1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Aradace]

Monica83 wrote...

this time i have to agree with you i puchased in past many westwood studios game so i know what you mean

Which in turn, I can understand the "begging and pleading" with BioWare....However, the truth of the matter is that until BioWare drops EA, you can expect more changes like Dragon Age 2 and ME2 whether you want them or not.  Yes, I know that EA was with BioWare in DA:O but then again, I think EA had came in on the project like halfway through or something like that so their influence was minimal. 

[shootist70]

Monica83 wrote...

I Agree also...
This is an RPG after all..Its ok with classes but they must fit the roleplay factor... An we have not valid roleplay reason to explain why a warrior can't use a bow or two blades..Only weak gameplay reason...

Hmm...valid roleplay reason...umm, well, I guess in RL history we've always seperated those who use the bow/ranged weapons and those who use melee weapons into classes on the battlefield, and the ranged classes tend to be lightly armoured for the sake of mobility. Also, most wealthier warriors who would be using swords, armour etc didn't tend to train with things like bows as they were seen as commoner's weapons. In the case of something like the english longbow decades of training and practice were required (analysis of medieval skeletons shows that longbowmen had unusual muscular and skeletal development as a result of a lifetime of using the longbow). So there were definitely 'classes' at work there.

Having said that, gameplay wise I agree with you. classes tend to make gameplay formulaic, and in the case of the trinity system, a bit predictable.

EDIT: ooh, almost forgot a 'valid roleplay reason' for not having a DW warrior. I guess as far as medieval-based, heavily armoured warriors goes then DW isn't something you'd see anyway. DW warriors looked a bit unrealistic in DAO, imo. Why take two little weapons when you can have one big armour-crushing one? Or the added protection of a shield?

Maybe lightly armoured, ranged fighters would take a small weapon such as a dagger for backstabbing into the armour gaps. They're not likely to fight face-to-face. Which, fittingly enough, is pretty much what english bowmen tended to do when forced to fight in melee.

Modifié par shootist70, 17 septembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[Monica83]

Of course if must be changed i prefear they restrict dual wield only with warriors in light or medium armor this is much more logical than cut half warriors skill and cut the head with absurd weapon restriction with no sense reason in roleplay factor... If i dont want create a rogue but i want do an dextrity skilled woman? Why i must forced to be a sort of she hulk woman as a warrior? This is not keep class distinct this is limit people roleplay and character customization... classes are not simple names in all RPG game they reflect the way of life or the style of your character.. A warrior is supposed to be someone that know how to use weapons...Don't have any sense that a warrior dont know how to use a bow or a pair of blades... Lol is like comical!

[shootist70]

Monica83 wrote...

classes are not simple names in all RPG game they reflect the way of life or the style of your character.. A warrior is supposed to be someone that know how to use weapons...Don't have any sense that a warrior dont know how to use a bow or a pair of blades... Lol is like comical!

If classes in an RPG game 'reflect the way of life of a character' then it actually makes far more sense to not have sword using warriors also being able to use a bow, as I've reasoned in my post above. Like I said about dual-wielding in a medieval based fantasy setting, it doesn't make much sense for a front line warrior - daggers, scramsaxes and the like tended to be just back up weapons, not dual-wielded ones. It makes far more sense to take either a shield or a big two-hander. Having the dual-wielded smaller weapons saved for the lightly armoured backstabbers seems more fitting to me.

I'm sure many would disagree, though.

Modifié par shootist70, 17 septembre 2010 - 10:24 .

[Monica83]

Of course not.. i Disagree in this... The point is why ruin and restrict anything make static choice when you can make class distinct adding things?

[shootist70]

Monica83 wrote...

Of course not.. i Disagree in this... The point is why ruin and restrict anything make static choice when you can make class distinct adding things?

