340 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

The Waves didn't bother me. It was just a way of reenforcement which was probably unnecesary for most people. It did add challenge on Nightmare. The Waves were in fact too much challenge for me as I couldn't defeat them so I play on Hard.

A few battles ran smoothly with the wave system I just forgot about them.

[Gileadan]

The wave mechanic seemed just a simple way to create more filler combat to pad out the overall play time. I remember when I first did the mini-quest with the charlatans selling the fake ashes of Andraste in Kirkwall. Had this been Origins, it would have probably been a dialogue-driven quest with either some persuasion or threats involved, and that was what I expected. Instead, reinforcements from the roofs and out of several side streets! I thought I had found a major quest, something that would lead to a bigger crime syndicate involved (where else would have all those reinforcements come from?), but no... that was just how DA2 handled quests now. Go there, slaughter waves of generic enemies, go back.

Modifié par Gileadan, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:03 .

[FedericoV]

Gileadan wrote...

The wave mechanic seemed just a simple way to create more filler combat to pad out the overall play time.

Imho, the wave mechanic was terribly executed and designed. They could not have done it in a worst way even if they spend time to implement it with the purpose of annoying the players.

But in theory it wasn't a bad idea. Waves added a layer of strategy that was completely absent in the 100% tactical gameplay of DA:O. I mean, waves force you to think ahead and wait before using a power with a very long cooldown that maybe could be used for a combo to insta-kill a very nasty monster.

Must say that in the first DA2's DLC enemy waves execution and design was improved greatly.

[deuce985]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Oh please... On DAO you could kill enemies with a shout! Massacre ?

And having a move that keeps you rooted in the ground like Reaving Storm shows how static unmoving and not dynamic combat is on DAO.

Have you ever tanked on WoW ? You can't just stay on one spot hacking, you have to pay attention to your party, the floor, healer mana... DAO is way too slow and static to cut it. At least DA2 forces you to get of your arse and go rescue your healers from the parachutting mobs!

This is something I noticed on my warrior too. DA2's combat is more fluid and it still retains much of the tactical combat as DA:O, just in different ways. You could actually bottleneck enemies in DA2 with your warrior by blocking narrow entries. The only problem was random spawns but it's still a good strategy. They force you to move around more. On the expedition, I really used this strategy because it worked GREAT in there(especially on the Dragon boss. I had to do this a lot on nightmare because the assassins one-shot my mages. That's not something you could easily in DA:O due to how slow the combat was. Same thing with combo abilities. You really need to use them on nightmare or you get destroyed.

For all the praise DA:O gets for tactical gameplay, it presents no challenge to me. I don't find that very tactical. In DA2, the challenge is throughout the game on nightmare. On DA:O, you're lucky to play 1/3 of the game with a challenge. The pot abuse is ridiculous(excluding mods fixing these issues). That's a major balance issue because if I'm not getting a challenge, I'll be lazier in combat. That makes it less strategic. You can say it's how I choose to play but it's the devoloper's responsibility to balance these gameplay mechanics. I'm a player that needs to be motivated while I play.

DA2 is more intense and kept me on my heels. I'm not saying it's 100% better but I honestly don't think the gap on combat is that big between the games. They both have major flaws. They both have strengths they can learn from each other. Something between is the perfect game.

Modifié par deuce985, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:15 .

[Renmiri1]

Yrkoon wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Oh please... On DAO you could kill enemies with a shout! Massacre ?

Massacre is not in DA:O.  It's in Awakening.   Can we employ a bit  more honesty in this debate?  Thanks.    I've got a completely different  set of opinions about Awakening's combat.  It's not even remotely fair to lump the two together as one and the same.

Why not ? Isn't Awakening a DLC for DAO ?

DAO combat allows you to take your hands of the keyboard and just watch your party take down enemies. To me this is NOT COMBAT, it is chess or strategy, or whatever. But don't get fixed in my opinion. My main point is that people who like a combat system that allows you to go AFK during battle are vastly different from me and others that like to be on our toes and be active during battle.

