Aller au contenu

Photo

Dragon Effect 3!


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
205 réponses à ce sujet

#51
n7stormrunner

n7stormrunner
  • Members
  • 1 605 messages

CybAnt1 wrote...

I don't see where people are seeing this distinction between action RPG and whatever Origins is, because they're pretty much one the same. 


Well, let me point out one difference that makes a difference, although this will go in a different direction. 

You may notice that there is a tabletop RPG version of Dragon Age, by Green Ronin publishing.
http://greenronin.com/dragon_age/

The only tabletop RPG version of Mass Effect is one being worked on by fans. There is no official one.
http://masseffectd6.blogspot.com

Why do you think that is? Could it be that one team is at least still trying to keep Dragon Age adhering to a computer-based instantiation of a tabletop RPG, and the other (Mass Effect) team is ... just making an action-CRPG?

P.S. turn-based is not what anyone's arguing for - at this point. Not when pause-and-play works just as well. 



actually some do argue for turn based... or think pause and play make it turn based.

#52
CybAnt1

CybAnt1
  • Members
  • 3 659 messages

I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


1. lack of (anywhere, anytime) interaction with companions.
2. crafting that feels like shopping (see thread) (although I *have* said some DA2 crafting & inventory changes were improvements)
3. combat which is more like an action-RPG than a traditional tactical-RPG ... something we've been discussing
4. the auto-romance feature, which I've discussed, though it could be a subset of "wheel/voiced issues"
5. things where it's not clear where design comes in vs. lack of time ... like reused areas, the feeling of rushing too much to the ending. 

Oh, and you ignored a lot of what was in posts above yours. 

#53
CybAnt1

CybAnt1
  • Members
  • 3 659 messages

actually some do argue for turn based... or think pause and play make it turn based.


They're allowed to feel that way, but ... yep, pause and play is Bioware's bread and butter.

The first Dragon Age game that drops it completely ... and I already know DA:I won't, which is why I'm still here ... will completely alienate what I would call Bioware's "traditional" fanbase. 

The cool thing? Those who want to come close to replicating a turn-based game can use it constantly, those who prefer never using it never have to. The classic "win/win". 

#54
phoenix fang55

phoenix fang55
  • Members
  • 247 messages
cybant1, you missed the main point I was making, overall, they use the same basic mechanics, there are some, different ones, but for the most part, they're incredibly similar, and what bioware has is a winning formula. Unlike some people, after me3, and everything I've seen I'm confident DA:I is gonna be epic. The biggest problem with ME:3 was the ending, if you take the last 5-10 minutes off the game, and its utterly epic!

#55
Star fury

Star fury
  • Members
  • 6 412 messages

KaiserShep wrote...

I get this impression around these parts that Dragon Age 2 is considered to be some kind of pestilence from which absolutely nothing should be borrowed. Thing is, what are the specific traits of Dragon Age 2 that are being borrowed, and why are they bad? I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


I'd appreciate if you show me things worth taking from DA2.

#56
n7stormrunner

n7stormrunner
  • Members
  • 1 605 messages

CybAnt1 wrote...

actually some do argue for turn based... or think pause and play make it turn based.


They're allowed to feel that way, but ... yep, pause and play is Bioware's bread and butter.

The first Dragon Age game that drops it completely ... and I already know DA:I won't, which is why I'm still here ... will completely alienate what I would call Bioware's "traditional" fanbase. 

The cool thing? Those who want to come close to replicating a turn-based game can use it constantly, those who prefer never using it never have to. The classic "win/win". 


I would agree with that, mostly.

#57
n7stormrunner

n7stormrunner
  • Members
  • 1 605 messages

Star fury wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I get this impression around these parts that Dragon Age 2 is considered to be some kind of pestilence from which absolutely nothing should be borrowed. Thing is, what are the specific traits of Dragon Age 2 that are being borrowed, and why are they bad? I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


I'd appreciate if you show me things worth taking from DA2.


not dancing for 5 minute before attacking? mage reacting to the fact they could hit someone with the big stick they all carry? facial expressions? companions caring you feel depressed? need any more?

#58
KaiserShep

KaiserShep
  • Members
  • 23 863 messages

CybAnt1 wrote...

