1044 réponses à ce sujet

[Blastback]

TheCreeper wrote...

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)

Uh, you realize that at the end of the rise to power trailer, when Hawke is knocking armored opponents round in melee, that is a mage?

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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).

  And she is a duelist specifically designed to follow that specilization to my understanding.  To let you do otherwise is to break her character design. Hawke can only give her advice about what talents to learn, not force her to learn things she has no interest in, like archery.

[TheCreeper]

So here's the question, who hear throwing stuff like firebombs and what not

(like all rouges can) make up for her not being a long ranged character to you strange strange people in this thread.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Yes, because this means they trained with bows.  And as the Hawke is the PC it is your perogative to make that choice.  Isabella is not the PC, and she has chosen to focus on melee, and thus has no bow talents.

And that explanation works fine, but there's no reason to make that particular reality mandatory.

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?

I'm only looking to give them weapons supported by their class.

DaggerFiend wrote...

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.

I'm seeing the same answer being offered again and again, but it's not an answer to the question I'm asking.

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

That basically makes him the chosen one.

Hawke should be governed by the same rules as everyone else in the setting.  That he isn't is always a design flaw.

Lord Aesir wrote...

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?

Regarding the pub, I can take direct control of her and have her walk into a pub.  Or a garden.  Or a dungeon.

And by asking me why I can't choose dialogue options for her you've basically just made my point for me.  There's no reason to favour one end of the continuum over the other beyond personal preference, but either way the middle of the continuum is nonsensical.

And if you're willing to rationalise that she "took Hawke's advice" then why can't you rationalise how she knows how to use bows?

DaggerFiend wrote...

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.

If there's no reason for them to force us to abide by that design (as you just pointed out - and I agree with you), then by doing so they're simply being obstructionist for no reason.

That's just mean.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

And she is a duelist specifically designed to follow that specilization to my understanding.

The duelist specialisation, that doesn't actually require you use melee weapons.  Okay, I'm with you so far...

To let you do otherwise is to break her character design.

What?  No, that doesn't make any sense.  Duellists can use ranged weapons, as established both by DAO and my DA2 (Hawke can be a duellist and use ranged weapons)

Hawke can only give her advice about what talents to learn, not force her to learn things she has no interest in, like archery.

I'm not asking what Hawke can make her do.  I'm asking what I, the player, can make her do, and why there are restrictions on that.

I'm not Hawke.  Hawke is fictional.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Blastback wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

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)

Uh, you realize that at the end of the rise to power trailer, when Hawke is knocking armored opponents round in melee, that is a mage?

And you realize that mage is Hawke and probably a cutscene? Don't expect mages in DA2 to be melee powerhouses... You'll just get disappointed.

[TheCreeper]

Seriously, every example given in this thread could be easily solved by Isabella throwing a freaking fire bomb.

[moilami]

Melness wrote...

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.



Miss

Miss

Miss

[Misfire impales Hawke's neck]

LOOOL, that I would call epic Fumble! You make me miss Rolemaster.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

And she is a duelist specifically designed to follow that specilization to my understanding.

The duelist specialisation, that doesn't actually require you use melee weapons.  Okay, I'm with you so far...

To let you do otherwise is to break her character design.

What?  No, that doesn't make any sense.  Duellists can use ranged weapons, as established both by DAO and my DA2 (Hawke can be a duellist and use ranged weapons)

Hawke can only give her advice about what talents to learn, not force her to learn things she has no interest in, like archery.

I'm not asking what Hawke can make her do.  I'm asking what I, the player, can make her do, and why there are restrictions on that.

I'm not Hawke.  Hawke is fictional.

When you play a role, you become that role, while you play it. Basic acting. And isn't Isabela's specialization in DA2 a unique one to her? Swashbuckler or something.

TheCreeper wrote...

Seriously, every example given in this thread could be easily solved by Isabella throwing a freaking fire bomb.

She is already shown to throw a knife in the Rise to Power trailer (likely in a cutscene though), but that just ain't good enough.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:30 .

[moilami]

TheCreeper wrote...

Seriously, every example given in this thread could be easily solved by Isabella throwing a freaking fire bomb.

I have been thinking that arguing in USA Congress would be childs play when compared to this.

[DaggerFiend]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If there's no reason for them to force us to abide by that design (as you just pointed out - and I agree with you), then by doing so they're simply being obstructionist for no reason.

That's just mean.

Well, I wouldn't say they're actively being obstructionist for no reason. More like that's a side effect, and they really don't care, because hey, Isabela doesn't use bows. I'm not sure how I feel about that, honestly. At first, I was a bit annoyed, but then thought about how I never really change the weapons they used in Origins, either, so it didn't make a difference for my gameplay. I'm rather apathetic to the subject. All I can say is "Sorry, guys. Maybe 'Isabela uses daggers and bows' next time."

