721 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
To an extent, maybe. Not to this extent, because there's no resurrection and that'd be a real pain.

So, all ogres can finally one hit KO party members by just grabbing them? 

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
Ogre grabs and dragon bites were deadly without preventive measures like forcefield.

Nope. Even on nightmare, an ogre could wail on you silly and even throw you, and you'd be fine. 

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...
That ignores the fact that it's possible that you could have disliked the feature from the start, like I did, and simply have never accepted it as a necessary part of the genre. I'm not saying that for many it might not be true that they've come to be comfortable with this level un unrealism, for lack of a better word. I'm just saying that not everyone would be comfortable with it.

Yeah, as I say, I can totally see how it could be exposed by even individual elements, but I would imagine that would be the exception rather than the rule, or the genre as a whole would have responded to it. It's entirely possible it has and flippy big sword ninja time is the result.

In Exile wrote...
I'm not sure I follow. I will say that for me, the more believable video game animations are the ones that are decidedly unrealistic. The ones that pretend to be realistic are constantly broken and frustrating for me because of how unrealistic the game is.

I got a bit sidetracked with my hedgehog example. I mean to say that while realism certainly isn't required for believability (or most fiction would fail), but there are rules even within that - internal consistency being the key one.

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

But now I'm confused, and will now be applying your terminology more generally. As such, I have now concluded "Hmmm, I think he wants warriors to be similar to AD&D fighters, and as such it may be best to just recognize that combat won't be why he likes this game, and he'll probably only enjoy it for other reasons." Is my deduction correct, or have I read too much into your statement?

Probably.  I really don't know how you can jump to a tabletop game in a thread about aesthetics.  Fights in ADnD should always look awesome because the animation takes place in your head.

And it's hard to understand why you seem to be constantly trying to push me into an extremist position.  I can have complaints and different preferences without tossing out everything.

Because I consider a vast majority of the abilities used by both rogues and warriors in both DAO and DA2 to not be natural and to, in reality, require some level of "magical" abilities. Even the ones that, on an aesthetic level appear to be performed via a realistic animation.

Once I accept the necessary abstraction of hitpoints, and another abstraction for stuns, I don't see what's magical about most of the talents in DA:O weapon trees.  The fact that they can be performed via a realistic animation shows them

For you, is the ultimate ideal for martial combat to be a perfect replication of reality? (barring magic users of course). I understand you can say that there may be other good things that are more important, but I'm focusing the question purely on the specific aspect of combat.

In terms of aesthetics, maybe.  The phrasing seems like it's a trap to draw me into an indefensible position.  In terms of gameplay, no.  Realism is an objective, but secondary to being fun and challenging.

[Gileadan]

Having magic-like moves for melee characters in a world where mages are distrusted at best and persecuted and imprisoned at worst does wonders for the integrity of the setting.

[Maria Caliban]

The moves are not considered magical by the people of Thedas. Us != People of the setting

[Shadow Fox]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

Mages already do that and Rogues turn invisible or fire 20 arrows at once so yes crying realism in this context is stupid.

Saying you don't like it is fine but arguing realism is just silly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What you're describing here is consistency, and that the inconsistency bothers you. We *could* have the cinematic have fatal wounds not happen (so your Warden can repeatedly stab the guy in the Korcari Wilds until he is at 0 hit points). It'd remove the inconsistency.

I would certainly support that.  The cutscenes should obey combat mechanics.

But then, I flatly reject the very idea of gameplay/story segregation.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Mages already do that and Rogues turn invisible or fire 20 arrows at once so yes crying realism in this context is stupid.

Saying you don't like it is fine but arguing realism is just silly.

What part of "I don't like ANY of the redicolous moves" escaped you?
No, arguing is not silly.

[Nerevar-as]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Further, if there was an actual in game explanation for the effect and why it exists, would it make you happier?  If realism is genuinely the issue, then my assumption is no.  But if you're willing to accept other unrealistic aspects, then I get confused.  Why is *this* violation of realism unacceptable?  My assumption is because you think it looks stupid.

I know I would. Mages would probably wonder why they are the only ones caged for it, though. I don´t think anybody complained about the fighting styles from JE. And when a game that´s supposed to be heroic fantasy is far more exagerated than a wuxia, well, something´s gone wrong.

