122 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Merlex wrote...

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 herd, before they get there.

You would maybe get off one shot and risk being hit on the charge when you don't have your shield up.

[Merlex]

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

If i were to fix it, you would have them both until the Deep Roads. Mother shows up: "You can't all go. I can't lose all my children, if something goes wrong." Then you choose, that one dies during the deep roads. This way, you get to know them better. And your choice has consequences.

[Merlex]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Merlex wrote...

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 herd, before they get there.

You would maybe get off one shot and risk being hit on the charge when you don't have your shield up.

Maybe, but my DW Rogues get off a shot or two in the wilderness, and usually i can change back in time. 

[Tirigon]

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.

But in real life, you dont have to befriend someone if you dont like them.

For example, I didnt like Aveline. I am fine with not being able to alter her personality, for the reason you stated. But I should have the option to tell her GTFO then, not be forced to befriend her anyways.

[KDD-0063]

Well, this is kinda due to DAO and DA2 introduced this idea of trinity into the game I think?

I don't think not being able to customize the classes of companions bothered anyone in BG, Kotor or NWN2. but on the other hand there were quite a few companions to select from...

[areuexperienced]

Tirigon wrote...

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.

But in real life, you dont have to befriend someone if you dont like them.

For example, I didnt like Aveline. I am fine with not being able to alter her personality, for the reason you stated. But I should have the option to tell her GTFO then, not be forced to befriend her anyways.

You could do that, I guess, but I don't think it'd work as well in a character/story-driven game like DA, as opposed to Skyrim ot something. Even if you could shoo her away her spot in the Barracks would have to be filled with some substitute character like in ME3 otherwise you'd be missing out on a rather large portion of the game, as well as stuff where that character would be integral to the story.  Sure, you could do a whole different story for how it plays out without Aveline but that takes time and effort and is something only a portion the playerbase would see and the DA dev team have said that they'd like to focus their resources on content that'd be seen by the largest amount of people.


Anyway, you can just ignore the Aveline stuff anyway and not use her if you don't like her. It's not like she can't plausibly find a way into Kirkwall by herself and become a guard and all if you initially dismiss her after meeting her for the first time.

[Tirigon]

areuexperienced wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

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.

But in real life, you dont have to befriend someone if you dont like them.

For example, I didnt like Aveline. I am fine with not being able to alter her personality, for the reason you stated. But I should have the option to tell her GTFO then, not be forced to befriend her anyways.

You could do that, I guess, but I don't think it'd work as well in a character/story-driven game like DA, as opposed to Skyrim ot something. Even if you could shoo her away her spot in the Barracks would have to be filled with some substitute character like in ME3 otherwise you'd be missing out on a rather large portion of the game, as well as stuff where that character would be integral to the story.  Sure, you could do a whole different story for how it plays out without Aveline but that takes time and effort and is something only a portion the playerbase would see and the DA dev team have said that they'd like to focus their resources on content that'd be seen by the largest amount of people.


Anyway, you can just ignore the Aveline stuff anyway and not use her if you don't like her. It's not like she can't plausibly find a way into Kirkwall by herself and become a guard and all if you initially dismiss her after meeting her for the first time.

Which is all very well and true, and also why I prefer if you can alter the personality and attributes rather than have them fixed  (even though it is unrealistic and requires a bit of )

[Aly666]

Reidbynature wrote...

 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.

i agreed with you until you added mages with crossbows that doesnt click well. And that should be retricted !!! But i do want to see warrior with duel wielding and arcane mage would allow 2hander and armor. Dragon Age 2 did go backwards on this but i dont think you understand there has to be limits. Making more specialization classes gives limit a diff theme, i always wanted a templar to be more badass with better skills. I want archers to have more subcategories like ranger maybe marksman and ectttt. I liked also the shapeshifter as a mage. The thing bioware has to understand is we want to have a game where our char is completely ours and unique. Giving me oppertunities for selecting a special sub class for warrior,mage,rogue opening doors to diff quests.

[Aly666]

i just noticed someone basically said the same thing i did ohwell on the same page as them ^.^

[Merlex]

KDD-0063 wrote...

Well, this is kinda due to DAO and DA2 introduced this idea of trinity into the game I think?

I don't think not being able to customize the classes of companions bothered anyone in BG, Kotor or NWN2. but on the other hand there were quite a few companions to select from...

Well with NWN2, it did me a little. Neeshka folded like a cheap tent in combat. But there are mods to take care of that.

