Is it using an asymetrical ruleset like DA2 where enemies have a bajillion HP and you a hundred-something ?...
Yes, it's become the thing™ for Bioware games. Don't forget that your character's attack speed is 10x faster too. The player needs to feel speshul, or else!
Something like BG was very balanced in the lower levels as one hit could kill either you or the enemy. Something like that would not go down well today, especially with the hassles that death involved (the dead did not just simply pop up after combat).
Why? What is different about "today" that something like that wouldn't be welcomed?
Why? What is different about "today" that something like that wouldn't be welcomed?
Oh. I thought this was an RPG. My mistake that it is really DragonAgeVille.
Casuals? Come on.
The intended audience is much broader.Why? What is different about "today" that something like that wouldn't be welcomed?
I didn't like it as well. But I won't advocate for symmetrical combat. I just want it to be more consistent. Some people say that there is point to the hero being superman because that's the intended lore and they actually make a pretty good case. But I can't say I like it. I prefer a more consistent combat animation even if the main character turns out to be stronger.
There are obvious constraints in making symmetrical combat mechanics for more action focused games. The explanation is that the player is smarter, has better reaction times and is pretty much a dueling genius but the enemies hit harder. On the other hand having such an observable difference in speed and using npcs with huge healthpools to compensate for worse AI and lack of combat personality/tactics.. I don't think its a very good idea.
I like challenge. As long as the game provides it I'm mostly content. I also like the challenge to be lasting. DA2 provides challenge, but the experience isn't dynamic at all. Once you learn how to beat something then it becomes completely mindless. That's why I hope that Nightmare will provide more and harder to get around mechanics. Friendly fire isn't that big of a deal, especially when you have spells that totally circumvent it (primal tree), or have the option to stack resistances very easily.
Then perhaps roleplaying games shouldn't be action focused.There are obvious constraints in making symmetrical combat mechanics for more action focused games.
Oh. I thought this was an RPG. My mistake that it is really DragonAgeVille.
Casuals? Come on.
Gamer elitist logic doesn't so much use content, quality and effective depth as its gauge for casual versus hardcore so much as it uses time. Was it made in the 90's and early 2k? HARDCORE! Was it modeled exactly like a game made in the 90's and early 2k's? HARDCORE! Does it use any aspects of modern game development that has rocketed the art and industry to the economic and cultural powerhouse it is today? CASUAL FILTH!
Then perhaps roleplaying games shouldn't be action focused.
Dragon Age Inquisition isn't a roleplaying game. It's an action/roleplaying game. And it has been marketed as such from the start.
As for symmetrical combat, I prefer a more symmetrical combat system, mostly because I really hate fights where the only difficulty is managing to survive until you've emptied a ridiculously inflated health bar. Damage sponge enemies are one of the worst design decisions I have ever had the misfortune of encountering, right behind wave based enemies (and I'm not talking DA2 levels of waves here either, even if I disliked that. I mean Borderlands 2: Hammerlocks Big Game Hunt level of waves. Dear god, that made me utterly despise that DLC)
The focus of a roleplaying game, regardless of subgenre, should be roleplaying.Dragon Age Inquisition isn't a roleplaying game. It's an action/roleplaying game. And it has been marketed as such from the start.
When you people are complaining about combat symmetry, I'm assuming you mean "Of similar class, should have similar capability" right?
Meaning no huge power disparity between a player character of X level and X gear and an NPC human(oid) actor of X level and X gear.
The focus of a roleplaying game, regardless of subgenre, should be roleplaying.
I completely agree with this part. But that doesn't exclude a well designed, actionbased combat system. IMO, The Witcher 2 got it almost right, they should just have had a smaller focus on the dodge rolling and instead focused on parrying, as well as keeping the ability to drink potions mid combat from The Witcher 1.
Furthermore, since I prefer these games emulate tabletop RPGs as much as possible, the ruleset should not just be consistent and coherent, but it should be written down and made available to the player. Amy mechanic that appears absurd when documented should be removed, and that includes asymmetrical combat.
