226 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Sidney wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I would prefer Dragon Age 3 combat play like assassins creed, but anything would be better then the dice rolling combat we had before.

And I prefer that DA3 get no where near the combat play of Assassin's Creed because it involves far more player skill than character skill.

Well that and AC's combat is awful but the basic point here is correct. DA* works off I command people, they do things. That is important to keep and it is a major problem in a RPG in things like Skyrim, FO3, or TW2 where it is more about me than my characters.

That's not a major problem. It's not even a minor problem. It's not a problem at all. 

[Realmzmaster]

MillKill wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RPG combat is stat-driven combat.  Twitch elements have no place.

I see little reason to refuse to use a certain combat system that might improve the game because of an arbitrary segregation of "Twitch elements" from rpgs.

How is it arbitrary? If my character does not know how to use a bow no amount of player skill should enable the character to use the bow. If my character does not know how to effectively use a shield. The player skill should not compensate for that.
If my character is down right stupid the character should not be able to solve a puzzle even if I the player can.

At what point did I say that character skills should have no relevance? They certainly mattered in KoA. If you didn't put any points into greatswords, you wouldn't do much damage and wouldn't have access to a variety of greatsword attacks. The same was true for every other weapon. If you didn't put any points into spells, you couldn't cast spells. There is no reason "twitch elements" can't have a place in stat-driven combat.

I don't want the combat system to be a complete clone of Amalur. I'd take out the Reckoning Mode and the QTE and ramp up the difficulty considerably. I'd also like to see the game be made tactical, but only if it is done right. Origins failed miserabley at this and DA2 moved toward action. If they can't or won't make the combat tactical, they might as well look to a game that did action rpg combat well.

The point is that player skill can still compensate for lack of character skill which should not happen. IMHO.

Then all combat should be automatically determined based upon the stats of the combatants Civilization style. If player skill is irrelevant, player input is also irrelent.

I actually like Civilization along with many other strategy based games. The method you are suggesting automatically excludes the physically challenged people who were able to play the previous installments of the game. As I said in an earlier post it is all about accessibility. Your method eliminates that possibility, because it relies on the reflexes of the player. DAO and DA2 did not rely on player reflexes. What it does relie on is the ability of the player to formulate a plan of attack and have the party execute it.

As I said before DA games can be played with just a mouse. KOA, Skyrim, Witcher 2 cannot. And they rely far more on player reflexes and not the stats.

[Sidney]

marshalleck wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I would prefer Dragon Age 3 combat play like assassins creed, but anything would be better then the dice rolling combat we had before.

And I prefer that DA3 get no where near the combat play of Assassin's Creed because it involves far more player skill than character skill.

Well that and AC's combat is awful but the basic point here is correct. DA* works off I command people, they do things. That is important to keep and it is a major problem in a RPG in things like Skyrim, FO3, or TW2 where it is more about me than my characters.

That's not a major problem. It's not even a minor problem. It's not a problem at all. 

Well then get rid of all those silly stats because it doesn't matter how good Geralt is with a sword if my twitchy skills aren't enough and god help me trying to hit those ferrets on crack known as Necromancers in Skyrim because *I* am a terrible aimer at what is at that point an FPS.

So, yes, it is a major problem in a game where you play through your character. Not a problem in call of duty where you are the player.

[Realmzmaster]

MillKill wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Kyle Kabanya wrote...

Dragon Age 3 should go back to the Origins style not KOAs.

No button mashing the A button and REALISTIC fighting. People in medivel times did not do front flips in armor and other ninja type moves.

They also didn't cast spells or use magic items.

You are correct I would prefer the use of alchemy instead of magic.

Alchemy is not real either. But we already have it in the game, so I don't see what your point is.

What?! Alchemy was practiced in the medieval ages. It was the basis for modern day chemistry and medicine. It is very real.

[marshalleck]

It's funny how you're whining about action games but seem to have played very few, and don't seem to know what you're whining about. Many games have a target lock such that your character will pivot and strafe around an opponent while maintaining their facing, so the player can spend more time focusing on combo attacks and defense. Skyrim doesn't have this; it just has massive weapon swing arcs so you can hit guys with a dagger from clear across a room.

And I'll just cite Dark Souls one more time, at the risk of everyone getting sick of hearing it. Intelligent and deliberate character attribute development and equipment selection is a crucial component of success there.

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 octobre 2012 - 07:12 .

[unbentbuzzkill]

loved KoA combat it was awesome especially the finishers.

