883 réponses à ce sujet

[devSin]

Sylvianus wrote...

Ok thanks folks. Otherwise, I knew I didn't dream, DA2 had already some " twich elements ", which I thought was a good thing by the way, and so for me It was already something we could get in DA.

Note that it may not have been actual twitch. It's hard to say what DA2 was really doing, but there were clear attempts to at least simulate twitch-based gameplay.

I suspect that Inquisition is going to be actual twitch (and all twitch), but there's no way to tell just yet (though I guess everything we've been shown so far doesn't really seem to indicate otherwise).

Modifié par devSin, 18 août 2013 - 01:15 .

[sickpixie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Did it?

"'I did feel Origins
'normal' [difficulty] was pushing too hard on the high side and no one
wants to set their game to 'casual' unless they're comfortable being
here just for the story, and that's fine. But as a player, I don't feel I
should be able to pick what's arguably the default difficulty and get
my ass handed to me again and again,' Laidlaw said." (link)

I don't believe the philosophy was quite the same either. The console versions of Origins scaled down the encounters from the PC version, which felt like it had hard as the baseline difficulty with nightmare being scaled up numerically and normal and easy being scaled down. With II, it felt like the baseline was normal and it was scaled up numerically for hard and nightmare in ways that weren't enjoyable because the base was so low.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm talking about our thought process for how to address the difficulties. Whether or not that was actually the case may not be the case.

If Mike felt that DAO was still too difficult on normal, that suggests that maybe we didn't reach it.  Which is a fair enough assessment if DAO Consoles are believed to have better combat than DA2's.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 18 août 2013 - 01:21 .

[Wissenschaft]

Is anyone else reminded of Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, where a warrior was able to use a harpoon skill to pull enemies toward them. I'm happy so see that idea in another game.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 18 août 2013 - 01:34 .

[Foolsfolly]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Frozenkex wrote...

I think the word "twitch" is overused by some posters including you. What does it even mean, where u draw the line what is twitch and what is not. I think it would be more appropriate to name specifics "I dont like this X thing cuz its too fast" .

Too fast doesn't have anything to do with it. I didn't really mind DA ][ being fast. Twitch means it's something that depends on the player's reflexes rather than on the game system. Basically, if I can avoid an attack by hitting a button in real-time and dodging out of the way, that sounds like twitch to me.

I like plenty of fast games. I enjoyed Devil May Cry 4. It isn't a case of "I like this and I don't like that."

So... would Arkham City be twitch gameplay?

Because I'm going to be honest. I have no ****ing clue what the term means whenever fandom brings it up. It's got no substance to it and can mean damn near everything that isn't turn based.

Example: in Skyrim if you're a sword and shield warrior you can shield bash enemies when they start a power attack. It will reset their animation and give them a slight stunned moment. If you have the stamina for it you can actual stun-lock a lot of enemies. There's even a perk to allow the game to slow down in that window for easier stunning.

Since that requires a 'twitch' does that mean Skyrim's twitch gaming?

[Foolsfolly]

Lemme ask this then: what isn't twitch gameplay? Because I cannot think of a video game where the character's skill is more important than player skill. Even RPGs that are rather loved by this forums like Alpha Protocol and The Witcher are very much Player > Character in terms of gameplay.


The whole thing feels like arbitrary lines in the sand. Video game RPGs are not pen and paper RPGs. They borrow a lot of elements but they're very different beasts. And player skill is always more important in these games.

[andar91]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Lemme ask this then: what isn't twitch gameplay? Because I cannot think of a video game where the character's skill is more important than player skill. Even RPGs that are rather loved by this forums like Alpha Protocol and The Witcher are very much Player > Character in terms of gameplay.


The whole thing feels like arbitrary lines in the sand. Video game RPGs are not pen and paper RPGs. They borrow a lot of elements but they're very different beasts. And player skill is always more important in these games.

Games like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale were not twitch by their standards (I think).

What you're pointing out about games not being Pen and Paper games is actually at the heart of the issue in my opnion. Games used to be much closer to them, but they've drifted farther away. I think it's fine because they're two very different types of games, but a lot of the people on here desperately want more BG and old school stuff.

I'd rather have the new, and I don't think the general public wants to go back either. That doesn't mean old school stuff isn't fun. It's just that there have been developments in technology and gaming conventions since.

Modifié par andar91, 18 août 2013 - 02:36 .

[Vaeliorin]

In Exile wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
I think you would need to go into the tactics menu and set a command to set what you want to do against certain enemies. Like what DAO and DA2 had. Course they probably have a basic knowledge of what to do already, but I don't see this feature being phased out anytime soon.

Was there a "flank" option? There was in the Advanced Tactics mod, but not in the regular game. You're talking about a step up in...AI combat function, to account for something like this.

Why yes. Yes I am.

If they're focusing on new enemy types that have specific weaknesses and strategies needed, it stands that logically, the tactics options would evolve as well to accomidate this change.

I can see it now:

If (target_has_shield) then circle_strafe

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, circle strafing has no business in RPGs, let alone party-based RPGs.