As for this part, I think we're in agreement about asymmetrical/symmetrical combat, but I don't fully understand you position (English isn't my native tongue, sorry) so, if you could clarify what you mean with absurd mechanics I'd be able to come up with a more well though out answer 
For example, the asymmetry of DA2's mechanics makes Hawke and his companions hit harder than any other being in the world. And given the damage/health ratios on the NPCs, any conflict between them would be utterly pointless, as they'd never be able to inflict enough damage on each other to be anything more than annoyance.As for this part, I think we're in agreement about asymmetrical/symmetrical combat, but I don't fully understand you position (English isn't my native tongue, sorry) so, if you could clarify what you mean with absurd mechanics I'd be able to come up with a more well though out answer
For example, the asymmetry of DA2's mechanics makes Hawke and his companions hit harder than any other being in the world. And given the damage/health ratios on the NPCs, any conflict between them would be utterly pointless, as they'd never be able to inflict enough damage on each other to be anything more than annoyance.
With the NPC mechanics in DA2, Thedas should never have seen war before, because every fight would end in a stalemate.
Imagine a duel between the Arishok and the Arishok. Thet fight alone would last for weeks before either of them had taken enough damage to be a concern.
That's an absurd consequence, and it arises directly from the combat mechanics.
I see. And I fully agree with the whole damage sponge-y enemies that can't hit worth a damn. It's one of the most irritating things in games IMO. But I don't think that is a consequence of a more action oriented combat, or the speed of the combat. Rather it just seems to be a design decision, as I've seen that kind of design in games with more action-y combat as well, Borderlands 2 being one of the more blatant offenders. Action combat where the player character dies about as fast as the enemy exists in both The Witcher 2 and the Souls series, and that would be my ideal for the combat in Dragon Age Inquisition as well.
I tend to prefer action/skill based combat over auto-attacking, and I think it is very possible to marry that kind of combat with the tactics system from the DA series, especially with the new way the tactical camera seems to work.
Then perhaps roleplaying games shouldn't be action focused.
I hate that argument with a passion.
Help me understand why you play rpg video games? By definition, a video game is limited in every possible roleplaying aspect. It's limited in imagination, ingenuity, expression. And that's because there is only so many things you can add to your game. It's a matter of capacity. There will never be a game in the near future that will be endless and limitless where a pnp game will never have this problem, since the most unimaginative people still can do better than any video game.
And you think that the best way to make it better is by taking away it's most prominent qualities, which is simulation and detail?
The rpg video games should DEFINITELY be action focused as far as combat is concerned. Because that's what they do best. The criticism should be about execution and not direction. Is it good enough? Or it's a botched attempt at simulation that fails at every level? Does it passes across what it intends, or is it full of holes.
Every aspect of a game has constraints. This can be due to budget, technology, whatever. Should we say the same about the others? You can't roleplay any kind of character you like because the dialogue and branching is limited. Then lets not focus at this. Instead just roll diplomacy and if you fail kill the guard to have approximately the same result. Or this isn't what a "true" rpg is about? Cause to be honest, it sounds pretty "true" to me from past experiences.
The classics are good because they had great ideas. Not because they chose to not focus in combat. They actually focused heavily in combat, but they had a whole system in place to translate and use in their game. Is jade empire a bad rpg because it has an obvious focus in combat? No. Is DA2 bad because it has an obvious focus in combat? No.
It's a matter of great ideas coming together and producing a result. Jade Empire succeeded, DA2 failed. Would Jade Empire succeed if it was an isometric turn based game? Can't know, but to be honest, I doubt it. After all it's about martial arts. Would DA2 succeed if it was more polished and didn't cut corners? Still can't be sure, but I think yes.
I object to the action focus only insofar as it is the cause of the asymmetrical mechanics. Asymmentrical mechanics harm the coherence of the game's setting, and thus are an impediment to roleplaying.I hate that argument with a passion.
I play any roleplaying games for the same reason: roleplaying. I like to craft a character amd then set him loose in the game world to see what happens. He might succeed. He might fail. He might live. He might die. He might change. He might not. I, as the player, don't particularly care which outcome befalls him; I just want to observe the path he takes to get there.Help me understand why you play rpg video games?
I disagree. It's limited in expression, yes, but I think that limitation promotes greater imagination and ingenuity.By definition, a video game is limited in every possible roleplaying aspect. It's limited in imagination, ingenuity, expression.
This is only true if you think you haven't done something in the game unless the game acknowledges it.And that's because there is only so many things you can add to your game. It's a matter of capacity. There will never be a game in the near future that will be endless and limitless where a pnp game will never have this problem, since the most unimaginative people still can do better than any video game.
