107 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelStuart]

Maria Caliban wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

You think action combat is unfun and stressful, thats fine.
I think watching the game control my character doing combat is boring.
So, lets have both systems then.
Theres nothing stoping both from being added.

Also you can can control multiple characters simultaneously in real time, all you need is four buttons.

Today's award for most out of touch BSN poster goes to... probably someone in the ME 3 forums. But you're a close second.

Know, that threw your insults, you have vindicated my suggestion.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Action games are about having control of yourself and out thinking your opponent. How fast the game is doen't matter, all that matters is I (not the game) out thought the opponent by imputting the right commands.

If I offended you or anyone else, I apologize, but I stick by my comment about strategy games.

If action really weaken's the Role Playing for you, thats fine.
But know that having to point and click, then letting the game fight my battles for me, weaken's Role Playing for me.

So it's not the action you need.  It's finer control over your character.  You don't want a combat round to be an abstraction - you want to make every relevant decision within that combat round: how and when to feint or strike, how or when to parry.

Am I right?

I'd be happy to play a game like that as long as I didn't have to input those commands in real time.

Action is meaningless with out control, but yes thats what I want.
I also want to my success and failure to be determind purely by how I react to a enemy's next move.

Being able to pause to the game and issue commands, wouldn't stop me from doing it in real time.

[twincast]

To name but a few I love the Kingdom Hearts, Tomb Raider (esp. original five), Prince of Persia (esp. Sands trilogy), Assassin's Creed and Arkham games, but such a kind of combat in Dragon Age? No, no, no, no, NO! Stop trying to eliminate slow-paced* tactical combat and turn everything into the same more or less messy brand of action, Santa-freaking-damn-it!

*DA:O's was slightly too slow, DA2's was much too fast and far, far, far too visually over the top.

[Korusus]

KproTM wrote...

Okay, so in my opinion the combat in Dragon Age Origins was pretty good, although I must say that the turn base elements and characters attempting to position themselves really bugged me alot (so with my roommate as well, he's playing the game downstairs and I can hear him yelling in frustrating when his character walks off somewhere.
In Dragon Age II the combat seemed to be dumbed down a bit from strategic rpg combat to mindless button mashing. Albeit, I still liked its fast-paced action.
Now, with Dragon Age III the developers are stating that they are finding that perfect spot right between the two. 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?

All I have to say to this thread is...I would never buy or play a Dragon Age game like that, and developing a Dragon Age 3 like that would truly end any further association I have with this developer.  Sadly.

Modifié par Korusus, 30 août 2012 - 10:58 .

[Blastback]

No thanks. Maybe a spin off, but not the main series.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's because they front-loaded the attacks.  In DAO, all the wind-up happns before the impact, so if you cancel an attack midway through you don't hit anybody (but you can now start some other action immediately).  In DA2, the hit has already happened, but the game still forces you to pay the activation cost in terms of the time it takes the animation to complete, and since you already landed the hit you're not allowed to cancel.

Hopefully they'll take some suggestion on how to fix this.  It's not hard for them to have the abilities start instantly but still be interruptable.  Champions Online (I know, I know, it's an MMO, but still) handles this excellently.  They have spells that start as soon as you hit the button, but you have to sustain the casting in order for it to continue, which can be interrupted at any time.  Some abilities have a carry-over if you sustain them for the full duration, so that they'll stay in place for a period of time after you've finished the sustain.

Anyway, on the topic of the OP, no.  I've played Arkham Asylum, and it had one of the worst, most boring combat systems I've ever encountered.  I don't understand the praise it gets.  It looks pretty, sure, but it's about as deep as a teaspoon.  Spam the attack button, occasionally you have to roll around behind a guy to hit him, and if you're fighting a boss you have to throw the occasional batarang (the boss fights really make the praise completely incomprehensible to me.  Every boss fight is essentially the same.)  That's it.  There are other parts of the game that are cool (I particularly liked the Scarecrow levels and the Riddler puzzles) but the combat system of that game is about as uninteresting as it gets.

If I had my druthers, we'd still be playing turn-based (but I'll happily do away with the grid, ala ToEE or PoR:RoMD, though the latter game is awful in most respects, even if it is the only D&D game I've ever played that let you separately target each magic missile like you're supposed to be able to do.)  Fortunately, Kickstarter and XCOM: EU will be filling that niche for me.

[Gibb_Shepard]

MichaelStuart wrote...

FaWa wrote...

The people who find DAO slow don't understand the point of the strategy based combat.

This.
Is.
Not.
A.
Hack.
And.
Slash.
Game.

