694 réponses à ce sujet

[dlux]

What was missing that was present in Origins?

I see you are trying to build a straw man.

 

Why don't you start by creating a list of why combat in DA:O and DA2 had an equal amount of depth.

[CronoDragoon]

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).

Right but this is all encounter design. I'm limiting myself to the combat mechanics themselves. For example, what moves are available, what do they do, how do classes play with one another, how are classes balanced, etc.

[Pateu]

I see you are trying to build a straw man.

 

Why don't you start by creating a list of why combat in DA:O and DA2 had an equal amount of depth.

 

Lolwhat?

 

You come here saying DA2 had less depth than DAO then expect -US- to prove that it didn't?

 

That's not how debating works, broski.

 

I preferred the combat in DA2, myself. Not the encounters ( which were terrible ) but the speed and animations were infinitely better.

 

In DAO playing a warrior/rogue was just cringeworthy without haste.

 

Especially a 2h warrior. You swung once every 3 seconds and then... you miss.

 

DA2 also allows you to dodge attacks my moving away from the attacker before he finishes his animation. In DAO you could teleport half the zone away and you still took damage.

[CronoDragoon]

I see you are trying to build a straw man.
 
Why don't you start by creating a list of why combat in DA:O and DA2 had an equal amount of depth.

You said that besides the encounter design Origins' combat had more depth than DA2. I asked what that depth was. How is that a strawman?

But fine, I'll start. Cross-class combos combined with mages being slightly nerfed provided much better balance between the classes than Origins had. Origins was "bring 3 mages and a rogue to pick locks." Rogues were actually given much greater mobility and crowd control in DA2, and they had abilities to counteract the increased difficulty for the warrior in maintaining threat.

This is something habitually missed in criticisms of DA2 encounter design: yes, waves meant that pre-fight planning and other modes of strategy were lost. This combined with boring combat arenas meant positioning was valued less. But the game also gifts you with way more threat and positioning management abilities to make up for it. That doesn't mean the waves are okay, but the game comes prepared for these encounter designs.

Another example: Merrill. A mage surrounded by enemies is a problem inherent in waves, right? Well, not with Merrill. Let the scrubs at her. The game gifts her with an abundance of CC, not to mention AoE vampiric health regeneration tools with her Dalish skill-line which synergizes beautifully with a Blood Magic build.

[The Night Haunter]

Right but this is all encounter design. I'm limiting myself to the combat mechanics themselves. For example, what moves are available, what do they do, how do classes play with one another, how are classes balanced, etc.

Fiar enough, but nothing is independent, the encounter design influences which abilities are actually useful. Nothing is in a vacuum, so to my mind it's all just one big connected map. In terms of actual abilities the only real difference is cast times disappeared in DA2 (In DAO it took a bit for the Firestorm to go off), and that's all I can think of. But at the same time the limited space available in every combat (they were almost all in tiny spaces) meant that AOE positioning wasn't critical, added on to the lack of FF made it much easier to just blast things.

[LinksOcarina]

I see you are trying to build a straw man.

 

Why don't you start by creating a list of why combat in DA:O and DA2 had an equal amount of depth.

 

Cross Class Combing to push DPS numbers up in Dragon Age 2 and to synergize your team, which compensated for the lack of tactical terrain usage in Origins that really didn't need a balanced team to take down anything but big bosses. 

 

An example, a Mage in Origins can basically solo a massive mob by funneling them into a smaller space. I did it all the time and it made the game very rote and boring. A Mage in 2 could rarely do that, so instead had to rely on staggers from a teamate, or your own brittle attacks to help in damage output against bigger mobs. The same problem occurred though in 2 because it also became mechanical when the best combinations and teammates were figured out. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

 

I would also argue that equipment in 2 is much more important than it was in Origins, but thats a long discussion. Still, it's part of the depth. 

[Skaden]

Looking good, I'm actually glad to see the mage auto-attack return to the staff attacks rather than the hand-blasts, I mean what's the point of the staff if its not what you're using to attack with? Now I'm just really hoping to see one of these gameplay videos showcase the Knight Enchanter spec in practice.

