237 réponses à ce sujet

[Roxlimn]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Most of the animations in DA:O are very close to realistic. There were some fairly stupid ones, such as the Ogre deathblow - fortunately this doesn't happen often.

But, if you have some examples of seriously unrealistic animations in Origins, I'd be more than happy to hear of them/see them?

In both DA:O and DA:2, your character's attack animations are the same regardless of the type of enemy you're facing, and whether or not the image of your weapon contacts the enemy.  In fact, in many cases, the onscreen avatars look most like a bunch of unrelated animations of people who don't know anything about combat swinging weapons in uncomfortable ways.  Death animations are rarely related to the blow that caused it.

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

It's not unusual for a storyteller to say:

"And suddenly there were a bunch more enemy templar in our faces. We had no idea where they came from."

And yes, it's not that unusual for storytellers to embellish to the point that their combat recounts aren't all that believable. Have you not read any myths or legends?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol. All games should have unreliable narrators. Any and all flaws in the game can be attributed to them.

[Serpieri Nei]

Stop trying to make Varric a Scapegoat. This is Bioware's mess.

[wowpwnslol]

The depths to which a Bioware fanboy will go to protect his company... you'd think they're paying him.

[Roxlimn]

mrcrusty wrote...

Lol. All games should have unreliable narrators. Any and all flaws in the game can be attributed to them.

I don't consider the theatrical approach to combat presentation a flaw.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Except that there are moments where Varric is being theatrical and is called out on it by Cassandra. The rest of the game is considered to be "the real story".

[Roxlimn]

mrcrusty wrote...

Except that there are moments where Varric is being theatrical and is called out on it by Cassandra. The rest of the game is considered to be "the real story".

I don't get your point.  The entire way the characters are animated in combat in DA2 is specifically geared to be theatrical rather than realistic.  Their arm and body movements are greatly exaggerated, and even weapon arcs have highlights and trails.

Did you not understand this?  Did you think that DA2's presentation was supposed to be realistic?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Roxlimn wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Except that there are moments where Varric is being theatrical and is called out on it by Cassandra. The rest of the game is considered to be "the real story".

I don't get your point.  The entire way the characters are animated in combat in DA2 is specifically geared to be theatrical rather than realistic.  Their arm and body movements are greatly exaggerated, and even weapon arcs have highlights and trails.

Did you not understand this?  Did you think that DA2's presentation was supposed to be realistic?

Roxlimn wrote...

Cataca:

It's not unusual for a storyteller to say:

"And suddenly there were a bunch more enemy templar in our faces. We had no idea where they came from."

And
yes, it's not that unusual for storytellers to embellish to the point
that their combat recounts aren't all that believable. Have you not
read any myths or legends?

Nice attempt at a redirect. You may have been discussing animations before, but I was clearly addressing the spawning enemies/waves issue. Something that you brought up.

[Cataca]

Roxlimn wrote...

Cataca:

It's not unusual for a storyteller to say:

"And suddenly there were a bunch more enemy templar in our faces. We had no idea where they came from."

And yes, it's not that unusual for storytellers to embellish to the point that their combat recounts aren't all that believable. Have you not read any myths or legends?

Im sorry if i didnt get my point across, i was hinting at the accuracy. Varric would have to tell exactly what they did, what they picked up, where they stopped for no apparent reason (toilet break IRL) and so on and so forth. Just imagining that is silly. It doesnt really matter to me either way, i just didnt want the developers to have an excuse to blame their silly design choices on. 

[Roxlimn]

mccrusty:

Nice attempt at a redirect. You may have been discussing animations before, but I was clearly addressing the spawning enemies/waves issue. Something that you brought up.

I'm not redirecting. Stop being hostile. It's a game thread, for god's sake. If you don't enjoy conversing here, go ride a bike or something.

In any case, I don't see your point. Enemies appearing from areas and in ways that Varric can't really explain in detail is fully compatible with a retelling, and even non-theatrical retellings, at that.

