694 réponses à ce sujet

[seraphymon]

Considering that most Great Swords weighed in less than five pounds and had superb balance that granted beautiful agility, the idea of a "Lighter fast weapon" isn't really something that holds a lot of meaning in melee combat, if it wasn't Light and Fast, it wasn't a good weapon to begin with. Then the waters get even muddier when you factor in Halfswording, which is used for point control to thrust into armor gaps, or even strike with the quillions on the guard.

 

And chances are, if you're in a fight with someone who's armored, they're experienced enough to know not to exert themselves by swinging in futility. You'll either have to get in their attack range, or be killed by someone else on the battlefield if you're prancing around like a dope. Again, the common perceptions of melee combat are based on duals, filtered through cinematic storytelling to create these images of romanticized 1v1 combat. It's absolutely nothing like a real engagement.

 

 

One of the most realistic things Dragon Age: Inquisistion does is restrict Dual weapons to Rogues, and goes the extra mile with Dual Daggers being the only option. Dual Daggers is a very improvised method of battle, something street urchins would do. Real warriors would either use a shield, or use both hands. No trained warrior would every use two weapons balanced like an Arming Sword, Axe, Hammer or whatever, because it's actually a crippling disadvantage. And of course, BioWare gets tons of hate for this, emphasizing the old rule of the unpleasable fan base.

Actually  that is is one of the most unrealistic things DAI did. limit weapon restrictions. This is beyond gameplay preferences. DAO had pick w/e you want just like in real life. It doesnt matter if it is combat effective or not, its realistic.  This was a huge discussion back during DA2.  Wielding a sword and dagger or even twin swords was very feasible in real life combat situations. Videos were posted proving it. Whether warrior rogue or mage I think its best to be able to equip any weapon, so long as you have the attribute. Be like Gandoff and wield a sword as a mage. Or like  Lancelot in the king Arthur movie and wield two swords.  This limit is just wrong both for options and realism in my opnion.

[addiction21]

 

DAO E3 2009 Who feels like picking it apart like so many are doing now?

 

There is a moment they go on about the banter which has become its own whole new beast.

[Shadow Fox]

Anime is less wordy And to my mind it conveys the same meaning. It is in no way meant as disparaging to anime.

I could just as easily say Conan or if I didn't want to sound like a ****** or ignorant tool like most people here who see something they don't like and feel the need to blame another country for "tainting" their precious rpgs...mythical.

 

I also don't see the point in insulting the intelligence of those who prefer something you dislike in a video game by snidely calling them kids.

 

Note: This is directed at the thread in general not at you.

[Deflagratio]

Actually  that is is one of the most unrealistic things DAI did. limit weapon restrictions. This is beyond gameplay preferences. DAO had pick w/e you want just like in real life. It doesnt matter if it is combat effective or not, its realistic.  This was a huge discussion back during DA2.  Wielding a sword and dagger or even twin swords was very feasible in real life combat situations. Videos were posted proving it. Whether warrior rogue or mage I think its best to be able to equip any weapon, so long as you have the attribute. Be like Gandoff and wield a sword as a mage. Or like  Lancelot in the king Arthur movie and wield two swords.  This limit is just wrong both for options and realism in my opnion.

 

It's actually not. If the best argument you can come up with is "Some Hollywood movies had twin swords n junk" then I think I still have the intellectual high ground in the debate.

 

There's a lot of fundamentals about physics, primarily inertia and momentum that make using two "Heavy" (IE: Arming Swords, Long Sword and anything heavier) impossible as a means of effective combat. Furthermore, things like footwork, muscle memory complicate even attempting to learn and then mirror the basics alone, much less advanced fighting techniques.

 

There is some historical reference to dual rapier techniques, but all texts these are referenced show this was done as show pieces for Tourney crowds, not actual combat.

 

While it's true someone can physically lift the objects in question, lifting and fighting are entirely different actions. I get it if you want to use dual axes to live out some berserkr power fantasy, but such things are as implausible as Sera's exploding arrows and 20 foot backflip. In other words, don't ****** in my ear and tell me it's raining.

[hexaligned]

Indeed.  I think I started this, which wasn't really my intent.  I'll own my inadvertent trolling though.  

 

I just want to hit a dude with a sword and have him fall over. I don't need the ground erupting into explosions from the impact.  I don't need my mage dancing around in the background like a fairy when I just want him to set someone on fire.  Aesthetically that is something "I" associate more with JRPG's, it wasn't meant as a statement of UNIVERSAL TRUTH, or as condemnation, for that matter.  I actually do enjoy some JRPGS, despite things like that (It's usually the story telling that turns me off to them more than anything).  I may enjoy DAI despite it as well.

