148 réponses à ce sujet

[Kendaric Varkellen]

Monica83 wrote...

the combat isn't bad per se if you remove:

Silly jerkish manga animations
Silly jerkish over the top ability
Silly teleport charging and backstab
Enemy spawning from the sky
Enemy with 7124 hp
Silly stupid body explosion

This.
And slightly reduce the animation speed, the attacks were way too fast.

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You see, I don't understand this. Origins combat wasn't realistic because in real combat involving swords and daggers and arrows you're going to want to hit fast and hard. If you don't, you're dead. Origins was clunky and awkward, and was as far from realistic as it could get. Realistic combat is the Ostagar scene where the soldiers, Duncan, Cailan, and everyone else are swinging their weapons quickly.

Yes, you do hit fast and hard, but people still have to pace themselves. There's no point in going 100% killing the first one or two guys and have the next guy kill you, especially if you, as the Warden/Hawke, are a legend and you're expected to kill 20 guys before breaking your first sweat.

Also, people don't spin and do pirouettes in actual sword combat, because it means that you can be more easily knocked off balance. Just like people who know how to fight in the real world generally don't lead with kicks. It's because points of potential imbalance can be fatal.

ALSO, it's not realistic for Hawke to attack THAT much faster than his enemies. I get it, he's good, but nobody is THAT good. In DAO, the Warden more-or-less attacked at the same speed as his/her enemies. Faster or slower, depending on class.

The combat in DA2 was way too fast, way too jRPG and lacked any kind of weight.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Archers and mages are perfect now. And I have to say I do like the S&S attack style now. Shield Bash actually looks like you're slamming the shield into your foe instead of just a light tap to the gut.

Mages are perfect? Then what is with all the spinning?

[ObserverStatus]

Every time I played, I kept thinking "omg it's raining trash mobs! take shelter!"

[Travie]

None of the enemies felt unique. It was just the same things in different armor. (backstabbing rogue templars? lol)

[Mecher3k]

I.AM.DUNCAN wrote...


Listen kid, agree to disagree. I say DA2's fast because the action is fast. You're saying it's not because of some complicated inception theory or something along those lines. So whatever. And usually trolls call people failures at life, so my accusation stays.

But the action isn't fast, it only visually looks fast. I can look like I'm going 100mph but if I'm only going 10mph, I'm not moving fast. That is DA2 combat.

And what I said was complicated? Lol.... Says alot about your intellect, none of it good as well.

And you are the one threatening people online, so yea that makes you a failure at life.

[Mecher3k]

Travie wrote...

None of the enemies felt unique. It was just the same things in different armor. (backstabbing rogue templars? lol)

Whose legs wouldn't break after dropping 20 plus feet to the ground. Or jumping 3 feet in the air while doing a backflip.

All while wearing heavy plate armor.

[Mecher3k]

I.AM.DUNCAN wrote...

My intellect?

You are saying DAO is fast because there are no waves of enemies. The enemies have more realistic health, and can be dealt with at a more effecient rate. A battle in DAO might take 5 minutes, but in DA2 it may take up to 10 with all the waves and outrageous enemy health meters.

I'm saying DA2 is fast because of how fast the characters swing their weapons, because of the fast, over-the-top animations. The battles may take longer, but the combat is very fast.

Yes, explains a lot about my intellect.

Ahh yes strawmen argurements.

I've already listed the many reasons why combat is faster in DA:O. But keep on doing logical fallacies.

Enemies have more realisitic health, but being able to have 100 arrows in them and still be alive? Or having a greatsword slash them 100 times before they die? That's REALISTIC?

Yea your intellect is definetely in question now.

"I'm saying DA2 is fast because of how fast the characters swing their
weapons, because of the fast, over-the-top animations. The battles may
take longer, but the combat is very fast."

That that does not make combat fast. Again you simpleton.

I can look like I'm going 100 mph, if I'm actually going 10mph I am not going fast.

Do

You

Understand

Now?

[Mecher3k]

Except swords aren't swung that slow. And no one is going to be living after 2 sword hits, never mind 10.

Fail at trying to be smart.

Modifié par Mecher3k, 06 juin 2011 - 05:12 .

[LeBurns]

What the heck? DA2 combat was fast. Movements by the PC and crew were so fast that you couldn't even pause to get commands in. The combat itself, from first swing to last, may have been longer, but that's because the enemy had more HP and the weapons were doing less points of damage per hit. DAO was much more balanced. I can't believe someone can even have this arguement.