[dlux]

 
It's been a while since I've played both games, but if you guys really want to go so off-topic and turn this into a DA:O vs. DA2 thread with the attempt to try and save the honor of a bad game, fine by me. I hate wasting my time to write down what is well known, but oh well.
 
DA2's combat has less depth because:
 
-substantially less party/character postive status effects (i.e. buffing), either through items or spells.
-negative aspect of status ailments lower, I believe there were also less status ailments in DA2
-none or very little (elemental) resistances/invulnerabilities of enemies
-lackluster crowd control
-etc.
These only affect the combat system indirectly:
-Item and level scaling
-extreme simplification of equipment system

[Jester]

-none or very little (elemental) resistances

 

?! Managing your equipment, runes and defensive skills in such a way, as to have necessary elemental resistances is absolutely CRUCIAL to surviving. On Nightmare, a party without aproppriate resistances can be killed by an enemy Mage in two seconds. I'm not even exaggerating. 

 

 

-lackluster crowd control

 

What do you mean by that? Mages and warriors have a ton of crowd control abilities.

[dlux]

?! Managing your equipment, runes and defensive skills in such a way, as to have necessary elemental resistances is absolutely CRUCIAL to surviving. On Nightmare, a party without aproppriate resistances can be killed by an enemy Mage in two seconds. I'm not even exaggerating.

I meant the elemental resistances/invulnerability of enemies.
 

What do you mean by that? Mages and warriors have a ton of crowd control abilities.

Not really, CC was much better in DA:O.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 
It's been a while since I've played both games, but if you guys really want to go so off-topic and turn this into a DA:O vs. DA2 thread with the attempt to try and save the honor of a bad game, fine by me. I hate wasting my time to write down what is well known, but oh well.
 
DA2's combat has less depth because:
 
-substantially less party/character postive status effects (i.e. buffing), either through items or spells.
-negative aspect of status ailments lower, I believe there were also less status ailments in DA2
-none or very little (elemental) resistances/invulnerabilities of enemies
-lackluster crowd control
-etc.
These only affect the combat system indirectly:
-Item and level scaling
-extreme simplification of equipment system

 

Uh, that's not a very compelling argument. The Warrior has entire tree dedicated to buffing (two if you count Vanguard) and mages have some good stuff too, like the juicy Haste. Resistance was absolutely required in Nightmare DAII if you didn't want to be smoked instantly by magic using opponents. The game also had lots of crowd control, hell rogues had an entire tree dedicated to it when they just had Dirty Fighting in Origins.

 

Exactly how was the equipment in Origins deep, anyway? It was also scaled, from tiers 1 to 7 in the game. Apart from select unique pieces, the bonuses were nothing special either, just like in DA2.

 

I mean, I don't think DAII is a very good game, but your arguments are either very debatable or quite simply false. While DAII's encounter design was horrendous, the combat mechanisms were better and deeper than Origin's to me. I never had to number crunch in Origins Nightmare, but I sure as hell had to in DAII Nightmare.

[dlux]

Uh, that's not a very compelling argument. The Warrior has entire tree dedicated to buffing (two if you count Vanguard) and mages have some good stuff too, like the juicy Haste. Resistance was absolutely required in Nightmare DAII if you didn't want to be smoked instantly by magic using opponents. The game also had lots of crowd control, hell rogues had an entire tree dedicated to it when they just had Dirty Fighting in Origins.

I didn't write that it was non-existant, I wrote that there was substantially less resp. lackluster CC and buffing in DA2.

Comprehension skills FTW.
 

Exactly how was the equipment in Origins deep, anyway? It was also scaled, from tiers 1 to 7 in the game. Apart from select unique pieces, the bonuses were nothing special either, just like in DA2.

... Every RPG has different item tiers. You obviously don't seem to know what item scaling is.

This is one of the most criticized features of the game, use google if you don't know what it is.
 

I mean, I don't think DAII is a very good game, but your arguments are either very debatable or quite simply false. While DAII's encounter design was horrendous, the combat mechanisms were better and deeper than Origin's to me. I never had to number crunch in Origins Nightmare, but I sure as hell had to in DAII Nightmare.

