205 réponses à ce sujet

[seraphymon]

Dubya75 wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I agree...DAO's combat was slow, sluggish and could have been better but DA 2 was way too fast and flashy and odd looking.

I disagree. DA2 combat is awesome!

I disagree.  I like the smoothness, but overall its not awesome. Of course that maybe due to that coupled with abilities and encounters themselves.

[kingjezza]

I never quite know what to make of these arguments. Yes I can plough through Origins now on nightmare without really breaking sweat but it wasn't like that first time I played the game, even playing on normal there were fights and parts that I found incredibly challenging, first time I faced a Revenant, I thought I would never beat it, doing Back Alley Justice almost drove me around the bend but I did it by trying different things, plenty of fights certainly required thought on my part, but hey maybe I just suck at games.

My first (and only) play through of DA2 on the other hand required absolutely no thought on my part, playing on the same setting of normal I hacked and slashed my way through the whole thing pretty much without a second thought, mages unleash a bunch of fire and lightning from the skys while the others just hack away, every fight was basically a race to see who would die first, they always did. By chapter 2 I was so sick of the combat I had switched it down to casual (no skip combat button sadly) and by half way through chapter 3 I had quit completely, pretty much down to the utter crapness of the combat.

[BroBear Berbil]

I find a lot of the fights in the books to be more satisfying than DA2's combat. Getting surrounded by enemies meant something anyway and Duncan wasn't teleporting around flailing his arms about. Of course there have to be different considerations when dealing with gameplay but I don't think they needed to slide so much into this kind of cartoon-like combat.

[syllogi]

Dubya75 wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I agree...DAO's combat was slow, sluggish and could have been better but DA 2 was way too fast and flashy and odd looking.

I disagree. DA2 combat is awesome!

For the sake of argument, what, in your opinion, is "better" about DA2's combat on Normal difficulty, versus DA:O's combat, other than the fact that it is easier?

As someone who enjoys strategic combat, there's not much fun in DA2; I don't have to worry about friendly fire, I don't have to worry about choosing a balanced party, I don't have to worry about positioning my party correctly for most fights....and those are things I *want* to worry about.  I want to think while I'm playing, not mindlessly slash through waves.

[esper]

TeenZombie wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I agree...DAO's combat was slow, sluggish and could have been better but DA 2 was way too fast and flashy and odd looking.

I disagree. DA2 combat is awesome!

For the sake of argument, what, in your opinion, is "better" about DA2's combat on Normal difficulty, versus DA:O's combat, other than the fact that it is easier?

As someone who enjoys strategic combat, there's not much fun in DA2; I don't have to worry about friendly fire, I don't have to worry about choosing a balanced party, I don't have to worry about positioning my party correctly for most fights....and those are things I *want* to worry about.  I want to think while I'm playing, not mindlessly slash through waves.

You really have to worry about friendly fire in da2 as it hits your party harder than the enemy thanks to the party lower hp compared to enemies. You have to worry about the posistion because enemies attacks you from the back with means that at some points you need to reposition, unless you dragg your whole group a long way back and settle in a choke point, (Which is positioning)
In da:o I didn't have to worry about anything on nightmare, my arcane warrior mage could just walk through the game casting and area spell and it even took forever to finish one combat. I never bothered with my party's tactics in da:o.  I didn't have to think about anything to win the fights. I just pushed the quick talents bottoms. 
I bothered in da2, in fact I spend a long time polishing my tactics up and I think about when I use my talents in order to avoid killing my own party and not suddenly have all my talent in cool down at a critical point.
With legacy they even manage to make the waves more believeable so I favour the da2 approach.  

[Gibb_Shepard]

esper wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I agree...DAO's combat was slow, sluggish and could have been better but DA 2 was way too fast and flashy and odd looking.

I disagree. DA2 combat is awesome!

For the sake of argument, what, in your opinion, is "better" about DA2's combat on Normal difficulty, versus DA:O's combat, other than the fact that it is easier?

