340 réponses à ce sujet

[PinkShoes]

i played it again a few days ago and if i completely ignored everything but the fighting then yeah it was an okay game, tbh nothing special.

[Bfler]

DAO is still installed on my hard drive, DA2 is not. This should say all.

[bEVEsthda]

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.

Yea, I just much ignore it. I use twohanded and just hammer down on the opposition. And reinforce it with as much enchantment, potions etc, as I can. Worked for Morrowind. Seem to work for Skyrim too.

It's not that I dislike action-gameplay. I don't. I play FPS, and I had a long period of console fighting games. Went as far as developing serious sport injuries in thumbs and tendons. It's that Skyrim combat is awful action. And besides, I don't want to be bothered about action performances while playing RPGs. It's not what RPGs should be, IMO.

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.

I hate to be involved in a debate about combat DA:O vs DA2. I would prefer DA:O. But that's mostly because DA2 combat is so disgustingly ridiculous, in terms of rules, effects and animations. I'd like quite a lot of more realism than that. And OTOH I also see what M.L. mean when he says it's the same as DA:O. It is, in many ways. I also see what he tried to achieve with DA2 combat, regarding speed and having it feel more responsive. And I kinda understand and agree. Pity about those animations though, and nuclear effects, daggers, machinegun crossbows.

And I finally kinda think DA:O already committed the worst crimes - mana and autohealth. I was left behind already there, not caring about DA combat systems.

[philippe willaume]

cJohnOne wrote...

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.

Not that i defend DA:2 far from it, but waves do help fueling stamina and hence really helps berserker warriors.
phil

[philippe willaume]

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.

hello
I have exactly the same experience but in reverse, I played a warrior in both.  So i really understand where you are comming from (What did you play in both)
ie in DA:2 i usually mince through every thing without using a brain cell. it is really the same feeling as playing with two mages in DA:0.

For exemple i was tunning my SLI setting and i played DA:2 and DAO and I got my pants handed over to me in DA:0 and almost always won in DA:2.

Now i had to go  the ultimate build route  (aka vanguard berserker n DA:2 because combat was like whittling a tree to make a toothpick.  So basically, in DA:0 i plyed the char i wanted and in DA:2 I used the Char I had to.

[Rawgrim]

I felt DA2 was more or less Soul Calibur 4, but with dialogue options. I didn`t really have fun playing it at all. I have had fun playing 90 percent of the rest of Bioware`s games, though.

[Spankoman]

I enjoyed DA2. There were a number of things that negatively impacted my experience (the repetitive combat and map issues, mostly - I enjoyed the story very much), but not enough to say that overall I didn't enjoy the game. I enjoyed DA:O more, but it wasn't a flawless experience, either.

But on the whole, I have no regrets in either purchase, and that's usually how I judge a game. For example, I never should have bought Spore, or Skyrim, or Team Fortress 2. The time I spent playing them before becoming bored (or disgusted) was far too short to justify the expense.

[philippe willaume]

EJ107 wrote...

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.

Hello the intrinsic relative value of combat is only one elements of the debate.
what matters is what it does for you as a player.

I seldom scouted or used trap in DA:0 (but you had the skill that let you see the opposition on the map up to a certain distance).

Yes I did pause a lot in DA:0, in a way I micro managed every companions, though it was not a chess play more making sure that the treats were dealt with according to situation but I had the build I wanted to
play for each.
In DA:2 I play ultimate builds.

So the DA:0 are definitely suboptimal build and I had to rely on  cross class combo like winter grasp/blizzard and mighty blows to shatter frozen enemies (or just to  froze some so that you have less to deal with), or getting oil from the spell  or the oils barrels to break and ignite, or using choke point, elevation and stealth or the dog to get archers or mages. (and potion where less abundant and less convenient to use)

 In DA:2 i just need t pick up a low level crit to stamina up once and a while.
The companion can pretty much do what they want, if it is a difficult combat, I will pause at the start and make sure that the main nasty is down enough so that it will not resist long.

 
As far as realism both games are not really good, if you practice fencing with a two handed sword regardless the region of origin, you know exactly what I am talking about.

No armour when the other dude as one sucks to no end and so far for the last 10 years no-one with double shorter weapons has caused me any trouble when I spared them with a long sword simulator. the length and the nimbleness of a two handed blade makes passing the point problematic and using a single weapon to parry is often an invitation to get the hand chopped off.

The paradox of DA:2 is that it fixed some of DA:0 problem.
The tactics are much better in DA:2, warriors, at least TWH have the ability do be really effective in combat, using a rogue was not that painful, classes where less unbalanced . Companion quests were more developed.

 but the net result is I traded something where I had to use different skills/talents and some form of a plan (DA:0) to lets gets tuck in an get Hawke the Vangard berserker stetting to windmill on crack-coicain, eventuall potion up and that is it

Modifié par philippe willaume, 09 septembre 2012 - 11:37 .

[Renmiri1]

Yrkoon wrote...

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.

I have been arguing combat because people have been coming here and saying "combat sucks" without any explanation.
Or saying "my warrior cant do as much damage as my rogue. Waaaah".

