721 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

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?

No, you don't. Because 1) Fire resistant armor and enchantments can be reasoned to be weakening the fire as it hits you and 2) there are certain concessions that must be made for games, like tacking on a health bar.

Though I wouldn't mind enemies stopping, dropping, and rolling if they're set on fire -- allow the player to possibly inflict "Burn" status similar to Pokemon.

3) Right now I'm not talking about combat itself -- really, my point on that is rather about the disparity of the player vs. foe paradigm, not realism itself -- but rather the realism in taking down a metal gate and rendering warfare itself as pointless.

Also, cutscenes establish that fire and arrows are fatal. Good enough for me.

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. 

Well for one, that's irrelevant to my point.

For another, if you want another person to say "This **** ain't cool, yo" then count me in.

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

Well there aren't Qunari soldiers with cannons everywhere, now are there? The fact that Thedas went "These guys are destroying our castles with ease because of their magic powder!" is now rendered a pointless addition because... hey... anyone can train themselves into being a living battering ram!

Christ, if it was Shale doing the battering this wouldn't be a problem because Shale's a Golem. If there was Qunari powder nearby, this wouldn't be a problem.

But it's a human being.

And a plain ol' fireball probably wouldn't undo stone or metal. A fireball triggering an explosion of.. say... lyrium, probably would.

Though you'd have to be an idiot to place a volatile and valuable substance so close to a metal gate or the walls.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:53 .

[draken-heart]

@Ieolus: I mean the rogue gets a set amount of bombs pre-equipped when taking the skill, and you would gain another "use" with an upgrade.

@Rawgrim: Think of the bombs as "limits" of using the skill, without the bombs you can't use them. You would have to buy them, just they would automatically add to the uses

[Rawgrim]

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. 

Being set on fire, surviving more than  sword chop etc has been in the game from beginning. I am sure you would have complained about it if they suddenly included instant death from every sword chop in the next game.

Smashing gates with 2 jabs is something new, and extremely over the top.

Mages still needs mana, and enough spellpower + the right spells to damage a gate.

The gunpowder the qunari are using is part of the plot. A plotline that is now rendered pointless since shields do just as much damage as a barrel of gunpowder.

[Rawgrim]

draken-heart wrote...

@Ieolus: I mean the rogue gets a set amount of bombs pre-equipped when taking the skill, and you would gain another "use" with an upgrade.

@Rawgrim: Think of the bombs as "limits" of using the skill, without the bombs you can't use them. You would have to buy them, just they would automatically add to the uses

I agree with that. Or craft more bombs, for that matter.

[Ieolus]

draken-heart wrote...

@Ieolus: I mean the rogue gets a set amount of bombs pre-equipped when taking the skill, and you would gain another "use" with an upgrade.

@Rawgrim: Think of the bombs as "limits" of using the skill, without the bombs you can't use them. You would have to buy them, just they would automatically add to the uses

Ahh, I see.  I guess I don't have a strong enough opinion on that.  I think I would rather use it as often as I have them in my inventory.  Maybe a shorter timer if you have greater skill in using them.

[draken-heart]

Rawgrim wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

@Ieolus: I mean the rogue gets a set amount of bombs pre-equipped when taking the skill, and you would gain another "use" with an upgrade.

@Rawgrim: Think of the bombs as "limits" of using the skill, without the bombs you can't use them. You would have to buy them, just they would automatically add to the uses

I agree with that. Or craft more bombs, for that matter.

Was thinking of ME3 when I came up with the Idea.

Ieolus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

@Ieolus: I mean the rogue gets a set amount of bombs pre-equipped when taking the skill, and you would gain another "use" with an upgrade.

@Rawgrim: Think of the bombs as "limits" of using the skill, without the bombs you can't use them. You would have to buy them, just they would automatically add to the uses

Ahh, I see.  I guess I don't have a strong enough opinion on that.  I think I would rather use it as often as I have them in my inventory.  Maybe a shorter timer if you have greater skill in using them.

It would be more like the ME3 grenades, you have a set number, but need to get more. The number would be more of a max number of uses.

Modifié par draken-heart, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:54 .

[slimgrin]

I was impressed by Deep Down. It doesn't look arcady, or silly like DA:I does. Even Dragon's Dogma looks more visceral and realistic than DA:I

Modifié par slimgrin, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:55 .

[The Hierophant]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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 change!".

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.

