157 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

"Fans" want it, do they? Maybe you should speak for yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, the only "challenge" in DA:O is in setting your tactics up right. After that the game almost plays itself.  Fights are slow, clumsy and tedious. DA2 is dynamic and combat is a hell of a lot smoother and definitely more fun to watch. Its only problem is the lack of a lock-on feature. I like the weapon-twirling animations, don't get me wrong, but they're not so much use when you're trying to eviscerate that wizard over there.

Still, whatever faults the new combat system may have, I would never want Bioware to go back to the Origins system, just as I would never want Square Enix to go back to turn-based battles after Final Fantasy XIII. Some things are better left in the past.

[tausra]

It's like comparing BG and Diablo 2. One is designed to be ponderous and requiring thought. The other is hack and slash your way through never ending mobs; at least Diablo 2 had a random map generator...

[IanPolaris]

tausra wrote...

It's like comparing BG and Diablo 2. One is designed to be ponderous and requiring thought. The other is hack and slash your way through never ending mobs; at least Diablo 2 had a random map generator...

Just so and there is nothing wrong with either.  Each has their appeal to their particular audience.  The problem I have with DA2 is that Bioware took it's core (and frankly cult-like) DAO audience for granted and in many ways shat on what they liked in order to try to appeal to a larger market.

What generally happens when you try that is you:

1. Alienate your core fans.
2. Don't appeal (sufficiently) to the new audience to make up for it since that audience has already relagated the franchise as something they aren't interested in.

Wotc made a similiar mistake with DnD 4E and is paying for it (slightly OT).

-Polaris

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Funny you should mention DnD 4E, Polaris, as I considered bringing it up in my last post. I don't know if WotC is paying for it any more than they did with 2E went to 3E, but every new incarnation of Dungeons and Dragons seems to cull a little more of the RP related abilities and make it even more combat related.

I don't mind combat. In fact, I liked a lot of DA2's combat changes. It's the cutting of the RP elements that irritates me.

[Merced652]

god kills a kitten every time someone says anything about da2 is dynamic, just sayin.

[frustratemyself]

Merced652 wrote...

god kills a kitten every time someone says anything about da2 is dynamic, just sayin.

Will it help at all if enough of us say "I believe in kittens"?

[Plaintiff]

Merced652 wrote...

god kills a kitten every time someone says anything about da2 is dynamic, just sayin.

I'm not the least bit surprised to learn that God is a petty 'old-school' fanboi with anger management issues.

[TheBlackBaron]

jonesd wrote...

I don't get how people can like Origins COMBAT better then DA2. Matter of opinion I suppose.

Anyways, imo DA2 combat is light years better then Origins. I can't tell you how much I hated playing melee or how much it pissed me off when my character is standing there beating an enemy down. Then my character decides he/she isn't close enough to hit said enemy and then runs BACKWARDS, moves to the side a bit, runs back at the same distance, and then continues attacking. That happened all the damn time.

Not to mention playing a 2H warrior. How can you hit anyone when it takes a year to swing your weapon? I would say Origins was more challenging as well, but it was damn boring.

The story is what saved Origins imo.

I think the complaints are more in the area of encounter design than the combat system itself - most people I've talked to regard the combat as being improved. What holds it back is the ridiculous parachuting wave combat and location recycling. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 07 mai 2011 - 05:35 .

[IanPolaris]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

jonesd wrote...

I don't get how people can like Origins COMBAT better then DA2. Matter of opinion I suppose.

Anyways, imo DA2 combat is light years better then Origins. I can't tell you how much I hated playing melee or how much it pissed me off when my character is standing there beating an enemy down. Then my character decides he/she isn't close enough to hit said enemy and then runs BACKWARDS, moves to the side a bit, runs back at the same distance, and then continues attacking. That happened all the damn time.

Not to mention playing a 2H warrior. How can you hit anyone when it takes a year to swing your weapon? I would say Origins was more challenging as well, but it was damn boring.

The story is what saved Origins imo.

I think the complaints are more in the area of encounter design than the combat system itself - most people I've talked to regard the combat as being improved. What holds it back is the ridiculous parachuting wave combat and location recycling. 

