721 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Filament wrote...

Haha yea changing it so it doesn't cause a crater of rocks but is mechanically identical would totally make warriors boring and sucky.

I'm glad we agree.

Vilegrim wrote...

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.

As In Exile has pointed out several times, DAO required everyone use magic to work. A regular human taking a hit from an ogre is like them being hit by a car. Being hit by a dozen arrows while wearing leather armor ought to leave you bleeding out. Fighting wave after wave of darkspawn should wear you out - not have you ready for more with no loss of ability.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 19 septembre 2013 - 04:20 .

[CuriousArtemis]

I am also not a fan of the way the ground buckled and rocks flew about in the pre-alpha footage. Also disliked the enemy mage frantically reading a floating book. Such things look really silly to me. But it's just a matter of taste... while I don't like them, others think them really cool. So it looks like I won't love the combat style in this game, but that's okay. I'm sure there are other aspects I'll love.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not sure what specifically it is about the combat in the two games so far that makes me like one and not the other, but I do know that when I play DAO (and I just recently started a new DAO playthrough) I find the combat extremely fun, while DA2's combat was never anything but an irritating chore that got in the way of the rest of the game.

Again, I can't pin down specifically what it was that was that was wrong with DA2's combat, or what right with DAO's combat, but I know that I vastly preferred DAO's combat in every respect.

[Han Shot First]

Bleachrude wrote...

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....

I see that as an example of gameplay and lore segregation.

Neither Hawke or the Grey Warden were given backstories that gave them superhuman strength. There was nothing to suggest that they could withstand being pummeled by an ogre, and they are canonically as vulnerable as any other mercenary or Grey Warden. That they are not tossed about like a ragdoll is a sacrifice made to keep gameplay fun rather than frustrating. Its the equivalent of respawning after death and is a feature of gameplay rather than something that is canon in the lore of Thedas.

Battering down gates with your shield or sundering the earth with your sword are a bit different. Neither is necessary for gameplay, and both give characters canon abilities that are magical or superhuman.

It also creates the problem of introducing a sameness to all the varying classes. After all part of the appeal of playing a rogue or a warrior is playing a character who gets by on their cunning or their skill and expertise with their weapons. They're exceptional because they've made themselves so, not because they were born with special powers. You've now made every class a magic user and there only varying degrees to which they use magic.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 19 septembre 2013 - 04:42 .

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm not sure what specifically it is about the combat in the two games so far that makes me like one and not the other, but I do know that when I play DAO (and I just recently started a new DAO playthrough) I find the combat extremely fun, while DA2's combat was never anything but an irritating chore that got in the way of the rest of the game.
Again, I can't pin down specifically what it was that was that was wrong with DA2's combat, or what right with DAO's combat, but I know that I vastly preferred DAO's combat in every respect.

If I had to take a wager, I'd say encounter design and pace of combat are the main differences between both.

[Han Shot First]

Giving all characters varying degrees of control over magic also potentially creates issues regarding the Mage-Templar conflict. By default then all characters start with one foot in the mage camp.

Put it this way: It's like crafting a game around a conflict between Humans and Elves and then making every player who chooses a human character turn out to be  Half-Elf. You're encouraging the player to sympathize with the Elves and not giving much incentive to choose the other side.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 19 septembre 2013 - 04:49 .

[Vilegrim]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Filament wrote...

Haha yea changing it so it doesn't cause a crater of rocks but is mechanically identical would totally make warriors boring and sucky.

I'm glad we agree.

Vilegrim wrote...

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.

As In Exile has pointed out several times, DAO required everyone use magic to work. A regular human taking a hit from an ogre is like them being hit by a car. Being hit by a dozen arrows while wearing leather armor ought to leave you bleeding out. Fighting wave after wave of darkspawn should wear you out - not have you ready for more with no loss of ability.

