59 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

Qunari already have ship cannons. Guns of some sort are only a question of when, not if.

And thematically speaking, it would be quite fitting for Orlais since every other musketeer element is already present there.

[Boss Fog]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Qunari already have ship cannons. Guns of some sort are only a question of when, not if.

And thematically speaking, it would be quite fitting for Orlais since every other musketeer element is already present there.

That's exactly what I was thinking while I was playing MotA.  All of those Orlesian hunters would've looked a lot more proper with muskets rather than bows.

[Maria Caliban]

Olmert wrote...

Guns are not heroic. You don't have an epic heroic fight with guns. The fight with guns, if accurately portrayed, would be over immediately. Of course, what they usually do is make guns much less effective, so you hit and the damage per shot is relatively miniscule. That's pathetic too.

A gun shot would presumably do less damage than fireball and you can wail on someone with a sword the size of your body for ten minutes.

Given that swords and magic don't seem to do 'realistic' damage, why would treating a gun the same way be pathetic?

[mousestalker]

A swashbuckling game could be a lot of fun. Muskets were effective in mass in the era of the Three Musketeers. They were less so singly, so fans of swordplay could be satiated with plenty of dueling and such. There could also be plenty of pirates, as that was the same era.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Nah. Not in favor. Before we know it we'll get the same lousy ammo system of ME2/ME3 which suddenly becomes a skill/talent. No thanks. Bows and crossbows fit fine, though. How about bow strings? *hides*

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 août 2012 - 12:54 .

[JasonPogo]

To those talking about the Dwarf in Awakaning having explosives it is not the same thing. When you do the missions in DA2 that Dwarf says the Qunari "explosive" dose not use lyrium hense the whole appeal. But the one the Dwarf is useing hase lyrium in it. With the Dwarves and Chantry in charge of all lyrium it is not Practical to use for explosives. So yes I was right to say only the Qunari are in a position to make and use guns.

[EricHVela]

The current method of explosions without the Qunari powder involves lyrium or magic. For cannons, it can work. For small rounds that you would find in firearms, it would be too prohibitive to make in quantity. In this age of Thedas, guns would be inferior to bow due to accuracy and costs.

The Qunari do not seem inclined to create firearms. They appear to hold some kind of honor with the use of personalized martial weapons.

Fable takes place during an Industrial Revolution. Thedas has not yet reached that era. You cannot compare the two.

[Beerfish]

Don't worry, any guns that BioWare put in would immediately be 'nerfed'.

[Olmerto]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Olmert wrote...

Guns are not heroic. You don't have an epic heroic fight with guns. The fight with guns, if accurately portrayed, would be over immediately. Of course, what they usually do is make guns much less effective, so you hit and the damage per shot is relatively miniscule. That's pathetic too.

A gun shot would presumably do less damage than fireball and you can wail on someone with a sword the size of your body for ten minutes.

Given that swords and magic don't seem to do 'realistic' damage, why would treating a gun the same way be pathetic?

There is some truth in what you say, but I go back to the original explanation of combat and the large amount of hit points in D&D.  What Gygax said was that in D&D combat, a "hit" didn't mean an actual wound until you got down to your last bit of hit points.  Prior to that, a character was expending his accumulated (through levels) prowess expressed in hit points in battle by dodging, parrying, and otherwise avoiding the enemy's attacks -- what would otherwise be actual wounding hits.  That's why you got new "hit dice" every level.  This captured the heroic nature of a fight to the death -- a quick and sudden death being less satisfying -- as one saw in historic fantasy literature/myth.

So, with classic melee weapons, it is obvious how one dodges and avoids hits.  With magic, the lack of dying immediately was said to be something like being able to quickly dodge away from the effect, like the blast of a fireball (or maybe there being a less intense pocket of fire that you happened to be in), etc.

Guns do not fit this metric as well due to their nature.  Magic I would argue is somewhat nebulous because it's totally a fantasy concept that can always be somewhat varied in its effect.  Ballistics, however, are mathematical and certain.  A "hit" with a gun cannot be dodged, conceptually, by a normal human.  If your aim is true, the bullet should hit automatically and severe, debilitating damage should result, as if you were always "at the end of your hit points".  Thus why I contend guns are not heroic by nature, and are contrary to the "large hit point" model used in fantasy RPGs.

And while one could get around this by [erroneously] extending the melee model to guns, I don't find it convincing.  That's why I dislike modern RPGs with guns, personally.  I just cannot suspend my disbelief.

