122 réponses à ce sujet

[Reidbynature]

 I'll just try and list off a few thins I don't want to see that I thought needlessly restricts the player.

- Don't restrict what we can equip (without good reason)

Maybe some weapons and armour should have some class or skill requirements (which is already common place in RPG's), but not all.  I don't want to see a DA2 scenario where we can only equip a certain type of weapon depending on class.  If I want to use a crossbow as a Mage then I should be able to (well, with enough points in the rights skill anyway).  DA2 was such a backwards step in my mind as far as classes went.

- Don't restrict what characters or classes of companions are available arbitrarily

This just has DA2 all over.  I played through it and the interchangable siblings felt less for it and I felt that in some circumstances it left the party seriously unbalanced by the end (it shouldn't end up being a factor in whether I kill Anders at the end or not).

Those are the two main ones that I can think of at the moment.  Feel free to add your own and I might add more if I can think of any.

Modifié par Reidbynature, 19 mai 2012 - 12:42 .

[areuexperienced]

I think restrictions on companion classes are justified. Roleplay your character all you want but the NPCs should have their own distinct personalities and attributes, just like in real life, where you can't just make your friends be the way you want them.

About the weapons and armour, I can agree with you, I guess, though I don't have strong opinions on the matter, any way is fine with me. Currently weapons come with attributes that are important for particular classes anyway. Sure, you can put the +mana staff on your warrior but then you'd just be gimping your character. My point is, staffs are made for mages, swords are made for warriors, regardless of whether you slap on a class requirement or not.

[Reidbynature]

areuexperienced wrote...

I think restrictions on companion classes are justified. Roleplay your character all you want but the NPCs should have their own distinct personalities and attributes, just like in real life, where you can't just make your friends be the way you want them.

That's not what I'm saying.  I meant when they killed characters off because they didn't want that character who was a certain class available to you.  I'm not wanting to change an individual characters class, I just don't want to see Bioware throw up a Mage companion where I may have got a Warrior companion depending on what class I chose.  It's annoying and I think it failed in its goal in DA2 and it hurt the characters significantly in my eyes when it came to their stories.

areuexperienced wrote...

About the weapons and armour, I can agree with you, I guess, though I don't have strong opinions on the matter, any way is fine with me. Currently weapons come with attributes that are important for particular classes anyway. Sure, you can put the +mana staff on your warrior but then you'd just be gimping your character. My point is, staffs are made for mages, swords are made for warriors, regardless of whether you slap on a class requirement or not.

Yeah, when it comes to magic staff it would be silly to give it to a warrior without a clue how to use it.  What I'm saying is that there's no reason a mage can't use a bow or a sword.  Something as simple as those shouldn't be stuck to warrior or rogue since it's almost entirely arbitrary to say class restricted for all weapons of those types.

[whykikyouwhy]

Reidbynature wrote...

That's not what I'm saying.  I meant when they killed characters off because they didn't want that character who was a certain class available to you.  I'm not wanting to change an individual characters class, I just don't want to see Bioware throw up a Mage companion where I may have got a Warrior companion depending on what class I chose.  It's annoying and I think it failed in its goal in DA2 and it hurt the characters significantly in my eyes when it came to their stories.

 
I believe that what you are referring to (which does walk the line of being spoiler-laden) may have been done, in part at least, for Hawke's overall story. To expand upon the refugee on the run theme. Act 1 then is your opportunity to recruit companions based either on their personalities or classes - depending on how you want to play.

This was favorable to some, and not so much so for others.

 
Yeah, when it comes to magic staff it would be silly to give it to a warrior without a clue how to use it.  What I'm saying is that there's no reason a mage can't use a bow or a sword.  Something as simple as those shouldn't be stuck to warrior or rogue since it's almost entirely arbitrary to say class restricted for all weapons of those types.

There are weapon proficiencies to consider though. A mage conceivably would have been focusing his/her attention on honing skills related to magicks and spells. So he/she may be able to muddle his/her way through firing and loading a crossbow, but there could potentially be penalties because he/she did not train on martial/ranged weapons. The same can be said with even a sword or a dagger - in the heat of battle, would someone untrained (and not used to the weight or proper way to hold the weapon) be able to get in more than one hit or slice before being disarmed, dropping the weapon, or leaving his/herself open and vulnerable to attack? 

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 19 mai 2012 - 02:06 .

[AkiKishi]

Reidbynature wrote...

That's not what I'm saying.  I meant when they killed characters off because they didn't want that character who was a certain class available to you.  I'm not wanting to change an individual characters class, I just don't want to see Bioware throw up a Mage companion where I may have got a Warrior companion depending on what class I chose.  It's annoying and I think it failed in its goal in DA2 and it hurt the characters significantly in my eyes when it came to their stories.

