340 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

Yrkoon wrote...

Good God. I can't believe people here are praising DA2's Combat. Despite DA2's mountain of irredeemable flaws, excuse me, mountain range of irredeemable flaws, I'd rank the Combat as the worst part of the entire game. The arbitrary shoe-horning of the new class rescrictions (warriors can't dual-wield or use bows, Rogues can't use swords, mages can't use anything but staves)  Alone was enough to damn the entire system.

But it was only the very surface of the garbage heap.

-Finishing moves are gone.
-Friendly fire is gone, unless you play on the the highest setting
-Stealth game play is gone.
-The ability to lay traps. perform reconniasance, and plan ambushes was removed.
-Boss battles went from being deadly, explosive tactical affairs in the first game to being nothing more than long, BORING battles of attrition, and not difficult at all in the second game.
-Wave combat for every encounter. <gag>
-Turbo speed  crap. Who was the misguided fool who thought it would be a good idea to make combat in an RPG be arcade like?
-combat Animations. Give me a break.   They were embarrasingly childish. Like watching a bugs bunny or road runner cartoon. Despite what Bioware says, they were NOT designed for adults. They were made to excite and amaze kids.

Oh and one more thing... Mages gyrating around and twirling their staves like professional martial artists does NOT make them more fun to play. Just more sad to watch. As it stands, the only thing they gave mages was a warrior feel. But if I want that feeling, I'll just play a friggin Warrior. And Rogues? They Ruined them. Killed them. Destroyed everything that they're are supposed to be. Rogues used to be the subtle silent killers who strike from the shadows. But in DA2, they're the opposite. They're the flashy acrobat center stagers with machine guns.

<gag> But back on topic. No. I didn't find DA2 fun at all. I found it hideously horrifying. I found myself questioning my own gaming tastes (after all, my eyes weren't deceiving me. The game box DID say Dragon Age and Bioware, so this had to be the same kind of game I had been playing since I fell in love with Bioware in 1999.... right?)

I agree with everything written here.

[Renmiri1]

Yrkoon wrote...

Good God. I can't believe people here are praising DA2's Combat. Despite DA2's mountain of irredeemable flaws, excuse me, mountain range of irredeemable flaws, I'd rank the Combat as the worst part of the entire game. The arbitrary shoe-horning of the new class rescrictions (warriors can't dual-wield or use bows, Rogues can't use swords, mages can't use anything but staves)  Alone was enough to damn the entire system.

But it was only the very surface of the garbage heap.

-Finishing moves are gone.
-Friendly fire is gone, unless you play on the the highest setting
-Stealth game play is gone.
-The ability to lay traps. perform reconniasance, and plan ambushes was removed.
-Boss battles went from being deadly, explosive tactical affairs in the first game to being nothing more than long, BORING battles of attrition, and not difficult at all in the second game.
-Wave combat for every encounter. <gag>
-Turbo speed  crap. Who was the misguided fool who thought it would be a good idea to make combat in an RPG be arcade like?
-combat Animations. Give me a break.   They were embarrasingly childish. Like watching a bugs bunny or road runner cartoon. Despite what Bioware says, they were NOT designed for adults. They were made to excite and amaze kids.

Oh and one more thing... Mages gyrating around and twirling their staves like professional martial artists does NOT make them more fun to play. Just more sad to watch. As it stands, the only thing they gave mages was a warrior feel. But if I want that feeling, I'll just play a friggin Warrior. And Rogues? They Ruined them. Killed them. Destroyed everything that they're are supposed to be. Rogues used to be the subtle silent killers who strike from the shadows. But in DA2, they're the opposite. They're the flashy acrobat center stagers with machine guns.

I disagre 100%

DAO combat was near unplayable to me. Too slow.

But then I radided harcore on WoW for years so I like combat, not a chess game pretending to be combat  You know, battles ? No pause, no turn based, your toon can die ?

People like me love DA2 combat. Because we love COMBAT and action.

People who love DAO combat usually do not like any MMO or any game that is not turn based, painfully slow chess like strategy "combat".

