Yeah, I felt that DA:O and DA2 both have significant issues with their combat systems...so I guess that actually benefits DA:I because the bar for me is relatively low in that area.
DA:O- Animations could be slow and awkward, pretty severe balance issues (various Mage spells being OP, Warriors and Rogues often better off autoattacking than using skills etc.)
DA:2- Animations too quick/flashy, waves of enemies with too much health made combats drag on
Minimized irrelevant or already answered text to size 8.
First, you have a very snaky condescending tone I do not appreciate – or appreciate myself to be associated with as a gamer. My point is I see lots of visual flash and no substance demonstrated whatsoever for DA3 to be labeled an RPG.
You’re moaning about *SPOILERS* only leaves me to think one of two things: it is because you expect the game to be weak in player agency, so any demonstration of role-playing player agency will cut into that shallow depth; or, on the more positive perspective, you do not understand the word’s meaning. I know what a spoiler is. A *SPOILER* is hours of detailed demonstration of how-to DPS. A *SPOILER* uses immersive-breaking call-outs to directly tell me how to best defeat the enemies I face in combat.. A *SPOILER* reveals skill trees and areas for visual explorations. A *SPOILER* reveals party member optimization. A *SPOILER* reveals magic items and new villains. A *SPOILER* reveals story (e,g, Leliana’s torture at Redcliff).
Out of all that, I would like one spoiler for player agency please.
Watching a cut scene of Leliana and hearing someone say off camera “your decisions caused this” is not demonstrated evidence of player agency. It is only hearsay of someone saying “your decisions caused this.” And it only shows nice artwork.
Let’s take, for example, a demonstration of the character Morrigan from GotY Dragon Age: Origins. And the trigger event - where the demonstration of one branch of player agency role-playing begins – Morrigan’s reading of Flemeth’s Grimoire. Evidently, the evidence is demonstrated that the player is in a very positive relationship with Morrigan, and that she has read her mother’s grimoire. The demo starts with the audience parachuted in and Morrigan approaches the player and gives her story.
This is like starting a map without knowing either the compass points or where on the paper to start drawing.
Only one line of answer is shown in the demonstration. The demonstration is about showing how player agency through response matters and affects the story. Morrigan says “X” to which player can respond with many things - but for the benefit of the demonstration only one line of answer will be shown. Yes, we have seen the dialogue wheel but this is going to go deeper than that image. It’s not a walk through to discover the right decision from all possible answers. However, it is a walk through to demonstrate the story impact from player agency.
In the demonstration, we view the point where Morrigan talks about killing Flemeth and needing the player’s assistance. Again, [emphasis] one decision to demonstrate player agency is revealed here not every answer. Maybe the demonstration arrives with the player’s answer “no.” Or maybe it is “yes.” The demonstration here is that whatever the player says, and there is a demonstrated path evident leading to this decision about Flemeth, will affect the story. There is a path of player agency demonstrated to be longer than a binary push button choice. It is demonstrated through watching it happen.
If the answer is yes, the demonstration can also showcase combat action, yet again. A no answer affects the story equally so a combat demonstration is not required in this demonstration of role-playing player agency. This is not even 5 minutes of video in the face of hours of all the *SPOILERS* I catalogue for you at the top under the heading of spoiler.
The demonstration ends with the game’s epilogue, where there is something written about the interaction of this dialogue with Morrigan. It reveals through demonstration the impact the decision made to the overall story. Was this the event that triggers Morrigan proposition to have the player’s child? So then, if the player agreed to Morrigan’s plan, the epilogue might read, for example:
after the battle, the Warden never did find Morrigan though there were rumours of their child. This being the only part of the longer episode made visible in the demonstration. It is the only part of the epilogue relevant to demonstrating player agency, all of which can be demonstrated/represented through one branch of a statistical tree.
The audience can scratch their collective head and wonder how one ties into the other. The demonstration does not need to reveal the actual dialogue inside the castle where Morrigan puts the proposition to the player. It does not need to show the relationship between the Warden and Morrigan from their first meeting in the Korcari Wilds to their final encounter to do this – and I am clearly not asking for this type of spoiler either.
I am asking to see a demonstration of one act of player agency that impacts the story in DA3. According to you, and others who share your view and like to condescend to us folks who enjoy RPGs, this is too much. I am saying this is THE important demonstration in a showcase of an RPG; not what clothes to wear, mounts to ride, DPS optimization, voice or not voiced player character, etc. Player agency is conspicuous for its absence in any demonstration of DA3 that promotes itself to be an RPG.
