101 réponses à ce sujet

[Wonderllama4]

I really liked Warrior and Rogue combat more in DA2. It was a step in the right direction.

[Pzykozis]

wish people would seperate their ideas of encounter design (arishok fight, waves, lack of tactics) and combat systems. The combat is effectively the same between the games just more responsive and paced differently. Encounters are something different (could do with a fair bit of work).

[Bonanza16]

The combat in DA:O and that in DAII are completely different.

1. DA:O had friendly fire. DAII did not... Except on Nightmare difficulty.

2. DA:O had realistic combat. DAII had exploding enemies.

3. DA:O relied heavily on statistics with much emphasis on fatigue, attack, defense etc. DAII had exploding enemies.

4. DA:O was challenging, even on Normal. DAII had exploding enemies.

5. DA:O featured sensible enemies and boss fights whenever applicable. DAII placed hordes of slavers, shades and bandits anywhere just to lengthen the game and somehow managed to fit walking statues and a crab tank in the Dragon Age universe.

6. DA:O relied on clever tactics and resourceful enemy AI to challenge players. DAII relied on hordes on exploding enemies that appear out of nowhere to "challenge" the players.

[Melca36]

Atakuma wrote...

I think it's reasonable to assume that the combat will be more akin to DA2 than Origins. I fully expect them to continue using waves, cross class combos, sequential boss fights, and flashy animations.

They already said several times combat would still be fast but not like DA:2. I would not expect it to be over the top like DA:2.

The combat did not go over well with many fans.

[Dakota Strider]

Pzykozis wrote...

wish people would seperate their ideas of encounter design (arishok fight, waves, lack of tactics) and combat systems. The combat is effectively the same between the games just more responsive and paced differently. Encounters are something different (could do with a fair bit of work).

When I compare the two, and criticize DA2, it is never about the waves of parachuting mobs.  It is about the lack of choices.  The DA2 combat uses lots of flashy moves, most of them close to physically impossible to execute, and your character will perform several of them, if you simply just hold down the attack button.   From what I can tell, that is what the DA2 supporters like about that system.

My problem with DA2 combat, is that each character or npc is severely limited in options.  If you do not have the rogue with bow specialty tree, you cannot even hold a missile weapon.  Warriors and rogues basically have to choose to be only one dimensional fight styles in DA2, as opposed to the opportunity to either specialize, or mix and match in DAO.  Mages are only able to select a few different spell trees, and most spells within each tree, are just an improvement of a previous spell.  In DAO mages could also mix and match, and part of the fun was learning different combinations of spells that brought surprising results.  So your options for combat are very limited. 

Anyone who has done even a minimal amount of computer programming (raises hand), knows that the more choices you want to include, the harder the program is to design and execute.  It just seems odd, that the Dragon Age team went backwards in that regard.  They could not keep all the choices from DAO, and still add the flash that the fans of the DA2 combat system like?  Instead, it seems they could not chew gum and walk at the same time.

[Melca36]

Sutekh wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Anybody who says "I hope so," really needs to redo the Arishok duel and then edit their post...

What was wrong with the Arishok duel? I thought it was hilarious, in the grand tradition of Chaplin and Laurel & Hardy burlesque.

Seriously though, in an open space such as the one in the trailer, that duel would have played quite differently. Big sword, long reach, "don't stay close to the walls" and tiny closed room isn't a good combination. It says nothing about DA2 combat system per se.

The arishock duel was stupid and ridiculous.

[eroeru]

That video with the Arishok is awesome. Though bitter in a sense. It was "this was a sad experience of a game" through and thorough, reminding.

[Maria Caliban]

Dakota Strider wrote...

When I compare the two, and criticize DA2, it is never about the waves of parachuting mobs.  It is about the lack of choices.  The DA2 combat uses lots of flashy moves, most of them close to physically impossible to execute, and your character will perform several of them, if you simply just hold down the attack button.   From what I can tell, that is what the DA2 supporters like about that system.

Good thing there are no DA 2 supporters in this very thread who have stated what they like about DA 2's system.

[Sutekh]

Melca36 wrote...

