194 réponses à ce sujet

[Renmiri1]

Filament wrote...

Even though you don't enjoy that style of play you should still be tolerant of those who do, no? Didn't you say the same when the shoe was on the other foot and people were vomiting on the idea of romances in some manner?

Oh absolutely.

I was just saying that DAO was way to slow and almost unbearable but a similar thing on DA2 was ok. I also played FF12 with a similar thing - gambits alllowed you to script the companions - and wasn't that bad.

All I am saying is that DAO is on the lowest speed I myself can tolerate, anything slower would really break a game to me. And you will see me asking for a combat skip toggle on other threads. Because DAO combat is painful to me.

But ya, whatever floats your boat. A middle ground between DAO and DA2 would be quite acceptable to me, would it be too fast to you ?

PS: BF loves COD and shooters. DAO was worse than pulling teeth to him, I couldn't even get him to finish the darkspawn blood quest. OTOH he is the one who got me into Mass Effect. 

[MichaelStuart]

I would choose Assassin's Creed.

[SinerAthin]

Hazegurl wrote...

I liked the combat just fine in DA2. But I wouldn't mind it if they added some things from Dragon's Dogma. Like climbing on huge enemies like dragons etc to defeat them. I also like it when my pawn grabs an enemy and holds him down for me to kill. It has a real sense of working together.

Indeed, I love games to do that.

Also, if you are 3vs1 versus a swordman who's a lot more skilled than you, it makes sense to work together to just push him over and mob him while he's on the ground, rendering his fancy skills useless xD

[Remmirath]

I'd say Dragon Age: Origins, simply because I did enjoy the combat in it and generally prefer series to keep a fairly consistent set of rules (as, to me, that makes it feel more as if they're all grounded in the same world). Anything else I'd want to integrate into that would be to make the combat more realistic and more deadly. Well, those two really do go hand-in-hand anyhow, of course.

My actual favourite combat systems are all different enough that I think it would be odd to integrate them or wouldn't work so well for a 3d game. As much as I've always liked how second edition AD&D works in computer games, particularly as opposed to later editions, I don't think something like it would work very well in a 3d sort of game, and although I do enjoy direct control and/or first person systems sometimes I don't think they work well in roleplaying games. Overall Rolemaster has my favourite combat system of any game (I don't believe there have been any computer games with a similar system, though), but that would be completely different than what the last two games have had, so it would seem odd.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I was just saying that DAO was way to slow and almost unbearable but a similar thing on DA2 was ok. I also played FF12 with a similar thing - gambits alllowed you to script the companions - and wasn't that bad.

All I am saying is that DAO is on the lowest speed I myself can tolerate, anything slower would really break a game to me. And you will see me asking for a combat skip toggle on other threads. Because DAO combat is painful to me.

When DAO was released, I was immediately here on the forum insisting that the combat was too fast.  I said this because the only feedback in combat was those floating damage numbers, and they came and went too quickly to read them all.  I said at the time, and I still think it's true, that DAO's combat speed would be fine if the game had a visible combat log so we could see what was happening, but without a combat log the combat in DAO was simply too fast.

Now, if we get a combat log, I'd be happy to speed up combat.  Perhaps not quite as fast as DA2, but almost that fast should be fine.  The only problem with DA2's combat speed was that I couldn't tell what was going on.  A combat log solves that problem at all but the very highest speeds.

[Renmiri1]

I like combat logs. Pretty handy in twitch games too, not only on strategic combat games like DAO / DA2.

Allows me to play hours with theorycrafting for better mana management, healing, damage, etc.. Elitist Jerks style ! :D:devil:

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 avril 2013 - 08:00 .

[wrdnshprd]

id prefer one of two styles.

Tactical - i actually would prefer a style similar to DA2.

if they are going for more of an action style - i'd like something similar to either marvel ultimate alliance or bayonetta. not sure how the bayonetta style would translate with companions. but would love to see that style in more of a traditional rpg format (i.e. stat and inventory min/maxing, dialogue, etc).

[Canned Bullets]

Skyrim

[Babaganoosh013]

Dragon Age: Origins.

Tweak it if you must. Don't blow it up.

It was fun, it didn't have to be "awesome."

[Malanek]

I think they should take DAO or DA2 as a base and evolve it. I think both were OK but both had problems. Completely changing it between games, especially on a tight schedule, wasn't the best decision imo. Fix the problems and add more depth.