[schalafi]

I just didn't like having to limit myself to playing a mage if I wanted Carver, or a warrior/rogue if I wanted Bethany. It was a silly way of limiting the player from having an all mage/warrior/rogue party if we wanted one.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

I don't think having both siblings survive would have strengthened the plot.  Rather, I think that the purpose of losing one of the siblings is to drive home the point of loss and tragedy during the escape.  Losing a sibling while fleeing Lothering was the POINT of that part of the story; having both siblings survive completely removes part of Hawke's story that Bioware was trying to convey.    By having both siblings survive Lothering, you're ruining things, not fixing them.

I don't buy these arguments that the death was cheap or pointless or contrived.  Perhaps it could have been handled better, but I can certainly see the point of the death of a sibling in a story whose entire overarching theme deals with Hawke NOT being able to save her family, of NOT being in control of her life, her fate. 

[Tirigon]

The death of a character whom you know for literally 5 minutes when he dies has no impact, and if it happens only to make an impact, that means it failed.

[Silfren]

Tirigon wrote...

The death of a character whom you know for literally 5 minutes when he dies has no impact, and if it happens only to make an impact, that means it failed.

Again, it depends entirely on the perspective you take.  If I'm supposed to be emotionally involved in the character--ME, personally, not Hawke--then sure, I can see that. But if you look at it from another angle, "gee, Hawke just lost her brother/sister," then it has an impact.  Even so, I don't have to personally have gotten to know the character to be impacted by the fact he or she just died.  It's enough for me to know that this is "my" family, and I just lost one of them.  I know enough about how loss itself feels to be affected by it.  Not being personally, emotionally invested in the character doesn't make me feel any less for the others left behind.  Anyway, I could argue that you don't know Leandra or the other sibling any more when THEY die than you do the one lost at Lothering. 

You don't have to be personally invested in a given individual to know that when that person dies, damn, but it's gotta really suck for the mother and siblings that person left behind.  Here they are running for their lives, trying to get out of Lothering intact...and they fail in that endeavor when one of them dies. 

Look at it through Hawke's eyes, not your own. 

[TEWR]

I never really bought the whole "gameplay balance" schtick that the Bioware devs threw around as the reason they did it, considering that killing the sibling doesn't "balance" the gameplay. The gameplay was just as broken without the sibling as it would've been with them.

Silfren wrote...

Look at it through Hawke's eyes, not your own.

But I am Hawke, or at least I'm supposed to be. If Hawke is feeling something, I should be just as able to feel that something too.

There are only two ways I could feel sad at that scene:

1) Metagaming using what the siblings told me in Act 1 in order to care about their death in the prologue.
2) Imagining that it's my own siblings that die. Thankfully, I've never done that because it's too macabre, but I also don't want to do it because Carver is not like my brothers in real life. He is supposed to be his own person.

Silfren wrote...

I don't think having both siblings survive would have strengthened the plot. Rather, I think that the purpose of losing one of the siblings is to drive home the point of loss and tragedy during the escape. Losing a sibling while fleeing Lothering was the POINT of that part of the story; having both siblings survive completely removes part of Hawke's story that Bioware was trying to convey. By having both siblings survive Lothering, you're ruining things, not fixing them.

I disagree. One could argue that Lothering itself was solely about losing the stability that they had for the majority of their life and that the Blight is forcing them to place themselves in a dangerous situation -- their journey to Kirkwall -- in order to find that sense of right again, as it were.

It does this in the opening and that's all I feel is needed. That a life filled with relative safety is tarnished by danger. That the siblings would survive doesn't mean Hawke controlled fate. It means fate spared them, only for fate to collect later on.

The dangers of the Blight could've easily been conveyed through 3 methods, all in one whole prologue (IMO):

1) What the Blight will make men do (Loghain, which would require us going to Ostagar as a Warrior/Rogue)
2) What the Taint can do to people (which we see)
3) Loss of close friends, but not family (which we would see in the escape from Lothering)

I don't think having them both survive -- to have their fate be determined later on in Act 1 as I've often said in the past -- ruins the story. Does it change it? Certainly. But I refer you to this thread -- one of many where I've had this discussion prior -- where I argue the merits of such an idea.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 mai 2012 - 07:54 .

[areuexperienced]

Tirigon wrote...

areuexperienced wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

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.

But in real life, you dont have to befriend someone if you dont like them.