If this was a non-party based, open world RPG that didn't have such a strong emphasis on characterisation I'd agree completely. The fact is, though, it's distinct classes dictate the characterisation - Wynne and Morrigan are mages, Zev is a rogue, Leliana is a rogue etc etc and it dictates their characters, their story and also the way they complement the party tactical make-up. Even your own story is dictated by your character class.

classes make DA a lot of what it is, so if we have to have them they might as well be distinct rather than a diffuse blob, otherwise we start losing the whole point. Sure, it was nice to play an arcane warrior or a DW warrior, but hell, I could live without it. What the character classes bring to the game as a whole is far more important than a bit of freedom to mess with a few character builds, tbh.

Modifié par shootist70, 17 septembre 2010 - 11:10 .

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

To say that balance is not an issue simply because it's single player ignores decades of game design and user feedback.

In general, the majority of gamers want a game that is challenging.   Pushing balance onto the user and saying, hey you can be a god class or a chump, up to you  = 99% of users playing a god class and finding the game too easy.

You know, you're contradicting yourself here. If "the majority of gamers want a game that is challenging" then why would "99% of users play a god class" if given such option?

If 99% of players pick the easiest route to the cheese rather than the challenging one, then the "user feedback" you mention indicates they don't actually want challenge. Don't make a mistake and believe what they say, look at what they actually do. That's the feedback.

If on the other hand players actually do want challenge like you claim, then the presence of combinations that make game easy shouldn't be a problem because hey, that's not what the players want so they won't pick it, no?

[Aulis Vaara]

It's a bit more complex than that, tmp7704.



You see, we as humans always try to find the easiest way out. It's the way we evolved, so give us an easy option, and we'll take it. That said, an easy game doesn't give any satisfaction, so we'll play the game the easy way and dislike it because it's boring.



On the other hand, if the developers force balance on us, we'll learn to overcome these challenges and have some satisfaction at having completed this game. That is the satisfaction we want from a game, but we are just too lazy to go for it ourselves.

[Clangeddin86]

I think that warriors will still be able to dual wield and use bows/crossbows, however, they won't have specialized trees to make those roles viable gameplay-wise.

By a roleplay point of view there is no reason to forbid them to dual wield or use a ranged weapon at all. However, I do agree that the classes have to be different, and I agree with warriors not having specialized talent tree for those two aspects of the class.

Weapon wise this will be:

Warrior - Two Handed or Shield
Rogue - Dual Wield or Ranged

The amount of choice is even, in the first game, warriors had all 4 options, whereas rogues were stuck with two, making them redundant combat-wise.
What is important is that they get the specializations right and other class abilities to separate the classes further.

Also, mages need a nerf, because they were clearly the superior class of the three, being able to fill all roles with right combos. They could be healers, dpsers or tanks.
Warriors could be tanks or dpsers.
Rogues could be only dpsers.
Not really fair now...

Modifié par Clangeddin86, 17 septembre 2010 - 02:01 .

[Addai]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

On the other hand, if the developers force balance on us, we'll learn to overcome these challenges and have some satisfaction at having completed this game. That is the satisfaction we want from a game, but we are just too lazy to go for it ourselves.

And what about the casual player who finds the game too hard and tosses it after an initial attempt?  Seems like "forcing balance" could backfire.

Also, it's an RPG.  Choices mean customization means different types of player each find something they like.  Why anyone would applaud fewer choices just mystifies me.

[Damar Stiehl]

Fewer options is always bad. No ifs or buts about it. Less options = less freedom.

[tmp7704]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

It's a bit more complex than that, tmp7704.

You see, we as humans always try to find the easiest way out. It's the way we evolved, so give us an easy option, and we'll take it. That said, an easy game doesn't give any satisfaction, so we'll play the game the easy way and dislike it because it's boring.

On the other hand, if the developers force balance on us, we'll learn to overcome these challenges and have some satisfaction at having completed this game. That is the satisfaction we want from a game, but we are just too lazy to go for it ourselves.

