108 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Double post

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 07 novembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[StarcloudSWG]

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.

THANK GOD for a game designer who's actually gone and checked out the weapons that D&D originally claimed were heavy and slow as hell and has been blindly copied ever since.

The vast majority of practical hand-held weapons have always been between 2-8 lbs.  Always. Anything heavier becomes inefficient to haul around and use in battles that were often hours, or even days, in length. The major battlefield exceptions are the polearms, and even there the weight is lower than one might expect.

Someone mixed up the ceremonial, parade-use, showoff 'bearing swords' which were neither practical nor often sharpened, with the actual, martial, every day twohanders that were used in battle, and gamers have been paying the price ever since.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 07 novembre 2012 - 11:18 .

[jillabender]

Fast Jimmy wrote…

And in regards to combat, in DA:O, you had situations where how you did in combat actually affected the story. Battling at Redcliffe, for example, may cause many NPCs to die if you didn't handle the enemies quickly enough. This wasn't a dialogue choice or a click of the button, but rather the ability with which you handled combat determined who lives and who died.

I loved situations like that in DA:O as well – I'd like to see that kind of integration of story and combat come back in DA3.

[Bernhardtbr]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

HA! That's possibly one of the most incorrect statements I've ever heard. I replayed Origins 8 times and in each playtrhough had a multitude of different options. The way the endings alone reference all of the different outcomes is proof that the game has tons of replay value.

And in regards to combat, in DA:O, you had situations where how you did in combat actually affected the story. Battling at Redcliffe, for example, may cause many NPCs to die if you didn't handle the enemies quickly enough. This wasn't a dialogue choice or a click of the button, but rather the ability with which you handled combat determined who lives and who died. 

I can understand not liking DA:O, but to say that playing it again had nothing to offer someone is just flat out incorrect. The number of permutations available in any given playthrough is staggering.

Dude if you have 8 times 20-30 hours to waste playing the same game (160-240 hours in total), I don´t envy you. 2 playthroughs with different parties is enough to see almost everything there is in the game. Get a clue. It may be a horrific statement for you, but that´s YOUR opinion and I bet that statistically less than 10% people played more than 4 times (which is my case, I got DA 2 years ago and did 4 playthroughs in total). So you´re a minority and don´t go all holier-than-thou on me OK? 

I won´t play again just because I want to see what happens if I choose templar and werewolves instead of templars and dalish. I will simply watch a video in Youtube because I´ve got better stuff to do. And it´s obvious I do like DA else I wouldn´t be here would I?

Returning to topic those situations where you are awarded by having good tactical skills and saving people are always interesting.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 08 novembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[cindercatz]

DA:O's got more replay value than almost any game I've ever played, and definitely more than any other long form game I've come across. That's why I love it so much, personally. I mean there's a lot I love about it, but that's why it's #2 this generation for me so far. I think its great maeliability is why I started coming to the DA board and actually spending time posting about it in the first place. I understand not having the time to see/do it all (I only play the vast majority of games once through, even the short ones), but there is a whole, whole lot to justify multiple playthroughs, and that's at more than 100 hrs. a playthrough. I'm stopping at six personally (was working on it when my current system died), but I can see where there's still a ton I haven't seen,

edit: Granted, it's arguable.

And back on topic. That of course applies to the combat as well. All those playthroughs and there are still spec and skill combos that I haven't played much of, new tactic variations I'm playing with, etc. Again, very happy for the emphasis in DA3.

Someone mentioned the cutscene replacement of combat a while ago. I would actually love that for like a large RPG/Adventure game hybrid type of thing, where story choices and stats also change the way battles evolve and resolve. I've always thought it would be interesting to see battles play back in cinematic form in a game as well, though I neither want nor expect that in DA anytime soon or ever really.

Modifié par cindercatz, 08 novembre 2012 - 12:48 .

[CrazyRah]

Fast Jimmy wrote…

And in regards to combat, in DA:O, you had situations where how you did in combat actually affected the story. Battling at Redcliffe, for example, may cause many NPCs to die if you didn't handle the enemies quickly enough. This wasn't a dialogue choice or a click of the button, but rather the ability with which you handled combat determined who lives and who died.

Oh yes! I loved those situations. The Battle at Redcliffe is a perfect example of it too. Since i play mage i had the option to influence who survived and who didn't thanks to my healing abilities. Both through my damage and my healing did the combat allow me to save lives that otherwise would've been impossible.

[Anomaly-]

Realmzmaster wrote...
One of my rogues is a duel wielding assassin duelist. The stats were:


Strength 10 + 4=14
Dexterity 35 + 10 =45
Magic 10 + 4 = 14
Cunning 38 + 3=41
Will power 28 + 2=30
Constitution 39 +1=40

No optimal builds. 

