494 réponses à ce sujet

[skyrend]

I do like the increased responsiveness but also makes things like kiting a dragon a joke.

Overall, it is an improved combat system, but the fights and encounters they put it through were so lazily designed that it doesn't matter.

[TheBorderBishop]

It is obvious that DA:2 skills are more polished and bug-free in comparison to DA:O and in addition the difficulty scaling has more obviously been applied to the the enemies. And the OP is correct that it is an objective metric we can use to show an improvement between DA;2 and DA:O. To me what it suggests is that they've tried to address the gross imbalance between talents in DA:O and the lack of any real step up in when upping the difficulty levels ( I personally felt that once you mastered normal you had effectively mastered hard\\nightmare).

Even though I believe that they have done a good job addressing those issues I don't think you can come to the conclusion that you have objectively proven DA:2 combat's mechanics are better than DA:O. Combat mechanics not only involve the quality of abilities but also the environments that combat takes place in, spawning mechanisms, friendly fire, etc... Whether these are better in DA:2 than DA:O is much more subjective. I also believe there are some aspects of the difficulty scaling that DA:2 uses are questionable(like arbitrary immunities and with player damage far exceeding enemy damage meaning FF results in one-shot kills of your party members).

I should also state that I actually enjoyed DA:2 before anyone claims I'm just a "hater" or whatever insult you young kids use these days.

Modifié par TheBorderBishop, 27 avril 2011 - 09:12 .

[Dormiglione]

TheBorderBishop wrote...

It is obvious that DA:2 skills are more polished and bug-free in comparison to DA:O and in addition the difficulty scaling has more obviously been applied to the the enemies. And the OP is correct that it is an objective metric we can use to show an improvement between DA;2 and DA:O. To me what it suggests is that they've tried to address the gross imbalance between talents in DA:O and the lack of any real step up in when upping the difficulty levels ( I personally felt that once you mastered normal you had effectively mastered hardnightmare).

Even though I believe that they have done a good job addressing those issues I don't think you can come to that conclusion that you have objectively proven DA:2 combat's mechanics are better than DA:O. Combat mechanics not only involve the quality of abilities but also the environments that combat takes place in, spawning mechanisms, friendly fire, etc... Whether these are better in DA:2 than DA:O is much more subjective. I also believe there are some aspects of the difficulty scaling that DA:2 uses are questionable(like arbitrary immunities and with player damage far exceeding enemy damage meaning FF results in one-shot kills of your party members).

I should also state that I actually enjoyed DA:2 before anyone claims I'm just a "hater" or whatever insult you young kids use these days.

excellent post. I agree with you.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 27 avril 2011 - 06:43 .

[IN1]

Dormiglione wrote...

Now im really curious. How should the highest difficulty of a game tell you how challenging it is? I have beaten Gears of War 1 and Gears of War 2 alone on "insane". I have beaten Halo Reach and Halo 3 on my own on legendary. And now, what does this tell me? Is Gears 1 more challenging than Halo 3? Is Halo 3 more callenging as Halo Reach?

It tells me absolute nothing. Each of this games has its own mechanics and you need another tactic to beat the game.

Well, you a are an adult, I trust you can evaluate such trivial things by yourself. Was your Halo 3 playthrough at highest difficulty setting more challenging or less challenging than your Gears 1 playthrough at higher difficulty setting?

PS: Your Gears 1 vs Halo 3 analogy is faulty. DAO and DA2 are very, very similar games based on the same engine combat mechanics-wise (it's only that the latter is fully functional as opposed to the former). One can actually compare between them with ease, provided he played both games on NM. 

[AlanC9]

skyrend wrote...

I do like the increased responsiveness but also makes things like kiting a dragon a joke.

Does kiting actually work any better in DA2 than it works in DAO? Or BG2, for that matter, where it was pretty much a standard move if you wanted to play cheap, especially with summoned creatures.

[myztikrice]

Well you either sidestep the attack and take no damage in DA2 or stand there, take the damage, pop one of your 300 health potions with low cooldowns, and end up taking no damage in DAO

Modifié par myztikrice, 27 avril 2011 - 07:43 .

[IN1]

myztikrice wrote...

Well you either sidestep the attack and take no damage in DA2 or stand there, take the damage, pop one of your 300 health potions with low cooldowns, and end up taking no damage in DAO

Yeah. Witcher 2 rulez. And Skyrim, don't forget about Skyrim, pretty please.