Which is perfectly fine, you are 100% entitled to like rpg'ing in an RPG game. Just don't say "combat is awful" because it isn't true. Combat is  good, just not the brainy spectator sport you enjoy.

Yrkoon wrote...

Have you ever tanked on WoW ?

Enough of this.  Why in the world are we using WOW as a f**king benchmark for combat in a single player RPG?  Dragon Age. Is. Not.  An.  MMO.   It's not Supposed to have the same combat mechanics.  Many of us here loved DA:O's combat because it was refreshingly, and deliberately DIFFERENT from the boring and utterly unimaginitive garbage of WOW. 

And by different, I mean massively different.  It employs a completely different philosophy.  For example.  You don't even need a tank in DA:O.  The combat system is diverse enough to allow for alternatives to the  cookie cutter  MMO template.   In DA:O,  A party of mages can work together to adequately  win every encounter.  As can a party of warriors, or a party of Rogues, or.... no  party at all.  I Soloed DA:O  with a mage.    It worked.  The items, skills, talents and specializations allowed for success.  That's called freedom.  And diversity.  A system that allows  the player to use his imagination and solve combat challenges in several different ways   IS A GOOD ONE.

Even to describe the type of combat you like you use a puzzle analogy. You "solve" battles. That is not what anyone e who likes active challenges would call winning a battle. Not at all ! You can't "solve" something that is unpredictable. And even if your brain can think of a solution, your reflexes have to be good enough to implement it in time, at the right place.

The battle against the Lich King on WoW has been solved long time ago, but to get you and your guild to execute the "solution" takes a lot of effort. I know perfectly well to stay off defile areas on the floor while battling the Lich King. I know that flying Valkyrs will pop out of nowhere (waves anyone ?) and drag my healers and dps away, so I need to tackle them first. While avoiding the defile vortex on the floor. A floor that the Lich King will sunder from under the party at fixed points.  Everyone knows when. Yet it still takes weeks to get all members of the raid team to manage to be at the right spot when it happens.

Active combat has "waves". Has twists and unexpected things happen. Your idiotic huntard pulls a group of enemies you didn't count on battling on your "solution". DA2 is not nearly as intense but is a step into the direction of active thrilling "alive" combat. Away from the "set tactics, go AFK, come back to loot"  slow thing that DAO was.

You like the slow spectator sport that DAO calls combat. I like active, unpredictable challenging body and mind combat of WoW and DA2. Are we wrong ? No, I don't think so. We just like different things.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 septembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[eroeru]

First off, DAO wasn't a "spectator sport". You clearly didn't play on Nightmare.

Secondly, how in hell's name is a computer game challenging to your body??
Moreso, games can and should definitely have fights that can be solved if one wants an involvment of wits. If you want "unpredictable challenging body and mind combat", watch sports or do some sports yerself (and you might learn that "solving" issues is much more relevant in any kind of real combat than you'd like to think). Don't bring your WoW crap into other types of games.

[eroeru]

deuce985 wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Oh please... On DAO you could kill enemies with a shout! Massacre ?

And having a move that keeps you rooted in the ground like Reaving Storm shows how static unmoving and not dynamic combat is on DAO.

Have you ever tanked on WoW ? You can't just stay on one spot hacking, you have to pay attention to your party, the floor, healer mana... DAO is way too slow and static to cut it. At least DA2 forces you to get of your arse and go rescue your healers from the parachutting mobs!

This is something I noticed on my warrior too. DA2's combat is more fluid and it still retains much of the tactical combat as DA:O, just in different ways. You could actually bottleneck enemies in DA2 with your warrior by blocking narrow entries. The only problem was random spawns but it's still a good strategy. They force you to move around more. On the expedition, I really used this strategy because it worked GREAT in there(especially on the Dragon boss. I had to do this a lot on nightmare because the assassins one-shot my mages. That's not something you could easily in DA:O due to how slow the combat was. Same thing with combo abilities. You really need to use them on nightmare or you get destroyed.