The flying rocks and mk chains are to me boring and uninteresting.  The use of for want of a better term hwroic willpower and endurance is such a standard of the genre as to be part of the contract of suspension o disbelief, same as mages doing magic, dull and boring mmo style gfx nonsense is not and I hope if it is included 
one of the first mods takes it out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

If I had to take a wager, I'd say encounter design and pace of combat are the main differences between both.

EntropicAngel wrote...

Part of it might be the speed.

You've mentioned before that you don't mind twitch as long as it's slow enough for you to largely contol it (Skyrim). DA ][ definitely had faster combat.

My best explanation I have for DAO's combat is that Georg Zoeller is a wizard.  That guy could make anything fun.

You two might be right, though.  I have mentioned that I could only tolerate Skyrim's combat in situations where I could attack from extreme range or stealth, or use spells to impede my enemies, so as to avoid fast-paced close-quarters combat at all times.

But I suppose that's the primary strength of Skyrim: that each player can play the game however best suits him.

[t0mm06]

Das Tentakel wrote...

t0mm06 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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'.

What you say is fair enough, and i dont have much to add.
The last bit however i would take issue with for THIS situation. So whats happened is that the sword hit the ground hard enough to crack it and cause a crater. this is sort of silly. BUT lets say (because this is Pre-Alpha footage) that that is not the final thing that happens (and they justed re-used somethign that was already working for one of the mages spells)
What level would be ok?
I mean even in origins/awakening you have warriors with talens such as peon's plight, which is meant to be a  very powerful swing. So lets say what we saw is one of these talents. So he outs all of his force in to do this damage.
So right we need to show that this isnt just an ordinay move, this is an attack which can 1-hit KO someone which would normally take 5 hits to kill. The force must be shown. So the animation is fine with the character, he puts a lot of force into it, the blade has weight, but its not to slow, now to show the force of it.
It cleaves through the enemy and the warrior cannot stop it through the force so it hits the floor.
Now if the blade just clinked it woudlnt feel like there was much force to it (keep in mind this is dragon age so the 2-handers are always going to be larger then realistic... peeple who want bioware to change this are being unralistic as its part of the style) so the best way to show this would be the same was as the Ogre incident in my last post, make a little crater, maybe a few little rocks flying up for the force. would that be ok? 
I bring that up because that would very well be a possiblity, it could just be that they didnt have the visual for that yet so they re-used the meteor storm this that the mage used.

If however you dont think that a bit of a dent in the floor and some debri comming up is a suitable thing then it would appear we have been playing two different games 

[hoorayforicecream]

Han Shot First wrote...

Battering down gates with your shield or sundering the earth with your sword are a bit different. Neither is necessary for gameplay, and both give characters canon abilities that are magical or superhuman.

Ritually ingesting dragon blood granted a group of non-magical warriors the power to heal from deadly wounds by absorbing their enemies' blood. It seems like an arbitrary distinction (or perhaps even a double standard) that supernaturally-powered Reavers are somehow acceptable, but other superhuman abilities are not.

Or is it because they have an explanation in-game for the superhuman abilities of the Reavers? If they provided an explanation for why certain warriors can perform seemingly-superhuman feats (years of meditation and mental training, dragon blood, some sort of magical drug, empowered by a fade spirit, etc.), would that be more acceptable to you? If so, why complain now when you lack in-game context? 

It just seems kind of arbitrary if you want to say that magical or superhuman abilities are somehow immersion breaking when they've been there since day 1.

[jvaz]

People ranting about realism in a FANTASY role playing GAME setting bewilders me. If one takes the stance that "OH mages doing what they're doing is OK cuz it's explained in the lore" then there should also be an explanation for every rouge and warrior talent that defies the laws of physics as well. Lets take a look at a few:

War Cry: Being able to knock enemies off their feet by yelling?
Indomitable: Resisting knock down (ogre rams, anyone?) and stun effects through power of the mind?
Shield Wall+Shield Expertise - immunity to knockdown attacks?
Two Handed Impact - Generating shockwaves with weapon swings?
Elemental Aegis - resisting magic through power of the mind?
Battle Synergy - Party members get stronger and more resilient by fighting close together?

