1044 réponses à ce sujet

[TheCreeper]

What is this obession with giving her a bow? are you also going to give Carver A staff? Bethany a Two handed sword? Aveline a bunch of throwing knives?

[moilami]

Il Divo wrote...

moilami wrote...

It is not about that. I am absolutely sure the game can be played hands down through without Isabella ever touching a bow. And if they want to portray Isabella as a childish moron who refuses to touch bows, then just go for it. It is really all the same for me. However professional rogue/warrior type would not have such totalitarist  fanboy mentality regarding weapons. As such she would be able to use bows. Not as good as some expert archer, but she would be able to use bows and she would not spit on bows.

But is this necessarily a fair position to take? Remember, warrior/rogue is simply an abstraction to justify the mechanics of the game. Even in tabletops, particularly ones with focus on melee, it's more than possible to find characters who will be completely useless when presented with certain options.

Take Iron Heroes for example. There are classes, such as the Archer, which focus on proficiency with bows above all else. I am currently playing a Weapon Master which is somewhat similar, but focuses on training with a single melee weapon to the point where if I do not have access to that weapon, I am extremely limited. And then there's even other classes, such as the Man at Arms, which choose to focus on being jacks of all trades. From a story/narrative perspective, Isabella choosing to only dual wield daggers becomes an aspect of her character.

I see from where you are comming and I do that kind of specializations too. For me they just are game mechanical specializations. This DA2 is supposed to be story driven action game with detailed and defined characters. In that context making Isabella unable to use bows to anything feels just insult to her.

Lets take an example. Isabella gets whacked on battle and is lying on the ground, her achilles sinons cut, making her unable to run. The assassin who got her is already running away because he saw Warden coming to help. Isabella have a ready to shoot crossbow on her feets, but since she refuses to use bows she just watches as the assassin runs around the corner without ever even trying to make a shot.

[TheCreeper]

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

BRING AN ARCHER FOR THAT SITUATION! Why are trying to depend on melee character in that situation, why are people literally just inventing a problem to complain about?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

edit: alternatively, the devs don't want you to experience the game in an alternate way. It is their creation. They have created "this" and have not created "something else." Presumably because they think that "this" will be really fun and interesting. And "this" does include some aspects of freedom and choice and role playing, but distinctly lacks on a lot of the details that you seem to find so valuable. By forcing you to experience "this" and not "something else" they are forcing you to experience what they had intended to create, which is what they wanted to begin with.

But there's no reasonable explanation for why they would want that.  That explanation is what I'm seeking here.

TheCreeper wrote...

I don't know about you but when I play Tabletop RPGs the guy in charge doesn't allow me to control every aspect of the NPCs.

When I play tabletop RPGs the guy in charge doesn't allow me to control any aspect of the NPCs.

That I can in CRPGs tells me they are my characters.

But regardless of whether BioWare intends me to view them as my characters or as NPCs, it makes no difference to the ability of one player to view them one way that I can view them another.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? I wouldn't.

But that's not analogous.

What's happening here is you're giving someone a sandbox, pointing out some toys there they can use, and then leaving them to their own devices.  And you think they've more fun if we took away all of the other toys, and maybe even chained them to the sandbox.
 
Taking away choice doesn't make any of the remaining alternatives better.  It can't.

Then I must have been doing something wrong. I was not able to aim while paused. Not that I would have wanted to. I just wanted the gun to shoot straight.

In ME2 it did shoot straight.  And the ability to select targets while paused, coupled with Shepard's inability to miss, rendered ME2's combat trivial.

Il Divo wrote...

Except the story is fixed, barring developments along the way. No matter how different you and I attempt to design our characters, Ostagar happens, Lothering gets burned down, an army is recruited and the archdemon is killed.

That's an incredibly shallow description of the story, though.  How does the Warden feel about any of those things?  When he chooses to visit some particular treaty-holder first, why does he pick that one?  What does he hope to achieve by gaining the allegiance of the dwarves first, for example?

Those Warden decisions, and the reasons behind them, are part of the story.  And you're in total control of them.

Certain aspects cannot be changed, however much you may want them to.

