215 réponses à ce sujet

[Rake21]

The only way gun powder weapons make sense in DA2 would be for the Qunari brought a few canons when they invade... and if you spend a side quest destroying the things to weaken their forces and out of a little spite.

[Concealed Daggers]

The devs could make dwarves experiment with lyrium to be a form of gunpowder in DA2. It would be an intresting twist to the plot and add other uses to the addictice substance that lyrium is.

Modifié par Concealed Daggers, 01 septembre 2010 - 04:25 .

[gotthammer]

Concealed Daggers wrote...

The devs could make dwarves experiment with lyrium to be a form of gunpowder in DA2. It would be an intresting twist to the plot and add other uses to the addictice substance that lyrium is.

Yeah. That'd be interesting. It would, if anything, make lyrium more precious/important. 
Dwarves with guns (and selling them for profit). I'd like that. 

Modifié par gotthammer, 01 septembre 2010 - 04:52 .

[addiction21]

gotthammer wrote...

Concealed Daggers wrote...

The devs could make dwarves experiment with lyrium to be a form of gunpowder in DA2. It would be an intresting twist to the plot and add other uses to the addictice substance that lyrium is.

Yeah. That'd be interesting. It would, if anything, make lyrium more precious/important. 
Dwarves with guns (and selling them for profit). I'd like that. 

Especially if they were devolped by the surface dwarfs or castless. Make underground dwellers think twice about their opinion of them.

[gotthammer]

addiction21 wrote...

Especially if they were devolped by the surface dwarfs or castless. Make underground dwellers think twice about their opinion of them.

Hehehe. Yeah. Maybe get some respect from their more 'traditional' brethren, or set themselves up as a 'power' on the surface. 

[Mabjestic]

Faz432 wrote...
Magic and Magically enhanced weaponry and armor, skilled archers who can fire a volley of arrows deadly accurate up to 50m. Makes the development of primitive firearms useless.

So no, no firearms in DA thanks.

It's not necessarily a question whether you have a stronger weapon available. Training a skilled archer takes years of work, not to mention continued practice to maintain a level of skill. This basically comes down to money; skilled bowmen are very expensive to train and maintain, whereas you can give a musket to any peasant and have him using it with enough competence fairly fast. The reduced drain in training probably helps professional soldiers also, as they might develop other skills and become more versatile in the field.

Faz432 wrote...
The Qunari have Cannons and even though they have the technology to use gunpowder they have not developed smaller firearms, this should tell you all you need to know.

The Qunari are born and bred warrioirs, which might lower the appeal of firearms for them, or maybe they've yet to discover the benefits. There might even be some philosophical reasoning, as to not weaken a warrioirs bond with his weapon, or something like that. This might also be something not yet revealed to us. Bottom line though, it'd be nice to know a bit more.

Modifié par Mabjestic, 01 septembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[Behindyounow]

Ryngard wrote...


Guns ruined warfare.

No, that'd be the Swiss and their use of pikes.

Modifié par Behindyounow, 01 septembre 2010 - 07:20 .

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

Mab have a point - even from a gameplay standpoint not every warrior/rogue have spare talent to put in archery. This means that while archers would definitely be better at ranged combat, melee character with guns would not be rendered completely helpless by a table turned sideways

Modifié par Merlin Dawnweaver, 01 septembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[shootist70]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

Guns are not any more modern then plate armor or fire traps.
a Fire trap is essentially a Fougasse, a weapon developed in the 16th century in our world.
Let's also not forget that steel wasn't widely available until the Bessemer process

Not all guns were rifled weapons firing metal cartridges. For some reason, every time guns are mentioned somewhere, people think of assault rifles.

When you look at history for a justification it helps not to lump everything together, but to think about the evolution of technology. As guns appear more frequently in warfare armour starts to change radically before disappearing altogether. Ok, its fantasy, so there's some creattive license here, but you still have to maintain a sense of the believable, and having guys running around with both full plate armour and muskets is going to seem like one big, jarring oxymoron to a lot of people.

I suppose you could fit it in if the only guns are something like the medieval hand cannon - too sporadic and ineffectual to force an evolution of armour, but why even bother?

Modifié par shootist70, 01 septembre 2010 - 09:33 .

[HarryThePlotter]

shootist70 wrote...

When you look at history for a justification it helps not to lump everything together, but to think about the evolution of technology. As guns appear more frequently in warfare armour starts to change radically before disappearing altogether. Ok, its fantasy, so there's some creattive license here, but you still have to maintain a sense of the believable, and having guys running around with both full plate armour and muskets is going to seem like one big, jarring oxymoron to a lot of people.