For all the praise DA:O gets for tactical gameplay, it presents no challenge to me. I don't find that very tactical. In DA2, the challenge is throughout the game on nightmare. On DA:O, you're lucky to play 1/3 of the game with a challenge. The pot abuse is ridiculous(excluding mods fixing these issues). That's a major balance issue because if I'm not getting a challenge, I'll be lazier in combat. That makes it less strategic. You can say it's how I choose to play but it's the devoloper's responsibility to balance these gameplay mechanics. I'm a player that needs to be motivated while I play.

DA2 is more intense and kept me on my heels. I'm not saying it's 100% better but I honestly don't think the gap on combat is that big between the games. They both have major flaws. They both have strengths they can learn from each other. Something between is the perfect game.

1. Strategy does not equal tactics
2. A bottle-neck tactic isn't something to boast about. A 4-year old can accomplish that much.
3. In Origins you had to plan ahead in order to accomplish a bottle-neck type tactic - it was possible, but you had to move the pieces in the right way, taking into account many a thing, not only the rubbish they heaped on you in DA2's waves.

[Renmiri1]

eroeru wrote...

First off, DAO wasn't a "spectator sport". You clearly didn't play on Nightmare.

Secondly, how in hell's name is a computer game challenging to your body??
Moreso, games can and should definitely have fights that can be solved if one wants an involvment of wits. If you want "unpredictable challenging body and mind combat", watch sports or do some sports yerself (and you might learn that "solving" issues is much more relevant in any kind of real combat than you'd like to think). Don't bring your WoW crap into other types of games.

I meant reflexes "body" was what was closest to it 

Don't bring your WoW crap into other types of games

Why certainly boss. Yes sir!

Oh wait.. You are not my boss! 

I mention WoW because I make it very clear what kind of combat system I enjoy, and what do I think is fun to be doing during a battle. You don't like it ? Tough, you won't change who I am. Neither will I change you. Which is not really necessary. You just have to be intellectually honest and be clear about what you consider "combat", not just say "combat sucks" without even mentioning why. That is not helpful to the OP. Or to anyone. It is disingenuous. 

I'm honest. Are you ? This is post#2 in this thread. I make it perfectly clear what kind of combat it has and why I like it.

Renmiri1 wrote...

I love it. I love both DAO and DA2 but I enjoy playing DA2 a lot more. Combat on DAO is almost unplayable to me. Too slow, too robotic. I'm a WoW raider, like to mash those buttons

 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:03 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

oh lol challenging unpredictable combat of wow and da2 lol oh my god this is too much.

[Renmiri1]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

oh lol challenging unpredictable combat of wow and da2 lol oh my god this is too much.

Considering all the people who hate it cry bloddy salty tears about the parachuting mobs,, what else would you call it ? "Not fair because I couldn't go get a cheetos bag while the battle was raging on" ?

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[eroeru]

Renmiri1 wrote...

eroeru wrote...

First off, DAO wasn't a "spectator sport". You clearly didn't play on Nightmare.

Secondly, how in hell's name is a computer game challenging to your body??
Moreso, games can and should definitely have fights that can be solved if one wants an involvment of wits. If you want "unpredictable challenging body and mind combat", watch sports or do some sports yerself (and you might learn that "solving" issues is much more relevant in any kind of real combat than you'd like to think). Don't bring your WoW crap into other types of games.

I meant reflexes "body" was what was closest to it 

Don't bring your WoW crap into other types of games

Why certainly boss. Yes sir!

Oh wait.. You are not my boss! 

I mention WoW because I make it very clear what kind of combat system I enjoy, and what do I think is fun to be doing during a battle. You don't like it ? Tough, you won't change who I am. Neither will I change you. Which is not really necessary. You just have to be intellectually honest and be clear about what you consider "combat", not just say "combat sucks" without even mentioning why. That is not helpful to the OP. Or to anyone. It is disingenuous. 

