72 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkDragon777]

Yes.

[philippe willaume]

As Crustybot pointed out action is taken to be player/twitch skill over strategy, hence it kind of sucks for a game that is party based.

Fundamentally the problem comes from the fact that the tactical/strategically value of any action in DA II is an afterthought and of very limited usefulness tactically/RPG speaking.
It was less apparent in DAO because of the pace of combat, damage ratio and the selected char stopping immediately what he was doing to execute the new command. (Ironically, DAII has a better design about cross class combo.)

What I am trying to say is that whilst you can use some of the talents in conjunction, the tactic/strategy is merely using those talents together but you do not have any talent that will create a tactically advantageous situation.

Take a LMG gunner the LMG can be used to directly target or to create a suppression / interdiction zone.
So you can either do damage or force the enemy to take cover stop/debuff his ability to moving and to fight efficiently and make it easier for marksman to pick each target of.

That could be done with each magical or no magical missile weapons.
And the principle can be extrapolated to the small number tactical building block that composes more tactically complex situation.

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 22 juin 2012 - 06:06 .

[KDD-0063]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Thanks guys.

"KoA is an action RPG because it relies on player skill, rather than character skill."

This clarifies what I want. RPG where player skill is more important than character skill + button rotations.


"DA has a very unique combat system that is often overlooked - You
can script your companion's AI. The more "action" you put in the game,
the less this tactic system will be used. "

I too like tactical aspects of DA but I just can't stand having to hit your enemy 100 times with the same routine movement over and over.

It is quite possible to make a RPG that relies on player skill without using the action system such as in KoA.
BG2 with tactics, advanced battles and Ascension mod is a good example. Items make a difference sure, but ultimately player skill and tactics define whether a battle is won or lost.
I've seen good players carrying other people's save files that contain ill built characters through the final fight with Amelissan with superior tactics; and even with top gear, fights in BG2 with mods are not easy.

And I agree with another post here: it is difficult if not impossible to make a party based combat system that has the same amount of action game elements such as in KoA or Assassin's creed. Trying to mix those two will just present an odd mix.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 22 juin 2012 - 06:48 .

[joshko]

While I do prefer Action RPGs (Or I should say, RPGs with action elements) I wouldn't like it for Dragon Age.

[MagmaSaiyan]

secret of mana was one too i think, pretty much the earliest one im aware of. and alot of ya that say action doesnt fit well with DA, clearly it does, your minds just cant accept anything different from Baldurs Gate and Origins, and whatever other games that have the same mechanic, and the only thing you actually prefer.

[Teddie Sage]

Dragon's Dogma says Hi.

New favourite series this year.

[PsychoBlonde]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

secret of mana was one too i think, pretty much the earliest one im aware of. and alot of ya that say action doesnt fit well with DA, clearly it does, your minds just cant accept anything different from Baldurs Gate and Origins, and whatever other games that have the same mechanic, and the only thing you actually prefer.

Clearly it does on what basis?  Quite a number of posters in this thread have given excellent reasons for why action elements don't mix well with DA's existing combat methodology.  Playing the game is already like multi-boxing an MMO.  Adding mechanics where you have a fraction of a second to dodge a special attack or have to carefully time attacks and blocks for ALL FOUR CHARACTERS SIMULTANEOUSLY will not make for an enjoyable or even coherent game experience.

Granted, they could make it so that all the characters other than the one you're currently running do everything perfectly so you don't have to worry about them (and this is, in fact, an exceptionally easy AI to write compared with one that CAN be smart but requires work).  However, this would be a radically different type of game.

Just randomly mashing elements together because you happen to like those elemens IN OTHER GAMES rarely yields something worthwhile.

[AkiKishi]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

secret of mana was one too i think, pretty much the earliest one im aware of. and alot of ya that say action doesnt fit well with DA, clearly it does, your minds just cant accept anything different from Baldurs Gate and Origins, and whatever other games that have the same mechanic, and the only thing you actually prefer.