I suppose you could fit it in if the only guns are something like the medieval hand cannon - too sporadic and ineffectual to force an evolution of armour, but why even bother?

Apparantly the guy never heard of Conquistadors.

[shootist70]

HarryThePlotter wrote...

Apparantly the guy never heard of Conquistadors.

Funnily enough I half expected somebody to try and use them as an example. Take a look at the conquistadors and their armour, the most they tended to wear was a breastplate and helmet, with the breastplate shaped to help deflect musket shot. That's why I said in my previous post 'armour changed radically before disappearing altogether.'

If you want personal firearms in DA2, that's how the armour in game should pretty much look.

Modifié par shootist70, 01 septembre 2010 - 10:48 .

[Faz432]

Right if they brought in firearms then they would only be in the 1st 10 years of development, do you realise how feeble and pathetic the the 1st firearms were? a group of average bowmen would wipe the floor with an equal group of men using firearms and that's within our reality where there was a attainable target of overpowering what already existed (bows, crossbows etc), people almost gave up on developing them as they were so ineffective.

In fact we had to wait till the industrial revolution before we had effective firearms, that's almost 600 years after the 1st ones were invented, so in the DA reality the target of overpowering or even to be on par with what exist is far higher almost insurmountable then the chance of someone sticking with and developing something sooo useless would be slim to none.

We invent out of necessity, in the DA reality firearms would not be developed.

Modifié par Faz432, 01 septembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[Majin Paul]

It depends how they fit the idea of guns into the world, it wouldn't be too far-fetched if done right, I can't see Thedas never developing their technology?

[Behindyounow]

Faz432 wrote...

We invent out of necessity, in the DA reality firearms would not be developed.

Why would they not? Because an extremely small part of the population can use magic? I think the armies of Thedas would rather have 100 men with guns than 5 mages and 95 swordsmen or archers.

[shootist70]

EDIT: Deleted. nmd - stopped caring

Modifié par shootist70, 01 septembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[Mabjestic]

shootist70 wrote...

As guns appear more frequently in warfare armour starts to change radically before disappearing altogether. Ok, its fantasy, so there's some creattive license here, but you still have to maintain a sense of the believable, and having guys running around with both full plate armour and muskets is going to seem like one big, jarring oxymoron to a lot of people.

If the evolution in warfare can be portrayed believably in the Dragon Age world as times rolls by, it would be pretty damn impressive in my book atleast. Changes would not be immediate however, but slow and sporadical. Just because they have the technology to make firearms doesn't mean you lose the need for swords overnight - or in ten years.

Besides, there are a ton of factors not present in the real world that will affect the evolution of warfare in different directions, like metals such as silverite, the existance of magic and lyrium or even stuff like politics and religion. If silverite plate can withstand the shot from a musket or the shrapnel from cannonfire, I'd say troops equipped with such armour would be pretty valuable on the battlefield.

In real world terms, a few cannons could decimate any force that enters the battle with just archers to give them support, but add a few unknowns and the result might be totally different.

Modifié par Mabjestic, 01 septembre 2010 - 12:09 .

[shootist70]

Mabjestic wrote...

If the evolution in warfare can be portrayed believably in the Dragon Age world as times rolls by, it would be pretty damn impressive in my book atleast. Changes would not be immediate however, but slow and sporadical. Just because they have the technology to make firearms doesn't mean you lose the need for swords overnight - or in ten years.

Like I said, it's not about representing something authentically, it's about maintaining fluent suspension of disbelief. If having guns and medieval armour automatically necessitates a load of 'well...it could happen' type of arguments - which is exactly what this thread, and your post, are doing - then it quite obviously erodes SoD.

[Mabjestic]

shootist70 wrote...

Like I said, it's not about representing something authentically, it's about maintaining fluent suspension of disbelief. If having guns and medieval armour automatically necessitates a load of 'well...it could happen' type of arguments - which is exactly what this thread, and your post, are doing - then it quite obviously erodes SoD.

What I feel this thread is doing, is playing with the thought of how warfare could evolve in Dragon Age. The next game is likely to feature cannons to some degree, and takes place over the course of ten years, that gives ample ground for discussions such as these.

