328 réponses à ce sujet

[Abraham_uk]

johndud0 wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

Ugh magic rules out any chance of realism, SOME aspects in DA2 could use improving, but it was vastly superior to DA:Os, while DA:O tactics were much better, a mix of both is the best way imo to go.

How were DA:O tactics better?

Because the game was challenging? I don't know. I never played DA2.


Going back to topic.
How does spell casting work if the game's combat is supposed to look "realistic"?

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:10 .

[estebanus]

While I agree that the way Hawke swung a 2-handed sword bigger than himself with only one hand look incredibly ridiculous, I did prefer the speed of the DA2 combat. It looked like some kinda really cheap anime.
However, while the way your characters swung their swords in DAO was much more realistic, the combat itself was too slowly paced and clunky.
What I'd propose is this: The combat speed of DA2, but with the realistic animations and techniques of DAO and swordfighting based on techniques used in the real world.

[Lennard Testarossa]

johndud0 wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

Ugh magic rules out any chance of realism, SOME aspects in DA2 could use improving, but it was vastly superior to DA:Os, while DA:O tactics were much better, a mix of both is the best way imo to go.

How were DA:O tactics better?

It had a tactical overview, friendly fire and the option to turn off the damned AI.

[craigdolphin]

Da2 combat was overly flashy and enemies were far too numerous and disposable. The sight of my rogue spinning in cartwheels to move 1/2 a foot to the left made my blood boil. Enemies turning into blood - balloons just made me want to throw something. The lack of auto-aquire a new target when the current target dies made the very large number of trash mobs even more egregious. I vastly preferred the encounter design balance in origins, and the more pseudorealistic aesthetic of the combat animations in dao.

However, da2 did have one genuine improvement over origins: you could actually evade ogre charges if you got out of the way in time. And that was a nice addition.

Overall, i'm hoping more combat to be based on origins, but perhaps sped up a bit. Fewer, tougher enemies per encounter. Sparing/infrequent use of waves, and absolutely no spawning points from previously explored areas or from the clear blue sky.

[drake heath]

If they have to make the combat fast paced, then make it like Kingdoms of Amalur.

It's not realistic in the slightest, but it's fun. More fun than DA2's awful spamy combat.

Realisticly, I would say the Witcher 2, but that's way focused on swordplay.

[Rawgrim]

johndud0 wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

Ugh magic rules out any chance of realism, SOME aspects in DA2 could use improving, but it was vastly superior to DA:Os, while DA:O tactics were much better, a mix of both is the best way imo to go.

How were DA:O tactics better?

Because DA:O actually required some sort of tactics, while DA2 can be beaten by button mashing on any difficulty other than Nightmare.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Rawgrim wrote...

johndud0 wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

Ugh magic rules out any chance of realism, SOME aspects in DA2 could use improving, but it was vastly superior to DA:Os, while DA:O tactics were much better, a mix of both is the best way imo to go.

How were DA:O tactics better?

Because DA:O actually required some sort of tactics, while DA2 can be beaten by button mashing on any difficulty other than Nightmare.

Are the difficulties different in the console and the pc version? I found DA 2 on Hard to be just about as hard as DA:O on Nightmare and far harder than Awakening on Nightmare.

[Wulfram]

Rawgrim wrote...

Because DA:O actually required some sort of tactics, while DA2 can be beaten by button mashing on any difficulty other than Nightmare.

All DA:O really needed was health potion spamming.  With that no tactics were necessary.

edit:  Though taking out health potion spamming - I do this by treating the potion cooldowns as universal - I'd agree that DA:O was more challenging and more enjoyable than DA2 combat.  At least until high levels, when there's a decent chance you'll have broken the game. 

DA:A combat was ludicrously easy though.

Modifié par Wulfram, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:32 .

[Rawgrim]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

johndud0 wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

Ugh magic rules out any chance of realism, SOME aspects in DA2 could use improving, but it was vastly superior to DA:Os, while DA:O tactics were much better, a mix of both is the best way imo to go.

How were DA:O tactics better?

