237 réponses à ce sujet

[Cataca]

Roxlimn wrote...
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.

Static is static, one breaks immersion and is one of the major complaints of the contra DA2 crowd, and one has been utilized since NWN 1.  I dont mind spawns as such, as long as they dont magically appear out of thin air. There would be enough room to make a spawn mechanic at choke points that rush you. If some thieves come down from roofs, so be it, i can swallow that. As is, we have magical ninja templars. If thats not counter lore, i dont know what is.

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.

Then i didnt bring my point across properly, or we have been talking about different things, i was discussing how difficulty should be a mostly "AI"/skill based difficulty increase instead simply making them hit harder and soak more damage. That concept is fine in MMOs where you mindlessly grind mobs, i expect more in a single player rpg.

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.

I never argued that im the epitome of good taste, but,  i have a hard time imagining how others like the cartoonishly violent allmost caricatural combat with the lore and immersion breaking spawn mechanic. Thats my point, in a nutshell.

Modifié par Cataca, 15 avril 2011 - 08:50 .

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

Static is static, one breaks immersion and is one of the major complaints of the contra DA2 crowd, and one has been utilized since NWN 1. I dont mind spawns as such, as long as they dont magically appear out of thin air. There would be enough room to make a spawn mechanic at choke points that rush you. If some thieves come down from roofs, so be it, i can swallow that. As is, we have magical ninja templars. If thats not counter lore, i dont know what is.

Both of them break immersion. One is a situation where you have mindless robotic hitpoint bags obviously waiting for you to activate their attack scripts, and the other is a situation where guys appear out of thin air. I find the latter more acceptable because I can simply think of it as guys being unnoticeable by the party until they appear - they're not literally invisible, in other words, just narratively so.

I can't think of any situation or explanation that will justify mobs standing around doing nothing.

Then i didnt bring my point across properly, or we have been talking about different things, i was discussing how difficulty should be a mostly "AI"/skill based difficulty increase instead simply making them hit harder and soak more damage. That concept is fine in MMOs where you mindlessly grind mobs, i expect more in a single player rpg.

In an ideal world, it should be, but it can't be done. AI for chess requires supercomputers to run, and chess has less variables. As I said before, there isn't a real-time AI worth the name. You can't ask Bioware to do the impossible and be disappointed that they don't deliver.

I never argued that im the epitome of good taste, but, i have a hard time imagining how others like the cartoonishly violent allmost caricatural combat with the lore and immersion breaking spawn mechanic. Thats my point, in a nutshell.

The combat is theatrical, not cartoonish. You may want to look at principles of fight choreography, Peking Opera, and perhaps Hollywood combat productions, if you have some kind of prejudice against "anime" like far too many gamers.

Long story short, real fight animations aren't entertaining to watch because winning maneuvers are subtle, small, extremely fast, and to the point. Bruce Lee had to make a point of not fighting as fast as he could, just so the cameras would catch the movement.

The disconnect is that many gamers have this mistaken notion that DA:O animation is somehow realistic. It isn't. A real fight looks nothing like what DA:O looks like. DA:O combat (and related combat in other games by extension) looks stilted, amateurish, slow, and all around idiotic. It is exactly as it appears: a bunch of post-college geeks standing around thinking about what a fight might look like and capturing themselves on motion capture tech doing awkward maneuvers. It's tolerable since nearly all animations of the sort are terrible, but it's not good.

DA2 is a leap in the right direction. It knows that it's a visual medium and it tries to present its combat as a theatrical affair, just as a theater play or movie might do it. All movements are exaggerated, highlighted, and designed to be entertaining. Each move clearly differentiates itself from other moves, which makes identification easy and intuitive.

In order to understand why I like this development, you just have to understand that DA:O and similar looking combats aren't realistic in any way. They're equally unrealistic, but more amateurishly done.

[Mantaal]

xkg wrote...

berelinde wrote...

The thing that bugs me most about the exploding bodies is that they don't explode into meaty chunks (ewwww), but rather neat polygonal Lego pieces in the center of a red latex paint explosion. Somehow, they manage to lose their armor, gender identity, and even their hair in the process.

Do you mean ... like this ?? :



  hehe

You can see by the Corpse.. Hes got an Arrow hit in the Back.
It happend all the time if peoples got hit by Arrows! 

