285 réponses à ce sujet

[Grovermancer]

Il Divo wrote...

Grovermancer wrote...

No, and those issues have already been addressed.

What about cloth-wearing mages being able to live through blows from a 2-handed weapon? And soldiers surviving giant fireball explosions while burning through their armor? Can we safely put these into the category of 'unrealistic' as well?

Not relevant, as this thread is about weapons combat.

It's a video game set in a fantasy world, thus there are certain conceits given within the genre; characters have healthbars over their heads.  People can throw fireballs.  That's given, and is besides the point of the thread.

We needn't go into a simplistic, absolutist approach, especially about things aren't directly related to weapons combat.

[Il Divo]

Grovermancer wrote...

Not relevant, as this thread is about weapons combat.

It's a video game set in a fantasy world, thus there are certain conceits given within the genre; characters have healthbars over their heads.  People can throw fireballs.  That's given, and is besides the point of the thread.

I would disagree, since your entire point regard DA vs. DAII seems to relate to the 'atmosphere of the world'.

"DAO had visceral, gritty, real combat moves and animations and skills and abilities.  Fit perfectly with the atmosphere and world, and gave the game such gravity, and validity"

None of the elements you have described gave 'validity' to Dragon Age: Origins, from my perspective. The combat felt neither gritty nor visceral (excluding the shield bash). Bland and lifeless I think is a more accurate description.

We needn't go into a simplistic, absolutist approach, especially about things aren't directly related to weapons combat.

And yet, you yourself just defended Origins as 'a videogame'. Videogames, more often than not, are noted for taking certain liberties with their gameplay, as Dragon Age II demonstrates (as do many other series). I still wouldn't call this an effective defense to Origin's realism.

Put another way, regardless of whether Dragon Age II is less realistic, you have not shown why Origins contained any dedicated realism in the first place.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 mars 2011 - 03:36 .

[Grovermancer]

Il Divo wrote...

Put another way, regardless of whether Dragon Age II is less realistic, you have not shown why Origins contained any dedicated realism in the first place.

Of course I have.

It contained more realism most evidently, because most of the moves were performed like they are in real life.  They in large part looked like how a real person would actually do said move.  Sometimes, it was obviously an approximation which at least still drew upon real life inspiration.  Enemies often reacted in a realistic manner, albeit stylized blood flying out.  (then again, certain strikes to the head/neck can have absurd amounts of blood flying out in RL as well)

Those things aren't true of DA2. 

No complicated explainations or mental gymnastics needed; it's pretty simple.

[WJC3688]

Yes, Origins was more realistic in its presentation of the combat. So what? That's kind of the point. It's a game, not real life; there's no particular reason that it should try to mimic real life, and no particular reason that you should expect it to.

[Dr. Impossible]

WJC3688 wrote...

Yes, Origins was more realistic in its presentation of the combat. So what? That's kind of the point. It's a game, not real life; there's no particular reason that it should try to mimic real life, and no particular reason that you should expect it to.

The first game was quasi-realistic, and the second one is a parody of a JRPG. There's your reason.

[Il Divo]

Grovermancer wrote...
Of course I have.

It contained more realism most evidently, because most of the moves were performed like they are in real life.  They in large part looked like how a real person would actually do said move.  Sometimes, it was obviously an approximation which at least still drew upon real life inspiration.  Enemies often reacted in a realistic manner, albeit stylized blood flying out.  (then again, certain strikes to the head/neck can have absurd amounts of blood flying out in RL as well)

Those things aren't true of DA2. 

No complicated explainations or mental gymnastics needed; it's pretty simple.

Which ultimately means very little in forming an argument that DA: O as a whole was 'realistic'.  

Your claim: Dragon Age Origins has realistic combat animations.

Fine, let's say we allow this as true. Despiteva few  'realistic' animations, practically everything else about combat was highly unrealistic from potions to sword wounds. Once I slash someone with a sword, there is no reaction from my enemy. Even an action-oriented game like Assassin's Creed 2 is more realistic in this regard; if I kick someone, I can expect my foe to double over in pain.

