721 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

What everyone is talking about is a preference of what they want or do not want in the game. IMHO, no one should mention realistic and Game of Thrones, TV or movie fighting in the same sentence. There is nothing realistic about film fighting. It is a stylized art form. The blows, swings etc are exaggerated on purpose because it films well.
People just accept it as "realistic" fighting because that is what they grew up with.

As evident in this thread everyone is not going to be satisfied with the combat system. Some posters like the combat in the pre-alpha footage others do not.,
It all boils down to preference and how much realism a person wants in his/her fantasy.

Poster have ideas on how mages or rogues should or should not be animated and not everyone agrees. None of this is surprising because it all comes down to preference.

The developers will simply have to produce the game they wish to produce taking in some of the commentary on the forum. The developers realize they will not please everyone. The BSN is a refection of what the most diehard fans want in a game and not even they can agree on everything or at times anything.

So everyone can voice their concern or approval. The developers will have to sort it all out. I am sure they will try to make an excellent fun game, but then fun is also subjective.

Everyone will not get what they want. They will have to live with or not buy the game. That is a choice that the consumer gets to make. The developers have to decide what game they are going to make . The developers can only hope that enough people like what they see to buy it.

[katamuro]

I do like the more stylized combat of DA2, always found the DA:O combat a bit too simple.

[Vilegrim]

In Exile wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

1)yes really simple reason: real sparing is faster, more dynamic and looks far cooler than any megaton punch,
Some demonstration bouts taken from the manuscripts that have been recovered, actually look at how fast and flowing things get, and what happens to the guy who tries the big swings (hint he would get mutilated)  

To you, that looks cooler. To me, that looks stupider. It's almost like our evaluation of how cool something looks is subjective.

2) if their characterisation is that yes.  

1)It's actually realistic for the ostensible villains of the series to be bigger cowards than untrained peasants? You're agreeing with this statement?

3)i) it is about weapons that really exist being used in the way that they actually function..would you be happy with an FPS where everyone shot over their shoulders without looking while downing bottles of jack?

Sure? Again, you are barking up the wrong tree with someone who doesn't care about realism.

2)And you're now telling me that people in DA:O used shields properly? That the 2H swords - which were swung like baseball bats - were swung in the way they actually function?

 

(ii) DA:O at least tried to show things like half swording, attacking with the pommel, the use of shields as a method of battle control and attack etc etc.  

3)DA2 also has characters attack with the pommel. It also has characters hold shields. By your standard DA2 was attempting to be as realistic as DA:O! Wow, you could have said that from the start.

The 'objective reason'  is: we know how these weapons work, how people ove with them and what works, you then place these pieces of equipment in a universe along with humanoids (who are admittedly super naturally tough and have extreme endurance) and totally change everything about the way people move, what can be done with the weapon etc etc..and make them slower and less interesting while you are at it....you may as well not have swords and just give warriors guns and grenades.  

4)We know how flesh reacts when it is set on fire, but somehow that's never stepped you from saying that it's not unrealistic for people to get hit with a fireball in the face. And we know how the human body and bones react from a warhammer blow to the chest, but that's never made you complain about how Alistar can take 5 blows from a maul and be A-OK. 

Again, it's just hypocritical. 

1) yes, see most dictators ever, terrifying when they have power, found hiding in a hole quaking in terror when danger comes knocking. 

2) Not totally, no, but they where far less far away than DA2 was.

3)Their are no swords in DA2 only majorettes batons that when waved 5ft away and covered in what I presume from the mass is fibreglass cause people to explode.  'Acceptaqble breaks from reality, look that up right before you look up straw man,  ma asking for weapons to be used correctly other wise take them out and give peope majorettes batons, it would have the virtue of honesty.

[draken-heart]

Filament wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Acceptable breaks from reality.

DA:Awakenings and DA2 removed any semblance of this. Characters are superheroes.

