1380 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The bigger question is, why are you assuming Warriors are all wearing heavy armour?

Mhmm, that's a good point. My dual-wielding warrior was running around in splintmail/dwarven medium mail through whole game.

[eucatastrophe]

distinguetraces wrote...

They made the right choice--warriors and rogues shared far too many of the same skills.

Agreed.
I love especially love Warriors but I thought they were too much like rogues 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

Do Mages still get a cheap ranged attack, or do they now need to equip bows for that?

[Heavenblade]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Incidentally, this just makes it even more likely that I won't use any Warriors. I don't like big guys in heavy armour. Heavy armour is impractical outside of massed combat.

Whereas magic is ALWAYS practical. Hopefully they show us what they've done with the mage soon...

[Maverick827]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Right, so flashy, absurd animations > gameplay, apparently?

How about we just get rid of classes instead. Then you can just make the abilities feel different and not have to worry about making classes different (classes being an antiquated and not particularly realistic concept anyway.)

Honestly, this is yet another signpost along the "Bioware does not want you to buy this game" trail for me.

Did you just set up a straw man with your own concocted slippery slope for which you presented evidence all in one post?

Impressive.

[Mecha Tengu]

a warrior does not automatically mean heavy plated knight.



A warrior is a straight up melee fighter, in contrast to a rogue who is a backstabbing pus sy



most MMOS and other RPGS allow you to choose between sword + shield defense oriented warrior, 2 handed hard hitting warrior, or lightly armoured dual wielding beserker

[Heavenblade]

Maverick827 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Right, so flashy, absurd animations > gameplay, apparently?

How about we just get rid of classes instead. Then you can just make the abilities feel different and not have to worry about making classes different (classes being an antiquated and not particularly realistic concept anyway.)

Honestly, this is yet another signpost along the "Bioware does not want you to buy this game" trail for me.

Did you just set up a straw man with your own concocted slippery slope for which you presented evidence all in one post?

Impressive.

People on forums are amazing. Except for me. I'm terrible.

[Jarek_Cousland]

Ada Wong wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Ada Wong wrote...

And no battlefield soldier is gonna fight with daggers.

Our characters aren't rank-and-file battlefield soldiers.  They're skirmishers at best.

Though I think one of the original features of DA (back when it was announced) was to have characters participate in large-scale combat.

You kinda proved my point. Frontline soldiers and skirmishers are very different troops. What is a "skirmisher" likely to use in battle? Not plate armor and dual-wielded long swords, that's for sure. They would be rogue-like, possibly using bows, spears (for throwing), slings, etc. Light armor is essential to aid mobility and melee weapons should be small - short swords at most.

If you want to fight in heavy armor then sword/shield or 2-hander is the way to go, better protection or damage, but not both. Same with a DW rogue. Light/medium armor in exchange for greater speed and the ability to wield 2 weapons. I think the trade-off is worth it.

Hey dood. check it out, its ada wong :happy:


Honestly if Rogues can do flips and spins and what not, I'm totally gonna say "screw the first playthrough warrior! I can haz flipzz >:o"

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maverick827 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Right, so flashy, absurd animations > gameplay, apparently?

How about we just get rid of classes instead. Then you can just make the abilities feel different and not have to worry about making classes different (classes being an antiquated and not particularly realistic concept anyway.)

Honestly, this is yet another signpost along the "Bioware does not want you to buy this game" trail for me.

Did you just set up a straw man with your own concocted slippery slope for which you presented evidence all in one post?

Impressive.

No, Vael has a good point.  Mike just explicitly said that they chose flashy animations over gameplay considerations.

At least they're being open about how they don't care about gameplay as much as they care about how the goame looks.

But how the game looks literally does not matter to a lot of us.

[boohead]

warrior might have his own unique style which makes the rogues flips and spins look like stupid fairy crap



Thats the beauty of this unique class element decision.

[Jarek_Cousland]

cool story bro.

[Mister_Shepard]

Good stuff.. played both DW Dalish Warrior and DW City Elf Rogue on my past playthroughs and i'd choose DW rogue over my DW warrior any day. I don't see why they have to remove it though. Probably a waste of space?

[StonerMkII]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Right, so flashy, absurd animations > gameplay, apparently?

How about we just get rid of classes instead. Then you can just make the abilities feel different and not have to worry about making classes different (classes being an antiquated and not particularly realistic concept anyway.)

Honestly, this is yet another signpost along the "Bioware does not want you to buy this game" trail for me.

Did you just set up a straw man with your own concocted slippery slope for which you presented evidence all in one post?

Impressive.

No, Vael has a good point.  Mike just explicitly said that they chose flashy animations over gameplay considerations.

At least they're being open about how they don't care about gameplay as much as they care about how the goame looks.

But how the game looks literally does not matter to a lot of us.

Exactly, i almost always choose gameplay > graphics and flashy crap. Which is the reason i still play NWN1 over  complete garbage that is NWN2.

[boohead]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Right, so flashy, absurd animations > gameplay, apparently?

How about we just get rid of classes instead. Then you can just make the abilities feel different and not have to worry about making classes different (classes being an antiquated and not particularly realistic concept anyway.)

Honestly, this is yet another signpost along the "Bioware does not want you to buy this game" trail for me.

Did you just set up a straw man with your own concocted slippery slope for which you presented evidence all in one post?

Impressive.

No, Vael has a good point.  Mike just explicitly said that they chose flashy animations over gameplay considerations.

At least they're being open about how they don't care about gameplay as much as they care about how the goame looks.

But how the game looks literally does not matter to a lot of us.