[seraphymon]

 

It's actually not. If the best argument you can come up with is "Some Hollywood movies had twin swords n junk" then I think I still have the intellectual high ground in the debate.

 

There's a lot of fundamentals about physics, primarily inertia and momentum that make using two "Heavy" (IE: Arming Swords, Long Sword and anything heavier) impossible as a means of effective combat. Furthermore, things like footwork, muscle memory complicate even attempting to learn and then mirror the basics alone, much less advanced fighting techniques.

 

There is some historical reference to dual rapier techniques, but all texts these are referenced show this was done as show pieces for Tourney crowds, not actual combat.

 

While it's true someone can physically lift the objects in question, lifting and fighting are entirely different actions. I get it if you want to use dual axes to live out some berserkr power fantasy, but such things are as implausible as Sera's exploding arrows and 20 foot backflip. In other words, don't ****** in my ear and tell me it's raining.

Some of those hollywood movies are just obvious examples of. "If I can pick up a weapon to use in a fight I can very well do so." Or if I unequip something, and a default weapon is glued to me. thats unrealistic.   When I saw videos. I mean real matial art videos or demonstrations were found and posted for arguments sake of proving that dual wielding long swords was realistic and feasible in combat. Alot more than slamming a two hand hammer on the ground and creating spikes of rocks to come up becuase of the sheer tremor.

 

This is not to live some berseker fantasy like the Arishok in DA2. I am on the side that fights for more realism combat in DA series. Dual wielding warriors, or dual wielding things longer than daggers is a very real thing and is a style that is actually effective in real combat.  Sure takes more dexterity and is harder to train in maybe, but that is no excuse.

[Jazzpha]

Indeed. I think I started this, which wasn't really my intent. I'll own my inadvertent trolling though.

I just want to hit a dude with a sword and have him fall over. I don't need the ground erupting into explosions from the impact. I don't need my mage dancing around in the background like a fairy when I just want him to set someone on fire. Aesthetically that is something "I" associate more with JRPG's, it wasn't meant as a statement of UNIVERSAL TRUTH, or as condemnation, for that matter. I actually do enjoy some JRPGS, despite things like that (It's usually the story telling that turns me off to them more than anything). I may enjoy DAI despite it as well.

Oh, I wasn't trying to call anyone out. I just really wanted to use that clip for something.

But I know what you mean. I like my combat in games like this to stay "grounded" on the whole-- that way, when something really impressive does happen (like a massive fire cyclone murdering a whole room of dudes), it stands out as really *being* that impressive in relation to other attacks.

[Dermain]

 Dual wielding warriors, or dual wielding things longer than daggers is a very real thing and is a style that is actually effective in real combat.  Sure takes more dexterity and is harder to train in maybe, but that is no excuse.

 

Please find actual evidence of it.

[hotdogbsg]

Please find actual evidence of it.

Karl Tanner, the fookin' legend of Gin Alley used dual blades to great effect in his fight with Jon Snow.

 

(Please note: The above is not a serious response)

[Gtdef]

Dual wielding warriors, or dual wielding things longer than daggers is a very real thing and is a style that is actually effective in real combat.  Sure takes more dexterity and is harder to train in maybe, but that is no excuse.

 

Dual wielding was a thing in duels and for personal self defense and martial arts styles, in which it was used as an extension of the hands and they are mostly defensive. I've never seen a credible source that claims that dual wielding was used in the battlefield and for war tactics and it's pretty easy to understand why.

 

Less protection, useless in formations, less impact and penetration on hit, based on parries and counterattacks.

 

On the other hand, if the rogue can do it, so should warrior. But don't call realism on this.

[Scouse]

Pleasantly surprised by this video (combat gameplay one). The combat pacing looks a lot, lot better than even DA:O still a tad too flashy (sparkling lights everywhere) for my liking but that is no biggy and easy enough to adjust to and then forget about. I'm liking that buffs seem to not make your character glow like a neon light ala origins without mod support and is more like DAII. The fighting looks solid, fast enough to be entertaining but slow enough to make you feel like the blow would actually hurt. 

 

Will have to skip that rogues jump as i just can't stand it but that's a personal thing and id guess the class will work without it, mages look good might actually give them a try for once but for me this will definitely make me consider playing a 2h warrior, after my typical sword and shield dude, which i skipped entirely on DAII due to the super fast attacks.

