426 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonKingReborn]

That's not how DA:O played, even on the console (played it on 360 myself). It sounds EXACTLY how DA2 played, though.

 

OK, fair enough.  But is the issue that it is closer to DA2 than Origins or something more specific?

 

If you press a button (and at the risk of sounding like something awesome)and  an attack occurs, more or less instantly, is that a problem?  Provided it is still a queue mechanic and not an action mechanic, does the speed at which the order is carried out matter?  We can see pretty clear from the demos that it's not a fighter game with "RPG" elements.  At least, that's been the impression I've been left with.

[Fast Jimmy]

It wasn't tactics - it was pure fluke. You could kite in DA:O just as easily - you had to simply avoid the threat zone of the melee enemy you were kiting to avoid triggering the animation. You can kite the ogre at Ishtal or Uldred at the Circle Tower.

I'd say that was more of a failure on how Origin's handled their large enemies rather than a failure of the system.

[In Exile]

I'd say that was more of a failure on how Origin's handled their large enemies rather than a failure of the system.

 

It applies to smaller enemies too - they were just too weak to be worth kiting. DA:O isn't kite proof. 

[Fast Jimmy]

OK, fair enough.  But is the issue that it is closer to DA2 than Origins or something more specific?
 
If you press a button (and at the risk of sounding like something awesome)and  an attack occurs, more or less instantly, is that a problem?  Provided it is still a queue mechanic and not an action mechanic, does the speed at which the order is carried out matter?  We can see pretty clear from the demos that it's not a fighter game with "RPG" elements.  At least, that's been the impression I've been left with.

How is "press a button to attack" NOT an action mechanic? If I mash buttons and it results in my character attacking faster, that is action mechanics. And, if not, and auto attack goes at the same rate if you don't mash the buttons... then why are players mashing the buttons in all of these demos?

How fast the character swings their sword should be how fast their stats and abilities say they can, not by how quickly I can game the system with a turbo controller. I should be able to give a command to a part member and have them execute it with just as much damage, speed and efficacy as if I took control of the character myself. Like a unit on a battleifield. That is tactics. Having better results strictly due to the fact that I can take direct control and press buttons faster with my player reflexes is the exact opposite of that - it is action mechanics.

I realize people don't break it down to that level consciously, but it is evident in people's reactions to DA2 that this is how it is perceived subconsciously. These are action mechanics that DA2 had that don't give the tactical level hardcore players want, yet it is not at all good action mechanics, as all it is hitting the attack button and cycling through your cooldowns - someone used to playing God of War would find it incredibly boring from an action game perspective. If this is returning for DA:I with a forced in camera as the only consolation, I don't believe it will work in providing a satisfying experience to anyone who didn't like DA2.

[Fast Jimmy]

It applies to smaller enemies too - they were just to weak to be worth kiting. DA:O isn't kite proof.

It wasn't. I did mean to imply it was. But the mechanics at least attempt to focus on character skill instead of cheap aher tricks. Something the Arishok fight in DA2 seems to make extremely difficult for most players.

[Amaror]

Ugh, this doesn't sound good at all.

Unless they will actually show in detail that all the tactical and thoughtfull gameplay elements they talked about aren't just all talk, i will have to cancel my preorder.

They said they learned from DA 2, but the Comment about BG doesn't sound like they did.

[CronoDragoon]

In which action games does pressing the attack button faster make you swing your sword faster?

[DragonKingReborn]

For a basic attack, you're right and I haven't paid enough attention to the demos to see if that is the case.  But for the activated abilities the animations seem good to me and not at all consistent with a button mashing exercise.

 

With regards to giving companions instructions, to my eyes it looks exactly like DA:O, only with faster animations, which I have to say I appreciate.  I'm still playing Origins and still loving it, but the aggressive chess piece animations are a little taxing sometimes.

 

Cooldowns could also have been tweaked for demo purposes - they certainly did for the DA2 demo(s).

[Deflagratio]

How is "press a button to attack" NOT an action mechanic? If I mash buttons and it results in my character attacking faster, that is action mechanics. And, if not, and auto attack goes at the same rate if you don't mash the buttons... then why are players mashing the buttons in all of these demos?

How fast the character swings their sword should be how fast their stats and abilities say they can, not by how quickly I can game the system with a turbo controller. I should be able to give a command to a part member and have them execute it with just as much damage, speed and efficacy as if I took control of the character myself. Like a unit on a battleifield. That is tactics. Having better results strictly due to the fact that I can take direct control and press buttons faster with my player reflexes is the exact opposite of that - it is action mechanics.
 

