410 réponses à ce sujet

[Davillo]

That's the way it was in Origins warriors who wielded two-handed swords and swords with shields would use a crossbow.

[Morroian]

Davillo wrote...

That's the way it was in Origins warriors who wielded two-handed swords and swords with shields would use a crossbow.

Warriors could use bows.

[Davillo]

I just went over that a warrior who was a dual wielder and had high dexterity would of course use a bow... Personally I never used a high end bow on a S&H war and 2xhander war because I didn't want to spend those points in dexterity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

While I enjoy DAO I Still find very little difference between the DW Warrior and the Rogue so I actually prefer the Distinction between the Warrior and Rogue classes in DA2 its clearly not to everyone's taste so YMMV

Lore-wise, I can't justify the Warrior/Rogue distinction at all, so I want them to be similar.

[Jammet2]

I hated it because it took away the freedom to 'be' whomever you want to be. And Hawke is nothing like a character I'd create. In DA:O I made choices for 'my' character and I wanted to continue *this* legend, *that* lineage, by creating offspring, or whatever other family ties in a possible sequel. That was taken away, and Hawke instead, shoved into my face.

I bought the game anyway, just to see if I could still enjoy it. But then there were those other flaws, the game was too bland overall, and Hawke quickly became a major annoyance. It's like people who played Shepard in Mass Effect suddenly get forced to play some other, totally unrelated person in the next game.

[Remmirath]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

While I enjoy DAO I Still find very little difference between the DW Warrior and the Rogue so I actually prefer the Distinction between the Warrior and Rogue classes in DA2 its clearly not to everyone's taste so YMMV

There isn't particularly much difference between a dual-wielding warrior and a dual-wielding rogue, it's true - except for things like stealth and their specialisations. That's pretty much how I prefer it to be, though. The weapon restrictions in DA II feel very artificial and forced to me; I don't see a good reason that a rogue can only use two daggers or a bow, and I don't see a good reason a warrior can't use a bow or daggers. 

I think there should be a distinction between warrior and rogue - else why have two different classes? - but I don't believe it should be a distinction that feels so forced and odd. 

The difference between rogue and warrior should, in my opinion, be a matter of possible approaches. The rogue should have the option to be stealthy, strike from the shadows, use poison, and engage in that manner of skullduggery. The warrior should be more of an upfront fighter. I think that restricting poison and trap usage to rogues would do more for the distinction of the classes than restricting what weapons can be used. 

[schalafi]

Halae Dral wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

While I enjoy DAO I Still find very little difference between the DW Warrior and the Rogue so I actually prefer the Distinction between the Warrior and Rogue classes in DA2 its clearly not to everyone's taste so YMMV

There isn't particularly much difference between a dual-wielding warrior and a dual-wielding rogue, it's true - except for things like stealth and their specialisations. That's pretty much how I prefer it to be, though. The weapon restrictions in DA II feel very artificial and forced to me; I don't see a good reason that a rogue can only use two daggers or a bow, and I don't see a good reason a warrior can't use a bow or daggers. 

I think there should be a distinction between warrior and rogue - else why have two different classes? - but I don't believe it should be a distinction that feels so forced and odd. 

The difference between rogue and warrior should, in my opinion, be a matter of possible approaches. The rogue should have the option to be stealthy, strike from the shadows, use poison, and engage in that manner of skullduggery. The warrior should be more of an upfront fighter. I think that restricting poison and trap usage to rogues would do more for the distinction of the classes than restricting what weapons can be used. 

This is an interesting discussion, but shouldn't it be in the Gameplay and Strategy forum?

[Pasquale1234]

schalafi wrote...

This is an interesting discussion, but shouldn't it be in the Gameplay and Strategy forum?

There do seem to be quite a few threads that break into off-topic discussions.

The reason it came up in this thread is because we were discussing player agency, and choices in character build and abilities is part of player agency.

