1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Adonnay]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Indeed, most of you are right in your suppositions.

Removing dual wield specialization from warriors allowed us to not only make the classes more distinct, but to make the dual wield attacks all distinctly rogue-ish. A warrior in plate mail being fast with two daggers I could handle, but flipping and rolling into attacks? That didn't make sense. So, we could either have boring, vanilla dual-wield anims, or we could make them for rogues and deliver lithe, acrobatic combat for a class that should be just that.

Why not keep the "boring, vanilla dual-wield anims" for the warrior and add the "lithe, acrobatic combat" for the rogue class. I mean there's no additional work needed really since you already have the boring, vanilla dual wield anims, no?

I for one really find it disappointing if features from any game are cut out for its sequel, that just doesn't feel right. In most cases the reason is either "consolism" (making the game simpler for console controllers/players) or mainstream...ism, whatever, making the game more appealing to a broader player base, again, by simplyfing it and adding more bling instead.

I mean you certainly won't change your approach anymore at this point but I sure hope you know what you're doing. I noticed the same simplification with ME2 and while the story and the game both were great I still prefer the character-development from ME1... and I always will.

[AlanC9]

Jimmy, what if someone just likes playing DW warriors? No argument, just a personal taste.

[lazytopaz]

I think there werent many DW warriors inna first place bcs that kind of build for character plainly sucked (at least for me). Was waving those swords too damn slow and whole thing wasnt worth it. Whilst rogue with backstab was dealing exact same dmg with daggers and was doing that at least 2x faster, AND had loads better defense, dodge and skills to avoid bein attacked. Plain and simple was more effective than dw warrior would ever be.
But why remove it totally is beyond me.
Warrior by definition (and logical thinking) is a person that can wield any weapon, and specialize in utilising it, it only depends on his training. But DW warriors sucked anyway.

Same goes for archery.
I used to always land a volley of spells and bolts/arrows from my whole party to soften up enemies before they could reach me.
So as it seems now warriors will only :
a) weapon + shield
two handed weapon
Which if u ask me, means only warrior im gonna have in my party will be a tank with highest armour/hp/resistances sword and board taking all teh beating and attention from enemies +1 healer, 1 mage, 1 rogue. And ffs i wont be playing Main Tank again like i did in DA1.
Bcs 2h warriors were sort of meh... swingin that darn weapon too slow and when they got some aggro/attention they melt down fast.

Modifié par lazytopaz, 07 septembre 2010 - 05:11 .

[Monica83]

Because a Rogue it's a Rogue.. A class is not only a combination of stat based and ability point.. A class in a "True Rpg Game" is the way you live your character... Now a warrior that can't be a dual fighter based on speed and Dextrity because a Rogue must have the "distinct" factor in terms of game world background and roleplaybilty don't have ANY sense.. Limit a character building valid option for a warrior (men or woman that is born for battle) to use only strenght based wapons specializations don't have any logic sense.. It was better if they add ability and not broke something to paste it in another class whitout any logical reasons.. In the real world you can see many examples of warriors that use dual weapons whitout be a Rogue... And rememeber a Rogue it's a Rogue you can't say Rogue are different because a Rogue stay a Rogue anyways... The choice they maded is a true Stepback i don't know what they are thinking when they decidad that.. You can make class distinct in many other ways..

Now they seems to make the classes distinct i say static...

[Jimmy Fury]

AlanC9 wrote...

Jimmy, what if someone just likes playing DW warriors? No argument, just a personal taste.

praise sanity! If that's the only reason someone is mad then I 100% agree with them that it sucks (as far as we know... I could still point out that we don't know there won't be some other sort of dual-wield... but i digress).
Heck, i'm in the same boat with the changes to mages. I like the wide variety of powers we had because it let me decide how I focus my team's mages. Getting rid of powers in exchange for upgradable spells sucks to me because I like the other way. That i can understand completely and there's really no argument against opinion and personal taste.