[astrallite]

Waves is good tactical game design? I've heard it all now. And any faults in the game are Varric's embellishments.

DA2: The Greatest Game of All Time.

[cotheer]

And i guess the exploding sacks of blood are one reason why this "frame narrative" was introduced in the first place, you can blame it all on this new and "innovative" approach.
Basically you can kill every lore/gameplay inconsistency with one "varric likes to make things up" hit.

Politically "smart" and insulting.

[Cataca]

Both of them break immersion. One is a situation where you have
mindless robotic hitpoint bags obviously waiting for you to activate
their attack scripts, and the other is a situation where guys appear out
of thin air. I find the latter more acceptable because I can simply
think of it as guys being unnoticeable by the party until they appear -
they're not literally invisible, in other words, just narratively so.

I can't think of any situation or explanation that will justify mobs standing around doing nothing.

I will ask you to objective here, its about how enemies spawn. There is no difference between one or the other, but where they spawn. I would argue that "hitpoint bags" waiting to be hit and thus activating something resembling encriclement of the player and thus "real" tactics, would be immersion breaking, opposed to anything that telerports (retcon, as there is no teleportation in this installment)

In an ideal world, it should be, but it can't be done. AI for chess
requires supercomputers to run, and chess has less variables. As I said
before, there isn't a real-time AI worth the name. You can't ask
Bioware to do the impossible and be disappointed that they don't
deliver.

If "less variables" means over 200k valid starting moves, fine. Look, im not trying to start an AI debate here, im asking to use allready present algorythms (your companion tactics) for enemies. "It is impossible" is such an incredibly weak excuse. I dont know what prior experience with algorythms you have, but making those is but a matter of choosing to.

The combat is theatrical, not cartoonish. You may want to look
at principles of fight choreography, Peking Opera, and perhaps Hollywood
combat productions, if you have some kind of prejudice against "anime"
like far too many gamers.

Long story short, real fight animations
aren't entertaining to watch because winning maneuvers are subtle,
small, extremely fast, and to the point. Bruce Lee had to make a point
of not fighting as fast as he could, just so the cameras would catch the
movement.

The disconnect is that many gamers have this mistaken
notion that DA:O animation is somehow realistic. It isn't. A real
fight looks nothing like what DA:O looks like. DA:O combat (and related
combat in other games by extension) looks stilted, amateurish, slow,
and all around idiotic. It is exactly as it appears: a bunch of
post-college geeks standing around thinking about what a fight might
look like and capturing themselves on motion capture tech doing awkward
maneuvers. It's tolerable since nearly all animations of the sort are
terrible, but it's not good.

DA2 is a leap in the right
direction. It knows that it's a visual medium and it tries to present
its combat as a theatrical affair, just as a theater play or movie might
do it. All movements are exaggerated, highlighted, and designed to be
entertaining. Each move clearly differentiates itself from other moves,
which makes identification easy and intuitive.

In order to
understand why I like this development, you just have to understand that
DA:O and similar looking combats aren't realistic in any way. They're
equally unrealistic, but more amateurishly done.

How you deduct that i have a prejudice against animes is strange. At any rate, im quite aware that fighting moves in real life look boring compared to what hollywood or whatever gives us. Ask any martial artist how practical a roundhouse kick is, that is purely something that was invented to "look better" and i would be the last to object. I have nothing against the DA2 animations, i have something against the bags of meat that you explode.

[gotthammer]

LOL @ blaming Varric for the 'splosions.

I didn't mind the exploding bodies during the exaggerated bits, but them becoming part of almost every battle was just...bad, IMHO.
If the exploding bodies were used more sparingly, AND kill animations (even those from DA:O) remained, then maybe there'd be less of an 'issue' regarding this aspect of DA2.

[neppakyo]

gotthammer wrote...

LOL @ blaming Varric for the 'splosions.

I didn't mind the exploding bodies during the exaggerated bits, but them becoming part of almost every battle was just...bad, IMHO.
If the exploding bodies were used more sparingly, AND kill animations (even those from DA:O) remained, then maybe there'd be less of an 'issue' regarding this aspect of DA2.

Only used when they make sense? Like walking bomb spell, or maybe shoving a gernade up someones ass?

