883 réponses à ce sujet

[Shevy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

1varangian wrote...

A harpoon skill that automatically disables a "big shield guy" is a very artificial attempt at tactics. Should be very easy to deflect any kind of missile with a huge shield.

I really don't want to see harpoons, hails of arrows, flasks, bombs and whatnot coming out of nowhere as "talents".

I'd like Bioware to create an RPG that doesn't devolve into a silly cartoony romp because of its combat.

Have they ever done that in any of their games? Just asking, cause it's been like at least 20 years now. And if they haven't done it by now, they probably aren't going to cater to what your looking for.

Roundhouse-kicking stun bombs as a rogue in DAII says "Hello". While I'm not against the grab hook, I don't want to see something like this again. Combat should be a serious thing and not a place for circus acrobats having some fun.

[edeheusch]

abnocte wrote...

@Darth Brotarian

As far as I remember NWN included a dogde ability, there was no need for the player to give active input for the character to dogde a blow.

Forcing the player to actively dogde attacks when s/he has to control a party instead of a single character is not a good design decision in my opinion...

I agree completely with abnocte, to my point of view, in tactical RPG the ability of my character to dodge an attack should not depend of my reflex to move away of the attack. It should rather depend of the dexterity and abilities of my character.

About the throwing harpoon that can be used to disabled the enemy big shields I have nothing against the idea as long as it isn’t skillshot based and as long as this ability is not so good that it is nearly mandatory in any party. If the abilities are well balanced the throwing harpoon can be an easy solution against the guys with the big shield but that has a cost because you take it instead of another ability that would be useful against some other kind of enemies.

[Uccio]

Monica83 wrote...

I love also when bioware (the only company i know that do this) shot smoke in what the nature of the RPG is....

The harpoon is a little thing for sure if you examining it whitout care for the global things....


But lets make an example:
Party based combat an ennemy with an huge shield and a heavy armor run in attacking it in frontal manner will end to you do less damage since he is protected with the shield so what you do?...

a)Trowing an harpoon making him fall on his knees... (i don't see nothing tactical in this i see just a lazy attempt to bring an illusion of tactics)

Manage your party formation and move someone agile benhind the huge guy... Or with your mage focus on cast certain spell on your ennemy... Or surround the ennemy with your melee fighter while the mage makes crow control...

Now this is tactics..... Not trowing a silly harpoon from nowhere...

Decision like this is what ruined DA2 combat....

Seconded. Atleast the minimum should be that the chain and harpoon takes one weapon slot away and is visible all the time, not some magical summoned harpoon. However, I don't want to see it at all in the game since it is clear mortal combat ripoff. Anyone who has thrown a chain knows that it requires a massive strength to throw it an even more massive strength to throw it with penetration power. 


I know these are just early samples but I am getting worried about the game. Hack'n slash is a big nono for me.

[1varangian]

krul2k wrote...

combats meant to be fun, just like playing the games meant to be entertaining, if you feel the combat or 1 skill will ruin it either dont use the skill or dont buy the game.

Personally i still think it looks no bad, time will tell an all that

Yet if the setting is to be immersive and believable, combat needs to feel dangerous, serious and consequential.

E.g. you can't simply cut from a silly cartoon combat scene with ridiculous moves into an emotional death scene. It just waters it down to nothing.

Modifié par 1varangian, 20 août 2013 - 11:41 .

[abnocte]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

How exactly does one dodge without having any input? If it's automatic I can't imagine it would be engaging at all when it happens. In fact automatic attacks for close engagement is quite a killer, I would imagine anyway, for anyone looking to specialize in anything close quarters combat, since most of what you do isn't reliant on you at all, but the AI.

I just don't see the appeal of being someone who fights in close range if all my attacks are decided for me by a machine. It only works well, for me, if I am allowed to have control of the character directly in order to time attacks, dodges, powerful dps moves, and employ flanking manuvers or acting as a distraction to open the oppponent up for attack.

Otherwise you might as well just play a ranged combatant since they;re playstyle lends much more heavily towards that kind of system of passive play.