Nope. DA2 is a hack & slash fest.

[Maria Caliban]

I'm going to guess someone played the game on normal where you could just ignore large chunks of the combat mechanics and spam your PC's abilities. Elemental resistances, crowd control, and buffing/debuffing were all there. They were also spread around the classes, which was nice.

I don't enjoy fiddling with my companions' gear all the time but I agree that DA II offered far less customization than DA:O when it came to power or equipment builds.

[Pateu]

 
Nope. DA2 is a hack & slash fest.

 

How is DA2 any more hack and slash than origins?

[dlux]

I'm going to guess someone played the game on normal where you could just ignore large chunks of the combat mechanics and spam your PC's abilities. Elemental resistances, crowd control, and buffing/debuffing were all there. They were also spread around the classes, which was nice.

I don't enjoy fiddling with my companions' gear all the time but I agree that DA II offered far less customization than DA:O when it came to power or equipment builds.

Always these assumptions from people who love combat with a low amount of depth, and also don't understand the difference between less/lackluster and non-existant.
 

How is DA2 any more hack and slash than origins?

Read and understand my post.

[Giantdeathrobot]

There is nothing to read or understand more than we did. You're throwing around buzzwords then falling back into insulting people's reading comprehension when proven wrong.

[CronoDragoon]

Uh, that's not a very compelling argument. The Warrior has entire tree dedicated to buffing (two if you count Vanguard) and mages have some good stuff too, like the juicy Haste. Resistance was absolutely required in Nightmare DAII if you didn't want to be smoked instantly by magic using opponents. The game also had lots of crowd control, hell rogues had an entire tree dedicated to it when they just had Dirty Fighting in Origins.

Rogues have an entire tree and a significant amount of CC in at least two other trees in DA2.

http://dragonage.wik...oundrel_talents
http://dragonage.wik...terfuge_talents
http://dragonage.wik...abotage_talents
 

 
 -substantially less party/character postive status effects (i.e. buffing), either through items or spells.

Origins has more abilities overall, to be sure. It also has a fair share of trash abilities that are ignored completely. Sometimes less can be more. Origins has more builds; DA2 has more viable builds.
 

-negative aspect of status ailments lower, I believe there were also less status ailments in DA2

That depends on the spell. The ailments in Death Hex are more potent in DA2, those of Misdirection more potent in Origins, Death Cloud was reworked to do both damage and various ailments as opposed to just damage, Origins Cone of Cold freezes enemies unless they pass a check and slows their movement 40% otherwise; in DA2 Cone of Cold can freeze enemies AND leave them Brittle AND slows their movement speed AND slows their attack speed.

As for the total number of ailments, I'm not sure either.
 

-none or very little (elemental) resistances/invulnerabilities of enemies

I agree and I'm glad Inquisition is bringing it back.

-lackluster crowd control

Absolutely disagree. The CC in DA2 is not only varied, it's varied by class, which is equally important. Rogues are CC monsters in DA2. Force mage is a lot of fun and almost entirely centered around CC.

(I actually broke the game with Stun in DA2. Specced Isabela for Stun and put Stun on my Warrior Hawke Key from legacy. Nothing stopped the stun train. I beat on Meredith for 5 minutes before I realized her health wasn't going down. It's because in 5 minutes she didn't unstun long enough to jump away and transform)

[Pateu]

Always these assumptions from people who love combat with a low amount of depth, and also don't understand the difference between less/lackluster and non-existant.
 

Read and understand my post.

 

That's sarcasm, mate.

 

Both are hack and slash, because hack and slash is a very vague term that can mean a hundred things.

 

DA2 only had faster swings and I liked it. DAO was cringeworthy slow.

[LinksOcarina]

 
It's been a while since I've played both games, but if you guys really want to go so off-topic and turn this into a DA:O vs. DA2 thread with the attempt to try and save the honor of a bad game, fine by me. I hate wasting my time to write down what is well known, but oh well.
 