Scattershot/Burst Shot/Rain of Arrows- An arrow that shatters and hits multiple enemies AND stuns them?
Arrow Time - slowing the movement speed of enemies through sheer concentration?
All of the BARD talents - singing stuns enemies/makes your party stronger?

I could go on and on. The point of this is to show that a FANTASY role playing GAME (key words- FANTASY as in NOT REALISTIC and GAME as in not in real life therefore also not realistic) such as Dragon Age was never meant to be realistic or have every single thing explained in lore. Does it borrow some things from reality? Sure. Is it nice to have such feats explained in lore? Yes. But it is simply not plausible nor is it necessary from a developer point of view to have an explanation for each and every single thing.

Some things were meant to make a class more fun to play as and/or appealing to a broader audience in order to sell more games. If BW tried to pander to all of the players who said "Oh it's not in the lore or there is no explanation in the lore so it shouldnt be in the game" there most likely wouldnt be this forum, Bioware, etc.

[Maria Caliban]

Vilegrim wrote...

The flying rocks and mk chains are to me boring and uninteresting.  The use of for want of a better term hwroic willpower and endurance is such a standard of the genre as to be part of the contract of suspension o disbelief, same as mages doing magic, dull and boring mmo style gfx nonsense is not and I hope if it is included 
one of the first mods takes it out.

'I don't like it' is a fine reason to not want something in the game.

I didn't like the giant pauldrons in DAO. But I never complained they were unrealistic, conflicted with the lore, were an 'MMO-style GFX nonsense,' or implied that people who liked them were 15-year-olds.

I just said I didn't like them and wanted heavy armor without them in DA II.

You're free to have your own tastes. Just own up to it and stop it with the bull**** rationalizations.

[Hellosanta]

To be honest, if warrior's combat animations become any more realistic, I'll probably get bored real quick in playing warrior character. Any combat with warrior will feel tedious.

[Conduit0]

If you want realism so badly, go play Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, and leave DA to those of us who want fantasy in our fantasy RPGs.

[Vilegrim]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

The flying rocks and mk chains are to me boring and uninteresting.  The use of for want of a better term hwroic willpower and endurance is such a standard of the genre as to be part of the contract of suspension o disbelief, same as mages doing magic, dull and boring mmo style gfx nonsense is not and I hope if it is included 
one of the first mods takes it out.

'I don't like it' is a fine reason to not want something in the game.

I didn't like the giant pauldrons in DAO. But I never complained they were unrealistic, conflicted with the lore, were an 'MMO-style GFX nonsense,' or implied that people who liked them were 15-year-olds.

I just said I didn't like them and wanted heavy armor without them in DA II.

You're free to have your own tastes. Just own up to it and stop it with the bull**** rationalizations.

the 'rationalisation' is the reason, it breaks my suspension of disbelief the armor (especially stripper armor which da isn't guilty of) and overblown murder plate which it is are at least to me ignorable warriors doing spells breaka it totally conan and the prince of thorns are awesome without being plate mages superhuman willpower and endurance are far easier to overlook than superman strength.  Would game of thrones be improved by jamie lannister causing earth quakes when he swung a sword? Also you can love WOW Aion and god of war at any age but they are in their own genres and could they please stay their

Modifié par Vilegrim, 19 septembre 2013 - 09:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rationalisation is the reasoning you make up after the fact to justify a conclusion you've already reached.

Rationalisation is never okay.

Sometimes I know why I dislike a feature. If a feature gets in the way of how I like to play (as the paraphrases do), then I can point to that reason. But with the combat, it's harder for me to pin down.

[Topsider]

Conduit0 wrote...

If you want realism so badly, go play Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, and leave DA to those of us who want fantasy in our fantasy RPGs.

There's no room for both? Realistic combat suddenly kills all other fantasy aspects, like magic? The original Dragon Age didn't have earth-shattering sword animations, or anything so over the top, this is new for DA:I, it's not a DA feature.