[thats1evildude]

Olmert wrote...

Guns do not fit this metric as well due to their nature.  Magic I would argue is somewhat nebulous because it's totally a fantasy concept that can always be somewhat varied in its effect.  Ballistics, however, are mathematical and certain.  A "hit" with a gun cannot be dodged, conceptually, by a normal human.  If your aim is true, the bullet should hit automatically and severe, debilitating damage should result, as if you were always "at the end of your hit points".

Then how do arrows and throwing spears fit into this equation? Are they not mathematical and certain?

If I shoot with you with a crossbow or just a regular longbow in real life, you will be, at the bare minimum, grievously injured. And yet Dragon Age characters can run around with a dozen arrows sticking out of them. So really, why should bullets fired from outdated guns be significantly more damaging than arrows?

The hit point model was never meant to be a realistic damage simulator, and any attempt to play it off as such always comes down to handwaving. And that's OK. Really, who wants their hero's journey to suddenly come to an end because they took an arrow to the knee?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 17 août 2012 - 08:22 .

[Olmerto]

thats1evildude wrote...

Then how do arrows and throwing spears fit into this equation? Are they not mathematical and cert?in

If I shoot with you with a crossbow or just a regular longbow in real life, you will be, at the bare minimum, grievously injured. And yet Dragon Age characters can run around with a dozen arrows sticking out of them. So really, why should bullets fired from outdated guns be significantly more damaging than arrows?

The hit point model was never meant to be a realistic damage simulator, and any attempt to play it off as such always comes down to handwaving. And that's OK. Really, who wants their hero's journey to suddenly come to an end because they took an arrow to the knee?

Pretty astute of you 1evil.  In fact, it was arrows that always gave me the greatest skepticism with this rubric.  But... arrows are a medieval staple and they're still, arguably, visible in flight and thus dodgeable -- at least more than a bullet.  Their force and direction is also more subject to human power than the chemical power of a gun, for what it's worth.  But when I was younger and more concerned about these things, I used to want some rule where taking an arrow hit when surprised could result in immediate death.  (Wasn't there a king of the dwarves in Tolkien who was killed by an orc arrow in this manner?)

But even if arrows are an exception somewhat, that doesn't counsel for more exceptions that also present an anachronism to boot.  Firearms just introduce a whole new era to the setting, and one I'd rather not see absent a very, very compelling reason for doing so.  I also hate the "gunz r awesome" mentality that grips current video gaming, so I'd see doing this as a reflection of yet further steps by Bioware to "attract the kawla doody crowd."

[Realmzmaster]

JasonPogo wrote...

To those talking about the Dwarf in Awakaning having explosives it is not the same thing. When you do the missions in DA2 that Dwarf says the Qunari "explosive" dose not use lyrium hense the whole appeal. But the one the Dwarf is useing hase lyrium in it. With the Dwarves and Chantry in charge of all lyrium it is not Practical to use for explosives. So yes I was right to say only the Qunari are in a position to make and use guns.

No in your original post you state:

 As we know only the Qunari have explosives of any kind and even that is not more then blowing stuff up.

Others and myself where pointing out that the statement was erroreous. 

[SerTabris]

Masha Potato wrote...

What about Mirabelle

I think that something around this level might fit. Although through most of my Jade Empire playthrough I haven't had much success with it anyway. (For those who have not played JE: it's a foreigner's musket, with very long reload times. I end up missing my shot half the time and getting hit while I stand there and reload.)

[Silfren]

Olmert wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

Then how do arrows and throwing spears fit into this equation? Are they not mathematical and cert?in

If I shoot with you with a crossbow or just a regular longbow in real life, you will be, at the bare minimum, grievously injured. And yet Dragon Age characters can run around with a dozen arrows sticking out of them. So really, why should bullets fired from outdated guns be significantly more damaging than arrows?

The hit point model was never meant to be a realistic damage simulator, and any attempt to play it off as such always comes down to handwaving. And that's OK. Really, who wants their hero's journey to suddenly come to an end because they took an arrow to the knee?

Pretty astute of you 1evil.  In fact, it was arrows that always gave me the greatest skepticism with this rubric.  But... arrows are a medieval staple and they're still, arguably, visible in flight and thus dodgeable -- at least more than a bullet.  Their force and direction is also more subject to human power than the chemical power of a gun, for what it's worth.  But when I was younger and more concerned about these things, I used to want some rule where taking an arrow hit when surprised could result in immediate death.  (Wasn't there a king of the dwarves in Tolkien who was killed by an orc arrow in this manner?)

