107 réponses à ce sujet

[Provi-dance]

MichaelStuart wrote...


I curious, what is the point of strategy based combat?

It stimulates different parts of the brain compared to reflex-based combat. Some people prefer it that way.

[philippe willaume]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I could see it working.
I would prefer something more like assassins creeds combat.

Also, why do people believe you can't have action combat in a party game?
Its not hard, you just give orders to your companions while your fighting enemies. If that's too hard for people, just pause the game, give orders, then fight enemies.

In a party-based game we should be controlling all of the characters equally.  This is why action combat of any sort will not work.

I don't see how were controling them equally in Dragon Age so far?

Hello  michael
Lots of people me included did it in DA:0 .  
Yes it is pointless in DA:2 and it could be argued that if you play two mages in the party in DA:0 the need to play the other char equally is greatly dimished.

But ultimatly that is why i liked DA:0, i could play the char i wanted in the role i wanted and it was possible to make it work.
phil

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I don't see how were controling them equally in Dragon Age so far?

Pause, give all the characters orders, unpause.  No character ever had to be controlled in real-time.  As long as we can't control all of them simultaneously in real-time, there cannot be a requirement that any of them be controlled in real-time.

This was the biggest failure, I think, of the console versions of DAO - there was no move-to-point command, so all movement needed to be controlled in real-time, and only one character at a time could be controlled in this way.  The inability of the player to move simultaneously all of the characters independently was also, I think, the single greatest problem with KotOR.  BioWare actually has a history of not allowing full tactical movement control of the full party on console titles.

But they fixed that (sort of) for DA2.

[Fast Jimmy]

The difference between strategic combat and action combat is the difference between chess and Hungry, Hungry Hippos.

I think one thing that the DA series could do would be to do a better job of teaching tactical strategies to the player. Telling the player early on that moving your long-range attackers, such as your mages and archers, into high points, while having your tanks wade into the mix, and then using the correct buffs, etc. would give people who have never played RTS or RPG games that involve tactical combat a better grasp on what this type of combat offers.

As is, developers seem to be too afraid to make combat so hard that tactics are required, so they are defaulting more to the action side. But in an attempt to also remain tactical, they can only deliver a mediocre action experience, so no one is satisfied.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 août 2012 - 06:52 .

[philippe willaume]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I could see it working.
I would prefer something more like assassins creeds combat.

Also, why do people believe you can't have action combat in a party game?
Its not hard, you just give orders to your companions while your fighting enemies. If that's too hard for people, just pause the game, give orders, then fight enemies.

In a party-based game we should be controlling all of the characters equally.  This is why action combat of any sort will not work.

hello sylvius
There are way aroud it, but i agree with you can't be in control of the protagonist  the whole time.
the implication of that if we want real time is to some form of autopilot/action queue where the game is doing the dodging defending and attacking for you. 
i have to say that i like the idea of limited pause time when the action is started.

i can live with a mass effect combat style, with a different companion interaction interface.
the actual combat can be direct by press a key or by setting action mode for the char, it is the same to me.
Phil

[philippe willaume]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The difference between strategic combat and action combat is the difference between chess and Hungry, Hungry Hippos.

I think one thing that the DA series could do would be to do a better job of teaching tactical strategies to the player. Telling the player early on that moving your long-range attackers, such as your mages and archers, into high points, while having your tanks wade into the mix, and then using the correct buffs, etc. would give people who have never played RTS or RPG games that involve tactical combat a better grasp on what this type of combat offers.

As is, developers seem to be too afraid to make combat so hard that tactics are required, so they are defaulting more to the action side. But in an attempt to also remain tactical, they can only deliver a mediocre action experience, so no one is satisfied.

there is truth in that

[TheCharmedOne]

I enjoyed DA:O but really detested the "action" in it. I did not think the action in DA:2 was too fast. I am trying to picture DA3 working like arkham city (which i also enjoyed) but not so sure I can see it happening with a full party, and also curious how that would play out with a mage. (which is my fave class to play...loved playing it in DA2)

[MichaelStuart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The difference between strategic combat and action combat is the difference between chess and Hungry, Hungry Hippos.

Hungry, Hungry, Hippos, thats what you think action combat amount too.

You know what the only real different between so called strategic combat and action combat is. In so called strategic combat all you need is guess work. All you do is guess what the ememy is going to, then you point and click on something, and then the game does all the hard work.
In action combat, you need to do guess work, and then you need to actually go do the hard work.
I for once, feel more rewarded for doing so.

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 30 août 2012 - 07:42 .

[Foolsfolly]

A variation of it could easily work in a third person RPG without a party.

But with a party and with Dragon Age's gameplay. No. As is now team tactics, spell/ability usage and mixing (CCC's and Spell Combos), threat management, and positioning matter. In a Freeflow Combat sense (and I've only played the Arkham games) it's all about you sensing the rhythm of battle and countering and striking precisely and timely.

No, it's not just button mashing and it's not just 'hit this button when that flashes'. It CAN be that but as anyone who's played the highest difficulty in an Arkham game can tell you... they turn that blinking off and the enemies are more aggressive and it's still completely possible and even common to go through fights with 10 guys without once being hit.

