209 réponses à ce sujet

[Mirrman70]

can I just point out how slow two handers were in that game? A morbidly obese snail could have dodged it with that wind up and swing. with weapons like that most of the force comes from the weight not the swing.

[The_11thDoctor]

Someone complaining about realistic combat in a fantasy rpg game with magic...

[CybAnt1]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DA:O combat was horrid. Too slow and rugged, and not complex enough to warrant attention otherwise. A complete bore.

How odd. Both Sylvius and I disagree with you. I had no problem with it. 

I didn't dislike DA2's combat, either. I thought the AI for companions had slightly improved, and that was nice. In DA1 I had to use the Improved Tactics mod, in DA2 I didn't need it and didn't miss its absence.

Well, some aspects.

The abilities were cool. Didn't mind them, from a usefulness point of view. But some of the visual animations were ridiculously over the top. They were so like bad Kung Fu movies I was waiting for Hawke to start moving his mouth out of sync with English subtitles. 

Lack of proper top down tactical view - but no need to complain about that, it's already getting fixed. 

The fact that now clouds in Kirkwall appear to rain enemies. I couldn't figure out where else the f**k they were coming from. They kept falling from the sky. 

It would have been cool to not have to fight them in the exact same cave, exact same warehouse, and exact same outdoor area over and over again. That gets kind of boring. Just saying. 

The fact that I couldn't just kill a boss or big bad without doing some kind of "awesome sauce" finishing kill animation, complete with a 30 ft range blood splatter. I was waiting for the guy from Mortal Kombat to scream: "FINISH HIM!" I could so do without that bull****. 

[Lvl20DM]

Neither game had "realistic" combat, though Origins was too slow for my taste and DA 2 was too fast. The weapons in 2 seemed almost weightless. The way people moved and positioned in Origins was often painful and had a "shuffle" type look.

The demo for Inquisition, on the other hand, looks much better in this regard. The Chain-attack is interesting, because it strikes me as more of magical attack than a martial one. Warriors and rogues have always had "quasi-magical" abilities in Dragon Age (see the Champion's Shout, Tremor, the rain of arrows attack), so it may just be another one of those. On the other hand, it might be an "Inquisitor-only" ability that stems from the origin of the character (surviving the Veil Tear).

[Eurypterid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I really enjoyed DAO's combat. I wouldn't change a thing.

It moved slowly enough that I could keep track of every single thing happening on the battlefield. Every hit. Every spell resist. Frankly, without a pausable combat log, DAO's combat is as fast as I would ever want combat to be.

In fact, when DAO first came out, I complained that it was too fast, given the lack of a combat log.

So I suppose I would change one thing.  I'd add a combat log, showing detailed hit and damage calculations for every event.

I'll echo this sentiment. I'm actually playing through DA:O again (on the PC) right now and enjoying the hell out of it. I have zero desire to play through DA2 again. The only other thing I might tweak in DA:O is the speed of attack for two-handed warriors. As someone mentioned, it's pretty damned slow. But the combat overall: I love it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

I can see how on the PC, Origins combat might have felt superior in comparison to using a console, as I did. Origins combat was soooooo boring on an Xbox, whereas the faster pace was much more preferable in DA2.

The faster pace made full-party control basically impossible.  Everything happened so quickly, there was no way to adequately control things like character movement for all of the characters at once.

Also, the lack of a detachable tactical camera made it harder to follow the action.  And the lack of a decent Hold command for party members.

DA2 just didn't work well if you wanted tactical full-party control.

The only thing DA2 lacked that DA:O had was the tactical view. Otherwise you had the exact same options available, but the game didn't try to lull you to sleep with its agrivating slow pace. Then again, I am accustomed to twitch gameplay so the pace of DA2 did not really challenge my overview of the fight.

The only thing I REALLY disliked about DA2 was the friendly fire an auto-attack from the warrior always caused.. Mad having more than one melee in the party absolutely useless, since they would end up killing eachother.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 31 janvier 2014 - 12:22 .

[Realmzmaster]

Neither DAO or DA2 had realistic combat. If I had to pick a combat system I prefer the one presented in Temple of Elemental Evil (TOEE) which was turn based.

