494 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

How exactly did Bioware do a poor job in explaining cross-class combinations?  Stagger, Brittle, and Disorient effects are explicity described in the talents and you see a big symbol (which is also shown in the description of abilities) over a target when it is affected by one of those effects.

I don't recall ever seeing large status symbols over the heads of enemies.

It's either stars (for stun), the same symbol used for quest markers (for stagger), or the translucent effect (for brittle). I don't know what's for disorient though.

What platform are you using?

[xkg]

Combat mechanics is utter mess because of bad character stats implementation and bad balance.
for example :
My hawke has about 150 HP, Arishok 26370 HP. Cmon ???? that is 176 times more than me. Pure hack&slash with grinding combat.
That would be ok in MMO games but in single player RPG??

Modifié par xkg, 10 mai 2011 - 07:28 .

[Haexpane]

IN1 wrote...

 

(2) Amateurishly designed,

Removes all cred. Your entire premise is based on a trollish insult of the devs who made DAO.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

How exactly did Bioware do a poor job in explaining cross-class combinations?  Stagger, Brittle, and Disorient effects are explicity described in the talents and you see a big symbol (which is also shown in the description of abilities) over a target when it is affected by one of those effects.

I don't recall ever seeing large status symbols over the heads of enemies.

You might have turned them off in the Options?

I disabled Plot Helpers.  If that turns off combat feedback, too, then that's terrible design.  Because there's no way I'm turning the Plot Helpers back on.

I'd have to agree with you. Brittle actually seems to have a probability associated with it, so ideally this should be always ON. But I don't think it's the plot helpers. It must be another option - "show status effects" or something (I vaguely remember seeing two different options). I don't have my PC handy now to know for sure.

[Well]

IN1 wrote...

Mike tortured me, in fact. And I forgot to mention that David Gaider assisted him.

Now, seriously. I know DA2 is a bit controversial. I know a lot of fans prefer DAO. That's why I leave the plot, the dialogue, the characters out of comparison -- it's a matter of personal preference, after all. Combat mechanics, on the other hand, are what Meredith likes to call cold hard facts.

So. Combat mechanics-wise, what we have is:
 
DAO/DAA:

(1) Extremely easy, to the point of being downright boring. You can literally fall asleep during late game fights. Differences between difficulty levels are minimal. DAO NM is, essentially, Normal where the enemies get a couple of insignificant fixed bonuses. Extremely short cooldown on health/mana potions. Badly designed asymmetrical scaling system: Georg Zoeller advocated it with some vigor in its day, but many things that sound nice in theory just do not work that well practically.

(2) Amateurishly designed, ridiculously unbalanced classes/abilities system. Examples: ridiculously overpowered specializations like Arcane Warrior and DAA Spirit Warrior; pathetically useless specializations like Shapeshifter; Mana Clash (enough said). In a nutshell: Mages, especially AW >>>>>>>> anyone else (DAO); Spirit Warrior Archers >>>>>>>>>> anyone else (DAA).

(3) The implementation of abilities/item properties in DAO/DAA is a buggy mess. ~30-40% of abilities/item properties either do not function properly, or do not work at all. Examples: abilities/properties that should modify threat do not do this (exceptions: AoS, Walking Bomb, Scattershot, Mind Blast, Cadash Stompers); abilities/properties that should modify attack animation speed either do not do this or do this in a buggy/messy/glitchy way; aura-like abilities stack (Rock Mastery, Rally); Shale and Dog abilities bugged beyond belief (yes, you won't believe what Overwhelm actually does); elemental spells applying states use incorrect resistance checks (Cone of Cold always assumes the target has a physical resistance of -1, for example); +X% healing property on items does nothing; crossbows being unaffected by attributes, thus leaving the whole weapon class totally useless. The list, in fact, is much much much longer.

Overall, I'd say DAO combat is an unplayable buggy mess without third-party modifications/fixes (four official patches do very little to fix the mechanics issues). Now, if you don't care about combat at all, I guess you can play DAO just fine. If you do, good luck installing a dozen conflicting third-party mods.

