721 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

I'm a fan of weapons and abilities looking like they have weight to it, spell effects are secondary to that desire.

[Topsider]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Topsider wrote...

Not everything is grounded in reality - it's hard to make a game that doesn't have some unbelievable aspects - so your examples are valid, But there has to be limits. Fine, we can break solid ground and upturn rocks with our sword, so I assume locked doors are no obstacle? or castle walls? Gates? ha, like paper!

Seriously, you need some realism or you can do anything, no matter how far-fetched (even in a fantasy rpg).

What makes warriors breaking rocks with their weapons more unbelievable than regenerating warriors that have drunk dragon's blood or warriors who are immune to most magic because they regularly drink potions made of ground up magic rocks?

Because it's visual?

Warriors drunk on dragon's blood, or magic immunity potions, don't perform terrain altering feats.

[Nerevar-as]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Topsider wrote...

Not everything is grounded in reality - it's hard to make a game that doesn't have some unbelievable aspects - so your examples are valid, But there has to be limits. Fine, we can break solid ground and upturn rocks with our sword, so I assume locked doors are no obstacle? or castle walls? Gates? ha, like paper!

Seriously, you need some realism or you can do anything, no matter how far-fetched (even in a fantasy rpg).

What makes warriors breaking rocks with their weapons more unbelievable than regenerating warriors that have drunk dragon's blood or warriors who are immune to most magic because they regularly drink potions made of ground up magic rocks?

Likely that magic has its own rules (there´s a reason teleporting mages got that flack), while hitting the ground that hard with a sword it´s not the ground that gets broken.

And fantasy =/= incoherent, any writer with half an idea remarks that.

[hoorayforicecream]

Topsider wrote...

Because it's visual?

Warriors drunk on dragon's blood, or magic immunity potions, don't perform terrain altering feats.

How arbitrary. I suppose you'd be fine with warriors who are immortal and unkillable then?

Nerevar-as wrote...

Likely that magic has its own rules (there´s a reason teleporting mages got that flack), while hitting the ground that hard with a sword it´s not the ground that gets broken.

And fantasy =/= incoherent, any writer with half an idea remarks that.

So if they had some sort of in-game context that explained it (mystical training, supreme martial focus, special weapon material, help from a fade spirit, lyrium, etc.) then you would be ok with it? Wouldn't that mean that complaining about it now, while you clearly lack any context whatsoever aside from the visual, would be premature?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 19 septembre 2013 - 10:31 .

[Nerevar-as]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Likely that magic has its own rules (there´s a reason teleporting mages got that flack), while hitting the ground that hard with a sword it´s not the ground that gets broken.

And fantasy =/= incoherent, any writer with half an idea remarks that.

So if they had some sort of in-game context that explained it (mystical training, supreme martial focus, special weapon material, help from a fade spirit, lyrium, etc.) then you would be ok with it? Wouldn't that mean that complaining about it now, while you clearly lack any context whatsoever aside from the visual, be premature?

The closer analogy I can think of is those attacks from manga, releasing much more energy than a simple cut.

But then we go into "if dragons - then songoku". They made the setting, they made the rules, you can´t just ignore them (not even chaging them) becuase you want to look flashy, because you usually end looking stupid. What is Dragon Age´s target? LotR or DMC?

[hoorayforicecream]

Nerevar-as wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Likely that magic has its own rules (there´s a reason teleporting mages got that flack), while hitting the ground that hard with a sword it´s not the ground that gets broken.

And fantasy =/= incoherent, any writer with half an idea remarks that.

So if they had some sort of in-game context that explained it (mystical training, supreme martial focus, special weapon material, help from a fade spirit, lyrium, etc.) then you would be ok with it? Wouldn't that mean that complaining about it now, while you clearly lack any context whatsoever aside from the visual, be premature?

The closer analogy I can think of is those attacks from manga, releasing much more energy than a simple cut.