In previous Bioware games combat mechanics where based on "dice rolls". If the "dice roll" was successful the
character would hit the target/dodge a hit/etc. When unsuccessful you won't hit the target/or won't be able to dogde
the attack.

The threshold for those "dice rolls" to be sucessfull was determined based on the characters skills, abilities
level.

We don't know if this is going to be de case for DA:I, with the new engine and all. But if it is not, does that mean
that skills and abilities are gone forever? Since they become meaningless if everything is decided by the player
input.

And how does this affect to the other party members? If each one of them is attacking a different enemy do I have to keep watch over 4 different enemies, and when I think the characters is going to be hit, select him/her and use the dogde ability? While I order one of them to dogde, one of the others may be hit. Or do I have to go to the tactics
screen and tell each character:

If ( gointToBeHit )
    Use Dogde;

...

well isn't that kind of... silly, you know if there's no "dice roll" does that mean that all attacks are always successful? wouldn't that end up with the character always dogding and no attacking?


I could see what you refer to in a single player game, but the moment I have to take care of a party... I just can't see it. The only thing that comes to mind is the ME approach, but that takes aways so many options on how to approach combat that I've used ever since BG that I can't see it as a solution.

[cindercatz]

Frozenkex wrote...

Nothing looks cooler than realistic combat, maybe a touch overblown as in the film Ironclad, but you can hide the mechanics, have the protagonist evade and parry while taking damage, hell have that for everyone, make that what hitpoints represent a 'luck' or 'skill' not tied to the player, that runs out, and results in that last blow getting through and finishing the job.

None of that is in spirit of DA, and it will never be like that. And that doesnt sound cool at all.
Glad youre not in charge of development

Actually, that sounds perfect. That's what KoTOR did, that's what DA:O does (not ultra noticeable because the animation didn't sell it well and there was no reaction to backstabs, but still). Any time you have "chance to hit", dice rolls, that's what you're doing, and that's typically been one of the best, more unique things about BioWare games. All we're asking for with this is a return to it after DA2 abandoned it for ungodly high life bars and endlessly repeating basic combos. DA just needs higher quality auto-combat animation. Active dodge is just boring (oh, their attack's coming, dodge roll, attack from behind, oh, another, do it again, repeat repeat repeat ouch hand pain zzzzzzzz). Having both sides of basic attacks and defence automated and fully embraced (so that you can spend the money on quality and variety of contextual animation, rather than dodge rolls) allows you as the player to both enjoy that action movie vibe of the visuals and focus on what a lot of us really like about DA combat gameplay, which are the battlefield tactics and party management. That (which includes level and encounter design, all that) is why DA:O's combat is better than DA2's for those of us who enjoy tactics. How do I prioritize my targets? How do I use the terrain/geometry to my best advantage? Are there any chokepoints I can hold or enemy chokepoints I have to break through? How do I adjust to enemy tactics and (hopefully) formations? Where do I want to hold my ground at range, and when do I want to signal the charge against advancing enemies? When things don't go according to plan, how do I adapt to regain the advantage in the battle? Those are the things I want to be thinking about, not twitch gameplay.

And no, dodge roll-attack does not count as tactics. It's just a learned reflex. Having a designated move or a designated behaviour to more diverse enemies (which are good to have, but not in that way) adds an extra layer to that reflex, but it doesn't actually ask you to think. I honestly prefer to automate those kinds of things through the programmable AI. I love the programmable AI, again because it lets me automate those things and think about the bigger picture more. If I'm being forced to active dodge to control a melee character, then it incentivises me to just not play melee, which sucks because my favorite characters to actively control tend to be the melee characters. I just don't want to be distracted with basic combat button mashing while I'm doing it.

edit: on VileGrim's arguements here:
I tend to agree that I like more ground level realism, at least visually, just because I find it more fun. It's the same reason I tend to like gritty, grounded aesthetics over flashy veneers in movies. It's the reason Rembrandt's my favorite rennaisance painter (texture and lighting). I like flashy stuff, love martial arts movies and big sci-fi and all that; I just like it a little more visually grounded, more visceral. Y'know, I like all that dirty, graphic, gritty, grounded stuff because it makes the fiction feel more real. It's more immersive and impactful. Keeps me from zoning out in disinterest as much.

