145 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So if the game said Varric is a "Dwarven Bard" class that happened to share some skill trees with the rogue class, rather than a "rogue", you'd accept it?

For the sake of the discussion, I'll assume you refer to a proper class, rather than the Rogue specialization. The question then becomes: It is a legitimate class? Sharing just the weapon trees (the way Warrior and Rogue shared daggers and bow trees) would be stretching it, but acceptable, assuming the class has enough weight to be an entity of its own. It has to be a legitimate class (i.e. all four non-weapon trees exclusive plus exclusive specialization, assuming a basic six trees plus specializations distribution like DA2 classes).
Then the question comes why can't the main character be one, but that's a discussion for another topic.

Shale had four distinct trees and that was it. By your definition, Shale wouldn't be a "legitimate class" either.

If they were to introduce a one-armed swordsman - would you be upset that he could not use a bow and arrow? Would he have to be a distinct and unique class to explain this away, rather than simply a warrior?

I believe that characters that you don't create should be able to assert aspects of their character via game mechanics. This can be done through the way they dress, the weapons they use, the skills they can learn, and the way they act. The less rigidly the developers enforce these aspects, the less real they are to the player, because the way they can behave isn't consistent with their characterization. That potential inconsistency is often more jarring to me than my inability to make them behave in ways inconsistent with their character.

Edit: You might argue that I could enforce the distinctions myself... and I could. But then that would make them more of my characters, not their own. I don't want to play my companions as my characters. I would rather see how they react and behave to my character's decisions and choices. I want to get to know them, not decide how they act for them. I'm afraid that this situation is mutually exclusive to those who wish to exert that level of control over their companions.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 09 octobre 2012 - 10:34 .

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Shale had four distinct trees and that was it. By your definition, Shale wouldn't be a "legitimate class" either.

That's probably because I switched from one game rules to another without properly indicating the switch. In Dragon Age Origins each class had a distinct number of abilities: No two classes had the same number of options. Therefore, for Dragon Age Origins, Shale would fit -- all her skills are exclusive to her, too, which is another thing to factor into the tradeoff value (i.e. Exclusivity vs variability). If we're keeping the DA 2 model, the consistency parameters are different, as all classes in DA2 had the same number of skills trees.
If this feels like moving the goalposts, I apologize, but they were moved from game to game.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
If they were to introduce a one-armed swordsman - would you be upset that he could not use a bow and arrow? Would he have to be a distinct and unique class to explain this away, rather than simply a warrior?

If he is a Warrior, he should have the base class options available to warriors. Then, if he has an einhander specialization tree exclusive to him that encourages the use of a single weapon, he'd still fit the bill. Assuming you didn't mean Warrior class, but rather a fighter by trade (not mechanically, but background), then he'd have to justify existing as his own class.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I believe that characters that you don't create should be able to assert aspects of their character via game mechanics. This can be done through the way they dress, the weapons they use, the skills they can learn, and the way they act. The less rigidly the developers enforce these aspects, the less real they are to the player, because the way they behave isn't consistent with their characterization. That inconsistency is often more jarring to me than my inability to make them behave in ways inconsistent with their character.

At no point I refused that characters should have their own perks. What I argued is that arbitrary strict restrictions that effectively impede any other option are wrong, when there is no mechanical reason to do so, and that additions/tradeoffs are a much better way of gently establishing characterization through mechanics. Reread my first post if you do not believe so.

Modifié par Xewaka, 09 octobre 2012 - 10:36 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

I would suggest that the player being able to move the line is not the win-win you paint it to be. "Letting the player decide" implicitly means that they would devote less zots to fleshing out the characters' unique designs, i.e. we'd only get token unique gear and no unique body types.

That's only true if they decide to acitvely support the customisation option.

That's not what's being requested, here.  Just as the threads that call for the option to disable the PC voice don't presuppose that we'd lose all the lip-synch animation or cinematic scenes or even the paraphrasing and wheel, the option to assign other abilties or equip different gear makes no assumptions about whether those options were animated properly, or whether the equippable gear even exists.

