205 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Yeah, I don't know what he is talking about.... The vast majority of forumites here on BSN will jump at any oppertunity to flame a person who actually exhibits preference to DA2 over DA:O, or even just enjoyed some features of DA2..

[Uccio]

leaguer of one wrote...

Ukki wrote...

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?

ME2 is so plainly more action than ME1 that it would be hard to not to see the difference. One button action and video scenes.

[KaiserShep]

What one button action? Dunno what it's like to play Mass Effect on PC, but as a PS3 user, I use the same exact buttons to take aim, fire, and pause for the power wheel across the entire trilogy. The only big difference is the improvement of the character's combat maneuvering, particularly vaulting over objects, combat rolls and melee attacks. Combat in Mass Effect did not become more simplistic as the series progressed.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 11 février 2014 - 06:36 .

[n7stormrunner]

Ukki wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Ukki wrote...

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?

ME2 is so plainly more action than ME1 that it would be hard to not to see the difference. One button action and video scenes.

where as me 1 you had one button actions and video cutscenes...

[KaiserShep]

Does anyone ever press only one button when engaging in combat in any ME game? I've always held two buttons, one to focus in with the weapon, and the other to fire.

[n7stormrunner]

KaiserShep wrote...

Does anyone ever press only one button when engaging in combat in any ME game? I've always held two buttons, one to focus in with the weapon, and the other to fire.

well I was humoring him, but yes that is how one plays shooters, and don't for get pausing to use power you don't have in the quick use slot. which weirdly I did alot more in ME then DA.

[KaiserShep]

I used squad positioning a lot more in ME, though this was made more necessary by the fact that just about every enemy, save for varren, were ranged attackers.

[Nightdragon8]

KaiserShep wrote...

I used squad positioning a lot more in ME, though this was made more necessary by the fact that just about every enemy, save for varren, were ranged attackers.

and Korgan, kinda sad how Korgan was a tougher fight than an Armiture

[Star fury]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I used squad positioning a lot more in ME, though this was made more necessary by the fact that just about every enemy, save for varren, were ranged attackers.

and Korgan, kinda sad how Korgan was a tougher fight than an Armiture

What the hell are "Korgan" and "Armiture"?

[spirosz]

Star fury wrote...

Nightdragon8 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I used squad positioning a lot more in ME, though this was made more necessary by the fact that just about every enemy, save for varren, were ranged attackers.

and Korgan, kinda sad how Korgan was a tougher fight than an Armiture

What the hell are "Korgan" and "Armiture"?

Dissin' on a man's spellin' - stay classy. 

[Naesaki]

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 did like DA 2's combat (though not the falling from the sky waves) and dialogue system to an extent, though obviously the paraphrasing needs work but doesn't need to be scrapped entirely, but what I didn't like was the general lack of any polish, and the copy-pasta environments, and lifeless npc's or those really low resolution elves, but its what you can expect in a game that was only given 16 months to be made because EA wanted to cash in on the success of Origins

[Ieldra]

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.

Exactly. I am planning for plausible possibilities. That does not include the next wave of enemies dropping out of the sky around me regardless of where I move. That, not the inability to adapt, is what makes positioning tactics irrelevant. That, and the fact that you can spam AOE attacks with impunity that - implausibly - don't damage your own people. Friendly fire would've made combat more interesting if only the insane speed and the "everything is an ambush" setup hadn't prevented any tactical planning beyond the next half second. Add the insane acrobatics, cheap spell effects and it all feels like a parody.

Gods, don't remind me. There is nothing I've hated in gaming quite as much as DA2's combat. Ever in 30 years.

[chuckwells62]

I've played every single Dragon Age game and dlc that is available. I've also played every single Mass Effect game and dlc that is available too!

I really enjoy both franchises, but you have to admit that the disparity between the two has blurred since the initial offerings of each series and that is unfortunate. Given a choice, I would much prefer that each franchise maintain its own personal dynamic.

Considering the similarities that have been offered in this thread, only the most delusional gamers and devs can truly offer a rebuttal; and that is just sad. Until I see otherwise, I will give Inquisition the benefit of the doubt.

[CybAnt1]

I did like DA 2's combat (though not the falling from the sky waves) and dialogue system to an extent, though obviously the paraphrasing needs work but doesn't need to be scrapped entirely, but what I didn't like was the general lack of any polish, and the copy-pasta environments, and lifeless npc's or those really low resolution elves, but its what you can expect in a game that was only given 16 months to be made because EA wanted to cash in on the success of Origins

Stick around fella, you might figure out I'm not disagreeing JUST to be disagreeable, nor pointing out problems to Bioware (& solutions) because they couldn't fix them AND keep MOST people happy. 

