721 réponses à ce sujet

[d4eaming]

DarthSideus2 wrote...

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.

And Gandalf fighting the balrog literally while falling. But I guess that's "a wizard thing."

I don't think Lord of the Rings is the be-all-end-all of fantasy content, magic, or sword play. Yes, it is an amazing movie (I haven't read the books, and I know the movies aren't absolutely true to the books), but not literally everything has to sit in its shadow and use it as a template. Yes, Tolkein influenced fantasy by the buckets. I get that. But goddamn, let other books, games, and movies actually do something different for once.

Also, there were loads of unrealistic melee and ranged fighting in the movies. Didn't Legolas run up a frigging giant elephant? And surf on a shield?

Hell yeah, I wanna shield surf in DAI, make it happen Bioware!

[Allan Schumacher]

Probably. I really don't know how you can jump to a tabletop game in a thread about aesthetics.

I didn't jump to a table top game. I jumped to Baldur's Gate. Or Icewind Dale.

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.

The question was more geared "If it can be done, is absolute realism an ideal?"

You put yourself into an ambiguous (if not indefensible) position, however, with your last line.

As such, you claiming that the sword strike effect as being unrealistic not further fogs up the water for me.  But you acknowledge that realism shouldn't take priority over fun and challenge.  Would this mean that you actually find that the sword strike effect is simply not fun enough, and it should be changed/removed for that.

Because that's a different thing than whether or not it's realistic.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 21 septembre 2013 - 01:22 .

[LTD]

I think this conversation would be 12% less confusing if everybody stopped using word " realistic" and replaced the void with " credible"  instead. Combat needs to look and feel like something players trying to live by the rules and feel of this fictional world presented can believe in. It needs to fit right at home with atmosphere, look, feel of the world, characters fighting.

Stylish, over sexed super-cool-for-sake-of-cool combat fits right at home in some PS2 era DMC clone with AWESOME Player Characters. Less so in games where characters are supposed to be..you know, people you can take seriously.  DA II of course makes Point&Case type of an example of potential conflict here.

I says combat in Dragon Age would do great with somber, big detailed moves. Mass, inertia. Rhythm and speed to it all slow enough for hits and violence in general to have actual consequences. If I hit somebody with a shield it needs to be an actual thing -  Not some pathetic two frame blib in radar that begins and ends in button smashedtastical briefness.

Modifié par LTD, 21 septembre 2013 - 01:35 .

[giveamanafish...]

KristinCousland wrote... [In the original post]

Like in DA2 the warrior swung a gigantic two handed sword like gravity and intertia did not exist and rogues seemed like escapees from cirque de soleil.  I believe that in a fantasy setting it is even more important that the rest of the world obeys known laws of physics.

Sorry if this point has already been made. There was a few years ago, a medieval fencing enthusiasist on the BSN who discussed using a two-handed sword. (He/she also directed people to some Youtube videos. I think involving some medieval german 2 handers.)  If you look them up you will find they are suprisingly light -- the way they are described in a game like Skyrim is pretty inaccurate. 6 lbs for a real-life claymore replica, which is like a heavy 2-handed broadsword. The 2-handers in DA2 were exaggerated tho. Long is better to some people I suppose.

Laws of physics as understood on the basis of gaming experience versus laws... based on actual historical experiecnce. I suppose a game designer has to meet both types of expectations.

Modifié par ismoketoomuch, 21 septembre 2013 - 04:16 .

[Shadow Fox]

d4eaming wrote...

DarthSideus2 wrote...

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.

And Gandalf fighting the balrog literally while falling. But I guess that's "a wizard thing."

I don't think Lord of the Rings is the be-all-end-all of fantasy content, magic, or sword play. Yes, it is an amazing movie (I haven't read the books, and I know the movies aren't absolutely true to the books), but not literally everything has to sit in its shadow and use it as a template. Yes, Tolkein influenced fantasy by the buckets. I get that. But goddamn, let other books, games, and movies actually do something different for once.

Also, there were loads of unrealistic melee and ranged fighting in the movies. Didn't Legolas run up a frigging giant elephant? And surf on a shield?

Hell yeah, I wanna shield surf in DAI, make it happen Bioware!

And Gimli dual wielding battle axes.

[d4eaming]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

d4eaming wrote...

And Gandalf fighting the balrog literally while falling. But I guess that's "a wizard thing."

I don't think Lord of the Rings is the be-all-end-all of fantasy content, magic, or sword play. Yes, it is an amazing movie (I haven't read the books, and I know the movies aren't absolutely true to the books), but not literally everything has to sit in its shadow and use it as a template. Yes, Tolkein influenced fantasy by the buckets. I get that. But goddamn, let other books, games, and movies actually do something different for once.

Also, there were loads of unrealistic melee and ranged fighting in the movies. Didn't Legolas run up a frigging giant elephant? And surf on a shield?

Hell yeah, I wanna shield surf in DAI, make it happen Bioware!

And Gimli dual wielding battle axes.

