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

Azrael the Cat

New member
Dec 13, 2008
370
0
0
McNinja said:
I nearly broke my controller because I "missed" a f**king huge Dragon in DA: O. I hate the "miss" calculations because the animation doesn't "miss," but the game does. And in real life, you NEVER miss your target with a sword, unless they parry/dodge/block the strike.

Any swordsman who completely misses their target when it is being attacked by 2 other people is a freaking retard.
What??????

Seriously, where on earth do you get this idea from? Who on earth have you been fencing against that they hit >50% of the time?

Even at a minor club level, you miss more often than you hit (and that's across all styles: sabre, foil, epee - even cane fighting), and the % of times you hit goes down as the standard of tournament increases.

I'm just flattened by your claim - I'm seriously struggling to see how anyone with any experience at sword work could possibly see that as plausible.

BLOCKING is exagerrated in games, as that hardly ever happens in real swordwork - mainly because it's just too inefficient compared to dodging and hitting your opponent with a timed hit, but also because anyone with a decent amount of experience will anticipate the block and use it to set up their next attack. Personally, my 'standard' opening when fencing with sabre or epee is the old-fashioned tap to the outside of the blade (in a 3 block position) and thrust/cut over, or tap outside then tap inside (in a 4 block position) then rotate the hand over for a swipe at their head/mask. That's a VERY old and VERY standard combination that you'll see in every sword style in the world. Anyone who reacts to the taps with even a half-hearted block will struggle. Even in the large 2-handed sword styles (like your Japanese styles), which traditionally emphasise that overhead block, these days it's all about timed-hitting, with those traditional blocking positions only being used in tournaments insofar as they provide part of the 'arming' position for the next blow - i.e. rather than being the standard defensive response (which is just taking a step back or to the side, so you're out of range), they're used when you manage to anticipate the opponent's attack and clear it as part of the swing for your own attack.

And who on earth just stands toe to toe and lets their opponent wail on them, hitting them every time? Every bout I've ever fought has had me and the opponent a good double sword-length away from each other. Most swings are feints or misses as you're both moving in and out of range - you're not just standing there swinging at each other like fixed objects. Would be a pretty short sword fight if the blades were sharpened, too.

I'm actually curious - what on earth were you basing that 'you never miss in sword fighting' on? It sounds more like something you'd take from godawful Hollywood films than real sabre-work.
 

Zaik

New member
Jul 20, 2009
2,077
0
0
Kaanyr Vhok said:
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 true, that is the entire point of the "Attack" stat in the game.

a "miss" is more like a glancing blow than an actual miss.

To be fair a dodge is an acceptable means of not hitting something, but flat out swinging the wrong direction like a retard really doesn't make sense, neither does an animation directly passing through a target and just making a "swoosh" noise.
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
Azrael the Cat said:
McNinja said:
I nearly broke my controller because I "missed" a f**king huge Dragon in DA: O. I hate the "miss" calculations because the animation doesn't "miss," but the game does. And in real life, you NEVER miss your target with a sword, unless they parry/dodge/block the strike.

Any swordsman who completely misses their target when it is being attacked by 2 other people is a freaking retard.
What??????

Seriously, where on earth do you get this idea from? Who on earth have you been fencing against that they hit >50% of the time?

Even at a minor club level, you miss more often than you hit (and that's across all styles: sabre, foil, epee - even cane fighting), and the % of times you hit goes down as the standard of tournament increases.

I'm just flattened by your claim - I'm seriously struggling to see how anyone with any experience at sword work could possibly see that as plausible.

