143 réponses à ce sujet

[Saibh]

Top Gun volleyball wrote...

You've clearly made up your mind that it isn't. Why should I waste time arguing with idiots?

That so easily translates into "I don't actually have any reasoning beyond my blinding hatred of DAII".

[1varangian]

The criticism isn't directed at the combat mechanics as much as the new style.

It's the animations and talents that got infused with cartoony flair. Spinning around for no apparent reason, teleporting, hail of arrows from a single bow etc. Some people like their RPG's mature and believable instead of flashy supercool over the top.

[Saibh]

1varangian wrote...

The criticism isn't directed at the combat mechanics as much as the new style.

It's the animations and talents that got infused with cartoony flair. Spinning around for no apparent reason, teleporting, hail of arrows from a single bow etc. Some people like their RPG's mature and believable instead of flashy supercool over the top.

I disagree that DAO's combat was ever believable. It was slower, and it meandered, but it wasn't realistic nor believable.

That said, certainly DAII combat is less believable.

[Zkyire]

Top Gun volleyball wrote...
People don't just make up criticism. .

..have you even seen the amount of threads that appear here every day from people complaining about things not even worth noting?

[Vit246]

I wouldn't exactly say DAII is a button masher. It just has faster gameplay. I suppose on a console, it would be a button masher?

Modifié par Vit246, 27 février 2011 - 02:27 .

[KLUME777]

Console gameplay is very much a button masher. DAO wasn't like that.

[BeardedNinja]

KLUME777 wrote...

Console gameplay is very much a button masher. DAO wasn't like that.

Well considering its hard to really classify what consoles got combat wise compared to PC's in DA:O
also there's a toggle in the full game 

[Poquimo]

I'm with the people who were shocked to find they DIDN'T have to push X in the first game. I always do anyway out of habit, most games I play are like that and I really prefer it since I feel like I am in more control with how I attack things. It feels less like when I'm playing table top rpgs and you designate a square with a figure on it to hit. Instead I'm just jumping around everywhere which is awesome.

[panamakira]

We should be able to smash buttons with our minds. I demand satisfaction!

[PinkShoes]

Dunno cause its not. I was just playing Bayonetta to try and get my mind of DA2 and its a total button masher game. DA2 is far from button masher.

[PinkShoes]

Saibh wrote...

1varangian wrote...

The criticism isn't directed at the combat mechanics as much as the new style.

It's the animations and talents that got infused with cartoony flair. Spinning around for no apparent reason, teleporting, hail of arrows from a single bow etc. Some people like their RPG's mature and believable instead of flashy supercool over the top.

I disagree that DAO's combat was ever believable. It was slower, and it meandered, but it wasn't realistic nor believable.

That said, certainly DAII combat is less believable.

Heh i gotta say, if you was really fighting would you slowly attack someone or beat the crap out of them as fast as you could? And backflipping actually is something very useful. when i was fighting the orge it barely touched me!

You should play turnbase, it seems you would enjoy that more. And i dunno what your talking about when you say cartoony. Have you ever played a cartoony game? Its really not.

[Hexadecimal]

I mashed the poo out of my A button in DAO
I didn't even notice auto attack wasn't in the demo unil I reached for my sammitch and stopped slaughtering.

At least it'll be in the full game, for the sake of my sammitches.

[Porrage]

It's definitely a button masher on the console.

I created a mage and only had a couple attack spells early on. Once those spells were on cooldown, I had no choice but to "mash" the 'A' button over and over again. Had I been on Normal or Hard difficulty, it wouldn't have been long before the enemies were dead, but since I play on Nightmare, and attacks barely do any damage to elite enemies or higher, most of my tough battles consisted of just slamming the 'A' button over and over until my abilities weren't on cooldown.

[ji.Ruichi]

Without button mashing, I think combat wouldve been boring for the console version. Remember DAO? Now we can evade, personally direct every attack angle etc. Think about it.
Though I can understand button mashing for mages are a little weird.

[Lee T]

I'll be happy the day we finally have that auto attack we were promessed at launch.

Pushing a button is only fun when it requires timing and or combinations, the things you can find in an actual action game.

[Servius the bear]

this is a button masher game. Nothing like what it was. It lost all the glory it had and made me decided I wont buy the next one Unless it go's back to the old style. 

[MonkeyLungs]

Lee T wrote...

I'll be happy the day we finally have that auto attack we were promessed at launch.

