279 réponses à ce sujet

[SirShreK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The axes and mauls in DAO were just as bad.  I calculated the head of the DAO mauls at over 40kg (assuming they're the same density as steel).

This is getting crazier by the minute. Did you know that magic does not exist in real world? Neither does Alchemical Silver. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

And since we're giving numerical scores...

For comparison, DAO:

Story - 8
Graphics - 8
Combat - 7

Keep in mind that I think DAO is a terrific game, but those three categories don't really cover the aspects of the game I count as most important.

So, for DA2:

Story - 8
I didn't finish the game, so the grade is really incomplete, but what I have seen of the story is fine. So I'm giving it an 8 - the same score as DAO - just to be fair.

Graphics - 6
First, I'm not a fan of the new art style. But beyond that, the environment graphics, I think, have gotten significantly worse. The floors in DAO often had relief - they had actual texture build into the polygons, so characters walking across them would move up and down with the floor. This is most noticable in the Fade when you're in Mouse-form. DA2's floors, however, and usually flat and smooth. Any relief is added through tesselation, which looks good, but doesn't affect collision detection, so characters' feet walk along a perfectly smooth surface that just doesn't look smooth. But it still is. So DA2 suffers here.

Combat - 2
As I explained above in my response to UpsettingShorts, DA2 has some of the worst combat I've ever seen. The experience of fighting enemies in DA2 is wholly unpleasant. I can't think of even one redeeming factor - oh, wait - the tactics screen options are better in DA2. That's it.

So DAO got 23/30, while DA2 gets 16/30.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirShreK wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The axes and mauls in DAO were just as bad.  I calculated the head of the DAO mauls at over 40kg (assuming they're the same density as steel).

This is getting crazier by the minute. Did you know that magic does not exist in real world? Neither does Alchemical Silver. 

But steel does.  The weapons claimed to be made of steel.

And if this steel is somehow vastly less massive than our steel, why do we not see evidence of that in the setting's architecture?  DAO's architecture wasn't especially fantastic, which it should have been if they had access to fantastic materials.

[SirShreK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The axes and mauls in DAO were just as bad.  I calculated the head of the DAO mauls at over 40kg (assuming they're the same density as steel).

This is getting crazier by the minute. Did you know that magic does not exist in real world? Neither does Alchemical Silver. 

But steel does.  The weapons claimed to be made of steel.

And if this steel is somehow vastly less massive than our steel, why do we not see evidence of that in the setting's architecture?  DAO's architecture wasn't especially fantastic, which it should have been if they had access to fantastic materials.

I am guessing becuase of artistic decisions. See I do acknoledge your point. But I would not get into these discussions UNLESS somehow the design is ridiculous, like in DA2. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirShreK wrote...

I am guessing becuase of artistic decisions.

I insist that Art Design be subservient to the coherence of the setting.

I while I think DAO's oversized weapons were ridiculous, I also think DA2's are much worse. I can't use Hayder's Razor - I just can't - because it looks so incredibly stupid.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 mai 2011 - 07:08 .

[mesmerizedish]

I agree about Hayder's Razor. Except, instead of just not using it, I give it to Carver. They're perfect for each other!

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I agree about Hayder's Razor. Except, instead of just not using it, I give it to Carver. They're perfect for each other!

Right now, Fenris has it, and I can't even bring myself to select him to swap it out.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

I am guessing becuase of artistic decisions.

I insist that Art Design be subservient to the coherence of the setting.

I while I think DAO's oversized weapons were ridiculous, I also think DA2's are much worse. I can't use Hayder's Razor - I just can't - because it looks so incredibly stupid.

Did your calculations assume that they were entirely solid? You don't really need super heavy weapons to deal significant damage, and there's actually a good deal of evidence that even two-handed weapons used by knights and such weren't actually that heavy. 

Edit: Just as an example, this sword pictured here weighs 6 pounds.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 11 mai 2011 - 07:28 .

[Sabriana]

Story
Idea ->           9

Execution ->  6  -  Points added for most of act II.

Graphics
Landscape ->          7.5  The view into the distance was done very nicely, imo. Docked points for drabness.

NPCs (general) ->  6.5  - Points docked for strange facial features on many NPCs

Elves ->                  3    -  Points added for Fenris, Merrill, little quest girl, Orsino

Zevran ->                0     -  Because he wasn't there. If you think he was, you're hallucinating. That was clearly an       impostor.

