721 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Rawgrim wrote...

I preffer to earn the badassery, though. By leveling up and whatsnot. Not having it given to me by default, and have it excluded from all my enemies.

Same. I like to earn it as well. I also enjoy realistic warfare (the whole Cassandra taking down a gate thing irks me) because that can be badass as well.

But I can enjoy being badass from the start as well (Kratos, for instance).

But still, what's the entire point of building an army if the party really has no need for it? If all enemies are reduced to weaklings and your "help" is more trouble then it's worth?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:09 .

[Flurdt Vash]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Just because DA:O had some pretty wierd combat elements, doesn`t mean it invalidates all arguments towards the next games taking the step 10 further and going even further out there with the combat. The issue is when the combat movements starts to really interfere with the setting and the lore.

So combat slowing to a crawl was fine yet speeding it up is game breaking?Having massive weapons and armor and superhuman feats in Origins was fine yet in DA2 suddenly is an issue?

Intresting isnt it I have been reading and watching everyone go back and forth and .... I just dont get it. Everything looks bad ass to me.

[Ieolus]

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

No, their role definitely seems different. That doesn't mean they both can't swing a sword (or dagger) the same way though does it?

They should have different abilities that help them in their role on the battlefield.

If the rogue was a warrior who simply added stealth to his/her arsenal, sure. But a rogue who TRAINED as a rogue, that should have a distinct difference in terms of how the class operates and fights.

I am sorry for quoting myself, but I guess I am saying that the Rogue should at least "feel" different than a warrior, like having the attacks flow into each other more or something.

I do not disagree.  It would make no sense to have a different character class if he/she does not play differently than another class.

But, you said they should swing the same, which is wrong because the rogue would actually be more fluid with his/her attacks and warrior would be more brutal/just for effect.

Maybe we are talking about different things.  You think rogues play the same as warriors in Origins?

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Just because DA:O had some pretty wierd combat elements, doesn`t mean it invalidates all arguments towards the next games taking the step 10 further and going even further out there with the combat. The issue is when the combat movements starts to really interfere with the setting and the lore.

And when do they start to "really" interfere, if Origins didn't already succed in that manner?

When swords can smash stones, and shields can smash castle gates with two jabs, its way more out there than some bear showing up in the deep roads. It completely removes the point of castles, catapults, and whatever else people hide behind to feel safe. That makes it way more implausable than an animal showing up. That can, if one wants, be explained by the bear having followed you from a distance. Not that I do that, I don`t use summons because it looks, as you say, silly.

You could also knock people over by shouting and paralyze them with singing. If that didn't render castles and catapaults redundant, then nothing ever will.

[draken-heart]

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

No, their role definitely seems different. That doesn't mean they both can't swing a sword (or dagger) the same way though does it?

They should have different abilities that help them in their role on the battlefield.

If the rogue was a warrior who simply added stealth to his/her arsenal, sure. But a rogue who TRAINED as a rogue, that should have a distinct difference in terms of how the class operates and fights.

I am sorry for quoting myself, but I guess I am saying that the Rogue should at least "feel" different than a warrior, like having the attacks flow into each other more or something.

I do not disagree.  It would make no sense to have a different character class if he/she does not play differently than another class.

But, you said they should swing the same, which is wrong because the rogue would actually be more fluid with his/her attacks and warrior would be more brutal/just for effect.

Maybe we are talking about different things.  You think rogues play the same as warriors in Origins?

The whole combat animation system in origins was clunky, like it was designed around the warrior, then spread to the other classes.

If you were a warrior, and I a rogue (might be a male rogue in the first run) I would try to flow my attacks into each other, rather than waiting for one attack to finish to start another one.

[Rawgrim]

Rogues did kind of behave the same way during combat as warriors did in DA:O. Apart from the sneak attacks. So I can see why they changed them to have a different style.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Just because DA:O had some pretty wierd combat elements, doesn`t mean it invalidates all arguments towards the next games taking the step 10 further and going even further out there with the combat. The issue is when the combat movements starts to really interfere with the setting and the lore.

And when do they start to "really" interfere, if Origins didn't already succed in that manner?

When swords can smash stones, and shields can smash castle gates with two jabs, its way more out there than some bear showing up in the deep roads. It completely removes the point of castles, catapults, and whatever else people hide behind to feel safe. That makes it way more implausable than an animal showing up. That can, if one wants, be explained by the bear having followed you from a distance. Not that I do that, I don`t use summons because it looks, as you say, silly.

You could also knock people over by shouting and paralyze them with singing. If that didn't render castles and catapaults redundant, then nothing ever will.

You didn`t smash any gates or walls by singing or shouting. But, yes. I`ve said it all along. DA:O had some very silly elements too. Doesn`t mean they should take it 10 steps further and add to it.