As someone who enjoys strategic combat, there's not much fun in DA2; I don't have to worry about friendly fire, I don't have to worry about choosing a balanced party, I don't have to worry about positioning my party correctly for most fights....and those are things I *want* to worry about.  I want to think while I'm playing, not mindlessly slash through waves.

You really have to worry about friendly fire in da2 as it hits your party harder than the enemy thanks to the party lower hp compared to enemies. You have to worry about the posistion because enemies attacks you from the back with means that at some points you need to reposition, unless you dragg your whole group a long way back and settle in a choke point, (Which is positioning)
In da:o I didn't have to worry about anything on nightmare, my arcane warrior mage could just walk through the game casting and area spell and it even took forever to finish one combat. I never bothered with my party's tactics in da:o.  I didn't have to think about anything to win the fights. I just pushed the quick talents bottoms. 
I bothered in da2, in fact I spend a long time polishing my tactics up and I think about when I use my talents in order to avoid killing my own party and not suddenly have all my talent in cool down at a critical point.
With legacy they even manage to make the waves more believeable so I favour the da2 approach.  

Ha. So was playing casual in DAO fun?

[SkittlesKat96]

Dubya75 wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I agree...DAO's combat was slow, sluggish and could have been better but DA 2 was way too fast and flashy and odd looking.

I disagree. DA2 combat is awesome!

Well I admit I think its decent and it isn't terrible but still, I had more fun with DAO's combat even if it was a bit sluggish and could have been improved.

[tmp7704]

esper wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

For the sake of argument, what, in your opinion, is "better" about DA2's combat on Normal difficulty, versus DA:O's combat, other than the fact that it is easier?

You really have to worry about friendly fire in da2 as it hits your party harder than the enemy thanks to the party lower hp compared to enemies.

No, you don't.

[TheRealJayDee]

Dubya75 wrote...

In fact, I will even go as far as saying that the overall combat experience in DA2 is better than any fantasy-style game out there today.

[...]

Aesthetically speaking, DA2 combat looks awesome! Again, I would say it looks better than any similar game out there today.

Dubya75 wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I agree...DAO's combat was slow, sluggish and could have been better but DA 2 was way too fast and flashy and odd looking.

I disagree. DA2 combat is awesome!

I respectfully disagree.

PresidentCowboy wrote...

If we apparently want realism they should just get rid of magic altogether.

Not again...

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 26 septembre 2011 - 12:14 .

[esper]

tmp7704 wrote...

esper wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

For the sake of argument, what, in your opinion, is "better" about DA2's combat on Normal difficulty, versus DA:O's combat, other than the fact that it is easier?

You really have to worry about friendly fire in da2 as it hits your party harder than the enemy thanks to the party lower hp compared to enemies.

No, you don't.

Yes, you do. Compared to da:o.

[Blastback]

tmp7704 wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

I don't understand why you'd want to slow it down.

Because it feels too fast for him.

If you don't understand it, ask yourself the reverse -- do you want the animations to be, say, 50% faster than they are already? After all, it'd make the game even more responsive so that'd make it even better, no?

But if you think the game could then become tad bit silly in appearance... well, that's how it feels for these who think it's already too fast.

Besides, I'm difficult and contrary. 

[tmp7704]

esper wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

esper wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

For the sake of argument, what, in your opinion, is "better" about DA2's combat on Normal difficulty, versus DA:O's combat, other than the fact that it is easier?

You really have to worry about friendly fire in da2 as it hits your party harder than the enemy thanks to the party lower hp compared to enemies.

No, you don't.

Yes, you do. Compared to da:o.

Please, note the bold part of the quoted post you were replying to.

[esper]

tmp7704 wrote...

esper wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

esper wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

For the sake of argument, what, in your opinion, is "better" about DA2's combat on Normal difficulty, versus DA:O's combat, other than the fact that it is easier?

You really have to worry about friendly fire in da2 as it hits your party harder than the enemy thanks to the party lower hp compared to enemies.

No, you don't.

