1309 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

In Exile wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Being a Grey warden does give your character respect from the gate guard at Orzammar and it does make Wilhelm's son lower the magic barrier in Honnleath so it does play for some usefulness in the story of the game. I'm not sure the Dalish clan would of even let a non-Dalish elven character into their camp unless they were a warden.

But in all those cases, you just go "Hullo people, I Grey Warden! I offer no proof of my authenticy at all, nor any way for you to verify my identity beyond my word!" You could just go around and tell people you were a Warden and achieve about the same thing, short of recruiting the dwarves.

Your character did remember to take the treaties, didn't he/she? Sure, I'll play devil's advocate for my own argument here and say "they could be faked!" But who, in a feudal era would firstly be literate, secondly have the idea to make believable Grey Warden forgeries, and thirdly to have the skill to scribe them on vellum, papyrus, ect (whatever is used in Thedas for writing) in a passable way other than a Grey Warden?

Ah yes, and fourthly have the knowledge of the actual historical treaties in the first place which may or may not be stored in archives in the mage tower, the Shaperate, the Keeper's memoires and the libraries of the Arls of Ferelden? Most peasants don't likely walk around claiming such historical treaties are in their posession.

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 17 décembre 2010 - 05:18 .

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

On your third point:  I like the "he got into the MAKO before re-entry" explanation myself, but yeah, to me that's the silliest part.  

If the MAKO survived impact, why couldn't an armored suit?

We should remember that we're not talking about deceleration from orbital velocity here -- Normandy wasn't in orbit in the first place, which is why the ship crashed.

[HolyAvenger]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

I think Isabela should get pants. I mean come on, the fanservice is approaching ridiculous levels already.

Just saying. Sorry for being on-topic.

Don't say that, then they'll give her hot-pants like Lara Croft. Though any pants is likely an improvement at this point.

Hotpants wouldn't be ideal, but I'd take them over no pants at all. Ideally you'd have some sort of protection for your femoral artery because that's about as important as your jugular frankly. But at least give the poor girl some dignity and let her put on some pants...

[upsettingshorts]

HolyAvenger wrote...
But at least give the poor girl some dignity and let her put on some pants...

What about Isabela's character leads you to believe she cares?

[raziel3080]

DadeLeviathan wrote...

I have mixed feelings about them. Firstly, I think they look fantastic and add to the character's flavor, but at the same time I like customizing my party members with various armor and such. So do I like them? Yes. Do I wish I could still customize them, though? Yes. Do I really care that much to make a fuss? Heck no.

I echo these sentiments to a T. The thing I would would have been worried about is being able to customize my Hawke (male n female) characters... and it appears that we will be fully(as in weapons, armor, and so forth). So, I'm on the side liking the companion's outfits as they are and it seems from various other threads that will atleast upgrade periodically since this is SUPPOSED to be a game which takes place over the course of 10 years which they won't be static like Mass Effect 2( which I also didn't mind because you could get around it with the whole space setting thing...but I HATED not being able to change shepard's N7 armor...outside of small upgrades and changes in color...). I do however like one part of the Mass Effect 2 way...that you could change a character's appearance by completing their loyalty missions( or personal side quests as I took it) that maybe the route they are going here with DA 2.

[Aermas]

Alright you can shelf realism, but things need to be consistent. You don't ignore the little starving peasant boy because he isn't really starving. The game has said he is starving so therefore he is. It's as simple as that. Nothing in a game is "real" unless the game says it is. People in-game wear armor because the game says being unarmored will get you killed. Also you assume truths about the game when you see familiar elements. kittens are assumed to be soft & the forest are assumed to be full of wildlife, yet you may see no proof of this.

Modifié par Aermas, 17 décembre 2010 - 08:17 .

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Alright you can shelf realism, but things need to be consistent. You don't ignore the little starving peasant boy because he isn't really starving. The game has said he is starving so therefore he is. It's as simple as that. Nothing in a game is "real" unless the game says it is. People in-game wear armor because the game says being unarmored will get you killed. Also you assume truths about the game when you see familiar elements. kittens are assumed to be soft & the forest are assumed to be full of wildlife, yet you may see no proof of this.