It's supposed to add drama, but just comes across as being incredibly forced like in ME. You have also just completely wasted a character for very little reason and all the plots/subplots that went along with that character. There is the replayability arguement, but that assumes that you will replay the game.

[schalafi]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Reidbynature wrote...

That's not what I'm saying.  I meant when they killed characters off because they didn't want that character who was a certain class available to you.  I'm not wanting to change an individual characters class, I just don't want to see Bioware throw up a Mage companion where I may have got a Warrior companion depending on what class I chose.  It's annoying and I think it failed in its goal in DA2 and it hurt the characters significantly in my eyes when it came to their stories.

It's supposed to add drama, but just comes across as being incredibly forced like in ME. You have also just completely wasted a character for very little reason and all the plots/subplots that went along with that character. There is the replayability arguement, but that assumes that you will replay the game.

Maybe it was supposed to add drama, but I think it was just another method of cost cutting.

[Reidbynature]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I believe that what you are referring to (which does walk the line of being spoiler-laden) may have been done, in part at least, for Hawke's overall story. To expand upon the refugee on the run theme. Act 1 then is your opportunity to recruit companions based either on their personalities or classes - depending on how you want to play.

This was favorable to some, and not so much so for others.

You're worried about spoilers this long after, really?  I think the people that may affect at this stage are very few. lol

I'm just saying that in terms of story and gameplay I thought that was misjudged.  I don't think that saying to the gamer, 'ok you can only have a couple of mages because you're a mage too where you would have had more if you were a warrior' is not a great way to try and balance a party.  It also cheapened what happened to either character.  Things like character deaths shouldn't be affected by you choosing the wrong class, it should be either through consequences of player choices or because it's necessary for the story.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

There are weapon proficiencies to consider though. A mage conceivably would have been focusing his/her attention on honing skills related to magicks and spells. So he/she may be able to muddle his/her way through firing and loading a crossbow, but there could potentially be penalties because he/she did not train on martial/ranged weapons. The same can be said with even a sword or a dagger - in the heat of battle, would someone untrained (and not used to the weight or proper way to hold the weapon) be able to get in more than one hit or slice before being disarmed, dropping the weapon, or leaving his/herself open and vulnerable to attack? 

You're over thinking it (it was present in Origins, there's no real excuse why it can't come back) and ignoring that I said they could conceivably be skilled with the weapon.  If they don't put skill points in the required area (like strength for swords, cunning for bows), then they should be less effective in the game than someone who has put the points there, but there's nothing that should stop them weilding those weapons.

[whykikyouwhy]

Reidbynature wrote...

You're worried about spoilers this long after, really?  I think the people that may affect at this stage are very few. lol

 
Yes, I am concerned about spoilers. Because not everyone who frequents these boards has played the game all the way through yet. I didn't pick up DA:O until a good year and a half after it was released. I certainly would not have wanted to wander into a non-spoiler forum and read about key story elements.

You're over thinking it (it was present in Origins, there's no real excuse why it can't come back) and ignoring that I said they could conceivably be skilled with the weapon.  If they don't put skill points in the required area (like strength for swords, cunning for bows), then they should be less effective in the game than someone who has put the points there, but there's nothing that should stop them weilding those weapons.

I didn't ignore what you wrote. I was merely addressing considerations with weapon proficiencies. Yes, they did exist in DA:O, to some extent. So while you could boost Wynne's strength enough to wield a sword, 
certain skill sets and specializations would not be available to her, which could potentially hinder her effectiveness in combat with said weapon.

As you already pointed out, class restrictions are common in RPGs. Personally, I didn't find them problematic or overly confining to my role-playing experience in either DA game. But that's just me.

[Rawgrim]

The restrictions in DA2 was just dumb, and ruined immersion. Take Aveline, for example. she can use 1 weapon + a shield. She is also a trained soldier, and very experienced. But for some reason she is just so incredibly dumb, that she refuses to carry a bow for ranged combat. There are plenty of enemies that attack from a distance, or that can fly, for that matter. Its just silly that she wouldn`t be able to use a bow.

[leeboi2]

GOD YEAH! I WANTED TO GIVE BETHANY AND VARRIC AND ISABELA ALL TWO HANDED SWORDS! GOD BIOWARE! GOD!

[Reidbynature]

leeboi2 wrote...

GOD YEAH! I WANTED TO GIVE BETHANY AND VARRIC AND ISABELA ALL TWO HANDED SWORDS! GOD BIOWARE! GOD!

Finally, a poster on the BSN who understands me. 

[Reidbynature]

You're assuming I hate Hawke and everything related to him. You're wrong. I just didn't like how Bethany or Carver's stories panned out.

