883 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Mmmhhh... they have tried the same design approach in DA2 and the result was a failure.

We actually used the same approach for DAO Consoles as well.

And DAO's console version was considered inferior to the PC one and was not received as well in term of gameplay. Infact, the discrepancy between the two version of the game was one of the reason the dev team used to justify the shift to a more action game with DA2 if memory serves me right. 

Having said that: I hope that you will manage to succeed where I think you failed before but imho it remains one of the most controversial design principle of the series wich is prone to failure. I really cannot see the benefit for your customer base at large in that design choice (and imho it won't sell more copies making a less pure experience). 

Can I ask you a simple question? In the video, Laidlaw say that what sets Dragon Age apart from the competition in terms of gameplay is party based combat. I agree. But what's the point of making it a "party-less" game at normal level making the experience less "pure" for the vast majority of the player base who plays on normal?

[LPPrince]

Yeah, I made the bowstring point in the linked thread.

I VERY much made the point.

[andar91]

We have no clue what the difficulty levels will be in Inquisition. I agree that they were communicated poorly in DA2; it should have been clearer that Hard was intended for the more Origins-esque player. I sometimes wonder if they should label their levels: Story Mode, RPG, Hardcore RPG, Nightmare or something like that.

I also think that trying to judge how the combat design will be off of a few clips of largely one-on-one combat is not a good idea. We can make judgements, sure, but we haven't actually seen any ENCOUNTERS yet. We've seen a few hits here, a fire spell there, but not how they all play out as the designers intend. Also, it all looks like low-level play (the level is in the upper right hand corner) where the combat is MOST likely to be simplistic. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to say that the game will be "party-less" at Normal level when we do not know if that will happen. Heck, we've already received one tidbit from twitter or something about David Gaider wiping completely on an encounter because he did not play tactically enough (I don't have a source, but I"m positive).

Modifié par andar91, 17 août 2013 - 11:12 .

[andar91]

Filament wrote...

If all they did was design it around friendly fire for all difficulties again, that would probably do much to address your general Joe Gamer's feel that it's "too easy on Normal."

I have been wondering about Friendly Fire in Inquisition. I'd kinda like to go back to Origins' method on it, though I could actually live with no friendly fire (I know other people hate it). I liked having none on the lowest setting, half damage on Normal, and full on the other two modes. 

Or a toggle, but I imagine those can be problematic for balancing issues and bug testing.

[addiction21]

LPPrince wrote...

Yeah, I made the bowstring point in the linked thread.

I VERY much made the point.

Then go back and keep the attention whoring in that thread. Instead of getting this one locked.

1varangian wrote...


I also saw action gameplay where the player was trying to move behind the shield guy. If I want that I'll go play Ninja Gaiden or God of War. I don't want it in a game thats supposed to be a tactical RPG. It's about controlling a group and using abilities and terrain, not about controlling one guy and trying to run behind a shield guy.

How is moving into the shield guys weak spot any different then moving a rogue to someones back to backstab? That's called being tactical not just smashing into the enemy. You will still be controlling a group that's been made clear so calm down.

[LPPrince]

Echoing earlier suggestions in the archery thread, I'm hoping rogues get to apply poisons and set elemental effects on their broadheads. And daggers/short swords, while we're at it.

That way rogue players can have an elemental sort of thing going without it needing to be arcane, since that would automatically make them mages.

[LPPrince]

I thought DAO's friendly fire was for...man its been a long time. I can't recall.

[andar91]

Filament wrote...

I'd prefer full friendly fire for Normal and above, and half or none on Easy. I think DAO had half friendly fire on Easy, if I recall correctly.

edit: according to the Wiki, it was 50% on normal in DAO. Huh, I don't remember it being like that.

edit2: aaaand I see where the difference in consoles is being illustrated, on consoles it was 0% for normal and 50% for hard.

Yeah, I kinda liked the 50% damage option. It was perfect for making friendly fire matter, but it wasn't obscenely punishing either.

[LPPrince]

Ahh, I had DAO for 360.

[Sylvianus]

edit : Nevermind.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 17 août 2013 - 11:40 .

[LPPrince]

I think probably the largest appeal of DAO for me was that it felt like I was playing a PC game on console, and by that I meant the feel of it, the tone, the way it was built.

Combat was a part of that. I'd like that recaptured, though I find it hard to explain.

[andar91]

Filament wrote...

Most people did, which does kind of undermine the idea that the console version wasn't well received...

Well, there's a difference between well-received and selling. At least, there can be. I think DA:O sold fine on consoles, but most people recognized that the PC version was better. Thankfully, DA2 was much nicer to the consoles. Not to say it didn't have problems, but I appreciated playing a game that was built for consoles as well as PCs from the start (I play on console).

[Allan Schumacher]

And DAO's console version was considered inferior to the PC one and was not received as well in term of gameplay. Infact, the discrepancy between the two version of the game was one of the reason the dev team used to justify the shift to a more action game with DA2 if memory serves me right.

DAO Console was very well received. Just not by everybody. There are those that think DAO PC is inferior as well (I'm not one of them, I prefer DAO PC).

