Redesigning DA combat

[Vault Dweller]

"It's good for what it is" and all that.

My "it's good for what it is" comment in regard to FO3 referred to the fact that it was a sandbox game and measuring it against the original game was idiotic and pointless.

Because original game is a corridor shooter!

What original game is is irrelevant. It was clear from day one that Fallout 3 is a Fallout game in name only.

Simple doesn't necessarily mean bad.

Primitive doesn't necessarily mean simple.

Proof that it's primitive?

You forgot another tabletop-to-PC - RoA. It shows how the party-based top-down combat should be done.

RoA combat beats DA combat. It also beats that of Fallout, Arcanum, ToEE, PST, Mask of the Betrayer, and probably most if not every other party based isometric combat implementation. What would be your point? That we stop reviewing game and write "not as good as RoA combat!" instead?

Of course compared to them combat in DA sucks hard but it's good for what it is because nothing else came out in 2009 and before that games didn't exist.

It IS good for what it is because it is an RPG.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Of course compared to them combat in DA sucks hard but it's good for what it is because nothing else came out in 2009 and before that games didn't exist.

Not everyone just discovered that there were indeed RPGs pre-Oblivion era, like you just did.
You have to excuse us old farts but I for one played RoA often enough already. One has to move on you know.

 

[MetalCraze]

What original game is is irrelevant. It was clear from day one that Fallout 3 is a Fallout game in name only.

And that's a perfect excuse for not comparing them yay. Even though Failout 3 uses the mutant version of SPECIAL and, you know, is a sequel.

Proof that it's primitive?

3 classes, combat in TankDDHealer style aka single-player WoW - it isn't simple. It's primitive.

RoA combat beats DA combat. It also beats that of Fallout, Arcanum, ToEE, PST, Mask of the Betrayer, and probably most if not every other party based isometric combat implementation. What would be your point? That we stop reviewing game and write "not as good as RoA combat!" instead?

RoA isn't the only game in that quote. Heck, even ToEE where everything else but combat was very poorly made can be used as a comparison and it was just 6 years ago. I can see no reason why you can't compare them to DA.
But eh DA won't be good for what it is if you'll do

It IS good for what it is because it is an RPG.

And there are no gradients of quality for RPGs too.
Still it will be interesting to see how a hardcore C&C guy VD will make "good for what it is" excuses for DA where at times 4 options lead to the exactly same response.

Not everyone just discovered that there were indeed RPGs pre-Oblivion era, like you just did.
You have to excuse us old farts but I for one played RoA often enough already. One has to move on you know.

And Oblivion was like my first RPG, what a sharp wit you got there.
I just didn't play them in the mid90s but even though I first played RoA last year I was immediately amazed at a level of quality of that game which is ~15 years old. And they didn't even have budgets of games EA was churning at that time.
But even BG/IWD combats totally dump what DA has to offer.

It's hard to settle with shit when there are better examples even among mediocre.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What original game is is irrelevant. It was clear from day one that Fallout 3 is a Fallout game in name only.

And that's a perfect excuse for not comparing them yay. Even though Failout 3 uses the mutant version of SPECIAL and, you know, is a sequel.

Is it a game of the same fucking sub-genre? Yes or No, please. If the answer is no, then there is no reason to compare them.

It's not about looking for excuses, it's about a simple fact that it's a different game. Had the marketing called XCOM: Enforcer a sequel, would you also insist on comparing it to the original game?

Proof that it's primitive?

3 classes, combat in TankDDHealer style aka single-player WoW - it isn't simple. It's primitive.

Was Divine Divinity character system primitive too? There is nothing wrong with 3 base classes, which have always been the foundation of any class-based character system, especially since there are 4 specialization class upgrades per every base class.

RoA isn't the only game in that quote. Heck, even ToEE where everything else but combat was very poorly made can be used as a comparison and it was just 6 years ago. I can see no reason why you can't compare them to DA.

Did I say that you can't compare them?

But eh DA won't be good for what it is if you'll do

But Neverwinter "I can't believe how good it is!! 99%!!!!" Nights 2 is? Don't be such a hypocrite, Skyway. Most games on your infamous list are utter shit if we start comparing them to 3 top games.