Yeah, my point is that I love good combat in games, and you saying that I in actuality don't, given that I don't like WoW in the slightest, is way off. It's obnoxious even.

Modifié par eroeru, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:05 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

oh lol challenging unpredictable combat of wow and da2 lol oh my god this is too much.

Considering all the people who hate it cry bloddy salty tears about the parachuting mobs,, what else would you call it ? "Not fair because I couldn't go get a cheetos bag while the battle was raging on" ?

you need to take the cheetos bag back with you to win a fight in da 2? didn't realize.

people hate da2 waves because:

it's ridiculous. they just come down from the sky.

they're pretty much the same type of enemies. 

fighting filler, clutter, trash mobs isn't challenging. they just do it to extend the game and be 'awesome'.

it's nothing more than a mechanic designed to sustain FILLER combat.

it's completely pointless and random. it can't even be called a bad encounter design, because there isn't any encounter design at all.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:10 .

[Renmiri1]

eroeru wrote...



Yeah, my point is that I love good combat in games, and you saying that I in actuality don't, given that I don't like WoW in the slightest, is way off. It's obnoxious even.

Sorry but you are new to the debate. I have no idea what "good combat" means to you. And I have not been saying anything about you YET. 

What I have been saying is that I see people who like  DAO as liking something I barely consider combat. My personal taste. Pressing pause, setting a few lines of instructions and going AFK, "solving" a.. battle ? Sounds more like solving an equation or a puzzle. Math or logic are not really combat to me. And to a very big number of people, of all ages. 8 million or so at least 

If you want to have a debate and be helpful to the OP, why don't you tell us about what you consider good combat ? Just dissing others is obnoxious

[Ianamus]

I honestly can't understand the love of Dragon Age Origins combat. I thought it was dire, the worst part of the game, and when I first saw a trailer I immediately decided against buying it because it looked so slow. I only ever played it eventually because someone else bought it. 

Honestly, I see what people are saying when they say that Dragon Age 2's combat animations are too over the top and unrealistic, but after actually playing Dragon Age 2's combat Origins is virtually unplayable for me. It's just so slow. I'd even go as far as to say that it's just as unrealistic as Dragon Age 2, if only because the characters look like they are moving in slow motion. 

I'm not saying that Dragon Age 2 was perfect, but at least the pace actually makes it feel like combat, and too fast combat is much preferable to too slow combat. I find it sort of ironic that the people complaining that Dragon Age 2's animations are appealing to "14 year old's" complain about the removal of finishing moves, which were basically just flashy moves made to look cool. 

As for the removal of stealth and traps... I honestly couldn't care less. And I played a rogue in both Origins and Dragon Age 2. It was just so... useless. If your the sort who has to plan incredibly tactical and precise battles then maybe it had some use, but I want something that is useful at all levels, and it just felt like a waste of space. 

Cross class combo's were a good addition, the only real flaw with Dragon Age 2's combat system was the enemies themselves. They all either had ludicrously small health pools or ludicrously high health pools. I'd rather fight 10 enemies who are about the same strength of me and party than 100 incredibly weak enemies spawning in waves with one "boss" who has more HP than all of them put together. I also hate the wave system in general. 

I don't think that Dragon Age 2's combat was designed for "14 year olds" I think it was just designed not to be unbearably dull. Does "mature" have to equal mindlessly dull combat with ridiculously slow speed and animations and having to plan for five minutes in advance before facing even a small group of enemies? I like challenges, and I like having to think about fights and develop my character carefully, but I want to actually play the game, not spend more time on pause and planning than actually fighting. Does that make me immature or 14 years old? I don't think so.

Modifié par EJ107, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[eroeru]

Renmiri1 wrote...

eroeru wrote...



Yeah, my point is that I love good combat in games, and you saying that I in actuality don't, given that I don't like WoW in the slightest, is way off. It's obnoxious even.

Sorry but you are new to the debate. I have no idea what "good combat" means to you. And I have not been saying anything about you YET. 