DA2's combat has less depth because:
 
-substantially less party/character postive status effects (i.e. buffing), either through items or spells.
-negative aspect of status ailments lower, I believe there were also less status ailments in DA2
-none or very little (elemental) resistances/invulnerabilities of enemies
-lackluster crowd control
-etc.
These only affect the combat system indirectly:
-Item and level scaling
-extreme simplification of equipment system

 

crowd control is an aspect of the mechanics, not inherent in complexity of design. Same with status ailments and buffs. Those do not make something more in-depth, it just makes it more complex for complexity sake as to how you approach combat. The loss or gain of ailments, buffs and the like has no deterrence on the combat itself. If that is the case, than the Final Fantasy games are the most in-depth RPG's ever created for having often 20 or so status ailments and buffing moves. 

 

That also being said, crowd control was still in Dragon Age II, and was fairly effective and pursued from numerous angles, especially rogues who excelled at it the best outside of the Force Mage specialization. Id argue its a wash between both games. 

 

I also wouldn't bring up item and level scaling, since Origins did it too with weapons and armor. You always had to trade out with the weapon that gave you plus X to this attribute to hit that DPS sweet spot. Dragon Age II did it as well, but the scaling allowed for the numbers to be tweaked, even though there was more of them which I personally hate. 

 

Id try again. Or quit you're trolling. Either way it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong in those assertions and didn't really explain how they give depth, just assumed they do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

What was missing that was present in Origins?

Options.

[dlux]

crowd control is an aspect of the mechanics, not inherent in complexity of design. Same with status ailments and buffs. Those do not make something more in-depth, it just makes it more complex for complexity sake as to how you approach combat. The loss or gain of ailments, buffs and the like has no deterrence on the combat itself. If that is the case, than the Final Fantasy games are the most in-depth RPG's ever created for having often 20 or so status ailments and buffing moves.

Lets have only one spell and only one attack and bind both to the A button so we can spam it, because complexity has nothing to do with depth. Absolutely nothing. lol 

 

Anyway, stop putting words in my mouth, I never wrote that depth only has to do status ailments/buffs. My list is also far from complete.

[LinksOcarina]

Lets have only one spell and only one attack and bind both to the A button so we can spam it, because complexity has nothing to do with depth. Absolutely nothing. lol 

 

Anyway, stop putting words in my mouth, I never wrote that depth only has to do status ailments/buffs. My list is also far from complete.

 

I can't help that really. You basically said nothing in your bullet point list because you explained nothing of substance, just some vague points masked as a fact. Prove me wrong then. 

 

Such as what are the one spells you are referring to, versus the multitude of spells available in Origins? Also, is  this restricted towards mages only, don't the rogue and warrior abilities do the same crowd control in Dragon Age 2 anyway?

 

Of course if you can't answer, then you're really a waste of time to talk to on here and should promptly take a hike. 

[Maria Caliban]

Adding options and interactions increases complexity. It does not necessarily increase depth.

The Witcher 2, for example, had lots of cool abilities and powers, but you could play the entire game spamming dodge and hacking things up, maybe dropping the occasional Yerdin (sp?). This was often faster and less dangerous than using all the options available*.

The combat system had complexity, but it lacked depth.

*And before someone decides this is anti-Witcher. I like that series, am going to pick up W3, and the developers have said this was a situation they wanted to improve upon in the next game.

[dlux]

I can't help that really. You basically said nothing in your bullet point list because you explained nothing of substance, just some vague points masked as a fact. Prove me wrong then. 

 

Such as what are the one spells you are referring to, versus the multitude of spells available in Origins? Also, is  this restricted towards mages only, don't the rogue and warrior abilities do the same crowd control in Dragon Age 2 anyway?

 

Of course if you can't answer, then you're really a waste of time to talk to on here and should promptly take a hike. 

Maybe you should actually try to prove me wrong and stop pointing fingers at me, just because you're a butthurt DA2 fan. My list isn't complete, but I could write a thesis about this and you would still say i'm wrong and claim that DA2 had "teh bestest combats eva".

 

DA:O had much more depth; the combat was also way better. This is also the general consensus. Just read the reviews about DA2 and feel enlightened (which you won't).