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:25 .

[Sylvianus]

To me DAII's combat could be much more fun than DAO's combat, if some things are really fixed. ( realistic combats, slower, animations, finishing moves again )

Otherwise the mage is much better in DA2 in my opinion. That was the first time I was willing to play a mage. ( Before skyrim as well.)

The only times I felt really excited with DAII was in the Act 2 from the moment with Petrice until the end of the battle against the qunari.

Fanaticism, political intrigue, the death of the viscount, the badass qunari, Meredith, orsino, everyone fighting. This is from there that I woke up, and I finally felt Hawk was rising. Act 1 was really boring. Needless to say how disappointed I was when I discovered that the act 3 was again about the mage issues less attractive in my eyes. Even more disappointed to see how rushed it was.

I loved Legacy. Yeah, there I can say I had fun playing this dlc.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:29 .

[Renmiri1]

wsandista wrote...

I also think that WOW's combat sytem sucks.

I should have clarified that I meant basic attack melee damage.

Again, on DA2 Warriors are tanks. Tanks use their stats to increase threat (draw all the enemy fire to them) and increase survival (since they are the ones in front of the dragon being chewed up, they need to be pretty resilient). By having to focus on those two attributes tanks can not and do not have a lot left to raise their damage. No tank will top a DPS (Damage per second) chart, not unless your damage dealers really really suck.

Rogues are teh melee damge dealers and they are pretty good at that. In DA2 even way too good. I agree, they should nerf rogues a bit. Moar power for mages!!! 

PS: The opposite is true too. Damage dealers don't need heavy armor because the tank will be the one being cleaved and roasted by the big ass dragon. That leaves them free to pick up armor runes and stats that increase damage, such as critical chance, attack speed, elemental damage, etc..

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:35 .

[Sylvianus]

wsandista wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Good God. I can't believe people here are praising DA2's Combat. Despite DA2's mountain of irredeemable flaws, excuse me, mountain range of irredeemable flaws, I'd rank the Combat as the worst part of the entire game. The arbitrary shoe-horning of the new class rescrictions (warriors can't dual-wield or use bows, Rogues can't use swords, mages can't use anything but staves)  Alone was enough to damn the entire system.

But it was only the very surface of the garbage heap.

-Finishing moves are gone.
-Friendly fire is gone, unless you play on the the highest setting
-Stealth game play is gone.
-The ability to lay traps. perform reconniasance, and plan ambushes was removed.
-Boss battles went from being deadly, explosive tactical affairs in the first game to being nothing more than long, BORING battles of attrition, and not difficult at all in the second game.
-Wave combat for every encounter. <gag>
-Turbo speed  crap. Who was the misguided fool who thought it would be a good idea to make combat in an RPG be arcade like?
-combat Animations. Give me a break.   They were embarrasingly childish. Like watching a bugs bunny or road runner cartoon. Despite what Bioware says, they were NOT designed for adults. They were made to excite and amaze kids.

Oh and one more thing... Mages gyrating around and twirling their staves like professional martial artists does NOT make them more fun to play. Just more sad to watch. As it stands, the only thing they gave mages was a warrior feel. But if I want that feeling, I'll just play a friggin Warrior. And Rogues? They Ruined them. Killed them. Destroyed everything that they're are supposed to be. Rogues used to be the subtle silent killers who strike from the shadows. But in DA2, they're the opposite. They're the flashy acrobat center stagers with machine guns.

<gag> But back on topic. No. I didn't find DA2 fun at all. I found it hideously horrifying. I found myself questioning my own gaming tastes (after all, my eyes weren't deceiving me. The game box DID say Dragon Age and Bioware, so this had to be the same kind of game I had been playing since I fell in love with Bioware in 1999.... right?)

I agree with everything written here.

Well, for what It was in the game, I do agree with some of your points.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:50 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

cJohnOne wrote...

While I enjoy DA2 I don't know if I'd call it fun.


What do you think?

Despite it's flaws, yes. I think it was a fun game.

