420 réponses à ce sujet

[THEFRIGGINDOOMGUY!]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Do I need to remind people that the Seekers are not Templars? The Seekers are a seperate arm of the Chantry, their job used to be to oversee the Templars, from the shadows at that. Why are people assuming Cassandra has Templar training?

Warriors in Thedas are also do not have a strength comparable to the average human in real life. To do what they do in combat they'd need to be at the very least twice as strong as an average construction worker, and even that is generous on the part of the real life humans. Add to that, Cassandra can reasonably be assumed to be a stronger than average warrior.

And with that kind of strength, she would break her own arm.

That's like saying someone swinging a sledgehammer at a steel beam would break their arm. (Hint: not if they know how to properly swing a sledgehammer, they don't.) If Cassandra were that unskilled in using a shield, she'd damage her arm whenever she used it against any other warrior.


Not to mention how people are completely ignoring arguments about how the gate would be weakened, or about how everything was nerfed for the sake of practicality in the demo. Why am I even here.

I never said they could not be stronger than humans but if they were, would they be strong enough to bash a metal gate with a shield? Had this been a small wooder door and with the right skill and STR, I would have deemed it PLAUSIBLE (notice how I'm not using the word realistic?)

The rusted gate argument doesn't hold up. What kind of asinine army would leave one of their main defences so vulnerable? 

[THEFRIGGINDOOMGUY!]

I have another question. If the humans in DA are so strong, why don't their bodies reflect that? From what I see, most of them have the same amount of muscle mass as we do.

[Darkstorne]

kathic wrote...

Why do people die from the murder knife but not from a million other stab wounds, arrows, magic bolts and what not?

This is one of the few things Assassin's Creed got right with its combat. Attack an enemy and his health bar goes down, but visually he manages to just about parry or block the attack. An attack that reduces his HP to 0 results in a satsifying execution animation.

HOW ARE OTHER GAMES NOT DOING THIS!? <_<

"Hit Points" were invented for RPG board games that had no method of visually displaying a character's state of health. Video games adopted this method because they originally were also incapable of visually displaying a state of health. Today, we have cutting edge visuals at HD resolutions, more than capable of showing enemies blocking and dodging with dynamic animations, and displaying their health status through wear and tear to armour and flesh, and we STILL use floating hit point bars and accept "it's just a game" when our giant flaming claymores repeatedly cleave through an enemy's face.

I have too many feels about this, I know...

[Nohvarr]

Rawgrim wrote...

If your first rpg was Deus Ex, you need to play some older games from the so-called "golden age of rpgs", if your arguments are going to hold any water when it comes to
things that have changed for the better in rpgs.

Does your definition of the "Golden Age" include Fallout 1&2, Baldur's Gate 1&2, and Torment?

[Thomas Andresen]

I have another question. If the humans in DA are so strong, why don't their bodies reflect that? From what I see, most of them have the same amount of muscle mass as we do.

It's far from the first time design have fallen short like that. And BioWare is far from the worst offender in this.

Modifié par Thomas Andresen, 14 novembre 2013 - 03:15 .

[Wulfram]

Darkstorne wrote...

This is one of the few things Assassin's Creed got right with its combat. Attack an enemy and his health bar goes down, but visually he manages to just about parry or block the attack. An attack that reduces his HP to 0 results in a satsifying execution animation.

HOW ARE OTHER GAMES NOT DOING THIS!? <_<

Well, at a guess

1.  Dodges and parries are more complicated because you need to get the hitter and hittee  interacting.  Particularly if you're dealing with diverse attacks and characters ranging from humans to dwarves to Dragons.  Dodges and parries also risk reducing the reactivity of characters if they happen automatically, since if you're parrying you can't be attacking - and if they rely on the player's reactions then they move your game firmly into action-RPG territory.

2.  If you represent hits as misses, you're potentially giving misleading feedback to the player.  I mean, how do you clearly show actual misses then?

[upsettingshorts]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If anyone should ask me if the BSN was as thick with people drawing the most specious and illogical conclusions - in direct contradiction of the facts - as ever, I will simply provide them with a link to this thread.

To quote myself from a thread I was responding to during PAX itself:

There was a lot of talk in the panels about how they bumped up the abilities of the party to make difficult fights end faster. In the demo shown, Cassandra's shield bash does something like 15000 damage, and the AOE at the end that Vivienne (I think) lays down does something like 100000. Because they needed to move on from those things and show other stuff. Obviously they wont be that OP in the main game, and fights wont be designed around demonstrating certain features, or powers be buffed to facilitate a short demonstration

As a consequence: Drawing conclusions as to how quickly things happen, how easy things appear, and/or the relative balance of party members and abilities makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But by all means, continue to do so. After all, it's the tradition around here.