Aside from what you stated, if Cassandra's level of strength is attainable through training and exercise, what would be the point of constructing a gate that can easily be detroyed by a single human using two shield bashes?

Unless that gate was weathered by a few centuries worth of rust (maintenance fail) or corrosive magic, it would be comparable to a reinforced door being made of a sheet of aluminum foil.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:59 .

[Shadow Fox]

Ieolus wrote...

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.

By that logic gaming should have never moved past the 8 bit era.
You're assuming the combat system was what caused DA2 to under-perform.

[TEWR]

The Hierophant wrote...

Aside from what you stated, if Cassandra's level of strength is attainable through training and exercise, what would be the point of constructing a gate can easily be detroyed by a single human using two shield bashes?

Unless that gate was weathered by a few centuries worth of rust (maintenance fail) or corrosive magic, it would be comparable to a reinforced door being made of a sheet of aluminum foil.

Well, the keep itself is a part of abandoned Grey Warden outposts erected during the Second Blight, so I suppose there'd be some centuries worth of rust.

Though would a person still be able to bash that gate's brains in anyway? And would Cassandra be able to take down any gate in question, not just rusty ones?

EDIT: Though a cult's moved in recently, according to the video, which means they could've repaired it (somewhat). Honestly, I hate the notion of lazy banditry happening all the time. Bandits take over a keep but don't even try to keep the place as being functional.

I suppose part of it's human nature, but it's also tiresome to see it in pretty much every game with fortresses and bandits and the like.

Show some initiative, bandits!

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:04 .

[Rawgrim]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

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.

By that logic gaming should have never moved past the 8 bit era.
You're assuming the combat system was what caused DA2 to under-perform.

People were execting something similar to the first gam. Wich is perfectly understandable. Instead they got a game with a very simplified combat systen, no tactics required, and completely over the top animations. I am sure that is one of the reasons why it underperformed.

[d4eaming]

KristinCousland wrote...

d4eaming wrote...

ismoketoomuch wrote...

A discussion about medieval sword weights and how and why these weapons have been misrepresented in recent history and in the entertainment industry:
http://www.thearma.o...ays/weights.htm

A example of a chinese staff fighting kata (set pattern of moves used to demonstrate competence in techniques). That ready position, sort of a quarter turn with staff at side should be familiar to anyone who played DAII. I also would like to highlight the dynamic tempo (fast, slow, super fast, pause etc.) which you see thruout the kata, which is typical of higher level kata and is meant to be realistic.


Its probably too late, but I hope Bioware develops their fighting animations for DAInq based on motion capture techniques using trained martial artists, including medieval weapons users. If they have to slow things down to look 'realistic', so be it.

I used to collect blades, along with my ex, both swords and daggers. Most were trash, reproductions, unbalanced, with half or rat-tail tangs. The things would fall apart if you hit anything with them. We did get a very nice set of matching sword and dagger from my parents. Fairly certain it was a short sword, and the dagger was about ten inches over all. Light as a feather, with a full tang. Modern people would get tired wielding it until they built up muscle, but they weren't heavy at all.

People think a broadsword or a bastard sword weighed 40 pounds? What is wrong with people?

What is wrong with you?  Look at the swords we are talking about.  Have you ever seen a real sword?

I said I had seen and held a lot of them. What's the point you're trying to make? No broad or bastard sword in real life that I have ever handled weighed more than a few pounds. I never really got the impression that the swords in game were massive, only exaggerated.

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
No, you don't. Because 1) Fire resistant armor and enchantments can be reasoned to be weakening the fire as it hits you and 2) there are certain concessions that must be made for games, like tacking on a health bar.

You mean the absolute crap armour sold for the lowest possible price is fire resistant? And lightning resistant? And frost resistant! Man, the Circle must be more efficient than a modern sweatshop, enchating every single piece of clothing in Fereldan! 

And the bolded and underlined point is exactly the issue. There "must be" concessions? You mean, we have to draw a completely arbitrary line in the sand to justify certain completely unrealistic mechanics as just being part of the genre, and if you have a problem with it, too bad? 

Though I wouldn't mind enemies stopping, dropping, and rolling if they're set on fire -- allow the player to possibly inflict "Burn" status similar to Pokemon.

How about we have the armour melt into the NPCs flesh, having them flay around and wail? 

Or how about we have the first few cuts in a battle field get infected while the NPCs are rolling around in mud and who knows what else, with a whole amputation mini-game? 