[Renmiri1]

Is interesting that people who hate DA2 combat don't seem to know what the roles of Tank, DPS, melee, range, etc.. are.

It just confirms my impression. People who loved DAO combat don't really like combat at all. Am I wrong ? Would you have enjoyed the game more if you could completely skip all combat ?

[Fast Jimmy]

Honestly, DA:O was the reason I joined these boards. Sure, I loved Baldur's Gate, thought Neverwinter Nights was cool, enjoyed KOTOR as a Star Wars fan and enjoyed Mass Effect as a novel way to have a sci fi setting in a video game with strong role playing elements... but DA:O was a game I thought would blaze a new path for gaming. It had such insanely good elements, in story, in choice, in consequence, in characters, in strategy-based combat, in skills outside of what is used to kill enemies... it really was an amalgam of so many great elements I saw in both previous Bioware games and in other games, all rolled into one and in a brilliant package.

DA2 removed most of these elements and, in my opinion, replaced them with shallow, pale shadows of their DA:O counterparts. It made the narrative a completely on-the-rails experience, gave no almost no sense of exploration, reduced leveling, character build and combat to a stale, repeatable formula and, worst of all to me, created a dull, bland character for us to play.

People think of their Warden and can think of tons of ways to describe them. They could be a city elf Warden who hates humans and dwarves. They could be a Mage who is a self-loather and feels the Templars and the Circle are the best way. They could be a dwarves noble and has disdain for the surface. The options we got with Hawke were 'aggressive/snarky/diplomatic.' class had next to no bearig on the story (besides if you got Carver or Bethany) - even for mages, who should have a very unique experience in a city like Kirkwall - and your choices resulted in the same outcomes and endings for nearly every quest.

People play DA2 again to see different versions of Hawke. I played DA:O 8 times because I wanted to play different types of characters and see the outcomes of different choices. DA2 forced me to play the same person, just with a slightly different way to talking, and had no difference in any outcome.

I'm still on these boards despite DA2 and despite ME3's crash-landing endings because I am giving the DA franchise one more shot. ME was a bonus, a fun series I wanted to see through (although now I'm wishing I hadn't), but DA is where I hang my hat. DA3 is the final chance for me to see if Bioware is a developer I can be passionate about, a developer which makes me excited about the gamig industry. That's what they've always been before, and that's why I'm so jaded to see them sink into habits which display what I feel is mediocrity. So, if DA3 has all features I'm not particularly excited about (like DA2 did) then it will need to be executed in a way which blows my socks off.

As is, it looks like DA3 will have most of these features, so it is going to be a bit like going to a party where you know there are certain people you don't usually get along with. But, you are here to enjoy yourself and hang out at your friend's party, because you usually love this friend's parties normally, despite the last few being a bit of a dud because of the unwanted guests there.

I'll go to the party more than likely for DA3. And I'll try and have a good time. But I'm already worried that a fight is going to break out, because the features Bioware is bringing to the party always get me and a lot of the people on these forums riled up. If that's the case, DA2 lovers won't have to worry about me coming on here making a stink - I'll just walk away.

[wsandista]

Renmiri1 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

I also think that WOW's combat sytem sucks.

I should have clarified that I meant basic attack melee damage.

Again, on DA2 Warriors are tanks. Tanks use their stats to increase threat (draw all the enemy fire to them) and increase survival (since they are the ones in front of the dragon being chewed up, they need to be pretty resilient). By having to focus on those two attributes tanks can not and do not have a lot left to raise their damage. No tank will top a DPS (Damage per second) chart, not unless your damage dealers really really suck.

Rogues are teh melee damge dealers and they are pretty good at that. In DA2 even way too good. I agree, they should nerf rogues a bit. Moar power for mages!!! 

PS: The opposite is true too. Damage dealers don't need heavy armor because the tank will be the one being cleaved and roasted by the big ass dragon. That leaves them free to pick up armor runes and stats that increase damage, such as critical chance, attack speed, elemental damge, etc..

I don't like to play games with rigid roles determined by class. I want classes to allow for several different roles, they just have different ways of doing it.