Ten pages.   Fourteen pages.

Ten.  Fourteen.
 
Pages.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 novembre 2013 - 03:48 .

[CronoDragoon]

Gee, I don't know. Why do all the dungeons Link visits have grapple hooks? Possibly because it makes for interesting and fun gameplay? No, that couldn't possibly be it.

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And you could deal with the gate issue by not having one in the first place, explosives, magic, or any alternative that makes any sense within game world. Here it just looks you took the easy and silly way, thinking it looked badass.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm writing about.

I'm talking about being mad because she used her shield to bash the gate and the gate was destroyed into splinters.

I'm sure some people here would've been more satisfied if the gate were simply dented in a way that still let the player get through but didn't result in "the gate completely shatters into splinters."

We could've done other things, sure. But you asked for my elaboration and it's mostly "You didn't understand what I was referring to with my post." I'm talking about "we were showing Cassandra do a shield bash and how could we reflect the damage to the gate." We probably could've done this without "the gate completely [shattering] into splinters" but if the specifics of the gate being obliterated (as opposed to something more low key that still let the player get by), then that person is focusing too much on the specifics for what we're hoping on doing with the game.

my issue is that no one is in anyway strong enough to do what was done, whether dent the gate or blast it apart, gates  are huge, solid and noticably not breakable.  Sheild bashing it was yet another 'look how awesome we are'  which to me achieved the complete opposite and hit silly so hard it's head span into absurd.  IF facing a fortified gate: bring a siege weapon, a petard, or some serious magic, or have a spy open it, those things work I HIT IT really should not.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 14 novembre 2013 - 05:07 .

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There was a lot of talk in the panels about how they bumped up the abilities of the party to make difficult fights end faster. In the demo shown, Cassandra's shield bash does something like 15000 damage, and the AOE at the end that Vivienne (I think) lays down does something like 100000. Because they needed to move on from those things and show other stuff. Obviously they wont be that OP in the main game, and fights wont be designed around demonstrating certain features, or powers be buffed to facilitate a short demonstration

Based on Mr Schumacher's comments it seems unlikely that the number of hits would increase greatly.  And I don't know that increasing the number of hits needed would greatly improve things from a realism point of view.

Though if it allowed the enemy to take action to seek to oppose it, it might make things more interesting from a gameplay point of view.

[TurretSyndrome]

Wulfram wrote...

Based on Mr Schumacher's comments it seems unlikely that the number of hits would increase greatly.  And I don't know that increasing the number of hits needed would greatly improve things from a realism point of view.

Though if it allowed the enemy to take action to seek to oppose it, it might make things more interesting from a gameplay point of view.

You hit twice and gate breaks, doesn't matter if it's 1000000 damage your shield can do or 1. It's an overworld ability. It's designed to break it after two hits. In other words, the gate doesn't have a health bar or health points.

[-Skorpious-]

If the player can break a sturdy, iron grate with a few smacks from a shield (as Allen hinted at likely being the case), then why the hell would they bother to sneak into the fortress through an underground tunnel? Or risk grappling the walls? Its just a waste of time and resources.

As a counter, at least have enemies pour hot oil on those foolish enough to try to bludgeon their way into a keep with infantry-grade weapons and expect to emerge victorious - if you aren't strong/fast enough it would result in an instant down for those inside the splash radius.

[thats1evildude]

Octavian the Emperor wrote...

The rusted gate argument doesn't hold up. What kind of asinine army would leave one of their main defences so vulnerable? 

The kind that's not actually an army, but rather a bunch of Tevinter cultists who have moved into an ancient abandoned keep?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 14 novembre 2013 - 05:31 .

[Han Shot First]

wolfhowwl wrote...

because when you press a button something awesome has to happen.

Buttom. Awesome.

Sadly this is probably the answer.

Unless there is some reason within DA:I's lore why sword-and-board types suddenly have magical powers, I hope that awesome button nonsense gets cut and doesn't ship with the game.

[Iakus]

-Skorpious- wrote...

If the player can break a sturdy, iron grate with a few smacks from a shield (as Allen hinted at likely being the case), then why the hell would they bother to sneak into the fortress through an underground tunnel? Or risk grappling the walls? Its just a waste of time and resources.

