328 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

I can't really describe just how much I dislike the combat animations in DA2, especially the rogues'. They did a huge part in drastically changing the atmosphere of the whole setting. For me, at least. I can't really say anything to all the people who still can't grasp that although a world has magic and dragons in it there are still rules that apply. "DA haz elves"  does not mean "anything goes". Sadly these rules seem to have changed from the first to the second game.

Why wouldn't rogues be athletic and agile combatants? In DAO they were just crappy versions of fighters unless you manually moved them in to be backstabber - which was a slow and tedious effort. 

You don't have a problem with 2 handed warriors doing earthquake causing smashes of the ground but a guy doing a flip bothers you?

[Reznik23]

The fighting should look a bit like the fights in Dawn Of The Seeker I think.

[Shadow Fox]

I still laugh at the people who think slow=realistic in terms of swordfighting

DA2's combat was better then Origins to me simply because warriors and mages weren't a chore to play plus it almost gave me spears/lances something I've wanted to see in my rpgs for awhile now.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:29 .

[Shadow Fox]

johndud0 wrote...

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.

Playing the true fan card are we?

[johndud0]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

If basic staff attacks take 2 seconds to complete then why are people complaining about the combat being too fast and flashy?

[johndud0]

LTD wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

LTD wrote...
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! 

Logic is not your strong point, is it?

You basically said, "Hey, people who enjoy DA2! You should feel bad that it's your fault the game exists!" But those people ENJOYED THE GAME. Why would they feel bad?

DA II has brought only strife and misery to this world. All it takes is an intact moral compass to feel guilt and shame for liking it and/or promoting it.

Oh god some people might say the same thing about the difference of the Neverwinter Nights games and Dragon Age...and to those people I would say hmm I love the game...Love....LOVE...LOVEY DOVEY.

[johndud0]

Avalla'ch wrote...

Don't necessarily need anything realistic, I just want some more AUTHENTIC looking animations and pace.
Something between DA:O and DA2. But as we may know, the *middle ground" never, ever happens.

Middle ground sometimes happens...look what happened with ME1, ME2, and ME3. 

[johndud0]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

johndud0 wrote...

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.

Playing the true fan card are we?

Yes I think I'm a true lover, I can admit the faults of both games and am not biased to any game.

[Shadow Fox]

johndud0 wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

johndud0 wrote...

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.

Playing the true fan card are we?

Yes I think I'm a true lover, I can admit the faults of both games and am not biased to any game.

Well you're honest atleast.

[LTD]

Sidney wrote...

LTD wrote...

I consider it odd few people somehow view slow (melee)  combat a bad thing by default. If your video game has melee combat, surely sense of things being physical, blows connecting having actual force behind them is among best things such combat can offer?

Haven't watched a lot of actual melee combat have you? It isn't that slow. Guys don't move at speeds so you can easily see the sword swing...it tends to get things blocked. DAO is like watching an American 80's action film - slow uninteresting action that is clumsily staged.

It really isn't about some obscure km/h velocity of the swings themselves  you know. Does it look like at least parts of the  body of the character delivering the swing  has to follow a strike through in fashion implying the weapon used actually has mass? Or does it look like people are righting with flashlights? Do characters in combat move in some credible way? Or do they rather teleport and slide  around in highly embarrassing fashion?
Best thing about melee combat is the physicality. I assme we agree on this much? Surely yu need tempo, animation and hint of laws o physics being in action that complement this. Combat in DA2 didn't look like combat at all; it is a game where  everybody was too busy looking cool to fight.

80's/early 90's  action flicks are generally speaking more liked among friends of the genre  than their 20XX  counterparts btw.

Modifié par LTD, 26 octobre 2012 - 05:15 .

[Huge_Beaver]

DAO combat all the way!

[goofyomnivore]

Ehh both games had average combat.

Origins wasn't that responsive and had weird shuffling. However DA ][ really wasn't any more responsive and added mage dance routines and excessive flipping for rogues.

