721 réponses à ce sujet

[Jupiter79]

It was a bit baffling to me, honestly. With the strides taken toward being able to affect the player's environment (and other more realistic choices implemented in DA:I), I didn't understand why the floor that the PC shattered would reform. It seemed a little too Final Fantasy (which I love and anticipate that sort of over-the-top animation from).

That said, I'll ignore it and enjoy the game all the same.

[Neon Rising Winter]

For me it's a matter of how the combat feels to play and watch, not whether it is realistic or not. I want my heavily armoured warrior with a stupidly big sword to feel like they are smashing their way through all who oppose them. I want a lightly armoured rogue with a couple of daggers to feel like an agile swashbuckling type.

I'm not overly concerned with how realistic the visuals used to achieve that are, except in as much as restricting it to only realistic looking combat limits the options and makes skills harder to differentiate. My gut reaction is I'd rather see the ground leap up now and then than be stuck watching 27 different ways to swing a sword.

[KristinCousland]

Rakia Time wrote...

KristinCousland wrote...

Like in DA2 the warrior swung a gigantic two handed sword like gravity and intertia did not exist and rogues seemed like escapees from cirque de soleil.

You know, the average two handed sword weighs less that 3kg, so swinging it is well within the abilities of your average 8 year old

A Scottish claymore would weigh closer to 5 kilograms.  Anyhow, I get your point I think.

The problem with DA2 is that those two handed swords were A LOT larger than a normal claymore.

That is why it looks weird.  I mean the sword probably weighs as much as I do, and even though I do like to train and lift weights I could not hope to swing such a monster.

Modifié par KristinCousland, 19 septembre 2013 - 09:50 .

[The Elder King]

Ukki wrote...

That combat was just too much full of Awesome. I can't but help to think that it is made to lure in more gamers age 10 - 15. Kids may like it but for me, nay, it is the opposite.

You're right. Only kids could play at one of the DA games (including the first) without facepalming for the lack of realism in the gameplay.

Modifié par hhh89, 19 septembre 2013 - 09:29 .

[Vilegrim]

[quote]Valadras21 wrote...

I just want to throw in my 2 cents and say that- overall- I liked DA2's combat animations. I thought they looked fine by themselves, and only looked ridiculous once attack+movement speed buffs were put into play. If you play a 2h warrior without any attack speed bonuses, it actually looks pretty decent. I also happened to like all the leaping and flipping that rogues did. And the Mage staff attacks.

All that said, I wasn't too thrilled by the rock spawning sword attack. But guess what?

ALPHA FOOTAGE! It's a visual effect that probably isn't done, and that attack might not even exist in that form in the final game.

I'm not worried. I dig the last two DA games and this one is looking absolutely fantastic so far.[/quote
Where as I view da2 as one of the worst rpgs I have ever played with the awesome button horror of a combat system as being the go to example  of how pointless and terrible combat has become in all rpgs due to the pollution of the genre by mmo mechanics. 

[Vilegrim]

[quote]Vilegrim wrote...

[quote]Valadras21 wrote...

I just want to throw in my 2 cents and say that- overall- I liked DA2's combat animations. I thought they looked fine by themselves, and only looked ridiculous once attack+movement speed buffs were put into play. If you play a 2h warrior without any attack speed bonuses, it actually looks pretty decent. I also happened to like all the leaping and flipping that rogues did. And the Mage staff attacks.

All that said, I wasn't too thrilled by the rock spawning sword attack. But guess what?

ALPHA FOOTAGE! It's a visual effect that probably isn't done, and that attack might not even exist in that form in the final game.

I'm not worried. I dig the last two DA games and this one is looking absolutely fantastic so far.[/quote


Where as I view da2 as one of the worst rpgs I have ever played with the awesome button horror of a combat system as being the go to example  of how pointless and terrible combat has become in all rpgs due to the pollution of the genre by mmo mechanics. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

To say that the line is completely arbitrary is not entirely correct.

