721 réponses à ce sujet

[Cacharadon]

I think this is a problem with authenticity of the universe rather than realism. I mean Thedas is a pretty fantastical place full of dragons and magic but that magic acts within certain boundaries that it's constrained to. There are certain laws to the various forces that act on this universe and they are well defined and explored in game.

When we have a warrior smash a sword so hard into the ground that it not only leaves a crater but causes giant rocks to sprout out of the earth it becomes a huge fly in the ointment. What gives this warrior the ability to do this? why doesn't the sword break? Do the dwarves know about such techniques? Can this ability be used to erect make shift rock walls? etc. etc. I get the fact that various compromises must be made for gameplay's sake but things like arrows not outright killing you or fireballs not leaving horrific scars are "required" by the game for it to be playable. Unlike purely visual things like giant craters on sword impact.

Is it possible at all to tone this feature down? replace it with sparks, some dust and maybe a crack or two on the floor? Some people may enjoy this over the top visuals but speaking for myself, I enjoy dragon age for it's high fantasy setting in an authentic universe and stuff like this just takes me out of the action. It's the kind of visuals I'd expect playing a purely action game (the kind that throws the rule book out of the window) or a Jrpg and just feels out of place in Thedas.

I'd also mention here, that for all of DA:O's shortcomings one thing it did really well was how combat sometimes synchs up between you and the enemy. You can have swords clanging off armour or being parried by an enemy sword, enemies would duck and dodge your blows. It was a very thrilling combat experience even if all you did was press numbers 1 through 9 and positioned units on the map. Replacing this with the bullet sponge (read: unresponsive) enemies did more to ruin my experience of DA2 than any repeated map ever could.

Modifié par NU1, 20 septembre 2013 - 07:09 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ukki wrote...

I'd rather have the most realistic combat where one ton weighting ogre can send fully armored knight flying and unconsious/dead with direct hit than see more of the Awesome combat shown so far. Besides, in realistic combat mages become much important since they are able to attack/affect dangerous enemies like ogres from distance.

Let's not get caught in too black-and-white mentality.
Realism/beleviability/versimilitude exists in degrees and not all mechanics and systems are equally applicable.

Not saying it can't be done in a party-based game - it can - it just it's not as simple as it is in a game where the player only controls one character.

A players attention is devided among 6 poeple, which is why the endurance of each one is greater than it realisticly should be.
Because the player needs to notice a party member is in danger,  there "has" to exist some sort of buffer to give the player time to react. One-hit-kills generally don't give one time for that.
Again, not saying one couldn't make a game a like that...it's just challenging to get the mechanics and difficulty right.


Sometimes some things are unrealistic because the developer couldn't think of a way to make them realistic that would work. Those are easily excusable.
When such things are in only because the dev didn't care or the "cool factor"... not so much.

[Lotion Soronarr]

t0mm06 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Having said that, it should be clear that realism is BY DEFAULT believable.

Actually this isn't necessarily true. Im an animator and one of the things we have to learn is that a lot of the time making something perfectly reaistic isn't 'believale', sotime to make something believable you need to exaggerate it. 

That is actually because of some much movie and fiction has skewed the perception of many people as to what is realistic.

For example: silencers in movies. People who never held a gun have seen and heard it so many times in movies that if they were to hear the real thing (which incidenlty cuts the sound level AT BEST by half, so it's still damn loud) it would feel "fake".
A lie repeted often enough begins ot sound more real than reality.
The term often used is "enhanced reality".
As in - realtiy isn't exicisting enough, let's exaggerate it!


Personally I feel the total effect is dumbifying, as it skews peoples perceptions of reality more and more, little by little. The lie starts appearing more real than reality.
Skewed expectations and conventions.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 septembre 2013 - 08:23 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

jvaz wrote...

People ranting about realism in a FANTASY role playing GAME setting bewilders me.

What bewilders me is when people say "fiction" or "fantasy" or "magic" and somehow think that anyone should and must  accept anything that comes after that by default.
Let's throw all logic and reason out of the window.

Hawke can fart lightning, fire is wet, water is gaseous, earth is actually flat, and the shortest path between two points is a circle. Also 2+2 = fish. Because FANTASY.

