223 réponses à ce sujet

[Brass_Buckles]

I would like to see faster combat than DA:O without the emphasis on "flash" from DA2. No crazy anime jumping around. And, I want the return of tactics. Rogues teleporting behind someone to backstab was just silly. The DA lore even tells us teleporting isn't possible without insane amounts of magical energy, and then it's very dangerous. So while I know it's just visual, that was very lore-breaking. Let me pull up my isometric view and see what's going on.

It doesn't have to be purely strategic, no, but having the ability to use strategy certainly helps. I was never all that great at DAO's combat, but I felt that DA2's was simply too much about visuals. And, should I not get some kind of bonus if I use strategic abilities/movements for my character? I think I should, regardless whether it's actiony or not.

[Fishy]

Geez people are so radical sometime.. It's either

- DA2 was mashy mashy .. Oh my gawd awesome button!!!!.. Console porting bOOHOO
Or
-DA:O was so sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow  ... I felt asleep ...

It's like 2 kids arguing whose father is stronger. Because all that matter is winning the argument and not contribuating to the conversation by adding a strong critic that can actually SERVE someone others than your ego...

GEEZ people these day ... They should listen to me.. I have the truth...If not than you're wrong.. Because I am the only one that matters. Oh yeah.

Modifié par Suprez30, 19 octobre 2012 - 01:23 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Suprez30 wrote...

Geez people are so radical sometime.. It's either

- DA2 was mashy mashy .. Oh my gawd awesome button!!!!.. Console porting bOOHOO
Or
-DA:O was so sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow  ... I felt asleep ...

It's like 2 kids arguing whose father is stronger. Because all that matter is winning the argument and not contribuating to the conversation by adding a strong critic that can actually SERVE someone others than your ego...

GEEZ people these day ... They should listen to me.. I have the truth...If not than you're wrong.. Because I am the only one that matters. Oh yeah.

To be perfectly honest, the post you just did brought nothing of value or contributed to the conversation, other than to unhelpfully complain about unhelpful complaining. 



More on topic, I found DA2's combat to have lots of tactical aspects to it, but which were dilluted and obscured by other mechancis, like the multi-spawned waves in most encounters. Features like Cross class Combos were something I'd like to see even further expanded, incorporating the ability to have same-class combos, like in DA:O, while also promoting party diversity with Cross class Combos as well. 

The CCC system could use work in identifying exactly what modifier was being put into play. I set AI tactics to use skills that set up the combos, but had trouble identifying what exactly the symbol was when I saw an enemy that was affected. All the signs were rather squigly and white (and the fact that they were rotating made it a little more difficult as well). I think if they are going to keep three types of "setup" states, they should try and color code them to make it a little easier to pin point which skill exactly needs to be acted on. Because given the difficulty in correctly picking these out, I would set up the Tactics screen to always take advantage of these and then flip between companions when I saw one of the states pop up, so the AI could do the work of seeing which state it was and use the correct skill accordingly. 

[Massakkolia]

marshalleck wrote...

 Both games simply lacked the NPC tactical scripting Bioware have implemented in DA so far. Take the base combat gameplay of either of the two titles, then add the companion tactics. I thought its inclusion was obvious so I didn't say it, but there you have it.

Not quite. Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls also lacked direct control over the companions in your party (of course, in the case of Dark Souls there was no party). In Dragon Age you can leave the companions on their own and trust in the tactics you've prearranged prior entering the battle. In addition, you can take direct control of any character in your party, give them commands, move them around and so on. Pausing the game is also vital to the strategic quality of the game (though this element could possibly be replaced by something innovative).

Controlling the whole party makes a big difference to the game design. In my opinion, if you just glue tactical scripting to Dragon's Dogma or Dark Souls system it is not a true party-based game. You will still only control the protagonist.  

This sort of system could certainly be great and it would have improved Dragon's Dogma immensely. However, that's not Dragon Age. We don't have enough party-based RPGs on the market and I don't want Dragon Age to move too far away from its roots.