While poeple have differing amounts of tolerance for various things, and different levels of suspension of disbelief, that doesn't change the fact that some things are more or less realistic/believable.
For example: I and Bob maye have different tolerance to sour food - but because he can tolare a lemon doesnt' mean it's not moe sour than an apple.
Or, human lifting a ton and liftin 100 tons are both unrealistic - but the second one is more unrealistic.

Now, something doesn't have to be "realistic" to be "believable". Realistic is usually used to indicate stict adherence and simulation of realty, but it can also be used as a term to mean the same thing as believability. Believability (or versimilitude) is more about coherence - some things can be believable, even if they are unrealistic.

Having said that, it should be clear that realism is BY DEFAULT believable.

Gameplay and story segragation is NOT NECESSARY in a game, and indeed, it may end up hurting the game (atmosphere, immersion) especially if there is a big disconnect between lore, cutscenes and gameplay.

To that end, overblown attacks/powers that look like they belong in a Superman or DBZ comic aren't helping.

I consider it proudent to aim for great beleviabiltiy. The smaller the suspension of disbelief necessary to immerse onself, the better.

Now if one askes "why should the game be tailored more to those with lesser suspension of disbelief", then the answer is simple.
People who have a high tolerance for spicy/sour can still easily enjoy normal food. The reverse is not true. Same here.

[Rawgrim]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

To say that the line is completely arbitrary is not entirely correct.

While poeple have differing amounts of tolerance for various things, and different levels of suspension of disbelief, that doesn't change the fact that some things are more or less realistic/believable.
For example: I and Bob maye have different tolerance to sour food - but because he can tolare a lemon doesnt' mean it's not moe sour than an apple.
Or, human lifting a ton and liftin 100 tons are both unrealistic - but the second one is more unrealistic.

Now, something doesn't have to be "realistic" to be "believable". Realistic is usually used to indicate stict adherence and simulation of realty, but it can also be used as a term to mean the same thing as believability. Believability (or versimilitude) is more about coherence - some things can be believable, even if they are unrealistic.

Having said that, it should be clear that realism is BY DEFAULT believable.

Gameplay and story segragation is NOT NECESSARY in a game, and indeed, it may end up hurting the game (atmosphere, immersion) especially if there is a big disconnect between lore, cutscenes and gameplay.

To that end, overblown attacks/powers that look like they belong in a Superman or DBZ comic aren't helping.

I consider it proudent to aim for great beleviabiltiy. The smaller the suspension of disbelief necessary to immerse onself, the better.

Now if one askes "why should the game be tailored more to those with lesser suspension of disbelief", then the answer is simple.
People who have a high tolerance for spicy/sour can still easily enjoy normal food. The reverse is not true. Same here.

Spot on.

[Bleachrude]

It still comes down to this Lotion.

You have no problem with an ogre swinging a club at your character and your character not being sent fling over the field yet the fact that your character can actually use that strength (because that's the only "realistic" explanation) to affect the world.

So to those that have a problem with warriors being strong enough to bash open a gate, here's a question.

When an ogre hits a warrior, exactly how do you justify it in your head that the warrior doesn't get sent flying....

[Liamv2]

I would like the combat to be as realistic as magic is.

[Vilegrim]

For me it's simple, if your combat system requires everyone to use magic to work (beyond the abstraction necessary to allo the hero to be a dragon slayer, which is an established trope and can be ignored) you have a major problem. In short if I wanted to play a korean mmo combat system aion is free to play. I don't and the style is infecting other genres with uninteresting overblown visuals that I find dull at best.

[Vilegrim]

Bleachrude wrote...

It still comes down to this Lotion.

You have no problem with an ogre swinging a club at your character and your character not being sent fling over the field yet the fact that your character can actually use that strength (because that's the only "realistic" explanation) to affect the world.

So to those that have a problem with warriors being strong enough to bash open a gate, here's a question.

When an ogre hits a warrior, exactly how do you justify it in your head that the warrior doesn't get sent flying....

He 'dodged' hp being an abstraction of narrow escapes desperate parries that use up 'heroic' luck and the engine doesn't bother showing. Same with catching fire: overblown fx to make it clear in the way embers wouldn't be.

[filetemo]

Bleachrude wrote...