In place of such a demonstration of player agency I am seeing lots of pretty artwork and flash effects, to return to my reference about painting having nothing to do with RPGs.
Questions: Will we really have to press the action button contantly in inquisition? Will the game be forcibly paused every time we switch to tactical view?
First, you have a very snaky condescending tone I do not appreciate – or appreciate myself to be associated with as a gamer. My point is I see lots of visual flash and no substance demonstrated whatsoever for DA3 to be labeled an RPG.
Muspade: Then I hope your heart will be still when I say I do not associate myself with any aforementioned category, so you need not associate yourself with me at all. Your dismay is noted.
You’re moaning about *SPOILERS* only leaves me to think one of two things: it is because you expect the game to be weak in player agency, so any demonstration of role-playing player agency will cut into that shallow depth; or, on the more positive perspective, you do not understand the word’s meaning. I know what a spoiler is. A *SPOILER* is hours of detailed demonstration of how-to DPS. A *SPOILER* uses immersive-breaking call-outs to directly tell me how to best defeat the enemies I face in combat.. A *SPOILER* reveals skill trees and areas for visual explorations. A *SPOILER* reveals party member optimization. A *SPOILER* reveals magic items and new villains. A *SPOILER* reveals story (e,g, Leliana’s torture at Redcliff).
Muspade: Your little rant here demonstrates that you just want to word hackle and if you were unable to tell, I was refering to "Story spoilers". At the very current, I am not concerned about the agency In which players agency is acted out in the world and 'demonstrating' to me how the players agency plays into the story will be shown at the games launch. Picking out a specific moment to showcase to the audience does little a part from handing a staged moment to the player which may even be the only one found in the game and I find such events best discovered by yourself for greater impact, as a demonstration of the particular scene might lose it's "shock" value, like Morrigans sudden departure even if the reason why is never revealed.
Out of all that, I would like one spoiler for player agency please.
Watching a cut scene of Leliana and hearing someone say off camera “your decisions caused this” is not demonstrated evidence of player agency. It is only hearsay of someone saying “your decisions caused this.” And it only shows nice artwork.
Let’s take, for example, a demonstration of the character Morrigan from GotY Dragon Age: Origins. And the trigger event - where the demonstration of one branch of player agency role-playing begins – Morrigan’s reading of Flemeth’s Grimoire. Evidently, the evidence is demonstrated that the player is in a very positive relationship with Morrigan, and that she has read her mother’s grimoire. The demo starts with the audience parachuted in and Morrigan approaches the player and gives her story.
This is like starting a map without knowing either the compass points or where on the paper to start drawing.
Only one line of answer is shown in the demonstration. The demonstration is about showing how player agency through response matters and affects the story. Morrigan says “X” to which player can respond with many things - but for the benefit of the demonstration only one line of answer will be shown. Yes, we have seen the dialogue wheel but this is going to go deeper than that image. It’s not a walk through to discover the right decision from all possible answers. However, it is a walk through to demonstrate the story impact from player agency.
In the demonstration, we view the point where Morrigan talks about killing Flemeth and needing the player’s assistance. Again, [emphasis] one decision to demonstrate player agency is revealed here not every answer. Maybe the demonstration arrives with the player’s answer “no.” Or maybe it is “yes.” The demonstration here is that whatever the player says, and there is a demonstrated path evident leading to this decision about Flemeth, will affect the story. There is a path of player agency demonstrated to be longer than a binary push button choice. It is demonstrated through watching it happen.
If the answer is yes, the demonstration can also showcase combat action, yet again. A no answer affects the story equally so a combat demonstration is not required in this demonstration of role-playing player agency. This is not even 5 minutes of video in the face of hours of all the *SPOILERS* I catalogue for you at the top under the heading of spoiler.
The demonstration ends with the game’s epilogue, where there is something written about the interaction of this dialogue with Morrigan. It reveals through demonstration the impact the decision made to the overall story. Was this the event that triggers Morrigan proposition to have the player’s child? So then, if the player agreed to Morrigan’s plan, the epilogue might read, for example:
after the battle, the Warden never did find Morrigan though there were rumours of their child. This being the only part of the longer episode made visible in the demonstration. It is the only part of the epilogue relevant to demonstrating player agency, all of which can be demonstrated/represented through one branch of a statistical tree.