Limitations of the medium, just like tabletop games.

And clearly, if it had gone further, it would have defied the very purpose of narrative. There are limits to what any developer can do and you are always going to be railroaded to an extent, even within the confines of a tabletop. If we follow your design choice, we are left without a coherent story ever taking place. If I choose to kill my PC as Xzar and Monty, the story ends there.

Yes it does, but it was still a story, and you got to tell it.

There's no win conditions in an RPG.  If you roleplay your character, then you played successfully.  If that character makes choices that get him killed, then that's a shorter story.  In some playthroughs of DAO, the Warden doesn't defeat the blight.  He dies, instead.

I believe it is you who is attempting to argue from the perspective of tabletops. In a typical tabletop, you have control of one character "your character" at all times, not 9 characters as Dragon Age allows you.

That's just not true.  Players can and do play more than one character at a time, not to mention that even players controlling a single player character routinely have control over that character's followers, henchmen, and hirelings (morale checks excepted).  Attracting followers was a regular feature of levelling up in 1st edition AD&D.

The relevant point we shouldtake from tabletop games is that there were some characters you controlled all of the time, and there were some characters you never controlled.  Never the twain did meet.

the_one_54321 wrote...

I would have prefered plain old target selection, like in DA:O or NWN or BG. Click the badguy and let the mechanics handle the rest.

That's exactly how ME worked.  It's the best real-time implementation of shooter mechanics I've ever seen.

VATS, obviously, was better still.

Lord Aesir wrote...

That's the problem.  Isabella is not the PC, she is not the player character, she is not your character.  You can't force her to use a bow anymore than you can force her personality to change.

Then why can I force her to learn Whirlwind, or put runes in her armour, or go to the pub?

[EmperorSahlertz]

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

Why did you bring Isabela to a fortified wall with archers on top of in the first place? And why don't you just let her sneak on top of the battlements and slice and dice the enemy? Why do you force her to use a weapon she aren't effective with?

[moilami]

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

Lol here is another example.

Me only uses mah daggers!

[Blastback]

TheCreeper wrote...

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

BRING AN ARCHER FOR THAT SITUATION! Why are trying to depend on melee character in that situation, why are people literally just inventing a problem to complain about?

Do we always know when we are going to run into obstacles like this?  I actually prefer melee, but sometimes I will encounter situations where ranged combat is the best solution.  And it has happened.  In BG2, there was at least one dungeon where you had enemies you couldn't reach hitting you with arrows.  Given that it was an actual underground dungoen, I didn't think that I would need to use ranged weapons, but ended up needing to. 

I might have a ranged charater with me for these situations, but it is more practical for everyone to have some ranged profency in my mind, rather than be exclusivly one style.  Similarly, I think that ranged charaters should have some degree of melee proficency to defend themselves long enough for someone else to help them if they are engaged in melee.

[moilami]

TheCreeper wrote...

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

BRING AN ARCHER FOR THAT SITUATION! Why are trying to depend on melee character in that situation, why are people literally just inventing a problem to complain about?

Sometimes very simple examples need to be make to better show how ridiculous and problematic some scenerios can be.

[TheCreeper]

Blastback wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

BRING AN ARCHER FOR THAT SITUATION! Why are trying to depend on melee character in that situation, why are people literally just inventing a problem to complain about?

Do we always know when we are going to run into obstacles like this?  I actually prefer melee, but sometimes I will encounter situations where ranged combat is the best solution.  And it has happened.  In BG2, there was at least one dungeon where you had enemies you couldn't reach hitting you with arrows.  Given that it was an actual underground dungoen, I didn't think that I would need to use ranged weapons, but ended up needing to. 

I might have a ranged charater with me for these situations, but it is more practical for everyone to have some ranged profency in my mind, rather than be exclusivly one style.  Similarly, I think that ranged charaters should have some degree of melee proficency to defend themselves long enough for someone else to help them if they are engaged in melee.

So wait, you are going into combat with no mages or archers? Why? That's asking for a world of pain

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
*snip*

So, basically you want a game that allows you to be the Dungeon Master and the Player simultanously.

