268 réponses à ce sujet

[Aermas]

I would like to see some light hatchets in combat so that I don't always have to wield a dagger.

[Xewaka]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

And that is why we made the decision we did, right there. Now followers look unique instead of the same. Love it or hate it, you have to admit it does address a problem.

Why was armor looking similar considered a problem? I had no problem telling Leliana from Zevran, or Morrigan from Wynne, for example. The characters were interesting enough to stand on their own due to their well-written personalities. They needed no "unique apparel" crutch to stand out.

GodWood wrote...
My Dwarf Commoner rogue dual wielded axes.
Made perfect sense to me.

Mine did as well. It's the most logical choice.

Modifié par Xewaka, 14 novembre 2010 - 12:12 .

[FedericoV]

A little provocation: as soon as Bioware introduces an oldschool/bgish/ad&d feature like weapon restriction, players start to get angry... well, I just say that if you want Mass Effect with swords, you should play The Witcher and leave an oldschool game like DA2 for true and hardchore roleplayers !

Joke aside: I think that it would have been better if rogues had the opportunity to choose between two different weapon set (like dagger and axes). Being stuck with just one kind of melee weapon is too restrictive imho.

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 novembre 2010 - 12:46 .

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

As to armors, I believe there's at least as many variations as Origins had in terms of model

So, at least six, then?

[Xewaka]

Brockololly wrote...

This shot assuages some of my concerns about how armor would look. It actually is pleasant on the eye and reasonably protective (lack of gorget is annoying though)

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

As to armors, I believe there's at least as many variations as Origins had in terms of model

So, at least six, then?

Most likely less, the art team didn't want to over tax themselves after their hard work of implimenting Jay Leno's chin for companions. Since its so huge an all.

[Brockololly]

- Songlian - wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Slightly off topic: Where is this pic from? 

Its just a screen I took from the HD version of a gameplay video that was out a couple weeks ago.

I'm wondering what kind of armor that is? Is it heavy or massive armor? I really hope the massive amor still looks massive with the huge shoulders as I liked that.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Most likely less, the art team didn't want to over tax themselves after  their hard work of implimenting Jay Leno's chin for companions. Since  its so huge an all.

They'll add a chin guard equippable slot so your companions can protect their massive Jay Leno chins. Maybe some protective goggles for their buggy eyes too.

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 novembre 2010 - 04:13 .

[tmp7704]

Brockololly wrote...

I'm wondering what kind of armor that is? Is it heavy or massive armor? I really hope the massive amor still looks massive with the huge shoulders as I liked that.

There's lot of leather bits there so i'd guess medium. Actually that makes me wonder so caveat: if the medium armour is still there, could easily see it scrapped and that model assigned to light armour category instead. Given medium wasn't used much and it doesn't work well with that whole idea of "as much difference between classes as possible"

[Virginian]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Rogues who wish to fight in melee (as opposed to archers) equip weapons classified as daggers

Next time I go to Gamestop I am cancelling my preorder.

I said one before and I'll say it again. A rogue who doesn't carry a sword is a retard.

Thank you for saving me some money, asswipe.

[Ziggeh]

Virginian wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Rogues who wish to fight in melee (as opposed to archers) equip weapons classified as daggers

Next time I go to Gamestop I am cancelling my preorder.

I said one before and I'll say it again. A rogue who doesn't carry a sword is a retard.

Thank you for saving me some money, asswipe.

Hey, here's a tip, read the rest of his response.

[Brockololly]

tmp7704 wrote...
There's lot of leather bits there so i'd guess medium. Actually that makes me wonder so caveat: if the medium armour is still there, could easily see it scrapped and that model assigned to light armour category instead. Given medium wasn't used much and it doesn't work well with that whole idea of "as much difference between classes as possible"

Yeah, the only thing is that Hawke is a two handed warrior and its been my impression they're emphasizing warriors as tanks this time. I don't know though- maybe its been answered, but is armor equippable by stats or are they being limited by class? Cause I know they wanted the animations to reflect the classes but at the same time they said part of the reason for getting rid of the DW warrior was that they didn't want a massive armor warrior flipping and twirling.

So can rogues wear heavy or massive armor if they've got the required stats? Or will they be locked out due to class restrictions?

[DPB]

Peter Thomas answered that.

A Mage can wear any armor in the game, provided he meets the stat requirements. The item list hasn't been finalized yet, but there may be specific pieces of equipment that are only equippable by a single class.

Modifié par dbankier, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[tmp7704]

Brockololly wrote...

I don't know though- maybe its been answered, but is armor equippable by stats or are they being limited by class? Cause I know they wanted the animations to reflect the classes but at the same time they said part of the reason for getting rid of the DW warrior was that they didn't want a massive armor warrior flipping and twirling.

So can rogues wear heavy or massive armor if they've got the required stats? Or will they be locked out due to class restrictions?

