341 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

immhey wrote...
I think people here just don't understand. They use argument like this is already fantasy so this is not a problem. The fact is making the world believeable is a part of making immersive game. Would you be okay the Inquisition shooting laser out of his eyes?

Uhm, yes please?

Does my Inquisitor have to be a mage, or can he just be a Qunari who's "don't f with me" stare creates lasers that fries those who dare stand in his way?

So want.

[esper]

Daissran wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

ThunderfoxF wrote...

Wissenschaft wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Being angry is a state of mind. I doubt it will mess up for her in combat. Given the way she is now she can kill dragons with a tiny dagger, jab down metal gates. Pretty much makes her a one man army. Thats a Mary Sue.

 
Sigh, being overpowered is not what Mary Sue means. It refers to the author inserting themselves into the story, such as in bad fan fiction. Please stop using the term wrong.

That said, by your definiton, the Warden and Hawke are far more Mary Sue than even Cassandra. They smash though whole armies within their games. In fact, the Warden can leave the world in a perfect state, having saved everyone possible. Which makes the Warden a worst offender of believeibility than Cassandra.

Yeah the usage of Mary-sue on this forum can get very riddiculus. As long as charcter has demonstrable flaws, that can and should get in their way and they aren't universally loved (in universe) they're not a mary-sue

Agreed.

People need to stop using words they don't understand.

Overpowered in not Mary Sue.  At.  All.  A Mary Sue CAN be overpowered, but I doubt anyone is claiming Darkseid or Apocalypse are Mary Sue's.  And if they are, they are ignorant.

^^This.

...and for those of you who still don't get it. adventuresofcomicbookgirl.tumblr.com/post/13913540194/mary-sue-what-are-you-or-why-the-concept-of-sue-is

That was a good article and another reason why the term Mary Sue is utterly meaningless and should just vanish.

[Rawgrim]

Former_Fiend wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Wissenschaft wrote...

immhey wrote...

I think people here just don't understand. They use argument like this is already fantasy so this is not a problem. The fact is making the world believeable is a part of making immersive game. Would you be okay the Inquisition shooting laser out of his eyes?

 

Actually yes, can my Mage have that power? Its certainly no different then my Mage shooting fireballs out of his hands.

Laser isn`t in the lore.

Neither are arrows that bounce to multiple targets or when fired into the air split into dozens more. Dragon Age Origins must be one of the worst games you ever played... you did play it right?

Archery was allways broken. As i have stated about 20 times now, I never said DA:O had perfect combat. I am saying that Cassandra, for no belivable reason, smashing down a gate with 2 quick jabs, goes beyond silly.

You know, I can honestly see where you're coming from. I've made a similar argument to what you're saying about a dozen different things in a dozen different settings. I can see how this bothers you.

That being said, my problem with your argument is that you are making this out to be an objective thing. It isn't. What is and is not over the top, silly, and immersion breaking is something that works on an individual basis. Cassandra breaking down that gate is too over the top for your tastes, but not mine.

At the end of the day I think you have a somewhat skewed or unreasonable expectation of what Dragon Age combat should be. Just my opinion, though.

Quite right. It is a matter of taste, and an individual thing. But I don`t think its unreasonable to expect that it would take more to take down a castle gate than two quick jabs of a shield.

[JediHealerCosmin]

I like it.

[Rawgrim]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

So, how should four people be able to take down a gate? Not at all? They mentioned somewhere about Varric sneaking in... I could be wrong on that. Is a warrior worthless at assaulting keeps except during combat?

Plant a grenade at the gate.

use a fireball

a battering ram.

melt the hinges with acid

[Uccio]

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw her do this in one of the gameplay videos. 2 slams with a shield and the metal gate crumbled.
Seriously, this is beyond dumb. Whats even the point of having gates or walls if warriors can just do that? Every hint of belivability goes flying out the window. Logically, this move should also kill every damn enemy in the game with one click. No matter the size of the enemy. I hope this bit gets removed before the final product is out. Thedas isn`t the Marvel universe.

Yes, when I saw this I had to slap my forehead twice. What the heck was that? My expectations from the game just dropped few knots down. One woman tank right here, literally. 

It seems awesome button is still making a comeback.

[immhey]

Zu Long wrote...

immhey wrote...

It would be fine if DA as a serie established itself as a really high fantasy like WarCraft. A warrior in WarCraft doing that wouldn't disturb people. DA:O established itself as more to the ground RPG.