But even if arrows are an exception somewhat, that doesn't counsel for more exceptions that also present an anachronism to boot.  Firearms just introduce a whole new era to the setting, and one I'd rather not see absent a very, very compelling reason for doing so.  I also hate the "gunz r awesome" mentality that grips current video gaming, so I'd see doing this as a reflection of yet further steps by Bioware to "attract the kawla doody crowd."

But as it has already been pointed out, Thedas already possesses cannon technology.  We don't know the full extent of Qunari weapons technology, but given the existence of cannons, guns wouldn't be anachronistic in the least.

The sudden appearance of real world 21st century-era machine weaponry would be, but as was pointed out, guns themselves have been around for many centuries.  So at least admit that what's really the case here is yours, and others, dislike of guns in fantasy, NOT anything genuinely anachronistic about their presence in such.

I personally wouldn't want to see guns in DA either, but I'm willing to admit that it's my personal dislike of the aesthetic.  I prefer sword-and-sorcery fantasy, whether in games, movies, or literature, to gunslinger fantasy, and find bows (excluding crossbows) to be more romantic to the tone of fantasy I prefer.  But so long as guns were introduced naturally, in a realistically primitive form, I'd deal with it.  In fact, it might be interesting to see some minor side content dealing with the sheer fact of how unpredictable and thereby unreliable early guns could be.  Even until fairly recent times many types of guns were notorious for refusing to fire at the most inconvenient of times, to say nothing of having one explode in your face.

That said, I don't actually see guns being introduced into Thedas, except PERHAPS as another militantly-protected qunari secret, and all this sudden paranoia over the prospect is just that: unfounded and silly paranoia.

[Realmzmaster]

Early guns were notoriously inaccurate, took time to load and many times misfired or exploded. If too much gunpowder was used it could blow up in the shooter's face. If too little gunpowder was used the projectile would fall very short of its target. That is why there were musket brigades. While one group was firing another group was reloading. Even then if the enemy was closing the guns were used to bludgeon the enemy rather than try to reload it. Bayonets was at first just hunting knives jammed down the musket of the gun when the shooters ran out of powder and shot.

So early guns would not be out of place. Gamers may not want them in their sword and fantasy, but there is no reason to exclude them (other than that desire) because they did exist alongside other weapons of the times.

[Pallid]

It could be worse than guns, it could be gunblades...

[Olmerto]

Silfren wrote...

But as it has already been pointed out, Thedas already possesses cannon technology.  We don't know the full extent of Qunari weapons technology, but given the existence of cannons, guns wouldn't be anachronistic in the least.

The sudden appearance of real world 21st century-era machine weaponry would be, but as was pointed out, guns themselves have been around for many centuries.  So at least admit that what's really the case here is yours, and others, dislike of guns in fantasy, NOT anything genuinely anachronistic about their presence in such.

I personally wouldn't want to see guns in DA either, but I'm willing to admit that it's my personal dislike of the aesthetic.  I prefer sword-and-sorcery fantasy, whether in games, movies, or literature, to gunslinger fantasy, and find bows (excluding crossbows) to be more romantic to the tone of fantasy I prefer.  But so long as guns were introduced naturally, in a realistically primitive form, I'd deal with it.  In fact, it might be interesting to see some minor side content dealing with the sheer fact of how unpredictable and thereby unreliable early guns could be.  Even until fairly recent times many types of guns were notorious for refusing to fire at the most inconvenient of times, to say nothing of having one explode in your face.

That said, I don't actually see guns being introduced into Thedas, except PERHAPS as another militantly-protected qunari secret, and all this sudden paranoia over the prospect is just that: unfounded and silly paranoia.

Well, of course that is true for me too (my personal dislike for the aesthetic).  I agree with everything you posted, and a rudimentary firearm in the game would likely be something I could endure.  My "reasoning" in my previous posts just show what my thought processes are when I think of this issue, and I do think that about guns in RPGs or even action games that don't do "realistic" damage; it's another hurdle in the effort to suspend disbelief.

I guess my main point is that, to use your term, there is a non-gun aesthetic in fantasy games and there are good reasons to maintain that aesthetic. 

[FaWa]

I really really really doubt this would happen but yes its a horrible idea and should not happen ever ever ever.