I don't need or want action mechanics in my DA, agreed there. Y'know, it's not like ME3. I'm not preoccupied trying to get the perfect shot. (If you played with me enough, you'd know I like to snipe, and I liked to take trick shots and corner throws and etc. I liked shooting a toe sticking out as much as a shield slot headshot, lol). There's no one to one physical kind of analogue to third person action games, certainly not a party based action rpg. So there's nothing for me to inhabit or immerse myself in those mechanics. That said, while I'd certainly prefer to have a chain fighting style altogether, and while I tend to prefer a little bit of realism, I don't have a problem with harpoon. I just hope we have more (short range/melee) ability options for shield enemy situations, because I also want shielded enemies to be more mobile, diverse, and individually capable. I don't want dodge roll/strafe to be the default action to deal with them. I don't even want it to work. Give them less unwieldy shields (or most of them) and let them turn to match a targeted players movement to keep the shield in front, so we have to use some of those other options or party cooperation to take them down, unless maybe our character's agility and dexterity are well above the shield enemy's, at which point they should be able to automatically outfight them one to one, as long as they don't take too many hits, get surrounded, etc. The animation would have to depict that difference in agility vs. protection, and that would be so much cooler than just running around a slow guy with an unwieldy shield.

Dual wielding long swords. If Musashi did it effectively, and he did, it's legit. That's one of the greatest warriors that ever lived we're talking about, and the number one reason why he was so great is that he out thought his opponents. If you have an undefeated enemy with a long blade to beat in a standard duel, he'd show up with a longer blade to nullify that advantage. If you have enemies on all sides chasing you down an alley, then use the alley to reduce those sides and fight moving away. If two swords are better than one in a certain situation (and he chose to use two at times apparently), use two swords. Granted, a japanese curved blade is a much stronger slashing weapon than a european straight sword, so it lends itself to that use better, but who says we only have one style of sword? Also, in DA:O as in all BioWare duel wielding games (until DA2? Is that right?), the DW style reduces your damage a good bit per strike in exchange for more crowd control and a more fluid style, so it's not as if it's actually treated all that unrealistically. If you can't tell, I like dual wielding swords.

Modifié par cindercatz, 21 août 2013 - 09:57 .

[1varangian]

How could you possibly actively dodge in a tactical RPG where you control a full party? I can't see myself doing those rolls for all 4 party members. I wouldn't want to dodge roll period because that's not what a tactical full party control is about at all.

Unless it's some kind of hybrid action/tactical gameplay that tries to appeal to the masses and falls flat again, being lackluster on both fronts.

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

^ Well, it would be clunky, but depending on how the moves are telegraphed you DO have the pause option.

Still not a good idea (although I can see the dodge roll as a positioning tool, but that requires that positioning be actually meaningful) but it's doable.

[Wulfram]

1varangian wrote...

How could you possibly actively dodge in a tactical RPG where you control a full party?

Use a single tank and a bunch of ranged characters.  Like I tended to do for bosses in DA2.

I don't think it's good gameplay, but it's very possible and nothing new.

Modifié par Wulfram, 20 août 2013 - 01:49 .

[Vilegrim]

Wulfram wrote...

1varangian wrote...

How could you possibly actively dodge in a tactical RPG where you control a full party?

Use a single tank and a bunch of ranged characters.  Like I tended to do for bosses in DA2.

I don't think it's good gameplay, but it's very possible and nothing new.

and never a good idea.

[nihiliste]

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...
There's also something a bit related than this that I've been pondering, I'm no really sure if I can explain this correctly, but let me try...

In the BG games there was a feeling that enemies were usually playing by the same rules as you were. (literally in this case, since it was 2nd. ed. D&D) I mean, they cheated (scripts to automatically raise spells for instance) and some creatures had special abilities (like eating your brain) that you didn't get. But while they might have less or more HP, different abilities, etc. they were still generally playing by the same rules (especially human enemies)

DAO still had enemies doing mostly the same things to you as you did to them (although they could do it harder or faster or nastier) DA2 however... Kind of broke that. It had mages using the same spells as you but with different effects, seemingly rule-breaking stuff like teleportation etc. And not in special encounters but just regular mooks.