But building the structure of such a system into the game makes it much easier for us to mod in the details.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

I welcome customization of npcs with restrictions. Customize the characters without removing what makes the characters

That is a perfectly reasonable position, but it is compatible with limitless customisation.  Whatever you think is important to a character, don't change that bit.  Or don't unable the unlimited change feature.

[Aulis Vaara]

Orian Tabris wrote...

I NEVER gave Alistair 2-handed weapons or talents, because we already had Sten and Oghren for that, and no sword and shield tank. It makes no sense anyway. I've also never made Zev an Archer and Leli a dual-wield rogue.

BioWare can make lots of decent characters, all with varying roles to feel, so I don't see any need whatsoever to make them customisable in that way. If you don't like a character and would rather have somone else you do like, fill that role, then, well it's your problem if you can't. So I say, "Get over it."

Wow, isn't that a bit of a mean opinion? "I get what I want, and I don't really care about you. Go away."

Very friendly there! No-one even asks you to give up anything, but the very idea that some people prefer other things is not acceptable? Why not? What's it to you?

[berelinde]

There's also a certain allure to learning to optimize your team. I got lazy in DA:O, building up the talents of companions I did like in order to compensate for the talent loss of those I didn't. After the first playthrough, I never recruited Leliana at all, but it was no big deal since I could give any other warrior or rogue archery points if I thought that I needed an archer. In DA2, I didn't have that option, and it allowed me to experiment with some party combat dynamics that I never would have attempted, had I the option to change talent trees around. Even on "hard," you can make any party combination work. You just have to learn how to make the most of the talents your followers possess.

That said, I don't particularly care if they reintroduce flexible talent allocation. I don't have to use an option just because it's there.

[PsychoBlonde]

iakus wrote...

I was able to turn Fenris into a useful tank (at least on normal difficulty) It's not as easy and not as good a tank as Aveline, of course. But if you pick the right talents, it can be done.

I played on Hard and my rogue Hawke was a better "tank" than Aveline--quite a few fights I wound up soloing on Hawke because I just couldn't keep anyone else alive.  Granted, part of this is the fact that the tank kind of needs some love and attention to be effective and I HATE HATE HATE HATE having to run the combat from the perspective of ANYONE other than the protagonist.   That and I consider healing to be superfluous after I've made my personal character able to Survive Anything. A weird idiosyncracy to be sure.

Stat-wise I have no problem playing the game with the companions they give us.  Appearance-wise, I have no problem playing the game with the companions I get.  I'd be even happier if they'd make it so I don't have to ever switch to the perspectives of the companions to command them in battle.

I was a lot happier with the variety of armor appearances for the protagonist in DA2 than I was with Origins, I'll tell you that.  Every single lightly-armored character in my party (Zevran, Leliana, the Warden) was wearing what looked like the same suit of ugly purplish leather by the end of the game.  UGH.  Wynne went through about 3 colors of the same hideous robes, and Sten, Oghren, and Alistair were all wearing variations of the same suit of massive armor.  It was awful.  Shoulda given them Hideous Uniforms and called it a day.

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 10 octobre 2012 - 04:25 .

[PsychoBlonde]

I'd be fine with it if they just told you flat out "this is your party at X time" and left it at that.

[Celtic Latino]

To me Origins had more of a limitation of character types simply because of the way they were built when you got them (for us console players and non-modders in the vanilla game at least). In fact characters really didn't come into their own until late game. Alistair was squishy even for a tank, Morrigan came specced in her useless shapeshifter tree and Zevran is more or less a niche character. Sure you could equip them with the weapons/armor you want but it's pretty difficult to keep them off their intended path. Heck the only viable builds were mages and warrior tanks if you didn't want to die in the game.

Awakening on the other hand addressed all of that. Respec potions, turning Anders into an Arcane Warrior or Oghren into a Weapon and Shield tank, yeah there was definitely a difference.

DA2 you had a liberty of defining the role. It wasn't freeform but you could turn Aveline into a more offensive warrior or you could focus on giving her a leader/support-tank role for example. You could optionally have Merrill as a debilitator, crowd control, or offensive elementalist, or a mix of both. And what I liked is more than one character fit these roles. It was more predefined but gave you room to choose.

