we don't know her "nature", i.e. the reason why she is so powerful. It is also implied that Flemeth's power level is at least rare. This is reinforced by the opening scene of Dragon Age 2. (Cassandra's reaction). We also don't know what abilities the mages of ancient Tevinter had throught their extensive use of blood magic. Construction of magical items is inherently dangerous. ( Lyrium). 

For me all these unknown facts is what makes THEDAS "tick". It is exactly this ambiguity that keeps it intresting. I tend to think that it was intentionally written that way, because the authors needed to differentiate their IP from other well established fantasy settings.  So I expect that supernatural abilities still remain  somewhat rare and when encountered will be backed up by lore. ( For example the supernatural abilities of reavers and templars ...A Scenario that I would find inconsistent with the established lore : "During the blight Orlesians built an army of lyrium based golems that shoot fireballs without the need of a soul/spirit summoned from fade").  Note that consistency has also to do with visual presentation. ( Changing the look of Quanari is somewhat acceptable, but what would happen if Golems looked like futuristic anime mecha and winged dwarves were added? )

Now we can focus on point (1) suspension of disbelief. Each player decides which events are plausible within THEDAS. Then by understanding the limitations of the medium ( computer game )  each player is expected to willingly ignore some clearly implausible events that are depicted on screen and accept them as an abstraction. Unfortunately this whole process is subjective. 

Let me now give you some specific examples. In Dragon Age:Origins the final ability of Bard specialiazation was called Captivating Song. (AoE stun while disabling character ). For me this was an ability that would break my suspension of disbielief. ( Darkspawn obviously are dying to hear Leliana's song.) On the other hand "Aggro mechanics" doesn't break it for me because I understand that the developers propably cannot implement  complex A.I. .  Friendly fire is gamebreaking for me.

Now regarding Dragon Age 2. Over the top, flashy animations depict implausible events ( superfast closing animations. giant leaps, etc.) and  propably are not backed up by lore. (Mages can use staffs in melee combat = good). The real question : Will these new animations improve gameplay for me? So far I don't think so. I would prefer DA2 to be similar to Witcher 2  if they wanted to make an action oriented rpg (Unreal Engine would be sufficient ). The other option would be to shelve the IP for a while and considerably  upgrade the animation system / A.I./physics of their engine. But Bioware is a company and propably according to their data these design decisions will lead to a product that will maximise their short term profits.

To finish this long and geeky post : I consider the game good enough to give it chance but I am curious if they will get away with all these changes.

@ OP : To put it simply people have different expectations for Dragon Age 2 and Bioware wants to please a diverse demographic. You extrapolate too much from your own experiences and preferences.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Melness wrote...

Which is why I said you can't say that the 'rules' were ever against a rogue using a smokebomb/glass bomb to make you/the target think that it was a teleport realizing a SUPER ANIME JUMP, because your only source is DA:O's combat, which was blatanly limited on melee characters with lots of very unrealitistic shuffling.

Didn't we just establish that realism isn't a useful standard?

As you point out, all we have so far is that melee characters don't do all the jumping in DAO.  Whether that's relevant to DA2 is open to debate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Melness wrote...

Interestingly, the weapons aren't oversized.

How are they not oversized?  I did a simple estimate of the mass of the mauls in DAO a while ago and game up with a number just over 40 kg (I assumed their heads had the density of steel, and I justified that assumption by referring to the prevalent architecture throughout the setting).

That's hugely oversized.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

The shuffling remains. In fact, I noticed
it more in DA2 than in DA:O. But that might be because since it was
never brought to my attention while playing DA:O, I didn't register it,
but since it was such a focal critique of DA:O combat and something
they "worked so hard to remove" the fact that it's still there is more
noticeable.

I think the DA2
shuffling is more noticeable because it's less predictable, but perhaps
that will change with greater exposure to it.

And maybe it's
different in the full version.  There are some running animations that
I'm confident are different in the full version, because they're just
so awful in the demo that I can't imagine BioWare releasing a game that poorly constructed.