And anyway, why those flashy animations and silly stances? You can make fights look very badass without it seeming taken from Rurouni Kenshin. My favorite duel ever is from Scaramouche, no camera effects, nothing, just coreography. People who don´t care about RPGs aren´t going to say DA:I plays like Dinasty Warriors and buy the game.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
If we change the sword swinging animation to something more realistic, it won't make you happy.

I'm just curious - how would you know what makes him happy?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would certainly support that.  The cutscenes should obey combat mechanics.

But then, I flatly reject the very idea of gameplay/story segregation.

;)Amen brother!

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Since I want it to be more realistic, I'll say I want it to be more realistic

That's just it though.  I am not convinced that you just want it to be more realistic.  You want it to be a way that you like it more.  Or rather, I think you want it to not look stupid.


However, we've now just added bleeding and fatal wounds, as well as infections.  If the Inquisitor gets hit, there's a high risk of death and complications later on (Yes, I recognize I have gone in the far extreme).


If you don't like something, and you ask for more salt when the lack of salt isn't actually the problem, then it means we'll not address it in the way that you would like.

If we change the sword swinging animation to something more realistic, it won't make you happy.


Further, if there was an actual in game explanation for the effect and why it exists, would it make you happier?  If realism is genuinely the issue, then my assumption is no.  But if you're willing to accept other unrealistic aspects, then I get confused.  Why is *this* violation of realism unacceptable?  My assumption is because you think it looks stupid.

But risk of death due to after effects would make an awesome game, maybe not in the DA series but I would be a happy camper playing it (someone license Legend of the Five Rings fast, it could be amazing)

Realistic sword swings without the cliche of explosions and earthquakes would go a long way to address the problems I have had with DA games, in Origins it was minor at best and could be over looked especially if you didn't use the shouts, DA2 rammed it down your throat every fight, and made me get through them on the easiest setting letting the companions deal with it as much as possible so I didn't have to.  DA has set is genre, but it seems to have changed it's mind, it started out as fairly grounded dark fantasy, then became, in 2 a comic animesk jrpg combat system bolted on to a setting that really doesn't suit it. 

Like i said earlier, over blown and insane works in Aion (the characters are demons/angels) but it doesn't in DA where the characters are people, people who are olympic grade at everything but still people.  Having pretty much every game for over the top extemes of visual effects is just as bad to me as what is happening in FPS where everything is brown and every CO will betray you, and the single player is really a long multiplayer tutorial...it removes variety and without that what is the point of buying more than one game?

[Shadow Fox]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Mages already do that and Rogues turn invisible or fire 20 arrows at once so yes crying realism in this context is stupid.

Saying you don't like it is fine but arguing realism is just silly.

What part of "I don't like ANY of the redicolous moves" escaped you?
No, arguing is not silly.

Then frankly you shouldn't be playing fantasy games if this is such an issue for you.

Yes it is.

[Vilegrim]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Mages already do that and Rogues turn invisible or fire 20 arrows at once so yes crying realism in this context is stupid.

Saying you don't like it is fine but arguing realism is just silly.

What part of "I don't like ANY of the redicolous moves" escaped you?
No, arguing is not silly.

Then frankly you shouldn't be playing fantasy games if this is such an issue for you.

Yes it is.

hang on, fantasy stories certainly have got on fine for centuries with people fighting with slightly heightened ability (enough to make them heroes) how has 'fantasy' come to mean absloutly ridiculous?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What part of "I don't like ANY of the redicolous moves" escaped you?
No, arguing is not silly.

Then frankly you shouldn't be playing fantasy games if this is such an issue for you.

Yes it is.

And what makes you think you decide what I should and shouldn't be playing?
It's the "If you accept X, you must accept Y" fallacy again.
I don't. And I won't. And I like fantasy. Good fantasy that is.

I guess LOTR must be a horrible movie, because Aragon didn't cause massive shockwaves with each swing of his sword. And Witcher must be crap too - Geralt had only normal sword swings.

Such a shame...

[Vilegrim]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What part of "I don't like ANY of the redicolous moves" escaped you?
No, arguing is not silly.

Then frankly you shouldn't be playing fantasy games if this is such an issue for you.

Yes it is.

And what makes you think you decide what I should and shouldn't be playing?
It's the "If you accept X, you must accept Y" fallacy again.
I don't. And I won't. And I like fantasy. Good fantasy that is.

