721 réponses à ce sujet

[draken-heart]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Uh I was agreeing with you.

Oh, ok then.

[Flurdt Vash]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Very Well said

[Ieolus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieolus wrote...
Rogues.

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

Gosh, do you think so?  Oh how I would so love to win.

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Animals popping out of thin air?  You might win this thread's straw man award, good luck!

[ISpeakTheTruth]

It is because mage's are going to have by default the most thematically appealing and varied attacks the other two are going to be given things that are out of place to keep them from being boring. Like the Scorpion chain and the rock breaking like we saw in the video. I can also imagine archers having an ability that allows one arrow to split into a dozen arrows even though it won't be explained as to why.

It is a necessary evil to keep the other two classes from being boring.

[Ieolus]

www.youtube.com/watch (Dragon Age: Inquisition - Live Demo Gameplay)
11:13 into the vid... they aren't going to have unlimited healing potions anymore, "because we are going for a more realistic feel".  Emphasis mine.

Modifié par Ieolus, 22 septembre 2013 - 03:25 .

[BBK4114]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

It is because mage's are going to have by default the most thematically appealing and varied attacks the other two are going to be given things that are out of place to keep them from being boring. Like the Scorpion chain and the rock breaking like we saw in the video. I can also imagine archers having an ability that allows one arrow to split into a dozen arrows even though it won't be explained as to why.

It is a necessary evil to keep the other two classes from being boring.

This is true for some people but I think it's also what is bothering the people who oppose the flashiness. They just want to be simple soldiers, not mages who wield swords.

Someone earlier posted that the thing that bothered them was if the rogues and warriors can do magic things why are mages locked up for it?

Doesn't it kind of make the whole mage rebellion thing seem moot or even silly if everyone has magical abilities? 

[In Exile]

Ieolus wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch (Dragon Age: Inquisition - Live Demo Gameplay)
11:13 into the vid... they aren't going to have unlimited healing potions anymore, "because we are going for a more realistic feel".  Emphasis mine.

The degree of comparison is very important. Clearly they keeping the stylized combat animations. 

[Ieolus]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

It is because mage's are going to have by default the most thematically appealing and varied attacks the other two are going to be given things that are out of place to keep them from being boring. Like the Scorpion chain and the rock breaking like we saw in the video. I can also imagine archers having an ability that allows one arrow to split into a dozen arrows even though it won't be explained as to why.

It is a necessary evil to keep the other two classes from being boring.

You can have appealing and varied attacks w/o them being out of place graphically.  Other games do it.

[Ieolus]

In Exile wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch (Dragon Age: Inquisition - Live Demo Gameplay)
11:13 into the vid... they aren't going to have unlimited healing potions anymore, "because we are going for a more realistic feel".  Emphasis mine.

The degree of comparison is very important. Clearly they keeping the stylized combat animations. 

Now degree is important to you?  You have been arguing all thread about absolute realism.  You are a trip.

[In Exile]

Ieolus wrote...
Now degree is important to you?  You have been arguing all thread about absolute realism.  You are a trip.

1. My entire point has been that combat animations relative to damage are unrealistic, hence making the complaints about animations at minimum inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. This idea is fundamentally relational, so it's apparent I was never talking about anything absolute.

2. I'm talking about what Bioware is saying, i.e., that DA:I will aim for more realism that [unspecified comparison]. 

3. Since potions are about damage, Bioware is quite obviously not talking about combat animations. 

So... yeah. There we go. 

[Anomaly-]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
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.[/quote]

Who's explanation? In the book he is described as having superior combat prowess to the wraiths, and it goes on to say that he and Glorfindel may be able to handle 2 or 3 each, but more than that is highly unlikely.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Why do you keep calling him Aragon? Anyway, I just explained that isn't the case. At least not the way the book tells it.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Untrained peasants do that quite often, which is why militia usually fall to trained armies. It depends largely on the peasant, of course.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

They are outmatched, and it's realistic in the book's universe. Aragorn is of a certain race of human that makes him superior in nearly every way, as well as growing up in harsh environments constantly surrounded by war and combat. Glorfindel is a powerful elf lord. The wraiths, while immortal, didn't really gain extra prowess in combat aside from their ability to terrify people.

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

See above.

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

Yes, because it's consistent with the universe as described in the book.

