155 réponses à ce sujet

[deuce985]

I just think that whatever Bioware decides to make, it needs to be pure. Either a pure strategic/tactical CRPG or a pure action game with minor RPG elements. I mean this especially on the combat. I don't see a pseudo-action/tactical RPG working out.

When I play a game like that, I'm often wondering what Bioware is trying to accomplish. That's how I felt in DA2. It feels like the combat is trying to be an action game but it comes off rather awkward because they try to retain some tactical elements from DAO. Like pause combat, party control, and skill combos. But like I said above, everything is so frantic in DA2, what is the point of constantly pausing my combat every two seconds to micro-manage? That completely kills what makes action so fun? I don't understand who they're catering to with a combat system like DA2. It lacks the depth for any gamer looking for a more strategic experience and it lacks flow, pacing, and fluidity for a gamer looking for the actionish part.

Pick between being a pure tactical/strategic RPG or a pure ARPG. That way you can focus on improving those mechanics. Not trying to make something between. I just can't see a hybrid combat system ever working well. That's just my opinion though...

Modifié par deuce985, 01 novembre 2012 - 12:52 .

[Kileyan]

deuce985 wrote...

I just think that whatever Bioware decides to make, it needs to be pure. Either a pure strategic/tactical CRPG or a pure action game with minor RPG elements. I mean this especially on the combat. I don't see a pseudo-action/tactical RPG working out.

When I play a game like that, I'm often wondering what Bioware is trying to accomplish. That's how I felt in DA2. It feels like the combat is trying to be an action game but it comes off rather awkward because they try to retain some tactical elements from DAO. Like pause combat, party control, and skill combos. But like I said above, everything is so frantic in DA2, what is the point of constantly pausing my combat every two seconds to micro-manage? That completely kills what makes action so fun? I don't understand who they're catering to with a combat system like DA2. It lacks the depth for any gamer looking for a more strategic experience and it lacks flow, pacing, and fluidity for a gamer looking for the actionish part.

Pick between being a pure tactical/strategic RPG or a pure ARPG. That way you can focus on improving those mechanics. Not trying to make something between. I just can't see a hybrid combat system ever working well. That's just my opinion though...

Much as it is likely to bite me in the ass, I agree. I'd much rather Bioware go with the traditional rpg pause and play combat, but if they want to go more action, then go all the way.

From dev Q&A's, they wanted the combat in DA2 to be more fluid. In reality it was so fast and frantic, the camera so bad, they I find myself pausing more often than DAO, just to figure out where all my party members were, as they bounced around the map at ludicrous speed. It accomplished the opposite for me.

Maybe they can combine the two in a solid way. I have to compliment the devs on their tactics screen customization. If they keep that kind of party member scripting control, I could see doing a more action oriented game, while still keeping the party members relevant, without the need for micromanagement.

Modifié par Kileyan, 01 novembre 2012 - 01:02 .

[DreamwareStudio]

deuce985 wrote...

I just think that whatever Bioware decides to make, it needs to be pure. Either a pure strategic/tactical CRPG or a pure action game with minor RPG elements. I mean this especially on the combat. I don't see a pseudo-action/tactical RPG working out.

When I play a game like that, I'm often wondering what Bioware is trying to accomplish. That's how I felt in DA2. It feels like the combat is trying to be an action game but it comes off rather awkward because they try to retain some tactical elements from DAO. Like pause combat, party control, and skill combos. But like I said above, everything is so frantic in DA2, what is the point of constantly pausing my combat every two seconds to micro-manage? That completely kills what makes action so fun? I don't understand who they're catering to with a combat system like DA2. It lacks the depth for any gamer looking for a more strategic experience and it lacks flow, pacing, and fluidity for a gamer looking for the actionish part.

Pick between being a pure tactical/strategic RPG or a pure ARPG. That way you can focus on improving those mechanics. Not trying to make something between. I just can't see a hybrid combat system ever working well. That's just my opinion though...