So to those that have a problem with warriors being strong enough to bash open a gate, here's a question.

When an ogre hits a warrior, exactly how do you justify it in your head that the warrior doesn't get sent flying....

because an ogre already has a knockdown move, so yes, he can, indeed, send me flying. Just not always.

The warrior knocking down a gate looks ridiculous because the door is... HUGE!!! If it was a warrior knocking down a wooden dungeon door, that would be fine.

Imagine a warrior knocking down a normal sized door with a shield bash... hell even with a kick.Real people can do that.
Now imagine this warrior knocking down the 18 feet tall door of a castle with his 7 feet tall and 3 feet wide sword... it looks oversized and ridiculous.

[Topsider]

Melee combat, especially sword fighting, has rarely been done well in games. Weapons either seem too light and strike with no impact, or are unable to parry, which means you just hit the enemy over and over until their health has gone. You can't block unless you use a shield.

Skyrim (first person view) has reasonable melee, but is very limited next to games like Chivalry: Medieval Warfare - which was actually a kickstarter project and still has better combat than Bethesda managed.

Also, Blade of Darkness (released in 2001) has melee combat that is more frenetic, and realistic, than most games today. It's somewhat dated graphically but the fights are deadly. Fast, chaotic, and brutal. No 'flashy' animations, just bloody carnage.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bleachrude wrote...

It still comes down to this Lotion.

You have no problem with an ogre swinging a club at your character and your character not being sent fling over the field yet the fact that your character can actually use that strength (because that's the only "realistic" explanation) to affect the world.

So to those that have a problem with warriors being strong enough to bash open a gate, here's a question.

When an ogre hits a warrior, exactly how do you justify it in your head that the warrior doesn't get sent flying....

By all accounts one *should* be sent flying and fighting ogres should be avout avoidance, ambusges, traps and long-range blasting.

You assume I don't have a problem with it. I do, but not to the same extent as some other things. Part of the reason is also why. Combat is often abstracted.
I know we will never get the full range opf motions/stlye/techniques one can have in RL, simply because it's too complex and time and resource consuming to animate.

Not saying aan ogre hitting a character sending them flying isn't doable - it very much is. I would like to see it, but the game has to be designed from the get-go for such type of fighting. Also, the resources necessary have to be there. So some things are how they are simpel because there aren't enough resources to go around and you have to cut corners somewhere.

The same does not apply to the other mentioned cases.
Quote the contrary - the flashy moves usually require more time and effort, and thus mroe resources.

And I'd rather have 10 different "normal" sword swings than a move that lets me jump into the air, fall like a meteor (with atmospheric re-entry FX) and hit the ground sending shockwaves.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 19 septembre 2013 - 11:59 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Topsider wrote...

Melee combat, especially sword fighting, has rarely been done well in games. Weapons either seem too light and strike with no impact, or are unable to parry, which means you just hit the enemy over and over until their health has gone. You can't block unless you use a shield.

I had an idea for a very realistic combat system for years, where a character would actually become visibly better at swordfighting, but it would require tons of work and animations.
Basicly, it's based on possible states and option.

High guard stance, low guard stance, etc, etc.. from each you have a entre array of possible moves. Attacks (high, low, left, right), parries(parry left, parry right, etc.), dodge, physical (kick, push, etc..)
And of coruse, collision detection for that fluid animation system from that one game (was it Oni?) where anitions seemlesy transition.

Depending on your skill/expereince, your auto-attack would automaticly switch back and forth and pick better moves the better your skill.

[Das Tentakel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

It still comes down to this Lotion.

You have no problem with an ogre swinging a club at your character and your character not being sent fling over the field yet the fact that your character can actually use that strength (because that's the only "realistic" explanation) to affect the world.

So to those that have a problem with warriors being strong enough to bash open a gate, here's a question.

When an ogre hits a warrior, exactly how do you justify it in your head that the warrior doesn't get sent flying....

By all accounts one *should* be sent flying and fighting ogres should be avout avoidance, ambusges, traps and long-range blasting.