I remember a rumor stirring around on one of the Elder Scrolls forums that Skyrim would have guns. The meltdowns that ensued were wonderful, but all in all I'm happy they didn't include guns. The same implies even more for Dragon age.

[Zanallen]

I wouldn't mind seeing a single companion, most likely a Qunari, who uses a primitive gun in his special abilities.

[FieryDove]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Nah. Not in favor. Before we know it we'll get the same lousy ammo system of ME2/ME3 which suddenly becomes a skill/talent. No thanks. Bows and crossbows fit fine, though. How about bow strings? *hides*

Bah everyone loved half your skills becoming types of "ammo". (and planet scanning!) Get with the times!


What I would love to see is Qunari cannons...in action even. Guns? We don't have enough games with those already? Sigh...

[ticklefist]

Add guns, and let me charge. When I charge zoom the FOV out and put white streaks at the border of my screen all awesome like. That would really give me the sensation of speed you can only get by running quick! That would be totally unique and completely unlike everyone else that has a similar mechanic.

Modifié par ticklefist, 19 août 2012 - 03:43 .

[Nefla]

Mirabelle for DA3! >_>

[Plaintiff]

I would like DA3 to have guns, I would also like DA3 to not have guns.

Anything that expands the universe in any way, as a sequel should do, is acceptable.

[nightscrawl]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Early guns were notoriously inaccurate, took time to load and many times misfired or exploded. If too much gunpowder was used it could blow up in the shooter's face. If too little gunpowder was used the projectile would fall very short of its target. That is why there were musket brigades. While one group was firing another group was reloading. Even then if the enemy was closing the guns were used to bludgeon the enemy rather than try to reload it. Bayonets was at first just hunting knives jammed down the musket of the gun when the shooters ran out of powder and shot.

So early guns would not be out of place. Gamers may not want them in their sword and fantasy, but there is no reason to exclude them (other than that desire) because they did exist alongside other weapons of the times.

Going along with accuracy, commonplace (widely available) rifling (grooves in the barrel that spin the ball, making it more accurate) was not available until the 1800s. In addition, cartridge bullets (projectile, propellant, and primer in one package) were not commonplace until the 1800s.

The assembly line manufacturing processes, in addition to importing ideas from Europe, really brought about a sort of renaissance for guns during that time period. Before that time, as Real mentions above, soldiers lined up in ranks, fired a round, went to reload, while those behind them fired, who then went to reload, continuing the process while going across a field, until they got into bayonet range with the other side and started stabbing.

You might say "Sure, but this is a fantasy, we can have any sort of guns we want. I can't shoot lightning from my fingers in real life either, so who cares about the historical accuracy about firearms?" You would be right as far as that goes, certainly. However, the devs would have to establish new gun lore, since it would be the third game, inserting in weapons that weren't available before, in addition to devising a method of gun play that is "fun" or "interesting."

Zanallen wrote...

I wouldn't mind seeing a single companion, most likely a Qunari, who uses a primitive gun in his special abilities.

Now THIS I like.

I can certainly see a single follower, like a Qunari, having this type of technology. It takes care of the "widely available" (gun technology was in constant development for centuries, even if only certain groups had access or invented a specific utility) problem if only a single person has access to it, and would be in a similar vein to Varric's Bianca.



Table of handgun and rifle cartridges by year
Rifling / History
Cartridge / History

FieryDove wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Nah. Not in favor. Before we know it we'll get the same lousy ammo system of ME2/ME3 which suddenly becomes a skill/talent. No thanks. Bows and crossbows fit fine, though. How about bow strings? *hides*

Bah everyone loved half your skills becoming types of "ammo". (and planet scanning!) Get with the times!


What I would love to see is Qunari cannons...in action even. Guns? We don't have enough games with those already? Sigh...

Games seem to evolve over time as far as ammo is concerned.

With World of Warcraft, bullets and arrows were required for guns and bows/xbows (no, there were no xbow bolts), they had to be in your bag (hunters used a quiver or ammo pouch that increased ranged attack speed) and higher levels of ammo increased your damage, so naturally you wanted the highest level possible. They initially only stacked to 200, then that was increased to 1000 in the second expansion, and ammo was removed altogether in the third expansion. As a player who has a hunter, it was a wonderful day when that patch hit.

I can tell you, I'm extremely happy that ammo is not required for Dragon Age either (although DAO had bolts and arrows that provided bonus damage, you could do without.)

Modifié par nightscrawl, 19 août 2012 - 09:22 .