[nopho]

so to answer the starting question of this thread, i hate/dislike DA2 very much and on many levels, whether they concern the game or its environment.

first, after finishing the game i literally just stared on my monitor for 5minutes and thought "so..thats it?" no joke, i actually just came here because i had the vague hope that i had some unique bug that kind of takes away half of the game or transforms it into its beta state or something.

so first i dislike the game for what it is, i mean there is things i dislike that are up to taste, say bringing in some anime-emo elf or making the whole battles way more...fast. those are things i dislike, but that's taste, it would have been a good game just not one i'd liked.

but other things are simply not up for debate, you can say that you do not mind the endless repetition of 2-3 dungeons over the whole game and that it made the game not worse for you, but noone can make me believe that this was a design decision or something that got to do with taste. it was just bad and the amount how much people care is what varies. and thats just an example, i mean you can read it all over the thread, limited decision is another big thing (remember that one mission where faction A and B are working together for a better understanding but for some reason just start to attack you wave after wave instead of...talking? or the insane railroading, i mean they wanted to create a huge world that expands over time rather then space but yet, all times look the same and everything will always happen the same way. no matter how much you try and help a certain mage, he will always do the dumbest, worst written plot-thing ever.
<inseart here all the bad things about the game itself which are written at other places>

then a bit more dewy eyed i guess do i dislike the game for its environment.
i mean making a game with a short development cycle because of (i assume) TOR or something is one thing, but when i, a short time after release, came here and saw comments of the devs like "we did not think the area reuse was such a big thing" then i just feel trolled (to the amount that they made "new areas" a selling point for DLC)
but also things like day 1 DLC, or say, advertising with flemmeth all over the forum here to get some kind of connection to the first game where lateron obviously none has been. this may be small things but for me at least it shows a different approach in the bigger picture from "hey lets earn money by makeing great games" to "hey lets earn great money by makeing games" and marketing trying to cover whats gotten lost.
and in fact i do not understand the discussion of "nono EA forced bioware to do it like this" because this doesn't matter. either EA made bioware do it and they were powerless, in this case it will happen in future too (ME3?) or EA made them do it and bioware agreed to it or bioware made it and EA had no do in that. but no matter what it always ends in the same way.

plus naturally my last point (already covered in the "lets do marketing what development can't/won't part) was naturally the obviously unrealistic scores the game got from the few reviewers that got an early copy, thats probably nothing new but just in the aftermath for me confirms my opinion for me that bioware simply is not different from any other company EA owns anymore.

on a happier thought though, one thing good did DA2 for me, it made me stop preordering bioware games, i checked out about TOR weeks after it was out and am reading many reviews good and bad on metacritic about ME3, both games i do not own and consider it money saved.

[Das Tentakel]

Halae Dral wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

While I enjoy DAO I Still find very little difference between the DW Warrior and the Rogue so I actually prefer the Distinction between the Warrior and Rogue classes in DA2 its clearly not to everyone's taste so YMMV

There isn't particularly much difference between a dual-wielding warrior and a dual-wielding rogue, it's true - except for things like stealth and their specialisations. That's pretty much how I prefer it to be, though. The weapon restrictions in DA II feel very artificial and forced to me; I don't see a good reason that a rogue can only use two daggers or a bow, and I don't see a good reason a warrior can't use a bow or daggers. 

I think there should be a distinction between warrior and rogue - else why have two different classes? - but I don't believe it should be a distinction that feels so forced and odd. 

The difference between rogue and warrior should, in my opinion, be a matter of possible approaches. The rogue should have the option to be stealthy, strike from the shadows, use poison, and engage in that manner of skullduggery. The warrior should be more of an upfront fighter. I think that restricting poison and trap usage to rogues would do more for the distinction of the classes than restricting what weapons can be used. 

Coming from a pen & paper RPG DM and player's perspective, I personally dislike clas-and-level systems like D&D and its derivatives, including DA:O and DA2.
Always preferred more flexible skill-based systems, where you truly could customise your character. Not just because it allows greater customization, but because it's way more believable, less immersion-breaking, than the rigid restrictions of class-and-level systems.

That having said, I also understand why class-and-level systems are easier for devs; not only do they create clearly distinct tactical roles, they also make it easier to balance combat encounters and PvP (if that is the intention). Also, skill-based systems have a tendency to create specialized roles that, ultimately, resemble classes a lot.
There's also the danger of novice players producing effectively unplayable character builds.

It would be nice if Bioware could create some sort of hybrid, perhaps a career system (your character has been trained as a warrior, mage etc. with the requisite skills) combined with additional customization (your warrior has been additionally trained in archery and/or survival).

Not that I think there's much chance of that, with few exceptions devs are wedded to the class-and-level systems, even more so since many younger players have been indoctrinated by MMOs...

[Realmzmaster]

Titan Quest made use of a Mastery system (which was skill based), The gamer had to select a primary Mastery for the PC. At a certain level a second mastery could be selected. The only problem was that the character was limited to the skills in the two masteries, but each had several branches within them. You could start as a defender and pick skills from that mastery. At a certain level you would pick the second mastery like nature. Your character's title would become Guardian. The game had eight masteries that could be combined. If you added the immortal thone expansion two more masteries were available.

