205 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Combat in DA2 was never a problem for me. I played games like Bards Tali (I-III), and Might & Magic (1-9). In these games your party could a assaulted walking out of the tavern by any sort of creature or man. I remember coming out of a tavern and having my party pawned by a group of sprites.

The combat in DAO was slow to the point of being unrealistic. A true fight can be over in seconds or minutes. Some large scale battles may take hours but death was swift and sure for the combatants. The only battle action that took a long time was a siege.

[Melca36]

Filament wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Filament wrote...

More!

And if DA2 had been a blockbuster success. They would not be changing the combat would they?

They already said not to expect like Origins or DA2.  

1. thanks for needlessly squabbling with a tongue-in-cheek comment, gosh. <_<

2. financially DA2 did not exactly fail either.

3. it's convenient how you only seem to use that second line when you want to gripe about DA2 (like a broken record, I might add), yet when you are full of praises about the things DAO "did right," that comment would equally apply. Yes, yes, I am sure you are aware of the things DAO did wrong too because you're sooo fair and balanced, but that's not relevant. By your reasoning, it doesn't matter what DAO did right, because you'd better not expect DAI to do it. Since that's the way you consistently use it as a blanket dismissal of anything in DA2 you don't personally like.

I suspect the fact of the matter is that DAI will be like both games in many ways, including like DA2 in ways you may not approve of, and you're just going to have to deal with that.

Actually I'm predicting the fans of DA2 combat will be the ones complaining the most.

And I didnt hate DA2...loved the characters and ACT 2 but combat was over the top ridiculous.

I actually had more issues with Awakening than Origins. (HATED WENDING WOOD ) but I do think Origins did do alot of things better and yes the combat was slow but it was MORE fun.

If they keep the speed of DA2s combat bring back the tactics of Origins and get rid of the ridiculous over the top animations then I will be happy:wizard::wizard::wizard::wizard::wizard::wizard:


Does that suffice for you? 

[Mr Cloud]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Combat in DA2 was never a problem for me. I played games like Bards Tali (I-III), and Might & Magic (1-9). In these games your party could a assaulted walking out of the tavern by any sort of creature or man. I remember coming out of a tavern and having my party pawned by a group of sprites.

The combat in DAO was slow to the point of being unrealistic. A true fight can be over in seconds or minutes. Some large scale battles may take hours but death was swift and sure for the combatants. The only battle action that took a long time was a siege.

The argument of someting being unrealistic in games is used to a degree of a cliche. It is going around in circles at best.

Having said that, combat system in DA:O was more dynamic than in other (alike) RPGs - back then combat would be fought in turns. Outrageous! Why do everything has to be faster? If I wanted to play hack'n'slash, I'd play Diablo. DA:O's system was imo ideal, balanced - not too slow, not too fast. It was somehow tactical (I don't really remember how did it work on consoles though). Overall solid.

But the world goes on, everything has to be fasterfasterfasterfasterfaster these days.

Modifié par Mr Cloud, 18 juillet 2013 - 10:09 .

[Nashimura]

DA2 combat minus waves of enemies would be the sweet spot for me. Throw less guys at you too, to much just feels like a slog.

[rapscallioness]

I despised DAO combat. I liked the game despite the impotent combat. Watching the clock as my character shuffled over to make a weak azz stabby in the general direction of the enemy was lame.

My God, it was awful.

DA2, Mage class was the most fun to play. Followed by Rogue. Warrior class in DA2 was godawful. I played it for abt an hour, and had to ditch the pt. Warrior in DA2 is tedious and boring as hell.

DAI needs some tweaks to the combat, but I definitely don't want to see it go back to DAO.

[Melca36]

rapscallioness wrote...

I despised DAO combat. I liked the game despite the impotent combat. Watching the clock as my character shuffled over to make a weak azz stabby in the general direction of the enemy was lame.

My God, it was awful.

DA2, Mage class was the most fun to play. Followed by Rogue. Warrior class in DA2 was godawful. I played it for abt an hour, and had to ditch the pt. Warrior in DA2 is tedious and boring as hell.