Modifié par IN1, 27 avril 2011 - 07:48 .

[tonnactus]

Some things are definetly not an improvement by any means.Crap like enemy assasins with healthbar of tanks,chugging multiple potions and not really reliable ways of break their stealth at least on low levels(and they even are invulnerable for a short time in stealth/have absurd short cooldowns for it/couldnt interrupted to prevent them to get into stealth) arent an improvement in any way.
And thats were most of the "challenge" came from.
ALso that ordinary steet thugs have immunties against certain elements,This is annoying in mixxed groups,with dwarfs that are weak against cold and mercs that are immune against it...

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 avril 2011 - 07:55 .

[tonnactus]

Theagg wrote...

Spot on. And this change was purely made to please the crowd who, upon running their player away at right angles from a boulder hurling Ogre, still saw themselves being splatted. Given those players couldn't grasp it was the stats that defined dodging capability and not nifty use of the mouse

Sorry,but there were monster abilities in Dragon Age Origins that were impossible to dodge.Like overwhelm and grab.No matter how high your defense score was,those abilities always hit.And there were enemies with perfect striking,like loghain,who would beat any sword and shield warrior to pump on nightmare,again(and shield attacks failed because of low strenght most of those warrior builds had),there wasnt a way to reach a defense score to allow to simple dogde those attacks.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 avril 2011 - 08:24 .

[AegisSir]

This is speaking as if mechanics was all there was to a game.

I just got Mass Effect 2 and I was captivated by the story, the characters, and the gameplay was awesome too.

After playing DA2 and comparing it to mass effect 2... DA2 is by FAR less awesome.

[IN1]

AegisSir wrote...

This is speaking as if mechanics was all there was to a game.

I just got Mass Effect 2 and I was captivated by the story, the characters, and the gameplay was awesome too.

After playing DA2 and comparing it to mass effect 2... DA2 is by FAR less awesome.

Irrelevant. My comparison does not deal with ME2. It does not deal with awesomeness, either. The comparison was: DAO combat mechanics vs DA2 combat mechanics.

The general quality of the game is beyond the scope of my comparison (as I state in the OP), I just believe the strong aspects of DA2 are commendable and should not be ignored.

[Frybread76]

IN1 wrote...

AegisSir wrote...

This is speaking as if mechanics was all there was to a game.

I just got Mass Effect 2 and I was captivated by the story, the characters, and the gameplay was awesome too.

After playing DA2 and comparing it to mass effect 2... DA2 is by FAR less awesome.

Irrelevant. My comparison does not deal with ME2. It does not deal with awesomeness, either. The comparison was: DAO combat mechanics vs DA2 combat mechanics.

The general quality of the game is beyond the scope of my comparison (as I state in the OP), I just believe the strong aspects of DA2 are commendable and should not be ignored.

Combat mechanics aren't everything.  Even if DA2 has more polished combat mechanics than DA:O, it is a worse overall experience IMO because of waves and MMO-style boss fights.

[IN1]

Frybread76 wrote...

IN1 wrote...

AegisSir wrote...

This is speaking as if mechanics was all there was to a game.

I just got Mass Effect 2 and I was captivated by the story, the characters, and the gameplay was awesome too.

After playing DA2 and comparing it to mass effect 2... DA2 is by FAR less awesome.

Irrelevant. My comparison does not deal with ME2. It does not deal with awesomeness, either. The comparison was: DAO combat mechanics vs DA2 combat mechanics.

The general quality of the game is beyond the scope of my comparison (as I state in the OP), I just believe the strong aspects of DA2 are commendable and should not be ignored.

Combat mechanics aren't everything.  Even if DA2 has more polished combat mechanics than DA:O, it is a worse overall experience IMO because of waves and MMO-style boss fights.

 GUYS!!! IT'S NOT A DA2 vs DAO COMPARISON!!! I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT GAME X IS BETTER THAN GAME Y. IT'S A MECHANICS COMPARISON, FOR GOD'S SAKE. IS THAT SO HARD TO GRASP?

[Guliver]

Frybread76 wrote...Combat mechanics aren't everything.  Even if DA2 has more polished combat mechanics than DA:O, it is a worse overall experience IMO because of waves and MMO-style boss fights.

IN1 wrote...
Irrelevant.

Modifié par Guliver, 27 avril 2011 - 09:11 .

[Frybread76]

Guliver wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...Combat mechanics aren't everything.  Even if DA2 has more polished combat mechanics than DA:O, it is a worse overall experience IMO because of waves and MMO-style boss fights.