 

Pretty sure most games have safeguards in place such as weapon Delay and animation frame limitations and cooldowns that stop it from being as bad as the intellectually ridiciulous example you give.

 

Furthermore, most people enjoy games more when they feel that as a player, they bring more to the table. In other words, they like their skill and involvement to pay off. This comes in multiple forms both from strategy and direct action. Short sighted people automatically assume a game built towards reactive nature is "Shallow" when actually the reaction based system is just one more cycle the brain has to process which for all intents, and purposes makes it a deeper experience if it isn't mutually exclusive with another action or system.

 

 

In which action games does pressing the attack button faster make you swing your sword faster?

 

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (DraculaX) if you wield the Vorpal Blade or Crissaegrim sword.

 

Also just about every spectacle fighter type game I think. (DMC for example)

[Enigmatick]

For a basic attack, you're right and I haven't paid enough attention to the demos to see if that is the case.  But for the activated abilities the animations seem good to me and not at all consistent with a button mashing exercise.

 

With regards to giving companions instructions, to my eyes it looks exactly like DA:O, only with faster animations, which I have to say I appreciate.  I'm still playing Origins and still loving it, but the aggressive chess piece animations are a little taxing sometimes.

 

Cooldowns could also have been tweaked for demo purposes - they certainly did for the DA2 demo(s).

That's a safe bet unless mana takes half a second to regen in this game.

[Morroian]

How is "press a button to attack" NOT an action mechanic? If I mash buttons and it results in my character attacking faster, that is action mechanics. And, if not, and auto attack goes at the same rate if you don't mash the buttons... then why are players mashing the buttons in all of these demos?

 

How is this any different to DAO?

[CronoDragoon]

Also just about every spectacle fighter type game I think. (DMC for example)

 

DMC, like Ninja Gaiden, Metal Gear Rising, etc, has a set upper limit on how fast you can attack (as you mention, animation frame limit) that's actually rather low. It's certainly true that pressing the attack button much slower will result in slower attacks, although in some cases it leads to entirely different combo chains.

 

Anyway, it's not terribly important to the main questions of this thread. But as long as the auto-attack option is in this game I don't see why FastJimmy cares at all whether I prefer to press attack for every attack or leave it on auto-attack.

[Deflagratio]

How is this any different to DAO?

 

 

DA:O used Auto Attack and hotbars like an MMO. One of its greatest weaknesses in my opinion, though nowhere near as condemning in my view as the very railroaded experience that results in an experience devoid of exploration and any emergent gameplay.

[Das Tentakel]

<my grognard sense is tingling>

 


'^%%$*^$#^#^They don't make RPG's like they used to under the Emperor, merde et &%%$**%$'

Regarding Kevin van Ord not liking 'older' type of RPG's, I'm not sure. He really, really seems to like Divinity: Original Sin, which is in many ways 'modernized old school'.

His impressions do seem to align with Jeff Gerstman's though. Very unsure about the gameplay to be honest; I don't like the look of it, but the real test is actually playing the game. Shame there's not going to be a demo.

[Fast Jimmy]

Pretty sure most games have safeguards in place such as weapon Delay and animation frame limitations and cooldowns that stop it from being as bad as the intellectually ridiciulous example you give.
 
Furthermore, most people enjoy games more when they feel that as a player, they bring more to the table. In other words, they like their skill and involvement to pay off. This comes in multiple forms both from strategy and direct action. Short sighted people automatically assume a game built towards reactive nature is "Shallow" when actually the reaction based system is just one more cycle the brain has to process which for all intents, and purposes makes it a deeper experience if it isn't mutually exclusive with another action or system.
 

 
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (DraculaX) if you wield the Vorpal Blade or Crissaegrim sword.
 
Also just about every spectacle fighter type game I think. (DMC for example)

It is not saying they aren't difficult. Just that they are testing different things. Namely, muscle memory and reflexes.
A game like chess has a near infinite number of moves and each piece has different opportunists and strengths. If by taking direct control of only a pawn the entire game and speeding up the action, you cousin it a swath through the entire board and take down the king, that would be an entirely different game than the way chess plays, where you must be aware of all your pieces and the positioning if all your opponents.

This design does exactly that - takes the focus off the party and leaves it on the individual control. It's turning chess into the Popamatic Trouble.

