I apologize, perhaps it wasn't the best idea to post such a major spoiler however I had assumed people would not watch the video if they did not wish to see the outcome of the duel.
I actually didn't watch it. I just know what's going to happen now from the few frames and screenshots that were posted, as well as comments that people made.
You should read the books, Allan. You'll never have to worry about spoilers again that way.
Anyone ever consider that maybe the reason we don't have a lot of spear weapons in Dragon Age is that they look kinda boring when you use them?
Did you not watch the posted vids?
I'm having a hard time imagining the devs being able to implement such intricate fighting moves in actual gameplay. My expectation of melee spear combat in Dragon Age would be poke...poke...poke...poke...occasional whack.
Spear combat wasn't particularly exciting in Dark Souls either, but then again, exciting combat animations isn't exactly what they were going for.
It would be nice to proved wrong, here. Maybe my imagination is lacking. Maybe they could create some flashy spear animations that are on par with the flashy greatsword animations. Or is there a precedence set in modern gaming that I am unaware of?
Swords will always be the big thing (Harder to have EPIC duels with spears I guess), but I'd like to see some polearms.
Where have you been?
Something like a halberd or poleaxe you could also slash with, I suppose, but at that point you're essentially just using a two handed axe, and we already have those in the game.
No...at that point you have an axe/hammer/pointy edge combo on a stick...which is far more exciting than using a simple two handed axe. It also has quite a bit of versatility and range. You can break a shield (usually made of wood) with the axe part, you can then either use the sharp pointy bit to puncture the armor, or you can use the hammer to crush the armor.Using the axe at that point would just be silly as it would just...glance off...
Polearms were the weapons of the rank and file. They were easy to train in, cheap to make, and effective when used in unit-based combat. But pretty much everyone--yes, Vikings included, sir--carried a secondary shorter weapon for when they had to tangle hand-to-hand. A dagger, arming sword, hatchet, or a club of some sort.
Erg, went off on a tangent there. In short, polearms are kinda boring, they're weapons of the lower-classes because they're cheap and easy to make and use, and the number of neat attack maneuvers you could make with one in a game like Dragon Age (which features a number of almost wuxia-like maneuvers) are very limited, unless you get into slashing polearms like Glaives and Poleaxes, which are basically two handed axes or swords. Spears, specifically, would be incredibly boring.
Yes, polearms were used by peasants...and by dismounted knights. If you're fighting mounted enemies you have a greater chance of living if you have a polearm. Ignoring the whole mounted issue, the other point in having a polearm is to have an advantage over those silly enemies that insist on carrying shorter weapons. This is of course ignoring a whole other class of polearms, the polehammers (war hammers). A multi-pronged hammer on a stick is far more terrifying than a five foot sword, and there's a reason the bec de corbin/lucerne hammer was used a lot by dismounted knights/men at arms, and it isn't because they were easy to make/be trained to use. Polearms were quite popular during the middle to late middle age for both "peasants" and more trained warriors.
On a side note, of course they carried shorter weapons with them, they were back up weapons, or main weapons depending on the period. When armor becomes more advanced two-handed weaponry becomes more practical.
Also, whoever said the Gladius was a flexible weapon is just plain wrong. Without the unit of a Roman legion, the gladius was a useless weapon and was utterly terrible for one-on-one combat. The gladius was useless as a defensive weapon, and required the security of the tower shield and shieldwall formation of the legions to remain an effective weapon. It was good for a very particular technique of attack that was not pretty, but was extremely effective, essentially a rotating top-down slash. No fancy parries, no nimble dodges. Just trudge forward and slash, keep your shield high and defend the guy next to you. It was a hoplite formation adapted to a very short sword.
The gladius was also short as much by necessity as design. Bronze is soft and brittle, meaning it could snap easily if the blade made with it is too long and doesn't have a strong spine. Iron and low-grade steel that was also commonly used at the time was also brittle, but worse it was extremely heavy. The earliest broadswords were extremely blade-heavy and required a huge amount of strength to wield, and were useless when parrying. It wasn't until better forging techniques were developed that we saw swords as we know them today, as the flexible weapon as adept at defensive maneuvering as they were at attack.
If the gladius wasn't a useful weapon on it's own the Roman's wouldn't have continued to use it. Legionnaires would be trained to fight using a gladius with/without a shield. They may not have been as effective without the shield, but they definitely could fight without it. The Roman's didn't just slash with a gladius they STABBED too. It is far more effective to stab lightly armored enemies than it is to just slash at them, and that's even more important if you're fighting enemies that wear chain mail. The Romans preferred to stab an enemy in the stomach since it either killed the enemy outright or incapacitated them (where they would then painfully bleed to death). We also have to remember that the Romans carried two pilums with them which were thrown before they clashed with the enemy. The pilums would either kill an enemy outright, or disable the enemies shield to place them at even more of a disadvantage to the stabbing machine that was a Roman legion.