I wouldn't agree that DAA or DA2 are fundamentally that different than DAO in terms of being unrealistic. They all have at least a few pretty flagrant examples that aren't really justified by this standard.

In that sense this rock smash ability (assuming it's just a regular 2-handed ability) isn't really a break from the norm. That doesn't mean we have to approve of that norm. It may stand out more because like KristinCousland said, the rest of the combat we've seen does look a lot better, more fluid and 'natural' etc.

Well, Cassandra does throw down what appears to be a magical totem in the middle of combat in one of the videos, too. But it's true we don't have context to know whether either of these have in-lore explanations.

True. Although I thought DA2 was somewhat more realistic with the rogue. A rogue would not learn the same fighting styles as a warrior. Dual wielding with a warrior was more believable in origins and dual wielding with a rogue was wierd.

here's hoping for combat in inquisition will be a believable combo of realistic ans stylistic.

[In Exile]

Vilegrim wrote...
1) yes, see most dictators ever, terrifying when they have power, found hiding in a hole quaking in terror when danger comes knocking.  

... Did you just compare me with a dictator?

2) Not totally, no, but they where far less far away than DA2 was.  

Using a 2H like a baseball bat is not "far away" from reality?

3)Their are no swords in DA2 only majorettes batons that when waved 5ft away and covered in what I presume from the mass is fibreglass cause people to explode.  'Acceptaqble breaks from reality, look that up right before you look up straw man,  ma asking for weapons to be used correctly other wise take them out and give peope majorettes batons, it would have the virtue of honesty. 

Opening your entire chest when using a shield in a faux realistic combat animation is an "acceptable break"? You might as well use the weapon as a fiber glass rod, because at least in that case I don't have to accept how stupid the actual movement is in comparison to how supposedly dangerous the combat is.

And, yet again, you're dodging the point about how unrealistic RPG combat is. So people being set on fire and being 100% or their armour not caving in their chest when hit by a weapon designing to cave in their chest is an acceptable break from reality, but stylized combat animations aren't?

[Vilegrim]

draken-heart wrote...

Filament wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Acceptable breaks from reality.

DA:Awakenings and DA2 removed any semblance of this. Characters are superheroes.

I wouldn't agree that DAA or DA2 are fundamentally that different than DAO in terms of being unrealistic. They all have at least a few pretty flagrant examples that aren't really justified by this standard.

In that sense this rock smash ability (assuming it's just a regular 2-handed ability) isn't really a break from the norm. That doesn't mean we have to approve of that norm. It may stand out more because like KristinCousland said, the rest of the combat we've seen does look a lot better, more fluid and 'natural' etc.

Well, Cassandra does throw down what appears to be a magical totem in the middle of combat in one of the videos, too. But it's true we don't have context to know whether either of these have in-lore explanations.

True. Although I thought DA2 was somewhat more realistic with the rogue. A rogue would not learn the same fighting styles as a warrior. Dual wielding with a warrior was more believable in origins and dual wielding with a rogue was wierd.

here's hoping for combat in inquisition will be a believable combo of realistic ans stylistic.

why not? Their are several schools of two blade fighting admittedly, but they are very similar in most aspects for one very good reason, they use what lets you survive a fight.  Yopu could try being a special snowflake...you'd die, but you could try for your fitrst fight..or you could use what works. (Admittedly DA:O duel weilding runs on rule of coo and da2 runs on spasmodic flailing l but still) 

[Vilegrim]

In Exile wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...
1) yes, see most dictators ever, terrifying when they have power, found hiding in a hole quaking in terror when danger comes knocking.  

... Did you just compare me with a dictator?

2) Not totally, no, but they where far less far away than DA2 was.  

Using a 2H like a baseball bat is not "far away" from reality?

3)Their are no swords in DA2 only majorettes batons that when waved 5ft away and covered in what I presume from the mass is fibreglass cause people to explode.  'Acceptaqble breaks from reality, look that up right before you look up straw man,  ma asking for weapons to be used correctly other wise take them out and give peope majorettes batons, it would have the virtue of honesty. 