Not to mention outright teleporting of enemies in (and paratroopers in platemail is STOOPID) which negates almost any sense of small unit tactics with the environment you might want to set up.  Combats become a survival grind as you count off the waves.  Every....Damn....Time....ARRRRGH!

-Polaris

[bstrothe]

Plaintiff wrote...
"Fans" want it, do they? Maybe you should speak for yourself.

Actually, I was quoting the video I linked, from Bioware's cofounder Greg Zeschuk.

[bossk-office]

Xilizhra wrote...

I mean, how many times can you be impaled and lifted on someone’s sword without dying ...

As many times as you can take fireballs to the face?

Conceivable, with magical items that make you almost impervious to fire/heat, you could take fireballs to the face. Just like with great armor, you could take a few hits with a sword without having your arm chopped off. It’s not realistic – it’s a fantasy game! – but I certainly understand why the Arishok’s impale breaks immersion for many even though fireballs don’t. It’s not like each fireball burns your character to a skeleton crisp, from which she instantly recovers

Modifié par panchamkauns, 07 mai 2011 - 09:36 .

[MorrigansLove]

How can people say that it was mind-numbingly boring after Ostagar?! Dragon Age: Origins was my first RPG! My favourite game at the time was COD 4, as I loved just chilling with my mates and shooting random geezers. I was also a big fan of LOTR, but when I saw Dragon Age: Origins, I thought "Wow, that looks like a ****ty LOTR clone." I bought Dragon Age for cheap in the April of 2010, and my mouth literally dropped at the MIND NUMBING awesome that is this game! This was my first RPG ever, and I didn't find it boring, even after playing for the 10th time. I was a first person shooter addict, but this game made me a nerdy RPG lover! In other words,  Origins changed my life, and, in my opinion, it is one of the greatest games of all time. "RPG" fans who say it's boring after Ostagar, but liked DA2, should maybe stick to games like Bayonetta or Vanquish, because those are the games you seem to like more.

Modifié par MorrigansLove, 07 mai 2011 - 10:41 .

[Knight of Dane]

lrrose wrote...

What amuses me is that people rag on DA2's "I found this" quests and ignore DAO's "get 16 Corpse Gall" quests which were even worse.

Are you serious?
That quest had a backstory, a reason why you did it. The fetch quests in DA:2 has none, it's a bad attempt at comic.

[Augustei]

I felt Origins was a far far superior game to dragon age 2. I didn't have a single problem with it at all.. DA2 the biggest problem I had was that the choices were irrelevent and not really world changing. We need larger scale choices. Still both great games though
I cant get passed the origin story anymore in origins though.. Might have something to do with my 13 playthroughs but yeah I cant play it for quite a long time now

[jonesd]

bstrothe wrote...

My initial post was not simply about combat, nor was the video I linked purely about combat, but since that is the direction the thread has taken, I will elaborate on the ways I prefer DA:O combat to DA2.

First is the ability to go to a full tactical overhead view. Second is the way a rogue can stealth, scout ahead, disarm traps, and then take out the most dangerous foe at the start of a fight, with no worries about waves of enemies spawning in after the first group is defeated. Third, I have much more freedom on how to level myself and companions, so if I wanted to I could make all three mages (Warden, Wynne & Morrigan) arcane warriors I could, and then equip all of them in massive armour, where in DA2 I have very little control over my companions armour and there are specializations restricted to only one companion. Fourth there is the fact that in DA:O both rogues and warriors had the option of dual-wield or archery, where in DA2 they are rogue-only for no apparent reason. Last bit of DA:O combat I liked better is that you had options when it came to party members for each role, so I had at least two mages, two rogues, three warriors (plus the Mabari and Shale) to select from, which gives you a huge variety of character build options, whereas DA2, Aveline is your only companion tank, Anders is your only companion healer so if you don't care for that character, *coughAndersTerroristcough* too bad, cause you need a healer right?

I like the new voice acting just fine, and I don't even mind a little faster pace combat as an OPTION, but I do miss the freedom and epic scope of DA:O, comparing it to DA2, I feel like my character is far more predefined, and the outcome is far more predetermined in the sequel.

