124 réponses à ce sujet

[Oliver Sudden]

Gabochido wrote...

For most people, "reality" regarding sword combat is based on what they see in movies. Since most of the stuff in movie is only loosely based on real life and has a lot of fanciful choreography added to make it look cool, the "reality" presented in Dragon Age should also be easy to accept for most people.

While the part of what we wanted to get across with the weapon styles was that it looked humanly feasable, we also wanted it to look cool and we also wanted people to see it a lot since it does indeed look quite cool.

Thanks for popping in and offering an explanation. Since the feature is so popular with so many of your audience, I think you succeeded in spite of what some of us say.

(But you'll never get me to agree it looks cool.)

Edit: PS Great game, though!

Modifié par Oliver Sudden, 17 novembre 2009 - 12:47 .

[Westbound]

I want to dual wield bows. That would be radical.

[menasure]

Westbound wrote...

I want to dual wield bows. That would be radical.

make it specially designed light crossbows and we can duel in western style

[Zibon]

I'm just disappointed that there is no 1h fighting style for rogues (or warriors) to create a true duelist or swashbuckler-type character. There are bucklers and such that require low str, but they aren't really very useful since you'll probably be getting 20 str anyway for the best leather which with a little stat boost lets you use the heavier shields.



IMO there's a definite hole in the design for this area. I have to assume that it was simply cut early in development.

[uly]

Let me clarify...

Okay I may have put a misleading title, but I don't dislike dual wielding at all. I just don't like that, one, it's way too common in DAO, and two, it's the only melee choice for rogues.

I personally love dual wielding, and I almost always go for it when given the choice. Not to toot my own horn or imply any kind of expertise, but I have actually trained in two sword fighting. And I know first hand that, without natural talent and serious training, the off-hand sword functions like a crappy shield at best. It's really only the exceptional who excel at dual wielding. But DAO gives out out dual wielding bonuses like it's free.

Now, I know it's a fantasy game, but even then it would still be nice to see the difficulty of dual wielding reflected. At the very least, I don't want to see dual wielders constitute such a big proportion, for the same reason that I don't want to see everyone garbed in Uber Golden Full Plate of Uberness +6.

EDIT:
On the subject of bucklers...  It would be great if there are also different fighting styles that distinguish between great big shields and small light shields.  Overall I think the sword+shield combo should be much better represented.  It is afterall the most common style in the medieval setting, and for good reason, too.  But maybe that's just asking for too much?

Modifié par uly, 17 novembre 2009 - 01:27 .

[Lorent]

Actually, I shoot a sig p220, I can shoot it equally well in either hand, I would never try and fire both pistols at the same time but with the corrrect combat harness it is possible to shoot with my left, then with my right, palm a mag with my left, and combat reload my right and keep feeding it so that it is essentially an endless stream of bullets being fired. But no its not what people think of when dual wielding, I know guys who try two gun mojo, and sorry not going to happen, the human visual system is not set up in such a way to pull it off with aimed shots.

[uly]

Lorent wrote...

Actually, I shoot a sig p220, I can shoot it equally well in either hand, I would never try and fire both pistols at the same time but with the corrrect combat harness it is possible to shoot with my left, then with my right, palm a mag with my left, and combat reload my right and keep feeding it so that it is essentially an endless stream of bullets being fired. But no its not what people think of when dual wielding, I know guys who try two gun mojo, and sorry not going to happen, the human visual system is not set up in such a way to pull it off with aimed shots.

Aye, but melee dual wielding is a different story altogether.  Most novice dual wielders have the tendency of either alternating between main and off-hand for attack, or simply use the off-hand weapon exclusively for defense.  In the first case, the gain on rate of attack is negligeable, but the loss on control, force and body balance is considerable, not to mention the fact that it usually puts you in a more vulnerable form and position.  In the latter case, the advantage to defense does not compensate for the loss on offense, and again it puts you in a less defensive stance to begin with.  I've never trained with sword&shield, but I can't imagine a main gauche being a better defensive instrument than a shield.

Almost every school that specialize in two weapon fighting will tell you that, to be truely efficient, one must be able to use both hands independantly and in concert, and both offensively and defensively.  That takes not only a good dose of natural ambidextrous talent, as well as excellent body balance and of course years of practice.  Shooting a gun in one hand while reloading in another at least cuts down the reload downtime, but not being able to attack simultaneously with two swords means the dual wielder is forever at a disadvantage against a single-sword foe.