BLOCKING is exagerrated in games, as that hardly ever happens in real swordwork - mainly because it's just too inefficient compared to dodging and hitting your opponent with a timed hit, but also because anyone with a decent amount of experience will anticipate the block and use it to set up their next attack. Personally, my 'standard' opening when fencing with sabre or epee is the old-fashioned tap to the outside of the blade (in a 3 block position) and thrust/cut over, or tap outside then tap inside (in a 4 block position) then rotate the hand over for a swipe at their head/mask. That's a VERY old and VERY standard combination that you'll see in every sword style in the world. Anyone who reacts to the taps with even a half-hearted block will struggle. Even in the large 2-handed sword styles (like your Japanese styles), which traditionally emphasise that overhead block, these days it's all about timed-hitting, with those traditional blocking positions only being used in tournaments insofar as they provide part of the 'arming' position for the next blow - i.e. rather than being the standard defensive response (which is just taking a step back or to the side, so you're out of range), they're used when you manage to anticipate the opponent's attack and clear it as part of the swing for your own attack.

And who on earth just stands toe to toe and lets their opponent wail on them, hitting them every time? Every bout I've ever fought has had me and the opponent a good double sword-length away from each other. Most swings are feints or misses as you're both moving in and out of range - you're not just standing there swinging at each other like fixed objects. Would be a pretty short sword fight if the blades were sharpened, too.

I'm actually curious - what on earth were you basing that 'you never miss in sword fighting' on? It sounds more like something you'd take from godawful Hollywood films than real sabre-work.
I'm not talking fencing. I'm talking in real sword combat in war. Like Romans v. Goths war, or actually any war involving melee weapons.. In war two sides charged at each other, and it usually devolved into one on one encounters, where you had no room for error and missing your opponent usually meant your death. If a Spartan was fighting someone in close combat and he just flat out swung in the wrong direction, he might kill himself out of shame. There's a huge difference between missing because you're too far away or you swing in the wrong direction and missing because your opponent dodged or blocked. One makes you look like a retard, the other is a legitimate excuse. When you're in someones face trying to stab them to death, and they're in your face trying to do the same, misses don't happen. blocks and dodges do. How often do you think the Spartans missed their enemies in battle? Never.

That's what I'm trying to say. In DA: O, your character would run up to somebody, stand not more than 2 feet away from them, and swing. You had a chance of "missing" even though there was no animation depicting such. It was even more infuriating when your target was also being hit by other people, whether an archer or rogue or mage or w/e, because they shouldn't be able to dodge, and a guy who has trained with weapons all his life shouldn't be able to miss a guy being attacked by three other people while his back is turned, from two feet away no less. And it was even worse when fighting a massive dragon that took up half of the screen. "Missing" it would indicate you just swung your sword in the completely wrong direction, and missed the huge dragon not one foot in front of you. It's just stupid.

I see what you're saying, but i odn't think you understood what I was saying.
 

SageRuffin

M-f-ing Jedi Master
Dec 19, 2009
2,005
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
McNinja said:
I nearly broke my controller because I "missed" a f**king huge Dragon in DA: O. I hate the "miss" calculations because the animation doesn't "miss," but the game does. And in real life, you NEVER miss your target with a sword, unless they parry/dodge/block the strike.
Definitely one of the things I love about the so-called action "RPGs" as opposed to the point-and-clickers.
Seconded. I make no exaggeration when I say the combat in DA:O put me to sleep more times than I'd like to remember.

Also, this just made being hit with an enemy's Misdirection Hex that much more annoying (doubly so if you were a warrior... goddamn).
 

Azrael the Cat

New member
Dec 13, 2008
370
0
0
McNinja said:
Azrael the Cat said:
McNinja said:
I nearly broke my controller because I "missed" a f**king huge Dragon in DA: O. I hate the "miss" calculations because the animation doesn't "miss," but the game does. And in real life, you NEVER miss your target with a sword, unless they parry/dodge/block the strike.

Any swordsman who completely misses their target when it is being attacked by 2 other people is a freaking retard.
What??????

Seriously, where on earth do you get this idea from? Who on earth have you been fencing against that they hit >50% of the time?

Even at a minor club level, you miss more often than you hit (and that's across all styles: sabre, foil, epee - even cane fighting), and the % of times you hit goes down as the standard of tournament increases.