DAI needs some tweaks to the combat, but I definitely don't want to see it go back to DAO.

They have already said not to expect it to be like Origins or DA2. They are going to take what worked in BOTH games.

I agree about DA2 Warrior. Horrible and boring.  I hope we get polearms for Inquisition.

[Bionuts]

rapscallioness wrote...

I despised DAO combat. I liked the game despite the impotent combat. Watching the clock as my character shuffled over to make a weak azz stabby in the general direction of the enemy was lame.

My God, it was awful.

DA2, Mage class was the most fun to play. Followed by Rogue. Warrior class in DA2 was godawful. I played it for abt an hour, and had to ditch the pt. Warrior in DA2 is tedious and boring as hell.

DAI needs some tweaks to the combat, but I definitely don't want to see it go back to DAO.

2-Handed warrior that specializes in Reaver and Berserker is FUN.

[rapscallioness]

Polearms would def be cool.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DAO rogues, DAO mages, DA2 warriors.

I want positioning to matter for Rogues, I want mages to do what I ask when I ask it of them, and I'd like warriors to be able to intercept charging enemies.

[Realmzmaster]

Mr Cloud wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Combat in DA2 was never a problem for me. I played games like Bards Tali (I-III), and Might & Magic (1-9). In these games your party could a assaulted walking out of the tavern by any sort of creature or man. I remember coming out of a tavern and having my party pawned by a group of sprites.

The combat in DAO was slow to the point of being unrealistic. A true fight can be over in seconds or minutes. Some large scale battles may take hours but death was swift and sure for the combatants. The only battle action that took a long time was a siege.

The argument of someting being unrealistic in games is used to a degree of a cliche. It is going around in circles at best.

Having said that, combat system in DA:O was more dynamic than in other (alike) RPGs - back then combat would be fought in turns. Outrageous! Why do everything has to be faster? If I wanted to play hack'n'slash, I'd play Diablo. DA:O's system was imo ideal, balanced - not too slow, not too fast. It was somehow tactical (I don't really remember how did it work on consoles though). Overall solid.

But the world goes on, everything has to be fasterfasterfasterfasterfaster these days.

Actually ideal for me is Temple of Elememntal Evil as far as tactical goes. I use the unrealistic vs realistic point because in other threads people are asking for bowstrings for realism sake scabbards etc.

If people want realism then I want to see realistic combat. Realistic combat is bloody, very hack and slash. Once you got an advantage over the opponent you press it until the opponent is dead or unable to fight.

It also requires changing stratgey and tactics on the fly because the enemy is changing his/her strategy and tactics. It it is not like DAO where the enemy barely changes its position and you can set up defensive positions for your mages and other squishes.

[MerinTB]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Combat in DA2 was never a problem for me. I played games like Bards Tali (I-III), and Might & Magic (1-9). In these games your party could a assaulted walking out of the tavern by any sort of creature or man. I remember coming out of a tavern and having my party pawned by a group of sprites.

The combat in DAO was slow to the point of being unrealistic. A true fight can be over in seconds or minutes. Some large scale battles may take hours but death was swift and sure for the combatants. The only battle action that took a long time was a siege.

I only have fiddled with the first few M&M games, but I played all the BT games as well.

They were turn-based, text-based, and bigger battles could take quite a while.

DAO, which it RTwP, is SLOW compared to turn-based, text-based combat?

I'm confused.

[Realmzmaster]

MerinTB wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Combat in DA2 was never a problem for me. I played games like Bards Tali (I-III), and Might & Magic (1-9). In these games your party could a assaulted walking out of the tavern by any sort of creature or man. I remember coming out of a tavern and having my party pawned by a group of sprites.

The combat in DAO was slow to the point of being unrealistic. A true fight can be over in seconds or minutes. Some large scale battles may take hours but death was swift and sure for the combatants. The only battle action that took a long time was a siege.

I only have fiddled with the first few M&M games, but I played all the BT games as well.

They were turn-based, text-based, and bigger battles could take quite a while.

DAO, which it RTwP, is SLOW compared to turn-based, text-based combat?

I'm confused.

