197 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

I think it only looks like that because the PC has probably the larger proportion of games where a large portion of the population is lost without a strategy guide (if only because MMORPG's are PC-only games). I know Dungeons and Dragons Online has a learning curve like the Matterhorn, and that's even for people who are familiar with pen and paper D&D!



This may not be true forever, though. The whole "streamlining" phenomenon is probably because there are simply way more "casual" players than "hardcore" players, and strategy guide sales do not make up for the loss of actual game sales when a game tries to only appeal to the "hardcore" folks.



I think we will see an increasing trend in the future of studios that can make games like Pixar and Dreamworks makes movies (enjoyable by both the "casual" and "hardcore" players) being the BIG moneymakers. And more of the "casual" folks may gradually start to pick up on and enjoy the "hardcore" aspects. So it's WIN for everyone.

[In Exile]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I think it only looks like that because the PC has probably the larger proportion of games where a large portion of the population is lost without a strategy guide (if only because MMORPG's are PC-only games). I know Dungeons and Dragons Online has a learning curve like the Matterhorn, and that's even for people who are familiar with pen and paper D&D!

This may not be true forever, though. The whole "streamlining" phenomenon is probably because there are simply way more "casual" players than "hardcore" players, and strategy guide sales do not make up for the loss of actual game sales when a game tries to only appeal to the "hardcore" folks.

I think we will see an increasing trend in the future of studios that can make games like Pixar and Dreamworks makes movies (enjoyable by both the "casual" and "hardcore" players) being the BIG moneymakers. And more of the "casual" folks may gradually start to pick up on and enjoy the "hardcore" aspects. So it's WIN for everyone.

It's not the platform - it's the attitude. There is nothing more absurd to me than judging intellect, attention span, or whatever, based on tastes in video games. It's just nonsense.

[slimgrin]

My favorite approach to this is done in Divine Divinity, where you can pick skills from any class and the variety of builds is near infinite. I think the only difference in what class you choose is their starting stats, but what they learn is entirely up to the player: an archer mage, a tanked out survivor (rouge) specializing in poisons, A warrior specializing in magic, etc.



The way Bioware is doing it in DA2 concerns me a bit because it sounds like they are pigeon holing the player in how they build their team.

[jhawke]

I have some issues with all the restrictions they are placing on the classes. But, I will wait until I see the list of available specs before I pass final judgement.



As a warrior player, I want to create a "Holy Knight" or "Spirit Knight." So, if Templar and/or Spirit Warrior specs are taken out, then I will panic and rethink my decision about preordering the game.



Ironically, though, having watched the leaked videos, the class I am least interested in is the Rogue class. And this is coming from someone who WANTED Rogues to be more agile, nimble, and "ninja-like."



When I heard that was the direction they were going for Rogues, I was excited. But when I saw the gameplay vids, there was just something "off" about the way the Rogues fought in battle. Maybe it was the way Hawke held the swords. Or that "ninja-moves" didn't seem to fit the medieval setting.



Or, maybe it's because seeing 2h warrior Hawke in action, complete with the awesome Charge attack, wowed me so much that I knew I HAD to play as a Warrior above all classes. And it even got me interested in playing a 2h warrior, a style I had 0 INTEREST as playing in Origins due to the slow attack speeds.........

[ErichHartmann]

slimgrin wrote...

My favorite approach to this is done in Divine Divinity, where you can pick skills from any class and the variety of builds is near infinite. I think the only difference in what class you choose is their starting stats, but what they learn is entirely up to the player: an archer mage, a tanked out survivor (rouge) specializing in poisons, A warrior specializing in magic, etc.

The way Bioware is doing it in DA2 concerns me a bit because it sounds like they are pigeon holing the player in how they build their team.

But Divine Divinity is not a team based game.  Makes sense to me that skills are fair game for any build as a single character.           

[slimgrin]

ErichHartmann wrote...


But Divine Divinity is not a team based game.  Makes sense to me that skills are fair game for any build as a single character.           

Why not for the whole team? I know some have said "well you as the player don't control those members", but we did in DA and I rather liked having the option. Currently, I have Leliana as a poison and bomb expert using shield and sword in one game, an archer in another, and a dual wielding monster in a third.

I also mention Divine Divinity because the game emphasizes a 'classless' approach, allowing the player more freedom to get creative with builds. 

