100 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelStuart]

I have never understood the need to roll in games, when taking a few steps work just as well.

[abnocte]

Would you care to explain how a party-based game with DMC combat should work exactly?
Or do you want Bioware to throw away companions completely?

Also, what is the problem with dice? from a programming point of view there's no difference between a "dice-based" formula and a "physics-based" formula, its just mathematics.

The "dice-based" one is just an abstraction and simplified way of calculating collisions.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Witcher 2 should never be used as a combat model for anything. Ever.

Your tears are an important alchemical ingredient for Geralt

I'm sure lots of people enjoyed doing this constantly:

haha his opponent's just completely "WTF?" I'm not actually a big fan of rolling, but it's still incomparable to DA2's standing there without even blocking. And it does actually not look out of place against something like the Kraken or anything large enough. Not to mention Dat Mass Effect 3 to be fair.

I'd like being able to duck under horizontal swings and sidestepping vertical ones and stabs, but that would be even more complex for the click-and-slash crowd. If anyone's tried Chivalry on steam, that's pretty much what I think the ideal model is for fun and visceral combat.


The thing about DAO's combat is that while it CAN be fun in a situation where you only barely made it because of a brilliant plan you devised, there's abo****ely no satisfaction in trying to replicate it a second time. The joy comes from the Aha! moment rather than any primal thrills like something barely missing you.
Which is why being killed after long battle and doing some extremely cool things and worse yet and even more commonly- crashing, would send you into an uncontrollable rage:pinched:










Bonus: You know the reason rolling works in games but not life? My sound theory is that you have no vision, you don't know what's coming next and you don't even know which way to roll. Where as in a third person game you have an omniscient view of everything.

And excatly Mike, it's fine the first time, but when you have to replay something over and over again it just becomes too glaring

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 08 novembre 2012 - 08:30 .

[MichaelStuart]

Me personal, I find having success/failure being ultimately decided by random numbers, just cheapens the whole experience.
If win, its because I got lucky, I haven't accomplished anything.

[Megakoresh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Witcher 2 should never be used as a combat model for anything. Ever.

A pony in an avatar, clearly a post to incite flame wars and unquestionable attitude. To all of such people I have one message:



Also: evading is an important skill in games. The trouble starts when it's so important that it needs to be overused. I think Block should be much more important, but Reckoning did this really well. You can't dodge more than 2 times in Reckoning wihtout a break, this makes abusing dodge impossible and forces you to learn blocking and parry.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 08 novembre 2012 - 08:33 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Megakoresh wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Witcher 2 should never be used as a combat model for anything. Ever.

A pony in an avatar, clearly a post to incite flame wars and unquestionable attitude. To all of such people I have one message:

I suppose this is the appropriate video response.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Me personal, I find having success/failure being ultimately decided by random numbers, just cheapens the whole experience.
If win, its because I got lucky, I haven't accomplished anything. 

I could make the argument saying the exact opposite - if my character survived because I dodged every two seconds by hitting a timed button, or because I used a custom controller that lets me Turbo a certain button (like how you can do in Bayonetta), then I haven't accomplished anything. 


If, instead, the way I have built my characters, maximized their strengths, protected their weaknesses and handled my entire party in a perfect harmony to counter the exact nature, strengths and weaknesses of the enemies I am facing; then THAT is accomplishing something right there. 

Focusing on player skill for every fight removes the need to focus on diverse builds or even non-combat solutions. Why would I ever want to skip combat if I can never die because of my twitchy reflexes or my suped up controller? If my level 1 character can handle a level 30 character by the player being able to manipulate the combat system without fear, then the combat is broken. I hope no one is advocating that, but it is the slope you start sliding down once you begin trying to do an Action RPG where the Action elements take front-and-center and the RPG ones take a backseat. 

[Maria Caliban]

Megakoresh wrote...

A pony in an avatar...

You honestly think having a pony as my avatar means something?

[axl99]

*shrug* Witcher 2 had such imbalanced hitboxes for combat that it was more effective to roll than to block because the player weapon collisions were so small. Also, its combat system isn't made for team-based dynamics like in a DA game, it just wouldn't make sense.

Dragon's Dogma on the other hand would be an interesting influence on the combat in DA3.

[Fredward]

I don't get the title of this thread. At all.

[Fast Jimmy]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

I don't get the title of this thread. At all.

It was a bad pun to begin with, but the terrible grammar is what kills it. There's a lot of fail going on there.

[Maria Caliban]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

I don't get the title of this thread. At all.

Inquisite is an uncommon word similar to 'inquire' in meaning. As it makes no sense as used, I'm guessing that he's playing on the fact that inquisite and exquisite sound the same, and the name of the next game is Inquisition.

[Kail Ashton]

"Inquisite combat. Are gonna get it?"

......huh?

[Fredward]

You could call it an inquisitively bad pun.