Because DA:O actually required some sort of tactics, while DA2 can be beaten by button mashing on any difficulty other than Nightmare.

Are the difficulties different in the console and the pc version? I found DA 2 on Hard to be just about as hard as DA:O on Nightmare and far harder than Awakening on Nightmare.

I have DA:O on PC and xbox, so i can only comment on that one. The game was way easier on consoles, thats for sure. Felt abit dumbed down too. Some of the puzzles were way easier on console. That bridge thingy near the Sacred Ashes, for instance. No idea why they changed it for consoles.

DA2 was pretty much DA:O on normal difficulty, on xbox. Beat it by buttonmashing + healing spells\\potions.

[johndud0]

A lot of you guys are fools, you don't know what you want or what you are talking about, use specifics.

You know you don't want the super slow, uninteresting, awful pacing combat mechanics from DA:O yet you say make it like DA:O.

Combat in almost every aspect is better in DA2...sure it's pretty fast and can look ludicrous at times (not to mention super dangerous on nightmare) but the Dragon Age world isn't like ours it has magic if you didn't notice...

And people would naturally be superhuman to combat magic...and as a side note you guys saying that people using weapons super fast or using acrobatic movements is unrealistic obviously have never seen any kungfu movies , videos or never heard of Bruce Lee.

Here is a good clip of some fast fighting and If I could find the video I would show you but I've seen videos of teenagers in China using dual swords faster than the rogue would use them without buffs in DA2.



ps: I can punch faster than the rogue attacks normally in DA2, and I'm not a proffessional by any means, I just like combat and know how to use my body efficiently...so I'm living proof you have no idea what some of you are talking about.

NOTE: This game has magic. Ha.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Rawgrim wrote...
I have DA:O on PC and xbox, so i can only comment on that one. The game was way easier on consoles, thats for sure. Felt abit dumbed down too. Some of the puzzles were way easier on console. That bridge thingy near the Sacred Ashes, for instance. No idea why they changed it for consoles.

DA2 was pretty much DA:O on normal difficulty, on xbox. Beat it by buttonmashing + healing spells\\potions.

Well, I can say that DA 2 wasn't any easier than DA on PC. I guess I should be grateful they make sure not to let the PC version be dragged down by the console version.
As for riddles being easier...I guess about one hundred percent of teenagers with the attention span of a hamster playing this game play it on a console. Please note I am not saying that all who play this game on a console are morons. It's just that morons playing DA tend to do it on consoles.

[Face of Evil]

I found the sequel's combat to be more involving. I had to think on my feet a lot more in DA2 than in DAO.

People talk about DAO's combat being more "tactical," which I guess equates to "slower" and "easily broken."

Modifié par Face of Evil, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:54 .

[Rawgrim]

Face of Evil wrote...

I found the sequel's combat to be more involving. I had to think on my feet a lot more in DA2 than in DAO.

People talk about DAO's combat being more "tactical," which I guess equates to "slower" and "easily broken by potion-spamming." Not really my cup of tea.

Has to do with the overview, friendly fire, and lots of other stuff. Its not about the pacing at all.

[MillKill]

Better gameplay trumps realism.

http://www.formsprin...421846139320996

Great post by JESawyer, the lead designer of Fallout New Vegas, on the subject.

[Face of Evil]

Rawgrim wrote...

Face of Evil wrote...

I found the sequel's combat to be more involving. I had to think on my feet a lot more in DA2 than in DAO.

People talk about DAO's combat being more "tactical," which I guess equates to "slower" and "easily broken by potion-spamming." Not really my cup of tea.

Has to do with the overview, friendly fire, and lots of other stuff. Its not about the pacing at all.

I don't know what you mean by "pacing." I played DAO on XBox 360, so the top-down overview or whatever the hell PC gamers call it was never an option for me anyways.

If the fights in DAO were difficult, it was because the enemies consistently hit a lot harder than your party members, which in turn led to downing health potions like crack. The only fights in DAO that were truly, truly hard was when the game handicapped me (like going up against multiple opponents by myself, or dropping you in the middle of a pack of wolves with traps on all sides) or when I handicapped myself, like going against the Archdemon without calling any troops.

