279 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

tmp7704 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How does it support your point? The article says that weaponsmiths back in those days were able to do things that people today misconstrue. The weapons of yesteryear are actually much lighter and easier to use than they looked. Why is it difficult to believe that master smiths were able to craft weaponry that looked even larger and more intimidating, yet was still practical?

This has popped up a few times in the past. Your sources are correct, the historical swords didn't weight very much.

The thing is, DA weapons models are much wider and thicker than these historical weapons, which means they're at least few times heavier with the same material used. That's what people generally mean when they say DA swords would be too heavy to wield.

I agree with tmp7704 on this. I started collecting swords when I was a teenager so I have a "few" at this point. Some of the larger two handed swords do weigh between four and ten pounds and have great range. Their blades however are only a third or a fourth as thick as some of the blades in DA 2's comedic weapons. Some of DA 2's weapons are even larger. There's a happy medium in weapon making between creating something that hits hard and hits fast.
 
Weaponsmiths have experimented with metals for thousands of years with ideas for melee weapons. I would assume the people of Thedas are not physically stronger than the people of Earth in ancient times so it does tend to step out of the boundaries of believability even for a fantasy game sometimes. Some weapons in particular come to mind like Hayder's Razor (as Sylvius mentioned previously) which is so poorly designed in shape and proportion it looks positively useless. With that piece of junk, I was suspecting Hawke would next find some magical clown shoes and go play Whak-A-Corrupted-Mole at the Kirkwall carnival.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How does it support your point? The article says that weaponsmiths back in those days were able to do things that people today misconstrue. The weapons of yesteryear are actually much lighter and easier to use than they looked. Why is it difficult to believe that master smiths were able to craft weaponry that looked even larger and more intimidating, yet was still practical?

Every maul?  your position requires that every single maul in DAO was a master-crafted work of art, and there existed not one big hammer that was built by anyone simply to be a big hammer.

Really?

If only some of the weapons were oversized, then your position would make sense.

[hoorayforicecream]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Hollow weapons? What would be the point of going through all the extra steps to achieve something that is bulky and not structurally sound plus hits lighter than it looks like it should? I suppose it could be argued that the weapon might bestow fear upon your enemy but after the first hit landing like a marshmallow, the morale advantage of the wielder would be given to the opponent. If you've ever done any boxing against a bigger guy and landed one of your best hits with all your juice, it's disheartening if it doesn't truely stagger him. I guess it could also lessen fatigue over longer battles, but at the cost of hitting power and being unwieldy.
Plus, a hollow weapon would likely have to use a cast, which can lead to impurities in the ore and structural weakness if the casting is imbalanced. Hollow weapons would just be a huge disappointment, kind of like hollow chocolate Easter bunnies. 
I would rather have something that is easy to conceal with the same mass and hitting power. It would certainly make cave and dungeon exploration alot easier than trying to slide down a hole then getting stuck because of a huge hollow maul that hits like an elaborate whiffle ball bat.

You seem to have missed the point. It isn't that the weapons are hollow and thus bad at killing. It's that people mistakenly believe the weapons as portrayed would not be able to have the requisite killing power without a massive amount of weight. The articles I have linked prove that weapons of similar size from the appropriate era did not, in fact, have that massive amount of weight, but still proving exceedingly effective at killing things.

tmp7704 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How does it support your point? The article says that weaponsmiths back in those days were able to do things that people today misconstrue. The weapons of yesteryear are actually much lighter and easier to use than they looked. Why is it difficult to believe that master smiths were able to craft weaponry that looked even larger and more intimidating, yet was still practical?

This has popped up a few times in the past. Your sources are correct, the historical swords didn't weight very much.

The thing is, DA weapons models are much wider and thicker than these historical weapons, which means they're at least few times heavier with the same material used. That's what people generally mean when they say DA swords would be too heavy to wield.

See, this is where the interpretation differs. Just because it *looks* that way doesn't mean it *is* that way. If a historical weaponsmith in a real setting can create a six-foot sword that weighs 10 pounds and is good at killing things, why couldn't a master weaponsmith in a fantasy setting make a six-foot sword that *looks* bigger, nastier, and more intimidating, while still maintaining good heft, balance and killing power? Is that really too hard to believe?