For example, I didnt like Aveline. I am fine with not being able to alter her personality, for the reason you stated. But I should have the option to tell her GTFO then, not be forced to befriend her anyways.

You could do that, I guess, but I don't think it'd work as well in a character/story-driven game like DA, as opposed to Skyrim ot something. Even if you could shoo her away her spot in the Barracks would have to be filled with some substitute character like in ME3 otherwise you'd be missing out on a rather large portion of the game, as well as stuff where that character would be integral to the story.  Sure, you could do a whole different story for how it plays out without Aveline but that takes time and effort and is something only a portion the playerbase would see and the DA dev team have said that they'd like to focus their resources on content that'd be seen by the largest amount of people.


Anyway, you can just ignore the Aveline stuff anyway and not use her if you don't like her. It's not like she can't plausibly find a way into Kirkwall by herself and become a guard and all if you initially dismiss her after meeting her for the first time.

Which is all very well and true, and also why I prefer if you can alter the personality and attributes rather than have them fixed  (even though it is unrealistic and requires a bit of )

Well, in the words of Jagger, you can't always get what you want .

On the the siblings' deaths in the prologue: They have their place in the story. Your brother "being his own person" doesn't make him less your brother. You are Hawke, period, that death is meaningful to Hawke. One can't bestow emotion toa player through a video game, only try to convey it. Thus: could it have been handled better - yes. Is it of no place in the plot - no. You could also say that it's meant to promote repliability and that's what RPGs are all about.

[Tirigon]

Silfren wrote...

Look at it through Hawke's eyes, not your own. 

But that is exactly the problem. BioWare want me to assume the personality of a guy who just... has none.

Hawke wants to be a character by itself, not you projected onto an avatar, but he is just way too boring for that to work.

One needs a character like Geralt for that.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I never really bought the whole "gameplay balance" schtick that the Bioware devs threw around as the reason they did it, considering that killing the sibling doesn't "balance" the gameplay. The gameplay was just as broken without the sibling as it would've been with them.

Silfren wrote...

Look at it through Hawke's eyes, not your own.

But I am Hawke, or at least I'm supposed to be. If Hawke is feeling something, I should be just as able to feel that something too.

There are only two ways I could feel sad at that scene:

1) Metagaming using what the siblings told me in Act 1 in order to care about their death in the prologue.
2) Imagining that it's my own siblings that die. Thankfully, I've never done that because it's too macabre, but I also don't want to do it because Carver is not like my brothers in real life. He is supposed to be his own person.

Silfren wrote...

I don't think having both siblings survive would have strengthened the plot. Rather, I think that the purpose of losing one of the siblings is to drive home the point of loss and tragedy during the escape. Losing a sibling while fleeing Lothering was the POINT of that part of the story; having both siblings survive completely removes part of Hawke's story that Bioware was trying to convey. By having both siblings survive Lothering, you're ruining things, not fixing them.

I disagree. One could argue that Lothering itself was solely about losing the stability that they had for the majority of their life and that the Blight is forcing them to place themselves in a dangerous situation -- their journey to Kirkwall -- in order to find that sense of right again, as it were.

It does this in the opening and that's all I feel is needed. That a life filled with relative safety is tarnished by danger. That the siblings would survive doesn't mean Hawke controlled fate. It means fate spared them, only for fate to collect later on.

The dangers of the Blight could've easily been conveyed through 3 methods, all in one whole prologue (IMO):

1) What the Blight will make men do (Loghain, which would require us going to Ostagar as a Warrior/Rogue)
2) What the Taint can do to people (which we see)
3) Loss of close friends, but not family (which we would see in the escape from Lothering)

I don't think having them both survive -- to have their fate be determined later on in Act 1 as I've often said in the past -- ruins the story. Does it change it? Certainly. But I refer you to this thread -- one of many where I've had this discussion prior -- where I argue the merits of such an idea.

I think you're overlooking the aspect of loss from Hawke's perspective, however.  I agree with your point about being forced to abandon Lothering.  However, losing a sibling makes that a much more tangible loss.  Moreover--at least in Bethany's case--you've got this wonderful bit of tragedy, about how the family moved from place to place to shield one or both of its mage children from the templars, and settled in Lothering on the belief that they could finally stop running and still live in relative safety...and here you find all that effort come to naught when Bethany dies.  Even when it's Carver, the sense is conveyed.  Either way, I think that part of the point of fleeing from Lothering is that the flight is not successful: one of you doesn't make it.  I think about this when Leandra says "There were four of us when the Blight began.  It will never be over while there are just three."  She wouldn't have said that line had both siblings survived the Blight and made it into Kirkwall, and that is a powerful line that drives home (for me) that the Blight destroyed their family.  At least in Leandra's eyes. It also can provide another perspective for Hawke's determination to make her fortune in Kirkwall, come hell or high water.

