328 réponses à ce sujet

[Dubya75]

One thing I am NOT a fan of from the previous DA games is the automatic combat engagement.
I want control over when I draw my weapons (in or out of combat) and I also want control over each strike.
Yes, like in Skyrim and Witcher 2.

[philippe willaume]

johndud0 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I would actually prefer if they went back to the turn-based approach. I really enjoyed that sense of the player being locked in a duel of death with another opponent, though I'm not certain how difficult this would be to implement. .

I liked it too, but the current devs seem big on reactivity, which the turn based approach totally contradicts.

DA2's combat was less reactive than DAO's combat.  In DA2, characters wouldn't immediately respond to my instructions, instead having to complete the animation of whatever they were already doing.

But in DAO, those animations were interruptable, so the characters would immediately respond.

DAO's combat was more reactive than DA2's.

Characters would also still get hit with 2H weapons when running  2 meters away.

yes that is true and arrows would have curved trajectory to actually hit you when you dodged. 

we are mot saying DA:0 combat is the dog danglers of all combat system we are saying that it is more responsive and offer more options that makes working around its problem much much more viable than DA:2.



KiddDaBeauty  and DaringMoosejaw mentioned that it was easy to go around your tank in DA:0 as they are strolling nonchalantly towards the enemy, and it  is true but because DA: let you gather Intel, let you place companion where you want and as far of each other as you want, let you interrupt animation, and let char and comp having two weapon specialisations, you can come up with a viable tactical alternative for any terrain you are in. 
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 25 octobre 2012 - 08:01 .

[Il Divo]

Hanz54321 wrote...

I wonder how many of you have ever swung a sword at another human being who was swinging one at you. Or fired a bow at anything.

I see a lot of people saying that DAO looked unrealistic - the greatswords were too slow (I timed them - they go at th same speed as the long swords) - and what not. But how many people know what real really looks like.

Never have, but I'm guessing it wouldn't involve awkward pauses in combat or me and my opponent repeating the same two motions ad infinitum. What DA:O fails to capture is the chaos of what (I suspect) real combat is actually like. DA:O does not display two characters locked in actual combat. The character performs an attack animation...then there is an awkward pause as if the character is not sure what he's supposed to do...followed by another attack animation. If I'm (somehow) mistaken and this is what real combat is actually like, then put simply I don't think any game worth its salt should bother pursuing real combat.

That's why I make so many KotOR comparisons; the speed at which the combat takes place gives the impression that it's all instinctual. Earlier, someone made the comparison to awkward stage-fighting, that's exactly what comes to mind when I watch DA:O's combat in action. KotOR's pseudo turn-based system gives the impression that the character is actually reacting to his opponents movements.

Mind you, a game doesn't need to have a million different combat animations to be good, but the autoattack really was the downfall of DA:O, especially when placed next to the brutality of the execution maneuvers.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 octobre 2012 - 10:32 .

[Salaya]

Looking at Hawkemage swing her staff like some kind of power ranger was one of the most dispappointin and ridiculous moments I had while playing DA2. I couldn't believe they had turned the visceral, brilliant looking animations from Origins in that childish thing.

Bioware says nothing about this topic, so I'm afraid we'll have to suffer from the ludicrous animations again. Waves and jumping templars for everyone...

[philippe willaume]

Il Divo wrote...

Hanz54321 wrote...

I wonder how many of you have ever swung a sword at another human being who was swinging one at you. Or fired a bow at anything.

I see a lot of people saying that DAO looked unrealistic - the greatswords were too slow (I timed them - they go at th same speed as the long swords) - and what not. But how many people know what real really looks like.

Never have, but I'm guessing it wouldn't involve awkward pauses in combat or me and my opponent repeating the same two motions ad infinitum. What DA:O fails to capture is the chaos of what (I suspect) real combat is actually like. DA:O does not display two characters locked in actual combat. The character performs an attack animation...then there is an awkward pause as if the character is not sure what he's supposed to do...followed by another attack animation. If I'm (somehow) mistaken and this is what real combat is actually like, then put simply I don't think any game worth its salt should bother pursuing real combat.

That's why I make so many KotOR comparisons; the speed at which the combat takes place gives the impression that it's all instinctual. Earlier, someone made the comparison to awkward stage-fighting, that's exactly what comes to mind when I watch DA:O's combat in action. KotOR's pseudo turn-based system gives the impression that the character is actually reacting to his opponents movements.

Mind you, a game doesn't need to have a million different combat animations to be good, but the autoattack really was the downfall of DA:O, especially when placed next to the brutality of the execution maneuvers.

well I spare quite a lot with long sword simulators, I have test cut mister dead piggy and countless bottle, wet paper and mats.