I'm just flattened by your claim - I'm seriously struggling to see how anyone with any experience at sword work could possibly see that as plausible.

BLOCKING is exagerrated in games, as that hardly ever happens in real swordwork - mainly because it's just too inefficient compared to dodging and hitting your opponent with a timed hit, but also because anyone with a decent amount of experience will anticipate the block and use it to set up their next attack. Personally, my 'standard' opening when fencing with sabre or epee is the old-fashioned tap to the outside of the blade (in a 3 block position) and thrust/cut over, or tap outside then tap inside (in a 4 block position) then rotate the hand over for a swipe at their head/mask. That's a VERY old and VERY standard combination that you'll see in every sword style in the world. Anyone who reacts to the taps with even a half-hearted block will struggle. Even in the large 2-handed sword styles (like your Japanese styles), which traditionally emphasise that overhead block, these days it's all about timed-hitting, with those traditional blocking positions only being used in tournaments insofar as they provide part of the 'arming' position for the next blow - i.e. rather than being the standard defensive response (which is just taking a step back or to the side, so you're out of range), they're used when you manage to anticipate the opponent's attack and clear it as part of the swing for your own attack.

And who on earth just stands toe to toe and lets their opponent wail on them, hitting them every time? Every bout I've ever fought has had me and the opponent a good double sword-length away from each other. Most swings are feints or misses as you're both moving in and out of range - you're not just standing there swinging at each other like fixed objects. Would be a pretty short sword fight if the blades were sharpened, too.

I'm actually curious - what on earth were you basing that 'you never miss in sword fighting' on? It sounds more like something you'd take from godawful Hollywood films than real sabre-work.
I'm not talking fencing. I'm talking in real sword combat in war. Like Romans v. Goths war, or actually any war involving melee weapons.. In war two sides charged at each other, and it usually devolved into one on one encounters, where you had no room for error and missing your opponent usually meant your death. If a Spartan was fighting someone in close combat and he just flat out swung in the wrong direction, he might kill himself out of shame. There's a huge difference between missing because you're too far away or you swing in the wrong direction and missing because your opponent dodged or blocked. One makes you look like a retard, the other is a legitimate excuse. When you're in someones face trying to stab them to death, and they're in your face trying to do the same, misses don't happen. blocks and dodges do. How often do you think the Spartans missed their enemies in battle? Never.

That's what I'm trying to say. In DA: O, your character would run up to somebody, stand not more than 2 feet away from them, and swing. You had a chance of "missing" even though there was no animation depicting such. It was even more infuriating when your target was also being hit by other people, whether an archer or rogue or mage or w/e, because they shouldn't be able to dodge, and a guy who has trained with weapons all his life shouldn't be able to miss a guy being attacked by three other people while his back is turned, from two feet away no less. And it was even worse when fighting a massive dragon that took up half of the screen. "Missing" it would indicate you just swung your sword in the completely wrong direction, and missed the huge dragon not one foot in front of you. It's just stupid.

I see what you're saying, but i odn't think you understood what I was saying.
And your extensive experience of sword warfare comes from where?

Other than your imagination, that is.

Do you seriously think that when your life is at risk (even putting aside that in reality, one swipe/stab is going to kill you (medical attention being a fair way off, and infection being a serious risk), you're going to be so suicidal as to not dodge or control your range? We're talking about trained, professional fighters - fencing is as close a comparison as you can get. If the formation is so broken that you've got guys facing 3-4 opponents, the battle is well and truly over - isn't exactly representative of sword-fighting.