Mechanics and features aside...

EA would be far better off going in one direction or the other rather than trying to merge them. Neither the DA 2 nor DA:O camp is interested in a compromise from what I've seen. By trying to appease everyone, EA runs the risk of pissing off both. If people thought the negativity was bad after DA 2, that will be nothing compared to the storm that will hit after disappointing the two sides...a far likelier scenario than pleasing them. At least if they went in one direction or the other one group would be happy for the most part.

Modifié par google_calasade, 01 novembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[deuce985]

I'm just speaking from my own personal gaming tastes but I don't mind either. I like games that are strategic/tactical or actionish. I play games ranging from Battlefield 3 to Shogun 2 Total War. When I'm playing a game with strategic qualities, I want them to have tons of depth behind them. That's why I like a game like Shogun 2:TW. When I'm playing a game like Battlefield 3, I want the combat to be fast and everything flows together seamlessly.

That's why I don't think a pseudo-action/tactical RPG can work. It doesn't give me enough depth from either genre I'm looking for. It lacks anything pure about itself. If they focused on either a pure CRPG or ARPG, the fundamental building blocks of the gameplay would be much better polished.

Of course, I'm basing this purely on my own gaming tastes. I don't have any data to back this up or anything.

[playaplayer]

Just got finish playing some DAO and DA2 combat. DA2 is much improved over origins, especially when playing Legacy and MotA.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

I have no idea why anyone would
call DA2 an action rpg at all, it's still the standard
you-hit-me-and-I-hit-you-while-we-stand-here-and-face-each-other combat.
You can't even block, for pete's sake.

There was a single
exception that was a shift towards action: The Orgre's charge was no
longer a tracking attack that only affects one character. It could be
avoided and he'd bowl over any darkspawn in the way.

Does
anybody disagree that was really cool? I personally think action game
features are always good, it's how it's used that matters. They are
additions to the game whereas "traditional rpgs" or whatever are just a
very outdated system lacking features like hit detection and severely
limited player control. You want stats to matter? Fine, lots of things
can't be determined from the player- like the force of an attack or the
character's speed. But why can't I jump or at least *try* to block?
Taking away these things just makes the PC seem less like the PC and
more someone you're ordering around and then boringly watching carrying
out tasks.

The party can be continued to be controlled in the
traditional means and having more realistic features in no way makes it
any less "tactical" or whatever, it would make it more so- you'd be able
to funnel enemies, getting surrounded would suck, the player or enemy
could fall from high places, etc. Things like the tips from the loading
screen- raining arrows from a hill while warriors blocked the passage,
simply didn't work because it wasn't "actiony" enough. Instead "tactics"
were mostly reduced to unrealistic things like "drawing aggro"




er, wow did I just write all that

The
use of "streamlining" is also pretty ironic when you consider that what
you want are LESS features to the  game and for the player.

google_calasade wrote...

Here's some irony. Many who like action RPGs call those who prefer more traditional computer RPGs elitist. Meanwhile, EA wants to appeal to as many customers as possible with the DA series so they are going more action.

The rub, the irony?

Not everyone can play action RPGs while I've never met a person who could not play a tactical game (note I did not use the term turn-based because not all tactical games implement that). One of the biggest faults of the Witcher 2 was how challenging the combat and QTEs were. Some could not play it regardless how interesting they found the story or the characters. This is true of almost any action RPG, including DA 2.

So the irony is that action RPGs are actually more elite than traditional and the audience for those games is more limited off the top as well because of the demands made on one's physical skill/coordination.

Is everyone who can play traditional RPGs interested in traditional RPGs?

No.

But the same can be said for action RPGs, just like it can be stated for ANYTHING.

Wut? I never said that, but now that you mention it yes, some people do come off elitist though it has less to do with who can play what type of games and more to do statements like "dumb action game" "no skill twitch game". I guess the irony is that you're saying it does require more skill?