What I have been saying is that I see people who like  DAO as liking something I barely consider combat. My personal taste. Pressing pause, setting a few lines of instructions and going AFK, "solving" a.. battle ? Sounds more like solving an equation or a puzzle. Math or logic are not really combat to me. And to a very big number of people, of all ages. 8 million or so at least 

If you want to have a debate and be helpful to the OP, why don't you tell us about what you consider good combat ? Just dissing others is obnoxious

I did so one page ago. (quoted your "this in not combat" line)

Anyway, what does it matter "what is combat" to you? If it has fighting, it's combat. Now there's many types of combat to be sure, but if any of them is better than the others, it's the strategic kind. This is an arrogant remark, and highly debatable, but I sincerely feel the only relevant type of gameplay is gameplay where you first and foremost use your head.

edit: you can like your WoW **** but don't bring it as an example to people who clearly think it's not the staple of combat - the people for whom Dragon Age was successfully designed and sold.

Modifié par eroeru, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Renmiri1]

eroeru wrote...


I did so one page ago. (quoted your "this in not combaat" line)

Anyway, what does it matter "what is combat" to you? If it has fighting, it's combat. Now there's many types of combat to be sure, but if any of them is better than the others, it's the strategic kind. This is an arrogant remark, and highly debatable, but I sincerely feel the only relevant type of gameplay is gameplay where you first and foremost use your head.

I disagree but I won't call you arrogant, since I did the same a page ago and said the combat that you can go AFK is not combat 

I think gameplay should entertain you. DA2 and DAO are good entertainment IMHO. The slow combat of DAO is a pain but considering you don't actually have to be there it gets tolerable to me. My best friend couldn't get past Ostagar. Just umbearably slow to him.

Did you like DA2 in spite of the combat you detest ?

[eroeru]

I liked bits and pieces of it, but overall I'm a hater.

[Yrkoon]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Oh please... On DAO you could kill enemies with a shout! Massacre ?

Massacre is not in DA:O.  It's in Awakening.   Can we employ a bit  more honesty in this debate?  Thanks.    I've got a completely different  set of opinions about Awakening's combat.  It's not even remotely fair to lump the two together as one and the same.

Why not ? Isn't Awakening a DLC for  DA:O?

No.  it's not.  It's a  $40  expanson pack on hard copy.    Awakening does not introduce a single feature (combat or otherwise) to DA:O.

Even to describe the type of combat you like you use a puzzle analogy. You "solve" battles. That is not what anyone e who likes active challenges would call winning a battle. Not at all ! You can't "solve" something that is unpredictable. And even if your brain can think of a solution, your reflexes have to be good enough to implement it in time, at the right place.

Right.  which is why you'll never hear of Generals and military leaders employing complex  battle plans.

Indeed, "Tactical" is  a silly word that does not belong in the context of combat.  Combat should be mindless,.   Rule of thumb: if Johnny the 13 year old can't button mash his way to victory, then ITS NOT COMBAT


DERP.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:03 .

[babymoon]

Yes. I love the game, and I like the faster combat style.

[Yrkoon]

Renmiri1 wrote...
I mention WoW because I make it very clear what kind of combat system I enjoy,

WTF!

I enjoy  Skyrim's combat system, but you don't see me here arguing for pages on end that Dragon Age should  use it, do you?

No, because  that would be silly.  If all games used the  same combat system, I'd  have been long bored to death, and would no longer be playing games.  Hell, Even WOW fans are getting sick of WOWs combat.  Compare its subscription totals today with what they were 5 years ago.

PS: And this is a pointless tangent of the debate.  WOW has no business in this discussion.  It  simply doesn't apply.  Dragon age isn't an MMO, And even if it was,  discussing WOW would still be a Red Herring, because DA2's combat doesn't resemble WOWs in the slightest.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Which is genuinely perverse design, I think. I never understood why this approach made any sense at all except in terms of forcing players to work together (which has no relevance in a single-player game).
...
Why not? Why not have Warriors excel in all aspects of combat, while other classes excel only in some aspects of combat, but make up for it by having greater versatility or a wider range of non-combat abilities?