Dwarf throwing! I demand dwarf throwing!

[Shadow Fox]

d4eaming wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

d4eaming wrote...

And Gandalf fighting the balrog literally while falling. But I guess that's "a wizard thing."

I don't think Lord of the Rings is the be-all-end-all of fantasy content, magic, or sword play. Yes, it is an amazing movie (I haven't read the books, and I know the movies aren't absolutely true to the books), but not literally everything has to sit in its shadow and use it as a template. Yes, Tolkein influenced fantasy by the buckets. I get that. But goddamn, let other books, games, and movies actually do something different for once.

Also, there were loads of unrealistic melee and ranged fighting in the movies. Didn't Legolas run up a frigging giant elephant? And surf on a shield?

Hell yeah, I wanna shield surf in DAI, make it happen Bioware!

And Gimli dual wielding battle axes.

Dwarf throwing! I demand dwarf throwing!

[In Exile]

The look of moral conflict on Alistair's face is priceless. Love that image.

[jillabender]

In Exile wrote...

The look of moral conflict on Alistair's face is priceless. Love that image.

Word!

[Vilegrim]

Bleachrude wrote...

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)

Wich is an argument to nerf mages, not make every one a magic user.

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Probably. I really don't know how you can jump to a tabletop game in a thread about aesthetics.

I didn't jump to a table top game. I jumped to Baldur's Gate. Or Icewind Dale.

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.

The question was more geared "If it can be done, is absolute realism an ideal?"

You put yourself into an ambiguous (if not indefensible) position, however, with your last line.

As such, you claiming that the sword strike effect as being unrealistic not further fogs up the water for me.  But you acknowledge that realism shouldn't take priority over fun and challenge.  Would this mean that you actually find that the sword strike effect is simply not fun enough, and it should be changed/removed for that.

Because that's a different thing than whether or not it's realistic.

But every single game does this over the top cliche...can you honestly not see the problem with that?   The cliche has become boring (and for me always was) why must every RPG be the same?  

[The Elder King]

d4eaming wrote...

And Gandalf fighting the balrog literally while falling. But I guess that's "a wizard thing."

It's not a wizard thing. Gandalf isn't human (he's from the same 'race' of Sauron and the Balrog, before the latters were corrupted). Though neither the film or the books explained it (in the latter is clearer that he isn't human though). 

Modifié par hhh89, 21 septembre 2013 - 09:17 .

[Vilegrim]

hhh89 wrote...

d4eaming wrote...

And Gandalf fighting the balrog literally while falling. But I guess that's "a wizard thing."

It's not a wizard thing. Gandalf isn't human (he's from the same 'race' of Sauron and the Balrog, before the latters were corrupted). Though neither the film or the books explained it (in the latter is clearer that he isn't human though). 

Gandalf is a Maia, one of the spirits who helped Valar shape the world, he has always and will always look like an old man, from the birth of the first age to the end of the ages.  He is not a 'wizard' he is the same as Sauron in might but obeys the limits set upon him, unlike Sauron.  It would be like complaining the Arch Angel Micheal was a bit to hard core.

Above them are only the Ainur and Ea Illuvater (the high god of elves and men).

./takes off nerd hat.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 21 septembre 2013 - 09:35 .

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I didn't jump to a table top game. I jumped to Baldur's Gate. Or Icewind Dale.

Well then, no, I don't find their combat animations especially good.  NWN is better, though a lot of what I like of that  - having parries and stuff - seems like it would require switching to  a round based system which I understand isn't going to happen.

The question was more geared "If it can be done, is absolute realism an ideal?"

You put yourself into an ambiguous (if not indefensible) position, however, with your last line.

As such, you claiming that the sword strike effect as being unrealistic not further fogs up the water for me.  But you acknowledge that realism shouldn't take priority over fun and challenge.  Would this mean that you actually find that the sword strike effect is simply not fun enough, and it should be changed/removed for that.

Because that's a different thing than whether or not it's realistic.

No, I find the effect egregiously unrealistic, and that's the problem I have with it.  I have no reason to think that it is more or less fun than anything else.

[The Elder King]

Vilegrim wrote...


Gandalf is a Maia, one of the spirits who helped Valar shape the world, he has always and will always look like an old man, from the birth of the first age to the end of the ages.  He is not a 'wizard' he is the same as Sauron in might but obeys the limits set upon him, unlike Sauron.  It would be like complaining the Arch Angel Micheal was a bit to hard core.

Above them are only the Ainur and Ea Illuvater (the high god of elves and men).

./takes off nerd hat.

I know (I didn't mention the Sauron>Gandalf thing, since is quite obvious even for those who only saw the film).
 Though I understand why people would think that Gandalf is a wizard/human if they saw only the film. I haven't seen them for a bit, but I don't recall any hints of the Istari being more than human in the films.

[Vilegrim]

hhh89 wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...


