Larianshill
Arbiter
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2021
- Messages
- 1,917
There's worse than darkspawn on the way.
If it's like a god of war fight, it's not that bad. The combat was really fun.More like Assassin's Creed: Deep Roads, amirite?
Also...
- Combat is completely in real-time and similar to a hack and slash. I'm told the guiding reference point was the God of War (2018), and that shows.
So we have action games trying to be RPGs, and RPGs trying to be like action games. Sounds like they're going more Mass Effect, especially with a 3-person party?
In the meanwhile, the very modder which posted this, watches the animal abuse in Postal games without blinking an eye. You can physically hurt creatures, but not their feelings !I assure you good sir I have no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.modestymods.com/?game=arcanum
And walls wont hold it back.There's worse than darkspawn on the way.
If it's like a god of war fight, it's not that bad. The combat was really fun.More like Assassin's Creed: Deep Roads, amirite?
Also...
- Combat is completely in real-time and similar to a hack and slash. I'm told the guiding reference point was the God of War (2018), and that shows.
So we have action games trying to be RPGs, and RPGs trying to be like action games. Sounds like they're going more Mass Effect, especially with a 3-person party?
However, I'm afraid that it will only be a poor copy that doesn't even have half the options that GoW had.
This series has always been more or less an action game. DA:O pretended not to, but the whole tactical aspect really didn't matter much. Maybe because the game was easy once you left the first village.If it's like a god of war fight, it's not that bad. The combat was really fun.More like Assassin's Creed: Deep Roads, amirite?
Also...
- Combat is completely in real-time and similar to a hack and slash. I'm told the guiding reference point was the God of War (2018), and that shows.
So we have action games trying to be RPGs, and RPGs trying to be like action games. Sounds like they're going more Mass Effect, especially with a 3-person party?
However, I'm afraid that it will only be a poor copy that doesn't even have half the options that GoW had.
I don't want to rehash the old argument between real-time, RTwP, and turn-based but the further a RPG goes real-time, the furthest it strays from RPG roots (which is tabletop).
This comes down to one fundamental problem:
1. a real-time game that does not involve some type of reaction speed and skill probably won't end up being fun.
2. a RPG is most like its tabletop ancestors when not involving a player's skills, but rather that of the character.
3. this turns most fights from being a celebreal, tactical experience more to a frenzied mix of cooldown watching and target prioritization, since most RPG devs can't grasp what makes real-time combat fun.
Which in my opinion, is less interesting combat.
How would you do both realistically? Genuinely curious.Both could be of interest if they were made realistically"Realistic" always has a hidden meaning when applied to writing characters, including romances. Can you imagine the amount of sappy and cringy stuff that happens when people irl are romancing? Real life has everything, and it is likely that no matter how you'll write your lines, whether they'll be innocent or super horny or whatever else, someone has probably uttered them in a real situation. I knew a person who actually experienced things that, when put in a visual novel, would likely be criticized as 'fanservice' or 'unattainable fantasy'.I don't disagree at all, fiction is fiction. By "realistic" I mean writing in a way that sustains suspension of disbelief.This is true, but also... it kind of ignores the fact that the point of fiction is often not to replicate reality. It's to entertain. You may personally disagree, but most people are actually not looking for maximally realistic events in fiction. The way people speak in a book or even a movie is totally different from how they speak in real life, etc. It's an influence, not the gestalt.
Whenever I encounter calls for more 'realistic' character writing, I interpret them as demands for characters that are more average. Quite often I am correct in this. "These things happened" - "Oh, but they dont sound real!" - "Well, they are not average". In a field of made-up stories such calls are illegitimate. Sometimes these are poorly expressed demands of greater character depth. That is okay, but that's also something different. Life is full of extraordinary people and turns of events that come out of nowhere, enough to make an endless amount of novels. I'll only stick to average if a genre or a project demands it, and then it is simply in order to do something interesting with a trope, rather than because there is some inherent value in such "realism".
To sustain suspension of disbelief - is coherence rather than realism. Romances need a lot of this, they need to make sense on the terms which the author introduces, and somehow fit the general tone of the game.
It looks stupid but it's no dumber than constantly rolling in full plate armor from other games.The animations look a bit better than in DAI. But the dude in full plate armor doing the double drop kick is a whole new level of cringe.
This series has always been more or less an action game. DA:O pretended not to, but the whole tactical aspect really didn't matter much. Maybe because the game was easy once you left the first village.If it's like a god of war fight, it's not that bad. The combat was really fun.More like Assassin's Creed: Deep Roads, amirite?
Also...
- Combat is completely in real-time and similar to a hack and slash. I'm told the guiding reference point was the God of War (2018), and that shows.
So we have action games trying to be RPGs, and RPGs trying to be like action games. Sounds like they're going more Mass Effect, especially with a 3-person party?
However, I'm afraid that it will only be a poor copy that doesn't even have half the options that GoW had.
I don't want to rehash the old argument between real-time, RTwP, and turn-based but the further a RPG goes real-time, the furthest it strays from RPG roots (which is tabletop).
This comes down to one fundamental problem:
1. a real-time game that does not involve some type of reaction speed and skill probably won't end up being fun.
2. a RPG is most like its tabletop ancestors when not involving a player's skills, but rather that of the character.