[Ieolus]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not believe Plantiff is trying to invalidate anything. Plaintiff is pointing out the silliness began with DAO. In fact a certain amount of silliness appears in all crpgs. DAO had Scattershot, Shattering shot, Sunder arms, Sunder armor, Destroyer, Feast of the Fallen, War Cry (with Superiority), Ranger Summons, Frightening appearance etc. I will not even get started with the Awakening expansion and it upping the silliness scale.

So when someone says dial the silliness back to what the original silliness level or to the level of silliness a particular poster wants or does not want?

So Bioware is suppose to ignore the gamers who have no problem with the pre-alpha footage combat animations and change it to satisfy those who did not like it?

If that is the case I prefer the combat system to be more like Mount & Blade, or the multiplayer games Chivalry and War of the Roses..

I can answer that, since I said 'dial back' on the silliness.

DA:Origins was the first game in the series.  Can we all agree on that at the least?

Now, having played Origins, a certain expectation was set as to how any sequels would play.  Even if you did not like aspects of its combat, this is not something you can argue with.

So yes, as I said way back in this thread, DA:Origins would be the baseline (for silliness, if you want to call it that).

Is BioWare supposed to ignore the gamers who like the pre-alpha footage of the combat animations?  I don't know.  Should BioWare ignore the people who dislike it and were huge fans of DA:Origins?  Maybe it comes down to which is a bigger group and do some business calculations, I don't know.  Which game sold more?  Which game had a huge outcry after it came out?  Is that even fair for me to ask?  I don't know.. its now 1am and I'm rambling.

[TEWR]

Plaintiff wrote...
You could also knock people over by shouting and paralyze them with singing. If that didn't render castles and catapaults redundant, then nothing ever will.

One would think the answer to DAO's silliness and lack of realism is to try and make it more realistic while still maintaining enough.... pizzazz, not just going "All style, no substance" from then on.

[Ieolus]

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

No, their role definitely seems different. That doesn't mean they both can't swing a sword (or dagger) the same way though does it?

They should have different abilities that help them in their role on the battlefield.

If the rogue was a warrior who simply added stealth to his/her arsenal, sure. But a rogue who TRAINED as a rogue, that should have a distinct difference in terms of how the class operates and fights.

I am sorry for quoting myself, but I guess I am saying that the Rogue should at least "feel" different than a warrior, like having the attacks flow into each other more or something.

I do not disagree.  It would make no sense to have a different character class if he/she does not play differently than another class.

But, you said they should swing the same, which is wrong because the rogue would actually be more fluid with his/her attacks and warrior would be more brutal/just for effect.

Maybe we are talking about different things.  You think rogues play the same as warriors in Origins?

The whole combat animation system in origins was clunky, like it was designed around the warrior, then spread to the other classes.

If you were a warrior, and I a rogue (might be a male rogue in the first run) I would try to flow my attacks into each other, rather than waiting for one attack to finish to start another one.

That sounds like WoW rogues, which I guess is not a bad thing because they were fun to play.

[Realmzmaster]

I would like to see the system from Realms of Arkania utilized. In that system the party could die from disease or starvation before finding the first enemy to fight. I want a system that really dials back the silliness to the point it barely exists.

One other point of silliness in DAO the PC or companion with stealth could walk through a room filled with mabari and not be sniffed out. Yet a mabari can track and find the warden (if not playing human noble) across country.

[Plaintiff]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
You could also knock people over by shouting and paralyze them with singing. If that didn't render castles and catapaults redundant, then nothing ever will.

One would think the answer to DAO's silliness and lack of realism is to try and make it more realistic while still maintaining enough.... pizzazz, not just going "All style, no substance" from then on.

I'm not trying to answer anything. I don't think there is a lack of substance, or that there ever was. I don't think there's a problem at all. I like what I've seen of the combat, and I don't want Buzz Killingtons harshing my groove.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:20 .

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
You could also knock people over by shouting and paralyze them with singing. If that didn't render castles and catapaults redundant, then nothing ever will.

One would think the answer to DAO's silliness and lack of realism is to try and make it more realistic while still maintaining enough.... pizzazz, not just going "All style, no substance" from then on.

I.m not trying to answer anything. I don't think there is a lack of substance, or that there ever was. I don't think there's a problem at all. I like what I've seen of the combat, and I don't want Buzz Killingtons harshing my groove.

There is a lack of substance when we can suddenly smash castles with out swords and shields, when we couldn`t even dent a simple door that way in the previous games.

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...
There is a lack of substance when we can suddenly smash castles with out swords and shields, when we couldn`t even dent a simple door that way in the previous games.