[MillKill]

Realmzmaster wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RPG combat is stat-driven combat.  Twitch elements have no place.

I see little reason to refuse to use a certain combat system that might improve the game because of an arbitrary segregation of "Twitch elements" from rpgs.

How is it arbitrary? If my character does not know how to use a bow no amount of player skill should enable the character to use the bow. If my character does not know how to effectively use a shield. The player skill should not compensate for that.
If my character is down right stupid the character should not be able to solve a puzzle even if I the player can.

At what point did I say that character skills should have no relevance? They certainly mattered in KoA. If you didn't put any points into greatswords, you wouldn't do much damage and wouldn't have access to a variety of greatsword attacks. The same was true for every other weapon. If you didn't put any points into spells, you couldn't cast spells. There is no reason "twitch elements" can't have a place in stat-driven combat.

I don't want the combat system to be a complete clone of Amalur. I'd take out the Reckoning Mode and the QTE and ramp up the difficulty considerably. I'd also like to see the game be made tactical, but only if it is done right. Origins failed miserabley at this and DA2 moved toward action. If they can't or won't make the combat tactical, they might as well look to a game that did action rpg combat well.

The point is that player skill can still compensate for lack of character skill which should not happen. IMHO.

Then all combat should be automatically determined based upon the stats of the combatants Civilization style. If player skill is irrelevant, player input is also irrelent.

I actually like Civilization along with many other strategy based games. The method you are suggesting automatically excludes the physically challenged people who were able to play the previous installments of the game. As I said in an earlier post it is all about accessibility. Your method eliminates that possibility, because it relies on the reflexes of the player. DAO and DA2 did not rely on player reflexes. What it does relie on is the ability of the player to formulate a plan of attack and have the party execute it.

As I said before DA games can be played with just a mouse. KOA, Skyrim, Witcher 2 cannot. And they rely far more on player reflexes and not the stats.

By your logic, we shouldn't require the player to have to see the game because blind people won't be able to play. At some point, a line has to be drawn. It is best to make what works best for the majority of players rather than attempt to make the game accessible to absolutely everyone and in the process weaken the gameplay for those that aren't physically disabled. I know that it sucks to have a physical disability, but non-disabled gamers shouldn't have to accept significantly lower-quality gameplay so that the game can be played by the few who are disabled. Those who try to please everybody will end up pleasing nobody.

[marshalleck]

Hanz54321 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

That's not a major problem. It's not even a minor problem. It's not a problem at all. 

(Arnold Schwarzenneger):  WRONG.

[The Elder King]

syllogi wrote...



On the Xbox 360, at least, people wanted to press A and auto attack.  This was promised before DA2 came out, but it wasn't in the game as shipped.  Don't know if it was patched in later.

I recently tried DA2 with the last patch. Auto-attack is present.
I really hope that they'll not do the same mistake with DA3.

[goofyomnivore]

Give me Dark Souls combat mechanics incorporated with Dragon Age's party system/tactics and I'd be a happy camper.

[deatharmonic]

Sidney wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I would prefer Dragon Age 3 combat play like assassins creed, but anything would be better then the dice rolling combat we had before.

And I prefer that DA3 get no where near the combat play of Assassin's Creed because it involves far more player skill than character skill.

Well that and AC's combat is awful but the basic point here is correct. DA* works off I command people, they do things. That is important to keep and it is a major problem in a RPG in things like Skyrim, FO3, or TW2 where it is more about me than my characters.

That's not a major problem. It's not even a minor problem. It's not a problem at all. 

Well then get rid of all those silly stats because it doesn't matter how good Geralt is with a sword if my twitchy skills aren't enough and god help me trying to hit those ferrets on crack known as Necromancers in Skyrim because *I* am a terrible aimer at what is at that point an FPS.

So, yes, it is a major problem in a game where you play through your character. Not a problem in call of duty where you are the player.

I don't understand why people keep using the word twitchy, has everyone forgotton DA2 is basically repeatedly hit A, thats no better than running n' gunning on something like COD. 

[BanksHector]

I think they should just make the speed about in the middle of DA2 and DAO. I like the idea of DA2 where I could use auto attack or just mash a button if i wanted to. I never wanted to just mash the button over and over so I always used Auto attack, but I like having more options.

If they wanted to improve the action elements and still give us the option for auto attack then I would be all for it.