Anyway, ToEE had superb TB combat and a pretty cool non-linear design, but the rest was mediocre and bland.

Still it will be interesting to see how a hardcore C&C guy VD will make "good for what it is" excuses for DA where at times 4 options lead to the exactly same response.

You shall find out soon enough.

 

[sheek]

I am having a hard time imagining Skyrage playing ROA 1.

Lolz at 'tactical combat'. The vast majority of battles were clones of each other on cloned maps. Except for the spellcasters your options in combat were limited to choosing 'Cautious' or 'Aggressive' (minor modifiers to attack roll). Knockdowns, stunning, flanking, baskstabs, death blows, etc which all of Bioware's modern games have were absent.

 

[sheek]

BTW,

Leliana trapped in between two humping Ogres. Combat suddenly got a lot better in Deep Trenches.

 

[DraQ]

I think I've already made a thread about flashy and glowy, rather than minimalistic and unintrusive, interface elements somewhere on the codex.

 

[MetalCraze]

Is it a game of the same fucking sub-genre? Yes or No, please. If the answer is no, then there is no reason to compare them.

Nice try. Both games have SPECIAL, both games have dialogues, both games have their own take on non-linearity, both games have open-world which you can affect to some degree. There is a good shitton of stuff you can and should compare same genre or not.

It's not about looking for excuses, it's about a simple fact that it's a different game. Had the marketing called XCOM: Enforcer a sequel, would you also insist on comparing it to the original game?

Again nice try, but XCOM: Enforcer and XCOM are very different games. That however doesn't stop you from comparing similar stuff in games.

Was Divine Divinity character system primitive too? There is nothing wrong with 3 base classes, which have always been the foundation of any class-based character system, especially since there are 4 specialization class upgrades per every base class.

It could've been much much much better. The problems of DA system also come from poor combat encounters which constantly remind you that you are playing singleplayer WoW. What's worse is that your party nearly instantly auto-regens after each combat encounter and the only way in which Bioware seems to outweigh that is by throwing at you beefy but still dumb enemies which ultimately goes down to more dmg - making your character development choices far less important - and that's not all - all of your party members are immortal.

Did I say that you can't compare them?

Then compare them.

But Neverwinter "I can't believe how good it is!! 99%!!!!" Nights 2 is? Don't be such a hypocrite, Skyway. Most games on your infamous list are utter shit if we start comparing them to 3 top games.

I never gave 99% to NWN2, I gave it to BG2 - if you want to baaaaww about the list at least spend your time double-checking your arguments.

Anyway, ToEE had superb TB combat and a pretty cool non-linear design, but the rest was mediocre and bland.

And considering that DA is linear as a stick and combat in it sucks what do we have left considering that they are similar with ToEE in quality of everything else.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to insult ToEE - it didn't have filler dialogues "about the weather"

Lolz at 'tactical combat'. The vast majority of battles were clones of each other on cloned maps.

Maps are randomly generated.

Except for the spellcasters your options in combat were limited to choosing 'Cautious' or 'Aggressive' (minor modifiers to attack roll). Knockdowns, stunning, flanking, baskstabs, death blows, etc which all of Bioware's modern games have were absent.

You mean useless gimmicks that were only about dealing more dmg in combat where it all was about dealing more damage were absent.
Apart from shittons of stats that characters had each of which brought something to the combat RoA also had minuses - phobias which strongly affected your characters depending on a location. Add to that that enemies also had moral and were retreating so it wasn't always about "kill everyone to proceed". Some enemies also required different ways to deal with them as f.e. you could get some illness from coming into a melee contact with them. Finally your characters could die in combat.
In latest Bioware games it's all about dealing more damage.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Is it a game of the same fucking sub-genre? Yes or No, please. If the answer is no, then there is no reason to compare them.

Nice try. Both games have SPECIAL, both games have dialogues, both games have their own take on non-linearity, both games have open-world which you can affect to some degree. There is a good shitton of stuff you can and should compare same genre or not.

:facepalm:

It had SPECIAL, you say? And what is SPECIAL? A system with 7 stats, skills affected by stats and traits. That's there is to it. It's a fucking acronym, unlike a system like DnD.