Cataca:

I actually liked the design choice here. In DA:O, the design was you put the enemies on the map in specific places, and the player could kite them one by one. In fact, for most of the game, it was possible to see a bunch of enemies, attack one with ranged attacks, and have just that one guy react to the attack, pulling the enemies to their deaths one by one. It's remarkably silly, and fantastically unrealistic. Gamers don't notice it because this has been a gaming trope for a long time now.

Waves of enemies set in largely spaced locations is ironically more realistic in a sense. What I imagine happens is that you incite combat in a location and every enemy within hearing or reaction distance comes streaming in to see what the commotion is about.

While it's true that they could spawn them way off camera and have them stream in, this is tactically uninteresting (since you could just AoE them all to death as they come in through narrow doors) and probably taxing on the processor, for a minimal gain in "realism."

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol, I'm not trying to be hostile, but you are trying to deflect the criticism.

Roxlimn wrote...

In any case, I don't see your point. Enemies appearing from areas and in ways that Varric can't really explain in detail is fully compatible with a retelling, and even non-theatrical retellings, at that.

Which brings me back to:

mrcrusty wrote...

Lol. All games should have unreliable narrators. Any and all flaws in the game can be attributed to them.

[Cataca]

Roxlimn wrote...
Cataca:

I actually liked the design choice here. In DA:O, the design was you put the enemies on the map in specific places, and the player could kite them one by one. In fact, for most of the game, it was possible to see a bunch of enemies, attack one with ranged attacks, and have just that one guy react to the attack, pulling the enemies to their deaths one by one. It's remarkably silly, and fantastically unrealistic. Gamers don't notice it because this has been a gaming trope for a long time now.

Waves of enemies set in largely spaced locations is ironically more realistic in a sense. What I imagine happens is that you incite combat in a location and every enemy within hearing or reaction distance comes streaming in to see what the commotion is about.

While it's true that they could spawn them way off camera and have them stream in, this is tactically uninteresting (since you could just AoE them all to death as they come in through narrow doors) and probably taxing on the processor, for a minimal gain in "realism."

That is an artificial increase of game difficulty, and not very creative. Letting enemies spawn literally in the middle of your group just destroys any tactic you might have set up. If they would have come in swarms, at the 3 different entrances of your area, i wouldnt have minded as much. You could have adapted, do some damage control, whatever. 

I agree that mobs need some sort of "one of my guys gets attacked, lets get em" mechanic, but going about it as they did, was probably the worst choice. I dont quite agree with how the difficulty rises. Just making them have more HP and dish out more damage is again, one of the most uncreative things they could have done, and imho a step back. Not that the AI in dragon age is anything to write home about anyway. 

But again, if they come through 3 different entrances, it makes it impossible to just "aoe them to death", i would argue that that would have been better, alltogether. (and caverns filled with enemies allready, since spawning them at some random points is just immersion breaking, if you ever felt any in the first place)

[Kajan451]

Cataca wrote...

How do i have to imagine varric telling the story then?

And then there came a wave of spontaniously teleporting enemy templars, they did backflips and stuff. Hawke went to the third from the right and BOOOOM bloody explosion, then the next and BOOOOOM off the limbs go, he uses backstab and BOOOOOOM there is only red fog and limbs. Then he goes to the next one but he doesnt explode, then BOOOOM... and so on

Do you tell anyone a story like that? I think not. Inconsistencies and stupid elements were not implemented as *read between the lines* story element. 

To be fair... yeah i might be telling a story like that. But in my opinion there is something i wouldn't tell in a story:

"And then Hawke ran left towards the Exit from the Dark Alley, only to remember he might wanted to purchase some goods, but after he ran a couple steps, he decided he could make the purchase in the next zone, thus he turned around. But just before we were able to reach the exit, he yet again changed his mind, to check if he might forgot to check the vendors for some armor upgrade for his Group. Then we we finally arrive back the the vendors he ran from one to the next, checking on them, going back to the first because he had to check on the prices again, only to run in another circle around the stalls."


