221 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

I didn't like the combat in DA:O either.

 

A computer can roll 28374283749423 dices/second, there is simply no need to make your game so frustratingly slow.

 

I suspect the combat in DA:O was slow because it was a new engine, and they hadn't quite figured out how to optimize performance. DA2 may have gotten faster not out of any master plan so much was that they got better at code optimization for performance.

 

Again, I'll be honest, as I think hard on it, I don't remember ever feeling it was so slow as to be agonizing, but I guess maybe there were a few moments where a few actions did seem a bit ... pokey. I do know it was plagued by something that's plagued Bioware games since the great BG2 ... pathfinding. Like, you tell your warrior to go hit that guy 20 feet away with his sword, and he decides to visit the water fountain, the tree, a few pillars, stop to smell a rose, and then decided to hit the guy with his sword. It reminded me of the ambling paths that the kids used to take in that old newspaper comic, Family Circle.

[Rawgrim]

Auto-Attack. My ability to mash a button, shouldn`t affect my character`s training\skills. Button mashing is all good in fighting games, like Tekken etc, though.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

On a somewhat-related topic, how do you folks feel about actively dodging attacks?

I like having the ability to move my character out of the way when attacks are coming at them. It doesn't need to be a separate dodge button (although I have enjoyed this in other games), as long as I can prevent them from just... standing there and letting themselves get hit. I watched that happen in KOTOR, and it was the most unrealistic shootout I've ever seen. 

 

 

"Auto-dialogue" makes me feel like "auto-combat" makes you feel. 

I made this comparison earlier in the thread. Personally, I dislike both. Autodialogue is more frustrating, but auto-combat still gives that same feeling of "why is my character doing/saying that?" 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

WHY ARE YOU STANDING THERE AND GETTING HIT YOU STUPID BASTARD. Yea like I said it needn't be easy or always successful, but at least make it a thing. Don't get me started on stupid use of guns in games with his kind of combat. "Let me walk up to your sword's reach and I can shoot you once then you stab once then I shoot you once" I like dodging, but rolling around everywhere like sonic the hedgehog starts to get a bit ridiculous. They should use maneuvers like leaning and ducking instead, but since that's a bit difficult to implement I'd settle for just being able to block. dao had some great dodging and blocking animations but they happened like once a playthrough.

 

Auto-Attack. My ability to mash a button, shouldn`t affect my character`s training\skills. Button mashing is all good in fighting games, like Tekken etc, though.

It shouldn't be tekken and it shouldn't be about how FAST you can mash it, but knowing when and where to strike. But yes DA2 was simply "DAO on crack plus you have to start each animation yourself". Not my cup of tea at all, the worst of both worlds.

[DragonKingReborn]

On a somewhat-related topic, how do you folks feel about actively dodging attacks?

I would be very much against this. Fine in a game like TW series, but not what I'd be keen for. I build my characters attributes, skills and abilities. I want THEM to use them. Not me. I'll just tell them which ones to use. My reflexes should not impact the effectiveness of my character in combat.

[Realmzmaster]

I would be very much against this. Fine in a game like TW series, but not what I'd be keen for. I build my characters attributes, skills and abilities. I want THEM to use them. Not me. I'll just tell them which ones to use. My reflexes should not impact the effectiveness of my character in combat.

There are gamers who would disagree with your point (Not Me!) Those gamers wish to be able to use their reaction time skills to effect the striking, aiming and blocking for the character being controlled. They are lloking for more control like TW, Skyrim and other games. Other gamers like you, I and others on the forum want the dodging to be done by the character based on the character's attributes like Dexterity and maybe a dodging skill.

 

Bioware is trying to fine the sweet spot that will please most of both camps. DAI will tell how well they succeed. 

[The Sarendoctrinator]

Don't get me started on stupid use of guns in games with his kind of combat. "Let me walk up to your sword's reach and I can shoot you once then you stab once then I shoot you once" 

 

I've had this happen too, with my own character.  I click an enemy for him to shoot, but then he walks towards them before shooting. And when I try to tell him "No, don't get close to them! Your gun is supposed to be a ranged weapon!" I can make him stop walking that way... unfortunately, he stands still wherever I stopped him, rather than shooting from where he is now. 

 

The whole "taking turns" thing they do makes it even weirder. It's like those TV shows where the characters wait for their opponents to power up for their best attack. I always try to shoot during the power up. It just makes more sense. 

[DragonKingReborn]

There are gamers who would disagree with your point (Not Me!) Those gamers wish to be able to use their reaction time skills to effect the striking, aiming and blocking for the character being controlled. They are lloking for more control like TW, Skyrim and other games. Other gamers like you, I and others on the forum want the dodging to be done by the character based on the character's attributes like Dexterity and maybe a dodging skill.
 