As for keeping the suspension of disbelief, I refer to the second part of my previous message. The world of Dragon Age has resources not available in the real world, and this should be easy enough to relate to the player in the narrative. Now if the thought of plate armor and firearms immediately makes you facepalm yourself, I can see that you might have a problem here, but if the changes are logical and explained in a believable fashion, they should be easy enough to accept.

Also as I said, I don't think anyone is hoping that firearms suddendly and magically become widely used throughout Thedas overnight or even over the course of the game. They might be introduced to the world relatively smoothly however, and continue to be a factor in the future course of history.

Modifié par Mabjestic, 01 septembre 2010 - 01:06 .

[shootist70]

Mabjestic wrote...

What I feel this thread is doing, is playing with the thought of how warfare could evolve in Dragon Age. The next game is likely to feature cannons to some degree, and takes place over the course of ten years, that gives ample ground for discussions such as these.

Sure, and as I said earlier, that's fine if you're also prepared to evolve all armour correspondingly to something similar to English civil war soldiers. Otherwise we're back to that whole suspension of disbelief thing again.

Yeah, it's fantasy, people are throwing fireballs around and whatever, but if you start sticking something in that jars with most people's ideas of medieval based fantasy worlds, like guns tend to do, then really you should be consistent and change the setting of the game to suit. I'm sure most DA fans don't want that.

[Mabjestic]

Perhaps I'm softened up by games like Arcanum, but I really don't have much trouble with a musketeer in heavy plate, especially as having the lore back that up seems pretty simple.

I hope we will see some form of technological development, as a world in a constant standstill rubs me the wrong way more, than discrepancies between our history and that of the world of Dragon Age, especially as times of war are often also times of technological advancement.

Modifié par Mabjestic, 01 septembre 2010 - 01:25 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

The OP has clearly not heard of Bethany's cannons yet.

[nhsk]

Capt. Obvious wrote...

Ryngard wrote...

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

Something always strike me as odd, The same people who don't want guns in fantasy games never seem to mind plate armor size of small automobiles. It's pretty common knowledge those things weren't medieval.

Oh by the way - Greatswords, or Zweihänders, were 16 century weapons designed to defeat pikemen.

Odd that these things are okay in fantasy while firearms are not.

Because guns don't fit the feel. Guns ruined warfare. Guns suck. Guns make the setting feel more modern, when we want more of a past feel. Guns = bad.

Oh and two handed swords appeared much earlier. The Indians had the Khanda in 300 CE and some Japanese 2h versions of the katana were seen in the 12th century.  Just saying, the precedent isn't that far off.

Guns were used in the Middle Ages. Guns have technically been here for more than 800 years. There is a past feel to them. They weren't always used. They were only used in the right sort of situations. They could only fire one bullet. Plus, most looked like sticks back then. They were nothing like the ones we have now. They are nothing like the ones we see in Arcanum(spelling?). The Ottomans couldn't always use gunpowder to their advantage. It was a matter of when and how to use. Again, it required skillful planning; it didn't just f@ck up warfare(on the contrary). Also, about the technology of Thedas: it doesn't have to be stuck. I mean, there's a codex somewhere in the game that said that Orlais was going through some "renaissaince". It really depends what you mean by "modern".

It's not like we're suddenly going to start seeing people pull rifles out of their asses. Close-ranged weapons will still be there.

The word renaissance means "enlightenment" or "rebirth", a time of renewing spiritual, cultural and learning ideas into something more modern, it doesn't mean going into the "gun era". F.example you could argue that when the Romans conquered ancient Greece and took their culture for their own, that the Roman Empire underwent a renaissance.

Just saying.

Modifié par nhsk, 01 septembre 2010 - 02:02 .

[Maconbar]

I seem to remember that we saw some technological development in bomb-making in Awakenings. Widespread adoption of guns in DA:2 would be jarring to me because its covering a 10-year period.

[Big_Stupid_Jelly]

I suppose bringing early firearms into Dragonage, if done right, could be ok, BUT... the early firearms weren't exactly acurate, long ranged, or quick to reload. Look at the Matchlock musket of the English Civil war era, where you had to light the weapon using a long peice of rope, or the later rifled muskets of the Napoleonic wars, maximum firing rates were about 3 shots per minute; thats once per 20seconds, and that was by seasoned soldiers.



Also as someone said earlier, as weapons change, so does armour; its a form of evolution on both sides. Armour changes weapons, which change armour etc...

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

I really don't mind if they introduce bad guns - they present another possibly fun option.

If I want an effective character, I'd go with 200DPS rogues, LOL.