Lionheart had SPECIAL, dialogues, and even dialogue skills. In the end it was a Diablo-like action RPG and it was reviewed as such. Anyway, if you want to believe that Fallout 3 is a proper sequel, be my guest.

 

[Serious_Business]

shitty game

This is my review.

No shut the fuck up with your coherent sentences and pointless attempts to create meaning, this is the only valid review.

 

[MetalCraze]

The problem is that Fallout 3 is improper sequel. But what you are saying is that there are either proper sequels or completely different games. Nice logic - it means that DX2 is hardly a sequel to DX1 and can't be compared.

Lionheart had SPECIAL, dialogues, and even dialogue skills. In the end it was a Diablo-like action RPG and it was reviewed as such.

Again - Failout 3 has Fallout's SPECIAL. Which is similar to Fallout even though it is dumbed down. Meaning there is no reason not to compare them.

As for Lionheart. It even has Barcelona to which many codexers fapped as to a "RPG city". It just has a shitty combat and other parts but Barcelona hardly contained anything but it. You can easily make comparisons between its combat system and a combat system of other single-char RPGs as well as between Barcelona and, say, Athkatla. Why not?

 

[Vault Dweller]

The problem is that Fallout 3 is improper sequel. But what you are saying is that there are either proper sequels or completely different games. Nice logic - it means that DX2 is hardly a sequel to DX1 and can't be compared.

There are different sub-genres. There can be several completely different Fallout RPGs: the original Fallout, tactical RPG a-la JA2 (FOT), dungeon crawler RPG, and sandbox RPG like Fallout 3.

Would you ever compare Daggerfall to Fallout or Arcanum? If the answer is no (hopefully), then why do you compare Fallout 3 to Fallout?

As for DX2 it's a proper, but poorly done sequel.

Again - Failout 3 has Fallout's SPECIAL. Which is similar to Fallout even though it is dumbed down. Meaning there is no reason not to compare them.

Fallout 3 has a completely different character system; its stats just happen to spell SPECIAL as yet another gimmick. I've compared both systems in my review, in case you missed it.

As for Lionheart. It even has Barcelona to which many codexers fapped as to a "RPG city".

And? First, Codexers fap to a lot of things, so that's hardly a valid indicator. Second, a small RPG city in a huge action RPG doesn't change a thing.

It just has a shitty combat and other parts but Barcelona hardly contained anything but it. You can easily make comparisons between its combat system and a combat system of other single-char RPGs as well as between Barcelona and, say, Athkatla. Why not?

You can make isolated comparisons (when, say, talking about cities and such), but comparing Lionheart to either Fallout (even though Feargus said that it was the game the Fallout fans have been waiting for) or Baldur's Gate serves no purpose other than giving you an artificial reason to trash the game.

 

[MetalCraze]

Would you ever compare Daggerfall to Fallout or Arcanum?

Of course. Or first person perspective applies different standards to character development, writing and quality of non-linearity?

As for DX2 it's a proper, but poorly done sequel.

And Fallout 3 is improper and poorly done sequel.
It's even called Fallout 3, not some Fallout: Unbelievable Adventures of Vault Dweller in Tamriel. And even if it was that wouldn't mean it was safe from comparisons.

And? First, Codexers fap to a lot of things, so that's hardly a valid indicator. Second, a small RPG city in a huge action RPG doesn't change a thing.

I still fail to see how Lionheart is an action RPG when your character is driven by stats
Or IWD is an action RPG too?

You can make isolated comparisons (when, say, talking about cities and such), but comparing Lionheart to either Fallout (even though Feargus said that it was the game the Fallout fans have been waiting for) or Baldur's Gate serves no purpose other than giving you an artificial reason to trash the game.

So why not make many isolated comparisons when they are proper?
See I don't compare combat systems of Fallout 3 and Fallout.

 

[sheek]

Lolz at 'tactical combat'. The vast majority of battles were clones of each other on cloned maps.

Maps are randomly generated.

In which game? In ROA1 they are not, I don't think in ROA2 either.