Well, I agree with you are one of your points.  While I like the unique trees each character had, I think they should have did it in a way so they could preform all the classes' niche.  Fenris is a better tank then Aveline imo, but Anders is the only healer.  So maybe keep the unique trees, but open up all the "basic" trees? 

[Danjaru]

I do hope Bioware decides to go back to Origin standards but still keep a few things from DA2 (mainly talent trees, feels more natural to specialize in some things than getting good at Everything, especially for mages).

But Origins combat was superior to the Hack-n-Slash feeling.
Origins had difficult and interesting boss fights and it's Nightmare difficulty was well done. DA2 just felt tedious at Nightmare, I felt as if I was fighting MMO bosses, and after getting sick of my 2h warrior killing my tank by splash damage (really, had to Taunt, run away with tank, let 2h do 2 spells, then run back with tank) I turned it down to Hard after Act 1.

Toning down combat to be a little slower, a little less hack-n-slashy and making bosses seem like bosses instead of brick walls you have to take down with spoons, but keeping the talent trees would be nice. Also bring back crafting ffs, and maybe even expand on it more than Origins did. Crafting wasn't needed to go through Origins on Nightmare, but it was a very fun thing to explore, so they loose nothing by having it.

Also, going back to the Blank Slate Hero with different origins would be way superior. I played entirely differently depending on my Origin. (My Elf Commoner hated humans, My Mage was overly sympathetic toward mages, Human Noble was the humble good guy except with a burning hatred for Howe, Dwarf Commoner was evil as hell. All due to how I felt their origins would have impacted them.)
In DA2, there was just Hawke. A very boring main protagonist that you barely form by your choices at all.

Modifié par Danjaru, 07 mai 2011 - 02:10 .

[In Exile]

Carmen_Willow wrote...
But in Origins, you had to think about how you were going to take down the enemy....I will grant that DA:2 is more interesting to watch....but some of the combat was also cartoonish....to the point that it broke immersion for me.  I mean, how many times can you be impaled and lifted on someone's sword without dying.....that was ridiculous. 

I just want to point out that DA:O had a much easier gamebreaker than DA2 on nightmare. 3 mages + tank along with firebal + direct dmg spells & mana clash (and say bloodmagic) was an "I win" button for the entire game. DA2, on the other hand, nerfed mages and overemphasized class combos, so you have a lot more random demand.

I can think of three battles that really called for stragtegy for me  in Origins (although I am certain the more experienced probably found it easy).  Marjolaine, The fight with the Forgemaster in the Deep Roads, the Weird machine that produced the spirit warriors in the Deep Roads.  And I'm talking about playing on console, not PC, so I don't generally pause except to cast a spell that's not in my hot key,or do a combat move that isn't in my hot keys.  I also set up tactics, but I don't pause and order other companions to spots to fight.  

I can't speak to the console DA:O experience expect that I tried it and it felt broken.

What I can say is that for the PC, I found DA:O much easier than DA2, until I came to appreciate how to exploit cross-class combos, and then I found it more annoying than DA:O in terms of its reliance on particular builds.

[In Exile]

Carmen_Willow wrote...
Respeccing your characters for each battle is not the same thing as figuring out that you need to draw some of the darkspawn into another room instead of just charging in or figuring out who to sic on the two mages in Marjolaine's house by changing their tactics.  IMHO.

If you count that sort of kiting as tactics, then you can avoid all of the waves in DA2 by doing the same. Waves spawn in 'sorround' tactics, so pulling back as far as possible lets you form a secure perimiter which you can then use to funnel your enemies and pick them off.

I'm not as good as you are in the gaming department, certainly not if everything was easy for you in Nightmare, but I just didn't see  how strategy played much of a part in DA:2. 

Nightmare introduced 1-hit kill FFs, tremendous 100% resistances for enemies, bleed to death for <10% HP remaniing, as well as (I believe) higher level (e.g. Lt. to Boss) type enemies per wave.