I'm not sure that I agree anymore that you (we) were supposed to be Hawke.  At least not in the same sense we were supposed to be our Wardens.  Hawke is too defined to allow for total immersion.  I think DA2 is better served when regarded as an interactive story than a true rpg in the sense that Origins was. Anyway, I see it less as an attempt by the game to make YOU the player feel the loss and more the STORY making a narrative point about fate and tragedy, whether you, the player, identify with that narrative concept or not.

I'll go and read that linked post when I get a chance.

Modifié par Silfren, 20 mai 2012 - 10:24 .

[AshenSugar]

I hate artificial restrictions on weapons (and indeed on armor), and so fully support this.

Origins did everything right in my opinion, each class had 'ideal' equipable items for their particular spec, but I was in no way limited to that 'ideal', even if it gimped the character - Thus if I wanted my rogue to run around in Heavy Dragonbone armor, wielding a huge two-hander, fine... my choice. If I wanted Sten to wear a cloth robe and specialise in bows... fine, my choice, my mistakes to make.

I viewed the DAII restrictions as a form of severe hand-holding, it felt like the developers were worried that players might become confused, and accidently use the wrong items for their class; and so efforts were made to minimise the risk of mistakes in the form of 'streamining' and simplification of mechanics - Most likely because they were attempting to open up the franchise to a broader target audience who were unused to RPGs. If true, then such heavy hand-holding strikes me as a little bit patronising.

Let me make my own choices please, good or bad.

Modifié par AshenSugar, 21 mai 2012 - 02:16 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Silfren wrote...
Look at it through Hawke's eyes, not your own.

Hawke has no eyes. He has no feeling. He is a cartoon designed to be role-played by players. His eyes and emotion comes from Dev's assumption or player themselves. You can follow dev's eyes but most roleplayers prefer to do that on their own because it's them who assume the character's role. Not the dev. Otherwise, Hawke is no better than any characters in other games like Super Mario whom the character just play out by itself..

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 21 mai 2012 - 02:57 .

[brushyourteeth]

I never felt very bad about losing Bethany or Carver because I never really knew Bethany or Carver (especially on the first playthrough). I felt bad about Leandra feeling bad, but the Hawke kiddos were like complete strangers to me.

This scene was actually probably the first time that I realized Hawke wasn't going to be my character. She had her own epic escape (and possibly war) story going on before I ever entered the picture. Feeling manipulated through the clever use of music and voice acting into grieving someone I've had 5 minutes' interaction with made me feel more like a stranger to the Hawke family, rather than a member of them. It felt like a very private family moment I was intruding on.

[Reidbynature]

This thread's feeling a bit derailed with the Carver/Bethany topic. Anyone else got any suggestions for where they'd like to see less restrictions?

Though maybe it's not possible because of what Bioware want to do with the forced narrative. I'm just wondering if we can be the bad guy this time (I mean just having the option for those who want to). I know it's possible to do some bad and arguably horrific actions in the previous games, but I kind of felt that they were largely token options and that Bioware could have done more to accommodate people who want to play as villains or potential villains.

Though admittedly this might only be possible with a storyline that allows you to join factions. I know you could ally yourself with Mages or Templars in the previous game, but you were never really part of them and neither felt as though they could be defined as mostly good or bad.

While DA may be a game with an emphasis of 'shades of grey', I still think there is a place for people and actions that are identifiably good or evil (and believe there are already examples of this) and I'd like to see more evil options for the player (and that they don't always punish the player) in DA3.

[hussey 92]

It's come to the point where Biowares telling us how to play their games. And I'm just not going for that.

[robertthebard]

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

This is the no spoilers forum, and I have owned this game less than a week, despite being a registered member for much longer than that.  I'm not sure what your post was about, since I don't want to have my game ruined by reading it, so it must not have been very important.

[Vormaerin]

schalafi wrote...

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

I gather that you hate al things Bioware these days, but can we at least have conspiracy theories that make some sense?  All the voice acting for both siblings for all the quests is in the game.  What costs are you cutting?  A couple carver to bethany cutscenes, at most?