Except for the spellcasters your options in combat were limited to choosing 'Cautious' or 'Aggressive' (minor modifiers to attack roll). Knockdowns, stunning, flanking, baskstabs, death blows, etc which all of Bioware's modern games have were absent.

You mean useless gimmicks that were only about dealing more dmg in combat where it all was about dealing more damage were absent.

Yes, in RPGs damage is how you kill opponents. Ultimately if you are not causing damage you are not going to win the battle or progress in the game. Spells can also be boiled down to damage or facilitating damage by other means.

Good luck playing through DA without using any of the talents tho, since you think those talents are useless.

Apart from shittons of stats that characters had each of which brought something to the combat RoA also had minuses - phobias which strongly affected your characters depending on a location. Add to that that enemies also had moral and were retreating so it wasn't always about "kill everyone to proceed". Some enemies also required different ways to deal with them as f.e. you could get some illness from coming into a melee contact with them. Finally your characters could die in combat.
In latest Bioware games it's all about dealing more damage.

Phobias - not hugely significant, and irrelevant to most combat. DA has varying resistances for characters that can make a significant difference depending on the enemy you're facing. What is your point?

Yes, enemies fled, but then it always resulted in the last few turns (turn-based) of running after them and trying to catch them before they reached to the edge of the screens (unless you like to waste XP). Routine and not exactly thrilling.

Character death - yes that is a huge plus, and Bioware should have made injuries a lot more significant (as VD explained in his review).

Increasing your ability to deal damage is the essence of every RPG ever made. On the whole I think DA is more tactical than the majority of RPGs ever made (tho let down by balancing and level design).

 

[Ausir]

I still fail to see how Lionheart is an action RPG when your character is driven by stats
Or IWD is an action RPG too?

So Diablo isn't one?

 

[Hory]

Diablo is just a Grind RPG. That's what you do in it. There is no action. Action games are about dexterity, hand-eye coordination. Diablo is about farming XP and items, and selecting the most powerful ones. There are no tactics either.

 

[sheek]

OK, that's a definition.

Is Dragon Age about hand-eye coordination and reflexes?

Now what about t'Witcher? Gothic? Bloodlines?

 

[Hory]

It's interesting that real-time tactical games do involve physical reflexes in a significant manner, in what's called micro-management. For example - how fast is the player at retreating injured units as he sees them? It's the Actions Per Minute element that Koreans are famous for (which also manifests itself in macro-management). But as a tactical game, thinking is part of the process. Which injured unit should I retreat first? To which direction?

Dragon Age doesn't require reflexes because it has a pause. Games with pause or turns allow for the richer development of tactics. But if the encounter design isn't balanced (the case of DA), tactics become irrelevant as you can just steamroll through the enemy. Perhaps DA should be played without pause as to actually make it challenging.

Gothic and Bloodlines are about hand-eye coordination because the combat is real time and the character's physical actions are controlled directly. Witcher has an element of dexterity - the quick hit chaining thingie - but it can arguably be played without it. More importantly, all three are also about exploration, conversation and solving quests (which I'll put under the adventure umbrella). It's because Diablo lacks these elements (and others) that it sucks.

 

[sheek]

It's interesting that real-time tactical games do involve physical reflexes in a significant manner, in what's called micro-management. For example - how fast is the player at retreating injured units as he sees them? It's the Actions Per Minute element that Koreans are famous for (which also manifests itself in macro-management). But as a tactical game, thinking is part of the process. Which injured unit should I retreat first? To which direction?

Dragon Age doesn't require reflexes because it has a pause.

Also it only has four units to control, and their AIs can be programmed.

Games with pause or turns allow for the richer development of tactics. But if the encounter design isn't balanced (the case of DA), tactics become irrelevant as you can just steamroll through the enemy. Perhaps DA should be played without pause as to actually make it challenging.

Gothic and Bloodlines are about hand-eye coordination because the combat is real time and the character's physical actions are controlled directly. Witcher has an element of dexterity - the quick hit chaining thingie - but it can arguably be played without it. More importantly, all three are also about exploration, conversation and solving quests (which I'll put under the adventure umbrella). It's because Diablo lacks these elements (and others) that it sucks.

