85 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord_Saulot]

Tenkari wrote...

For the record, i think they only had 3 companions in Leliana's son is because they were with marjolene (technically 4th person in the party) but she was always off doing her own thing and making the other three do all the work.

I think it was just that they didn't see the point of designing too many comapanions for a short DLC when the ones included did the job just fine.

[gingerbill]

i think keep it as it was in DAO . 6 is too many i think but i would rather have more than less.

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Yes, it has nothing to do with the fact that the PC has the hardware to handle all the nice, shiny features, y'know, like eight times the RAM of the consoles.

It's a fact that BioWare had to reduce the number of on-screen enemies for the console release.

Don't get pissy over facts.  The PC people aren't even pointing out the Toolset and mods they get to toy with that console gamers do not.

look at mass effect 2 engine evolution compare to one , a vast improvement on console i was very impressed , they have said dragon age engine should be taking a similiar step forward so i doubt having an extra party member will matter. And although the console version of DAO has less enemies its very small diffrence you barely notice. I noticed more NPC's in town on Pc more than i noticed more enemies.

Modifié par gingerbill, 16 juillet 2010 - 03:34 .

[Super_Cat]

I hope it stays at 4. 4 was a good number.



You could have a warrior, a mage, and a rogue, plus a 4th that could be any of the classes.



I liked changing characters over the course of the game so this made it easier to make parties with companions of the same class as your main having that 4th slot.

[TheSeeker2654]

Anything less then 4 would be a major dissapointment if you ask me. Because with the tactics screen and being able to switch between party members, even 4 would be easily managable with a control pad.

[Vandrayke]

Super_Cat wrote...

I hope it stays at 4. 4 was a good number.

You could have a warrior, a mage, and a rogue, plus a 4th that could be any of the classes.

I liked changing characters over the course of the game so this made it easier to make parties with companions of the same class as your main having that 4th slot.

agreed
more than that would introduce too much redundancy imo

[Haexpane]

6 is not redundant when you think of a true class system not just the

warrior/rogue/mage



Since we could have



Defensive tank | DPS Tank |

Rogue-Assassin DPS | Bard-Ranger(support) | thief- archer

Mage - support | mage DPS | mage - healer



etc... It's always bugged me that DAO considers "mages" to be healers.

I prefer

Clerics

Druids

Shaman

Paladin

SHadowknight

Warrior

Rogue

Bard

Wizard

Summoner

Enchanter



classic style.

[Sneelonz]

5 would be great.

[AllThatJazz]

Six was great in BG/IWD - you had your core party, then 2 slots for the classes that you might not usually try (I liked Bard and Paladin). Seems less point in a six-person party in DA. Not as huge a number of classes as in D&D, plus any 'umbrella' class can take any specialisation, so you can get a good variety of skills just with the 4 person party.

Hope they don't reduce it, though. I'm, um, not that great at the combat stuff already!

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 16 juillet 2010 - 06:11 .

[TheSeeker2654]

Haexpane wrote...

6 is not redundant when you think of a true class system not just the
warrior/rogue/mage

Since we could have

Defensive tank | DPS Tank |
Rogue-Assassin DPS | Bard-Ranger(support) | thief- archer
Mage - support | mage DPS | mage - healer

etc... It's always bugged me that DAO considers "mages" to be healers.
I prefer
Clerics
Druids
Shaman
Paladin
SHadowknight
Warrior
Rogue
Bard
Wizard
Summoner
Enchanter

classic style.

Yea I really liked the varied spellcasting classes of BG2. Maybe the specializations in DA2 will do more than just add one single row of spells/abilities to your skill screen this time. So that way there is a bit more delineation between even the different mage specializations. one can hope.

[DarkSpiral]

Haexpane wrote...

6 is not redundant when you think of a true class system not just the
warrior/rogue/mage

Since we could have

Defensive tank | DPS Tank |
Rogue-Assassin DPS | Bard-Ranger(support) | thief- archer
Mage - support | mage DPS | mage - healer

etc... It's always bugged me that DAO considers "mages" to be healers.
I prefer
Clerics
Druids
Shaman
Paladin
SHadowknight
Warrior
Rogue
Bard
Wizard
Summoner
Enchanter

classic style.

That's...great Haex.  Except this isn't the class system of D&D.  Which makes the idea somewhat logically inconsistent.  Dragon Age uses the engine it uses, not the AD&D (and thank all the gods.  I don't care how fondly you remeber BG, I do as well, but I will never be sorry THAC0 is gone) rules and Infinity Engine.  Comparing the two games is every bit as useless as comparing Mass Effect to DA2, at this point.

Or...hm...Star Trek!  Yes.  Comparing the television series to the (new) movie is silly as well.  That's why the beat us over the head with that scene where Spock and Uhura repeatedly mention that this is a PARALLEL UNIVERSE.  And therefore it isn't the same!

[Narreneth]

Those aren't D&D classes. That's a class list from EverQuest which is anything but a classic RPG.

I played it for six years.  I enjoyed it during that time.  But it is not a classic RPG by any stretch.

Modifié par Narreneth, 16 juillet 2010 - 06:36 .