If one takes the stance that "OH mages doing what they're doing is OK cuz it's explained in the lore" then there should also be an explanation for every rouge and warrior talent that defies the laws of physics as well.

I can't say I liked any of them really

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

Yet due to the frontloading of the damage and the animation having to be resolved in full, it actually took more time for party members to acknowledge your orders in DA2 than it did in DA:O, where they automatically and immediately interrupted the task they were working on to acknowledge your commands (which is how I measure responsiveness: by time to acknowledgement).

As to the topic at hand: I'm paraphrasing here, but I remember a statement about DA2 where they explained that they felt there was too huge a gap between the visual feedback of mages and non-mages, and for the sake of visual consistency they had the option to either tone down the flashiness of magic to a very subdued level or ramp up the flashiness of Warriors and Rogues, so that everyone would be visually impressive. They chose to go with the latter. Wether it was the right choice or not is open to debate, but as I understand it, that's the logic behind the ground-splitting rocks: flashier visual feedback of skills across non-mages to bring them closer to the flashiness of mages.

Lotion Soronnar wrote..
(snip) earth is actually flat (snip)

Do you have a problem with Discworld, sir? Because if so, them's fighting words.

Modifié par Xewaka, 20 septembre 2013 - 08:21 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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."

I think it is.
While "believable" or "versimilitude" might be more appropriate, it certanly isn't far off anyway.

And while I prefer DA:O comabt to DA2 combat, DA:O has its' own quirks (like redicolously slow two-hander swings)

I know a lot of it is due to expectation and punctuation things "look, this sword is big and heavy. And to show it, we'll have the character swing it with great effort". "look, this move is powerfull. To show it, it will be all glowy and send schock waves! Because clearly you're a moron and can't tell for yourself".

I can't help but think that the audience is often appoached as morons. Like they can't see or figure things out themselves, so it must be spelled out for them in big glowly letters.

[animedreamer]

I just hope threads like this don't have any impact on the work the developers do, people are entitled to their opinions but this sounds more like direct orders or pleas in order to get your way in a project that has nothing to do with our collective perceptions.

Modifié par animedreamer, 20 septembre 2013 - 09:10 .

[Ziggeh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I still don't think that the term realistic is very accurate in this sense.

I think it is.
While "believable" or "versimilitude" might be more appropriate, it certanly isn't far off anyway.

The word is "Realism", which is distinct from "Realistic".

Realistic is the extent to which it conforms to actual reality while Realism is the extent to which it conforms to our fiction defined expectations of reality.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 20 septembre 2013 - 09:09 .

[Wulfram]

If your soup doesn't have enough salt, then wouldn't you say "this could use more salt", rather than "I don't like this"?  That way you might get more salt, rather than them concluding that you don't like tomatoes.

Since I want it to be more realistic, I'll say I want it to be more realistic.  Otherwise Bioware could quite reasonably take my feedback to mean that they should add a triple toe-loop with pike, and have the warrior shoot lighting from his eyes.

Modifié par Wulfram, 20 septembre 2013 - 09:26 .

[Ziggeh]

Wulfram wrote...

If your soup doesn't have enough salt, then wouldn't you say "this could use more salt", rather than "I don't like this"?  That way you might get more salt, rather than them concluding that you don't like tomatoes.

Except salt wouldn't make sense in this context. The soup is inherently unsalted. To make it salty one would have to remove all the elements that make it soup in the first place.

I can't think what realism would be in this metaphor. It frankly stopped working in my first sentence. Bacon maybe.

The sprouting rocks are like removing bacon. Which I think we can all agree would be a bad thing.

[Ieldra]

if I may chime in:

Here's what I especially take issue with: realistically, it should take some discernable time to move, and to me, the efforts to make combat more responsive by giving characters abilities that make attacks near-instant from a medium distance backfire in an epic way. The rogue's super jump and that new ability of warriors to draw enemies to them makes it all look like a parody of a real fight to me. The result is that I'm not in it, mentally and emotionally. I go through the motions but it's nothing more than a game because in the end I can't believe in what I'm seeing, and combat becomes a chore instead of exciting.

Movement, timing and and placement are an important part of fighting, as important as the actual hitting. To try and get around that is misguided in my view. DA2 showed that in no uncertain terms. For any fight I can see coming I would prefer to plan and move into position before the actual fighting starts. If I can't do it because by design, combat must be "fast and exciting", then this is the antithesis of what I'm looking for in a game, and I'll just end up cheating and playing for the story.