But then we go into "if dragons - then songoku". They made the setting, they made the rules, you can´t just ignore them (not even chaging them) becuase you want to look flashy, because you usually end looking stupid. What is Dragon Age´s target? LotR or DMC?

You seem to know more about the nature of the move than I do. What is the game's context of it? What previously-established rules are broken by this particular move? And where in the lore does it make this assertion?

[Bleachrude]

Vilegrim wrote...

eye basher wrote...

I don't want to go back to DA:O playing a warrior was boring as hell.

Hmm I had the opposite feeling, warriors in da2 where all dull ohahhhh awesome 1111!!!!! 1111!!!! That I loathed where as dao for all it's faults had better animations and a feeling of solidity and impact to combat. Unfortunately dai looks tp be even more overblown and thus tedious

What exactly was "fun" about playing a warrior in DA:O. The shuffling movement ? The fact that unlike ranged combat, there is a noticeable delay between inputs? The weird sense of combat where a warrior would simply stand there playing whack a mole while the hp counter slowly went down?

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Maria Caliban wrote...
'I don't like it' is a fine reason to not want something in the game.

I didn't like the giant pauldrons in DAO. But I never complained they were unrealistic, conflicted with the lore, were an 'MMO-style GFX nonsense,' or implied that people who liked them were 15-year-olds.

I just said I didn't like them and wanted heavy armor without them in DA II.

You're free to have your own tastes. Just own up to it and stop it with the bull**** rationalizations.

blessthispost.gif

[Fetunche]

Keep reality out of fantasy games.

[Wulfram]

Maria Caliban wrote...

'I don't like it' is a fine reason to not want something in the game.

"I think it's too unrealistic" is a fine reason to not like something.

[hoorayforicecream]

Filament wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So if they had some sort of in-game context that explained it (mystical training, supreme martial focus, special weapon material, help from a fade spirit, lyrium, etc.) then you would be ok with it? Wouldn't that mean that complaining about it now, while you clearly lack any context whatsoever aside from the visual, would be premature?

A little. If it is a spellsword specific type of ability, that would be fine. Given they have a fairly sizeable roster of abilities that aren't so explained, though (the scattershots, shouts, etc), I wouldn't call it so premature to raise alarm at the possibility, if not at What It Most Certainly Is.

So what is the dividing line between what is acceptable and what isn't? Why is knocking someone down by yelling at them acceptable, but not shattering rocks? Why is it being a spellsword ability ok, but not as some power granted from a pact with a demon? Is there an actual rational set of criteria involved, or is it just "because I like it this way"?

[hoorayforicecream]

Filament wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So what is the dividing line between what is acceptable and what isn't? Why is knocking someone down by yelling at them acceptable, but not shattering rocks? Why is it being a spellsword ability ok, but not as some power granted from a pact with a demon? Is there an actual rational set of criteria involved, or is it just "because I like it this way"?

Because I said knocking them down by yelling at them was okay? Perhaps it's a holdover from all the past debates about this that you assume I'm saying "I want it to be more realistic like DAO was." Not so.

Being a spellsword or drinking dragon blood or eating magic rocks or making a pact with a demon are okay because magic. That's pretty simple.

So all they need to do to obtain your acceptance is explicitly tie the ability it to some sort of magic or mystical origin?

[Huge_Beaver]

If the damage that's dealt isn't realistic what so ever it doesn't matter for me as long as it's not too over the top.

[hoorayforicecream]

Filament wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So all they need to do to obtain your acceptance is explicitly tie the ability it to some sort of magic or mystical origin?

...I feel like you're probing for something... Yes, like I said, if it's a spellsword or other explicitly mystical type of ability, I'd personally be ok with it?

I'm just looking for consistency. Some posters are inconsistent in what they find acceptable. I don't think you are in this particular arena.

[Zanallen]

Topsider wrote...