3) Right now I'm not talking about combat itself -- really, my point on that is rather about the disparity of the player vs. foe paradigm, not realism itself -- but rather the realism in taking down a metal gate and rendering warfare itself as pointless.

You mean, how a single mage has already rendered all fortification irrelevant? A storm of the century inside a holdfast would kill every living then in there. A siege is pointless. How about those death clouds? Murder everything inside a town while their holled up! Or how about a firestorm? But every single person in a keep alive! Or how about a blizzard? Freeze them all to death! 

If we're talking about abilities in game not being played straight, well, you've got a whole class that this isn't happening for.

Also, cutscenes establish that fire and arrows are fatal. Good enough for me.

But it's not good enough for you that the cutscenes establish that warfare is not rendered pointless? Right, that would be applying the same standard to two similar things, and we know that's not OK at all.

Well for one, that's irrelevant to my point.

No. You just made your point: warfare is rendered irrelevant. Archery is rendered irrelevant by the way damage is counted. Yet somehow that's perfectly OK.

For another, if you want another person to say "This **** ain't cool, yo" then count me in.

I want the same standard applied to two almost identical things.

[Well there aren't Qunari soldiers with cannons everywhere, now are there? The fact that Thedas went "These guys are destroying our castles with ease because of their magic powder!" is now rendered a pointless addition because... hey... anyone can train themselves into being a living battering ram!

They were everywhere for about a hundred years. There's a whole codex entry on it! The Tevinter Imperium built an empire using mages that could burn every single person alive inside their fortification. 

Even if this was a setting where every single person could become a battering ram, the entire concept of a fortification was already rendered irrelevant by mages, who could firebomb buildings at will. Hell, firestorm is just an airstrike that you can't even stop with a SAM site!

And a plain ol' fireball probably wouldn't undo stone or metal. A fireball triggering an explosion of.. say... lyrium, probably would.

Given how adept a fireball is at killing golems made out of stone, that's just wrong. 

And metal? Seriously? You mean the substance that turns into molten liquid at high temperatures isn't undone by fire? 

[Ieolus]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

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.

By that logic gaming should have never moved past the 8 bit era.
You're assuming the combat system was what caused DA2 to under-perform.

Really Mr. Spock?  You need to re-read the teachings of Surak.  Compare and contrast Baldur's Gate with Baldur's Gate 2.  Expectations met and exceeded.  That is what *I* expected from the spiritual successor to BG.

As to my assumption about what caused DA2 to under-perform (lol, I do love that term.. use it all the time at work), it was definately one of them.  Many people had many opinions about what went wrong with DA2, and I've seen plenty of citations of the combat, including mine.  Does that evidence rise to the level of squat?  Nope.  Just anicdotes from yours truly.

[Rawgrim]

In Exile wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
No, you don't. Because 1) Fire resistant armor and enchantments can be reasoned to be weakening the fire as it hits you and 2) there are certain concessions that must be made for games, like tacking on a health bar.

You mean the absolute crap armour sold for the lowest possible price is fire resistant? And lightning resistant? And frost resistant! Man, the Circle must be more efficient than a modern sweatshop, enchating every single piece of clothing in Fereldan! 

And the bolded and underlined point is exactly the issue. There "must be" concessions? You mean, we have to draw a completely arbitrary line in the sand to justify certain completely unrealistic mechanics as just being part of the genre, and if you have a problem with it, too bad? 

Though I wouldn't mind enemies stopping, dropping, and rolling if they're set on fire -- allow the player to possibly inflict "Burn" status similar to Pokemon.

How about we have the armour melt into the NPCs flesh, having them flay around and wail? 

Or how about we have the first few cuts in a battle field get infected while the NPCs are rolling around in mud and who knows what else, with a whole amputation mini-game? 

3) Right now I'm not talking about combat itself -- really, my point on that is rather about the disparity of the player vs. foe paradigm, not realism itself -- but rather the realism in taking down a metal gate and rendering warfare itself as pointless.

You mean, how a single mage has already rendered all fortification irrelevant? A storm of the century inside a holdfast would kill every living then in there. A siege is pointless. How about those death clouds? Murder everything inside a town while their holled up! Or how about a firestorm? But every single person in a keep alive! Or how about a blizzard? Freeze them all to death! 

If we're talking about abilities in game not being played straight, well, you've got a whole class that this isn't happening for.