Pushing a button is only fun when it requires timing and or combinations, the things you can find in an actual action game.

I just wanted to quote this gentlemen for truth.

Further to all of you fine and brilliant forum goers of Bioware social I would liek to add that the 'button masher' comment is due to:
-- Having to press A every single attack. Combat is much faster now too so you have to press A many many times. --------Why no auto attack?
--------Why can I not just hold down A (you know like tons of games that require repeated button presses allow a person to do)???

So many of you great individuals come out to insult anyone who has concern with this game and I just don't get it.

***Allowing for auto-attack would NOT diminish your ability to press the button over and over.
***Allowing for simply just holding down the button (instead of pressing it over and over) would not diminsh your ability to press A for awesome.

[TJSolo]

L.Rui wrote...

Without button mashing, I think combat wouldve been boring for the console version. Remember DAO? Now we can evade, personally direct every attack angle etc. Think about it.
Though I can understand button mashing for mages are a little weird.

Button mashing on the console is a pain in the ass for a melee character. Thanks to the way the A button works every time I press A I am "re-targetting" the closest enemy, attempting to loot corpses/chests, and swinging my weapon. In a fight with a bunch of enemies there is a 1 in 3 chance each time I press the A button that an action I did not intend is going to happen.

[TheReignmaker]

So... It's a preference thing, if you have played and enjoy
mostly real-time/action games that require a button to be pushed every
time your character / avatar does something, whether those games have
been, Street Fighter, Golden Axe, COD whatever, then you get to a game
like DA:O and go huh? What's the point? This is boring... I want to have
to push buttons.

But if you've mostly played and enjoy games
like Baldurs Gate, NWN, Civilizations, DA:O where you're used to setting
things up, monitoring what's happening, adjusting as necessary, and you
land in the console version of DA2 with auto-attack disabled, you go..
what the heck happened to one of my favourite games!!! This is a button
masher! *run away, run away*

I'm resurrecting this thread.  I know this is beating the dead horse, but I'm one of the people in the second category and I think you did a good job describing the warring factions on this issue.  I totally agree with your assesment.  The part that bothers me, is I just don't understand why Bioware couldn't make DA2 it's own separate property? 

It's an undeniable fact that there are BUCKET-LOADS of action-rpgs on the market right now.  But there was only ONE property that brought back the tactical Baldur's Gate combat with the deep, immersive world to go with it.  In short, Bioware had something with a DISTINCT ADVANTAGE over other offerings in the marketplace and they decided to throw that out the window in favor of a Diablo-like approach.  I don't resent anyone for prefering that approach, but I am disappointed that Bioware had to market this as a sequel, while taking full creative liberty over the material in the first game.

This analogy might fail, but let me try to put the situation in these terms: It's like letting Peter Jackson direct Fellowship of the Ring and then allowing Michael Bay to come in and direct The Two Towers.  Sure the second offering has more flash and glitter, but it comes at the expense of substance.  For fans of the first installment, it's like watching your story and characters get murdered.  That being said, Michael Bay movies still make a lot money.  People like the action and explosions.  But there's a reason the studio didn't give Bay a call to do the upcoming Hobbit movie.

If you care about awards, Jackson's offerings have received universal praise and acclaim.  Bay on the other hand seems to be a favorite among critics for being unimaganitive and a sell-out.  But the man still brings in the bucks, right?  By comparison, DAO received numerous awards for being the RPG/Game of the year.  By the look of things, DA2 won't get anything.  It's accepted for being a solid offering, but it's not as deep as DAO and it doesn't showcase anything new that other offerings haven't already matched. 

For those who argue that the actual tactics are the same, I agree that they are similar in theory.  But in actual practice, it's common knowledge that DA2 doesn't require a lot of pausing or forethought to complete the game.    That is what makes it a masher.  It's in the "action RPG" category with a Diablo.  Not the Baldur's Gate category which was more tactical.  

Taking this under consideration, I have no doubt that Bioware is going to incorporate more customization in DA3 when it comes out.  They'll do some minor tweaks to appease old fans.  But that being said, the damage has been done and it was executed deliberately without apology.  Anyone that has played DA2 can tell you the streamlined Hawke story is going to continue.  Bioware has also commented that they aren't going to make a U-turn for DA3 like they did for its predecessor.  In short, the console-focused masher has won the day.  It's simply easier to develop and it's part of an action-focused genre that is already wildly popular.  To those who prefer DA2, you can rest knowing that your preferences are going to be met.