[marktcameron]

nay

[Fawx9]

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Why is it that the response to anyone saying "that's just a bit too much, and not very realistic" is "there's already dragons/magic/biotics/etc"

At least come up with an actual rebuttal why an idea isn't too far out there rather than just stating "its magic".

Because those things are unrealistic and yet the poster didn't seem to have a problem with them. This indicates that they have arbitrarily drawn a line between what is too unrealistic and what is an acceptable break from reality. An attempt at locking out a style of combat based on realism will always be based on inconsistent reasoning until all unrealistic aspects are removed from the game. Until that day comes, gameplay should be decided on the merits of it's mechanics and the resources required to implement it, not on whether it violates some arbitrary and subjective line between what is an acceptable break from reality and what is not.

No, the gameplay should match the setting and feel of the game.

Zelda had magic, fairies dragons and gods, yet Link didn't run around swinging 2 handed hammers at the speed of light.

DMC had demons, gods, fantastical places, extrodanary chracters, crazy weapons/equipment etc and had gameplay to match the setting.

DA isn't anywhere near DMC in terms of style and feeling. Why are we trying to push it there?

[MillKill]

Fawx9 wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Why is it that the response to anyone saying "that's just a bit too much, and not very realistic" is "there's already dragons/magic/biotics/etc"

At least come up with an actual rebuttal why an idea isn't too far out there rather than just stating "its magic".

Because those things are unrealistic and yet the poster didn't seem to have a problem with them. This indicates that they have arbitrarily drawn a line between what is too unrealistic and what is an acceptable break from reality. An attempt at locking out a style of combat based on realism will always be based on inconsistent reasoning until all unrealistic aspects are removed from the game. Until that day comes, gameplay should be decided on the merits of it's mechanics and the resources required to implement it, not on whether it violates some arbitrary and subjective line between what is an acceptable break from reality and what is not.

No, the gameplay should match the setting and feel of the game.

Zelda had magic, fairies dragons and gods, yet Link didn't run around swinging 2 handed hammers at the speed of light.

DMC had demons, gods, fantastical places, extrodanary chracters, crazy weapons/equipment etc and had gameplay to match the setting.

DA isn't anywhere near DMC in terms of style and feeling. Why are we trying to push it there?

How exactly is sylized and unrealistc combat aginst the tone of DA? It showed up in both games so far. Moreover, if you feel that "realism" is the is the tone and feeling DA is striving for, how can you justify the existance of characters chugging potions they pull out of nowhere mid-combat? Or HP? Or slapping on an "injury kit" and instantly healing a broken bone? Backflips are not ok, but those things are?

It fits the tone of Heroic Fantasy they've been going for. Good gameplay must trump realism.

[Fawx9]

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Why is it that the response to anyone saying "that's just a bit too much, and not very realistic" is "there's already dragons/magic/biotics/etc"

At least come up with an actual rebuttal why an idea isn't too far out there rather than just stating "its magic".

Because those things are unrealistic and yet the poster didn't seem to have a problem with them. This indicates that they have arbitrarily drawn a line between what is too unrealistic and what is an acceptable break from reality. An attempt at locking out a style of combat based on realism will always be based on inconsistent reasoning until all unrealistic aspects are removed from the game. Until that day comes, gameplay should be decided on the merits of it's mechanics and the resources required to implement it, not on whether it violates some arbitrary and subjective line between what is an acceptable break from reality and what is not.

No, the gameplay should match the setting and feel of the game.

Zelda had magic, fairies dragons and gods, yet Link didn't run around swinging 2 handed hammers at the speed of light.

DMC had demons, gods, fantastical places, extrodanary chracters, crazy weapons/equipment etc and had gameplay to match the setting.

DA isn't anywhere near DMC in terms of style and feeling. Why are we trying to push it there?

How exactly is sylized and unrealistc combat aginst the tone of DA? It showed up in both games so far. Moreover, if you feel that "realism" is the is the tone and feeling DA is striving for, how can you justify the existance of characters chugging potions they pull out of nowhere mid-combat? Or HP? Or slapping on an "injury kit" and instantly healing a broken bone? Backflips are not ok, but those things are?

It fits the tone of Heroic Fantasy they've been going for. Good gameplay must trump realism.

I never said it had to be strict in its rules. My original post was more in general. Its fine to be unrelastic, but you shouldn't push that boundry just becuase you're in a fantasy setting for no reason.