What exactly did these 'realistic' combat animations do for Origins? You claim it made the game visceral/gritty, yet I found combat to be extremely bland.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 mars 2011 - 04:14 .

[Jitter]

 
Combat was a deal breaker for me. 

I think mage Hawk should be sporting a tutu , and add a spell to the tree called pirouette of destruction or something. 

Seriously who the hell wants to do a 360 , the animation was so over the top i couldn't watch it anymore. 

Top of staff PEW PEW 
Bottom of Staff PEW PEW 
slam staff on floor PEW PEW 
Spin PEW PEW 
Spin back ......    seriously ....  why did you spin back ?
Equip him with a barf bag ... or make it a finishing move ... Technocolor yawn AOE.

Enemies are 50 damn feet away  why are you spinning around like an ass..
And the gatling gun of a staff , i was turned off the second i saw it...

It kinda works if ya turn down the volume , and picture him in some banana hammock tights , while listening to the Nut ******....  

Modifié par Jitter, 19 mars 2011 - 04:28 .

[Grovermancer]

Il Divo wrote...

Which ultimately means very little in forming an argument that DA: O as a whole was 'realistic'. 

This thread is about DAO's combat look and function, vs DA2's look and function.

DAO having realistic technique animations that look like they can actually be done by human beings is directly related to that point.

Il Divo wrote...
Your claim: Dragon Age Origins has realistic combat animations.

Fine, let's say we allow this as true.

It is true.  Find footage of professionals doing the techniques, they'll be very similar, in some cases, an exact match

Il Divo wrote... 

Despiteva few  'realistic' animations, practically everything else about combat was highly unrealistic from potions to sword wounds.

Irrelevant to my immediate point.  I'm not talking about potions, or other video game conceits.

Seems like you're really trying to go the long way around here.  It's not this complicated.  Trying to make it such seems to be part of your method to not address the immediate issue already stated time and again, not just by me, but even by many others, in this very thread.  Because to do so pretty much ends the 'debate.'

The Dragon Age IP was sold, in part, as a dark, gritty, real world.  They intentionally used realistically inspired combat animations for DAO.

DA2 threw all that out, opting for an objectively unrealistic approach, yet still trying to pretend this happens in the DA world.

My premise, then, is that was the wrong move by BW.


But yeah, it's still an RPG that has potions, etc.

[Froswald]

I just hope that Bioware/EA/Whoever saw origins being a success, but wanted to improve, tried to improve, flopped hard in some areas, did well in others. And DA3 will be the 'fixer'. But with DA3 I won't do what I did with DA2 and buy it the day it comes out, that's for sure.

I do hope that the anims can be fixed or at least slowed to maybe 70% of the current, and maybe an option to select wheter you want a voiced character or silent? I don't think it would be much harder to do. 

I just really want rogues to stop chugging Lyrium Dew

Modifié par Froswald, 19 mars 2011 - 04:31 .

[Silveryne]

A few things:

DAO had no narrator. DA2 is told by a narrator who is unreliable and is exaggerating. There's points in the game where you can hear some of Varric's exaggerations about things Hawke does. All of which are completely unfeasible. I actually believe that as the story goes on Varric is exaggerating the action more and more and the audience that he has is more inclined to suspend disbelief (I hope that's not too spoilery).

I also believe that they did some motion capture for some of the animations. I do not know which, if they did it for combat animations, or if all animations have had some motion capture.

Finally, some of what you want would be difficult or unfeasible with modern technology. I do not think accounting for the heaviness of a cudgel over a thinner 2 handed sword is something that the team should have dedicated their energy to. I'd rather have more varied environments than that.

[DA_Joran]

Grovermancer wrote...

DA_Joran wrote...

Wow, it really is hard to read through this whole thread. I only got so far before I couldn't take it anymore. My sense is people posting in this topic are over the age of 20 and upwards to their 40's. First off, it's a game. I think people seem to forget that small fact. Second, each of you are not dealing in "facts". You are dealing in opinions. That's it. You each have an opinion and some happen to agree with one another. Get over it.