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

What an idiotic question.

What is the point of a twitch based combat system?

[Realmzmaster]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Accessibility is key for me.

I've complained before about how audible cues for things like ambient dialogue exclude deaf gamers, as well.

BioWare has actually listened to me on one issue related to accessibility.  I pointed out that DAO (unlike many earlier BioWare games) didn't have a mouse activated pause button anywhere in the UI.  As such, only someone who could use both the mouse and keyboard at the same time could play the game effectively.  I raised the issue because, at the time, I had an infant who sometimes slept on on my lap while I played, and I didn't then have full use of both of my hands (as one needed to prevent her from rolling onto the floor).

And, lo, in DA2 there is a mouse-activated pause button in the UI.  Good job, BioWare.

I agree with you. Which is why having Bodhan or Gamlen tell you that a letter is there is wrong. There should be subtitles or closed captioning for the hearing impaired.

Isn't there a quest icon on the mini-map for when you have mail? I thought there was.

There is, but sometimes Bodhan and sandal will say something else when Hawke walks in beside you have mail.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 31 août 2012 - 03:13 .

[Zack_Nero]

Well, I do like the fact that DA2 was more of a faster pace when it came to combat. However, there wasn't really that much use for tactics. I mean yea, you could use taunt to lure enemies away, a glyph or two. But not a whole lot of use for it, I want to the same method but on a much higher level. Also the enemy types were very similar. More variety, all were attack base, or real support units. Skeletons, mercenaries, dragons, and the qunari, had similar styles. Run and attack. More differences. Dragons could fly breath fire, land and start biting. I know High Dragons do that but there huge, am talking about all size dragons. Skeletons could reassemble themselves, magic or with help, maybe even change into other things, like a bigger version or a weapon type.

So basically what I want from combat is more tactics and more differences of enemy units. Something around those lines would be great.

Modifié par Zack_Nero, 31 août 2012 - 03:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I also want to my success and failure to be determind purely by how I react to a enemy's next move.

This, I suspect, is the only area where we actually have significant disagreement.  I really like having some randomness in combat outcomes, because that better emulates the unpredictability of a combat environment.

Would you consent to randomness in damage done, as long as hit-or-miss was determined based on your skill?

Also, I'm concerned then that allowing players to pause in a system such as you describe would allow players always to succeed.  If your success or failure is determined purely by how you react to your enemies, but I'm allowed to pause the game and react perfectly each time, then I don't think that would be fun.  That would make combat trivial.

ME2 (and presumably ME3) suffered from this.  By abandoning the cone of death, Shepard became perfectly accurate and never missed unless the player missed.  Combat became trivial drudgery.

Being able to pause to the game and issue commands, wouldn't stop me from doing it in real time.

But you being able to succeed in real time might make it impossible for me to fail when pausing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

FaWa wrote...

The people who find DAO slow don't understand the point of the strategy based combat.

This.
Is.
Not.
A.
Hack.
And.
Slash.
Game.

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

What an idiotic question.

What is the point of a twitch based combat system?

To test the player's skills, I suspect.  Which is why I don't like them.

A tactical combat system that does not rely on twitch elements is able to test the character's skills, without the character being limited by the player's skills.  That's the difference.

Do we want the character to determine combat outcomes, or the player?   I say character, so I oppose twitch combat.

[Cyberarmy]

We have enough action games in our hands. Tons of actually.
While i love action combat, i support tactical turn based/pausable real time for group based RPGs.
Even DA2 combat changes arent needed in my opinion. A step to wrong direction after origins.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I also want to my success and failure to be determind purely by how I react to a enemy's next move.

This, I suspect, is the only area where we actually have significant disagreement.  I really like having some randomness in combat outcomes, because that better emulates the unpredictability of a combat environment.

Would you consent to randomness in damage done, as long as hit-or-miss was determined based on your skill?

Also, I'm concerned then that allowing players to pause in a system such as you describe would allow players always to succeed.  If your success or failure is determined purely by how you react to your enemies, but I'm allowed to pause the game and react perfectly each time, then I don't think that would be fun.  That would make combat trivial.

ME2 (and presumably ME3) suffered from this.  By abandoning the cone of death, Shepard became perfectly accurate and never missed unless the player missed.  Combat became trivial drudgery.

Being able to pause to the game and issue commands, wouldn't stop me from doing it in real time.

But you being able to succeed in real time might make it impossible for me to fail when pausing.

I could live with random damage. My only request would be to that damage have a fair change of being punishing.
Being able to control when I dodge is pointless if all I'm ever going to get is a scratch.