If you want to make the Greek comparison, let's base it on what the Spartans actually did for tactics, rather than what you made up after watching 300. Firstly, Spartans used spears as their preferred military weapon, not swords (good one-on-one or small-group weapons aren't the same as good military formation weapons). Secondly, they used a series of lines, which were subdivided into pairs of soldiers. The pairs would consist of an older soldier and his ward, who he was responsible for training - the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Sparta and their views on women (at the time, 'romantic love' was thought to apply only between men, with heterosexual relations only there to increase the Spartan population) meant that these soldier/ward pairings were often also lovers, making them very strongly bound. Their war tactics leveraged that emotional bond, as the ward was responsible for 'covering' the soldier. Basically, their attack pattern was to thrust, then parry diagonally down. They'd stagger it so that whenever one soldier was thrusting, the ward to the right would be clearing the weapon aimed at that soldier (i.e. instead of parrying weapons aimed at themselves, they'd be parrying to protect the guy to the left of them). Similarly, the ward would be protected from the soldier to the right of him, who would be clearing diagonally down at the same time that the ward was thrusting.

You can see that the whole tactic is arranged around defence - with the wards responsible for protecting the soldiers that they are most strongly emotionally bound to, and the more experienced soldiers responsible for protecting whichever ward was to their left.

Now I'm not sure what you've got in your head, but that kind of standard military tactic for the time was always going to lead to (1) many many more blocks than successful hits, and (2) an absence of scenarios where one guy is fighting 3.

I don't know where you've got this idea of trained soldiers charging into each other like some bad action flick. Military formations are designed to prevent that, and have been for as long as organised warfare have existed. Why do you think battles could last all day, when there's only a few hundred participants? Given that one decent thrust is fatal (armour during that period was far inferior to the weaponry), don't you think they'd all run out of soldiers pretty quickly if they hadn't developed tactics to stop that?

So: if you're taking your queues from small-group combat, you're going to get a lot of dodging in and out of range, because getting cut will kill you and it's amazing how people don't like that happening to them. If you're taking your notions from military combat - like the Spartans - then you're going to get WAY less hits than misses.

Are you sure you didn't get your idea from a movie?
 

xqtr

New member
Mar 8, 2011
11
0
0
You people seem to not understand certain significant fact: RPGs ARE NOT ACTION GAMES. Combat in RPGs is abstracted. The fact that the game tells you that you have missed means that opponent dodged or parried. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE ANIMATION DOESN'T SHOW THAT. It's only an abstraction, not a faithful and realistic representation of a combat. Years ago, when RPGs where 2D in isometric view nobody cared, because animation was very simple. Now, in 3D era people complain, because they think that animation is a faithful representation of everything that happens during combat.
 

Saviordd1

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,455
0
0
McNinja said:
I nearly broke my controller because I "missed" a f**king huge Dragon in DA: O. I hate the "miss" calculations because the animation doesn't "miss," but the game does. And in real life, you NEVER miss your target with a sword, unless they parry/dodge/block the strike.

Any swordsman who completely misses their target when it is being attacked by 2 other people is a freaking retard.
This, 100 times this
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
I don't what the problem is. It all comes down to DPS in the end, and I see little functional difference between doing effectively no damage and actually doing no damage.

Kaanyr Vhok said:
Bloody hell, are you on this website just to rage about Dragon Age 2? I mean there's nothing wrong with your opinion since you're willing to explain it and back it up, but how many times do you need to complain about it?

Anway, earlier you said it would be better to have a system with low hp but attacks being less likely to connect. However, that would mean that the player gets screwed over whenever bad luck strikes, as enemies would be able to take down the party very rapidly. Of course, you could make it very unlikely for this to happen, but the player has to fight through dozens of enounters, one after another, meaning they would eventually get wiped out in this manner. The player would then have to remember to save before each fight, in case it is one where they prove unlucky.

Basically the greater the reward for extremely good luck, the more you weigh the odds against the player in the average encounter.
 

Kaanyr Vhok

New member
Mar 8, 2011
209
0
0
poiumty said:
@OP: Jesus Christ. I thought the glancing blow mechanic was completely acceptable, what the hell is wrong with it? And you, for that matter. You come to this forum intending to teach the game designers how to make a good game with a pointless attitude that honestly reeks of jealousy. Being overly critical of developers doesn't make you a better dev yourself, you know.

