86 réponses à ce sujet

[Fyurian2]

WARNING: BIG READ AHEAD!

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
They are "my" RPG's because that is how combat has been handled since the old D&D days. Action games had twitch combat, RPG's had tactical, stat based combat. However apparently a lot of people like the story telling in traditional RPG's and have migrated over. That and perhaps they got some faint taste by playin MMO's. But now that they see what we have loved for years, they want to change it to make it like their action games.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound more like someone who fears change.
Change can be good, but so long as the changes in this instance don't lead to homogenisation of the genre.

Should the DA games become action-RPGs or FPRPGs?
No.
Should they be more like "classical" RPGs (Baldur's Gate, Planescape, ToEE etc)?
Yes.
When I play both DA and DA2, I regularly pause the game and assign targets and actions to my party members, or prepare to move someone to a different spot for tactical purposes.

And as far as the "dissonance" you mentioned; it need not exist at all. All game combat is an abstraction in one way or the other. RPG's use stats, action games use "twitch." You are the one who wants to change the genre

 
RPGs don't all have to based around dicerolls/RNG to act as deciding factors for combat and combat abilities.
However, it depends on what kind of RPG the game is.
Is it an RPG where you're controlling yourself with AI controlled follower(s)?
Then RNG doesn't have to be the method used, and a more action approach is better.
If it's an RPG that is based around controlling a party of characters (including your own), then RNG fits better.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with more than one type of RPG.
Crying out against it is both futile and counter-productive.

- I am just pleading that we retain one of the fundamental aspects that many of us have enjoyed since computers first began replace DM's.

Computers didn't begin to replace DMs. The game developers (and publishers) did by becoming the Dungeon Master.
Of my games collection, Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 and VTM: Redemption offered the functionality for players to become DMs and create worlds and adventures for other players to participate in.
Hell, I'm pretty sure that both NWN 1&2 communities are still active because of that extra funcionality given to them.
Bioware were still providing support and updates for NWN and its toolset for many years after NWN released, because the community kept it alive.
Unfortunately, times change and so do playerbases. Companies have to change with the times in order to keep going, but that doesn't mean they have to abandon the games and/or game styles that made them good. It just means they need to expand their repertoire beyond one type of game.

Admitedly I never got into D&D when I was growing up, but then nobody I knew of was into it and nobody I knew except my mother had even heard of it.
It wasn't until I was introduced to Baldur's Gate by a friend who became more like a brother to me, about a month before its ToTSC expansion was released that I got into CRPGs. He's also the one who introduced me to TES, with Daggerfall.
Baldur's Gate opened me up Turn-Based games of all sorts, (thank god for GOG and a working version of Betrayal at Krondor) and had me eagerly devouring different CRPGs.

I love the diversity that's come into CRPGs in the past decade-and-a-bit. It's what makes me love them more than FPS and RTS games, but still miss a decent successor to Jagged Alliance.
The biggest problem with all genres of gaming is really the communities. The majority will either like a specific type of game, or hate it, and cry out against changes. Not because those changes are bad, but because the developers are changing (even in minute ways) "their" game in its next installment.
Sometimes that's good, sometimes bad.
This is totally different from what I feel is the biggest problem with the gaming industry today, but unfortunately links into many other problems with games and developing games. That problem is also completely off-topic.

Modifié par Fyurian2, 28 septembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[Realmzmaster]

Lithuasil wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

I find this whole thread disturbing. Why would DA completely change its combat system to an action/rpg style?

Because I have yet to play a Bioware game (excluding maybe SwTor) where the gameplay is anything more then the annoying busywork between dialogues, that I have to ignore completely, on behalf of my poor constantly violated suspension of disbilief.

There lies the difference you see it as tedium I do not. If the character you build does not have enough strength to effectively wield that claymore the gamer's skill should not be able to compensate for that lack of strength.  If the character does not have the archery skill no amount of reaction time skill by the player should be able to overcome the inability to aim or even use a bow.

If a character unskilled in the use of a bow attempts to use it there should be the chance that the character injures himself/herself otherwise it is not realistic. In a party based game it becomes even more pronounced because no your are talking about 4 or more characters to control.

I want to be the general on the battlefield with the ability to jump into the role of any of my squadmates. The way DAO, DA2 and previous crpgs allowed me that ability. Your suggestion would remove that ability and hinder my roleplaying experience.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

If a game is not an action game, it ruins my immersion.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 28 septembre 2012 - 07:24 .

