1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Mike Laidlaw]

Andrastee wrote...

Of course, it's possible that Duncan is just so awesome he transcends ability trees.

It's his Epic Beard specialization. It has four abilities:

• Permanent Grooming;
• Breaks all the Rules;
• Women Want Me;
• Men Want to Be Me

While we only know for certain that he had up to the second ability, I think it's pretty obvious that Duncan knew where to spend the talent points.

[Dave of Canada]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
While we only know for certain that he had up to the second ability, I think it's pretty obvious that Duncan knew where to spend the talent points.

The last two points are just subtle, a guy gets enraged while a woman wants Duncan but they both don't realise it since he's too epic that it forced them into a sense of normality.

[prizm123]

i loved DW 2 swords such sweet carnage

[Shadowomega23]

Would making seperate dual wielding animations for larger weapons IE short/longswords take to much time and resources inaddition to the small weapon animations like dagger/Sai?



Anyway looks like there goes my request for Monkey Grip

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Andrastee wrote...

Of course, it's possible that Duncan is just so awesome he transcends ability trees.

It's his Epic Beard specialization.

Though, that wasn't unique to Duncan.  Loghain also switched classes between the books and game.

I complained about that quite a lot during DAO's development.  We were explicitly told that switching classes was impossible, and yet that's exactly what Loghain did.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:30 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Though, that wasn't unique to Duncan.  Loghain also switched classes between the books and game.

I complained about that quite a lot during DAO's development.  We were explicitly told that switching classes was impossible, and yet that's exactly what Loghain did.

So my books should obey the limitations of a game environment? To what end? You'll note that the books had cloaks and horses, as well. I make no apologies.

Modifié par David Gaider, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:38 .

[Knight Templar_]

It doesn't make sense for books to be held back by the difference between warrior and rogue.
I mean there is no such difference in real life.

Modifié par Knight Templar , 15 septembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[FieryDove]

David Gaider wrote...

So my books should obey the limitations of a game environment?

Yes! Err ok, you are exempt.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
It's his Epic Beard specialization. It has four abilities:
Permanent Grooming;
Breaks all the Rules;
Women Want Me;
Men Want to Be Me[/list]While we only know for certain that he had up to the second ability, I think it's pretty obvious that Duncan knew where to spend the talent points.

Player characters must have access to this specialization!

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

So my books should obey the limitations of a game environment? To what end? You'll note that the books had cloaks and horses, as well. I make no apologies.

And you shouldn't.  I place the fault with the game, not the books.

The game should obey the limitations of the game's setting.

[Shadow_broker]

Knight Templar wrote...

It doesn't make sense for books to be held back by the difference between warrior and Rogue
I mean there is no such difference in real life.

OCD kicking in

Warriors have a great amount of diffrence from shades of red

[Knight Templar_]

Shadow_broker wrote...

Knight Templar wrote...

It doesn't make sense for books to be held back by the difference between warrior and Rogue
I mean there is no such difference in real life.

OCD kicking in

Warriors have a great amount of diffrence from shades of red

Thanks for pointing that out.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And you shouldn't.  I place the fault with the game, not the books.

The game should obey the limitations of the game's setting.

And this, I assume, is bizarre Sylvius Logic -- the kind of logic which trumps all manner of resources, gameplay and balance for the sake of... what, exactly? We do not adhere pedantically to the setting except where it suits us. The fact that there are no horses evident in the game doesn't mean they don't exist in the setting. And the fact that the Warrior class in DA2 doesn't allow dual wielding doesn't mean there aren't small-w warriors in the setting that use two weapons. Are they Rogue class? Are they Warrior class? Does it matter?

Gameplay and setting are not completely divorced, but neither are they married. I know they are in your mind, but I doubt you're going to convince us anytime soon that your particular tastes are what we're interested in. Or what most people are interested in. Or what might be wise to pursue.

I know you won't take that personally-- you've certainly made that evident enough with your posts-- and I don't mean it personally. But there you go.