Take damage for instance. Warriors can have high base damage and abilities that enhance damage. Rogues can sneak attack to deal massive damage. Mages have spells that do massive damage.

DA2 made it impossible for me to have a damage oriented Warrior that could measure up to a Rogue. I could accomplish that in DAO.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Is interesting that people who hate DA2 combat don't seem to know what the roles of Tank, DPS, melee, range, etc.. are.

It just confirms my impression. People who loved DAO combat don't really like combat at all. Am I wrong ? Would you have enjoyed the game more if you could completely skip all combat ?

I liked DA2's combat. I just didn't like the 'another wave!' style approach to the combat. Same thing with ME3.

[Yrkoon]

Renmiri1 wrote...


People who love DAO combat usually do not like any MMO or any game that is not turn based, painfully slow chess like strategy "combat".

This is mostly true  (except for the turn based part. more on that below), and probably where our differences in tastes come from.  I don't judge the coolness of  an RPG's combat by how similar it is to an MMO.   Dragon Age isn't an MMO, so I feel no need to use WOW  (or whatever) as its comparison standard.

As for turn based.  Well no.  over the last few years I've  fallen fully in love with actiony, real time twitch-based combat.  So that can't be the reason why DA2's combat offended my senses and thoroughly disgusted me.  It's something else.  There's a shallowness...  an unatrual, unthinking, uninspired feel to DA2's  combat mechanics.  I want to blame it on the  speed and the cartoony lack of  visceral realism, but I don't think that's the reason either

Lack of true-to-form tactical options   is my guess.  Charging straight forward throwing everything you've got at the enemy is the  quickest, most effective  solution to every encounter in DA2.  Which is why I call the entire game childish.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:11 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Is interesting that people who hate DA2 combat don't seem to know what the roles of Tank, DPS, melee, range, etc.. are.

It just confirms my impression. People who loved DAO combat don't really like combat at all. Am I wrong ? Would you have enjoyed the game more if you could completely skip all combat ?

MMO-type combat like what is seen in WoW is not strategic combat. It's power-leveling and skill spamming. It's pointless, boring and encourages the same character builds across the board. 

Good combat should be like playing a game of chess. No, I would not like skipping combat at all. I would like combat to require me to think in every encounter, not just rehash the same old tactics, powers and skills over and over and OVER like some of those who enjoy WoW level-grinding so much. It's mindless repetition, not understanding combat. 

[wsandista]

Renmiri1 wrote...

It just confirms my impression. People who loved DAO combat don't really like combat at all. Am I wrong ?

Yes.

Would you have enjoyed the game more if you could completely skip all combat ?

No.

I just don't enjoy MMO or (most) action combat. My background is in PnP, so I typically enjoy strategic gameplay that rewards careful thinking and strategy. I also HATE having success in combat determined by player skill in an RPG.

Also, I like for there to be alternatives to combat.

[Tommyspa]

Yrkoon wrote...

-Finishing moves are gone.

Not a bad thing, exactly. There are times when you are locked in death animations  where you are taking damage or ones where they miss their target entirely, even though it still kills them.

-Friendly fire is gone, unless you play on the the highest setting

Friendly fire only existed on hard and nightmare on Origins, not exactly a huge difference worthy of a complaint at all.

-Stealth game play is gone.

Stealth was completely unnecessary in Origins, you can't pretend it wasn't. At best you turn into a black cloud no one in the game can see somehow and deliver one critical hit before you reappear. If you really strech it you can claim your "reconniasance" was necessary, but that would require the game being difficult enough to actually require it, which it doesn't even come close to being.

-The ability to lay traps. perform reconniasance, and plan ambushes was removed.

Refer to stealth, nothing even begins to be necessary here to play the game even on its most difficult parts, fancy sure, but not something that makes gameplay good.

-Boss battles went from being deadly, explosive tactical affairs in the first game to being nothing more than long, BORING battles of attrition, and not difficult at all in the second game.

