145 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...

in awakenings there are spirit warriors, who have not magic powers but can make deals with fade spirits. Bioware borke that rule for the sake of gameplay

But you want an entire class, and the ability to RP it. Which means you want the game to recognize it, as opposed to have some weird gameplay abstraction so you get 4 new abilities.

Modifié par In Exile, 29 juillet 2010 - 09:48 .

[Shepard Lives]

filetemo wrote...

that's not my job but bioware's, yet still:

barbarian: avvar or chasind, light armor, two hander, skill tree based on rage , thirst of blood, etc...typical

cleric: disciple of andraste or chantry seeker,hammer and board with healing spells, undead repulsion

monk: qunary teologist or antivan pariah or tevinteran adept, fights unarmed or with staff, spirit powers, skills work like spells who use spirit instead of mana or stamina

templar: mainly two hander, bonus against demons, negates magic, addicted to lyrium, heavy armor, code of behavior strips him of status if broken (kinda asari justicar)

if I came with this in 2 minutes, bioware can make it  a gazillion times better

If you want this, go play D&D. What's the point in completely revolutionizing a gameplay system just to have it match that of more popular franchises?

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...

filetemo wrote...

in awakenings there are spirit warriors, who have not magic powers but can make deals with fade spirits. Bioware borke that rule for the sake of gameplay

But you want an entire class, and the ability to RP it. Which means you want the game to recognize it, as opposed to have some weird gameplay abstraction so you get 4 new abilities.

Bioware broke the magics rule for the spirit warrior, they can do it too for clerics and monks. And I want the game to recognize it, yes, because as you can see since awakening with the spirit warrior and the qunari in DA2, the lore can be made up on the fly for design and gameplay purposes.

If they really wanted to include monks, they will include lore to explain why they have spirit powers. Maybe they charge energy when they dream and use energy from the fade's dreams in real world, whatever.

And for clerics, you could be the chosen of andraste and have divine powers, while the chantry says you are just a very powerful blood mage. Or maybe old gods give you power themselves, again, whatever.

lore is there to be bended and made up on the fly to explain previously unexplined things

[Valente11]

I'm curious as how the OP pretend's to know so much about what a barbarian/templar/necromance would or wouldn't do. The chasind, as in the "barbarians" of Ferelden live just south of Ostagar, very close to lothering, you actually see chasind in Lothering. There are also Templars in Lothering just before the attack so...

To my knowledge, it's never said that Hawke was born, raised and lives in Lothering, just that he was in Lothering during the blight and that he fled (like everyone else.)

Lastly, you're use the of word 'stuck' in regards to your 3 class choices tells me enough about your predisposition to tell me your opinions are likely heavily biased.

Modifié par Valente11, 29 juillet 2010 - 09:59 .

[andar91]

[quote]filetemo wrote...

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]filetemo wrote...

lore is there to be bended and made up on the fly to explain previously unexplined things

[/quote]


Lore is there to flesh out the world in which the story is set in.  I
won't deny that it should be somewhat malleable so that things can
change in future installemtns, but don't expect them to suddenly change
huge facts about the world they've already established unless they have
a VERY good reason for it.  Such sudden alterations make for lots of
deus ex machina and unbelievable stories.

Modifié par andar91, 29 juillet 2010 - 10:01 .

[filetemo]

shepard_lives wrote...



If you want this, go play D&D. What's the point in completely revolutionizing a gameplay system just to have it match that of more popular franchises?

revolutionizing gameplay? who? where?
the point simply is, whatever you are playing, hack n slash, 1st person rpg, jrpgs, three classes is not enough, never has been. bioware themselves stated roguies in dao are warriors in light armor, so thats two classes, melee and mage. Specializations just don't cut it.

What's the point of a rogue? give me a warrior with a dagger

the point is... variety

[Sylvius the Mad]

If BioWare were to make a proper party-based game again where we create an entire party, I think I would prefer they design a ruleset with a large number of classes. Wizardry and Drakensang are both fine examples of this.

[Jimmy Fury]

filetemo wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...



If you want this, go play D&D. What's the point in completely revolutionizing a gameplay system just to have it match that of more popular franchises?

revolutionizing gameplay? who? where?
the point simply is, whatever you are playing, hack n slash, 1st person rpg, jrpgs, three classes is not enough, never has been. bioware themselves stated roguies in dao are warriors in light armor, so thats two classes, melee and mage. Specializations just don't cut it.

What's the point of a rogue? give me a warrior with a dagger

the point is... variety

Rogues focused on technique. Warriors focused on raw force. Mages focused on magic. All three overlapped through different specializations...
Not really an attempt to argue anything since I'm a bit confused on just what it is you want but... yeah. that's the point of the three-class organizational system. Everything else can fit in there through specializations.
Especially since they intend to make specializations better...

[Sneelonz]

You couldn't be a barbarian, necromancer, or shaman in DAO either. And you could never be a "real" templar, if you get what I'm saying.

[Sneelonz]

Those darn double posts.

Modifié par Sneelonz, 29 juillet 2010 - 11:24 .

[filetemo]

Sneelonz wrote...

You couldn't be a barbarian, necromancer, or shaman in DAO either. And you could never be a "real" templar, if you get what I'm saying.

DAO fell short on that aspect and DA2 doesn't fix it either

[DaringMoosejaw]

Eh, specialization system felt fine to me. Shoehorning in D&D classes would seem generic to me.

