108 réponses à ce sujet

[Bfler]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As a not very strong person that has actually held and manipulated some actual two-handed swords, the swing speed in DAO is pretty much a snail's pace.

The actual weight of a two-handed sword is usually between 3-8lbs.  Which really isn't that heavy, and when properly balanced and held correctly, is still a quick weapon.

Some interesting reading here.

You forget that the people in late medieval age did also wear heavy plate armor. Put yourself in a real armor and you will see, that you can't swing the weapon with the same speed as in case you wear only a shirt.

Modifié par Bfler, 03 novembre 2012 - 10:01 .

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

abaris wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that the two handed warrior in dao was much too slow. On the merits of realism I find dao too be farther from than da2.

I didn't have that feeling at all.

As a not very strong person that has actually held and manipulated some actual two-handed swords, the swing speed in DAO is pretty much a snail's pace.

The actual weight of a two-handed sword is usually between 3-8lbs.  Which really isn't that heavy, and when properly balanced and held correctly, is still a quick weapon.

Some interesting reading here.

The speed was right, the moves themselves however (especially the huge swing leaving self totally open).

Bfler wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As a
not very strong person that has actually held and manipulated some
actual two-handed swords, the swing speed in DAO is pretty much a
snail's pace.

The actual weight of a two-handed sword is usually
between 3-8lbs.  Which really isn't that heavy, and when properly
balanced and held correctly, is still a quick weapon.

Some interesting reading here.

You
forget that the people in late medieval age did also wear heavy plate
armor. Put yourself in a real armor and you will see, that you can't
swing the weapon with the same speed as in case you wear only a
shirt.

You would be surprised.  You pretty much can, you don't have quite the range of motion, but it's your endurance that goes down the pan, not really arm speed

Modifié par Vilegrim, 03 novembre 2012 - 10:21 .

[Gamemako]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Some interesting reading here.

Just to beat a dead horse,

These weapons were not intended to defeat heavy plate armor with powerful cuts but did evolve from those longswords that were developed for use against armors by thrusting rather than cutting.

(Actually, it would be nice to see more dynamic fights, with proper parries and ripostes, but that's a lot to ask.)

[Vilegrim]

Gamemako wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Some interesting reading here.

Just to beat a dead horse,

These weapons were not intended to defeat heavy plate armor with powerful cuts but did evolve from those longswords that were developed for use against armors by thrusting rather than cutting.

(Actually, it would be nice to see more dynamic fights, with proper parries and ripostes, but that's a lot to ask.)

Kotor almost managed it.

[Killer3000ad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that the two handed warrior in dao was much too slow. On the merits of realism I find dao too be farther from than da2.

Doing high jumps in plate armor and swinging a massive two hander, bodies exploding from critical hits, swinging oversized swords like a paper stick and you say DAO is farther from realism than DA2? 

Modifié par Killer3000ad, 03 novembre 2012 - 10:29 .

[Vilegrim]

Killer3000ad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that the two handed warrior in dao was much too slow. On the merits of realism I find dao too be farther from than da2.

Doing high jumps in plate armor and swinging a massive two hander, bodies exploding from critical hits, swinging oversized swords like a paper stick and you say DAO is farther from realism than DA2? 

weapon speed wise yes, the DAO moves however were pretty close

[Nerevar-as]

Gamemako wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Some interesting reading here.

Just to beat a dead horse,

These weapons were not intended to defeat heavy plate armor with powerful cuts but did evolve from those longswords that were developed for use against armors by thrusting rather than cutting.

(Actually, it would be nice to see more dynamic fights, with proper parries and ripostes, but that's a lot to ask.)

NWN had parry skill which also included riposte, so I don´t see why not. It would also allow more varied warrior builds.

[Atakuma]

Bfler wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As a not very strong person that has actually held and manipulated some actual two-handed swords, the swing speed in DAO is pretty much a snail's pace.

The actual weight of a two-handed sword is usually between 3-8lbs.  Which really isn't that heavy, and when properly balanced and held correctly, is still a quick weapon.