It is a system that could be considered, but as Das Tentakel stated many people use the class and level system. It is familar. Also as he stated most gamers built characters in the skill based system that resembled the classes. Gamers have a preconceived idea of what is a warrior, paladin, rogue, assassin, ranger, mage etc.

[Remmirath]

The thing is, the mechanics of the classes and things like that are something that a fair amount of people dislike about DA II. Personally, the mechanical problems of the game pale compared to the difficulties with roleplaying a character in it, but they are still important to me.

Das Tentakel wrote...

Coming from a pen & paper RPG DM and player's perspective, I personally dislike clas-and-level systems like D&D and its derivatives, including DA:O and DA2.
Always preferred more flexible skill-based systems, where you truly could customise your character. Not just because it allows greater customization, but because it's way more believable, less immersion-breaking, than the rigid restrictions of class-and-level systems.

I can certainly see where you're coming from on that. From my own pen and paper DM and player's perspective, I like D&D and other class and level based systems, but I also like some that are not. I prefer classes when they mostly add a base of difference or background and there's plenty of room to branch out after that.

I tend to prefer having levels simply because I like systems where the characters get significantly more powerful over time, and the non-level based systems I've played don't do that very well - or at least haven't when I've played them; I admit I haven't played nearly as much of that sort of system as I have of others.

There's also the danger of novice players producing effectively unplayable character builds.

This is one thing that I've always wondered why it's seen as a problem. There have been many games, certainly, where the first couple characters I made were absoloutely awful, but I always saw that as somewhat interesting and to be expected. I like figuring how to make decent character builds. A lot of the systems where you can't make a broken character also seem to be systems where you can't have very much variation in character build, and I value the variation far more than I value being able to make a decent character out of the box.

It would be nice if Bioware could create some sort of hybrid, perhaps a career system (your character has been trained as a warrior, mage etc. with the requisite skills) combined with additional customization (your warrior has been additionally trained in archery and/or survival).

I think something like that would be awesome, but I agree it doesn't seem all that likely.

[Pasquale1234]

Das Tentakel wrote...

It would be nice if Bioware could create some sort of hybrid, perhaps a career system (your character has been trained as a warrior, mage etc. with the requisite skills) combined with additional customization (your warrior has been additionally trained in archery and/or survival).

I think they may have done a bit of that in DAO, with the talents plus some of the specializations - though it was probably not developed to the degree that you might like to see.

Talents like stealing, crafting (potions, poisons, trap-making), survival were available to all classes in DAO.  It also had some rather unique specializations like Bard and Ranger for rogues, Shapeshifter and Arcane Warrior for mages.  And Warriors could use any weapon, except of course magic staffs.

ETA:  And writing about this is really making me want to do another DAO run... which I probably will, very soon.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 19 mars 2012 - 11:31 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

alex90c wrote...

I hate it because it's just ... bad ...

[Realmzmaster]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Elder Scrolls III morrowind is one of my favorites in terms of "making" a character. There were so many possibilities and even ones that influenced the way people reacted to you.
It would be great if BW used at least some of it in DA3.

The system works in the Elder Scroll games because you are dealing with one PC. I do not know how well the system would work for a party based game unless you created all the characters at the beginning which is not how Bioware writes its cRPGs. I think gamers would still be defining the role of each member along class line especially since characters would be pick up at different points in the story with their roles already defined. There may be some tweaking a gamer could do.

[Cyberarmy]

Most people just dont mindlessly hate DA2, the are just dissapointed by a rushed, half-arsed, wasted potential.

Game just need some serious tweaks and now there wont be any DLC/Exp pack coming we can just stop waiting any improvements.


Edit:
And since a BG enhanced edition is on its way ı dont really care about DA2

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 20 mars 2012 - 08:25 .

[Mr Fixit]

Cyberarmy wrote...
And since a BG enhanced edition is on its way i dont really care about DA2

Only one thing gives me pause. I am addicted to those beautiful BG mods community lovingly crafted. I can't imagine being left without those. But we'll see. All things considered, it's definitely wonderful news.

[Das Tentakel]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
Elder Scrolls III morrowind is one of my favorites in terms of "making" a character. There were so many possibilities and even ones that influenced the way people reacted to you.
It would be great if BW used at least some of it in DA3.