The difference being that at the time those games came out that was the best that the developers did or could do. Those games I expected to be slow because they were minicling the tabletop experience.

 DAO on the other hand came out at a time when the technological limitations were not the same. There was very little reason for DAO to be slower than BG1 or BG2 which also had RTwP. DA2 prove that it did not have to be as slow since both DAO and DA2 use the same basic engine.

Now you can agrue that DA2 was too fast and some of the animations were over the top, but for me DAO was to slow especially in regards to two handers and mages attacking with staff.

[MerinTB]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The difference being that at the time those games came out that was the best that the developers did or could do. Those games I expected to be slow because they were minicling the tabletop experience.

 DAO on the other hand came out at a time when the technological limitations were not the same. There was very little reason for DAO to be slower than BG1 or BG2 which also had RTwP. DA2 prove that it did not have to be as slow since both DAO and DA2 use the same basic engine.

Now you can agrue that DA2 was too fast and some of the animations were over the top, but for me DAO was to slow especially in regards to two handers and mages attacking with staff.

Whereas I prefer Bard's Tale or Wasteland to DA2, combat wise, still.

To each their own.  I don't like real-time combat.  I don't see it as an improvement over turn-based.  RTwP is a hybrid meant to satisfy each, adding benefits of each side to the other.  I still prefer turn-based, but I am content with RTwP.

You didn't "expect them to be slow at the time", you marveled at how advanced they were at the time.  It's only in retrospect, comparing to now, that they seem slow.

Modifié par MerinTB, 19 juillet 2013 - 05:04 .

[The Hierophant]

sharkboy421 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

I'd rather DAI copy Dragon's Dogma's combat pacing/flow, while keeping DA's talents, targeting and tactics system.

I would love this as well.  But it won't happen.

Sadly i agree.

[ioannisdenton]

Star fury wrote...

That poster's bragging about DA2 nightmare fights is bull****. DAO nightmare was fun, until biower toned down difficulty because of whining casuals. There were interesting battles, there was friendly fire even on normal, enemy mages were PITA, there was tactic.

DA2 nightmare was dull as dishwater - waves of enemies with one or two bosses with HUGE hitpoints. No tactic at all, you could setup your party in an ideal defensive position but enemies will teleport behind you and chaotic cluster**** commences.   

OP here. Friendly fire on da2 evben on normal would not work and it would turn people of due most abilities beeing AoE.
On DAO only the mages have AoE friendly fire (if i can recall correctly)
Yes Huge hitpoints. What is the wrong wiith that? again in DAO ALL ENEMY MAGES were ONE HIT K.O. due to mana clash.
Defensive position on Da2 on hard and above does not work, Rogues dissapear? MOVE the mage FAR AWAY.
DaO on nightmare was nothing like Da2 on nightmare. Da2 on nightmare is really a nightmare on some occassions.
Ander's recruitment and quest (dissent) in act 2...
Use poisons, bombs there are tons of tools. Use pertrify, horror spells or isabella's duel spell. When a rogue dissapeas use warriors whirlwind and you ll get him.
Save the best abilities for the most appropriate moments, this was Da2 all about.
Not just spam damage dealing abilities.
this work sonly on normal and frankly all bioware games are way boring on normal.

Modifié par ioannisdenton, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:38 .

[Blazomancer]

I want the best of both worlds. For example, I want friendly fire damage from giant weapons as in DA2, while I want a rogue who can't get any faster than 2 hits a second as in Origins. I want meaningful elemental immunities on enemies unlike DA2 where we had fire-immune mabaris, while I'd prefer monsters like in DA2 using more elemental attacks. I want the Iso-detachable cam back from origins, & at the same time, want to keep the 'attack nearest' key from DA2. I want enemy rogues like in Origins that can cripple, stun & apply negative status effects; i don't want rogues one hit KO'ing like in DA2.
I want the CCCs back from DA2 although after nerfing them a bit, while I'd prefer if I never saw vanguard charges or jumping mighty blows again. I want to be challenged with quality rather than quantity - eg. I'd prefer the Kolgrim fight where we had three capable warriors & 2 mages, to the Bertrand fight where we had lots of losers & 1 super-rogue.

