721 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

The mage combat was alot better in DA2, I will give it that much.

[Ieolus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How about this? I think it is safe to say that most (if not all) of the people on the "realistic" side, for lack of a better term, were okay with DA:Origins. Why not use that as the baseline as to what we feel is realistic vs. unrealistic?

I still don't think that the term realistic is very accurate in this sense. It'd probably be clearer to simply say that you prefer the way DAO did it. I think people use the term often use the term "realistic" because it justifies that what they like is simply more appropriate and more in line with what they would like to see. If a person can convince other people that it's realistic (and hence, believable and appropriate) then you've "recruited more people."

See, what I don't get is this... DA:Origins was in development for atleast five years. An engine was developed for it, lore was developed for it, combat system, art style, etc. Why throw most of that out for the sequal? Why take all that time to make new animations and new art style, when so little time was given for development? Makes no sense.

The Eclipse engine is part of an evolution of an engine, going as far back as Aurora (with some attempted quick fixes and emergency rebuilds in there, from what I hear, as well). But the roots go back to Neverwinter Nights. It wasn't a new engine created specifically for Dragon Age.

A lot of what you saw in DAO (i.e. hornless Qunari) were because of fundamental issues with the state of the engine, and as you say, the game was in development for 5+ years so suggesting that you break down the issues with the character rigging design would have added more time onto that. Which would have meant even more risk and so forth, and the greater chance of a game having dated visuals and other things like that.

Given that spending even more time wasn't really an acceptable option, the choice would have come down to whether or not the Qunari (and Sten) simply get cut from the game altogether.

I appreciate the reasoned response.  It is nice to see you making an effort and not shying away from the heat.  It does reflect well on BioWare to me, even with all the bad feelings that I personally have.

Still not sure I buy the 'toss everything and go in a new direction' decision.  It couldn't just be because of horns as that is pretty silly.  I don't have an issue with adding horns to the Qunari though, it just didn't really matter or effect the game at all.

Mike L. talks alot about lessons learned... I don't think THIS lesson (DA2 combat style) has been learned.

This is where the challenge lies. How does one make a game for someone that prefers DA2's combat over DAOs, while you give the impression that any sort of legacy of DA2's combat is a negative thing for the game.

I see people make call outs to "Press a button, something awesome happens" and how this is just another example of it, when in reality the idea we were looking for for DA2 was that the combat was simply responsive. When you pushed the button, your character did something.

Sure it's a challenge, I don't disagree.  I also don't have issues with responsive combat in any way shape or form.  I love both The Witcher and The Witcher 2 combat, even though they are way different from eachother, and you can't say they both aren't "click and something happens".

But what The Witcher and its sequel don't have is way over the top styling.  TW2 had some cool looking (though annoying with the QTE) battles!

Please, just shrink the damn two-handed weapons to a normal size, stop the over-the-top weapon and movement animations (or put them in a finishing move only), and you will win back DA:Origin fans who have quit on you.

I'm so not worried about anything else in the game.  Story, characters, quests, etc... all that stuff BioWare are the masters.  The combat is a dealbreaker.  It is just too rediculous in DA2, and from what I've seen it really has not changed, tactical view notwithstanding.

[Ieolus]

Star fury wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
This is where the challenge lies. How does one make a game for someone that prefers DA2's combat over DAOs, while you give the impression that any sort of legacy of DA2's combat is a negative thing for the game.

I see people make call outs to "Press a button, something awesome happens" and how this is just another example of it, when in reality the idea we were looking for for DA2 was that the combat was simply responsive. When you pushed the button, your character did something.

Don't make a game for someone that prefers DA2's combat over DAO? DA:O outsold DA2 and it's combat was tactical, not a over the top mess of DA2.

Maybe I'm blind but Origins' combat was responsive too. 

I loved Origin's combat, and it came as quite a shock when it was changed so radically.

[Star fury]

Rawgrim wrote...

The mage combat was alot better in DA2, I will give it that much.

Ah yeah, like when every single mob had an abilty to knock down your mage. It was incredibly interesting and rewarding to play as a mage, unless you invested in force mage branch or in fortitude. 

Modifié par Star fury, 20 septembre 2013 - 04:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

StreetMagic wrote...

To answer seriously, I like them for the visceral nature.

And that could be the problem.  I don't want any aspect of the combat to engage me emotionally.  I have a clinical, analytical approach to combat, and the fast pace and flashy animations don't do anything for me.  If they do anything, they get in the way.

Again, I'd like to cite Skyrim as a game that allowed multiple styles of play.  FO3 and New Vegas did the same with VATS.  Frankly, so did the ME games.

Allowing you to play your visceral combat while also allowing me to play my cerebral combat should be a design goal.  We've seen games do it.  We've seen BioWare games do it.