[ArmoredCitizen]

I would like to see a combat system like in Hunted, Onimusha or Dark Souls. A system that allows you to do combos and has a designated block and evade buttons while still letting you perform abilities/cast magic like in Lord of the rings the war in the north. This kind of system would lend itself to more passive abilities rather than active ones and that you unlock combos/counters when you level up. A basic set-up for this could be the following;

A - evade/interact
B - kick
X - fast attack
Y - heavy attack
D-pad up - quick heal
D-pad down - quick mana/stamina
D-pad left - switch party member
D-pad right - switch party member
LB - block
LT - aim
RB - basic abilities tab
RT - sprint
back - tactical pause
start - pause menu

whilst sprinting
X - sprint attack
Y - sweep attack
B - Shoulder charge

whilst holding RB
X,Y,B - basic abilities (unlocked)

whilst aiming:
RT - fire/cast spell
X,Y,B - aiming abilities (unlocked)

whilst blocking
RT - bash
X,Y,B - defensive abilities (unlocked)

like i said previously this kind of set up lends it self to unlocking combos, speciailisations and abilities with separate unlock points. but this does beg the question of should each class have melee and ranged weapons? like warriors can use two handed, sword and board and crossbows whereas a rogue has twin daggers, solo blade and bows, then a mage has two handed staffs and quater staff with sword. this would mean each weapon has its own combat style and your capability in a style through experience like in Onimusha 3. so you would have three level up stages; spend xp points on combat styles and stats to increase melee/ranged damage, health etc., combat points to unlock combos and then ability and specialistaion points to unlock/improve abilities. this is like a hybrid level up style of Onimusha, Dark Souls and Dragon Age. I know this has been quite a long post but i wanted to post my thoughts. so what do people think?

[Catroi]

keep the DA2 style for consoles, bring the DA:O style for PC, allow users to use the other system's style of gameplay if they want but warn them that it wasnt made for them

[GodChildInTheMachine]

I agree with a lot of people here that Dragon's Dogma had a really great combat system that finely balanced action and depth of mechanics. Something like that, only with more tactical control, could be really great.

But honestly? XCOM:EU. That would be amazing. Obviously you would have to tailor it to be more fantasy focused, but moderately deep, turn-based tactical combat that is also streamlined and accessible can't be beat.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Canned Bullets wrote...

Skyrim

I have to disagree... vehemently. Skyrim is a great game with a cool world to explore and a lot of player freedom, which are all things it excels at. The combat, however, is without a doubt the weakest part of the game. 

Seriously. You can block, attack, or use a smattering of magical abilities. And it really doesn't matter which because if you just walk around mashing the buttons you're bound to come out as the victor. All you have to do is look in your target's general direction and pull the trigger, even on the hardest difficulty. 

I am not being dramatic when I say that Skyrim had the worst combat of any RPG I've played in the last few years, if not the worst combat of any RPG I've ever played. It's just so devoid of depth and challenge that it astounds me. 

[Coreniro]

Something like "Bushido Blade", but even more realistic, with dynamic and real-time damage areas, true one-hit kills, based on various circumstances (enemy stance and balance, your stance and balance).

[ReallyRue]

I'd say Dragon's Dogma, I just loved the combat, and the cross-classes. Magick Archer was so much fun.

I loved the way the game made archery feel involved and exciting, and how we could easily switch between bows and daggers when necessary in combat (without having to go through the inventory every time, that's just a task). The animations also felt exciting, but not ridiculously flashy. The dual-wielders were acrobatic and sleek without looking absurd, the two-handers were powerful and the correct speed, and the sword-and-boarders were the right combination of power and protection. As for the mages, they had quite reserved styles that suggested power and grace (seemed perfect for a Circle-trained mage) and the spells were lovely. Their basic bolt-shooting looked good, but the staff melee could've been better. Over all, marvellously fun combat.

Kingdoms of Amalur also had fun combat, though overblown in it's own way. I mostly loved the combo classes, and they fact they used some more unusual weapons (like chakrams as a predominantly 'mage weapon'), that was so much fun. And 'Fae blades' too, which looked a little like wind-and-fire-wheels in practice.

[Nefla]

I would love a reflex based twitch combat like Skyrim. I usually don't find combat in games fun but I like the combat in Skyrim. A system like Fable or Da2 is boring to me since you pretty much press o e button over and over and occasionally press something else but the game auto targets for you and you can't miss. You don't even need to look at the screen. I love being able to sneak or lay out runes, shoot things with my bow from so far away that the enemy cant see me or get to me, smash people into the ground with my war hammer, summon a daedra and make myself invisible and hide on the ledge while it does my dirty work, etc...There are so many ways to approach combat in skyrim that it adds a lot to the game for me instead of being something to suffer through to get to a good story. I don't enjoy slow, turn based tactical combat either. I went through a phase of playing RTS type games but that was long ago and short lived.

[VanguardCharge]

Dragons Dogma hands down nails quick 3rd person fantasy combat

[GodChildInTheMachine]

scyphozoa wrote...


This is funny, when was the last time you played on the hardest difficulty without exploiting crafting or leveling? If you exploit the game's crafting to give yourself a weapon with 200000 damage or use the oghma infinium to glitch yourself up to level 81, then yes, you can stomp through the hardest difficulty. But anything short of exploiting, you will not be able to easily stomp through master or legendary difficulty. 