Sorry.  Words mean things.  There are 'facts,' and these are them:

-- the characters move/fight absurdly too fast to be realistic.
-- the characters move in spastic, twitchy ways during strikes and swings
-- the weapons are apparently weightless
-- the combat moves and techniques (that I've seen) are not realistic or true to actual combat
-- the physical kinesthetics are wrong, and imply ignorance of combat technique on the part of the creators
-- people in real weapons combat don't leap to and fro, or lunge a dozen feet in the blink of an eye
-- bodies don't explode, no matter how hard you strike them


Those are facts.  Doesn't matter if you or I like it or not.  Those statements are accurate to reality.  "Get over it."

Get over it.  It's a game.  None of the above is that important. But, I will contradict a couple of your points.

-- the physical kinesthetics are wrong, and imply ignorance of combat technique on the part of the creators
 Combat moves may be exaggerated.  It doesn't imply those involved in making the animations are ignorant of combat techniques.  It means they purposely did what they did.  It's a GAME.

-- people in real weapons combat don't leap to and fro, or lunge a dozen feet in the blink of an eye
I guess people like Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Jean Claude Van Damme, or John Cena have no idea how to close with an opponent and cover ground quickly.  Granted a dozen feet would take more than one lunge.  But we'ere back to exaggerated moves and --- It's a GAME.

[Il Divo]

Grovermancer wrote...

Irrelevant to my immediate point.  I'm not talking about potions, or other video game conceits.

Seems like you're really trying to go the long way around here.  It's not this complicated.  Trying to make it such seems to be part of your method to not address the immediate issue already stated time and again, not just by me, but even by many others, in this very thread.  Because to do so pretty much ends the 'debate.'

Hardly. I simply find your thread's 'point' to be rather empty in the face of Dragon Age Origin's numerous unrealistic elements. I find it odd that weapon animations are what were able to make/break this for you in the face of this.

The Dragon Age IP was sold, in part, as a dark, gritty, real world.  They intentionally used realistically inspired combat animations for DAO.

DA2 threw all that out, opting for an objectively unrealistic approach, yet still trying to pretend this happens in the DA world.

My premise, then, is that was the wrong move by BW.


But yeah, it's still an RPG that has potions, etc.

 
You're still missing the point. If DA:O was attempting to present itself as a 'real' world, combat animations alone are not going to make/break it. Realism is an admiral goal, yet rarely a realized one. Origin's idea of realism amounted to providing 2-3 generic attack animations which as we both know is not how things work in the 'real' world. That's why your claims of realism ring hollow. If weapon animations are realistic, but everything else about the combat system is not, how can you defend the claim that Origins' combat system simulated the 'real world' (regardless of advertisements).

Hence my point that if you want to make an argument that DA:O was a 'realistic' fantasy setting , you're not going to do it hiding behind weapon animations. Because Origins prided itself on feigning realism, why should DA2?

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 mars 2011 - 04:58 .

[Il Divo]

"DAO's world and atmosphere was gritty, dire, and real. So was the combat. The combat fit the world. Backed up the atmosphere. It looked and felt effortful. It had gravity. Even stylized moves still hearkened to an actual, real combat."

I'd also like to call your attention back to this quote, particularly the bit about the combat 'backing up the atmosphere' which you still have not addressed. Combat felt slow/bland, not 'effortful' due to the same tired animations being used. I did not experience all this gravity you speak of.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 mars 2011 - 05:03 .

[DA_Joran]

Il Divo wrote...

"DAO's world and atmosphere was gritty, dire, and real. So was the combat. The combat fit the world. Backed up the atmosphere. It looked and felt effortful. It had gravity. Even stylized moves still hearkened to an actual, real combat."

I'd also like to call your attention back to this quote, particularly the bit about the combat 'backing up the atmosphere' which you still have not addressed. Combat felt slow/bland, not 'effortful' due to the same tired animations being used. I did not experience all this gravity you speak of.  