I agree that the Witcher 2 was quite a difficult game. Difficulty of course makes winning a lot more satisfying but sure it's not for anyone, but I fail to see how a game with action *features* has to be difficult?  There are a ton of games criticised for being too easy, and look at ME3, it has an "action" mode and a "story" mode. Given that a lot of bsners complained the highest difficulty was too easy, I imagine story mode could be done by a blindfolded baby. Like I said, "actiony" features are basically just a more belieavable system of how the game world works- things like "Oh **** that fireball doesn't go through walls!" how much a player has to do is up to the designer, it can only be an enhancement imho.
and it has nothing to do with animations or how many enemies to fight, so I don't know why you persist that the combat SYSTEM in DA2 was much different from DAO

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

xsdob wrote...

So everyone prefers the click and auto attack combat system? Why?

Because I can control the entire party simultaneously.

Because it allows my characters' abilities to function unfettered by my own limitations.

Because it prevents my abilities from making my characters more effective than they should be.

Because it's not so frantic - I hate frantic action.

I like to take the time to decide what I want to do, and then I like to watch that plan unfold.

I guess that's a fair point, but it sounds more you want to play a general in an RTS game than roleplay a single character. Doesn't pausing basically give you all the time you need though?

Herr Uhl wrote...

xsdob wrote...

So everyone prefers the click and auto attack combat system? Why?

Because it is different mainly. It is a playstyle that I enjoy that doesn't get much exposure.

Isn't basically every MMO like that?

[Solmanian]

Wulfram wrote...

Con: It wouldn't be dragon age.

Aye. In their mind many BSNers allreay consider DA2 a spin off rather a sequel. Making a game that has a radically different combat system will only aggrevate the problem. DA:O was heralded as the spiritual successor of BG. Now we just need DA3I to be the spiritual successor of origins...

[Realmzmaster]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

xsdob wrote...

So everyone prefers the click and auto attack combat system? Why?

Because I can control the entire party simultaneously.

Because it allows my characters' abilities to function unfettered by my own limitations.

Because it prevents my abilities from making my characters more effective than they should be.

Because it's not so frantic - I hate frantic action.

I like to take the time to decide what I want to do, and then I like to watch that plan unfold.

I guess that's a fair point, but it sounds more you want to play a general in an RTS game than roleplay a single character. Doesn't pausing basically give you all the time you need though?

Herr Uhl wrote...

xsdob wrote...

So everyone prefers the click and auto attack combat system? Why?

Because it is different mainly. It is a playstyle that I enjoy that doesn't get much exposure.

Isn't basically every MMO like that?

Last time I checked roleplaying began as an add on to a military simulation called Chainmail. RPGs and CRPGs have their roots in military conflict. The roleplaying aspect was added to give players something to do between the miliitary engagements.

Also you are not controlling a single character in a party based game. You can essential control all of one of the four at any given time. You do not have to control the PC at all times.

As StM stated ther character should only depend on the attributes, skills and talents available to the character. My ability or lack thereof to hit a button or combination of buttons in a given amount of time should not be a factor.

If the character I create is unable to dodge then no amount of skill that I possess should make the character dodge. If my character is unable to block then my skill should not enable the character to block.

If the character has low intelligence or cunning my high intelligence or cunning should not compensate for the character when it comes to solving a puzzle. Now if in the party there is a companion who has high intelligence or cunning then that character should have a chance at solving the puzzle.

[sylvanaerie]

*Too lazy to read multiple pages of posts*

To Original Poster:

The day it goes to this, I'll stop with Dragon Age. I lack the hand/eye coordination skills to do this. Yes, I use lots of pause/tactics with my combat. And I play on Normal.

Why? Because I suck at fast paced combat with push push push this button, mash this this this to get a combo strike, etc.

It wouldn't matter how 'awesome' the story is, if I can't play the game, it's worthless to me.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 01 novembre 2012 - 07:27 .