[Bruin Cousland]

Well, I think reach probably plays the most important role in realistic combat. Always good to kill someone before they get close enough to strike at you.



Polearms are thus the best for melee, but what you really want are horse archers.

[Obode]

Last time I checked we didnt have people throwing fireballs or chain lightning around in real life, or raising the dead...

Its a game!

[Madanial]

Maybe you're just thinking too much?

[Lughsan35]

1000yardkill wrote...

It all started with The Grey Mouser, but I doubt many of you whipper-snappers even know who that is.

Fafhrd's Buddy! Its a shame those tales are somewhat buried under the deleuge of craptastic drizzit do ordan and other d&d branded schlock...

[Lughsan35]

uly wrote...

Lorent wrote...

Actually, I shoot a sig p220, I can shoot it equally well in either hand, I would never try and fire both pistols at the same time but with the corrrect combat harness it is possible to shoot with my left, then with my right, palm a mag with my left, and combat reload my right and keep feeding it so that it is essentially an endless stream of bullets being fired. But no its not what people think of when dual wielding, I know guys who try two gun mojo, and sorry not going to happen, the human visual system is not set up in such a way to pull it off with aimed shots.

Aye, but melee dual wielding is a different story altogether.  Most novice dual wielders have the tendency of either alternating between main and off-hand for attack, or simply use the off-hand weapon exclusively for defense.  In the first case, the gain on rate of attack is negligeable, but the loss on control, force and body balance is considerable, not to mention the fact that it usually puts you in a more vulnerable form and position.  In the latter case, the advantage to defense does not compensate for the loss on offense, and again it puts you in a less defensive stance to begin with.  I've never trained with sword&shield, but I can't imagine a main gauche being a better defensive instrument than a shield.

Almost every school that specialize in two weapon fighting will tell you that, to be truely efficient, one must be able to use both hands independantly and in concert, and both offensively and defensively.  That takes not only a good dose of natural ambidextrous talent, as well as excellent body balance and of course years of practice.  Shooting a gun in one hand while reloading in another at least cuts down the reload downtime, but not being able to attack simultaneously with two swords means the dual wielder is forever at a disadvantage against a single-sword foe.

do some arnis training and your attitude will change a lot.. depending on the weapon speeds being used the main gauche can be vastly superior to a shield as its more ponderous.. rapier combat is light and fast...

The only people at a disadvantage in 2 weapon situation are the un trained ones...

Though I admit I prefer a single blade myself as there is less likelihood of it being leveraged in a way I am not expecting..

[Inarai]

Bruin Cousland wrote...

Well, I think reach probably plays the most important role in realistic combat. Always good to kill someone before they get close enough to strike at you.

Polearms are thus the best for melee, but what you really want are horse archers.

Until you get into confined spaces, that is - a shift that was responsible for the daigatana falling out of favour in Japan

[phordicus]

Lughsan35 wrote...

1000yardkill wrote...

It all started with The Grey Mouser, but I doubt many of you whipper-snappers even know who that is.

Fafhrd's Buddy! Its a shame those tales are somewhat buried under the deleuge of craptastic drizzit do ordan and other d&d branded schlock...

i liked the setting more than the characters.  Moorcock was my preference.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Obode wrote...

Last time I checked we didnt have people throwing fireballs or chain lightning around in real life, or raising the dead...

You don't live in Canada, obviously  I almost got fireballed by a polar-bear riding mountie today because I forgot to say 'thank you'.

[Kelston]

Haexpane wrote...

Yes, REAL LIFE dual wielding is a pipe dream.
HK action movies - every **** has dual uzis.

Since then every nerd has demanded dual wielding in every game, shooter or RPG even tho it's the most unrealistic and nonsense feature around.

Why is real life dual wielding a pipe dream or nonsense? Would you tell an Eskrima practitioner that what he's doing is nonsense seeing as how dual wielding rattan sticks is a huge part of the fighting style? How about martial artists that use sais or nunchaku? Or maybe a fencer that wields a main-gauche in the off hand? Was a samurai wielding his katana and wakizashi practicing nonsense as well?

[Lughsan35]

phordicus wrote...

Lughsan35 wrote...

1000yardkill wrote...

It all started with The Grey Mouser, but I doubt many of you whipper-snappers even know who that is.