Opening your entire chest when using a shield in a faux realistic combat animation is an "acceptable break"? You might as well use the weapon as a fiber glass rod, because at least in that case I don't have to accept how stupid the actual movement is in comparison to how supposedly dangerous the combat is.

And, yet again, you're dodging the point about how unrealistic RPG combat is. So people being set on fire and being 100% or their armour not caving in their chest when hit by a weapon designing to cave in their chest is an acceptable break from reality, but stylized combat animations aren't?

1) no I compared the ring wraiths to dictators.

2) they used the blow of wrath to much, and left themselves open for to long, yes, but it wasn't the magical whirlwind shock wave machine of 2. 

3) Striking with the shield does that sometimes, it is a gamble move for a 2 point secured shield.

4) people survie stuff they shouldn't i nfantasy I do not know where you are getting the idea I want realistic damage, I have never asked for that (well ok I did say a L5R crpg would own but not in telation to DA) I want people to move in a realistic way when they use weapons, and those weapons not looking ridiculous would be nice..but that is all.

[draken-heart]

Vilegrim wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Filament wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Acceptable breaks from reality.

DA:Awakenings and DA2 removed any semblance of this. Characters are superheroes.

I wouldn't agree that DAA or DA2 are fundamentally that different than DAO in terms of being unrealistic. They all have at least a few pretty flagrant examples that aren't really justified by this standard.

In that sense this rock smash ability (assuming it's just a regular 2-handed ability) isn't really a break from the norm. That doesn't mean we have to approve of that norm. It may stand out more because like KristinCousland said, the rest of the combat we've seen does look a lot better, more fluid and 'natural' etc.

Well, Cassandra does throw down what appears to be a magical totem in the middle of combat in one of the videos, too. But it's true we don't have context to know whether either of these have in-lore explanations.

True. Although I thought DA2 was somewhat more realistic with the rogue. A rogue would not learn the same fighting styles as a warrior. Dual wielding with a warrior was more believable in origins and dual wielding with a rogue was wierd.

here's hoping for combat in inquisition will be a believable combo of realistic ans stylistic.

why not? Their are several schools of two blade fighting admittedly, but they are very similar in most aspects for one very good reason, they use what lets you survive a fight.  Yopu could try being a special snowflake...you'd die, but you could try for your fitrst fight..or you could use what works. (Admittedly DA:O duel weilding runs on rule of coo and da2 runs on spasmodic flailing l but still) 

You do not see a rogue swinging two daggers or swords in a similar fashion as a warrior in movies, do you? I assumed Rogues would be more unorthodox than warriors, using speed and cunning to do as much damage as possible, unlike wahtever Origins was.

[Vilegrim]

draken-heart wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Filament wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Acceptable breaks from reality.

DA:Awakenings and DA2 removed any semblance of this. Characters are superheroes.

I wouldn't agree that DAA or DA2 are fundamentally that different than DAO in terms of being unrealistic. They all have at least a few pretty flagrant examples that aren't really justified by this standard.

In that sense this rock smash ability (assuming it's just a regular 2-handed ability) isn't really a break from the norm. That doesn't mean we have to approve of that norm. It may stand out more because like KristinCousland said, the rest of the combat we've seen does look a lot better, more fluid and 'natural' etc.

Well, Cassandra does throw down what appears to be a magical totem in the middle of combat in one of the videos, too. But it's true we don't have context to know whether either of these have in-lore explanations.

True. Although I thought DA2 was somewhat more realistic with the rogue. A rogue would not learn the same fighting styles as a warrior. Dual wielding with a warrior was more believable in origins and dual wielding with a rogue was wierd.

here's hoping for combat in inquisition will be a believable combo of realistic ans stylistic.

why not? Their are several schools of two blade fighting admittedly, but they are very similar in most aspects for one very good reason, they use what lets you survive a fight.  Yopu could try being a special snowflake...you'd die, but you could try for your fitrst fight..or you could use what works. (Admittedly DA:O duel weilding runs on rule of coo and da2 runs on spasmodic flailing l but still) 

You do not see a rogue swinging two daggers or swords in a similar fashion as a warrior in movies, do you? I assumed Rogues would be more unorthodox than warriors, using speed and cunning to do as much damage as possible, unlike wahtever Origins was.

