223 réponses à ce sujet

[smallwhippet]

It took a little while to adjust to the speed of DA2's combat after DA:O, but, ultimately, I find it much more enjoyable, and DA:O now seems too lugubrious by far.
I play principally for the story rather than the combat, but have come to find the tactical aspect of combat on the harder settings to be very satisfying. I think the wave problem has been addressed, so I'd be very happy to have something like DA2 for DA:I.

[MichaelStuart]

relhart wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I never found neither Dragon Age game hard on Nightmare, just long and repetitive.
I believe that once a strategy to beat a enemy is found, the enemy should die quickly, regardless of difficultly level.
The actual difficultly should come from having to figure out the strategy, never for how much damage a enemy can take.
Because of this I find games like Assassins Creed more tactical than Dragon Age.

I at least died once in awhile in DA2 on nightmare, that just didn't happen in DAO, literaly.  Granted it was because of some cheesy/cheaty mechanics, but I'd rather have an AI that cheats once in awhile to kill me, than one that isn't capable of doing it at all.

I died all the time in both Dragon Age games.
Although I never died due to lack of strategy, it was due to the dice rolling.

[Khayness]

Maverick827 wrote...

It's amazing how, after so long, people are still falsely saying that DAO was more difficult/more tactical than DA2.  DA2's nightmare mode was brutal by comparison to DAO's nightmare.

In DA:O you can send your rogue in to scout ahead (basic RPG operation procedure from ages past), place some traps at choke points, kill an enemy quickly then run back to the rest of your team.

That's tactical.

Repeating an encounter thanks to an Assassin who spawned somehwere, but you couldn't see it getting stealthed because they removed the free camera and it one shotted your DPS/support isn't tactical in my book.

[Iosev]

I personally found Dragon Age 2 consistently more challenging on Nightmare than Dragon Age: Origins on the same difficulty, which I think can be attributed to at least two reasons: lack of enemy-scaling and unbalanced abilities.

In regards to enemies, I think that the enemies in DA:O just could not keep up with you as you progressed through the game (i.e., as you increased in level). Enemies went from withstanding several attacks in Ostagar, to being one-shot with an auto-attack during the Battle of Denerim. In contrast, enemies in DA 2 were consistent in their challenge, regardless of whether you were playing in Act 1 or Act 3.

I think this issue was further exacerbated as you acquired abilities, especially when several of them were tremendously unbalanced. While some abilities and combinations were certainly powerful during the launch of DA 2 (e.g., the stagger-chain lightning combinations), they were no where near the level of absurdity of using Mana Clash to clear out powerful magi, Blood Wound to paralyze and kill an entire group, Cone of Cold's duration and short cooldown, Force Field to tank invulnerably, and so on.

Overall, I think DA:O was more challenging during the beginning of the game (especially if you head directly to Orzammar after Lothering), but dramatically decreases in difficulty as you level and acquire abilities, whereas Dragon Age 2 isn't as difficult as DA:O's beginning, but is far more consistent in difficulty, regardless of level and abilities. As a player, I prefer to be consistently challenged when I play a game, which is why I hope that Dragon Age: Inquisition follows Dragon Age 2 in regards to consistency and balance.

[hexaligned]

arcelonious wrote...

I personally found Dragon Age 2 consistently more challenging on Nightmare than Dragon Age: Origins on the same difficulty, which I think can be attributed to at least two reasons: lack of enemy-scaling and unbalanced abilities.

In regards to enemies, I think that the enemies in DA:O just could not keep up with you as you progressed through the game (i.e., as you increased in level). Enemies went from withstanding several attacks in Ostagar, to being one-shot with an auto-attack during the Battle of Denerim. In contrast, enemies in DA 2 were consistent in their challenge, regardless of whether you were playing in Act 1 or Act 3.

I think this issue was further exacerbated as you acquired abilities, especially when several of them were tremendously unbalanced. While some abilities and combinations were certainly powerful during the launch of DA 2 (e.g., the stagger-chain lightning combinations), they were no where near the level of absurdity of using Mana Clash to clear out powerful magi, Blood Wound to paralyze and kill an entire group, Cone of Cold's duration and short cooldown, Force Field to tank invulnerably, and so on.

