205 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

I think people are saying there is a problem with preparing to be advanced on from front, rear, or side. No, absolutely not.

My problem with DA2 was not combat coming in waves, the roots of the RPG genre are in tabletop wargaming.

TSR, the creators of D & D, came from "Tactical Studies Rules," a lot of the people were medieval war gamers who liked to position troops on the battlefield. Back in the day when it was all about miniatures on hex grids. 

I absolutely agree, if you're not planning and preparing for attacks to come from some place other than the front, you are a poor tactical planner.

No, I don't mind being hit by new waves of enemies coming from sides other than the front; a good tactician would indeed prepare for it. But unless they have Romulan cloaking devices, you should be able to see them coming from a distance off.

But no, it makes neither sense nor logic for them to be literally falling from the skies like being randomly sprinkled by a rain shower - sorry.

Modifié par CybAnt1, 10 février 2014 - 11:08 .

[KaiserShep]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Meanwhile, BioWare has been asking itself what kind of game it wants to make. Inquisition might be a sequel, but not to the game you’d expect. The budget-constricted, single-character-focused misfire that was Dragon Age 2 has been forgotten, it seems, and BioWare is instead crafting a game that – right down to that subtitle – serves more as a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins than its immediate predecessor.

Tasty music to my ears. And I don't really care how it makes you feel.

As one who actually likes how my particular Hawke's story ends, I don't mind that one bit.
 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 février 2014 - 11:09 .

[LinksOcarina]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I think people are saying there is a problem with preparing to be advanced on from front, rear, or side. No, absolutely not.

My problem with DA2 was not combat coming in waves, the roots of the RPG genre are in tabletop wargaming.

TSR, the creators of D & D, came from "Tactical Studies Rules," a lot of the people were medieval war gamers who liked to position troops on the battlefield. Back in the day when it was all about miniatures on hex grids. 

I absolutely agree, if you're not planning and preparing for attacks to come from some place other than the front, you are a poor tactical planner.

No, I don't mind being hit by new waves of enemies coming from sides other than the front; a good tactician would indeed prepare for it. But unless they have Romulan cloaking devices, you should be able to see them coming from a distance off.

But no, it makes neither sense nor logic for them to be literally falling from the skies like being randomly sprinkled by a rain shower - sorry.

I forgot, we want realism in a video game.

I hate to be a little jerky like this, but who cares if it makes sense or not. Did you have fun with it when you played, and if the answer is no, is it really because of how it was designed in this case to work?

I guess again it comes down to taste, but if that is the barrier to enjoyment...

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 10 février 2014 - 11:15 .

[leaguer of one]

ghostzodd wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...



........Link we have talked about this already

Awnser me this... How does the "awesome button" effect pc  players when they don't even have the option use it on pc?

I don't understand this whole awsome button thing.  I played DA2 on Xbox then on PC. the combat is definetly more flashier then origins.  But I enjoyed the combat since have been of fan of action rpgs since I was like 10.

Stuff like Star Ocean till the end of time, Kingdom hearts, Rogue Galaxy.

*Sigh....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV97ozaD4vs

On the console version of da2, their is an option to turn off auto attack and allow the player to manually apply melee attacks, thus turning the wait time between cooldowns to a button masher. PC players freaked and then critazed devs for doing this because they made console the lead  version. Reguardless, the pc verion never got the contriversal manual melee option nor was it ever planned for pc and pc player still to the day use it to hate on da2.

You should not comment on something you know nothing about.

Well I am a PC player and I did not freak out over it oh=]. Anyway ah I understand what your talking about now the manual attack button. Its been 3 years since DA2 dropped,combat was never a problem for me so I considered it a trivial matter

Seriously its the internet don't take it to the head so much

What do it matter if you did not freak. Most people did.Anf most of the ones complaining in this topic are the one that freaked,

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

What makes manual attacks so bad?

I have no idea:huh:

If playing as one character allows you to perform more manual attacks (read as: exert more damage) than an approach that has you managing your entire party actively and equally, such that there is never a time when you would be button mashing, but watching the field and intervening with individual units as needed... then the game is slanting the game design towards being a button masher. 