DA:0 is not close to what fencing actually is but it is closer than DA:2.



as you said real fight is boring by nature and design part of the plan is not dying or not being maimed, so conservative strikes are what you are after. so basically, your are building your fight and it is not haphazard and random.
how it looks like depends of you and your opponents. 
I spared kali, escrima and gatka practitioner, they did flourish and moves much more than me. 
My understanding of Ringeck fencing method, is that you stay out of distance and you get in to finish the job and if something sticks out and it is safe (ie you have angle and distance) take it.

So that looks like boots of action, in a sea of not that much happening (passing the point is quite hard without exposing your hands).

when two kali or escrima guy spare together, you have more action but the same remains true.

In fact real fencing and the move that goes with it are actually quite nice, so you can use real combat moves for animations.

Da combat is team based, so unless you have vocal command you will need a mechanism to order you companion about hence the pause 
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 25 octobre 2012 - 12:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

johndud0 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DA2's combat was less reactive than DAO's combat.  In DA2, characters wouldn't immediately respond to my instructions, instead having to complete the animation of whatever they were already doing.

But in DAO, those animations were interruptable, so the characters would immediately respond.

DAO's combat was more reactive than DA2's.

Characters would also still get hit with 2H weapons when running  2 meters away.

Because the hit calculation was done while the target was in range.

That's a good feature.  It eliminates any manual dodging of melee attacks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dubya75 wrote...

One thing I am NOT a fan of from the previous DA games is the automatic combat engagement.
I want control over when I draw my weapons (in or out of combat) and I also want control over each strike.
Yes, like in Skyrim and Witcher 2.

Both DA games offer control over each strike.  They just don't make that level of control mandatory.

Or are you saying you want action combat?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 octobre 2012 - 04:44 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

johndud0 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DA2's combat was less reactive than DAO's combat.  In DA2, characters wouldn't immediately respond to my instructions, instead having to complete the animation of whatever they were already doing.

But in DAO, those animations were interruptable, so the characters would immediately respond.

DAO's combat was more reactive than DA2's.

Characters would also still get hit with 2H weapons when running  2 meters away.

Because the hit calculation was done while the target was in range.

That's a good feature.  It eliminates any manual dodging of melee attacks.

Unfrotunately the animation was not in sync with the calculation which causes the problem.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

One thing I am NOT a fan of from the previous DA games is the automatic combat engagement.
I want control over when I draw my weapons (in or out of combat) and I also want control over each strike.
Yes, like in Skyrim and Witcher 2.

Both DA games offer control over each strike.  They just don't make that level of control mandatory.

Or are you saying you want action combat?

Yes, I think that is what he may be asking. I see no reason for that level of control unless the system gives the ability to aim at different parts of the enemy's body which I do not believe the Witcher 2 or Skyrim do.

[Lennard Testarossa]

...controlling each strike? You do realize this is a party combat rpg?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

johndud0 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DA2's combat was less reactive than DAO's combat.  In DA2, characters wouldn't immediately respond to my instructions, instead having to complete the animation of whatever they were already doing.

But in DAO, those animations were interruptable, so the characters would immediately respond.

DAO's combat was more reactive than DA2's.

Characters would also still get hit with 2H weapons when running  2 meters away.

Because the hit calculation was done while the target was in range.

That's a good feature.  It eliminates any manual dodging of melee attacks.

Unfrotunately the animation was not in sync with the calculation which causes the problem.

I don't see any way around that.  The calculation needs to come at the start to eliminate manual dodging.  The animation needs to come prior to the impact in order to make them interruptable.

DA2 tried to solve this problem by moving the impact up before the animation, which meant the calculation now matched the animation, but now attacks weren't interruptable (thus making DA2 less responsive).  Anopther option would be to move the calculation to the end to match the impact.  This would allow them to be interruptable, but would then enable manual dodging (Skyrim does this).

DAO's solution seems like the best of those three options.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Yes, I think that is what he may be asking. I see no reason for that level of control unless the system gives the ability to aim at different parts of the enemy's body which I do not believe the Witcher 2 or Skyrim do.

You can have that level of control even without action combat.  VATS gave us that level of control.

And, frankly, I would love to play a party-based fantasy RPG where the combat all looked like VATS.

[johndud0]

Go play a different game if you want combat like skyrim, you won't find it here and if you eventually did the true lovers of Dragon Age would have left.