*glares at TEWR - but not in a mean way*


Combat
PC -> 6    - Points added for mage meleeOverall -> 6 Points deducted for the usual suspects.

Overall -> 6  - Points deducted for the usual suspects.

Modifié par Sabriana, 11 mai 2011 - 07:36 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Did your calculations assume that they were entirely solid?

Yes, they did.  You think it simpler to assume they used a design which is vastly more difficult to manufacture?  Hollow Mauls?

You don't really need super heavy weapons to deal significant damage, and there's actually a good deal of evidence that even two-handed weapons used by knights and such weren't actually that heavy. 

This only supports my point.  Making the weapons that big did nothing but harm the game.

[SirShreK]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

snip

Let me assure you that the real problem with swinging gigantic swords is not the weight. Its the impact. The vibration imbalances the user. My family at my home town has two swords: A sabre and a one handed sword (I woulndn't know the type). Both have seen practical use in their time, but not seriously so. The Sabre is quite light and THAT is the variety that was preferably used post 16 hundreds by the cavalry. Thats why they could hack and slash. The one handed sword is ~3.5 kg (7 pounds). It has been weighed so I don't know how your reference claims that the two handed swords are lighter and I am dis-inclined to believe it.  The sabre is ~ 2 kg. 

Also, if you actually hit something with the one handed sword, you have to ready yourself for the clanging impact. This I would guess would definitely be amplified in the larger varieties. 

[Sylvianus]

After Sylvius, comes Sylvianus

DAO : story 9 /10  The only problem is that the collection of allies is like the lord of the rings. but otherwise the story is brilliant, precise, dark, made ​​of gray, deep, with many implications. We see that it is a story carefully worked. Lots of details, a codex, perhaps the deepest, largest I have ever seen.

graphic : 6/10 The graphics were already poor in dao, but not disturbing.

combat : 8/10

_________

DA2 story : 2/10.

graphics : 5/10

combat : 8/10 I welcome the change, but it can be improved. The waves of enemies that pop out of nowhere also declined.the score.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 11 mai 2011 - 07:56 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Did your calculations assume that they were entirely solid?

Yes, they did.  You think it simpler to assume they used a design which is vastly more difficult to manufacture?  Hollow Mauls?

Weaponsmiths, especially master weaponsmiths weren't just human factories, they were artists. Just because it looked solid doesn't mean that it was solid. 

You don't really need super heavy weapons to deal significant damage, and there's actually a good deal of evidence that even two-handed weapons used by knights and such weren't actually that heavy. 

This only supports my point.  Making the weapons that big did nothing but harm the game.

How does it support your point? The article says that weaponsmiths back in those days were able to do things that people today misconstrue. The weapons of yesteryear are actually much lighter and easier to use than they looked. Why is it difficult to believe that master smiths were able to craft weaponry that looked even larger and more intimidating, yet was still practical?

Edit:

SirShreK wrote...

Let me assure you that the real problem with swinging gigantic swords is not the weight. Its the impact. The vibration imbalances the user. My family at my home town has two swords: A sabre and a one handed sword (I woulndn't know the type). Both have seen practical use in their time, but not seriously so. The Sabre is quite light and THAT is the variety that was preferably used post 16 hundreds by the cavalry. Thats why they could hack and slash. The one handed sword is ~3.5 kg (7 pounds). It has been weighed so I don't know how your reference claims that the two handed swords are lighter and I am dis-inclined to believe it.  The sabre is ~ 2 kg.

If you choose not to believe it, that's fine. I don't know for certain, but it does seem strange that historical soldiers would use weapons that really were that unwieldy.

Also, if you actually hit something with the one handed sword, you have to ready yourself for the clanging impact. This I would guess would definitely be amplified in the larger varieties. 

That entirely depends on what it is you are hitting.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 11 mai 2011 - 07:59 .

[Sylvianus]

For the story in DA2, I found it boring, a lot of inconsistencies, and lack of choice was the completion of a huge disappointment. The choice, history, etc., are the areas that concern me most.

