132 réponses à ce sujet

[Melness]

With so many people seem to dismiss more action-based as 'superficial and devoid of strategic potential' or even faster as 'dumbed down', I was drawn to think about the question above and couldn't settle on an answer. What is the strategic depht provided by having a combat so incredibly tied with dice-rolls?

I mean, one of most important tactical elements of DA:O's combat was positioning: to avoid friendly fire and find cover against enemy ranged attacks, mostly. But then I'm playing DA:O and find myself on the first Ogre battle at Ostagar. There, the ogre turns around at my mage and builds up to a very obvious AoE attack. Noticing that, I move my Mage to avoid the Ogre's attack but forget about Alistair, the result is that my mage is hit from across the room, dies, but Alistair somehow 'saves against death' and lives to deliver the final blow.

Were this realistic or strategic by any measure, I would have been rewarded for my presence of mind and punished for my ineptitude: MageWarden would have lived and Alistair would have died.

This is one reason why I prefered the combat in Dragon Age 2. In Nightmare my characters (controlled by me) must have some sense of preservation when an Ogre lifts his both hands and prepares to smash them in the head. Furthermore, I can trick said Ogre into attacking his own and other things.

To be tied so much to dice-rolls means that a wall between you and a Genlock Archer should be meaningless, that the projectile should circle through the corridor and hit you regardless of player input, of player agency or tactical awareness.

Mind you, I'm not saying Dragon Age 2 should be like Skyrim or Witcher, that everything should depend on player input during combat, but somethings must, otherwise the game isn't tactical or strategical at all. After all, those two words, tactic and strategy, are derived of a very 'actiony' medium, real life.

Lastly, I'm not saying that Dragon Age 2's combat is perfect. Far from it, but so was Dragon Age: Origins.

EDIT:

Look, don't misunderstand me. I don't want to do away with dice rolls, they are an integral part of a traditional party based RPG. But, just as I appreciate to use cover against ranged attacks in DA:O, I appreciate greater degree of player input alongside the dicerolls.

I enjoy stacking stats in order to improve the odds and I also enjoy a bit of randomness and luck in my fights, just as I enjoy some more action based elements in the fight. And I cannot understand why someone would call a "dice roll not to die" more deep than "realize a given creature used an AoE skill centered in point A (A = position of one of your characters) and move from it, preferably drawing other enemies close to point A".

In short: Dice rolls decide whether or not you succeed in a given endeavor.

In Tabletop RPGs, that doesn't take away player agency because anything can be done and anything can become a dice-roll.

In videogames, that's not the case. You can't do anything you want, and if you want everything you do to be tied to a dice-roll, then you won't be able to do much at all. Adding 'actiony elements' only adds to gameplay, allowing for deeper strategic potential.

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:15 .

[Plaintiff]

I don't find either game particularly strategic, honestly, but I don't play on Nightmare and don't ever intend to.

But speaking generally, I always thought the whole point of games that involved dice was that they were based mostly on luck and chance than any sort of skill or strategy. I'd be very surprised to learn that this wasn't the case.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 05 décembre 2011 - 04:21 .

[xkg]

Dice rolls in DA:Origins ?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

And btw those auto-homing arrows you mentioned are part of DA2 mechanics so ...

[alex90c]

DA2 archers were even better. When you did assassinate, the character would actually backflip and then fire the arrow.

Awesome!

[Melness]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't find either game particularly strategic, honestly, but I don't play on Nightmare and don't ever intend to.

But speaking generally, I always thought the whole point of games that involved dice was that they were based mostly on luck and chance than any sort of skill or strategy. I'd be very surprised to learn that this wasn't the case.

What I'm saying is that one of the good things about Dragon Age II's combat is that it increased player agency. Positioning, Dragon Age Origin's most important tactical element, gained more functions since, as an example, you can skilfully evade an Ogre's stone toss.

And yet many people interpret that as less tactical depht, claiming that true party based rpgs should be about dice-rolls and stat stacking only.

xkg wrote...
Dice rolls in DA:Origins ?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I realize I wasn't very clear on this. Just interpret 'dice roll' as 'RNG', tied to most party-based games you've got, especially faulty tabletop rpg emulators such as Baldur's Gate.

xkg wrote...

And btw those auto-homing arrows you mentioned are part of DA2 mechanics so ...

To be fair, homing projectiles aren't very common in both installments of the game, since arrows are very quick as opposed to DA:O's staff shots, which are magical and must be auto-homing to be true to that game's lore. As in, mage staffs never miss but, somehow, never hit critical parts of enemy bodies (which is beyond me, but that's another story).