There are COUNTLESS other games that are action-based button mashers. There are, literally, barely a handful of games being made that let you strategically manage an entire party with equal levels of control between the main character and other NPCs. Any step that slants away from that design is going to be met with more protests than asking why gorillas can't be hunted to make ashtrays out of their hands. You are threatening an endangered species for something that is silly and useless. 

You do know it was console only and you can turn it off.

[CybAnt1]

I forgot, we want realism in a video game.

Seems an odd thing, we want it when we want it, and we don't want it when we don't. Like a lot of stuff. 

My observation is that realism often gets sacrificed to things like convenience or spectacle, and by the way, that doesn't always bother me, either. 

After all, I am often the one telling people that if they want a more realistic medieval combat sim, there's no doubt about it, they will get something better from Kingdom Come than DAI, that's for sure. (P.S. I have zero interest in Kingdom Come. But just saying.)

I hate to be a little jerky like this, but who cares if it makes sense or not. Did you have fun with it when you played,

No. That is an allowable response, yes? (And by that, I mean, it was more fun than getting a case of scurvy, but less fun than a game that DOES make MORE sense. That is a valid opinion, yes?)

and if the answer is no, is it really because of how it was designed in this case to work?

I understand the concept of generating difficulty through random surprise. 

I don't have to like it. But you're right, it IS a taste thing.

[leaguer of one]

Ukki wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

Well, I know I'm often in a minority position on this, but I'd prefer they keep the two series separate, even if one is selling better than the other.

The first was always planned as an action-RPG. The second, by slowly being integrated with the first, was moving in that direction with DA2. As you might know, I don't like that. Certainly, statements I've seen (including on Wikipedia) suggest they are moving back to some aspects of the 1st DA title. Which might be away from the ME series.

Of course, I find that good.

IMHO, the two were meant to appeal to two different audiences. I don't fault people who like them both. As long as they get why I love one, and couldn't get into the other. There are tons of action games out there. I just don't get why the one gaming genre that doesn't have action roots must be melded with action to become the vaunted "action-RPG".

I like shooters - I've played Doom, Unreal Tournament, Quake, Wolfenstein - I thought they got really interesting once vehicles became part of the gaming - I just don't want them mixed into my CRPGs, 1st or 3rd person.

There are so few people out there making RPGs that are not action-RPGs. I'm counting on one of the few remaining developers who seems to know how to do it, they have in the past. I will keep my fingers crossed. What I want is simple: more thinking (in both the combat and the roleplaying), less twitching & fast-emoting. People like me play games. We may be a small cult, but we don't have to be totally ignored. 

This. I skipped ME series after ME2 when I noticed that the game was leaning more and more to pew pew and some video clips. I really hope I don't have to do the same to DA franchise.

You do know that it was ME1 is an action rpg and ME1 is almost as much pew pew as ME2?

Modifié par leaguer of one, 10 février 2014 - 11:27 .

[LinksOcarina]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Even if the guy is spot on, it is a difference of simple taste. 

OK, but his taste matters, and so does mine. At the end of the day, we're all expressing taste.

No offense, but if you want me to weight your taste more than mine because you are a "gaming professional," then no, I will not do that. (I'm not saying I will discount your opinions, either.) 

You have a certain perception of things that doesn't align with mine, but at the end of the day what you say below is what matters. 

So you think ignoring the people who will buy your game is a good idea?

To be clear, I'm surely not suggesting that the BSN does not often express a rather odd variety of ... ideas ... that could lead to a very strangely designed game if all were implemented (and I'm not talking about the oddball "Rumored Features" thread). 

Nor that all opinions need to be listened to equally. 

Again, to be clear, this sounds to me they are listening to the right ones. 

http://www.edge-onli...to-its-origins/

Meanwhile, BioWare has been asking itself what kind of game it wants to make. Inquisition might be a sequel, but not to the game you’d expect. The budget-constricted, single-character-focused misfire that was Dragon Age 2 has been forgotten, it seems, and BioWare is instead crafting a game that – right down to that subtitle – serves more as a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins than its immediate predecessor.

