100 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelStuart]

This is not action combat.
This is a quick time event.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Megakoresh wrote...

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

Oh dude ffs, learn the meaning of the words you use. This is getting embarassing.

And no, party based tactical combat is where DA will stay. It and the soon to be PE are the ONLY modern games with this kind of combat system. Leave it the frak alone.

[Beerfish]

Any move towards Witcher style combat would come close to being a 'no sale' for me.

[hexaligned]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

That's what I thought of when I read it as well.  One of the current console hidden gems I wish would get a sequal.  The PC version at least, from what I heard the console version was more miss than it was hit.

Modifié par relhart, 09 novembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[ShaggyWolf]

DA:O and DA:2 both have excellent combat. It makes me sad that some can't or wont try to appreciate em.

[Pzykozis]

relhart wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

That's what I thought of when I read it as well.  One of the current console hidden gems I wish would get a sequal.  The PC version at least, from what I heard the console version was more miss than it was hit.

Played both versions PC benefits a loooot from improved optimisation and the turbo button and the ability to control abitity use etc. think it really could use a sequel to push the system to where it should be but it is fun and absolute conqueror is a nightmare.

If we continue to see the combat system stay fairly the same I kind of wish they'd go back to the KOTOR choreographed fight system with internal turns going on just work a bit on the pacing so that its not so obvious that there's turns going on, very little need to have a turn be 2 seconds and an animation take up 1 second so the character just stands around doing the im waiting for next turn shimmy which is usually asthough they're hopped up on sugar / e numbers and shaking about uncontrollably.

Mostly because it just looks better than standard hit enemy they sort of semi react to it then they hit you and you do the same reaction animation etc. need parries and shown dodges and the like.

[philippe willaume]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Megakoresh wrote...

A pony in an avatar...

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

i though it was a unicorn?!!??
as for the meaning, could it be that you are accountant working at Average joe's gym?

Phil

[Realmzmaster]

Jzadek72 wrote...

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.

I play DAO and DA2 on Nightmare. Where in DA2 is the above sequence? I do not remember it in any of my games. I do remember it in a trailer and CGI. I found that both games required skill. I will say this again the combat systems in DAO and DA2 are the same. The only difference is in the speed of the animations and front loading of the combat.

The above video does not prove any point. There are videos for DAO that are just like it. They were used for marketing purposes.

[henkez3]

If you want a game where the combat is about being able to coordinate pressing different buttons to get a certain combo or effect, just go play games that do just that. There are plenty of games like that. I'd rather the combat stays in the same vein as DA:O and DA2, it's just that kind of game and there is no need to change to it hack 'n slash.

Modifié par henkez3, 09 novembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[John Epler]

Next person who thinks they're making a point with that 'A for Awesome' image is going to earn themselves a vacation from the forums.

Consider this your warning!

[Direwolf0294]

I'd prefer DA3 has skill based combat over a stat based luck of the dice roll combat but I doubt we'll see it. I doubt we'll see it for any Dragon Age game. DA:O's main selling point was it still did things the old way. While BioWare have updated the series with DA2 and from what we've heard, DA3 as well, I don't think they'll go the full mile and remove all the classic RPG elements. When it comes to combat, I actually think it'll be the opposite, with them playing up the classicness even more. I expect a return of the tactical camera, friendly fire and the combat slowed down to near what it was in DA:O.

I really hope BioWare one day brings out a fantasy RPG that uses action combat. I expect I'll be waiting a long time for that to happen though.

[Realmzmaster]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

I'd prefer DA3 has skill based combat over a stat based luck of the dice roll combat but I doubt we'll see it. I doubt we'll see it for any Dragon Age game. DA:O's main selling point was it still did things the old way. While BioWare have updated the series with DA2 and from what we've heard, DA3 as well, I don't think they'll go the full mile and remove all the classic RPG elements. When it comes to combat, I actually think it'll be the opposite, with them playing up the classicness even more. I expect a return of the tactical camera, friendly fire and the combat slowed down to near what it was in DA:O.

I really hope BioWare one day brings out a fantasy RPG that uses action combat. I expect I'll be waiting a long time for that to happen though.

In my opinion I hope it is a very, very long time. I build characters. I am not interested in building my reaction time skills. I want to build my character's skills and talents.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 novembre 2012 - 04:00 .

[Leomerya12]

I swear to god, if someone else says the "DAO Strategy Argument" I'll give Anders' cat, any cat, the "Grand Cleric" treatment. Both require great skill, both are challenging on Nightmare. Just because DA2 is different doesn't mean it's not skillful. How are games supposed to evolve if they stay the same? Grow up.

Modifié par Leomerya12, 10 novembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[Dr. Explosion]

There are things that both Dragon Age game got wrong. Combat is not one of those things.

Don't fix something that isn't broken.

[deuce985]

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:

This really made me laugh hard irl because it looks just like Witcher's combat lol.

[WhiteThunder]

Pzykozis wrote...

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.

I do like your admission that it is, in fact, the dumbing down of gameplay.  And you're right, DA: O wasn't especially difficult tactically.  They did make it much more action-y (easier) than games like Baldur's Gate.