[kinderschlager]

in response to OP. wholeheartedly agree. i think everyone can agree, a sword causing rocks to rise from the ground is unrealistic and plain silly

[werewoof]

i'm not a big stickler for realism in my games personally, at least not as far as combat. i loved da2's stylized combat, i thought it was fun and fast-paced and enjoyable. maybe thats just because i'm comparing it to origins which was a tedious clunky mess. so if it was a game only for me i would say go for the crazy stylized visceral combat because i dont give a rat's ass about tactical, analytical combat.

but its not a game only for me and so far i think da:i seems to be going for a nice medium. nobody's flying through the air but it isn't a glorified board game like origins felt like.

kinderschlager wrote...

in response to OP. wholeheartedly agree. i think everyone can agree, a sword causing rocks to rise from the ground is unrealistic and plain silly

it sure is, but that doesn't mean i don't like it i agree that da2's combat was silly and unrealistic but thats why i liked it personally.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

so where did everybody get the idea that engaging presentation and thoughtful gameplay are mutually exclusive

[mesmerizedish]

Pseudocognition wrote...

so where did everybody get the idea that engaging presentation and thoughtful gameplay are mutually exclusive

darling, this is the BSN

there is no both

[zMataxa]

Wouldn't it be great, if Bioware could offer two options to keep their wide ranging base of fans/customers engaged preference-wise, and ultimately happier?
(1) More Realistic/tactical/subdued, and
(2) More Stylistic/fantasy/outrageous.

Seems to be a clear division of "camps" here.
Two choices are better than one.
I would play both ways, if the story and characters are deep enough.

Modifié par zMataxa, 20 septembre 2013 - 05:22 .

[Star fury]

Pseudocognition wrote...

so where did everybody get the idea that engaging presentation and thoughtful gameplay are mutually exclusive

DA2.

[zMataxa]

Star fury wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

so where did everybody get the idea that engaging presentation and thoughtful gameplay are mutually exclusive

DA2.

____________

Now Now. 
DA2 and flying rogues will forever be a happy memory of mine.

[zMataxa]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

so where did everybody get the idea that engaging presentation and thoughtful gameplay are mutually exclusive

darling, this is the BSN

there is no both

_____________

Perhaps because BOTH haven't been offered?

[Allan Schumacher]

Wouldn't it be great, if Bioware could offer two options to keep their
wide ranging base of fans/customers engaged preference-wise, and
ultimately happier?
(1) More Realistic/tactical/subdued, and
(2) More Stylistic/fantasy/outrageous.

The primary issue with providing that option is that it is a huge load of work on the animators.

If the animations end up allowing for some different effects (such as whether or not it imposes a transform on the entity), it means that your combat fundamentally plays differently in both of these modes two, which is when it starts making people like me cry and go into the fetal position because testing will get increasingly complex.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 20 septembre 2013 - 05:34 .

[zMataxa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Perhaps because BOTH haven't been offered?

The primary issue with providing that option is that it is a huge load of work on the animators.

If the animations end up allowing for some different effects (such as whether or not it imposes a transform on the entity), it means that your combat fundamentally plays differently in both of these modes two, which is when it starts making people like me cry and go into the fetal position because testing will get increasingly complex.

_____________

In my first post that was supposd to set the mood/context for the dual prong approach - I did write "Wouldn't it be great...".
I realize it's likely more a pipe dream - primae facie.
But then I started to wonder, how much work actually does go into making all these animations and how much work would it be to make 2 versions of the same thing?
In this department, I am uninformed and looking to be educated.
Is there a way to streamline production for battle effects into the two camps of more realistic vs more stylistic?  

Modifié par zMataxa, 20 septembre 2013 - 05:38 .

[zMataxa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Wouldn't it be great, if Bioware could offer two options to keep their
wide ranging base of fans/customers engaged preference-wise, and
ultimately happier?
(1) More Realistic/tactical/subdued, and
(2) More Stylistic/fantasy/outrageous.

The primary issue with providing that option is that it is a huge load of work on the animators.

If the animations end up allowing for some different effects (such as whether or not it imposes a transform on the entity), it means that your combat fundamentally plays differently in both of these modes two, which is when it starts making people like me cry and go into the fetal position because testing will get increasingly complex.

_________________

Haha - just think.
Bioware will please more customers - perhaps making both camps happier (DAO - slower more tactical - realistic versus action, much more stylistic).  Your choice would have to be which point of view do you want to test from?
Though I do sympathize if that triggers visions of fetal position.

Modifié par zMataxa, 20 septembre 2013 - 05:46 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I realize it's likely more a pipe dream - primae facie.

Fair enough. You did say that.

But then I started to wonder, how much work actually does go into making all these animations and how much work would it be to make 2 versions of the same thing?
In this department, I am uninformed and looking to be educated.

I don't know the full numbers, unfortunately, but I do know that animations are constantly being worked on throughout the development cycle, and that game development is, in a lot of cases, really a series of a whole heck of a lot of not particularly huge tasks. So it'll still come at the cost of something else.

The thing is, if it's *only* the animations, that's one thing. That would still put a restriction in that you couldn't have one gameplay mode have an animation that had any discernible difference in how the game played, or it gets messy really quick.

[keightdee]

zMataxa wrote...

