25 réponses à ce sujet

[REAPERS_r_CTHULHU]

DA:O's automatic combat, or DA2's button-mashing combat?

To be honest I prefer the DA2's combat, but then again, I'm playing it on Xbox. It feels more like youre actually involved in the battle, like you are actually doing damage, not letting the game play itself and watching yourself miss time and time again, only to be helpless of it.

What if a middle ground could be met? What if automatic was for PC and button-mashing was for console?

How do you feel about combat in the DA series?

[coles4971]

Playing through the prologue did not make me feel like I was actually doing damage in DA2.

[REAPERS_r_CTHULHU]

coles4971 wrote...

Playing through the prologue did not make me feel like I was actually doing damage in DA2.

Explain?

[rapscallioness]

I much preferred the combat in DA2. The combat in DA:O felt impotent. So ineffectual. Poke. Poke. Zap. Zap. Arrggh.

I usually played mage in DA2. Which as I found out later is really more interesting and involved. As mage I was clocking the battlefield. Adjusting my spells as needed. Watching that arcane horror in the distant, and trying to put him out of business. It was fun.

One time I played as Warrior...and it was very button smash-y. I finally understood what people were complaining about.

But overall I preferred the combat in DA2. I felt more in control.

In DA:O I was, and am--replaying, so frustrated. I'm yelling at the screen, "Would you stick the murder knife in him already, Warden!" Then the Warden, "As you command. I can do that. On my way."

[Gebert]

I'd like DA3's combat to strike a middle ground between DA:O's and DA2's:
From DA2 it could get the reactivity, tempo (though it should be a little bit slower, and also have proper animations) and CCCs. From DA:O it should take cues from the much more prevalent focus on tactics and positioning. And make support/healing mage a valid way to play, no more "Spirit Form" crap.

Regarding manual vs automatic, I think both console- and PC-players should get to choose what they want to play with.

[Direwolf0294]

I have similar feelings to you OP. DA:O's combat made me feel like I was sitting on the sidelines and wasn't actually a part of what was going on. It also felt really, really slow. DA2's combat made me feel much more involved with what was going on. I'm not a huge fan of either system though. I don't really like combat where all the hits, misses, dodges, parries and blocks are determined by dice rolls. While I doubt they'd change that for DA3 I'm hoping they'll add in some extra things to make combat more involved and make it feel like what I do matters. An active block ability and the ability to role away to dodge enemy attacks would help. Also maybe having less skills on your action bar. Both DA:O's combat and DA2's combat is very MMOey and based off that I'd like DA3 to draw on a game like Guild Wars 2 for its combat.

[MichaelStuart]

I didn't like either games combat.
In both games I felt like I was not in control of my character.
The only way to improve combat in Dragon Age 3 for me, would be to remove the random hit/miss attacks and allow me to parry and dodge.

[REAPERS_r_CTHULHU]

I doubt we'll end up seeing combat like Dark Souls, but a middle ground needs to be sought after by developers. Something that feels natural and good for consoles and something that feels natural and good on PC. I don't really mind the dice rolls, but what I do mind is not having any control of my character, in DA2 I felt like I could attack as fast as I liked. In DA:O I felt like I just put the game in to watch it play itself, only to intervene when I wanted an AOE spell like tempest or entropic cloud.

[wowpwnslol]

I slightly preferred DA2's combat, but both have their flaws.

[wsandista]

I liked DAO's combat quite a bit.

I hated it in DA2, it was too fast for me and the difference between party damage output and HP and that of the enemy was too large.

[PsychoBlonde]

REAPERS_r_CTHULHU wrote...

How do you feel about combat in the DA series?

It's boring.  Very, very boring.  DA2 was an improvement in the respect that individual mobs took less time to kill, but since there were always DOZENS of them, overall it didn't reduce the bore-factor.

In both games thus far, about 50% of the abilities are utterly pointless, don't work as advertised, or if they do, WHAT they do is basically not worth the effort.  What makes it worse is that the devs can't seem to remember from one moment to the next whether they're creating a party-based game or not.  If it's a PARTY game, you need to NOT HAVE abilities you have to WATCH in order to trigger them in a timely/effective manner.

There aren't any significant tradeoffs with gear/abilities.  There are too many abilities that do basically the same thing.  The chance of the secondary effects that actually WOULD make the abilities different triggering is WAY too low in DA2.  The tree system they implemented is actually dorkier than the way it was in Origins, because instead of having to take perhaps 3 abilities you don't really want in order to get the big whammy, now you sometimes have to take FIVE or MORE.  What's the point in having a split if you have to take BOTH sides of the split in order to get the end-of-the-line ability?  Or if you HAVE to upgrade some of the abilities you plan never to use in order to have enough points in the tree to progress it?  And don't get me started about the trees that are a bunch of mutually-exclusive modes where you HAVE to pick up ALL of them (knowing that 2 of the 3 will probably never see any use whatsoever) to get to the top of the tree.  If that's not an enforced waste of points, I don't know what is.