Overall, I think DA:O was more challenging during the beginning of the game (especially if you head directly to Orzammar after Lothering), but dramatically decreases in difficulty as you level and acquire abilities, whereas Dragon Age 2 isn't as difficult as DA:O's beginning, but is far more consistent in difficulty, regardless of level and abilities. As a player, I prefer to be consistently challenged when I play a game, which is why I hope that Dragon Age: Inquisition follows Dragon Age 2 in regards to consistency and balance.

Yes, that was DAO's major fault in terms of combat difficulty, enemies stopped scaling at level...it was either 15 or 17, I forget now.

[deuce985]

Catroi wrote...

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

Then why did they leave the franchise with a massive cliffhanger? Defiance didn't give the franchise closure. If the game made money, they'd still be making them.

I believe word of mouth in gaming is your strongest marketing tool. IMO, I believe when gamers have their mind made up about something, they don't look at certain things objectively or give it a fair chance. Obviously, I can't prove this and it's just my opinion. But I'll give an example of a current game - Resident Evil 6. A lot of people are bashing the game without even playing it. I agree, it's not a great game but the way some people word their hate, you know they don't play it. How can you spew hate about a game you've never played?

It's like a bunch of mindless drivel. When enough hate is piled on something, it becomes the "cool" thing to do. 

I read an article recently how metacritic is ruining the game industry and it was a decent article. Based on what I've seen from forums, a lot of people DO base their opinions on others. it's quite sad and makes me facepalm.

"Omg, this review isn't very positive and it's only one opinion. I can't think for myself, therefore, I'm not buying the game."

Reading reviews to reinforce your own opinion is ok. Basing an entire purchase of one person's opinion isn't how it should be done. And this is why a lot of gamers won't objectively look at a game that continues to take jabs and appreciate the game for what it is. Some gamers would be surprised at the gems they can find without listening to a bunch of random opinions.

I gather my own information and decide myself. I only read reviews to get general ideas about the game but I wouldn't ever fully rely on them to make a purchase. I find that reviews will fail to mention certain flaws in a game because it's their opinion. User reviews are more reliable but even then, I take them with a grain of salt. Evidenced by the ME3 outcry on metacritic where half the reviews were complaining about homosexual romances and dipping the score on the game.

I think gaming itself is still very immature because of the gamers.

[ioannisdenton]

deuce985 wrote...

Catroi wrote...

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

Then why did they leave the franchise with a massive cliffhanger? Defiance didn't give the franchise closure. If the game made money, they'd still be making them.

I believe word of mouth in gaming is your strongest marketing tool. IMO, I believe when gamers have their mind made up about something, they don't look at certain things objectively or give it a fair chance. Obviously, I can't prove this and it's just my opinion. But I'll give an example of a current game - Resident Evil 6. A lot of people are bashing the game without even playing it. I agree, it's not a great game but the way some people word their hate, you know they don't play it. How can you spew hate about a game you've never played?

It's like a bunch of mindless drivel. When enough hate is piled on something, it becomes the "cool" thing to do. 

I read an article recently how metacritic is ruining the game industry and it was a decent article. Based on what I've seen from forums, a lot of people DO base their opinions on others. it's quite sad and makes me facepalm.

"Omg, this review isn't very positive and it's only one opinion. I can't think for myself, therefore, I'm not buying the game."

Reading reviews to reinforce your own opinion is ok. Basing an entire purchase of one person's opinion isn't how it should be done. And this is why a lot of gamers won't objectively look at a game that continues to take jabs and appreciate the game for what it is. Some gamers would be surprised at the gems they can find without listening to a bunch of random opinions.

I gather my own information and decide myself. I only read reviews to get general ideas about the game but I wouldn't ever fully rely on them to make a purchase. I find that reviews will fail to mention certain flaws in a game because it's their opinion. User reviews are more reliable but even then, I take them with a grain of salt. Evidenced by the ME3 outcry on metacritic where half the reviews were complaining about homosexual romances and dipping the score on the game.

I think gaming itself is still very immature because of the gamers.