Combat was a chore(not the difficult kind, just the boring) in both games to me anyways. I hope Dragon Age 3 makes the combat fun, realistic or not.

[Jzadek72]

DA:O's combat wasn't realistic, and I think I'd like a slight increase in speed. Having said that, I'd much prefer for the combat to draw more from Origins than DA2 - people who call it boring probably barely scratched the surface of it's depths. I know this, because for my entire first playthrough, I was one of them. DA2's combat is by comparison shallow and hack'n'slash, and frankly looks silly. I'd like a return to the tactical gameplay more than the wave based awesome buttoning of DA2.

[Sidney]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Sidney wrote...


In DAO they were just crappy versions of fighters unless you manually moved them in to be backstabber - which was a slow and tedious effort. 

You obviously had no idea how to build a combat rogue.  I stood toe to toe with my foes and used the dual weild abilities (awesome looking moves) to do damage and my ridiculous defense to avoid being hit.  There was nothing crappy about the rogue class in DAO if you knew how to build one for combat.

"I stood toe to toe with my foes". See that is the problem, rogues play like a fighter because that is what fighters also do with their cool dual wield abilities (which BTW looked 100% awful) in DAO and ridiculous armor to avoid being hit.  Thank you for being there to help me out on proving this. In DA2 rogues feel distinct from being just another fighter.

[Sidney]

Jzadek72 wrote...

DA:O's combat wasn't realistic, and I think I'd like a slight increase in speed. Having said that, I'd much prefer for the combat to draw more from Origins than DA2 - people who call it boring probably barely scratched the surface of it's depths. I know this, because for my entire first playthrough, I was one of them. DA2's combat is by comparison shallow and hack'n'slash, and frankly looks silly. I'd like a return to the tactical gameplay more than the wave based awesome buttoning of DA2.

Again, your latter concern is about encounter design not combat mechanics. No one wants waves back as they were done.

No one in the "DA2 is hack n' slash" can give me any reason combat in DA2 was less deep than DAO. Again, not looks or encounter desing but the actual mechanics of combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

No one in the "DA2 is hack n' slash" can give me any reason combat in DA2 was less deep than DAO. Again, not looks or encounter desing but the actual mechanics of combat.

It was more difficult to execute plans in DA2, partly because the enemies would spawn out of nowhere, and partly because even the enemies who did exist from the start weren't attackable until the game decided they were.

We couldn't ambush opponents.  We couldn't pre-cast spells.  And DA2 generally had fewer and less effective options for crowd-control.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

"I stood toe to toe with my foes". See that is the problem, rogues play like a fighter because that is what fighters also do with their cool dual wield abilities (which BTW looked 100% awful) in DAO and ridiculous armor to avoid being hit.  Thank you for being there to help me out on proving this. In DA2 rogues feel distinct from being just another fighter.

There should be no such thing as playing like a fighter, or playing like a rogue.  Combat roles should not be limited by class.

There were many different ways to build a tank in DAO.  They could be warriors, rogues, or mages.  They could rely on armour or dexterity to avoid damage.  Any character in DAO - including the companions - could be a tank if you designed him that way.

How many different ways are there to build an effective tank in DA2?  How many different characters can be that tank?

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

1. It was more difficult to execute plans in DA2,

2. We couldn't ambush opponents. 

3. We couldn't pre-cast spells. 

4. And DA2 generally had fewer and less effective options for crowd-control.

1. It was harder isn't a "problem".Plans have to be adaptable - no plan survives contact with an enemy and all that. In fact, the problem in DA2 was that because you "knew" about the waves you could plan ahead and do things like save up mana rather than just nuking that last mob.

2.Ambush being your code for kiting a suck AI who followed you into kill zones? Even if you find beating up on mentally ill puppies challenging the reality is that "ambushes" didn't matter because: your guys would move too slow to carry them out, there was no surprise damage bonus.