What I do think will be interesting with the combat is what it will feel like to switch back and forth between the two games.  I expect I'll be doing quite a lot of that in the next couple of months, and I'm curious to see if I come away from that with a strong preference for one or the other after having been able to make repeated direct comparisons.

[Naitaka]

1. Realism has no place in fantasy setting.
2. Conventional moral standard is established by society in the real world.

Hence, conventional moral does not apply to fantasy setting.

Conclusion: Incest is fine in DA2, I want my Bethany romance. Oh and I want light-sabers and all the characters must have spikey anime hair too.

Modifié par Naitaka, 28 février 2011 - 09:29 .

[Mordaedil]

Realism doesn't matter, but consistency within the game world does.

[Xewaka]

Melness wrote...
Never played Mass Effect, I was talking about my experience with the demo.
Isn't the wheel from both games quite different? I mean, here there should be something like 6 different intents with the Mass Effect broken between Good and Bad.

The main difference is the "tone", which is Mass Effect is implied by the position in the wheel (upper for "paragony" responses, lower for "renegadey" responses, middle for "neutral" responses) rather than painted out as an icon in the middle.
It doesn't change the fact that most of the time the paraphrase simply is not informative of what the character will say. And I don't expect that to change for DA 2, as it is a problem endemic to the paraphrase system.
Anyway, there are plenty other forum threads and Pm to discuss this, no need to keep deviating this thread.

In regards to verisimilitude (as realism is a term unapplicable to fantasy games); I'd expect that after going to both sides of the dull---retarded spectrum, they decide to settle for a middle ground.

[Thullon]

@Xewaka

I'm glad you at least liked your example so we could see some context.
It seems like you were ignorant of the context of the conversation.
I took the "sigh" as showing impatience or disgust the second I looked at it.
It won't say it translates perfectly for everyone but it was hardly a failure moment if some people understood the intent of the writers.

This isn't an issue easy to fix with simply by writing the whole choice out either.
The intent of the writers could've been to make the "I should kill both of you." remark as humorous to the npcs, openly hostile or sarcastic etc. We had no way of knowing and the devs have no feasible way of giving us every option.

At least with the intent icon we know how our character will deliver their next line and (presumably) how others will take it. In the demo I had no issues with the intent icon, we'll see how it works in the game.

@Sylvius the Mad

The shuffling is gone, there is no more animation for it.
The autoattack while moving solved one of the major problems with the shuffle that went beyond aesthetics. The seeming inability for melee to move efficiently in combat and stay on target.
I was not able to reproduce anything remotely like either of these DA:O shuffling issues in the demo. It's not what I'd call a perfect fix but some issues were resolved.

[In Exile]

Superposition wrote...

Lets start with the Dragon Age Setting. If I had to describe the setting by using only one phrase it would be "low(ish) magic fantasy version of medieval Europe". The term "low magic" when used to describe a fantasy setting usually means that the presence of supernatural elements are rare and/or limited  and/or suppresed. An easy way to see why I classify THEDAS low magic is to compare it to Faerun. 

A better way to see how "high magic" it is would be to compare it to a Song of Ice and Fire (or even LoTR). Magic is easily avaialble and is widely known and to a degree available. You have magically enchanted items that are produced and have an industry for, you have mages that are known to produce supernatural events and can do so at massive scales, you have non-human races about and around...

It would be like saying that the Witcher is low magic as a setting.

Throughout Dragon Age : Origins we haven't witnessed anything like that. We don't have any proof that a pantheon exists, only legends. Mages are restricted and always in danger of becoming possesed. Most poweful mage so far is Flemeth and we don't know her "nature", i.e. the reason why she is so powerful. It is also implied that Flemeth's power level is at least rare. This is reinforced by the opening scene of Dragon Age 2. (Cassandra's reaction). We also don't know what abilities the mages of ancient Tevinter had throught their extensive use of blood magic. Construction of magical items is inherently dangerous. ( Lyrium).