No, it didn't. I'm going to quote myself from earlier:

*Sigh* People need to get over this notion that Dragon Age is some kind
of Medieval Simulation. It's not. It's NEVER been that way. As people
have pointed out, DA:O had plenty of completely unrealistic facets. My
100lbs soaking wet city elf warrior that you see in my profile picture
ran around in heavy armor, and could fling whole groups of armored
enemies through the air using a two-handed maul that was BIGGER THAN SHE
WAS. She could stun Dragons and Ogres who outweighed her by orders of
magnitude by pommel striking them.

To me? All of this was
awesome. I deliberately played as a warrior elf in part for the hilarity
of this tiny woman running around beating up fantasy monsters. I
realize that isn't to everyone's taste, but don't pretend like this is
some kind of shift on Bioware's part. They firmly set themselves here
from the very beginning.

People have also mentioned survival of unsurvivable attacks, like a dragon picking you up in its jaws and shaking you like a ragdoll.

The things you mentioned are actually not really that over the top in RPG world.   Realistic or not is not the problem here.  It's just that there's a line that DA:O set as far as the theme of the series go.  

The fact that people who played DA:O noticed the flashiness in the video kinda proves that it is indeen over the top.   In DA:O you could fight dragons and all but you never perform a next level of unbelieveable move like earthshattering move in the video.  You will notice that in DA:O, most attack skills of warrior are just simple art of using weapons.

[slimgrin]

MerinTB wrote...

immhey wrote...
I think people here just don't understand. They use argument like this is already fantasy so this is not a problem. The fact is making the world believeable is a part of making immersive game. Would you be okay the Inquisition shooting laser out of his eyes?

Uhm, yes please?

Does my Inquisitor have to be a mage, or can he just be a Qunari who's "don't f with me" stare creates lasers that fries those who dare stand in his way?

So want.

Well now we know why they thought the awesome button was a great idea.

[Melca36]

If Cassandra was a man would have posted the same thing? Or what if had been a Qunari?

[Zu Long]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think the OP has a point. It's not about realism, but about the illusion of a believable world. BW mentioned that the over the top combat would be reduced, but with scenes like the crushing of that gate, it seems to be back like never before.

I've looked around, but I haven't found the part where Bioware stated "realistic medieval combat" as one of their selling points for DA:I.

[MerinTB]

slimgrin wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

immhey wrote...
I think people here just don't understand. They use argument like this is already fantasy so this is not a problem. The fact is making the world believeable is a part of making immersive game. Would you be okay the Inquisition shooting laser out of his eyes?

Uhm, yes please?

Does my Inquisitor have to be a mage, or can he just be a Qunari who's "don't f with me" stare creates lasers that fries those who dare stand in his way?

So want.

Well now we know why they thought the awesome button was a great idea.

Because I know how to use sarcasm?

[AngryFrozenWater]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

So, how should four people be able to take down a gate? Not at all? They mentioned somewhere about Varric sneaking in... I could be wrong on that. Is a warrior worthless at assaulting keeps except during combat?

I guess it is easier to script the smashing of a gate with a shield than to animate that event with a siege engine.

[In Exile]

immhey wrote...
The fact that people who played DA:O noticed the flashiness in the video kinda proves that it is indeen over the top.   In DA:O you could fight dragons and all but you never perform a next level of unbelieveable move like earthshattering move in the video.  You will notice that in DA:O, most attack skills of warrior are just simple art of using weapons.

In DA:O, you could shatter barricades with a single slash of your sword, and they exploded into pieces. You also had a rockshattered talent for your 2Her, called "shattering blows" which gave you bonus damange to the made-entirely-out-of-rock golems.

[Rawgrim]

Melca36 wrote...

If Cassandra was a man would have posted the same thing? Or what if had been a Qunari?

Yup.

[Uccio]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

So, how should four people be able to take down a gate? Not at all? They mentioned somewhere about Varric sneaking in... I could be wrong on that. Is a warrior worthless at assaulting keeps except during combat?

Haha! Four people are not supposed to take down a gate, unless they have explosives or magic. Or unless one of them is a giant. Or you get someone over the wall to open the gate. Anyone thinking what Cassandra did is cool and realistic should try that at your local castle. If you´re american take a trip to europe and try. You might be suprised.

[Hi my name is Ryan]

Who cares?

[immhey]

In Exile wrote...

immhey wrote...
The fact that people who played DA:O noticed the flashiness in the video kinda proves that it is indeen over the top.   In DA:O you could fight dragons and all but you never perform a next level of unbelieveable move like earthshattering move in the video.  You will notice that in DA:O, most attack skills of warrior are just simple art of using weapons.