I didn't use any exploits when I played. I vaguely knew of the crafting exploit, but I never maxed out my alchemy or enchanting so I couldn't have even done it right if I wanted to. At first I played by using magic in one hand and a weapon in the other, but then I crafted myself a pair of swords with lifestealing on each. I never really had any problems, certainly not anywhere near the amount of challenge that I would expect from a good RPG.

As for your other comment about preferring reflex-based combat over... well, RPG combat, why not just play an action game? The entire point of RPG systems is that they are not supposed to be based solely on the player's mechanical skill, but rather how she manages the resources available to her within the game. That is a huge part of the genre's definition - they call it 'role-playing' because your character has their own set of skills and strengths apart from your own. This was, at the advent of this IP, a concept that was so central to the essence of its design that I find it maddening now to see people who want to cast it aside.

There are already so many action games out there with shallow, reflex based combat systems. I admit, I like that style of game as well, but they have their place and I wish people would give tactical, deep mechanics a little room to breathe instead of crowding all over every last bastion of unique gameplay mechanics like some horde of impatient, mouth-breathing barbarians. "It's soooo sloooooooowwwww!" 

Assassin's Creed, Skyrim... these types of games are at best based solely on reflexes and timing, and at worst ones where you push a button over and over and awesome stuff happens. There isn't anythinking necessary; once you have the timing down you have mastered the entire depth and breadth of the combat system. In action RPGs like Dark Souls, you are at least forced to carefully weigh your risks against your rewards from the way you build your character to every move you make in a boss fight. That is fun and challenging. What's more, that's an RPG. There's a reason no one claims that Assassin's Creed or Arkham City are RPGs, and that reason is that when you look objectively at their mechanics they are little more than rhythm games set to on-screen violence.

All that being said, I know that EA will most likely rule in favor of people who want to press buttons at certain times and make cool stuff happen instead of people like me who appreciate action combat but just want RPGs to be RPGs. I also don't mean to be personal, I'm just venting at what I see as the larger tendency of the AAA gaming market to make everything a shallow, homogenized, button-mashing tragedy.

[JWvonGoethe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

When DAO was released, I was immediately here on the forum insisting that the combat was too fast.  I said this because the only feedback in combat was those floating damage numbers, and they came and went too quickly to read them all.  I said at the time, and I still think it's true, that DAO's combat speed would be fine if the game had a visible combat log so we could see what was happening, but without a combat log the combat in DAO was simply too fast.

Now, if we get a combat log, I'd be happy to speed up combat.  Perhaps not quite as fast as DA2, but almost that fast should be fine.  The only problem with DA2's combat speed was that I couldn't tell what was going on.  A combat log solves that problem at all but the very highest speeds.

I realise I'm a month late in replying, but I thought you made a great point, so I'll reply.

For me, DA:O was almost a 'worst of both worlds' scenario in terms of combat speed in that it was too fast to be able to process all the battle information but at the same time so slow as to be visually boring. DA2 fixed the latter problem, but worsened the former issue so much as to make it almost impossible to form any kind of coherent battle strategy.

I pause a lot during combat, but there's a limit. A battle log is undoubtedly a very sensible solution to fixing combat speed issues, but sadly I can't imagine ever seeing one being implemented in a modern Bioware game. It would just look 'too old-fashioned' and be deemed to clutter the screen too much.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 13 mai 2013 - 01:26 .

[KDD-0063]

Thing is combat should not be dragged out and talked about alone.
Combat system in an RPG is always integrated with the character progression system.

DAO's combat system may not be the best but the bigger problem is with it progression system. Balance between abilities is a mess. There are also issues such as stats with increasing returns, which arguably should be avoided.

[ArmoredCitizen]

Looking back at my previous post, most of it was probably garbage. but i can agree with the progression problem. I would have to say that i liked the progression system in Dark Souls because all your stats increased by default and you can increase them further by spending xp points. As for abilities i would go for something like in Lord of the rings the war in the north and hunted; a balance between support, ranged and offensive abilities which can all be improved further down the line with passive abilities. the same for the combat as well; like in lord of the rings have a fast and heavy attack, block, evade, kick (break guard). and like i said previously each class can use certain weapons.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

ArmoredCitizen wrote...

Looking back at my previous post, most of it was probably garbage. but i can agree with the progression problem. I would have to say that i liked the progression system in Dark Souls because all your stats increased by default and you can increase them further by spending xp points. As for abilities i would go for something like in Lord of the rings the war in the north and hunted; a balance between support, ranged and offensive abilities which can all be improved further down the line with passive abilities. the same for the combat as well; like in lord of the rings have a fast and heavy attack, block, evade, kick (break guard). and like i said previously each class can use certain weapons.

I've never played that game (LoTR) but I can smell what you're stepping in. I combat system doesn't have to be overly complex in order to offer meaningful, risk vs reward choices and tactical depth. I still like the D&D inspired gameplay as well, but if you added maybe a good amount of special abilities for each class in the system you just described, I would play it for sure.