[Rulian]

Why so surprised? The announcement to make warriors Spartans, rogues Ninjas and mages umm battlefield artillery would have to mean more streamlined builds. What did you think it meant?

[Hardin4188]

My first character was a dual wielding warrior so I am very disappointed to hear about these changes. I liked how much flexibility the classes had. I hate to say it, but the more I hear about this game the more I worry.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It's not the platform - it's the attitude. There is nothing more absurd to me than judging intellect, attention span, or whatever, based on tastes in video games. It's just nonsense.

It makes as much sense as judging those traits based on tastes in literature or film.

[atheelogos]

wait mages can't use swords?

[Sylvius the Mad]

atheelogos wrote...

wait mages can't use swords?

That's the information we have currently.

[FedericoV]

What's the point of having different classes if then you want to be able to do anything with any of them? In each class you would like to tank, dps (ranged and closed), heal, controll, etc.. That's was one of the main balance problem of DA:O that resulted in a completely broken rule system (especially in terms of balance between classes).



classes are there to offer different roles in battle. You cannot have classes without somekind of specialization and uniqueness in terms of purposes. In DA:O those specializations/purposes were not clear enough and Bioware is right trying to fix that. I prefer DA2 system even if weapons specialization feels a little bit artificial.



I understand that players are annoyed because they loose a good margin of customization options. But the solution is not DA:O's system. The solution is to merge the warrior and rogue classes (a distinction that is purely artificial and mostly nonensical) in to a single fighter class with the same amount of customization of DA's Mages.



In general, as a community we should decide: if we want to be able to customize our charachter completely and have lots of different otpions, a class-less system is the only way to go. Otherwise (especially with three classes) I think that there are not a lot of different solutions than DA2 ones.

[atheelogos]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

wait mages can't use swords?

That's the information we have currently.

Do you know where the info came from?

[Knal1991]

But does that immediatly mean you can't be an arcane warrior?



Maybe sword staff is a weapon in game usable by mages, (like stronger melee weaker magic or something like that)....



and the arcane warrior (or just another mage talent) could give us the option to wear heavy armor....



I really hope I can wear heavy armor as a mage and be effective, and use that sword staff.... (this how I wanna roleplay it), so it probably is gonna affect my decion of purchase....(oh and be a blood mage simultaniously)

[Archereon]

Knal1991 wrote...

But does that immediatly mean you can't be an arcane warrior?

Maybe sword staff is a weapon in game usable by mages, (like stronger melee weaker magic or something like that)....

and the arcane warrior (or just another mage talent) could give us the option to wear heavy armor....

I really hope I can wear heavy armor as a mage and be effective, and use that sword staff.... (this how I wanna roleplay it), so it probably is gonna affect my decion of purchase....(oh and be a blood mage simultaniously)

Its been confirmed by bioware that Sword Staves are just for show, they don't do any additional melee damage, they just look cool.  (Bioware confirmed that staves don't do extra melee damage, they do the same damage melee or range)

But you know what pisses me off the most about this news?  There is going to be precisely 1 cookie cutter build for mages and rogues, and 2 for warriors (tank or DPS)

[FedericoV]

Archereon wrote...

Its been confirmed by bioware that Sword Staves are just for show, they don't do any additional melee damage, they just look cool.  (Bioware confirmed that staves don't do extra melee damage, they do the same damage melee or range)

But you know what pisses me off the most about this news?  There is going to be precisely 1 cookie cutter build for mages and rogues, and 2 for warriors (tank or DPS)

Source?

Two-hand and S&B builds are for tanking and AOE melee damage (and not for DPS) according to Peter Thomas thread.

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

It's not the platform - it's the attitude. There is nothing more absurd to me than judging intellect, attention span, or whatever, based on tastes in video games. It's just nonsense.

It makes as much sense as judging those traits based on tastes in literature or film.

So it really makes no sense at all, eh? 

[Maconbar]

FedericoV wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Its been confirmed by bioware that Sword Staves are just for show, they don't do any additional melee damage, they just look cool.  (Bioware confirmed that staves don't do extra melee damage, they do the same damage melee or range)

But you know what pisses me off the most about this news?  There is going to be precisely 1 cookie cutter build for mages and rogues, and 2 for warriors (tank or DPS)

Source?

