100 réponses à ce sujet

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

First of all when have we ever played a character from 18 to 50 years old? In fact has there ever been a game where you play a 50 year old?
Second of all WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMBAT.

Do you think that as boxers train, their punches get stronger and stronger to the point where their enemies just, explode?

By the way I'd usually put my money on the 18 year old, but not if the 50 year old is mike tyson. Then again I suppose he'd be fighting himself

Hanz54321 wrote...
Nothing I said implied what I said was subjective.

Exactly,
get over yourself, unless you're teaching me about the laws of physics,
everything you say is subjective. Heck christians even think evolution
is subjective.

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 08 novembre 2012 - 11:12 .

[10K]

I would love the combat to be something like DD. That would be awesome.

[Kileyan]

I am not intrinsically against a game that is all about reflexes, combat moves, active blocking and combinations. Thing is, I can play those games elsewhere. I like the group aspect of Dragon Ages, I like party based rpgs, and I cannot see the party aspect not being dumbed down, and eventually discarded if the move was made to a real time reflex fighting game button smash.

As for the realism argument raging above. I kind of agree that combat ability is mostly natural mental and physical talent. After 5 or so years of super intense training, the improvement further would be minimal for a navy seal or whatever your example may be. However, I don't want to play that realistic game. I like character progression, I like fantastical magic spells and items. I really have no problem with my character having no chance vs an ogre at level 1 and being able to one shot same ogre at level 12.

[Agent_Dark_]

I reckon they should go to a tactical semi-turn based combat. You come across an encounter, the game pauses for you to issue a tactical plan which could involve quite complex tactical orders. Then the game un-pauses and you 'cinematically' watch your squad carry out the orders. Some sort of leadership stat would determine how complex your orders would be (as opposed to basic AI taking over) and how effective orders issued 'on-the-fly' during mid-combat would be.

This way you could get the tactical combat of DA:O with the more visceral combat animations of DA2, with a bit of VATS from Fallout3 throw in, while still keeping it in a stat based mathematical system.

[Anomaly-]

Weird thread. Both for the title and the fact that I legitimately can't tell if several replies are serious or not.

Maria Caliban wrote...

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

I'm a big supporter of TW2 and I don't agree with Maria on many things, but combat was easily one of the weakest aspects of that game. Not a great model.

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...
And it does actually not look out of place against something like the Kraken or anything large enough.

Kayran?

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.

Even if you could see in every direction it still pointlessly wastes time, giving your opponent the opportunity to attack while you're transitioning....

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.

No, if you win it's because you made intelligent choices both in your character build(s) as well as tactics. Luck has very little to do with the result if you'd done everything right, or wrong. The rolls are simply conceptual abstractions used to represent the various factors involved in combat that are very difficult to represent visually.

MichaelStuart wrote...
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.

This is exactly what attack/defense rolls accomplish. It's a far easier solution than trying to model combat between objects moving at different speeds, from different angles, tracking hitboxes the entire time. That's a much more realistic approach for an action game where fewer variables are involved.

MichaelStuart wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

Levels are precisely the abstraction that is there to represent those years of training. That's why level 30 > level 1.

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...
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

People can change considerably and that's a very poor choice of argument. Mike Tyson was able to knock people out as a 13 year old because physically he was mostly developed by that time, and the fact is, almost any 13 year
old who isn't frail or sickly can knock out an adult if the blow is placed right. Tyson's skill, on the other hand, changed considerably. His technique didn't change drastically, because the style that best complemented his body type and skill set was always quite simple.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 09 novembre 2012 - 01:05 .

[Kileyan]

Anomaly- wrote...

Weird thread. Both for the title and the fact that I legitimately can't tell if several replies are serious or not.

I'm a big supporter of TW2 and I don't agree with Maria on many things, but combat was easily one of the weakest aspects of that game. Not a great model.

I have to agree, The Witcher was a superior experience in choices and a living world, but I have to admit I never finished Witcher 2. The combat was not just weak, but it was bad, clunky, not very fun. 

Unfortuanately even if someone posted a no combat mod for Witcher 2, I wouldn't play it. I play games to beat them as they are presented to me. I can't imagine enjoying a DA or Witcher game where I don't have to do any combat, and just skip to answering dialog questions. That would be playing a pick your own adventure book, which is the worst kind of game I can imagine.