And that's all I have when I'm extremely tired. Ideally it was coherent enough to be understood.
We also have to remember that the Roman's flourished during the IRON age. Yes, that's right the IRON age...where they used IRON (steel) instead of bronze which was used primarily during the BRONZE age. As such, the Roman gladius was made of steel, it may not be the steel that we now use, but it's steel none the less. The Greeks used bronze.
Just a couple of nitpicks, because I do agree with you:
1. It's called mail. not chainmail. Mail = interlocking rings of metal.
2. I believe along with the belly, the leg and groin were preferred targets by the romans during battle. Ouch 
The only thing I can think of would be Jade Empire, but even the spear animations in that were for bladed spears that work almost like axes.
It is a bit of a myth that the Romans were not equipped to fight outside of their formations:
In that legion there were two very brave men, centurions, who were now approaching the first ranks, T. Pullo, and L. Vorenus. These used to have continual disputes between them which of them should be preferred, and every year used to contend for promotion with the utmost animosity. When the fight was going on most vigorously before the fortifications, Pullo, one of them, says, "Why do you hesitate, Vorenus? or what [better] opportunity of signalizing your valor do you seek? This very day shall decide our disputes." When he had uttered these words, he proceeds beyond the fortifications, and rushes on that part of the enemy which appeared the thickest. Nor does Vorenus remain within the rampart, but respecting the high opinion of all, follows close after. Then, when an inconsiderable space intervened, Pullo throws his javelin at the enemy, and pierces one of the multitude who was running up, and while the latter was wounded and slain, the enemy cover him with their shields, and all throw their weapons at the other and afford him no opportunity of retreating. The shield of Pullo is pierced and a javelin is fastened in his belt. This circumstance turns aside his scabbard and obstructs his right hand when attempting to draw his sword: the enemy crowd around him when [thus] embarrassed. His rival runs up to him and succors him in this emergency. Immediately the whole host turn from Pullo to him, supposing the other to be pierced through by the javelin. Vorenus rushes on briskly with his sword and carries on the combat hand to hand, and having slain one man, for a short time drove back the rest: while he urges on too eagerly, slipping into a hollow, he fell. To him, in his turn, when surrounded, Pullo brings relief; and both having slain a great number, retreat into the fortifications amid the highest applause. Fortune so dealt with both in this rivalry and conflict, that the one competitor was a succor and a safeguard to the other, nor could it be determined which of the two appeared worthy of being preferred to the other.
---Commentaries on the Gallic War, Julius Caesar
A large reason why the Roman legionnaires were so successful and became the standard of infantry combat was the very reason that they were so much more flexible than, say the hellenic phalanxes that were very effective, but useless when out of formation.
I love how some are arguing against adding spears to a video game with "lol spears so useless in real life", and cite a guy's defeat in a choreographed fight as evidence for it. Never change internet, never change.
I'm curious as to what army that would be. Of the three that come to my mind the only one that truly favored the sword would be the Romans.
If possible, the good Romans preferred to have their enemies broken by sheer firepower. Catapults, ballistae, archers, not to mention volleys of pila - legionarii maintained tight formations with the best throwers at the forefront to hand their pilae to those throwers as well. Not to mention inclusion of various specialized auxiliarii to add further variety to Roman forces - Germanic cavalrymen, Syrian archers, etc. Good late example of excavated evidence of how "shooty" the Romans actually were is the battle at Harzhorn in the 3rd century A.D., likely part of a punitive campaign against the Germanic tribes by one of the emperors of the time.
A large reason why the Roman legionnaires were so successful and became the standard of infantry combat was the very reason that they were so much more flexible than, say the hellenic phalanxes that were very effective, but useless when out of formation.
Keep in mind that the grand clashes between Roman legio and Makedonian phalanx took place in the 3rd to 2nd century B.C. when the then Roman Republic wasn't that far off in military doctrine from the Hellenic forces - not to mention that both Hellenes and Romans took notes from non-Roman arsenals as well, such as the incursion of Keltoi in Greece and Anatolia around that time. The Romans had not yet developed the iconic lorica segmentata nor introduced the gladius hispaniensis yet, latter of which found its way into the Roman arsenal after their extensive campaigns in Iberia in the 2nd century B.C. This was a continuous process throughout their history: whichever enemy armanent or tactics proved efficient against them, they tried to adapt.
There's a wealth of literature on those subjects, so I'll leave it at that. 
Dynasty Warriors has a large range of weapons (spears, glaive, maces, chakram, tonfa, doublespears, flails) wielded by the characters. Sadly I can't remember how they looked anymore, haven't had time to play <sniff>.
From what I recall the only pole weapons that weren't excessively silly were usually Zhao Yun's spear and Guan Yu's guan dao. The combat is quite flashy so it's definitely not an example of how to use said weapons.