@OP - I guess we'll be getting an amalgam of both combat styles in DA3 as promised, & that's a good thing where I'm concerned seeing how I still enjoy playing both the games. I was happy how they kept the base combat mechanics same in DA2, some stuff like armor penetration & backstab modifiers notwithstanding, although I have a serious grudge against the current attribute system but that's irrelevant in this thread.

[Gorguz]

How can people say that DA2 combat system is the best of the two? In DA:O the enemies are as skilled as you. The least powerful warrior is able to (try to) stun, bash and what not. If you are not careful, an emissary could kill a companion with his crushing prison, or hurt the whole team with his powerful fireball. You had to scout with a rogue, and you could use traps and a lot of poisons. You complain about the speed of the animations? That game would have been unplayable if the action would have been faster.
In DA2 there are waves of mindless enemies, which do not do nothing but swinging their swords and shields. The elite units are ****, their only point of strenght is their healt. The game was challenging on nightmare only because of the number of those mobs and the fact that your aoe skills and spells kill you instantly. Positioning hasn't importance, tactics hasn't importance, equipment hasn't importance, all you have to do is keeping the warriors alive. But hey, pcs were dancing around like demons, so it was fun!

Modifié par Gorguz, 19 juillet 2013 - 01:27 .

[jvaz]

Star fury wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Sorry. the High Dragon battle in DA2 with the waves of dragonlings and drakes was ridiculous.  It just proved waved combat does NOT work and pander to the group who play in Nightmare was a mistake

That poster's bragging about DA2 nightmare fights is bull****. DAO nightmare was fun, until biower toned down difficulty because of whining casuals. There were interesting battles, there was friendly fire even on normal, enemy mages were PITA, there was tactic.

DA2 nightmare was dull as dishwater - waves of enemies with one or two bosses with HUGE hitpoints. No tactic at all, you could setup your party in an ideal defensive position but enemies will teleport behind you and chaotic cluster**** commences.   

It's called highlight entire party and move to point.  

[jvaz]

Gorguz wrote...

How can people say that DA2 combat system is the best of the two? In DA:O the enemies are as skilled as you. The least powerful warrior is able to (try to) stun, bash and what not. If you are not careful, an emissary could kill a companion with his crushing prison, or hurt the whole team with his powerful fireball. You had to scout with a rogue, and you could use traps and a lot of poisons. You complain about the speed of the animations? That game would have been unplayable if the action would have been faster.
In DA2 there are waves of mindless enemies, which do not do nothing but swinging their swords and shields. The elite units are ****, their only point of strenght is their healt. The game was challenging on nightmare only because of the number of those mobs and the fact that your aoe skills and spells kill you instantly. Positioning hasn't importance, tactics hasn't importance, equipment hasn't importance, all you have to do is keeping the warriors alive. But hey, pcs were dancing around like demons, so it was fun!

Get that crap outta here.  Every enemy in DA:O had the SAME positioning.  Which means after you go through the game the first time, you literally know where everything and everyone is.  Tactics blown out of the water.  Storm of the Century everything in sight and mop off stragglers.  

Fight the ARW and tell me that positioning isn't important.  Hell, do the Nexus Golem fight and tell me positioning isn't important.  Duel the Arishok's whole crew at the end of Act 2 and tell me that positioning isn't important.  Fight any fight where there are enemy elite assassins and mages and tell me that positioning isn't important. 

Watch some of the videos of the people who play on nightmare without pausing.  Look at their walkthrough tactics setup on BSN here, and tell me that tactics aren't important?  

[jvaz]

Blazomancer wrote...

I want the best of both worlds. For example, I want friendly fire damage from giant weapons as in DA2, while I want a rogue who can't get any faster than 2 hits a second as in Origins. I want meaningful elemental immunities on enemies unlike DA2 where we had fire-immune mabaris, while I'd prefer monsters like in DA2 using more elemental attacks. I want the Iso-detachable cam back from origins, & at the same time, want to keep the 'attack nearest' key from DA2. I want enemy rogues like in Origins that can cripple, stun & apply negative status effects; i don't want rogues one hit KO'ing like in DA2.
I want the CCCs back from DA2 although after nerfing them a bit, while I'd prefer if I never saw vanguard charges or jumping mighty blows again. I want to be challenged with quality rather than quantity - eg. I'd prefer the Kolgrim fight where we had three capable warriors & 2 mages, to the Bertrand fight where we had lots of losers & 1 super-rogue.

