166 réponses à ce sujet

[wildkeny]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wildkeny wrote...

dduane o wrote...

trafalgar law: I sincerely hope they take the dodge roll feature out. It defeats the purpose of DEX, CON and armor. Unless there are some limitations, I can easily play as a warrior, pump everything into STR and solo the game with ease.

Dark Souls has DEX CON and armor. Dark Souls also has dodge roll feature.

Dark Souls is also a game where you control one character. Just like The Witcher. Or God of War.

I have to agree that it is somehow weird to see dodge and row in DA. It would be acceptable if it is just some automatical animation according to your DEX then I shall be fine (like if you have 30 DEX, you got 30% chance to dodge and row the incoming attack)

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To that end, having elements which are action based are not, inherently, bad. HOWEVER... action tends to include one thing - individual player control. To dodge enemy attacks, or perform QTE button mashing, or time your attacks to counter an enemy... all of this is done by controlling one character, not managing your party. If I can do something via taking direct control of a character (more action, single-character based) with a higher success rate than instead of giving a command to do the same action (more tactical, party based), then that is a system that favors the single-character based approach and hurts the party based one.

What's the distinction between "issuing a command" and "taking direct control," when the control mechanism is the same for both? Is it that direct control requires staying with the character? If so, DA:O has a few points where you need direct control. Using Cone of Cold effectively on a difficulty level with friendly fire comes to mind.

[wildkeny]

Taleroth wrote...

Bizarre question.

Skyrim doesn't have much in the way of dodge moves. But it does have manual aim. Those are rather distinct from how Dragon Age 3 is operating.

Can you guys just stop comparing DA with Skyrim? Skyrim's combat is boring to hell. The lore of TES however is brilliant (while the lore of DA is somehow childish for me). Skyrim is just a book collectiong game with some RPG element in it.

Modifié par wildkeny, 04 septembre 2013 - 03:34 .

[Ianamus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To that end, having elements which are action based are not, inherently, bad. HOWEVER... action tends to include one thing - individual player control. To dodge enemy attacks, or perform QTE button mashing, or time your attacks to counter an enemy... all of this is done by controlling one character, not managing your party. If I can do something via taking direct control of a character (more action, single-character based) with a higher success rate than instead of giving a command to do the same action (more tactical, party based), then that is a system that favors the single-character based approach and hurts the party based one.

What's the distinction between "issuing a command" and "taking direct control," when the control mechanism is the same for both? Is it that direct control requires staying with the character? If so, DA:O has a few points where you need direct control. Using Cone of Cold effectively on a difficulty level with friendly fire comes to mind.

Exactly this. Clicking on a charcter who is in the line of fire of an enemy and telling them to use the roll ability to dodge to the side before switching back to your other charcters is in no way different to how combat functioned in the previous games. 

wildkeny wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Bizarre question.

Skyrim doesn't have much in the way of dodge moves. But it does have manual aim. Those are rather distinct from how Dragon Age 3 is operating.

Can you guys just stop comparing DA with Skyrim? Skyrim's combat is boring to hell. The lore of TES however is brilliant (while the lore of DA is somehow childish for me). Skyrim is just a book collectiong game with some RPG element in it.

The OP specifically asked if combat was trying to appeal to Skyrim players so of course  it's going to be brought up. 

Modifié par EJ107, 04 septembre 2013 - 03:36 .

[Rawgrim]

So if the tactical camera is back, there should be an auto attack toggle no? It kind of defeats the purpose if the player has to use "twitch combat" anyway?

[Rawgrim]

wildkeny wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Bizarre question.

Skyrim doesn't have much in the way of dodge moves. But it does have manual aim. Those are rather distinct from how Dragon Age 3 is operating.

Can you guys just stop comparing DA with Skyrim? Skyrim's combat is boring to hell. The lore of TES however is brilliant (while the lore of DA is somehow childish for me). Skyrim is just a book collectiong game with some RPG element in it.

