Review claims that you never miss in Dragon Age...Uh mainstream media where are you?

[Zaik]

Maybe if it's facing you. If you're over behind its' back feet that isn't really an issue.

Of course thats why you need an attack roll or every creature is blind to your presence in the same way. If you want to simulate obscurement with damage for lets say archery in the fog then you are basically casting a stone skin like spell on everyone in the fog. That is piss poor design. Thats where realism needs to step in and slap the button-awesome marketing shit.

Or you could use common sense, which is more or less applied already anyway since flanking attacks get a bonus to attack.

 

[Trolldor]

Never mattered. Mechanically the game works fine and is well balanced for combat.

Equal pounds of shit on separate pans of a balance scale still stink. I doubt the game's balance because DA:O age was woefully unbalanced and the last review I posted spoke of the same concerns.

Forget that. I want to talk about why it stinks... Hitting a stationary target that cant move is just boring, predictable and when the hp bloats silly. Its just bad game design because its boring. Bioware should be doing much better. Hell the person who did the review helped create a better combat system with maybe a tenth of Bioware's budget.

I can understand why someone might not like stat based combat in a game like Morrowind. Morrowind just didnt have the animations and neither did Oblivion so its a damned do/dont situation unless the game has the miss animations if its stat based or AI that can make you miss in an action its going to lack something. Both games had neither in most respects so I would say they both had C- combat. Decent enough for an RPG though Skyrim better be better. Bioware should be further along than using hp alone to simulate attack roll and damage.

*snore*
It works, it works well. It's well balanced. Unless you're absolutely shit at this game, only the boss battles should take more than a few minutes.

 

[faefrost]

That cant be true. I did notice that I never missed in the demo but I dismissed it figuring that you were really high level during that scene.
Here is the review

http://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=224

The obsolete ?to hit chance? mechanic is gone. In your grandpa's RPGs, unsuccessful attacks missed their target. In Dragon Age 2 they merely cause less damage (glancing blows). Your primary stat (one for each class; might as well make the system even more ?welcoming? and call it DAMAGE!!!) determines your base damage and your chance to do extra damage. Hovering your cursor over your attack rating displays a breakdown, for example 85% vs normal enemy, 70% vs enemy lieutenant, 55% vs enemy boss. What does it mean for you? A system where you always hit is an HP game, so you?ll be hitting the ?bosses? aka HP behemoths for a very, very long time.

Tell me this is not true.
I have read a few DA 2 reviews yet nothing in the mainstream media has mentioned it? I mean what the gfsalkfgjask;lf vdsa;lfdlafomdvfl;fmasl;k f, fasdmkfk;j
Huh?

So nobody had a problem with this? If this is true the game is an even bigger joke than I suspected from the demo.

It sounds worse than it actually is. Yeah they eliminated the mathematical "miss" chance, ie the classic pen and paper dice roll. Instead they replaced it with a more action oriented (and to a large degree console friendly) combat model. So no you can't miss. But nor can you auto-attack. You click or press X to swing. Position, facing etc count. So it works a little more like a hack and slash dungeon brawler. Kind of Somewhere between Diablo and God of War. Instead of a classic dice roll hit/miss it uses mitigating factors. Block Dodge etc. You can physically move to avoid attacks, and need to keep moving to keep successfully attacking.

When viewed as an entirely seperate entity from DA:O, the combat in DA2 is actually pretty fun and a nice refreshing evolution for these sorts of games. While there are a few legitimate reasons to have some skepticism of DA2 (the big one being overly reused maps), the combat or the lack of a classic hit/miss random calculation isn't one of them.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Out of all the things you could have chosen to complain about in Dragon Age 2, this is what you're going with? Sheesh. Gamers these days will ***** and moan about anything, won't they?

I don't enjoy missing in RPGs. Neither do a large portion of the RPG-playing community. I'm sorry that you like missing 90% of the time and one-shotting enemies when you hit them, but RPGs generally don't function that way. Perhaps you should try a different genre.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of miss mechanics in rpgs. I hate it more than anything when my sword slices directly through the target and it's still counted as a miss. It's like, you didn't see my weapon go right through his body? He a ghost now? Games need hit and miss mechanics more like Demon's Souls. If the weapon connects with the monster, it freakin' hits the monster. If it doesn't connect, then you miss. That's just how I feel like they should be done. Something a little more on topic:

I never really noticed that I ever missed in DA2. Not even once.