I'm not a major D&D fan so I can't compare it all that well with the lore in that game, but in terms of what you actually see in-game DA:O was no different in terms of the power that characters had (re: magic) that you had in BG or BGII, depending on your level.

Now regarding Dragon Age 2. Over the top, flashy animations depict implausible events ( superfast closing animations. giant leaps, etc.) and  propably are not backed up by lore. (Mages can use staffs in melee combat = good). The real question : Will these new animations improve gameplay for me? So far I don't think so. I would prefer DA2 to be similar to Witcher 2  if they wanted to make an action oriented rpg (Unreal Engine would be sufficient ). The other option would be to shelve the IP for a while and considerably  upgrade the animation system / A.I./physics of their engine. But Bioware is a company and propably according to their data these design decisions will lead to a product that will maximise their short term profits.

But DA:O had equally implausible melee events. Alistair's across the body sword cut with his shield, Sten's swinging the 2H like it was a baseball bat... they were subdued movements, certainly, but the weren't any less unrealistic. 

I certainly think your initial idea re: why gamers have an issue with the changes is on the right track, but I don't think you're right on the why. There's certainly a reason (if you're right) that some people thought DA:O was low fantasy and found the combant to be appropriately subdued.... but the whole point is that not everyone did, and the feeling of whether or not DA2 "fits" or not depends on why people are making that judgement.

[Bigdoser]

I don't know why is everyone getting so hyped over the combat realism in DAO and DA2 its a game why do you need to worry over realism so much just sit back and enjoy the game.

[Ruccard]

Realism? In a medium-high magic setting? What do you want? A revelation that all spells are via science!?

[Deadmac]

When people talk about more realism in "Dragon Age II", I personally believe they are referring to the game's graphics. If you compare "Dragon Age II" to "Skyrim", side by side, you will see what people are talking about. After reading an interview about "SW: TOR's" stylized art, I personally think BioWare is making excuses for their inability to capture reality. Creating realistic environments takes time, patience, and effort. "Oblivion" was released in 2005, and "Dragon Age: Origins" was released in 2009. Why didn't BioWare try to push realism into their game designs; thus, push themselves to capture realistic textures, facial expressions, and dimensional (textured) equipment?

While looking at the armors in "Dragon Age II", I noticed how they flattened the textural elements. My graphics card can handle between 1.5 to 2 Gigs of RAM, so why hasn't BioWare caught up to the standards? "Dragon Age II" will only use 512MB to generate its graphics; thus, BioWare is stuck graphically and creatively in the deep past.

As a result of spending too much time on creating "SW: TOR", I think BioWare missed an entire evolution in gaming development. Once "SW: TOR" finally arrives on the scene, graphically superior games like "Skyrim" will blow it out of the water. Regardless about what they do with the story, people are going to be aesthetically attracted to other franchises. "BioShock I", "BioShock II", and "BioShock: Infinity" are graphically superior to the entire "Dragon Age" franchise, and I think it will cost BioWare something in the long-term.

When it comes to pc gammer mentality, the trend is heading towards 'absolute realism'. Textures, characters, etc... BioWare is too busy playing with their outdated "Star Wars" MMO; thus, they graphically lost the ability to evolve with technology. MMOs and MMORPGs are long term projects, which get you locked into a specific art style. While all other game companies evolve with technology, MMOs and MMORPGs will allways be stuck graphically in the past. As a result of BioWare not paying attention to trends, their other franchises will feel growing pains. "Dragon Age" just so happens to be the first to suffer.

Modifié par Deadmac, 28 février 2011 - 07:16 .

[Superposition]

 @InExile : All I am saying that this whole issue is subjective and I presented my personal view.  I will try to follow a similar train of thought by using  specific examples. 