We are going oftopic now but ..
I have stopped watching at professional reviews. Seriously they are idiotic. What does professional reviewer mean anyway? Is there a PHD or something that makes you adept on judging the game?
Reviewers play a filthy part on what you exactly mentioned. People base their opinons in these so called professional  reviews even if they have not played the game at all.
the Score which is a souless number makes the game for many gamers.
Well i play games not scores.
Alpha protocol was bashed on reviewers and i personally when i got to play it (twice that is) i found out a hidden gem.
Combat was poor yes but all the other features of the game were phenomenal. real choices and consequences that drastically alter the game and especially the ending. Me3 i am looking at you even though i love you.
Infamous 2 was another game that got kinda shafted in gamespot (that site is for the lols), the game itself once again was great and once again had 2 alternate storylines (some of them and especially the end). hear that Me3? i am looking at you again.
The only reviews i read are user reviews (not on metacritic as mc is a hate/endorse festival).
Stop listening to professional reviewers. You know better if you like a game or not. The best judge is your personal fun.

[Aulis Vaara]

deuce985 wrote...

Then why did they leave the franchise with a massive cliffhanger? Defiance didn't give the franchise closure. If the game made money, they'd still be making them.

I believe word of mouth in gaming is your strongest marketing tool. IMO, I believe when gamers have their mind made up about something, they don't look at certain things objectively or give it a fair chance. Obviously, I can't prove this and it's just my opinion. But I'll give an example of a current game - Resident Evil 6. A lot of people are bashing the game without even playing it. I agree, it's not a great game but the way some people word their hate, you know they don't play it. How can you spew hate about a game you've never played?

It's like a bunch of mindless drivel. When enough hate is piled on something, it becomes the "cool" thing to do. 

I read an article recently how metacritic is ruining the game industry and it was a decent article. Based on what I've seen from forums, a lot of people DO base their opinions on others. it's quite sad and makes me facepalm.

"Omg, this review isn't very positive and it's only one opinion. I can't think for myself, therefore, I'm not buying the game."

Reading reviews to reinforce your own opinion is ok. Basing an entire purchase of one person's opinion isn't how it should be done. And this is why a lot of gamers won't objectively look at a game that continues to take jabs and appreciate the game for what it is. Some gamers would be surprised at the gems they can find without listening to a bunch of random opinions.

I gather my own information and decide myself. I only read reviews to get general ideas about the game but I wouldn't ever fully rely on them to make a purchase. I find that reviews will fail to mention certain flaws in a game because it's their opinion. User reviews are more reliable but even then, I take them with a grain of salt. Evidenced by the ME3 outcry on metacritic where half the reviews were complaining about homosexual romances and dipping the score on the game.

I think gaming itself is still very immature because of the gamers.

What a load of nonsense. Reviews are there exactly so others can make up their mind about buying a game or not. It's not mindless to base your decisions on what others tell you.

You can insert hyperbole all you want, but the fact is that it's not just one person critiquing a game, it's most of them. There's always someone who doesn't like a game, no-one loses any sleep over that, and no-one decides not to buy a game because of that (unless you know the guy has the same taste as you do).

For the specific case of Resident Evil 6, there is so much more going on than what the game is like. A lot of people have been disliking the turn Resident Evil has taken since Resident Evil 4. They don't want an action packed game, they want survival horror. Fan outcry has been pretty huge. So the devs decided to try to please everyone in the new game and failed at it, judging by all the negative reviews. Another example of how trying to please everyone simply doesn't work. This just gives those disappointed fans more ammo for their disappointment and they voice this.

It's not surprising, it's not even a bad thing they do this. They feel betrayed by a change in genre of a beloved series. Changing the genre of a series is not a nice thing to do to your fans, and it's good that those fans are fighting that fight now, so other developers don't do it in the future. I even wish Mass Effect fans would cry out more about how ME3 was a shooter rather than an RPG.

-----

Then, as for making a decision yourself. Making a decision yourself is pointless in this situation, because in order to make a perfectly informed decision, you have to BUY THE GAME. What's the point of making a decision after you've already spent the money?

And if there's any reason gaming is still immature, it's because people complain about people complaining. You can make up your own mind on which complaints are valuable to you in order to decide whether or not to buy the game, but any complaint is a valid complaint because it gives you a bit more information about the game so you can make an as informed decision as possible.