They should have put the cross-class combo effect on the BASE ability and put the secondary effect (vastly upgraded to work something like 95% of the time instead of some measly 20%) on the upgrade.

The fights are all the same except for the ones that make you fight with the pathfinding/movement system to break up the monotony a little.

Combat taunts need to be removed completely.  They're stupid and repetitive and get in the way of you hearing actually useful information like . . . actually, I don't even care if they shout "I'M HURT!!" etc.  I can see their health bar on the screen.

I'd really like it if they'd let you put ALL abilities into ONE quickbar (or optionally have one quickbar per side of the screen for each character in the party).

I personally would prefer if characters/mobs shared the same physics as in DA:O.  Having replayed DA:O a bit, I have to say I miss the tactical camera.

All that being said, though, I won't say that I didn't have fun playing DA:O and DA2.  There are a number of games out there with much, much, MUCH worse combat.  (Risen comes to mind.)  I think the way forward needs to be more about polishing things and adding a few new ones than completely recreating the system from scratch, especially because if they keep starting over they'll never get to a polished state.  For every new good thing, they'll get a corresponding new bad thing.

[coles4971]

REAPERS_r_CTHULHU wrote...

coles4971 wrote...

Playing through the prologue did not make me feel like I was actually doing damage in DA2.

Explain?

Whacking hurlocks for 2 damage with a greatsword sucked.

Then later on when I did do damage the combat sucked even more since i was just one-shotting mooks with AOEs.

[REAPERS_r_CTHULHU]

coles4971 wrote...

REAPERS_r_CTHULHU wrote...

coles4971 wrote...

Playing through the prologue did not make me feel like I was actually doing damage in DA2.

Explain?

Whacking hurlocks for 2 damage with a greatsword sucked.

Then later on when I did do damage the combat sucked even more since i was just one-shotting mooks with AOEs.

I'm sorry you had this problem.

I'd prefer actually pressing the button to make my character attack when I wanted him to, rather than walk up to an enemy tap a button and watch him attack repeatedly. I believe your argument would go more into an unfair damaging system. Where you're just really weak early on, and then get too strong later in the game. I don't know, not everyone likes everything. What would be your gripes though? What would you like to be different?

[deuce985]

I think both games had flaws in their combat.

Something between both would be the perfect combat in my mind. Also, DA2's combat needs to be toned down a notch in speed. Faster than DA:O's combat but slower than DA2...

One area DA2 was far better than DA:O was balance and more reliance on class combos. DA2 had balance problems on their difficulties, like enemies hitting too hard on nightmare(looking at you assassins and blood mages). Where it's better than DA:O is they force you to stay on your toes the entire game on nightmare. In DA:O, it had a far worse balance problem because by the time you hit the middle of the game, you're carving through everything without much effort.

I'd like to see class combos expanded on and keep the nightmare formula for DA3, just balance it a little more where it isn't as cheap. Difference between being challenging and cheap...some things on nightmare were cheap in DA2.

Modifié par deuce985, 01 juillet 2012 - 05:20 .

[seraphymon]

Somewhere closer to DAO is where i prefer. along with the smoothness of DA2.
but its not just the combat its al lthe abilities and stuff, which i think was actualyl worse than DAO as there was too many useless ons in DA2 and nto enough active ones, so your spending more time auto attacking, especialyl with such long cooldowns.

The cross class thing is nice, but i still would like combinin different spells or abilities too, not just one benefiting from another.

As for balanacing DAO i think was perfect, save for some difficulty spikes here and there in the beginning. DA2 was just boring, Once used to how the game works with the constant waves, it didnt keep on toes cept for nightmare, but only because it was cheap, not difficult. Cheap because of the hp ratio and friendly fire aspect.

[AkiKishi]

DA:O works better for strategy since you can observe the battle field at a less frantic pace. You can also switch characters on the fly without really losing much in the way of DPS something you can't do in DA2 which leads to a stop-start-stop-start pause fest or simply playing with the AI in which case you would be better off going with full AI like Dragons Dogma or ME.

[Pzykozis]

Uh... it's serviceable I guess? Have to caveat this with the fact that the party based combat systems will never really ever blow me away because at their base they're just not that interesting.

I prefer DA2's over Origins mostly because of the fluidity and better pacing, the encounter design and animation work is fairly meh across the board though. I'd prefer to see some semblence of active blocking an... *bloody mess on the floor where I was killed by fans*.

[ianvillan]

I want the combat to be made with Isometric view and pauseable tactical play first.

The game and combat should be made so isometic view is the major view of the game, If they want an over the shoulder view it should be secondary to isometric.

The combat should also be designed with tactics and placement first, not button mashing or 100mph combat. It should be where you have to pause and actually think about how to use your resources to win a battle.

[Mr Arg]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I didn't like either games combat.
In both games I felt like I was not in control of my character.
The only way to improve combat in Dragon Age 3 for me, would be to remove the random hit/miss attacks and allow me to parry and dodge.