DA2:

(1) The difficulty settings have their issues: the difference between Normal, Hard and NM is reportedly enormous (no first-hand experience with Normal or Hard). However, NM is quite nightmarish, especially on your first playthrough. And that's a good thing for those of us that enjoy challenge. Cooldowns on hp/mana pots are adequate. Fully symmetrical scaling system that may sound idiotic, but, de facto, works much better than DAO/DAA's system. The most challenging NM fight in the game is probably Meredith+Gate Guardians, and that's actually an incredible achievement -- as any experienced RPG player knows, the final bosses are, as a rule, total pushovers due to scaling issues (in other words, party/protagonist getting stronger much faster than the enemies). 

(2) A solidly designed classes/abilities system. Yes, it has it flaws (a bit rigid, I admit). And no, it's no D&D. But it is balanced: little to no useless specializations/talents/spells, this time.

(3) The abilities and the properties are correctly implemented in 95% of the cases. Most of the mechanics glitches (Rally not transferring modals; shield armor rating stacking; Lacerate upgrade treated as a separate ability) were fixed in the very first patch. The only really serious bug that persists is the infinitely stacking Healing Aura.

Overall, I'd say DA2's gameplay design team work is most commendable. DA2 is a huge improvement over DAO/DAA in all things mechanics-related. And that's not a subjective evaluation. Again, I understand that if you don't care much about combat and find the new plot/dialogue/art direction repulsive, this fact alone won't make DA2 any more acceptable for you.

Cold hard facts..otay Yours maybe.That doesnt make it true.Your opinion doesnt count as facts.Between the two DAO was better.That is my opinion.There was some improvements in DA2 but they were lacking in other area's.Overall DAO was better in my opinion.When I think about combat in DA2 it brings to mind a expression from the Army.Cluster Flock.Different spelling though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

How exactly did Bioware do a poor job in explaining cross-class combinations?  Stagger, Brittle, and Disorient effects are explicity described in the talents and you see a big symbol (which is also shown in the description of abilities) over a target when it is affected by one of those effects.

I don't recall ever seeing large status symbols over the heads of enemies.

You might have turned them off in the Options?

I disabled Plot Helpers.  If that turns off combat feedback, too, then that's terrible design.  Because there's no way I'm turning the Plot Helpers back on.

I'd have to agree with you. Brittle actually seems to have a probability associated with it, so ideally this should be always ON. But I don't think it's the plot helpers. It must be another option - "show status effects" or something (I vaguely remember seeing two different options). I don't have my PC handy now to know for sure.

I may have just missed them.  It's been weeks since I played the game, I didn't get so far into it to make high-level abilities (which cause state effects) common, and there was exactly one fight that gave me any trouble at all (the Ogre in Lothering - I was a mage, didn't have any offensive spells, and the readme file lied to me and told me Ogres were immune to Stun so I didn't try to stun him), so it was never worth the effort to penetrate combat's insane speed to figure out what was going on.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Combat looks like comedic silent movie chase scenes to me in DA 2.

[Well]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Combat looks like comedic silent movie chase scenes to me in DA 2.

It did remind me of the Keystone Kops.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I may have just missed them.  It's been weeks since I played the game, I didn't get so far into it to make high-level abilities (which cause state effects) common, and there was exactly one fight that gave me any trouble at all (the Ogre in Lothering - I was a mage, didn't have any offensive spells, and the readme file lied to me and told me Ogres were immune to Stun so I didn't try to stun him), so it was never worth the effort to penetrate combat's insane speed to figure out what was going on.

So I take it you haven't completed a playthrough?

I'm having issues in completing my very first playthrough. Although I have nothing against the storyline per se, the way some of the choices are playing out is making it increasingly difficult for me to continue. Something like that stacking talent that Aveline has. The more I play the more I resist. I'm completing it at a rate of one side quest every 2-3 days. This is so dismal - as Merrill would have said.