It's an artifact from the change to DnD 3.0 in the beginning of the last decade. Combat became the primary focus of the system.

That makes its use today worse, not better.  If we've had 10 years to see what's wrong with the design, then we've had 10 years to fix it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I too, of course, agree.
With all the words. But it actually don't mean so much to me. I don't play any of these games for the combat action. Neither do RPG'ers in general. Just consider - how popular would Skyrim be, if combat mattered much to the people who play it?

That's a good example.  I like Skyrim - I think it's a lot of fun to play - but I hate its combat system.

We have recent examples of how to make a game with a combat system that serves the interests of both action combat fans and pause&play combat fans, and those examples are Fallout 3 and Mass Effect.  Aiming while paused in Mass Effect eliminated nearly all of the action components, but they were still available for players who liked them.  Similarly, action combat fans can play Fallout 3 (and New Vegas) without ever activating VATS, but if players don't like action combat they can use VATS to make the combat more like a turn-based system.

But DA2 failed to offer those two options.

[Kileyan]

What I don't get about Renmiri's complaints is he keeps bring up WoW as the pinnacle of what is combat. Neither game is a twitch fighting game that is about skill. WoW is a cooldown timer, auto attack game, so is Dragon Ages. Neither game requires you to aim to hit a target, you just target what you want to hit and everything else is automatic. The skill in WoW is memorizing how the fights work, where to stand, dance dance moves.


Also DAO and DA2 combat, the only real difference is the closing animations bring you to combat faster.

I'm not really sure where you got stuck on this idea you have repeated over and over, every page, about how DAO plays the game for you, but DA2 is so different. They are pretty much the exact same combat system but someone hit the fast forward button on DA2 and added the option to constantly mash a button for auto attack, to give Xbox players they feeling they were doing something.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Also, I'm unaware of WoW ever offering any gameplay as challenging and fraught with risk as EverQuest's song-twisting was.

[deuce985]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

I too, of course, agree.
With all the words. But it actually don't mean so much to me. I don't play any of these games for the combat action. Neither do RPG'ers in general. Just consider - how popular would Skyrim be, if combat mattered much to the people who play it?

That's a good example.  I like Skyrim - I think it's a lot of fun to play - but I hate its combat system.

We have recent examples of how to make a game with a combat system that serves the interests of both action combat fans and pause&play combat fans, and those examples are Fallout 3 and Mass Effect.  Aiming while paused in Mass Effect eliminated nearly all of the action components, but they were still available for players who liked them.  Similarly, action combat fans can play Fallout 3 (and New Vegas) without ever activating VATS, but if players don't like action combat they can use VATS to make the combat more like a turn-based system.

But DA2 failed to offer those two options.

It's annoying how the camera is in DA2. I don't know what Bioware was thinking but getting rid of tactical camera wasn't very nice.

Targeting was much harder to do in DA2. In fact, that's a huge complaint from me because the game didn't seem to know what identity it needed in combat. Was it trying to be all action or pausing for commands? Because the pausing feature didn't have much thought in it at all. Pausing was obviously there to slow the game down and precisely target with AOE. The problem is your game's combat is cranked up to hyper speeds.

So, if I wanted to play DA2 as a pure action game, I couldn't do that. You HAVE to pause in DA2 at some point, which completely kills the speed, immersive, and fluid combat.

The examples you gave are excellent, especially Fallout 3. That's a good example of how you can balance between both mechanics properly, IMO. I didn't like being forced to pause in DA2 because it was clear they were going for more action. It seems Bioware tried to get some middle ground in DA2 but it didn't end up like they expected.

That's one thing DA:O did much better. It knew its identity in combat and stuck with it. I'm not sure if DA2 is trying to be a hybrid or what really?

Modifié par deuce985, 09 septembre 2012 - 09:27 .