While I was ok with both games' combat, I agree with you on the parry/dodge. However, they would have to slow combat down close to DAO levels to make this possible. Not saying that's a bad thing, but after DA2 a speed between the two would be best.


Addendum: Including the parry/dodge system would eliminate the whole "feeling disconneted form the combat" feeling that some people are having.

Modifié par Mr Arg, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:25 .

[REAPERS_r_CTHULHU]

Mr Arg wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I didn't like either games combat.
In both games I felt like I was not in control of my character.
The only way to improve combat in Dragon Age 3 for me, would be to remove the random hit/miss attacks and allow me to parry and dodge.

While I was ok with both games' combat, I agree with you on the parry/dodge. However, they would have to slow combat down close to DAO levels to make this possible. Not saying that's a bad thing, but after DA2 a speed between the two would be best.


Addendum: Including the parry/dodge system would eliminate the whole "feeling disconneted form the combat" feeling that some people are having.

I honestly couldn't feel how slow combat was in either game. They feel about the same to me, to be honest.

But if they made combat that is in any way resembling Dark Souls, then I believe that's as realistic as it gets. I doubt it ever happening though because it kind of goes against the "old-school RPG" that DA is.

[withneelandi]

REAPERS_r_CTHULHU wrote...

I doubt we'll end up seeing combat like Dark Souls, but a middle ground needs to be sought after by developers. Something that feels natural and good for consoles and something that feels natural and good on PC. I don't really mind the dice rolls, but what I do mind is not having any control of my character, in DA2 I felt like I could attack as fast as I liked. In DA:O I felt like I just put the game in to watch it play itself, only to intervene when I wanted an AOE spell like tempest or entropic cloud.

Dark Souls combat is perfect for Dark Souls, but that sort of hardcore timing based combat would be entirely out of place in the Dragon Age series which for me is about tactics and squad coordination.

The combat in both DA games had its up sides and down sides, on first play I found the Origins combat slow and unresponsive especially as a two handed warrior but the archery based and mage classes were far more satisfying. For me the joy in orgins was in developing tactics, and builds that complemented those tactics than in the sort of reflex/timing based combat you get in Dark Souls. Where the DA series could learn from DS is that the combat felt like there was real weight behind each blow, real contact, it was the right pace as well, not the slow detached combat of origins or the over the top hyper speed ninja back flip exploding bad guy combat of da2.

In short, if Dragon Age combat was a tiny bit more responsive and satisfying like Dark Souls was, superb. It can't go too far down the Dark Souls route because frankly winning in a game like Dragon Age shouldn't be about how well you can manipulate the controlls or how good your reflexes are but about how well you have built and set up your character and squad tactics, For me thats one the key tipping points between a RPG and an action adventure game.

[Jerrybnsn]

DA2 does have automatic combat. There would have been no way I would have played the game then. But I read they were planning on slowing it down some and taking away the overthetop jumping and two handed sward swinging.

[REAPERS_r_CTHULHU]

withneelandi wrote...

REAPERS_r_CTHULHU wrote...

I doubt we'll end up seeing combat like Dark Souls, but a middle ground needs to be sought after by developers. Something that feels natural and good for consoles and something that feels natural and good on PC. I don't really mind the dice rolls, but what I do mind is not having any control of my character, in DA2 I felt like I could attack as fast as I liked. In DA:O I felt like I just put the game in to watch it play itself, only to intervene when I wanted an AOE spell like tempest or entropic cloud.

Dark Souls combat is perfect for Dark Souls, but that sort of hardcore timing based combat would be entirely out of place in the Dragon Age series which for me is about tactics and squad coordination.

The combat in both DA games had its up sides and down sides, on first play I found the Origins combat slow and unresponsive especially as a two handed warrior but the archery based and mage classes were far more satisfying. For me the joy in orgins was in developing tactics, and builds that complemented those tactics than in the sort of reflex/timing based combat you get in Dark Souls. Where the DA series could learn from DS is that the combat felt like there was real weight behind each blow, real contact, it was the right pace as well, not the slow detached combat of origins or the over the top hyper speed ninja back flip exploding bad guy combat of da2.

In short, if Dragon Age combat was a tiny bit more responsive and satisfying like Dark Souls was, superb. It can't go too far down the Dark Souls route because frankly winning in a game like Dragon Age shouldn't be about how well you can manipulate the controlls or how good your reflexes are but about how well you have built and set up your character and squad tactics, For me thats one the key tipping points between a RPG and an action adventure game.

This. +25

[Wulfram]

DA2 encounter design was really poor. That was the main problem.

Variety should be the priority - present different challenges in every fight.

And have less combat. It shouldn't exist just to exist, it should only exist if it's necessary to the story or a really interesting tactical challenge. Don't just dump a bunch of bandits on us because we haven't killed something in a while.

[Jerrybnsn]

{BANDITS ATTACK!}