I agree with you.  Geez, it's a game.  I'm still trying to understand why it has to be "realistic".  Well, not really.  It's a game.  Honestly, I could care less.  I just think a lot of what is written doesn't take into account that Dragon Age 2 is a game.  And oh, no!  The animations exaggerate combat moves.  Somebody call the FBI and report them.  LOL

[Dr. Impossible]

DA_Joran wrote...

I agree with you.  Geez, it's a game.  I'm still trying to understand why it has to be "realistic".  Well, not really.  It's a game.  Honestly, I could care less.  I just think a lot of what is written doesn't take into account that Dragon Age 2 is a game.  And oh, no!  The animations exaggerate combat moves.  Somebody call the FBI and report them.  LOL

"OLOLOLO IT'S A GAME so it doesn't have to make any sense, have any consistency or logic or even be any good!"

[DA_Joran]

@Dr. Impossible: That is a very true statement.

[Mus3]

I wonder when Grover is going to see past his nerd rage and stop discounting valid points. Grover, you absolutely fail at arguing. All of those points were valid. If you're looking for realism or believability don't watch movies or play games.

[calis_riakel]

I pretty much agree with the OP. However personally, i would have used the word believable - maybe even plausible to describe DAO's combat. I say that as someone who (according to my steam stats) has racked up a depressing 580 or so hours of DAO playtime. I can say with 100% certainty that the sequel will be lucky to see even 1/3 of that kind of play time.

To me 2's combat is not plausible or believable (ie suspension of disbelief) at all. It's just designed to play well on multiple platforms so EA could sell more games accross the 3 platforms than just the PC like DAO at release. To me this has hurt the game and the setting a lot. Bioware had build a amazing setting to tell an awesome story with gritty, believeable (though 2h speeds were frustrating) combat when one bears in mind it's a fantasy setting. Magic still felt powerful but weapon combat was fun and made you wince when someone took a sword through the stomach, or got beheaded.

In 2 though all the enemies feel like they're made of glass and red paint in an effort to make the combat feel "flashy" and "exciting" but really, in an age where you're using (by modern standards) primitive, metal weaponry and armor it makes sense for combat to be slower. To me it's a case of sacrificing believability and quality to sell boxes. Bioware's a business obviously but i think they've made a significant miscalculation here and from what i have seen of the reviews for the game there's a great deal of frustration and disappointment from players (such as myself) who expected another Thedas set storyline with gameplay and  graphics comparable to the first one. What we got however strikes me as being a "lets cash in on the name and get a sequel out as fast as we can" game that for me personally is disappointing at best.

[Victoriaa]

I'm sad to say that i agree 100% with the OP. I'm absolutely loathing the limited dialogue options I've had until now, plus I don't feel I've done any real combat even after playing for several hours. At the start of the game everything felt like one giant clusterfck that I got out of way too easy, even on hard mode.

[Grovermancer]

WJC3688 wrote...

Yes, Origins was more realistic in its presentation of the combat.

I accept your apology.

Modifié par Grovermancer, 19 mars 2011 - 04:04 .

[Grovermancer]

DA_Joran wrote...

Get over it.  It's a game. 

Actually, sounds like you need to "get over it."  Keep coming here, got nothing to offer to the discussion beside 'it's just a game,' basically trying to stifle any discussion.

DA_Joran wrote...

None of the above is that important.

When why keep responding?

DA_Joran wrote...

-- the physical kinesthetics are wrong, and imply ignorance of combat technique on the part of the creators
 Combat moves may be exaggerated.  It doesn't imply those involved in making the animations are ignorant of combat techniques.  It means they purposely did what they did.  It's a GAME.

Yes, yes, especially if it's some of the same folks who did the animations in the first DAO.

DA_Joran wrote...
-- people in real weapons combat don't leap to and fro, or lunge a dozen feet in the blink of an eye
I guess people like Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Jean Claude Van Damme, or John Cena have no idea how to close with an opponent and cover ground quickly.  Granted a dozen feet would take more than one lunge.  But we'ere back to exaggerated moves and --- It's a GAME.

No they don't unless they're real fighters.  How many street fights you think Chan or *LOL* Van Damme ever been in?  How many UFC wins does Cena have?