Also, cutscenes establish that fire and arrows are fatal. Good enough for me.

But it's not good enough for you that the cutscenes establish that warfare is not rendered pointless? Right, that would be applying the same standard to two similar things, and we know that's not OK at all.

Well for one, that's irrelevant to my point.

No. You just made your point: warfare is rendered irrelevant. Archery is rendered irrelevant by the way damage is counted. Yet somehow that's perfectly OK.

For another, if you want another person to say "This **** ain't cool, yo" then count me in.

I want the same standard applied to two almost identical things.

[Well there aren't Qunari soldiers with cannons everywhere, now are there? The fact that Thedas went "These guys are destroying our castles with ease because of their magic powder!" is now rendered a pointless addition because... hey... anyone can train themselves into being a living battering ram!

They were everywhere for about a hundred years. There's a whole codex entry on it! The Tevinter Imperium built an empire using mages that could burn every single person alive inside their fortification. 

Even if this was a setting where every single person could become a battering ram, the entire concept of a fortification was already rendered irrelevant by mages, who could firebomb buildings at will. Hell, firestorm is just an airstrike that you can't even stop with a SAM site!

And a plain ol' fireball probably wouldn't undo stone or metal. A fireball triggering an explosion of.. say... lyrium, probably would.

Given how adept a fireball is at killing golems made out of stone, that's just wrong. 

And metal? Seriously? You mean the substance that turns into molten liquid at high temperatures isn't undone by fire? 

It would depend on the spellpower, no? Less spellpower means fire spells do less damage. And burns with less heat.

[In Exile]

Rawgrim wrote...
Being set on fire, surviving more than  sword chop etc has been in the game from beginning. I am sure you would have complained about it if they suddenly included instant death from every sword chop in the next game.

Why would I complain? I spent the entire thread talking about how much I hate everything about how an RPG handles damage.

Mages still needs mana, and enough spellpower + the right spells to damage a gate.

You're right. They could just use storm of the century to murder everything. Oh, wait, no, I forget. Damage immunity rules apply! No one burns in Thedas. Hit them in the face with four fireballs and they brush it off and get some soup for supper. Just like how it happens all the time in the real world.

[In Exile]

Rawgrim wrote...
It would depend on the spellpower, no? Less spellpower means fire spells do less damage. And burns with less heat.

No, it wouldn't. Unless you're seriously going to accept the counter-argument that maybe the designers of that gate just didn't give it enough gate HP. If only they gave it 9999 gate HP! Then Cassandra would take hours bashing it. Huzzah! Realism. 

[Rawgrim]

In Exile wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Being set on fire, surviving more than  sword chop etc has been in the game from beginning. I am sure you would have complained about it if they suddenly included instant death from every sword chop in the next game.

Why would I complain? I spent the entire thread talking about how much I hate everything about how an RPG handles damage.

Mages still needs mana, and enough spellpower + the right spells to damage a gate.

You're right. They could just use storm of the century to murder everything. Oh, wait, no, I forget. Damage immunity rules apply! No one burns in Thedas. Hit them in the face with four fireballs and they brush it off and get some soup for supper. Just like how it happens all the time in the real world.

nOt many mages are at a high enough level to cast storm of the century.

No need for it anyway, since it only takes 2 jabs with a shield to break a gate.

[The Hierophant]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Aside from what you stated, if Cassandra's level of strength is attainable through training and exercise, what would be the point of constructing a gate can easily be detroyed by a single human using two shield bashes?

Unless that gate was weathered by a few centuries worth of rust (maintenance fail) or corrosive magic, it would be comparable to a reinforced door being made of a sheet of aluminum foil.

Well, the keep itself is a part of abandoned Grey Warden outposts erected during the Second Blight, so I suppose there'd be some centuries worth of rust.

Though would a person still be able to bash that gate's brains in anyway? And would Cassandra be able to take down any gate in question, not just rusty ones?

There goes my hopes of calling in a squad of goons to batter down doors and stuff. Plus if DA's humans were that strong the Warden could have used Alistair's head to smash the bars of their cell in Fort Drakon. Then there's all those locked doors in DA2 too.

EDIT: Though a cult's moved in recently, according to the video, which means they could've repaired it (somewhat). Honestly, I hate the notion of lazy banditry happening all the time. Bandits take over a keep but don't even try to keep the place as being functional. I suppose part of it's human nature, but it's also tiresome to see it in pretty much every game with fortresses and bandits and the like. Show some initiative, bandits!

lol. I wouldn't be surprised if the gate smash ability could be used on any gate or door.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:13 .