The question is, is DA/Thedas a fantasy land like LOTR, Zelda, Camelot, etc. Where you can have magic and dragons while still being subtle in certain areas (like architecture, clothing, combat, armor). Or is it something like DMC, Diablo, FF, etc. Where the settings are more high fantasy, the sytling is bigger, the armor is stylized and the fighting is super stylized.

You can't just build a world around one setting/feeling and then go out of your way to exagerate at times just for the sake of looking cool. It gets to a point where things in the world just start looking silly when put next too each other. 

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

It would definitely be better than "Button Awesome" was in DA II...

I thought the combat was fine in DA:O, honestly, but I'm not against BioWare trying something new or trying to please both fast-paced combat junkies and those who are looking for a more tactical experience by finding a balance between the two.

So long as they don't remove the ability to switch between party members in combat or program your party members' combat behavior, I should be happy with whatever BioWare cooks up.

[MillKill]

Fawx9 wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Why is it that the response to anyone saying "that's just a bit too much, and not very realistic" is "there's already dragons/magic/biotics/etc"

At least come up with an actual rebuttal why an idea isn't too far out there rather than just stating "its magic".

Because those things are unrealistic and yet the poster didn't seem to have a problem with them. This indicates that they have arbitrarily drawn a line between what is too unrealistic and what is an acceptable break from reality. An attempt at locking out a style of combat based on realism will always be based on inconsistent reasoning until all unrealistic aspects are removed from the game. Until that day comes, gameplay should be decided on the merits of it's mechanics and the resources required to implement it, not on whether it violates some arbitrary and subjective line between what is an acceptable break from reality and what is not.

No, the gameplay should match the setting and feel of the game.

Zelda had magic, fairies dragons and gods, yet Link didn't run around swinging 2 handed hammers at the speed of light.

DMC had demons, gods, fantastical places, extrodanary chracters, crazy weapons/equipment etc and had gameplay to match the setting.

DA isn't anywhere near DMC in terms of style and feeling. Why are we trying to push it there?

How exactly is sylized and unrealistc combat aginst the tone of DA? It showed up in both games so far. Moreover, if you feel that "realism" is the is the tone and feeling DA is striving for, how can you justify the existance of characters chugging potions they pull out of nowhere mid-combat? Or HP? Or slapping on an "injury kit" and instantly healing a broken bone? Backflips are not ok, but those things are?

It fits the tone of Heroic Fantasy they've been going for. Good gameplay must trump realism.

I never said it had to be strict in its rules. My original post was more in general. Its fine to be unrelastic, but you shouldn't push that boundry just becuase you're in a fantasy setting for no reason.

The question is, is DA/Thedas a fantasy land like LOTR, Zelda, Camelot, etc. Where you can have magic and dragons while still being subtle in certain areas (like architecture, clothing, combat, armor). Or is it something like DMC, Diablo, FF, etc. Where the settings are more high fantasy, the sytling is bigger, the armor is stylized and the fighting is super stylized.

You can't just build a world around one setting/feeling and then go out of your way to exagerate at times just for the sake of looking cool. It gets to a point where things in the world just start looking silly when put next too each other. 

How is stylized combat against the tone of the setting? It's been in both games and was fine both times. Things like the injury kits and potions from nowhere ok? They don't even fit into the context of the world and are purely for gameplay convenience. A world where it has been established that people can summon the dead, hurl fire, control the blood in people's veins, and enter the dreams of others is perfectly consistent in tone and feeling to a world where people possess great stength and can perform backflips mid-combat. It is an exagerrated Heroic Fantasy setting. The physical abilities of the heroes are exaggerated beyond reality. How does that not fit?

[The Hierophant]

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Why is it that the response to anyone saying "that's just a bit too much, and not very realistic" is "there's already dragons/magic/biotics/etc"

At least come up with an actual rebuttal why an idea isn't too far out there rather than just stating "its magic".

Because those things are unrealistic and yet the poster didn't seem to have a problem with them. This indicates that they have arbitrarily drawn a line between what is too unrealistic and what is an acceptable break from reality. An attempt at locking out a style of combat based on realism will always be based on inconsistent reasoning until all unrealistic aspects are removed from the game. Until that day comes, gameplay should be decided on the merits of it's mechanics and the resources required to implement it, not on whether it violates some arbitrary and subjective line between what is an acceptable break from reality and what is not.

No, the gameplay should match the setting and feel of the game.

Zelda had magic, fairies dragons and gods, yet Link didn't run around swinging 2 handed hammers at the speed of light.

DMC had demons, gods, fantastical places, extrodanary chracters, crazy weapons/equipment etc and had gameplay to match the setting.

