694 réponses à ce sujet

[Bayonet Hipshot]

This being a fantasy game, it is therefore, perfectly natural to expect flashiness and unnatural physics at work.

 

However, I am of the opinion each class should have a different feel. 

 

To me warriors should feel brutal, visceral and bloody. Their abilities like mighty blow should show armors being smashed or broke and bloody  face or body.

 

Rogues should be deadly but efficient. They should have more critical attack animations such as arrow headshots or dagger decapitation. Precise and bloody. 

 

Mages should have all the flash and fluff because they have spells and because the Veil is tearing and magic itself is going crazy. 

 

However, from the videos I have seen, every class looks flashy like the mages. Unless there is lore reason where magic will actually return to all peoples, it makes no sense to have the flashiness. 

[seraphymon]

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

I do agree. Two handed in DAO was  a bit too slow.

[Dermain]

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.

 

So again, you are fine with unrealistic things as long as you like them, but when you don't like them you don't want it in the game. It's an amusing double standard. If you're going to argue for realism argue for it across the board not just for what you like. 

 

Well, at least we finally solved that little issue.

 

Carry on.

[seraphymon]

No I am not. At least not in terms of Dragon age.  I have played many games that has flash and unrealistic jumps and attacks. Hell Kingdom Hearts is my other favorite series and thats nothing but flash and unrealistic manuevers. Of course it is a JRPG, but it fits the universe. In Dragon age, warriors and rogues are doing moves that are not believable yet we cant have dual wielding warriors  or dual wielding long swords because it is also not believable?  That is what I dont like. DAO had it right, they just made the mistake of giving the rogue and warrior the same exact abilities.  I am not picking or choosing here. I understand  there is gonna be a lack of realism. But the closer it is to realism, at least in terms of warrior and rogue combat,  the better, is my argument. Thats all its ever been.

[CronoDragoon]

However, from the videos I have seen, every class looks flashy like the mages. Unless there is lore reason where magic will actually return to all peoples, it makes no sense to have the flashiness. 

 

The most flashiness I've seen from warriors is having their 2-handed weapon drive into the ground. The attacks all look pretty vicious and strong.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DAO wasn't turn-based either

No one is claiming it was.

 

But if DAO's combat was to be improved, I think making it turn-based would have been better than what happened in DA2.

[AresKeith]

No one is claiming it was.

 

But if DAO's combat was to be improved, I think making it turn-based would have been better than what happened in DA2.

 

That sounds like a step backwards imo

[seraphymon]

Im inclined to agree that turn based wouldnt really be the right path either.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That sounds like a step backwards imo

Backward and forward are meaningless terms on this topic.

 

I want combat to be an entirely intellectual exercise - never a visceral one.

[AresKeith]

Backward and forward are meaningless terms on this topic.

 

I want combat to be an entirely intellectual exercise - never a visceral one.

 

You can still do that with the tactical camera

 

Turn-based isn't the only way to have an intellectual exercise

[Firky]

Have you played Divinity: Original Sin, Sylvius?

 

It's like Dragon Age Origins meets Magicka. (Well, sort of. )

 

But it's entirely turn based. It's absolutely my favourite RPG combat in ages.

[Kidd]

I don't get why people seem to be in camps over realtime vs turn-based. Can't we love and appreciate the benefits of both styles? =)

*turns off her turn-based strategy game Fire Emblem and boots up Street Fighter 4*

[AresKeith]

I don't get why people seem to be in camps over realtime vs turn-based. Can't we love and appreciate the benefits of both styles? =)

*turns off her turn-based strategy game Fire Emblem and boots up Street Fighter 4*

 

Oh I enjoy turn-based games also

[LinksOcarina]

So again, you are fine with unrealistic things as long as you like them, but when you don't like them you don't want it in the game. It's an amusing double standard. If you're going to argue for realism argue for it across the board not just for what you like. 

 

Well, at least we finally solved that little issue.

 

Carry on.

 

How about you all stop arguing over stupid things to begin with, and enjoy the ****** game when it comes out?

 

This argument over realism is so pointless I can't help but laugh at how deterministic most of you are on the subject. Ahh nerd culture, will the wonders never cease? 

 

 

Backward and forward are meaningless terms on this topic.

 

I want combat to be an entirely intellectual exercise - never a visceral one.

 

Combat is always an intellectual exercise, be it managing positions, resources, abilities or equipment. It doesn't really matter if it's turn based, real time, tactical menu or just button mashing, all of those aspects are happening on screen anyway, the difference is personal reaction time and how you approach combat. That boils down to personal taste, and chances are not everyone is going to be satisfied with the outcome. 

 

But then it boils down to spreadsheets and math for the hardcore crowd, especially since Dragon Age has very little variance in the "dicerolling" from what I remember. It's why dex-based warriors were so popular, the DPS was so damn high it was basically exploitable. 

[BananaBoy]

I love the flashiness and I think the animations are at the right amount of speed. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

You can still do that with the tactical camera

Turn-based isn't the only way to have an intellectual exercise

Nor did I say that.

But I didn't find DA2's combat to be moving in that direction.

Also, I don't see why this playstyle keeps getting tied to the camera mode. I played tactically in DAO while mostly leaving the camera low.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Have you played Divinity: Original Sin, Sylvius?

It's like Dragon Age Origins meets Magicka. (Well, sort of. )

But it's entirely turn based. It's absolutely my favourite RPG combat in ages.

I have not.

I intend to try it.

[AresKeith]

Nor did I say that.

But I didn't find DA2's combat to be moving in that direction.

Also, I don't see why this playstyle keeps getting tied to the camera mode. I played tactically in DAO while mostly leaving the camera low.

The main problem with DDA2's combat was them turning the speed too high and making it fast pace

DA:I is fixing that problem by toning down the speed and adding more weight to the attacks

[dlux]

The main problem with DDA2's combat was them turning the speed too high and making it fast pace

DA:I is fixing that problem by toning down the speed and adding more weight to the attacks

The speed was ok, you could always pause. The main problem with DA2's combat was that it didn't have much depth.

[CronoDragoon]

The speed was ok, you could always pause. The main problem with DA2's combat was that it didn't have much depth.

It had plenty of depth, but terrible encounter design that rarely allowed you to mine it.

[Rawgrim]

It had plenty of depth, but terrible encounter design that rarely allowed you to mine it.

 

The only depth that game had was found in Isabela's cleavage.

[CronoDragoon]

So.... a lot?

[dlux]

It had plenty of depth, but terrible encounter design that rarely allowed you to mine it.

The encounter design is of course undisputedly terrible in DA2, that still doesn't change the fact that DA2's combat system has much less depth than DA:O's. DA:O's combat system also had much less depth than in BG2, but I still considered it to be pretty good.

[CronoDragoon]

The encounter design is of course undisputedly terrible in DA2, that still doesn't change the fact that DA2's combat system has much less depth than DA:O's. DA:O's combat system also had much less depth than in BG2, but I still considered it to be pretty good.

What was missing that was present in Origins?

[The Night Haunter]

What was missing that was present in Origins?

Chokepoints being useful (in DA2 enemies just piped out of the ground behind you), being able to plan a battle (same reason), traps and other preparatory skills (such as sneaking in to see enemies then having the mage cast firestorm from just out of sight). The slower pace of DAO allowed players to actually utilize party tactics (tank getting aggro/threat and other party members hanging back or being inconspicuous).