[Deflagratio]

It is not saying they aren't difficult. Just that they are testing different things. Namely, muscle memory and reflexes.
A game like chess has a near infinite number of moves and each piece has different opportunists and strengths. If by taking direct control of only a pawn the entire game and speeding up the action, you cousin it a swath through the entire board and take down the king, that would be an entirely different game than the way chess plays, where you must be aware of all your pieces and the positioning if all your opponents.

This design does exactly that - takes the focus off the party and leaves it on the individual control. It's turning chess into the Popamatic Trouble.

 

 

What a laughable analogy; not even worth addressing.

[CronoDragoon]

This design does exactly that - takes the focus off the party and leaves it on the individual control. It's turning chess into the Popamatic Trouble.

 

I'm failing to see how the presence of an auto-attack option is the difference between strategy and no strategy.

[Il Divo]

It is not that it was slower, it is that the animation came after the skill check, not before. The game rolled the dice based on your character's stats against the enemy's before the animation began, so your stats determined if you were hit, not your reflexes. It just appeared as shuffling and slow because the game was DESIGNED to make you unable to react to something your character should not have been able to avoid.

AKA, actually being tactical instead of button mashing and constant kiting

 

All of KotOR's animations were also based on your stats and success/failure rolls, but Bioware didn't seem to have to worry about making combat move at a snail's pace there. 

[Paul E Dangerously]

I'm failing to see how the presence of an auto-attack option is the difference between strategy and no strategy.

 

Because button mashing is the province of console owning or Diablo playing plebians, while sitting and watching the AI bash it out is the mark of a true gamer.

[Deflagratio]

I'm failing to see how the presence of an auto-attack option is the difference between strategy and no strategy.

 

 

I'm assuming he's basically stating that the involvement of the player creates a balancing tip where the rules of the game are less important than ability of the player. Meaning that in a "Tactical" Game, the action element lets reflex outperform strategy.

 

FastJimmy will let me know if that's fair or not.

 

I personally just don't believe the two are mutually exclusive, as such I'm not willing to dismiss DA:I out of hand just because it has this.

[Fast Jimmy]

What a laughable analogy; not even worth addressing.

How is it laughable? If you played chess concerning yourself with one piece and out the rest on auto pilot, you'd be bored out of your mind. That's how some people played DA:O and found it boring. When the point of the design was to watch the entire field, see what moves were being made by your opponent, see what options your characters has to execute and take down the enemy.

Kiting the Arishok in DA2 is the equivalent to a pawn taking a Queen. One of two direct hits and you are dead. There are ways for a Mage or a rogue, properly specced, to take him down without kiting, but by-in-large, the player was forced to use cheap moves and player reclex to overcome an opponent that was vastly superior.

[Amaror]

I'm failing to see how the presence of an auto-attack option is the difference between strategy and no strategy.

He's not talking about auto-attack. What he's saying is that it's bad when a character performs better, like attacks faster, stronger, when the player is controlling them.

I aggree with him, although i can't quite remember. Were your characters actually stronger while you controlled them? I mean the game did enough else to ruin any attempt at thinking and using tactics, but that would be another stupidity on biowares part that i wouldn't have thought them possible of.

[Deflagratio]

How is it laughable? If you played chess concerning yourself with one piece and out the rest on auto pilot, you'd be bored out of your mind. That's how some people played DA:O and found it boring. When the point of the design was to watch the entire field, see what moves were being made by your opponent, see what options your characters has to execute and take down the enemy.

Kiting the Arishok in DA2 is the equivalent to a pawn taking a Queen. One of two direct hits and you are dead. There are ways for a Mage or a rogue, properly specced, to take him down without kiting, but by-in-large, the player was forced to use cheap moves and player reclex to overcome an opponent that was vastly superior.

 

It's a strawman argument. I don't respond to strawman arguments.

[Enigmatick]

How is it laughable? If you played chess concerning yourself with one piece and out the rest on auto pilot, you'd be bored out of your mind. That's how some people played DA:O and found it boring. When the point of the design was to watch the entire field, see what moves were being made by your opponent, see what options your characters has to execute and take down the enemy.

Kiting the Arishok in DA2 is the equivalent to a pawn taking a Queen. One of two direct hits and you are dead. There are ways for a Mage or a rogue, properly specced, to take him down without kiting, but by-in-large, the player was forced to use cheap moves and player reclex to overcome an opponent that was vastly superior.

How would that fight play out 1v1 in da:o? How do you feel about the full party version of that fight?

[CronoDragoon]

He's not talking about auto-attack. What he's saying is that it's bad when a character performs better, like attacks faster, stronger, when the player is controlling them.

 

Er, okay. Where does it say anywhere that this happens?