All weapon use uses speed and agility, but yes, you could have rogues being a more fencing style as opposed to Nichon Ichti ryu style for warriors, but both are pretty much defend with  the off hand and use it to set up attacks, just done differently.

[DarthSideus2]

I wonder if all of the people posting here who want a more realistic melee style still want the Templar, Reaver, Champion, or Berzerker specializations from DAO?

[Vilegrim]

DarthSideus2 wrote...

I wonder if all of the people posting here who want a more realistic melee style still want the Templar, Reaver, Champion, or Berzerker specializations from DAO?

Templar as magic resistant warrior works, has an in universe explanation (magic plus training) Reaver (Again magic) Berzerker as a concept is ok, battle frenzy ios a thing and I can't recall them doing blatant magicy stuffs...but htey may have so that could go away, don't recall ever taking ther champion specialistation.  As soon as something stops being a warrior and becomes coz magic, suspension of disbelieve is easier for me (for instance if ground blows up, chain fly out guy had been an Arcane warrior I would go 'looks silly but kinda makes sense')

[Laughing_Man]

Well, personally I did find the rock conjuring trick strange.
A dust cloud? sure. Jagged rocks appearing from a sword strike was abit too much rule-of-cool to me.
Otherwise I liked the released gameplay I've seen.

[Anomaly-]

In Exile wrote...

1)It's actually realistic for the ostensible villains of the series to be bigger cowards than untrained peasants? You're agreeing with this statement?

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. For one thing, where is it evidenced that they're bigger cowards than untrained peasants? Besides that, it's really not unheard of. They are not all present for that battle, they lack their leader, and because they are not human they lack the passion and heart of people who continue to fight when they're overmatched. I also think there were some details from the book that were missing from the movie. It's been a long time since I read the book, but I believe it was both Aragorn and Glorfindel -- a powerful elf lord in his own right -- fighting them off.

4)We know how flesh reacts when it is set on fire, but somehow that's never stepped you from saying that it's not unrealistic for people to get hit with a fireball in the face. And we know how the human body and bones react from a warhammer blow to the chest, but that's never made you complain about how Alistar can take 5 blows from a maul and be A-OK.

Combat damage is a whole other issue. There are many abstractions at work when it comes to that. For one thing, it's entirely possible to be hit by fire and yet not be burned alive or show significant damage, especially if that fire is moving fast. On top of that, there is the fact that this is magically conjured fire and likely does not function identically to real fire. Damage in general needs to be balanced in such a way that encounters don't become trivial. When you hit someone with a warhammer and they don't die, it's not difficult to see that as an abstraction which represents either an indirect hit or being (partially) deflected by armor. These things are not difficult for me to swallow, and I can totally understand their purpose and why they work the way they do.

On the other hand, I really can't justify the animations in DA2. Not only does it look silly to me and make me feel far less attached to the combat experience, but it's particularly frustrating when my rogue misses something and I'm just left thinking "well duh, maybe if you stopped fighting like an idiot you wouldn't miss so much". It really makes me feel detached from the combat.

draken-heart wrote...

You do not see a rogue swinging two daggers or swords in a similar fashion as a warrior in movies, do you? I assumed Rogues would be more unorthodox than warriors, using speed and cunning to do as much damage as possible, unlike wahtever Origins was.