[Cimeas]

I actually enjoy the MMO-with-pause style of combat that DA has, but I think DA2 did it better. It was more visceral and looked cooler (and let's face it, looks do matter) but retained the amount of tactical control that people expect from a CRPG. (except the tactical camera, but they would have to redo all the levels for that to work, so I understand it's removal).

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

johndud0 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DA2's combat was less reactive than DAO's combat.  In DA2, characters wouldn't immediately respond to my instructions, instead having to complete the animation of whatever they were already doing.

But in DAO, those animations were interruptable, so the characters would immediately respond.

DAO's combat was more reactive than DA2's.

Characters would also still get hit with 2H weapons when running  2 meters away.

Because the hit calculation was done while the target was in range.

That's a good feature.  It eliminates any manual dodging of melee attacks.

So you argue that a character can pull out of swinging a 2H sword halfway through doing it, and then immediately cast another spell?  The animations are part of the game, they are the visual element of the game and they cannot be interrupted (generally) because once I start casting a fireball or swinging an axe, it's very hard to just stop doing it in a millisecond. 

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Yes, I think that is what he may be asking. I see no reason for that level of control unless the system gives the ability to aim at different parts of the enemy's body which I do not believe the Witcher 2 or Skyrim do.

You can have that level of control even without action combat.  VATS gave us that level of control.

And, frankly, I would love to play a party-based fantasy RPG where the combat all looked like VATS.

I have not played Fallout 3 or Fallout:New Vegas. I may have to give them a try to see what the system is like. I not really into apocalyptic settings, but may look into it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

So you argue that a character can pull out of swinging a 2H sword halfway through doing it, and then immediately cast another spell?  The animations are part of the game, they are the visual element of the game and they cannot be interrupted (generally) because once I start casting a fireball or swinging an axe, it's very hard to just stop doing it in a millisecond.

Who said millisecond?  I should be able to shorten it somewhat.  DA2 made us complete the entire action every time.

In DA2, the problem was that you already cast the fireball or swung the sword, and it was making you recover slowly (even though you could strike with lightning speed).  It was particularly irritating with the staff attacks from the mages, as they were of irregular length, so we couldn't even time them.

If I'm casting a spell, and I would like to abandon that spell in order to move somewhere, I should be able to do that.  If I'm firing off my staff attack, and I would like to stop doing that to cast a Heal on someone, I shouldn't have to wait two seconds to cast that Heal.

But more importantly, DA2 was touted as being "more responsive", when the opposite was demonstrably true.  if responsiveness in combat is important, then BioWare should prefer the DAO design.  If they prefer the DA2 design, then they don't value responsiveness.

[Cajm]

Kingdoms of Amalur combat style was far funner then DA:O or DA2 i would love to see something like it in DA:I, it would be nice to have that kind of fast paced combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

They value responsiveness in the sense that when you choose an attack, you aren't waiting around forever to cast it.

But you are, that's the point.  Unless the character you're controlling was literally standing around doing nothing, he doesn't act immediately.  He waits to finish whatever he was doing first.

In DAO, the character begins acting immediately, and that action takes time.  If, before that action is complete, you wish to cancel it, you can.

In DA2, the character waits to finish what he's doing before responding to commands, but that new action also takes time.  If, before that action is complete, you wish to cancel it, you cannot.

The only other difference is that DA2's actions have an effect sooner, but the actions themselves still take time to occur just like in DAO.  Looking at the whole action (effect and animation), the length of those didn't change - just the order.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I found it quite perceptible. Keep in mind, I always play mages, and I put as many mages as possible in my party, so basically all of my attacks are either spells of auto-attacks of irregular lengths.

I imagine Rogue players didn't have this problem at all.

And I liked playing an archer in DAO. I particularly liked having multiple archers in the party. Sten made an excellent archer.

[LTD]

I find it depressing DA:O combat vs DA II combat is actually something people manage to debate about:(


DA:O - > Relatively impressive looking combat, plenty of good animation going on. Movement and swings of weapons occasionally looked like they  co-exist with laws of physics. Here and there, things got physical.
Big heavy two hander hitting an enemy is usually more satisfying the heavier and bigger the hit looks.

DA II -> Button and awesome were connected. Thoroughly retarded, void-of-taste ADHD bunny hopping and back flipping. Warriors teleporting to their enemies. Melee weapons and their animations behaved like people were fighting with flashlights. In general, nobody really fought anybody since everybody looked like they were busy acting cool in case MTV hires them for bacground dancers for Justin Bieber New Year's Ball


And yet, some people prefer latter:(    Hey some people, DA II is partially  YOUR FAULT, you hear me?!  If that doesn't keep you awake at nights I don't know what does!

Modifié par LTD, 25 octobre 2012 - 10:52 .