[MichaelStuart]

Wow, people really missed what I was suggesting.
I wasn't suggesting turning Dragon Age 3 into action based combat (Although, I freely admit I would prefer it)

I was suggesting that a character would need to have a higher attack skill than a opponents defense skill in order to hit them.
To make the game more tactical, attack and defense skills will get bonuses depending on where the character is.
For example, characters on higher ground get a bonus to attack, characters behind walls get a bonus to defense. plus characters that are completely surrounded get hit automatically. Characters would also get abilities to lower a opponents skills.
This system would puts a lot of emphasis on moving characters around, and in no way would requires you to be skilled at action combat.

My other suggestion was to just have defense lower damage.
Basically, a character with a higher defense than a opponent's attack, gets any damage the opponent inflicts lowered.

As for dice rolling being needed to simulate the inherent chance of failure.
I say people only fail because they lack the skill to control the situation.
What I'm proposing is to make combat purely about skill, either the characters or the players.

Note: In chess you hit automatically, does that make it a action game?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I wasn't making that cheapshot at you, it was aimed at Mr. "All games should be like DMoM&M because they break my suspension of disbelief otherwise".

I agree with your ideas in how to make combat better, but the problem here is that Dragon Age 2 eliminated missing, so your idea has already been put into place. Probably not to the extent that you want since it's still dependent on a "dice roll", but it's a good indication of what would happen if they were to do it.

i.e HP/Stat BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAT.

(Not that HP/Stat bloat is an inherent flaw with non-random combat, but it's very common - JRPGs for example have minimal randomization and dice rolling, but most of them suffer from massive stat bloat.)

I don't see the issue with dice rolls myself, it just needs visual feedback.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 28 septembre 2012 - 10:47 .

[MichaelStuart]

CrustyBot wrote...

I wasn't making that cheapshot at you, it was aimed at Mr. "All games should be like DMoM&M because they break my suspension of disbelief otherwise".

I agree with your ideas in how to make combat better, but the problem here is that Dragon Age 2 eliminated missing, so your idea has already been put into place. Probably not to the extent that you want since it's still dependent on a "dice roll", but it's a good indication of what would happen if they were to do it.

i.e HP/Stat BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAT.

(Not that HP/Stat bloat is an inherent flaw with non-random combat, but it's very common - JRPGs for example have minimal randomization and dice rolling, but most of them suffer from massive stat bloat.)

I don't see the issue with dice rolls myself, it just needs visual feedback.

I know you weren't meaning me.
I just though I'd make clear to everybody I wasn't talking about action combat.

I'm I missing something about attack rolls in Dragon Age 2. What do you mean you cant miss?
When I fail a attack roll I do no damage.

As for stat bloat, It doesn't need to happen if they put hard limits on stats.
I person can only be so skilled.
I suggest stats between 1 and 10.
1 meaning you have no skill, 10 meaning your a master swordsmen.

[cJohnOne]

I think alot of people enjoy the old system of hitting with dice and the old D&D games. Chess isn't a good comparison. Your talking about skill versus dice rolls that means action game to me.

[MichaelStuart]

cJohnOne wrote...

I think alot of people enjoy the old system of hitting with dice and the old D&D games. Chess isn't a good comparison. Your talking about skill versus dice rolls that means action game to me.

Action, in a sense because you need to be aware of what's happening around you.
But it doesn't need the player skill action combat nomally required.
All you have to do is give orders to your character and followers, its no real different from what you do now except you have to keep a closer eye on movement.

But if people really need to gamble everytime they go to hit something, I don't know what will please everyone.
Except offering different modes of play, but thats not likely to happen.

[Wulfram]

Requiring a set attack skill to hit an enemy/character wouldn't work at all. Would mean the battle swings between impossible and easy with 1 stat point, with no middle ground.

Having everything hit, I just don't see the point. It makes sense that a character should be able to defend themselves by dodging or parrying the blow. Turning that into a percentage damage reduction instead of a chance to dodge seems counter-intuitive, and I can't see what purpose it would serve.

[MichaelStuart]

Wulfram wrote...

Requiring a set attack skill to hit an enemy/character wouldn't work at all. Would mean the battle swings between impossible and easy with 1 stat point, with no middle ground.

True, which why its up to you to swing it in your favor, because the enemy will be doing the same thing.
If you just can't beat a opponent. Run.

[EricHVela]

Meh. They're probably nixing the dice roll to appeal do the CoD folks anyway. They did strongly suggest they were trying to entice those folks by the things that were common between them. Dice roll ain't it.

Sadly, RPGs such as Dragon Age weren't about shoot-em-up accuracy. It was about strategizing against chance like any traditional RPG. CoD isn't about that.

I like the dice-roll in RPGs like Dragon Age was. I prefer target-skill-accuracy in racing, flight sims, space sims and FPS/3PS. Dragon Age is moving sharply to the latter.