Which after much back and forth, and hence the many pages, got distilled into the fact that people who like DAO combat have a completely different idea of what constitutes combat than I do. And have no idea how to make DA2 combat work, at least based in some of the comments 

Being that this is not a "bash DA2 w/o reason" thread, and is in fact an answer to someone who wants to know about the game from people who played it, I mentioned my liking of the game and my taste in combat systems. If the OP hates WoW or thinks that battles are puzzles to be solved on pause, he will know what awaits him on DA2. Not a combat system he enjoys. If the OP likes action, unpredictable battles and gets twitchy watching a battle without touching the controller, he / she knows that dA2 will be more fun to play  - on the combat aspect - than DAO.

So when you come here saying "combat is ridiculous" you are not helping the OP or anyone. You are just venting your anger and being "ridiculous" yourself.

PS: I get the feeling you never read the thread title or the OP. No one here is preaching what DA should use. At least not me. I'm just trying to describe the differences between DAO and DA2. What are you doing here ?  

Modifié par Renmiri1, 10 septembre 2012 - 12:30 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

No, it wasn't fun as a game.

It wasn't fun as a story or a roleplaying game either, for that matter.

[Yrkoon]

Renmiri1 wrote...


Being that this is not a "bash DA2 w/o reason" thread, and is in fact an answer to someone who wants to know about the game from people who played it,

What?  No its not.  Read the OP again.  He's already played the game, found it not so fun, and so he wants our opinions on whether  we feel the same.

Which brings us right back to your pointless  WOW blather.  Tell us again the purpose of it?  Did the OP ask our opinions on WOW?

So when you come here saying "combat is ridiculous" you are not helping the OP or anyone.

OP didn't ask for help.  he asked for Our opinions on the game.

Reading comprehension, man.

No one here is preaching what DA should use.

Again... WTF.   I can point you to  at least 5 people on this thread who are, and have for multiple posts.  Which btw, is something even the Devs applaud.  It's called constructive criticism:  when you state a criticism then offer solutions/thoughts on how to fix it.

Sheesh.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 10 septembre 2012 - 02:53 .

[Renmiri1]

Yrkoon wrote...

 It's called constructive criticism:  when you state a criticism then offer solutions/thoughts on how to fix it.

Is that what you think you are doing ?


And crucifying me for ?

Irony doesn't even begin to describe it. 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:03 .

[force192]

I thought it was fun.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

It's called constructive criticism:  when you state a criticism then offer solutions/thoughts on how to fix it.

Is that what you think you are doing ?

And crucifying me for ?

Irony doesn't even begin to describe it. 

But when people point out genuine problems with the points you advance, you ignore then.

Avoiding discussion isn't constructive.

[Renmiri1]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 
But when people point out genuine problems with the points you advance, you ignore then.

Avoiding discussion isn't constructive.

Huh ?

A link to the post you are referring to would be helpful.. Constructive even 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hmmm... Not really, no. the only reason I completed DA2 was because I wanted to see how the story ends. I literaly had to force myself to complete it.

Granted, near the end od DA:O I started getting the same feeling (but not as strong), however, it was for different reasons. With DA:O the only thing that really bothered me was some of the mechanics.
With DA2 it was much, much more.

[Mr Fixit]

Renmiri1 wrote...

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.

Quantum mechanics would like to have a word with you.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 10 septembre 2012 - 07:21 .

[Mr Fixit]

Renmiri1 wrote...

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 

You *do* know, I hope, that in order to enter a military academy in many countries around the world, you have to pass a comprehensive mathematics entry exam?

Combat is NOT what WOW would like you to believe.

[Sable Rhapsody]

I did have fun with DA2, and I played it three times back to back. The only other game that I did that for was the Baldur's Gate series.

That being said, DA2 is by no means a stellar game. But despite all its problems, I enjoyed it, and I think it was commendable of the devs to stretch outside their usual comfort zone and try different styles of storytelling.

[Allan Schumacher]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

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 

You *do* know, I hope, that in order to enter a military academy in many countries around the world, you have to pass a comprehensive mathematics entry exam?

Combat is NOT what WOW would like you to believe.

It's not what DAO would have us believe either.

Curious about how comprehensive the entry exam really is.

[Mr Fixit]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's not what DAO would have us believe either.

Curious about how comprehensive the entry exam really is.

In my country, pretty comprehensive.

My reply was aimed at that silly remark about combat not involving logic and math. I had no intention of making any assertion about DA:O's combat in the process.

[Allan Schumacher]

It still seemed pretty irrelevant when discussing video game combat mechanics.

Especially given that WoW is actually an exceptionally math heavy combat system.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 septembre 2012 - 07:52 .

[philippe willaume]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

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 

You *do* know, I hope, that in order to enter a military academy in many countries around the world, you have to pass a comprehensive mathematics entry exam?

Combat is NOT what WOW would like you to believe.

It's not what DAO would have us believe either.

Curious about how comprehensive the entry exam really is.

Usually it is directly proportional to the amount of damage f-ing up with weapon system in time of peace  will cause to your own country.

phil

[Mr Fixit]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It still seemed pretty irrelevant when discussing video game combat mechanics.

Especially given that WoW is actually an exceptionally math heavy combat system.

Well, then this post would be better at place as a response to Renmiri.:innocent:

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 10 septembre 2012 - 08:09 .