Using a fucking cinematic from a game to explain how a combat system should be made, are you a troll? This is an RPG, not a button-masher, and definitely not a "realistic" game. But even despite that it manages to be more realistic JUST BY THIS MECHANIC. Oh wow, nobody actually misses an attack in Dragon Age 2, even though pretty much everything in the game is supposed to be experienced fighters and creatures that aren't exactly passive. How do you even dodge a hand that instantly comes out of the ground, anyway? There's some pretty serious problems with your rationale here.
I'm not criticizing developers. I'm criticizing their design and vision. Its nothing personal. Bioware and EA would love for everyone to have spent as much money as I have on their products or have promoted their products as I have.

I see nothing wrong with using a cinematic in relation to a game that attempts to be cinematic and clearly by removing the attack roll, friendly fire, party members, population iun cities its obvious they care more for style over substance. They should at least get the style right. If you still cant understand what the difference from a glancing blow and a miss I dont know what to say. I think DrBojangles says it well enough.

DrBojangles said:
Not sure what to make of this thread. People are actually saying always hitting is realistic?

No it isn't. Watch videos of swordfighting sometime, most of it is parrying/blocking/dodging. That's what the hit% is supposed to represent. If all swings connected there would never be more than 1 swing in an entire swordfight. :p

Having hit% also makes for logical special attacks with actual tradeoffs. Wanna do more damage? Blow is easier for the enemy to avoid. More realistic. More fun. Adds more variability to combat and makes you think about tradeoffs. Prevents the game from becoming an HP bar slog where you always just use your most powerful attacks.

I think what most of you are complaining about, if you stop to think, is that most of the recent games with hit% stats don't actually animate misses. The game just says 'miss', instead of the enemy actually blocking or dodging or parrying. And I agree that could be improved. But that's purely a cosmetic failing and not a reason to ditch hit%.
 

Kaanyr Vhok

New member
Mar 8, 2011
209
0
0
Kheapathic said:
Anyone notice that this guy (the OP) complains a lot? Especially loves mentioning realism and what things should be. You're very entitled to your opinion but you don't need to broadcast it.
Its not just realims. Realims by itself is pretty much nothing in a videogame. It doesnt matter at all. However in context in can make a game look silly or give false expectations.

Azrael the Cat is 100% correct. I trained for a week as a fencer and for years as a boxer. Accuracy is a skill, the ability to make someone miss is a skill, the ability to counter after someone misses is a skill. The ability to roll with a punch that lands is a skill. What Bioware is doing is unifying these skills just to remove the eyesore of a miss that actually lands and to keep with the ridiculous EA slogan about something awesome happening at every button press. Then people get mad when I say the game is dumbed down. Once more they failed. If you land a blow that doesn't look like a glancing blow but it still does ass damage its not much better than the misses in Morrowind.
 

adrian_exec

New member
Apr 5, 2009
155
0
0
Hmm well I played a mage and yes I never missed! But if Dragon Age 2 follows the same rules as Origins then staff attacks should never miss but also never inflict critical hits.

So I really don't know what to make of it, since I honestly don't remember every missing as a mage. I guess only warrior or rogue players could give a straight answer to this question.
 

Zaik

New member
Jul 20, 2009
2,077
0
0
Kaanyr Vhok said:
Zechnophobe said:
Basically instead of 'missing' you simply deal a very VERY small amount of damage. It might as well be zero for what it is.

You can turn the damage numbers on in the game, and you will see like, for example, 40 or 50... and then 1 and 2, and then 40 again. Those 1 and 2's are misses. They do not count for effects which require a 'hit' either. For example, rogues can get an ability that causes their crit chance to increase with more hits in a short period, but a miss will not increase this value.
Ok I see.

I'm still surprised that it took the rpgcodex to pick up on this.