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

I will ask you to objective here, its about how enemies spawn. There is no difference between one or the other, but where they spawn. I would argue that "hitpoint bags" waiting to be hit and thus activating something resembling encriclement of the player and thus "real" tactics, would be immersion breaking, opposed to anything that telerports (retcon, as there is no teleportation in this installment)

I totally do not understand this entire paragraph.

If "less variables" means over 200k valid starting moves, fine. Look, im not trying to start an AI debate here, im asking to use allready present algorythms (your companion tactics) for enemies. "It is impossible" is such an incredibly weak excuse. I dont know what prior experience with algorythms you have, but making those is but a matter of choosing to.

I think the enemies already actually use those tactics. Have you seen how stupid the companion AI actually is? You get instances of Merrill casting a Firestorm, and Aveline running to her death right into it, not to mention Fenris scything the entire party to death within seconds of an encounter start.

How you deduct that i have a prejudice against animes is strange. At any rate, im quite aware that fighting moves in real life look boring compared to what hollywood or whatever gives us. Ask any martial artist how practical a roundhouse kick is, that is purely something that was invented to "look better" and i would be the last to object. I have nothing against the DA2 animations, i have something against the bags of meat that you explode.

I didn't say that you had a prejudice against anime. I just referenced Western source in case you did.

Exploding deaths is something of a graphic exaggeration in a theatrical presentation. It's completely unrealistic and over-the-top, but then again so is the rest of any combat that's actually entertaining to watch, so it's not like it's out of line. This is similar to how people in films get knocked back when they get shot. Actual shooting never actually results in any kind of appreciable knockback from any gun with a real caliber, but we tolerate it in film because it makes the hit more obvious onscreen. If you wanted to get something like that in real life, you'd need to shoot a cannon.

So while I can understand your not liking from a purely personal aesthetic perspective, pointing it out as unrealistic doesn't really say much.

gotthammer:

Maybe. In any kind of real-time medium to large scale combat, there's always the issue of how to communicate to the player that the target is dead. DA:O actually does a really bad job of this in the name of pseudo-realism, but it doesn't matter as much because there were less enemies in general.

Starcraft 2 communicates this by turning the 3D models of dead units into darker shades with less contrast. It's quite effective, but not quite as flashy. Neither modeling technique is realistic, though.

[Cataca]

I will ask you to objective here, its about how enemies spawn. There is no difference between one or the other, but where they spawn. I would argue that "hitpoint bags" waiting to be hit and thus activating something resembling encriclement of the player and thus "real" tactics, would be immersion breaking, opposed to anything that telerports (retcon, as there is no teleportation in this installment)

I totally do not understand this entire paragraph.

If i understood your point on this, you are defending how the current spawn solution adds to tactical finesse. And i on the other hand reply how something other than that would make more sense lore wise, and even tactically. English is not my first language, so im sure there is some gap between what i want to say and what i write, i beg your pardon.

I think the enemies already actually use those tactics. Have you
seen how stupid the companion AI actually is? You get instances of
Merrill casting a Firestorm, and Aveline running to her death right into
it, not to mention Fenris scything the entire party to death within
seconds of an encounter start.

They do not, they use the standard attacks. You can specify what your companions will use against specific archetypes, i do not see how this would be hard to implement for foes. Yes, the "AI" is stupid and needs a few more rulesets, but as is your enemies just get more HP and dish out more damage. No finesse, no "dynamic" situations you have to adapt to, as you put it before.

I didn't say that you had a prejudice against anime. I just referenced Western source in case you did.

Exploding
deaths is something of a graphic exaggeration in a theatrical
presentation. It's completely unrealistic and over-the-top, but then
again so is the rest of any combat that's actually entertaining to
watch, so it's not like it's out of line. This is similar to how people
in films get knocked back when they get shot. Actual shooting never
actually results in any kind of appreciable knockback from any gun with a
real caliber, but we tolerate it in film because it makes the hit more
obvious onscreen. If you wanted to get something like that in real
life, you'd need to shoot a cannon.

So while I can understand
your not liking from a purely personal aesthetic perspective, pointing
it out as unrealistic doesn't really say much.

It is a design choice that i dont agree with, simple as that. It might be subjective, but i see it as something that adds nothing, and just takes away from the whole experience. People that explode because they get hit by an arrow, thats not theatrical, thats an exaggeration, thats my last comment on that point, its subjective and discussing it is merely a point of taste.