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

No, it's quite a different issue when you consider implementation and resources. For example, there are dozens of different ways an impact can occur, and many ways damage can show itself on a target. However, it's not likely they're going to spend a ton of extra resources for many, many more visual effects and animations when abstractions will do. The numbers are there to depict the damage done, because changes in numbers are far less expensive than changes in animations. On the other hand, when my rogue cartwheels across the battlefield to stab someone, what is gained by that? He could have just ran up and stabbed, which probably would be less complicated to animate, as well as being applicable to other classes, and wouldn't have left me as detached and disillusioned about the combat as the cartwheeling.

[quote]There are many abstractions at work when it comes to that. [/quote]
[quote]
Like in stylistic combat animations. Oh, wait, no. Those are a special class.[/quote]

As I just explained, the over-the-top animations of DA2 are more complicated, less universally applicable, and cover fewer bases than more moderate animations would. It's not an abstraction, it's a very exclusive animation that might be attempted 0.001% of the time and yet is shown nearly every time.

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

But again, that's more abstraction. The fire may have grazed the target, or it may not have been cast by a particularly powerful mage, or what have you. There is a tangible benefit to this abstraction, because as I said it's much more cost-efficient to have these things represented by the numbers displayed rather than implementing dozens of additional animations/effects.

I'm also a bit confused. You're complaining that the fire isn't doing as much damage as it should? I usually see you complaining about how overpowered fireball was in DA:O. Or is the problem you have with it that there are no charred or ashy animations?

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

Undead monsters, demons, and dragons exist in that world. It's established and explained in great detail in the lore. I have no issue with that. Nowhere in the lore or the universe is it explained that when you enter combat, you enter a benny hill like universe where everyone flies or cartwheels across the battlefield and spin kicks flasks instead of simply throwing them. If the lore explained that in this world, taking utterly ridiculous and unnecessarry risks in combat is a good thing that gains you favour with the gods or something, I might feel differently about it.

[quote]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. [/quote]
[quote]
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? [/quote]

Like I said, it's just a matter of trying to get the most mileage out of as few animations as possible.


[quote]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.[/quote]
[quote]
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. [/quote]

I wasn't aware of that. I only played through the game once, so there are some things I'm fuzzy about. But I do remember that you could miss with flasks, which isn't surprising when you decide to do a jumping, spinning roundhouse kick to them instead of simply throwing them.

[quote]
Second, let me emphasize all of the subjective words (in bold). 
[/quote]

Yes, I won't deny this is all my opinion. But I do think it's pretty objective that there is a practical reason for having abstractions for damage done in combat in lieu of having to implement tons of expensive animations. By constrast, the animations in DA2 are much less universally applicable, and therefore I get far less mileage out of them. I could see my rogue might fly at an enemy once in a blue moon, when it's the last enemy on the field and is already staggered, but all the time? That's applying the special case which should be applicable to 0.01% of situations to 99.99% of them instead. I think that's pretty objectively unrealistic, and it's harder to look past because there is no explanation or justification for it.

[quote]draken-heart wrote...
"Functional" distinction? Like a rogue being faster and more precise with their strikes is not a funtional distiction? [/quote]

Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean a totally different animation is necessary. It just means it would be faster.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

How do you know that? Rogues can be duelists, which seem to be pretty martially trained, especially considering the specialization is taught to you by another duelist in Origins. Warriors can be chasind barbarians who may not get any formal training at all.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

I completely disagree. I hated the way DA2 made the combat for rogues and warriors feel homogenized to me. A rogue in origins had to measure distance and threat levels of targets before picking someone to backstab, while in DA2 they can just leap across the battlefield making distance and positioning non-factors, at which point they play pretty identically to warriors. I also see no good reason to restrict the types of equipment they can use. Animations are the least important means of class differentiation, for me.

[quote]draken-heart wrote...
Yet, a rogue would NEVER swing LIKE a warrior. [/quote]

They would, if they both know how to swing properly.

[quote]
They would be more precise, even in their basic attacks. [/quote]

Maybe, but that would be because their physical attributes would make them more precise, not because they're swinging in a completely different way. Coming from someone with an extensive background in martial arts, there are variations of the same martial art that differ slightly on opposite ends of the world, but the fundamentals are the same. That's because there is a right way of using a weapon, and once people figure it out, they're not going to do it wildly differently.

[quote]
Plus, "Karate" and "Martial Art" are not the same thing. Karate is a form of martial arts, but not all martial arts are "karates." [/quote]

But there are several different forms of karate. I think that's what he/she meant?

Modifié par Anomaly-, 22 septembre 2013 - 03:48 .

[Ieolus]

In Exile wrote...

Ieolus wrote...
Now degree is important to you?  You have been arguing all thread about absolute realism.  You are a trip.