 

[Valanthe]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of miss mechanics in rpgs. I hate it more than anything when my sword slices directly through the target and it's still counted as a miss. It's like, you didn't see my weapon go right through his body? He a ghost now? Games need hit and miss mechanics more like Demon's Souls. If the weapon connects with the monster, it freakin' hits the monster. If it doesn't connect, then you miss. That's just how I feel like they should be done. Something a little more on topic:

I never really noticed that I ever missed in DA2. Not even once.

Your example is exactly how it -actually- works in DA2, if your weapon connects, you hit, the damage is still based on a roll and can still crit or do very little damage depending on that roll.

In my opinion, this new system works way better than the old, I decided this when I was facing an Ogre in the deep roads on my rogue, he backed up to charge, and I hit backstab, I vanished in a cloud of smoke, and he charged right past, ending up hitting the wall on the other side of the room. This system allows you to think tactically, and use abilities in usual ways to enhance the game. As far as HP padding goes, I haven't really noticed it being as bad as many seem to think, however I come from from WoW, so my view might be a tad skewed. The Arishok fight did take a while on my tank because I had sacrificed attack, crit, and damage for raw survivability, and I died four times on the Rockwraith before I figured out to hide behind the pillars (Coming from raiding, I felt like an idiot when I figured that one out) but I honestly didn't find any of the fights any more taxing than, say for instance, a Heroic boss from WoW.

In conclusion, Dragon Age 2 is -not- a perfect game by any stretch, it has a few glaring flaws that really should have been addressed by the dev team but weren't, possibly evidence of budget and time constraints, but whining about the devs choice to remove the 'roll to hit' mechanic, is purely juvenile.

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

First of all you're confusing complexity with depth. The combat mechanics of hit/damroll + X stat / resistance = DMG isn't complexity, it's depth. Take anyone who knows their standard D&D/fantasy classes and they'll know what they need. Warriors rely on strength, rogues on dexterity and mages on intelligence, clerics on wisdom, so on and so forth. There's no trick or method to character building, know what you want and go for it.

I?m talking about the potential to have more depth with a more complex design. DA:O had the potential but didn?t live up to it mainly because of level scaling but also other factors. DA 2 simply removed the potential instead of living up to it.

In D&D you have fighters like monks that rely on wisdom, or dualist and swashbucklers that rely on dexterity and intelligence. Its not all about strength hp and damage. Its more in line with the principles of combat. Hit and don?t get hit. Matter of fact it goes too far with that principle and DA could have improved on it much in the way Age of Decadence did.

Bioware is out of touch with what; their fanbase, their business ethic, or the people who don't like what they put out? Posting that was a good step, but like any idea you need something to back it up. Don't say "You should do x" and not give any supporting ideas. Removing or dampening level scaling, how would you do this? Nerf filler combat, what exactly is filler combat? Random encounters, fights you hack your way through on the way to the boss, fights that happen because I tell someone their mother sucks dwarf cock? Adding active party member slots... that's a big one. That's a resource hog on processing power and what-not for AI, graphics and everything else. Adding two party members would cut down on the hordes... which would require balancing to make it harder as you seem to want.

EA is out of touch with what the masses want if they believe their changes was a ticket to Call of Duty or Pokemon sells. They completely misread why people didnt finish DA:O. I also believe they misread why a lot of console gamers prefer point to point combat as opposed to dice rolls which led to the "press a button and something awesome happens" slogan.

I'm assuming that you know what filler combat is and you are asking why I wasnt as descriptive in my post. I knew that if people were bothered by the filler combat the regular posters would know what I was talking about. I really wasn't attempting to reach out to Bioware. They arent that close to their fans. The NBA 2k devs are that close. They chart every suggestion at operationsports. Bioware isnt like that and I dont blame them, so my post was to see if the fans cared. They for the most part didnt. It took more than my issues to stir them on that forum. They are stirred now. Most of them agree with the codex review.