That Ogre fight on hard was a kite fest for me. I was a rogue (who banked on taking evade first - stun was there by default - wrongly thinking more defense would be better), who was long dead. And only Bethany remained in the end for me to control. And the only reason why I completed it was because the Ogre was quite dense. Every now and then it'd randomly decide to do a rush and miss be by miles (this wouldn't have worked in Ostagar in DA:O). I just wittled it down with the cold spell + basic attacks in the end.

And what the game tells is totally wrong sometimes. On that ARW, almost none of the bigger spells work, only the Hex of torment and mark of death. The horror spell which says 100% chance vs. any enemy - total BS.

Coming back to CCCs, if you think about it, a rogue build that has high cunning assassin + shadow with all the obscurity enhancements, would deal crazy damage as it is with fully loaded assassinate. And combine that with a brittle, and probably a one-shot kill of any boss in the game. A crazy mechanic to have, for sure. Not sure if the idea of increadibly high HPs on enemies was the driving force behind decisions such as this, or vice versa.

EDIT: Missed adding cunning to the build.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 10 mai 2011 - 08:51 .

[csfteeeer]

IN1 wrote...

Please explain how enemies materializing is an improvment?
Please explain how a body explosion after a single backstab is an improvment?

Please explain how are your questions related to game mechanics, first. Do you seriously think the concept of mechanics includes corpse explosion/enemy spawn animations? 

Please explain how can you not see it?
enemies appearing out of thin air OBVIOUSLY increases the difficulty, but it's a cheap tactic, and just makes the fight longer for wrong reasons, specially when they spawn right on your face.
the exploting body part..... THAT doesn't have connection

[csfteeeer]

IN1 wrote...

Just avoid to use the overpowered spells like Mana Clash and others, made the fights again interesting.

Well, no. You are virtually untouchable in DAO by level 18 or so. 

"While friendly fire is present in Nightmare Mode, the game is so clearly designed to not work with it. From the wide range of spells to the constrained battlefields, it’s silly to even play in Nightmare Mode, and it should not have been included in the game. Difficulty in the game in general is down quite a bit, and surviving depends more on how fast you can shoot off as many skills as possible than actually managing things appropriately for the situation. Even healing has seen some big cuts and now is fairly ineffective. You can survive the game quite easily on just crafted potions, which are much more effective than the healing skills present in the game." 
i didn't wrote this, i found this on an Internet site reviewing the game, anyway i will tell you three things:
1) it's true, the game isn't setup for the Nightmare Difficulty, it's cheap actually, simply because of the mechanic of the game, the combat is so massive and explosive, that is almost impossible not to hit someone with one of your attacks, the only way to avoid this is to use Sword and Shield or Dual-Wielding, everything has massive attacks that can kill your party *clap* like that(Archery:Bursting arrow, Hail of arrows,Archer's Lance, Two-handed sword: ...well, every single attack, Mages:...well, also pretty much every attack, enfasis on the Elemental ones, and the specialitations are... OH MY GOD.),and enemies like, the Qunari, which you fight A LOT through the game, are almost completely immune to magic.(kinda cheap, especially if you are a mage)
2)i finished the game in both hard and Nightmare, and hard wasn't very hard at all, i found my way though the game just fine with 70% of the time NOT using special tactics all that much, if AT ALL, now don't get me wrong, there ARE sections of the game where you really can't do that, if you don't want to die, but those are usually BIG boss fights (like the Arishok or the Rock Wraith), in Origins, while there are some sections where you don't need to use those tactics, those are small proportions of the game, like 20%, which yes, it's still a little too much, but just compare it to DA2's.... and with Nightmare difficulty in DA2... well, i think i made my point already, oh, and also, enemies appearing out of thin air it's a cheap tactic to make the fight longer, but ultimately makes more tedious, like it's not really fair that they spawn either right on your face, or on your back, killing your mages, this wouldn't be so terrible if it was more balanced like in Origins.
and 3) "Well, no. You are virtually untouchable in DAO by level 18 or so"
umm.... yeah, that's kinda the point of LEVELING up, have you played WOW?, Demon's souls?, Mass Effect 1?.... Origins? the point is to make you feel like you're in fact advancing and at the end, your Character is a Badass who can do anything, in Demon's Souls, the maximun level 712(true fact), and even though the enemies level up with you ONCE you beat the game, there is a point were they stop doing it, and 712 is FAAAAR more than you need, cause it helps you feel like "hey, you made it this far, have fun butchering your enemies mercilessly"
like A BAD-ASS, in Da2 however, the enemies completely level up with you, which even if they are still relatively weak to the max level(50)it still prolongs the fight more than it should, cheap.