Seriously, i forgot counting how often i would run into one direction and then suddenly remembering i wanted to do something else, forgot some shop in the area to check or simply decided that it might be better to purchase now.

Or i ran down the wrong alley, because i didn't check the map and thought the questgiver or whatever was that way. And then ended up "running in circles" around and with my group.

Even if i got lost, i would not painstakingly tell every detail of making myself look like a perfect dimwith for running a couple kilometers extra or running around marketstalls in a situation in which i probably could have told one of my groupmates to walk to the other stall and check the price. instead of initiating the same conversation with Merchants again to look at their shops.

Chalking up what we see and do in the game to be part of Varrics Narrative just makes for Varric to be one of the worst Storytellers of all time, because every minute, every move you do in game would be something Varric tells to Cassandra. And it makes Hawke look awefully stupid.

Especially if i have to compare stuff, change equipment around, maybe run back to the hideout to change the weapons or rings of my companions, only to run back to the very same merchant i visit not moments ago.

Either everything is Varrics Narrative which makes his story incredibly stupid, by having him actually tell how you as the player need to navigate with the shortcomings of a videogame (there is no "Look Merril, go and fetch some health potions from the merchant, i will meet with you in 5 minutes infront of our mission target. Isabella, please be so kind and could you take the detour  down to the docks, and tell that shady looking figure we finished his job?" and seriously, if you work as a team.. there is no real reason to run errands with everyone around, not if you could manage four times as fast if everyone would take up on a task) and selling the fact to the audience that Hawke was to scared to go to the marketplace without having his handheld by 3 of his friends.

Or we are actually forgetting the whole Varrics Narrative argument and accept the fact: This game is nowhere near the standards we came to expect from a high profile company such as Bioware.

[randName]

carokube wrote...

randName wrote...

It's just stupid for me, arrows don't dismember all bodyparts, if any - nor does daggers, or you are most likely dead before a dagger cuts through your chest from side to side.

The funny thing is that once people die without explosions, they do so rather well, and stagger and fall - but meh.

Currently playing the witcher, and all from how you get cuts on the enemy when they start to bleed, to the spray of blood on the ground, based upon your sword style, are all so much better than what DA2 did.

Than DA:O too, but anyway.

I just bought The Witcher on steam and played however long it takes me to get to the first fight or so... can you give further insight? I haven't been able to get into it because, well, honestly, the red haired chick's boob jiggled while she walked and I only get to play as this male main character so I couldn't get into it. BUT if the story is seriously good I would be willing to continue.

It's decent, sending a msg, given that it would be OT to write too much about the witcher here.

Modifié par randName, 15 avril 2011 - 07:01 .

[Cyberarmy]

Kajan451 wrote...

*sniped

Or we are actually forgetting the whole Varrics Narrative argument and accept the fact: This game is nowhere near the standards we came to expect from a high profile company such as Bioware.

Case closed. Thread(and very other threads) ended.

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

That is an artificial increase of game difficulty, and not very creative. Letting enemies spawn literally in the middle of your group just destroys any tactic you might have set up. If they would have come in swarms, at the 3 different entrances of your area, i wouldnt have minded as much. You could have adapted, do some damage control, whatever.

So you don't like it because you don't like dynamically changing tactical situations? That's a preference for static (and easy) tactics, not an objective critique.

Having mobs spawn right on top of my Ranged Line doesn't destroy MY tactics. I adjust. It's a refreshing change from "click this unit type here, click that unit type there."

I agree that mobs need some sort of "one of my guys gets attacked, lets get em" mechanic, but going about it as they did, was probably the worst choice. I dont quite agree with how the difficulty rises. Just making them have more HP and dish out more damage is again, one of the most uncreative things they could have done, and imho a step back. Not that the AI in dragon age is anything to write home about anyway.

