143 réponses à ce sujet

[Akka le Vil]

Pzykozis wrote...

Personally I see it in the opposite way, instead of a rogue defining what styles you are restrticted to, weapon styles define your choice of class, now that might not make much sense at first, but when you consider both a warrior and rogue as FIGHTERS instead of two different pre-concieved ideals that aren't even true in the DA universe, it makes more sense.

Effectively rogues are fighters that specialise in the dexterous arts of war, warriors are the fighters that specialise in the strength based arts of war, they're both subsets of the fighter.

Also if you choose rogue you don't have to roleplay some gutter rat nor if you're a warrior do you have to roleplay a knight, they're self imposed constraints on your characters not imposed by the game.

So basically what you says is that both classes are barely different, they are just the "guy who fight strongly" and "guy who fights dexterously", with plenty of arbitrary limitations put on them.
So, the goal was to make the classes more unique and more distinct, and we end up in slight variations around the same basic idea with nothing really different. Great job !

[Pzykozis]

Akka le Vil wrote...

So basically what you says is that both classes are barely different, they are just the "guy who fight strongly" and "guy who fights dexterously", with plenty of arbitrary limitations put on them.
So, the goal was to make the classes more unique and more distinct, and we end up in slight variations around the same basic idea with nothing really different. Great job !

That simplifies what amounts to a massive difference.

But sure if you want to look at it like that yes, but they're still more defined than they were in DA:O.

[Akka le Vil]

Pzykozis wrote...

That simplifies what amounts to a massive difference.

But sure if you want to look at it like that yes, but they're still more defined than they were in DA:O.

No, they are more restricted, not more defined. On the contrary, they are LESS defined, as your own post shows it.

[Pzykozis]

Akka le Vil wrote...

No, they are more restricted, not more defined. On the contrary, they are LESS defined, as your own post shows it.

I'm confused by your use of logic here. Restrictions that stop them from overlapping would automatically make them more defined. As for implying that a dexterity fighter is indistinct from a strength fighter I guess we'd just have to agree to disagree.

[PsyrenY]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, though that has no bearing on my claim that this is the worst news.

If this is indeed the worst news so far then I am very excited about this game.

[Lumikki]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

That simplifies what amounts to a massive difference.

But sure if you want to look at it like that yes, but they're still more defined than they were in DA:O.

No, they are more restricted, not more defined. On the contrary, they are LESS defined, as your own post shows it.

More define as "narrow" meaning, leads allways in more restricted. So it's both, more restricted, but also more define. Example as the roles get more restricted, they also become more define to be sertain kind.

[Akka le Vil]

Pzykozis wrote...

I'm confused by your use of logic here. Restrictions that stop them from overlapping would automatically make them more defined.

Not necessarily. It's not because you prevent someone to use something that he automatically gets more personnality.
Restrictions only help definitions if they make sense and are in line with the underlying "spirit" of the class. Arbitrary restrictions that don't have a deep reasons are just useless, and even often counter-productive.

Imagine I forbid warriors from using swords and says they can only use maces and not swords, I don't give them any more depth nor I make them distinct - I simply put an arbitrary and nonsensical limitation on them. Does the "warrior" class has a common defined aversion to swords ? Clearly not. So what's the point of putting this restriction ? The answer is just "err... to make sure that it doesn't overlap with some other arbitrarily defined class". That's a very poor and shallow take on what "defined" means and imply.
Now if I forbid warriors to use spells... Well, THAT is a limitation making sense.

As for implying that a dexterity fighter is indistinct from a strength fighter I guess we'd just have to agree to disagree.

I didn't say they're totally indistinct, I said they are barely variation on a common theme. Basically, it's what you could do with a warrior specialized in two different way in DAO.
An actual rogue class has a completely different approach and archetype than a warrior. By your own definition, it's no more "warrior" with all its depth and specialities, and "rogue" with all its perks and utilities, but just "fighter specialized in A" and "fighter specialized in B". The first method is actually much more distinct and defined than the second.

The point of making defined and distinct classes is to have very different possibilities, with very different take on things. Defined and distinct classes can be fun because they have their own "personalities" and feel very different from each others. To do that, you need to get the "essence" of the class, and tune it accordingly : you go from the core, and express this core through the outer layings.

What you describe has the same core, and just a different way to express it. It's more a difference in specialization, and not a difference in nature. As such, it's much LESS distinct than classes that can be overlapping, but have fundamental differences in how they are even conceived.