You're also assuming that I think Bioware killed them solely because of party balancing. I don't think that either. I partly think they misjudged how to handle their deaths. I believe that it being connected to something as random as the player characters chosen class does devalue it because something like that should come from something more meaningful like being forced to save one sibling because you are incapable of saving both at the time or something like that.

Gamers shouldn't have to go "oh I'll play this class so Bethany survives this playthrough", it should be done in game as part of the rpg experience. Also, I don't think either characters personal storyline or even Hawke's storyline did enough with the death and left me feeling unconvinced of its impact on the family.  It need not take away from Hawke being helpless since he would still not have the power to save everyone, but the system as it was implemented just leaves the choice of who dies to something outside of the game rather than removing it altogether.

Also, about the 'baby and the bathwater' weapons comment. Personally I think the DA2 system just went too far. Allowing classes to equip whatever weapon they liked would hardly make the classes 'samey'. The classes were all diverse in their skills and abilities, giving them weapons they wouldn't normally use hardly takes away from that and it gives the added bonus of allowing the player to experiment with their character set up.

Lastly, I should probably point out that I really don't care what a companions weapon or class preference is.  I'm not arguing for those to be change.  I fully expect companions to come with their own story and personality and those are often related to them.

Modifié par Reidbynature, 20 mai 2012 - 02:52 .

[thats1evildude]

Y'know, despite the fact that bows were equippable by warriors in DAO, the number of times I actually used them was ... well ... that time the Archdemon parked itself really far away and the Warden couldn't attack it in melee.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

why do I care about Fergus's son or Eleanor, why do I care about Tamlen, etc. etc.?

You can at least get to know them a little bit before they bite the bullet.

That's not the case with DAII's opening. You don't really know them. The game basically says "Care about them before they become an Ogre's personal baseball bat".

Filament wrote...

To be honest, I don't necessarily think having it be determined by your chosen class is the best way to go (though it doesn't bother me). But I don't much like the idea of having a choice about it in the way you suggest, either. If I had to 'fix' it, I'd prefer it simply be randomly selected on each playthrough, or follow the idea I mentioned of designating someone to guard Leandra. Because the cutscene does always involve the sibling in front of Leandra.

If I were to fix it, both would've survived so as to strengthen the overall plot.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 mai 2012 - 03:44 .

[thats1evildude]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Filament wrote...

why do I care about Fergus's son or Eleanor, why do I care about Tamlen, etc. etc.?

You can at least get to know them a little bit before they bite the bullet.

You have one dialogue with Fergus' kid. One. I can count on one hand the number of complete sentences he speaks.

And Tamlen … well, here's what I know about Tamlen:

1) He doesn't like humans.
2) He kinda had a thing for female Mahariel, which you only find out about if you're playing a female Mahariel.

Humans do not require familiarity to feel empathy. I often feel sorry for people in bad situations who I don't know a lick about. If you can't summon up a tinge of sadness at the sight of Mama Hawke cradling her dead kid's corpse, that is your failing, not the game's.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 20 mai 2012 - 03:55 .

[TEWR]

thats1evildude wrote...

You have one dialogue with Fergus' kid. One. I can count on one hand the number of complete sentences he speaks.

You can talk to Fergus about the Blight, how you're worried, that you're going to sleep with Iona or whatshisname, and blah blah blah. He jokes around and is a good person. You can interact with him enough times to feel enough of a connection.

The same holds true for Eleanor and Bryce.

You can get to know them, however limited it may be. The siblings on the other hand I didn't really know, even a little bit.

I get to know them after we're safe. Why can't I get to know them before we had to run away, in an extended prologue that shows life in Lothering?

EDIT: didn't see the 'kid/son' part originally. I thought we were talking purely about Fergus and the Couslands.

At any rate, I can feel plenty of emotions when Fergus' son also dies. Anger at Howe, sadness at being the one to have to convey the news to Fergus, etc. That one interaction alone with Fergus' son laid the groundwork for plenty of emotions I could feel in regards to Fergus' family.

Having the entire family in the same room talking as if there is no Blight and being happy allowed me to feel more connected to them.

The scene helped forge a connection just as much as the dialogue did. The dialogue was there in sufficient quantity to add to the moment.

In DAII, I get that we're supposed to flee from the Darkspawn. I get that I'm supposed to care about them. But only knowing those two things and not who they are in regards to Tobias Hawke isn't enough for me to care about them.

It's... difficult to properly express what I mean without it sounding like I'm going "DAO did it better just cuz".

And Tamlen … well, here's what I know about Tamlen:

1) He doesn't like humans.
2) He kinda had a thing for female Mahariel, which you only find out about if you're playing a female Mahariel.

I've never really felt a connection to the Sabrae clan in DAO. My comment was really only applying to the other origin stories. I've often said in the past that the game didn't make me feel connected to the Dalish clans.