It has plenty rpg elements in it. It just requires that the player makes an effort at it, instead of the game just spoonfeeding you choices constantly.

[Lazengan]

Rawgrim wrote...

wildkeny wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Bizarre question.

Skyrim doesn't have much in the way of dodge moves. But it does have manual aim. Those are rather distinct from how Dragon Age 3 is operating.

Can you guys just stop comparing DA with Skyrim? Skyrim's combat is boring to hell. The lore of TES however is brilliant (while the lore of DA is somehow childish for me). Skyrim is just a book collectiong game with some RPG element in it.

It has plenty rpg elements in it. It just requires that the player makes an effort at it, instead of the game just spoonfeeding you choices constantly.

Skyrim is a terrible game, Bethesda sold out it's actual game design for a pretty snow engine

At what point during Skyrim gameplay do you actually make choices? Combat is whacking a pinata until it dies, poor AI, buggy as hell collision and models, and spamming potions because there is no cooldown and no choice

There is NO choice in combat. Why use a sword when you can spam the highest DPS spell in the game until you go OOM? Every spell is the same too with very few utility effects

Modifié par Lazengan, 04 septembre 2013 - 03:45 .

[metatheurgist]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
A shoe isn't always a shoe.

Yeah, the shoe analogy was a bit broad. How about if games were shoes and boots are RPGs, when I buy a boot I expect a boot, not an open toe sandal with boot elements.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And a video game is infinitely more complex than a shoe. Anything with levels or stats was (and, in some circles, still is) considered an RPG.

That would not be an RPG to me, and I've long accepted that marketers have changed the definition to bother arguing about it.

[Ghost43]

Action combat can be more interesting and tactical than RTS/Turn Based. RTS/Turn Based can be more exciting than action combat. Both look really good in DAI, and they look like they'll mix in interesting ways. I will use both.

Fun, Variety, and appealing to different audiences.

[Rawgrim]

Lazengan wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

wildkeny wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Bizarre question.

Skyrim doesn't have much in the way of dodge moves. But it does have manual aim. Those are rather distinct from how Dragon Age 3 is operating.

Can you guys just stop comparing DA with Skyrim? Skyrim's combat is boring to hell. The lore of TES however is brilliant (while the lore of DA is somehow childish for me). Skyrim is just a book collectiong game with some RPG element in it.

It has plenty rpg elements in it. It just requires that the player makes an effort at it, instead of the game just spoonfeeding you choices constantly.

Skyrim is a terrible game, Bethesda sold out it's actual game design for a pretty snow engine

At what point during Skyrim gameplay do you actually make choices? Combat is whacking a pinata until it dies, poor AI, buggy as hell collision and models, and spamming potions because there is no cooldown and no choice

There is NO choice in combat. Why use a sword when you can spam the highest DPS spell in the game until you go OOM? Every spell is the same too with very few utility effects

Well, since you are clearly prone to god-moding and exploting broken mechanics, there would be no choices in combat, yes. Some of us, though, like to create characters with weaknesses.

You make plenty of choices during the Dark Brotherhood questline, for example. The civil war questline has some as well. The choices are there, and they are plenty.

[Ianamus]

Lazengan wrote...
There is NO choice in combat. Why use a sword when you can spam the highest DPS spell in the game until you go OOM? Every spell is the same too with very few utility effects

Becuase you want to?

I played several charcters through Skyrim and only one of them even used magic. The others used one handed swords with no offhand and a bow and arrow. Were they the most effective? No. Did I care? No. I had the choice  to use them and I enjoyed them, so I did. 

I followed the blog of someone who did a playthrough using only illusion spells. No damage spells at all. 

Modifié par EJ107, 04 septembre 2013 - 04:00 .

[Rawgrim]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

metatheurgist wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just as a bit preemptive measure (which is silly as I'm going to bed after this... don't make me come back to tears), I am pretty much in the camp of "RPGs have a rather looseish definition that many of us feel share larger scale elements, but some of the finer details can be disputed forever."