Diablo is good for what it is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Would you ever compare Daggerfall to Fallout or Arcanum?

Of course. Or first person perspective applies different standards to character development, writing and quality of non-linearity?

Skyway, you're comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Both are round and both are sweet, and you can state that you prefer oranges to apples, but that's about it.

You can compare Fallout to Arcanum, Baldur's Gate, and NWN because all these games belong to the same sub-genre, have the same overall design and the same design goals. Can we compare IWD to BG? No, we can't. Different genres. However, we can compare it to ToEE. Can we compare JA2 to Fallout? No. Different sub-genres again.

Comparing individual aspects (for example, comparing JA2 combat to that of Fallout) is pointless, because the design goals and gameplay were different. Same with Daggerfall vs Arcanum. Same with Fallout vs Fallout 3.

As for DX2 it's a proper, but poorly done sequel.

And Fallout 3 is improper and poorly done sequel.

Improper is the key word.

It's even called Fallout 3, not some Fallout: Unbelievable Adventures of Vault Dweller in Tamriel.

Well, if it was called Fallout 3 then it's surely a game similar to the original.

I still fail to see how Lionheart is an action RPG when your character is driven by stats.

Seriously, Skyway. Every action RPG is stat- or skill-driven. Diablo, Diablo 2, Nox, Depth of Peril, Sacred, Restricted Area, Dungeon Siege, Dungeon Siege 2, etc.

Or IWD is an action RPG too?

No. It's a dungeon crawler. The focus isn't on killing and leveling up.

So why not make many isolated comparisons when they are proper?

To what purpose?

 

[Volourn]

"Anyway, ToEE had superb TB combat"

No. TOEE had a superb combat system. It had horribly flawed TB combat.


ON TOPIC
-----------

DA combat isn't perfect. What game is? None. Things can be improved but it is far frombroken, and certainly doesn't need a whole 'reworking'. That's bullshit.


Save that kind of crap for games like BL, POR2, or DTU.

 

[Haba]

I'm trying to dredge through DA:O final battle and thinking on how the combat could be improved upon... Well, maybe by not having to go through it in the first place?

The only saving grace of the final battle is that the rank-and-file darkspawn die in single hit.

 

[MetalCraze]

In which game? In ROA1 they are not, I don't think in ROA2 either.

In RoA2 they are.

Yes, in RPGs damage is how you kill opponents.

Damage is with what you kill opponents. In good RPGs tactics and/or various ways to use character's (even mere) combat skills is 'how' you kill your opponents.

Phobias - not hugely significant, and irrelevant to most combat.

Except they don't and as RoA has no problems with throwing much harder encounters (like random combat encounters on the map) at a player they can affect the outcome. What matters is that the characters also have penalties which make gameplay more complex and they do something.

DA has varying resistances for characters that can make a significant difference depending on the enemy you're facing. What is your point?

My point is that ultimately everything in DA goes down to which side has more DPS - wins. And because of regen it just feels like King's Bounty - just an unconnected collection of simplistic fights.
Bioware also ripped off everything it could from DnD yet DnD will be a much superior example as it had much more classes which had different gameplay going for them. No matter what "prestige" classes you will add to fighter/rogue/mage they will forever remain fighter/rogue/mage - ressistances will provide a little help to add variety. Going for a more primitive system is a decline in itself.

Yes, enemies fled, but then it always resulted in the last few turns (turn-based) of running after them and trying to catch them before they reached to the edge of the screens (unless you like to waste XP). Routine and not exactly thrilling.

It didn't happen constantly and you could've easily seen whether you can catch them or not. And yeah they fled and you could do nothing about it even if it meant losing XP - it's your choice, nothing routine.

Character death - yes that is a huge plus, and Bioware should have made injuries a lot more significant (as VD explained in his review).

No what Bioware should've made is mortal characters who die once and for all which would turn the game from "2 characters are down? Well who cares I still can win with these two - they will get up after the fight anyway" to "the combat started, I must be extremely careful to not lose even one of my characters I spent so much time developing". And if that's too "hardcore" - BG2 implementation of this in DnD was very good - you could've always resurrected the dead character if you had the means to do so or roll your ass to whoever could with a little chance of your character dying forever (like from a disintegrate spell). In one of DA threads I gave an example of how it added tension to a typical dungeon trip in BG2 which was its plus.
Decline.