I'll just point out presence of "easy" setting in difficulty dropdown. As long as it's there and provides universal "easiest way out" which according to your belief the player will be unable to resist taking, what's exactly the point of trying to "force the balance" on the player?

And excuse me if i find the concept of complaining about game being "too easy and boring" when one actively and knowingly sets it up in this way for themselves humourous. This isn't too say i disagree with this observation, i just don't think this subgroup of players deserves/requires even more handholding than it's already provided just to ensure they can't spoil their own fun. Especially when it's supposed to come at expense of limiting options for others.

[Shallina]

EA is at work. Buy a compagny, make and sell game for half the cost(or even less) of the previous games thanks the compagny label, And when the compagny is burnt out buy a new one with a good name.


Shorter games with less feature. No need to be the best if we can still sell the box beceause of the compagny name. Let's hope some great new RPG makers will be born. And start making thing as good as what Bioware did before.

All DAO DLC buisness was about that. They cut it, so it must haven't work as well as they hoped. Let's hope they learned their lesson.

The quality of today game as an impact on the success of the next one.

You can fool poeple only once, don't forget that.

Modifié par Shallina, 17 septembre 2010 - 04:42 .

[AlanC9]

Aradace wrote...
 EA is calling alot of the shots now. Which means, EA doesnt have the same "we cater to the fans" mentality that BioWare typically does.

You sure that was Bioware's mentality? From where I sit they've always been about mass-market success.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 septembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

You know, you're contradicting yourself here. If "the majority of gamers want a game that is challenging" then why would "99% of users play a god class" if given such option?

If 99% of players pick the easiest route to the cheese rather than the challenging one, then the "user feedback" you mention indicates they don't actually want challenge. Don't make a mistake and believe what they say, look at what they actually do. That's the feedback.

If on the other hand players actually do want challenge like you claim, then the presence of combinations that make game easy shouldn't be a problem because hey, that's not what the players want so they won't pick it, no?

Doesn't necessarily follow. A player could  want to play a game well -- meaning,  use his intelligence to the fullest to master the system -- and simultaneously want the game to be challenging.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

Doesn't necessarily follow. A player could  want to play a game well -- meaning,  use his intelligence to the fullest to master the system -- and simultaneously want the game to be challenging.

Sure, and one can want to keep the cake and eat it too -- but it doesn't mean these desires aren't contradicting each other.

Mastering the system generally does make considerable difference in how challenging things are. If they're to remain challenging even after utilizing the best approach, what it'd mean in terms of difficulty for the player who doeesn't achieve such level? On the other hand if you reduce the benefit of mastering the system to the point where the game is similarly challenging no matter how you actually play, it renders the whole idea of mastering the system quite pointless -- why bother if it doesn't provide worthwile benefit?

[maxernst]

Certain class restrictions are built into the lore. It's pretty clear that the ability to cast spells is innate not learned, so at the very least you're going to have the divide between mage and non-mage PC's. And if you're a circle mage, you're going to be pretty restricted as far as what you have the opportunity to learn.



I don't think dual wielding being something rogues do and warriors don't is so unreasonable. If you think of a rogue as somebody who learns to fight on the streets and is mentored in a thieves guild, he's not going to have any experience fighting in heavy armor (too expensive) and will have a preference for smaller weapons that can be easily concealed. In the real world, I'm not sure if anybody in medieval Europe ever fought with two full-length swords and I'm not sure anybody did in Japan prior to the 17th century. Historically, if people fought with two weapons, the offhand usually held a small weapon like a dagger. I think duel-wielding is a more practical choice for someone whose preferred weapons are small and concealable, but somebody who would have access to and openly carry two handed weapons or shields isn't likely to learn to fight with two weapons and I expect it would take considerable practice to do effectively.