Nor am I some odd Luddite who wants gaming stuck in 2001, and simply whining that I never got my Baldur's Gate 3.... hey, fair's fair, I guess I do caricature the other side a bit, too, though I avoid name-calling like "casuals" because I've seen it slammed at me in MMOs, because I'm not into the hardcore raiding stuff. 

Some people really want this to be an either/or, like mage/templar. Turn-based OR real-time! Old-school or casuals! Our way must prevail! I'm often pointing to the win/win for both sides.

Haters gonna hate. I know it. I keep on keepin' on. 

I do think some people here would really seriously argue that Gigli and Ishtar were good movies, and that if you criticize aspects of them, you're a nitpicker just unable to let go & have fun watching a movie, and after all they were just movies, what, did they set you back more than $7?

Quality from a movie? Pfffft. Taste differences. Movies can't be done better.












 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 11 février 2014 - 01:00 .

[CybAnt1]

I really enjoy both franchises, but you have to admit that the disparity between the two has blurred since the initial offerings of each series and that is unfortunate. Given a choice, I would much prefer that each franchise maintain its own personal dynamic.

Seems a reasonable enough position. I mean, yes, I will admit there are people like me who don't like Mass Effect, but have never said "no one else possibly could". I mean, obviously they do, would I deny it outsells DA? It ain't because it's unpopular that I'm staring at Shepard's mug & biosuit right now. 

Nor am I shocked of the trajectory of the ME games - it follows from where they started. 

I guess just politely asking that since the DA games started with a different fanbase, and a different set of (action)RPG philosophies, that they not go in the same direction, is heresy.

So be it. I feel ya. I'm listening.

Modifié par CybAnt1, 11 février 2014 - 01:01 .

[philippe willaume]

yes
I would go one further.
Trying-dying-spell change-sleep do it again is not really planning either.
what I really liked in DA:0 was that you could, though recon, manage the terrain and the opposition so that you had a tactical advantage.
Having two weapon tree available did help, and i really hope that will make its way back in DA:I.

To be fair you could still do that in ME:2 or ME:3 though it was not a necessity. I am fine with that because it is there if you want to use it and you don't have to use it if you don't want to.

DA:2 for me was more like Never Winter Night online or SWtoR, with less option per build and until act III a better story-line. basically other tactic or strategy that selecting cool-down on quick bar and go in and cycle through cool down. Since you could not interrupt animation i gave up very early to have the companion doing anything else than the tactical script that was set up before combat started.

So basically DA:2 felt more like a single player game with several companions rather than party based game.(DA:0 with two mages is not far from that either)
so i am with Ieldra2 on that one...

The waves are fine as long as they are not over used, I can live with rogues coming from the roof to target archers and mages. In fact i would like to do it with my rogues...
I liked DA:2 behavior scripting but it is not a replacement for on the spot management of the party members. When things do't go as initially planed

phil

[Naesaki]

Since we are getting tactical view back and such, does seem like enemies falling from the sky won't happen again and it does help we have much larger and more detailed regions this time with Inquisition and not tons and tons of confined spaces were you couldn't hide enemies anyway, so falling from the sky thing seemed to be the only way to keep the surprise there in DA II, and tbh the whole falling from the sky was probably one of the many results of such a short development time(they had to cut corners somewhere xD)

I think if enemies are going to fall from the sky, it needs to make sense In the context of the area, I mean if you are travelling through a very dense and thick forest, it would be conceivable for Rogue enemies to be lurking in the tree's ready to ambush you.

[CybAnt1]

so falling from the sky thing seemed to be the only way to keep the surprise there in DA II,

What, hordes of enemies busting out of doors in nearby homes couldn't work? Some people really need to watch more Hong Kong Kung Fu flicks. 

The rooves in Kirkwall must be really, really strong, a lot of medieval roofing couldn't support that many ninjas.

EDIT: the other cool thing is every roof in Kirkwall has an invisibility field generator, that prevents you from looking up and seeing people waiting on the rooves to jump down on you. 

Or they're raining from the storm clouds. Take your pick. 

It's not like they don't already have a surprise mechanic - enemy rogues and assassins can sneak up on you with undetectable stealth. (You used to have a chance to detect them in Origins. Now, no more. Of course, we as rogues are pretty much undetectable, too.) But I guess they had to throw in another.