@OP - I guess we'll be getting an amalgam of both combat styles in DA3 as promised, & that's a good thing where I'm concerned seeing how I still enjoy playing both the games. I was happy how they kept the base combat mechanics same in DA2, some stuff like armor penetration & backstab modifiers notwithstanding, although I have a serious grudge against the current attribute system but that's irrelevant in this thread.

Are you kidding me?  Mana Clash on the back 2 mages and you've won 75% of the fight already.  Pfft.  I'd take the encounters in DA2 over DA "sleep through fight" Origins anyday. 

[MerinTB]

jvaz wrote...
Fight the ARW and tell me that positioning isn't important.  Hell, do the Nexus Golem fight and tell me positioning isn't important.  Duel the Arishok's whole crew at the end of Act 2 and tell me that positioning isn't important.  Fight any fight where there are enemy elite assassins and mages and tell me that positioning isn't important. 

Yay, real time twitch timing and hiding behind things.  Whee.  Exactly what I want in my party-based, tactical RPG.

/end sarcasm

[jvaz]

MerinTB wrote...

jvaz wrote...
Fight the ARW and tell me that positioning isn't important.  Hell, do the Nexus Golem fight and tell me positioning isn't important.  Duel the Arishok's whole crew at the end of Act 2 and tell me that positioning isn't important.  Fight any fight where there are enemy elite assassins and mages and tell me that positioning isn't important. 

Yay, real time twitch timing and hiding behind things.  Whee.  Exactly what I want in my party-based, tactical RPG.

/end sarcasm

No.  It's more like paying attention to whats going on, reacting accordingly, and in the ARW case using cover.  

[Blazomancer]

@Jvaz - No ser, I'm not kidding. Mana clash was OP++, everybody knows that. I don't use it. Regardless, my point was that there were some poor set piece battles in DA2 that I wouldn't like to see again. I firmly believe the Kolgrim battle although not too tough in itself is better than the Bertrand encounter. I honestly believe there were some interesting battles in each game, along with some not so interesting ones. May be they are 'sleep through' for you, but I still am fond of fights with Jarvia and Branka/Caridin; also the puzzle before the latter.

As I mentioned earlier, I want the best of both games. I believe it would be a waste to flush down the drain those aspects that worked well in Origins, & likewise for DA2.

Modifié par Blazomancer, 19 juillet 2013 - 04:09 .

[MerinTB]

jvaz wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

jvaz wrote...
Fight the ARW and tell me that positioning isn't important.  Hell, do the Nexus Golem fight and tell me positioning isn't important.  Duel the Arishok's whole crew at the end of Act 2 and tell me that positioning isn't important.  Fight any fight where there are enemy elite assassins and mages and tell me that positioning isn't important. 

Yay, real time twitch timing and hiding behind things.  Whee.  Exactly what I want in my party-based, tactical RPG.

/end sarcasm

No.  It's more like paying attention to whats going on, reacting accordingly, and in the ARW case using cover.  

TB > RTwP > RT combat, for me.

So the combat in DA2 is inferior to me.  The boss battle you are hyping up is leaning strongly in the RT side of RTwP.

Moreover, that battle relies on PLAYER skill, not CHARACTER skill.  I play RPGs for my CHARACTER to be challenged, not for MY TWITCH SKILLS to be challenged.

You seem to prefer the twitch combat, the ones where you, the player, must relying on your own timing and your own hand-eye coordination.  That is a legitimate preference.

I don't.  I prefer games that rely on my thinking tactically but using my CHARACTER's skill, not my own hand-eye coordination and sense of timing.

It's subjective, not objective.  One is only greater than the other when it comes to opinion, not to fact.