Modifié par WhiteThunder, 10 novembre 2012 - 04:21 .

[philippe willaume]

Leomerya12 wrote...

I swear to god, if someone else says the "DAO Strategy Argument" I'll give Anders' cat, any cat, the "Grand Cleric" treatment. Both require great skill, both are challenging on Nightmare. Just because DA2 is different doesn't mean it's not skillful. How are games supposed to evolve if they stay the same? Grow up.

Well might as well call that thread  "In space no-one can ear you mew" because there is going to be a fair bit of feline in orbit.

you and my wife are in agreement, i need to grow up. Non the
less had you spent a modicum of time researching the subject., it would have been abundantly clear that most of us have recognised that the different not skilful, dumbing down is not really an argument.

 Challenging on nightmare ?
 None of them really are,both game does not scale well both in power and difficulty.
In DA:0 it is just a walk over and DA:2 is the same with the added pleasure of taking of being more tedious in boss fights.

Objectively, DA:0 offers much more tactical options thanDA:2
This is because in DA:0 you can get information about your ennemy forces and dsiposition, the dual weapon
specialisation, the greater control on companion interruption and location and greater ability to use and modify the terrain.

Now that does not mean that DA:2 has not a level of tactic involved, DA:0 has just a greater scope in that domain.

As realmz has mentioned system wise there is not that much difference. the delta is more about the scope and what it let you get away with.

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 10 novembre 2012 - 08:41 .

[Orian Tabris]

Megakoresh wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

The word is "exquisite".

And I prefer dice-based combat. Any player skill involved should be in a tactical sense, not a dexterity sense.

Look up the word "pun" in a dictionary 

Maybe you should look up the word 'inquisite' in a dictionary.

[Orian Tabris]

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 completely agree with this!

Half the time in games where numbers affect the outcome of combat, I find my incredible bad luck prevents me from monopolising my capabilities and tactical mind.

In these games, luck matters more than skill, which is one of the two reasons why the combat in DA2 is far superior to the combat in Origins. The other one being: Nightmare difficulty is a pain in the arse to play on. In Origins' I found friendly fire almost not worth even considering, but in 2 I can't go five seconds without Fenris, Carver or Merrill killing or almost entirely depleting Hawke's health.

[cindercatz]

Pzykozis wrote...

relhart wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

That's what I thought of when I read it as well.  One of the current console hidden gems I wish would get a sequal.  The PC version at least, from what I heard the console version was more miss than it was hit.

Played both versions PC benefits a loooot from improved optimisation and the turbo button and the ability to control abitity use etc. think it really could use a sequel to push the system to where it should be but it is fun and absolute conqueror is a nightmare.

If we continue to see the combat system stay fairly the same I kind of wish they'd go back to the KOTOR choreographed fight system with internal turns going on just work a bit on the pacing so that its not so obvious that there's turns going on, very little need to have a turn be 2 seconds and an animation take up 1 second so the character just stands around doing the im waiting for next turn shimmy which is usually asthough they're hopped up on sugar / e numbers and shaking about uncontrollably.

Mostly because it just looks better than standard hit enemy they sort of semi react to it then they hit you and you do the same reaction animation etc. need parries and shown dodges and the like.

I have it on 360. The combat's pretty decent, except for all the rendering issues, which don't really have anything to do with combat. It's a completely different animal from DA's combat, so while I like it and would enjoy it in a new franchise, I don't want to lose what DA brings to the table.

I agree with going back to a KoTOR type basic combat system, basically DA:O with no gaps between turns and a much more complex set of synched animations. Add running attacks, more battlefield tactics (like front line fighters requiring first attention if an enemy tries to pass, making chokepoints viable, for instance, terrain and elevation modifiers, etc.), position awareness, party based buffs and reactions (the programmable tactics from DA, which I absolutely love), and you're all set.

None of this requires removing auto-attack. They better not or I basically won't physically be able to play through the game anymore, not with the amount of combat DA has.

[Little Princess Peach]

why can't the combat evole too the players style?
for example if they use tank moves more of less the skill tree will reflect it
and if they like defence and healing more and party buffs it would also reflect on the skill tree and how the pc acts in combat

[Arppis]

There is no reason to have dice-based combat on computer game. Really. Unless you play RTS or Turn based strategy games.

I'd rather emerge into my character's role and combat actions completely, than have some dice say what I do. I can already do this on pen and paper games, why not use the interactive medium on it's full potential and go for more viseral combat.

[cindercatz]

To me, merging my real time actions with the dice system is a full realization of what videogames can do. If I want to just play dice for chance's sake, I'll do that. If I ever wanted to play a table top RPG (the thought's rarely crossed my mind, and I've done so only a few times in my life, when I was a kid), then I'm sure I could find somebody somewhere where I could do that. If I want real physicality, I'll go actually do something physical. I haven't really been able to much the last so many years, but I used to play basketball every day. I swim. I practice martial arts a bit. If I wanted to just play a button-masher videogame, there are a thousand other options.

There are no other options for DA's blend of tactics and chance. So let's not sacrifice that to be more like Brand X, Y, or Z. Improve it, sure, but don't turn this into another action RPG.