I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


1. lack of (anywhere, anytime) interaction with companions.
2. crafting that feels like shopping (see thread) (although I *have* said some DA2 crafting & inventory changes were improvements)
3. combat which is more like an action-RPG than a traditional tactical-RPG ... something we've been discussing
4. the auto-romance feature, which I've discussed, though it could be a subset of "wheel/voiced issues"
5. things where it's not clear where design comes in vs. lack of time ... like reused areas, the feeling of rushing too much to the ending. 

Oh, and you ignored a lot of what was in posts above yours. 




1. I find this one to be a mixed blessing, at least when it comes to consoles. I found it was easy to accidentally select companion on the field, and if the approval/friendship/whatever number was high enough, or certain conversations were initiated prior, it might trigger certain dialogue that I'd prefer not to initiate just yet. Where I think DA:O really shined was in the amount of content available from each companion, rather than the fact that you could initiate the conversation anywhere. I would be just as happy having as much content being limited to specific times or at the character's home base. That said, I do miss having so many conversation opportunities with the characters. I'd like to see some proper middle ground come to DA:I.

2. Admittedly, crafting was something I've neglected thus far.

3. The disparity between the two on the combat front is not as wide as people let on. The combat in DA2 is faster-paced and there are some fairly outlandish moves, but they both use the same basic design for combat, and both allow you to manually maneuver your team around the field. DA:O seems to either lack this function, or have it in some counterintuitive form on consoles. I think DA2's biggest issue with combat was the [random] encounters within Kirkwall, being the much-maligned from-the-rafters spawning enemies that made maneuvering your squisier companions maddening at times. This is something I'm pretty certain will not happen in DA:I, as people have been pretty vocal about it.

4. Auto-romance seems to be more of a writing issue with certain characters, but it does present one of the key problems with paraphrasing in general, since you're not quite sure what you're getting. Anders is a worst case since he gets gushy and acts like you're trying to initiate something with him, even if you ignore the flirt options.

5. Considering how big an issue this was in just about every review, even the positive ones, I'm pretty sure BioWare has taken the reused areas and rushed feeling that permeated throughout the game very much to heart.

Star fury wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I get
this impression around these parts that Dragon Age 2 is considered to
be some kind of pestilence from which absolutely nothing should be
borrowed. Thing is, what are the specific traits of Dragon Age 2 that
are being borrowed, and why are they bad? I'm aware of complaints around
things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so
forth, but what else is there? 


I'd appreciate if you show me things worth taking from DA2.


This response tells me that you don't consider a single design element from Dragon Age 2 worth carrying over to Inquisition, in which case what I consider to be "worth taking" pretty irrelevant. Anyway, DA2's setup isn't all bad. Some of the subtle changes from the little things that irked me about DA:O were gone. The combat shuffle won't be missed. Not having to sift through the inventory to destroy items just to loot health poultices or lyrium was nice. I'd say voiced protagonist, but this was pretty obvious, though I understand the contention behind this design decision for some. I actually approve of the basic design of the talent tree. It could certainly stand to be a bit more comprehensive. That said, I do miss some of the class hybrids you could build, like dual weapon warrior or arcane warrior. I'm hoping that DA:I does bring that back.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 février 2014 - 07:05 .


#59
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 189 messages

CybAnt1 wrote...
What I want is simple: more thinking (in both the combat and the roleplaying), less twitching & fast-emoting.

+1

I may add that while I don't exactly dislike shooters, their standard mechanics and fast-paced gameplay do nothing for me. So most big games on the market went in a direction I don't care for in recent years. My preferred playstyle is slow and methodical, and an advertising line like "fast-paced and exciting" is actually more of a turn-off for me. I get my kicks from a story and a character I can shape to some degree, thus making informed decisions is critical and - among other things - hiding stuff under simplistic and vague paraphrases is highly detrimental.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 février 2014 - 08:25 .


#60
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 189 messages

n7stormrunner wrote...

Star fury wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I get this impression around these parts that Dragon Age 2 is considered to be some kind of pestilence from which absolutely nothing should be borrowed. Thing is, what are the specific traits of Dragon Age 2 that are being borrowed, and why are they bad? I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


I'd appreciate if you show me things worth taking from DA2.


not dancing for 5 minute before attacking? mage reacting to the fact they could hit someone with the big stick they all carry? facial expressions? companions caring you feel depressed? need any more?

