226 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow Fox]

Morroian wrote...

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.

 

The reason it needed to sell so much was because the owner took a huge loan to fund his mmo project which most people would say was a stupid idea since he had just got his company started and considering that there was a sequel being developed before the company went under I'd say they considered it a success.

[Fawx9]

MillKill wrote...

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."

The combat system still needs to fit into the setting of the world or game you've created. You start breaking things when your on one side of the high fantasy scale for combat and then try to present the world as something you'd find in Arthurian legend. Things just start to feel out of place. (Why can't my warrior just break this door down?)

So lets try this example.

You have a game like Need for Speed Underground. A standard racing game where you can get away with ok handling (not breaking/slowing on every turn, using walls to bounce you around people, etc) cause it's not meant to be exlusive to the simulation crowd. Next to it you have Forza, a game that caters much more to that simulation crowd, where if your hadnling is not good you start to very quickly fall behind.

If they ever made NFS:U 2 would you want them to go to a Forza type handling for it? Or keep it the same relaxed handling? Both work, both have shown to be good gameplay. However if the rest of the game stays the same, then one of those choice is not going to fit.

For DA could you imagine one of the templars or red ridge defenders pulling off attack combos like in DMC or FF? If you can, without laughing, then maybe it is possible. But if not, then maybe the devs should just stay away from that type of gameplay.

I'm not saying they have to go completly back to DA:O combat, but they shouldn't go full crazy action just because they can(the "well there's already dragons" excuse). They should find somethng that fits the world and game they've created.

[slimgrin]

DA:O would have been better as a turn based game. It never made the compromise a strategic pause and play game should. Mass Effect did; tactical and real time was combined quite well. Pausing in DA doesn't offer the same advantage it does in Mass Effect because it takes an eternity for team AI to play out. It's caught in an ugly middle ground. DA3 should be turn-based imo.

Modifié par slimgrin, 06 octobre 2012 - 11:30 .

[The Hierophant]

slimgrin wrote...

DA:O would have been better as a turn based game. It never made the compromise a strategic pause and play game should. Mass Effect did; tactical and real time was combined quite well. Pausing in DA doesn't offer the same advantage it does in Mass Effect because it takes an eternity for team AI to play out. It's caught in an ugly middle ground. DA3 should be turn-based imo.

Sounds like Final Fantasy 12.

[Kyle Kabanya]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

Alright, I understand its a game, that's why magic and magical items are included, but seriously, the modern day action type fighting looked so out of place

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

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?

Hell no. 

[hexaligned]

NO. Some aspects of KOA were alright, spending half the game rolling around on the ground to evade got annoying fast though, and it was too easy. Once you mastered the complex combat mechanic of "press B to roll" (or whatever button it was), you could get through the game without taking a single hit. The animations looked silly to me as well.

[Lenimph]

NO NO NO NO NO NO

If DA3 has combat that is not consistent with the last two games I probably wouldn't even make a purchase.

[ObserverStatus]

I'd prefer WarCraft III style combat, but to each his own I suppose.

[The Hierophant]

Lenimph wrote...

NO NO NO NO NO NO

If DA3 has combat that is not consistent with the last two games I probably wouldn't even make a purchase.

I'm glad you agree that Dragon's Dogma's combat system is better suited for the DA series than KOA.

[hexaligned]

The Hierophant wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

NO NO NO NO NO NO

If DA3 has combat that is not consistent with the last two games I probably wouldn't even make a purchase.

I'm glad you agree that Dragon's Dogma's combat system is better suited for the DA series than KOA.

This however, would be incredible. 
Then again I'm just jonesing for the expansion. (and the "Hard mode" patch).

Modifié par relhart, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:47 .

[The Hierophant]

relhart wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

NO NO NO NO NO NO

If DA3 has combat that is not consistent with the last two games I probably wouldn't even make a purchase.

I'm glad you agree that Dragon's Dogma's combat system is better suited for the DA series than KOA.

This however, would be incredible. 
Then again I'm just jonesing for the expansion.

I heard that Capcom is offering it for free, and it scares me because it's Capcom offering an expansion for free. 

[Realmzmaster]

MillKill wrote...


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.

I never said everyone, but what you suggest would remove the accessibility that is already there in the past two games. Also there is no consensus that everyone wants to go the more actiony route. You are assuming that the majority want the more actiony combat. What data do you have to support that premise? 

What if the majority want combat to stay as it is or return to turn based combat. I cannot speak for the majority, but I can speak for the minority of one myself. If EA/Bioware chooses to go that more actiony route then that is one less sale that DA3 will make. I also have the feeling I would not be alone in that opinion.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 07 octobre 2012 - 04:39 .