Two-hand and S&B builds are for tanking and AOE melee damage (and not for DPS) according to Peter Thomas thread.

2 builds for rogues at least for rogues: ranged and non-ranged.

[Archereon]

FedericoV wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Its been confirmed by bioware that Sword Staves are just for show, they don't do any additional melee damage, they just look cool.  (Bioware confirmed that staves don't do extra melee damage, they do the same damage melee or range)

But you know what pisses me off the most about this news?  There is going to be precisely 1 cookie cutter build for mages and rogues, and 2 for warriors (tank or DPS)

Source?

Two-hand and S&B builds are for tanking and AOE melee damage (and not for DPS) according to Peter Thomas thread.

So warriors can no longer DPS!?  That's even worse!

Lets see, you got your tanking S&B build, and your two handed "useless" AOE damage (since its not DPS, what the hell is it!?) spec.  (Or did you mean that Both 2h and S&B are tanking specs that have AOE aggro?  That's just as bad)

Now everyone has only one spec.

Mages are going to be healers with a bit of DPS capability, rogues are going to be either ranged DPS, or they'll be FAAST melee DPSs, and warriors are S&B tanks.

Why?  Because apparently its been confirmed 2h warrior is useless in addition to mages having no significantly differentiated builds, so it stands to reason that rogues won't be getting preferential treatment (either melee or ranged will be SUPREME cookie cutter)

Modifié par Archereon, 11 novembre 2010 - 01:11 .

[FDrage]

Knal1991 wrote...

But does that immediatly mean you can't be an arcane warrior?

Maybe sword staff is a weapon in game usable by mages, (like stronger melee weaker magic or something like that)....

and the arcane warrior (or just another mage talent) could give us the option to wear heavy armor....

I really hope I can wear heavy armor as a mage and be effective, and use that sword staff.... (this how I wanna roleplay it), so it probably is gonna affect my decion of purchase....(oh and be a blood mage simultaniously)

Well as far as I know we have been told that there is no "staff" skill tree ... so all the staff does is that it uses a melee attack when you are in melee range and a ranged attack when you are sufficient away from the target.

If Bioware allows for an AW, personally I would find that inconsequent as they said they want to make each class more desdinct and less blurry. AW was similar "blurry" to a warrior as a DW and Archer Warrior was to the rogues.  As both of the later have been removed from the warrior class, it would mean that they should remove the AW as well. Regardless of how much I like the AW or DW warrior.

[Archereon]

AW wasn't that similar to S&B warrior. You didn't have the weapon skill tree, so you had to rely more on magic with some auto attacks mixed in.

[Urazz]

Archereon wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd much rather have each class being a unique play experience rather than playing a class that feels identical to another with small differences.

Arcane warrior hardly felt like playing a warrior or a rogue.  At all.  And that's the one I want back THE MOST.

It doesn't matter that staves can melee now.  It does the same damage, which, if DA:O is any indicator, will be crap.  Plus, swords are just cooler.

Now if they took some inspiration from WoW Death Knights (minus the cheese of bonus levels and undisepllable DoTs)...

Sword and shield mage tank and sword and board warrior tank= Awesome.
2 handed mage tank vs sword and board warrior tank= Awesome AND differentiated.

The Arcane Warrior felt more like a mage wearing plate and could melee well.  If they keep an arcane warrior type of spec then it'll be with the staff and the damage will be improved but you'll not be able to wear armor so you'll have less of a defense compared to the Arcane Warrior in Origins.

[LexXxich]

Indeed, even when staffs are used by mages in melee, the whole mechanic behind it is the same as in range combat. Only difference is in animation.

All this feature-cutting doesn't sit well with me. Sure, there might have been an overlap in rogue's and warrior's weapon proficiencies. But why make a warrior *less* a master of arms when the problem was in warrior's class talents being mostly passives?

[Archereon]

LexXxich wrote...

Indeed, even when staffs are used by mages in melee, the whole mechanic behind it is the same as in range combat. Only difference is in animation.
All this feature-cutting doesn't sit well with me. Sure, there might have been an overlap in rogue's and warrior's weapon proficiencies. But why make a warrior *less* a master of arms when the problem was in warrior's class talents being mostly passives?

Technically the shield tree was a warrior only thing.