I agree with most of that, but what people call the "combat shuffle" is actually an important element of tactical combat: movement. Through several related design decisions, DA2 makes positioning tactics completely irrelevant, and that's not a good thing. If positioning is relevant, it will always take some time to move into an attacking position (because again, if it doesn't then positioning is irrelevant). So....yes, it will be missed by some. I want my mage to be able to stand away without being attacked in 0.1 seconds by someone with superhero acrobatics, and I want to cast carefully targeted spells at tactically relevant enemies instead of being in the middle of things and spamming AoE attacks because of the absence of friendly fire.

#61
KaiserShep

KaiserShep
  • Members
  • 23 863 messages
Regarding paraphrasing, what keeps it from breaking down completely as a design element is that the story itself does not engage the PC in a great deal of debate. You can do things like picking sides and having brief arguments, but imagine that system being implemented during something like the Landsmeet. It would be a total craps shoot, considering that these options can be affected by the impressions you get from the nobles you talk to prior. Example: Arl Wulf. The dialogue emphasizing the Blight over the threat of Orlais may be an option you'd lean toward as a result of talking to him on the loss of his sons. Such an option would be harder to discern (maybe even impossible) if paraphrased.

#62
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 189 messages

KaiserShep wrote...
Regarding paraphrasing, what keeps it from breaking down completely as a design element is that the story itself does not engage the PC in a great deal of debate. You can do things like picking sides and having brief arguments, but imagine that system being implemented during something like the Landsmeet. It would be a total craps shoot, considering that these options can be affected by the impressions you get from the nobles you talk to prior. Example: Arl Wulf. The dialogue emphasizing the Blight over the threat of Orlais may be an option you'd lean toward as a result of talking to him on the loss of his sons. Such an option would be harder to discern (maybe even impossible) if paraphrased.

In other words, paraphrasing makes it impossible to implement the most interesting kind of social interaction.

Yet again, I can present DXHR and it's "social boss battles" as an example against being reduced to paraphrases. They are constructed in a way that if you listen carefully to what your opponent has to say and select a response after looking at the full text shown and using the most appropriate one considering your opponent's personality, you will win in the end. It plays and feels like a real debate and that's very satisfying. Such a kind of "informed persuasion" is impossible if you're limited to paraphrases. Now Bioware has never done a lot of that and consequently they were never really good at it (as opposed to PST, all but one of the Fallout games and Arcanum), but a situation like the Landsmeet shows that if it's important enough, the effort will occasionally be made. And then the next design decision comes and even this small evolution is gone.

So much easier to let everything devolve into combat like DA2 did...

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 février 2014 - 09:13 .


#63
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

CybAnt1 wrote...




3. combat which is more like an action-RPG than a traditional tactical-RPG ... something we've been discussing



Wait ...Wait ..wait... DA2 combat is still point a click. It's nothing like an action rpg.

#64
n7stormrunner

n7stormrunner
  • Members
  • 1 605 messages

leaguer of one wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...




3. combat which is more like an action-RPG than a traditional tactical-RPG ... something we've been discussing



Wait ...Wait ..wait... DA2 combat is still point a click. It's nothing like an action rpg.


shh, they don't know what action rpg are like and I haven't had the heart to tell them how it actually goes.

#65
n7stormrunner

n7stormrunner
  • Members
  • 1 605 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Star fury wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I get this impression around these parts that Dragon Age 2 is considered to be some kind of pestilence from which absolutely nothing should be borrowed. Thing is, what are the specific traits of Dragon Age 2 that are being borrowed, and why are they bad? I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


I'd appreciate if you show me things worth taking from DA2.


not dancing for 5 minute before attacking? mage reacting to the fact they could hit someone with the big stick they all carry? facial expressions? companions caring you feel depressed? need any more?

I agree with most of that, but what people call the "combat shuffle" is actually an important element of tactical combat: movement. Through several related design decisions, DA2 makes positioning tactics completely irrelevant, and that's not a good thing. If positioning is relevant, it will always take some time to move into an attacking position (because again, if it doesn't then positioning is irrelevant). So....yes, it will be missed by some. I want my mage to be able to stand away without being attacked in 0.1 seconds by someone with superhero acrobatics, and I want to cast carefully targeted spells at tactically relevant enemies instead of being in the middle of things and spamming AoE attacks because of the absence of friendly fire.


umm, I'm sorry but I'm going need a few days and some strong drinks figure how wander aimlessly is tactical... far as I can tell it's pointless why can't I just hit the guy just standing in front of me. and I want my character  to not waddle like he has a pinecone.. I'll get banned if finish that thought so for now bed.

p.s, though from what they shown it looks like da: I will be what da2 too should have been, less clumsy and more tactial.