OT:  A bullet impact is nothing that would throw you around. Seen as simple force against your body, you wont get pushed around by it. I wont go into the exact physics here, but what you feel when shooting the bullet, is the maximum impact it will have on the target regarding force. So yes, getting thrown around by a bullet is highly unrealistic.

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

If i understood your point on this, you are defending how the current spawn solution adds to tactical finesse. And i on the other hand reply how something other than that would make more sense lore wise, and even tactically. English is not my first language, so im sure there is some gap between what i want to say and what i write, i beg your pardon.

No worries. I try my best to see what you're saying. I just balk when I really have no idea what's going on.

If you're saying what I think you are, then I just categorically disagree. Placing new enemy waves in tactically interesting positions is inherently more tactically interesting compared to placing them in compromised positions for the sake of some partial semblance of reality.

They do not, they use the standard attacks. You can specify what your companions will use against specific archetypes, i do not see how this would be hard to implement for foes. Yes, the "AI" is stupid and needs a few more rulesets, but as is your enemies just get more HP and dish out more damage. No finesse, no "dynamic" situations you have to adapt to, as you put it before.

They adapt. At least on Hard and Nightmare, the mobs usually go for Mages or whoever is damaging them most at that moment. This kind of AI behavior is critical because powers like Goad and Armistice are dependent on predictable AI - otherwise there would be no point to those powers.

OT: A bullet impact is nothing that would throw you around. Seen as simple force against your body, you wont get pushed around by it. I wont go into the exact physics here, but what you feel when shooting the bullet, is the maximum impact it will have on the target regarding force. So yes, getting thrown around by a bullet is highly unrealistic.

And yet it's a staple and well-used Hollywood trope! I don't like it, but it's useful in its own way, and it's quite popular.

[Cataca]

No worries. I try my best to see what you're saying. I just balk when I really have no idea what's going on.

If
you're saying what I think you are, then I just categorically disagree.
Placing new enemy waves in tactically interesting positions is
inherently more tactically interesting compared to placing them in
compromised positions for the sake of some partial semblance of reality.

I dismissed that point earlier. They spawn in the same places, you just have to adapt to that. I suggested a more elegant solution, you dismissed it because its not tactically challenging..... seriously i dont want to argue against your redundant arguments. If they had random spawn points, and it was a design choice rather than beeing lazy, fine, but it isnt.

They adapt. At least on Hard and Nightmare, the mobs usually go for
Mages or whoever is damaging them most at that moment. This kind of AI
behavior is critical because powers like Goad and Armistice are
dependent on predictable AI - otherwise there would be no point to those
powers.

As i said earlier, a MMO system like that (going for damage or hate built up, depending on which is higher) is hardly something fitting for a single player rpg. Noone will ever praise a MMO for tactical finesse, obviously, you do, and you do it for an offline one as well. I expect more from a single player game, where you dont have to mind the other players for ballance.

And yet it's a staple and well-used Hollywood trope! I don't like it, but it's useful in its own way, and it's quite popular.

Wasnt your argument how it was unrealistic that people dont get thrown back by bullets, yet should? As said, i dont mind the animations in DA2. I mind how frigging bucketloads of blood get thrown at you to make it more appealing.

[man giraffe dog3]

Cataca, Roxlimm is trolling you. Trust me, I know trolls.

This sentence should have gave it away

"If
you're saying what I think you are, then I just categorically disagree.
Placing new enemy waves in tactically interesting positions is
inherently more tactically interesting compared to placing them in
compromised positions for the sake of some partial semblance of reality."

Anyone who claims that there is more tactics involved in a game where you dont have AoE and enemy waves appear out of thin air yet always from the same locations is somehow more tactically involved than DAO clearly is either trolling or needs mental help.

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

I dismissed that point earlier. They spawn in the same places, you just have to adapt to that. I suggested a more elegant solution, you dismissed it because its not tactically challenging..... seriously i dont want to argue against your redundant arguments. If they had random spawn points, and it was a design choice rather than beeing lazy, fine, but it isn't.

Just because they spawn in the same places doesn't mean that the tactical situation does not change when they spawn. It still does. It just changes predictably when you know where and when the spawns are.

As i said earlier, a MMO system like that (going for damage or hate built up, depending on which is higher) is hardly something fitting for a single player rpg. Noone will ever praise a MMO for tactical finesse, obviously, you do, and you do it for an offline one as well. I expect more from a single player game, where you dont have to mind the other players for balance.