As for making the game impossible to fail.
I suppose any commands issued while paused could have their success be random, and any done in real time by purely up to the player.
I guess I'm basically suggesting Fallouts VATS system. 

[Heimdall]

scyphozoa wrote...

Yup, Bioware needs an action RPG series that isn't Dragon Age. I need to be able to dodge and roll and swing a sword and shoot a fireball all in real-time. Jade Empire(2) is just sitting there, collecting dust, waiting to be the awesome action-RPG it was destined to become.

I am right with you there.

[AudioEpics]

You know what, I liked DA2's combat, preferred it to Origins' in fact, but... Come to think of it... I actually think DA3 might work best with completely turn-based combat. Go right back to the tabletop roots! I think DA:O felt slow because it was pause-&-play, which is kind of halfway real-time. DA2 felt too fast to a lot of people because it was a sped-up, more actiony version of that. It worked for me because I played it mostly real-time. Maybe, if you really want it to feel tactical and tabletop-RPG-like, you just need real tabletop mechanics and turn-based combat. That way, you sort of accept the slower pace and it won't feel as annoying anymore because it's not action that slows down at certain points, it's pure strategy, with a level pace.
However, if that route is taken, I think there should be less combat in general, and more puzzles, exploration and other encounters.

[Foolsfolly]

I've played Arkham Asylum, and it had one of the worst, most boring combat systems I've ever encountered. I don't understand the praise it gets.

You played it wrong. Look up videos on YouTube. Most people who complain about the combat don't get it. You should rarely hit the same guy twice in a row. It's about moving guy to guy, disabling, and using gadgets as the situation calls.

It's amazingly fun and once you know what you're doing it's funnest thing in the game.

[Realmzmaster]

AudioEpics wrote...

You know what, I liked DA2's combat, preferred it to Origins' in fact, but... Come to think of it... I actually think DA3 might work best with completely turn-based combat. Go right back to the tabletop roots! I think DA:O felt slow because it was pause-&-play, which is kind of halfway real-time. DA2 felt too fast to a lot of people because it was a sped-up, more actiony version of that. It worked for me because I played it mostly real-time. Maybe, if you really want it to feel tactical and tabletop-RPG-like, you just need real tabletop mechanics and turn-based combat. That way, you sort of accept the slower pace and it won't feel as annoying anymore because it's not action that slows down at certain points, it's pure strategy, with a level pace.
However, if that route is taken, I think there should be less combat in general, and more puzzles, exploration and other encounters.

Now here is a suggestion that I agree with 100%!

[Fast Jimmy]

Lol Turn based combat?

I'm FOR 'em!

[cJohnOne]

Turn based wouldn't work too well for councils would it? Even if they wanted to make it turn based that is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I guess I'm basically suggesting Fallouts VATS system.

That would be awesome.  I loved VATS.

We have reached agreement.

[Fast Jimmy]

cJohnOne wrote...

Turn based wouldn't work too well for councils would it? Even if they wanted to make it turn based that is.

Im going to assume this meant 'consoles?'

And the vast majority of JRPGS were released on consoles and had turn based combat, all the way through FF13. So I don't see the problem?

[cJohnOne]

Really How did they do it? I'm not familar with them. I thought of how they did it in pool of radiance:ruins of myth drannor and Temple of elemental evil.

[Merlex]

Chiramu wrote...

Don't you mean "real-time" combat?

Personally I would like to play Dragon Age without accidentally hitting spacebar, I vowed to play DA2 again without pressing space during combat and it's really really hard because from playing the game normally it's super hard to not press pause :<.
Would be nice to just get rid of the pause , or put pause on a key that is far away from our spells.

You could keymap it out, or move it to another key. I don't want them to take the out the option.

[esper]

AudioEpics wrote...

You know what, I liked DA2's combat, preferred it to Origins' in fact, but... Come to think of it... I actually think DA3 might work best with completely turn-based combat. Go right back to the tabletop roots! I think DA:O felt slow because it was pause-&-play, which is kind of halfway real-time. DA2 felt too fast to a lot of people because it was a sped-up, more actiony version of that. It worked for me because I played it mostly real-time. Maybe, if you really want it to feel tactical and tabletop-RPG-like, you just need real tabletop mechanics and turn-based combat. That way, you sort of accept the slower pace and it won't feel as annoying anymore because it's not action that slows down at certain points, it's pure strategy, with a level pace.
However, if that route is taken, I think there should be less combat in general, and more puzzles, exploration and other encounters.

I prefer da2 to da:o combat wise, but this I would truely prefer.