[Orian Tabris]

Dragon Age: Origins' combat: awkward and doesn't flow, but proud of it. Full of shortcomings.

Dragon Age II's combat: fluid, yet unrealistic. Not suited to the roleplaying genre.

Both have design flaws, not the least of which are the tactics (i.e. telling a character when they should use a spell or talent). The tactics really need fixing, because I find that companions don't do what they are supposed to, and ignore their surroundings if the player controlled character is too far away, and so run to them instead of following through with their set tactics. If BW can fix it so they only stop when told to hold, the combat would be a lot better, whatever the combat style.

For some reason on the PC, when you try to click on a character's portrait (in both games), you may click on a different portrait, when you move the cursor over that other portrait.

BTW, action games are designed to work on a console, while tactical RPGs are designed to work on the PC (or even Mac).  Roleplaying games are not supposed to be played on a console game. The whole idea of making Dragon Age playable on the PS3 and Xbox360, is purely to put accessibiltiy above sensibility. It goes against all conscious thought to allow these games be played on a console, so I really, really, think making DA3 an action RPG is a bad idea.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

playaplayer wrote...

 Discuss.

I'm already a little annoyed that I won't be able to choose my race in DA3. If combat were to become like Witcher 2 or Dragon's Dogma, I wouldn't even entertain the idea of buying the game.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins' combat: awkward and doesn't flow, but proud of it. Full of shortcomings.

Dragon Age II's combat: fluid, yet unrealistic. Not suited to the roleplaying genre.

Both have design flaws, not the least of which are the tactics (i.e. telling a character when they should use a spell or talent). The tactics really need fixing, because I find that companions don't do what they are supposed to, and ignore their surroundings if the player controlled character is too far away, and so run to them instead of following through with their set tactics. If BW can fix it so they only stop when told to hold, the combat would be a lot better, whatever the combat style.

For some reason on the PC, when you try to click on a character's portrait (in both games), you may click on a different portrait, when you move the cursor over that other portrait.

BTW, action games are designed to work on a console, while tactical RPGs are designed to work on the PC (or even Mac).  Roleplaying games are not supposed to be played on a console game. The whole idea of making Dragon Age playable on the PS3 and Xbox360, is purely to put accessibiltiy above sensibility. It goes against all conscious thought to allow these games be played on a console, so I really, really, think making DA3 an action RPG is a bad idea.

I thought the tactics system in DAO fixed and expanded by mods was great, it was like a fun Math workout trying to set everything up right. And it's the closest you can come to issuing complex commands to characters without actually possessing them. You know what'd be even better though? If the menu was initiated via dialogue , for imurshun.

Why? You could say the same thing about shooters. I'm pretty sure you can get mouses for consoles too.

Realmzmaster wrote...
As StM stated ther character should only
depend on the attributes, skills and talents available to the
character. My ability or lack thereof to hit a button or combination of
buttons in a given amount of time should not be a factor.

If the
character I create is unable to dodge then no amount of skill that I
possess should make the character dodge. If my character is unable to
block then my skill should not enable the character to block.

If
the character has low intelligence or cunning my high intelligence or
cunning should not compensate for the character when it comes to solving
a puzzle. Now if in the party there is a companion who has high
intelligence or cunning then that character should have a chance at
solving the puzzle.

I understand wanting stats to
weigh heavily,  but don't you want ANY involvement at all? Isn't that
basically a cutscene? You're controlling your character's thought's
right? So why can't you *try* to block? The keyword is try, signalling
intent, and the character's skill can determine whether it succeeds.

That's interesting you should mention puzzles, as the puzzles and riddles in DAO were solved by the player?
Imagine how much less fun it'd be if you just clicked a "solve" button.

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 01 novembre 2012 - 09:23 .