The people in metal armor jumping off rooves and not hurting themselves when they land ...

OK, OK. I know. Realism. Video games. Done. :innocent:

Modifié par CybAnt1, 11 février 2014 - 02:00 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

You could detect enemy rogues by casting AoE with a force multiplier... Things like mind blast, fireball etc.

[HiroVoid]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Exactly. I am planning for plausible possibilities. That does not include the next wave of enemies dropping out of the sky around me regardless of where I move. That, not the inability to adapt, is what makes positioning tactics irrelevant. That, and the fact that you can spam AOE attacks with impunity that - implausibly - don't damage your own people. Friendly fire would've made combat more interesting if only the insane speed and the "everything is an ambush" setup hadn't prevented any tactical planning beyond the next half second. Add the insane acrobatics, cheap spell effects and it all feels like a parody.

Gods, don't remind me. There is nothing I've hated in gaming quite as much as DA2's combat. Ever in 30 years.

There's a lot of elements I don't like in Dragon Age II, but the combat or at least the way enemy encounters was done is what stops me from ever picking it up and playing it again.  When combat is what you'll be doing the majority of the time in Dragon Age, gameplay becomes much more important than some people realize.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 11 février 2014 - 04:18 .

[Darth Death]

BioWare is notorious for recycling previous ideas. I wouldn't be surprise if DAI is a re-skin of ME3.

[LinksOcarina]

HiroVoid wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Exactly. I am planning for plausible possibilities. That does not include the next wave of enemies dropping out of the sky around me regardless of where I move. That, not the inability to adapt, is what makes positioning tactics irrelevant. That, and the fact that you can spam AOE attacks with impunity that - implausibly - don't damage your own people. Friendly fire would've made combat more interesting if only the insane speed and the "everything is an ambush" setup hadn't prevented any tactical planning beyond the next half second. Add the insane acrobatics, cheap spell effects and it all feels like a parody.

Gods, don't remind me. There is nothing I've hated in gaming quite as much as DA2's combat. Ever in 30 years.

There's a lot of elements I don't like in Dragon Age II, but the combat or at least the way enemy encounters was done is what stops me from ever picking it up and playing it again.  When combat is what you'll be doing the majority of the time in Dragon Age, gameplay becomes much more important than some people realize.

Except that is part of the aesthetic, not the gameplay.

As Cybant pointed out before from other sources here:

CybAnt1 wrote...

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.

The mechanics for combant were changed to be more spontaneous and erratic, to think on the fly and plan when fighting in waves. It gave off a different  vibe because of this. Long term planning was simply not the focus, although you can still use tactics to gain the upper hand against enemies in a fight. 

Enemies suddenly appearing from the sky is likely a developer cheat, an aesthetic compromise too keep the game stable. The loss of long-term tactics after the first wave of enemies is the drawback for some I am sure, but to lay blame because of how the enemies appear is a bit extreme if you ask me, since it would be no different than something like this:

www.youtube.com/watch

With the benefit of knowing where they come from of course, you can simply swarm and strike to keep it nice and easy, but the basic design choice is the same really. How it is shown is kind of irrelevent at that point. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 11 février 2014 - 04:59 .

[KaiserShep]

Darth Death wrote...

BioWare is notorious for recycling previous ideas. I wouldn't be surprise if DAI is a re-skin of ME3.

Considering that Shepard's objective was to gather enough forces to fight against the reapers, Inquisition going that same route would essentially make it fairly reminiscent of Origins, since that was exactly the same idea.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 11 février 2014 - 05:54 .

[Darth Death]

KaiserShep wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

BioWare is notorious for recycling previous ideas. I wouldn't be surprise if DAI is a re-skin of ME3.

Considering that Shepard's objective was to gather enough forces to fight against the reapers, Inquisition going that same route would essentially make it fairly reminiscent of Origins, since that was exactly the same idea.

Indeed. They might as will call their next ip Final Ware following up with II, and III, and so on. 

[leaguer of one]

Ukki wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Ukki wrote...

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?

ME2 is so plainly more action than ME1 that it would be hard to not to see the difference. One button action and video scenes.

ME2 had more action then ME1 because ME2 had more missions. The majority of the time in ME1 you were fighting something or driving some where to fight something. ME1 was still heavily action based.

It's also clear you never played any class but soldier.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 11 février 2014 - 06:19 .