[thats1evildude]

Eh. I didn't really care for the combat in KoA. I found it kind of frustrating.

[Sarcastic]

The issue I have with action RPG's is that there are so many of them. Fable, KoA, Darksiders, GoW etc. What is wrong with stat driven combat? Do most find it boring?

[sharkboy421]

Palidine_0225 wrote...

The issue I have with action RPG's is that there are so many of them. Fable, KoA, Darksiders, GoW etc. What is wrong with stat driven combat? Do most find it boring?

For my the issue was DAO felt like it couldn't decide what it wanted to be.  Pause the game and giving orders tried to make it a turn based tactical game but once you unpaused things didn't always go the way you expected.  And if you tried to play in real time it wasn't much better as your characters took forever to perform attacks.  I feel game play would benefit from picking one or the other: either a heavy, tactical gameplay where you control the  party or an action based gameplay where you control the pc and issue some orders.

Also I personally am not a huge fan of stat driven combat.  I find it boring and would prefer one that incorporates more player skill along with stats.  But there is nothing wrong with it, that is just my preference.

And I have seen said several times and I've mentioned it as well; I would just be over the moon if DA3 used a hybrid of the combat from Dragon's Dogma with the ability to issue orders and set tactics from the previous DA games. 

[silentassassin264]

If they want to go the action rpg route, I would really like it if they went the KoA route because that was pretty nice. I don't really mind if they want to go action or tactical, just for the love of god don't do a crappy hybrid like DA2. DA2's combat was a mix of both and did neither right. Just pick one and do it well and I will be satisfied.

[ManOfSteel]

No.

[TCBC_Freak]

bobobo878 wrote...

I'd prefer WarCraft III style combat, but to each his own I suppose.

You want an RTS? Like building armies and buildings and stuff?

Edit: I meant to address the topic too, my bad, lol. No, no to KoA combat. I like DA2 combat, other than some animations issues which ought to be fixed in this game, what with more time to make it and a new engine and all, it was a good blend between action and tac. You could use your basic attack or skills in real time and it worked well or you could bring up the wheel and plan ahead. I keep seeing people say the middle ground, and that was it. If you didn't like DA2 then it's not a middle ground you want but a full tilt one way or the other. I like the middle ground DA2 had... but that's me and you are 100% free to think I'm nuts.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 07 octobre 2012 - 07:52 .

[Huge_Beaver]

No.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

player skill cannot matter.  RPG combat needs to be playable by a quadriplegic.  Playable slowly, but playable.

That's your standard.  If a severely physically disabled person can't play it, then it's not okay for a roleplaying game.

CRPGs shouldn't have any more physical barriers to entry than tabletop games do, and tabletop RPGs never require twitch gameplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I never said everyone, but what you suggest would remove the accessibility that is already there in the past two games. Also there is no consensus that everyone wants to go the more actiony route. You are assuming that the majority want the more actiony combat. What data do you have to support that premise? 

What if the majority want combat to stay as it is or return to turn based combat. I cannot speak for the majority, but I can speak for the minority of one myself. If EA/Bioware chooses to go that more actiony route then that is one less sale that DA3 will make. I also have the feeling I would not be alone in that opinion.

You would not.

I was quite vocal about how valuable ME's aim-while-paused feature was.  Only because I could aim my weapon while paused (thus completely eliminating any twitch element) was ME playable at all.

I gave up on The Witcher after 10 minutes because the combat was too twitchy.  I gave up on KoA after about 30 minutes because the combat was too twitchy.  I gave up on Diablo 2 almost instantly because the combat was too twitchy.

[AlbinaTekla]

i actually agree with the Dragon Dogma combat. Imagine seeing your lovely squad mates tackling monsters like the pawns do. Dragon's Dogma's story was like barely there, everyone knows that Bioware makes great story and characters. Mesh those two together it would be amazing!

[TEWR]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

player skill cannot matter.  RPG combat needs to be playable by a quadriplegic.  Playable slowly, but playable.

That's your standard.  If a severely physically disabled person can't play it, then it's not okay for a roleplaying game.

CRPGs shouldn't have any more physical barriers to entry than tabletop games do, and tabletop RPGs never require twitch gameplay.

Not to detract from your point but.... how would a quadriplegic be able to play an RPG? Wouldn't they be unable to due to not having any control over their arms? Wouldn't the correct term be paraplegic?

Anyway, I say try and go both routes, and in such form that is significantly better then what DAII attempted. Meaning both routes work, with minimal drawbacks/flaws if any.

Though I haven't played KoA:R yet, so I can't say I'm advocating that at this point in time.