Last word we got in the dev answer thread was armour wasn't class locked but only down to stats. Which yeah, runs bit at odds with the whole "we didn't allow warriors use rogue's dual wield animations because a guy flipping out in massive armour would look silly" angle but, well.

edit: 'ed

Modifié par tmp7704, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Wulfram]

I'd guess that it won't make sense for anyone except a fighter to invest that much in strength.

[Avatiach]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Oh, and there's more light armors, too. Because I think rogues kind of got the shaft in Origins when it came to armor progression.

Thank you!!!  

Any chance rogues will get hoods, instead of light helmets (or at least in addition to them)?

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

I'd guess that it won't make sense for anyone except a fighter to invest that much in strength.

Well, it will make sense for rogue who'd want extra protection from heavier armour. It may actually make more sense in DA2 come to think of it, since there's supposedly no longer the fatigue cost associated with it.

Modifié par tmp7704, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:26 .

[AlanC9]

FedericoV wrote...

A little provocation: as soon as Bioware introduces an oldschool/bgish/ad&d feature like weapon restriction, players start to get angry... well, I just say that if you want Mass Effect with swords, you should play The Witcher and leave an oldschool game like DA2 for true and hardchore roleplayers !

Joke aside: I think that it would have been better if rogues had the opportunity to choose between two different weapon set (like dagger and axes). Being stuck with just one kind of melee weapon is too restrictive imho.

That's a pretty good point, actually. This sort of thing used to be the epitome of RPG design. A design goal of old D&D editions was to force players into stereotyped roles. I'm not especially happy about seeing this come back in DA, but it's not some sort of horrible deviation from RPG tradition.

[Wulfram]

tmp7704 wrote...

Well, it will make sense for rogue who'd want extra protection from heavier armour. It may actually make more sense in DA2 come to think of it, since there's supposedly no longer the fatigue cost associated with it.

Str won't give you attack or damage for a rogue, just impact resistance, so I can't see it making sense to invest in it.

[tmp7704]

Being able to resist knockdowns and being pushed back better actually means you're still there and dealing damage rather than sitting on your ass, though. In that sense it may contribute to character's damage output.

Put it another way -- if the player doesn't at least get tempted to put some points in areas other than agility (for rogue) then it'd pretty much mean the devs utterly failed in their stated attempt to make all stats worthwile for all classes. Though granted, i'm not convinced the approach they picked is actually going to help them accomplish that goal.

[FedericoV]

AlanC9 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

A little provocation: as soon as Bioware introduces an oldschool/bgish/ad&d feature like weapon restriction, players start to get angry... well, I just say that if you want Mass Effect with swords, you should play The Witcher and leave an oldschool game like DA2 for true and hardchore roleplayers !

Joke aside: I think that it would have been better if rogues had the opportunity to choose between two different weapon set (like dagger and axes). Being stuck with just one kind of melee weapon is too restrictive imho.

That's a pretty good point, actually. This sort of thing used to be the epitome of RPG design. A design goal of old D&D editions was to force players into stereotyped roles. I'm not especially happy about seeing this come back in DA, but it's not some sort of horrible deviation from RPG tradition.

Thanks! And btw, the stereotype thing returned even in D&D 4th.

It seems to me that the average players of fantasy games really want stereotypes.

[Meltemph]

Thanks! And btw, the stereotype thing returned even in D&D 4th.



It seems to me that the average players of fantasy games really want stereotypes.

Which, imo is a good thing. Anything that gets away from homogenization, imo.

[FedericoV]

Meltemph wrote...

Thanks! And btw, the stereotype thing returned even in D&D 4th.

It seems to me that the average players of fantasy games really want stereotypes.

Which, imo is a good thing. Anything that gets away from homogenization, imo.

Well, I'm not sure that I understand your point. Stereotypes in some way are all about homogenization of certain roles/class/archetypes that changes in some limited ways from one game to the other but at the end remains the same. Are you saying that having clear roles in a game gets away from homogenization?

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 novembre 2010 - 06:05 .

[schalafi]

[quote]Brockololly wrote...

[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...

[quote]CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Well I guess they had the time to make a few extra daggers, since they didn't need to spend any art resources on armor now did they?
[/quote]

Zing!

It's true. All the armor Hawke is wearing was delivered to us by some shady gentlemen with indeterminate accents in return for blueprints to the large hadron collider, and thus required no work.
[/quote]

[quote]Well, it does look like Hawke got some sticky fingers with nabbing some Warden armor? Or is this not the Warden crest? Or is Hawke just cosplaying as a Warden?



"The blood stripe across my nose really clashes with my armor... maybe I should just wash it off"[/quote]

[Meltemph]

Stereotypes in some way are all about homogenization of certain roles/class/archetypes that changes in some limited ways from one game to the other but at the end remains the same.

Not sure how you are using homogenizing... I mean it in its literal term:



to blend (diverse elements) into a uniform mixture



which is essentially making all the classes similar, I do not want that and want the distinctions between them to be very clear.

Are you saying that having clear roles in a game gets away from homogenization?

Yes, otherwise you get it where most classes play/look to similar.