This is just bad game design. If you want an action RPG where every attack that makes contact causes damage thats either real or resisted in some way then thats ok, but you have to do two things to make is more than a simple button masher. You have to have the enemy avoid, dodge, slip and move like the ninjas in Ninja Gaiden. Not that effective but effective enough to make you miss. Also the attack speed and accuracy for melee or a targeting reticle in a shooter should improve with your character.


Rayne870 said:
Also people complaining about hitting/missing in games should really be forced to play a Combat Rogue in WoW and raid with it. Like really the boss I'm attacking is MASSIVE and I miss?
chris11246 said:
So what your saying is that you don't miss the giant dragon you just deal very low damage, which is just like missing only not as unrealistic. I see no problem.
The Wykydtron said:
I always hated the miss mechanic in any game it was in. it's like the game is saying "What you think you can hit a huge Dragon at point blank range? LOL think again *****"

It was the reason i stopped playing Morrowind after 3 hours
Just because something is large doesn't mean it is easy to hit. I've dogged a few mosquitoes in my life lol. There is also a reach and attack advantage that makes an Ogre or Dragon difficult to hit. The fear of a deadly counter forces you to shorten shots. Thats not to underestimate the quickness or speed of an muscular Ogre or Dragon. Yes being able to land at will against a large creature just because its large is highly unrealistic and when they make up for it with bloated hp its not very fun IMO and even less realistic.
Maybe if it's facing you. If you're over behind its' back feet that isn't really an issue.
 

Kaanyr Vhok

New member
Mar 8, 2011
209
0
0
Kheapathic said:
I'm a 3rd Dan in Kendo, do you want a cookie? Do you really think the battle in Dragon Age: Origins allowed for all that stuff you started out with? Was DA:O so much more complex then DA2?

DA:O kinda did and kinda didn't. Your hit roll in DA:O was not unified with your weapon's damage. I'm not sure about dodge and armor. I believe you can still dodge in DA 2 but I have never seen the enemy dodge. Still in DA:O it didn't matter because it was overly balanced in areas where it didn't need to be and not balanced in areas where it should be. What I'm saying is that your weapons scaled with your attack roll so they were always close enough to unify without much of a change.

I didnt like DA:O and was hoping Bioware would make the combat more complex and less of battle of hp attrition/potion swigging. I wanted them to take out the scaling and reduce the hp gain with less leveling (removing filler) so it would be possible to score a weapon that changes the game for at least a few hours.

It wasn't, it's damn near the same with a few small tweaks. If you feel your personal needs aren't being accommodated then write Bioware explaining your dislike of their product. Coming here and preaching your dislike for something is pointless, instead of being regressive (like you say the game designs are) be progressive. I've been boycotting Capcom since Resident Evil 5 and every time they release a game; I write an email to them explaining why I'm not buying their product. That's a lot more influential then coming here and arguing about my personal taste not being catered to.
Bioware is too out of touch and they have too many fans that will justify anything they do. If you can justify a stat based RPG that doesn't have an attack roll or the removal of friendly fire because as Gaider put it, people are too dumb to adjust a toggle you can justify anything. I posted one thread requesting DLC that would actually fix the game by removing the scaling. Aww here is the post..http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/548826

So what did I get? DA 2 with two waves of filler combat, level scaling, and a bunch of party members dancing at the campfire.. oh and they removed friendly fire.

Now contrast that to Bethesda. I go make a thread about level scaling and it gets locked because there are constant threads bashing level scaling. What people hardcore gamers I call discriminant and discerning gamers; they took back Bethesda and there wasn't a bunch of fan boys arguing so I cant say it was just them. Bethesda listened and reduced the level scaling. Not as much as I would like but enough to make it more dangerous. Bioware and EA wont listen to anything but sells luckily I can say that based on second week sells and the lack of a holiday boost DA 2 will sell less than Origins and far less than whatever expectations they had in looking broaden the audience.
 

Kaanyr Vhok

New member
Mar 8, 2011
209
0
0
Zaik said:
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.