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How does it support your point? The article says that weaponsmiths back in those days were able to do things that people today misconstrue. The weapons of yesteryear are actually much lighter and easier to use than they looked. Why is it difficult to believe that master smiths were able to craft weaponry that looked even larger and more intimidating, yet was still practical?

Every maul?  your position requires that every single maul in DAO was a master-crafted work of art, and there existed not one big hammer that was built by anyone simply to be a big hammer.

Really?

If only some of the weapons were oversized, then your position would make sense.

Eh... not necessarily. The ones that aren't master crafted works of art are not as strong, well balanced, or weighted when wielded, and thus yield lower damage when used as a result. Besides, mastery isn't binary. There are degrees of skill, where it's a sliding scale of weapon effectiveness, based on craftsmanship.

I suppose you could still complain that there aren't different animations used between weapons, but that would be pretty nitpicky. One doesn't wield a 2-handed sword the same way as a 2-handed maul, but the animations looked pretty similar to me in DA:O.

I personally found that the look of the large weapons to be far less offputting than the apparent fact that most enemies are made of kool-aid and gelatin.

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

See, this is where the interpretation differs. Just because it *looks* that way doesn't mean it *is* that way. If a historical weaponsmith in a real setting can create a six-foot sword that weighs 10 pounds and is good at killing things, why couldn't a master weaponsmith in a fantasy setting make a six-foot sword that *looks* bigger, nastier, and more intimidating, while still maintaining good heft, balance and killing power? Is that really too hard to believe?

Simply put yes, it is hard to believe. The weight of the sword is directly proportional to the amount of material used to form it. The historical six-foot sword weighs 10 pounds because of how much steel went into making it. If the amount of material was multipled say, five times to cover the extra width and thickness, then the weight of the weapon would increase proportionally, no matter the skill of the weaponsmith. Because that skill just won't be good enough to bend the physics.

Now, magic could do that, sure. Or the metals in the fantasy settings could be few times lighter than ours, or these weapons are really thin shells filled with candy. But as long as there's no mention of that in the settings, the conflict between what we're used to and what we're shown ... that will strain the suspension of disbelief for some.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

I am guessing becuase of artistic decisions.

I insist that Art Design be subservient to the coherence of the setting.

I while I think DAO's oversized weapons were ridiculous, I also think DA2's are much worse. I can't use Hayder's Razor - I just can't - because it looks so incredibly stupid.

Did your calculations assume that they were entirely solid? You don't really need super heavy weapons to deal significant damage, and there's actually a good deal of evidence that even two-handed weapons used by knights and such weren't actually that heavy. 

Edit: Just as an example, this sword pictured here weighs 6 pounds.

Actually I think you missed my point. I was responding to this and the discussion which followed. I know large weapons can be made to be light, based on materia,l but you asked if Sylvius realized they might be hollow. If I misunderstood, I apologize. I just was mentioning my own opinions on why it would be far more trouble than it is worth for a weaponsmith to craft a hollow weapon of inferior quality.

Perhaps it could be made of a substance like Silverite, a material similar to mithril, strong and light and with no reference to real alloys. That sounds well and good in the context of a book, but it does end up looking off to alot of people since people aren't used to alien proportions that a weapon could be in Thedas. So is it our failure or a design failure in the game? Sadly, the answer is entirely subjective. But if the weapon is made out of iron, steel or some other material that does exist in reality and it is insanely misproportioned, then it is a bad design job in the game.

[aerows]

Savber100 wrote...

In an interview with Joystiq, Laidlaw previously mentioned how Bioware tasked itself with improving three elements in Dragon Age 2: the story, the graphics and the combat.

In a 1-10 scale, how close did Bioware come in terms of improving these elements and what will you suggest that Bioware do to improve those three elements?

1-A massive step-back in terms of the original

5- Average- No change or difference made in terms of the original

10- Vast improvement in terms of the original.