Realmzmaster wrote...
The system works in the Elder Scroll games because you are dealing with one PC. I do not know how well the system would work for a party based game unless you created all the characters at the beginning which is not how Bioware writes its cRPGs…There may be some tweaking a gamer could do.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
I understand that my previous thought isn't practical in the way Bioware writes its cRPGs. But the tweaking part is what interests me in this matter. It all depends how Bioware wants to continue DA. DA2 to me feels like Bioware is constantly holding my hand from start to finish. Being able to give more of a personal touch to my PC would make me feel more in control. If the choices I make would have consequences on how my members would react to me that would be great. I know that this in a very tiny matter was done in DA2 (Fenris rivalry +10 when you meet him playing a mage for excample) but it doesn't have a significant gaming experience for me how that was handled here.

There's a great Skyrim cartoon that illustrates the problem of relatively 'open' customization versus specialisation...



I think you can summarise DA:O’s problem that it was a hybrid system that allowed some customisation, but wasn’t sufficiently ‘tight’, easily leading to the creation of suboptimal builds and/or similar builds across classes. DA2’s system, on the other hand, was too rigid, basically allowing very limited customization that didn’t make any sense from a lore/realism/immersion point of view and greatly diminished player choice, something that annoyed a lot of people (though not all).

A return to a more hybrid system is, I think, preferable. Thing is, customization, in the form of secondary specializations or whatever, has to be designed in such a way that it produces additional capabilities, but does not replace or reinforce the primary role/specialization of the character.
In reference to my earlier comments and Realmzmaster’s mention of Titan Quest, one solution could be to add a ‘secondary specialization’ tree to a DA2-ish primary one.
So, when a character levels up, you get to upgrade your stats (Strength, Dexterity etc.), choose abilities/skills for your primary specialization, and again for your secondary specialization.

A warrior might start out as a variant of melee fighter a la DA2, but with some secondary specializations (archery for one). The secondary specializations can be in the form of ‘trees’ just like the primary ones, but perhaps less extensive and less powerful, and without ‘feeding’ the effectiveness of any of that character’s primary specialization abilities.
(feedback loops have the unpleasant tendency to spiral out of control...<_<)

If the scripted combat is planned based on the primary specializations, the secondary specializations allows room for player creativity and flexibility by sometimes using these instead of the primary specializations.
You do keep a risk of players evolving ‘infallible’ strategies and ‘invincible’ combinations of characters, so sufficient playtesting is a must.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 20 mars 2012 - 04:33 .

[Plaguemaster]

I do not hate DA2, it's just a forgettable experience for me with zero replayability.
BioWare tried to appeal for CoD crowd and failed.
They changed combat to arcade awesum buttonz bashing.
They dumbed down dialogue. they dumbed down story. they dumbed down maps. they dumbed down character interactions.
Even graphics was dumbed down, until HR Pack.

[choleck_]

Yes, this game is 10 times worst than DA origins. I remember when I bought DA origin, I were completely insane with the game, playing it all day and enjoying his deep story, and the possibility of decide your future, your decisions were an important thing, probably most important thing, i mean, you could restart the game even if you have completed it 2 times and you didn't get bored, the storyline were addictive and that feeling of beeing involved in a great, legendary and epic adventure were just...wow this is a great game.
NEXT, when i bought DA 2, i expected it would be just as great as da origin, with a complex storyline and better graphic settings, but it was a deception to me, when i tested the game and i saw same fuked maps every time, and again and again only playing the first missions of the game.
Concluding and resuming it, da 2 is a boring game and with a poor storyline full of repeated sequences and without decisions, it's like playing another game, something very different of what was DA origin.
So, ladys and sirs, I HATE THIS GAME AND I HOPE BIOWARE TAKE CARE OF THE NEXT DRAGON AGE OR THEY WILL LOSE AN IMPORTANT NUMBER OF PLAYERS.
PD: sorry for my english... tried to do my best

[AkiKishi]

DA2 was a horrible game. But it was a case of doing a lot of things wrong ,rather than just doing a couple of things really badly. ME3 would be the opposite of this.

What made it worse was the game that went before it DA was rather good and any faults tended to fall into personal preference and nitpicking territory. Less said about Awakenings, the better probably but it was the start of a slippery slope.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Das Tentakel wrote...

There's a great Skyrim cartoon that illustrates the problem of relatively 'open' customization versus specialisation...

No, that demonstrates the problem of scaled content.

If Skyrim didn't scale, then that problem wouldn't exist.