Yes, you do. Compared to da:o.

Please, note the bold part of the quoted post you were replying to.

As far as I remember the were no friendly fire on normal in da:o either. It was on hard. and nightmare.But fair enough da2 normal is easier than da:o normal, neither of them really required anýthing thinking and tactics.

Modifié par esper, 26 septembre 2011 - 12:52 .

[tmp7704]

esper wrote...

As far as I remember the were no friendly fire on normal in da:o either.

It depends on the game version. It's disabled on the consoles because of limited control over companion positioning. For PC version friendly fire is set to 50% on normal, 100% on harder levels.

[Joy Divison]

Was someone really defending the reinforcement mechanic in DA2 on the previous page?

[esper]

tmp7704 wrote...

esper wrote...

As far as I remember the were no friendly fire on normal in da:o either.

It depends on the game version. It's disabled on the consoles because of limited control over companion positioning. For PC version friendly fire is set to 50% on normal, 100% on harder levels.

I am on ps3 so that explains that. Not all like friendly fire. I personally like it, but some  think that it is too irritating on normal/default level.

Modifié par esper, 26 septembre 2011 - 02:15 .

[Pasquale1234]

seraphymon wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

Maconbar wrote...
I think that DA:2 combat wouldn't seem so bad if every encounter didn't play out the same way.

It was even worst in DAO, to the point where the game could damn near play itself. At least with the waves, if forced a small meaure of adjustment. In DAO, every battle went exactly the same.

yeah i fully disagree as well. Alot of the fights were differently set up and needed different tactics in DAO.

But DA2 with enemies having the same few attacks , I found it playing itself or using the same rotation on about 90% of the fights. Only difference really was the boss fights.

waves were just annoying, and since almost every fight contians them eventually you expect them.

There were several battles in DAO that required different tactics.  The enemies' use of the environment had quite a bit to do with it in many cases.

Example: Battles along the road where there are enemy archers and mages lined up in the hills on both sides, and the path to get to them has several traps.

Example: The abandoned building in Denerim, where you had to get past a grease trap, then around the corner there were some archers firing from behind a barricade.  Same location, there was a room with one small door to enter it, and ranged combatants lined up on the far end of the room, also some ranged combatants against the back wall.

Playing both games on "normal", there were several memorable battles in DAO that I had to figure out different strategies in order to succeed.  I was able to hack 'n slash all the way through DA2 doing little more than pushing the auto attack button.  I found DAO's strategically designed battles infinitely more satisfying than waves of paratroopers.

[esper]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

Maconbar wrote...
I think that DA:2 combat wouldn't seem so bad if every encounter didn't play out the same way.

It was even worst in DAO, to the point where the game could damn near play itself. At least with the waves, if forced a small meaure of adjustment. In DAO, every battle went exactly the same.

yeah i fully disagree as well. Alot of the fights were differently set up and needed different tactics in DAO.

But DA2 with enemies having the same few attacks , I found it playing itself or using the same rotation on about 90% of the fights. Only difference really was the boss fights.

waves were just annoying, and since almost every fight contians them eventually you expect them.

There were several battles in DAO that required different tactics.  The enemies' use of the environment had quite a bit to do with it in many cases.

Example: Battles along the road where there are enemy archers and mages lined up in the hills on both sides, and the path to get to them has several traps.

Example: The abandoned building in Denerim, where you had to get past a grease trap, then around the corner there were some archers firing from behind a barricade.  Same location, there was a room with one small door to enter it, and ranged combatants lined up on the far end of the room, also some ranged combatants against the back wall.

Playing both games on "normal", there were several memorable battles in DAO that I had to figure out different strategies in order to succeed.  I was able to hack 'n slash all the way through DA2 doing little more than pushing the auto attack button.  I found DAO's strategically designed battles infinitely more satisfying than waves of paratroopers.

Playing da:o on normal was not hard at all and I don't rember doing anything tactial expect spamming the AoE spells. Da2 normal was easy too.

[RagingCyclone]

esper wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

esper wrote...

