178 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

JCAP wrote...

DA:O forced us to be very picky and carefull when seleting party, and the combat forced us to use different strategies, your brain was always working.

It did? When? Or do you mean, by "carefully selecting" do you mean "pick all the mages"? 

DA:2 - Varric, Anders, Aveline/Fenris, kill, next one, kill, next one, kill, Anders heal here please, kill, next one, kill, Anders would you kindly heal here?, kill...

Fireball. Fireball. Cone of Cold. Cone of Cold. Fireball. Fireball. #everydaoecounterever

Maybe I am being a little unfair, but the fact is, DA2 just wasn't challeging as DA:O. And the waves of enemies turned it more frustrating than anything else

On nightmare? I have to disagree. 

Qistina wrote...

DA:O

"Alistair, tank here!" (activate taunt)
"Morrigan, freeze Alistair in a time-space void!" (activate force field on Alistair)
"Leliana, stun everyone!" (activate scatter shot)
"Morrigan, use fireball!!" (using fireball and kill darkspawns)
 

Wait, you're citing the exploit of force-field as tactical? Also, technically, using Leliana instead of another mage for a second fireball is a waste. 

Modifié par In Exile, 20 avril 2013 - 05:09 .

[Bfler]

In nightmare mode half of the spells of the elemental tree in DA2 is useless, because you do more harm your own squadmates than the enemy. Same for shield bash and the power strikes of the two-handed warrior, which one-hit your mates.

Modifié par Bfler, 20 avril 2013 - 05:09 .

[In Exile]

Bfler wrote...

In nightmare mode half of the spells of the elemental tree in DA2 is useless, because you do more harm your own squadmates than the enemy. Same for shield bash and the power strikes of the zwo-handed warrior, which one-hit your mates.

That just requires positioning. With a 2H warrior, you have to make sure that there are no enemies around. I thought that was a good feature - it requires more planning and party management. 

With resistances, you just have to know what mage to bring to what encounter, based on the builds you have. Again - I found that an improvement over DA:O.

[jillabender]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

There's a gaping disparity between how the party fights and how the enemies fight. Skills, enemy animations, health, etc.

I agree with this. I liked the ability trees in DA2, but I didn't like that the enemies tended to have vastly more hit points and deal far less damage than the party. In DA3, I'd prefer to see enemies that have fewer hit points, use special attacks more often, and do more damage. Using the same abilities over and over to whittle down the hit points of enemies that rarely use special attacks gets tedious.

Modifié par jillabender, 20 avril 2013 - 05:13 .

[10K]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

At first the combat was pretty amazing playing as a rogue, but after a while it got tiresome repeatedly tapping A to hit your opponenet. The two-handed weapon movements were a bit too fast for my tastes. The improvements were you were able to hit your enemy if they ran a distance, the mage class was done really well. I cannot complain about tactics in any way as I only just started to use them just recently in DAO. I heard Inquisition's combat requires less button tapping so I am hoping combat will be more slow.

You do realize you could change the options so the character would carry on attacking once you targeted someone?


Christ, so many people whine about have to button mash to attack someone repetedly and don't bother looking at the options that you can toggle on and off. <_<

Though I greatly prefer the combat of 2 than origins. Origins combat is so bad I can't replay the game now.

THANK YOU!! I'm tired of so many people complaining about this.

"Oh DA2 is nothing but a button masher, I grow tired of hitting the same button over and over."

THEN GO TO THE FRICKIN' OPTIONS MENU AND STOP WHINING!!

But anyway, I like DA2 combat. I felt more involved with the combat in DA2 than I did with DA:O. I'm a console player and I'm sorry that I don't like watching my characters fight while I do almost nothing. I really like using the tactics to there fullest abilities so I don't have to micro-managed every small action a character do, I dislike switching between them. Which is another reason way I liked the "Action button" it made me feel as if I was in control of my character. I utilize the tactic trees so I only have to use my character. Plus cross class combos are great.