[filetemo]

tons of melee classes are shoehorned into "warrior" and "rogue".



also, do not bring d&d please, having six classes instead of three is not shoehorning into another system, it's a reasonable minimum

[Jimmy Fury]

filetemo wrote...

Sneelonz wrote...

You couldn't be a barbarian, necromancer, or shaman in DAO either. And you could never be a "real" templar, if you get what I'm saying.

DAO fell short on that aspect and DA2 doesn't fix it either

Why is that a shortcoming? I sincerely don't comprehend what it is you want Bioware to do. Do you want more origin options? More classes? More specializations? more unique abilities? a copy of D&D with a different name?

Because the way I understand the change in the specializations/classes is that classes will have fewer basic abilities and specializations will have more unique abilities.
The overall number of powers in general will be cut back a bit in exchange for great control and customization of powers.
From the GI article: "In Dragon Age II, the team is focusing on adding depth rather than breadth to the feats your character can perform"
There has also been mention (I believe her on the boards... or maybe GI... I don't feel like reskimming the entire article right now) about having more specializations this time around. Given that combination it seems quite possible to have something more along the lines of a necromancer or barbarian because specializations could take existing skill trees in DAO (entropy for example, always struck me as basically being necromancy), remove it from the base abilities of the class and expand on it in a new specialization. Similarly the Reaver abilities could be expanded in a new spec. that also expands 2handed weapons...

[DaringMoosejaw]

filetemo wrote...

tons of melee classes are shoehorned into "warrior" and "rogue".

also, do not bring d&d please, having six classes instead of three is not shoehorning into another system, it's a reasonable minimum

This is just the thing. Most RPGs I know tend to be differentiated by Warrior, Rogue, Mage. All other classes are just a variation. That's just the way it is.

[Anacronian Stryx]

I think that they might as well just abandon all the classes and just let the player chose his/her ability at level-up (with prerequisites of cause) - this would open up the game immensely and make the whole "building" a character more fun i think.



Wanna be a arcane warrior? sure - make sure you have enough Str and Magic ability and then chose your talents to fit, this could make the game more fun in my opinion.

[filetemo]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Why is that a shortcoming? I sincerely don't comprehend what it is you want Bioware to do. Do you want more origin options? More classes? More specializations? more unique abilities? a copy of D&D with a different name?

yes
yes
yes
yes
no

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Given that combination it seems quite possible to have something more along the lines of a necromancer or barbarian because specializations could take existing skill trees in DAO (entropy for example, always struck me as basically being necromancy), remove it from the base abilities of the class and expand on it in a new specialization.

that is a good thing. Now we need barbarian and necromancer unique weapons, armor and robes and we're heading somewhere

[Grommash94]

More classes means more balancing. In DA:O, with 3 classes, the balance was really quite bad. I would like more classes, but BioWare would have to really go all out with trying to get the balance OK-ish (since perfect balance is more or less impossible).

[filetemo]

Grommash94 wrote...

More classes means more balancing. In DA:O, with 3 classes, the balance was really quite bad. I would like more classes, but BioWare would have to really go all out with trying to get the balance OK-ish (since perfect balance is more or less impossible).

the common opinion on these forums seems to be that "it's not needed" rather than "bioware can't balance more than three":?

[Jimmy Fury]

filetemo wrote...
that is a good thing. Now we need barbarian and necromancer unique weapons, armor and robes and we're heading somewhere

but why?
Why would a barbarian use a weapon that no other fighter could use? What sort of weapon would be unique to necromancers?
I've never understood class-specific weapons anyway. classes that are better with weapons sure, but weapons that can only be used by a certain class... doesn't seem very logical to me.
Archers, for example, should be better with bows. They should have more abilities in the archery tree than a barbarian. But barbarians still have fingers and eyes and that's all you need to pulling a string and aim so they should still be able to use them, just not very well...
Which I believe is what the article meant about Rogue's just being warriors with light armor. The archery tree should have been bigger for rogues than for warriors.

[Geth001]

I found the three starters to be pretty refreshing. It let you build your character the way you wanted, instead of picking one very specific build, calling it a class, and sticking with it for the entire game.



As for the origin limits, well, that's the price you pay for having a character who actually fits into the world instead of a faceless cardboard standup for your gigantic backstory that nobody will read.

[filetemo]

barbarians can use amulets made by their shamans, axes made for them as a gift for defeating a big beast or as a maturity passaging rite trophy.



necromancers could use robes of an ancient liche defeated by them or books of spells gave to them by their masters



specific items bring lore, depth and differentiation between classes.



Also we need talking weapons. With snarky personalities.A sloth demon trapped in a warhammer for example. Or a desire demon trapped in magic pants...mmmhh...

[filetemo]

Geth001 wrote...


As for the origin limits, well, that's the price you pay for having a character who actually fits into the world instead of a faceless cardboard standup for your gigantic backstory that nobody will read.

having a barbarian origin in dao would ve opened up for the barbarian class to appear available for hawke in DA2 without further development.Hawke is a chasind who moved to lothering to trade and sell and got caught by the blight for example. And a human commoner origin was cut early, so it's not impossible.

[jjbens]

already forum on this

http://social.biowar...1/index/3176691

[Kritanakom]

filetemo wrote...

mopotter wrote...


But not all of us see this as a "problem".  I would much rather them keep it as story driven rather than class driven.  

more classes could bring class related quests.

We already have class-related quests. A rogue in Denerim can engage in all kinds of sneaky, robbery, assassin-ey quests that no other classes are even offered. Several quests can only be performed by your character if he/she is a mage.

I think it'll be much easier to make class related quests if we stick to the three core classes.