That's has nothing to do with substance. And besides, the previous games were limited by outdated technology. It never rained in Thedas previously either. Are we gonna complain about that? Is rain flashy and childish?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
You could also knock people over by shouting and paralyze them with singing. If that didn't render castles and catapaults redundant, then nothing ever will.

One would think the answer to DAO's silliness and lack of realism is to try and make it more realistic while still maintaining enough.... pizzazz, not just going "All style, no substance" from then on.

I.m not trying to answer anything. I don't think there is a lack of substance, or that there ever was. I don't think there's a problem at all. I like what I've seen of the combat, and I don't want Buzz Killingtons harshing my groove.

There is a lack of substance when we can suddenly smash castles with out swords and shields, when we couldn`t even dent a simple door that way in the previous games.

That's silly, the previous games were limited by outdated technology. It never rained in Thedas previously either. Are we gonna complain about that?

It snowed in the sacred ashes trailer. That is weather technology from the engine. At no point in any DA games were we told, or shown, that rain doesn`t excist in Thedas. We do have castles and siege engines, however. If one can smash down castles with swrds and shields, that makes every castle every buildt in thedas completely pointless.

[Ieolus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
There is a lack of substance when we can suddenly smash castles with out swords and shields, when we couldn`t even dent a simple door that way in the previous games.

That's has nothing to do with substance. And besides, the previous games were limited by outdated technology. It never rained in Thedas previously either. Are we gonna complain about that? Is rain flashy and childish?

Man, you call people hypocrites and moving goalposts, and then you create more straw men to knock down.  You are a regular forum warrior!

Adding weather would be a nice new addition to the series, why would anyone disagree with that?  Stick to the subject of the thread, or atleast to the post you are replying to.  He was talking about smashing castle gates with a shield.  If that is not over-the-top, nothing is.

[TEWR]

Plaintiff wrote...

That's has nothing to do with substance. And besides, the previous games were limited by outdated technology. It never rained in Thedas previously either. Are we gonna complain about that? Is rain flashy and childish?

That's a rather bad strawman, Plaintiff, to say "There's rain now too! So unrealistic because DAO didn't have that as a terrain changer!".

Destroying a metal gate with just a shield isn't just unrealistic, it's impossible. Yeah, yeah, yeah... magic's impossible too, but in Thedas there's a standard of reality where magic falls into it. Magic is thus realistic for the setting. Likewise, there's a standard of physics for Thedas... but this violates that, and is thus unrealistic for the setting (and certainly our world) and shouldn't even be possible.

There was no point, anywhere in the setting, where metal gates were destroyed by one person. There was a point where it took a friggin' cannon wave of magical energy to destroy metal gates and stone: Vigil's Keep.

Beyond that it renders siege warfare as pointless. It renders all warfare as pointless if you can just find someone to go "Two hits, tops" and boom, you're in.

FFXII had realistic combat that was also stylish, without rendering siege warfare as pointless (the Battle of Nalbina, for instance, was great because it required a magical paling to stand to give the defenders a shot at winning).

EDIT: I wonder if Allan's still reading the thread... not that it matters really. I enjoy the discussion itself.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:44 .

[draken-heart]

Ieolus wrote...

That sounds like WoW rogues, which I guess is not a bad thing because they were fun to play.

Never thought about it like that. But still, the point of my arguements were that Rogue and Warrior are separate classes, and should actually be different in terms of how they fight (not just in skills/talents, but even in basic animation).

[Ieolus]

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

That sounds like WoW rogues, which I guess is not a bad thing because they were fun to play.

Never thought about it like that. But still, the point of my arguements were that Rogue and Warrior are separate classes, and should actually be different in terms of how they fight (not just in skills/talents, but even in basic animation).

I will agree with you... how they fight, skills/talents, AND basic animations.  As long as they aren't rediculous and over-the-top. 

[Rawgrim]

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

That sounds like WoW rogues, which I guess is not a bad thing because they were fun to play.

Never thought about it like that. But still, the point of my arguements were that Rogue and Warrior are separate classes, and should actually be different in terms of how they fight (not just in skills/talents, but even in basic animation).

I will agree with you... how they fight, skills/talents, AND basic animations.  As long as they aren't rediculous and over-the-top. 

I agree too. If my rogue uses smokebombs, I want them to be available because I have bought them and equipped them.

[draken-heart]

Rawgrim wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

That sounds like WoW rogues, which I guess is not a bad thing because they were fun to play.

Never thought about it like that. But still, the point of my arguements were that Rogue and Warrior are separate classes, and should actually be different in terms of how they fight (not just in skills/talents, but even in basic animation).