Movies are not exactly a good place to look for realism. I'm really not sure why people seem to think that warrior and rogue animations need to be so drastically different, nor do I understand the necessity for rogues to be restricted to daggers, warriors restricted to swords, etc. The truth is, there is a right way to wield two swords/daggers. That particular style is not going to vary much. The variance should be in the skills and attributes. For example, a warrior is probably stronger and will hit harder, while a rogue is likely faster and better at finding/exploiting weaknesses. You really don't need radically different animations -- aside from skills themselves -- to differentiate these two classes. Functional distinction is a lot more important here than aesthetic distinction.

[Shadow Fox]

Realmzmaster wrote...

What everyone is talking about is a preference of what they want or do not want in the game. IMHO, no one should mention realistic and Game of Thrones, TV or movie fighting in the same sentence. There is nothing realistic about film fighting. It is a stylized art form. The blows, swings etc are exaggerated on purpose because it films well.
People just accept it as "realistic" fighting because that is what they grew up with.

As evident in this thread everyone is not going to be satisfied with the combat system. Some posters like the combat in the pre-alpha footage others do not.,
It all boils down to preference and how much realism a person wants in his/her fantasy.

Poster have ideas on how mages or rogues should or should not be animated and not everyone agrees. None of this is surprising because it all comes down to preference.

The developers will simply have to produce the game they wish to produce taking in some of the commentary on the forum. The developers realize they will not please everyone. The BSN is a refection of what the most diehard fans want in a game and not even they can agree on everything or at times anything.

So everyone can voice their concern or approval. The developers will have to sort it all out. I am sure they will try to make an excellent fun game, but then fun is also subjective.

Everyone will not get what they want. They will have to live with or not buy the game. That is a choice that the consumer gets to make. The developers have to decide what game they are going to make . The developers can only hope that enough people like what they see to buy it.

*applause*

[MakutaDax]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

What everyone is talking about is a preference of what they want or do not want in the game. IMHO, no one should mention realistic and Game of Thrones, TV or movie fighting in the same sentence. There is nothing realistic about film fighting. It is a stylized art form. The blows, swings etc are exaggerated on purpose because it films well.
People just accept it as "realistic" fighting because that is what they grew up with.

As evident in this thread everyone is not going to be satisfied with the combat system. Some posters like the combat in the pre-alpha footage others do not.,
It all boils down to preference and how much realism a person wants in his/her fantasy.

Poster have ideas on how mages or rogues should or should not be animated and not everyone agrees. None of this is surprising because it all comes down to preference.

The developers will simply have to produce the game they wish to produce taking in some of the commentary on the forum. The developers realize they will not please everyone. The BSN is a refection of what the most diehard fans want in a game and not even they can agree on everything or at times anything.

So everyone can voice their concern or approval. The developers will have to sort it all out. I am sure they will try to make an excellent fun game, but then fun is also subjective.

Everyone will not get what they want. They will have to live with or not buy the game. That is a choice that the consumer gets to make. The developers have to decide what game they are going to make . The developers can only hope that enough people like what they see to buy it.

*applause*

*Double Applause*

Modifié par MakutaDax, 22 septembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[In Exile]

Anomaly- wrote...
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. For one thing, where is it evidenced that they're bigger cowards than untrained peasants?

The explanation given for why Aragon survived was (i) his entirely superhuman abilities in combat, to be somewhat on par with the wraiths in combat prowess and (ii) the fact that he had the shards of Narsil with him, a (rare) weapon that could harm the wraiths. If we draw a parallel with an actual combat encounter between humans, then Aragon was... on par with what a regular person would be relatively to a single enemy: at about the same level of skill and with some capability to harm them. 

But somehow, in Aragon's case, this mean he would win. That's precisely an example of an entirely unrealistic outcome.

Untrained peasants don't immediately break when faced with... someone of equal skill that maybe can hurt them when armed with a broken weapon. That's why they're apparently bigger cowards than untrained peasants. 

Either they're outmached against Aragon, in which case, lol realism, or they're not outmached, in which case they just ran away becase, cowards, in which case, lol realism. 

Besides that, it's really not unheard of. They are not all present for that battle, they lack their leader, and because they are not human they lack the passion and heart of people who continue to fight when they're overmatched.