I make use of every availab le resource from fire bombs, freeze bombs to poisons. Maximizing all available rune slots. Taking advantage of all armor like the Messenger armor for thr rogue. The party can make it through DA2 without optimal builds. It requires changing strategy on the fly and not being stuck to a set battle type of strategy.

Oh, I know. I never said you couldn't survive with sub-optimal builds. But they are sub-optimal. You only hurt yourself by doing so. And from my experience, changing strategy on the fly only hurts you too, since the best strategy is almost always using Cross class Combos as quickly and often as possible. The rest is just common sense, using potions and trying to avoid dying.

But the greater issue to me is the fact that many of my preferred builds simply aren't possible. I could no longer play a Rogue who specialized in poisons, traps, pets, stealing, persuasion, etc. Backstabbing was now a point and click 1 affair, and stealth was a shadow of it's former self. This is especially concerning to me as a person who primarily plays Rogues, because these are the main things that I associate with Rogues. Because of this, every Rogue I attempted to play in DA2 just felt like a functionally equivalent Warrior to me, or perhaps -- if I stretched it -- a DA:O Duelist.

The above, combined with the shallow attributes, shallow itemization and shallow strategy are the primary reasons I just really couldn't enjoy the gameplay in DA2.

jillabender wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote…

And in regards to combat, in DA:O, you had situations where how you did in combat actually affected the story. Battling at Redcliffe, for example, may cause many NPCs to die if you didn't handle the enemies quickly enough. This wasn't a dialogue choice or a click of the button, but rather the ability with which you handled combat determined who lives and who died.

I loved situations like that in DA:O as well – I'd like to see that kind of integration of story and combat come back in DA3.

I also agree with that. There were actually several more times in DA:O that I wishedI had more to worry about during combat. For example, the possibility that temporary companions like Ser Gilmore could die permanently would have made things more interesting and impactful.

Bernhardtbr wrote...

But that´s true of any RPG. A huge appeal of any game. from Final Fantasy to The Elder Scrolls to Bioware games is the sense of discovery. Once you´ve finished a playthrough in any of these games there´s barely new things to discover and enjoy. Just as combat becomes a chore in DA 2, so does it become a chore when you are running around casting spells, or shooting arrows and drinking potions in TES in some random cave killing random guys just to get more fat lewt.

That's only true if exploration and story are your main motives. I appreciate both, but the aspect I concern myself with most is the gameplay, mainly because that's what I'm experiencing 90% of the time. If the gameplay is rich and varied, I can go many playthroughs trying new and different things. Deep and somewhat randomized itemization can also go a long way. The fact that the gameplay all felt the same to me, and the itemization was shallow and static is why I had to force myself through 1 playthrough of DA2, and couldn't manage any others. Neither the story parts I didn't experience, nor the story based DLC were motivation enough for another playthrough.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 09 novembre 2012 - 01:44 .

[10K]

Comparing DA:O to DA2, I have to go with DA2 combat system. I play on console, so the point and click action in Da:O I wasn't really feeling. Don't get me wrong, DA2 combat wasn't all up to par either. But with a controller in your hand a hack and slash type of game play feels more confortable.

[Realmzmaster]

Anomaly- wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
One of my rogues is a duel wielding assassin duelist. The stats were:


Strength 10 + 4=14
Dexterity 35 + 10 =45
Magic 10 + 4 = 14
Cunning 38 + 3=41
Will power 28 + 2=30
Constitution 39 +1=40

No optimal builds. 

I make use of every available resource from fire bombs, freeze bombs to poisons. Maximizing all available rune slots. Taking advantage of all armor like the Messenger armor for thr rogue. The party can make it through DA2 without optimal builds. It requires changing strategy on the fly and not being stuck to a set battle type of strategy.

Oh, I know. I never said you couldn't survive with sub-optimal builds. But they are sub-optimal. You only hurt yourself by doing so. And from my experience, changing strategy on the fly only hurts you too, since the best strategy is almost always using Cross class Combos as quickly and often as possible. The rest is just common sense, using potions and trying to avoid dying.

But the greater issue to me is the fact that many of my preferred builds simply aren't possible. I could no longer play a Rogue who specialized in poisons, traps, pets, stealing, persuasion, etc. Backstabbing was now a point and click 1 affair, and stealth was a shadow of it's former self. This is especially concerning to me as a person who primarily plays Rogues, because these are the main things that I associate with Rogues. Because of this, every Rogue I attempted to play in DA2 just felt like a functionally equivalent Warrior to me, or perhaps -- if I stretched it -- a DA:O Duelist.

The above, combined with the shallow attributes, shallow itemization and shallow strategy are the primary reasons I just really couldn't enjoy the gameplay in DA2.

 I am roleplaying a character so optimal builds and strategies do not interest me. I rarely use CCC because I am not trying to play optimally. I do not go out of my way to set them up. I do not have a set way of playing a rogue I take what the system offers and build my rogue so that it fits the character I want to roleplay. But that is how I play every one else may and does play differently.