[Pzykozis]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Not necessarily. It's not because you prevent someone to use something that he automatically gets more personnality.
Restrictions only help definitions if they make sense and are in line with the underlying "spirit" of the class. Arbitrary restrictions that don't have a deep reasons are just useless, and even often counter-productive.

Imagine I forbid warriors from using swords and says they can only use maces and not swords, I don't give them any more depth nor I make them distinct - I simply put an arbitrary and nonsensical limitation on them. Does the "warrior" class has a common defined aversion to swords ? Clearly not. So what's the point of putting this restriction ? The answer is just "err... to make sure that it doesn't overlap with some other arbitrarily defined class". That's a very poor and shallow take on what "defined" means and imply.
Now if I forbid warriors to use spells... Well, THAT is a limitation making sense.

Well to me forbidding swords is slightly different from a fighting style, but the point isn't necassarily to add personality it's to make things more distinct, personality can be added back in after things are made distinct (more on this below).

And to be honest I'm not personally in favour (I don't feel strongly either way) of denying weapon usage completely, though to me it's pointless to use a weapon if you're terrible at using it when you have more effective means available to you.

Akka le Vil wrote...

An actual rogue class has a completely different approach and archetype than a warrior. By your own definition, it's no more "warrior" with all its depth and specialities, and "rogue" with all its perks and utilities, but just "fighter specialized in A" and "fighter specialized in B". The first method is actually much more distinct and defined than the second.

What you describe has the same core, and just a different way to express it. It's more a difference in specialization, and not a difference in nature. As such, it's much LESS distinct than classes that can be overlapping, but have fundamental differences in how they are even conceived.

The problem with my arguement in relation to this, is that I'm oversimplifying, to go back to what I said previously with weapons defining the class (or weapons restricting class choice) what I mean is that effectively the weapon styles (or fighting styles) become the core of the class, and then on top of that you add the flavour, the rogue still has its utility but it and the general flavour (which is decided by the universe of the IP) of the class is built around the fact that this class is a dexterity fighter (or whatever really), likewise the general warrior abilities can be built up knowing that it revolves around it's use of strength, you might start out with pretty similar concepts (two melee fighting classes) but using the now clearer definition between the two mechanics wise, (even if you don't agree that personality wise they're different you have to agree mechanics wise they're different) the designers can build from that to create new flavour and personality.

Speed is probably a better term than dexterity though since you could always just give a warrior inordinate amounts of dexterity and call it a dexterity fighter. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by dexterity(speed) and strength(power) fighters aswell (to avoid any misconceptions that may arise), dexterity fighters concentrate on mobility and generally tactics which lead their opponents to positions they dont want to be in feints, forcing them to overextend etc. or using the mobility they get into a position which is extremely dangerous to slower enemies. Strength fighters concentrate on holding the line and just overpowering the enemy through their skill and power (something that basically screams shield and heavy 2h weapons).

[lunarknightmage]

I, too, am getting concerned with the new restrictions.

First, it was learning that DW was restricted to rogues.

Then, reading Peter's responses to our questions in his Q+A thread, I'm really starting to get concerned about the possibility of creating a melee-oriented battle mage ( Arcane Warrior ).

My hope with DA2 was that they would allow us more freedom in building our characters the way WE want them. I was hoping that I could make an AW who could actually learn weapon talents, DW, and actually fight like a warrior ( or even a rogue ).

Now, though, I'm not even sure I will be able to create an AW-type character in DA2.

Unless the specs change the way we can play the classes, it really does sound like they are boxing us into predefined achetypes to fit the class.

So, mages are restricted to just using a staff ( which I guess includes the new staff/sword seen in the trailer ) and casting spells. But, staffs don't have a weapon talent tree, which implies that mages will be stuck with a basic staff melee attack.

I can understand the classes starting out as distinct. But, as you gain experience and level up your character is supposed to become stronger and more skilled.

Are you telling me that a mage can't LEARN how to fight with a sword or train to be a warrior? Especially in a story that's supposed to take place over a decade.

Let's say mage Hawke meets an AW ( or even just a regular warrior ) who sees potential in Hawke. So he trains Hawke how to fight like a warrior, and that's how mage Hawke becomes a Battle Mage or Arcane Warrior.

That is not possible?

Why am I stuck with just casting spells and whacking things with my staff if I choose to be a mage?

The whole thing is supposed to be about ROLEPLAYING. Sure, there are going to be gameplay and mechanic limitations, but we should be able to create our characters the way WE want to.

Right now, it's sounding like we are being forced to play characters types that are already predefined, and are now becoming even more narrowly defined due to these weapon restrictions.

I'm sorry for the rant. But, this is the first time I've started feeling doubtful of the direction DA2 is heading.......