1. My entire point has been that combat animations relative to damage are unrealistic, hence making the complaints about animations at minimum inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. This idea is fundamentally relational, so it's apparent I was never talking about anything absolute.

2. I'm talking about what Bioware is saying, i.e., that DA:I will aim for more realism that [unspecified comparison]. 

3. Since potions are about damage, Bioware is quite obviously not talking about combat animations. 

So... yeah. There we go. 

Yeah... no.  The thread's point is that the stylistic combat animations look rediculous and pull you out of any sense of immersion.

What BioWare was talking about is "a more realistic feel".  They used the example of limited potions to show that.  How you can then equate that to damage only is reaching.  Nice try.

Modifié par Ieolus, 22 septembre 2013 - 03:47 .

[Rawgrim]

Summoning bears in the deep roads and atop Fort Drakon was silly. Shouting at people and stunning them was silly. Stomping your foot in the ground and stunning people were silly too. DA:O had plenty lame things as well. It severely messed with my immersion, but I somehow got past it. Mostly because these things wern`t really in my face so much.

Summoning rocks everytime I do a downward chop with a 2 handed sword, etc, is more of a constant thing. Seems like it happens with every move. If the over the top stuff in DA:O is a 6, this bit is an 8. And Cassandra bashing down a castle gate with 2 slams of her shield, is way past the scale in so many ways. What even the point of catapults if its clearly possible to just jab down gates, or smash out huge chunks of rock with a sword. If this is common, tearing down a castle wall should be, by game logic, done in 5 mins. In effect this means spending a year building a castle would be a very very pointless exercise.

So, yeah, all of the DA games has something that doesn`t make sense whatsoever. Its just there to look cool. Some fancy combat is all good, but sometimes it gets taken too far, and that can severely mess up the logic of the entire setting. And thats bad.

[Plaintiff]

Ieolus wrote...

Animals popping out of thin air?  You might win this thread's straw man award, good luck!

If you think that's a strawman, you haven't actually played Dragon Age: Origins. The Ranger specialization literally calls animals out of thin air, even if you are miles underground.

Feel free to rejoin the discusion when you actually know what you're talking about.

[Rawgrim]

The ringwraiths arn`t really that badass. They are afraid of fire and water too, if I remember correctly. They are just partially in "this world", and they mostly rely on fear.

[Ieolus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Animals popping out of thin air?  You might win this thread's straw man award, good luck!

If you think that's a strawman, you haven't actually played Dragon Age: Origins. The Ranger specialization literally calls animals out of thin air, even if you are miles underground.

Feel free to rejoin the discusion when you actually know what you're talking about.

It has nothing to do with combat animations looking silly, so yeah, straw man.

[Ieolus]

Rawgrim wrote...

The ringwraiths arn`t really that badass. They are afraid of fire and water too, if I remember correctly. They are just partially in "this world", and they mostly rely on fear.

Yeah I don't know where people got the idea that the Nazgul are some kind of super-warriors.  Fear was their biggest weapon in the books and in the movies (I believe, the movies sucked so I don't have much of a memory for them).

[Rawgrim]

Ieolus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Animals popping out of thin air?  You might win this thread's straw man award, good luck!

If you think that's a strawman, you haven't actually played Dragon Age: Origins. The Ranger specialization literally calls animals out of thin air, even if you are miles underground.

Feel free to rejoin the discusion when you actually know what you're talking about.

It has nothing to do with combat animations looking silly, so yeah, straw man.

Actually he does have a point. The animals are summoned during combat, after all. And it is very silly. Its pretty much on par with the unlimited smokebombs the rogues have in DA2. Those gets summoned out of thin air too.

[Ieolus]

Rawgrim wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Animals popping out of thin air?  You might win this thread's straw man award, good luck!

If you think that's a strawman, you haven't actually played Dragon Age: Origins. The Ranger specialization literally calls animals out of thin air, even if you are miles underground.

Feel free to rejoin the discusion when you actually know what you're talking about.

It has nothing to do with combat animations looking silly, so yeah, straw man.

Actually he does have a point. The animals are summoned during combat, after all. And it is very silly. Its pretty much on par with the unlimited smokebombs the rogues have in DA2. Those gets summoned out of thin air too.

A point that using that ability underground is unrealistic?  No doubt.  Does it invalidate what this thread is about?  Hardly.

[Rawgrim]

Ieolus wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Animals popping out of thin air?  You might win this thread's straw man award, good luck!

If you think that's a strawman, you haven't actually played Dragon Age: Origins. The Ranger specialization literally calls animals out of thin air, even if you are miles underground.