[Marbazoid]

The combat shown in the videos for DAI does have a greater sense of "weight" and a more methodical pace to it then DA2. It's still a bit more jazzy then DAO, but I think they are trying to strike a middle ground there.

The rocks flying up from the sword smash is fine with me, but it's just a little too large and obnoxious. It's less about it looking realistic, and more about it looking "good". The effect just seems a little out of proportion and silly, and upsets the look of combat a little, and looks even stranger when those rock effects seem to "sink" away afterwards. TBH, I feel like the mage fire storm spell had similar visual drawbacks, it's that rock impact effect.

I'm not sure I'm being much help here, topics like the "look" of combat are about as subjective as it gets. It would help if we knew a bit more about the teams overall vision for what combat in DAI should look like, because at the moment we are just applying our own aesthetic preference to what we have been shown so far, and the team can't really fault us for that.

Modifié par Marbazoid, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:14 .

[Rawgrim]

In Exile wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
It would depend on the spellpower, no? Less spellpower means fire spells do less damage. And burns with less heat.

No, it wouldn't. Unless you're seriously going to accept the counter-argument that maybe the designers of that gate just didn't give it enough gate HP. If only they gave it 9999 gate HP! Then Cassandra would take hours bashing it. Huzzah! Realism. 

Spending hours breaking down a gate sounds more plausible than spending 2 seconds, don`t you agree?

[In Exile]

Rawgrim wrote...
nOt many mages are at a high enough level to cast storm of the century.

Not many warriors are high enough level to break gates.

No need for it anyway, since it only takes 2 jabs with a shield to break a gate. 

Nope! They didn't get the NPC to teach them the specialization and all non-protagonists are stuck at level one, so we just solved the entire problem using your own logic from above. 

Spending hours breaking down a gate sounds more plausible than spending 2 seconds, don`t you agree?

Nope. Fireball burns golems alive, it can burn walls. It was part of DA:O, and we know that sets the standard for the entire series, so I'm dissapointed in how unrealistic DA:I is being, since we can't set the keep on fire like we could Shale. 

Modifié par In Exile, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:11 .

[Ieolus]

Marbazoid wrote...

I'm not sure I'm being much help here, topics like the "look" of combat are about as subjective as it gets. It would help if we knew a bit more about the teams overall vision for what combat in DAI should look like, because at the moment we are just applying our own aesthetic preference to what we have been shown so far, and you guys can't fault us for that.

Well, the only thing I can find on it is this quote taken from the video (www.youtube.com/watch @11:13) ... "Because we are going for a more realistic feel".

[Ieolus]

In Exile wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
nOt many mages are at a high enough level to cast storm of the century.

Not many warriors are high enough level to break gates.

No need for it anyway, since it only takes 2 jabs with a shield to break a gate. 

Nope! They didn't get the NPC to teach them the specialization and all non-protagonists are stuck at level one, so we just solved the entire problem using your own logic from above. 

Spending hours breaking down a gate sounds more plausible than spending 2 seconds, don`t you agree?

Nope. Fireball burns golems alive, it can burn walls. It was part of DA:O, and we know that sets the standard for the entire series, so I'm dissapointed in how unrealistic DA:I is being, since we can't set the keep on fire like we could Shale. 

Reductio ad absurdum at its finest.

Modifié par Ieolus, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:13 .

[Rawgrim]

In Exile wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
nOt many mages are at a high enough level to cast storm of the century.

Not many warriors are high enough level to break gates.

No need for it anyway, since it only takes 2 jabs with a shield to break a gate. 

Nope! They didn't get the NPC to teach them the specialization and all non-protagonists are stuck at level one, so we just solved the entire problem using your own logic from above. 

Spending hours breaking down a gate sounds more plausible than spending 2 seconds, don`t you agree?

Nope. Fireball burns golems alive, it can burn walls. It was part of DA:O, and we know that sets the standard for the entire series, so I'm dissapointed in how unrealistic DA:I is being, since we can't set the keep on fire like we could Shale. 

Doesn`t say anywhere that its a specialization. Nor do we know if Cassandra is level 1 when she does it. Frankly it looks like the shield bash talent, and you get that one early.

The golems do t burn, they simply fall over.