883 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredward]

Filament wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

Filament wrote...

Great, replace the roll with a cartwheel. Unrealism solved. I can't wait for my cartwheeling inquisitor.

, or a parry, or a disarm and throw, or half sword and rearaange his teeth with the pommel of your sword or..

Or cartwheel around him until he gets dizzy and falls over, then give him the People's Elbow.

Or a five-knuckle shuffle. Oh wait. Kids play these games.

[Vilegrim]

MrCry0 wrote...

I love seeing people freak out over these things:
-Summoning massive fireballs out of nothing? No problem.
-dragons and demons everywhere? sure.
-The whole world needs to be dependant on one person's actions? Of course.

-A chain you can shoot and a combat roll? Holy flapjacks, Bioware, are you on drugs? That sh*t ain't real!

Suspension of Disbelief, I can run with magic beign a thing, as long as it is internally conssitent, I can swallow the great man theory, it makes good stories.   What bugs me is an ability (throw a chain Skorpion style) tha basically says, our combat system is so badly designed that in order to make a class compettive we have to add an  ability that has never even been hinted at in the lore, in the previous games, or in the novels, and we believe that to make melee fighitn fun with have to make it AWESOME (which is exactly what was wrong with DA2) 

[Zanallen]

Vilegrim wrote...

Suspension of Disbelief, I can run with magic beign a thing, as long as it is internally conssitent, I can swallow the great man theory, it makes good stories.   What bugs me is an ability (throw a chain Skorpion style) tha basically says, our combat system is so badly designed that in order to make a class compettive we have to add an  ability that has never even been hinted at in the lore, in the previous games, or in the novels, and we believe that to make melee fighitn fun with have to make it AWESOME (which is exactly what was wrong with DA2) 

Why would they have to hint at the ability to throw a harpoon attached to a chain? It isn't anything magical. I can tie a rope to a javelin right now and throw it. Would it make a bit more sense as a grappling hook? Probably, but I don't mind the javelin at all. And even if it was some sort of super special skill, are you suggesting that Bioware cannot add to its own lore?

Personally, I appreciate the fact that Bioware is adding new enemy types that require different strategies to overcome. Attack everything until it dies is boring as hell.

[IC-07]

What can I say? Dark Souls.

[Moonfish88]

Characters look too big on screen, you can barely see the area

[Vilegrim]

IC-07 wrote...

What can I say? Dark Souls.

yea, that would be another game I don't like.  Or rather didn't get on with, I am not buying a controller for one game, and it doesn't function on mouse+keyboard, so I found it frustrating and gimmecky and yes, the rolling everywhere bugged me.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 18 août 2013 - 09:39 .

[FedericoV]

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.

I'm just talking about combat gameplay: I know that DAO was very well received in general and I loved that game too.

I personally believe that the console version of the combat was inferior. The specific is the lack of the tactical camera and the resulting "work" required to control the party on the console since the game was clearly conceived to be played with keyboard and mouse in eagle eye view and not with the gamepad in third person. And it's never good when you feel that you're fighting the controll restraints and not the encounter in itself. 

Infact, I played DA2 on the PC and one of my main problem with the game is that it was clearly conceived to be played with the gamepad, controlling one charachter in real time (infact you even removed autoattacks on consolle). Trying to micromanage the party on hard never felt any good. I made it to the end and I became an expert in CCC but most of the time the combat was an exercise in frustration. It wasn't about the difficulty of the encounters. It was about the overall "feel" of the game. 

Btw, if that's the plan for DA:I too, please give me the possibility to play it on the PC with a gamepad. 

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.

I'm focusing on DA2 because at least with DA:O you gave me the possibility to play a party based game how is meant to be played (tactical view, good controls, etc.) on the PC. I could choose while with DA2 you removed that option.  I believe that your decision hasn't worked in DA:O's consolle version too and some critics/players even pointed out the problems I tried to explain above. 

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.