It's the bad logic and opinion-stated-as-fact that gets me. I've never been good at understanding bad logic.

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...



Of course I understand that people are upset because warriors can't DW anymore. But no, honestly, I can't for the life of me figure out why because nobody has formed a single logical argument for it with a premise based entirely on verifiable fact and a conclusion that stems directly from that premise. AKA a logical argument. There haven't been any.

Every single rant about why it sucks uses 3 things.

1: WoW classes as "proof" that something belongs entirely to one class.

-Invalid because this is DA not WoW-

2: Some "standard definition" of a rogue or a warrior.

-Invalid because Bioware is not using those definitions for its classes.-

3: assumptions that exclude logical possibilities.

In other words, you arbitrarily exclude all possible basis of argument, consider them all invalid by default, and then claim that you can't find one valid reason hence people don't make sense... It's called "circular reasoning" and is one of the most common logical fallacy, by the way.



Following your broken logic, Bioware could give spells, wings and a gameplay based on music instruments to warrior (or rogues, or whatever), and anyone complaining about that could not have any valid argument (save than "I don't like it", which isn't an argument based on logic but on preference) because after all, Bioware has "their" definition of the class and it's whatever they want, so nobody can apply any logical expectation from common definition to it.



You have a bit of nerves pretending others have absurd leap in logic or unsound arguments, considering your own broken premises and reasoning.

[0x30A88]

If the community wants DW warriors, they're the one that's going to play the game, so why shouldn't it be. It seems reasonable that a person can carry two weapons given the strength to carry them both at once.

[epoch_]

Yes RIP dual weilding warrior.









... Until the modders fix you.

[Jimmy Fury]

Akka le Vil wrote...
In other words, you arbitrarily exclude all possible basis of argument, consider them all invalid by default, and then claim that you can't find one valid reason hence people don't make sense... It's called "circular reasoning" and is one of the most common logical fallacy, by the way.

Following your broken logic, Bioware could give spells, wings and a gameplay based on music instruments to warrior (or rogues, or whatever), and anyone complaining about that could not have any valid argument (save than "I don't like it", which isn't an argument based on logic but on preference) because after all, Bioware has "their" definition of the class and it's whatever they want, so nobody can apply any logical expectation from common definition to it.

You have a bit of nerves pretending others have absurd leap in logic or unsound arguments, considering your own broken premises and reasoning.

That's not circular logic at all. Circular logic is "Warriors should Dual-wield because dual-wiedling is for warriors!".
Sound familiar?

Pointing out that other games are not a basis for decisions in Dragon age is not circular.
So yeah. I exclude things that have nothing to do with bioware games as "proof" for an argument about what is and isn't in bioware games. I also dismiss assumptions and preferences masquerading as fact. Nothing arbitrary about it.

Reductio ad absurdum aside, the problem with "common defintion" of anything fictional is that it's not an actual definition. There is no rule book anywhere saying what a rogue has to be in all fantasy settings. So for all intents and purposes, yes bioware could define warriors based on musical instruments and there isn't a single rule that has been broken.
Just look at all the bickering over the definition of RPG. Nobody can agree on what is and isn't an RPG because there is no definitive answer. There is no actual definition of a rogue class. Plenty of people have pointed out that your defintion is not the same as their definition. Thus, personal definitions are a weak basis for any argument.

I'm sorry if i've offended you in some way that this should amount to personal bickering. That was never my intent. My intention was to demonstrate the flaw in the premises of several arguments due to the presence of other possibilities rendering said arguments unsound.

Now, if you can direct me to an example of me using an invalid premise I will happily retract whatever conclusion was drawn from it and either formulate a new premise or admit wrong. However, just disagreeing with me does not mean my logic is broken.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 07 septembre 2010 - 08:35 .

[Addai]

epoch_ wrote...

... Until the modders fix you.

We hope.

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

That's not circular logic at all. Circular logic is "Warriors should Dual-wield because dual-wiedling is for warriors!".
Sound familiar?