ANyways, rambling over, Witcher 2 could have been good, please NO NO NO on using that kind of combat.

[Realmzmaster]

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

I reckon they should go to a tactical semi-turn based combat. You come across an encounter, the game pauses for you to issue a tactical plan which could involve quite complex tactical orders. Then the game un-pauses and you 'cinematically' watch your squad carry out the orders. Some sort of leadership stat would determine how complex your orders would be (as opposed to basic AI taking over) and how effective orders issued 'on-the-fly' during mid-combat would be.

This way you could get the tactical combat of DA:O with the more visceral combat animations of DA2, with a bit of VATS from Fallout3 throw in, while still keeping it in a stat based mathematical system.

The system you describe is the one used in the Last Remnant  by Square Enix. The system takes some getting use to, but it works quite nicely.

[Fortlowe]

Turn based isn't my thing, but then again the dice based system wasn't either, and it worked out so I won't rule it out.

I think there's some middle ground here, though between the tactical pause and play and the reactive hack and slash gameplay styles. ME nailed it. Dragon Age can too. So, I ask, why not both?

Personally, I like to get in there and mix it up in real time. I only pause to issue orders to companions (mages really) and for potions.

[Kileyan]

Fortlowe wrote...

Turn based isn't my thing, but then again the dice based system wasn't either, and it worked out so I won't rule it out.

I think there's some middle ground here, though between the tactical pause and play and the reactive hack and slash gameplay styles. ME nailed it. Dragon Age can too. So, I ask, why not both?

.

I'm not even saying Dragon Age cannot nail it.

But...it is much easier to do an action game where you point guns, aim them and shoot them. It is far different to do a game like that with melee. You just shoot guns, you hit scan or you don't, do a little waist high cover and you are set.

Full reactive melee, dodges, running, just back pedaling to avoid blows changed how the game works, how it detects hit boxes. Then we have archers and mages who attack from range, how do you handle that in a game built like a combat arcade game. How do you do justice for melee without ruining any archer class who the melee rush.

How do you handle such a arcade like combat game, that has an entire party, one that might be the tank, that isn't your character?

DUnno, I don't want to see Dragon Age: Mortal Kombat

[Fortlowe]

That's only because either we haven't seen it or an appropriate example doesn't come to mind. For me, the closest example for perfect melee combat I can think of is Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Dated, surely, but still beautifully simple and sublimely executed.

Pull the stick right and press 'A' and Link slashes to the right. Pull it left he slashes left. Down and he slashes up. Up and he thrusts. Substitute 'A' for 'B' and those are the directions he dodges. Add to that you could assign his equipment to the other buttons (boomerang, bomb, bow and arrow, etc) and you've quite the model platform for making a good melee combat system.

And before anyone brings up 'Z' targeting, lets not forget another venerable action RPG that esentially copied and pasted this same system sans 'Z' targeting, Fable (Fable II, specifically).

Modifié par Fortlowe, 09 novembre 2012 - 08:11 .

[WhiteThunder]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

First of all when have we ever played a character from 18 to 50 years old? In fact has there ever been a game where you play a 50 year old?
Second of all WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMBAT.

Do you think that as boxers train, their punches get stronger and stronger to the point where their enemies just, explode?

By the way I'd usually put my money on the 18 year old, but not if the 50 year old is mike tyson. Then again I suppose he'd be fighting himself

Hanz54321 wrote...
Nothing I said implied what I said was subjective.

Exactly,
get over yourself, unless you're teaching me about the laws of physics,
everything you say is subjective. Heck christians even think evolution
is subjective.

You'd put money on the 18 year old?  As an 18 year old, I feel qualified to tell you that that's ridiculous.  A 50 year old is bigger, stronger and more experienced than an 18 year old.  It would not be close.

[Kileyan]

Fortlowe wrote...

That's only because either we haven't seen it or an appropriate example doesn't come to mind. For me, the closest example for perfect melee combat I can think of is Zelda: Ocirina of Time. Dated, surely, but still beautifully simply and sublimely executed.