[Wozearly]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Origins combat wasn't realistic because in real combat involving swords and daggers and arrows you're going to want to hit fast and hard. If you don't, you're dead. Origins was clunky and awkward, and was as far from realistic as it could get. Realistic combat is the Ostagar scene where the soldiers, Duncan, Cailan, and everyone else are swinging their weapons quickly.

Does that mean we should immediately swing greatswords like they're twigs? No, but I've posted time after time how it could be improved. Make it akin to weight lifting. At first you swing the sword slowly but the more points you invest in strength the faster your attack speed is for greatswords.

Considering daggers don't weigh that much, Rogue's combat is fine speed wise. Animation wise it doesn't look like the daggers are actually hurting the foe.

Archers and mages are perfect now. And I have to say I do like the S&S attack style now. Shield Bash actually looks like you're slamming the shield into your foe instead of just a light tap to the gut.

Volus made a lot of good points about DA2 going too far the other way.

Generally, though, I agree with you. In archery, DA:O was definitely too slow with its default attack and/or didn't allow archers to speed up sufficiently via natural progression. The historic reason that longbows were so feared was a combination of their range, the speed at which an archer could loose arrows, that they were (generally) pretty good at piercing anything up to heavy or well-made armour and that the arrows carried a lot of force. Being hit by one was likened to being kicked by a horse.

For swords, the daggers and longsword at default are a little on the slow side, but one of the reasons speed is so effective in sword-fighting is that you're expecting your opponent to attempt to parry a lot - which, in both games, they really don't. Equally, there should be a slower swing following a successful hit - chances are you've got the blade into whatever your fighting, and unless its a thin-tipped rapier-style blade that generally means you've got to twist and pull the wretched thing back out.

The 2H is probably also on the slow side, but its tougher to tell as the sheer size of the DA 2H weapons suggests that even the swords are heavy enough to function as clubs - the old, old, old style Irish (IIRC) claymores were a bit like that. They weren't necessarily all that sharp - the intention was that being hit by one would be enough to knock you over and break bones...must have been a devil to swing, and there's a reason that speedier swordfighting styles with lighter blades replaced them.

I would also have liked to see attack speed be something more progressive - I'd personally have had discrete boosts as you developed your general 'skill' in each weapon-specific tree (like the first line of DA:O's twin weapon skills) and had a smaller boost from developing the weapon's primary stat (prob str, dex or cun), but a bit like the armour penetration / cunning in DA:O so that it takes several skill points to get a noticeable effect. That would also help with enemy scaling to avoid DA2's situation where Hawke and co hit harder and faster than anything else on Thedas.

[In Exile]

LeBurns wrote...

What the heck? DA2 combat was fast. Movements by the PC and crew were so fast that you couldn't even pause to get commands in. The combat itself, from first swing to last, may have been longer, but that's because the enemy had more HP and the weapons were doing less points of damage per hit. DAO was much more balanced. I can't believe someone can even have this arguement.

I disagree completely. I pause & play (no tactics) on nightmare and I've never had a reaction time issue. I pause after every ability.

[Akka le Vil]

Wozearly wrote...

Volus made a lot of good points about DA2 going too far the other way.

And, really, that's the only relevant point.

The nitpicking about how fast/slow swords are is interesting if someone really wants to educate himself (though you should beware the many commonly believed erroneous ideas), but when we're talking about how the animations are ridiculous, it's not because of some minute difference compared to reality, but because it's FAR TOO MUCH.
The difference is not between "strictly realistic" and "barely embellished", but between "believable" and "clownish".

[DrFumb1ezX]

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/battle
http://dictionary.re...m/browse/combat

Mecher3k, I.AM.DUNCAN,
Those links contain definitions to both "battle" and "combat".They are kinda the same. Definition-wise.

Mecher3k, the point DUNCAN is making is that the speed of combat in DA2, from HIS view, is different than the battle speed. To take an example of the game, it's when you get the Lyrium Rune from Sandal. The speed bonus enhances how fast that weapon is swung, therefore, making combat seem faster. The battle then ends quicker, because that particular enemy died faster, therefore allowing you to get to the next enemy quicker, thus ending the battle on a faster note. Savvy?