Now to the Shield Mooks, my thought is immediately "So how does this work for us?" Do all shields work like that? Can we equip a pavise/tower shield and gain similar bonuses? Can enemies snatch our shields?

Part of this is also a problem of versimilitude. One of my big pet peeves in DA2 where the genlocks, who were rolling to attack you and well... They just felt for a lack of a better word "gamey": As in, they didn't make much sense outside of these particular encounters. (Do they roll like that to get food? Seems ungainly, etc.)

Am I just crazy or does anyone else get what I'm whining about?

I agree completely with this.  This is why I hated the Corypheus fight - running away from his flames to click on the pillars with the giant quest markers isn't super thought provoking, nor is slaughtering a bunch of dumb shades until he finally shows up to fight you again.  Especially when you can't really affect him while that's happening.  It's silly and makes it feel like he's just another game boss playing by different rules for you to whack.  It's not epic like the battle with Jon Irenicus where he would use powers and summons available to the player, just at a very high level.

[nihiliste]

Giltspur wrote...

I don't inherently mind "twitch".  (Note: Despite the conciliatory opening sentence, I will go on to argue against the use of certain kinds of twitch elements in certain kinds of games.)  There are plenty of twitch games I like.  Though I tend to play archers, snipers and crowd controllers in those games when I have the opportunity, which sort of slows down the twitch and lets me scheme.  And I appreciate it when there are non-twitch elements to those games such as in Mass Effect where enemy shields/barriers/armor play a big factor in how I approach an encounter.  And again, sniper rifles, the fine wine of shooting games.

No, for me it comes down to what an interesting decision in the context of a game is.  Some games are conflicts of the body.  A Mario game.  I know what I want to do.  I want to not fall in the hole and die.  But mastering Nintendo's newest game controller and executing what I want is the game.  Because it's a conflict of the body.  (And so twitch elements are a big and important deal here.)

Some games are conflicts are the mind.  Executing the moves is really easy.  But deciding what to do is hard.  The conflict is in your mind and not in your fingertips and your physical coordination.

And I have traditionally liked it in RPG's when their conflicts focus on the mind.  Don't make the UI a barrier.  Don't make the controls a barrier.  Make them as easy as breathing.  But make the choices interesting.  That's my preferred approach to games in general.  It's not the only good way to do things.  It's just my favorite way.  And it's why I like turn-based strategy like X-Com more than I like real-time strategy like Starcraft.  I like to think about what to do and not worry so much about the human-controller interface side of things.  You know, there's a micromanagement barrier to Starcraft that you have to overcome before you earn the right to think on the battlefield.  So a lot of the gameplay in Starcarft is annoying even though some of it is cool.  But all of X-Com is cool.  

At any rate, I just haven't seen enough of the combat gameplay for DAI to know what to think.  The video just makes me want to see more gameplay.  What's a coordinated encounter like?  What are the kinds of decisions we make?  Are they primarily mental challenges or are they challenges of coordination with the controller being a limiting factor?  Is it a mix?

And I wouldn't say all twitch elements are necessarily bad either.  I want to knock structures down and cut bridges down at opportune times as much as the next guy.  That's kind of twitchy.  But it's a decision that involves some interesting mental connection.  Hey if I combine this with that when they're standing there... boom.  I predicted boom.  Boom happened.  Go me.

What's not cool (in a game for the mind) is when the gameplay is "Dodge this huge axe swing".  Because that's not an interesting decision.  You always want to do that.  There's never a point where you go "I'd like to eat an axe today.  Let's see how that plays out."  Do I hit the nuker mage or the healer mage?  Interesting.  Do I kill these dudes guarding higher ground so that I can move my ranged up there and put my tank in the choke point to the higher ground or do I send my melee with their disruption abilities after the guys harassing my ranged instead.  Interesting.  What do I do with these guys given my party members and talent decisions?  Interesting.  Do I avoid death by axe: yes or no?  Not interesting enough to count as a conflict of the mind.  So when I see a dodge I think to myself "Just what kind of encounters are these going to be?  Where are the decision points where I need to spend my attention?"  Not saying a dodge can't be ever be an interesting decision.  It depends on the context.  But it can definitely be a boring decision that waters down what's really interesting.