This is ignorant, you do realize those "animations" are completely changing the melee playstyle?  No more awkwardly and slowly walking to the enemy and waiting for your character to turn the proper angle and then finally swing.  Those flashy "flips" are part of the gameplay elements, not just for looks.


it's a welcome change, the worst part of DAO was the unresponsive and slugish combat system.

[atheelogos]

distinguetraces wrote...

They made the right choice--warriors and rogues shared far too many of the same skills.

agreed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ada Wong wrote...

If you want to fight in heavy armor then sword/shield or 2-hander is the way to go, better protection or damage, but not both. Same with a DW rogue. Light/medium armor in exchange for greater speed and the ability to wield 2 weapons. I think the trade-off is worth it.

Right, but if you want to fight in light armour with two weapons, wouldn't you expect the pure combat class to be better at that?

I think the solution to this problem should have been to create high-defense fast-mobility single-weapon talents for Rogues and leave DW available for everyone.  Make the flashy jumping around talents single-weapon talents.

atheelogos wrote...

distinguetraces wrote...

They made the right choice--warriors and rogues shared far too many of the same skills.

agreed.

There were other ways they could have done that.  See my suggestion above.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:11 .

[boohead]

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

cool story bro.

no problem sister

[Jarek_Cousland]

This is ignorant, you do realize those "animations" are completely changing the melee playstyle?
 No more awkwardly and slowly walking to the enemy and waiting for your
character to turn the proper angle and then finally swing.  Those
flashy "flips" are part of the gameplay elements, not just for looks.


it's a welcome change, the worst part of DAO was the unresponsive and slugish combat system.

Dont you realize people like Sylvius and the one after him would rather stay rooted in the past rather then move foreward and god-forbid TRY SOMETHING NEW!?!?!

I was in a decent mood today.

Then I got on the internet...

[tmp7704]

Ada Wong wrote...

You kinda proved my point. Frontline soldiers and skirmishers are very different troops. What is a "skirmisher" likely to use in battle? Not plate armor and dual-wielded long swords, that's for sure. They would be rogue-like, possibly using bows, spears (for throwing), slings, etc. Light armor is essential to aid mobility and melee weapons should be small - short swords at most.

If you want to fight in heavy armor then sword/shield or 2-hander is the way to go, better protection or damage, but not both. Same with a DW rogue. Light/medium armor in exchange for greater speed and the ability to wield 2 weapons. I think the trade-off is worth it.

If the skirmishers and frontline soldiers are supposed to be different and skirmishers naturally limit themselves to light armour and small weapons, then i don't see how this argument works against frontline soldiers equipping heavy armour and dual wield heavy weapons like full sized swords. It meets the very condition you set -- that's quite different.

And i don't think argument how heavier armour prevents dual wielding can work when the same soldier in the same heavy armour has strength to wield both a sword and much heavier shield. Effectively dual-wielding, too just not identically looking tools.

[Brockololly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Mike just explicitly said that they chose flashy animations over gameplay considerations.

At least they're being open about how they don't care about gameplay as much as they care about how the goame looks.

But how the game looks literally does not matter to a lot of us.

Yeah, cutting down on gameplay variety and choice for the sake of some animations is just another instance of DA2 being more style over substance IMO...


GIven MIke's quote on how ROgues are doing all these ninja flips and stuff while Warriors are automatically heavy plate wearing tanks, I'm wondering if they'll have more armor restrictions per class- like rogues being limited to light or medium armor and warriors only heavy and massive armor?

Or if they haven't done away with the light, medium, heavy, massive armor system alltogether and simply given us "mage," "rogue" and "warrior" armor? Hmmm....

Modifié par Brockololly, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

boohead wrote...

This is ignorant, you do realize those "animations" are completely changing the melee playstyle?  No more awkwardly and slowly walking to the enemy and waiting for your character to turn the proper angle and then finally swing.  Those flashy "flips" are part of the gameplay elements, not just for looks.

it's a welcome change, the worst part of DAO was the unresponsive and slugish combat system.

Except, the elimination of the sluggishness is supposed to be something all classes are getting.  If that's the case, then clearly there is a way to do that that doesn't require all the flipping about (because Warriors are getting it, too).

By adding the flipping, they made a conscious choice to exclude from Warriors a feature they'd have previously without any in-game explanation for why it worked before but it doesn't work now.

But even given the flipping, why not give Warriors access to some of the DW talents - just not the ones that are all flippy?

And this raises another question that deserves its own thread.

[Jarek_Cousland]

Hey guyzz!!!





Lets **** on the message boards sum-moar!!!!!!





That'll teach dem sellout devs for not catering to our every little whine and puff!! dey'll cry demselves to sleepz dey will!!!

[StonerMkII]

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

This is ignorant, you do realize those "animations" are completely changing the melee playstyle?
 No more awkwardly and slowly walking to the enemy and waiting for your
character to turn the proper angle and then finally swing.  Those
flashy "flips" are part of the gameplay elements, not just for looks.


it's a welcome change, the worst part of DAO was the unresponsive and slugish combat system.

Dont you realize people like Sylvius and the one after him would rather stay rooted in the past rather then move foreward and god-forbid TRY SOMETHING NEW!?!?!

I was in a decent mood today.

Then I got on the internet...

Trying something new would mean that the something new was good enough to replace the past. In this case it isnt. Gameplay always means more then graphics. Period. Id rather have a 100+ hour RPG have mediocre graphics and great gameplay any day of the week. Not sure about you, but im paying 60 bucks for that product. Not something im going to play through in a day, like 99.9% of the games out this generation.