There are things I did dislike. Like the wave combat, the over the top animations, and I guess the pace of combat. The weapons seemed as if they didn't have weight to them, I'm not sure if that factors into animations or pace of combat. But overall combat in DA2 was more enjoyable for me than Origins combat.

Modifié par mosesarose, 20 avril 2013 - 05:13 .

[Direwolf0294]

Both games had horrible combat. DA:O's was slow and tedious, plus mages were OP as balls; DA2's was clunky to control on the PC (seriously, why no gamepad support BioWare?) and had horrible animations. Hopefully DA3's is actually fun to play.

Modifié par Direwolf0294, 20 avril 2013 - 05:34 .

[jillabender]

In Exile wrote...


Fireball. Fireball. Cone of Cold. Cone of Cold. Fireball. Fireball. #everydaoecounterever

As much as I enjoy the combat in DA:O, I have to admit that its combat doesn't necessarily provide a lot of challenge even on Nightmare level if you build characters optimally and use the most obviously powerful tactics all the time. If you're looking for a game that challenges you even when you're using the most powerful tactics possible, you're likely to get bored with DA:O's combat.

What DA:O does offer is a lot of abilities that are very fun to use, and a lot of different possible skill sets and ways to win each encounter. In short, DA:O's combat is most enjoyable when you approach it in terms of using the strategies that you find the most fun or that you think your character would use, rather than the strategies that are the most powerful.

Modifié par jillabender, 20 avril 2013 - 05:39 .

[DragonMage95]

Personally the only thing I didn't like about combat was the skill tree and how fast the combat was for Rogues and Warriors. I really enjoyed the combat for mages though, I felt in DAO the mage combat was really slow. Also, I felt some of the combat moves were exaggerated, like doing twists and stuff. But, overall I didn't mind DA2 combat, it was different but it wasn't awful. Hopefully they can find middle ground for DAO and DA2 combat in DA3.

[Boycott Bioware]

In DA:O

Enemy is far away, "Leliana, shoot them! or "Morrigan, use fireball!", because we cannot move quickly to target

In DA2

Enemy is far away, it doesn't matter. Hawke with heavy armor and very large sword can move toward target in 0.01 second. Hawke with light armor and dagger can jump 100 feet and 100 yards toward target.

Modifié par Qistina, 20 avril 2013 - 05:49 .

[Sabariel]

Healing magic takes too damn long to cooldown. Didn't like not being able to use offensive spells while in Spirit Healer mode. Didn't like rogues magically teleporting when using backstab. Didn't like the tedious waves of enemies flying down from above like Mary Poppins. Didn't like the spastic combat animations. And I missed the finishing moves... *jumps off soapbox*

[In Exile]

jillabender wrote...
What DA:O does offer is a lot of abilities that are very fun to use, and a lot of different possible skill sets and ways to win each encounter. In short, DA:O's combat is most enjoyable when you approach it in terms of using the strategies that you find the most fun or that you think your character would use, rather than the strategies that are the most powerful.

I actually think most abilities in DA:O absolutely suck, aside from the abilities that deal direct damage. Re: characters.. whose character wouldn't pick the abilities that maximize killing potential? I mean, I would imagine an RP built Wynne would be focused entirely on buffing/healing, but that's what I use her for anyway because it is a powerful build all on is own. 

What abilities are you thinking of as good abilities?

[Fredward]

JCAP wrote...
DA:O forced us to be very picky and carefull when seleting party, and the combat forced us to use different strategies, your brain was always working.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Whut? I've finished DAO like 7 times and I have yet to use my brain during combat in any section.

[AshenShug4r]

I didn't like the exagerrated animations. The wave format was annoying and for me personally, cheapened the experience. Exploding bodies are just ridiculous.(I'm willing to assume this was all a part of Varric's storytelling however, so I can let it go).
It wasn't awful, but it certainly could be better.

[Sanunes]

I found the combat tedious, but I think that is only because of the enemies and how every wave turned out to be multiple waves. I think combat was better in the DLC, but it still felt constrained by what the main game had for combat.

[Weskerr]

The attack animations were a bit too hyper and over the top.

[Anomaly-]

astreqwerty wrote...