That being said I prefer the improvement in the tactics screen of DA2 over DAO and hope that continues in DA:I. Bioware has never down a turn based crpg they have all been realtime with pause. The tactics screen allowed me to setup may companions so I did not have to micromanage them and could choose which character I wanted to control

DA2's comat setup was more realistic than DAO because enemies just did not appear in front of your party. DAO's battles were mostly set pieces with the enemy in front of the party.

The way DA2 got enemies behind or to the sides of the party was wrong. If the party is in an alley I would not expect the only enemies to appear in front of the party. In fact I would expect enemies in front and behind to cut off escape with archers maybe on the rooftops. Some rogues may be on low lying roofs to drop traps or bombs on the party. That to me would be far more realistic than DAO's approach.

[KaiserShep]

Mirrman70 wrote...

can I just point out how slow two handers were in that game? A morbidly obese snail could have dodged it with that wind up and swing. with weapons like that most of the force comes from the weight not the swing.

Despite this, Ser Cauthrien put up a hell of a fight with her Summer Sword. I don't particularly care to play the 2h warrior in DA:O. Dual-wield or weapon and shield worked much better for me on warriors, though I now prefer the rogues in both games.

As for DA2's lack of tactical fighting, on higher difficulties there's no way to avoid getting more tactical with it. On casual you can kind of go all out with some exceptions, but some enemies require you to control your party members or you will end up fighting alone. Ser Varnell's refuge is such an example, as well as fighting Ser Alrik. Both of those battles were infuriating until I figured out the best way to deal with the huge wave of highly resistant enemies.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 31 janvier 2014 - 03:56 .

[addiction21]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So survivng getting mauled by a bear, getting crushed by an ogre, or chomped by a dragon is totally fine and dandy, but pulling someone in with a chain that is where you draw the line?

Because when people say Realistic Combat what they really mean is "their arbitrary idea of what constitutes realism"

[Veex]

As long as you can't spam health pots to win the game I'm happy.

[Realmzmaster]

Using the term realistic to describe fantasy combat needs to go away. Very few crpgs depict realistic combat. Mount & Blade tries to come close to the mark. The Close Combat and Total War series to name some games come far closer to realistic combat than any crpg, but that is what I expect of wargames that depict combat at the squad level or whole armies clashing.

I rather see a return to turn based combat than the reflex centered action crpg. IMHO.

[The Hierophant]

It's not looking realistic that should be an issue but rather the consistency between the cinematics, lore and gameplay.

[Nightdragon8]

The Hierophant wrote...

It's not looking realistic that should be an issue but rather the consistency between the cinematics, lore and gameplay.

gave them some slack will you...  this isn't a simulator game. if it was then I would say sure but otherwise this is a pointless convo.

Because honestly do you really wanna see a cinematic where the hero has to hit whatever 100 times to kill a human... every time. of course not.

And yes I think the Arashoic fight was horrible. I mean really...

[vania z]

Abraham_uk wrote...

What about Ryse Son of Rome?
Not the complete combat system, just the combat animations.

I really laughed when he threw the guy on his sword on 0:23

[vania z]

aang001 wrote...

Someone complaining about realistic combat in a fantasy rpg game with magic...

There is nothing unrealistic in magic. Just give it rules, like laws of physics, and it will be ok. Magic could exist in real life, it just does not, or not exists to a visible extent in every day life(there are some studies carried by famous universities that suggest that magic exists to some degree). 

[vania z]

CybAnt1 wrote...

How odd. Both Sylvius and I disagree with you. I had no problem with it. 

I didn't dislike DA2's combat, either. I thought the AI for companions had slightly improved, and that was nice. In DA1 I had to use the Improved Tactics mod, in DA2 I didn't need it and didn't miss its absence.

Well, some aspects.

The abilities were cool. Didn't mind them, from a usefulness point of view. But some of the visual animations were ridiculously over the top. They were so like bad Kung Fu movies I was waiting for Hawke to start moving his mouth out of sync with English subtitles. 

Lack of proper top down tactical view - but no need to complain about that, it's already getting fixed. 