Which of the following events are plausible within THEDAS (a.k.a. The Dragon Age Setting ) :
(each reader can give his own answers and his explanations)
-These aren't set in stone.-

Zevran can dualwield  longswords and use them effectively in melee combat. (Yes)
Zevran can dualwield  greatsaxes and use them effectively in melee combat. ( No)
Zevran can teleport without the aid of a mage or magical device. (No)
Zevran can turn invisible without the aid of a mage or magical device. (No)
Zevran can kill an armored indiviual with a dagger / short sword in one blow. (Yes)
Zevran can cover a distance of  100 meters in less than 5s without the aid of a mage or magical device. ( No)
Zevran can assume the form of a Dragon. (No)
Morrigan can use her staff effectively in melee combat. (Yes)
Leliana's song is so great that darkspwan loose their will to fight and do not defend themselves. (No)
Leliana can perfrom great jumps as seen in sacred ashes trailer. (No)
Hawke can perfrom great jumps as seen in Rise to powe trailer. (Yes, blood magic is implied)
etc...

While playing DA:O we have seen

Zevran becoming invisible == Abstraction of stealthy movement / use of a smoke bomb ) 
People bashing each other while some HP bars are going down == Abstarction of melee combat.
Leliana using Captivating Song == Nonsense 
etc

DA2

Rogues teleport behind the enemy and backstab == Even more abstract presentation than DA:O
Rogues can perform great jumps like Leliana as seen in sacred ashes trailer == Nonsense
Rogues now cannot dualwield longswords (?) == More realistic depiction of combat. (?)
Closing animation of 2h == Abstact representation of charging into melee. More abstract than DA:O.
etc

So why some people don't like the changes ? Propably because they expected DA2's depiction of combat to better match their perception of the setting. The point is that each person has different biases and ultimately there is no rational answer. Why I don't like these changes ? Because they feel to me like a retcon. Personally I would like them to get rid of the MMO mechanics and static mobs.

Modifié par Superposition, 01 mars 2011 - 10:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bigdoser wrote...

I don't know why is everyone getting so hyped over the combat realism in DAO and DA2 its a game why do you need to worry over realism so much just sit back and enjoy the game.

What does that even mean?  By what standard is the game enjoyable?

Without answering that question, we can't begin to determine how one might enjoy the game, and that's a hurdle everyone needs to overcome in order to enjoy the game.

[Ivolon]

The Dragon Age setting is (like most traditional fantasy settings) based upon medieval europe and everything that diverges too much from this framework needs some explanation.
Mages and magic for example are well explained within the lore and setting. Their abilties are percieved as something supernatural, a huge part of the story actually revolves around that fact. Preternatural speed and strength should fall in the same categorie, or don´t they? But those abilities are never explained or mentioned.

[AngelicMachinery]

Ruccard wrote...

Realism? In a medium-high magic setting? What do you want? A revelation that all spells are via science!?

I BROUGHT SCIENCE!

[Deadmac]

Ivolon wrote...

The Dragon Age setting is (like most traditional fantasy settings) based upon medieval europe and everything that diverges too much from this framework needs some explanation.
Mages and magic for example are well explained within the lore and setting. Their abilties are percieved as something supernatural, a huge part of the story actually revolves around that fact. Preternatural speed and strength should fall in the same categorie, or don´t they? But those abilities are never explained or mentioned.

I agree with your logic. If you are going to use European mythologies, you should do everything possible in order to stay true to their origins. Elves, dwarfs, dragons, etc... Its all based upon 12th century European lore and myths. If there is some type of deviation, I have no problem with any rationalization they use. Just explain the changes.

Modifié par Deadmac, 28 février 2011 - 08:19 .

[punkindrublic86]

Well, the Roman legion was pretty much unstoppable back in it's time. But, they pretty much hid behind thier phalanx and stabbed whomever was closest. Pretty much the most effective fighters are the least flashy ( kind of like Aveline's shield defense stabs). I like the kinda exaggerated combat in DA2.

[Joy Divison]

Superposition wrote...

 @InExile : All I am saying that this whole issue is subjective and I presented my personal view.  I will try to follow a similar train of thought by using  specific examples. 