I hate that game with a passion... however I think there is one thing they got right with it. The combat. how can anyone suggest that the combat is all about button mashing is beyond me. Sure the waves of enemies and the never ending healthbars are more evidence of da2's (downgraded) quality but still the mechanics worked wonderfully. At least nightmare was a challenge (for many wrong reasons too but it was very rewarding). Imho many people confuse the faster animations with combat mechanics which seemed,at their core,  identical to daos if not improved. Can someone be so kind as to explain to me in which ways da2s combat was too action-y and what would they prefer for DAI?

I just felt like the combat in DA2 was a shell of it's former self. I always play a Rogue. Managing distance and positioning are aspects of that playstyle that I really enjoy. These things were well provided in DA:O. In DA2, however, they were made irrelevant because of the fact that backstab became an active skill that could teleport you directly behind any enemy you chose. Large aspect of combat gone right there. As a result, playing a Rogue felt little different from playing a Warrior, despite all the arbitrary equipment restrictions they introduced intending to accomplish the opposite.

There were also just far fewer approaches to combat. No more traps, pets, crafting, etc. Scanning a battlefield and planning for a fight in advance was simply not viable since waves of enemies would literally drop from the sky. The lack of variety in enemy types and skillsets certainly didn't help to keep things from becoming stale quickly, either. And, of course, the pace and animations made it very difficult to take anything seriously.

[Demx]

Anomaly- wrote...

astreqwerty wrote...

I hate that game with a passion... however I think there is one thing they got right with it. The combat. how can anyone suggest that the combat is all about button mashing is beyond me. Sure the waves of enemies and the never ending healthbars are more evidence of da2's (downgraded) quality but still the mechanics worked wonderfully. At least nightmare was a challenge (for many wrong reasons too but it was very rewarding). Imho many people confuse the faster animations with combat mechanics which seemed,at their core,  identical to daos if not improved. Can someone be so kind as to explain to me in which ways da2s combat was too action-y and what would they prefer for DAI?

I just felt like the combat in DA2 was a shell of it's former self. I always play a Rogue. Managing distance and positioning are aspects of that playstyle that I really enjoy. These things were well provided in DA:O. In DA2, however, they were made irrelevant because of the fact that backstab became an active skill that could teleport you directly behind any enemy you chose. Large aspect of combat gone right there. As a result, playing a Rogue felt little different from playing a Warrior, despite all the arbitrary equipment restrictions they introduced intending to accomplish the opposite.

There were also just far fewer approaches to combat. No more traps, pets, crafting, etc. Scanning a battlefield and planning for a fight in advance was simply not viable since waves of enemies would literally drop from the sky. The lack of variety in enemy types and skillsets certainly didn't help to keep things from becoming stale quickly, either. And, of course, the pace and animations made it very difficult to take anything seriously.

You just reminded me of the stealth backstabs that take out half your health that mob rogues had. I swear they had a  really short cooling time to pull that move off multiple times.

[Creeper Cat]

As far as the over-the-top animations go, they never really bothered me. I just accepted them as being a result of Varric's storytelling flair. >_>

[Steppenwolf]

-cartoonish animations
-anime-combat pace rendered tactics moot
-endless waves of base-jumping enemies
-bosses were just sacks of HP to wail on with occasional "IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER" moments

IMO the ridiculous speed and ninja animations need to be toned way down, but not down to Origins levels.

[In Exile]

Anomaly- wrote...
I just felt like the combat in DA2 was a shell of it's former self. I always play a Rogue. Managing distance and positioning are aspects of that playstyle that I really enjoy. These things were well provided in DA:O. In DA2, however, they were made irrelevant because of the fact that backstab became an active skill that could teleport you directly behind any enemy you chose. Large aspect of combat gone right there. As a result, playing a Rogue felt little different from playing a Warrior, despite all the arbitrary equipment restrictions they introduced intending to accomplish the opposite.

You're competely right - DA2 removed the DA:O rogue from existence, basically. I just find it hard to relate because I thought the DA:O rogue was an annoying micromanaging terror, and no matter the (in principle) DPS build that you had, the sheer investment cost in actually constantly clicking to move your character to the side to backstab significantly, significantly outweighted any benefit to ever playing the class.