[Must have name]

Relatively:

Story: 4. While the Story was more original (Origins story really was nothing to shout about, good, but nothign special), really showing promise in Act II, it suffered from some incredible railroading problems. Things like not being able to kill Petrice in Act I; being forced to hunt the Apostates; rebel mages having a KoS policy on you. Not to mention the ending was terrible due to a lack of an epilogue, with more or less the same situation resulting regardless of which side you picked. It really felt to me like a lot of it was a railroad designed so the plot could happen, then the ending was simply so DA3 could happen regarldess of player choice.

Graphics: 7. Whilst the graphics are better than Origins, the artistic design is worse. The prologue is an absolutely terrible setting. Many parts of Kirkwall also feel quite dreary on the graphics side. Darkspawn and certain Elves look terrible. On the other hand, I much prefer the Qunari along with particular Elves (e.g. Merill, Orsino, Marethari). There's also the issue of laziness in several textures (e.g. random elves in the background). It gains points here for improving on Origins however.

Combat: 2. This is the worst part for me. There's so many bad things I can say about the combat that i'd simply rant on forever if I started. About the only plus point I can give it is ability trees are better; yet they're still flawed.

Modifié par Must have name, 11 mai 2011 - 07:58 .

[SirShreK]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

If you choose not to believe it, that's fine. I don't know for certain, but it does seem strange that historical soldiers would use weapons that really were that unwieldy.

i never said unwieldly. And soldiers are strong men usually. Not wimps.

That entirely depends on what it is you are hitting.

No, it doesn't. 

Modifié par SirShreK, 11 mai 2011 - 08:02 .

[Sylvianus]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

For the story in DA2, I found it boring, a lot of inconsistencies, and lack of choice was the completion of a huge disappointment. The choice, history, etc., are the areas that concern me most.

What that says. Act 3 doesn't even give you the illusion of choice.

Loool. So true.

[hoorayforicecream]

SirShreK wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

If you choose not to believe it, that's fine. I don't know for certain, but it does seem strange that historical soldiers would use weapons that really were that unwieldy.

i never said unwieldly. And soldiers are strong men usually. Not wimps.

The article has several quotes from other sources and cites all of them. If you really disbelieve it, there's a lot of material you can read about.

That entirely depends on what it is you are hitting.

No, it doesn't. 

Hitting a stack of feathers is the same as hitting a stack of stones?  We're not talking equal mass, we're talking equal volumes here.

[SirShreK]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Hitting a stack of feathers is the same as hitting a stack of stones?  We're not talking equal mass, we're talking equal volumes here.

....

Yes. You are right. If you hit air there will be no impact. I am sorry I said that. 

Modifié par SirShreK, 11 mai 2011 - 08:27 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Here is another independent article from the Journal of Western Martial Art in 2004 that says the 2-handed greatswords weighed between three and ten pounds each. If you look, one of the longest blades there (74.5 inches) weighed in at 10.6 pounds.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 11 mai 2011 - 08:23 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Hollow weapons? What would be the point of going through all the extra steps to achieve something that is bulky and not structurally sound plus hits lighter than it looks like it should? I suppose it could be argued that the weapon might bestow fear upon your enemy but after the first hit landing like a marshmallow, the morale advantage of the wielder would be given to the opponent. If you've ever done any boxing against a bigger guy and landed one of your best hits with all your juice, it's disheartening if it doesn't truely stagger him. I guess it could also lessen fatigue over longer battles, but at the cost of hitting power and being unwieldy.
Plus, a hollow weapon would likely have to use a cast, which can lead to impurities in the ore and structural weakness if the casting is imbalanced. Hollow weapons would just be a huge disappointment, kind of like hollow chocolate Easter bunnies.
I would rather have something that is easy to conceal with the same mass and hitting power. It would certainly make cave and dungeon exploration alot easier than trying to slide down a hole then getting stuck because of a huge hollow maul that hits like an elaborate whiffle ball bat.

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How does it support your point? The article says that weaponsmiths back in those days were able to do things that people today misconstrue. The weapons of yesteryear are actually much lighter and easier to use than they looked. Why is it difficult to believe that master smiths were able to craft weaponry that looked even larger and more intimidating, yet was still practical?

This has popped up a few times in the past. Your sources are correct, the historical swords didn't weight very much.

The thing is, DA weapons models are much wider and thicker than these historical weapons, which means they're at least few times heavier with the same material used. That's what people generally mean when they say DA swords would be too heavy to wield.