Besides, as you yourself admit, even in their movies, they're not moving in superhuman speeds.  (unless they're in a movie where they're superhuman -- figured I'd better qualify that statement, since that's the level this debate is working on now -- arguing minutia and nitpicking out of desperation)

The characters in DA2 swing heavy weapons faster than real people can even throw unarmed strikes.

Modifié par Grovermancer, 19 mars 2011 - 04:38 .

[Grovermancer]

Il Divo wrote...

Hardly. I simply find your thread's 'point' to be rather empty in the face of Dragon Age Origin's numerous unrealistic elements. I find it odd that weapon animations are what were able to make/break this for you in the face of this.

Again, what are you talking about here?  Video game conventions such as using health potions?  Has nothing to do w/ combat animations and interactions. 

Amusing you then follow the predictable nature of empty counter-arguments, the next step of which is to try and belittle the importance of combat animations and interactions...  Which low and behold, you do in that very next sentence.


 

Il Divo wrote...
You're still missing the point. If DA:O was attempting to present itself as a 'real' world, combat animations alone are not going to make/break it.

I'm not talking about other elements.  Others can start threads on those other topics.

This thread is about the look, feel, and function of DAO/DA2's combat.

[Nozybidaj]

DA_Joran wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

"DAO's world and atmosphere was gritty, dire, and real. So was the combat. The combat fit the world. Backed up the atmosphere. It looked and felt effortful. It had gravity. Even stylized moves still hearkened to an actual, real combat."

I'd also like to call your attention back to this quote, particularly the bit about the combat 'backing up the atmosphere' which you still have not addressed. Combat felt slow/bland, not 'effortful' due to the same tired animations being used. I did not experience all this gravity you speak of.  

I agree with you.  Geez, it's a game.  I'm still trying to understand why it has to be "realistic".  Well, not really.  It's a game.  Honestly, I could care less.  I just think a lot of what is written doesn't take into account that Dragon Age 2 is a game.  And oh, no!  The animations exaggerate combat moves.  Somebody call the FBI and report them.  LOL

Yeah, I agree to, its just a game.  Hawke should have a flamethrower and laser beams.  Who cares if it makes sense.  IT IS A GAME! <_<

[Grovermancer]

Il Divo wrote...

"DAO's world and atmosphere was gritty, dire, and real. So was the combat. The combat fit the world. Backed up the atmosphere. It looked and felt effortful. It had gravity. Even stylized moves still hearkened to an actual, real combat."

I'd also like to call your attention back to this quote, particularly the bit about the combat 'backing up the atmosphere' which you still have not addressed. Combat felt slow/bland, not 'effortful' due to the same tired animations being used. I did not experience all this gravity you speak of.  

I have addressed this, several times.  (what is there to address -- your opinion?)

You give your opinions here.  I can give mine:  the animations were accurate.  (again, many moves can be proven to be relatively accurate to RL, thus, not an opinion but an objective fact)

As for the speed of certain moves, that's one of the things that should have been tweaked for DA2 IMO.  I've already addressed that numerous times as well.

The 'gravity' means moves, animations, etc., were used that looked on the large part realistic or believable.  Being in DA was real, in a real world.  It wasn't flakey, discountable, or whimsical.  It wasn't fluff.  There was almost a maturity to the combat; you didn't swoop all around, exploding bodies with a swing of your dagger.  You're not superhuman. 

If you were to be wearing armor, a little tired, getting knocked around, you would strike/move very similar to how they moved in much of DAO combat.  (especially in comparison to DA2's combat)  This gives it a feeling of being legitimate, ie, gives it "gravity."

Seriously... you didn't know that's what I was saying???  <_<

[Grovermancer]

DA_Joran wrote...

I agree with you.  Geez, it's a game.  I'm still trying to understand why it has to be "realistic".  Well, not really.  It's a game.  Honestly, I could care less.  I just think a lot of what is written doesn't take into account that Dragon Age 2 is a game.  And oh, no!  The animations exaggerate combat moves.  Somebody call the FBI and report them.  LOL

Basically all you're trying to do is stifle discussion. 

Not gonna happen.