I'm not sure if a Dragon's Dogma like system involving lots of real-time jumping, grabbing and evading is quite as easy implement for a whole party as it is for a single combatant. Maybe it's possible and I hope Bioware tries different things but I doubt it's simple. 

Modifié par Ria, 19 octobre 2012 - 01:50 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Ria wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

 Both games simply lacked the NPC tactical scripting Bioware have implemented in DA so far. Take the base combat gameplay of either of the two titles, then add the companion tactics. I thought its inclusion was obvious so I didn't say it, but there you have it.

Not quite. Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls also lacked direct control over the companions in your party (of course, in the case of Dark Souls there was no party). In Dragon Age you can leave the companions on their own and trust in the tactics you've prearranged prior entering the battle. In addition, you can take direct control of any character in your party, give them commands, move them around and so on. Pausing the game is also vital to the strategic quality of the game (though this element could possibly be replaced by something innovative).

Controlling the whole party makes a big difference to the game design. In my opinion, if you just glue tactical scripting to Dragon's Dogma or Dark Souls system it is not a true party-based game. You will still only control the protagonist.  

This sort of system could certainly be great and it would have improved Dragon's Dogma immensely. However, that's not Dragon Age. We don't have enough party-based RPGs on the market and I don't want Dragon Age to move too far away from its roots.

I'm not sure if a Dragon's Dogma like system involving lots of real-time jumping, grabbing and evading is quite as easy implement for a whole party as it is for a single combatant. Maybe it's possible and I hope Bioware tries different things but I doubt it's simple. 

I actually wouldn't totally riot in the streets if control was just limited to the PC, while our companions were controlled by AI, and directed to use skills/spells or told to move into certain positions, like the way ME does it. I would like a four-person party (I'd actually like more, five or six would be the best) rather than ME's three, though. Not sure if that was a game balance decision in ME or if it was a UI of controlling the companions thing. 

But regardless, if reliquishing the ability to flip between companions let us have more interaction with the environment when we were fighting or resulted in us being able to do things like incorporate a stealth mechanic, I'd be willing to accept losing part control in combat. But it would all have to be done fairly well. A clunky interace is a game breaking experience, especially when changing styles mid-franchise.

[Massakkolia]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I actually wouldn't totally riot in the streets if control was just limited to the PC, while our companions were controlled by AI, and directed to use skills/spells or told to move into certain positions, like the way ME does it. I would like a four-person party (I'd actually like more, five or six would be the best) rather than ME's three, though. Not sure if that was a game balance decision in ME or if it was a UI of controlling the companions thing. 

But regardless, if reliquishing the ability to flip between companions let us have more interaction with the environment when we were fighting or resulted in us being able to do things like incorporate a stealth mechanic, I'd be willing to accept losing part control in combat. But it would all have to be done fairly well. A clunky interace is a game breaking experience, especially when changing styles mid-franchise.

I don't know. I can see a system like that working fantastically well and I'd love to play a game like that but I guess I'd just rather keep Dragon Age as a "pure" party-based RPG. They are an endangered species after all.

I do want Bioware to drastically improve and innovate the old systems (both DA:O and DA2), though. Perhaps we could have more free combat movement (jumping, grabbing etc.) for the protagonist while the rest of the party would be more traditionally controlled.

Modifié par Ria, 19 octobre 2012 - 02:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I actually wouldn't totally riot in the streets if control was just limited to the PC, while our companions were controlled by AI, and directed to use skills/spells or told to move into certain positions, like the way ME does it.

I would totally riot in the streets if we got action combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 octobre 2012 - 02:29 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I actually wouldn't totally riot in the streets if control was just limited to the PC, while our companions were controlled by AI, and directed to use skills/spells or told to move into certain positions, like the way ME does it.

I would totally riot in the streets if we got action combat.

It could still be pause and play, and you would still be in control of companion placement and skill/spell usage. But, yes, I know you would be leading the charge in that riot Sylvius. And it wouldn't take but a bump in the road of the gameplay to get me right in line behind you.