[csfteeeer]

csfteeeer wrote...

IN1 wrote...

Just avoid to use the overpowered spells like Mana Clash and others, made the fights again interesting.

Well, no. You are virtually untouchable in DAO by level 18 or so. 

"While friendly fire is present in Nightmare Mode, the game is so clearly designed to not work with it. From the wide range of spells to the constrained battlefields, it’s silly to even play in Nightmare Mode, and it should not have been included in the game. Difficulty in the game in general is down quite a bit, and surviving depends more on how fast you can shoot off as many skills as possible than actually managing things appropriately for the situation. Even healing has seen some big cuts and now is fairly ineffective. You can survive the game quite easily on just crafted potions, which are much more effective than the healing skills present in the game." 
i didn't wrote this, i found this on an Internet site reviewing the game, anyway i will tell you three things:
1) it's true, the game isn't setup for the Nightmare Difficulty, it's cheap actually, simply because of the mechanic of the game, the combat is so massive and explosive, that is almost impossible not to hit someone with one of your attacks, the only way to avoid this is to use Sword and Shield or Dual-Wielding, everything has massive attacks that can kill your party *clap* like that(Archery:Bursting arrow, Hail of arrows,Archer's Lance, Two-handed sword: ...well, every single attack, Mages:...well, also pretty much every attack, enfasis on the Elemental ones, and the specialitations are... OH MY GOD.),and enemies like, the Qunari, which you fight A LOT through the game, are almost completely immune to magic.(kinda cheap, especially if you are a mage)
2)i finished the game in both hard and Nightmare, and hard wasn't very hard at all, i found my way though the game just fine with 70% of the time NOT using special tactics all that much, if AT ALL, now don't get me wrong, there ARE sections of the game where you really can't do that, if you don't want to die, but those are usually BIG boss fights (like the Arishok or the Rock Wraith), in Origins, while there are some sections where you don't need to use those tactics, those are small proportions of the game, like 20%, which yes, it's still a little too much, but just compare it to DA2's.... and with Nightmare difficulty in DA2... well, i think i made my point already, oh, and also, enemies appearing out of thin air it's a cheap tactic to make the fight longer, but ultimately makes more tedious, like it's not really fair that they spawn either right on your face, or on your back, killing your mages, this wouldn't be so terrible if it was more balanced like in Origins.
and 3) "Well, no. You are virtually untouchable in DAO by level 18 or so"
umm.... yeah, that's kinda the point of LEVELING up, have you played WOW?, Demon's souls?, Mass Effect 1?.... Origins? the point is to make you feel like you're in fact advancing and at the end, your Character is a Badass who can do anything, in Demon's Souls, the maximun level 712(true fact), and even though the enemies level up with you ONCE you beat the game, there is a point were they stop doing it, and 712 is FAAAAR more than you need, cause it helps you feel like "hey, you made it this far, have fun butchering your enemies mercilessly"
like A BAD-ASS, in Da2 however, the enemies completely level up with you, which even if they are still relatively weak to the max level(50)it still prolongs the fight more than it should, cheap.

not to hit someone of your PARTY, i meant to say, Sorry!

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

So I take it you haven't completed a playthrough?

I have not.  And it surprises me that I stopped playing as early as I did.

I really like the oversall structure of Act I.  I like that there's no direction, and you're left to wander Kirkwall and do as you see fit.  Even better, if you don't use plot helpers and don't read the journal, you don't actually know which quests are plot-relevant, so it's easy to make in-character decisions about what to do next.