Again, completely assigning new abilities to your characters and companions for each fight doesn't seem very roleplay to me.  I like to be able to win through tactics and weapoins choice because IRL, those are the things I can actually change.  Have I respec'd?  Sure, but it's just to see if someone's character build actually works...it doesn't make the game more immersing.  At that point, it's more like an exercise.

Nightmare is designed to be challenging that way. Don't know how nightmare played on the consoles, but to optmize for nightmare in DA:O (just like DA2) you had to essentially design your builds for particular combat roles instead of as any kind of RP principle.

[Fast Jimmy]

Bioware has already stated in interviews that they have already put in too much effort and work to reworking the combat system that they are not going to change it again. They said that they changed they system completely from DAO to DA2 and they weren't going to change it, either back to DAO or to anything else, any time soon. DA3 and any DA2 DLC will have the same basic combat style as DA2... although hopefully with less ninjas from the sky.

What I've heard very few people touch on in this thread is healing. There is only one character that can cast healing spells (unless Hawke is a mage) and potion cooldowns are CRIPPLING. The game basically makes it so I HAVE to have Anders in my party at all times, who I find to be an extremely annoying character in both DA2 and DAA.

I get that they wanted increase the combat difficulty with this, but it makes it extremely unfair when you can be low on health, finishing off a wave of enemies, then a new wave comes in with an assassin and completely mercs Anders, leaving my other two companions waiting for their potion cooldown to run out, allowing them to be cut down. Then my Hawke is stuck running around a re-used dungeon map for the next twenty minutes, whittling away enemy health and chugging potions every time a cooldown cycle ends.

That's not strategic gameplay... that's annoying difficulty. I didn't feel a sense of accomplishment pulling that off, more just a sense of "Thank the Maker! I don't ever want to do that again. Oh, hey! Its time to duel the Arishok..." <turning off game for the next three weeks>

[In Exile]

Knight of Dane wrote...

I didn't feel connected to the story or any of the characters like i did in Dragon Age: Origins.
But what i found important in origins was that your character had a background you experienced.
I never felt like the city elven warden or the human mage warden, I felt like "The grey warden who once were ________"

I think this actually accounts for why DA:O felt broken and unintersting as an RP game for me. Yes, you're absolutely right that DA:O had you as the "Grey Warden who was once ______". The problem is that the game doesn't ever set it up so that you can organically adopt that identity unless your resign yourself to it.

The Origins give you an excellent reason to go with Duncan and even join the Wardens (e.g. the execution aspect). And saving Ferelden from the Blight is just that floor "busy-body" requirement of any game to actually want to do the main quest instead of go on with your life.

The problem, though, is that even if you want to save Ferelden, you don't actually ever have to see yourself as "The Grey Warden who used to be _____ " but rather as "The [Insert Origin] who was kidnapped by Duncan and is now trying to save Ferelden,". The problem is that DA:O is entirely incompatible with the latter on a multiple of conversations (Fade Temptation, several introductory dialogues, converastions with Wynne) andn ever allows you to ever just say "**** the kidnappning Wardens.".

Story-wise, DA:O failed for me because it gave me a reason to care about not being the Warden (via the Origin) and then never actually gave me a reason to want to adopt the identity.

That's putting aside issues like VO, which I feel enhance engagement versus reduce it. DA2 (as written) has more options in principle for how Hawke could deal with the role of the champion, even if the execution is so badly botched.

[In Exile]

Knight of Dane wrote...
Are you serious?
That quest had a backstory, a reason why you did it. The fetch quests in DA:2 has none, it's a bad attempt at comic.

It had a board that said "yo, get me some corpse gall!" and then you went and farmed it. It was garbage in DA:O and it was midly worse garbage in DA2, but to say that either implementation is actually good is ridiculous.

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...
Are you serious?
That quest had a backstory, a reason why you did it. The fetch quests in DA:2 has none, it's a bad attempt at comic.

It had a board that said "yo, get me some corpse gall!" and then you went and farmed it. It was garbage in DA:O and it was midly worse garbage in DA2, but to say that either implementation is actually good is ridiculous.

You were told specifically when you got the quest that the corpse gall was to help the Templars learn how to fight undead better.  It may seem like a minor change to you, but such things help the immersion process.