The simulation is vital. That's why I opppse the asymmetrical combat mechanics.And you think that the best way to make it better is by taking away it's most prominent qualities, which is simulation and detail?
I don't think Jade Empire really did succeed. It offered remarkably few opportunities for in-character decision-making, which is the heart of all roleplaying. Its linear structure took you from point A to point B, and there wasn't much for the player to do along the way.It's a matter of great ideas coming together and producing a result. Jade Empire succeeded, DA2 failed. Would Jade Empire succeed if it was an isometric turn based game? Can't know, but to be honest, I doubt it. After all it's about martial arts. Would DA2 succeed if it was more polished and didn't cut corners? Still can't be sure, but I think yes.
I don't think Jade Empire really did succeed. It offered remarkably few opportunities for in-character decision-making, which is the heart of all roleplaying. Its linear structure took you from point A to point B, and there wasn't much for the player to do along the way.It's a matter of great ideas coming together and producing a result. Jade Empire succeeded, DA2 failed. Would Jade Empire succeed if it was an isometric turn based game? Can't know, but to be honest, I doubt it. After all it's about martial arts. Would DA2 succeed if it was more polished and didn't cut corners? Still can't be sure, but I think yes.
I don't think Jade Empire really did succeed. It offered remarkably few opportunities for in-character decision-making, which is the heart of all roleplaying. Its linear structure took you from point A to point B, and there wasn't much for the player to do along the way.
It's a failure in sort of the opposite direction from how DA2 failed (DA2 gave lots of branching events, but didn't let the player chose among them, but it's still a failure.
I thought JE offered a great deal of opportunity for in character decision making - the morality meter, however, was completely broken in comparison to the presentation of the philosophies it was meant to represent at the start of the game.
Is this because you consider things like inventory choice "in-character" decision, i.e., outside pure dialogue?
I disagree. It's limited in expression, yes, but I think that limitation promotes greater imagination and ingenuity.
I mean that from a developer/creator standpoint. The user can use the setting to do pretty much whatever he wants even if the game doesn't technically support it. But then there is the matter of quality.
The simulation is vital. That's why I opppse the asymmetrical combat mechanics.
It seems this is where we disagree. You seem to believe that if a human doesn't behave like all the other humans in combat, then this breaks the simulation. I'm of the opinion that any human analogous to my power level is going to cause the simulation to fail because the AI is handicapped while I have the initiative, combat information and the ability to stop the time and execute a perfect plan. Any AI is doomed to act like a complete idiot unless the developers start to take away my power and control over the game and give it to the AI through shortcuts.
People think that DAO is a good game as far as combat is concerned because it's mostly symmetrical. Well, newsflash, it's not. It's exploitable to the point it loses any point to it. That's because while it's symmetrical, it's not balanced. The only way it can be considered balanced is if you never upgrade your equipment, and you still have a class that can clear whole rooms naked casting 2 spells. It doesn't provide challenge, and the only reason people think it's hard is because the game does no effort to familiarize the player with the mechanics. Also a rogue can reach 100% evasion chance, essentially becoming immune to physical attacks. Is this even symmetrical? I don't know anymore. I would certainly not compare it to chess ^^.
In a perfect world I would agree with you. If there was a game that had an AI that could out think me, then symmetry would be great. It would offer consistency, balance, and it would be a good fight simulation. It would be like playing chess with a high level bot. It's good practice, keeps you focused. But if you play with your baby cousin, is it symmetrical? Is it a good simulation? Is it worth your time? I'd guess not. What is technically right, becomes practically wrong.
This is only true if you think you haven't done something in the game unless the game acknowledges it.
Your reason for playing gives me enough insight. I can understand where you are coming from, but I think your view of what rpgs games is a bit romantic. You say that my "capacity" problem exists because I want the game to acknowledge my actions, but is it really this or that the game doesn't allow me to perform these actions? Single player rpgs are not true platforms. WoW is a platform. I can roleplay all day in WoW because the scenarios are dynamic. I can assassinate people, make fun of people, go skydiving. I can even perform a play by myself and have a crowd. What can I really do in DA. I can't even have a hobby other than running around the party camp 3 times or forcing Sandal to say enchantment 3000 times per day.
da2 mage, teleport+barrier+boom, so swift, so seamless, so deadly.
#PausingIsASkill #MemorizingMageSpawnLocationsMakesYouABetterPlayer
I thought JE offered a great deal of opportunity for in character decision making - the morality meter, however, was completely broken in comparison to the presentation of the philosophies it was meant to represent at the start of the game.