What I think is that if the dev team want to make a game that focus mostly on the protagonist, something like Kotor 1/Jade Empire or ME2&3 combat gameplay would be more enjoyable: you focus on Revan/The Last Spirit Monk/Shepard in real time and pause just once in a while to position your companions and ask for their support. But basically there is no need for companion and you coul easily solo all of this games. Instead, if you're serious about party based gameplay, DA:O on the PC was a much better game experience than DAO on the consolle and DA2.

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.

To each his own. No offense but I don't understand such a position: maybe he/she just love to have a party so at the end of the encounter the game aknowledge his deeds with dialogues and such. Or maybe he/she just like the idea of party based gameplay but not the real thing. I guess that I will play some more XCom then .

Modifié par FedericoV, 18 août 2013 - 10:02 .

[The Elder King]

DA2 didn't remove autoattack on console. While it wasn't present at launch, it was later implemented in a patch.

Modifié par hhh89, 18 août 2013 - 09:53 .

[FedericoV]

hhh89 wrote...

DA2 didn't remove autoattack on console. While it wasn't present at launch, it was later implemented in a patch.

They removed it. Laidlaw himself was even speaking of removing party based combat alltogether and building bridges between DA and God of War gameplay. Then the unexpected reaction of the fan base changed their mind. And they invented some excuse when they could not put it back in the game in time because it wasn't in the original plan.

It was later implemented in a patch but the damage was already done.

[The Elder King]

The first time when Bioware talked about a clear lack of autoattack on console was few days before release, when Priestly said that it wouldn't be present due to some problems and that they would try to implement it in a patch. I remember it clearly since I was pissed, as many other people, and it was completely unexpected. Regardless if they wanted to remove it or not, bioware never stated that they wanted to intentionally remove it. At least before and during release. I don't know if they stated otherwise some times after release, which doesn't change the fact that during DA2's dev cycle we expected autoattack to be present on console on launch.

Modifié par hhh89, 18 août 2013 - 10:12 .

[Tvorceskiy]

Since when has it been okay to attack the devs on how they make their game? What they change or include or take out is up to them, and to be honest I think Bioware as a whole has a bit more knowledge about what the community will recieve and what they won't.

People in this thread (and the BSN as a whole) seem to think they are the only fans that matter. They aren't. There are millions of fans who aren't on the forums or simply don't voice their opinions, who are we to speak for them and say "DAO was better because it was tactical and DA2 sucked because it wasn't and bioware needs to cater to me because I say so"?

Combat for DAI will be different. There is no question about that. The devs are working hard on it to give everyone a unique and satisfying game. You're judging the new combat system on brief footage of 1 on 1 pre-alfa gameplay.

Will there be a tactical camera for the PC folks? Auto-attack for console? Who knows at this point.

The game is over a year from release. A bit early to be screaming for changes to suit individual wants and claiming you won't buy the game (five bucks says the people who claim that will end up with it).

Personally I hate the tactical camera and battle in DAO. Never once did I use the camera during battle and I actually founx myself rarely issuing commands through party members. I found DA2 combat more to my liking although there were parts I disliked just as much as parts of DAO combat. Does that mean I will throw a tizzy about it? Certainly not.

The changes we have seen so far I like. It is something new and in my opinion it seems to me like the devs are really merging both systems together while adding extra goodies.

If you want combat a certain way go make your own game. We should be happy that Bioware and everyone there are allowing us to be a part of their story. To top it off they actually have listened to fans on more than one front which is more than I can say about other companies. Don't start asking for a mile when given an inch, that's what ruins things.

[Vilegrim]

Zanallen wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

Suspension of Disbelief, I can run with magic beign a thing, as long as it is internally conssitent, I can swallow the great man theory, it makes good stories.   What bugs me is an ability (throw a chain Skorpion style) tha basically says, our combat system is so badly designed that in order to make a class compettive we have to add an  ability that has never even been hinted at in the lore, in the previous games, or in the novels, and we believe that to make melee fighitn fun with have to make it AWESOME (which is exactly what was wrong with DA2) 

Why would they have to hint at the ability to throw a harpoon attached to a chain? It isn't anything magical. I can tie a rope to a javelin right now and throw it. Would it make a bit more sense as a grappling hook? Probably, but I don't mind the javelin at all. And even if it was some sort of super special skill, are you suggesting that Bioware cannot add to its own lore?