#66
KaiserShep

KaiserShep
  • Members
  • 23 863 messages
Wikipedia lists one as just role-playing and the other as action role-playing, but as far as the basic design of the combat itself goes, the difference is not that great.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 février 2014 - 11:47 .


#67
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

KaiserShep wrote...

Wikipedia lists one as just role-playing and the other as action role-playing, but as far as the basic design goes, there is no real difference.

Theirs nothing da2 has that makes it an action rpg. Action rpgs is a matter of more player control that stat control in combat. That the success of an attack hitting is based on player skill then stat skill. And out side of aoe skills and spell, I have nver aimed in DA2. Just point and click. It 's faster and has better animations then dao but that does not make in an action rpg.

It has no real twitch aspect to it out side of knowing when to move out of the way of big attacks. And even mmos and DAO have that.

#68
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 189 messages

n7stormrunner wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Star fury wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I get this impression around these parts that Dragon Age 2 is considered to be some kind of pestilence from which absolutely nothing should be borrowed. Thing is, what are the specific traits of Dragon Age 2 that are being borrowed, and why are they bad? I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


I'd appreciate if you show me things worth taking from DA2.


not dancing for 5 minute before attacking? mage reacting to the fact they could hit someone with the big stick they all carry? facial expressions? companions caring you feel depressed? need any more?

I agree with most of that, but what people call the "combat shuffle" is actually an important element of tactical combat: movement. Through several related design decisions, DA2 makes positioning tactics completely irrelevant, and that's not a good thing. If positioning is relevant, it will always take some time to move into an attacking position (because again, if it doesn't then positioning is irrelevant). So....yes, it will be missed by some. I want my mage to be able to stand away without being attacked in 0.1 seconds by someone with superhero acrobatics, and I want to cast carefully targeted spells at tactically relevant enemies instead of being in the middle of things and spamming AoE attacks because of the absence of friendly fire.


umm, I'm sorry but I'm going need a few days and some strong drinks figure how wander aimlessly is tactical... far as I can tell it's pointless why can't I just hit the guy just standing in front of me. and I want my character  to not waddle like he has a pinecone.. I'll get banned if finish that thought so for now bed.

p.s, though from what they shown it looks like da: I will be what da2 too should have been, less clumsy and more tactial.

When were you ever unable to hit the guy in front of you? Also, I haven't seen anything like "waddling like a pinecone".

#69
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Star fury wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I get this impression around these parts that Dragon Age 2 is considered to be some kind of pestilence from which absolutely nothing should be borrowed. Thing is, what are the specific traits of Dragon Age 2 that are being borrowed, and why are they bad? I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


I'd appreciate if you show me things worth taking from DA2.


not dancing for 5 minute before attacking? mage reacting to the fact they could hit someone with the big stick they all carry? facial expressions? companions caring you feel depressed? need any more?

I agree with most of that, but what people call the "combat shuffle" is actually an important element of tactical combat: movement. Through several related design decisions, DA2 makes positioning tactics completely irrelevant, and that's not a good thing. If positioning is relevant, it will always take some time to move into an attacking position (because again, if it doesn't then positioning is irrelevant). So....yes, it will be missed by some. I want my mage to be able to stand away without being attacked in 0.1 seconds by someone with superhero acrobatics, and I want to cast carefully targeted spells at tactically relevant enemies instead of being in the middle of things and spamming AoE attacks because of the absence of friendly fire.


umm, I'm sorry but I'm going need a few days and some strong drinks figure how wander aimlessly is tactical... far as I can tell it's pointless why can't I just hit the guy just standing in front of me. and I want my character  to not waddle like he has a pinecone.. I'll get banned if finish that thought so for now bed.

p.s, though from what they shown it looks like da: I will be what da2 too should have been, less clumsy and more tactial.

When were you ever unable to hit the guy in front of you? Also, I haven't seen anything like "waddling like a pinecone".

In dao it takes longer for your character to attack and way longer for them to move.