Which of the following events are plausible within THEDAS : ( each reader can give his own answers and his explanations)
-These aren't set in stone.-

Zevran can dualwield  longswords and use them effectively in melee combat. (Yes)
Zevran can dualwield  greatsaxes and use them effectively in melee combat. ( No)
Zevran can teleport. (No)
Zevran can turn invisible. (No)
Zevran can kill an armored indiviual with a dagger / short sword in one blow. (Yes)
Zevran covering a distance of  100 meters in less than 5s. ( No)
Zevran can assume the form of a Dragon. (No)
Morrigan can use her staff effectively in melee combat. (Yes)
Leliana's song is so great that darkspwan loose their will to fight and do not defend themselves. (No)
Leliana can perfrom great jumps as seen in sacred ashes trailer. (No)
Hawke can perfrom great jumps as seen in Rise to powe trailer. (Yes, blood magic is implied)
etc...

While playing DA:O we have seen

Zevran becoming invisible == Abstraction of stealthy movement / use of a smoke bomb ) 
People bashing each other while some HP bars are going down == Abstarction of melee combat.
Leliana using Captivating Song == Nonsense 
etc

DA2

Rogues teleport behind the enemy and backstab == Even more abstract presentation than DA:O
Rogues can perform great jumps like Leliana as seen in sacred ashes trailer == Nonsense
Rogues now cannot dualwield longswords (?) == More realistic depiction of combat. (?)
Closing animation of 2h == Abstact representation of charging into melee. More abstract than DA:O.
etc

So why some people don't like the changes ? Propably because they expected DA2's depiction of combat to better match their perception of the setting. The point is that each person has different biases and ultimately there is no rational answer. Why I don't like these changes ? Because they feel to me like a retcon. Personally I would like them to get rid of the MMO mechanics and static mobs.

The problem is that "plausible in Thedas" means something different to you and me.  If you mean "plausible in a medieval setting," then I might agree with your list.  But I take "THEDAS" to mean a "fantasy based world based loosely on medieval Europe." So my list would be: 

Zevran can dualwield  longswords and use them effectively in melee combat. (Yes)
Zevran can dualwield  greatsaxes and use them effectively in melee combat. ( No)
Zevran can teleport. (yes: teleporting in not extraordinary in fantasy)
Zevran can turn invisible. (yes: invisibility is not extraordinary in fantasy)
Zevran can kill an armored indiviual with a dagger / short sword in one blow. (Yes but usually not)
Zevran covering a distance of  100 meters in less than 5s. ( yes: feats of speed are not extraordinary...)
Zevran can assume the form of a Dragon. (Zevron no, but plausible for specific characters)
Morrigan can use her staff effectively in melee combat. ("Effectively" makes this No)
Leliana's song is so great that darkspwan loose their will to fight and do not defend themselves. (Yes: common bard troupe)
Leliana can perfrom great jumps as seen in sacred ashes trailer. (Yes: great feats of athleticism are not extraordinary...)
Hawke can perfrom great jumps as seen in Rise to powe trailer. (Yes).

I think the reason some people have voiced their displeasure stems from various reasons that are not too hard to deduce from the various threads on this forum.  I would posit it mostly has to do with unfulfilled expectations.  People loved Origins and didn't want DA2 to be radically different and there are a lot of people out there who instinctively turn their nose up at "Anime" and "MMO" "over the top" fighting style and were disappointed DA2 combat resembled it too much.

That being said, I have difficulty empathizing with the gamer who has no problem with mages making a mockery of the laws of physics while fighting demons, the undead, and ancient curses where characters casually brush of mortal blows that would absolute incapacitate their ability to fight (to say nothing of unsexy mundane dangers such as disease or a sprained thumb), but can't wrap their head around a warrior swinging a big sword or a rogue deftly leaping away from an enemy attack. 

Modifié par Joy Divison, 01 mars 2011 - 03:20 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

simfamSP wrote...

*sigh* the insults. It does get annoying with trolls call people trolls. It's either you guys not understanding my post. Or I'm not understanding yours. For it seems your disagreeing with someone completely different, because I agree with all your posts.