I just dont see how adding two party members affects resources or balance. Strangers things have been added in DLC or in patches. In NWN 2 Storm of Zehir I broke the code and had 15 party members with no slow down. My PC isnt exactly spanking. In Oblivion and Fallout 3 you can cheat the game on consoles and take 5 to 7 followers. Doesn't mess with the framerate at all. There are modders that can balance a game in weeks. Origins needed more than balance. The game was unbalanced anyway. When I used more party members in NWN 2 it didnt make the game that much easier mainly because they leveled separately and I never used more than 6 until the boss fights then it was 8 to go for an all in feel like the final battle in ME 2. In Storm of Zehir I used 7 and then later used 15 against the final boss but the other 7 were low level so again it was just to make it more realistic. Oh and the boss was ***** in that game so it was still a hard fight. DA:O shipped with difficulty to spare. Even on normal I was fine with the difficulty. I played on hard just because most RPGs were too easy. I like using sub optimal misfit parties for extra difficulty so normal would have been fine. Hard and it was hard albeit cheap with the hp sponges.

What you call discriminant and discerning is what most call elitists and I call whiners. People who are never happy with a medium, but their exact desires and anything less must be berated. I'll be first in line to say DA2 has problems, even a few massive problems. But claiming all these charges against Bioware for their combat mechanic is criminal. Get off your high-horse and if you're so acute on your wants and desires... then go make your own game.

I?m working on the own game thing from several angles. I don?t understand how laying it on Bioware?s combat is an example of elitism. We should be happy there are people that call shit shit when they see it. I?m not hard to please I just appreciate good game design. Someone that bashes Enslaved because it has scripted platforming but doesn?t appreciate Assiasin?s Creed which has dynamic platforming is a hypocrite. Call those folks names. I listed hp bloat and damaged based combat as one of my more hated clichés before I knew DA 2 took out misses.

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

Out of all the things you could have chosen to complain about in Dragon Age 2, this is what you're going with? Sheesh. Gamers these days will ***** and moan about anything, won't they?

I don't enjoy missing in RPGs. Neither do a large portion of the RPG-playing community. I'm sorry that you like missing 90% of the time and one-shotting enemies when you hit them, but RPGs generally don't function that way. Perhaps you should try a different genre.

Ever play Fire Emblem?
Lots of one shot kills. Same with the Age of Decadence demo. There are enough games that dont use high hp and potion swigging. I cant name a stat based RPG where you cant miss. DA 2 is the exception not the rule.

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

In conclusion, Dragon Age 2 is -not- a perfect game by any stretch, it has a few glaring flaws that really should have been addressed by the dev team but weren't, possibly evidence of budget and time constraints, but whining about the devs choice to remove the 'roll to hit' mechanic, is purely juvenile.

In your examples the CPU AI wasn't attempting to dodge they were just moving in an offensive animation and you missed. For action combat to come close gameplay that a true spiritual successor to BG would have delivered they better be making you miss on purpose.

Or you could use common sense, which is more or less applied already anyway since flanking attacks get a bonus to attack.

Whats the use in an attack bonus when its 100% every time. Oh it goes to damage so again if my character is blinded or shooting in the fog everyone gets a stone skin spell.

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

Ok, first of all, using a cinematic in relation with a game, as cinematic as it wants to be, is wrong because there are no rulesets and mechanics in place in a cinematic. That was pretty obvious, but looks like i need to point it out. Whatever.

Ever heard of a vision trailer is? Its common to use a cinematic as an example or what you are trying to achieve.

Second, a glancing blow IS the equivalent of a parry or block. In both cases, the enemy HITS you but doesn't do any damage, you just feel the blunt kinetic force. In both cases you feel something. A combat system where dodging was your only defense would indeed be less realistic than this.

A glancing blow is not the same as a parry or block. Its easier to counter off a parry and a glancing blow from a sharp object might take off your ear. There is also a chance at weapon damage. Its not at all like a slip or a dodge. Its a poor foundation. It makes no sense to simulate misses, glancing shots, and blocks with damage. If you are using 0 damage then its needlessly complex and it forces you to use larger hit point totals which tend to have their own issues. Just for code clarity its easier to separate everything and from a design standpoint its easier to manage or improve the combat when you have defined functions like the ability to roll with shots, dodge, parry and resist.