Boss battles were never deadly, explosive tactical affairs. You can beat every boss and basic enemy with the same basic tactics. Cone of Cold to freeze groups. Fireball to knock them all down. Kill all mages and archers before they pick you apart and spam every activated ability to have until everything it dead and spam the extreme number of potions you accumluate in the game when you have lower health. And fighting Dragons? Make your party consist of a spirit healer, two people to run up and hit it and someone else to attack from a distance. It is down in 5 minutes, not exactly a tactical affair.

-Wave combat for every encounter. <gag>

Nothing bad about waves in combat, other than you not liking it. If anything it makes you regroup your characters as they drop in around you meaning you actually have to adjust your tactics actively.

-Turbo speed  crap. Who was the misguided fool who thought it would be a good idea to make combat in an RPG be arcade like?

More "I don't like it, it sucks"

-combat Animations. Give me a break.   They were embarrasingly childish. Like watching a bugs bunny or road runner cartoon. Despite what Bioware says, they were NOT designed for adults. They were made to excite and amaze kids.

The irony of expressing this idea in this way seethes with irony.

Oh and one more thing... Mages gyrating around and twirling their staves like professional martial artists does NOT make them more fun to play. Just more sad to watch. As it stands, the only thing they gave mages was a warrior feel. But if I want that feeling, I'll just play a friggin Warrior. And Rogues? They Ruined them. Killed them. Destroyed everything that they're are supposed to be. Rogues used to be the subtle silent killers who strike from the shadows. But in DA2, they're the opposite. They're the flashy acrobat center stagers with machine guns.

Yeah let's pretend this isn't also ironic and not more "I don't like it, it sucks"

[Yrkoon]

Tommyspa wrote...

Friendly fire only existed on hard and nightmare on Origins, not exactly a huge difference worthy of a complaint at all.

This is false.  Friendly fire existed on normal in DA:O.

Tommyspa wrote...

Stealth was completely unnecessary in Origins,

So were warriors.   Therefore, they should just remove them, right?  Role playing and tactical  options be damned.

PS: someone needs to look up the definition of Irony. lol

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:09 .

[jackofalltrades456]

Storywise, I'm 50/50. The storyline wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. The Mage vs Templar war does have potential and it had some interesting companions like Varric and Bethany. Then there was the crappy imports and retcon of choices. Anders appearing as possessed Grey Warden even if I handed him to the chantry and killed Justice? No thank you..

The combat I've always hated with a massive passion. EVERY single lowlife thug has a small army of bodyguards or friends in Kirkwall. It was so out of control to a point were I tried to avoid combat altogether by the third act.

Modifié par jackofalltrades456, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[wowpwnslol]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Agreed. DA2 actually made mages entertaining enough for me to play one.

Lolwut? DA2 mages were a joke, especially if you didn't feel like chaining endless CCC's all the time and played on nightmare where you had common thugs completely immune to at least one element..

In DA2 assassin/shadow rogue is the true overpowered killing machine of the game, able to put out hideous amounts of damage, reset bad situations with stealth and use decoy.. In Original DA, mages were overpowered as hell, but DA2 neutered them completely.

[Chromie]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I on the other hand would pick DA2 especially given DAO's mages and rogues.

Agreed. DA2 actually made mages entertaining enough for me to play one.

Not to me especially with the the gameplay/story segregation. Why is it Hawke is using magic as soon as he/she reaches Kirkwall to defeat the thugs attacking the templars? Why was nothing done it's stupid. Mages were fine in Origins but ofcourse people want flash more than substance.

Modifié par Skelter192, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:58 .

[TEWR]

Yrkoon wrote...

Friendly fire existed on normal in DA:O.

Maybe for PC, but certainly not for PS3.

Renmiri1 wrote...

Is interesting that people who hate DA2 combat don't seem to know what the roles of Tank, DPS, melee, range, etc.. are.

It just confirms my impression. People who loved DAO combat don't really like combat at all. Am I wrong ? Would you have enjoyed the game more if you could completely skip all combat ?

Mostly right, I'd assume. I hate DA2's combat but I'm generally a fan of the animations it used for Mage/Warrior/Rogue. I say generally because there are some I take issue with and would be happy to see changed. I have a blog on the subject entitled My Take and Analysis of DAII's Combat.