 

So all looks good to me most likely be playing a sword and shield quanari (because those horns totally ruined my plan on playing a human as i normally do!!!) 2h dwarf, mage elf and human archer there goes a good 200+ hours of my life. 

 

Hoping the rest of these gameplay videos continue to get my hype level for DA:I to what it reached for origins!

[Shadow Fox]

Dual wielding was a thing in duels and for personal self defense and martial arts styles, in which it was used as an extension of the hands and they are mostly defensive. I've never seen a credible source that claims that dual wielding was used in the battlefield and for war tactics and it's pretty easy to understand why.

 

Less protection, useless in formations, less impact and penetration on hit, based on parries and counterattacks.

 

On the other hand, if the rogue can do it, so should warrior. But don't call realism on this.

No Warrior who wasn't suicidally stupid would though.

 

Rogues do it because they lack proper weapon training so they improvise and by necessity develop a unique but unorthodox style that should realistically get them killed but in true Rogue fashion they beat the odds and cheat death time and time again.

[Deflagratio]

No Warrior who wasn't suicidally stupid would though.

 

Rogues do it because they lack proper weapon training so they improvise and by necessity develop a unique but unorthodox style that should realistically get them killed but in true Rogue fashion they beat the odds and cheat death time and time again.

 

 

Well, the main problem is control and balance, daggers and shortblades have balance almost all in the hilt, so not only are they easy to control even without heavy training, but the length of the blade means your defensive lever is shorter giving superb defensive control. One of the huge problems with defending yourself with a sword is strikes toward the tip, which creates more leverage for the opponent by virtue of the length of the blade, this means you can easily knock a blade away the closer you strike toward the tip. That's bad enough if you're trained, it's literally suicidal if you're using an off hand that is effectively defunct because of the footwork required. Since daggers don't have that disadvantage, they actually make for a reasonable (As in better than bare fists) defensive tool in the off hand, even without training, and you can still give a fairly good poke if you need.

 

 

 

 

DAO E3 2009 Who feels like picking it apart like so many are doing now?

 

There is a moment they go on about the banter which has become its own whole new beast.

 

Talk about perspective shock. I look at that and wonder how anyone can think DA:I is anything but a phenomenal improvement.

[Morroian]

So people should keep their opinion to themselves? I don't see you following your own advice. If people want to complain that is their right (not as consumers or perspective buyers, but as human beings with an opinion). If you don't like it then that's fine, but don't tell people to keep their opinions to themselves. Plenty of people dislike (to varying degrees, for myself only slightly) the 'anime' style that DA is going, especially considering its roots (DAO and BG). They will voice their opinion and nothing you can do will stop them, either learn to live with it or ignore them.

 

I think the issue is more that people are holding DAO as something more realistic when it really wasn't. The whole series has had OTT combat in each iteration.

[Firky]

Did I read somewhere that there is going to be more of these?

 

There was really little info.

 

But, reviving enemies looks similar to Aarklash Legacy. That's good.

[addiction21]

 

 

 

 

 

Talk about perspective shock. I look at that and wonder how anyone can think DA:I is anything but a phenomenal improvement.

 

Well I have been around here long enough to know "improvement" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

For me its more of how DAO is on this pedestal but in truth it always down in the mud with everything else. DAO is far closer to KoToR in my eyes then BG. How people seem to remove every game BioWare made prior to BG ( Shattered Steel and MDK2) and between BG to DAO like they are pure.

 

Done late going to find a CS game and shoot ****.

[The Night Haunter]

I think the issue is more that people are holding DAO as something more realistic when it really wasn't. The whole series has had OTT combat in each iteration.

While true that no DA game has been realistic, DAO was closer to 'realism' than DA2.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I actually did just replay DAO, I didn't notice any over the top animations, to what are you referring?

 

Kill a High Dragon or Ogre in melee, then come back to us.

 

Or my favorite, the killing blow where my rogue's daggers pierce straight through his enemy's steel plate and then lops his head off cleanly despite him wearing a gorget. Or my other rogue making one arrow split into ten that stun people somehow. Or lazily sweeping his daggers so that it hits everyone in an area at once... somehow. Or the warrior that sends people flying with a shout like he was the friggin Dragonborn.

 

And let's not even talk about the riduculously over the top stuff that happens in Awakening.

 

Dragon Age was never about realism. DAII went more over the top than Origins, but it always was exaggerated and flashy. Discussions of realism seem pointless to me.