3 and 4. You mean like the ability cast artillery through the walls with Inferno? I'd say that is a balance design decision - and a good one. Same with your last point because mages needed to be taken down a notch from DAO where the best party was the most mages for your money.

[Sidney]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Thank you for being there to help me out on proving this.

Oh - your one of those guys. 

You say rogues are just crappy warriors, I say they are not crappy, you twist it around in your mind and say I helped you prove that they are crappy.

Whatever, buddy.  Go have a discussion with yourself in the closet.  It'll be about as productive as coming here and nobody will disagree with you.

Wow if that isn't the take the ball and go home answer. You are hung up on the relative effectiveness arguement (crappy) whereas the meat of the issue - rogues don't play differently than fighters whatever their effeciveness - is pretty much excatly what you said you did with your rogue.

Here, stroke your ego, I was wrong, rogues aren't like crappy fighters, they're like the same as fighters.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There should be no such thing as playing like a fighter, or playing like a rogue.  Combat roles should not be limited by class.

...and in Fallout where you are skill based then that would be true. In a class based game, classes are going to fight differenently. The problem in DAO was that there was no "other way". Dual wielders all fought the same and the same tactics worked rather you were a heavy or a light dual weilder.

[Liamv2]

As long as i don't hear the words "another wave" i'm happy thankfully they did that in legacy

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

...and in Fallout where you are skill based then that would be true. In a class based game, classes are going to fight differenently.

They should have disparate abilities, sure, but why should those abilities pigeon-hole the class into a specific combat role (or preclude some)?

Sidney wrote...

1. It was harder isn't a "problem".Plans have to be adaptable - no plan survives contact with an enemy and all that.

Aside from it not making any sense that dozens of enemies would continue to pop up to be killed in cases where you were dominating the battle, and aside from the fact that all of them attacking at once would often have been a more successful tactic for them, not being able to target (or even find) all of the enemies from the start dramatically limits the sorts of tactical options available to the player.

Nearly every battle in DA2 was the same.  Fight some fodder, fight reinforcement fodder, fight more reinforcement fodder.

The battles weren't harder, they were just more repetitive.  Since the extra waves always appeared in the area where the encounter started, retreating to a chokepoint rendered most battles trivial.

2.Ambush being your code for kiting a suck AI who followed you into kill zones? Even if you find beating up on mentally ill puppies challenging the reality is that "ambushes" didn't matter because: your guys would move too slow to carry them out, there was no surprise damage bonus.

If you're stealthy, the speed of your movement is often irrelevant.  DAO allowed you to sneak up, lay traps, and retreat.  Not to mention the variety of magical tools available.

3 and 4. You mean like the ability cast artillery through the walls with Inferno? I'd say that is a balance design decision - and a good one. Same with your last point because mages needed to be taken down a notch from DAO where the best party was the most mages for your money.

It's common in CRPGs to be able to maximise firepower by increasing the number of mages available - but using those mages poorly or failing to plan ahead often results in poor crowd control, and the mages can be overwhelmed by melee attacks.

Forget about casting through walls (though I see no reason why that shouldn't work) - how about casting around corners or down long corridors.  Being able to start casting Inferno prior to firing the arrow that will draw the enemy to you isn't something DA2 allows.  Being able to lay a glyph on the ground, and then cast another to trigger the Paralysis Explosion (my favourite DAO spell combo) allowed quick dispatch of any closely grouped enemies.

Yes, having more mages in DAO could make things quite a bit easier, but even having one opened up so many more tactical options in DAO than it did in DA2.

DAO's battles weren't difficult, but the combat mechanics at least allowed them to be interesting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Liamv2 wrote...

As long as i don't hear the words "another wave" i'm happy thankfully they did that in legacy

Instead they gave us a horribly contrived encounter with golems who only attacked consecutively, rather than concurrently.

That would have been a more believable battle if the golems had attacked together.