Wouldn't it be great, if Bioware could offer two options to keep their wide ranging base of fans/customers engaged preference-wise, and ultimately happier?
(1) More Realistic/tactical/subdued, and
(2) More Stylistic/fantasy/outrageous.

Why would anyone want to do that? Have you ever had a job? When someone gives you a lot of busy work that's basically just a variation of a **** load of work you already did, doesn't that make you just want to jump off a bridge?????

???
??????
????????

[deuce985]

I'll have to agree with OP. It's one of the few gripes I have with what I've seen so far in DAI. I can't quite put my finger on it but the little spellbook flying around the mage and the earthquake sword looked...kinda lighthearted in a dark fantasy game. I don't know why. It just seemed really off even though DA is a dark/high fantasy game.

DA is obviously trying to move to that stylish direction they started in DA2 and that's fine. The mage animations were very badass in DA2. These spell effects in the PAX video just seemed...weird. It's hard to find words as to why I didn't like them. It just didn't jive with a dark setting for me. When I think of spell effects in DA I'm almost always remembering the blood mage spells where they basically implode their human victims(toned down a bit of course...not the massive gore piles DA2 had originally). *shrugs*

I guess when I think of spells in DA I always think of these spells that show major impact around you. That means major violence because it fits right into the lore at how shockingly powerful mages are.

Modifié par deuce985, 20 septembre 2013 - 05:57 .

[zMataxa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I realize it's likely more a pipe dream - primae facie.

Fair enough. You did say that.

But then I started to wonder, how much work actually does go into making all these animations and how much work would it be to make 2 versions of the same thing?
In this department, I am uninformed and looking to be educated.

I don't know the full numbers, unfortunately, but I do know that animations are constantly being worked on throughout the development cycle, and that game development is, in a lot of cases, really a series of a whole heck of a lot of not particularly huge tasks. So it'll still come at the cost of something else.

The thing is, if it's *only* the animations, that's one thing. That would still put a restriction in that you couldn't have one gameplay mode have an animation that had any discernible difference in how the game played, or it gets messy really quick.

________________

Thanx for detailed reply.
You got me thinking. 
I wrote a longer reply but then deleted it (not happy with it at this time.)
The ultra short of it is, I think it's doable in an economically feasable way, but the decision makers would have to recognize and accept (or gamble, some might say) that to please/reach a larger fan base they need the two modes and allocate resources accordingly (The world is become a modular place afterall ).
Hopefully, the middleground of DAI is a profitable and well received solution, so the previous becomes a moot point.
Time will tell and so many of us are excited to find out :O:O:O:happy:.
Wishing you a fetal free trial period.  Cheers!

[zMataxa]

keightdee wrote...

zMataxa wrote...

Wouldn't it be great, if Bioware could offer two options to keep their wide ranging base of fans/customers engaged preference-wise, and ultimately happier?
(1) More Realistic/tactical/subdued, and
(2) More Stylistic/fantasy/outrageous.

Why would anyone want to do that? Have you ever had a job? When someone gives you a lot of busy work that's basically just a variation of a **** load of work you already did, doesn't that make you just want to jump off a bridge?????

???
??????
????????

_______________

I know all about employees and grumbling about too much work, and hey, can't management see "we're  overloaded".
I also know about decision makers and leveraging an existing product to expand a client base so that it satisifies/reaches more clients and each client to a deeper level.  It's at the heart of staying financially successful for now and the future.  It's the reason the employees have a job to begin with.

Does that answer your question?

Modifié par zMataxa, 20 septembre 2013 - 06:18 .

[Jones7602]

For me it is not about realistic or unrealistic, it is fantasy after all... but I hate silly games and a game is silly if it seems to break it's own rules.

DA made some things pretty clear. It is grownded a "realistic" world, meaning for most of the time the laws of physic apply. At the same time there is only one way to break these rules and that is magic. There are no other ways to perform superhuman feats like prayers to the gods, owning a special soul, or being of ancient and powerful race. Because of this all magic users are feared and basically treated very badly for their powers by e.g. the templars.

Therefore two things seem logical. Only mages can do magical feats like setting things on fire hurling rocks at enemies and so on. If somebody else, like a warrior, does magic, like a war cry hurling enemies back for 20 feet, therefore it must be magic (there is no other way) and in turn he must also be sealed away in a chantry...

So basically I don't care how unrealistic powers of warriors and rogues are, as long as the game sticks to the lore which it doesn't. I would prefere either an explanation (blessed by the gods...) or less flashy Animation. If you want go Hollywood style, one hero defeating an army with an toothpick, but please, let only mages do magic.

[Vilegrim]

Bleachrude wrote...

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?

  smashing a dudes skull in with a pommel strike never got old.  Neither did breaking all his face with a shield bash, dual weilding while not animated that realistically remained fun.  I never used the war cries as I found them stupid

[Vilegrim]

Bleachrude wrote...

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?

  smashing a dudes skull in with a pommel strike never got old.  Neither did breaking all his face with a shield bash, dual weilding while not animated that realistically remained fun.  I never used the war cries as I found them stupid