It's all about rhythm and minding the tide of enemies around you.

It's a fantastic system. Fluid and wonderful. One of the best combat systems I've ever played. I wouldn't mind a new BioWare property using a similar system with hand-to-hand, sword-and-shield, magic-and-wonder, or whatever food coloring they add to it. It doesn't have to be just fists and Batman that can use it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

philippe willaume wrote...

hello sylvius
There are way aroud it, but i agree with you can't be in control of the protagonist  the whole time.
the implication of that if we want real time is to some form of autopilot/action queue where the game is doing the dodging defending and attacking for you. 

A queue would work wonderfully.

i have to say that i like the idea of limited pause time when the action is started.

I hate this idea.  The player should be given as much time as he needs to make decisions.  Otherwise the characters will be constrained by the player's ability to make quick decisions.

i can live with a mass effect combat style, with a different companion interaction interface.

ME's combat worked really well for a single character.  The ability to aim while paused was genius.  I don't see how to adapt that for full-party control, though.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 août 2012 - 08:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

In action combat, you need to do guess work, and then you need to actually go do the hard work.
I for once, feel more rewarded for doing so.

If my character is constrained by my abilities, then the game is broken.

[Foolsfolly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

In action combat, you need to do guess work, and then you need to actually go do the hard work.
I for once, feel more rewarded for doing so.

If my character is constrained by my abilities, then the game is broken.

Someone needs to inform the Game Mechanics President that platformers, shooters, racing, and puzzle games are all fundamentally broken.

Seriously, it all comes down to preferences and not hyperbolic statements. Ater all even you don't mean that statement as the player having agency over the player character is entirely what seperates a video game from say a movie.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

In action combat, you need to do guess work, and then you need to actually go do the hard work.
I for once, feel more rewarded for doing so.

If my character is constrained by my abilities, then the game is broken.

No, I just means you need to pratice your abilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

In action combat, you need to do guess work, and then you need to actually go do the hard work.
I for once, feel more rewarded for doing so.

If my character is constrained by my abilities, then the game is broken.

Someone needs to inform the Game Mechanics President that platformers, shooters, racing, and puzzle games are all fundamentally broken.

As roleplaying games, yes, they are.

Seriously, it all comes down to preferences and not hyperbolic statements. Ater all even you don't mean that statement as the player having agency over the player character is entirely what seperates a video game from say a movie.

What matters in a roleplaying game isn't player agency, it's character agency.  And the character lacks agency if his abilities are limited by something that doesn't even exist within his reality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

In action combat, you need to do guess work, and then you need to actually go do the hard work.
I for once, feel more rewarded for doing so.

If my character is constrained by my abilities, then the game is broken.

No, I just means you need to pratice your abilities.

A ropleplaying game should be playable by a quadriplegic.  Playable slowly, but playable.

Similarly, the player's mental abilities should not constrain his character.  This is why I oppose time limits for decision-making.  The player should be given as much time as he needs to make a decision on his character's behalf, even if his character (within the game) is making that decision in an instant.

During combat, not only does the character need not to be limited by the player's physical limitations, but the character's tactical decisions need not to be limited by the player's mental limitations.

[Maria Caliban]

KproTM wrote...

In my mind, I was imagining Dragon Age III utilizing some sort of combat engine similar to the Freeflow engine. And if some of you people are confused, just look up gameplay combat from Batman Arkham Asylum/City or Sleeping Dogs.

What do you guys think about a Dragon Age game having a similar combat engine as Freeflow?

You'd need to get rid of party-based combat and you'd probably have to have far fewer magic spells.

[ShadyKat]

I loved both Batman games, but the combat was a bit too button mashy, imo. That style of game play, simply would not fit in DA. It's one thing to have a fast pace beat'em up with only one character, but how will that work with 4-5 different character on screen, at the same time? It would be a complete cluster ****, if you ask me.



DA3 should use the same engine in Origins, but sped up and a lot better battle animation.

[Foolsfolly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

In action combat, you need to do guess work, and then you need to actually go do the hard work.
I for once, feel more rewarded for doing so.

If my character is constrained by my abilities, then the game is broken.

Someone needs to inform the Game Mechanics President that platformers, shooters, racing, and puzzle games are all fundamentally broken.

As roleplaying games, yes, they are.

Seriously, it all comes down to preferences and not hyperbolic statements. Ater all even you don't mean that statement as the player having agency over the player character is entirely what seperates a video game from say a movie.

What matters in a roleplaying game isn't player agency, it's character agency.  And the character lacks agency if his abilities are limited by something that doesn't even exist within his reality.

You're purposely looking to argue. The game doesn't play itself. There is ALWAYS player agency in any game.

Since you seem to think RPGs are except from this do you think it's impossible to mess up a character by wasting attribute points in non-class specific attributes or ability points on uneven or poorly thoughtout spread of abilities or spells?

Of course it is! That's why your first character in any game is always the weakest character you run. Because you're testing out abilities and powers and haven't found a balance.

That's all player based, sir.