The fact that now clouds in Kirkwall appear to rain enemies. I couldn't figure out where else the f**k they were coming from. They kept falling from the sky. 

It would have been cool to not have to fight them in the exact same cave, exact same warehouse, and exact same outdoor area over and over again. That gets kind of boring. Just saying. 

The fact that I couldn't just kill a boss or big bad without doing some kind of "awesome sauce" finishing kill animation, complete with a 30 ft range blood splatter. I was waiting for the guy from Mortal Kombat to scream: "FINISH HIM!" I could so do without that bull****. 

A bit of offtopic: I prefered NWN-like bosses, which do not use special mechanics and I do not need to use some special enveriomental effects to kill them. There was one such boss fight in DA2. Reminds me too much of arcades. 

[Grieving Natashina]

This should get interesting...

[vania z]

simfamSP wrote...

I'd love to see 'realistic' in the sense of animations. It was awesome in both NWN and KOTOR when swords would clash and you'd actually dodge and parry.

Defenitely agree. I have been replaying old bioware games, NWN then DAO, NWN had the most realistic animations. But NWN like combat style may be a bit too boring for fighters and rogues. It was interesting playing sorcs/wiz/clerics though. 

[KaiserShep]

CybAnt1 wrote...

The fact that I couldn't just kill a boss or big bad without doing some kind of "awesome sauce" finishing kill animation, complete with a 30 ft range blood splatter. I was waiting for the guy from Mortal Kombat to scream: "FINISH HIM!" I could so do without that bull****. 

Over the top as DA2's combat was, DA:O easily trumps it when it comes to kill animations. Humanoid enemies got slow motion beheadings. Ogres got slow motion leaps into their chest, followed by a stab to the forehead, and dragons got the best one of all, the multiple stabs to the head with one mid-air flip to strike the final blow. DA2 didn't have all that many kill shots after a boss either. The ogre in the prologue, the rock wraith in the Deep Roads and the high dragon are the only ones I can really recall. Not even the Arishok got one.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 31 janvier 2014 - 09:09 .

[Star fury]

The Hierophant wrote...

It's not looking realistic that should be an issue but rather the consistency between the cinematics, lore and gameplay.

Exactly. Drastic change of Origins' successful formula is a mystery. Why EAware thought it was okay to radically change everything, and especially combat? DA:O outsold any other Bioware game. Wanting quick bux is very EA, but they probably had more reasons.



Dragon Age[/i]™: Origins[/i] has sold-in over 3.2 million* units worldwide.
This staggering critical and commercial success makes Dragon Age: Origins[/i] the sixth consecutive blockbuster from BioWare

http://investor.ea.c...eleaseid=443674
 

[superdeathdealer14]

Star fury wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

It's not looking realistic that should be an issue but rather the consistency between the cinematics, lore and gameplay.

Exactly. Drastic change of Origins' successful formula is a mystery. Why EAware thought it was okay to radically change everything, and especially combat? DA:O outsold any other Bioware game. Wanting quick bux is very EA, but they probably had more reasons.



Dragon Age[/i]™: Origins[/i] has sold-in over 3.2 million* units worldwide.
This staggering critical and commercial success makes Dragon Age: Origins[/i] the sixth consecutive blockbuster from BioWare

http://investor.ea.c...eleaseid=443674
 

Is that what people call BioWare now: EAware.

[Grieving Natashina]

I've been hearing that term thrown around for a couple of years now.

[vania z]

Star fury wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

It's not looking realistic that should be an issue but rather the consistency between the cinematics, lore and gameplay.

Exactly. Drastic change of Origins' successful formula is a mystery. Why EAware thought it was okay to radically change everything, and especially combat? DA:O outsold any other Bioware game. Wanting quick bux is very EA, but they probably had more reasons.



Dragon Age[/i]™: Origins[/i] has sold-in over 3.2 million* units worldwide.
This staggering critical and commercial success makes Dragon Age: Origins[/i] the sixth consecutive blockbuster from BioWare

http://investor.ea.c...eleaseid=443674
 

I thought ME outsold DA, didn't it?