Okay, so now they're overmatched by one person and 1/5th of a magic sword. But this is an example of realism?

I also think there were some details from the book that were missing from the movie. It's been a long time since I read the book, but I believe it was both Aragorn and Glorfindel -- a powerful elf lord in his own right -- fighting them off.

So seven magical enemies were defeat by two magical heroes, and what we have to draw from this is... realism?

Combat damage is a whole other issue.

It's only another issue when people try and draw entirely arbitrary lines to justify why their pet peeve is somehow an objective complain. 

There are many abstractions at work when it comes to that.

Like in stylistic combat animations. Oh, wait, no. Those are a special class.

For one thing, it's entirely possible to be hit by fire and yet not be burned alive or show significant damage,

No, it isn't. That happenes in a very narrow range of circumstances and typically involves fire that doesn't burn particularly hot when flesh isn't directly exposed. If magical fire isn't capable of harming flesh in that way, then it's not actually a useful thing in combat. 

On top of that, there is the fact that this is magically conjured fire and likely does not function identically to real fire.

You mean, kind of how the entire combat happens in a video-game where you fight undead monsters, demons and dragons? No, that would be silly. It has to 100% adhere to reality or it's completely absurd and objectively wrong.

Damage in general needs to be balanced in such a way that encounters don't become trivial. When you hit someone with a warhammer and they don't die, it's not difficult to see that as an abstraction which represents either an indirect hit or being (partially) deflected by armor.

You mean, except for the fact that it is literally shown to spalsh out blood and make contact with flesh? Even if you're completely naked and unarmed? 

These things are not difficult for me to swallow, and I can totally understand their purpose and why they work the way they do.

They're entirely absurd, and the fact that you can swallow them just illustrates how all of this is completely subjective. This is what this entire argument is about: the whole thing is subjective.

Not only does it look silly to me and make me feel far less attached to the combat experience, but it's particularly frustrating when my rogue misses something and I'm just left thinking "well duh, maybe if you stopped fighting like an idiot you wouldn't miss so much". It really makes me feel detached from the combat.

Your rogue can't miss. That's not part of the combat mechanic in DA2. All attacks hit, 100% of the time. There is a difference between glancing damage and full damage, but all attacks hit. 

Second, let me emphasize all of the subjective words (in bold). 

Modifié par In Exile, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:01 .

[draken-heart]

Anomaly- wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

You do not see a rogue swinging two daggers or swords in a similar fashion as a warrior in movies, do you? I assumed Rogues would be more unorthodox than* warriors, using speed and cunning to do as much damage as possible, unlike wahtever Origins was.

Movies are not exactly a good place to look for realism. I'm really not sure why people seem to think that warrior and rogue animations need to be so drastically different, nor do I understand the necessity for rogues to be restricted to daggers, warriors restricted to swords, etc. The truth is, there is a right way to wield two swords/daggers. That particular style is not going to vary much. The variance should be in the skills and attributes. For example, a warrior is probably stronger and will hit harder, while a rogue is likely faster and better at finding/exploiting weaknesses. You really don't need radically different animations -- aside from skills themselves -- to differentiate these two classes. Functional distinction is a lot more important here than aesthetic distinction.

"Functional" distinction? Like a rogue being faster and more precise with their strikes is not a funtional distiction? Just because it is basic, does not mean the two classes would learn from the same source. A rogue would be more self taught, and a warrior would be taught by a warrior school or something.

The basic animation is a representation of a class's combat style, and the combat style is not just their skillset. I hated origins and its expansions/DLCs because the animations made me feel like my character was a warrior no matter what class I really was (Rogue backstab/mage staff combat excluded). I would rather take two completely separate combat styles than have even the basic animation match up.

[Shadow Fox]

draken-heart wrote...