Modifié par lunarknightmage, 08 septembre 2010 - 02:27 .

[TMZuk]

wwwwowwww wrote...

It's not much different than it's always been in every RPG I've ever played

Yes it is!

It is so much b******! It's a leftover from D&D, which isn't used in most RPG's anymore. It's like the thing that warriors can no longer dual-wield... I mean, WTF??? What has gotten into Bioware???

First they take our origins away and forces us to play humans.

Now they take away our choise in which sort of weapons we want  to use, and how.

This game is six months from release and already it SUCKS so badly, that I'm at a loss for words. RPG my a**! A dumb adventure game for twelve year olds.

Modifié par TMZuk, 08 septembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[the_one_54321]

Yeah, I don't get why people care about this. Sure, it would make more sense and be more realistic if there were no restrictions at all, and the classes just sucked at the things they weren't trained for. But then no one would use them anyway and later people would be complaining about how superfluous and pointless it is. As an addition to the game it would be useless and a waste or resources on BioWare's part.

[Lumikki]

In my opinion it does little go away from traditional RPG and move the weight more in adventure side. Sure, we can still select class and some skills, but that's pretty much it. I don't mean that total freedom is better, but when game become more restricted with choises, more predefine role, player is forced to play. Little like in adventure games.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 septembre 2010 - 03:29 .

[Monica83]

Yes im a bit worried too...

Less game than origins-stepback-

No race choice-stepback-

Bye bye origins story-stepback-

Static classes ops i mean "Distinct"..-stepback-



Oh but we have..

Voiced character... (well im italian and voiced character for me will be english i don't see that difference"

And then better animation "this is ok"

Yay.. *sigh*

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This strikes me as an unnecessary and wholly arbitrary restriction.

Aren't classes themselves unnecessary and wholly arbitrary? At least  the warrior/rogue distinction -- DA lore offers a little justification for magi having a separate assortment of talents, though it's not quite clear why a mage couldn't learn martial abilities once he's left the Circle.

Except for game-balance reasons, of course -- AWs are bad enough without letting them get Shield line talents too.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 septembre 2010 - 03:33 .

[Monica83]

well i already seen this happened..isn't the first time that a sequel is worse than the original one...

For example:nwn to nwn2 two games one maded by bioware one made by obsidian.. the second one will be realeased in alpha full of bugs... Now i think DA2 will be much more casual than Dragon Age Origins and this is a true pity.. Marketing is a terrible beast...And some people are ready to play trash only to play a sequel they see a title they puchase it.. Nevermind if the sequel feels the lack of many features like character race, origins story, more free classes and talent ability.. What people see its only graphic and animation improved... this is really sad..

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

Except for game-balance reasons, of course -- AWs are bad enough without letting them get Shield line talents too.

Since it's single-player game the "balance" is quite a secondary concern, imo -- i realize some people can go "wtf why would anyone play X when Y is much stronger, make them even!" but i'd view such disparity as both source of rp and an additional difficulty gradient allowing one to finetune their experience. Which can add another dimension to the game.

[Monica83]

well i already seen this happened..isn't the first time that a sequel is worse than the original one...

For example:nwn to nwn2 two games one maded by bioware one made by obsidian.. the second one will be realeased in alpha full of bugs... Now i think DA2 will be much more casual than Dragon Age Origins and this is a true pity.. Marketing is a terrible beast...And some people are ready to play trash only to play a sequel they see a title they puchase it.. Nevermind if the sequel feels the lack of many features like character race, origins story, more free classes and talent ability.. What people see its only graphic and animation improved... this is really sad..

[ErichHartmann]

TMZuk wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

It's not much different than it's always been in every RPG I've ever played

Yes it is!

It is so much b******! It's a leftover from D&D, which isn't used in most RPG's anymore. It's like the thing that warriors can no longer dual-wield... I mean, WTF??? What has gotten into Bioware???

First they take our origins away and forces us to play humans.

Now they take away our choise in which sort of weapons we want  to use, and how.

This game is six months from release and already it SUCKS so badly, that I'm at a loss for words. RPG my a**! A dumb adventure game for twelve year olds.

So you are an authority on RPGs?  Have you ever played The Witcher?  A strong storyline trumps a million different class/specialization combinations and multiple races.  But if you feel this strongly don't bother posting here anymore.              

[Monica83]

Hem i repeated the reply sorry my network isn't great today^^!

[Niarviel]

Might i suggest we start praying for the ability to mod this game? From the various negative reviews i have seen they will probably release a toolset to allow people to mod the game, just to make sure everyone is happy.