Bioware is trying to fine the sweet spot that will please most of both camps. DAI will tell how well they succeed.

I know, and that's fine. Diversity is literally what makes life on our world work, so all good from that perspective. Is there an example of an action role playing game where the player actively controls every movement made by multiple characters onscreen? Genuine question. The Witcher you are only ever controlling Geralt, as opposed to up to four in DA games.

The 'combat roll' from one of the GI videos gave me pause for a bit. Hopefully it's a sustained ability, similar to stonewall. Permanent boost to defence at a penalty to attack, or whatever. It might not be, of course, but until it's confirmed one way or the other, I guess I'm free to hope.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

Is there an example of an action role playing game where the player actively controls every movement made by multiple characters onscreen? Genuine question. 

 

The Worlds Ends With You (Nintendo DS) comes to mind. Combat involves controlling two characters, one on each screen, although you can just let the other character do their own thing if you want. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

I know, and that's fine. Diversity is literally what makes life on our world work, so all good from that perspective. Is there an example of an action role playing game where the player actively controls every movement made by multiple characters onscreen? Genuine question. The Witcher you are only ever controlling Geralt, as opposed to up to four in DA games.
The 'combat roll' from one of the GI videos gave me pause for a bit. Hopefully it's a sustained ability, similar to stonewall. Permanent boost to defence at a penalty to attack, or whatever. It might not be, of course, but until it's confirmed one way or the other, I guess I'm free to hope.

I don't know, but I also don't see how it's a problem when you are able to pause AND the AI takes over uncontrolled characters.

There's no way that's a sustained ability, sorry.

[DragonKingReborn]

The Worlds Ends With You (Nintendo DS) comes to mind. Combat involves controlling two characters, one on each screen, although you can just let the other character do their own thing if you want.

What was it like to play, if you went the micromanagement route?

If they are doing this - or something similar - for Inquisition, there would definitely need to be both an autopilot option coupled with extremely advanced tactics.

[J-Reyno]

I like the one click = one strike in any game.  I don't consider it button mashing so much as just having control. Sure enough, if regular strikes are weak and inconsequential against most enemies, or it takes a lot of them used in rapid succession for whatever reason without pausing to do anything else, it's going to feel like button mashing.  In those kind of games I just don't consider the combat very good or advanced.

 

After playing Dark Souls I immediately felt that this is what I wanted all RPG combat to be like.  I still feel this way.  Manual attack, block, dodge, depending on timing and your personal skill.  Of course leveling your character will increase their effectiveness, but combat is still largely dependent on you, the player, and not just stats.  In the end that's just how I play.  Even if it requires me to button mash because I like total control I'm always going to prefer a 1:1 click-strike ratio.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

What was it like to play, if you went the micromanagement route?

If they are doing this - or something similar - for Inquisition, there would definitely need to be both an autopilot option coupled with extremely advanced tactics.

 

It's a lot of fun, and one of few games I've ever played on Hard difficulty. Basically, each character is controlled by different sets of buttons to perform combos, and the items they're equipped with determine their basic attacks or defensive moves. You can freely move around your own character on the bottom screen, but his companion on the top screen can dodge by using the directional buttons. 

Edit: Forgot to add that you can let the second character act on their own if you want, so there is an autopilot option. 

 

I don't think Dragon Age would ever do this. TWEWY was built to work perfectly with the DS' two screens, but something like that could get very confusing in a game like DA where you don't always have the whole group on screen at the same time. 

[Zhijn]

Depends really, if it has a great combat system that goes along with "clicking & comboing" then yeah i would definitely want it (not counting DA2, yuck). And auto-attacking ii personally dont mind that either, its been part of many rpg type of games iv played so its nothing that annoys me a great deal.

[DragonKingReborn]

I don't know, but I also don't see how it's a problem when you are able to pause AND the AI takes over uncontrolled characters.
There's no way that's a sustained ability, sorry.

It's only a problem if my poor reflexes limits my ability to get the best out of the character(s) I've built. I don't play shooters, and only played TW2 once for this very reason. My enjoyment of the game could be severely compromised if I keep dying on casual because I can never time my combat roll effectively.

[Realmzmaster]

It's only a problem if my poor reflexes limits my ability to get the best out of the character(s) I've built. I don't play shooters, and only played TW2 once for this very reason. My enjoyment of the game could be severely compromised if I keep dying on casual because I can never time my combat roll effectively.

This illustrates the point. It does not matter how good the character build is if a good deal of the combat relies on how well someone can time the attack or execute the dodge. The difficulty does not matter whether it is Casual, Easy or Nightmare if the time is off the character is dead. So why invest in a killer build that will be erased by the lack of reaction skills?