I am not looking for "visceral", "fast" and "exciting". I am looking for tactical verisimilitude that gives me a sense of satisfaction from outwitting the enemy and winning with very little damage to my own side because of superior tactics.

For me, DA2's combat was easily among the worst gameplay experiences in 30 years of playing games on electronic media. It had the singular distinction of overshadowing the good parts of the game in such a way that I didn't want to play any more even though I like the characters and the story. These days, I play again, thanks to the "killallhostiles" cheat.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 septembre 2013 - 11:15 .

[Ziggeh]

Just go turn based. You know if makes sense.

[Star fury]

Ziggeh wrote...

Just go turn based. You know if makes sense.

But but it won't sell copies... 

[Bleachrude]

How many people that actually have complaints about the "unrealistic" nature of the fighting in DA2 actuallly played a warrior or even better yet, an all non-mage party in DA:O.

In DA2, this was a valid choice and I thought it was fun to play and to look at...A party with warrior Hawke, Fenris, Isabella and Varric was fun for me to control and play.

A party consisting of Sten, warrior Warden, Oghren and Zevran? Not so much.

[Wulfram]

Ziggeh wrote...

Just go turn based. You know if makes sense.

Hell yes.

[Vilegrim]

8

Bleachrude wrote...

How many people that actually have complaints about the "unrealistic" nature of the fighting in DA2 actuallly played a warrior or even better yet, an all non-mage party in DA:O.

In DA2, this was a valid choice and I thought it was fun to play and to look at...A party with warrior Hawke, Fenris, Isabella and Varric was fun for me to control and play.

A party consisting of Sten, warrior Warden, Oghren and Zevran? Not so much.

because in DA2 everyone was a mage they either warped time and ignored physics while gesturing with blades feet away from the target causing them to explode, or used a staff and summoned fire to do it. There are no warriors in da2

[Xewaka]

Star fury wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
Just go turn based. You know if makes sense.

But but it won't sell copies...

X-COM: Enemy Unknown has proven otherwise.

[Vilegrim]

8

Bleachrude wrote...

How many people that actually have complaints about the "unrealistic" nature of the fighting in DA2 actuallly played a warrior or even better yet, an all non-mage party in DA:O.

In DA2, this was a valid choice and I thought it was fun to play and to look at...A party with warrior Hawke, Fenris, Isabella and Varric was fun for me to control and play.

A party consisting of Sten, warrior Warden, Oghren and Zevran? Not so much.

because in DA2 everyone was a mage they either warped time and ignored physics while gesturing with blades feet away from the target causing them to explode, or used a staff and summoned fire to do it. There are no warriors in da2

[Wulfram]

Bleachrude wrote...

How many people that actually have complaints about the "unrealistic" nature of the fighting in DA2 actuallly played a warrior or even better yet, an all non-mage party in DA:O.

In DA2, this was a valid choice and I thought it was fun to play and to look at...A party with warrior Hawke, Fenris, Isabella and Varric was fun for me to control and play.

A party consisting of Sten, warrior Warden, Oghren and Zevran? Not so much.

I played more warriors, including my "canon" warden, than mages in DA:O, largely because I dislike the Mage origin story.  I don't tend to play mageless parties, though.

I enjoyed the warrior gameplay in Origins, aside from the ridiculously slow two handed weapon speed - and even that isn't so bad if you treat it as a challenge to speed up your attacks by timing the use of your talents.  And I much preferred the aesthetics and animations.

DA2's gameplay was certainly better balanced than DA:O, but I don't think that required the levels of flashiness in the animations that it had.  Closing attacks can be done with lunges and charges, rather than riding invisible skateboards.

Modifié par Wulfram, 20 septembre 2013 - 12:01 .

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote

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.

But the 'response' was circus acrobatocs and baton twirling while random reality warpong went on in an inertia less environment. Exactly the same as most other action rpgs  this is the same issues fps and mmps suffer from the action scenes could, with a few graphical differences have come from any of th, calling spell casring (because that is what these effects show) a cliche is I believe not only fair, but also the only honest thing that can be said.  Dark souls does it so DA:I does it. I got thru about 20 minutes of dark souls before I couldn't face the combat any more I hoped DA would dare to be different but so far you may as well have licensed the ds engine. It looks that similar in philosophy. 