The audience can scratch their collective head and wonder how one ties into the other. The demonstration does not need to reveal the actual dialogue inside the castle where Morrigan puts the proposition to the player. It does not need to show the relationship between the Warden and Morrigan from their first meeting in the Korcari Wilds to their final encounter to do this – and I am clearly not asking for this type of spoiler either.
I am asking to see a demonstration of one act of player agency that impacts the story in DA3. According to you, and others who share your view and like to condescend to us folks who enjoy RPGs, this is too much. I am saying this is THE important demonstration in a showcase of an RPG; not what clothes to wear, mounts to ride, DPS optimization, voice or not voiced player character, etc. Player agency is conspicuous for its absence in any demonstration of DA3 that promotes itself to be an RPG.
Muspade: Exactly what would a demonstration of player agency accomplish a part from picking out a single moment and "Story spoiling" it. Such moments involving player agency tend to reveal a fair bit of information either regarding the plot of that particular character or other information which Bioware does not wish to disclose due to it perhaps putting a dent in the "surprise".
Though I will not blame you, as DA2 lacked a fair bit of responsiveness to the players action however there has already been a short demonstration of the dialogue wheel which I saw you were none too happy with. Dragon age has promoted itself as an RPG in spite of the lack of a "Player agency trailer" which you so desire.
Bioware's storytelling is usually fixed to end in a certain why with smaller or a little bit larger deviations from the standard ending, so spoiling that "MORRIGAN WILL LEAVE YOU IN THE END" without revealing why, is still a large thing to stuff into a "Player agency" trailer.
In place of such a demonstration of player agency I am seeing lots of pretty artwork and flash effects, to return to my reference about painting having nothing to do with RPGs.
Muspade: I'm uncertain why you complain over the revealing of their artwork and showcasing the combat which we have to endure throughout the whole game, as it was under heavy scrutiny in the previous one. Oh, well... C'est la vie. You'll have to be content with hearing it through the word of mouth.
I hope you didn't go around asking for a "player agency" video prior to the DA:O release because it apparently did deliver to your satisfaction.
P.S I thought I did hear Lelianna's presence in the dungeon was due to a player choice or do I misunderstand something about the term "Player agency"?
I hope they don't alienate fans of DA:2 just to please fans of Origins
Origins sold twice as many games as 2, so alienating 2's fans would be the most profitable thing Bioware can do.
And while we're comparing Origins to DA2...
Ah, the old "Let's cherry pick the best things from one game and compare them against the worst things from another game" argument added to the, "I'll just misrepresent a bunch of stuff" argument. Good times.
As far as combat goes ... I thought both DA2 and DA:O had their good points. I thought there were times in DA:O when I wished the fight would speed up and get on with it while there were also times in DA2 where I just wanted to slow it all down and make some tactical plans beyond mash this or that ability and hope I could outlast the stupid endless waves of ninjas from the sky. I also found the combat actions to be ridiculously over the top.
Hopefully, they've hit on the right mix in of the two styles in DA:I, so I can plan when I want to and bull through when I want to.
Just as a commentary... even as early as a year or so ago, the OP would have been branded a troll for writing this topic. The fact that I've seen no one hop in here making the assumption that someone saying they like DA2 at all, let alone that they would like DA2 MORE than DA:O is a sign of... progress? Maybe?
OP, if you liked DA2's combat, based on a lot of things we have seen, you'd likely still enjoy DA:I as well. It looks like it plays just fine from a single character perspective of someone who never pauses or uses the overhead camera, just like it looks like it plays just fine from an overhead, tactical pause-and-play perspective. I'd say it might not do both EXCEPTIONALLY, but the game is a compromise - the people who bought DA:O and enjoyed it for the more tactical gameplay get a little something and the people who bought DA2 and enjoyed it for the more action-based combat will both have elements incorporated in DA:I.
Whether that compromise is acceptable is up for you to decide. Although to echo others - the DA series was conceived as being a more traditional RPG, which is quite different than the plan for ME. The fact that DA2 moved very close to the ME formula cause many people to criticize the game, as it was a departure from the type of games Bioware had been making for over a decade. To say Bioware should follow the ME series as if it was their only other source material is, while understandable, not the mindset of others who have played Bioware's older titles.
Sorry, OP, I fully disagree with you 1000%.