That said, I do not like homophobes either. It's just stupid to be against two people in love, even more so because it has absolutely nothing to do with you. The complaints about it, however, are useful to these people because they can make a better informed decision, no matter how stupid their convictions are.

-----

And last, word of mouth. That's exactly why I bought Dragon Age: Origins, because someone told be it was an awesome game and I should get it. So don't worry, Bioware, make a kick-ass game and word will spread.

Modifié par Aulis Vaara, 19 octobre 2012 - 06:52 .

[Rawgrim]

A sped up version of the DA:O combat seems to be the way to go. BUT with alot more finishing moves. Seriously. Those really added to the combat. Fighting Kolgrim with my dwarven warrier, seeing Leliana decapitate his wizard in the background. One of my fondest combat memories in the entire series.

[Shadow Fox]

Aulis Vaara you're ignoring how 4 was one of the series best sellers as most "old-Skool" fans do. Really why wouldn't Capcom go in that direction to appease a whiney minority?Oh pulease

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 19 octobre 2012 - 07:09 .

[marshalleck]

BrotherWarth wrote...

I want a combat system that's not as slow and sloggy as Origins, but not as anime-fast and -stylish as DA2. Tactical and precise, but just fast paced enough to be exciting.
But I also want more realistic weapons and more visceral action. No more greatswords that are the size of surfboards and longswords that are the size of greatswords. And more brutality in the combat, like cleaving off limbs cracking skulls. No more comical exploding bad guys.

I'll plug Dark Souls again, with the addition of the DA-traditional tactics for companions. And the ability to swap control to each character, which wouldn't alter the combat mechanics themselves any. This **** would be brilliant.
 

Modifié par marshalleck, 19 octobre 2012 - 07:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rawgrim wrote...

A sped up version of the DA:O combat seems to be the way to go. BUT with alot more finishing moves. Seriously. Those really added to the combat. Fighting Kolgrim with my dwarven warrier, seeing Leliana decapitate his wizard in the background. One of my fondest combat memories in the entire series.

I hated the finishing moves.  They took too long.  A finishing move once made me lose a fight against Jarvia, because by character was too busy decapitating an assassin to turn to face Jarvia.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 octobre 2012 - 07:50 .

[ioannisdenton]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

A sped up version of the DA:O combat seems to be the way to go. BUT with alot more finishing moves. Seriously. Those really added to the combat. Fighting Kolgrim with my dwarven warrier, seeing Leliana decapitate his wizard in the background. One of my fondest combat memories in the entire series.

I hated the finishing moves.  They too too long.  A finishing move once made me lose a fight against Jarvia, because by character was too busy decapitating an assassin to turn to face Jarvia.

yeah. but evertytime it was totally worth it. come on!!! Finishing move on the high dragons?? how fricking awesome was that?? after a hard and long battle you get this treatment. plus the loot!

[Sylvius the Mad]

At the end of battles, they wouldn't be a problem (though I still fail to see any benefit).

[Realmzmaster]

I have no problem with finishing moves at the end of combat, but like Sylvius said the moves took too long. Many times one of the companions in DAO were doing a finishing move and ended up dead because the enemy was still pelting them with arrows.
Also to beat a horse in the ground finishing moves are not realistic in combat and it is not that easy to decapitate someone. Finishing moves look cool but I waging a war not trying to look pretty. Give the option to turn them off.

[upsettingshorts]

I've mentioned them before, but I liked the fatality animations in Age of Conan. They did a couple things right: You were impervious to damage during the entirety of the animation, and your entire group/party received a short but powerful buff for each fatality. So it was a good idea to trigger them in general, as there was literally no downside to them.

I'd recommend checking Youtube for them, but a lot of the clips have hilariously bad music the uploaders added so... mute or don't at your own risk.

[RedWulfi]

I hated the combat in DA2. I never had to use anyone other than Hawke. It felt like a japanese/anime game where I only needed to use aoe and everything dropped dead :/ And I played on hard mode.

[Kileyan]

I'd like something more like DA:O. In theory the faster combat of DA2 should make for a better flowing combat. In practice, the spastic bouncing around of the character, the speed and the bad camera and lack of a tactical view actually made me have to pause more often. I found the combat in DA2 a little annoying, but when combined with the combat waves, it was a deal breaker.