Nope, doesn't sound familiar, because it was explained in details, several times, the exact reasons why dual-wielding was more typically warriors than rogues.
Once again, you prove you didn't actually read the points, but you still came up with the hypocrital "I had read what you wrote before (because... well... it's a forum. There is no other option than to read what has been written. Really useless statement imho.) ".

What exactly is the point trying to discuss with you when you don't even read the arguments you pretend invalid ?

Reductio ad absurdum aside, the problem with "common defintion" of anything fictional is that it's not an actual definition. There is no rule book anywhere saying what a rogue has to be in all fantasy settings. So for all intents and purposes, yes bioware could define warriors based on musical instruments and there isn't a single rule that has been broken. Just look at all the bickering over the definition of RPG. Nobody can agree on what is and isn't an RPG because there is no definitive answer. There is no actual definition of a rogue class. Plenty of people have pointed out that your defintion is not the same as their definition. Thus, personal definitions are a weak basis for any argument.

In other words, there is nothing to discuss, because each argument that can be made about rogues and warriors can be dismissed using the idea that Bioware can redefine the meaning of their "warrior" and "rogue" classes as they please.
And as a side note, this argument is conceptually broken, because the point of langage is to convey ideas. So if anyone can redefine words as they please it defeats the very principle of langage and communication.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 07 septembre 2010 - 09:16 .

[Vibius]

You're quite stupid if you think you couldn't do flips in platemail and you could in leather.

[Nightwriter]

Vibius wrote...

You're quite stupid if you think you couldn't do flips in platemail and you could in leather.

Lolwut.

[AlanC9]

Akka le Vil wrote...
In other words, there is nothing to discuss, because each argument that can be made about rogues and warriors can be dismissed using the idea that Bioware can redefine the meaning of their "warrior" and "rogue" classes as they please.

I thought that was exactly what J_F was saying.

And as a side note, this argument is conceptually broken, because the point of langage is to convey ideas. So if anyone can redefine words as they please it defeats the very principle of langage and communication.

That's how it goes. People start using a word in a new way, and the lexicographers come in afterward and certify the new usage. Proper usage is whatever the guys at the O.E.D. say it is, but they determine what goes into the next edition of the O.E.D. by looking at what's happening out there ITRW.

[Ghurshog]

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.

The fact is Warrior DW requires memory from the console to always be loaded. While thematically is a as good a reason as the next to not allow it. (I will miss my dual wielding plate wearing whirling dervish of evisceration) having one less set of anims to have loaded into memory saves space for other things like art or custom anims for monsters. 

[lunarknightmage]

I was hoping that my AW could become a DW beast.



now.....I'm not so sure if I'll get that chance.....



here's hoping they will add Arcane Rogue.........lol.

[Skyplant]

You people seem to be forgetting that this announcement pretty much promises use that rogues will be able to do much more moving around, rollling and shizzz

[Jimmy Fury]

AlanC9 wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
In other words, there is nothing to discuss, because each argument that can be made about rogues and warriors can be dismissed using the idea that Bioware can redefine the meaning of their "warrior" and "rogue" classes as they please.

I thought that was exactly what J_F was saying.

Close enough. Might have taken it to the absurd end of the spectrum but if it stops this revolving bicker-fest I'll take it.

And as a side note, this argument is conceptually broken, because the point of langage is to convey ideas. So if anyone can redefine words as they please it defeats the very principle of langage and communication.

That's how it goes. People start using a word in a new way, and the lexicographers come in afterward and certify the new usage. Proper usage is whatever the guys at the O.E.D. say it is, but they determine what goes into the next edition of the O.E.D. by looking at what's happening out there ITRW.