I don't get to know them there, nor do I get to know the siblings here.

Humans do not require familiarity to feel empathy. I often feel sorry for people in bad situations who I don't know a lick about. If you can't summon up a tinge of sadness at the sight of Mama Hawke cradling her dead kid's corpse, that is your failing, not the game's.

That's real life. That's different. I am who I am. Of course I will feel sad if someone just lost their child. The moment itself is sad. You're looking at the death of the sibling from an outsider's perspective, whereas I'm trying to look at it from the insider's perspective.

I'm Hawke. I need to actually feel connected to my "sibling" to make me feel like the sadness isn't there arbitrarily. These are people I'm supposed to know and as such I should know a little bit about them before they die.

Who are they to me? Do I know them when they are supposed to be my family? No. I know nothing about them and the only time I can bring myself to care about them is through metagaming.

And that's a big no-no for me. That is a failing of the game.

Filament wrote...

How much dialog is there with Tamlen before he gets sucked into the mirror? It's comparable to the siblings. Eleanor might have a bit more, but it's not a huge difference. I only recall speaking to Trian the one time. etc.

Given that they chose to open the game in the middle of running away from the blight, I found the level of dialog appropriate. Like I said, I don't think you really need to "get to know them" to appreciate the contribution of their death to the story.

edit: ok maybe that sounded unintendedly creepy.

this ultimately stems back to how I feel the prologue should've covered Lothering, Ostagar/defending Lothering from stragglers for Mages, and then the flight out of Lothering.

I wasn't a fan of how the entire prologue was done.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 mai 2012 - 04:23 .

[hussey 92]

I like the way Origins did classes. Warriors, Rouges and Mages all had 4 classes (6 in Awakening) to choose from.
They should do that for DA3

[thats1evildude]

I'm with Filament. I hit the ground running. I didn't question why I needed to save Shianni and Nesiara from Bann Vaughan because I'd only known them for 10 minutes; it was important to the Warden, so it was important to me.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 20 mai 2012 - 05:10 .

[AkiKishi]

schalafi wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Reidbynature wrote...

That's not what I'm saying.  I meant when they killed characters off because they didn't want that character who was a certain class available to you.  I'm not wanting to change an individual characters class, I just don't want to see Bioware throw up a Mage companion where I may have got a Warrior companion depending on what class I chose.  It's annoying and I think it failed in its goal in DA2 and it hurt the characters significantly in my eyes when it came to their stories.

It's supposed to add drama, but just comes across as being incredibly forced like in ME. You have also just completely wasted a character for very little reason and all the plots/subplots that went along with that character. There is the replayability arguement, but that assumes that you will replay the game.

Maybe it was supposed to add drama, but I think it was just another method of cost cutting.

I don't see how you save anything doing it. The work has already been done. It's like cutting completed scenes from a movie.
If you killed off a specific character so as to not have to write the other any further than the death scene, that would save money.

[Maria Caliban]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

There are weapon proficiencies to consider though. A mage conceivably would have been focusing his/her attention on honing skills related to magicks and spells. So he/she may be able to muddle his/her way through firing and loading a crossbow, but there could potentially be penalties because he/she did not train on martial/ranged weapons. The same can be said with even a sword or a dagger - in the heat of battle, would someone untrained (and not used to the weight or proper way to hold the weapon) be able to get in more than one hit or slice before being disarmed, dropping the weapon, or leaving his/herself open and vulnerable to attack? 

Except I decide what my PC has trained in. If I give my mage 34 dexterity, they have the skill to use a longbow.

We're not talking about a generic mage, we're talking about the PC.

[Merlex]

Filament wrote...

I sort of agree about the issue of weapon restrictions. I think they should still be restricted, but warriors should get their own version of a dual-weapon style, more like the Arishok's style, using heavier weapons. Also, a crossbow style. Other classes should get new styles too (including a staff tree for mages). The point is to bring more customization back without making the classes samey and throwing the baby out with the bath water for what they were trying to do with the restrictions to begin with.

That's regarding the PC, anyway. Companion weapon preferences are fine.

I agree mostly with this statement. Warriors should have a crossbow tree. I don't know if a warrior dual weapon style with 2 heavy weapons, is the way to go though. Maybe 1 long and 1 short blade.

I believe that mages should be restricted to staff period. If they bring back a version of the Arcane Warrior specialization, then can learn to use other weapons. They could have talents that open up different weapon choices, like weapon proficiencies in D&D.

Companions, i can see having their preferences. Except for Aveline. She's a trained soldier. Darkspawn running toward your group; tick tock, tick tock, tick tock. Pull out a *%^$ crossbow and thin the herd, before they get there.

Modifié par Merlex, 20 mai 2012 - 12:05 .