90 réponses à ce sujet

[gw2005]

Nizaris1 wrote...

the problem of having guns are

1. power/damage scaling - how powerful the gun is? Archery is already powerful with critical hit/damage, how far a gun will go in the game?

2. casting time - reloading and firing, how long it will take? For sure medieval type of guns is not like machine-guns, need to insert the powder and the bullet, compress it, then aiming, then fire. Aim in DA:O is already bad enough, so how long gun firing in DA3 if implemented? Gun reload is slower than crossbow

3. Modifier - to use gun is not like archery, what attribute modifier for gun hit rate and damage? Agility? Cunning?

edit : Gun do recoil making hit rate is less than archery

Casting time/damage - it takes bout 15 seconds to load a musket even for an expert, an early hand cannon would probably take about 30 seconds to load. so realistically, it's not going to be realistically portrayed in a game, unless you make it really powerful and use it behind. As for modifier - agility/cunning would make sense, maybe affect the above mentioned loading time I suppose.

From this we can conclude that gunz is either going to be a pointless addin given that we have bows&arrows already, and that since we cannot make it realistic, it's going to be an in between sort of weapon of choice - pointless. Or a useless addin if we're going to make it realistic.

Though I wouldn't mind adding this in as an ability - say we have a Qunari companion, and one of his power is a area of effect cannon shot that can have a cooldown time of a minute. Hmmm... Or maybe just show it in massive battle cinematics, which would make sense since gunz eventually took over bows in Europe BECAUSE it was useful in equiping large field armies with minimal training, marksmanship caughtup way after.

[Inquisitor Arc]

Why not give guns to enemy mobs? Slow fire-rate, but en masse and well it wouldn't be pretty.

[DarthLaxian]

well, against magic-shields and armor (late samurai wore armor that was hard for the weapons of that time to penetrate - also that did not last, but they had neither magic to reinforce materials or things like dragon bone!) so, yes armor would help some (thus a reason for magi to wear at least a little padding in vital regions)

also, if muskets and early (single-shot) handguns were to be used, it would not change all that much - like it did not change naval boarding all that much - sure, the first couple of boarders were shot, but after that there was no time to reload a freakin' musket or pistole (fumbling with powder, the musketball etc. would only get you killed - that is why early guns were always used with a bayonet and soldiers still carried a cutlass/saber)...so yes, their use would be cool and it would not break the game, so:

yes, please (i would still like to whack the quunari with weapons derived from their own artillery)

greetings LAX

[Sidney]

You'd have to deal with a ridiculous lack of accuracy at range plus the awfully slow load time.

Armor was only effective against even early firearms at range so in any sort of a fight in a room like most dungeons it'd just blow through even heavy plate.

The most fun thing I can think would be that enemy combatants would have a lot of gunpowder on them - if they would explode from fire damage that would be excellent.

[Shinnyshin]

Dragon Age is a fantasy series. Whether it's more High Fantasy or Dark Fantasy is up for debate, but it's a pretty classic sort of fantasy either way.

Guns are absolutely toxic to fantasy settings. This is a well-known, well-acknowledged fact. A few can make it work, perhaps, but far, far, far more are absolutely murderized by gunpowder. It wrecks the fantasy universe on so many levels, destroying the classic medievaly vibe, messing up the universe's balance, etc...

Dragon Age is also heavily inspired by P&P games. Baldur's Gate--DA's direct predecessor-- pretty much used slightly adapted D&D rules. And as everyone knows, guns are basically impossible to pull off in traditional P&P rules. And no, Shadowrun isn't traditional. Guns are pretty impossible to balance mechanically and every attempted implementation in a D&Dish setting has been a rather dismal failure so far, even with plenty of brilliant, creative game-designers working hard.

In the DA3 letter, the head guy went out of his way to state his P&P credentials. It was a not-so-subtle message to us that this game series hasn't forgotten its roots. And this game's roots don't play well with guns as a fully-integrated feature.

[DarthLaxian]

pah - i bet you never played Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (which was a pretty cool game and it had real atmosphere (you could discover magic long forgotten, explore ruins of ancient civilisations etc. but you also could throw all that out and use more modern means to survive (gunpowder, early electricity etc.) or you could even combine that) so you IMHO do not know what you are saying, as guns do not kill it and they are not that hard to implement and to counter (we do not know how resistant for example dragon hide/dragon bone is...it could pretty much negate some of the damage of those weapons)

greetings LAX

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 19 novembre 2012 - 02:15 .