[snip][end]

Tasty music to my ears. And I don't really care how it makes you feel. :innocent:

First off, what the heck does anyone being a gaming professional have to do with this, and why should it matter?

Second, why are you concerned about other peoples tastes then so much? I know I am giving you a hard time on how the waves are constructed  in Dragon Age II, but when talking about tactical vs non-tactical and what have you, that aspect of it, nitpick or not, is irrelevent to the disussion.

It is like saying the warrior can harpoon someone in Inquisition to make them come closer to them in a fight, it does't have to be real to work in the scheme of what is done mechanically. I call such concerns into question because it is irrelevent in the end, and if that is what people object too, they are objecting to the wrong aspects of the game, if you ask me.

Finally  my own taste really doesn't matter.  At no point did I even mention what I actually prefer to anyone in this conversation, because to me personal choices like that are miniscule to worry about. 

And honestly yes, regarding feedback, because at no point can anyone quantify  an opinion. As an example, for the Tides of Numenara game, they did a poll regarding which gameplay style they wanted to do, turn based, or real time. Turn based won (barely) and people got a little upset over that because it was a close vote, including a few threats to cancel their support and what not. 

In that moment, turn based is better than real time, that is quantifying someones opinion on preference. This is why feedback is worrisome to me, people put too much ego into something that is invaluable. I guess we shall see in the end, if you like the direction they are going in, good. Others might not, but are they wrong for thinking that way?

[leaguer of one]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I think people are saying there is a problem with preparing to be advanced on from front, rear, or side. No, absolutely not.

My problem with DA2 was not combat coming in waves, the roots of the RPG genre are in tabletop wargaming.

TSR, the creators of D & D, came from "Tactical Studies Rules," a lot of the people were medieval war gamers who liked to position troops on the battlefield. Back in the day when it was all about miniatures on hex grids. 

I absolutely agree, if you're not planning and preparing for attacks to come from some place other than the front, you are a poor tactical planner.

No, I don't mind being hit by new waves of enemies coming from sides other than the front; a good tactician would indeed prepare for it. But unless they have Romulan cloaking devices, you should be able to see them coming from a distance off.

But no, it makes neither sense nor logic for them to be literally falling from the skies like being randomly sprinkled by a rain shower - sorry.

realisum in a video game...<_<

How the enemies come in does not make the gameplay better or worse. You not liking it is a matter of preferance.

The wave combat is an issue being that every battle is wave combat.

[leaguer of one]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Only thing anyone is guilty of here is making a terrible PR pitch to try to sell the feature. Something, mind you, we should all ignore for sure, but not try to frame a debate that doesn't exist with it. 

Oh I understand. It was a marketing phrase, and I recognize it was technically incorrect to latch onto it in the senses you're describing. For me, it was just a change of emphasis summarized by a phrase. 

That said, I really wish people would stop telling me the combat between DA:I and DA2 didn't change, when the top-down tactical view disappeared. Whether it was on console in DAO or not, it was something PC players lost, and they noticed. 

Oh yes, I know we're getting it back, but don't think it wasn't because players demanded a comeback.

BTW, we also lost traps (for some people important for their combat activity/strategy), and most importantly, the "new wave" completely changed the importance of positioning:

http://www.quarterto...t-with-tactics/

In many ways, combat in Dragon Age: Origins was about tactical placement and planning ahead for a battle where you usually knew all of the combatants ahead of time, while Dragon Age 2 is an exercise in attrition, resource management, and wading through two or more waves of enemies. One of the most popular complaints about Dragon Age 2 is that second and third waves of enemies spawn in such a way that your party goes from being carefully placed and tactically sound to surrounded, cut-off, and vulnerable. Whether this was an intentional design decision or not, the problem is also easily alleviated by grouping your party up as soon as each wave is defeated, and then moving them again as the next round of combat begins. It does make each scenario feel hectic, filled with tight spots where a character is overwhelmed by hordes of enemies (likely the reason why there is no friendly-fire option), or a caster is cut-off without hope of rescue. This is where I believe people are getting hung up on the combat.