Origins was awesome combat. A bit on the slow side in vanilla, but a mod that simply speeded up combat by 40% for friend and foe alike solved that problem perfectly. DA2 combat was silly and ridiculous. Easily the worst change in the series. DA2 was a good game as far as story went, but their attempt to make it a twitch gamer title, was primarily why it BOMBED so hard in comparison to DA:O.
The developers forgot they were making a sequel to DA:O and not Devil May Cry.
So IF... (and seeing as the auto-attack is limited to just tac-cam, it is only an IF) DA:I has indeed went back toward a bit more like DA:O, then it will clearly be a better game.
Sorry, OP, I fully disagree with you 1000%.
Origins was awesome combat. A bit on the slow side in vanilla, but a mod that simply speeded up combat by 40% for friend and foe alike solved that problem perfectly.
I don't think a game gets points for something if you need a mod to "fix" it.
Ah, the old "Let's cherry pick the best things from one game and compare them against the worst things from another game" argument added to the, "I'll just misrepresent a bunch of stuff" argument. Good times.
What I find funny is that the Arishok head actually has very good graphics.
I don't think a game gets points for something if you need a mod to "fix" it.
He didn't say it needed a mod. He said that if it really bothered you, the combat speed was easily modifiable.
He didn't say it needed a mod. He said that if it really bothered you, the combat speed was easily modifiable.
He actually said, "A bit on the slow side in vanilla, but a mod that simply speeded up combat by 40% for friend and foe alike solved that problem perfectly. " Which is saying that he thought the combat was a little slow, but after modding the game it was perfect. So it was enough of a problem for him to find and install a mod to change the game. That's not saying he didn't like DAO's combat more to start with. Based on his comment I assume he did. He just didn't enjoy it enough to play it exactly as it was out of the box. And, in point of fact, if it was slightly faster, like DA2 is, he would have enjoyed it much more. Which is happy news, as DAI seems to be somewhere between the two. No mods needed!
He actually said, "A bit on the slow side in vanilla, but a mod that simply speeded up combat by 40% for friend and foe alike solved that problem perfectly. " Which is saying that he thought the combat was a little slow, but after modding the game it was perfect. So it was enough of a problem for him to find and install a mod to change the game. That's not saying he didn't like DAO's combat more to start with. Based on his comment I assume he did. He just didn't enjoy it enough to play it exactly as it was out of the box. And, in point of fact, if it was slightly faster, like DA2 is, he would have enjoyed it much more. Which is happy news, as DAI seems to be somewhere between the two. No mods needed!
Let's not argue semantics here, ok?
Anyway, I will take slow combat speed over hack-n-slash button-mashing any day. I really hope DA:I lives up to its promise of being tactical-based, because whereas DA:O combat was cerebral and methodical, DA2's combat was like mindlessly dangling shiny keys in front of your face.
I didn't find combat in either DA fun. Combat with auto-targeting, auto-attacking, auto-pathing will never truly be fun for me no matter which direction they spice it up in. I like fully active, player skill based (rather than character skill based) "twitch" style combat. Mashing the A button over and over punctuated by the occasional special move on a super long cooldown and not having to pay any attention to where my character is even facing isn't fun for me. Slowly micromanaging each move of each party member and constantly pausing and unpausing isn't that much better for me.
And see this is where the break down happens. Whenever any game has the words "Role Playing Game" tagged as the genre I expect "Role Playing Game" combat. For those that go "What kind of combat is that?", you only need to play almost any table top role playing game that has ever been created as most have similar combat. The combat is always very tactical and requires more in depth decision making about what spell or ability to cast and when to do it. The difficulty of the combat is based on these decisions and poor decision making can cost you the fight. These decisions are two fold, everything from how you built your character to how you itemized your character, where your character was standing in combat, and what spells or abilities you taught your character can mean victory or defeat.
And then theirs "Twitch". By adding "twitch" based combat all strategy is off the table. In any game in pretty much any genre that gives you the ability to dodge incoming damage at the push of a button you can win any fight by mastering this one basic skill. Yet it's the people that try to claim they want player "skill" to matter that try to push twitch combat into every game. In the end, once twitch is added to a system dodging is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter what character you're playing, what he has equipped, what abilities you're using, how you itemized him, or what you planned before the fight began. As long as you use the dodge button to move out the way of that incoming damage you will win regardless of how horrible your strategy is or how bad your planning is. It's the one thing that nullifies every other bit of role playing game battle mechanics and (in my opinion of course) simply doesn't belong in a genre that has it's roots so firmly embedded in making strategy and planning reward you in combat and the entirety of the game.