Just a couple of nitpicks, because I do agree with you:
1. It's called mail. not chainmail. Mail = interlocking rings of metal.
2. I believe along with the belly, the leg and groin were preferred targets by the romans during battle. Ouch
The main target was usually the belly, but they would also stab for the groin as well. I don't recall them going for the leg, but I wouldn't doubt it.
Going back to something I didn't really touch on.
The earliest broadswords were extremely blade-heavy and required a huge amount of strength to wield, and were useless when parrying. It wasn't until better forging techniques were developed that we saw swords as we know them today, as the flexible weapon as adept at defensive maneuvering as they were at attack.
The earliest broadswords were useless, which is a fact the Romans took advantage of when they fought the Celts/Germans. Broadswords were a cutting weapon which is useful (I guess) against unarmored enemies, but totally useless against anyone with a good shield/armor. On a side note, let's not bring up katanas...that's a different issue entirely with more than enough misinformation around it.
If it wasn't for Hollywood/traditional fantasy we wouldn't see swords as a slashing weapon. While most swords can be used to deliver a lethal slash they were designed for stabbing. You do not pierce armor with a slash, you pierce it with a stab. A traditional spear is also used to stab, and it has more reach than a sword. Are spears useless against armor? Of course they are! Which is why other pole weapons were developed with the specific intent of piercing/crushing armor.
Well, that's 5 minutes of my life I can never get back. People actually watch this stuff?
You realize do realize that you don't ever get time back from anything you do, right?
I actually didn't watch it. I just know what's going to happen now from the few frames and screenshots that were posted, as well as comments that people made.
If it wasn't for Hollywood/traditional fantasy we wouldn't see swords as a slashing weapon. While most swords can be used to deliver a lethal slash they were designed for stabbing. You do not pierce armor with a slash, you pierce it with a stab. A traditional spear is also used to stab, and it has more reach than a sword. Are spears useless against armor? Of course they are! Which is why other pole weapons were developed with the specific intent of piercing/crushing armor.
From what I recall the only pole weapons that weren't excessively silly were usually Zhao Yun's spear and Guan Yu's guan dao. The combat is quite flashy so it's definitely not an example of how to use said weapons.
I'm having a hard time imagining the devs being able to implement such intricate fighting moves in actual gameplay. My expectation of melee spear combat in Dragon Age would be poke...poke...poke...poke...occasional whack.
Spear combat wasn't particularly exciting in Dark Souls either, but then again, exciting combat animations isn't exactly what they were going for.
It would be nice to proved wrong, here. Maybe my imagination is lacking. Maybe they could create some flashy spear animations that are on par with the flashy greatsword animations. Or is there a precedence set in modern gaming that I am unaware of?
The only thing I can think of would be Jade Empire, but even the spear animations in that were for bladed spears that work almost like axes.
Also, keep in mind that the posted vid showed someone making spear combat in a cinematic medium, where things like hit boxes and constraints of the combat system are not a concern. It is not inconceivable that you could potentially make spear animations somewhat exciting, but it's a heck of a lot harder to do it while still keeping it more-or-less realistic.
I could see maybe like a cool charge animation, maybe a... particularly dramatic thrust I guess.
Now, you could make some seriously awesome sync-kills with a spear. But the actual attacks themselves will be dull.
That isn't to say polearms can't be exciting, but those could easily be included with the regular two-handed tree animations, with weapons like the Poleaxe or the Glaive.
Looks like I have to concede your points since I am reminded that there already is a "cool charge animation" in Inquisition. A Sword and Shield Warrior uses it to make up for the fact that the basic sword attacks are jab...jab...jab. I suppose it would be cool if in future DA titles, a Warrior could equip a Spear and Shield, utilizing the same talent tree, but slightly different attack animations.
When Brittney becomes hot again...duh!
Talking about the romans, is/was there any army in Thedas that fought like them?
It would be cool if the Qunari did, their short sword would be a greatsword and their shield would be pretty much a wall.
Looks like I have to concede your points since I am reminded that there already is a "cool charge animation" in Inquisition. A Sword and Shield Warrior uses it to make up for the fact that the basic sword attacks are jab...jab...jab. I suppose it would be cool if in future DA titles, a Warrior could equip a Spear and Shield, utilizing the same talent tree, but slightly different attack animations.
We will never see spears or dual wielding swords in a dragon age game from now on. Bioware combat guys are astonishingly boring and with no creativity whatsoever. I hope they make telltale like game, because they could not care less about the weapon variety and styles.
There's a reason knights and nobility preferred swords over spears when given a choice between the two..
And there's also a reason why they switched to using pole weapons...that whole armor issue...
There's a reason knights and nobility preferred swords over spears when given a choice between the two.
You could wear a sword anywhere without it being too awkward. Can't really carry a spear around in the same way.
Retour en haut