[EmperorSahlertz]

moilami wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

BRING AN ARCHER FOR THAT SITUATION! Why are trying to depend on melee character in that situation, why are people literally just inventing a problem to complain about?

Sometimes very simple examples need to be make to better show how ridiculous and problematic some scenerios can be.

Except as we have shown the scenario ISN'T problematic at all. The solution to the scenario is just not what you wanted it to be.

[Il Divo]

moilami wrote...

Lets take an example. Isabella gets whacked on battle and is lying on the ground, her achilles sinons cut, making her unable to run. The assassin who got her is already running away because he saw Warden coming to help. Isabella have a ready to shoot crossbow on her feets, but since she refuses to use bows she just watches as the assassin runs around the corner without ever even trying to make a shot.

And I can see what you're saying. With no other option, Isabella does have nothing left to lose. Why not make the shot? But I think what other people here are saying is that, as a general rule, what good is giving Isabella a bow if her character has never trained with it?

You might say it's insane, that everyone should be practiced with multiple weapons, but that was my point with Iron Heroes. My Weapon Master is specialized with bastard swords. When using one, I have access to much higher attacks/damage and to certain special abilities. What if I use any old longsword? Well, my attacks/damage go down, and I can't even use those special abilities. Now what if I use a ranged weapon? At this point, my stats aren't even equipped for it and I might as well throw my shoe at my enemies. Isabella could simply fill a similar situation.

My only problem with what Bioware is doing has to do with them giving every character only a single weapon type. Not because I want to equip my characters, but just as there are characters who would want to specialize, there should also be characters who train in multiple types. Isabella wanting to use only dual wielding daggers is fine, but every character choosing only a single weapon type seems rather contrived.

[TheCreeper]

moilami wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

BRING AN ARCHER FOR THAT SITUATION! Why are trying to depend on melee character in that situation, why are people literally just inventing a problem to complain about?

Sometimes very simple examples need to be make to better show how ridiculous and problematic some scenerios can be.

It's a very bad example, you shouldn't need your melee fighter to provide long range support when you should have at least one ranged fighter of some kind, be it mage or archer, the game isn't just isabella and hawke, you do have two other people there who should be pulling their own weight (of course judging by this thread you probably have all the mages using nun-chucks or something)

[DaggerFiend]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But there's no reasonable explanation for why they would want that.  That explanation is what I'm seeking here.

I don't want to get sucked into this monster of a thread (After the first few pages, I only read the posts that grabbed my attention), but the reason they do this is because they want their story, and different versions of it, to be experienced, not your story or my story. Sure, that's a great thing to have, a game that lets you make it up yourself, but that's not what Bioware is doing this time, because they want to tell their story and have people enjoy that (or not, if that's the case). It's the same reason someone would write a book, or make a movie, but they chose the medium of video games for this presumably because 1) they like video games and 2) they wanted to have their story presented through a video game for the interactive, visual, audio, and gameplay advantages that come with it.

EDIT: It's your game insofar as you get to choose which version of the story you want it to be.

Modifié par DaggerFiend, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:02 .

[Xewaka]

TheCreeper wrote...
What is this obession with giving her a bow? are you also going to give Carver A staff? Bethany a Two handed sword? Aveline a bunch of throwing knives?

If the game gave me the option, sure.
Look at this mechanically. It has been stablished that there is a ruleset to the characters. It has been stablished within the ruleset that Warriors have certain weapon proficiencies, rogues others, and mages a third. It has been stablished that companions, by virtue of being controlled by the player in combat situations, are to follow the ruleset stablished to the characters.
Why then, are companions given an additional, arbitrary restriction, breaking the stablished ruleset?
"To keep their favored styles", you might answer. Which gives foot to my follow up exposition and question: each companion favored style is represented by a unique combat style on which no other character will attain proficiency. In addition, said companion comes with a preset distribution of talent points and attributes, which will be distributed in a manner relevant to their specialization and detrimental of other combat styles.
With this, the game is hinting heavily the player to a predetermined development of the character that will prove the most effective and fitting. Why is it needed to completely disregard alternatives? Why aren't players allowed to experiment should they show an inclination to do so? If the style of the character is so overbearing, why allow the player any input in its development at all?