[FedericoV]

I believe that in terms of combat and very general gameplay the Dragon's Dogma model is better suited to achieve the kind of cinematic storydriven action RPG Bioware/EA already want to make. I think that an RPG can remain an RPG even if the gameplay takes a strong actiony direction (just think at Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines or New Vegas for examples).

There's no contradiction between quick, dirty and actiony combat and good old fashioned roleplaying.

Was it for me, they should return to DA:O and just work to improve that model but unfortunately it ain't going to happen. So if (for example) they want to develop a game wich is in third person view for many different reasons (basically, consolles and average market expectations) they should remove party based combat from the equation because a party based game in third person is not enjoyable at all.

Just don't drop the ball on the story/choices/consequences/role department and just do what you think works best with the gameplay to support that part of the experience.

Modifié par FedericoV, 01 novembre 2012 - 10:34 .

[Herr Uhl]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

xsdob wrote...

So everyone prefers the click and auto attack combat system? Why?

Because it is different mainly. It is a playstyle that I enjoy that doesn't get much exposure.

Isn't basically every MMO like that?

It lacks the party based combat (where you direct everyone).

[jstme]

I suggest to loose that RPG element then altogether. It uses frostbite? Make it Battlfield: Dragon Age with some kind of short single player campaign ,but tons of multiplayer and microtransactions and there you go.
Suits happy.

[DreamwareStudio]

jstme wrote...

I suggest to loose that RPG element then altogether. It uses frostbite? Make it Battlfield: Dragon Age with some kind of short single player campaign ,but tons of multiplayer and microtransactions and there you go.
Suits happy.

I did not want to say anything along those lines, but such a (foolish) move would not surprise me. Why foolish? Because the farther the label Bioware drifts from its roots the more trouble they are going to have. The competition is vastly different than in the 00s, so they can neither afford to rest on their laurels nor morph into something they are not in terms of reputation.

In short, they seriously need to step up their game and ought to do so catering to the role-playing video game market on which Bioware was built. Unfortunately, though, it has become fairly obvious these past couple of years that whoever sits in the driver's seat fails to comprehend that market.

Modifié par google_calasade, 01 novembre 2012 - 02:13 .

[Pedrak]

Cons: DA3 being an action RPG
Pros: Its combat being probably better than DA2's.

[Sylvius the Mad]

xsdob wrote...

1. Never had the luxury because the tactics section was difficult for me to use and understand what I was telling my companions to do, way too much micromanaging in my opinion.

The tactics were there for people who didn't want to micromanage.  If you're micromanaging, there's no need to set Tactics.  Just control everyone directly all of the time.  Tell them where to move.  Tell them who to attack.  Tell them which abilities to use.  Pause every 2 seconds to do it again.

2. I had the opposite problems, though that might have been becasue my game may have had a bug where abilities were not selectable despite the cooldown ending on them. Also, often in DAO I found myself not really being able to use my full abilities to attack quickly, or get out of the way of an attack fast enough, or block at all, which would have helped me in combat immensly. Would love to see a block feature occur in DA3.

If its timing-based, then it relies too heavily on player skill.

3. So a self imposed shackle and handicap, I can understand that in wanting the game to be more challenging.

My goal isn't the challenge me, the player.  My goal is to have the game respond appropriately to my character's skills.

4. Don't know how that works since all the enemies crowd around and swarm you endlessly. Maybe it's just that I don't play on the PC but instead on console, but my game never let me pause the combat, merely look at my inventory screen.

The console version lacked the move-to-point commands, and the ability to select more than one party member at a time.  But the console version absolutely could pause to issue commands.

Read your manual.

If you weren't able to issue commands while paused, no wonder you found the combat boring; you weren't allowed to do anything.

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

And I only say that because I highly doubt we'll ever see DA go back to DAO style combat.

Aside from DA2 being faster and harder to use, DA2 and DAO had the same combat system.

[Sylvius the Mad]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

I guess that's a fair point, but it sounds more you want to play a general in an RTS game than roleplay a single character.