Pull the stick right and press 'A' and Link slashes to the right. Pull it left he slashes left. Down and he slashes up. Up and he thrusts. Substitute 'A' for 'B' and those are the directions he dodges. Add to that you could assign his equipment to the other buttons (boomerang, bomb, bow and arrow, etc) and you've quite the model platform for making a good melee combat system.

I don't play console games, what was that game Zelda. Was it a single character game like the early nintendo Zelda, did it take into account you had 3 other party members, one of which may have been the tank character, not your character?

If not, then its just another game, not a game that takes into account what makes party based rpgs special.

You are describing a generic single party member game.

[WhiteThunder]

Fortlowe wrote...

That's only because either we haven't seen it or an appropriate example doesn't come to mind. For me, the closest example for perfect melee combat I can think of is Zelda: Ocirina of Time. Dated, surely, but still beautifully simply and sublimely executed.

Pull the stick right and press 'A' and Link slashes to the right. Pull it left he slashes left. Down and he slashes up. Up and he thrusts. Substitute 'A' for 'B' and those are the directions he dodges. Add to that you could assign his equipment to the other buttons (boomerang, bomb, bow and arrow, etc) and you've quite the model platform for making a good melee combat system.

And before anyone brings up 'Z' targeting, lets not forget another venerable action RPG that esentially copied and pasted this same system sans 'Z' targeting, Fable (Fable II, specifically).

Ocarina of Time might be the best game ever made, but its combat simply would not work in a party based game.

[Megakoresh]

I am gonna make one last post before I head off these sociopathic forums and go back to Firefall or Loadout:

I think I figured out how to make the combat both skill-based and kinda MOBA-style, like it is now. Really what they have to do is remove the autoattack on the PC (player controlled) character.

If the lock and autoattack work for NPCs but as soon as you take control, they are gone this may be enough for both those people who like the dull hotkey combat and for those who prefer to think on the fly.

The camera, instead of zooming, can be set to 2 states: tactical and action. Soon as you switch to the action, you move to the third person view of the controlled character and the hitzones/blocking/dodging are introduced. You can then control whatever class in the party you prefer and program your team-mates to support you the way you want.

With this system less skilful players are able to win without doing much in the action mode, but excelling in the strategy, and vice versa.

BTW: the Witcher 2 had some issues with combat, it's the main idea that was great: the fact that you had to prepare for every type of encounter, think about your approach. The fact that there were several ways to win every single battle and that after you come up with the plan there was also skill involved in executing it. It definitely had issues, like lack of combos or dodge/quen over-spam, but that is execution issues, not the actual design.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 09 novembre 2012 - 07:06 .

[WhiteThunder]

There is skill in DA:O. It's just on a macro-management level rather than a micro-management level. Twitch/Button-mashing=/=Skill. What you are suggesting is that less skillful players who can't strategize or build their characters correctly be allowed to button-mash and kite their way around rather than play the game. (This may be the natural extension of DA2, but I digress).

[Fortlowe]

Kileyan wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

That's only because either we haven't seen it or an appropriate example doesn't come to mind. For me, the closest example for perfect melee combat I can think of is Zelda: Ocirina of Time. Dated, surely, but still beautifully simply and sublimely executed.

Pull the stick right and press 'A' and Link slashes to the right. Pull it left he slashes left. Down and he slashes up. Up and he thrusts. Substitute 'A' for 'B' and those are the directions he dodges. Add to that you could assign his equipment to the other buttons (boomerang, bomb, bow and arrow, etc) and you've quite the model platform for making a good melee combat system.

I don't play console games, what was that game Zelda. Was it a single character game like the early nintendo Zelda, did it take into account you had 3 other party members, one of which may have been the tank character, not your character?

If not, then its just another game, not a game that takes into account what makes party based rpgs special.

You are describing a generic single party member game.

I am describing a gameplay mechanic and using the grandfather of all 3D questing games as an example. There's nothing generic about that game. It's informed almost every 3D action videogame since its release, including DA. If you didn't play it when it was released you've no idea what you're talking about.