DA2 is not a tactical RPG, if that's what you're saying. I don't know how or why threat-based AI isn't fit for a single player design. Do I detect an anti-MMO bias?

Wasnt your argument how it was unrealistic that people dont get thrown back by bullets, yet should? As said, i dont mind the animations in DA2. I mind how frigging bucketloads of blood get thrown at you to make it more appealing.

My argument is that silly, unrealistic effects get used all the time for theatrical purposes. You know how bullets make cars explode? They don't, but you see that trope all the time.

[Sanguinerin]

I preferred the death blows in Origins. Decapitation by sword? Plausible. An entire person exploding or leaving their feet behind? Just, no. How about giving dual-wielding rogues a scissor-like cut animation to do a decapitation instead of making an enemy burst into fragments.

If a fireball or some other spell wants to tear an enemy asunder, or a sword-handler wants to make repeated slices across an enemy and thereby literally "chopping them to pieces" then these moves could make sense. As it stands, however, it's just completely unnecessary. An enemy should explode for a good reason, not just to be epic.

Oh, and since it wasn't epic, then there wasn't even a bad reason.

[Roxlimn]

HallowedWarden:

I just mentioned several reasons above. One is that exploded bodies make it easier to tell at a glance which enemies are still fighting and which enemies are dead. Granted, it's apparently not the sort of graphic that appeals to DA:O fans, but it's serviceable in that function.

[Pandaman102]

On the subject of combat animations not really matching up, does anyone else remember how NWN fights looked choreographed? It was maybe two or three animations that would randomly play, but they covered every weapon combination pairings - which is oddly something that I didn't see again until Sims Medieval. Granted this doesn't work for anything more than one on one duels, but it was a nice bit of detail for back then (and even now).

That aside I'm really curious why DA:O didn't use the same AI as ME: specifically how shooting one mob doesn't aggro the entire group (which was, ironically, unrealistic for long range sniping but more believable for something as visible as an arrow popping up in someone's body, just face the direction the fletching's facing). I'm not a fan of enemies popping out of nowhere because that's not fixing the problem of oblivious AIs - it's just forcing players into situations where you can't see the AI's flaws.

[Cataca]

Just because they spawn in the same places doesn't mean that the
tactical situation does not change when they spawn. It still does. It
just changes predictably when you know where and when the spawns are.

So how is that different from making the mobs rush you? You dismissing your own point quite fabulously.

DA2 is not a tactical RPG, if that's what you're saying. I don't know
how or why threat-based AI isn't fit for a single player design. Do I
detect an anti-MMO bias?

If you want to make it so simple that you basically have to fall asleep to make mistakes, none at all. There is no anti mmo bias at all, they make it easy to make stuff grindable, thats a fact. I did play my fair share of mmo's as well, that doesnt change anything.

My argument is that silly, unrealistic effects get used all the time for
theatrical purposes. You know how bullets make cars explode? They
don't, but you see that trope all the time.

So what? Ultimately, you get bucketloads of blood to attract the "cool crowd" that bioware imagines exists somewhere. People that have an attention spawn of a goldfish, inavertibly attracted to blood and scared of nudity. That is the new Bioware crowd.

[Mantaal]

Roxlimn wrote...

HallowedWarden:

I just mentioned several reasons above. One is that exploded bodies make it easier to tell at a glance which enemies are still fighting and which enemies are dead. Granted, it's apparently not the sort of graphic that appeals to DA:O fans, but it's serviceable in that function.

Corpse on the ground = Dead
Mob on his feet = Not dead.

Easy enaught for me

If its an Shooter ok, if its Hollywood ok. But why the hell in a Fantasy RPG? Its a dumb thing to move in. And it worked for years without it. It just take away the immersion and the mature Gameplay feeling. Exploding bodys and flying Platemail Warriors swinging twohanded Swords with one hand is just Childisch.

[Roxlimn]

Cataca:

So how is that different from making the mobs rush you? You dismissing your own point quite fabulously.

Quite. So long as the new spawns don't show up yet, the optimal tactical arrangement doesn't take them into account. Once they spawn, the optimized tactical arrangement does.