Some interesting reading here.

You forget that the people in late medieval age did also wear heavy plate armor. Put yourself in a real armor and you will see, that you can't swing the weapon with the same speed as in case you wear only a shirt.

I didn't know plate armor turned great swords into tree trunks.

[abaris]

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't know plate armor turned great swords into tree trunks.

But movement was slower and more tiring. That goes for every weapon of course and I think DAO depicted that in a much better way than what I have seen of DAII.

But in reality only knights and high nobility were even able to afford plate armor, since in todays money it would amount to something like a Ferrari.

[Brohammed]

It should be noted that two handed swords were mostly for countering the dense pike formations in the pike & shot days and very very rarely used in the combat you would see in traditional fantasy games.

This says nothing about axes and hammers, which even the modern examples (like a woodcutters maul or a framers hammer) are heavy and unwieldy as ****

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

abaris wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that the two handed warrior in dao was much too slow. On the merits of realism I find dao too be farther from than da2.

I didn't have that feeling at all.

As a not very strong person that has actually held and manipulated some actual two-handed swords, the swing speed in DAO is pretty much a snail's pace.

The actual weight of a two-handed sword is usually between 3-8lbs.  Which really isn't that heavy, and when properly balanced and held correctly, is still a quick weapon.

Some interesting reading here.

To be fair, the size of two-handed weapons in DAO were much bigger than IRL. I still thought swings were a bit too slow though.

[jillabender]

Brohammed wrote...

It should be noted that two handed swords were mostly for countering the dense pike formations in the pike & shot days and very very rarely used in the combat you would see in traditional fantasy games.

This says nothing about axes and hammers, which even the modern examples (like a woodcutters maul or a framers hammer) are heavy and unwieldy as ****

That's certainly the impression I have as well. The page that Allan linked to about greatswords was a very interesting read!

On another topic, I'm interested to hear if people have any suggestions for how stats and abilities might play a role in DA3 outside of combat. Personally, I would enjoy seeing a variety of non-combat abilities that could open up alternate ways of completing quests – or, similarly, being able to put combat abilities like stealth or spells to other uses outside of combat.

[abaris]

jillabender wrote...

That's certainly the impression I have as well. The page that Allan linked to about greatswords was a very interesting read!

On another topic, I'm interested to hear if people have any suggestions for how stats and abilities might play a role in DA3 outside of combat. Personally, I would enjoy seeing a variety of non-combat abilities that could open up alternate ways of completing quests – or, similarly, being able to put combat abilities like stealth or spells to other uses outside of combat.

Look at the video link I posted on the previous page. That's how two handed swords were handled in reality. They had a whole set of purposes when used by a skilled swordsman.

On you other remark: I also would like to see the return of social skills. It's one of the things adding to the RPG experience.

[Melca36]

Combat was too hack and slash in DA2. I want the speed of DA2's combat for DA3 but the depth of Origins for the game.

[Realmzmaster]

Bfler wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As a not very strong person that has actually held and manipulated some actual two-handed swords, the swing speed in DAO is pretty much a snail's pace.

The actual weight of a two-handed sword is usually between 3-8lbs.  Which really isn't that heavy, and when properly balanced and held correctly, is still a quick weapon.

Some interesting reading here.

You forget that the people in late medieval age did also wear heavy plate armor. Put yourself in a real armor and you will see, that you can't swing the weapon with the same speed as in case you wear only a shirt.

Plate armor is not as heavy as many think. In fact it is properly distributed across the body and at its heaviest weighs 55 pounds. Modern firefighters and soliders wear more gear with more weight than the mediveal knight or warrior. The armor allows for maneuverability. Warriors can climb ladders, crawl and dismount quite easily from horses.

Edit: Meant to say crawl not climb twice.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 04 novembre 2012 - 01:02 .

[Realmzmaster]

Killer3000ad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that the two handed warrior in dao was much too slow. On the merits of realism I find dao too be farther from than da2.