With those scales, I personally thought

The Story - (4) I applaud Bioware's attempt to do something different but the story was just boring and felt more like a serious of side-quests stringed together. Fetch this and get money was the main plot of Act 1, Kick Qunari in the balls was Act 2, Act as bystander as your friend blows up stuff was Act 3. Seriously, the scenarios simply LACKED in choices and the consequences of your choices. Sure there were some bright spots here and there but the majority of the quests just had you slashing your way out through every encounter and the quests just felted irrelevant to the other quests. I suggest focusing more on how each quest link to the other, influencing the outcome of the quests taken. In the end, "it's choices and consequnces, stupid"

The Graphics (6) The game has gotten a lot of flak especially with games like The Witcher 2 and Skyrim coming out. Bioware promised it will oook visually hot and we got a medicore-looking game. Sure, it looks better than DA:O but that's like pulling a C+ to a B-. I preferred the more realsitic, gritty look of the original and felt that DA2's graphics were too cartoony.

Agree or Disagree?

The Combat - (7.5) - Unlike most of the complainers that the combat was ruined, I liked the faster pace of the game. However, this is easily countered by the introduction of waves. SERIOUSLY? What demented designer looked at Dragon Age, a game based on tactical positioning and squad coordination, and thought that the game needed a wave system where enemies fall out of the sky or appear out of thin air? Either cut that crap down or get rid of it entirely.

So that's just a few of my thoughts in comparing to Bioware's goals and I'm curious what the community thinks.

Get busy fixing ME3 and DA3 - bring back armor, and exposing upgrades on companions.

I hated that most of all in both ME2 and DA2.  ME and DA were superior games because of it.  The streamlining in both games went way too far and seemed like a profit grab.  Note - I bought all four and I'm not nearly as happy with 2 & 2 for both of those reasons, though the combat was more exciting.  Why the hell can't you merge both of them - good graphics, good combat, and do the visual upgrades?  It's like going to McDonald's for dinner, in ME and DAO, and you understand that you are getting a plain hamburger, or a Big Mac at the end.  For DA2 and ME2, it's like going to a fine restaurant, and you are still getting a plain hamburger in looks, but it hits like a Filet Mignon through reasons unknown.

[hoorayforicecream]

tmp7704 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

See, this is where the interpretation differs. Just because it *looks* that way doesn't mean it *is* that way. If a historical weaponsmith in a real setting can create a six-foot sword that weighs 10 pounds and is good at killing things, why couldn't a master weaponsmith in a fantasy setting make a six-foot sword that *looks* bigger, nastier, and more intimidating, while still maintaining good heft, balance and killing power? Is that really too hard to believe?

Simply put yes, it is hard to believe. The weight of the sword is directly proportional to the amount of material used to form it. The historical six-foot sword weighs 10 pounds because of how much steel went into making it. If the amount of material was multipled say, five times to cover the extra width and thickness, then the weight of the weapon would increase proportionally, no matter the skill of the weaponsmith. Because that skill just won't be good enough to bend the physics.

Now, magic could do that, sure. Or the metals in the fantasy settings could be few times lighter than ours, or these weapons are really thin shells filled with candy. But as long as there's no mention of that in the settings, the conflict between what we're used to and what we're shown ... that will strain the suspension of disbelief for some.

Sure, they didn't mention it. I also didn't see them mentioning how physical weapons like Bloom or the Blade of Mercy can deal non-physical damage either, but I can accept that. Do you have a hard time accepting that physical-looking weapons can also deal non-physical damage? How about how adding runes to a generic weapon could make it spontaneously erupt in elemental power (in DA:O)? Runes aren't exactly hard to come by; there are vendors that sell them. Why would it be infeasible to imagine that smiths would not regularly take advantage of such available resources, especially when the sell prices of said runes are fairly inexpensive compared to the vendor price of said weapons?

It seems silly to be able to accept a metal blade dealing fire damage, or a magical doodad that you attach to a weapon to make it burst into flame, but not able to accept a weapon that looks like it should be too heavy to wield. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Eh... not necessarily. The ones that aren't master crafted works of art are not as strong, well balanced, or weighted when wielded, and thus yield lower damage when used as a result.

Where are they?  Every single example of a maul we find in DAO is oversized.  By your own reasoning, they're masterworks, as they're all effective weapons.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Eh... not necessarily. The ones that aren't master crafted works of art are not as strong, well balanced, or weighted when wielded, and thus yield lower damage when used as a result.