There has to be a way to deal with the absurdities of telekinetic ogre punches in RPGs. I appreciate that in old 2D games, where the animations were mostly hidden by the graphics, these kinds of issues did not really show up. 

However, these issues do come up in a 3D game. I think the delayed scripted autopause that Slyvius suggested is ideal. I'm going to make a thread about it.

Honestly, telekinetic ogre punches don't bother me at all.  If it is really a problem, the ideal solution is just to make the combat turn-based.  Then you don't have to worry about telekinetic punches.

Sylvianus wrote...
@ Andar : I agree that positioning is incredibly tactical.

Positioning is good.  Getting that position because your human opponent can't turn as quickly as you can sidestep a circle around him is silly (it was also silly in Dark Souls.)  Certainly there are enemies that it might make sense for them to turn slowly, but a dude with a shield isn't one of them.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 18 août 2013 - 04:27 .

[Il Divo]

Deverz wrote...

Looks like Dragon Age with a bit of Dark Souls.

Which I don't mind at all.

I would be extremely happy if this is the case.

[devSin]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Lemme ask this then: what isn't twitch gameplay? Because I cannot think of a video game where the character's skill is more important than player skill.

Origins and DA2. If you hit something in Origins, it is because your attack score is sufficient to overcome an opponent's defense—not because you swung a weapon (by pressing a button) while facing an enemy who was in range at the time of impact.

Which is why the question of whether DA3 is going to have twitch-based gameplay is important. Is it going to be a DA game as we've come to expect (whether you see any relevant distinciton or not, it's something that some people do recognize and value), or is it going to be something else (as I suspect it will be)?

That doesn't mean it would be unplayably awful, but it's not going to be the style of gameplay I'd necessarily want in a DA game.

Modifié par devSin, 18 août 2013 - 03:00 .

[Il Divo]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Lemme ask this then: what isn't twitch gameplay? Because I cannot think of a video game where the character's skill is more important than player skill. Even RPGs that are rather loved by this forums like Alpha Protocol and The Witcher are very much Player > Character in terms of gameplay.

Dragon Age: Origins? Any game which utilizes turn-based combat?

You're focusing on a few action RPGs here. Look especially at Bioware's earlier games and you'll find that there's very few twitch elements, aside from being fast enough to autopause, but that's still not in the same category as Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma where success is constantly determined by your trigger finger.

[Il Divo]

slimgrin wrote...

I see very little Witcher stuff in there, not sure where people are getting that. Some UI elements and AI behavior maybe. But the clear influence is Dark Souls, which surprises me. And it looks straight up twitch combat to me.

One of the first enemy types you face in the Witcher are tower-shield bearing soldiers where the tactic is to get behind them and strike. The pre-alpha gameplay showed something similar.

[Iron Fist]

Now I miss KOTOR even more.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I do believe I like twitch combat a hell of a lot more, now that we have a definition more or less worked out.

I play games in order to play them and experience the story, not sit on my ass and let the computer do all the work. If that's the case I might as well pop in a lord of the rings blue ray and enjoy the hyper-realistic graphics.

[Il Divo]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This actually does a great job of encompassing my philosophy and it's one reason why I rarely play above the default difficulty in Bioware games.

While it might sound odd, I enjoy party-based games and love the companion characters, but hate controlling an actual party. It's not even for the tactical aspect, but I just find all moments not spent as my character to be very boring. And that goes for a lot of other games too, simply whenever the writers decide I need to take control of a side character for an extended period of time (KotOR 2 is a great example).

Something like Jade Empire is my ideal game, in this regard. You could bring a companion character with you, but they existed entirely separate from my character. I didn't even have to order them to heal or use medpacks.

[AntiChri5]

Il Divo wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I see very little Witcher stuff in there, not sure where people are getting that. Some UI elements and AI behavior maybe. But the clear influence is Dark Souls, which surprises me. And it looks straight up twitch combat to me.

One of the first enemy types you face in the Witcher are tower-shield bearing soldiers where the tactic is to get behind them and strike. The pre-alpha gameplay showed something similar.

Thats hardly unique to The Witcher.

[Il Divo]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I see very little Witcher stuff in there, not sure where people are getting that. Some UI elements and AI behavior maybe. But the clear influence is Dark Souls, which surprises me. And it looks straight up twitch combat to me.

One of the first enemy types you face in the Witcher are tower-shield bearing soldiers where the tactic is to get behind them and strike. The pre-alpha gameplay showed something similar.

Thats hardly unique to The Witcher.

Certainly not unique, but as a relatively recent, extremely popular game which drew immediate comparisons to DA2, I wouldn't say it's an invalid comparison. Even the staggered animation of the shield soldiers looks similar, although this is also coming from someone who replayed TW2 about a week ago.

[Il Divo]

Filament wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...


What I'm arguing is, you've got practically an entire market of twitch games. Why do you feel obliged to turn one of the few non-twitch games--not only games, but a series--into twitch?

None of them are in Thedas.

Agreed. At the end of the day, every fan wants what's going to make their particular experience most enjoyable.

I prefer twitch mechanics, but Dragon Age has a host of other features that I also love/enjoy. Adding twitch mechanics sweetens the deal (imo).