It was not the worst choice. Worst would have been doing nothing and keeping the old bad ways.

I think you don't quite understand the mechanics of combat in DA2. Difficulty is meant to cater to increasing mastery of combat mechanics. Once you master managing resistances, syngergies, combos, and tactics, Normal opponents evaporate so fast that combat is over in literally seconds. Hard makes it so that the opponents last a little longer (but it's actually still kind of easy), so you get to be awesome a little longer.

The HP scales that much because mastering the mechanics increases party damage output that much.

But again, if they come through 3 different entrances, it makes it impossible to just "aoe them to death", i would argue that that would have been better, alltogether. (and caverns filled with enemies allready, since spawning them at some random points is just immersion breaking, if you ever felt any in the first place)

It's impossible to stage every single area to have 3 separate entrances, and to coordinate AI so that they all reach those entrances simultaneously regardless of where they start. Moreover, such a approach could be defeated by a party blitzing the nearest entrance, and AoEing the rest of the opponents through it. It's just not a very viable paradigm even on cursory examination.

[Cataca]

Roxlimn wrote...
So you don't like it because you don't like dynamically changing tactical situations? That's a preference for static (and easy) tactics, not an objective critique.

Having mobs spawn right on top of my Ranged Line doesn't destroy MY tactics. I adjust. It's a refreshing change from "click this unit type here, click that unit type there."

Dont put words in my mouth. Yes, there are ways to adjust, and its easy, but is that a good thing, considering there should be a somewhat tactical aproach to the entire fighting? Actually heaving glass cannons in the back, trying to not let the enemy reach them, instead of *loltauntall*. Your paradigm of how the game is suddenly tactically advanced with people spawning in your group is laughable. 

It was not the worst choice. Worst would have been doing nothing and keeping the old bad ways.

I think you don't quite understand the mechanics of combat in DA2. Difficulty is meant to cater to increasing mastery of combat mechanics. Once you master managing resistances, syngergies, combos, and tactics, Normal opponents evaporate so fast that combat is over in literally seconds. Hard makes it so that the opponents last a little longer (but it's actually still kind of easy), so you get to be awesome a little longer.

The HP scales that much because mastering the mechanics increases party damage output that much.

Yes, im quite sure your awesomeness is quite intriguing... What i meant is increasing AI and things of that sort, instead of simply making fights last longer.  Every idiot can utilize the same tactics with just more hp and harder hitting enemies. The only thing that changes is that you need a supporting mage, and need to spam the healthpots more often, whoopty doo, tactical gameplay. How much the health increases per dificulty increase is besides the (and my) point. 

It's impossible to stage every single area to have 3 separate entrances, and to coordinate AI so that they all reach those entrances simultaneously regardless of where they start. Moreover, such a approach could be defeated by a party blitzing the nearest entrance, and AoEing the rest of the opponents through it. It's just not a very viable paradigm even on cursory examination.

Oh please, like how you cant lure spawns out of locations in DA2? Does the spawn mechanic suddenly make that impossible? And most areas had one entrance, one exit and a blocked path from *cough* level reuse *cough* saving creative resources. 

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

Dont put words in my mouth. Yes, there are ways to adjust, and its easy, but is that a good thing, considering there should be a somewhat tactical aproach to the entire fighting? Actually heaving glass cannons in the back, trying to not let the enemy reach them, instead of *loltauntall*. Your paradigm of how the game is suddenly tactically advanced with people spawning in your group is laughable.

Yes, I think a dynamic tactical situation is better than a static one. Having a dynamic tactical situation does not preclude the use of tactics. It just appears to preclude what you think is tactics.

There is no need to characterize a different design as "laughable," in an effort to demonize it outside of design logic. If you can't provide objective reasons against a design, then you can't.