It’s sloppy. Yes, it’s sloppy and messy in the “hero is covered head to toe in blood”, but it’s also sloppy because it’s nearly impossible to plan ahead for the entire battle. Your well laid plans are going to come undone, perhaps as soon as you come into contact with the enemy, or perhaps when a third wave finally exhausts your reserves. It’s frustrating, frantic, sloppy, and oddly exhilarating all in a few minutes of keyboard shortcuts and left-mouse clicks. For those of us who want a slower, measured approach, it’s a sad state of affairs for a series that began with the promise of a return to the roots of old-school RPGs. For those who want combat that feels faster, more interactive, and less planned, Dragon Age II is probably a breath of fresh air. Count me in the latter category, but as someone who has played every single one of those old-school RPGs, there are times when I shake my head in frustration realizing how a little bit of compromise in the two combat philosophies could have made for something truly special.

[snip][end]

I think this guy is spot on, and secondly, the good news for me, for him, for you, and for all, is I think they are seeking that compromise in DA:I. 

So yes, we're arguing about nothing, except in this case, unlike the argument over a word, I *do* consider this one non-trivial. 

At the end of the day, everybody's arguing their preferences - of course. Question is, are the developers going to seek the compromise between sets of preferences, or screw one group? 

No one did not say da2 is not a battle of  attrition, resource management, and wading through two or more waves of enemies. The fact every battle is like that is an issue. But it not like their is no tactic with the game. DA2 heavily depends on the tactical use of crowd control and repositoning. It not like tactics are gone, it's just different.

[CybAnt1]

In that moment, turn based is better than real time, that is quantifying someones opinion on preference. This is why feedback is worrisome to me, people put too much ego into something that is invaluable. I guess we shall see in the end, if you like the direction they are going in, good. Others might not, but are they wrong for thinking that way?

Well, as I've often said, sometimes you have to look for the diplomatic option -- win/win.

At the end of the day, I would say pause-and-play is the best way to satisfy both gaming constituencies (turn based and real time).

I also know that in sometimes trying to please everybody, you please nobody, and constraints prevent you from doing the win/win. 

In this case, I don't think it was the case. Bioware has found the best solution for their games. And I would have suggested it - if they asked me - but I didn't take that poll. 

[LinksOcarina]

leaguer of one wrote...

No one did not say da2 is not a battle of  attrition, resource management, and wading through two or more waves of enemies. The fact every battle is like that is an issue. But it not like their is no tactic with the game. DA2 heavily depends on the tactical use of crowd control and repositoning. It not like tactics are gone, it's just different.

I still argue neither game is really that tactical to begin with, it shouldn't matter how the tactics are done, for many that is a concern and a fair one.

You are right its there in both, but he didn't say that it wasn't present either. Cyb also says its just different man, from my understanding at least. No need to bring it up in the end. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 10 février 2014 - 11:37 .

[CybAnt1]

realisum in a video game...<_<

Like I said before, it's often odd how people want it when it suits their preferences, and don't want it when they don't. 

Sometimes the very same people who criticize this behavior in others.

Funny, that. 

[addiction21]

CybAnt1 wrote...


So you think ignoring the people who will buy your game is a good idea?

For the most part yes. They should ignore the majority who are so caught up in the trite rhetoric  of Dragon Effect, Awesome button, CoD crowd complaints. The seemingly endless parade of "I am your fanbase so cater to me and only me" so called fans.

Yes there was a lot wrong with DA2. Bioware not sitting on their laurels and doing the same thing is not one of them and BIoWare has never done that and they should never do that and they should never be docked points because they didn't stop in yours or anyone else's comfort zone.

If they did that then I wonder if there would of ever been after Baldurs gate 1 and 2 a KoTor, NWN, Jade Empire especially not a Mass Effect series that we can **** moan and endlessly whine about the ending to or even a Dragon Age Origins that draws far more from KoToR then what it was supposed to be the spiritual successor to.

That's the biggest ****ing problem when it comes to BIoWare fans they have some idealized version of the company based on that one game they loved and even a carbon copy of that wont hold up to the expectations.

[CybAnt1]

The seemingly endless parade of "I am your fanbase so cater to me and only me" so called fans.