DUNCAN, you might understand what Mecher3k is saying, because most of his posts are "lol fail at life". 

Combat speed is how fast the movement INSIDE the battle is taking, battle speed is how long the battle lasts.

And don't EVER claim a mastery of the English language when you use "lol" and "lmfao". 'Cause it isn't English, and you will get rejected or an F if you ever put those in an actual paper.

Modifié par soccerchick, 06 juin 2011 - 08:48 .

[DrFumb1ezX]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Wozearly wrote...

Volus made a lot of good points about DA2 going too far the other way.

And, really, that's the only relevant point.

The nitpicking about how fast/slow swords are is interesting if someone really wants to educate himself (though you should beware the many commonly believed erroneous ideas), but when we're talking about how the animations are ridiculous, it's not because of some minute difference compared to reality, but because it's FAR TOO MUCH.
The difference is not between "strictly realistic" and "barely embellished", but between "believable" and "clownish".

I liked Origins combat for its detail, but DA2 for its speed. Why can't I have both? 
And the only believable attacks for me in DA2 were the archery auto-attacks. Still, using a two-hander like a twig does make me giddy inside.

[Tirfan]

Because you can't have a combat system that actually involves tactics and thinking that is at the same time so fast you can see what is happening? (really, I couldn't not make out what was happening in DA2 battles.. too much explosions, teleportation and anime moves.) and yes please, no more ballet-dancer mages

edit: okay, if I had been given a good tactical overview it would have helped a lot, perhaps it wouldn't have saved the combat but it could've made it actually playable.

Modifié par Tirfan, 06 juin 2011 - 09:26 .

[Sidney]

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...
Tactical camera? I love that people continue to latch onto a few degrees of angle as a "major" problem. There are no tactics in this game, there weren't in DAO either, that involve positioning other than staying out of AOE

Hahaha, aaaaaaaaaaaaand I just stopped reading.

Wait, hold on DAO was tactical and DA2 wasn't. I mean whatever incredibily and insanely loose definition of the world "tactical" you are using there's nothing lesser about DA2 in term of the need to use what passes for tactics in these games.  I could, and basically did,  fire up the same basic script from DAO and apply it to DA2 for people and still run all my fights off of the Tactics Scripts.  There were 2 major mechnical differences:

1.  I spent some time making sure that my party exploited the CCC in the scripts which wasn't an issue I concerned myself with in DAO because it didn't exist the Petrify/Stonefist things excepted.
2. Health and healing was a much more pressing issue to micro-manage because you couldn't guzzle potions like a madman from DAO.

I see you don't know what the word means when you mention VATS as a "tactical" option so that's a given.

Modifié par Sidney, 06 juin 2011 - 10:05 .

[addiction21]

VATS is the perfect tactical oppurtunity to take a sip of your favorite beverage!

[Wozearly]

Akka le Vil wrote...

The nitpicking about how fast/slow swords are is interesting if someone really wants to educate himself (though you should beware the many commonly believed erroneous ideas), but when we're talking about how the animations are ridiculous, it's not because of some minute difference compared to reality, but because it's FAR TOO MUCH.
The difference is not between "strictly realistic" and "barely embellished", but between "believable" and "clownish".

Fair play - I should have been clearer that the comments after my reference to Volus were on a tangent, albeit a related one, rather than trying to argue the DA:O realism vs DA2 realism point.

I wouldn't describe myself as an expert on medieval / pseudo-medieval weapons techniques, but I really don't feel its going out on a limb to say that the speed of combat animations in DA:O is almost certainly slower, in general, than it would be fought in real life.

Eerily enough, its one of the few points me and Redux are in full agreement on - we seem to disagree on virtually everything else about DA2.

Is this relevant? Well, just to make my view clear from a gameplay perspective, I felt that it *worked* in DA:O and felt believable, even if attacks were on the slow side (IMO).

DA2, on the other hand, takes a number of factors including attack speed, attack showiness and attack power (or lack thereof, given the excessive animation) which all combine to make it feel over the top and clownish. Slowing down the attack speed would help, but more would be needed for me to be a happy bunny.

[Mecha Tengu]

the combat was dumbed down and flashy (suitable for the braindead cod audience) but I liked the hilarious animations and exploding bodies

Was much more smooth and action packed.

Da2 combat is neither "better" or "worse" but definitely much more fun, though less tactical.