 

[MetalCraze]

Skyway, you're comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Both are round and both are sweet, and you can state that you prefer oranges to apples, but that's about it.

You didn't answer the question.

Can we compare IWD to BG?

Yes we can.

No, we can't. Different genres.

Different genres? Both are RPG. The only difference is that IWD throws more mobs at you. BG is just as combat heavy except encounters are much smaller in scale.

However, we can compare it to ToEE. Can we compare JA2 to Fallout? No. Different sub-genres again.

We can't compare JA2 to Fallout because they have maybe 1% in common.

Comparing individual aspects (for example, comparing JA2 combat to that of Fallout) is pointless, because the design goals and gameplay were different. Same with Daggerfall vs Arcanum. Same with Fallout vs Fallout 3.

Design goals are unimportant. The final result is the only thing that matters.
Your excuse right now sounds like "but Fallout 3 has a shooter combat so you can't compare everything else!"

Improper is the key word.

Improper or not - it's still a sequel.

Well, if it was called Fallout 3 then it's surely a game similar to the original.

No if it called Fallout 3 it's a game in the least related to original.

Seriously, Skyway. Every action RPG is stat- or skill-driven. Diablo, Diablo 2, Nox, Depth of Peril, Sacred, Restricted Area, Dungeon Siege, Dungeon Siege 2, etc.

Yes, except actionRPG is more twitch-player-skill driven. Hence 'action'.

No. It's a dungeon crawler. The focus isn't on killing and leveling up.

On what else then? At times IWD felt more like H'n'S (not that I complain about it) with the amounts of XP meat it was throwing at you.

To what purpose?

Criticizing or admiring the game?

 

[Bluebottle]

No what Bioware should've made is mortal characters who die once and for all which would turn the game from "2 characters are down? Well who cares I still can win with these two - they will get up after the fight anyway" to "the combat started, I must be extremely careful to not lose even one of my characters I spent so much time developing".

Well, there are very few party based RPGs that feature total 100% permadeath for party members, i.e. without any kind of resurrection whatsoever. So with this in mind, the majority of these titles would, more accurately, promote the thought
"the combat started, I must be extremely careful not to lose even one of my characters, or else I'll have to backtrack to find a way to resurrect them."

Now, had the injury system been developed in an interesting way, featuring injuries that really did carry significant penalties, the thought would have been practically very similar:
"the combat started, I must be extremely careful not to lose even one of my characters, or else I'll have to backtrack to find a way to heal their injuries"

Of course, this then poses the question: Why go with injuries over permadeath/resurrection?

Well, each one can provide unique gameplay opportunities and presents the player with decisions which the other doesn't. For instance Ultima VII has an interesting take on the death ressurection system, where resurrection required you to haul the corpse to a specific place to be resurrected. If you can't carry the weight, then you're going to have to drop some stuff. Cherished character Vs. Cherished loot? Hard choice (mitigated my the fact that you could return later and it'd still be there)

Of course the injury system is new, and there are few/no examples beyond Dragon Age, which really didn't put quite as much into the system as it could have. However there does lie potential in the system for some interesting choices and gameplay opportunities for the player.

-It obviously allows more scope for a medical skill that goes beyond simply healing HPs (splinting limbs, staunching bleeding, treating burns etc - these would be temporary measures to tide the character over until proper treatment could be found)
-It builds a foundation for an interesting permanent injury system (you have a fairly low level healer, who can try to pop that dislocated joint back into place, so your tank can face the foozle round the corner, however this could risk a more permanent injury to the area - another hard choice)

Well, they're pretty rudimentary examples (I'm obviously not a designer), but the point is that an injury system could be designed that provides interesting choices, and doesn't patronise the player any more, or less, than a death/resurrection system, so long as you can look past the initial knee-jerk reaction, of "Oh noes, dumbing down".

Dragon Age is mostly certainly not this, and neither would I expect Bioware to produce such a system.