[The Night Haunter]

Kill a High Dragon or Ogre in melee, then come back to us.

 

Or my favorite, the killing blow where my rogue's daggers pierce straight through his enemy's steel plate and then lops his head off cleanly despite him wearing a gorget. Or my other rogue making one arrow split into ten that stun people somehow. Or lazily sweeping his daggers so that it hits everyone in an area at once... somehow. Or the warrior that sends people flying with a shout like he was the friggin Dragonborn.

 

And let's not even talk about the riduculously over the top stuff that happens in Awakening.

 

Dragon Age was never about realism. DAII went more over the top than Origins, but it always was exaggerated and flashy. Discussions of realism seem pointless to me.

And it isn't pointless to others. 

 

Those are specific instances of realism defying acts. Whereas in DA2 pretty much every action was over the top. Which makes DAO closer to 'realism' than DA2, so while not perfect, better.

[seraphymon]

Dual wielding was a thing in duels and for personal self defense and martial arts styles, in which it was used as an extension of the hands and they are mostly defensive. I've never seen a credible source that claims that dual wielding was used in the battlefield and for war tactics and it's pretty easy to understand why.

 

Less protection, useless in formations, less impact and penetration on hit, based on parries and counterattacks.

 

On the other hand, if the rogue can do it, so should warrior. But don't call realism on this.

In an army type of setting it would be more suicidal, berseker kind of thing, I am not arguing against that point. That doesnt mean its not usable or effective in certain situations. Further, that is just based on fighting other armored type of foes. This is a party of 4 that is not fighting a mass  army  most of the time and not even fighting humans most of the time either. this involves fighting wild animals, demons, dragons etc. In those cases a simple shield or sword or any weapon style fares no better. Its a simple matter of unless I am a one armed person, if I can weild a weapon with each hand, I should be able to, that is the realism.

[Dermain]

In an army type of setting it would be more suicidal, berseker kind of thing, I am not arguing against that point. That doesnt mean its not usable or effective in certain situations. Further, that is just based on fighting other armored type of foes. This is a party of 4 that is not fighting a mass  army  most of the time and not even fighting humans most of the time either. this involves fighting wild animals, demons, dragons etc. In those cases a simple shield or sword or any weapon style fares no better. Its a simple matter of unless I am a one armed person, if I can weild a weapon with each hand, I should be able to, that is the realism.

 

That is the worst realism argument I have ever seen...

 

Instead of focusing on the "realism" of dual wielding you focus on the supposed "realism" of using whatever weapon you want?

 

So basically you only want "realism" that you like, but you're fine with any lack of realism because you also like it...good job...

[seraphymon]

That is the worst realism argument I have ever seen...

 

Instead of focusing on the "realism" of dual wielding you focus on the supposed "realism" of using whatever weapon you want?

 

So basically you only want "realism" you like, but you're fine with any lack of realism because you also like it...good job...

Yeah derail the argument. Thats a good way to go.  There is no perfect realism in any fantasy game. In all honesty you can put an argument for every weapon style of why so and so wouldnt work against certain enemies. It cant even be properly tested in real life against a dragon or undead.  So there is gonna some sense of unrealistic maneuvers.  If you take dual wielding away from warrios for lack of "realism" why stop there? Lets take away  the super sized two handers, lets take away the rogue stealth, unlimited arrows and everything else.   Dual wielding is realistic. Plain and simple and that is what I am for. The reason why it was initially removed is understandable, but there was no excuse to just up and remove it from warrios or not being able to wield  2 one-hand swords.

[addiction21]

And it isn't pointless to others. 

 

Those are specific instances of realism defying acts. Whereas in DA2 pretty much every action was over the top. Which makes DAO closer to 'realism' than DA2, so while not perfect, better.

 

No its not just "specific instances" in DAO they were common you leveled and out put points to use those over the top, unrealistic, lore breaking abilities.

 

I listed a few earlier but tell me why singing something while doing evertrhin g else a bard can do has a physical effect? In what world does a song make stronger or more resistant to physical harm? Or where someone yelling knocks people off their feet?

 

This did not just start but has been something that has been there and BioWare has not kept that a secret.

[Maria Caliban]

I thought it was unrealistic whenever my warrior swung her sword so slowly she might have been in a vat of maple syrup.

[Deflagratio]

I thought it was unrealistic whenever my warrior swung her sword so slowly she might have been in a vat of maple syrup.

 

 

That's what I was thinking when I watched the DA:O dragon fight Addiction put up.