132 réponses à ce sujet

[jontepwn]

I like the more streamlined approach in DA2. The combat in DAO was either too slow or too boring for me. I'm not against tactical approach, but the responsiveness in DA2 made it much more enjoyable. But if Bioware is doing what they say they intend to do we will get the best of both worlds. I'm very optimistic of everything I've seen so far.

[uzivatel]

Almost sounds like they are throwing away everything they did right in DA2 only to create another Origins-like borefest.

[Melca36]

uzivatel wrote...

Almost sounds like they are throwing away everything they did right in DA2 only to create another Origins-like borefest.

Um...They said they are going to take what worked in BOTH games. DA2 was waves and hacking and slashing.

Some of us want some depth to our combat.

[Ieldra]

There's nothing I hate more about DA2 than its combat, and I know of no game I otherwise like where I hate the combat so much. I'm usually tolerant of sub-optimal combat gameplay, but in DA2 the insane speed, the over-the-top animations and the wave mechanics affected my enjoyment of the game as a whole. It's good that they're going to reduce those elements.

DAO did nothing wrong unless you were a warrior. The slow animations and limited reactivity were mostly a class-specific problem, not a problem with combat as a whole. Yes, that needed speeding up, but not to the insane speed of DA2's combat which made tactics impossible without pausing every two seconds, and even then your orders were often outdated because things were moving so fast. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 août 2013 - 09:47 .

[uzivatel]

Melca36 wrote...

Um...They said they are going to take what worked in BOTH games. DA2 was waves and hacking and slashing.

Either they were somewhat flexible with the truth ... or they have no idea what actually worked and based their decision on the feedback from the crybabies on metacritic.

Some of us want some depth to our combat.

Well, there sure was none in Origins.

Modifié par uzivatel, 07 août 2013 - 09:58 .

[Ieldra]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Leave twitch to the rest of the market. Let us have our one, maybe two non-twitch RPGs a year.

This.

[Plaintiff]

Dragon Age never had "twitch" combat. I don't know why people think it did.

[Ieldra]

uzivatel wrote...

Some of us want some depth to our combat.

Well, there sure was none in Origins.

A great deal more than in DA2. Positioning tactics, pre-combat stealth and scouting, the need to be careful with AoE - all irrelevant in DA2. DA2 was little more than "hit an applicable talent button as soon as the cooldown was done". That and the wave mechanics made DA2 combat a tedious chore.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 août 2013 - 10:39 .

[Nyrr]

Action combat is not everyone's cup of tea, but I'd love to have the option. In DA:O and DA II both, the only way you could play without having to pause and micromanage your party members was to go for Easy difficulty or spend lots of time setting up sets of tactics. Having challenging real-time combat which includes blocking, dodging and parrying (think Dark Souls) is not mutually exclusive with having tactical control over your party.

As a side note, it'd be great to have controller support on PC. It was pretty hard to go back to KB+M after trying out the console version of DA2 and seeing how fluid combat and movement felt.

[uzivatel]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Positioning tactics, pre-combat stealth and scouting, the need to be careful with AoE

Yeah, right ... did you even play the same game?

The positioninig tactics were extremely basic, in most fights completely unnecessary.
Pre-combat scouting was pointless, since the enemies were highlighted on your map, many pre-scripted combats would start even if your characters were using stealth and the rogue would get in the way of AoEs ... in theory anyway.
Some of the best AoE spells had no friendly fire and considering the abundance of armours with elemental protection, you cold go pretty crazy with spells without worrying much about the consequences.

Modifié par uzivatel, 07 août 2013 - 12:07 .

[Cimeas]

This isn't that kind of game.

Your suggestion is about as ridiculous as asking the makers of Halo if they could add a party-based, isometric strategy combat mode with which one could go through the campaign.

[Frozenkex]

People who are asking it to make it an "option" dont  understand what they are asking, its unreasonable, and they won't do it. How about an option for turn-based combat!!?!?? no? Well im not expecting it, neither should you.

Modifié par Frozenkex, 07 août 2013 - 12:27 .