Those of us who prefer the tactical approach with an emphasis on huge worlds, and engaging characters will just have to hold onto Origins and be grateful it was ever made.  This is a familiar place - we had to do the same with Baldur's Gate (God knows that NWN never delivered).  But forgive us if we're less than ecstatic on what the DA franchise has become.

/end rant

Modifié par TheReignmaker, 13 septembre 2011 - 04:13 .

[Captain Sassy Pants]

TheReignmaker wrote...

So... It's a preference thing, if you have played and enjoy
mostly real-time/action games that require a button to be pushed every
time your character / avatar does something, whether those games have
been, Street Fighter, Golden Axe, COD whatever, then you get to a game
like DA:O and go huh? What's the point? This is boring... I want to have
to push buttons.

But if you've mostly played and enjoy games
like Baldurs Gate, NWN, Civilizations, DA:O where you're used to setting
things up, monitoring what's happening, adjusting as necessary, and you
land in the console version of DA2 with auto-attack disabled, you go..
what the heck happened to one of my favourite games!!! This is a button
masher! *run away, run away*

I'm resurrecting this thread.  I know this is beating the dead horse, but I'm one of the people in the second category and I think you did a good job describing the warring factions on this issue.  I totally agree with your assesment.  The part that bothers me, is I just don't understand why Bioware couldn't make DA2 it's own separate property? 

It's an undeniable fact that there are BUCKET-LOADS of action-rpgs on the market right now.  But there was only ONE property that brought back the tactical Baldur's Gate combat with the deep, immersive world to go with it.  In short, Bioware had something with a DISTINCT ADVANTAGE over other offerings in the marketplace and they decided to throw that out the window in favor of a Diablo-like approach.  I don't resent anyone for prefering that approach, but I am disappointed that Bioware had to market this as a sequel, while taking full creative liberty over the material in the first game.

This analogy might fail, but let me try to put the situation in these terms: It's like letting Peter Jackson direct Fellowship of the Ring and then allowing Michael Bay to come in and direct The Two Towers.  Sure the second offering has more flash and glitter, but it comes at the expense of substance.  For fans of the first installment, it's like watching your story and characters get murdered.  That being said, Michael Bay movies still make a lot money.  People like the action and explosions.  But there's a reason the studio didn't give Bay a call to do the upcoming Hobbit movie.

If you care about awards, Jackson's offerings have received universal praise and acclaim.  Bay on the other hand seems to be a favorite among critics for being unimaganitive and a sell-out.  But the man still brings in the bucks, right?  By comparison, DAO received numerous awards for being the RPG/Game of the year.  By the look of things, DA2 won't get anything.  It's accepted for being a solid offering, but it's not as deep as DAO and it doesn't showcase anything new that other offerings haven't already matched. 

For those who argue that the actual tactics are the same, I agree that they are similar in theory.  But in actual practice, it's common knowledge that DA2 doesn't require a lot of pausing or forethought to complete the game.    That is what makes it a masher.  It's in the "action RPG" category with a Diablo.  Not the Baldur's Gate category which was more tactical.  

Taking this under consideration, I have no doubt that Bioware is going to incorporate more customization in DA3 when it comes out.  They'll do some minor tweaks to appease old fans.  But that being said, the damage has been done and it was executed deliberately without apology.  Anyone that has played DA2 can tell you the streamlined Hawke story is going to continue.  Bioware has also commented that they aren't going to make a U-turn for DA3 like they did for its predecessor.  In short, the console-focused masher has won the day.  It's simply easier to develop and it's part of an action-focused genre that is already wildly popular.  To those who prefer DA2, you can rest knowing that your preferences are going to be met.

Those of us who prefer the tactical approach with an emphasis on huge worlds, and engaging characters will just have to hold onto Origins and be grateful it was ever made.  This is a familiar place - we had to do the same with Baldur's Gate (God knows that NWN never delivered).  But forgive us if we're less than ecstatic on what the DA franchise has become.

/end rant

Which is very, very sad.

A game, which started life as a PC only title, has been altered with it's sequel purely for the console crowd because they found the original to be "boring".

[LeBurns]

TheReignmaker wrote...

Those of us who prefer the tactical approach with an emphasis on huge worlds, and engaging characters will just have to hold onto Origins and be grateful it was ever made.  This is a familiar place - we had to do the same with Baldur's Gate (God knows that NWN never delivered).  But forgive us if we're less than ecstatic on what the DA franchise has become.

