1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Dynamomark]

TMZuk wrote...

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.

Not making sense?! You did NOT just write that. It makes sense that your character can spout flames from your fingertips, make his eyes glow omniously, slaugher a hundred enemies at the time, hit all his opponents with one swing, stand up and say -ouch-, after having been mauled by a dragon, but not that he could flip and roll into attacks in plate-mail?

That is a RICH excuse from depriving people of yet more choise.

those aren't the only reasons

[Monica83]

not valid reason at all

[Jimmy Fury]

Dynamomark wrote...
those aren't the only reasons

That reminds me.
I am totally cool with admitting my theory of a new str based DW-ish tree was wrong.

[Akka le Vil]

AlanC9 wrote...

I didn't see anyone doing that. It's not like Bio invented the idea of rogues wearing light armor and dual-wielding out of whole cloth. Looks to me like they stole it from D&D 3.0. It's just that they didn't bring rangers over while they were at it.

Well, I did see some people saying that "warriors are what Bioware decide they will be", which is quite a bit exactly that : redefining the meaning of a word into what's convenient for you. Which automatically shut down any debate, because it means making their own rules and pretending they are the one everyone should play by.

Seriously, who can consider valid this : "I'll define A as being whatever suits me. Prove me that A is not what I say it is" ?
That's just... ridiculous and conceptually broken ?

Jimmy Fury wrote...
I think he's pretending i'm not here now [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie].

I don't need to pretend you're not here, your very premises are about refusing any validity of any argument through redefining meaning at will. You removed yourself from the very idea of debate.

[Jimmy Fury]

Akka le Vil wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I didn't see anyone doing that. It's not like Bio invented the idea of rogues wearing light armor and dual-wielding out of whole cloth. Looks to me like they stole it from D&D 3.0. It's just that they didn't bring rangers over while they were at it.

Well, I did see some people saying that "warriors are what Bioware decide they will be", which is quite a bit exactly that : redefining the meaning of a word into what's convenient for you. Which automatically shut down any debate, because it means making their own rules and pretending they are the one everyone should play by.

Seriously, who can consider valid this : "I'll define A as being whatever suits me. Prove me that A is not what I say it is" ?
That's just... ridiculous and conceptually broken ?

Jimmy Fury wrote...
I think he's pretending i'm not here now [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie].

I don't need to pretend you're not here, your very premises are about refusing any validity of any argument through redefining meaning at will. You removed yourself from the very idea of debate.

Like I said, you took what I was saying to the absurd end of the spectrum.
All I said was that it's bioware's game so other people's personal definitions of a class are irrelivant.
But if i'm wrong then by all means, support your claim that what I just said is not true or valid.
Who gets to define the classes in Dragon Age if not bioware?

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Like I said, you took what I was saying to the absurd end of the spectrum.
All I said was that it's bioware's game so other people's personal definitions of a class are irrelivant.
But if i'm wrong then by all means, support your claim that what I just said is not true or valid.
Who gets to define the classes in Dragon Age if not bioware?

Why do you insist in trying to pretend you're about debating, when you refuse the very basis of the debate ?
Raw trolling fun ?

[Blastback]

Aw hell, here we go...

[Jimmy Fury]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Like I said, you took what I was saying to the absurd end of the spectrum.
All I said was that it's bioware's game so other people's personal definitions of a class are irrelivant.
But if i'm wrong then by all means, support your claim that what I just said is not true or valid.
Who gets to define the classes in Dragon Age if not bioware?

Why do you insist in trying to pretend you're about debating, when you refuse the very basis of the debate ?
Raw trolling fun ?