-If characters in the game arent wearing armour then the game obviously isnt telling you that not wearing armour will get you killed

-That's only if kittens have fur, and not all kittens do.

-not evil, haunted forests, which are really the best kind

[Aermas]

Piecake wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Alright you can shelf realism, but things need to be consistent. You don't ignore the little starving peasant boy because he isn't really starving. The game has said he is starving so therefore he is. It's as simple as that. Nothing in a game is "real" unless the game says it is. People in-game wear armor because the game says being unarmored will get you killed. Also you assume truths about the game when you see familiar elements. kittens are assumed to be soft & the forest are assumed to be full of wildlife, yet you may see no proof of this.

-If characters in the game arent wearing armour then the game obviously isnt telling you that not wearing armour will get you killed

-That's only if kittens have fur, and not all kittens do.

-not evil, haunted forests, which are really the best kind

1. People wear armor to protect themselves, those that do not wear armor will have less protection. Therefore what I said was true.
2. Pedantic
3. Annoying Tangent

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Alright you can shelf realism, but things need to be consistent. You don't ignore the little starving peasant boy because he isn't really starving. The game has said he is starving so therefore he is. It's as simple as that. Nothing in a game is "real" unless the game says it is. People in-game wear armor because the game says being unarmored will get you killed. Also you assume truths about the game when you see familiar elements. kittens are assumed to be soft & the forest are assumed to be full of wildlife, yet you may see no proof of this.

-If characters in the game arent wearing armour then the game obviously isnt telling you that not wearing armour will get you killed

-That's only if kittens have fur, and not all kittens do.

-not evil, haunted forests, which are really the best kind

1. People wear armor to protect themselves, those that do not wear armor will have less protection. Therefore what I said was true.
2. Pedantic
3. Annoying Tangent

Oh, what you said is true, but that is not what the game is telling you, which was your original claim

And yes, I am being pendatic

[AlanC9]

No, Aermas was being wrong on the substance of his post. It isn't pedantic to correct that.

Edit: unless somehow Isabela is gimped in DA2 and would do better in plate or some such . I figure the chance of this being the case in DA2 is approximately 0%, but I've been wrong before.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 décembre 2010 - 09:14 .

[SirOccam]

AlanC9 wrote...

No, Aermas was being wrong on the substance of his post. It isn't pedantic to correct that.

Though I differ with him (I suspect) regarding non-armor outfits, he actually raises a good point, one to which I don't really have an answer. If a game establishes armor, then it's not a huge leap of logic to assume that, in that universe, armor is fundamentally more protective than normal clothing.

All I can do in defense of my opinion is shrug and maybe link to RuleOfCool on tvtropes.

[AlanC9]

SirOccam wrote...

Though I differ with him (I suspect) regarding non-armor outfits, he actually raises a good point, one to which I don't really have an answer. If a game establishes armor, then it's not a huge leap of logic to assume that, in that universe, armor is fundamentally more protective than normal clothing.

That isn't relevant.  Armor being fundamentally more protective simply doesn't mean that all combatants should be wearing armor. If Isabela's better off without armor, then that's what the game is showing us. The game simply isn't going to show us that "being unarmored will get you killed" because being unarmored won't get you killed.

Unless Aermas didn't actually mean that "being unarmored will get you killed" when he said "being unarmored will get you killed." If what he actually meant by "being unarmored will get you killed" is that being unarmored will increase the amount of damage your character takes to some extent, which may or may not be a problem depending on other factors, he's probably right.

[Xewaka]

SirOccam wrote...

Though I differ with him (I suspect) regarding non-armor outfits, he actually raises a good point, one to which I don't really have an answer. If a game establishes armor, then it's not a huge leap of logic to assume that, in that universe, armor is fundamentally more protective than normal clothing.

This. The game shouldn't throw away all internal consistency because someone with too much free time and not enough sense decided that fighting in thongs is "in".