Modifié par DaggerFiend, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:31 .

[DaggerFiend]

Double post, ignore this.

Modifié par DaggerFiend, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:30 .

[TheCreeper]

moilami wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

Seriously, every example given in this thread could be easily solved by Isabella throwing a freaking fire bomb.

I have been thinking that arguing in USA Congress would be childs play when compared to this.

I have had intense poltical debates that have been less stressful and made me hate my fellow human less than this.

[moilami]

TheCreeper wrote...

moilami wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

Seriously, every example given in this thread could be easily solved by Isabella throwing a freaking fire bomb.

I have been thinking that arguing in USA Congress would be childs play when compared to this.

I have had intense poltical debates that have been less stressful and made me hate my fellow human less than this.

Hahaha, I gussed somewhat right then. Thanks by the way, sig material.

[Bryy_Miller]

I've tried to avoid coming into this thread. The simple fact of the matter is, Sylvius, that no matter how "wrong" you think the developers are, they are not. Because they made the product. It's all subjective to everyone except the creators of the product, and you keep acting like it's not.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:33 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Yes, because this means they trained with bows.  And as the Hawke is the PC it is your perogative to make that choice.  Isabella is not the PC, and she has chosen to focus on melee, and thus has no bow talents.

And that explanation works fine, but there's no reason to make that particular reality mandatory.

My point is that you have no control over what Isabella chooses to do.  She is not your character, it doesn't make sense for you to control her preferences.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

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?

Regarding the pub, I can take direct control of her and have her walk into a pub.  Or a garden.  Or a dungeon.

And by asking me why I can't choose dialogue options for her you've basically just made my point for me.  There's no reason to favour one end of the continuum over the other beyond personal preference, but either way the middle of the continuum is nonsensical.

And if you're willing to rationalise that she "took Hawke's advice" then why can't you rationalise how she knows how to use bows?

Because she isn't my character.  It's a stretch enough for them to allow me to control her as you describe.  I say again that she's doing as Hawke asks her too, but I'd rather she didn't.  Which is why I assign most of that to game mechanics and pretend it doesn't happen when I roleplay.

[MDarwin]

TheCreeper wrote...

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.

Have you forgotten? She can't do that! She is only good with da "knives"!

Modifié par MDarwin, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:35 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

But that's my point. Those events are set in stone and if Bioware wants a story with focus, they can't let you out ditch that road. When you occupy the role of multiple characters, deciding how they all interact with each other, you're no longer a player; you're a writer. The point of a game is that you do not have absolute control over all aspects of the world, in this case the characters. A video game also can never take into account every motivation which could potentially fuel your character. To expect them to do so is absurdity.

Limitations of the medium, just like tabletop games.

Yes, which means you must always operate within the limits of that medium.

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.

But what does it matter if the story itself lacks significance or satisfaction? The sandbox style is in defiance of focus and narrative. The sandbox style is intended to promote the free and open world which you can explore.

Bioware, if they want to tell an effective story, has to railroad you. They would have to build the game in a completely different style to give you what you want, which means they could not tell a focused narrative, there could be no focus on a main quest, nothing. They'd be reduced to the sandbox. Even DMs usually provide a limit/context which all your actions must fall into. They offer you choices within that context (such as the Warden being able to live or die) but that's all.

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.

Then you should actually understand how difficult, if not impossible it becomes for both those characters which you control to have any kind of meaningful interactions, which is often why DMs discourage using more than one PC. Believe me, I know, I've done it. You're basically asking that Bioware place the dialogue, personality, and action of every companion character under your direct command. All this does is ruin the friendship you craft with Alistair, the relationship you craft with Morrigan, etc. It ruins character interactions, in short.  
 
Dragon Age features 9 companion characters. Try telling any DM that you are role-playing 10 characters (companions + your PC). And that's also taking into account that even with followers/henchman they are treated as accessories, nothing more. Their part in the story becomes attached to your primary character, not the other way around.    

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.

But there's absolutely no rhyme or reason to which elements of the tabletop game which you think should be implemented. Bioware should not implement cohorts in RPGs simply because DnD does it, but also because it will benefit the gaming experience somehow.

The relevant point from tabletop games I prefer to take is how to create a meaningful story while your character interacts with others, which can benefit a video game. As Creeper says, your style makes the game closer to the SIMS than DnD. DnD is not just about talking to random npcs whom you can kill/never see again. It also builds up the relationship that you have with the other players/party members. That is not possible when you are your party.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:37 .

[DaggerFiend]

Just noticed you responded to my other post. What exactly, Sylvius, are you asking? Because I don't understand it. Be as detailed as you think you need to be.