Clearly it does on what basis?  Quite a number of posters in this thread have given excellent reasons for why action elements don't mix well with DA's existing combat methodology.  Playing the game is already like multi-boxing an MMO.  Adding mechanics where you have a fraction of a second to dodge a special attack or have to carefully time attacks and blocks for ALL FOUR CHARACTERS SIMULTANEOUSLY will not make for an enjoyable or even coherent game experience.

Granted, they could make it so that all the characters other than the one you're currently running do everything perfectly so you don't have to worry about them (and this is, in fact, an exceptionally easy AI to write compared with one that CAN be smart but requires work).  However, this would be a radically different type of game.

Just randomly mashing elements together because you happen to like those elemens IN OTHER GAMES rarely yields something worthwhile.

If they had AI only then the game would be Dragons Dogma. The AI learns , it does not start off smart but it gets there if you can draw the battles out long enough for it to learn. Or you can pack your pawn off to another world for training.

[hitenchi]

I will say that the main problem of a party based game being an action rpg is the limitation we have with AI's at the moment. I mean i remember my insanity play through on me2, i going to be honest and say half of the game my Shepard completed single handedly since the the AI would jump out of cover for no reason, admittedly me3 was better but not perfect. The main thing is that the AI functions well with their tactics, and how much of the tactical gameplay will be taken away with the addition of an action element, which if done well doesn't have to be much.

[PsychoBlonde]

hitenchi wrote...

I will say that the main problem of a party based game being an action rpg is the limitation we have with AI's at the moment.

Mmm . . . there is no limitation of this kind on AI.  The AI in a game can be perfect, and, in fact, this type is EASIER to write than one that's convincingly flawed.  There's a versimilitude and a fun problem, is what there is.

For instance, how many people would go absolutely bonkers if companion AI was written in such a way that they NEVER inappopriately left cover or got hit?  The computer can DO this after all.  Would it be a FUN game, if after your character got knocked out, the NPC's could just finish the fight on their own with no further input from you?  Those goofy AI moments are part of what makes it possible to HAVE game difficulty, instead of you bunking off for a nap whle the AI handles everything.

What's spectacularly difficult to do is to design a system where only the right amount of judgment to be fun is called for at any given moment.  The difficulty of doing this is magnified because everybody will have a different threshhold for attention, judgment, and fun.

So, what they do, is include as many options as they can for *customizing* this.  That's what the pause button is.  That's what tactics are.  That's what difficulty levels are. Heck, you can even use in-game elements to further customize if you REALLY want to.   (It makes me laugh when people refuse to customize and then complain that the game is "too hard" or "too easy".)  Wear only act 1 gear.  Don't use any of the DLC gear.   Don't use potions.  Play with 2 party members.

Changing the mechanical workings of the game, however, will radically change EVERYTHING I listed.  It will be not just a different feel, but an entirely different game, and should either be a one-off or a new franchise altogether.  How would you feel if you went to play Assassin's Creed 5 and found that it had turned from an action platforming combat game into an RTS? You'd be wondering what the hell happened, that's how you'd feel.  That's really the issue here, not AI limitations or any particular technical problem.

[MagmaSaiyan]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

secret of mana was one too i think, pretty much the earliest one im aware of. and alot of ya that say action doesnt fit well with DA, clearly it does, your minds just cant accept anything different from Baldurs Gate and Origins, and whatever other games that have the same mechanic, and the only thing you actually prefer.

Clearly it does on what basis?  Quite a number of posters in this thread have given excellent reasons for why action elements don't mix well with DA's existing combat methodology.  Playing the game is already like multi-boxing an MMO.  Adding mechanics where you have a fraction of a second to dodge a special attack or have to carefully time attacks and blocks for ALL FOUR CHARACTERS SIMULTANEOUSLY will not make for an enjoyable or even coherent game experience.

Granted, they could make it so that all the characters other than the one you're currently running do everything perfectly so you don't have to worry about them (and this is, in fact, an exceptionally easy AI to write compared with one that CAN be smart but requires work).  However, this would be a radically different type of game.

