Will Pillars of Eternity have better combat system than Dragon Age Origins?

[Gfted1]

Or they could simply use buff / debuff icons on the character portraits, like all previous IE games.

[Fatback]

Unless I missed something we know fire ball is instant? since no precombate buffs aura not as important as the casting animation before it. And again why would you want to sit there and read combat log instead of just looking at what's going on.

 

 

ZOMG COMBAT LOG BREAKS IMIRUSHUN.

[rjshae]

I usually only read the combat log in BG1&2 when a character wasn't inflicting damage, so that I could figure out which one and switch weapons. It would have been nice if that were indicated visually in some manner.

[Lephys]

Or they could simply use buff / debuff icons on the character portraits, like all previous IE games.

Not that there's a problem with icons, but having them be the reasoning behind why there aren't distinctive spell effects/animations seems a bit silly. Why even have spell animations in the first place?

 

"If it's one of THESE spells, you don't need to look at the icons, as you can just tell by the animation/effect what has been cast. However, if it's part of spell group beta, you'll only be able to tell by the animation/effect that it's one of these 10 spells. You'll have to look at the particular icon for identification."

 

At that point, wouldn't it be justified to have even another tier of spells? "These don't even have icons, but don't worry... you can still look at the combat log to figure out which one it is."

 

I mean, the icons are good because they're visually intuitive. So why make non-visually-intuitive spell animations/effects, then justify it with "don't worry, 'cause this second thing exists that's visually intuitive."? If the goal is visually knowing what's going on, why is it okay for the spell casting visuals to drop the ball as long as someone else picks it up?

[Fatback]

I bet that poor combat logs back hurts from carrying the animation threw those long games.

[Ffordesoon]

I'd have no problem with a list of buff/debuff icons on the character portraits, as long as I can see an explanation of their effects on a simple mouseover, maybe on the portraits, maybe on the paper doll on the inventory... Just somewhere more convenient to access than scrolling down on a completely separate Character Record screen.

 

Actually, that brings up a good point, and proves me wrong on at least one account. The problem is not the similar spell animations. It's not that the information isn't there. Those are symptoms of a larger problem, especially in BG - the cluttered design of the menu system and the consequent fragmentation of useful data into, er, fragments of the same data.

 

I understand the old IE menus in the context of playing on a CRT monitor at 640x480, but there's oodles of screen space to fill with info now, and there's no excuse for hiding pieces of information I need to know now in like three separate untabbed pause screens. The same amount of information - more, actually - could be compartmentalized effectively into a few tabs on a single menu, complete with pop-up information panes on mouseover. Every spell doesn't have to be super-different graphically from every other spell; that's not my point. My point is that when I see a stack of buff and debuff icons, I want to be able to find out what those things mean without having to press a key or a button I would never otherwise press. Give me a single tabbed menu with meaty chunks of information overflowing from every tab over BG's seven or eight screens of cluttered, counterintuitive UI, each containing a shard of the total information I need. Figuring out how to counter a spell in a computer role-playing game shouldn't feel like triangulating the location of a criminal's cell phone every time, you know?

 

Well, not unless it's a curse. Figuring out how to deal with curses is cool.

[Lephys]

Maybe the spell effects, themselves, could just be a bunch of little spell icons, instead of the typical colored glowy particles? Or, you know, just the name of the spell, in text form, floating in 3D space around the caster/target. Let's just let the combat log do its job, and cut out the middle men, eh?

 

Or, everyone could just call out their attacks by name, like in anime. 8D!

 

"Minoletta's Minoorrrrr MISSILES!"

Edited May 2, 2014 by Lephys

[Tamerlane]

I would only accept that if monks do

when they attack.

[Gfted1]

Not that there's a problem with icons, but having them be the reasoning behind why there aren't distinctive spell effects/animations seems a bit silly. Why even have spell animations in the first place?

I wasn't talking about spell animations, the more the merrier. I was trying to answer MReed's question of:

 

All of these buffs and debuffs share one common element -- they have a lingering effect (that the player might want to remove, or at least take into account when making actions in the future), and many of them have no obvious visual effect to make it clear that the effect is active. Note that the combat log doesn't do you much good for these sorts of effects either -- depending on how busy combat is, and how long the effect persists, it might have been 200+ lines ago that the effect was put into place.

[Fatback]

I would love to see a chanter chant that converts 1 buff into debug every 3 secs while in an aoe range of chanter

 

Could also reverse it for ally's debug into buff but be careful of that monk don't wanna gimp him

Edited May 3, 2014 by Fatback

[Stun]

Unless I missed something we know fire ball is instant? since no precombate buffs aura not as important as the casting animation before it. And again why would you want to sit there and read combat log instead of just looking at what's going on.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that all spell animations be removed in favor of combat log exclusivity. In the best games, the gamer looks at both to get the full play by play.

 

But the issue here is about those small handful of spells that will inevitably share an animation. In those situations, you will need the combat log if you want to know which spell it is. And it's not an "immersion" breaking thing. You simply look at the combat log and you see a single line of text that says: "x casts y", or whatever.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Stun

[Fatback]

The immersion thing was a joke hence the zomg and the all caps.

[nipsen]

And it's not an "immersion" breaking thing. You simply look at the combat log and you see a single line of text that says: "x casts y", or whatever.

 

That's probably not what Molyneux would like. But at least it works.

[Failion]

We haven't seen any real combat videos to see. Low level combat was the most visually thrilling in the infinity engine games. 2 fighters swinging their two hand swords back and forth, who will hit, who will die? If Obsidian can somehow capture that aesthetic look and feel with the 3d models we have now that be cool. Visuals and animations go a long way into making a hack and slash combat system look good.

[nipsen]

I guess they could always announce their attacks on beforehand. (Bonus points if you recognize the voice-actor).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s2q0IQN-ruI#t=297

 

But I really hope they avoid the IE game feeling of how you're trading blows, and wearing people down, hit-point after hit-point. Instead of playing a game where you're trying to stay one step ahead, so you don't receive the critical hits (or spell-damage you're weak to). Or where using the abilities you have is going to make the entire difference, instead of just slightly tilting the odds one way or the other.

 

Not completely sure if that makes sense, but I got the impression that this was the goal as well, when listening to the stance and battle-ability explanations so far. That it's supposed to be possible to play a high-stakes game where you could get wiped out fairly easily - but if your plan works, it goes the other way.

[Lephys]

I wasn't talking about spell animations, the more the merrier. I was trying to answer MReed's question of:

 

Quoted text

 

Ahh. My mistake. Didn't realize the scope of that particular comment wasn't directed at the general discussion.

[Mr.Man-Girl-Dog]

Man, DA:O is very casual even on nightmare its a walk in the park as almost all "rpgs" nowdays. there is no tactic there.

 

KoA  and DS3  -yawn.. some ppl may find the games amusing but tactical? nope

 

dark souls games: thats more like it in the terms of hardness/unforgivness not very tactical but very reactive.

 

baldurs gate 2 with a hell loads of mods including tactics, harder fights, impossible boss fights etc now thats the most tactic u can get

(this rely on  have the right set of mods to balance gimp and make things harder but thats the way to go)

 

POE will be in the same genre as BG and with the different  settings (hardcore etc) im sure u can tailor the game to be tactically challanging and that the game will utterly destroy DA:O in the terms of gameplay, combat, classes, skills, strategy, replayability, immersion, graphics, yada yada..

 

i need some gamma gulp beer..

[Tauron]

I dont think PoE will have combat animations like DAO. I think some were fun.