DA isn't anywhere near DMC in terms of style and feeling. Why are we trying to push it there?

How exactly is sylized and unrealistc combat aginst the tone of DA? It showed up in both games so far. Moreover, if you feel that "realism" is the is the tone and feeling DA is striving for, how can you justify the existance of characters chugging potions they pull out of nowhere mid-combat? Or HP? Or slapping on an "injury kit" and instantly healing a broken bone? Backflips are not ok, but those things are?

It fits the tone of Heroic Fantasy they've been going for. Good gameplay must trump realism.

DA suffers from gameplay and story segregation.(E.g. A warrior is a superhuman juggernaut in combat but lacks the strength to pry open a chest or a wooden door. A rogue could go invisible but they use no potions or magical talent.) Using combat skills as a measure for the physical capabilities of the characters is faulty because a cutscene could easily invalidate in combat feats.(E.g. Hawke being heavily resistant to magic, and staggering but was clowned by that saarebas near the end of act 2.)

Modifié par The Hierophant, 06 octobre 2012 - 10:12 .

[Morroian]

Confused-Shepard wrote...

With the running and the jumping and the dodging and the slashing and the MAAAAGIIICC!! 
I mean KOA was just as much an RPG as Dragon Age if a bit more towards Diablo style loot collection...

Yay or nay?

Nay, its combat would not work in a party based combat system like the DA series.

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

]It was thier mmo project that killed the company Amalur was a success.

No it wasn't. It didn't sell nearly what they were hoping for to at least partially underwrite the mmo.

 

Modifié par Morroian, 06 octobre 2012 - 10:13 .

[withneelandi]

KOA was great fun, but it is solo non party based combat with a very OTT cartoonish style, which fun as it was in KOA is pretty much the opposite of what I want from a Dragon Age game.

If dragon age 3 were to be influenced by the combat in anything, I would suggest Dragons Dogma which was a fantastic blend of squad based tactics and action which at no point veered into cartoonish over the topness found in da2 or KOA. The combat of DD with the ability to micro manage squad tactics from the dragon age games, and the universe and plot of the dragon age games would be a thing of beauty.

[Fawx9]

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

sanity cut

How is stylized combat against the tone of the setting? It's been in both games and was fine both times. Things like the injury kits and potions from nowhere ok? They don't even fit into the context of the world and are purely for gameplay convenience. A world where it has been established that people can summon the dead, hurl fire, control the blood in people's veins, and enter the dreams of others is perfectly consistent in tone and feeling to a world where people possess great stength and can perform backflips mid-combat. It is an exagerrated Heroic Fantasy setting. The physical abilities of the heroes are exaggerated beyond reality. How does that not fit?

How is a potion(something as gamers we've come to just expect) the equivalent of DMC style gameplay. Last I checked a poition != a breifcase that turns into a mobile attack platform or attacks that launch you into the air only to do an overhead slash when landing.

This is what I'm trying to point out. There's varying degress of realism and not every game should put the pedal to the floor just because they are in the fantasy genre.

[MillKill]

Fawx9 wrote...

MillKill wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

sanity cut

How is stylized combat against the tone of the setting? It's been in both games and was fine both times. Things like the injury kits and potions from nowhere ok? They don't even fit into the context of the world and are purely for gameplay convenience. A world where it has been established that people can summon the dead, hurl fire, control the blood in people's veins, and enter the dreams of others is perfectly consistent in tone and feeling to a world where people possess great stength and can perform backflips mid-combat. It is an exagerrated Heroic Fantasy setting. The physical abilities of the heroes are exaggerated beyond reality. How does that not fit?

How is a potion(something as gamers we've come to just expect) the equivalent of DMC style gameplay. Last I checked a poition != a breifcase that turns into a mobile attack platform or attacks that launch you into the air only to do an overhead slash when landing.

This is what I'm trying to point out. There's varying degress of realism and not every game should put the pedal to the floor just because they are in the fantasy genre.

"Degrees of realism" is completely arbitrary and subjective. It will not be the same for everybody. How are the devs supposed to guess what you personally are willing to accept and what you are not? What about me? Or the millions of other players? How can they possibly know where these arbitrary and subjective degrees begin and end. The best they can do is make gameplay that is fun and functional. Whether that is an exciting action-based system like KoA or an ultra-methodical, slow-paced tactical system should be determined by how well it works and the development resources required to implement it, not by "degrees of realism."