Gandalf is a Maia, one of the spirits who helped Valar shape the world, he has always and will always look like an old man, from the birth of the first age to the end of the ages.  He is not a 'wizard' he is the same as Sauron in might but obeys the limits set upon him, unlike Sauron.  It would be like complaining the Arch Angel Micheal was a bit to hard core.

Above them are only the Ainur and Ea Illuvater (the high god of elves and men).

./takes off nerd hat.

I know (I didn't mention the Sauron>Gandalf thing, since is quite obvious even for those who only saw the film).
 Though I understand why people would think that Gandalf is a wizard/human if they saw only the film. I haven't seen them for a bit, but I don't recall any hints of the Istari being more than human in the films.

I was agreeing and expnading upon, rather than disagreeing, sorry if it came across as confrontational.

[The Elder King]

Don't worry, it was rather my fault. I often misunderstand the intent of people in the forums.

[Flurdt Vash]

I gotta be honest, I cant WAIT to get my hands on the game  The combat looks absolutely SICK, I LOVE what I have seen .  I cant put a ton of stock in realism when I play a game that has dragons, elves and magic, I dont see as to how STYLE isnt more important?  Case in point, You strike the ground with your sword and in realism you are now off balance and screwed  'vs Fantasy'  You strike the ground with your sword and not only do you cause a trimmer but you crack the ground and send mobs flailing. You not only do damage but you look like a bad arse doing it   Yeah, Ill stick with fantasy.

Oh and just to toss this out there, BioWare the game looks EPIC so far, Great Job, cant wait to see what comes next

Modifié par Flurdt07, 21 septembre 2013 - 10:08 .

[Megakoresh]

KoA: Reckoning had the best Fantasy RPG combat I have ever seen without it being even the slightest bit realistic. It could use more on the tactical side, true, but the point is there: realism isn't necessary. Combat just has to fit context. And jRPG fantasy FX did not fit DA2.

[Flurdt Vash]

Megakoresh wrote...

KoA: Reckoning had the best Fantasy RPG combat I have ever seen without it being even the slightest bit realistic. It could use more on the tactical side, true, but the point is there: realism isn't necessary. Combat just has to fit context. And jRPG fantasy FX did not fit DA2.

Couldnt agree more about the " realism isn't necessary. Combat just has to fit context."

Modifié par Flurdt07, 21 septembre 2013 - 10:11 .

[Vilegrim]

Megakoresh wrote...

KoA: Reckoning had the best Fantasy RPG combat I have ever seen without it being even the slightest bit realistic. It could use more on the tactical side, true, but the point is there: realism isn't necessary. Combat just has to fit context. And jRPG fantasy FX did not fit DA2.

Where as I found KoA a decent setting ruined by 'awesome'.

[Dermain]

Vilegrim wrote...


But every single game does this over the top cliche...can you honestly not see the problem with that?   The cliche has become boring (and for me always was) why must every RPG be the same?  

Because if it's not the same everyone will cry foul, and endlessy complain about it on the internet.

[Vilegrim]

Myrkale wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...


But every single game does this over the top cliche...can you honestly not see the problem with that?   The cliche has become boring (and for me always was) why must every RPG be the same?  

Because if it's not the same everyone will cry foul, and endlessy complain about it on the internet.

sadly true I fear

[KristinCousland]

 Thank you for taking part Allan :happy:

So what do you think about the rock conjuring sword stroke then?
Don't be shy :innocent:

How can you reconcile DAO and DA2 combat? 

Look at the alpha footage. I think you are achieving it right now.

I hope that did not get lost in this thread.  I and it seems most people are extremly happy with what we are seeing.

As I made clear in the OP, it was precisly because the combat looks so darned good, that the "boulders" looked a bit out of place (for me and some others apparently).

BTW. Just want to say Allan that you are one of the most awesome people in this great company, and that your fan interactions after mass effect 3 were particularly impressive.

Keep up the good work 

[MakutaDax]

Well, just an observation, but DA has never put much stock in realism or credibility when it comes to combat situations. In Origins a Champion could literally knock people off their feet by yelling at them and archers created a sky full of arrows from no where. In DA2 warriors had the tremor talent that, again, knocked people down only this time it was by hitting the ground and causing shock waves. The archers could still create a storm of arrows and if you were a Duelist or Shadow you got access to some totally unrealistic abilities... And I loved every little bit of it!

Having said that, I really don't see how making a few rocks bust up from a crater in the ground should be such a big deal. Well, I take that back, I see how it could be a big deal, but I don't see why. Certainly you can say that the animation is out of place or too flashy/unbelievable, but really, given Inquisition's predecessors, it isn't that far off from what we should all be used to unless you're really just trying to say that you personally were good with the unrealistic combat elements up until they became too much for *you*. That's fine because I know we all have our own opinions about what makes a good game and we have our own levels of tolerance. Me personally, I loved the exploding ground, the Cassandra battering ram, and the harpoon ability. These are things that might get under other people's skin and I respect that, but I'm totally cool with them.

Just my personal thoughts.