IN1 wrote...
Irrelevant.

Sorry, it's not.  DA2 can have the best combat mechanics of any game and it wouldn't matter with spawning enemies and waves and 20-minute-long boss fights.

[Archereon]

I'm actually ambivalent towards the DA2 combat system. I don't like the higher spell cooldowns though, since a lot of the time I'll end up sitting in place autoattacking (or kiting) for god knows how long. The big thing that angers me about that is that the change was made for the sake of console gamers, who weren't supposed to get auto-attack until fan demand got it in, and, to this very day, still do not have auto-attack.

Now that said, there's about a dozen things that detract from the game that directly intersect with combat, first and foremost of which is level design, specifically the lack of any variance in levels whatsoever.  At least in Mass Effect 1 you actually got to drive around a poorly textured, but unique landscape before going into the same identical bunker, and main story missions were all fairly unique.  Then of course there's the respawning enemies, and the poor enemy design.

Modifié par Archereon, 27 avril 2011 - 09:19 .

[Guliver]

Frybread76 wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...Combat mechanics aren't everything.  Even if DA2 has more polished combat mechanics than DA:O, it is a worse overall experience IMO because of waves and MMO-style boss fights.

IN1 wrote...
Irrelevant.

Sorry, it's not.  DA2 can have the best combat mechanics of any game and it wouldn't matter with spawning enemies and waves and 20-minute-long boss fights.

Try to understand that this topic is not about, how good or bad is DA2, it's about DA2 vs DAO/DAA combat mechanics comparison. You don't have to bring the "ninja waves", "recycled areas" and "dumbed down x and y" in every topic.

[Corto81]

Guliver wrote...



Try to understand that this topic is not about, how good or bad is DA2, it's about DA2 vs DAO/DAA combat mechanics comparison. You don't have to bring the "ninja waves", "recycled areas" and "dumbed down x and y" in every topic.

You're arguing combat mechanics.

You can argue them in limbo, out of context, or take actual variables and circumstances into account.
Meaning, yes, the ninja waves matter, the MMO-30-minute boss fights matter, exploding bodies matter, rogues summersaulting in place matter.

It all effects your experience of combat.

Leaving out factors to suit your argument is unfair.
Mathematically, I think DA:O was better. (meaning, damage vs armor vs health pool)
class-wise, I though DA2 had better skill trees.

Overall, DA:O combat felt much more "real" and immersive to me.
Yes, it was much more static and not as reactionary, but I don't look for fast action and uber effects in a game that's supposed to be an RPG.

Modifié par Corto81, 27 avril 2011 - 09:32 .

[tetracycloide]

From a pure mechanics and execution perspective I'd have to agree, DA2 is a cleaner game with fewer bugs and much better skill trees in terms of balance.  

There is one point I would have to argue about balance though: knock-back-lock.
Warriors are practically immune to knockback and knockdown from normal mobs because they use strength as their primary attribute.  Rogues and mages are not.  A normal archer mob that my rogue could one or two shot can literally be chain knock-back-locked by said archers auto attacks.  That's absurd and it's completely silly and there really isn't a lot I can do about it while it's happening since the lock prevents me from simply running out of line of sight or using one of the many 'escape' abilities the class has.  Heaven forbid two normal archer mobs decide to attack the same rogue or mage and their attacks come asynchronously.  I mean my rogue can solo the arishock but if one town guard manages to hit you with a bow before you kill them you're dead until a party memeber saves your ass?

A minor second point is the RNG nature of many abilities.  There's an issue with encounter design when a fight can go from completely trivial to the hardest fight ever based solely on if a debuff (brittle) happens to be triggered.  Take the second add phase of the high dragon as an example.  Get a good RNG roll on brittle, one-shot one of the dragon adds, and then tank the other one and burn it down.  Easy peasy.  Get a bad RNG roll and suddenly the tank is in danger of dieing all the time and you barely make it through or more likely simply fail and start over... from the beginning of the fight.  The issue here is two fold, first that it's completely RNG ruled but second that you have to wait 5-10 mins between rolls just to see if you 'win.'  Tedious and frustrating.