3. this turns most fights from being a celebreal, tactical experience more to a frenzied mix of cooldown watching and target prioritization, since most RPG devs can't grasp what makes real-time combat fun.
Which in my opinion, is less interesting combat.
The other games are full aRPG. The combat system has always been the weakest element of these games.
So I don't see a problem. I don't think it's a good idea to stick to one RPG element by force, especially if you can't make it work well.
For the ME series, moving more towards an action game definitely helped.
Even Andromeda which was total crap had a really nice combat system.
Until we see more, it's hard to judge whether it's a good move.
These two things are completely unrelated.
If it were being dumbed down to allow more choices & consequence and story branching I'd agree it's a good thing, but let's be real, it's just gonna be them making the game more braindead while also making the story and everything else more simple too.
Finished entire mass effect trilogy without dying once on hardest difficulty. KOTORs were both easy (even 2 which wasn't bioware), Dragon Age was pretty easy, etc.At first I was a bit confused as to why your companions would want to stop a world-ending war (the usual threat in rpgs, especially bioware's) just to fuck, but then again real life examples mirror these attitudes (the baby boom of the 40s). There's also the case of nurses and doctors, it's not a stereotype, they really are horndogs because the proximity of death brings out the most base fight or flight instincts out of human beings.I don't know... I likefurr,eehrm..., I mean, I watchtentac... eehhhggrhm, what I meant to say is, I like woman friendly porn as much as the next guy, but I always felt that sex in RPGs is just out of place. Like having a 2-ounce over-sweetened cake delivered instead of that extra-large pizza mexicana you ordered so you could close the curtains and rewatch all of Aliens throughout the night.
Combat is not a priority of Bioware. The only decent combat design they ever made was found in the early D&D games because they had something to prove, but as they went along it became clear that narrative was the thing people were buying their games for. When a Bioware player wants help with their game, they want to know if they're going to be fucked by the C&C of their actions, or which romance is the best. "I can't beat X" is never an issue, even though a lot of people play on Nightmare.
These two things are completely unrelated.
If it were being dumbed down to allow more choices & consequence and story branching I'd agree it's a good thing, but let's be real, it's just gonna be them making the game more braindead while also making the story and everything else more simple too.
What do you mean, the "Dragon Age art style"? Origins and Inquisition look nothing alike. This series has no artistic identity (or any identity) beyond the individual games.My only takeaway from the leak is that the Dragon Age art style (which was plenty bad when DA:O came out) has aged awfully in 2023.
Yes yes, missing textures and what not. But damn, I've seen better looking mobile games at this point.
Of course the amoebas on reddit love these changes.
I'm sure you died to know this vital piece of info.
What do you mean, the "Dragon Age art style"? Origins and Inquisition look nothing alike. This series has no artistic identity (or any identity) beyond the individual games.My only takeaway from the leak is that the Dragon Age art style (which was plenty bad when DA:O came out) has aged awfully in 2023.
Yes yes, missing textures and what not. But damn, I've seen better looking mobile games at this point.
That's not even an argument.Beat the whole game on Nightmare and don't remember having an issue.
Actually, it is exactly why this plays terrible. And because of the camera. These two combined make the game unplayable in long term, at least in the sense of using the "tactical view".I didn't love the whole "you have to press a button and issue commands to attack with your player character" thing, but you very quickly realize it's not terribly different than DA:O in terms of how it plays.
Area of effect spells hurt companions even below Nightmare. And no, it doesn't "make it fun and add an element of strategy" when controls are fucked and when no control is present the AI is going to put on fire friends and foes alike. At least not in a tactically-oriented game.AoE spells do hurt companions, but it's fucking Nightmare. That makes it more fun and adds an element of strategy. I hate it in games when you can toss a fireball and your party is unharmed while all enemies are burned.
Shame all of this is undercut by the horrible MMO design. Somebody got too focused on extending the gameplay time and making check lists to realize what it means to have fun while playing a video game.Plus, the companions were (largely) interesting, it had a great crafting system that could actually change gameplay significantly, and it had the single most interesting villain in any Bioware game ever (after doing the fakeout with the lame generic villain you are trying to kill for the first portion of the game). Also, tons of C&C. That level where you go to that country and get to influence who becomes queen is exactly the sort of quest design that Codex always says it wants, and it had a million outcomes that influenced the game.
At this point it's obvious you're either retarded or trolling. I don't have a troll rating so I am giving you the next best thing.Codex has ignored that Dragon Age: Inquisition is a great game for far too long, but that ends now. Please continue to cope, seethe, and negative rate the pure truth I'm bringing to light in this thread.
Fantasy doesn't have to be attainable. It has to be entertaining. Everything boils down to, essentially, whether any given fantasy suits you or not. If it does, you will be fine for a ride. If it doesn't, you won't stop noticing holes or things you dislike. This is why identifying your audience (by giving correct tags, for example) is extremely important, without even going into the quality of writing as such.I knew a person who actually experienced things that, when put in a visual novel, would likely be criticized as 'fanservice' or 'unattainable fantasy'.
In most cases when someone complains about lack of realism in reality it's a complaint about something not suiting his particular world view or opinion. Because as long as you put "fantasy" or "fiction" on the tin, you can't really use realism card too much (except when characters are acting wholly artificially).Whenever I encounter calls for more 'realistic' character writing, I interpret them as demands for characters that are more average.