Just randomly mashing elements together because you happen to like those elemens IN OTHER GAMES rarely yields something worthwhile.

i dont disagree what you say, AI being a bit smarter is good, i agree, but really why have controllable companions, if you dont have to watch over them. but it might seem a certain way i suppose if youre playing max difficulty, but i felt i was more involved with my party in DA2, Origins all i did was switch to the party member and have them drink a potion just to keep them alive, though im a person that doesnt even really touching the tactics, unless something is wrong with the character, as well as sticking to my character unless i absolutely need a companion to use a certain talent, or unless i die 

Modifié par MagmaSaiyan, 23 juin 2012 - 12:34 .

[Chiramu]

Diablo 3.

Blizzard are genius's when it comes to making combat work, especially on the boss fights. I wish Bioware would put enrage timers on boss fights too, the boss fights are so boring.

[PsychoBlonde]

Chiramu wrote...

Blizzard are genius's when it comes to making combat work, especially on the boss fights. I wish Bioware would put enrage timers on boss fights too, the boss fights are so boring.

Personally, I'd be happy if they got rid of the "boss fights" entirely.  Or, made EVERY SINGLE FIGHT a "boss fight".  Actually, a lot of things make me happy as long as I'm not bored.

And considering how many tweaks they've had to combat in Diablo 3 already, I wouldn't call them "geniuses" at making combat "work"--if this were the case they wouldn't be constantly rebalancing things and changing drop rates cause they would have got it right the first time.  And don't get me started on the sheer quantity of exploits in DIII when it first released which caused the gold economy to become COMPLETELY DERANGED on DAY ONE.

A lot of people found the combat in DIII to be spectacularly boring and reviewed it poorly as a result.

[PsychoBlonde]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

i dont disagree what you say, AI being a bit smarter is good, i agree, but really why have controllable companions, if you dont have to watch over them. but it might seem a certain way i suppose if youre playing max difficulty, but i felt i was more involved with my party in DA2, Origins all i did was switch to the party member and have them drink a potion just to keep them alive, though im a person that doesnt even really touching the tactics, unless something is wrong with the character, as well as sticking to my character unless i absolutely need a companion to use a certain talent, or unless i die 

Is  . . . is this all one sentence?!  No, no, wait, I see a period!  I see it!  Whew.  You're, um, you're supposed to capitalize the word that comes after the period.  It Helps.

All joking aside, that's pretty much what I was saying.  You can't turn DA into an action game without having companions you don't need to watch.  In which case, why bother making them directly controllable?  And if you do that, DA is now . . . Mass Effect.  Which is a very different type of game.  Might as well add in guns and chest-high-walls while you're at it.

You could probably sneak in a few more action elements if you REALLY wanted to, but I propose that this would probably just make the game fantastically annoying to play while not really satisifying people who want REAL ACTION.  And it'd make Bioware look like indecisive pandering twits even if they did it with the best intentions and plans.

[MagmaSaiyan]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

i dont disagree what you say, AI being a bit smarter is good, i agree, but really why have controllable companions, if you dont have to watch over them. but it might seem a certain way i suppose if youre playing max difficulty, but i felt i was more involved with my party in DA2, Origins all i did was switch to the party member and have them drink a potion just to keep them alive, though im a person that doesnt even really touching the tactics, unless something is wrong with the character, as well as sticking to my character unless i absolutely need a companion to use a certain talent, or unless i die 

Is  . . . is this all one sentence?!  No, no, wait, I see a period!  I see it!  Whew.  You're, um, you're supposed to capitalize the word that comes after the period.  It Helps.

All joking aside, that's pretty much what I was saying.  You can't turn DA into an action game without having companions you don't need to watch.  In which case, why bother making them directly controllable?  And if you do that, DA is now . . . Mass Effect.  Which is a very different type of game.  Might as well add in guns and chest-high-walls while you're at it.