Great now I have an image in my head of Cassandra stalking Terminator-like through a keep with a crossbow in each hand, mowing down guards as arrows and swords bounce harmlessly off her

As a counter, at least have enemies pour hot oil on those foolish enough to try to bludgeon their way into a keep with infantry-grade weapons and expect to emerge victorious - if you aren't strong/fast enough it would result in an instant down for those inside the splash radius.

I'm hoping taking out perimeter guards would qualify as preparations you can make before the strike

[The Elder King]

Does the DA lore explain why a sword and shield warrior could knock to the ground a golem with Shield Bash in DAO?
I could post other examples of irrealistic skills in DAO, if you want.

Modifié par hhh89, 14 novembre 2013 - 05:40 .

[Han Shot First]

hhh89 wrote...

Does the DA lore explain why a sword and shield warrior could knock to the ground a golem with Shield Bash in DAO?

Should one ridiculous feature justify the existence of another?

I say no.

[upsettingshorts]

Han Shot First wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

because when you press a button something awesome has to happen.

Buttom. Awesome.

Sadly this is probably the answer.

This is why the BSN is a laughing stock.

[Sir JK]

Vilegrim wrote...

my issue is that no one is in anyway strong enough to do what was done, whether dent the gate or blast it apart, gates  are huge, solid and noticably not breakable.  Sheild bashing it was yet another 'look how awesome we are'  which to me achieved the complete opposite and hit silly so hard it's head span into absurd.  IF facing a fortified gate: bring a siege weapon, a petard, or some serious magic, or have a spy open it, those things work I HIT IT really should not.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is that this unrealistic action is deemed unacceptable while other are not: It is utterly unrealistic to have someone vash down a door with a shield, therefore it is unacceptable.

But let me counter with that the warden killed hundreds of Darkspawn and humans. Hawke was an unstoppable machine of destruction. It is no doubt going to be the same for the Inquisitor in DAI.
This is if anything even less realistic. Small groups of people do not take on armies and win. They get slaughtered. Yet noone is arguing that this should not happen in this game or rpgs in general. We want to be the exceptional individuals that can do this and succeed. It's a central theme of the genre. Noone is arguing that we should control armies, not a small team.

So we make a caveat: there are exceptional people and they can do this. But then...

Why bother with armies at all?

Clearly it's not armies that win wars. It's exceptional people. They do take on armies and win. And it's not just PCs either. The Arishok and Loghain both would give any army a run for their money. As would a number of the bosses we meet in the game.

So, much like gates (and thus, also walls), armies are clearly unneccessary.

From this point on, clearly, the setting should feature nothing but small crack teams of champions. They settle international conflicts by battling out on nice accessible arenas.
That way it's internally consistent and logically sound.

But nobody wants that, do they?

Cassandra bashing the door and it falling into a thousand pieces is exactly the same as our small teams prevailing. It's gameplay taking precedence over setting. In this case to prevent pathfinding issues, to prevent unduly long and repetetive tasks and allow warriors to have some utility. All good things.

They could certainly have a animated team bring up a battering ram and bash the door in, no doubt. But this would both require resources and then make us ask "Why can't we bring this lot with us inside?" or "But I climbed the wall, how did they get a battering ram inside?" or whatnot. This complain cannot be satisfied. Not really. Because when it is finally utterly realistic, then it's no longer fun.

[ScarMK]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This is why the BSN is a laughing stock.

I thought it was because of the romances?

[Thomas Andresen]

I thought it was because of the romances?

You couldn't be more mistaken.

[Mr.House]

You do know back in old CRPGs oyu could break down doors and locks right? This is not new.

[The Elder King]

Han Shot First wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Does the DA lore explain why a sword and shield warrior could knock to the ground a golem with Shield Bash in DAO?

Should one ridiculous feature justify the existence of another?

I say no.

It wasn't really one, as it almost surely woudn't be one in DAI. My point is that Bioware, in this regard, had proven to remain consistent in both previous games. It's unlikely that this is going to change. 
Not to mention that both Gaider and Allan suggested that there might be reasons why Cassandra is capable of such feat.

[Welsh Inferno]

Why didn't the Warden just walk across the bridge and bash down the gate in Redcliffe? Would of saved a lot of trouble 

Because its silly.

[Iakus]

Mr.House wrote...

You do know back in old CRPGs oyu could break down doors and locks right? This is not new.

I don't think being able to break down a door or a lock is the problem.  I think the problem is the appearance of smashing the keep to a gate.

The scene would probably work if they tweaked it a bit so it looked like you're forcing a rusted old door.  Or prying open a gate that has been sabotaged to not lock correctly.  Rather than smashing it to flinders with a piece of metal and mortal muscle.