But two things stop me from playing.  First, the combat is a disaster.  It's both boring and frustrating at the same time.  The combat's basic design is so world-braking as to be laughable, and the encounters are so predictable and linear (the level design has a lot to do with this), that they deny the game's setting any credibility at all.

Second, the level of polish on the quests and dialogues is remarkably poor.  Characters, including Hawke, say and do things that make no sense without meta-game knowledge.  Characters will mention that they've heard Hawke is going to do something, when he himself hasn't yet made that decision, or hasn't told anyone else.  Hawke will turn over quest items as soon as the player selects an NPC to talk to (the conversation never happens - the quest just gets completed automagically), even if the player didn't know what the NPC wanted, or didn't want to hand it over.

The combat seems to go out of its way to be unfun, and the player has little or no control over much of what Hawke says or does.

In the interest of accessibility, the game seems to have assumed that I want to do what the designers expect me to want to do every step of the way, and then the game just makes me do that without even bothering to ask first.

[Lotion Soronarr]

There is only one fact - DA2 suxorz.
Gameplay-wise. Story-wise. Mechanics-wise. The only thing that's good about it is the companions (to a point)

[Haplose]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. It's still just an opinion, not a fact.
As am I to mine. Which happens to be very different.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

So I take it you haven't completed a playthrough?

I have not.  And it surprises me that I stopped playing as early as I did.

I know what will make me continue though. I want to know where all this is going and at least for a future DA title, I want to complete it at least once. And the voice acting is top-notch; I'll do a full playthrough just for this.

I really like the oversall structure of Act I.  I like that there's no direction, and you're left to wander Kirkwall and do as you see fit.  Even better, if you don't use plot helpers and don't read the journal, you don't actually know which quests are plot-relevant, so it's easy to make in-character decisions about what to do next.

That is a very interesting read. It never occurred to me how not looking at the quest journal would be advantageous.

But the way the plot lines open up rather randomly and how nothing changes much in the city, it seems to me that this approach would soon become tiresome in this game.

But two things stop me from playing.  First, the combat is a disaster.  It's both boring and frustrating at the same time.  The combat's basic design is so world-braking as to be laughable, and the encounters are so predictable and linear (the level design has a lot to do with this), that they deny the game's setting any credibility at all.

The repetitive environments certainly don't help with that. And combat doesn't appear to be all that strategic. One sign of it is that I can fight the same way almost every time and still get things done. I sometimes choose things like "back-to-back," not to use any potions, or to keep everyone alive, just to make things a bit interesting. But people are claiming the game is strategic on nightmare, so maybe I'm wrong. But then again one person's tedium could be another's delight; there are no hard lines separating them.

Second, the level of polish on the quests and dialogues is remarkably poor.  Characters, including Hawke, say and do things that make no sense without meta-game knowledge.  Characters will mention that they've heard Hawke is going to do something, when he himself hasn't yet made that decision, or hasn't told anyone else.  Hawke will turn over quest items as soon as the player selects an NPC to talk to (the conversation never happens - the quest just gets completed automagically), even if the player didn't know what the NPC wanted, or didn't want to hand it over.

You mean Flemmeth's statements? Otherwise, I don't remember anyone mentioning during Act 1 that Hawk'd do "something." Well, Varric and Cassandra are basically saying that, but that's just because of the anachronistic narrative. That "talkative guy" in the Hanged Man is kind of an attempt by the game to mock itself - an attempt at humor - which I thought was done rather poorly. It's becoming a cliche anyway...

Apart from that the "return random item to owner" was done with no imagination. It doesn't make sense even if the journal/area map told you whom to return the item to. Seems like a poor attempt to reward "exploration."

The combat seems to go out of its way to be unfun, and the player has little or no control over much of what Hawke says or does.

The downers for me are how the choices are manifesting themselves, both immediately and in relation to what happens a bit further down the line. Example (maybe spoiler): If Merrill thinks recreating a bit of her history is so great a need that she'd go against you (and even die) in the Fade, then you'd think not giving her the "special item" (to again help her recreate the same history) after her personal quest would have more of an impact on her. Notta. She'll immediately jump on you and will tell you she loves you. No matter what you do, some (or maybe many) aspects of the game are rigid and will progress in the same way; there is an illusion of choice. Cross-linking of some quests also shows how this is basically assumed.