Doing high jumps in plate armor and swinging a massive two hander, bodies exploding from critical hits, swinging oversized swords like a paper stick and you say DAO is farther from realism than DA2? 

You mean like the ogre killing animation from DAO where the warrior in plate armor actually leaped well off the ground? The weight of most two handed swords is between 3 to 8 pounds. 
Gamers seemed to have a lot of misconceptions about mediveal arms and armor which are completely debunk by the actual facts.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 04 novembre 2012 - 12:42 .

[Solmanian]

Yes, DA:O two handed combat was slow, but DA2 was way too fast. And what it made in speed it lost in punch. DA2 combat felt alot less realistic than DAO. And variety? 20 seconds into the game you saw everything the combat system had to offer, repeating the same 3 moves again and again got boring real fast... hammers and swords are used differently: A 15kg sword handles differently that a 40kg warhammer.

While I'll be happy if most of the gaem will be about political intrigue, we can expect a great deal of time in combat. So it should look authentic, less it will break the immersion. I can't teleport 2 meters forwward and explode my enemies, so DA2 combat felt awkward to me.

[Solmanian]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Killer3000ad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that the two handed warrior in dao was much too slow. On the merits of realism I find dao too be farther from than da2.

Doing high jumps in plate armor and swinging a massive two hander, bodies exploding from critical hits, swinging oversized swords like a paper stick and you say DAO is farther from realism than DA2? 

You mean like the ogre killing animation from DAO where the warrior in plate armor actually leaped well off the ground? The weight of most two handed swords is between 3 to 8 pounds. 
Gamers seemed to have a lot of misconceptions about mediveal arms and armor which are completely debunk by the actual facts.

The misconception being that people in plate armor could barely move, when in reality they were expected to fight for hours in them, and were quite agile and athletic in them since a good armor had a good weight distribution across the knight's body.

[Gamemako]

Nerevar-as wrote...

NWN had parry skill which also included riposte, so I don´t see why not. It would also allow more varied warrior builds.

I mean proper animations, not simply a skill.

Brohammed wrote...

This says nothing about axes and hammers, which even the modern examples (like a woodcutters maul or a framers hammer) are heavy and unwieldy as ****

Battle axes were also pretty light. Again, speed matters in combat. No matter how hard you hit, you're dead if you can't get the blade around before I gut you. The heaviest battle axes were lighter than the heavier two-handed swords (though also less well-balanced).

Realmzmaster wrote...

Plate armor is not as heavy as many think. In fact it is properly distributed across the body and at its heaviest weighs 55 pounds. Modern firefighters and soliders wear more gear with more weight than the mediveal knight or warrior. The armor allows for maneuverability. Warriors can climb ladders, climb and dismount quite easily from horses.

Indeed. It's mostly a myth that armor weighs you down considerably. That whole thing about knights being unable to get up after being knocked off their horses? Total, unadulterated falsehood.

[jillabender]

abaris wrote...

Look at the video link I posted on the previous page. That's how two handed swords were handled in reality. They had a whole set of purposes when used by a skilled swordsman.

On you other remark: I also would like to see the return of social skills. It's one of the things adding to the RPG experience.

Thanks for the video – it was very interesting!

[Aligalipe]

Twisted Path wrote...

The combat animations in Dragon Age 2 were realistic? I understand that claymores were handled differently in real life then how they're portrayed in fiction but I'm pretty sure no one ever did somersaults on a medieval battlefield. Or ninja-vanished to teleport behind a guy and stab him in the back. Or slammed the ground to stun nearby combatants. I'm also pretty sure combatants on a medieval battlefield didn't dance around spastically like the mooks from Power Rangers. Also people don't explode in a cloud of bloody mist when you stab them with a knife.

Those are my big complaints with the combat animations in DA2 at least. The battles always looked like a silly anime instead of a fight in a high fantasy setting with fencing and armor and magic. I will admit though, after replaying DA2 a bit recently I agree that underneath the silly animations and badly thought out encounter design the actual combat system (the skills and spells and synergy and balance between them and such,) in DA2 wasn't bad. There's also the parachuting waves and endless, tedious mook-mashing in DA2 but it seems like the developers know that's a problem and are trying to improve on it. Besides that my biggest complaints are mostly aesthetic.