That's not an answer.
And i'm sorry but I'm sticking to that. It's a terrible basis for an argument.
Your opinion of what a warrior should be is irrelivant to what bioware wants in their game. If that's your only basis then you have no argument.
Your opinion is not more important than anyone elses. I'm sorry but I refuse to say it is and if that makes me a troll then I will happily live under a bridge and accost billygoats for sport.
Like I said before, your opinion is great and to be honest, I may even agree with your opinion in spirit. I will not, however, agree that your opinion is an indisputable fact because it's just not.

addendum: and now i'm going back to my new playthrough with my lone mage and his 3 DW warrior companions

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 08 septembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[Tirigon]

Dynamomark wrote...
those aren't the only reasons

The ones he gave suck.

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

That's not an answer.

When someone asks for argument but dismiss every argument right from the start because he refuses to even accept the basis of the debate, then yes it's an answer.

"Explain me why I'm wrong to use three dices when you use two, but I'll refuse anything involving the concept of fairness and equal chances !"
Well, then the answer "hu, then there is no point of asking for an explanation as you're not going to even consider it" is perfectly acceptable.

Don't ask for something you're not going to even consider. That's hypocrital. And not taking into consideration the meaning of words in a communication including language is just dumb. That's like asking for a light signal and closing your eyes. I can't believe I've to actually explain that.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 08 septembre 2010 - 08:36 .

[Antaress]

I think i just had heart attack

[Tirigon]

Antaress wrote...

I think i just had heart attack

R. I. P.

[Skaden]

If they want to get us excited about DA2 they should start telling us about what we can do and the choices we can make instead of just telling us about all these choices being removed because right now it feels like their regressing rather than progressing, is this a prequel in disguise?

Modifié par Skaden, 10 septembre 2010 - 09:55 .

[In Exile]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Well, I did see some people saying that "warriors are what Bioware decide they will be", which is quite a bit exactly that : redefining the meaning of a word into what's convenient for you. Which automatically shut down any debate, because it means making their own rules and pretending they are the one everyone should play by.

I think the argument is different. The claim is more thus:

Bioware is not obligated to use any specific definition of class, and the definition of class that Bioware used from the start was never the same as the definition that the current players are using.

To be specific: there is this presumption in this thread (and others) that a class is a quintessential profession, or more to the point that it has to reflect a very broad series of lifestyle choices.

In Dragon Age, classes never represented this. A rogue was always intended to be a dexterity oriented warrior with utility.

But notice how, in-game, the Bioware desinged rogues are not thiefs, but rather dex based utility solders. Zevran is an assasin; Leliana is a bard. Both fight, but nimbly.

Arguing that Bioware has reduced the rogue to a dex warrior is missing the point, because the rogue was always intended to be a dex warrior.

So from this standpoint, with Bioware splitting up str and dex warrior skills among the two classes, diversification makes sense. Because the rogue was always a type of warrior.

Now, if you bring an entirely different set of assumptions to the table, certainly, it seems like Bioware is being nonsensical in making classes distinct. But this is simply not what the internal design was like.

The major issue is that there is this general presumption that Bioware gives players much more freedom than they actually do. Things tend to say ambiguous in Bioware games and people come from D&D where there are entirely differnent convetions, and take for granted that these things hold in Bioware games.

[Emyer]

Awww, DW Warrior was my favourite class, shame you're cutting that out


Having played as both a Warrior and a Rogue in DA, I can say that even though the talents were exactly the same for DW, the way you play them are completely different, so they were not clones in any way, a Warrior is based around Dual Striking+Momentum+Active Abilities(Throw in Haste+Precision Striking for speed overkill), the warrior also serves as a tank/crowd control, draw in your enemies to attack the Warden, then Dual-Weapon Sweep and Whirlwind for massive damage , and you also walk around with a 1-H sword in each hand like a boss:police: 


The Rogue on the other hand is based on maxing critting and backstabing, Dual Striking is out for a rogue since it negates both, I also barely used any active talents besides Riposte(For the stun effect) and  Punisher(For the knockdown effect), Rogues are not the type of characters that walk into a middle of a mob crowd and start killing head on, they are the characters that hit from behind and draw insane DPS, hence most active talents in DW tree are useless to them since they will be getting more damage from auto-attack backstabs and such.