Yes, im quite sure your awesomeness is quite intriguing... What i meant is increasing AI and things of that sort, instead of simply making fights last longer. Every idiot can utilize the same tactics with just more hp and harder hitting enemies. The only thing that changes is that you need a supporting mage, and need to spam the healthpots more often, whoopty doo, tactical gameplay. How much the health increases per dificulty increase is besides the (and my) point.

Making the AI better is a great way to make battles harder. It's also nearly impossible. Even the best Starcraft AI is a tactical moron. There is no dynamic tactical AI in any game to date that's worth mentioning.

There is no need to use health potions to wipe Hard and Nightmare difficulties. There isn't even a need for a healer. I curbstomped Hard no problem without using much in the way of Health Potions or Heal. Some people farm Health Potions for gold.

You will not survive on Nightmare if you use the same tactics on Normal while being equally ignorant of game mechanics. It's much more fun if you master the mechanics on a difficulty setting, and then migrate up as it becomes much too easy.

As I said, the settings were meant to match mastery of game mechanics, NOTHING MORE.

Oh please, like how you cant lure spawns out of locations in DA2? Does the spawn mechanic suddenly make that impossible? And most areas had one entrance, one exit and a blocked path from *cough* level reuse *cough* saving creative resources.

If you relocate combat significantly in DA2, then spawning does not become visually apparent. At that point, the objection against having mobs spawn on top of Mages or out of nowhere disappears.

[Boiny Bunny]

To be fair Roxlimn, saying that 'The terrible spawns where enemies magically appear out of thin air all around your party' is just Varric's embellishment is ridiculous.

It was a gameplay decision and has absolutely nothing to do with the 'framed narrative' approach to storytelling.

[Mecher3k]

but d00d, AWESOME!

You have to remember the AWESOME!!!!

[Mecher3k]

Roxlimn wrote...

Making the AI better is a great way to make battles harder. It's also nearly impossible. Even the best Starcraft AI is a tactical moron. There is no dynamic tactical AI in any game to date that's worth mentioning.

Really?!

Oh in that case I'll just ignore FEAR 1 AI, the AI where flanking was near impossiblity, and I could go on but like I said in another thread you have a fetish for being wrong.

[Roxlimn]

Boiny Bunny:

To be fair Roxlimn, saying that 'The terrible spawns where enemies magically appear out of thin air all around your party' is just Varric's embellishment is ridiculous.

It was a gameplay decision and has absolutely nothing to do with the 'framed narrative' approach to storytelling.

I don't think the design team specifically sought to do them that way in order to reinforce the framed storytelling, if that's what you're saying. I agree that the driving force behind the decision for spawning is probably game design.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's narratively consistent to say that a storyteller can't usually retell the specifics of reinforcement while he's in the middle of a battle. You might even say that the number of enemies Varric says that Hawke defeated is something of an exaggeration as well.

Mecher3k:

If you can name an RTS-type AI that's worth copying, you would have a point.  I have to question your acquaintance with game AI in the general.  Under what paradigm are you comparing an FPS AI with a tactical one?

Modifié par Roxlimn, 15 avril 2011 - 08:00 .

[Cataca]

Yes, I think a dynamic tactical situation is better than a static one.
Having a dynamic tactical situation does not preclude the use of
tactics. It just appears to preclude what you think is tactics.

There
is no need to characterize a different design as "laughable," in an
effort to demonize it outside of design logic. If you can't provide
objective reasons against a design, then you can't.

So im the one not beeing objective? I will try harder then. A dynamical tactical situation, caused by enemies suddenly popping up right in the middle of your party, for no other reason than creating a dynamical tactical situation would be fine. Spawnpoints are not limited to your character location. If you step away (and since the spawnpoints are at exactly the same places) you create a situation that is very similar to the "entry points" scenario i suggested. Something that you demonized first. Or in your words: Just because you cant remember spawnpoints, doesnt mean you deal with a dynamic situation.