Is this because you consider things like inventory choice "in-character" decision, i.e., outside pure dialogue?
I was thinking more of travel, or the choice what to do or how to do it. I recall JE just leading you through a linear story with few options about what to do or how to do it.
Not to mention the whole "chosen one" angle.
Actually that's not really true. In every act you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you deal with the main objective. Of course most of the choices are good or evil, but still there is more freedom than a starwars rpg, even if the concept of morality turns out to work along similar lines. You can even alter the philosophies of your companions, have multiple options to deal with most main enemies, including death's hand and sun li.
But yes, acts are linear. There is minimal branching leading to the next act.
Aww I liked JE.
But that massive backflip you could do was hilariously broken. Didn't even need focus.
It seems this is where we disagree. You seem to believe that if a human doesn't behave like all the other humans in combat, then this breaks the simulation. I'm of the opinion that any human analogous to my power level is going to cause the simulation to fail because the AI is handicapped while I have the initiative, combat information and the ability to stop the time and execute a perfect plan. Any AI is doomed to act like a complete idiot unless the developers start to take away my power and control over the game and give it to the AI through shortcuts.
Yes, because the playing field isn't level. On a level playing field, the superior player should win. This is why Germany will almost always defeat Canada in international football - because Germany is better at it. Handicapping Germany, or letting the Canadians have more players, doesn't improve the quality of the simulation. It improves the qualtiy of contest, perhaps. But we're not talking about a game; we're talking about a simulation.
Have you ever watched Let's Play videos on Youtube? Most players are idiots. They'll rush into combat without a plan again and again. And yhe AI we're facing in the game, though, doesn't even get to a chance to learn, because we're facing a new enemy with each encounter. This group of bandits shouldn't learn from the last group's failure, because it didn't witness the last group's failure.
People think that DAO is a good game as far as combat is concerned because it's mostly symmetrical. Well, newsflash, it's not. It's exploitable to the point it loses any point to it. That's because while it's symmetrical, it's not balanced.
I think those two things are synonymous. This isn't NASCAR where each car manufacturer gets different rules to follow in order to produce close racing - this should behave more like real world competition and less like a contrived competition where the objective is that it be even rather than it be fair.
Fair and even are only related when the competitors are roughly equal. As you correctly point out, here they are not.
If you want challenge, that can be done through encounter design rather than by changing the rules. Give the enemies greater numbers, or better equipment (which only works once because then we can loot it - perhaps do this only with bosses), or a superior position. But not mechanical advantages that damage the authenticity and verisimilitude of the setting.
In a perfect world I would agree with you. If there was a game that had an AI that could out think me, then symmetry would be great. It would offer consistency, balance, and it would be a good fight simulation. It would be like playing chess with a high level bot. It's good practice, keeps you focused. But if you play with your baby cousin, is it symmetrical? Is it a good simulation? Is it worth your time? I'd guess not. What is technically right, becomes practically wrong.
I don't seek challenge from these games. I seek fairness.
I don't even play the combat to win, necessarily. I roleplay the combat. I choose tactics that I think suit my character, even if I know they're suboptimal tactics. As I said, I set my characters loose in the world to see what happens. Sometimes they die. My favourite DAO Warden (to play) actually got killed by Sten in Haven.
Your reason for playing gives me enough insight. I can understand where you are coming from, but I think your view of what rpgs games is a bit romantic. You say that my "capacity" problem exists because I want the game to acknowledge my actions, but is it really this or that the game doesn't allow me to perform these actions? Single player rpgs are not true platforms. WoW is a platform. I can roleplay all day in WoW because the scenarios are dynamic. I can assassinate people, make fun of people, go skydiving. I can even perform a play by myself and have a crowd. What can I really do in DA. I can't even have a hobby other than running around the party camp 3 times or forcing Sandal to say enchantment 3000 times per day.
Rendering the action on screen constitutes acknowledgement. My characters do all sorts of things in these games - off screen. When you played DA2 last, what was Hawke's favourite food?
He never eats in the game, so it has no direct gameplay relevance at all, but it might have roleplaying relevance, and that can have gameplay relevance indirectly. Let's imagine that Hawke really likes cheese, and whenever there's cheese in the room, the smell puts him in a better mood. Suddenly, all those cheese wheels littering Kirkwall matter.
Retour en haut