 

[Valanthe]

In your examples the CPU AI wasn't attempting to dodge they were just moving in an offensive animation and you missed. For action combat to come close gameplay that a true spiritual successor to BG would have delivered they better be making you miss on purpose.

I'm sorry, I ought to have been a little clearer on my reasoning. I wasn't complaining that I missed, I was complimenting the game in allowing me to use my head and the abilities at my disposal to avoid the ogre's charge completely. Put simply, I didn't miss, the ogre did.

 

[Trolldor]

I fence. How come only rogues use footwork, and only through activated abilities?
And how come mage staffs are weaker than swords when they have blades AND do elemental damage!?

IT MAKES NO SENSE PEOPLE!

 

[Oroboros]

Removing the miss mechanic is puzzling. I dislike the HP bloat at higher levels of D&D as is, removing the capability for dodges/misses/parries/blocks seems like it would put even more emphasis on HP, leading to creatures with even more ridiculous hp scores. Not a good decision, in my opinion for that reason alone, not to mention the ridiculousness of melee combat where every blow connects. Even in Epee we don't have ridiculousness like that.

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

Except you didn't use it to show what anyone's trying to achieve, you used it as an argument for how fights should be. Considering how fights in RPGs are currently, i'd say you're a bit out of touch with reality. Are you criticizing the fighting system because it's not perfect?

Thats what I was going for. I was using the video in the same way someone would use a vision trailer; to display realistic, realtime combat, with, heavy damage, lots of misses, and parries.

Ok. Now harp about how rogues can jump 5 feet into the air and how warriors can teleport 2 feet towards their enemies. Or maybe how "Explosive strike" isn't explosive at all and there's no viable way to do more damage after you've hit an enemy 10 times. Or maybe about how enemies don't split in half SIDEWAYS while you're cutting them in a downwards swoop. Or maybe how it's impossible to get rammed by such a powerful muscular creature as an ogre and survive the impact. Maybe make a thesis on how arrows shot from point-blank range should pierce plate armor and cause lingering bleeding wounds requiring you to go to the hospital for 3 months game-time. And while you're at it, why don't you dismiss the magic system entirely. It doesn't make any sense! IT'S NOT REALISTIC ENOUGH.

Somebody has been taking crazy pills. What kind of insane rant is that? So just because I think its boring to play a game that is half action where I never miss I'm asking for too much. I was expecting a more gritty and realistic tone with Dragon Age not the Power Rangers vs World of Warcraft bosses. I'm not hard to satisfy. I used the NWN intro because Bioware has the resources to target something in that range. I would be ok with the fluidity of DA 2. I'll give you an example of realistic combat without the animations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amYo1EZA7FU

 

[Mcface]

That cant be true. I did notice that I never missed in the demo but I dismissed it figuring that you were really high level during that scene.
Here is the review

http://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=224

The obsolete ?to hit chance? mechanic is gone. In your grandpa's RPGs, unsuccessful attacks missed their target. In Dragon Age 2 they merely cause less damage (glancing blows). Your primary stat (one for each class; might as well make the system even more ?welcoming? and call it DAMAGE!!!) determines your base damage and your chance to do extra damage. Hovering your cursor over your attack rating displays a breakdown, for example 85% vs normal enemy, 70% vs enemy lieutenant, 55% vs enemy boss. What does it mean for you? A system where you always hit is an HP game, so you?ll be hitting the ?bosses? aka HP behemoths for a very, very long time.

Tell me this is not true.
I have read a few DA 2 reviews yet nothing in the mainstream media has mentioned it? I mean what the gfsalkfgjask;lf vdsa;lfdlafomdvfl;fmasl;k f, fasdmkfk;j
Huh?

So nobody had a problem with this? If this is true the game is an even bigger joke than I suspected from the demo.

It's a good thing.
Who the fuck misses a giant target 2 feet infront of them? i never liked that about most RPGs.

 

[Bobbity]

Morrowind's system of accuracy based on numbers was possibly the worst feature of the game, and very nearly put me off it. Oblivion's take on that was much better, and I believe that this applies to DA2 as well.