As such, I'd prefer we not go too far into defining what is or is not an RPG (or action RPG), as I find the precision of the definition is somewhat pliable and quite personal.

See...I want RPGs to have a solid definition. That way companies can't claim to be making an RPG when they aren't. When I buy shoes I want shoes not some loose interpretation of shoes. I am, however, willing to concede that the RPG definition boat has long since sailed away into the sea of marketing on the riptide of maximum demographic penetration and profitability.

Do you consider sandals shoes? What about tennis shoes? High heels? Crocs?

If you are talking to a runner about shoes, they would look at you crazy if you started asking them how much they like a stilleto. Similarly, if you are talking to someone who works in a business/professional environment, asking them if they want a water-proof croc would likely have people scratching their heads.

A shoe isn't always a shoe. And a video game is infinitely more complex than a shoe. Anything with levels or stats was (and, in some circles, still is) considered an RPG. Someitmes a certain combat system works as people's definition. While other people may call a dialogue system of any sort the basis of an RPG. 

So, RPG, as a term, is hard to define. Which just means that people need to be more descriptive.



For instance, I feel that the Dragon Age series has been an RPG that rests on two core tenets - player character definition and control (meaning the player gets to create and define their own character, in terms of background, behavior, dialogue and combat class) and combat that allows full and equal control of party members (meaning I can control my companions and give them tasks just as fluidly and easily as I could the main character). I could easily call it a "Player Character Controlled RPG with Party-Based Combat."


To that end, having elements which are action based are not, inherently, bad. HOWEVER... action tends to include one thing - individual player control. To dodge enemy attacks, or perform QTE button mashing, or time your attacks to counter an enemy... all of this is done by controlling one character, not managing your party. If I can do something via taking direct control of a character (more action, single-character based) with a higher success rate than instead of giving a command to do the same action (more tactical, party based), then that is a system that favors the single-character based approach and hurts the party based one.

Since I view and enjoy DA as a series that places its combat focus on a party-based approach, where you can control all characters with equal levels of fidelity and a system where orders and tactics given to a character are on par in efficacy with taking direct control yourself, I would dislike if the series moved away from this style to instead use a style that designs the game to be controlled by one character the majority of the time in order to get the best results in combat instances. 

You need more than stats and levels to make an rpg, though. Otherwise Fifa and most racing games would be rpgs. Battlefield as well.

[Lazengan]

EJ107 wrote...

Lazengan wrote...
There is NO choice in combat. Why use a sword when you can spam the highest DPS spell in the game until you go OOM? Every spell is the same too with very few utility effects

Becuase you want to?

I played several charcters through Skyrim and only one of them even used magic. The others used one handed swords with no offhand and a bow and arrow. Were they the most effective? No. Did I care? No. I had the choice  to use them and I enjoyed them, so I did. 

I followed the blog of someone who did a playthrough using only illusion spells. No damage spells at all. 

urgh

"I do X because I choose to do it and it's fun" 

urgh

you know what else can you do for "fun?" ******. Go outside. Build a pyramid. 

A good game, an actually well designed game actually makes the player WANT to try new builds or new things. A good game makes people HAVE to make these choices, not because its "fun" and it's troll, but because there is an actual reason to have to do it in a game.

There is NO reason to use this spell when fireball does much more damage and is more effective. It's a result of a poorly designed game in where devs don't really care.

What you described here is degenerate behavior that can be applied to literally any product. You are doing the job for the business, not the business making an actually good product for you. 

Contrast Dishonored. You can do all sorts of crazy and creative things but most often they are unecessary and gimmicks. On the highest difficulty, it's actually a valid option because the conventional methods are much more difficult to pull of. This level of difficultry was designed so that players actually had to make meaningful choices and not just troll around like a sandbox simulator for autistic kids

Modifié par Lazengan, 04 septembre 2013 - 04:25 .

[FKA_Servo]

Lazengan wrote...

urgh

"I do X because I choose to do it and it's fun" 

urgh

you know what else can you do for "fun?" ******. Go outside. Build a pyramid. 