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 04:39 .

[Kidd]

I have nothing to add, but would say I definitely agree with you.

[Gibb_Shepard]

DAO is more tactical simply because there is a ****load more spells and talents to choose from (Increasing the variety of possible combat victories), more varied enemies and a bloody tactical camera.

DA2 allows more player fidelity, but has such a streamlined combat system that the tactical possibilities have been severely limited.

And the fact that you think DAO relies on a system of dice rolls shows just how much you know of it's combat.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 05 décembre 2011 - 05:05 .

[furryrage59]

I didn't come across any strategic depth in the combat during my 20 something hour playthrough of DA:2. I was actually surprised that i could semi afk through most of it.

Not often i have come across a game where i can continue doing other things such as watching a movie, eating or drinking without having to give my full attention to combat.

DA:O ogre fight for example, he kicked my ass at first and could barely blink.
DA:2 ogre fight i was on the phone talking to a friend about what we were going to do this weekend.

I can't speak for anyone else but if i'm involved in something that requires strategy or thought, i can't be doing other tasks at the same time.

[Plaintiff]

furryrage59 wrote...

I didn't come across any strategic depth in the combat during my 20 something hour playthrough of DA:2. I was actually surprised that i could semi afk through most of it.

Not often i have come across a game where i can continue doing other things such as watching a movie, eating or drinking without having to give my full attention to combat.

DA:O ogre fight for example, he kicked my ass at first and could barely blink.
DA:2 ogre fight i was on the phone talking to a friend about what we were going to do this weekend.

I can't speak for anyone else but if i'm involved in something that requires strategy or thought, i can't be doing other tasks at the same time.

I wouldn't say DA:O is any better in that regard, I frequently chat online or even play another game while I'm playing Origins.

[alex90c]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

DAO is more tactical simply because there is a ****load more spells and talents to choose from (Increasing the variety of possible combat victories), more varied enemies and a bloody tactical camera.

DA2 allows more player fidelity, but has such a streamlined combat system that the tactical possibilities have been severely limited.

And the fact that you think DAO relies on a system of dice rolls shows just how much you know of it's combat.

The OP doesn't mean it literally, what they mean is that you could kind of see just before an attack occurred that a load of calculations were taking place and the animation was just designed to make it look fancy, whereas DA2 didn't feel so much like that.

[furryrage59]

Plaintiff wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

I didn't come across any strategic depth in the combat during my 20 something hour playthrough of DA:2. I was actually surprised that i could semi afk through most of it.

Not often i have come across a game where i can continue doing other things such as watching a movie, eating or drinking without having to give my full attention to combat.

DA:O ogre fight for example, he kicked my ass at first and could barely blink.
DA:2 ogre fight i was on the phone talking to a friend about what we were going to do this weekend.

I can't speak for anyone else but if i'm involved in something that requires strategy or thought, i can't be doing other tasks at the same time.

I wouldn't say DA:O is any better in that regard, I frequently chat online or even play another game while I'm playing Origins.

I can do that now as well, but that's after 11 playthroughs

I was comparing first playthroughs.

[Melness]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

DAO is more tactical simply because there is a ****load more spells and talents to choose from (Increasing the variety of possible combat victories), more varied enemies and a bloody tactical camera.

A wider spell system means doesn't necessarily mean more and harder choices, but most likely an entire host of redundancy and uselesness next to a few bright lines. The School of Destruction from DA:O is a major example: Fire and Frost reign supreme over the part useless and part less efficient Earth and Lightning.

Just look at Baldur's Gate. There's what, 200 arcane spells? But a lot of those are redundant, outright useless, become useless over time and more: to the point that the game's greatest spellcasting exception, the Sorcerer, is simply the most powerful dedicated spellcaster and one of the most popular of all classes.

Furthermore, DA2 have nearly as many spells as DA:O. It just happens that instead of, as an example, having one spell for each weapon enchantment, you've got one that serves for all elements (more than what Dragon Age: Origins had, since it was limited to Telekinetic, Fire and Frost).

As for enemy variation, is that really the case? DA:O was no Shadows of Amn, it had a very limited enemy roster. With darkspawn and enemy bandits making up most of the game, and all of which based on the same three classes a player can choose.

Lastly and no less importantly, the camera issues are an important matter of quality of life. It has nothing to do with tactical depht.

furryrage59 wrote...

I didn't come across any strategic depth in the combat during my 20 something hour playthrough of DA:2. I was actually surprised that i could semi afk through most of it.