Archery's another story entirely, though. While I can see there could well be cultural reasons why they wouldn't specialize in bows--certainly knights didn't typically use them in warfare--they certainly used them for hunting. So while there might be no need for a Warrior/Archer class, having basic skill with a bow should be open to warriors. But again, I can see why rogues would be more likely to specialize in them...picking off your enemies from a distance would be preferable for somebody who is lightly armed and armored.



And yes, of course, people can learn totally new skills, but it takes time...and in DA:O, you never really had a lot of time to work on learning new things. What you do lots and lots of is fighting, so my interpretation is with combat experience you learn to apply skills in critical situations that you've already been taught in theory but just haven't had much practice in.



Personally, I'm not a huge fan of absolute class restrictions, but I can see how they could make logical sense in game terms, depending on the settings. I always liked the way the pen 'n paper system Rolemaster handled skills--your character class controlled how many skill points you needed to expend to gain ranks in a particular skill. So you could learn (in optional rules at least) to cast spells as a warrior or fight with a two handed sword as a cleric, but it was just harder for you to do so because of your previous training.

[shootist70]

maxernst wrote...

In the real world, I'm not sure if anybody in medieval Europe ever fought with two full-length swords and I'm not sure anybody did in Japan prior to the 17th century.

True. In Europe, when people started fighting in the sort of armour we see in DAO then one-handed swords start disappearing from the battlefield. Armour piercing/concussion was the order of the day, and knights were more often using two-handed swords, or just as often using big maces, morning stars, warhammers, glaives etc. It all gets pretty big and brutal - these weapons were huge, often 4-7 feet long with large spikes (and that's not including the polearms), and there's really no room for the sort of dual-wielding finesse we see in DAO. It looks pretty much out of place with the armour that's in the game.

Modifié par shootist70, 17 septembre 2010 - 06:46 .

[TMZuk]

maxernst wrote...



I don't think dual wielding being something rogues do and warriors don't is so unreasonable. If you think of a rogue as somebody who learns to fight on the streets and is mentored in a thieves guild, he's not going to have any experience fighting in heavy armor (too expensive) and will have a preference for smaller weapons that can be easily concealed. In the real world, I'm not sure if anybody in medieval Europe ever fought with two full-length swords and I'm not sure anybody did in Japan prior to the 17th century. Historically, if people fought with two weapons, the offhand usually held a small weapon like a dagger. I think duel-wielding is a more practical choice for someone whose preferred weapons are small and concealable, but somebody who would have access to and openly carry two handed weapons or shields isn't likely to learn to fight with two weapons and I expect it would take considerable practice to do effectively.

Let us leave real life out of this.

In real life you don't have sword-shield warriors, and warriors with two-handed swords in the same period. Sword-shield dissapears as platearmour emerges, at the end of the 12th century. In response the longsword becomes even longer... around four feet, and have to be vielded in both hands. The platearmour becomes even more massive, and in response the footsoldiers adopts massive pole-axes, glaives, lucerne-hammers etc, etc. In the 14th century it's virtually impossible to harm someone in full plate with a sword, one or two-handed.

The so-called great-swords, as they are named in RPG's, with six foot blades were specialised weapons, used to take out the pike-men. The pike-men's job was to stop the mounted knights. and I could go on... RPG's have nothing to do with any reality, and nor do they have to. It's a fantasy-setting.

But to restrict a RPG character, who's "adventuring", explores dungeons and all the other stuff you do in RPG's to either sword shield, or two-handed, to restrict rogues to only DW or bows.. is just so.... bah, I have no words to express my disgust. Please, allow me to design my own character, thank you very much, and keep your restrictions to yourself.

If some people think it is the high-point of gaming to design the ultimate party, where their skills compliment each other to tactical perfection, why don't you design a tactical wargame instead or a dungeon-slasher ala diablo? RPG's are about choices and freedom!

Modifié par TMZuk, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:40 .

[DarkSpiral]

TMZuk wrote...
If some people think it is the high-point of gaming to design the ultimate party, where their skills compliment each other to tactical perfection, why don't you design a tactical wargame instead or a dungeon-slasher ala diablo? RPG's are about choices and freedom!