The arishock duel was stupid and ridiculous.

Did it offend you? I found it incredibly funny once the first WTF? had passed (the Benny Hill vid linked upthread translates that very well). There's a trick to it, though, involving using cold attacks (runes or spells) and a mabari, which renders it a tad less ridiculous.

Anyway, my point was that it says nothing about the combat system, nor do exploding enemies or over the top animations. The best system in cRPGs history would still make for an atrocious fight if you'd find yourself stuck with a boss in a broom closet 

[Adanu]

I loved DA2 combat, though it had it's flaws admittedly. I HATE going back to DA O after playing it... it's incredibly slow and theres no feeling of actual power or fluidity in combat. DA2 had it.

A hybrid of the two would work for me.

[Meris]

DA2 had worse encounter design. Not only were 'waves' badly implemented (which, sadly, is the only problem BioWare is intent in fixing) but they became the sole design tool at work. In DA:O, there were waves but there was also many instances of misdirection and similar techniques at work. Not to mention that a problem from Origins, those encounters that didn't employ any engaging technique of design (also known as 'filler fights') wasn't just left unsolved, but actually made more frequent.

The difficulty slider also extremely limited the single most important tactical aspect of DA:O, positioned conditioned by friendly fire, to Nightmare which isn't notorious by improved AI - rather HP bloat and arbitrary immunities.

Furthermore, the more limited class design (conditioning entire classes to given roles) also made combat less engaging for me.

And let's not forget that the camera was made worse at the same time that the fights became needlessly AWESOME AND MAJESTIC.

So whatever 'improvements' there were in making Dragon Age II faster, were left unseen through all these problems.

[Joy Divison]

Sutekh wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Anybody who says "I hope so," really needs to redo the Arishok duel and then edit their post...

What was wrong with the Arishok duel? I thought it was hilarious, in the grand tradition of Chaplin and Laurel & Hardy burlesque.

Seriously though, in an open space such as the one in the trailer, that duel would have played quite differently. Big sword, long reach, "don't stay close to the walls" and tiny closed room isn't a good combination. It says nothing about DA2 combat system per se.

No.

Arishok still has 10,000s of hit points.  Hawke still has 150.
It's still a kitefest.
It still sucks.

[hussey 92]

I hope not. The combat in DA2 looked pretty, but that was all it had. You could hardly strategize cause you'd be to busy button mashing.

DA2 combat gets so boring after a while.

Modifié par hussey 92, 20 avril 2012 - 05:00 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

DA2's combat was horrible. At least in DA:O we had something that resembled a strategic approach. This went down the drain in DA2 by not only omitting the strategical view, but also by the waves of foes and the jumping around on the battlefield. The flashy combat and the cumbersome tactical screen didn't help either. It was nice in DA2 that it seemed to be more responsive, but I would give that up if that's the toll.

[KDD-0063]

DAO's combat is flawed.

However, the reason is that there are way too many cheap tactics available to players. Arcane warrior, mana clash, blood wound, just to name a few. If you have the Combat Tweaks mod installed it's much better, even though I don't agree with all changes in the mod (for example, fireball is already powerful enough but the mod makes it even more powerful).

Another reason is that there's no fundamental difference between normal difficulty and nightmare difficulty. There's also a lack of boss AI and etc.

Does this mean DAO's combat system should be discarded completely? Absolutely not.

And that is what DA2's combat system did. It did improve on, say, cheap tactics, boss AI and etc, but can those improvements be done WITHOUT changing into a completely different action combat system, which, I might sarcastically add, makes Mike Laidlaw talks about how "awesome" it is "especially" on console?

Plus, there are many problems in DAO that DA2 did not fix. Character progression is still vulnerable to min-max, which means early game is hard while later encounters are extremely easy to a min-max character.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 20 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[OneFodderUnit]

DAO had some cheap tactics but it could be fixed as KDD says. I like the nightmare plus mod. You can just make the game much harder to compensate for cheap tactics. That mod also helps fix the other real problem I had and that is enemy variety. It's nice having different enemies to force different tactics. I really do enjoy DAO combat though. It's too bad that they probably won't ever go back to that style.