You could probably sneak in a few more action elements if you REALLY wanted to, but I propose that this would probably just make the game fantastically annoying to play while not really satisifying people who want REAL ACTION.  And it'd make Bioware look like indecisive pandering twits even if they did it with the best intentions and plans.

 

what is this english class? lol normally i do have periods but that one specific sentence was sorta of a rant, be lucky that id at least used commas.

well considering whether you like or not its a decent party based action rpg, with at least some sort of tactics tied to it, otherwise you get Skyrim or Dragon's Dogma(though im not keen on how DD works)

Modifié par MagmaSaiyan, 23 juin 2012 - 01:21 .

[Jerrybnsn]

If this was the 1990s, no. But the way rpg is being defined today, Scrabble is an rpg.

[wsandista]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

If this was the 1990s, no. But the way rpg is being defined today, Scrabble is an rpg.

Then Scrabble will have to find a way to get the Call of Duty crowd.......

[Jerrybnsn]

multiScrabble?

[wsandista]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

multiScrabble?

Pick up the word tile, get shot, respawn, repeat.

[Nefla]

As much as I would like an elder scrolls style fighting system in DA, I don't think BioWare can actually do it. I think DA2 was their attempt at action and it's even more boring than DA:O combat. I would MUCH rather they focus time and resources on story and characters (and not re-using maps) than overhauling the battle system again.

[Chiramu]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

Blizzard are genius's when it comes to making combat work, especially on the boss fights. I wish Bioware would put enrage timers on boss fights too, the boss fights are so boring.

Personally, I'd be happy if they got rid of the "boss fights" entirely.  Or, made EVERY SINGLE FIGHT a "boss fight".  Actually, a lot of things make me happy as long as I'm not bored.

And considering how many tweaks they've had to combat in Diablo 3 already, I wouldn't call them "geniuses" at making combat "work"--if this were the case they wouldn't be constantly rebalancing things and changing drop rates cause they would have got it right the first time.  And don't get me started on the sheer quantity of exploits in DIII when it first released which caused the gold economy to become COMPLETELY DERANGED on DAY ONE.

A lot of people found the combat in DIII to be spectacularly boring and reviewed it poorly as a result.

Oh look, you're judging Diablo 3 from reading the reviews. Gametrailers.com gave Diablo 3 a very fair review. Check it out (they also played it because they didn't make the review on day 1).

But if you've actually finished the game once, and made it to Nightmare then you'd realise that the combat is much more strategic than anything Bioware has ever done. Instead of pausing every second in a Bioware game, it's all in real time and you've got to react to every problem without a pause button. 
Nightmare Diablo is way harder than Normal Diablo (Normal Diablo pretty much did a standard attack most of the time lolz). 
But real time fights are much more exciting than anything Bioware's done because you don't get a PAUSE button. Pause is like a get out of gaol free card. It completely ruins any tension, cause while you pause you can go and make a cup of coffee and come back and nothings changed lol.

[esper]

Well, of course there can be action rpg's we are hardly seeing anything else these days.
Recently I am being nostaclig and replaying summoner 1 and 2 and so I can even say that you can have good party based rpg combat, but I do absolutely not want to see it anymore in dragon age.

Modifié par esper, 23 juin 2012 - 01:07 .

[KDD-0063]

Chiramu wrote...

Diablo 3.

Blizzard are genius's when it comes to making combat work, especially on the boss fights. I wish Bioware would put enrage timers on boss fights too, the boss fights are so boring.

Enrage timer is more of a progression issue. In diablo 2 or 3 you can grind your gear forever before the boss fight in order to meet the damage requirement to overcome the enrage timer, because they are, essentially, loot games. That way you can set the boss's difficulty high, because if a person has a character that currently cannot beat the boss, he can eventually grind out enough gear to beat it.