Where are they?  Every single example of a maul we find in DAO is oversized.  By your own reasoning, they're masterworks, as they're all effective weapons.

Do you believe things that look similar must be equally similar in all other aspects?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 11 mai 2011 - 10:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Eh... not necessarily. The ones that aren't master crafted works of art are not as strong, well balanced, or weighted when wielded, and thus yield lower damage when used as a result.

Where are they?  Every single example of a maul we find in DAO is oversized.  By your own reasoning, they're masterworks, as they're all effective weapons.

Do you believe things that look similar must be equally similar in all other aspects?

Of course not.  But every maul in the game behaves similarly, and looks oversized, and is useable.

Your justification for how that was possible was that each weapon is a masterwork.  Any weapon that isn't a masterwork would fail to be lightweight, and thus wouldn't be useable.  This is your position.  This is the position you have advanced.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Your justification for how that was possible was that each weapon is a masterwork.  Any weapon that isn't a masterwork would fail to be lightweight, and thus wouldn't be useable.  This is your position.  This is the position you have advanced.

Please show me where I said that each weapon was this way. I simply established that a theoretical masterwork maul could both look oversized and still be weight and combat effective. This does not mean every single maul out there is masterwork, it just means that as such, an example can exist. Now imagine that it doesn't require masterwork to do it. Maybe it did hundreds of years before, but with advancing weapons and smithing technology and technique, perhaps today they have an easier time of doing so.

I further submit that craftsmanship is not binary. It is not either [masterwork] or [nothing]. Some smiths are better than others. Some of them can craft well-built mauls that are usable and still look good. Some of them can craft better-built mauls that are better. Some of them can craft imitations that look similar, but aren't as well balanced, and thus are not as effective. And hey, the in-game damage stats can reflect these numbers in the amount of damage dealt per hit.

[Haristo]

Story 7
Graphics 10
Combat 3

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sure, they didn't mention it. I also didn't see them mentioning how physical weapons like Bloom or the Blade of Mercy can deal non-physical damage either, but I can accept that. Do you have a hard time accepting that physical-looking weapons can also deal non-physical damage?

It's quite easier for me to accept a unique weapon wielded by very powerful Revenant could deal unusual type of damage. But part of it is in the weapon in question being an unusual, rare specimen. Or at least in the description acknowledging the item's custom properties in some manner. On the other hand if every, even the most primitive sword in the game dealt say, fire damage without any explanation whatsoever... that'd strike me as quite odd.
 

How about how adding runes to a generic weapon could make it spontaneously erupt in elemental power (in DA:O)? Runes aren't exactly hard to come by; there are vendors that sell them. Why would it be infeasible to imagine that smiths would not regularly take advantage of such available resources, especially when the sell prices of said runes are fairly inexpensive compared to the vendor price of said weapons?

The presence of runes on the item is acknowledged by the game. The presence of rune slots is also restricted to the high tier items (from silverite and up iirc) Combined, these make it quite hard to believe every, even the most basic item... is enchanted to be much lighter, and the game selectively just doesn't show these enchantments or acknowledges them in any manner.

This becomes especially problematic when some items are specifically said to be made lighter with enchantments and such, and e.g receive explicit bonus to attack as result.

It seems silly to be able to accept a metal blade dealing fire damage, or a magical doodad that you attach to a weapon to make it burst into flame, but not able to accept a weapon that looks like it should be too heavy to wield. 

Well, i don't have issue with the concept of "a wizard did it" used to handwave things. The problem is when the game doesn't provide even that, effectively forcing me to invent my own reasons why things which seemingly don't make sense actually do. Can i do that? Sure, but it will make my suspension of disbelief waver more than if i got some explanation from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Please show me where I said that each weapon was this way. I simply established that a theoretical masterwork maul could both look oversized and still be weight and combat effective.

And I'm not disputing that, but unless that is possibly true for every single example in all of Ferelden, your explanation doesn't solve the problem.

This does not mean every single maul out there is masterwork, it just means that as such, an example can exist.

That doesn't help.  If one weapon can be oversized without being overweight, that tells us nothing about why every weapon is oversized.

Now imagine that it doesn't require masterwork to do it. Maybe it did hundreds of years before, but with advancing weapons and smithing technology and technique, perhaps today they have an easier time of doing so.