As long as we're talking about classes then no, they aren't.  You want them to be, and there isn't anything wrong with that.  The Elder Scrolls are about choices and freedom, I'll grant you that.  Of course, they're a lousy example since they're not a party-based game.  Fallout fits into a similar mold.  BG wasn't, not was BG2.  Theyhad arbitrary restrictions.  Perhaps a lot of options on the packages, but most of those choices were either redundant or useless.  Furthermore, they were based in the first real RPG ruleset (which, btw, was in fact originally a modified wargame) so I'd say RPGs have never always been as much about choices and freedom, as they were about packages and restrcitions.  Final Fantasy definetly isn't, about freedom nor the Dragon Warrior series.  Ys?  I'm trying to remeber a game series that offered the kind of flexibility you seem to be talking about, but can't.

Of course we could stop talking about classes.  If we could build our party members up according to our own designs, hen you could have all the freedom you wanted...and you'd still need to balance the party in some manner so that you could survive the battles.  classes make doing that easier on the designers and on the majority of players.  So they're probably sticking around.

[TransientNomad]

What I don't get is why people keep saying "There's less choices!! BOO!!" but I don't see that. If you want to duel wield then be a Rogue. Simple as that. "Less Choices" and "Less Freedom" would be if they scrapped duel wielding altogether. I think what people really are nitpicking is that they still want to be CALLED a warrior and are somehow insulted by the prospect of being called a rogue instead.



While some can argue its a step back, I think what Bioware is re-balancing the classes, which to me is a good thing. Some would say "I want my heavy armoured guy use two weapons" and two a extent I could understand that. But the thing is, if Bioware still uses the same equipment mechcanic as DAO, you could simply make a strength based rogue capable of wearing heavy armour just like you could in DAO. See? Problem solved. Anything else is just argueing semantics.

[shootist70]

TransientNomad wrote...

What I don't get is why people keep saying "There's less choices!! BOO!!" but I don't see that. If you want to duel wield then be a Rogue. Simple as that. "Less Choices" and "Less Freedom" would be if they scrapped duel wielding altogether. I think what people really are nitpicking is that they still want to be CALLED a warrior and are somehow insulted by the prospect of being called a rogue instead.

While some can argue its a step back, I think what Bioware is re-balancing the classes, which to me is a good thing. Some would say "I want my heavy armoured guy use two weapons" and two a extent I could understand that. But the thing is, if Bioware still uses the same equipment mechcanic as DAO, you could simply make a strength based rogue capable of wearing heavy armour just like you could in DAO. See? Problem solved. Anything else is just argueing semantics.

You know what games forums are like, knee-jerk reactions and sense of entitlement seem to walk hand in hand. Personally I don't see anything wrong with making each class more distinct. Having too many shared skill-sets seemed wrong in the first place, and seemed more worthy of criticism. Personally I'm hoping that BW are replacing the lost skill-sets with something else, rather than minimising them.

[addiction21]

shootist70 wrote...


You know what games forums are like, knee-jerk reactions and sense of entitlement seem to walk hand in hand. Personally I don't see anything wrong with making each class more distinct. Having too many shared skill-sets seemed wrong in the first place, and seemed more worthy of criticism. Personally I'm hoping that BW are replacing the lost skill-sets with something else, rather than minimising them.

They are. The warrior will have no less skill trees then the rogue.

[Addai]

TransientNomad wrote...
 But the thing is, if Bioware still uses the same equipment mechcanic as DAO, you could simply make a strength based rogue capable of wearing heavy armour just like you could in DAO. See? Problem solved. Anything else is just argueing semantics.

We don't know that, and in fact the argument that rogues need to be able to fancy flippy moves that they couldn't do in heavy armor suggests that rogues are going to be restricted in what they can do and equip, too.

So, problem not solved.