A good game, an actually well designed game actually makes the player WANT to try new builds or new things. A good game makes people HAVE to make these choices, not because its "fun" and it's troll, but because there is an actual reason to have to do it in a game.

There is NO reason to use this spell when fireball does much more damage and is more effective. It's a result of a poorly designed game in where devs don't really care.

What you described here is degenerate behavior that can be applied to literally any product. You are doing the job for the business, not the business making an actually good product for you. 

You use the spell because you want to use the spell. You make an archer because you want to make an archer. It is a lot of fun.

You're a lot angrier than the situation warrants.

[Fast Jimmy]

EJ107 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To that end, having elements which are action based are not, inherently, bad. HOWEVER... action tends to include one thing - individual player control. To dodge enemy attacks, or perform QTE button mashing, or time your attacks to counter an enemy... all of this is done by controlling one character, not managing your party. If I can do something via taking direct control of a character (more action, single-character based) with a higher success rate than instead of giving a command to do the same action (more tactical, party based), then that is a system that favors the single-character based approach and hurts the party based one.

What's the distinction between "issuing a command" and "taking direct control," when the control mechanism is the same for both? Is it that direct control requires staying with the character? If so, DA:O has a few points where you need direct control. Using Cone of Cold effectively on a difficulty level with friendly fire comes to mind.

Exactly this. Clicking on a charcter who is in the line of fire of an enemy and telling them to use the roll ability to dodge to the side before switching back to your other charcters is in no way different to how combat functioned in the previous games. 

It depends. Can I map this action to the Tactics screen, so my companions perform this automatically without me needing to take direct intervention? Is the skill used immediately, emphasizing player timing, or does it merely put the character "at the ready" and then make the appropriate dodge when an attack is imminent? 

Also, is the skill ubequitously effective, or are there factors? Does a roll done by a high-Dex rogue wearing light armor the same speed, distance and ability to use frequently the same as a warrior with heavy armor and no Dex points? Can the skill be used to dodge any type of attack, or am I able to dodge an arrow as easily as an ogre's slow, giant hammer? 

If I can give an order to attack an opponent, then the player's skill of being able to slice at the enemy like in a Wii game is an action-game mechanic. If, instead, my chance to hit is based off the character's stats and skills, that is a tactical-game mechanic. Controlling a party should be about managing your characters and their skills, not directly assuming control to allow player skill to determine the outcome. That's true if you have one character that you control in a party like ME or a game that only has one character throughout, like The Witcher or Dark Souls. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Rawgrim wrote...

So if the tactical camera is back, there should be an auto attack toggle no? It kind of defeats the purpose if the player has to use "twitch combat" anyway?

It was hastily done and still needs work, but the tactical camera mode supported the "selected character" continuing to attack without further input, when the "engage" mode was activated (i.e. when time is progressing while in Tac Cam mode)

[Ianamus]

Lazengan wrote...


urgh

"I do X because I choose to do it and it's fun" 

urgh

you know what else can you do for "fun?" ******. Go outside. Build a pyramid. 

A good game, an actually well designed game actually makes the player WANT to try new builds or new things. A good game makes people HAVE to make these choices, not because its "fun" and it's troll, but because there is an actual reason to have to do it in a game.

You do realise that fun is the entire point of playing video games in the first place?

When fun is the entire the point of what you're doing it's the only justification needed. 

You obviously take games and their combat far too seriously. 

Modifié par EJ107, 04 septembre 2013 - 04:42 .

[The Elder King]

Thanks for the answer Allan.
What about action mode, will it support autoattack? While I'm planning on using the tactical camera everytime I can, some people might want to play with the third person camera and autoattack.

[Fast Jimmy]

metatheurgist wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
A shoe isn't always a shoe.

Yeah, the shoe analogy was a bit broad. How about if games were shoes and boots are RPGs, when I buy a boot I expect a boot, not an open toe sandal with boot elements.

Cowboy boots? Skiing boots? Hiking boots? Puss n' Boots?