-Polaris

[Arcan57]

There seem to be essentially two different DA2 games (from a combat perspective). There's the NM mode where it probably is more tactical than DAO due to CCC. Clearly there are a lot of power gamers who find this gameplay exciting and challenging. Then there's the other difficult levels were everyone else plays. And that combat isn't as tactical as DAO because of the teleporting enemies making a mockery of party positioning and the lack of a free floating camera making it significantly more difficult to keep track of your party members. In DAO, I could control my party and make them do what I wanted. In DA2, unless I extensively edit their tactics, my companions spam away their mana/stamina without appreciable effect while I'm controlling another character. IThere needs to be some intermediate between watching the game play (ala the first Dungeon Siege) and requiring relentless min/maxing (FFVII's Ultimate Weapons fights comes to mind) to succeed. IMO, DAO had that middle level and DA2 doesn't.

[Whailor]

bstrothe wrote...

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

I agree with you. DA: O is not a perfect game, it has it's own share of issues, but when it comes down to RPG experience then DA: O beats DA2 by far. DA: O felt more complete - and that even with several points in the game where I considered that BW is just lazy and did not finish some area properly (like Magi tower after the quest there - still looked like a toilet after a while, with children happily running over corpses lying all around the place there and what not). There are way too many areas I can be bothered to list right now where DA: O is way more like "real RPG", like they "used to be on PC's" and not some console style "wham, bang and pieces".

Now, I am not saying that DA2 is hopeless. No, this is not the case. There are several things in DA2 which I quite like, for exampe faster combat (though not the silly gibbing of mobs the moment I touch them, that's way too "console'ish" thing). I like the way your char can adept this diplomatic mode, sarcastic mode or "straightforward" mode. I like the way the combat was made, for exampe two-handed weapons doing sweeping strikes, more active use of shield, some new magic spells and so on (and in some way also dislike it but not because of those abilities, but because of - still - the stupid AI where party members simply run in the way and then get mowed down by friendly fire or hits, assuming you play NM mode). Again, there are several things which I like in DA2 which I won't list here, post would become too long.

But there are also several things which I do not like in DA2 and which directly retract from RPG experience for me. For example the companion inventory thing - change to what it is in DA2 was, for me, stupid. I want to manage the inventory of my party members. I want their gear be realistic - I mean, what the heck, Isabella in her little shirt charging into melee combat and that shirt having more armor then some plate? Upgrades include some little trinkets here and there and a red rag over biceps of one arm and what, armor became even more powerful? Fenris in his feathered sweatsuit? 2/3rd of the loot in-game unusable because companions cannot use it, neither can my Hawke if he's not one of those two classes? Three armor sets per game and then some random junk (from which again 2/3rd are useless for anything else then selling)? In so many areas it just feels that DA2 was hyped up - which certainly wasn't hard to do - so that the actual product could be rushed out while half-done or not done in some areas. The main slogan of the game everywhere was "rise to power.. by any means necessary" and in the end, you rose to... nothing! In DA: O at least it showed also these ceremonies and all, even with many things lacking or unfinished there, it still was more complete then DA2, where my "rise to power" was mentioned by narrator with couple of words here and there.

Anyway, this message is becoming too long so will wrap it up, but in the end, when I compare DA: O and DA2 then DA: O is way better when it comes to RPG game and to "feeling complete" (and that without any DLC). DA2 just feels like hyped up to cover the fact that it is rushed and unfinished, in the end. Maybe some DLC's will change it in the end? Whatever, it would be a cheap thing to "complete" the main game with extra add-on's.

Modifié par Whailor, 07 mai 2011 - 03:11 .

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
You were told specifically when you got the quest that the corpse gall was to help the Templars learn how to fight undead better.  It may seem like a minor change to you, but such things help the immersion process.

-Polaris

If insignificant dialogue like that changes your gaming experience, more power to you. You get a random blurb in the journal for the items you find, so why isn't that enough? Joe lost his hat and wants it back because his head gets cold is the same kind of fetch quest  (with the same sort of justification) as the Chantry wanting undead galls.

Is the difference perceived importance?