#70
Star fury

Star fury
  • Members
  • 6 412 messages

leaguer of one wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Wikipedia lists one as just role-playing and the other as action role-playing, but as far as the basic design goes, there is no real difference.

Theirs nothing da2 has that makes it an action rpg. Action rpgs is a matter of more player control that stat control in combat. That the success of an attack hitting is based on player skill then stat skill. And out side of aoe skills and spell, I have nver aimed in DA2. Just point and click. It 's faster and has better animations then dao but that does not make in an action rpg.

It has no real twitch aspect to it out side of knowing when to move out of the way of big attacks. And even mmos and DAO have that.


It's a matter of semantics. Diablo 3 is also "point and click" but it is an epitome of action/RPG.

#71
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

Star fury wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I get this impression around these parts that Dragon Age 2 is considered to be some kind of pestilence from which absolutely nothing should be borrowed. Thing is, what are the specific traits of Dragon Age 2 that are being borrowed, and why are they bad? I'm aware of complaints around things like paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel, autodialogue and so forth, but what else is there? 


I'd appreciate if you show me things worth taking from DA2.


not dancing for 5 minute before attacking? mage reacting to the fact they could hit someone with the big stick they all carry? facial expressions? companions caring you feel depressed? need any more?

I agree with most of that, but what people call the "combat shuffle" is actually an important element of tactical combat: movement. Through several related design decisions, DA2 makes positioning tactics completely irrelevant, and that's not a good thing. If positioning is relevant, it will always take some time to move into an attacking position (because again, if it doesn't then positioning is irrelevant). So....yes, it will be missed by some. I want my mage to be able to stand away without being attacked in 0.1 seconds by someone with superhero acrobatics, and I want to cast carefully targeted spells at tactically relevant enemies instead of being in the middle of things and spamming AoE attacks because of the absence of friendly fire.


The combat shuffle is not important at all. That 's time you can be attacking and open ups time for the enemy to attack.
And in positioning tactics completely relevant. It just that you can't stay in the same place for very long because of wave combat. DA tactics is alway about making a bottle neak anw waring enemies down. Due to DA2 waves you always have to move where the bottle neak is mind combat to be effective.

Yes, enemies are always moving around and repositioning but their are abilities and spells to counter all that. DA2 has the best crowd control abilities in the series so far.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 10 février 2014 - 12:06 .


#72
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

Star fury wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Wikipedia lists one as just role-playing and the other as action role-playing, but as far as the basic design goes, there is no real difference.

Theirs nothing da2 has that makes it an action rpg. Action rpgs is a matter of more player control that stat control in combat. That the success of an attack hitting is based on player skill then stat skill. And out side of aoe skills and spell, I have nver aimed in DA2. Just point and click. It 's faster and has better animations then dao but that does not make in an action rpg.

It has no real twitch aspect to it out side of knowing when to move out of the way of big attacks. And even mmos and DAO have that.


It's a matter of semantics. Diablo 3 is also "point and click" but it is an epitome of action/RPG.

DIABILO has no autoattack, Has you smashing buttons all the time, no pause feature and the chances of attack missing it based on how fast you can hit the dogue button.
DA2 is nothing like that. DA2 has not real twitch combat outside of moving a character out of the way of aoe attacks.(And DAO has that as well.)

#73
KaiserShep

KaiserShep
  • Members
  • 23 863 messages
Without that positioning tactic in DA2, I'm pretty sure I'd go bald tearing my hair out when fighting Ser Alrik and Ser Varnell.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 février 2014 - 12:13 .


#74
Wothen

Wothen
  • Members
  • 191 messages
Dialog Wheels with 2 options, PC speaking automatically 80% of the game, horrible ending...ugh

Im really putting some faith in bioware for inquisition, I hope the longer development cycle improves things
If not, well, lets say they won't see my money for awhile

Modifié par Wothen, 10 février 2014 - 12:27 .


#75
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

KaiserShep wrote...

Without that positioning tactic in DA2, I'm pretty sure I'd go bald tearing my hair out when fighting Ser Alrik and Ser Varnell.

It's call repositioning and aiming for the enemy rogues. As I said before, da combat tactic is based around making bottle neaks, da2 just make have to move where that bottle neak is mid battle. People who complain about lack of tactics in da2 just don't like to watch their back and reposition.