I guess LOTR must be a horrible movie, because Aragon didn't cause massive shockwaves with each swing of his sword. And Witcher must be crap too - Geralt had only normal sword swings.

Such a shame...

Geralt is a bit of a stretch, but he does have why he CAN do what he does explained, and it holds, as only Witchers fight the style he does, higher than human maximum strength and agility with an in universe explanation, and downsides make him 'believable'.

[Realmzmaster]

Wulfram wrote...

Which warrior talents in DA:O (not DA:A) do the animations depict the warrior doing something that they would not be able to do if they were real people?

Some of the knockbacks are exaggerated in effect, and there's the hitpoint stuff and the stuns, and scattershot is ridiculous of course, but it's still clearly different from DA2.

Flating people by a War Cry with Superiority comes to mind.

[Crevasse]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Realism isn't the same as Realistic. There are numerous unrealistic elements that I accept, and would argue are commonly accepted as part of what it's probably best to start calling something like "unstylised" combat. Health bars and inventories and recovery are all things we're so familiar with they're part of a baseline for the genre and don't represent a fresh challenge to expectations.

I understand that realism isn't the same as realistic. But if we're making realistic a continuum, it's not exactly trivial to determine something lies on that continuum, especially as people have different levels of tolerance for different things.

I do want it to not look stupid.

And this is exceptionally useful feedback.

The reason it looks stupid to me currently is because it doesn't look realistic. Or if that word is giving people trouble, because the Warrior is doing something that cannot be explained by human capabilities, or even preternatural human abilities, but requires magic.

But now I'm confused, and will now be applying your terminology more generally. As such, I have now concluded "Hmmm, I think he wants warriors to be similar to AD&D fighters, and as such it may be best to just recognize that combat won't be why he likes this game, and he'll probably only enjoy it for other reasons." Is my deduction correct, or have I read too much into your statement? Because I consider a vast majority of the abilities used by both rogues and warriors in both DAO and DA2 to not be natural and to, in reality, require some level of "magical" abilities. Even the ones that, on an aesthetic level appear to be performed via a realistic animation.

But the lack of realism remains a bad thing

For you, is the ultimate ideal for martial combat to be a perfect replication of reality? (barring magic users of course). I understand you can say that there may be other good things that are more important, but I'm focusing the question purely on the specific aspect of combat.

I remeber the same point of being 'too magical' during development of Diablo 3 after the reveal of the barbarian being a big issue to a lot of people. IMO warriors are simple people with simple tastes. Want to cleave a someone with a sword? Want to cave someone's head in with a warhammer? Play the warrior. Want to sunder the earth? Play a mage. I would be totally accepting of the earth shatter visuals if an arcane warrior was doing it and simply channeling primal magic.

If you plot the warrior combat on a graph of stylised gameplay to time it would be going steady then spike at the earth shatter. It's just 'disjointing', I think is the best way to describe it. And creates a sudden shock of "what the helll?"

[DarthSideus2]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What part of "I don't like ANY of the redicolous moves" escaped you?
No, arguing is not silly.

Then frankly you shouldn't be playing fantasy games if this is such an issue for you.

Yes it is.

And what makes you think you decide what I should and shouldn't be playing?
It's the "If you accept X, you must accept Y" fallacy again.
I don't. And I won't. And I like fantasy. Good fantasy that is.

I guess LOTR must be a horrible movie, because Aragon didn't cause massive shockwaves with each swing of his sword. And Witcher must be crap too - Geralt had only normal sword swings.

Such a shame...

If I remember correctly, Aragon held off all 9 Ring Wraiths in a fight to save Frodo in the first movie. That was a little hard to swallow.

[Bleachrude]

AGAIN, people keep using examples of settings where 99% of the fights occur between human level opponents.

DA is a setting where the very beginning of the game has you fighting GIANT rats and quickly moves up to GIANT spider bigger than humans....

The insistence on "wearriors and rogues should only perform manoeuvers that I personally could do" is what leads to quadratic wizards and linear fighters

(I imagine most people here are the same people that kicked up a fuss about how "anime" the late era 3.5 supplement Tome of Battle:Bo9S)

[Eterna]

I don't care how over the top or relaistic the animations are, I just don't wan't to go back to origins slow as hell sword swings and combat animations.