883 réponses à ce sujet

[Zack_Nero]

Before I give an official statement, I want to see all class combat tactics and team tactics

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

I suppose that you also railed against DA:O for allowing non-mages to turn invisible and summon anaimals out of thin air.

Magic offers an in-game explanation for stuf like that.

Is there a similar explanation for massive chains?

[Frozenkex]

Well speaking of dodge roll. Imagine guy from Legacy DLC is charging at you with shield. I pause and make my followers run away from the path. sometimes unsuccessfully. With dodge roll it wouldve been easier to avoid it, thus requiring in fact less reaction time, than the need to preemptively run away from something.

My only problem with dodge roll is that if its spammable, its something that would be used all the time - I dislike when some games have spammable rolls/leaps/jumps because they end up being more effective at closing distances or just traveling around even than simply running, and that's no good.

[andar91]

EntropicAngel wrote...

andar91 wrote...

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.

That's not fair at all--that's like saying there can only be action books or romance novels. There's room for both.

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? YOU can play any one of a dozen (probably more) games released in the last five years--we only have a very small number. I don't see a reason for the change--and preference isn't valid enough of an answer, I don't think, because the games I most fondly remember and the games I'm looking forward to the most (Watch Dogs and Final Fantasy XV) are completely twitch games.

Perhaps I didn't word my post very well. Or just didn't think it through.

There is absolutely room for both. I suppose Dragon Age falls somewhere in the middle. By the definition I'm sorta seeing of twitch, none of the games have been that so far. 

Maybe this is a cop-out, but it seems like everybody wants something different from Dragon Age. I'm nto sure how well Bioware can please everybody--part of me is afraid that their striving to please so many people is the problem. Maybe they should pick a market and stick with it. Or not, I don't know.

I suppose that, at the moment, what I'm arguing is that Dragon Age Inquisition does not seem that twitchy to me. We don't know a lot, but all I have to go off of is what I've got right now.

-We haven't seen an actual encounter yet, and I think the interplay of enemies will make combat much more than smashing buttons to defeat, including a dodge button. As pointed out before in this thread, one shielded enemy might seem ridiculously easy, but that might not be so when there are other creatures messing with us.

-I expect that talents and spells will play a vital role, especially when we see how little damage some of those basic attacks were doing to the enemies in the latest video (Vivienne did a lot, but the warrior didn't; maybe those corpses were weak to fire or something). Hence, abilities and such will still be important to strategy, which is a non-twitch element (right?).

-Even if we press A or X to attack on consoles, that does not suggest that there won't be an auto-attack option, which was supposed to be in DA2 but wasn't because of a mistake or bug or something. And I maintain as I have since DA2's wait-up-to-release time that pressing the button mindlessly for the simple attacks is exactly that--mindless. It doesn't seem to take away anything unless you actually have to concentrate that hard on a few finger flurries.

-We have no reason to believe that pause-and-play is not a major part of this game. We have not seen it yet, but we don't know that it isn't there. And I'm pretty sure the GI article mentioned it, didn't they? If it was flat-out not in the game and this was basically Dragon's Dogma, I would be more upset (though not heartbroken). For me, pause and play is the heart of the tactical system.

I could probably go on, but this post is really long as it is.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Magic offers an in-game explanation for stuf like that.

Not for the way ranger summons worked, or how stealth looked.

Is there a similar explanation for massive chains?

Yes. The game's rules of physics. There's absolutely no reason each object couldn't have it's own localized and unique ruleset that it adheres to. 

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I suppose that you also railed against DA:O for allowing non-mages to turn invisible and summon anaimals out of thin air.

Magic offers an in-game explanation for stuf like that.

Is there a similar explanation for massive chains?

But he pointed out non-Mages. Far as we know, there isn't a magical element attached to the Rogue's stealth or the Ranger's ability to summon animal companions.

[Il Divo]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Filament wrote...

None of them are in Thedas.

That doesn't mean they should be, necessarily. I don't argue for Final Fantasy games to be twitch (though as you know I'm cool with it), which almost makes sense--just look at that FF XV gameplay *drool*. It's a similar situation, is it not?

Depends in what regard you find it similar. If you like Final Fantasy in spite of turn-based combat (as opposed to because of it), I don't see why a Final Fantasy wouldn't prefer twitch-based combat.

[Maria Caliban]

Il Divo wrote...

But he pointed out non-Mages. Far as we know, there isn't a magical element attached to the Rogue's stealth or the Ranger's ability to summon animal companions.

I don't know.

My Reaver is not a mage, but can regain health by chomping on people. My Champion can yell loud enough to knock a weaker person over.

It seems as though non-mages do have what *we* would consider magical abilities, but that people in Thedas don't consider them such.

[Ihatebadgames]

I side with the none twitch/clickfest people.
This argument has been going on since C&C killed the RTS games late 90s. Fans of gotta be doing something every second(Twitch/clickfest),don't need their favorite gameplay in every game(I'm running out of types I can stand).
We have a long time till the game comes out. It will change. It only took two weeks of very little info to get the US VS. Them started.
Every game doesn't need twitch, every game doesn't need MP or co-op. I don't want to force my style of play on you, why must you force your style of play on me.

[leaguer of one]

Ihatebadgames wrote...