:happy:

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And a video game is infinitely more complex than a shoe. Anything with levels or stats was (and, in some circles, still is) considered an RPG.

That would not be an RPG to me, and I've long accepted that marketers have changed the definition to bother arguing about it.

Well, I'm not sure it really had one to begin with. Back in the 80's, literally, all that was required was having levels and doing damage driven by stats and equipment. There wasn't even any talking in many games. The Ultima games, highly lauded for being fantastic old-school RPGs, gave you next to zero choice or ways to define your character via dialogue. Heck, many view RPGs as being their Japense versions, with games like Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrioir/Quest and games from Squaresoft being perhaps the highest selling across consoles. But none of these titles really let you ROLE PLAY a certain way or character... at least, not any more than Diablo or Mario did in most cases. 

This definition continued to change as games like Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil worked to do their best to recreate the table-top experience, giving the player more control, both in terms of mechancis as well as choice and dialogue, so that many adopted that definition as what an "RPG" was. But it still is highly debated.

People would say that, despite Skryim's in-depth exploration, fantasy setting and variety of mechanics, it is not an RPG because you never control dialogue outside of very scripted, limited choices. People would say that, despite The Witcher's branching story narrative and ways to define your character, it is not an RPG because it is based off of action-based combat and timing and the set protagonist of Geralt gives you no room to play your own character. People would say any of the Final Fantasy games aren't RPGs because they are incredibly linear, have set characters and don't allow any input for dialouge in most cases.

Yet many would classify those three games as being some of the most successful RPGs in the market right now.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 septembre 2013 - 04:55 .

[Ianamus]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If I can give an order to attack an opponent, then the player's skill of being able to slice at the enemy like in a Wii game is an action-game mechanic. If, instead, my chance to hit is based off the character's stats and skills, that is a tactical-game mechanic. Controlling a party should be about managing your characters and their skills, not directly assuming control to allow player skill to determine the outcome. That's true if you have one character that you control in a party like ME or a game that only has one character throughout, like The Witcher or Dark Souls. 

I still don't see how dice rolling to determine hit chances is tactical in and of itself. Positioning your characters right and creating impassable areas using the wall of frost are tactical, as is healing a low health ally or moving your characters out of harms way, be it by right clicking them to move or using an activated skill to make them dodge (which is what I think this roll ability is). Managing your resources, like antivan fire, health potions or non-regenerating hit points is tactical. 

But I don't see how a guaranteed hit chance if you right click the enemy or use an attack ability is any more tactical than a randomised chance to hit the enemy based on character stats. Just because something is randomised based on stats doesn't make it particuarly tactical. In fact I'd argue that randomness is in direct contrast to tactics. Dodging with an activated ability is something I would consider more tactical than dodging based on a dexterity stat chance, which you have no direct control over. 

Stats =/= tactics is what I'm trying to get at here. Chess is essentially a tactical game after all, and does not have stats or hit points. And games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Guild wars 2, which have shooting and hack-and-slash elements respectively, are games I would consider more tactical than entirely stat-driven turn based games. 

Modifié par EJ107, 04 septembre 2013 - 05:00 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Stats =/= tactics is what I'm trying to get at here. Chess is essentially a tactical game after all, and does not have stats or hit points.

I have noticed that this equation has been made in the past as well, but I am not sure why as it doesn't seem to really encompass what the term tactical means. I think it was made as a counterpoint to "twitch" (which I can at least somewhat see the connection).

[Fast Jimmy]

EJ107 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If I can give an order to attack an opponent, then the player's skill of being able to slice at the enemy like in a Wii game is an action-game mechanic. If, instead, my chance to hit is based off the character's stats and skills, that is a tactical-game mechanic. Controlling a party should be about managing your characters and their skills, not directly assuming control to allow player skill to determine the outcome. That's true if you have one character that you control in a party like ME or a game that only has one character throughout, like The Witcher or Dark Souls. 