Basically with a DW Warrior you are actually going to be using the DW talents a lot more than a Rogue will, and if you played both you would see there is quite a big difference in playstyles, it's not just a difference of Str Fighter and Dex Fighter.


On an overqall note, I'm not really a fan of games were you have to pick you're initial class and then are stuck with its talents, I like TES approach in that you can pick a specialized class that excells in a certain amount of skills(Spellsword :3) but you can also utilize all the other skills, you just won't be as good at it or level them up as fast.

The Witcher also does this well by opening up all paths to the player and then letting them decide where they want to go as they level up.

[jsachun]

Skaden wrote...

If they want to get us excited about DA2 they should start telling us about what we can and the choices we can make instead of just telling us about all these choices being removed because right now it feels like their regressing rather than progressing, is this a prequel in disguise?

It's exactly what they did with Mass Effect 2. What Bioware doesn't understand is that you don't need to remove roleplaying aspect of the game to be able to make the combat feel more like First Person Shooter or First Person Slasher. I'm actually looking forward to how succesful Obsidian & Betheseda is going to be in deliverying every aspect of the RPG as well as making combat feel more like a proper action game in FNV.

Modifié par jsachun, 10 septembre 2010 - 09:01 .

[jsachun]

TMZuk wrote...

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.

Not making sense?! You did NOT just write that. It makes sense that your character can spout flames from your fingertips, make his eyes glow omniously, slaugher a hundred enemies at the time, hit all his opponents with one swing, stand up and say -ouch-, after having been mauled by a dragon, but not that he could flip and roll into attacks in plate-mail?

That is a RICH excuse from depriving people of yet more choise.

What is becoming blatantly clear is that this game will be all about combat, and nothing else. All you ever talk about in interviews and pre-views is how -great- the combat will be. Cool anaimations, voiced and fixed protagonist, silly weapon-restrictions: Welcome to Dragon Effect!

Of course it doesn't. All the arguements FOR DW talent being limited to Rogue only seems to mention or justify that DW is better suited for a rogue using Duel daggers and they are mainly stabbers. Yet the highest priced Forth Tier Skill Duel Mastery allows  two main hand weapons to be held. You don't need DW tree talents to be able to jab or backstab so it defeats their point all together. And how often is double edged longswords used to stab opponents? Quite a lot I'd say as stabbing then slashing is the most effective way to kill an opponent with a sword as oppose to just slahing or stabbing. 

Modifié par jsachun, 10 septembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[Skaden]

Emyer wrote...

Awww, DW Warrior was my favourite class, shame you're cutting that out


Having played as both a Warrior and a Rogue in DA, I can say that even though the talents were exactly the same for DW, the way you play them are completely different, so they were not clones in any way, a Warrior is based around Dual Striking+Momentum+Active Abilities(Throw in Haste+Precision Striking for speed overkill), the warrior also serves as a tank/crowd control, draw in your enemies to attack the Warden, then Dual-Weapon Sweep and Whirlwind for massive damage , and you also walk around with a 1-H sword in each hand like a boss:police: 


The Rogue on the other hand is based on maxing critting and backstabing, Dual Striking is out for a rogue since it negates both, I also barely used any active talents besides Riposte(For the stun effect) and  Punisher(For the knockdown effect), Rogues are not the type of characters that walk into a middle of a mob crowd and start killing head on, they are the characters that hit from behind and draw insane DPS, hence most active talents in DW tree are useless to them since they will be getting more damage from auto-attack backstabs and such.



Basically with a DW Warrior you are actually going to be using the DW talents a lot more than a Rogue will, and if you played both you would see there is quite a big difference in playstyles, it's not just a difference of Str Fighter and Dex Fighter.


On an overqall note, I'm not really a fan of games were you have to pick you're initial class and then are stuck with its talents, I like TES approach in that you can pick a specialized class that excells in a certain amount of skills(Spellsword :3) but you can also utilize all the other skills, you just won't be as good at it or level them up as fast.