Of course I don't mod and played the vanilla versions of each game, but there ya go. I loved how Awakening went in terms of real customization, but DA2 did just fine as well. At least DA2 gave you the respec option in case your characters joined your party with crappy stat and skill allocation ala Origins. 

Hopefully DA3 will take aspects from Awakening and DA2 and find a happy medium. 

Modifié par Celtic Latino, 10 octobre 2012 - 05:06 .

[Plaintiff]

I prefer it when companions have distinct roles. That way they each bring something unique to the group, and I can experiment with different combinations.

Besides which, while the classes in DA2 may be more distinct from each other, the revamped skilltrees offer much more customisation within those roles.

You labelled all the DA2 party members with specific combat roles, but you're not being forced to play them that way. I don't play them that way.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 10 octobre 2012 - 05:29 .

[Eveangaline]

I don't mind if certain characters are predisposed to certain things. If anything, it makes me more likely to take different characters with me on different playthroughs

[Biotic Sage]

I liked how you could choose at least one specialization for each of your companions in Origins. This allowed a greater degree of customization. For example, I could add the handy Spirit Healer to Morrigan in order to opt out of requiring Wynne. Or I could add Arcane Warrior to Morrigan and use her as a tank. Or I could add Blood Mage to Morrigan and use her as a nuke. (ironically the only useless specialization is the one she starts out with haha)

[Wotannanow]

I feel torn about the issue.
It felt good to have the freedom to pick a large variety of skills for followers in DAO.
But the more limited choice in DA2 felt more imersive on the other hand.

I liked how it was done in both games.

[Shevy]

I'm fine with unique characters like Shale being restricted to one "weapon" set. But the rest should be able to change theirs combat roles. I hate DA II Anders but I'm forced to use him on higher difficulties due him being the only healer. Why couldn't I spec Merrill towards a supporter/healer role? I don't see a problem with her being a healer and her personality.
Aveline fights in her opening scene without a shield. So why I am limited to sword&shield with her after she joined the group?
They went way too far in DA II, Origins had it right.

[Biotic Sage]

Shevy_001 wrote...

I'm fine with unique characters like Shale being restricted to one "weapon" set. But the rest should be able to change theirs combat roles. I hate DA II Anders but I'm forced to use him on higher difficulties due him being the only healer. Why couldn't I spec Merrill towards a supporter/healer role? I don't see a problem with her being a healer and her personality.
Aveline fights in her opening scene without a shield. So why I am limited to sword&shield with her after she joined the group?
They went way too far in DA II, Origins had it right.

To Bioware: You have GONE TO FAR SIR!!!

But seriously they did go a bit too far with the streamlining/simplifying.  ME2 had the same problem, but they course corrected for ME3 so it's all good.  Hopefully DA3 will follow the same pattern.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 10 octobre 2012 - 09:07 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Shevy_001 wrote...

I'm fine with unique characters like Shale being restricted to one "weapon" set. But the rest should be able to change theirs combat roles. I hate DA II Anders but I'm forced to use him on higher difficulties due him being the only healer. Why couldn't I spec Merrill towards a supporter/healer role? I don't see a problem with her being a healer and her personality.
Aveline fights in her opening scene without a shield. So why I am limited to sword&shield with her after she joined the group?
They went way too far in DA II, Origins had it right.

The DA2 companions are just as unique as Shale. They're just not golems.

Merrill is a blood mage. I don't think that blood magic and healing magic run parallel so having Merrill with a healer skill set might not make sense, despite how the act of healing/nurturing may fit her personality.

And when you first encounter Aveline, she has been on the run from the darkspawn, and thus is probably not as equipped as she might personally like. Once Wesley is injured, she does pick up his shield.

[Fallstar]

I expect Shale would accidentally crush any weapon she picks up. There's also the question of whether or not she would deign to wield a weapon made for squishy humans. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good enough reason why we can't give her weapons. As for armour, I hope that's obvious.