In the interest of accessibility, the game seems to have assumed that I want to do what the designers expect me to want to do every step of the way, and then the game just makes me do that without even bothering to ask first.

Agreed.

[Amioran]

Corto81 wrote...
Spawning waves matter.

Glad it does. We already had this conversation, isn't it?

Corto81 wrote...
Exploding bodies matter.

Not for a judgment on gameplay.

Corto81 wrote...
Ridiculous moves by rogue/warriors matter.

Not for a judgement on gameplay.

Corto81 wrote...
Tedious fights matter. MMO-style boss 30-minute fights, etc.

They are perfectly fine from a technical standpoint. You seem to don't understand clearly on what basis a gameplay should be judged.

Corto81 wrote...
I do agree with you that the Skill trees are better done in DA2, and the speed of combat is much better...
But not much else.

Technically and objectively gameplay is better in DA2. Those who contest this are those that knows little on how to judge a gameplay of an cRPG in general or are those that mistake preferences with technical aspects.

@IN1:
I appreaciate your intent, but it would be like trying to explain why Caravaggio is an "advancement" in respect to, for example, Tiziano or Tintoretto. The only ones who could understand it are the same that already know of what you are talking about. For the rest you would arise debate growing from a personal prefernce at best,  or you can say what you want, they will insist you are a liar at worst.

Your project for itemization how it is going?

Modifié par Amioran, 11 mai 2011 - 05:43 .

[Amioran]

Well wrote...
Cold hard facts..otay Yours maybe.That doesnt make it true.Your opinion doesnt count as facts.

1. What he listed are not "opinions". Everybody having a little of knowledge on the things described can notice them.
2. Facts are facts. They are not of anybody.
3. You can insist also that the earth rotating around the sun is a lie. Science have demonstrated the contrary, however. You can still think that bullsh*it if you prefer, no one is stopping you, of this you can be certain.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Amioran wrote...

Technically and objectively gameplay is better in DA2. Those who contest this are those that knows little on how to judge a gameplay of an cRPG in general or are those that mistake preferences with technical aspects.

Gameplay includes "all" interactive aspects of a game. Its definition is so broad that its assessment is subjective at best. The OP was talking about "combat mechanics."It doesn't do well to his arguments by starting to obscure that.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 11 mai 2011 - 06:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

That is a very interesting read. It never occurred to me how not looking at the quest journal would be advantageous.

I never read the journal in these games anymore.  If I want to take notes, I take notes.  But if I don't learn something in the game from an NPC or from seeing some event take place, I don't know about it.

I do dislike, though, how you can't hold Tab to highlght everyone with whom you can interact.  It worked in DAO, but DA2 doesn't allow it.  So in DA2 I have to try to talk to every single person, even those who have no lines of any sort.

This has resulted in me completing quests I wasn't even aware I had, and that, I think, is a serious design flaw.

Second, the level of polish on the quests and dialogues is remarkably poor.  Characters, including Hawke, say and do things that make no sense without meta-game knowledge.  Characters will mention that they've heard Hawke is going to do something, when he himself hasn't yet made that decision, or hasn't told anyone else.  Hawke will turn over quest items as soon as the player selects an NPC to talk to (the conversation never happens - the quest just gets completed automagically), even if the player didn't know what the NPC wanted, or didn't want to hand it over.

You mean Flemmeth's statements? Otherwise, I don't remember anyone mentioning during Act 1 that Hawk'd do "something." Well, Varric and Cassandra are basically saying that, but that's just because of the anachronistic narrative. That "talkative guy" in the Hanged Man is kind of an attempt by the game to mock itself - an attempt at humor - which I thought was done rather poorly. It's becoming a cliche anyway...