I still don't see how dice rolling to determine hit chances is tactical in and of itself. Positioning your characters right and creating impassable areas using the wall of frost are tactical, as is healing a low health ally or moving your characters out of harms way, be it by right clicking them to move or using an activated skill to make them dodge (which is what I think this roll ability is). Managing your resources, like antivan fire, health potions or non-regenerating hit points is tactical. 

But I don't see how a guaranteed hit chance if you right click the enemy or use an attack ability is any more tactical than a randomised chance to hit the enemy based on character stats. Just because something is randomised based on stats doesn't make it particuarly tactical. In fact I'd argue that randomness is in direct contrast to tactics. Dodging with an activated ability is something I would consider more tactical than dodging based on a dexterity stat chance, which you have no direct control over. 

Stats =/= tactics is what I'm trying to get at here. Chess is essentially a tactical game after all, and does not have stats or hit points. 

Does making it so that if I slice my mouse across the screen in just the right fashion, my cursor follows and I am able to make a hit anymore tactical? Is timing it so that I if I swing my sword at the exact 1.26 seconds after the enemy goes through their scripted "alert move," identifying that they are going to be open to attack, more tactical? 

Tactics are having a set of strategum and concepts that are used to overcome obstacles. An example could be tactics being used to have my tank to draw enemy attention while my ranged fighters pick off targets. A game grounded in party-based mechanics and tactics should reward this. If, however, my ability to aim an arrow is now player based, I can snipe an enemy from entirely across the screen with 100% accuracy... is that tactical? If my tank becomes worthless because I don't time my blocks correctly due to slow player reaction... is that tactical? 

I'd say it isn't. I'd say it hinges the success of the individual action over the concept of the overall tactics employed. The skill of my character's ability to aim a bow should determine if they hit their target or not. The skill of me, as a player, to know how to use my characters in coordination to the best effect against certain types of enemies, should be the measure of skill in a tactical game.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 septembre 2013 - 05:05 .

[Lazengan]

EJ107 wrote...

Lazengan wrote...


urgh

"I do X because I choose to do it and it's fun" 

urgh

you know what else can you do for "fun?" ******. Go outside. Build a pyramid. 

A good game, an actually well designed game actually makes the player WANT to try new builds or new things. A good game makes people HAVE to make these choices, not because its "fun" and it's troll, but because there is an actual reason to have to do it in a game.

You do realise that fun is the entire point of playing video games in the first place?

When fun is the entire the point of what you're doing it's the only justification needed. 

You obviously take games and their combat far too seriously. 

The "Video games are just for fun and are immature and childish and shouldn't be taken seriously" is an insulting and uneducated comment made only by those who fall prey to the capitalist marketing scam about how "nothing is serious" because it's just a product or just an X. Professional gamers make triple digit salaries, Games are tests of wit and intelligence. The first "games" were battlefield simulations made by generals before a battle. 

Well at least games used to be intelligent, modern games are rather about the mindless degenerate fun you desire

The point of a game is to win or reach the end goal. Fun is not intended product. Fun is a result of good gameplay, it's a byproduct. Fun comes from the game. Similar to how trying to make a comedy film fails terribly, whereas good writing and acting will generate good comedy as an organic result. 

If you want mindless fun for the sake of fun, there are countless other ways that are more effecient, less time consuming. Such as going outside to play sports, or rolling down a hill on a wheelbarrow

Modifié par Lazengan, 04 septembre 2013 - 05:13 .

[Wulfram]

Stats don't make the game tactical, rather it's the lack of reliance on player skills other than tactics that do that.

To take the Chess analogy, imagine if you could only take enemy pieces if you beat your opponent in an arm wrestle. That would stop being a very tactical game, unless you had two very well matched arm wrestlers.

You certainly can have a tactical game with no randomness.  But it certainly seems like characters should have some way to avoid getting hit, even if you're engaged at close range, and without putting it down to the players reflexes rolling a dice is a sensible way of representing that.

Modifié par Wulfram, 04 septembre 2013 - 05:20 .