So now you're discarding your masterwork theory, and instead positing that Thedas has access to materials technology beyond that suggested by the entire rest of the setting.  This runs into the architecture problem I mentioned earlier.

I further submit that craftsmanship is not binary. It is not either [masterwork] or [nothing]. Some smiths are better than others.

DAO's in-game reality does not allow for this.  All of the apparently oversized weapons of the same type are swung at the same speed.  You're inventing complications that contradict the game as it's displayed for us.

Some of them can craft well-built mauls that are usable and still look good. Some of them can craft better-built mauls that are better. Some of them can craft imitations that look similar, but aren't as well balanced, and thus are not as effective. And hey, the in-game damage stats can reflect these numbers in the amount of damage dealt per hit.

Those difference coincide with different materials, and differences beyond that are small.

You're trying to rationalise the design.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 mai 2011 - 10:43 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So now you're discarding your masterwork theory, and instead positing that Thedas has access to materials technology beyond that suggested by the entire rest of the setting.  This runs into the architecture problem I mentioned earlier.

Branka invented a new kind of coal that doesn't produce smoke. Why can fuel technology advance, but not weapons technology?

I further submit that craftsmanship is not binary. It is not either [masterwork] or [nothing]. Some smiths are better than others.

DAO's in-game reality does not allow for this.  All of the apparently oversized weapons of the same type are swung at the same speed.  You're inventing complications that contradict the game as it's displayed for us.

Are you saying that because the speed at which they are swung is the same, all other possible aspects of the item must also be the same?

Some of them can craft well-built mauls that are usable and still look good. Some of them can craft better-built mauls that are better. Some of them can craft imitations that look similar, but aren't as well balanced, and thus are not as effective. And hey, the in-game damage stats can reflect these numbers in the amount of damage dealt per hit.

Those difference coincide with different materials, and differences beyond that are small.

I disagree. The materials used for the forging of historical swords were similar, but there still exist swords that are better than others. If your posit was true, a weapon forged by an apprentice would be equivalent in all aspects to a weapon forged by a master as long as they both used the same materials, and historically this has never been the case.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Branka invented a new kind of coal that doesn't produce smoke. Why can fuel technology advance, but not weapons technology?

And we saw evidence of Branka's invention all through Orzammar.  This is a great example of a new technology that changed the world.

But we don't have that for the weapon materials.

Are you saying that because the speed at which they are swung is the same, all other possible aspects of the item must also be the same?

No, I'm talking about mass.

A low-level maul in DAO looks heavy.  I've calculated its mass at over 40 kg if I assume its density equals that of steel.  So, if the weapon is useful (and it is), then it must weigh far less than 40 kg.  How?  How does every maul in the world weigh far less than it would appear, given that we don't have markedly different materials with which to work (else we would see evidence of those materials in other items, like armour, or architecture), and given that they can't all be masterworks.

I disagree. The materials used for the forging of historical swords were similar, but there still exist swords that are better than others. If your posit was true, a weapon forged by an apprentice would be equivalent in all aspects to a weapon forged by a master as long as they both used the same materials, and historically this has never been the case.

That's not at all what I said.

[mindbody]

tmp7704 wrote...

The weight of the sword is directly proportional to the amount of material used to form it. The historical six-foot sword weighs 10 pounds because of how much steel went into making it. If the amount of material was multipled say, five times to cover the extra width and thickness, then the weight of the weapon would increase proportionally, no matter the skill of the weaponsmith. Because that skill just won't be good enough to bend the physics.

No. The weight of an object is proportional to its mass, not the amount of material.  This alone invalidates the rest of your post. You can, in fact, increase the size of an object without significantly increasing its mass.  Titanium, for example, is significantly lighter and harder than steel.  Not that it would make a good sword. Whether a massive sword was actually practial in weight depends entirely on metallurgical knowledge and metals and alloys available. 

This isn't a question of whether they can forge an usable oversized sword in a fantasy world, but whether the game developers should allow it.  It is a stylistic choice, along with the spiky armor, overly exaggerated movements, blood 'splosions, warriors and rogues using magic despite lore, and the endless waves of enemies who think it is smarter to wait until their first platoon of companions get wiped out before joining the fight - despite the fact that if they all came at once they could easily swarm four people.