In a party-based game, I want to play the whole party.  Frankly, if RTS games were pausable I'd probably love them (but without the pause I think they're dreadful)

Doesn't pausing basically give you all the time you need though?

Sure it does.  If I can pause the game to issue commands, I have all the time I need.

But if have to execute commands in real time (after having paused to consider them), that still prevents me from controlling more than one party member simultaneously.

Isn't basically every MMO like that?

MMOs are often poor versions of this, yes.  But they're also MMOs, which many people don't like for other reasons.

[Realmzmaster]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
As StM stated ther character should only
depend on the attributes, skills and talents available to the
character. My ability or lack thereof to hit a button or combination of
buttons in a given amount of time should not be a factor.

If the
character I create is unable to dodge then no amount of skill that I
possess should make the character dodge. If my character is unable to
block then my skill should not enable the character to block.

If
the character has low intelligence or cunning my high intelligence or
cunning should not compensate for the character when it comes to solving
a puzzle. Now if in the party there is a companion who has high
intelligence or cunning then that character should have a chance at
solving the puzzle.

I understand wanting stats to
weigh heavily,  but don't you want ANY involvement at all? Isn't that
basically a cutscene? You're controlling your character's thought's
right? So why can't you *try* to block? The keyword is try, signalling
intent, and the character's skill can determine whether it succeeds.

That's interesting you should mention puzzles, as the puzzles and riddles in DAO were solved by the player?
Imagine how much less fun it'd be if you just clicked a "solve" button.

But that is the point the player should not have been able to solve the DAO puzzles and riddles unless the PC or companion had the necessary intelligence or cunning. If I make a party of morons then the party cannot solve the puzzle. The developer would have to provide a different way to get around the puzzle. Other crpgs did this if the character had low intelligence no amount of player intelligence can compensate for that nor should it. The developer provided more than one way to get around the puzzle.

Blocking is dependent on defense (Dexterity in DAO and Cunning in DA2). If defense is high enough the character will block. My rogue in DAO and DA2 did it. What you are saying is control everything the PC does, but I am not always controlling the PC. So whatever party member I switch to has to allow the same freedom. 

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

I understand wanting stats to weigh heavily,  but don't you want ANY involvement at all? Isn't that basically a cutscene? You're controlling your character's thought's right? So why can't you *try* to block? The keyword is try, signalling intent, and the character's skill can determine whether it succeeds.

As long as the player's exact timing isn't relevant, sure.  I wouldn't object to a block ability where I could instruct my character to attempt to block (rather than attack), and then the character would do that.  NWN had just such a feature (the Expertise feat, increased Armour class in exchange for lowering Attack Adjustment).

My basic standard is this: a roleplaying game should be playable by a quadriplegic - playable slowly, but playable.  If you can't imagine a way to play the game by issuing commands through a breathing tube, then you've made the game too actiony.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:03 .

[Realmzmaster]

DA2 is not an action RPG as StM has stated the DA2 and DAO combat systems are the same. The difference is in speed. The same realtime with pause is in all of Bioware's games. Also BG and NWN had faster combat systems than DAO not as fast as DA2.

Th animations and speed in DA2 is what many are talking about in regards to action rpg. Neither of these make a action rpg. Action rpg normally allow for player skill control of the PC.

The Witcher series is an example of Action rpg. Witcher has time based combos. The player had to click the mouse or controller to do the combos which requires precise timing.

That is the difference DA2 does not require precise timing from the player Witcher does. Player skill is more prominent in the Witcher series. The Witcher is also a single character game even if companions join Geralt the player does not get to control them.

I could also pick on ME3 which is firmly in the action rpg camp. Shepard is controlled by the player. Player control skill is important. Also Shepard can only issue commands to his companions. The player cannot take control of anyone but Shepard. DA2 is different in that it is party based with the player being able to switch to any companion and take control. A feature both ME3 and Witcher lack.