As far as I remember the were no friendly fire on normal in da:o either.

It depends on the game version. It's disabled on the consoles because of limited control over companion positioning. For PC version friendly fire is set to 50% on normal, 100% on harder levels.

I am on ps3 so that explains that. Not all like friendly fire. I personally like it, but some  think that it is too irritating on normal/default level.

So I wonder in this argument where the lines are? How many are on pc and how many on console. I don't own a console nor have any desire to own one, and seeing here the settings are different for the platforms, I have to wonder if the main division here on like/dislike is based on the platform one plays on.

[Joy Divison]

I doubt that. I dislike DA2's combat for the most part because most enemies have zero special abilities and serve only as targets to distract you from the assassin type enemies which one-shot you. Throw in the paratroopers, the painful grinding experience of fighting a boss, and how ridiculously powerful kiting is and I can't even be bothered that the pace is so fast it largely precludes thinking.

[Mark of the Dragon]

I think they should slow down the combat some but not to much, Origins was to slow. They also need to add more variety to enemies. I didnt see anything very special about any enemies in DA2 just swarms of enemies doing the same moves over and over. If they really separate the enemies and give each type their own strengths and weakness it would definitly lead to a more satisfying experience.

[Dubya75]

What the hell? I unsubscribed to this thread but I'm still being spammed with email notifications!

[esper]

RagingCyclone wrote...

esper wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

esper wrote...

As far as I remember the were no friendly fire on normal in da:o either.

It depends on the game version. It's disabled on the consoles because of limited control over companion positioning. For PC version friendly fire is set to 50% on normal, 100% on harder levels.

I am on ps3 so that explains that. Not all like friendly fire. I personally like it, but some  think that it is too irritating on normal/default level.

So I wonder in this argument where the lines are? How many are on pc and how many on console. I don't own a console nor have any desire to own one, and seeing here the settings are different for the platforms, I have to wonder if the main division here on like/dislike is based on the platform one plays on.

I doubt that. The only reason I don't play on computers it that I keep breaking them and I can't afford to buy proper ones that can run a game. And as I said I like friendly fire (hence I play on nightmare), but I know some don't.
I think that Legacy pulled waves the way I want them: No appearing out of thin air (unless they were summoned ghost spectres in which case it made sense), just to appear, but coming from doors and gates. It felt good. Legacy is the way I want combat to move.

[Tatinger]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

I think they should slow down the combat some but not to much, Origins was to slow. They also need to add more variety to enemies. I didnt see anything very special about any enemies in DA2 just swarms of enemies doing the same moves over and over. If they really separate the enemies and give each type their own strengths and weakness it would definitly lead to a more satisfying experience.

Yeah, it's funny.  I don't know what the difference was in terms of overall creature variety between the two games, but in DA2 I found going up against The Fade creatures really quite repetitive and unfun.  It's funny because in DA:O I had no problems hacking through endless waves of Darkspawn but shade after shade...ugh. 

"These guys again, really?"

And as for using "the same moves over and over" again, I wouldn't mind, if their combat tactics made any sense.  I always, always, always, go for the long-range attackers and mages first.  My enemies, not so much.  They'd walk right by Anders, Bethany, or Merrill in order to get to me (a lowly rogue).  I don't know what my threat level was (I certainly had no abilities to buff it up)  but surely, surely, you'd first try to eliminate the people that could decimate your party with a spell or two.

Then again, I played on normal so maybe their tactics changed on higher difficulty settings but that always seemed like an odd bit of combat directive to me: "ignore the person showering rains of fire from the heavens on us and go after the small girl using the kitchen knives!"

Modifié par Tatinger, 26 septembre 2011 - 05:18 .

[schalafi]

After playing DA2 I agree that the Shades just have to go in DA3! It seems that the devs decided to just use Shades, repeating and repeating them everywhere. I'm sick of them, and all the other Fade creatures. I'd much prefer Darkspawn, or wild beasts, even spiders. I just hate those Shades.