In an ideal world, we'd just have something like DAO, but with a slider for time compression like many games used to ship with as a standard feature.

Whatever they do, they really need to work on the camera or the top down view if Bioware wants to try and be some sort of action combat game.

Modifié par Kileyan, 19 octobre 2012 - 08:22 .

[Shadow Fox]

AndersIsLush wrote...

I hated the combat in DA2. I never had to use anyone other than Hawke. It felt like a japanese/anime game where I only needed to use aoe and everything dropped dead :/ And I played on hard mode.

Most JRPGs I play are a hela harder than both Dragon Age games

[Realmzmaster]

Both games have problems with the combat. Put two or three mages in a DAO party and the game became a cakewalk on Nightmare level. DAO on the PC allowed for a pet per ranger. Given that the gamer could spec three rangers if the warden was a rogue the party effectively went from 4 to 7 on the PC with 5 on the console. Again you could roll through the game on Nightmare.
Also in DAO the gamer could make the rogue extremely hard to hit by Lothering.
Mage combat in DAO is frustrating because the staff is not used for melee combat. The mage keeps trying to shot bolts from the staff instead of using it to pound the enemy. DA2 at least took a step in the right direction in that regard.

DA2 had problems with the waves and paradropping enemy, but that was addressed in the dlc. The speed of DA2 is at least more realistic than DAO. It may be too fast ( as many have stated), but DAO is too slow. DAO combat is slower than BG and NWN (which are no speed demons).

I do not get the reference to Japanese/anime. Diablo, Dungeon Siege etc have faster pace combat than DA2 and are not compared to Japanese/anime.
So I do not see where that comparison comes from.

[MichaelStuart]

Kileyan wrote...
Whatever they do, they really need to work on the camera or the top down view if Bioware wants to try and be some sort of action combat game.

I actual think they should limit the camera more for Dragon Age 3.
Having a limited view of the battlefield makes combat more of a challenge. 

[Gileadan]

I'd prefer a return to DA:O combat, with greater speed and better AI.

DA2 combat was mind numbing. Hordes of splattering cannon fodder with the occasionial tougher enemy that does not adhere to player character classes... no thank you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Kileyan wrote...
Whatever they do, they really need to work on the camera or the top down view if Bioware wants to try and be some sort of action combat game.

I actual think they should limit the camera more for Dragon Age 3.
Having a limited view of the battlefield makes combat more of a challenge.

As long as the game is pausable, we can always take the time we need to survey the battlefield thoroughly.

Restricting the camera just makes that more tedious.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Kileyan wrote...
Whatever they do, they really need to work on the camera or the top down view if Bioware wants to try and be some sort of action combat game.

I actual think they should limit the camera more for Dragon Age 3.
Having a limited view of the battlefield makes combat more of a challenge.

As long as the game is pausable, we can always take the time we need to survey the battlefield thoroughly.

Restricting the camera just makes that more tedious.

If you had complete control over the camera while paused, then yes it would be tedious.
What I'm suggesting is that we would only be only be allow to see what the character could realistically see. So you can move the camera left and right, but not all the way round and see what's behind a character.

[upsettingshorts]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Kileyan wrote...
Whatever they do, they really need to work on the camera or the top down view if Bioware wants to try and be some sort of action combat game.

I actual think they should limit the camera more for Dragon Age 3.
Having a limited view of the battlefield makes combat more of a challenge.

As long as the game is pausable, we can always take the time we need to survey the battlefield thoroughly.

Restricting the camera just makes that more tedious.

If you had complete control over the camera while paused, then yes it would be tedious.
What I'm suggesting is that we would only be only be allow to see what the character could realistically see. So you can move the camera left and right, but not all the way round and see what's behind a character.

I'd be down with that if if the game was a simulation, or had simulated elements like a first-person shooter does.  In that sense, the limitations of realism - line of sight, for example - are super important for twitch games because they have an impact on gameplay.

In RPGs like Dragon Age, characters' perception is abstracted for tactical gameplay reasons.  It's not "realistic" to command four people telepathically from a convenient perspective, no. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 octobre 2012 - 09:44 .