For characters who have a unique attachment to a weapon, that doesn't meet they won't use superior weapons in combat. I expect Sten's attachment to Asala was at least as deep as Varric's attachment to Bianca. I didn't find giving him alternative weapons to be game breaking in the slightest. His entire life is dedicated to being a member of the Beresaad(sp?) so I'm pretty sure he'd have no problem using a dragonbone weapon over Asala. So long as he has Asala with him, he is content. The exact same thing could have applied to Varric and Bianca.

That said, I think that they should provide some sort of motivation to make using the unique weapon at least a viable choice. Asala was so bad compared to most end game 2H weapons, it never really stands a chance. By having those unique weapons be the "increasing power with level up" variety, but not locking the player out of other options, you encourage use of the unique item, without destroying the player's ability to customize.

[Sejborg]

I agree. DA2 added alot of boring restrictions.

If nothing else, Bioware should give the option to have buy potions that can be used to reset reset the companions skills and attributes. Or at least in a new game+.

[Shevy]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
The DA2 companions are just as unique as Shale. They're just not golems.

Merrill is a blood mage. I don't think that blood magic and healing magic run parallel so having Merrill with a healer skill set might not make sense, despite how the act of healing/nurturing may fit her personality.

And when you first encounter Aveline, she has been on the run from the darkspawn, and thus is probably not as equipped as she might personally like. Once Wesley is injured, she does pick up his shield.

I meant "unique" for obvious reasons. It's the same "unique" why you couldn't attach a weapon at your marbari in Origins.
All DA II companions are not even close to that "unique", they're normal humans/elves/dwarves so there is no real reason as to why they are restricted as they were. Varric is discussable.
Your PC can become a blood mage/healer hybrid, so I don't see why Merrill couldn't. The only reason (rp wise) would be due to her personality, but that's not the case.
Limiting Fenris/Aveline/... to one combat role is nothing more than restricting the player's freedom. Unless somebody can proove me the opposite from a roleplaying standpoint. Fenris never mentions that he hates shields neither I can see a problem with him in the tank role.

[bleetman]

I mostly didn't mind the skillset restrictions DA2's companions had, with the exception of Anders.

Say what you like about the necessity of having a healer - and I personally rarely missed having one, for various reasons - but creation magic was far too useful to not have him around. Haste was by far the best spell in the entire game, and even if your Hawke was a mage and also had it, you still were far better off taking Anders than any of the other companions. I wasn't a fan of that.

[Masha Potato]

How does restricting companions apply to restricting player's freedom? You are free to do whatever nonsense you like to your PC, but other characters are just that, OTHER characters, they do have a mind on their own. Well at least it would logically work this way

[upsettingshorts]

Masha Potato wrote...

How does restricting companions apply to restricting player's freedom? You are free to do whatever nonsense you like to your PC, but other characters are just that, OTHER characters, they do have a mind on their own. Well at least it would logically work this way

This comes from the table-top game origins of the genre, where you control your character and other players control the other party members.  The dungeon master would take the NPCs and that's where the split came from.  Now it's kind of a gray area in which gamers and developers have a different idea as to where the arbitrary lines are drawn - and they are arbitrary, make no mistake - between the protagonist and the rest of the party in these games. 

For example, we can equip gear on our companions, and order them around in battle.  We're the player, so this technically makes them player characters.

However, they also have independent motivations and restrictions unique to them and we aren't always in control of them.  This also makes them non-player characters.

DA games are especially vague in this respect because unlike say... Mass Effect, Skyrim, or Fallout companions we can control them directly in combat. 

So when some gamers argue that companions should have more customization options, they are emphasizing the player-character aspect of the companions.  When gamers argue in favor of something like a fixed appearance in support of characterization they are emphasizing the non-player-character aspect of companions.  That they are sometimes one and sometimes the other leads to such issues.

Personally I prefer to think of them as non-player-characters and use the Tactics system - still an aspect of player control, no doubt - to emphasize this in my own playthroughs.  But I still draw my own arbitrary lines, and don't view my approach as any more or less valid than anyone else's.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2012 - 12:53 .