Bartrand's expedition.  Right at the start of the Act, Varric tells you that Bartrand needs an investor.  I put that information in by back pocket for later, and went about my business.  But from that moment on, people kept telling me how I was an investor in Bartrand's expedition, and how I was going to the Deep Roads, and that wasn't true.  I never responded positively when talking to Varric, and I never spoke to Bartrand about it at all.  Bartrand has no idea that I might invest in his expedition, so why does the whole world suddenly "know" what I'm doing next?  I don't even know that yet, and Bartrand certainly doesn't, which pretty much guarantees that it's not yet true.

The game's design seems to assume that Hawke will talk to Bartrand immediately after the Act opens and tell him about his plans to invest.  But my Hawke thought it best if he not mention the plan to Bartrand until after the funds had been raised, so for basically the whole of Act I in Kirkwall Bartrand had no idea Hawke was raising money for the chance to invest in the expedition, and yet somehow random NPCs would incessantly mention that they'd heard about Hawke's plan, when Hawke's plan at that point was known to a maximum of one person, and that person was Hawke.

Apart from that the "return random item to owner" was done with no imagination. It doesn't make sense even if the journal/area map told you whom to return the item to. Seems like a poor attempt to reward "exploration."

In theory, I think those little quests were a good way to reward exploration.  They were just terribly done.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

Technically and objectively gameplay is better in DA2.

If you can't explain the criteria you used to reach this conclusion, there is no value in you presenting it as a conclusion.

[Amioran]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Gameplay includes "all" interactive aspects of a game.

No, it doesn't. Artistic choices are indipendent from gameplay at its core.

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Its definition is so broad that its assessment is subjective at best. The OP was talking about "combat mechanics."It doesn't do well to his arguments by starting to obscuring that.

The definition of gameplay is, in fact, "combat mechanics" when they are intended to include only the core of the meaning. Again, in this case, they have nothing to do with artistic choices (they can be tied to the term on a broader scale, but it is an arbitrary inclusion and only on the "outside" of the term).

A gameplay can be judged objectively, since it is mechanically comparable with another and it doesn't contain subjective parameters at its core (if not only on a theoric preference that, however, resides outside the context of it, same as an artistic parameter can).

While either an artistic direction can be judged objectively it can be done so only on a certain aspect, the technical. There's a component that's subjective and this you cannot judge, since derived from aesthetic preferences.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you can't explain the criteria you used to reach this conclusion, there is no value in you presenting it as a conclusion.

I have done so many times. The problem with doing so I have already summarized, however, in short:

- Those who will understand of what I (or others) talk about will be only those that probably know it already.
- All the "proofs" used can be taken out of context and debated on subjective preferences or theoric ideas that have nothing to do both with reality or the matter at hand.
-  Galileo provided proof on its well known theory, yet nobody believed him neither with proof. The reality is that if you are convinced of something neither evidence can destroy that idea. "Memory says: 'I have done this'. Reason says: 'I cannot have done this' and it remains inamovible. In the end, reasoning wins" - Nietzsche.

Some of the terms are already being debate here. I will post from time to time just because I like debating, also if I know much too well that ideas will remain the same, no matter how much evidence is provided or the nature of that evidence.

To reply to your question is short: I don't do because I'm lazy ;-)

Modifié par Amioran, 11 mai 2011 - 06:30 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Erm...no. Gameplay includes pretty much everything. And not just combat mechanics. Even moreso if there's more to the game than just comabt.

And yeah..waht you presented aren't really facts.
You what they say about statistics? That they are factual? That may be true, but what is extrapolated from those statistics isn't. Same here.
I reall can't think of any reason why I would classify DA2 combat as superior.

[tonnactus]

xkg wrote...


Combat mechanics is utter mess because of bad character stats implementation and bad balance.
for example :
My hawke has about 150 HP, Arishok 26370 HP. Cmon ???? that is 176 times more than me. Pure hack&slash with grinding combat.

And that was so much better in Origins?
It wasnt actually.Enemies like Jarvia,Arl Howe and Kolgrim also had a absurd amount of hit points,and the battles with them were as tedious as that.