I don't think (aka:this is my opinion) it's even really about the word, it's about the archetype (does that prove I read what you wrote Akka?).
Archetype "definitions" shift constantly because they're purposefully vague to include variation. Especially fictional ones. RPG classes are based more on popularity and tradition more than anything concrete or quantifiable. Argueing that someone (Bioware in this case) is wrong for having a different perspective is silly.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 07 septembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[Skaden]

tbh this stupid decision is almost game-breaking for me. first no origins then no choosable races and now i cant even play through the game the way i want to. where is this choice u keep talking about bioware? cause all im seeing so far is more sensless ristrictions and limitations than we had in DAO. its idiotic to limit the options of 1 class simply to cater to another for the sake of "distinction" what does that even mean?! and in the end the only net change here is the warrior class losing half its skill tree. now warriors r left with either boring, limited, dimadozen sword n board or worthless 2handers. and rogues already could dw so its not like their gaining anything anyways

[tomcruisejr]

good riddance, cloning talent trees is stupid in games with specific set classes imo.


I even hope ME3 follows this and makes classes not have too many cross-over moves.

Modifié par tomcruisejr, 07 septembre 2010 - 10:43 .

[Lilaeth]

Skyplant wrote...

You people seem to be forgetting that this announcement pretty much promises use that rogues will be able to do much more moving around, rollling and shizzz

That's not much good to anyone who prefers to play DW warrior to playing any kind of rogue!

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I would argue that it makes little sense, based on personality and preference of a character, that their "class" would restrict their combat style. Style in all occupations is largely personal. As long as you get the job done, you fullfill your niche in that occupation. Why would a warrior who loses a shield in battle not pick up another weapon? Maybe the character favors that and learns various techniques to pull off later on. I wouldn't think that all character who choose heavily armored, direct combat as a warrior would neglect the benefits of fighting in a two weapon style. Also I doubt all rogues would neglect the benefits of learning to fight with a shield. None of this arguement of classes being more "distinguished" by fighting style makes any realistic sense. It would make more sense to me if classes designated their differences by perks, either bonuses to attributes, special skills or damage modifiers. As it is, not allowing warriors to learn dual wielding or rogues to learn any shield techniques just feels lazy.

[nos_astra]

I really don't see why they don't merge rogue and warrior in a melee/fighter/non-mage class. It would be too easy, I suppose. From an RP standpoint it would make a lot more sense than two distinct classes. As if anyone would arbitrarily decide not to use a certain weapon if it comes handy or declare themselves too stupid or clumsy to pick a lock.

Modifié par klarabella, 07 septembre 2010 - 11:22 .

[Faz432]

klarabella wrote...

I really don't see why they don't merge rogue and warrior in a melee/fighter/non-mage class. It would be too easy, I suppose.

I kinda like the idea of just having mage and non mage then getting to build your character with a shared skill pool but given the reason Laidlaw gave for not having DW warrior it would mean that your non mage would be doing silly flips and rolls when you don't want him to because they wouldn't have time to make the required amount of animations for all the possible different builds?

I think some people are over thinking the whole why DW rogue vs warrior makes more sense or vice versa and how to make them distinct because they are 2 very distinct classes that predate Dragon age and are well implemented in other games. They should of just developed the warrior and rogue dw tree differently because they're different not just remove one.

It just comes down to Bioware not having the time to implement them correctly i guess, development time, have they even had a year??

EA = slave drivers

8jeeze how many times have I edited this...I can't spell tonight..

Modifié par Faz432, 07 septembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

klarabella wrote...

I really don't see why they don't merge rogue and warrior in a melee/fighter/non-mage class. It would be too easy, I suppose. From an RP standpoint it would make a lot more sense than two distinct classes. As if anyone would arbitrarily decide not to use a certain weapon if it comes handy or declare themselves too stupid or clumsy to pick a lock.

What you say here makes far more sense than trying to seperate classes out by fighting style. I support this statement.

Though, honestly I don't see why a mage can't learn to pick a lock or sneak either. If a mage is an apostate, that would be all the reason in the world to learn how to sneak around unless they are incredibly naive.

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 07 septembre 2010 - 11:34 .