I'm sure many will disagree, but this is where we are. People that like twitch combat are inherently against strategic or turn based combat and vice versa. Everyone can pretend there's some middleground but the bottum line is that every mechanic placed on one side removes an element from the other.
At one time Bioware's games had a clear direction that their combat would be strategic and embedded in the role playing game culture that they had based their games upon. Nowadays some companies (Bioware included) "streamline" these games for people that want to spend less time thinking and planning and more time.....
dodging.
My opinion of course. I'm sure many will disagree, some will agree, and those that have been around a while will notice the continual degradation and regression of the role playing game genre (in video games anyway) as they attempt to pander to wider audiences all while pulling out all the strategic and thought provoking combat that it was based upon.
2-hander attacks in DA:O was just as bad as DA2 even if they were opposite sides of the speed spectrum.
My opinion of course. I'm sure many will disagree, some will agree, and those that have been around a while will notice the continual degradation and regression of the role playing game genre (in video games anyway) as they attempt to pander to wider audiences all while pulling out all the strategic and thought provoking combat that it was based upon.
Gameplay does not define rpg. the interactivity of the story does. A strategy game is based around strategic and thought provoking gameplay. A game with no combat at all but a with an interactive story would be still be an rpg.
My opinion of course. I'm sure many will disagree, some will agree, and those that have been around a while will notice the continual degradation and regression of the role playing game genre (in video games anyway) as they attempt to pander to wider audiences all while pulling out all the strategic and thought provoking combat that it was based upon.
I hope you're not refering to DA:O's combat.
At this point, Inquisition seems to be closer to DA2.5 than it does DAO2, so you probably don't have to worry.
Also, DA2's two-hander strikes aren't that fast unless you abuse the Berserker/Reaver + Haste trick. Which, I've found, makes slogging through DA2 a lot more fun.
Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I feel like the mechanics (gameplay) of how you play the game is very much at the heart of a role playing game. If gameplay doesn't define a role playing game any interactive media in which there is more than one outcome would be considered a role playing game. But I suppose if that's how you want to define it more power to you. I just feel like good ole Gary Gygax would greatly disagree.Gameplay does not define rpg...
I hope you're not refering to DA:O's combat.
I would never say that the combat in DA:O was one of its strong selling points. It was clunky, and on console the control problems were quite severe.
But, it had one thing going for it that DA 2's combat didn't: It wasn't mind-numbingly repetitive, which made it replayable.
I love DA2 combat, besides the enemies coming from no where and the lack of tactics, everything was fine. I actually hope DAI will capitalize on the action parts of DA2, but also incorporate the tactical play of Origins.
I love DA2 combat, besides the enemies coming from no where and the lack of tactics, everything was fine. I actually hope DAI will capitalize on the action parts of DA2, but also incorporate the tactical play of Origins.
I don't like how button-mashing and exploding enemies is becoming synonymous with "action" on these boards.
And see this is where the break down happens. Whenever any game has the words "Role Playing Game" tagged as the genre I expect "Role Playing Game" combat. For those that go "What kind of combat is that?", you only need to play almost any table top role playing game that has ever been created as most have similar combat. The combat is always very tactical and requires more in depth decision making about what spell or ability to cast and when to do it. The difficulty of the combat is based on these decisions and poor decision making can cost you the fight. These decisions are two fold, everything from how you built your character to how you itemized your character, where your character was standing in combat, and what spells or abilities you taught your character can mean victory or defeat.
I disagree that combat in a table top RPG is always very tactical, it depends on the system you are playing and on the character you are rolling.
I've played characters who rushed into combat head long and made decisions on the fly, adapting to the situation with the use of skills, and to help me RP that I never planned much beyond my first move in combat. This could be considered similar to the fast paced DA2 combat
I've also played characters who were methodical and thoughtful, who I planned a number of possible strategies with and played them in a more tactical way.
There are many elements to an RPG, including a number of different types of combat, that is what makes it a genre that is so hard to define and why it is so easy for games that belong to other genres to plunder RPG elements to make themselves more interesting.
I just feel like good ole Gary Gygax would greatly disagree.
While I have a lot of respect for Gary Gygax and know that D&D basically set the standard for Western RPGs, I feel that it is a mistake to be constantly looking back at the first RPGs and just copying all their elements.
The RPG genre is incredibly flexible & developers should be free to experiment with it, without having to worry if their game is enough like D&D.
Retour en haut