[9TailsFox]

Fans: We want slow tactical combat like DA:O
Other fans we want fast action oriented combat like DA2 just no waves.
Bioware: 

[Nyrr]

One can always hope! I'd enjoy a purely turn-based system too (similar to ToEE), it's the middle-ground pause-and-play that feels slightly off to me.

DA2 made a step towards satisfying action while keeping tactical gameplay, mind you - some warrior and rogue abilities allowed you to be mobile on the battlefield and avoid attacks, and default-off friendly fire meant you could be more relaxed with where you aim your spells. It's not a huge stretch to imagine expanding upon that - look at Neverwinter, which has somewhat standard MMO gameplay, but with an emphasis on dodges/rolls/mobility to evade special attacks.

Modifié par Nyrr, 07 août 2013 - 12:48 .

[uzivatel]

Frozenkex wrote...

People who are asking it to make it an "option" dont  understand what they are asking, its unreasonable, and they won't do it. How about an option for turn-based combat!!?!?? no? Well im not expecting it, neither should you.

Maybe they should do something similar to GRAW and develop two versions of one game - while the story, dialogues, locations etc. could be the same, the gameplay could be completely different on PC and consoles.

[Nyrr]

uzivatel wrote...

Frozenkex wrote...

People who are asking it to make it an "option" dont  understand what they are asking, its unreasonable, and they won't do it. How about an option for turn-based combat!!?!?? no? Well im not expecting it, neither should you.

Maybe they should do something similar to GRAW and develop two versions of one game - while the story, dialogues, locations etc. could be the same, the gameplay could be completely different on PC and consoles.

Not impossible, but remember that some console players still like a tactical approach, and some PC players have their machine set up console-style with a tv screen and controller. 

[uzivatel]

Nyrr wrote...

Not impossible, but remember that some console players still like a tactical approach, and some PC players have their machine set up console-style with a tv screen and controller. 

Then they purchased wrong platforms... 

[Taleroth]

leslie2233 wrote...

Why not have both? Couldn't Bioware just let you switch between twitchy or tactcical gameplay in the options menu.

Because proper design and implementation of the two requires vastly different ability and encounter design.

You can't just throw a Diablo character into Baldur's Gate and call it a day.

[sickpixie]

I've read the Game Informer article and they said they still intend to support playing as a single character with companions solely handled by AI. The combat animations from the teaser video weren't as slow as Origins's either.

[LTD]

NO.

If you want twitchy arcade button smash games, go play twitchy arcade button smash games. Don't try to turn Bioware RPGs into games of a different genre just because you mislike them.  Thank you. Judging from DA II, they can fail at this hard enough even without your aid.

I don't like AE Sports games. I like Skyrim. - - - > Guys, hey guys..Wouldn't EA's NHL 2013  be a way cooler game if it got redesigned to be less about ice hockey  and more like Skyrim?


Videogame can have a fairly ambitious, matured  story with much writing crammed in it. Videogame can also have dumb twitchy arcade combat. You can also have a videogame that combines both. I've always tought such combination makes an incredibly stupid combination by design. Gameplay, story and storytelling shold complement one another. They should  feel like they belong to same game. If your gameplay is about retarded MTV music video combat, then story and storytelling should be something of equal spirit. Preferably  with emphasis on action and doing thigs..not on watching talking heads.

Modifié par LTD, 07 août 2013 - 03:06 .

[Zekka]

Mr.House wrote...

leslie2233 wrote...

Why not have both? Couldn't Bioware just let you switch between twitchy or tactcical gameplay in the options menu.

Making two diffrent combat systems for one game is not cheap or productive. It is a waste of resources and time. DAI is going back to DAO and improving it. Deal with it or find another game.

I like origin's gameplay, I was just proposing an alternative.

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Who are you talking to, here? Without quotes it's hard, almost impossible to tell.

Anyone who thinks Dragon Age had/has "twitch" combat.

While you're mostly correct, I WILL point out both the Rock Wraith fight, and of course the fact that if you "spam" the auto-attack button, you DO attack faster.

I don't think that counts, honestly. None of that is based on player reflexes or "twitching".

[Angrywolves]

DA2 combat no.
Waves of enemies parachuting in no.
Don't know how some people thought that was right in DA2.