[marshalleck]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I actually wouldn't totally riot in the streets if control was just limited to the PC, while our companions were controlled by AI, and directed to use skills/spells or told to move into certain positions, like the way ME does it.

I would totally riot in the streets if we got action combat.

You already got a bad version of it in DA2. If they want to go that direction they should at least look at games that do it well.

Modifié par marshalleck, 19 octobre 2012 - 02:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

marshalleck wrote...

You already got a bad version of it in DA2.

DA2's combat was pausable point-and-click target selection.  I see no action elements there at all.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 octobre 2012 - 02:40 .

[marshalleck]

There was also the awesome button auto attack and jittery jumping around the playfield, and enemies that would literally drop into the fight out of thin air. Like I said, a bad version of an action RPG. They could have done much better if they weren't trying to make concessions to archaic game design.

Modifié par marshalleck, 19 octobre 2012 - 02:45 .

[Dirty Whore]

Maria Caliban wrote...

DA II was in development for two years, DA:O for 5-7 years. Even with half the sales, they'd still make more profit.

As for combat, I prefer large two-handed swords for to chop up baddies, but even more than that, I'd prefer stealth or non-lethal options.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

the hilarity!

if it doesn't involve mindless button mashing you can kiss those dreams goodbye.

[Maria Caliban]

I started to reply and then noticed your forum handle. Call me judgmental, but I suspect you are a troll.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It could still be pause and play

How?  The actual gameplay being cited here is Dragon's Dogma, which is a pure action game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 octobre 2012 - 06:24 .

[marshalleck]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I started to reply and then noticed your forum handle. Call me judgmental, but I suspect you are a troll.

Don't be jealous.

[Allan Schumacher]

Thread is starting to spin towards lockdown.

[Brian Lewis]

Much prefer the combat in Origins. DA2's combat was too fast, the waves made it feel like I was fighting against Zapp Brannigan, and it felt so hack and slash that if someone, for example Hawke, was at low health, I expected a diembodied voice to cry out "Hawke needs food badly." And I will feel old if no one gets that reference.

[Sainna]

Really, the reason why Dragon Age 2 did not do as well was mostly due to the repeative scenary and other signs that the game was in the end rushed out ( yes, we still blame EA and you cant convince us that they have no influence over such things bioware!

[Catroi]

deuce985 wrote...

Was it financially successful though? 5 year development cycle and about 4-5 million copies sold. DA2 is on about a year and six month dev cycle - sold about half of DAO. Which would you view as being more financially successful for the company? Probably DA2 because I doubt it came close to DAO's budget. I don't think you can say for sure that DAO was a big success for Bioware financially.

That probably also played into why EA/Bioware decided to make DA2 so fast. Bank on the success and recover whatever money they lost over the years.

To be honest with you, DA3 can be an absolutely amazing game and it still won't see huge commercial numbers. I believe once some gamers view a franchise as being "damaged", they won't give them a second chance. I think some gamers will have their minds made up about the game without even watching any footage, unfortunately. This might be the last DA game.

Remember the Legacy of Kain games? Blood Omen 2 was utter garbage, didn't stop people from buying Defiance

[Maria Caliban]

I don't think it was utter garbage; I think it was Deus Ex 2: Invisible War or Silent Hill 3. A fair game, constrained by its console limitations and dwarfed by superior entries in the series.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Neither were exemplary really

[KylieDog]

DA2 combat was crap. Just push damage and wipe out gimpy wave after gimpy wave for most of the game. Yawn.

Origins was much better, fewer enemies but they didn't die in an instant and a balanced character build and tactics actually came into play.

[Xewaka]

What style do I prefer?
Turn based.
I grew up on a steady diet of PnP RPG, Civilization, and Heroes of Might and Magic. Some people believe turn based existed only because real time was hard to do. Others know it exists because it is fun, engaging, and challenging in a different way.
For DA3? Considering both DA:O and DA2 were, at their core, tactical pause and play with full party control, I'd like to retain that. I'd be thankful if they tone down the over-the-top animations so I don't roll my eyes off my skull at the silliness of it all, but the mechanical core wasn't bad.