If you want to make it so simple that you basically have to fall asleep to make mistakes, none at all. There is no anti mmo bias at all, they make it easy to make stuff grindable, thats a fact. I did play my fair share of mmo's as well, that doesnt change anything.

I don't see how that ties into threat-based AI.

So what? Ultimately, you get bucketloads of blood to attract the "cool crowd" that bioware imagines exists somewhere. People that have an attention spawn of a goldfish, inavertibly attracted to blood and scared of nudity. That is the new Bioware crowd.

It's not just Bioware that's doing this. Have you seen how Geralt's fists apparently cause enemies to spurt blood from random body locations with each hit? I agree that it's juvenile and pandering, but I don't let it get my panties in a bunch. It's just a graphic.

Mantaal:

It's not that simple. A mob that's still on his feet could actually be already dead. That's kind of the point.

If its an Shooter ok, if its Hollywood ok. But why the hell in a Fantasy RPG? Its a dumb thing to move in. And it worked for years without it. It just take away the immersion and the mature Gameplay feeling. Exploding bodys and flying Platemail Warriors swinging twohanded Swords with one hand is just Childisch.

What do you have against material that's for children? Does it challenge your own sense of maturity? I don't get the criticism that it's "childish." Juvenile, yes, and by that I mean that it's attempting to satisfy the enjoyment of a relatively younger crowd, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

[randName]

Roxlimn wrote...

HallowedWarden:

I just mentioned several reasons above. One is that exploded bodies make it easier to tell at a glance which enemies are still fighting and which enemies are dead. Granted, it's apparently not the sort of graphic that appeals to DA:O fans, but it's serviceable in that function.

Oh man.

So besides their health bars being depleted, gurgling death sounds, death animations and the fact that they lay dead on the ground - you would argue function?

I for one have never felt so handicapped and weak of mind and sight that I've mistaken one of the enemies that are laying dead on the ground for one that potentially would still be in to kill me.

Only in games monster/horror games with resurrections and monsters in monsters were there ever a need to be certain, and even so what little such a function would add comes with the expense of immersion. OR do you really need everything spelled out for you?

[Roxlimn]

randName:

Obviously, an enemy that is on the ground is dead. Not all enemies that are still standing are still alive, however. THAT'S THE POINT. Jeez man, I just made this exact same point in the post immediately above yours. Seriously, dude. If you want to say something about that point, you should at least read where the conversation is so you can say something that hasn't already been discussed.

[Sanguinerin]

I'm sorry, but I don't need to have my enemies explode to know that they're dead. If the enemy has an empty health bar or is on the ground and no longer moving, or perhaps both of those, then I can see that they're dead. A wasteful animation involving a dagger somehow hitting some unknown key spot in the body that detaches all extremities from the body's core is just that, wasteful. It serves no higher purpose than to be "cool" or "epic" in the fight.

I would feel just as insulted if a developer told us that the reason for this animation was to know that an enemy was dead, as I was when I read Laidlaw's interview and he suggested turning up the combat difficulty to "hard" to make the game better. I don't even care about combat in games--it's not what I play for. I play for the story. However, even I can care enough about combat to realize that men jumping out of thin air or exploding into large chunks of their former selves is just terrible execution.

It's fine if they want to use these supposedly "epic" animations for the exaggerated prologue (which would be a terrible waste of resources), but giving them to the normal Hawke is just ridiculous.

I'm fine with a good decapitation, or dismemberment in general, as long as it makes sense. Several sword swipes just might cut off a head or some limbs, but explosions like these? I'm sorry, but no thank you. That's just... well, I'm going to keep my above word and go with "ridiculous."

[Roxlimn]

HallowedWarden:

Nothing you said addressed my point. Please read it again.

[randName]

Roxlimn wrote...

randName:

Obviously, an enemy that is on the ground is dead. Not all enemies that are still standing are still alive, however. THAT'S THE POINT. Jeez man, I just made this exact same point in the post immediately above yours. Seriously, dude. If you want to say something about that point, you should at least read where the conversation is so you can say something that hasn't already been discussed.

That's the point? That sometimes enemies bug out and thus all should explode? You think that the bug that causes enemies to remain in a dazed dance even if they have died will be magically sorted by having an explode animation? When the proper fall dead animation/doll don't work? 

If they are standing around when they shouldn't, this solution would be one of the worst and most comical you could think of.