Anomaly- wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

You do not see a rogue swinging two daggers or swords in a similar fashion as a warrior in movies, do you? I assumed Rogues would be more unorthodox than* warriors, using speed and cunning to do as much damage as possible, unlike wahtever Origins was.

Movies are not exactly a good place to look for realism. I'm really not sure why people seem to think that warrior and rogue animations need to be so drastically different, nor do I understand the necessity for rogues to be restricted to daggers, warriors restricted to swords, etc. The truth is, there is a right way to wield two swords/daggers. That particular style is not going to vary much. The variance should be in the skills and attributes. For example, a warrior is probably stronger and will hit harder, while a rogue is likely faster and better at finding/exploiting weaknesses. You really don't need radically different animations -- aside from skills themselves -- to differentiate these two classes. Functional distinction is a lot more important here than aesthetic distinction.

"Functional" distinction? Like a rogue being faster and more precise with their strikes is not a funtional distiction? Just because it is basic, does not mean the two classes would learn from the same source. A rogue would be more self taught, and a warrior would be taught by a warrior school or something.

The basic animation is a representation of a class's combat style, and the combat style is not just their skillset. I hated origins and its expansions/DLCs because the animations made me feel like my character was a warrior no matter what class I really was (Rogue backstab/mage staff combat excluded). I would rather take two completely separate combat styles than have even the basic animation match up.

Well we do have different styles of karate so this isn't farfetched at all.

[Eagle Pusuit]

The reason this is so hard for people to get past is because it lacks context. We are shown a few minutes of footage and we see a guy cleaving rocks with a sword. It's a person doing something that any regular person in the Dragon Age world not be able to do. It's inconsistent with our expectations. It makes the character less relatable without some kind of context to explain why he is able to cleave rocks with a sword stroke. Is he magically enhanced? Is the sword magic? Is he some kind of superior being endowed with rock-crushing strength? We have no idea. So it just looks weird.

[draken-heart]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Anomaly- wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

You do not see a rogue swinging two daggers or swords in a similar fashion as a warrior in movies, do you? I assumed Rogues would be more unorthodox than* warriors, using speed and cunning to do as much damage as possible, unlike wahtever Origins was.

Movies are not exactly a good place to look for realism. I'm really not sure why people seem to think that warrior and rogue animations need to be so drastically different, nor do I understand the necessity for rogues to be restricted to daggers, warriors restricted to swords, etc. The truth is, there is a right way to wield two swords/daggers. That particular style is not going to vary much. The variance should be in the skills and attributes. For example, a warrior is probably stronger and will hit harder, while a rogue is likely faster and better at finding/exploiting weaknesses. You really don't need radically different animations -- aside from skills themselves -- to differentiate these two classes. Functional distinction is a lot more important here than aesthetic distinction.

"Functional" distinction? Like a rogue being faster and more precise with their strikes is not a funtional distiction? Just because it is basic, does not mean the two classes would learn from the same source. A rogue would be more self taught, and a warrior would be taught by a warrior school or something.

The basic animation is a representation of a class's combat style, and the combat style is not just their skillset. I hated origins and its expansions/DLCs because the animations made me feel like my character was a warrior no matter what class I really was (Rogue backstab/mage staff combat excluded). I would rather take two completely separate combat styles than have even the basic animation match up.

Well we do have different styles of karate so this isn't farfetched at all.

Yet, a rogue would NEVER swing LIKE a warrior. They would be more precise, even in their basic attacks. This "Functional Distinction" sounds more like "Lets give rogue and warrior the same basic attack, yet have them with unique skills."

Plus, "Karate" and "Martial Art" are not the same thing. Karate is a form of martial arts, but not all martial arts are "karates." IT is like calling a rogue quick precise strike a different style of warrior combat swing.

Modifié par draken-heart, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:21 .

[Plaintiff]

Shadobald wrote...