[TransientNomad]

Now what I would like to know is if the npcs can in fact use other class based weapons, BUT simply cannot learn weapon talents. Like Varric being able to equip "daggers" but can only learn archery talents. I think this is likely since a archer in melee combat would be at a disadvantage, or if you come to a situation in which the only way to hit a opponent is using a long range weapon or spell.



Either way though, it never mattered to me. In DAO, Leliana always used bows, Zev duel wielded, Alistair Sword and boarded, etc. It really seems like pointless whining, since the first game really was geared the same way. Of course you could stunt your character by forcing them to learn a different path, but in the long run it made little sense. The only exception is Leliana losing her Duel Wield talents she had in Leliana's Song, but c'est la vie. From a narrative standpoint, I think the restriction actually makes them "stronger" characters.



As long as all bases are covered in DA2 as far as spreading out the talents among the npcs, it will be fine. And I also think you should be prepared when its revealed that even the mages are restricted to certain schools (probably three each), that they can take ranks in. I'm willing to place money on it.

[YuniSticksitDeep]

Sylvius the Mad  is correct.

But the truth is simply this....

The game is  being streamlined and de-optimized for Two reasons only.....

To Reduce time to ship and Resources (Read Money)  spent.....

With  fhe absolute fact  that console types will accept the game in ANY  condition  there is  little for EA/Bioware to fear.

Only the PC  Savy  types  (who are used to ultimate customizations, mods and the like   will be "Put-Off" by this...

I  speak for all "Nexus" junkies  when I say....Mod support precedes purchase.

Yuni:devil:

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

And she is a duelist specifically designed to follow that specilization to my understanding.

The duelist specialisation, that doesn't actually require you use melee weapons.  Okay, I'm with you so far...

  All of its talents do.

To let you do otherwise is to break her character design.

What?  No, that doesn't make any sense.  Duellists can use ranged weapons, as established both by DAO and my DA2 (Hawke can be a duellist and use ranged weapons)

A duelist is not a ranged specialization, a player's character can use a ranged weapon but none of the duelist weapon talents would be usable.  Isabella is emphasized as a duelist, so it makes no sense for her to wield ranged weapons if that is her chosen style.

Hawke can only give her advice about what talents to learn, not force her to learn things she has no interest in, like archery.

I'm not asking what Hawke can make her do.  I'm asking what I, the player, can make her do, and why there are restrictions on that.

I'm not Hawke.  Hawke is fictional.

  You are playing as Hawke, not as Isabella, you are limited by what Hawke can do.  Though this is a difference in our roleplaying methods.  I have never seen myself as controlling the entire party in any way the same as I control my PC.  I don't play as them, only the PC.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 18 janvier 2011 - 11:51 .

[Blastback]

moilami wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

moilami wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

Seriously, every example given in this thread could be easily solved by Isabella throwing a freaking fire bomb.

I have been thinking that arguing in USA Congress would be childs play when compared to this.

I have had intense poltical debates that have been less stressful and made me hate my fellow human less than this.

Hahaha, I gussed somewhat right then. Thanks by the way, sig material.

Reason goes out the window when fanboys/fangirls enter the picture.

[Xewaka]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
And she is a duelist specifically designed to follow that specilization to my understanding.

The duelist specialisation, that doesn't actually require you use melee weapons.  Okay, I'm with you so far...

  All of its talents do.

To let you do otherwise is to break her character design.

What?  No, that doesn't make any sense.  Duellists can use ranged weapons, as established both by DAO and my DA2 (Hawke can be a duellist and use ranged weapons)

A duelist is not a ranged specialization, a player's character can use a ranged weapon but none of the duelist weapon talents would be usable.  Isabella is emphasized as a duelist, so it makes no sense for her to wield ranged weapons if that is her chosen style.

If I were to make my guess, I'd say most people leveled Alistair as a s&s warrior, most people leveled leliana as an archer, etcetera. Without mechanical restraints. I have no issue with emphasizing and promoting a determined build for a companion. However, there is no feasible mechanical reason to restrict the companion class compared to Hawke's equivalent class. Unless companion unique specialization replaces a base skill tree, rather than a specialization skill tree, allowing the companion to choose another specialization from the three available to Hawke (i.e. Isabela dually specialized as a Swashbuckler and duelist would be mechanically possible if that were the case).

Lord Aesir wrote...

Hawke can only give her advice about what talents to learn, not force her to learn things she has no interest in, like archery.

I'm
not asking what Hawke can make her do.  I'm asking what I, the player, can make her do, and why there are restrictions on that. I'm not Hawke.  Hawke is fictional.

 
You are playing as Hawke, not as Isabella, you are limited by what Hawke can do.  Though this is a difference in our roleplaying methods.  I have never seen myself as controlling the entire party in any way the same as I control my PC.  I don't play as them, only the PC.

Yet you are given full combat control and full development control. That is at odds with not playing them, from a mechanical standpoint.

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 janvier 2011 - 12:20 .