Basically I thought the way characters fought in Origins looked really cool and the way characters fought in DA2 looked terrible.

Listen to him, what he says is the lights own truth!

[Solmanian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As a not very strong person that has actually held and manipulated some actual two-handed swords, the swing speed in DAO is pretty much a snail's pace.

The actual weight of a two-handed sword is usually between 3-8lbs.  Which really isn't that heavy, and when properly balanced and held correctly, is still a quick weapon.

Some interesting reading here.

I liked the swrods in the article. Hope this will be the style for the swords in the game. Much of the weapons in DA2 had some very bizzare looks, maybe based on the more exotic parts of the oriental armoury...

[Vanilka]

I must say there are things I enjoy and dislike about the combat in both games, although I do prefer DA:O in this aspect.

The pace of combat in DAII is fun and exciting, but it kills the strategic aspect. I tend to spend my time jumping from a place to a place, without giving it much thought. In the end, most fights end up being the same. While I'm okay with the speed and intensity, I don't know if I'm exactly happy to see it in BioWare's game. DA:O may not be perfect, but when I win a fight in that game, I feel I worked for it.

Unlike you, jillabender, I disliked what DAII did with attributes. It makes no sense to me that cunning increases defence. Which you've mentioned, I see. While I appreciate the attempt at making it clearer, making certain attributes clearly only useful to certain classes, I feel it forces me to build all my characters the same way. I can't make a strength-based rogue anymore. It seems to me that there were more possibilities in DA:O. On the other hand, I like that constitution has got useful again. I guess the difference between the effect of strength and dexterity on the damage you deal has got clearer, too.
However, I feel that DAII oversimplified the attributes. Making a badly-build character is next to impossible. I liked that I can build my character in various ways in DA:O and have to find a way how to make it more effective.

What I definitely consider an improvement is the bigger amount of passive talents and smaller amount of sustained ones for certain classes. I've always felt that there are too many sustained talents for two-handed warriors in DA:O and too few combat moves. Mages, on the other hand, as much as I love them in DA:O, seem to have almost no passive talents. DAII focused on giving us the possibility of enhancing certain skills and attributes with passive talents and I enjoy that very much.
As a person who loves playing rogues, I revel in all those insane critical hits and damage I am able to deal. I like taking those skills to the maximum thanks to all the passive abilities. I must admit that the game is a bit too easy thanks to that though. While it being fun, there's often no challenge in it because enemies fall like flies.

I absolutely agree that I would like to see the tactical camera return. I sorely missed it in DAII.

Much as you, I also wish I could equip my characters with both melee and ranged weapons. Well, maybe in a different way than you do. I would like it to work the same as in DA:O. I would love to have the weapon swap back. I use it a lot in DA:O (and other games). I can prepare for any kind of situation. I don't only switch between melee and ranged weapons, sometimes I simply switch between different kinds of swords or staffs, etc. However, I think that what you suggest could work really well. I like the idea.

I would love to see the return of non-combat abilities. I enjoyed making things in DA:O and developing different kinds of skills with different characters - poison-making, trap-making, herbalism, coercion, etc. Especially poisons and bombs are very useful in combat; coercion in avoiding it. But I guess it makes sense that you don't need most of those in DAII, with your character living in a city and being able to buy everything. Still, I like what you suggest, being able to solve or avoid problems we encounter in various ways.

What I would definitely want to keep in further games are the possibilities to experiment and cooperate we have in both games. I love the spell combinations in DA:O. Maybe I'm just bad in finding them in DAII, but I feel they are more abundant in DA:O. I like that certain classes can weaken enemies for the others to finish them off in DAII. I like the skills focused on this, such as Back-to-Back for rogues. I know it's rather unrealistic, but it still is a wonderful talent and a very useful skill to have.