The Witcher also does this well by opening up all paths to the player and then letting them decide where they want to go as they level up.

This

[Magus_42]

Man, every time I read this forum, I come away more disappointed. Apparently, Bioware has chosen to make rogues more "unique" not by giving them their own role in the party, but by stripping the warrior of half their abilities and making the rogue a different sort of warrior. Not a game breaker, but rather dull, really, and I rather enjoyed my Warrior archer in DA:O.

Also, Warriors have no ranged combat option at all now, according to Peter Thomas. I didn't switch to crossbows often in DA:O, but it was occasionally useful (final boss fights in both Origins and Awakenings, for example). That's a tactical option that no longer exists now.

Modifié par Magus_42, 10 septembre 2010 - 10:29 .

[Tiberius88]

I won't mind if they tweak the 2H and S&S builds. The S&S is the way I always take in RPGs and in DAO it sucked. Like it was really bad ... I don't care if someone liked it. It couldn't keep aggro (some skills helped but not a lot) and did puny damage. If Morrigan or Wynne used a strong spell the enemy almost always went for them. I tried the DW warrior & Mage to see if it was really hard to play with them too......it wasn't - DW was OK and Mage was incredibly easy.



So BioWare - specifically the DA division don't screw up the talents as it is really annoying to be punished for picking a certain build.

[HTTP 404]

armor is stat base. You could stat up a rogue to wear armor and duel wield. Or you could armor up a rogue to shoot a bow.



The only difference is that its now called rogue not warrior. same applies for mages, you could stat up a mage to wear armor.

[DarkSpiral]

HTTP 404 wrote...

armor is stat base. You could stat up a rogue to wear armor and duel wield. Or you could armor up a rogue to shoot a bow.

The only difference is that its now called rogue not warrior. same applies for mages, you could stat up a mage to wear armor.

As they say, "This!"

[TMZuk]

HTTP 404 wrote...

armor is stat base. You could stat up a rogue to wear armor and duel wield. Or you could armor up a rogue to shoot a bow.

The only difference is that its now called rogue not warrior. same applies for mages, you could stat up a mage to wear armor.

But I cannot have my rogue use a two-hander, or have my warrior use a dagger if I wanted to. It is such a crappy "development", I hesitate to call it development. In reality it is bringing us back to the earliest and most primitive days of RPG's with all the ridiculous class-restrictions from the original D&D.

If there was clerics in DA, they'd be restricted to blunt weapons only! This sucks so badly!

[tmp7704]

HTTP 404 wrote...

armor is stat base. You could stat up a rogue to wear armor and duel wield. Or you could armor up a rogue to shoot a bow.

The only difference is that its now called rogue not warrior

Which makes the restriction pretty silly if you try to put it like this -- if rogue is identical with warrior in all but the class name, why are they two different classes? Unless of course they aren't actually the same, and you're just ignoring everything that sets them apart to make such skewed argument.

[Monica83]

tmp7704 wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

armor is stat base. You could stat up a rogue to wear armor and duel wield. Or you could armor up a rogue to shoot a bow.

The only difference is that its now called rogue not warrior

Which makes the restriction pretty silly if you try to put it like this -- if rogue is identical with warrior in all but the class name, why are they two different classes? Unless of course they aren't actually the same, and you're just ignoring everything that sets them apart to make such skewed argument.

Indeed we already sayd those things... They can't change them now time problems i think.. This limit a lot the build of the character when choice of gameplay afflict the roleplay opportuinty to build you own character in this way are alwats bad to hear.. Il hope in a fix later with a patch or in a expansion that will be solve this problem.. I will hope the future games after DA2 are a better mix of cinematic things and roleplay things.. If DA3 will be more like DAO but with improved gameplay with not static choice like that and with cinematic experience will be a perfect game.. Now for what i read maybe DA2 will be a good game.. but i don't think will be better fo DAO for implemented feature character builds and racial restriction..

Wee must whait and see..
And i will try it before puchase