In DA that doesn't happen. It is even more difficult in that DA is a party based game. Different parties compositions just have way too different strengths and it is very difficult to add mechanisms like enrage timer.

and I also disagree that pauses ruin combat experience. First of all complicated party control is very difficult without pauses. Maybe the problem is boss fights in most Bioware games aren't initially difficult, but that does not mean you can't make a dynamic boss fight with pause mechanisms. This is a very good example.

And I actually like it this way; the game initially shouldn't be too difficult (though it shouldn't be too easy either), but the community can add different mods to make the fights more dynamic.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 23 juin 2012 - 03:00 .

[philippe willaume]

Hello Chiramu
I think that, DIII appreciation aside, you and PsychoBlonde are not on that different wave length.

An action, rpg or action Rpg becomes tactically/ strategically enjoyable when problems are resolved by other means that gear and potions.

For example I really enjoyed DA:0/A for the same reason you enjoyed DIII. I used what we could call a suboptimal party and I had to use terrain and tactics.
On the advice of Esper who did not like DA:O for the same reason I did not like DA:2. I tried DA:0 with two mages in the party and it is as tedious a DA:2 but slower paced, (Two mages will make short works of almost anything bar the greats dragons.)

In DA2 I seldom told the companion what to do, because it does not mater even in nightmare though I confess that I the mobs and lieutenant are fine but bosses make me lose the will to live.
The “let me finish my animation sequence and then I will do what you ask” makes using companion a pain in the butt and they are best left to their own devices.
So the experience is really akin to what you describe as DIII in normal difficulty.

The Pause is more a consequence that the issue itself.
Space Hulk the Video game had a timed pause, that needed to regenerate after being used, where you could order your Terminator squad and Flight simulator where your can order wingman, patrol, squadron about in real time.

So there are ways to minimise or do away with the pauses.

The issue is fundamentally that if you want to dodge, strike/cast a spell or parry as your char, there is only a limited amount of time you can spend on the companion.

Personally I like the “order your wingman” approach, IE dialogue based orders but the tactics as they stand can no support that.
As I mentioned earlier, you need the action to have intrinsic tactical value.
As well we would need some sort of taxonomy for the spell and talents so that you don’t spend most of the game writing tactics.

As well, ideally you will need scouting and a planning to set the strategy and prepared emergency command


It sounds complicated but it is really not that hard
Each talent/spell can have an either a classement or a number associate with the tactical use of the spell, this is on top of its effec
Movement (stop, reduce speed by X, no effect, increase speed by x, double movement range)
Moral (panic, unease –x to moral check, no effect, bolster +x, heroic (fall to panic or unease on critical only)
Ability to execute (cancelled, reduced by x, no effect, , increased by x, all success are critical)

Of course dealing damage is a tactical option.

Then you can have a series of simple order where the taxonomy is ranged by decreasing order. Each companion could have a pre-set order or a different set to start with.
The order in which each order is defined could be used to determine the companion strategy if left to his own device in general situation and even have special order for situation that has a specific meaning for the companion.

Stop = movement, moral, ability to execute
Kill =damage, Ability to execute (cancelled, reduced)

Cover = moral (panic or unease), movement (stop or reduce), Ability to execute (cancelled, reduced)
Help =moral (increase or all success), moral (panic or unease)
Support =Ability to execute, movement (stop or reduce), moral (panic unease)
Defend= Ability to execute(cancel, reduce), moral (panic unease) movement

[ashwind]

Nefla wrote...

As much as I would like an elder scrolls style fighting system in DA, I don't think BioWare can actually do it. I think DA2 was their attempt at action and it's even more boring than DA:O combat. I would MUCH rather they focus time and resources on story and characters (and not re-using maps) than overhauling the battle system again.

Elder Scroll style fighting isnt complicated, Bioware would have no problem doing that - actually no game developer would have any trouble doing that because there is nothing special about it - and since someone from Bethesda dare say that "Active Blocking" is "innovative" :lol: (AngryJoe interview Skyrim MMO)

Bioware tried to please both action fans and non-action fans with DA2 ... hence they made some sort of abonimation