Personally, I appreciate the fact that Bioware is adding new enemy types that require different strategies to overcome. Attack everything until it dies is boring as hell.

If you can throw a harpoon at a guy hard enough that it sticks..guess what, no need to pull him in, he's dead, how about not having twitch based unthinking RARRRGGGGH at the heart of combat (the style that requires Mortal Kombay gimmicks in order to work), and make things intelligent, and realistic feeling, not AWESOME! RARRGGHHH! LOLSPEARLOL. BOOMO SPLAT WOW! 

[Maria Caliban]

hhh89 wrote...

DA2 didn't remove autoattack on console. While it wasn't present at launch, it was later implemented in a patch.

hhh89 has the right of it.

The lack of auto-attack was a mistake.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 18 août 2013 - 10:17 .

[FedericoV]

Autoattack on console where added very late to the development cycle and infact the demo of the game do not have them. Autoattack were not an integral part of the original vision of DA2 for consolle. You're right Bioware never stated something clear about that issue but if you look at the Game Informer preview for DA2 you will see devs testing the gameplay mushing buttons all the time.

I mean... the whole marketing campaign for the game was about pushing buttons .

Modifié par FedericoV, 18 août 2013 - 10:32 .

[billy the squid]

FedericoV wrote...


I mean... the whole marketing campaign for the game was about pushing buttons .

In a nutshell. 

[Monica83]

Considering the heavy shield carryed by the ennemy... Just an hard strong blow was sufficent to bring the ennemy out of balance.... An harpoon from nowhere is just silly and stupid a bad gameplay design....There are so many manners to implement a skill that makes go the ennemy out of balance.. your really don't need to trow a silly harpoon..... things like that contributed for me to dislike dragon age 2....

Over the top unnecessary scene like...

Thief that disappears ala naruto and teleports benhind the ennemy...
Thief that trow grenates with a flying cyrcle kick...
Warrior that have a charge that basically disappears from the screen and ends to appear with the blow already given...making evrything explode....
No no no thanks...

[mannitt]

I agree with everyone that said it's too early to tell. That said I have a few opinions. One is the same comment about not showing party combat. The other is I am happy with the slower movement. The biggest thing that kind of bothered me and I guess no one else thought so, since no one mentioned it, but the red computerized targets. It looks so out of place. Now this is alpha, so maybe they're just place holder targeting for something later, but I just thought it looked weird. Through the fire effects it did make it easy to see the targets. Still seemed off.

[ames4u]

I made a previous post about disliking the combat, but admitting that my opinion was based
on the first game informer video. I have since seen the newest one and have to admit-I like
what I see.

It's quick without being cartoonish and fluid, with lock on and strategic manoeuvring. More planning
will be needed when going up against certain enemies (though I hope this will not be abused to the point
where playing as certain classes will become pointless and lack fun) So they are clearly taking this seriously.

However, one niggling thing bothers me-why exactly is it that the Warriors special
ability 'harpoon' does not rip the shield away from the enemy? I would think that is exactly what
the warrior PC would be aiming to do. It's what I would be aiming to do. Instead it just brings the
enemy to his/her knees for a few seconds so you can hack them to pieces before resuming
the dance once more. I find it highly unlikely that the damn thing is welded to the enemies arm.
Or is it? Dun dun dun!!

I can only hope that a mage will not suffer the same issues, seeing as they are hurling magic at the
enemy which should, in all respects cook the son of a beech in his metal plate armor. Because if
this bog standard shield can repel magic, I call BS.

I'd like to wait and see if this gets better before casting my lot in one way or the other. But so far,
I like this look. Better camera control to alter the vantage so I can more effectively direct or take
stock of the battle like DAO did would be greatly appreciated-and I did not see that in the video.
Which I don't consider a good thing.

Modifié par ames4u, 18 août 2013 - 11:01 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

I'd say it's still subjective, and frankly if the beef is that you prefer it to be slower, that's still sufficient. You don't need "objectively defensible positions" for stuff like this, and in some cases (like Leliana being susceptible to a death blow, and citing THAT specifically as why Leliana should not have returned) it can obfuscate your actual point.