I myself found both games easy on my first playthroughts, both on Nightmare. But much, much less so with DA2.

And one thing most people don't know is that, aside of limiting friendly fire to Nightmare, there was a difficulty overhaul with DA2. The easiest difficulty settings got easier and the hardest got harder. So I'd ask on what difficulty level you played, and if devoid of friendly fire I'd say just this:

You shouldn't judge the game's combat yet. You should try on Nightmare, or at least get a friendly fire mod for Hard.

Because one of BioWare's biggest mistake was denying most DA2 players, those unwilling to jump straight into Nightmare, the most important tactical aspect of the game: positioning by virtue of friendly fire.

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 05:30 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

It does add an element of risk/reward managment, which is nice. But generally I would say that it does very little either way re: tactical depth.

[Zanallen]

I certainly do enjoy being able to actively dodge incoming enemy attacks. I was often annoyed in DAO by my PC being knocked to the floor by a hurled boulder that landed nowhere near him.

[tmp7704]

Melness wrote...

What is the strategic depht provided by having a combat so incredibly tied with dice-rolls?

The element of uncertainty, which can force you to plan for multiple scenarios and react to the situation as it develops.

edit: in contrast, i consider the "press A to Jason dodge" mechanics a step back, in the sense it puts more importance on the player's skill, as opposed to the character's skill. The ability to leap out of the boulder's way should be a direct effect of the character's dodge/agility score and not whether i can press a button fast enough. If you do tie it to the player's skill, why bother with having character attributes at all? You can do like Skyrim and remove them altogether.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 décembre 2011 - 06:26 .

[A.Rosaria]

Dice roll add chance to the game.

[Zanallen]

tmp7704 wrote...

The element of uncertainty, which can force you to plan for multiple scenarios and react to the situation as it develops.

edit: in contrast, i consider the "press A to Jason dodge" mechanics a step back, in the sense it puts more importance on the player's skill, as opposed to the character's skill. The ability to leap out of the boulder's way should be a direct effect of the character's dodge/agility score and not whether i can press a button fast enough. If you do tie it to the player's skill, why bother with having character attributes at all? You can do like Skyrim and remove them altogether.

Of you can have both. If you move your character out of the way of the attack before it lands, you shouldn't be hit by it. But if you are still in its range, then the game can calculate saving throws and armor rating.

[tmp7704]

Zanallen wrote...

Of you can have both. If you move your character out of the way of the attack before it lands, you shouldn't be hit by it. But if you are still in its range, then the game can calculate saving throws and armor rating.

But then the ability to move the character out of the way still bases on my cunning and reaction speed and not the character's. Easily leading to nonsensical situations where a guy with no agility whatsoever routinely leaps out of the way like the best, most agile rogues.

It'd be probably simpler to just make the animation for the attack (just the flight part) fast enough so there's no time left for such manual maneuvering.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 décembre 2011 - 06:40 .

[Gunderic]

tmp7704 wrote...

Melness wrote...

What is the strategic depht provided by having a combat so incredibly tied with dice-rolls?

The element of uncertainty, which can force you to plan for multiple scenarios and react to the situation as it develops.

edit: in contrast, i consider the "press A to Jason dodge" mechanics a step back, in the sense it puts more importance on the player's skill, as opposed to the character's skill. The ability to leap out of the boulder's way should be a direct effect of the character's dodge/agility score and not whether i can press a button fast enough. If you do tie it to the player's skill, why bother with having character attributes at all? You can do like Skyrim and remove them altogether.

This, but honestly, placing importance on a character's skill doesn't make dice variables an imperative. Stat checks can also be constant/not have a random factor to them.

[tmp7704]

Gunderic wrote...

but honestly, placing importance on a character's skill doesn't make dice variables an imperative. Stat checks can also be constant/not have a random factor to them.

Yes, but then you're removing the element of uncertainty i mentioned   Which for some may be a welcome effect, but it reduces the strategic depth to the encounter, imo.

[Zanallen]

tmp7704 wrote...

But then the ability to move the character out of the way still bases on my cunning and reaction speed and not the character's. Easily leading to nonsensical situations where a guy with no agility whatsoever routinely leaps out of the way like the best, most agile rogues.

It'd be probably simpler to just make the animation for the attack (just the flight part) fast enough so there's no time left for such manual maneuvering.

But in DA2, you aren't leaping out of the way. You are walking out of the way. You are changing position, same as if you were moving to avoid friendly fire in DA:O. But yes, making the attack animation fast enough so you couldn't avoid it by casually walking away would probably fix the issue.