OK, but don't accuse me of being in the "only me" camp when I'm usually not. 

That's the biggest ****ing problem when it comes to BIoWare fans they have some idealized version of the company based on that one game they loved and even a carbon copy of that wont hold up to the expectations.

When you're done with your straw men, let me know. Considering I said the last thing I want is carbon copies of what they did before. 

No, I am not against innovation, but I do have an idea of what is a good direction - for a CRPG. Is my opinion the only one that counts? No. But I'm not going to stop giving it. 

As we like to say, deal with it, because no, I will not stop. 

[Nightdragon8]

LinksOcarina wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

budzai wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I think this awesome button stuff is a bit overblown.

No.

It is when only the pc players of the game use it to hate on da2 when only the console players had it as an option.

Are you really trying to turn this into a PC versus console:pinched:

Nope. Just pointing out the bias.

I am confused what the bias is, the press a button and cool stuff happens?

The bias between PC players and console players regarding the statement being made, which was never true in the design of the game to begin with for one group over the other, later rectified by a patch. 

I always found such things to be silly to me. It shouldn't matter what your preference is in the end. Most games they make for consoles but add PC toggles on anyway now a days for PC players, and vice versa for PC to console adapatations. It really is a fruitless bias in the end. 

Honestly shoudln't the term people use is "Button mashing" not "awesome button" ? Cause from what I understood was that on the Console version you had to keep "Mashing" the attack button to well attack. And then all the rest was to use your ablitiles.

The only difference was that on PC we didn't have to mash an attack button, it was all auto attack and if we wanted to use an abilty we then used the number keys (by defualt)

Cause if by the term "awesome button" you mean using ablities then doesn't that pretty much apply to ALL rpg's MMO's everywhere?

[EmperorSahlertz]

If Dragon Age is going to end up more similar to Mass Effect then that will be all good for me. In my eyes Mass Effect is the vastly superior game and franchise, so whatever Dragon Age take from it and incorporate will be good.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If Dragon Age is going to end up more similar to Mass Effect then that will be all good for me. In my eyes Mass Effect is the vastly superior game and franchise, so whatever Dragon Age take from it and incorporate will be good.

**hiss** Blasphemy!

[leaguer of one]

CybAnt1 wrote...

realisum in a video game...<_<

Like I said before, it's often odd how people want it when it suits their preferences, and don't want it when they don't. 

Sometimes the very same people who criticize this behavior in others.

Funny, that. 

Yes, it's a double edge sword. You say it makes no sense for people to drop from the sky. I way it makes no sense for a person to get up from being attacked form a dragon. These are all aspect of game play /story segregation.

[CybAnt1]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If Dragon Age is going to end up more similar to Mass Effect then that will be all good for me. In my eyes Mass Effect is the vastly superior game and franchise, so whatever Dragon Age take from it and incorporate will be good.

Some things can be counted on, like clockwork and sunshine. 

[leaguer of one]

CybAnt1 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If Dragon Age is going to end up more similar to Mass Effect then that will be all good for me. In my eyes Mass Effect is the vastly superior game and franchise, so whatever Dragon Age take from it and incorporate will be good.

Some things can be counted on, like clockwork and sunshine. 

A broken clock can only be right twice.

[Wothen]

The discussion really got de-railed into the definition of action rpg hasn't it?

[CybAnt1]

Seems to be two factions, here, mate re DA2. One that will blast you for disliking the combat, and one that will blast you for disliking the dialogue system. Heaven help you if you dislike both, it just ain't allowed. 

Of course, I am one who has not been known to back down from arguments. :innocent:

Take the conversation where you will, I do get tired. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 11 février 2014 - 12:56 .

[Black-Xero]

ARPGs are the best.

[KaiserShep]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Seems to be two factions, here, mate re DA2. One that will blast you for disliking the combat, and one that will blast you for disliking the dialogue system. Heaven help you if you dislike both, it just ain't allowed. 

Of course, I am one who has not been known to back down from arguments. :innocent:

Take the conversation where you will, I do get tired. 

I've found that liking the game at all drew a lot of fodder around these parts, because it's so awful that it's driving the bees into extinction and keeps Putin alive.