If you're referring to the specifics of the combat, however, you'll need to drill down a bit more into what aspects of the combat were, in fact, not so well received.


The point was that you were incorrectly focusing on our decision for DA2 (since that's the bad one and all), when the philosophy still worked in the prior game.

Can I ask you a simple question? In the video, Laidlaw say that what sets Dragon Age apart from the competition in terms of gameplay is party based combat. I agree. But what's the point of making it a "party-less" game at normal level making the experience less "pure" for the vast majority of the player base who plays on normal?

Because even if the player is able to focus on just playing their own character, it's still a party based game with party combat.

If you'd prefer, we could just deactivate party AI and force the player to do everything. I suspect that that wasn't what you were thinking, however.

There's a poster in this very thread that is very much into DA series for its party based, tactical combat, and he's specifically saying that his ideal is one where the party members can still be set up to behave properly so that his input is no longer required. To the point where he says he hates the moments in DAO when his inputs are required.

[fchopin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So the guy with the big shield. A straight forward enough concept in that he's someone that if you attempt to smash him head on is often just going to be ineffective. So Josh showed off the hook shot ability and for most characters it'll jolt the target towards the character using the ability, although with the shielded guy his shield protects him from the primary effect, but if you hit him in the shield with it, it does knocks him off balance and makes it easier to attack him.

An alternative way of dealing with the shielded guy, is to simply move people behind him so they are hitting him in the rear while someone else holds his attention.

I don't see how having a shield makes any difference if you have a team that can strike from behind while another person stands in front.
 
If it was one on one then it makes sense as it becomes like TW2 but if you have a team it's impossible to defend with a shield as there is always someone to strike from behind so I don't see the point.

[devSin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

What? so on PC it was 50% for normal or was it 100%?

50%. I believe hard was the level where there was no modifier, but normal was always reduced friendly-fire damage.

On consoles, there was no friendly fire except on hard or above. (In addition to other changes, like regeneration being doubled across the board, and reduced or altered encounters.)

Modifié par devSin, 17 août 2013 - 11:45 .

[andar91]

fchopin wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So the guy with the big shield. A straight forward enough concept in that he's someone that if you attempt to smash him head on is often just going to be ineffective. So Josh showed off the hook shot ability and for most characters it'll jolt the target towards the character using the ability, although with the shielded guy his shield protects him from the primary effect, but if you hit him in the shield with it, it does knocks him off balance and makes it easier to attack him.

An alternative way of dealing with the shielded guy, is to simply move people behind him so they are hitting him in the rear while someone else holds his attention.

I don't see how having a shield makes any difference if you have a team that can strike from behind while another person stands in front.
 
If it was one on one then it makes sense as it becomes like TW2 but if you have a team it's impossible to defend with a shield as there is always someone to strike from behind so I don't see the point.

The shield guys will probably not be standing alone. I'll bet it's a bit harder for the Inquisitor to maneuver with their comopanions when Varric is busy vending off an assassin's strikes, Cassandra is paralyzed by a mage, and Vivienne is close to death because she's squishy.

That was just a random example, but my point is that the encounters probably won't be one on one for the majority of the game.

[Sylvianus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And DAO's console version was considered inferior to the PC one and was not received as well in term of gameplay. Infact, the discrepancy between the two version of the game was one of the reason the dev team used to justify the shift to a more action game with DA2 if memory serves me right.

DAO Console was very well received. Just not by everybody. There are those that think DAO PC is inferior as well (I'm not one of them, I prefer DAO PC).

If you're referring to the specifics of the combat, however, you'll need to drill down a bit more into what aspects of the combat were, in fact, not so well received.


The point was that you were incorrectly focusing on our decision for DA2 (since that's the bad one and all), when the philosophy still worked in the prior game.

It was my case. That said when I discovered later that Pc gamers could have isometric camera and not us, I kinda felt a bit frustrated, especially that at the beginning I was bad with tactical group and all. There are also some things I've seen for the pc design and we couldn't do on console. We can't for example choose the placement for our companions except if we control them. I felt DAII had more considered the design for consoles.

I hope that the console version although treated according to the design for the console won't mean more oriented action, less tactical, and all. I want the same possibilities.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 17 août 2013 - 11:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't see how having a shield makes any difference if you have a team that can strike from behind while another person stands in front.

If you can't see, does that mean you imagined all the possibilities?

Your assumption seems to be that, since there's a party, it's 4 on 1. What if the fight was 4 on 4? Imagine it was 4 shield guys! (which would be silly and lame, IMO)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 17 août 2013 - 11:52 .

[addiction21]

fchopin wrote...


I don't see how having a shield makes any difference if you have a team that can strike from behind while another person stands in front.
 
If it was one on one then it makes sense as it becomes like TW2 but if you have a team it's impossible to defend with a shield as there is always someone to strike from behind so I don't see the point.

I doubt that shield guy will be all alone. Think 2 shield guys throw some archers, some mooks with swords and a mage.

Its not just about that one shield guy but the whole battlefield and that includes your own party composition.

[LPPrince]

What, no shield wall awesomesauciness?