Face it. We're losing our RPGs when it comes to EA. They feel that RPGs are not "social" enough and do not provide enough opportunities for sustained income.

I will accept DA3:I on the grounds that it is moving towards CoD and will experience it in that manner as its own game, separate from DA:O. Either that, or I give up on the game altogether.

[Fawx9]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Requiring a set attack skill to hit an enemy/character wouldn't work at all. Would mean the battle swings between impossible and easy with 1 stat point, with no middle ground.

True, which why its up to you to swing it in your favor, because the enemy will be doing the same thing.
If you just can't beat a opponent. Run.

Why is a black and white system in any way more fun than dice rolls?

The randomness of the system at least allows for you to be thrown off and react to something you didn't expect or pull off something thay maybe you would have died to.

Example: You're low on health but your character dodges a massive attack, you crit and kill the enemy. Now the inverse could happen and you could die immediatly. Or another series of occurences means that the battle drags out.

In a black and white system you always know what will happen. Your guaranteed dodge or death on that first swing.

Modifié par Fawx9, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:53 .

[panamakira]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Player skill systems have their place but they aren't terribly conducive to party-based games.

Sure Mass Effect (2-3 especially) was player-skill based and had party members, but those party members weren't remotely as useful as DA companions and were never intended to be.

Agreed. I couldn't see the party system in ME1-3 being implemented in DA where controlling the party is a big aspect of the game. I agree there needs to be some modifications to DA2's system (as much as preferred it to DA:O).

[Realmzmaster]

A pure black and white system like the OP proposes is not realistic. Basically what is proposed is that if the attack score is higher than the defense score the attacker will always hit. If the attack and defense scores are the same then they cancel each other out. If the defense score is higher than the attack score the attack always fails.

The OP would suggest that in the last two possibilities that the attacker run and find a way to raise the attack score. The attacker then goes back to the same enemy and is assured of a win because the attack score is now higher than the enemy defense score. That is simply not fun to me because it removes the chance of my character or the enemy getting lucky.

No matter how skilled the opponent luck plays a factor. The point of skill is mitigate the effects of chance not eliminate it. Otherwise actions like the "Hail Mary" pass in football would not exist.

Golfers would never miss a hole because the golf ball hit a pebble just enough to deflect the ball. Swords would never break.

Also in the example it was stated that if the enemy is surrounded the attackers should automatically hit, but that removes the chance of the attacker hitting other attackers (friendly fire). If an archer (no matter how skilled) fires into a crowd there should be a chance that the archer strikes one of his own men because the that attacker stepped in front of the arrow.

If you remove chance you remove these possibilities.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

Lithuasil wrote...

You are piloting these characters, not roleplaying them. Again, the argument of pace, based on preference is moot, since both sides need to be granted equal right to their opinion. But I have yet to meet anyone who honestly claimed bird-eye-view was more immersive then first person / shouldercam.

.

I prefer third person.  I have tried different FP games and do not like them.  I tried Oblivion, Dark Messiah and Skyrim and did not like them because of the FP view.  (Yes I know that Skyrim can be played in third person, but I still didn't like it.) I want to see the character I created and I want to see my character move and interact with the world around them.

[FINE HERE]

Okay, there were a lot of good and bad arguements here, but I can explain this in a few sentences:
It makes sense that attacks are based on dice rolls; because no matter how much training or lack thereof a person has, their attacks still might miss. And about enemies: They can dodge. Not every attack a play makes should hit the target. That's why there's a dice roll for attacks.

[Blacklash93]

I'd at least like some animation for missed attacks. I don't like it when my sword strike or arrow for intents and purposes hit the enemy but then *MISS* shows up above them. Same goes for when an attack obviously missed but I still get hit, which DA2 somewhat fixed.

And AoE fireballs missing enemies they enfulf in flames... how in the world does that work?

Modifié par Blacklash93, 28 septembre 2012 - 05:51 .

[Wozearly]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

DA should follow the strongsuit of Bioware, traditional style RPGs like KotOR, NWN, BG and DAO.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

After all, if the enemy can be easily dodged, then that will only lead the devs to create more "insta-kill" moves as a penalty for NOT moving out of the way fast enough. Its a vicious cycle where combat becomes incredibly lopsided and more unrealistic, not less.

There is a 'third way', which is more akin to Jade Empire's combat system. If you're within your weapon's range and facing your target, your attacks will always land. They may be blocked / resisted if the enemy is actively defending, but you never miss. Enemies are also prone to being chained by repeated attacks.