[Seb Hanlon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

So my books should obey the limitations of a game environment? To what end? You'll note that the books had cloaks and horses, as well. I make no apologies.

And you shouldn't.  I place the fault with the game, not the books.

The game should obey the limitations of the game's setting.

The game does indeed obey the limitations of the setting. I can't promise there's nothing you can do in DAO, or in DA2, that's forbidden by established canon, because I know there's bound to be a handful of cases where this one character said this one thing and it's a SCREAMING CONTINUITY ERROR ZOMG, but we pay attention to these things.

edit: ninja'd by Mr. Gaider. not intending to gang up.

Modifié par Seb Hanlon, 15 septembre 2010 - 05:11 .

[FieryDove]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And you shouldn't.  I place the fault with the game, not the books.

The game should obey the limitations of the game's setting.

And this, I assume, is bizarre Sylvius Logic -- the kind of logic which trumps all manner of resources, gameplay and balance for the sake of... what, exactly? We do not adhere pedantically to the setting except where it suits us. The fact that there are no horses evident in the game doesn't mean they don't exist in the setting.

Horses really are not a good example. In the current game setting from what I've heard from others most horses (for riding and such) are in orlais...yes?

Sylvius' Logic is always impeccable.

[Brockololly]

I get why there aren't riding horses, but hell, can't we at least see horses standing in a stable or something to at least establish they're in the game world? DAO had oxen already, why not horses, even if its just a static horse model?

[Chibi Elemental]

I personally hope that in da3 there is a duel wield warrior that is distinctly different then the duel wielding rogue. For example I would love to see a dw warrior be more about wearing down an enemy with both force and blows, even have the skills in the tree be completely different, perhaps more focused on brute stragth rather then dexterous skill.



And a rogue unique duel wield tree where the focus is more like the DAO duel wield all about finesse and placing a well placed dagger in someones back, even a few flips and tricks.



Would be great to have both those styles shown in two different aspects of a world even though I myself find the heft of a twohanded warrior more appealing then that of a duel wielder



Well here is hopeing to da3 and the return of a more interesting and diverse duel wielding experience

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

And this, I assume, is bizarre Sylvius Logic -- the kind of logic which trumps all manner of resources, gameplay and balance for the sake of... what, exactly?

I would (I hope) never claim to trump resources.  I'm a big fan of resource management in-game - I'm not likely to tell you in the real-world that is doesn't matter.

For the sake of what?  The consistency of the setting, of course.  The setting, fundamentally, is the gameplay.  We do whatever it is we do within that setting because that's what our characters want to do, but the constraints of the setting are all that guide us.

Balance is, I think, a secondary concern.  Give us a coherent setting and we'll find out way through it.  It might not be the way you imagined or intended, and we might not all find the same way, but we'll do it.

We do not adhere pedantically to the setting except where it suits us.

This is perhaps the source of our greatest disconnect.  If you're not guided by the setting, what are you guided by?  By what standard do you choose one feature over another?

The fact that there are no horses evident in the game doesn't mean they don't exist in the setting.

Of course not.  Horses are specifically referred to in the lore.  It would be interesting to design a setting without horses (recall how Ultima IX explained the absence of horses when they'd been in all the previous Ultima games set in Britannia), but it's not necessary to do that to justify gameplay that lacks horses.

We just don't happen to come across any horses in DAO.  That tells us nothing about whether there are horses in Thedas, or even Ferelden.

I know you won't take that personally-- you've certainly made that evident enough with your posts-- and I don't mean it personally. But there you go.

There was nothing personal there.  No need for the caveat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

The game does indeed obey the limitations of the setting.

And that the technical designers think this is important means a lot to me.  Thank you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tsai Zhou wrote...

Well here is hopeing to da3 and the return of a more interesting and diverse duel wielding experience

If we're wish-casting for DA3, I'd ask for the elimination of the Warrior/Rogue distinction.