[Leonia]

To be fair on Isabela, she describes her fighting style clearly in Origins and by her estimation, she shouldn't be "getting hit" at all in combat as long as she doing what she is supposed to be doing, so why would she bother with armour?

[Xewaka]

leonia42 wrote...

To be fair on Isabela, she describes her fighting style clearly in Origins and by her estimation, she shouldn't be "getting hit" at all in combat as long as she doing what she is supposed to be doing, so why would she bother with armour?

For the same reason she bothers to dodge: To avoid getting hurt.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

AlanC9 wrote...
That isn't relevant.  Armor being fundamentally more protective simply doesn't mean that all combatants should be wearing armor. If Isabela's better off without armor, then that's what the game is showing us. The game simply isn't going to show us that "being unarmored will get you killed" because being unarmored won't get you killed.

Everyone who is going to wield a close quarters weapon in combat would wear armor but a moron. And the moron would soon be dead.

I wonder if the party is gonig to be fighting against opponents who are only wearing thongs in some battles or is Isabella the only one in the kingdom who goes to battle in a thong?

Im guessing that sometime withing the 10 year time frame of the game she's going to get pretty cold wearing only a thong too.

Modifié par Grumpy Old Wizard, 17 décembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[Ziggeh]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

I wonder if the party is gonig to be fighting against opponents who are only wearing thongs in some battles or is Isabella the only one in the kingdom who goes to battle in a thong?

Wild guess here, but a lot of the people they'll be facing will be running around with chests bare but for war paint.

[Xewaka]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

I wonder if the party is gonig to be fighting against opponents who are only wearing thongs in some battles or is Isabella the only one in the kingdom who goes to battle in a thong?

Wild guess here, but a lot of the people they'll be facing will be running around with chests bare but for war paint.

Something totally in character for a species that has been stablished as masters of warfare and with a superior technological capability (read: Cannons).

Sigh.

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

I wonder if the party is gonig to be fighting against opponents who are only wearing thongs in some battles or is Isabella the only one in the kingdom who goes to battle in a thong?

Wild guess here, but a lot of the people they'll be facing will be running around with chests bare but for war paint.

& that is why Hawke will defeat them

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Alright you can shelf realism, but things need to be consistent......People in-game wear armor because the game says being unarmored will get you killed.

It's been established "in game" that dexterity reduces your chance of taking hits, as well as reduces the damage taken from each, and indeed, if you plow all your stats into the attribute you really can run about naked and take substantially less damage.

So, "cold hard logic" dictates that anyone going into battle in DA without large amounts of dexterity is a fool.

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Though I differ with him (I suspect) regarding non-armor outfits, he actually raises a good point, one to which I don't really have an answer. If a game establishes armor, then it's not a huge leap of logic to assume that, in that universe, armor is fundamentally more protective than normal clothing.

That isn't relevant.  Armor being fundamentally more protective simply doesn't mean that all combatants should be wearing armor. If Isabela's better off without armor, then that's what the game is showing us. The game simply isn't going to show us that "being unarmored will get you killed" because being unarmored won't get you killed.

Unless Aermas didn't actually mean that "being unarmored will get you killed" when he said "being unarmored will get you killed." If what he actually meant by "being unarmored will get you killed" is that being unarmored will increase the amount of damage your character takes to some extent, which may or may not be a problem depending on other factors, he's probably right.

Sorry, yes you are correct, I should have been more detailed in my explanation & less blunt.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

& that is why Hawke will defeat them

Hawke has the power of narrative causality too. They never stood a chance.

[Wulfram]

Xewaka wrote...

Something totally in character for a species that has been stablished as masters of warfare and with a superior technological capability (read: Cannons).

Sigh.

Yeah
The codex about their original invasion specifically says
"Qunari warriors in glittering steel armor carved through armies with ease."
Plus we've got Sten and his companions in the fade.

[Ryzaki]

/sighs



...And they've been turned into...urgh.



It's just too comicy for my tastes.