[Melness]

There are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.



Isabela! Use a bow to kill them!



Wait, you're asking me to fire a weapon that I rarely/never used, have next to no practice with at enemies with the advantage of being higher than us, behind the ramparts AND knowing what they are doing with those bows, instead of, you know, using the mages/archers of the party or retreating?



Yes!



Alright.



<Isabela Auto-Attacks>



Miss



Miss



Miss



<Misfire impales Hawke's neck>

[AlanC9]

Established

Yeah, it's a problem. Unless rogue Hawkes have to choose between bow and daggers, then Izzy isn't a rogue in the same sense that Hawke is. Either one of them isn't following the rules of the class, or one of them is actually using a different class regardless of what the character sheet says.

OTOH, ME lets Shepard get around class restrictions too, and in fact has whole mechanics devoted to this. So I guess Bio's response to this is that Hawke is just that awesome.

[TheCreeper]

Better yet, just let isabella chuck a bomb or something at the enemies, she is a type of rogue and rogue gets traps and what not.

Modifié par TheCreeper, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:08 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

That's the problem.  Isabella is not the PC, she is not the player character, she is not your character.  You can't force her to use a bow anymore than you can force her personality to change.

Then why can I force her to learn Whirlwind, or put runes in her armour, or go to the pub?

  For the first two, she took Hawke's advice or if you don't feel so bound to interpret the game as a ported DnD experience, game mechanics, I'm not sure what a pub has to do with anything.  She is not your character, if you really think she is, then why can't you manipulate her personality or choose dialogue options for her?

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:12 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xewaka wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...
What is this obession with giving her a bow? are you also going to give Carver A staff? Bethany a Two handed sword? Aveline a bunch of throwing knives?

If the game gave me the option, sure.
Look at this mechanically. It has been stablished that there is a ruleset to the characters. It has been stablished within the ruleset that Warriors have certain weapon proficiencies, rogues others, and mages a third. It has been stablished that companions, by virtue of being controlled by the player in combat situations, are to follow the ruleset stablished to the characters.
Why then, are companions given an additional, arbitrary restriction, breaking the stablished ruleset?
"To keep their favored styles", you might answer. Which gives foot to my follow up exposition and question: each companion favored style is represented by a unique combat style on which no other character will attain proficiency. In addition, said companion comes with a preset distribution of talent points and attributes, which will be distributed in a manner relevant to their specialization and detrimental of other combat styles.
With this, the game is hinting heavily the player to a predetermined development of the character that will prove the most effective and fitting. Why is it needed to completely disregard alternatives? Why aren't players allowed to experiment should they show an inclination to do so? If the style of the character is so overbearing, why allow the player any input in its development at all?

The ruleset does in noway, whatsoever, even in the slightest speck of a snowball's chance in hell say that ALL warriors knows how to wield a two-hander and how to Sword'n'Board it, nor that ALL rogues knows how to dual wield and shoot a bow.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:11 .

[Melness]

So I guess Bio's response to this is that Hawke is just that awesome.

Hawke isn't an estabilished character with years/decades of experience in one of the halves of his class like Isabela is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Melness wrote...

If Isabela's character favors melee dual wielding, then that is what she should use. Saying that she should be able to become a worthy archer is like saying that a Wynne Blood Mage makes sense.

A Wynne Blood Mage does make sense if you make it make sense.

Maybe she's always coveted Blood Magic and her opposition to the idea was simply a facade to conceal her true feelings.

Nothing in the game ever contradicts this.

Lord Aesir wrote...

But she isn't your character, so why should you be able to decide what she can do?

Because the game lets us do exactly that.  We get to choose which talents she learns.

Why is there an arbitrary barrier that lets us have her learn one thing but prevents us from having her learn something else that's already supported by the game's setting (archery is a Rogue talent - Isabela is a Rogue).

Melness wrote...

Sure, if you wanted to spec Sten as something other than a dual-wielder you could - but it doesn't necessarily make sense. To learn a different style of fighting should take quite sometime.