In DA:O, you could shatter barricades with a single slash of your sword, and they exploded into pieces. You also had a rockshattered talent for your 2Her, called "shattering blows" which gave you bonus damange to the made-entirely-out-of-rock golems.

and?  All of those are mostly rpg mechanics.  You don't see the earth split apart by those moves.

[Rawgrim]

Zu Long wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think the OP has a point. It's not about realism, but about the illusion of a believable world. BW mentioned that the over the top combat would be reduced, but with scenes like the crushing of that gate, it seems to be back like never before.

I've looked around, but I haven't found the part where Bioware stated "realistic medieval combat" as one of their selling points for DA:I.

They never stated it was Power Rangers combat either.

[Wulfram]

The depiction of Warriors in the video and in DA2 is nothing in the vicinity of badass normal. It's straight up superhuman.

Modifié par Wulfram, 08 septembre 2013 - 05:45 .

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
In DA:O, you could shatter barricades with a single slash of your sword, and they exploded into pieces. You also had a rockshattered talent for your 2Her, called "shattering blows" which gave you bonus damange to the made-entirely-out-of-rock golems.

In Exile, stop.

They WANT to complain.  The myopic need to focus on that gate smashing is just something to rally around.

Man, I think the ridiculousness of the complaining is making me want DA:I more than any efforts BioWare could make.

----

Keep making inconsistent complaints and cherry-picking complaints about that gate-smashing, it's making me like DA:I more and more.

[jontepwn]

Maybe her shield has special gate-smashing properties?

Seeker Shield of Gate Smashing Extreme
+50 Defense
+70 Health
+90000 Gate Smashing Damage

Honestly, it didn't really bother me. For me it seemed like a new way of manipulating the environment and to open up new paths. And that's always cool.

[Sejborg]

I think we can all agree that the shield bashing is not the best way to handle stuff such as this. It is just not believable.

Talking for my self it even seems stupid when Kratos does it.

[Allan Schumacher]

Depends on how high up the meteros are falling from, doesn`t it? She is just summoning them out of thin air some place above the enemy.

No, it would depend on how fast they are moving at the point of impact, and how much mass they have. With those values we can determine the momentum and the kinetic energy contained and go from there. But I suspect no one really wants to start busting out the math.


Unfortunately, the game series has always been one that sees some disconnect between the Lore and how the Gameplay plays out. Sometimes for tech reasons (not being able to do horned Qunari with the first game), sometimes because we aim to just make something more fun. And unfortunately, for myself as a gamer, I can see the fun in having an ability like this.

Mostly because it provides a choice for me as a gamer. It informs me that "some obstacles may be passable when it's not immediately obvious." It shows that how I spec a character can open up different paths for my party. These things are things I consider valuable in my RPGs.


Yes, no decision will make everyone happy, and if this is a situation of us just taking things too far for you to support, then that's the way it is and it's fair of you to think that. Do what you think is right for yourself. But given that similar actions like these have historically existed in Dragon Age games, stuff like this will very likely still be in the final game.

On some level I agree with the notion that games are about fans and developers both starting from their spot and meeting somewhere in the middle. If a player and game can find that meeting spot, they'll probably enjoy the game, but if not then that becomes less likely.

RPGs are pretty common for this sort of logical inconsistency, and personally I don't really see it as a negative either. In a cutscene a quick hit with a single arrow or a murder knife results in death. If we wanted consistency in the lore, it would seem like we'd actually require hacking away at someone, which I do not think is necessary.


If you're seeing this as some reason to toss out the "awesome button" pejorative, however, then it seems like the DA series has always contained the "awesome button" because this stuff has always existed in the game.

We try to make the games and gameplay interesting and fun. Obviously, what works for some people may not work for all people.

[MisterJB]

immhey wrote...

It would be fine if DA as a serie established itself as a really high fantasy like WarCraft. A warrior in WarCraft doing that wouldn't disturb people. DA:O established itself as more to the ground RPG.

Yes, but only in the world that was created. Bioware wanted to create an world that could be our own if our cultures had had to deal with people that could shoot fire from their hands or darkspawn.
The people of Thedas were written to react in a manner that was believable but the same doesn't need to apply to combat which, more often than not, exists apart from the story.

[Former_Fiend]

Wulfram wrote...

The depiction of Warriors in the video and in DA2 is nothing in the vicinity of badass normal. It's straight up superhuman.

The depiction of warriors in the entire dragon age franchise is straight up superhuman, as dozens of examples have been pointed out in this thread.

Though in truth, I've honestly never seen a badass normal who wasn't technically superhuman.