[The Elder King]

Topsider wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

If you want realism so badly, go play Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, and leave DA to those of us who want fantasy in our fantasy RPGs.

There's no room for both? Realistic combat suddenly kills all other fantasy aspects, like magic? The original Dragon Age didn't have earth-shattering sword animations, or anything so over the top, this is new for DA:I, it's not a DA feature.

Indeed, War Cry was a perfectly believable ability, knocking down enemies while yelling. Its not at all a superhuman ability.
And being munched ten times by a dragon without dying is normal for warriors in Thedas, apparently.

[Topsider]

hhh89 wrote...

Topsider wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

If you want realism so badly, go play Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, and leave DA to those of us who want fantasy in our fantasy RPGs.

There's no room for both? Realistic combat suddenly kills all other fantasy aspects, like magic? The original Dragon Age didn't have earth-shattering sword animations, or anything so over the top, this is new for DA:I, it's not a DA feature.

Indeed, War Cry was a perfectly believable ability, knocking down enemies while yelling. Its not at all a superhuman ability.
And being munched ten times by a dragon without dying is normal for warriors in Thedas, apparently.

Not everything is grounded in reality - it's hard to make a game that doesn't have some unbelievable aspects - so your examples are valid, But there has to be limits. Fine, we can break solid ground and upturn rocks with our sword, so I assume locked doors are no obstacle? or castle walls? Gates? ha, like paper!

Seriously, you need some realism or you can do anything, no matter how far-fetched (even in a fantasy rpg).

[hoorayforicecream]

Topsider wrote...

Not everything is grounded in reality - it's hard to make a game that doesn't have some unbelievable aspects - so your examples are valid, But there has to be limits. Fine, we can break solid ground and upturn rocks with our sword, so I assume locked doors are no obstacle? or castle walls? Gates? ha, like paper!

Seriously, you need some realism or you can do anything, no matter how far-fetched (even in a fantasy rpg).

What makes warriors breaking rocks with their weapons more unbelievable than regenerating warriors that have drunk dragon's blood or warriors who are immune to most magic because they regularly drink potions made of ground up magic rocks?

[The Elder King]

Topsider wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Topsider wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

If you want realism so badly, go play Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, and leave DA to those of us who want fantasy in our fantasy RPGs.

There's no room for both? Realistic combat suddenly kills all other fantasy aspects, like magic? The original Dragon Age didn't have earth-shattering sword animations, or anything so over the top, this is new for DA:I, it's not a DA feature.

Indeed, War Cry was a perfectly believable ability, knocking down enemies while yelling. Its not at all a superhuman ability.
And being munched ten times by a dragon without dying is normal for warriors in Thedas, apparently.

Not everything is grounded in reality - it's hard to make a game that doesn't have some unbelievable aspects - so your examples are valid, But there has to be limits. Fine, we can break solid ground and upturn rocks with our sword, so I assume locked doors are no obstacle? or castle walls? Gates? ha, like paper!

Seriously, you need some realism or you can do anything, no matter how far-fetched (even in a fantasy rpg).

There are other examples that I didn't post that go against realism but are 'necessary' for the gameplay (like resting all the type of elemental magic without dying, or being hit by arrows dozens of times). The example I made weren't necessary for the gameplay, ESPECIALLY the dragon munching.
Second, you have misunderstood me. I like a certain level of realism in games. The point is that DAO already broke my suspension of disbelief. Since it's difficult that they'll go even lower than DAO on the topic, I gave up on having a DA game that will satisfy my suspension of disbelief. So I don't care much about the over-the-top animations.
That doesn't mean that I'll enjoy every spells or animations. I didn't like much the speed and the animations in DA2. DAI sems to leave the more over-the-top animations to talents and abilities that you aren't forced to use. The speed and the normal combat animations of the warrior seem fine for what I saw in the PAX demo, so I'm happy about this.