I just preferred DA2's combat. I don't give a damn about people jumping around or "over-the-top" animations. All that matters is whether it's fun.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 23 octobre 2012 - 09:07 .

[AppealToReason]

Hell no. Those animations actually made you feel powerful and like you mastered your skill set versus being just another guy swinging a sword or lamely waving a staff

[johndud0]

MillKill wrote...

This is a world of magic, potions, demons, dragons, lyrium, and monsters. Any attempt to constrain combat animations due to realism at this point is arbitrary and inconsistent.

Flashy moves are at least interesting to look at and increased mobility keeps combat from dragging on longer than necessary.

Yes, YES, YES, YES!

[Rawgrim]

AppealToReason wrote...

Hell no. Those animations actually made you feel powerful and like you mastered your skill set versus being just another guy swinging a sword or lamely waving a staff

Made me feel like I was playing Tekken, rather than Dragon Age.

[alex90c]

Not for me. The fact that they were so greatly different from the animations from the first game just threw me off, and the fact that Hawke and party used an entirely different animation and skill set to that of their opponents I just found really irritating because we're not exactly part of some elite order that has super fighting skills, Hawke is just some dude/dudette running from Ostagar.

[johndud0]

craigdolphin wrote...

Da2 combat was overly flashy and enemies were far too numerous and disposable. The sight of my rogue spinning in cartwheels to move 1/2 a foot to the left made my blood boil. Enemies turning into blood - balloons just made me want to throw something. The lack of auto-aquire a new target when the current target dies made the very large number of trash mobs even more egregious. I vastly preferred the encounter design balance in origins, and the more pseudorealistic aesthetic of the combat animations in dao.

However, da2 did have one genuine improvement over origins: you could actually evade ogre charges if you got out of the way in time. And that was a nice addition.

Overall, i'm hoping more combat to be based on origins, but perhaps sped up a bit. Fewer, tougher enemies per encounter. Sparing/infrequent use of waves, and absolutely no spawning points from previously explored areas or from the clear blue sky.

Idk what platform you are playing on but on pc "R" is atttack nearest enemy, you could easily rebind to a key closer to movement keys.

[Rawgrim]

AppealToReason wrote...

Hell no. Those animations actually made you feel powerful and like you mastered your skill set versus being just another guy swinging a sword or lamely waving a staff

Maybe God of War would be more to your liking? Full of flashy moves. Mostly combo and reflex based combat.

[Peranor]

As a person who loves turn-based combat à la XCOM I must say that I very much prefer the more slow pased combat that DA:O had.

[johndud0]

Rawgrim wrote...

johndud0 wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

Ugh magic rules out any chance of realism, SOME aspects in DA2 could use improving, but it was vastly superior to DA:Os, while DA:O tactics were much better, a mix of both is the best way imo to go.

How were DA:O tactics better?

Because DA:O actually required some sort of tactics, while DA2 can be beaten by button mashing on any difficulty other than Nightmare.

I play on PC so I don't have the same experience as you but all I know is I've paused for longer periods of time to analyze situations in DA2 then I ever did on DA:O, to me it's way more tactical.

I wish they would've kept the isometric camera view tho that greatly helps with being tactical.

I can completely understand why people didn't like enemies spawning but I somewhat enjoyed it....it made me stay on my toes at all times and try to conserve health whenever possible cuz I never knew how many more enemies there would be...if it was introduced better I would've loved it....like have the enemies literally jump off rooftops, rappel down walls, crawl up balconys, come out of buildings and not just appear out of thin air.

Modifié par johndud0, 23 octobre 2012 - 09:37 .

[Dagr88]

Lesser attack speed means longer fights. Longer fights mean less waves.

Don't know what to think about combo attacks. After seeing them for x00 time they start to look silly. DAO style is more serious, yet a bit boring. It's hard for me to imagine a middle ground between those two, so for me it's a 100% developer's choice.