That and why wouldn't they allow us to mod the game? We could in the first and this is just a updated engine?

[Monica83]

Erich in the witcher you are a premaded characted with a premaded choice of weapons that fist the character yes its a nice game with a badass story and i love it.. But we cant comparate the witcher with Dragon age... Dragon age 2 supposed to be more freedom to build your character more limited than the first one.. But cut off dual from warriors was a bad move..

[Blastback]

ErichHartmann wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

It's not much different than it's always been in every RPG I've ever played

Yes it is!

It is so much b******! It's a leftover from D&D, which isn't used in most RPG's anymore. It's like the thing that warriors can no longer dual-wield... I mean, WTF??? What has gotten into Bioware???

First they take our origins away and forces us to play humans.

Now they take away our choise in which sort of weapons we want  to use, and how.

This game is six months from release and already it SUCKS so badly, that I'm at a loss for words. RPG my a**! A dumb adventure game for twelve year olds.

So you are an authority on RPGs?  Have you ever played The Witcher?  A strong storyline trumps a million different class/specialization combinations and multiple races.  But if you feel this strongly don't bother posting here anymore.              

I'll agree that story is more importtant than customisation, but honestly, taking duel wield and archery away from warriors wasn't a story move.  They said that they did it for gameplay reasons.

Sides, alot of people care as much about the RPG mechanics as they do the story.  We all have diffrent things we love and latch on to in games.

[Akka le Vil]

Pzykozis wrote...

Well to me forbidding swords is slightly different from a fighting style, but the point isn't necassarily to add personality it's to make things more distinct, personality can be added back in after things are made distinct (more on this below).

This doesn't make any sense at all. The POINT of making classes distinct is to have each of them with more personnality. Your sentence has no meaning.

The problem with my arguement in relation to this, is that I'm oversimplifying, to go back to what I said previously with weapons defining the class (or weapons restricting class choice) what I mean is that effectively the weapon styles (or fighting styles) become the core of the class, and then on top of that you add the flavour

And I spent half a page explaining why this method is completely wrong and why it's doing everything backward.
When you build an archetype (or anything, actually), you start from the core principles and you then expand.
You don't start with the upper layer, without understand why and how it's there, and then dig to find where the core might be.
Taking a superficial consequence as the core is just absurd and make for a completely broken design. Which is precisely why it feel bogus for so many people, and why we're having so many argument about it.

It's exactly like when an argument shift to semantic bickering : it's gone all on the surface, and miss the essential reason why it exists. And the result is that it goes nowhere and ends up withering.
By the way, it's the reason of what's happening, with "warriors" and "rogues" losing the value of their name and starting to be only meaningless cardboards that are stuck on whatever arbitrary set of skill Bioware has decided, and which ends up losing their definition and distinction, and ultimately defeating the very purpose of these restrictions, which were to define BETTER the classes.

Speed is probably a better term than dexterity though since you could always just give a warrior inordinate amounts of dexterity and call it a dexterity fighter. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by dexterity(speed) and strength(power) fighters aswell (to avoid any misconceptions that may arise), dexterity fighters concentrate on mobility and generally tactics which lead their opponents to positions they dont want to be in feints, forcing them to overextend etc. or using the mobility they get into a position which is extremely dangerous to slower enemies. Strength fighters concentrate on holding the line and just overpowering the enemy through their skill and power (something that basically screams shield and heavy 2h weapons).

What you're doing here is a perfect illustration of what I described above.

[Niarviel]

They restricted weapons to classes to make each class more distinct, which is why they took out the DW. What is the point of having warrior and rogue if they can learn the same moves? Sure it sucks for alot of people who wanted a DW warrior, but sadly your going to have to get used to a normal Warrior.



Then again they can probably change their mind about this, who knows.

[Akka le Vil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yeah, I don't get why people care about this.

Mmh... Let's say... Because :

Sure, it would make more sense and be more realistic

Guess you answered your own question ?
I know that the usual brainless answer is "hey there is magic, so nothing has to make any sense at all", but, well, it's not a "brainless" answer for nothing. "making sense" is what differentiate a thought-out story from a broken one, a good plot from a plot full of hole, and a consistent character from a randomly reacting one.
"making sense" is basically what immersion and credibility are about. So yeah, having something "not making sense" is reason enough to be riled against.

Additionnally, there is this "little" point of actual fun. Some people just WANT to play a DW warrior, some other want to have choices and not feel railroaded along arbitrary lines.

Making sense and fun. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's reason enough to "care".

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 08 septembre 2010 - 04:59 .