154 réponses à ce sujet

[Bfler]

Realmzmaster wrote...

It is not an example of bad design. I went through a whole playthrough of DA2 with three rogues and a warrior. 

I doubt, that you were able to kill Xebenkeck on a high difficulty with that combination.

[Realmzmaster]

Bfler wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

It is not an example of bad design. I went through a whole playthrough of DA2 with three rogues and a warrior. 

I doubt, that you were able to kill Xebenkeck on a high difficulty with that combination.

Assassinate, Vendetta, All Hands on deck and luring her so she is by herself. Hard but not impossible. Even easier if you do Legacy and MoTA before that quest. The Messenger armor is really nice. Also leave it to near the end of the second act.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 08 octobre 2012 - 07:02 .

[Ozida]

I'd like something like DA2, to be honest. Maybe it was because I played it before I played DA:O. But DA:O feels a bit... clumsy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Or you know we could enjoy the animations and less tedious feel of DA2's combat more or that staves actually had a purpose and fuctioned more like a weapon in 2 compared to Origins

I really didn't like how staves were mandatory in DA2.  In DAO, mages could carry other weapons, or no weapons at all.  If we didn't like the staff animation in DAO, we could just not carry one.

DA2 didn't give us that option.  If we didn't like the staff animations in DA2, we were out of luck.

DAO offered more options, therefore DAO was better.

[Blessed Silence]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

DAO please and I'm a mage player. And what's so bad about it being slow? Is patience non-existant now?

DA2 combat for mages was great, but good lord .. 2 handed warriors in DA2 was just .. not believeable.

DAO combat was slow, yes, but it felt much more real.  Now if they just fixed the tactics I think it would be even better!

[Il Divo]

DA2, hands down. I enjoyed the faster pace and talent trees much more than its predecessor. I was surprised at how much fun the Rogue turned out to be.

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Or you know we could enjoy the animations and less tedious feel of DA2's combat more or that staves actually had a purpose and fuctioned more like a weapon in 2 compared to Origins

I really didn't like how staves were mandatory in DA2.  In DAO, mages could carry other weapons, or no weapons at all.  If we didn't like the staff animation in DAO, we could just not carry one.

DA2 didn't give us that option.  If we didn't like the staff animations in DA2, we were out of luck.

DAO offered more options, therefore DAO was better.

Swords were pretty useless for a mage as well though imo since they couldn't use the talents for them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Or you know we could enjoy the animations and less tedious feel of DA2's combat more or that staves actually had a purpose and fuctioned more like a weapon in 2 compared to Origins

I really didn't like how staves were mandatory in DA2.  In DAO, mages could carry other weapons, or no weapons at all.  If we didn't like the staff animation in DAO, we could just not carry one.

DA2 didn't give us that option.  If we didn't like the staff animations in DA2, we were out of luck.

DAO offered more options, therefore DAO was better.

Swords were pretty useless for a mage as well though imo since they couldn't use the talents for them.

That's a specious argument; there weren't any talents for staves, either.  Mages didn't have talents for any weapons.

[Rylor Tormtor]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Killer3000ad wrote...

Shevy_001 wrote...
 
The skill trees in DA II were better.

Glad I am not the only one who prefers DAO combat for DA3 with DA2's skill trees. 

THIS

*Both quotes editted to keep my point simple.

You mean those great skill trees that shoe horned warriors and rogues into only two types of combat and the ones where companion skill trees were better than anything you could get? 

Ya, those were awesome. Like a button.

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Or you know we could enjoy the animations and less tedious feel of DA2's combat more or that staves actually had a purpose and fuctioned more like a weapon in 2 compared to Origins

I really didn't like how staves were mandatory in DA2.  In DAO, mages could carry other weapons, or no weapons at all.  If we didn't like the staff animation in DAO, we could just not carry one.

DA2 didn't give us that option.  If we didn't like the staff animations in DA2, we were out of luck.

DAO offered more options, therefore DAO was better.

Swords were pretty useless for a mage as well though imo since they couldn't use the talents for them.

That's a specious argument; there weren't any talents for staves, either.  Mages didn't have talents for any weapons.

hence why I liked 2 better staves actually seemed to have a purpose.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They were functionally identical. There still weren't staff combat talents, and they were still used as an auto-attack.