Fantastic post, I agree completely.

[cindercatz]

@Giltspur: Great post.

(referring to roll animation)

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In any case, it's an activated ability, at least at this time.

Awesome. Each class having an activated movement ability (on a cooldown, etc.) is cool. It's not an active dodge roll right now, so all my concerns about it are alleviated (unless they change it). Good news.  

And I can still hope for auto-dodge/parry to go along with auto-attack, I hope. Dice rolls and their associated animations like KoTOR/DA:O, not swing and hit like DA2. Right? Please? I hope that works out. That was one of the things that fundamentally bothered me about DA2, just took me a while to pin it down. I like the characters engaging in what resembles actual weapon melee (or dodging/missing arrows, etc.), or maybe you could argue is more of a choreographed combat, and I like an average enemy to fall when it looks like a flush hit (or my character for that matter). Just doing that through the associated animations solves the problem and looks really cool.

I've been working my way through the thread, just found this. : )

Modifié par cindercatz, 20 août 2013 - 05:33 .

[Provi-dance]

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

There's also something a bit related than this that I've been pondering, I'm no really sure if I can explain this correctly, but let me try...

In the BG games there was a feeling that enemies were usually playing by the same rules as you were. (literally in this case, since it was 2nd. ed. D&D) I mean, they cheated (scripts to automatically raise spells for instance) and some creatures had special abilities (like eating your brain) that you didn't get. But while they might have less or more HP, different abilities, etc. they were still generally playing by the same rules (especially human enemies)

DAO still had enemies doing mostly the same things to you as you did to them (although they could do it harder or faster or nastier) DA2 however... Kind of broke that. It had mages using the same spells as you but with different effects, seemingly rule-breaking stuff like teleportation etc. And not in special encounters but just regular mooks.

Now to the Shield Mooks, my thought is immediately "So how does this work for us?" Do all shields work like that? Can we equip a pavise/tower shield and gain similar bonuses? Can enemies snatch our shields?

Part of this is also a problem of versimilitude. One of my big pet peeves in DA2 where the genlocks, who were rolling to attack you and well... They just felt for a lack of a better word "gamey": As in, they didn't make much sense outside of these particular encounters. (Do they roll like that to get food? Seems ungainly, etc.) 

The rules-asymmetry is very annoying, yes.

So I'm curious if, again, only enemies will be able to completely miss attacks, if the PC&party will attack much faster (with the same weapons) than everyone else etc. 
It seems the HP bloat/damage disparity is out, thankfully. 

[Provi-dance]

FedericoV wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

No, for me it comes down to what an interesting decision in the context of a game is.  Some games are conflicts of the body.  A Mario game.  I know what I want to do.  I want to not fall in the hole and die.  But mastering Nintendo's newest game controller and executing what I want is the game.  Because it's a conflict of the body.  (And so twitch elements are a big and important deal here.)

Some games are conflicts are the mind.  Executing the moves is really easy.  But deciding what to do is hard.  The conflict is in your mind and not in your fingertips and your physical coordination.

I completely agree: your post was a very good read. 

In DA2 (and DA:O's consolle version) they wanted both kind of gameplay to be avaible to the player depending on the difficulty level and the platform. I must repeat my position since mr. Alan Schumacher hasn't convinced me: that's a flawed design concept that's prone to failure. You cannot develop a game with good combat design and good ecounters design when you have to satisfy both approaches (conflict of the mind and conflict of the body).

It's always the same controvery with so called action RPGs: if I aim manually and score an headshot because I'm good with the mouse/controller I don't want any stats in between that could change the result of my action. If it's stat driven, then it should be just a question of percentages: I should not waste any time aiming manually. That's exactly why the only worthwile Bioware's games in term of gameplay are BG and DA:O for PC (conflict of the mind) and ME2/ME3 (conflict of the body).