[Melness]

Zanallen wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

The element of uncertainty, which can force you to plan for multiple scenarios and react to the situation as it develops.

edit: in contrast, i consider the "press A to Jason dodge" mechanics a step back, in the sense it puts more importance on the player's skill, as opposed to the character's skill. The ability to leap out of the boulder's way should be a direct effect of the character's dodge/agility score and not whether i can press a button fast enough. If you do tie it to the player's skill, why bother with having character attributes at all? You can do like Skyrim and remove them altogether.

Of you can have both. If you move your character out of the way of the attack before it lands, you shouldn't be hit by it. But if you are still in its range, then the game can calculate saving throws and armor rating.

Pretty much what you've got in DA2, defense and resistances, the result of pre-battle preparation and stat stacking is something to be left to dice rolls. Though 'saving throws' go beyond resistance and defense, including also evasion, so I don't think its the best word here.

@tmp7704 'Press X not to die' isn't what I'm suggesting. I don't want a giant A to appear in my screen every time a boss uses an ability, I want mostly what was done in the PC version of DA2. Not to leave evasion for a cold RNG god to decide only, but give me, as a player, input on it.

Look, don't misunderstand me. I don't want to do away with dice rolls, they are an integral part of a traditional party based RPG. But, just as I appreciate to use cover against ranged attacks in DA:O, I appreciate greater degree of player input alongside the dicerolls.

I enjoy stacking stats in order to improve the odds and I also enjoy a bit of randomness and luck in my fights, just as I enjoy some more action based elements in the fight. And I cannot understand why someone would call a "dice roll not to die" more deep than "realize a given creature used an AoE skill centered in point A (A = position of one of your characters) and move from it, preferably drawing other enemies close to point A".

In short: Dice rolls decide whether or not you succeed in a given endeavor.

In Tabletop RPGs, that doesn't take away player agency because anything can be done and anything can become a dice-roll.

In videogames, that's not the case. You can't do anything you want, and if you want everything you do to be tied to a dice-roll, then you won't be able to do much at all. Adding 'actiony elements' only adds to gameplay, allowing for deeper strategic potential.

[Melness]

tmp7704 wrote...

But then the ability to move the character out of the way still bases on my cunning and reaction speed and not the character's. Easily leading to nonsensical situations where a guy with no agility whatsoever routinely leaps out of the way like the best, most agile rogues.

That sort of extremism can be used for a lot of nonsensical beliefs as well.

Isometric view? Is your character flying?

...

What did you say? Its hard to place friendly fire AoEs without the isometric view? Well, sucks to be your character then.

And please, you're saying you need high cunning to realize the Ogre will throw a stone at you? And you need high agility to try and move, not leap or jump or teleport, out of the way?

You're not roleplaying an adventurer with negative points in intelligence, wisdom, cunning or whatever. You're playing a living and breathing human being with some sort of preservation instinct.

EDIT: Lastly and most importantly:

Not everyone is a hardcore roleplayer. If you, as a dedicated roleplayer, feels a given character (say, Bethany) lacks the agility to run (because I know few people can do this) and the cunning to perceive obvious threats, then perhaps you don't have to do anything and just let her die. This sort of choice is rather interesting for roleplaying, don't you think?

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:02 .

[Gunderic]

tmp7704 wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

but honestly, placing importance on a character's skill doesn't make dice variables an imperative. Stat checks can also be constant/not have a random factor to them.

Yes, but then you're removing the element of uncertainty i mentioned   Which for some may be a welcome effect, but it reduces the strategic depth to the encounter, imo.

I suppose... though not all actions in video games are, let's say, 'dynamic' like in PnP games. That is, you will have to perform a dice roll when fixing a broken radio in a PnP, whereas in a game like Fallout: New Vegas, it's more of a do or don't situation. Dice rolls here wouldn't have much of a point since there aren't any other players actively participating, so what I'm trying to say is, they don't always add strategic depth. New Vegas did away with conversation check chances entirely, for example.

Strategy games do have variables in terms of damage the units can do, so I think they are important to an extent in RPG's also. I think I prefer a smaller degree of uncertainty though. After all, games like chess are entirely lacking in 'randomness factors' (generated by the rules of the game, that is), and yet I don't see it as lacking depth. 

Sometimes I think some real-time games that make too much use of dice rolls have their feet planted in opposite places. I think I might prefer what games like Fallout 3/New Vegas achieve, incorporating real-time game mechanics and responsiveness in, well, real-time games.