Fafhrd's Buddy! Its a shame those tales are somewhat buried under the deleuge of craptastic drizzit do ordan and other d&d branded schlock...

i liked the setting more than the characters.  Moorcock was my preference.

His stuff is suffering the same overlooked state of things as Lieber's

I just re-read all the Elric and Corum stuff.. and now I am re-reading the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.  

He's such an ass..

[Garrand]

Dual wielding bulky, heavy weapons like a longsword (even some shortswords) in a real life melee is asking to get killed, in the appropriate time period. Today of course you would get to hear them laugh before a handgun is pulled on you.



This is fantasy, so the only thing that matters should be: "Is it fun?"



Since this does not have a multiplayer, and therefore competitive component, "balance" means nothing - it should only be balanced to where it feels fun for a player to use it. All three melee styles feel fun, and of course magic is always fun. If anything, Archers should be complaining (yeah, your arrows hit like a truck, but you fire reaaallly slow).

[Spiritside]

Always find it funny when people complain about dual wielding not being realistic, while on the other hand you have a mage in your party.

[Garrand]

Of course it's absurd, but there is such a thing as continuity within an IP. You won't see a star destroyer in Diablo, just as Generic Named Dragon #10 won't show up in Planetside.

Modifié par Garrand, 17 novembre 2009 - 07:33 .

[UnAffectedFiddle]

Well, a HP system makes fighting in general biased. If games had realistic style hits (i.e. a sword to the chest is dead) and added the benefits and downsides of each side, most people would probably opt for a buckler since a single mistake would lead to a death and so on. Or a larger 2H weapon for reach...I dont believe big powerful swings were really the intention behind many of the 2H swords and so forth, since a small amount of force at the hilt would result in sufficient movement to cause serious injury on the pointy end. Also means you arent overreaching with the giant swing EVERY 2H animation has ingame.



What I'd love to see is a 1H + misc item style i.e. cloak o free handr for quick grabbling/pushing movements for offbalancing and so on. Thinking Assassins Creed where he move sin close and elbows or pulls a wrist to off balance people.

[Korva]

I find dual wielding overhyped and overused. Everyone wants to be Mary Drizzt Sue. It'd be one thing if the style restricted you to bucklers, swordbreakers, daggers and similar lightweight offhands, but full-sized longswords? Or even, the height of pure idiocy, a two-handed weapon in each hand a la World of WarCraft? Ugh.

The problem is, the style is also often more powerful, more interesting, and more fun to watch than the "slow and ponderous" two-handers. So although I was determined to go with two-handers for my noble dwarven warrior, I'm seriously tempted to change my mind. Missing five slow-motion swings in a row (which happened more than once when I played the origin, despite a hit rating of ~80%) just isn't my idea of fun, and the talents sound mostly boring compared to what dual-wielders get.

I'm tempted to use test-drive Sten for a few fights alongside my current character, to see what a mid-level two-handed warrior feels like. That might change my mind, but I'm dubious.

[uly]

Dual wielding is pretty unrealistic, but that's not the problem, and it's not my complaint. The whole reason to have dual wielding is that it is cool and fantastic, but it's a lot less cool and fantastic when a quarter of Ferelden population are dual wielders.

The ease (and in the case of rogues the necessity) of dual wielding simply dilutes its coolness.  If every other character in DAO could cast spells, the mages would be a lot less special as well.

Even if you play a one-armed rogue, you would have no choice but to go for dual wielding talents!

Modifié par uly, 17 novembre 2009 - 02:13 .

[Oliver Sudden]

Korva wrote...

...the height of pure idiocy, a two-handed weapon in each hand a la World of WarCraft? Ugh.

I think I now understand the appeal of dual wielding. I didn't know that about World of WarCraft.

Modifié par Oliver Sudden, 17 novembre 2009 - 02:39 .

[Titanmike357]

I take part in dagorhir, and some times I use S&S, some times I use a 2handed sword and some times I use two short swords.



Each style has its own advantages and disadvantages, I am more defensive with my shield, more aggressive with two weapons and in the middle with a two hander.



I am by far, better with two shorter swords than I am with a two hander, but I am at my best when I am using a shield, a large one at that.



Dual wielding two light fast weapons, is not as exotic as it may seem, and while I am no master at it, I have won my share of 1 V 1 Duels using two swords, but you have to be able to attack and defend with both of them, often a off hand attack is what scores the killing blow because its not expected.