Feel free to rejoin the discusion when you actually know what you're talking about.

It has nothing to do with combat animations looking silly, so yeah, straw man.

Actually he does have a point. The animals are summoned during combat, after all. And it is very silly. Its pretty much on par with the unlimited smokebombs the rogues have in DA2. Those gets summoned out of thin air too.

A point that using that ability underground is unrealistic?  No doubt.  Does it invalidate what this thread is about?  Hardly.

True. It doesn`t invalidate anything.

[draken-heart]

Anomaly- wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
"Functional" distinction? Like a rogue being faster and more precise with their strikes is not a funtional distiction?

Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean a totally different animation is necessary. It just means it would be faster.

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.

How do you know that? Rogues can be duelists, which seem to be pretty martially trained, especially considering the specialization is taught to you by another duelist in Origins. Warriors can be chasind barbarians who may not get any formal training at all.

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.

I completely disagree. I hated the way DA2 made the combat for rogues and warriors feel homogenized to me. A rogue in origins had to measure distance and threat levels of targets before picking someone to backstab, while in DA2 they can just leap across the battlefield making distance and positioning non-factors, at which point they play pretty identically to warriors. I also see no good reason to restrict the types of equipment they can use. Animations are the least important means of class differentiation, for me.

draken-heart wrote...
Yet, a rogue would NEVER swing LIKE a warrior.

They would, if they both know how to swing properly.

They would be more precise, even in their basic attacks.

Maybe, but that would be because their physical attributes would make them more precise, not because they're swinging in a completely different way. Coming from someone with an extensive background in martial arts, there are variations of the same martial art that differ slightly on opposite ends of the world, but the fundamentals are the same. That's because there is a right way of using a weapon, and once people figure it out, they're not going to do it wildly differently.

Plus, "Karate" and "Martial Art" are not the same thing. Karate is a form of martial arts, but not all martial arts are "karates."

But there are several different forms of karate. I think that's what he/she meant?

A rogue would be LESS likely to swing to attack, more like stab or swing-to-parry then stab.

Rogues are like a completely different Style of Martial arts. Just because it is a different form of Karate does not, in any way, make it not Karate.

Modifié par draken-heart, 22 septembre 2013 - 04:24 .

[Plaintiff]

Ieolus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Animals popping out of thin air?  You might win this thread's straw man award, good luck!

If you think that's a strawman, you haven't actually played Dragon Age: Origins. The Ranger specialization literally calls animals out of thin air, even if you are miles underground.

Feel free to rejoin the discusion when you actually know what you're talking about.

It has nothing to do with combat animations looking silly, so yeah, straw man.

First of all, what about having a bear underground doesn't look silly? Explain this to me.

Secondly, bull****. Put that goalpost back where you found it.

The entire basis of your (and everyone else's) argument is that a warrior being able to make jagged spires pop out of the ground damages the integrity of the setting. If you're willing to let equally absurd things slide because "they don't look silly", then you're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 septembre 2013 - 04:20 .

[Ieolus]

draken-heart wrote...

A rogue would be LESS likely to swing to attack, more like stab or swing-to-parry then stab.

What you are talking about is what YOU envision a rogue is, and how a rogue fights.  How did Duncan fight?  He is the only canon rogue that we have some real exposure to.

[TEWR]

I'd like to know if the combat disparity that was everpresent in DAII has been addressed.

*has not been very up-to-date on DAI news*

[Ieolus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Animals popping out of thin air?  You might win this thread's straw man award, good luck!

If you think that's a strawman, you haven't actually played Dragon Age: Origins. The Ranger specialization literally calls animals out of thin air, even if you are miles underground.

Feel free to rejoin the discusion when you actually know what you're talking about.

It has nothing to do with combat animations looking silly, so yeah, straw man.

First of all, what about having a bear underground doesn't look silly? Explain this to me.

Secondly, bull****. Put that goalpost back where you found it.

The entire basis of your "(and everyone else's) argument is that a warrior being able to make jagged spires pop out of the ground damages the integrity of the setting. If you're willing to let equally absurd things slide because "they don't look silly", then you're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

lolz... you keep calling me (and others) names.  That isn't a way to have a discussion.

The goalposts are stated in the title and OP, right where they should be.  You bring up underground bears (bearunderground.net/) not me.  I never played a range spec in game, in fact I never play a ranger in any RPG where it is available, so I never saw your underground bears.  Is that silly?  Sure is.  They should have restricted that spell to outdoors only.  Is it relevent to the in-your-face sword swings, no.

Modifié par Ieolus, 22 septembre 2013 - 04:25 .