[goofyomnivore]

It will be much closer to DA2 than DA:O.

Both games have weak combat systems. DA:O is much worse than DA:2 in vanilla, and with mods is a bit better than DA:2.

I think a healthier and more dynamic CCC system, better animations, spawns and exploitable environment would make DA combat pretty fun.

[keesio74]

I hear people call DA2 combat "button mashing". Is this just a console thing? I'm on the PC and I still right-click on the guy to do a standard attack just like DA:O. I didn't notice a difference in that regard.

[cJohnOne]

keesio74 wrote...

I hear people call DA2 combat "button mashing". Is this just a console thing? I'm on the PC and I still right-click on the guy to do a standard attack just like DA:O. I didn't notice a difference in that regard.

Yeah I think of Diablo as being a click fest not DragonAge.

[TEWR]

Sutekh wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

The arishock duel was stupid and ridiculous.

Did it offend you? I found it incredibly funny once the first WTF? had passed (the Benny Hill vid linked upthread translates that very well). There's a trick to it, though, involving using cold attacks (runes or spells) and a mabari, which renders it a tad less ridiculous.

Roleplaying wise, agreeing to a 1-on-1 honorable duel and summoning the Mabari sort of defeats the point of it, unless it's your intention for Hawke to be a dirty and rotten cheater.

But on topic: even using Cold attacks, the duel is still far too unbalanced.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 avril 2012 - 06:54 .

[hussey 92]

keesio74 wrote...

I hear people call DA2 combat "button mashing". Is this just a console thing? I'm on the PC and I still right-click on the guy to do a standard attack just like DA:O. I didn't notice a difference in that regard.

On the Xbox, you have to keep pressing "A" or else your PC won't attack

[Dave of Canada]

Tommyspa wrote...

Anything is better than shuffle-poke-clunk from Origins.

[Sutekh]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Roleplaying wise, agreeing to a 1-on-1 honorable duel and summoning the Mabari sort of defeats the point of it, unless it's your intention for Hawke to be a dirty and rotten cheater.

Eh :innocent:

But on topic: even using Cold attacks, the duel is still far too unbalanced.

Never pretended otherwise. And yeah, after three or four versions of Benny Hilling for fifteen minutes with an eye on that damn healing potion time-counter, I had no qualms whatsoever being a little creative with the interpretation of the duel terms.

[Sharn01]

I am crossing my fingers for a middle ground, both had different problems that where extreme opposites.

I want to actually be able to see what I am going to fight, and be able to set up in tactically advantageous areas beforehand, send in stealth characters to scout where the enemy is and set up for an ambush on that dangerous but squishy mage, and know that enemies wont materialize from thin air in every single fight in the game.

I would like the faster paced combat of DA2 though, maybe slow it down some, but not the shuffle of Origins. I enjoy some of the flashy moves of DA2 but not the over the top ones like drop kicking poison flasks.  classes should be appropriately themed, this one is probably asking for too much, but things like fighters making earthquakes by punching the ground and the teleporting are over the top. Mages have magic and are feared for it, when warriors and rogues are doing things just as outlandish as magic then why would anyone fear magic?

Modifié par Sharn01, 21 avril 2012 - 09:29 .

[Zkyire]

Dragon Age Origins combat was actually slower than 'real life' combat.

Greatswords still only weigh a few pounds, and since you're using both hands, the actual speed of each strike is still quite fast. The drawback is actually its sheer size which makes it a bit difficult to wield in tight spaces/right up close. Although Greatswords having the ability to damage multiple targets in a swing was a nice touch. But DAO showed the 2-handed warriors taking several seconds to swing, which was a bit ridiculous. Unfortunately, DA2 went too fast.

The same can be said for Longswords, although not to the same extent.


Exploding enemies. There are a few magical spells where exploding enemies would not only look cool, but make sense. But for regular weapon slashes or a low level fire attack? No.

Basically, DA2 was too fast and explodey, and DAO was a bit too slow. So hopefully, for DA3, a middle ground can be reached.

Modifié par Zkyire, 21 avril 2012 - 12:13 .