Making the AI better is a great way to make battles harder. It's also
nearly impossible. Even the best Starcraft AI is a tactical moron.
There is no dynamic tactical AI in any game to date that's worth
mentioning.

There is no need to use health potions to wipe Hard
and Nightmare difficulties. There isn't even a need for a healer. I
curbstomped Hard no problem without using much in the way of Health
Potions or Heal. Some people farm Health Potions for gold.

You
will not survive on Nightmare if you use the same tactics on Normal
while being equally ignorant of game mechanics. It's much more fun if
you master the mechanics on a difficulty setting, and then migrate up as
it becomes much too easy.

As I said, the settings were meant to match mastery of game mechanics, NOTHING MORE.

We are talking about simple algorythms here. Something to the extend of trying to stun mages, use snares on warriors, heal your mates when they are low. Sound familiar? Companion tactics, the tools are present allready. Speaking of AI was probably misleading anyway, there is nothing as such.

Im glad for you that you found tactics to *roflstomp* your opponents, i dont see how that makes tactical gameplay as present any better than it is. Your perception is, as you remined me so kindly, purely subjective.

If you relocate combat significantly in DA2, then spawning does not
become visually apparent. At that point, the objection against having
mobs spawn on top of Mages or out of nowhere disappears.

Huh? The only time that might have been true were the random encounters in the town. They might have suprised you, otherwise? In my oppinion, spawning was a rather crude solution and could have been handled better. Allready present enemy forces in caves that, if you attack them, sound an alarm and you get "encircled" (realistically, enemies spawn behind you, out of sight, but the illusion will still be present). It would also give more meaning to traps and such. I cant and will not get over the foes that spawn out of thin air, right next to you, coupled with it happening repeatedly.

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

So im the one not beeing objective? I will try harder then. A dynamical tactical situation, caused by enemies suddenly popping up right in the middle of your party, for no other reason than creating a dynamical tactical situation would be fine. Spawnpoints are not limited to your character location. If you step away (and since the spawnpoints are at exactly the same places) you create a situation that is very similar to the "entry points" scenario i suggested. Something that you demonized first. Or in your words: Just because you can't remember spawnpoints, doesnt mean you deal with a dynamic situation.

I agree that a party-sensitive spawn dynamic would have been more interesting than the static spawn point design they went with in DA2.

That said, I disagree that spawn points make tactical situations no more dynamic than a no-spawn design. The no-spawn design is significantly more static.

We are talking about simple algorythms here. Something to the extend of trying to stun mages, use snares on warriors, heal your mates when they are low. Sound familiar? Companion tactics, the tools are present allready. Speaking of AI was probably misleading anyway, there is nothing as such.

Im glad for you that you found tactics to *roflstomp* your opponents, i dont see how that makes tactical gameplay as present any better than it is. Your perception is, as you remined me so kindly, purely subjective.

We're talking about the difficulty settings on this particular point. The settings are there to accommodate growing proficiency with the game mechanics. It does that reasonably well. I don't believe I said that the AI was any better on the higher settings, nor have I said that I am against better AI. I just don't think that a significantly better AI is possible in a game product of this nature.

Huh? The only time that might have been true were the random encounters in the town. They might have suprised you, otherwise? In my oppinion, spawning was a rather crude solution and could have been handled better. Allready present enemy forces in caves that, if you attack them, sound an alarm and you get "encircled" (realistically, enemies spawn behind you, out of sight, but the illusion will still be present). It would also give more meaning to traps and such. I cant and will not get over the foes that spawn out of thin air, right next to you, coupled with it happening repeatedly.

That is a statement of an apriori assumption, not an argument. I can't tell you to like the game against your preferences. I'm only pointing out that those are your own preferences. Not liking the game doesn't mean that that game is automatically bad, or that the thing you dislike about it is automatically bad. That's my point in a nutshell.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 15 avril 2011 - 08:31 .