REALISM IN FANTASY GAMES IS STUPID. THERE IS NO SUCH THING!

"No simfamSP .. the troll is you!" And then he was a troll.

There is realism in fantasy, since fantasy is never completely divorced from reality. There are always connections, always things that are real in this world and the fantasy one and always will be.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

I don't get how people are saying it's unrealistic how 2H warriors wield their weapons now. Have any of these people actually HANDLED an axe or a broadsword? YES, that thing can be heavy but after you get used to using it, you build up so much upper body strength you CAN pretty much whip it around like a stick. It only takes like, a minute to actually strike a hit like in Origins if you simply didn't have the training for it.

What is unrealistic about mages having enough brains to stab something with the pointy end of their staff-sword if they get too close? I thought it was common sense.

The important question is - have you?
People on the forums with actual knowledge of the subject matter have already chimed in - DA:O and DA2 weapons are far too large...and they are swun too slow (origins) or too fast (DA2).

Half of them aren't even used properly (but that's jsut animation budget issues). Mages hitting people with the staff in CC makes perfect sense b.t.w.

[SudsyPatriarch]

aah, another thread that goes like "agree with me or you´re a retard!" how i love these.

[Lotion Soronarr]

When it comes to realism, people fail to distinguish between two types - accceptable breaks from reality (ones that you MUST have) and those that aren't needed, but are still here.

You cannot have a Mass Effect story wihout FTL travel. You CAN have the Dragon Age story without oversized weapons.

What you need depends on the type of game. There are games where damage is modeled realisticy and you really can die to a single shot (depending on where it hits). But such games practicly always don't have a party - since all of the players effort are directed to keeping a single PC alive.

Such an approach wouldn't really work in a party-based game, as the players attention is divided. One-hit-kills would be too tedious. In general, people being more durable than in real life is often necessary.
There ARE ways around it - like making armor mandatory, so there isn' blood flying around, but sparks - or AI being competent enough to NOT get your party members killed - but those ways don't often work well.
Again, depends on a lot of factors.

So yes, I do accept PC's being hard to kill (up to a point - the more sword hits on unarmored flesh it takes to bring hte PC down, the sillier it becomes. Immagine if oyu could send Hawke nude into battle and it took 134 hits from the enemy to kill him, all the while blood is flying everyehre in rivers) as a necessary thing for  gameplay.

Bottom point - some relaism in games exists and always will. Fire is hot and burn. Ice is cold and freezes. Stones are heavy and fall. Steel is hard. A chopped down tree falls. Humans eat.

Anything outside of the ordinary has it's place and explanation. If it doesn't, then the setting isn't really well-made.

[The_11thDoctor]

Ensgnblack wrote...

If I wanted realism I would go outside.<br />
<br />
This game has ogres, darkspawn, dragons, and mages. Why do you not have a problem with magic, but the mass and weight of melee weapons troubles you?

Becasue they're stupid and ignorant. They have never fought a day in their lives, never heald a weapon, never did martial arts, never ...here it comes, Played a GAME in their lives! They want a realistic fantasy game about magic...lol! I swear...Kids are getting dumber and dumber each day... If only they had good parenting or an education, maybe they'd be smarter? I'm guessing they were sat infront of a tv when they were younger and stayed there until today and thought everyone fights like in old wrestling matches where it takes 10 seconds to finally swing whatever object was in the other person's hands so the other can dodge it easily...

A realistic fantasy game:
1 Sword swing that lands kills instantly or deals major injury, player goes to hospital, doctor or just dies.
If player dies in battle, game over, no redos.
No Magic
No Potions
No Elves
No Dwarves
No fictional land
Takes place in present
Taking something that isnt yours, lands you jail
No monsters
LI possibly gives you a STD depending on your choice (Only thing in life that's a dice role)
No Dragons
You're you and not an avatar you make in a game thus no reason for character creation
no music as you explore the world
Still have map quest!

Great game huh? So realistic and fun! ....*sigh*