You assume I don't have a problem with it. I do, but not to the same extent as some other things. Part of the reason is also why. Combat is often abstracted.
I know we will never get the full range opf motions/stlye/techniques one can have in RL, simply because it's too complex and time and resource consuming to animate.

Not saying aan ogre hitting a character sending them flying isn't doable - it very much is. I would like to see it, but the game has to be designed from the get-go for such type of fighting. Also, the resources necessary have to be there. So some things are how they are simpel because there aren't enough resources to go around and you have to cut corners somewhere.

The same does not apply to the other mentioned cases.
Quote the contrary - the flashy moves usually require more time and effort, and thus mroe resources.

And I'd rather have 10 different "normal" sword swings than a move that lets me jump into the air, fall like a meteor (with atmospheric re-entry FX) and hit the ground sending shockwaves.

A somewhat more 'realistic' combat system isn't incompatible with high fantasy either. I recently played and finished an older stealth action RPG, Dark Messiah. I think it’s a rather flawed game (but, at least on PC, still worth a play – the visuals haven’t aged too badly either), but one strong feature is the sense of consistency between the strength, capabilities and vulnerability of your character, Sareth, and that of the other characters and creatures in the game.

Almost right at the start you’re confronted with an attack by necromancers on the heavily fortified city of Stonehelm. How does the enemy get in? By using fast and agile ghouls (kind of necromancer spetsnaz forces) to climb across the walls and by having an Undead Cyclops break through the strongly built outer gate.



The ghouls turn out to be just about manageable one-on-one, but very dangerous in groups. The Cyclops requires several (magically charged) ballista bolts for it to be wounded and hunch over in pain so he can be finished off by regular soldiers striking it in the eye. This remains a constant later in the game: Ghouls are dangerous in groups, Cyclops have to be hit in their vulnerable spot. Being hit by a Cyclops will cost you most of your health (a bit ‘unrealistic’, although Sareth is not entirely human, which may explain a higher than normal ‘endurance’, but a lot better than just shrugging it off due to level and number of hitpoints).
A Cyclops can easily grab your character and throw you away, again costing much of your health. There also (smallish) dragons that can only be hurt by using magically charged ballista bolts or dropping a steel portcullis on their back, and a wyrmlike monster that you can only avoid, not defeat.

These things (plus very nicely realized fantasy architecture) had a big impact on my feeling of immersion in the game (although, unfortunately, the game’s undeniable flaws partly negated this). Big critters became actually scary and powerful again, rather than just hit point sponges, my biggest complaint about major enemies in DA, WoW and various other fantasy CRPG’s. Even human-size opponents like ghouls and vampire knights, provided they acted in small groups, became fearsome again.

In my opinion the same (potentially very high) level of immersion, at least within the context of the combat, is difficult if not impossible to achieve with combat systems that feature fancy acrobatics and hit point sponge bosses (aka ‘High Dragons’), and that’s actually totally separate from whether the game’s setting is ‘high fantasy’ a la Dragon Age or Might and Magic, or more medium-ish fantasy like The Witcher.

[Uccio]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

It still comes down to this Lotion.

You have no problem with an ogre swinging a club at your character and your character not being sent fling over the field yet the fact that your character can actually use that strength (because that's the only "realistic" explanation) to affect the world.

So to those that have a problem with warriors being strong enough to bash open a gate, here's a question.

When an ogre hits a warrior, exactly how do you justify it in your head that the warrior doesn't get sent flying....

By all accounts one *should* be sent flying and fighting ogres should be avout avoidance, ambusges, traps and long-range blasting.

You assume I don't have a problem with it. I do, but not to the same extent as some other things. Part of the reason is also why. Combat is often abstracted.
I know we will never get the full range opf motions/stlye/techniques one can have in RL, simply because it's too complex and time and resource consuming to animate.

Not saying aan ogre hitting a character sending them flying isn't doable - it very much is. I would like to see it, but the game has to be designed from the get-go for such type of fighting. Also, the resources necessary have to be there. So some things are how they are simpel because there aren't enough resources to go around and you have to cut corners somewhere.

The same does not apply to the other mentioned cases.
Quote the contrary - the flashy moves usually require more time and effort, and thus mroe resources.