And that's why action RPGs always seems like the poor man's version of action games while pure tactical games like Xcom or Total War look classy and are well received by critics and players. So, DA:I should be an action game or a tactical game. It cannot be both succesfully in my opinion (but I would be glad to be proven wrong). A game should not try to wear too many hats: do few things but do them well (less is always more in my book).

 I'm joining the club of people that aren't sure how twitch elements are supposed to intelligently mix with a party based RPG that supposedly offers tactical combat.

Pause&Twitch?
Then make a sandwich and unistall the itch.

[FedericoV]

Directly from the Dragon Age website, in the combat section: "go toe to toe in visceral, heroic combat as the followers fight by your side or switch to tactical view to coordinate devastating offensives using the might of your party".

Positive: we will have a tactical view. I'm curios to see what they meant with tactical view: it's not isometric or eagle eye view otherwise they would have called it as such. Bioware likes to joke with words a lot recently so I won't hold my breath. But still, it's better than nothing.

Negative: it's confirmed the action/tactical bastardized gameplay (probably based on difficulty levels). I sincerely wish Bioware a success on that front but I remain quite skeptical.

Modifié par FedericoV, 20 août 2013 - 05:31 .

[FedericoV]

Provi-dance wrote...

 I'm joining the club of people that aren't sure how twitch elements are supposed to intelligently mix with a party based RPG that supposedly offers tactical combat.

Pause&Twitch?
Then make a sandwich and unistall the itch.

But first let's kill the Lich .

[Sjpelke]

FedericoV wrote...

Directly from the Dragon Age website, in the combat section: "go toe to toe in visceral, heroic combat as the followers fight by your side or switch to tactical view to coordinate devastating offensives using the might of your party".

Positive: we will have a tactical view. I'm curios to see what they meant with tactical view: it's not isomettric or eagle eye otherwise they would have called it as such. Bioware likes to joke with words a lot recently so I won't hold my breath. But still, it's better than nothing.

Negative: it's confirmed the action/tactical bastardized gameplay (probably based on difficulty levels). I sincerely wish Bioware a success on that front but I remain quite skeptical.

Am very curious how that will actually look/be implemented in the game. I am sitting on the fence untill actual footage will be shown.

Modifié par TsadeeHekate, 20 août 2013 - 05:47 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Shevy_001 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

1varangian wrote...

A harpoon skill that automatically disables a "big shield guy" is a very artificial attempt at tactics. Should be very easy to deflect any kind of missile with a huge shield.

I really don't want to see harpoons, hails of arrows, flasks, bombs and whatnot coming out of nowhere as "talents".

I'd like Bioware to create an RPG that doesn't devolve into a silly cartoony romp because of its combat.

Have they ever done that in any of their games? Just asking, cause it's been like at least 20 years now. And if they haven't done it by now, they probably aren't going to cater to what your looking for.

Roundhouse-kicking stun bombs as a rogue in DAII says "Hello". While I'm not against the grab hook, I don't want to see something like this again. Combat should be a serious thing and not a place for circus acrobats having some fun.

I was refering to the last part of his statement for what he wants, not what he doesn't wnat.

[Cainhurst Crow]

wow, so many staunch purist here I doubt I'd make any headway making a case for more action oriented combat being tactical.

I shall take my leave than. Good day, fine fellows.

[devSin]

FedericoV wrote...

Directly from the Dragon Age website, in the combat section: "go toe to toe in visceral, heroic combat as the followers fight by your side or switch to tactical view to coordinate devastating offensives using the might of your party".

The way that's worded makes me wonder if there will be any party control outside this "tactical view".

(The site also makes me wonder why BioWare doesn't use their editors for promotional and marketing content as well, so it could just be meaningless.)

Modifié par devSin, 20 août 2013 - 06:38 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Diaper walking toward an opponent and the AI deciding to walk a semi-circle around him for 7 seconds before attacking as a close quarters combat option?

Sorry. Suppose to be gone. Leaving now.

*exits thread*

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 20 août 2013 - 06:35 .