I don't think the two (responsive/ reactive melee combat and party based rpgs) are necessarily mutually exclusive. This was the notion about shooters and RPGs prior to ME. Then ME was developed and now the idea of a shooting based action RPG is completely acceptable (even though, the shooting in ME1 wasn't very good and took a drastactic departure in ME2 that, I as well as the majority of players, consider a dramatic improvement, I might add). But before it was made, there was nothing like ME. The developers had to create an entirely new convention.

That's what I'm hoping for with DAIII (frankly I was hoping for it in DA2, a'la ME1 to ME2). A combat system that provides for active combat, pause and play, or auto combat. To a degree, they already have. But much like ME1, the sytem wasn't perfected and likely just like ME2, it'll have to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch in order to make the premise work to its full potential. Now that we have a new game engine (just like ME2 got before it got it right), I expect that the combat, along with many other gameply mechanics will see vast improvements.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 09 novembre 2012 - 08:13 .

[Maria Caliban]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

First of all when have we ever played a character from 18 to 50 years old? In fact has there ever been a game where you play a 50 year old?

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Maria Caliban wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

First of all when have we ever played a character from 18 to 50 years old? In fact has there ever been a game where you play a 50 year old?

I played that! I dunno why it didn't come to mind, prolly cause I didn't finish it. I did watch my brother though...
Was he actually that old or did he just become all beardy-like?
Anyway loved that game, but that was an example of actiony combat that wasn't too enticing wasn't it...

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Staying borderline on topic I happened upon this interview about Elder Scrolls Online where Maria disses hotkey combat a bit. Around the 4 minute 30 mark.. But being an mmo I'm not sure they're be able to pull it off. I mean, even the main series didn't really have world class combat.

[Xewaka]

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.

Try out Blood Bowl. Then come back and say that again with a straight face.

Modifié par Xewaka, 09 novembre 2012 - 10:47 .

[Pzykozis]

WhiteThunder wrote...

There is skill in DA:O. It's just on a macro-management level rather than a micro-management level. Twitch/Button-mashing=/=Skill. What you are suggesting is that less skillful players who can't strategize or build their characters correctly be allowed to button-mash and kite their way around rather than play the game. (This may be the natural extension of DA2, but I digress).

Haha, great joke.

Atleast I hope you were going for humour.

I'm sure we'll see combat undergoing a lot of changes for DA3 big and small, some people will like it some people wont and of course someone somewhere will decry the dumbing down of gameplay.

[Jzadek72]

Megakoresh wrote...

I am gonna make one last post before I head off these sociopathic forums and go back to Firefall or Loadout:

I think I figured out how to make the combat both skill-based and kinda MOBA-style, like it is now. Really what they have
to do is remove the autoattack on the PC (player controlled) character.

If the lock and autoattack work for NPCs but as soon as you take control, they are gone this may be enough for both those people who like the dull hotkey combat and for those who prefer to think on the fly.

The camera, instead of zooming, can be set to 2 states: tactical and action. Soon as you switch to the action, you move to the third person view of the controlled character and the hitzones/blocking/dodging are introduced. You can then control whatever class in the party you prefer and program your team-mates to support you the way you want.

With this system less skilful players are able to win without doing much in the action mode, but excelling in the strategy, and vice versa.

Skill:


Sorry, but if you play on the harder difficulties in DA:O, you'll learn what thinking on the fly really means. My character is going to make basic attacks for me, because I'm too busy looking at the battlefield, finding the perfect moment to use my powers in a way which won't harm me and figuring out where to place them. It takes very little skill to mash buttons.

Modifié par Jzadek72, 09 novembre 2012 - 11:27 .

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Alright people stop arguing about which one takes more skill. They're different things- analytical skills and reacting correctly and quickly. If you're so bloody L33T WHY DON'T YOU DO BOTH.

[Archyyy]

Combat is secondary in rpgs but I think there are few enough games with the kind of combat origins for example had. Not fair to take that away from fans of turn based combat. I personally prefer a more involved and immersive combat style close to action combat but only if done properly. And from first perspective.

The thing with action combat is though that it tends to be tedious and easy. If there was an option to have tactical and immersive action combat I'd love it. With the feel that im actually hitting something and the challenge to keep it interesting. Tactics, thinking, blood and impact.