99 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Party based combat. Not a twitch-based single player action game.

It's an action rpg.

[Rawgrim]

It's an action rpg.

 

With a party + tactical combat, and the ability to pause.

[leaguer of one]

With a party + tactical combat, and the ability to pause.

Clarity:

Dark souls/Demons souls are action rpgs.

 

Me stating this does not mean I want DA to play like ds.

[Rawgrim]

Clarity:

Dark souls/Demons souls are action rpgs.

 

Me stating this does not mean I want DA to play like ds.

 

My bad. Sorry.

[Sylvius the Mad]

"as much as possible" within the limitations of pausable full-party control.  This is a great idea - the objections raised seem to be missing the point complete.y

[Nefla]

I would like it if DA combat was based on player reflexes and skill rather than character skill. It would still work in a party, you control your main character and can issue commands to your party members like in the Mass Effect series. I didn't like Dark Souls because I play games mainly for story and characters, but I did like the challenging combat that kept me on my toes. DA combat so far has pretty much just been about skill rotation with each battle playing out the same and that's boring to me.

 

That being said, while challenging combat that I like is a bonus, It wont affect me buying the game or not. If most people want combat the way it is, keep it the way it is and I will suffer through the drudgery to get to the story bits like I always have.

[Mes]

If I could pick any game's combat for Dragon Age to copy or be influenced by, it'd be Dragon's Dogma (particularly their archery).

 

Dark Souls is in an entirely different class than Dragon Age. I don't see the need for the two to have any similarities.

[tmp7704]

would you rather +/- stat modifiers then? because that's boring.

"Oh, a narrow passage. I should switch to spear or rapier" isn't most exciting mechanics, either.

[Kira_Sadi]

I was NOT impressed by ANYTHING in the dark souls 1, that being said I think it would be a bad idea.

[leaguer of one]

"Oh, a narrow passage. I should switch to spear or rapier" isn't most exciting mechanics, either.

Ironically, Yes.

[CybAnt1]

Clarity:

Dark souls/Demons souls are action rpgs.

 

Me stating this does not mean I want DA to play like ds.

 

Yes, Dragon Age Inquisition is also described as an Action-RPG. (See home page.)

 

Do I wish it was less of one/didn't describe itself as one? Well, that's been a longstanding complaint with me. 

[CybAnt1]

I would like it if DA combat was based on player reflexes and skill rather than character skill. 

 

And I wouldn't. The problem with being different people.

 

BTW, combat would be less boring if they used a variety of encounters, where things definitely would not play out the same way each way, because each would require a new and different sense of terrain/use of tactics/strategy for dealing with a different variety of enemies.

 

I found combat boring, particularly in DA2, not because of combat mechanics, but because of lack of interesting encounter design. And no, dropping the same banzai bandits on me from the sky over and over again did NOT make it more interesting for me. After a while, it's like "wow. more bandits from the sky. yay. snore." 

 

I want less action-rpgness. But I do want more interesting and varied encounter design, which means a wider range of enemies (requiring more thought about how to deal with them), and a wider range of possibilities for responding to some encounters (besides kill em all). 

 

Incidentally, the return of traps and trap-making makes me happpppppyyyyyyy! 

[Br3admax]

I agree with the statement that it looks more like Dragon's Dogma. Even the spellcasting looked almost identical to it, during the first gameplay reveals. 

[Nefla]

And I wouldn't. The problem with being different people.

And here I thought you were a carbuncle growing out of my neck!

 

Really though, combat is not important to me and I doubt DA:I will have combat that I find entertaining or challenging anymore than the first two did. As long as I have my story, characters, customization and roleplaying I'm golden.

[goofyomnivore]

I loved Dark Souls combat. I don't think copying and pasting it would be good, but there is certainly parts Dragon Age could take from Dark Souls. Such as the weight and style of the weapon being important. I also enjoyed how each weapon had different move sets and pro's/con's.

[metatheurgist]

Do I wish it was less of one/didn't describe itself as one? Well, that's been a longstanding complaint with me. 

For me Action-RPG is an oxymoron, but you can't fight marketing or change.

[In Exile]

I found combat boring, particularly in DA2, not because of combat mechanics, but because of lack of interesting encounter design. And no, dropping the same banzai bandits on me from the sky over and over again did NOT make it more interesting for me. After a while, it's like "wow. more bandits from the sky. yay. snore." 

 

I thought the encounter design was equally poor in both games. I preferred DA2 because the combat was at least mildy challenging - in DA:O it would become trivial to obliterate the enemy before they even approached me, unless it was one of those rare Denerim ambushes. 