And I'd rather have 10 different "normal" sword swings than a move that lets me jump into the air, fall like a meteor (with atmospheric re-entry FX) and hit the ground sending shockwaves.

I'd rather have the most realistic combat where one ton weighting ogre can send fully armored knight flying and unconsious/dead with direct hit than see more of the Awesome combat shown so far. Besides, in realistic combat mages become much important since they are able to attack/affect dangerous enemies like ogres from distance.

[t0mm06]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Having said that, it should be clear that realism is BY DEFAULT believable.

Actually this isn't necessarily true. Im an animator and one of the things we have to learn is that a lot of the time making something perfectly reaistic isn't 'believale', sotime to make something believable you need to exaggerate it. 

I'll give you an exaple. 
If i was to animate a chatacer being thrown agaist the wall by letssay an ogre, what would realisticaly happen would be i would hit the wall squish a bit then fall to the ground, although if i animated this exactly as it would look too soft, like there wasnt enough impact. so what i would do is probably make the character being flung at the wall faster then he actually would be, i would exaggerate the force of him hitting the wall, i would probably dent the wall a little bit, then have him crumple to the floor. 

Ohh i also have an actual example that i did, i animed (using rference footage of someone doing it) a man jumping from one rooftop to another. I did it exactly how it was i the video, but everyong (including my animation teacher at the time) said there just wasnt enought of an impact when the character landed, so i needed to exaggerate it.

[Bleachrude]

And this is the exact reason why warriors sucked in DA:O.

Mages get a free pass and thus anything and everything is possible (which is why Nightmare was a cakewalk for a 3 mage party and an exercise in frustration for a non-mage party).

[immhey]

It looks silly and out of place. Bioware is too obsessed with making everything flashy.

[Das Tentakel]

t0mm06 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Having said that, it should be clear that realism is BY DEFAULT believable.

Actually this isn't necessarily true. Im an animator and one of the things we have to learn is that a lot of the time making something perfectly reaistic isn't 'believale', sotime to make something believable you need to exaggerate it. 

I'll give you an exaple. 
If i was to animate a chatacer being thrown agaist the wall by letssay an ogre, what would realisticaly happen would be i would hit the wall squish a bit then fall to the ground, although if i animated this exactly as it would look too soft, like there wasnt enough impact. so what i would do is probably make the character being flung at the wall faster then he actually would be, i would exaggerate the force of him hitting the wall, i would probably dent the wall a little bit, then have him crumple to the floor. 

Ohh i also have an actual example that i did, i animed (using rference footage of someone doing it) a man jumping from one rooftop to another. I did it exactly how it was i the video, but everyong (including my animation teacher at the time) said there just wasnt enought of an impact when the character landed, so i needed to exaggerate it.

That's mostly because you have to make it clear what is actually happening / what has happened. Part of it is because many people don't have any comparative material, part because of movies and part because of long-standing myths.
For instance, when it comes to violence we humans are shockingly vulnerable when you 'hit the right spot'; to quote Syrio Forel, ' All men are made of water, do you know this? If you pierce them, the water leaks out and they die'.
But most people don't really realise this; it's not as if we are constantly subjected to people jumping across roofs or stabbing each other to dead.

This sort of aligns with Ziggeh's remarks about the link between 'believability' and expectations / conventions of the fantasy CRPG genre, rather than with genuine 'realism' per se.

Still, I would say there's a difference between exaggerating things to make clear what is happening because othwerwise it's not coming across without additional explanation / actual experience, and really going over the top 'coz it looks darn kewl'.

[eye basher]

I don't want to go back to DA:O playing a warrior was boring as hell.

[Boycott Bioware]

I want one hit kill, hit one enemy multiple times is so boring

[Vilegrim]

eye basher wrote...

I don't want to go back to DA:O playing a warrior was boring as hell.

Hmm I had the opposite feeling, warriors in da2 where all dull ohahhhh awesome 1111!!!!! 1111!!!! That I loathed where as dao for all it's faults had better animations and a feeling of solidity and impact to combat. Unfortunately dai looks tp be even more overblown and thus tedious