In my opinion, the oversized weapon fits perfectly with the style Bioware has tried to cultivate for DA2.  It didn't fit with DA:O, which went for a more understated style based more closely on real-world expectations.  So oversized weapons and massive blood spray in DA:O stood out like they didn't belong. In DA2, you wouldn't be able to see the sword moving if it weren't the size of a compact car because it moves faster than C.  I suspect the missing frames in the sword-swinging animation were actually a cost-cutting measure.

A major problem with DA2 as far as I'm concerned is the conscious choice by the developers to depart from the real-world "dark and gritty" expectations set up by DA:O in favor of the "stylized" feel.  This only inhibits role-playing, though that is a seperate argument for another day.  Frankly, the ninja-blood-pewpew-doublesomersault-splosion-whirlwind-earthquake-insaneTemplarMage undermines the serious tone they otherwise tried to develop.  Therefore, I can't take this game seriously.

[tmp7704]

mindbody wrote...

No. The weight of an object is proportional to its mass, not the amount of material.  This alone invalidates the rest of your post.

It would, if mass wasn't "the quantity of matter that a body contains".
 

You can, in fact, increase the size of an object without significantly increasing its mass.  Titanium, for example, is significantly lighter and harder than steel.

This requires using a different material with lower density. Which is quite different from discussed situation where a weapon made of steel has volume few times larger than another weapon also made of steel.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Branka invented a new kind of coal that doesn't produce smoke. Why can fuel technology advance, but not weapons technology?

And we saw evidence of Branka's invention all through Orzammar.  This is a great example of a new technology that changed the world.

But we don't have that for the weapon materials.

Oh? Iron, Grey Iron, Steel, Veridium, Red Steel, Silverite, Dragonbone, White Steel, Aurum Volcanic are all materials from origins of what mauls can be made from. That seems like an evolution of weapons technology to me. If they can advance in materials from which they are crafted, why can they not advance in technique by which they are crafted?

Are you saying that because the speed at which they are swung is the same, all other possible aspects of the item must also be the same?

No, I'm talking about mass.

A low-level maul in DAO looks heavy.  I've calculated its mass at over 40 kg if I assume its density equals that of steel.  So, if the weapon is useful (and it is), then it must weigh far less than 40 kg.  How?  How does every maul in the world weigh far less than it would appear, given that we don't have markedly different materials with which to work (else we would see evidence of those materials in other items, like armour, or architecture), and given that they can't all be masterworks.

Weapon smithing technology? There are different materials in other weapons and armor too. I'm not sure I understand why you seem to think they are all the same.

I disagree. The materials used for the forging of historical swords were similar, but there still exist swords that are better than others. If your posit was true, a weapon forged by an apprentice would be equivalent in all aspects to a weapon forged by a master as long as they both used the same materials, and historically this has never been the case.

That's not at all what I said.

Did you not say this?

Those difference coincide with different materials, and differences beyond that are small.

Sure seems like you said "The differences beyond materials are small".

[TEWR]

Sabriana wrote...

Elves ->                  3    -  Points added for Fenris, Merrill, little quest girl, Orsino

Zevran ->                0     -  Because he wasn't there. If you think he was, you're hallucinating. That was clearly an       impostor.

*glares at TEWR - but not in a mean way*

*stares and glares back at Sabriana, but in a nice, charming way. If such a thing exists*

Wozearly wrote...

We may have to agree to disagree on this.

I suppose it depends whether you think a sequel should, as a general rule, look and feel a lot like the previous game in the series except for genuine improvements. In many cases, DA2 felt like a grand (and divisive) experiment with the DA franchise. I think that fuelled a lot of the vocal discontentment, particularly where people pre-ordered on faith, and has more to do with the direction taken by Bioware than it does to do with the players themselves.

Whether its a problem or not may well depend on whether you view the divisive changes as positive or negative. There seem to be relatively few people holding on the middle ground on this one.

We may have to. It's purely personal taste, but I don't want Bioware to change the elves back because then they'd be catering to the whims of a small crowd since the people on here are not indicative of the entire amount of people playing the DA series.