I side with the none twitch/clickfest people.
This argument has been going on since C&C killed the RTS games late 90s. Fans of gotta be doing something every second(Twitch/clickfest),don't need their favorite gameplay in every game(I'm running out of types I can stand).
We have a long time till the game comes out. It will change. It only took two weeks of very little info to get the US VS. Them started.
Every game doesn't need twitch, every game doesn't need MP or co-op. I don't want to force my style of play on you, why must you force your style of play on me.

But we don't even know if it's twitch yet. Heck, DA2 was not twitch ether.

[Ihatebadgames]

If you can let you mind float free while pressing a Awwwsome button really fast..it's twitch.

[leaguer of one]

Ihatebadgames wrote...

If you can let you mind float free while pressing a Awwwsome button really fast..it's twitch.

If you have to wait for cooldown, have all your charaters on auto attack, have hit's and misses based on stats, and moving your character with point and click...Then it's not twitch.

Especially when on the pc verions there was no awsome button and it only ment on console you had the option to button smashed one button in place of auto attack.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 18 août 2013 - 04:54 .

[Roninbarista]

Wissenschaft wrote...

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.

That was a cool move, too. 

It's cool to see a new skill for the warrior in DA: I. 

Modifié par Roninbarista, 18 août 2013 - 05:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

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?

Filament's definition is pretty much correct. And to answer your second question (I haven't played Arkham City, but i suspect it is twitch), Skyrim is totally twitch gameplay. It has some stats behind it--like the damage of the weapon, the armor of the opponent, your skill with your weapon, etc--but the actual gameplay is based on your reflexes: You press the left mouse button or right trigger to attack, and that's the only way you can attack.

This is a valuable discussion.

While I generally dislike twitch gameplay (I just don't find it fun), and I argue against it from the perspective of world coherence and the ability to roleplay, the fact remains that I've played over 150 hours of Skyrim.  How did I manage that?

I employed tactics that prevented me from having to make quick decisions in real time, or from having to input complicated commands in real time.  Instead, I played a stealthy character who sniped from range with a bow.  And, when that wasn't sufficient, she summoned an Atronach and retreated to a safe distance.

When I say I dislike twitch gameplay, I really just don't like fast-paced gameplay.  But since I can't formulate an argument for that based on anything other than personal preference, I argue from world coherence because that seems to me to be a more objectively defensible position.

Errors of player input can always happen.  I occasionally move a unit the wrong direction in Civilization because I lose track of exactly where my hand is relative to the keyboard (I always play in darkened rooms), even though Civ is turn-based and there are no time pressures at all.  But time pressure exacberates the input error problem.

As Allan mentioned earlier, this really is a question of accessibility.  Should the game's controls exclude players based on their physical skills?  Since tabletop roleplaying is traditionally an exercise in decision-making, and is playable by a quadriplegic, I think CRPGs should do the same.  It should be a design goal of any RPG developer that their games be playable my physically disabled people - playable slowly, perhaps, but playable. 

I'm not suggesting this to be inclusive.  I'm suggesting this because that requirement would act as a safeguard against the addition of non-RPG features.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Magic offers an in-game explanation for stuf like that.

Not for the way ranger summons worked, or how stealth looked.

Granted.

Can we not allow for abstraction?

Yes. The game's rules of physics. There's absolutely no reason each object couldn't have it's own localized and unique ruleset that it adheres to.

If that ruleset is sufficiently well documented to allow us to make in-character decisions based on knowledge the characters should have, that would be acceptable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher 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 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)

One aspect of this enemy concerns me. It is this:

Since the challenge in this enemy is in attacking him from behind, and we're playing a full party of 4 characters, obviously surrounding him would be quite effective.  So, for his design to be effective, surrounding him cannot be trivial.

So, will the combat encounters enforce the party's relative position such that they don't start the encounter sufficiently scattered such that the enemy is already surrounded (albeit at range)?

In DAO, I often moved my party members separately to surround opponents (sometimes even moving a considerable distance through corridors to circle around to another entrance to a room) in order to set up these flanking attacks.  Doing this in DAI would seem to render these shielded opponents considerably less threatening.

Will the design gimmicks of specific enemies be used (internally) as justification to limit the player's control over tactical deployment of his party so as to maintain the intended challenge level of a given encounter?

[Cainhurst Crow]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Magic offers an in-game explanation for stuf like that.

Is there a similar explanation for massive chains?

I have to ask--what was the magical explanation for NON-mage summonings? I don't recall that.

Obviously rouges are jedi skilled in the force. That's why they can use mind trick and force cloak.

[Wissenschaft]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I suppose that you also railed against DA:O for allowing non-mages to turn invisible and summon anaimals out of thin air.

Magic offers an in-game explanation for stuf like that.

Is there a similar explanation for massive chains?

 

Err, isn't magic just as much an explaination for a warrior summoning massive chains as it is a Rogue being able to turn invisible and summon animals out of thin air?

HERP DERP

[Vilegrim]

I am very disappointed. It looks like 'awesome button' is still in, the guy with the greatsword doing spins and combat rolls, seriously what is wrong with looking at how people ACTUALLY FIGHT with great weapons? Far, far cooler looking than the gymnastics that was putting on show .  Oh and warrior summoning massive chains..erm wth? Is your combat system so fundementally broken you have to give everyone magic to make up for it?

Modifié par Vilegrim, 18 août 2013 - 06:41 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

I doubt there's any point in making assumptions until the game actually goes into beta.