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote

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.

But the 'response' was circus acrobatocs and baton twirling while random reality warpong went on in an inertia less environment. Exactly the same as most other action rpgs  this is the same issues fps and mmps suffer from the action scenes could, with a few graphical differences have come from any of th, calling spell casring (because that is what these effects show) a cliche is I believe not only fair, but also the only honest thing that can be said.  Dark souls does it so DA:I does it. I got thru about 20 minutes of dark souls before I couldn't face the combat any more I hoped DA would dare to be different but so far you may as well have licensed the ds engine. It looks that similar in philosophy. 

[Vilegrim]

Sorry for multi post on a ship using the slightly dodgy wifi and a phone

[t0mm06]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

t0mm06 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Having said that, it should be clear that realism is BY DEFAULT believable.

Actually this isn't necessarily true. Im an animator and one of the things we have to learn is that a lot of the time making something perfectly reaistic isn't 'believale', sotime to make something believable you need to exaggerate it. 

That is actually because of some much movie and fiction has skewed the perception of many people as to what is realistic.

For example: silencers in movies. People who never held a gun have seen and heard it so many times in movies that if they were to hear the real thing (which incidenlty cuts the sound level AT BEST by half, so it's still damn loud) it would feel "fake".
A lie repeted often enough begins ot sound more real than reality.
The term often used is "enhanced reality".
As in - realtiy isn't exicisting enough, let's exaggerate it!


Personally I feel the total effect is dumbifying, as it skews peoples perceptions of reality more and more, little by little. The lie starts appearing more real than reality.
Skewed expectations and conventions.

I dont think this is nessessarily true, you can argue that for some points yes (the silencer thing) (i would like to point out that a fully suppressed gun (which is built just for that) does make a low thump (maybe not the best discription) and is actually rather quiet although this isnt achived by just adding a silencer to a walther pistol)
But yeh i would argue that actually a lot of these exaggerations were created in the first place because the 'realalistic' thing didnt look 'beleivable'. you say that its just because films make it so, but why did they start adding it to films in the first place?.. probably because people who watched the reaslictic thing didnt think it was beleivable.
Its a chicken and egg type thing... although in that situation it was Very much the egg that came first, ts obvious due to evoloution... but thats a different point

[Lotion Soronarr]

No, they started adding it because they wanted to make it more intense...Grander. Bigger. "Better" than the competition.

A realistic silencer was not silent enough (and many writers didn't even know hopw a real one sounds, they just go by the name) and makes going around the house and shooting people impossible. I'm not familiar with any silencer that can do that.

Enhanced reality. Accentuate. Draw attention. That is what media does. Why do you think fistfighting sound effects are added?

Of course, the problem is always there when you have uneducated masses who have their skewed perception of reality.


To put it another way - If I lived in my house the whole life and was convinced the sky was purple, then people started showing me pictures of a blue sky - would you argue all pictures of sky should be re-painted purple so I find them more believable, or that I should be told what the sky really looks like? Would you rather feed a lie, or show the truth?

[Stalker]

That's precisely the problem I have with DA2 and DAI (and ME3, but that's another thing): it's more broad asian fantasy than serious dark fantasy. Exaggerated effects are one of the many factors there.

I find it ridiculous that a warrior now rips the ground apart while spinning like an idiot, a thief teleports around the battlefield and red lyrium makes you able to do 3 mid-air-backflip 10m superjumps.

I don't need accurate medieval simulation if it's already called fantasy but I would have wished Dragon Age to remain the consistent serious universe I saw in DAO. Like Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, The Elder Scrolls or Witcher: They all have their realism/believability issues inside their boundaries of course, but none of them struggle with their identity as much as DA does.
DA jumps around from dark fantasy to weird comical fantasy and now full on asian fantasy. If they would have established their identity right up front I might have just said "that game's not for me" but now I'm sitting here on the forums, expressing my disappointment how one of my favorite universes fell into the same category as Final Fantasy.

Modifié par Mr Massakka, 20 septembre 2013 - 02:12 .