The reason this is so hard for people to get past is because it lacks context. We are shown a few minutes of footage and we see a guy cleaving rocks with a sword. It's a person doing something that any regular person in the Dragon Age world not be able to do. It's inconsistent with our expectations. It makes the character less relatable without some kind of context to explain why he is able to cleave rocks with a sword stroke. Is he magically enhanced? Is the sword magic? Is he some kind of superior being endowed with rock-crushing strength? We have no idea. So it just looks weird.

Well 'people' were apparently able to get past it in DA:O, when warriors could knock people over with shouting, and Rouges could paralyze enemies with singing, or summon animals from thin air.

[Flurdt Vash]

I like Style. For me combat was the best part of DA2. I also loved the slower tactic set up in DAO . What I saw looks like a fantastic mix . I think its awesome that the warrior strikes the ground so hard that the earth shatters and quakes. Keep it up BioWare, this fan couldnt be happier . Okay I said my peace, please continue the debate 

Modifié par Flurdt07, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:27 .

[Ieolus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Shadobald wrote...

The reason this is so hard for people to get past is because it lacks context. We are shown a few minutes of footage and we see a guy cleaving rocks with a sword. It's a person doing something that any regular person in the Dragon Age world not be able to do. It's inconsistent with our expectations. It makes the character less relatable without some kind of context to explain why he is able to cleave rocks with a sword stroke. Is he magically enhanced? Is the sword magic? Is he some kind of superior being endowed with rock-crushing strength? We have no idea. So it just looks weird.

Well 'people' were apparently able to get past it in DA:O, when warriors could knock people over with shouting, and Rouges could paralyze enemies with singing, or summon animals from thin air.

Rogues.

Obviously it was all taken way too far and 'people' are disappointed.  Dial it back.

[Plaintiff]

Ieolus wrote...
Rogues.

Are you in the running for this year's pedantry award? Because I think you might win.

Obviously it was all taken way too far and 'people' are disappointed.  Dial it back.

Bull****. If animals popping out of thin air wasn't "way too far" the first time, then 'people' are hypocrites, and should be ignored.

I and other 'people' in this very forum have no problem whatsoever with the combat animations we've seen in DA:I's pre-alpha combat footage.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:39 .

[Shadow Fox]

draken-heart wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Anomaly- wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

You do not see a rogue swinging two daggers or swords in a similar fashion as a warrior in movies, do you? I assumed Rogues would be more unorthodox than* warriors, using speed and cunning to do as much damage as possible, unlike wahtever Origins was.

Movies are not exactly a good place to look for realism. I'm really not sure why people seem to think that warrior and rogue animations need to be so drastically different, nor do I understand the necessity for rogues to be restricted to daggers, warriors restricted to swords, etc. The truth is, there is a right way to wield two swords/daggers. That particular style is not going to vary much. The variance should be in the skills and attributes. For example, a warrior is probably stronger and will hit harder, while a rogue is likely faster and better at finding/exploiting weaknesses. You really don't need radically different animations -- aside from skills themselves -- to differentiate these two classes. Functional distinction is a lot more important here than aesthetic distinction.

"Functional" distinction? Like a rogue being faster and more precise with their strikes is not a funtional distiction? Just because it is basic, does not mean the two classes would learn from the same source. A rogue would be more self taught, and a warrior would be taught by a warrior school or something.

The basic animation is a representation of a class's combat style, and the combat style is not just their skillset. I hated origins and its expansions/DLCs because the animations made me feel like my character was a warrior no matter what class I really was (Rogue backstab/mage staff combat excluded). I would rather take two completely separate combat styles than have even the basic animation match up.

Well we do have different styles of karate so this isn't farfetched at all.

Yet, a rogue would NEVER swing LIKE a warrior. They would be more precise, even in their basic attacks. This "Functional Distinction" sounds more like "Lets give rogue and warrior the same basic attack, yet have them with unique skills."

Plus, "Karate" and "Martial Art" are not the same thing. Karate is a form of martial arts, but not all martial arts are "karates." IT is like calling a rogue quick precise strike a different style of warrior combat swing.

Uh I was agreeing with you.