I don't even know what your argument with the other fellow is about but to say that a game is broken if there's player agency is absurd.

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Sylvius is directly referencing a role playing game.

If I am playing a character who is a master swordsman, there is no reason why he should suck in combat because I can press buttons quickly enough or in the right rhythm. I should also not be able to play a full-plate mail armor wearing character with no points in dexterity and be able dodge attacks because I have become good in the system. My character should not s able to do things that dot make sense based on my skill.

Note - this is for RPGs only. A racing simulator is simulating me driving, or a shooter simulating me shooting a gun and being in combat. Last I checked, the DA series had 'RPG' hanging on the door.

[Foolsfolly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^
Sylvius is directly referencing a role playing game.

If I am playing a character who is a master swordsman, there is no reason why he should suck in combat because I can press buttons quickly enough or in the right rhythm. I should also not be able to play a full-plate mail armor wearing character with no points in dexterity and be able dodge attacks because I have become good in the system. My character should not s able to do things that dot make sense based on my skill.

Note - this is for RPGs only. A racing simulator is simulating me driving, or a shooter simulating me shooting a gun and being in combat. Last I checked, the DA series had 'RPG' hanging on the door.

I know what he meant to say. But what he said was just argumentive hyperbole.

There's always player agency otherwise you're not playing a video game... or either watching a movie or you're just running a simulation.

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The difference between strategic combat and action combat is the difference between chess and Hungry, Hungry Hippos.

I think one thing that the DA series could do would be to do a better job of teaching tactical strategies to the player. Telling the player early on that moving your long-range attackers, such as your mages and archers, into high points, while having your tanks wade into the mix, and then using the correct buffs, etc. would give people who have never played RTS or RPG games that involve tactical combat a better grasp on what this type of combat offers.

As is, developers seem to be too afraid to make combat so hard that tactics are required, so they are defaulting more to the action side. But in an attempt to also remain tactical, they can only deliver a mediocre action experience, so no one is satisfied.

The bolded lines have peaked my interest, thanks Jimmy.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

In action combat, you need to do guess work, and then you need to actually go do the hard work.
I for once, feel more rewarded for doing so.

If my character is constrained by my abilities, then the game is broken.

No, I just means you need to pratice your abilities.

A ropleplaying game should be playable by a quadriplegic.  Playable slowly, but playable.

Similarly, the player's mental abilities should not constrain his character.  This is why I oppose time limits for decision-making.  The player should be given as much time as he needs to make a decision on his character's behalf, even if his character (within the game) is making that decision in an instant.

During combat, not only does the character need not to be limited by the player's physical limitations, but the character's tactical decisions need not to be limited by the player's mental limitations.

Please, don't tell you consider having to move you fingers half a cm to imput commands to be a limitation. Because its not about how fast you can move your fingers, it always about out thinking your enemy.
If enemy is just to fast for someone, then they just have to pause the game, think about what they need to, then do it. 
And if there mental limitations are really so bad that they can't do it, just turn the difficulty down.

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Foolsfolly wrote...

You're purposely looking to argue. The game doesn't play itself. There is ALWAYS player agency in any game.

But there isn't always character agency, which is the thing that is harmed by action combat.

Of course there's player agency.  That the player ever gets to make decisions is an aspect of player agency.  But the implementation of those decisions should be limited by the character's abilities, not by the player's abilities.

Since you seem to think RPGs are except from this do you think it's impossible to mess up a character by wasting attribute points in non-class specific attributes or ability points on uneven or poorly thoughtout spread of abilities or spells?

I would dispute that the player is necessarily "messing up".  It's certainly possible to make a character less effective at some things than he might otherwise have been, but there's no guarantee that such an allocation of attribute points is a mistake.

I've mentioned before that my favourite Warden in DAO intentionally avoided learning combat skills.  So when he gained levels I assigned him abilities to match that intention.  And from some players' points of view, yes, he was built suboptimally.

When the player assigns attribute points, how does he decide where they go?  I suggest that this would differ from player to play.  Some would assign points to make their characters more powerful, and I suppose those people could make mistakes.  Some would assign points to make their characters more fun to play, and I suppose those people coule make mistakes.  But some would assign points wherever they decided their character wanted those points, and it would be quite difficult for those people to make mistakes.

Of course it is! That's why your first character in any game is always the weakest character you run. Because you're testing out abilities and powers and haven't found a balance.

See, you're assuming that all players assign points for relevantly similar reasons, and that's simply not true.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Please, don't tell you consider having to move you fingers half a cm to imput commands to be a limitation.

It can be.  If you have a wrist injury, your ability to move your fingers will be impaired.

Combat is as much a part of the emergent narrative as conversation is.  If I don't execute my plan correctly, then I would have to reload to maintain character coherence.  I'd rather minimise the risk of that.

Because its not about how fast you can move your fingers, it always about out thinking your enemy.
If enemy is just to fast for someone, then they just have to pause the game, think about what they need to, then do it.

Being able to pause the game to make decisions is vital, yes, but being forced to implement the action in real time is unnecessarily stressful, and, frankly, unfun.

Plus, it's also impossible to do that with multiple characters simultaneously.