The Mage/Non-mage distinction is required by the lore of the setting, but beyond that the classes simply aren't necessary.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Seb Hanlon wrote...

The game does indeed obey the limitations of the setting.

And that the technical designers think this is important means a lot to me.  Thank you.

Let me point out the caveat there, however: when it comes to a conflict between the setting and gameplay the resolution is generally an easy one: the setting must bend or change.

And I don't mean a casual conflict. Tech Designers are going to accomodate the setting whenever they can, just as Seb pointed out. But if there's an issue where the game design needs to change and the only thing standing in the way is the fact that X has been stated in the setting at some point-- well, that's not a good enough reason. The idea that setting logic should trump everything else simply doesn't exist, despite how important the setting might be to me or any fans of the lore.

Ideal? No, but that's simply how it is.

[Quercus]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Seb Hanlon wrote...



The game does indeed obey the limitations of the setting.

And that the technical designers think this is important means a lot to me. Thank you.

Let me point out the caveat there, however: when it comes to a conflict between the setting and gameplay the resolution is generally an easy one: the setting must bend or change.



And I don't mean a casual conflict. Tech Designers are going to accomodate the setting whenever they can, just as Seb pointed out. But if there's an issue where the game design needs to change and the only thing standing in the way is the fact that X has been stated in the setting at some point-- well, that's not a good enough reason. The idea that setting logic should trump everything else simply doesn't exist, despite how important the setting might be to me or any fans of the lore.



Ideal? No, but that's simply how it is.

Oh? I thought it's the way it is because of limitations in technology and time (aka deadline)?

You guys pretty much open the limitation now however by morphing the action in the RPG, which broadens the combat play style. DA:O for example makes it really hard to use horses in combat, while this limitation get lifted by adding the action into the RPG aka DA2. I'm not saying you should add horse battles in the game though, just wanted to point out that improved technology can lighten limitations.

[Valus]

Brockololly wrote...

I get why there aren't riding horses, but hell, can't we at least see horses standing in a stable or something to at least establish they're in the game world? DAO had oxen already, why not horses, even if its just a static horse model?

I think this everytime I get anywhere near Bodahn Feddic. The thought of him chaining Sandal to that big cart of his makes me

[maxernst]

Knight Templar wrote...

It doesn't make sense for books to be held back by the difference between warrior and rogue.
I mean there is no such difference in real life.

Actually, if you think about it, multiclassing the way it's handled in D&D is extremely illogical.  The existence of professions like warrior and rogue presupposes that there are certain traditional approaches to training.  To say there's no difference between a warrior and a rogue in real life is like saying there's no difference between a physicist and a social worker.  As an adolescent, you get trained in a particular tradition, and learning to fight like a warrior is a process that takes a number of years.  It seems to quite logical to me that:

1) It should be possible to acquire the training of another traditional profession, but
2) It should be a significant amount of work...something that at least in DA:O you never have time to undertake.  It's silly enough that Isabella can teach you to be a duellist in a few hours.

So what this means is that in game terms, it makes sense that you would not be able to multiclass but a character in a book may very well do so, if he has the time, inclination and opportunity to do so.

[Mr_Steph]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo



The only warrior I liked was when it was a DW

[Monica83]

In terms of roleplay dear David don't exist any explanation of why a warrior can't learn to use a bow o dual wield weapons.. When the gameplay will broke roleplay features then maybe isn't the right choice to do...

In fact this is a roleplay game in in every roleplay game classes are not only a name but the way of life of your character and cut off roleplay feature like cusomization of classes for gameplay don't helps.. It made only thing much more static not distinct...



Why if i have a woman character i must forcet to be a muscolar one or if i want be a faster fighter i must forced to be a rougue? No explanation for that..

For me and for many many other this is a stepback and a kick on the face of rpg playability..

The new definition of distinct class are much more static even if you add upgradable skills they will be static in terms of roleplay.. You can made distinct class in many other ways but you prefear cut off half ability of warriors only to give to rogue roguish animations....