 

An autoresolve button would allow gamers to make their superior builds and allow the system to sort out the combat. The autoresolve is not an I win button. There is still a chance of losing but It would not rely on the gamer's reaction skills and be would be optional.

[AlanC9]

An autoresolve button would allow gamers to make their superior builds and allow the system to sort out the combat. The autoresolve is not an I win button. There is still a chance of losing but It would not rely on the gamer's reaction skills and be would be optional.

So just play the battle out with everybody on their Tactics?

[Sylvius the Mad]

So just play the battle out with everybody on their Tactics?

I've asked for this very feature, as it happens.  Neither DAO nor DA2 allowed this, as you were always forced to control at least one character.

 

Apparently the QA team was able to deselect everyone during DAO's development, but that feature was removed prior to release (it was never intended for player use).

[Sidney]

This illustrates the point. It does not matter how good the character build is if a good deal of the combat relies on how well someone can time the attack or execute the dodge. The difficulty does not matter whether it is Casual, Easy or Nightmare if the time is off the character is dead. So why invest in a killer build that will be erased by the lack of reaction skills?
 
An autoresolve button would allow gamers to make their superior builds and allow the system to sort out the combat. The autoresolve is not an I win button. There is still a chance of losing but It would not rely on the gamer's reaction skills and be would be optional.

Well and this I why I'm terrible with for example archery in Skyrim. I can't hit diddly because I can aim. My character has allegedly great archery skills and can't hit crap - especially those ferret on crack necromancers. Same frustration I get with lock picking as well, I'm awful at that mini game so while my skill allows me access to higher level locks my skills can't pay said bills. It really makes my character feel irrelevant and that is what galls me in an RPG. My character is a stand in for me. I dislike DA2 style button mashing because it seems pointless but at least that form of "interaction" is still character and not player driven as opposed to Skyrim or witcher combat.

[DragonKingReborn]

I wouldn't advocate for a tactics only mode, although I wouldn't be opposed to it either. All I'd really advocate for is a continuation of DA:O's combat, albeit with slightly faster animations. I might feel a bit uninvested if I just said "go", and then waited patiently for the end of the fight.

My big issue with the direct and full control, al la TW, is that unless I invest serious time in learning the combat system, battles will be little more than a weighted lottery.

Oh, and on topic, I am an auto attack guy, in case that wasn't clear!

[AlanC9]

I've asked for this very feature, as it happens.  Neither DAO nor DA2 allowed this, as you were always forced to control at least one character.

 

Apparently the QA team was able to deselect everyone during DAO's development, but that feature was removed prior to release (it was never intended for player use).

 

 

IIRC there's a pretty common DAO mod that allows this. Advanced Tactics, maybe? I don't think there's an equivalent for DA2.

[Kidd]

I prefer to input per attack if I feel like immersing myself in a single character.

If I truly want to appreciate the entire team, I'd love to be able to see them all working through the Tactics system. No locking one character away from it, please =)

[CybAnt1]

If pushing the button makes you attack faster or harder ... would be the only way it would make sense to me (but still do not want). (Very tempted to make awesome button comment here, but will not.) 

 

Otherwise, if my character is going to attack (say) 5 times in 10 seconds whether I hit the button or not ... no I do not need to feel the 'satisfaction' of tapping the button to make him do it. This is not "tap tap radiation". If it doesn't affect how fast or hard he attacks, then frankly tapping it is just silly. Makes me feel more immersed in the combat? Not in the least. 

 

But again, that's me. 

[Realmzmaster]

If pushing the button makes you attack faster or harder ... would be the only way it would make sense to me (but still do not want). (Very tempted to make awesome button comment here, but will not.) 

 

Otherwise, if my character is going to attack (say) 5 times in 10 seconds whether I hit the button or not ... no I do not need to feel the 'satisfaction' of tapping the button to make him do it. This is not "tap tap radiation". If it doesn't affect how fast or hard he attacks, then frankly tapping it is just silly. Makes me feel more immersed in the combat? Not in the least. 

 

But again, that's me. 

 

I think that the button mashing gives gamers the appearance that the button mashing matters. The player feels more engage even if the mashing has no real effect. Maybe that way they are physically doing something even if it does nothing in terms of effect. 

[Darth Wraith]

For games like Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate and so on I prefer auto-attack for the normal, basic attack types. Then I can concentrate on using everyone's spells and abilities at the best possible moment without having to constantly push a button just to keep doing something. In a game like Skyrim, where timing and movement matters, auto-attack would be an obstacle, but in games like the DA series I feel it's a necessity.