And there I am.  I just beat DAO again this week and loved it.  Loved the epic 'hero saves the world' story, the deep characters, the battles tactical challenges, the art style, etc.  Playing my character through the expansion and DLC's now.

I only played the DA2 demo, and hated it.  I actually beat the final fight in the demo by looking at the floor and hitting 'R' over and over again until the yelling stopped.  It just made me sick.

Now I just play DAO over and over again waiting for Skyrim to come out.

[fsfsfsfsfsfsfsfff]

You all are just too dumb to see the differences.

[TheReignmaker]

I play Bioware games mainly for the story, but Origins' combat was so bad that I was literally only playing for the story, and I find it impossible to replay for that reason.

"Bad" is a pretty open-ended term.  Did you find it bad because you found it hard to control your party?  Was it bad because you found the style boring?  Too difficult with many things happening at once? 

For me, a battle in Origins was an event - full of interesting strategic and different possibilities.  You weren't able to simply mow through the opposition, because in many instances your foes would be of equal or greater power than you.  Because of this, special care had to be taken with positioning, timing, spell selection, and items.

I guess it comes down to preference, but in my humble opinion "bad" combat is being able to essentially auto-attack your way through an entire 50-hour experiece while spamming cooldowns.  Because there are so many games that adopt this approach, I'm not surprised this it what many players expect...especially on consoles.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining how DAO even played on the console, because I played it on the PC.  That being said, it still had a better reception than DA2 on all platforms.

Modifié par TheReignmaker, 13 septembre 2011 - 08:26 .

[MrNose]

TheReignmaker wrote...

I play Bioware games mainly for the story, but Origins' combat was so bad that I was literally only playing for the story, and I find it impossible to replay for that reason.

"Bad" is a pretty open-ended term.  Did you find it bad because you found it hard to control your party?  Was it bad because you found the style boring?  Too difficult with many things happening at once? 

For me, a battle in Origins was an event - full of interesting strategic and different possibilities.  You weren't able to simply mow through the opposition, because in many instances your foes would be of equal or greater power than you.  Because of this, special care had to be taken with positioning, timing, spell selection, and items.

I guess it comes down to preference, but in my humble opinion "bad" combat is being able to essentially auto-attack your way through an entire 50-hour experiece while spamming cooldowns.  Because there are so many games that adopt this approach, I'm not surprised this it what many players expect...especially on consoles.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining how DAO even played on the console, because I played it on the PC.  That being said, it still had a better reception than DA2 on all platforms.

An RTS has the features you listed re:strategy, and doesn't necessarily suffer from the drawbacks of DA:O combat.  I am having a difficult time getting through DA:O (still haven't finished it) because combat is tiresome to me.  People compare it to Baldur's Gate, but Baldur's Gate did it better in my opinion. 

I enjoyed DA2's combat because, at least how I played it, it required constant attention to the battlefield.  As a force mage with a near-constant party of two rogues and a tank, every battle involved careful management of enemy position and of the "enemyload" faced by my characters.  I dislike using potions for multiple reasons, and so unless I was in a boss battle, anything less than complete domination of a battle could (and did) quickly lead to dead PCs. 

I think that my battle with Flemeth really cast in stone my disappointment with DA:O's combat.  Sure I had to be prepared, but once I went in, the battle itself was an extremely tedious event.  Combat should be something that
requires lots of adjustment when it's on a small, 4-person scale. 
The DA2 fight with the High Dragon, while still somewhat problematic, at
least required that the user pay attention t what's going on.

I've noticed in this thread that there may be a misconception that "fast" = "unstrategic".   This is simply not true. In fact, I was shocked to see Street Fighter described as a "button masher."  If anyone who thinks that could please go download Street Fighter III: Third Strike and try to play by mashing buttons, I'd love to hear the results. 

Neither game has perfect combat, but I can't fault either for having a bad system.  I think that, ultmately, people are looking for different things out of the DA series.  Everyone wants a tactical RPG, but some want an RPG with an emphasis on tactical preparation for combat, while others want an emphasis on tactical adaptation during combat.  I would argue DAO focused on the former, DA2 on the latter.  Both did their jobs fine, and I would probably have enjoyed DAO more had I started the game having understood its play style better.  

(This opinion is based on experiences with the PC version of both games.)