To create balance, the enemies merrily chain you as well and regularly attempt to surround you. Also, some enemies are utterly immune to attacks by certain weapons (or a very bad idea to engage at particular ranges, or when doing particular types of attacks), so you have to maintain an element of skill points in multiple weapon styles and keep an incredibly close eye on what your opponent is doing to be effective. You're rarely insta-killed, but you can be brought down quickly if you make a string of mistakes or get surrounded or backed into a corner.

The net effect is that the system involves an almost comical amount of leaping and diving to manage positioning which determines about 80% (IMO) of combat success. Your party (one companion) tends to be laughably useless when engaging enemies, or simply serves as a non-combat buff-bot to the PC.

Not to say that the combat system isn't fun in its own way, but it would be wildly out of place in the DA universe. DA2's combat was deeply flawed on several levels, but throwing out random elements in pursuit of a pure-action version would not be an improvement.

I only mention it because it is a potential solution to introduce the type of combat MichaelStuart and others are looking for. And because before heading up the DA franchise, Mike Laidlaw was lead designer for Jade Empire...

Modifié par Wozearly, 28 septembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[RedWulfi]

Because npc's aren't capable of dodging/blocking.
Duh.

[Dirty Whore]

oh god...


OP confirmed for mindless button masher.

/facepalm

[MagmaSaiyan]

 now im all for "dice rolls" as you say, but as far as Origins goes, the enemy must move or block for me to miss, otherwise id rather have DA2's approach. Origins made me angry when i miss an enemy 3 times in a row yet the enemy still continues to attack, when the enemy clearly doesnt move to avoid the attack.

Modifié par MagmaSaiyan, 28 septembre 2012 - 09:12 .

[BlueMagitek]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Absolutely!  Remember when there was a chance that a weapon could break if not properly maintained or if struck with a shattering blow!

There still is a chance for break depending on material (bone, for example) and there is still sundering. ~_^

[CaptainBlackGold]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

 now im all for "dice rolls" as you say, but as far as Origins goes, the enemy must move or block for me to miss, otherwise id rather have DA2's approach. Origins made me angry when i miss an enemy 3 times in a row yet the enemy still continues to attack, when the enemy clearly doesnt move to avoid the attack.

That is a valid point - and probably is related to the issue that the animations do not sync up properly. What is portrayed on the screen was not necessarily the same thing as the stats created.

Maybe with a new engine this problem can be resolved. Being neither an animator nor a programmer, I only have the vaguest idea on how on this works, so I am talking out of my hat here.

But I agree, in so far as the technology allows, what we SEE ought to be a proper reflection of what we DO.

[MichaelStuart]

Fawx9 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Requiring a set attack skill to hit an enemy/character wouldn't work at all. Would mean the battle swings between impossible and easy with 1 stat point, with no middle ground.

True, which why its up to you to swing it in your favor, because the enemy will be doing the same thing.
If you just can't beat a opponent. Run.

Why is a black and white system in any way more fun than dice rolls?

The randomness of the system at least allows for you to be thrown off and react to something you didn't expect or pull off something thay maybe you would have died to.

Example: You're low on health but your character dodges a massive attack, you crit and kill the enemy. Now the inverse could happen and you could die immediatly. Or another series of occurences means that the battle drags out.

In a black and white system you always know what will happen. Your guaranteed dodge or death on that first swing.

I'm guaranteed that dodge because because I worked for it. 
One reason I dislike dice rolls is because it just hands over success or failure.
Ultimately I believe having success be determined at random, cheapens the experience.Although no doubt others will disagree. 

[MichaelStuart]

Realmzmaster wrote...

A pure black and white system like the OP proposes is not realistic. Basically what is proposed is that if the attack score is higher than the defense score the attacker will always hit. If the attack and defense scores are the same then they cancel each other out. If the defense score is higher than the attack score the attack always fails.

The OP would suggest that in the last two possibilities that the attacker run and find a way to raise the attack score. The attacker then goes back to the same enemy and is assured of a win because the attack score is now higher than the enemy defense score. That is simply not fun to me because it removes the chance of my character or the enemy getting lucky.

No matter how skilled the opponent luck plays a factor. The point of skill is mitigate the effects of chance not eliminate it. Otherwise actions like the "Hail Mary" pass in football would not exist.

Golfers would never miss a hole because the golf ball hit a pebble just enough to deflect the ball. Swords would never break.

Also in the example it was stated that if the enemy is surrounded the attackers should automatically hit, but that removes the chance of the attacker hitting other attackers (friendly fire). If an archer (no matter how skilled) fires into a crowd there should be a chance that the archer strikes one of his own men because the that attacker stepped in front of the arrow.

If you remove chance you remove these possibilities.

I don't see how that would be a bad thing?

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 28 septembre 2012 - 11:34 .