But I often see posters conflating the idea of animations with the idea of combat as a whole -- both the fans and the ones who aren't fans. And I'd rather that stop. There is a massive disparity in how the combat is handled, and while DAO wasn't perfect it was at least better balanced. Enemies used the same animations, some of the same skills (or had unique ones), and health was more or less even barring upper class enemies.

Note though that I'm a fan of enemies having more health. I'm just not a fan of my group only having 300 health and taking down people with 20,000 points of health. That's too much of a gaping difference in combat for me. If I had 4000 points of health when I did such, that'd be one thing.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:14 .

[wowpwnslol]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Friendly fire existed on normal in DA:O.

Maybe for PC, but certainly not for PS3.

Console was kiddie version. FF would be too frustrating for them. I believe DAO nightmare mode was harder than console as well (more enemies)

[Renmiri1]

Tommyspa wrote...

-Wave combat for every encounter. <gag>

Nothing bad about waves in combat, other than you not liking it. If anything it makes you regroup your characters as they drop in around you meaning you actually have to adjust your tactics actively.

 Yeah let's pretend this isn't also ironic and not more "I don't like it, it sucks"

This is what makes me think these people who love DAO don't really like "combat". During combat you have to look if you are not standing in a puddle of poison, if an enemy npc is not pummeling your healer, if your healer is even ALIVE, if your mage has not been stunned... You can't just:

• Encouter enemy
• PAUSE ON
• Set up tactics, buffs, potions
• PAUSE OFF
• Go AFK
• Collect loot  

This is not combat, this is chess.. or strategy.. or something. Is it "cool" ? Maybe. Not to me, but if you think it is, sure, your choice. And steps 1-6 above can be done on DAO in pretty much every battle. It drove me nuts! My fingers twitched to do something, anything!

The first game I played with tactics was Final Fantasy 12, they were called "gambits" . But FF12 wasn't slow as a sloth on Vicodin and FF12 had the summons and limit breaks which were a lot of fun. DAO took those off and made it all soooo sloooow. 

DA2 is more like FF12, fast paced, allows you to use tactics but requires you to be at the keyboard and to pay attention. Is fun and mages are soo smexy with their ninja moves and cool stone armor 

But ya, DA2 is definitely not a good "twitch" combat system. I could never do pvp or raid on it. It is still too slow and cumbersome for that.

[thats1evildude]

I don't know if it was as "fun" as DAO, given that there were some very sad parts. I will say that I found it more involving. Ultimately, I've put a lot more time into DA2 than I did DAO.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[deuce985]

wsandista wrote...

I despised DA2's combat.

Rogues were killing machines who would either shoot an arrow that would grievously wound an opponent or slice them to bits in less than a second.

Mages no longer relied on their spells, which I really hated.

Warriors did the least damage(yes, the class whose entire focus is on combat is now the class that does the least amount of damage) and were generally crap in almost every situation.

Tell that to Isabella, who continued to see my groin from the ground as she stared up from my Mighty Blows on nightmare. (run-on sentence ftw)

Modifié par deuce985, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:03 .

[thats1evildude]

Skelter192 wrote...

Not to me especially with the the gameplay/story segregation. Why is it Hawke is using magic as soon as he/she reaches Kirkwall to defeat the thugs attacking the templars? Why was nothing done it's stupid. Mages were fine in Origins but ofcourse people want flash more than substance.

Those were city guardsmen, not templars.

[Malsumis]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Is interesting that people who hate DA2 combat don't seem to know what the roles of Tank, DPS, melee, range, etc.. are.

It just confirms my impression. People who loved DAO combat don't really like combat at all. Am I wrong ? Would you have enjoyed the game more if you could completely skip all combat ?

I enjoy good mechanics, interesting encounter design and good animation.

DA2 has none of these.

So to answer the OP question no, I didn't. Awful combat, terrible art style, and a dull cast don't make a fun or interesting game. It is easily Bio worst game.