I will agree with you... how they fight, skills/talents, AND basic animations.  As long as they aren't rediculous and over-the-top. 

I agree too. If my rogue uses smokebombs, I want them to be available because I have bought them and equipped them.

OR, Rogue gets a set amount to start, and an upgrade adds another?

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Destroying a metal gate with just a shield isn't just unrealistic, it's impossible. Yeah, yeah, yeah... magic's impossible too, but in Thedas there's a standard of reality where magic falls into it. Magic is thus realistic for the setting. Likewise, there's a standard of physics for Thedas... but this violates that, and is thus unrealistic for the setting (and certainly our world) and shouldn't even be possible.

Do I need to review how being set on fire is fatal in the setting? Or how a single swordblow should be enough to kill a person? Or how being frozen once is fatal? Or how three arrows can almost kill the Warden, even though just seconds before 10 wouldn't even phase you in your mage robes? Even if you were complete naked?

DA:O has lots of things that are impossible. As always, this obsession with the combat animation only works when you close your eyes to the thing that happens four seconds after the animation, which is to say the actual damage. 

Beyond that it renders siege warfare as pointless. It renders all warfare as pointless if you can just find someone to go "Two hits, tops" and boom, you're in.

Being able to turn into a pincussion while being shot at by 10 archers also renders ranged combat irrelevant, but no one seems to be complaining about that one. 

And being able to defeat DA:O on nightmare naked renders armour irrelevant, but apparently that one is OK too. 

Edit:

Not to mention that, frankly, mages and the qunari should have already rendered fortifications irrelevant. 

Modifié par In Exile, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:44 .

[Ieolus]

draken-heart wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

That sounds like WoW rogues, which I guess is not a bad thing because they were fun to play.

Never thought about it like that. But still, the point of my arguements were that Rogue and Warrior are separate classes, and should actually be different in terms of how they fight (not just in skills/talents, but even in basic animation).

I will agree with you... how they fight, skills/talents, AND basic animations.  As long as they aren't rediculous and over-the-top. 

I agree too. If my rogue uses smokebombs, I want them to be available because I have bought them and equipped them.

OR, Rogue gets a set amount to start, and an upgrade adds another?

What does that mean, adds another?  If a hypothetical smoke bomb isn't in your inventory, how can you use it?  How is that an ability that is inherent to the class?  Magic?

[Rawgrim]

draken-heart wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

That sounds like WoW rogues, which I guess is not a bad thing because they were fun to play.

Never thought about it like that. But still, the point of my arguements were that Rogue and Warrior are separate classes, and should actually be different in terms of how they fight (not just in skills/talents, but even in basic animation).

I will agree with you... how they fight, skills/talents, AND basic animations.  As long as they aren't rediculous and over-the-top. 

I agree too. If my rogue uses smokebombs, I want them to be available because I have bought them and equipped them.

OR, Rogue gets a set amount to start, and an upgrade adds another?

I wouldn`t want to just gt them. That means the game is deciding what kind of rogue my character is. But maybe having 3 equipped, and a bel might let yu have 2 more equipped?

[Ieolus]

In Exile wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Destroying a metal gate with just a shield isn't just unrealistic, it's impossible. Yeah, yeah, yeah... magic's impossible too, but in Thedas there's a standard of reality where magic falls into it. Magic is thus realistic for the setting. Likewise, there's a standard of physics for Thedas... but this violates that, and is thus unrealistic for the setting (and certainly our world) and shouldn't even be possible.

Do I need to review how being set on fire is fatal in the setting? Or how a single swordblow should be enough to kill a person? Or how being frozen once is fatal? Or how three arrows can almost kill the Warden, even though just seconds before 10 wouldn't even phase you in your mage robes? Even if you were complete naked?

DA:O has lots of things that are impossible. As always, this obsession with the combat animation only works when you close your eyes to the thing that happens four seconds after the animation, which is to say the actual damage. 

Beyond that it renders siege warfare as pointless. It renders all warfare as pointless if you can just find someone to go "Two hits, tops" and boom, you're in.

Being able to turn into a pincussion while being shot at by 10 archers also renders ranged combat irrelevant, but no one seems to be complaining about that one. 

And being able to defeat DA:O on nightmare naked renders armour irrelevant, but apparently that one is OK too. 

Edit:

Not to mention that, frankly, mages and the qunari should have already rendered fortifications irrelevant. 

LOL, you and your absolutes.  I know you understand what abstraction is.  I know you know everything you just described is an abstraction of combat, one that has been employed in RPGs since the invention of the hit point.  You are just being an ass trying to make your point, I understand.

However, one character smashing a castle gate is not an abstraction.  That, according to the video, is a specific build (the battering ram) you can spec your warrior into.  That is not right.