Don't get me wrong, I do want them to listen to us. I just don't want some people making their version of the game through Bioware because there was one aspect they couldn't handle or put up with.

[mindbody]

tmp7704 wrote...

mindbody wrote...

No. The weight of an object is proportional to its mass, not the amount of material.  This alone invalidates the rest of your post.

It would, if mass wasn't "the quantity of matter that a body contains".
 

You can, in fact, increase the size of an object without significantly increasing its mass.  Titanium, for example, is significantly lighter and harder than steel.

This requires using a different material with lower density. Which is quite different from discussed situation where a weapon made of steel has volume few times larger than another weapon also made of steel.

You used the words "amount of material," not "quantity of matter."  The difference being, as you correctly pointed out in your response, density. Furthermore, there are different alloys of the same metals, all of which will have different densities.  

As I said, the issue isn't whether a fantasy world can contain rules which make larger, even more massive weapons possible and practical, and I think it is a red herring.  I recognize the desire to find flaws in the game in ways that can be physically quantified as a means of expressing personal distaste, but it seems like we are afraid to call the stylistic choices out as mistakes by themselves.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sabriana wrote...

Elves ->                  3    -  Points added for Fenris, Merrill, little quest girl, Orsino

Zevran ->                0     -  Because he wasn't there. If you think he was, you're hallucinating. That was clearly an       impostor.

*glares at TEWR - but not in a mean way*

*stares and glares back at Sabriana, but in a nice, charming way. If such a thing exists*

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/22/129007295488072617.jpg
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/22/129007295488072617.jpg

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Oh? Iron, Grey Iron, Steel, Veridium, Red Steel, Silverite, Dragonbone, White Steel, Aurum Volcanic are all materials from origins of what mauls can be made from.

Yes, but the problem I'm describing appears with ALL of them.  So it's cearly not the case that the mass problem with Iron was solved by moving to Red Steel, because the Iron weapons don't have the mass problem.  None of the mauls in DAO are too heavy to use.

Do you not understand what my complaint is?  The weapons all look huge, and yet are light.  I want to know how this is true, given that they're made from materials that are relevantly similar to real world materials (as we can discern from the appearance of armour and architecture in the setting).

That seems like an evolution of weapons technology to me. If they can advance in materials from which they are crafted, why can they not advance in technique by which they are crafted?

This explanation would make sense if the Iron weapons were small, and the Silverite weapons were oversized.  But that is not the case.

Do you understand yet?

Weapon smithing technology? There are different materials in other weapons and armor too. I'm not sure I understand why you seem to think they are all the same.

Because of the way they are used.

If the materials being used to make weapons in Thedas are so light and strong that they can produce effective weapons that look like the DAO mauls (or the two-handed axes from either game, or Hayder's Razor), then those materials could be used to make archways, or bridges, or shields, and thus we would see changes in those designs as well.  If backsmiths have access to some super lightweight strong metal, why aren't shields bigger?  They'd still be useful, because they wouldn't be too heavy, but they'd be more effective.  Making them smal is just poor design on the part of the armourer, since the weapon designs demonstrate that the shields could be bigger.

Did you not say this?

Those difference coincide with different materials, and differences beyond that are small.

Sure seems like you said "The differences beyond materials are small".

In DAO, the differences beyond the materials are small.  Two Iron axes are fairly similar in their effectiveness.  Two Silverite axes are also similar in their effectiveness.  But the Silverite axes are far more effective than the Iron axes.

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Weapon smithing technology? There are different materials in other weapons and armor too. I'm not sure I understand why you seem to think they are all the same.

Well, there is not a single weapon in the game which is too heavy to be usable. For this matter, short of few acknowledged exceptions all weapons are used with exactly the same ease and speed.

This would mean that the technology used to manufacture these weapons was in fact in all cases close to identical, and also in all cases advanced far beyond what we're capable of nowadays -- somehow managing to reduce the mass of produced items many times, to the point where they'd become usable.

The question arises, why waste many times more material and then struggle to make the resulting item few times lighter, when you could instead make multiple regular sized weapons out of the same amount of material, which would perform just like these oversized specimens do... meaning few times larger profit out of the same investment? For all the supposed mastery these smiths possess, it seems to come at the expense of simple business sense