In terms of actual gameplay, beyond simple mechanics, DA2 is almost unbareably boring combat wise which is ironic since they were shooting for fast-paced awesomeness where you press a button and something awesome happens.  Almost every fight, even bosses, are completely trivial but combat lasts forever and the entire party requires constant attention.  Nothing about the fights is hard to discern, what you need to do is always obvious, it's just that the execution is time-consuming and that makes for some boring ass combat.  Constant vigilance is not a good thing to require when the player doesn't really have to be around to think, just to keep obviously bad stuff from happening.  As a player it feels less like I am working out strategies or tactics for my party and more like I am simply compensating for my party members crippling lack of forsight or observation.

Assassin's are a good example.  They one shot nearly anything if you let them run wild, which is silly, but this ability is easily countered by constant kiting and careful monitoring of every assassin's location and status.  That's boring as ****.  Because it's so boring it's frustrating when you let up for a second and he one-shots your healer because you know you have to redo all the boringness you just go finshed doing again.

DA:O was much better in this regard since the larger array of useful crowd control that actually worked well coupled with traps and the fact that you could actually tell, before a fight, what you were going to be fighting (novel I know) it was possible to work out tactics before hand, execute them, and then be finished.  It's like they took all the thinking out of fights, put it in character building, and turned fighting into an endurance competition.  I like the balanced skills and combat of DA2 more but I really loath the endurance based bull****.

Modifié par tetracycloide, 28 avril 2011 - 12:23 .

[RubiconI7]

I find it hilarious how people from different boards of the same game can be so different.
IN1 is usually active strictly in the gamplay/strategy forum and the discussions that occurs there almost strictly civil.
Here is a bloody mess.

It seems so many are mixing up the thesis of the thread and just expressing their dissatisfaction of the game just because this thread said something good about DAII.

If you are going to criticize, at least do the forums the favor of doing so responsibly with elaboration and on topic of the thread.

[tetracycloide]

I find it hilarious how some people are obliviously making completely off-topic comments about how other comments are not 100% on topic.

Modifié par tetracycloide, 28 avril 2011 - 12:46 .

[IN1]

tetracycloide wrote...
 Almost every fight, even bosses, are completely trivial but combat lasts forever and the entire party requires constant attention.  Nothing about the fights is hard to discern, what you need to do is always obvious, it's just that the execution is time-consuming and that makes for some boring ass combat.

I don't find it trivial at all. I mean, yes, you do have a fair share of trivial encounters, but there is also a whole lot of them that are anything but trivial. And I don't think the correct tactical solution is always obvious (ARW, Night Lies, Brekker, Ser Alrik, just to name a few). At least, my experience tells me something different. Granted, I was playing either solo, or solo + passive buff-bots, but still...

[IN1]

RubiconI7 wrote...

I find it hilarious how people from different boards of the same game can be so different.
IN1 is usually active strictly in the gamplay/strategy forum and the discussions that occurs there almost strictly civil.
Here is a bloody mess.

It seems so many are mixing up the thesis of the thread and just expressing their dissatisfaction of the game just because this thread said something good about DAII.

If you are going to criticize, at least do the forums the favor of doing so responsibly with elaboration and on topic of the thread.

Well, general discussion forum is the place to meet a horde of cosistently dissatisfied trolls (many of whom, ironically, are probably playing the pirated copies of the game, judging by their account data; in my opinion, piracy is actually not a bad thing PR-wise, and I know for a fact a lot of pirates are decent people that do become legit customers if they like the game -- but feeling Bioware owes you an apology for the quality of the product you've stolen is... uhhh, yeah, a bit inadequate, you know). Thus, I was ready for this kind of vitriol. I am actually surprised by the amount of positive/constructive remarks. 

In fact, while it's true I'm usually only active on strategy forums -- where people can be ****s as well, but they are, at least, competent and intelligent ****s -- I do frequent these boards as a reader, and have a shortlist of people that should never be taken seriously. Two of which have actually appeared in this thread, too: Yrkoon and Merced652.

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...
And there were enemies with perfect striking,like loghain,who would beat any sword and shield warrior to pump on nightmare,again

Huh? My S&S HN Warden beat him on Nightmare without any particular difficulty.

Sometimes I think we need to have more agreement about how DAO played before we start talking about DA2

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 avril 2011 - 06:09 .

[Roxlimn]

tetracycloide:

Given that assassins are exposed by several AoE effects, I rather thought that Bioware meant for the player to use those effects in order to counter Assassins, which also won't one-shot party members except at the most extreme difficulty level - Nightmare.

Also, fights shouldn't be taking you that long to finish.  If you're taking too long with fights, you're overstepping your skill level.  Take it down a notch and enjoy yourself.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 28 avril 2011 - 12:21 .