What I definitely enjoy in DAII is that I can physically avoid certain attacks. I'm a bit afraid that it could force the player to deal with certain fights the same way all the time, but I like that I can simply move away when I see that a dragon is trying to bite my head off. Origins had this thing going to an extent, I think - you could avoid thrown boulders, ogres trying to ram you, etc.

I don't think I have to mention that I would appreciate no more waves of enemies. It makes for a tedious game experience. I'm glad BioWare is aware of this problem.

And animations. I must say I love what they did with mages in DAII, as people here mention. I usually don't mind the way characters fight in both DA:O and DAII, but mages have got somewhat cooler in DAII. (I can't imagine someone like Wynne fighting like that though.) What seems to have disappeared completely, on the other hand, are the finishing moves that I enjoy in DA:O so much. I was disappointed when I killed a dragon boss or an ogre and didn't get to jump on it in DAII.

Modifié par Vanilka of the Sword Coast, 04 novembre 2012 - 01:50 .

[jillabender]

Vanilka of the Sword Coast wrote…

Unlike you, jillabender, I disliked what DAII did with attributes. It makes no sense to me that cunning increases defence. Which you've mentioned, I see. While I appreciate the attempt at making it clearer, making certain attributes clearly only useful to certain classes, I feel it forces me to build all my characters the same. I can't make strength-based rogue anymore. It seems to me that there were more possibilities in DA:O. On the other hand, I like that constitution has got useful again. I guess the difference between the effect of strength and dexterity on the damage you deal has got clearer, too.

However, I feel that DAII oversimplified the attributes. Making a badly-build character is next to impossible. I liked that I can build my character in various ways in DA:O and have to find a way how to make it more effective.

Those are good points – I think the attribute system in DA2 did some things well, but it still needs some work in terms of allowing for a variety of effective builds within each class.

Vanilka of the Sword Coast wrote…

What I definitely consider an improvement is the bigger amount of passive talents and smaller amount of sustained ones for certain classes. I've always felt that there are too many sustained talents for two-handed warriors in DA:O and too few combat moves. Mages, on the other hand, as much as I love them in DA:O, seem to have almost no passive talents. DAII focused on giving us the possibility of enhancing certain skills and attributes with passive talents and I enjoy that very much.

I agree – having a larger proportion of passive talents lessened the problem of having too many sustained abilities and not enough mana or stamina to make full use of them. I do think there's room for improvement, though – I found that sword-and-shield warriors in DA2 still tended to get bogged down with too many sustained abilities.

On the other hand, I really disliked the long cooldowns for potions in DA2 – it meant that when my characters were out of stamina, I was often stuck waiting for the cooldown on the stamina potions to run out, and that's definitely not the fun part of combat for me!

Vanilka of the Sword Coast…

The pace of combat in DAII is fun and exciting, but it kills the strategic aspect. I tend to spend my time jumping from a place to a place, without giving it much thought. In the end, most fights end up being the same. While I'm okay with the speed and intensity, I don't know if I'm exactly happy to see it in BioWare's game. DA:O may not be perfect, but when I win a fight in that game, I feel I worked for it.

I would also like to see the combat in DA3 be a bit less fast and frantic than DA2's, and it sounds as though that's what the developers plan to do.

I completely agree that encounters in DA2 felt very repetitive, and didn't provide much of a reason for the player to use different strategies or tactics, and I think a lot of that, as you mentioned, has to do with the parachuting waves of enemies.

Fortunately, it sounds like the parachuting enemies won't be returning, so I have confidence that we'll see more varied and better designed combat encounters in DA3.

I would also love to see the weapon swap return, and I'd love to be able to build rogues and warriors with a combination of ranged and melee abilities – I think that could be done while still making each class feel distinct. I admit that I probably wouldn't bother to equip anything but a staff on a mage, but as I said, I think that melee-based abilities for mages – perhaps in the form of a shape-shifting or arcane warrior-style specialization – would be a nice change of pace.

Modifié par jillabender, 08 novembre 2012 - 10:24 .