To go back to Leliana's example, when someone who doesn't like that Leliana's return undermines their choice and they think that's lame substantiates their position by focusing on a "headless Leliana" they're also sending a message that says "We should have made sure Leliana couldn't be killed with a deathblow in DAO." Which I don't think would actually satisfy that person.


To be honest, saying that you don't like the faster paced gameplay because while you enjoy our games, when the combat is fast paced you're more prone to making mistakes which ultimately makes the game less enjoyable is still pretty darn well reasoned feedback.

Speaking from a personal bias, but I can understand that concern much better, and do a better job of concluding "Other people could be in the same position as him" as opposed to strict adherence to in game world explanations which I may find myself wondering "Is this just Sylvius' special brand of crazy?"

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.

Sounds like a viable approach. You've done something to make encounters with those guys easier. I honestly wouldn't want to take that away from you. Of course, as encounter designers I think it'd be fun if they tossed some challenges that way so that their flanks are maybe better protected from time to time. And sometimes an encounter will just be set up that such flanking won't really be possible (i.e. on a castle wall or something).


Though your more cavalier approach to party members DOES make me think of something that I should email myself as a reminder (not combat related, but exploration related. Our levels are much larger, and Frostbite is awesome with streaming. We may need to incorporate some sort of tether to make sure people don't go TOO far away or you'd blow memory for sure. I don't know how far away that would be, however).

[Il Divo]

Vilegrim wrote...

If you can throw a harpoon at a guy hard enough that it sticks..guess what, no need to pull him in, he's dead, how about not having twitch based unthinking RARRRGGGGH at the heart of combat (the style that requires Mortal Kombay gimmicks in order to work), and make things intelligent, and realistic feeling, not AWESOME! RARRGGHHH! LOLSPEARLOL. BOOMO SPLAT WOW! 

No offense, but I think you're making an extremely artificial distinction simply to bash DA:I on this front.

Your stance on dual wielding illustrates this. There is nothing realistic or intelligent about its portrayal in either Origins or DA2, including watching a warrior run around with two long swords.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2013 - 11:21 .

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Vilegrim wrote...


If you can throw a harpoon at a guy hard enough that it sticks..guess what, no need to pull him in, he's dead, how about not having twitch based unthinking RARRRGGGGH at the heart of combat (the style that requires Mortal Kombay gimmicks in order to work), and make things intelligent, and realistic feeling, not AWESOME! RARRGGHHH! LOLSPEARLOL. BOOMO SPLAT WOW! 

For all we know, the harpoon maneuver is an activated talent/ability just like pommel strike or any other, meaning it can be queued while paused and is not reliant upon player reflex skill, making it NOT twitch based (as my understanding per the definitions set forth earlier in this threat).

As for your bolded part, well, you'd think that a lightining bolt would one hit kill someone too, but typically in these games it just takes off a small portion of damage. Because it's a game, and not reality.

And how is using a grappling hook like device to pull a shielded combatant off-balance not intelligent? It's using a tactic that 's not simply swinging at an enemy until their health goes down, which is pretty much all we've gotten up to now. Additionally, just because features are shared between games of different genres does not mean that the genres themselves are suddenly blurred. This isn't a Mortal Kombat gimmick any more than it is a Batman: Arkham City gimmick.

Exaggerated comments like these remind me of the people who for some reason think using a staff with flourish turns mages into some sort of never before seen 'pole dancer'.

[PillarBiter]

Vilegrim wrote...

MrCry0 wrote...

I love seeing people freak out over these things:
-Summoning massive fireballs out of nothing? No problem.
-dragons and demons everywhere? sure.
-The whole world needs to be dependant on one person's actions? Of course.

-A chain you can shoot and a combat roll? Holy flapjacks, Bioware, are you on drugs? That sh*t ain't real!