He could have learned the groundwork to archery, for example, before the game's narrative begins.

Again, the game enver says explcitly that he only knows how to use 2H weapons, so there's no requirement that you (the player) have him use only 2H weapons.  It would appear that most players did have him use only 2H weapons, which suggests they can be directed without being forced, but for some reason in DA2 BiOWare wants to force us.

I want to know why.

AlanC9 wrote...

SoZ does something similar by letting the player retire his party at any point he pleases, whether the main plot has been solved or not. This can lead to total disaster for the Sword Coast, which is kinda fun.

A terrific feature.

More games should offer a complete ending that isn't victory.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Then you would most likely fall back, since you've failed the mission, or sustained heavy loses making you incapable of completing your mission.

They should let us do that, too.  I'd like more opportunities to run away.

Blastback wrote...

But what story infromation tells us that Isabela isn't a capable archer?

Exactly.  Why can't Isabela have been a closet archer all along.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:21 .

[Saibh]

Here's my confession:

It's my game.

All those people posting on this forum, with the blue logo under their names? I hired them. Yes, I hired them to do interviews, go to press conferences, show up at cons. Why? Because I wanted to live out my life as a Secret Dev in peace.

If I have one regret, it's that every time I make a game, some hooligans come in and steal it from my Game Laboratory when I'm putting the bird seed out in the yard (they always know when I'm feeding the birds...note: birds are suspect), and publish it for the world to see.

Unfortunately, this means I never collect royalty checks, and instead have to pay my decoy devs with my billion-dollar Wayne Enterprises fund.

I'm also Batman.

Modifié par Saibh, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:13 .

[Blastback]

TheCreeper wrote...

Blastback wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

-flashblade- wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Anyway Bioware makes of her what they want. After that I observe how she is.
Specilizing in one weapons makes her very good or even the best with that weapon, at the cost of not learning others.  It makes sense.

Yeah, that will be real helpful the moment there are a bunch of archers on a fortified object, like a wall and she can't reach anyone in melee.

Hawke: Isabela we are in real trouble here, use the goddamn crossbow I gave you!

Isabela: No I refuse! I just use my favourite pair.

Hawke: Damn it Isabela, they are going to kill us so stop picking your nose with those damn daggers!

BRING AN ARCHER FOR THAT SITUATION! Why are trying to depend on melee character in that situation, why are people literally just inventing a problem to complain about?

Do we always know when we are going to run into obstacles like this?  I actually prefer melee, but sometimes I will encounter situations where ranged combat is the best solution.  And it has happened.  In BG2, there was at least one dungeon where you had enemies you couldn't reach hitting you with arrows.  Given that it was an actual underground dungoen, I didn't think that I would need to use ranged weapons, but ended up needing to. 

I might have a ranged charater with me for these situations, but it is more practical for everyone to have some ranged profency in my mind, rather than be exclusivly one style.  Similarly, I think that ranged charaters should have some degree of melee proficency to defend themselves long enough for someone else to help them if they are engaged in melee.

So wait, you are going into combat with no mages or archers? Why? That's asking for a world of pain

I try to balance my party, no mistake, but in the example I gave, I wasn't able to reach the enemy archers before they had shot me full of arrows, so the only option was to engage them from ranged combat.  I had characters who specialised in ranged combat, sure, but it was rather inefficent to leave them to deal with the enemy and not have my melee charaters do anything.  Fortunatly, I was able to equip everyone with some ranged weapon and take them out quickly.

[DaggerFiend]

Again, not to get sucked into this thread, but I think the reason Isabela can't use bows in the game (using her as an example) is because Isabela doesn't use bows. She just doesn't, and there's nothing we can do about it. Should we be able to do something about it? I don't know. The devs say no, apparently. It has nothing to do with the parameters of the game, or the realism trying to be put into the game. It's just "Isabela doesn't use bows" or "Bethany doesn't wear heavy armor" or "Hawke isn't a Swashbuckler." Question it, argue against it, whatever, what is, is, and there's no actual reason behind it.

Modifié par DaggerFiend, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:16 .