[MainMan317]

Nope.

[Deflagratio]

Actually, it's not a bad idea.

 

If you divorce the idea of Dark Souls combat (mechanics and overall feel) from the notorious difficulty of the game, I think you have actually a perfect fit for the weighty, precise and responsive tactical combat of Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

 

To not see the potential there is a bit short sighted I think.

[mickey111]

Please don't copy anything from common grinders.

Thanks.

 

good thing nobody said anything about grinders.

[mickey111]

Nothing about the OP's request requires that DAI become an action game.  A game could be fully turn-based and still offer the complexity of weapon differences that he describes.

 

I'm all in favour.

 

I wish everyone else here were smart enough to understand this.

[philippe willaume]

Because dark souls 1 melee was amazing. Having each weapon defined by their reach, speed and move set is a million times more interesting than having a whole bunch of weapons +stat, -stat. To give you an example, in dark souls combat it is usually a really bad idea for a character to be swinging a great sword around in close quarter areas like narrow ledges and stairways, because the sword would just keep on staggering the weilder and tire them out with each swing of the sword swinging into the wall. In that type of envirnoment, the character would do a whole lot better by weilding some sort of thrusting weapon like a spear, or a rapeir which is shorter than a spear but lighter and faster.

 

Dragon Age isn't supposed to be a hard core realistic combat simulator, I get that, but regardless of realism I think that DA should look at how dark souls did weapons because they were really well done.

 

well like Sylvius i think having weapon fully developed stats is  good to have regardless the type of game (of course the game system need to use the complexity otherwise it is just eye candy)

 

The problem is that DS really does not have a lot to do with how you use weapon.

The problem is that with advent of  full plate armour, most of the two handed weapons were very versatile. That becomes massively more potent that any other weapon combination.

 

if we take your example the Two handed sword, is fine in the narrow corridor.

Really the big arm-swing (à tours de bras as the 15th century game of the Axe would have it) is a massive in-efficient way of striking (limited tip velocity, telegraphed, slow and opening you up like Brothel when a ship makes harbor).You can use much more centralized and powerful strikes by using proper bio mechanics IE keeping the technique in front of you and using the strength of all your body instead of your arms or shoulders.

 

Really, you can trust with a Two handed sword, that what the point is for in fact as it happens you kind of thrust a lot with a Two handed sword, in fact that's how you keep sword and buckler/shield people at bay.  and if you do not have enough space, fighting someone in full plate or are really close quarter, use half-swording.

 

 

The other problem is weapon speed and precision, it is really counter intuitive but a two handed weapon is usually quicker and more precise than a single handed weapon. 

yes two handed sword are heavier but they are balanced,and that's why they are fast and because you have to hand on the handle they are extremely nimble. 

for example, I have a 15th century replica of type XVIIE 150cmm the blade is 110 cm the weight is about 3.5-4.5 lbs, It is quicker and nimbler than a Napoleonic area light cavalry saber. I had the same experience with museum pieces (the one that impress me the most were Zweihander).

 

So even if we consider late rapier/proto small sword,those weapons are marginally faster at the expense of reach, no real cutting ability and marginal slicing ability 

early proto-rapier, or rapier proper tend to be slower than a two handed sword and don't have the THW cutting potential but they are good slicers

 

Philippe

[Realmzmaster]

I assume that a person wielding a two handed sword would have practice using it in close quarters like the ones you describe OP. Therefore the person would not be at the disadvantages you describe. A person unfamiliar with the weapon would have that problem.

 

The two hander would simply compensate for the conditions. Unless the two hander is equally proficient with the other weapon why would he/she change weapons?

[TurretSyndrome]

I think they're already closing in to it from what I see. As much as most people here don't like it, I know that's the direction RPGs are taking this generation.

[Realmzmaster]

I would like it if DA combat was based on player reflexes and skill rather than character skill. It would still work in a party, you control your main character and can issue commands to your party members like in the Mass Effect series. I didn't like Dark Souls because I play games mainly for story and characters, but I did like the challenging combat that kept me on my toes. DA combat so far has pretty much just been about skill rotation with each battle playing out the same and that's boring to me.

 

That being said, while challenging combat that I like is a bonus, It wont affect me buying the game or not. If most people want combat the way it is, keep it the way it is and I will suffer through the drudgery to get to the story bits like I always have.

 

That would eliminate the ability to assume control of any party member. I want to be able to control any or all the party members not just issue commands. Dragon Age has always given that ability to the player. I have zero interest in having my player skill trump character skill. That is why I build my character. If my player skill can overcome the limitations of my character what is the point in building a character?