The only difference was in how the staff you were using affected your spell damage, which was a lore-breaking change.

[Celtic Latino]

DA2's combat without the exploding bodies and exaggerated moves (butterfly kicks, twirling staffs), or at least keep the exaggerated moves for finishers/once in a while. Makes it a little more realistic.

Definitely not Origins' combat. Too clunky and slow for my tastes.

[BerserKFang]

DAO animation for ever and ever

[Melca36]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

I prefer DA2 combat. Smoother, more fluid, more clean-cut. I did not like auto combat - it's boring. I feel less in control. It's like that halfway point between action and turn-based. Eh. In a game like Dragon Age, action fighting combined with tactical is the way to go.  

Developers have already said its going to be different so I would not expect DA2 combat in DA3. I would expect the best elements from both games because DA2s was all hack and slash and some people wanted depth to the combat.

[Melca36]

Il Divo wrote...

DA2, hands down. I enjoyed the faster pace and talent trees much more than its predecessor. I was surprised at how much fun the Rogue turned out to be.

LOL.  Then why are the developers changing it again if it was so successful?

[Kaidan Fan]

I think maybe I preferred the pace in DA2 but missed the trees of DA:O.

Ah, dual wielding warrior how I missed thee.

[MichaelStuart]

If I had to choose I would go with Dragon Age 2, as it found it LESS tedious than Dragon Age Origins.

[Vilegrim]

DAO. maybe slightly (5-10%) faster on 2h swings, and maybe some more animation on mage staff, but apart from that DA:O all the way.

[Realmzmaster]

I prefer DA2 especially for rogues and mages. I am replaying DAO. The improvements for these two classes is much appreciated.

[Wozearly]

DA:O was definitely superior (IMO), but I think a sensible balance could be struck by taking the DA:O model and adding a selected handful of tweaks from what was tried in DA2 (e.g. greater responsiveness, skill upgrades) whilst consigning its less ideal features (e.g. unnecessary additional speed/pace, overpoweredness vs generic enemies causing huge HP pools to be required on lieutenant+ enemies and general over-the-topness) to the dustbin of history.

I'm expecting that its more likely that the majority of idiocies from DA2 will be continued with some sensible tweaks from DA:O's approach, but I live in hope it'll be the other way around.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Origins Warriors had 3 choices: Sword and Board, Dual Wield, or Two Handed.

Uh, I'm sure warriors could also have archer talents in DAO.

[Overlord_Mephist]

I'm glad my cursed yuri goggles prevents me from equipping nostalgia goggles. Using "depth" or "realism" to compare either game's combat is hilarious.

P.S. two-handed sword weren't that heavy, in rEaLiTY.

[Wozearly]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Origins Warriors had 3 choices: Sword and Board, Dual Wield, or Two Handed.

Origins weapon skill talents;

Warrior - Weapon & Shield, Dual weapons, Two handed and Archery
Rogue - Dual weapons, Archery
Mage - None, but in practice used staves unless Arcane Warrior tank, in which case generally Sword & Shield

DA2 weapon skill talents;

Warrior - Weapon & Shield, Two handed
Rogue - Dual weapons, Archery
Mage - None, but always had to equip staves


Origins took its flexibility via the weapons system. There was nothing stopping you equipping weapons that you weren't trained in, which could be useful in specific situations - such as having your melee classes switch to ranged attacks rather than move through a trap-ridden corridor, having a rogue (or AW mage) switch to sword & shield if your main tank bit the dust.

DA2 railroaded weapon choices, but expanded significantly within the weapon trees and specialisations to allow for you to more permanently customise a character towards offence, support or defence, and very heavily incentivised companions into certain roles via their unique trees. Much more active choice-making than in DA:O, but IMO less engaging.

Throwing defensive abilities onto a primarily offensive character (or vice versa) in DA2 to give them an element of flexibility (sometimes necessary for higher level talents) always felt more like a wasted skill point rather than an insurance against things going wrong. The same opportunity existed to a lesser extent in DA:O, but weapon flexibility allowed for a lot of low-cost on-the-fly decisions about taking someone out of their primary role without requiring you to burn skill points long in advance in case a hypothetical disaster happened.

Bit too 'vancian' for my liking.