Suspension of Disbelief, I can run with magic beign a thing, as long as it is internally conssitent, I can swallow the great man theory, it makes good stories.   What bugs me is an ability (throw a chain Skorpion style) tha basically says, our combat system is so badly designed that in order to make a class compettive we have to add an  ability that has never even been hinted at in the lore, in the previous games, or in the novels, and we believe that to make melee fighitn fun with have to make it AWESOME (which is exactly what was wrong with DA2) 

So, purposefully believing one thing, and for no reason other that your personal preference completely disregarding the other? That's just zealous.
Also, they [Bioware] are giving you options, not definites. I mean, nowhere is being stated that you MUST have a warrior in your team. And even then, if you did have a warrior, nowhere does it say that you have to use a chain. 
You're confusing bad design with your illusion of a perfect game. Just because you had something in your head of what the game could/would or should have been, doesn't mean that that game is going to be. As a matter of fact, I'm glad it's not you designing it, because at least bioware understands that there were a lot of good things about DAII.
And lastly, don't be afrain of new things. You dislike new combat options? Then why not enemies? Heck, why not the new story? New environments? Scrap them! 
This is not DA:O V2.0, this is DAI. If you're already disliking it, just don't buy it, and stop trying to discourage others from actually enjoying it.

[Vilegrim]

what should have been said to the guy who first mentioned the LOLHARPOOOON AWESOME !!!!1111!!!!!11!! idea: 'Go sit down, think about what you just said, and come back with a real idea.'

MrCry0 wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

MrCry0 wrote...

I love seeing people freak out over these things:
-Summoning massive fireballs out of nothing? No problem.
-dragons and demons everywhere? sure.
-The whole world needs to be dependant on one person's actions? Of course.

-A chain you can shoot and a combat roll? Holy flapjacks, Bioware, are you on drugs? That sh*t ain't real!

Suspension
of Disbelief, I can run with magic beign a thing, as long as it is
internally conssitent, I can swallow the great man theory, it makes good
stories.   What bugs me is an ability (throw a chain Skorpion style)
tha basically says, our combat system is so badly designed that in order
to make a class compettive we have to add an  ability that has never
even been hinted at in the lore, in the previous games, or in the
novels, and we believe that to make melee fighitn fun with have to make
it AWESOME (which is exactly what was wrong with DA2) 

So,
purposefully believing one thing, and for no reason other that your
personal preference completely disregarding the other? That's just
zealous.

And lastly, don't be afrain of new
things. You dislike new combat options? Then why not enemies? Heck, why
not the new story? New environments? Scrap them! 
This is not DA:O
V2.0, this is DAI. If you're already disliking it, just don't buy it,
and stop trying to discourage others from actually enjoying it.

1) magic serves a narrative and gamepley purpose, you could make a great game without it, but the DA universe has it, intergrates it into the world, and examines it's consequences, making it a 'real' part of the universes, with it's own rules, forms, and consequnces.

2)By that token, give the inquistor a belt fed, air cooled heavy machine gun.  That would be a 'new thing'

I am speaking up now, while the game is in alpha in the vain hope that 1) people agree with me, and 2) enough speak out that the direction of the combat can be changed.

Seriously the guy had a shield and was a little to far away, their are a dozen things to do to counter that situation (with a great sword btw, that would be reverse grip the sword, holding it by the blade, use the guard to pull the shield out of postion and smash him in the teeth with the pommel as he falls forward.) instead we get: I throw my LOLHARPOON! 

Modifié par Vilegrim, 18 août 2013 - 11:34 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Well we didn't. Are you finished now? Because you're not saying anything new at this point.

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Though your more cavalier approach to party members DOES make me think of something that I should email myself as a reminder (not combat related, but exploration related. Our levels are much larger, and Frostbite is awesome with streaming. We may need to incorporate some sort of tether to make sure people don't go TOO far away or you'd blow memory for sure. I don't know how far away that would be, however).

Please don't have our companions run into the Corridor of Slicing and Dicing and Smashing just because we've got a couple of hundred meters ahead of them.  If I've told people to stay somewhere, there's probably a reason.  If there are technical reasons to stop that I guess it's unavoidable, but there needs to be a warning of some sort rather than just having them run towards the PC.

Maybe someone should tell us to gather our party before venturing forth.