-ba dum tis-

[MichaelStuart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Focusing on player skill for every fight removes the need to focus on diverse builds or even non-combat solutions. Why would I ever want to skip combat if I can never die because of my twitchy reflexes or my suped up controller? If my level 1 character can handle a level 30 character by the player being able to manipulate the combat system without fear, then the combat is broken. I hope no one is advocating that, but it is the slope you start sliding down once you begin trying to do an Action RPG where the Action elements take front-and-center and the RPG ones take a backseat. 

Character builds will still be viable.
A player will still have to deal with the strengths and weakness of the character they created.
A player thats playing with a fast character but weak character will have to take extra care to not get hit, while a strong but slow will have to put effort into hitting enemies. Either way your forced to rethink your plan.

Also, I see nothing wrong with a level one character being be able to defeat a level 30 character.
Levels should gave the player more options, not determine a set amount of strength.
 

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Focusing on player skill for every fight removes the need to focus on diverse builds or even non-combat solutions. Why would I ever want to skip combat if I can never die because of my twitchy reflexes or my suped up controller? If my level 1 character can handle a level 30 character by the player being able to manipulate the combat system without fear, then the combat is broken. I hope no one is advocating that, but it is the slope you start sliding down once you begin trying to do an Action RPG where the Action elements take front-and-center and the RPG ones take a backseat. 

Character builds will still be viable.
A player will still have to deal with the strengths and weakness of the character they created.
A player thats playing with a fast character but weak character will have to take extra care to not get hit, while a strong but slow will have to put effort into hitting enemies. Either way your forced to rethink your plan.

Also, I see nothing wrong with a level one character being be able to defeat a level 30 character.
Levels should gave the player more options, not determine a set amount of strength.
 

A level one character beating a level thirty character is the real life equivalent of a 4 year old getting into a fist fight with a Navy Seal and winning. It should be so far out of the realm of likelihood that it may as well be impossible.

[MichaelStuart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Focusing on player skill for every fight removes the need to focus on diverse builds or even non-combat solutions. Why would I ever want to skip combat if I can never die because of my twitchy reflexes or my suped up controller? If my level 1 character can handle a level 30 character by the player being able to manipulate the combat system without fear, then the combat is broken. I hope no one is advocating that, but it is the slope you start sliding down once you begin trying to do an Action RPG where the Action elements take front-and-center and the RPG ones take a backseat. 

Character builds will still be viable.
A player will still have to deal with the strengths and weakness of the character they created.
A player thats playing with a fast character but weak character will have to take extra care to not get hit, while a strong but slow will have to put effort into hitting enemies. Either way your forced to rethink your plan.

Also, I see nothing wrong with a level one character being be able to defeat a level 30 character.
Levels should gave the player more options, not determine a set amount of strength.
 

A level one character beating a level thirty character is the real life equivalent of a 4 year old getting into a fist fight with a Navy Seal and winning. It should be so far out of the realm of likelihood that it may as well be impossible.

But were not playing as 4 year olds.
Were playing playing as adults with years of training.

A Navy Seal should always have a good chance of winning against another Navy Seal.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Focusing on player skill for every fight removes the need to focus on diverse builds or even non-combat solutions. Why would I ever want to skip combat if I can never die because of my twitchy reflexes or my suped up controller? If my level 1 character can handle a level 30 character by the player being able to manipulate the combat system without fear, then the combat is broken. I hope no one is advocating that, but it is the slope you start sliding down once you begin trying to do an Action RPG where the Action elements take front-and-center and the RPG ones take a backseat. 

Character builds will still be viable.
A player will still have to deal with the strengths and weakness of the character they created.
A player thats playing with a fast character but weak character will have to take extra care to not get hit, while a strong but slow will have to put effort into hitting enemies. Either way your forced to rethink your plan.

Also, I see nothing wrong with a level one character being be able to defeat a level 30 character.
Levels should gave the player more options, not determine a set amount of strength.
 

A level one character beating a level thirty character is the real life equivalent of a 4 year old getting into a fist fight with a Navy Seal and winning. It should be so far out of the realm of likelihood that it may as well be impossible.

But were not playing as 4 year olds.
Were playing playing as adults with years of training.

A Navy Seal should always have a good chance of winning against another Navy Seal.

If you want to talk reality, people don't change all that much at all. Mike Tyson was knocking out adults as a 13 year old. The difference in abilites between a level 1 and level 100 are absurd, you can't possible improve that much even with unrelenting determination

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Because you say it is? *clap *clap*

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Uh what example? What I was making fun of was is that you simply claimed your opinion as fact without any explanation, now I loled again when you say it's objective.

Here's an example of my OPINION- you start out having to stab a man 15 times to kill him, and then 1 year later you can kill an elephant with one blow? It's even truer if you're on the receiving end, but fine that's a game mechanic.


Typo. Make sense now?

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 08 novembre 2012 - 11:02 .