A good analogy (for me) is that playing rogue felt a lot like fighting Corypheus - not about any real game related challange, but just a match between be and poor pathfinding.

There were also just far fewer approaches to combat. No more traps, pets, crafting, etc. Scanning a battlefield and planning for a fight in advance was simply not viable since waves of enemies would literally drop from the sky. The lack of variety in enemy types and skillsets certainly didn't help to keep things from becoming stale quickly, either. And, of course, the pace and animations made it very difficult to take anything seriously.

Okay, here I have to disagree entirely. DA:O did not rely to any extent on traps (completely useless), pets (even as a damage sponge, pretty irrelevant). DA:O certainly involved absolutely 0 planning out of fights in advance, since absolutely every single fight was indentical and could be dealt with the same way.

I'd also object to crafting - in DA:O you had to gather ingredients before auto-making your potion by clicking a butotn, whereas in DA2 you have to gather cash before auto-clicking a button at camp to make your potion. 

[In Exile]

Siradix wrote...
You just reminded me of the stealth backstabs that take out half your health that mob rogues had. I swear they had a  really short cooling time to pull that move off multiple times.

That's because I think the game expected you to force them out of stealth. For example, a force mage can pull them out of steal and while they're invisible they're moving around on the map (I've often lead them with fireballs and caught them). 

[Demx]

In Exile wrote...

Siradix wrote...
You just reminded me of the stealth backstabs that take out half your health that mob rogues had. I swear they had a  really short cooling time to pull that move off multiple times.

That's because I think the game expected you to force them out of stealth. For example, a force mage can pull them out of steal and while they're invisible they're moving around on the map (I've often lead them with fireballs and caught them). 

Yes, but it was never explained how I could force them out. I used the wall to cover my back for my first playthough and little bit of the second before looking online for help.

[Sir George Parr]

astreqwerty wrote...

I hate that game with a passion... however I think there is one thing they got right with it. The combat. how can anyone suggest that the combat is all about button mashing is beyond me. Sure the waves of enemies and the never ending healthbars are more evidence of da2's (downgraded) quality but still the mechanics worked wonderfully. At least nightmare was a challenge (for many wrong reasons too but it was very rewarding). Imho many people confuse the faster animations with combat mechanics which seemed,at their core,  identical to daos if not improved. Can someone be so kind as to explain to me in which ways da2s combat was too action-y and what would they prefer for DAI?

Out of curiosity if you hate that game with a passion why do you still play it?. as your profile shows its being recently played or for that matter why still have it in your possession?. Do you find the combat that good?.

Modifié par XM-417, 20 avril 2013 - 07:46 .

[Ostagar2011]

The devs are trying to move DA slowly into the aRPG genre, which means primarily speed of animations and events. Eventually they will completely replace character skill (an RPG convention) with player skill (an action game convention). So instead of you telling your archer where to shoot with hitting based on stats, you'll actually see the bow crosshairs in first person and stats playing a cosmetic role.

Anyone saying "DA2 was a ***tty button masher!!!!" probably means "I can see the franchise become an action genre soon, and I don't like that"

[Bfler]

In Exile wrote...

Bfler wrote...

In nightmare mode half of the spells of the elemental tree in DA2 is useless, because you do more harm your own squadmates than the enemy. Same for shield bash and the power strikes of the zwo-handed warrior, which one-hit your mates.

That just requires positioning. With a 2H warrior, you have to make sure that there are no enemies around. I thought that was a good feature - it requires more planning and party management. 

With resistances, you just have to know what mage to bring to what encounter, based on the builds you have. Again - I found that an improvement over DA:O.

In small areas you constantly have to move the rogue away from the enemies, because a single blow of the warrior kills him. In my opinion that's a handicap and not a good feature

As mage I only need Merrill with Blood magic and Primal skill tree, so that she can tank and cast. If you don't want to use potions then maybe Anders as healer. I don't see the improvement here.