There's no room for both? Realistic combat suddenly kills all other fantasy aspects, like magic? The original Dragon Age didn't have earth-shattering sword animations, or anything so over the top, this is new for DA:I, it's not a DA feature.

By the time Awakening came out, you had warriors with epic shouts that could knock people to the floor anmd the ability to launch energy shockwaves from their swords. In the base game, you had people jumping six feet straight into the air in full plate to stab ogres and people surviving all sorts of ridiculous enemy attacks. DA:O combat has never really been realistic, though I will agree that it has gotten more flashy as new games come out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

It's not the term I'd use for it. I just felt a negative reaction to a particular thing and have looked for reasons to explain why that might be. I fail to see the crime here. You're all so good at telling me how my actual reasons are different because what I've said doesn't seem consistent to you, even though I've said I'm well aware that the reasons I've described, in many ways, could be described as superficial or arbitrary. That doesn't automatically make them a less accurate assessment of the cause of the reaction. Nor do I think it would necessarily need to be rectified in my mind, since fictional realism is always arbitrary and superficial outside of tedious simulators, and that's fine.

I'm not arguing with you.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Zanallen wrote...

Topsider wrote...

There's no room for both? Realistic combat suddenly kills all other fantasy aspects, like magic? The original Dragon Age didn't have earth-shattering sword animations, or anything so over the top, this is new for DA:I, it's not a DA feature.

By the time Awakening came out, you had warriors with epic shouts that could knock people to the floor anmd the ability to launch energy shockwaves from their swords. In the base game, you had people jumping six feet straight into the air in full plate to stab ogres and people surviving all sorts of ridiculous enemy attacks. DA:O combat has never really been realistic, though I will agree that it has gotten more flashy as new games come out.

Origins' animations were just fine, the key difference is that it did not make me exclaim "wtf is this ****". I highly doubt most of the chereography is movies are realistic in the sense it is effective or would not get you killed anyway. But at least it looks like real people did it, because they did. And that's what I want in games, for it to look like real people are doing it.

You can be stylistic without going full on crazy anime. I think to some extent all the moves in films are stylised. Heck I think the very act of using 2 swords is stylistic license.

[Zanallen]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Origins' animations were just fine, the key difference is that it did not make me exclaim "wtf is this ****". I highly doubt most of the chereography is movies are realistic in the sense it is effective or would not get you killed anyway. But at least it looks like real people did it, because they did. And that's what I want in games, for it to look like real people are doing it.

You can be stylistic without going full on crazy anime. I think to some extent all the moves in films are stylised. Heck I think the very act of using 2 swords is stylistic license.

Here are some real people doing real things in a movie: www.youtube.com/watch

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Zanallen wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Origins' animations were just fine, the key difference is that it did not make me exclaim "wtf is this ****". I highly doubt most of the chereography is movies are realistic in the sense it is effective or would not get you killed anyway. But at least it looks like real people did it, because they did. And that's what I want in games, for it to look like real people are doing it.

You can be stylistic without going full on crazy anime. I think to some extent all the moves in films are stylised. Heck I think the very act of using 2 swords is stylistic license.

Here are some real people doing real things in a movie: www.youtube.com/watch

much better than da2. have you seen how many more slashes it takes to kill an enemy in da2. an eyeball popping out? pft da2 turned people along with their armour into mincemeat.

Plus "you have a lot of guts oscar" was a really good pun

[Zanallen]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

much better than da2. have you seen how many more slashes it takes to kill an enemy in da2. an eyeball popping out? pft da2 turned people along with their armour into mincemeat.

Plus "you have a lot of guts oscar" was a really good pun

True. Alternately, we could have combat like in Bushido Blade: www.youtube.com/watch OHKO!

[In Exile]

Topsider wrote...
Because it's visual?

Warriors drunk on dragon's blood, or magic immunity potions, don't perform terrain altering feats.

How is someone getting set on fire not visual? How are they getting hit by an ogre not visual?