[Shinnyshin]

DarthLaxian wrote...

pah - i bet you never played Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (which was a pretty cool game and it had real atmosphere (you could discover magic long forgotten, explore ruins of ancient civilisations etc. but you also could throw all that out and use more modern means to survive (gunpowder, early electricity etc.)) so you IMHO do not know what you are saying, as guns do not kill it and they are not that hard to implement and to counter (we do not know how resistant for example dragon hide/dragon bone is...it could pretty much negate some of the damage of those weapons)

greetings LAX

Au contraire, I would consider that an exact example of why injecting guns into a classical fantasy setting doesn't work.  NOT because the final product is necessarily bad, but rather because the final product will no longer be a classical fantasy setting.  You supported bringing in gunpowder by explaining (with no small amount of condescension) how cool the associated modernizing effect is.

Arcanum--a game that I followed with some interest--is set during an INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.  The Industrial Revolution is (depending where you look) around the 1800s.  The Dragon Age games follow a school of fantasy gaming in which the world is eternally frozen in the middle ages--roughly a millenium prior.  That's a pretty integral part of the game's identity and a large part of what draws people to it.

The reason firearms don't work in the classic fantasy setting is that the introduction of firearms (which opens the floodgates to technology) irreversibly changes the nature of the setting.  It has to stop being this medivaly fantasy--which is what most series want to be.  And Dragon Age clearly follows the classic fantasy model.

Basically, Dragon Age (or any comparable work) would have to sacrifice its identity in order to incorporate guns.  THAT'S why firearms are toxic to classic fantasy settings: because it forces them to change and modernize when their purpose is to revel in the anachronistic.  Your citation of a NON-classICAL fantasy game that pulled it off only reinforces why Dragon Age couldn't from a setting perspective--and that's not even getting into the mechanical difficulties of guns in an adapted P&P system.  How many times has Pathfinder failed to make firearms work again?

Modifié par Shinnyshin, 19 novembre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Sidney]

Shinnyshin wrote...
Guns are absolutely toxic to fantasy settings. This is a well-known, well-acknowledged fact. A few can make it work, perhaps, but far, far, far more are absolutely murderized by gunpowder. It wrecks the fantasy universe on so many levels, destroying the classic medievaly vibe, messing up the universe's balance, etc...

Don't the qunari already have cannon? They obviously have gunpowder so that "ruins the fantasy world" thing is already toast by your definition.

BTW, fantasy realms have no medevial vibe to them. They're a hodgepodge of medevial, reniassance and classic settings that lack any real "time" you can date them to but honestly given the state of technology for armor (full articulated plate) guns would actually be more appropriate since the two developed around the same time.

Modifié par Sidney, 19 novembre 2012 - 02:10 .

[Shinnyshin]

Sidney wrote...

Shinnyshin wrote...
Guns are absolutely toxic to fantasy settings. This is a well-known, well-acknowledged fact. A few can make it work, perhaps, but far, far, far more are absolutely murderized by gunpowder. It wrecks the fantasy universe on so many levels, destroying the classic medievaly vibe, messing up the universe's balance, etc...

Don't the qunari already have cannon? They obviously have gunpowder so that "ruins the fantasy world" thing is already toast by your definition.

BTW, fantasy realms have no medevial vibe to them. They're a hodgepodge of medevial, reniassance and classic settings that lack any real "time" you can date them to but honestly given the state of technology for armor (full articulated plate) guns would actually be more appropriate since the two developed around the same time.

A good point--though you'll notice there's a huge distinction between small-arms and ship or wall mounted artillary.  We've heard mention of the latter (though we've never seen it).  But the former hasn't even been mentioned in passing. Worth clarifying, the idea of gunpowder isn't nearly as troublesome as small-arms.  Nobody cares about whether fireworks exist in any setting.  It's the effect of guns, specifically, that I believe people are retreating so far into the past to avoid.  Sword/Bow/primitive weapon combat has been glorified as a core part of this "Age of Valor" thing.

And I'd strongly disagree on the fantasy realms point.  I'd agree that they, generally, don't match any fixed point in history.  But I would strongly argue that they correspond to an idealized era that's lodged in the public imagination. Most draw a bit here and there from Arthurian legends, some nothing so specific.  But the overwhelming majority of epic fantasies evoke the "days of yore" with "knights in shining armor".  Or in DA's case, intentionally evoke the same period and bring in a bit of grit to make that bright era seem a bit darker, giving you rogues in the back alley with daggers.

As to the specifics of armor technology across the centuries, I'd have to do some research before I could give a real answer to you there--though my impression was that small arms (once developed enough to use on the battlefield) were responsible for the elimination of full plate.  And though full plate was technically developed at around the same time, the guns then werne't usable.  That said, it really doesn't matter the exact state of technology in the 14th century as opposed to the 15th or 16th.  What matters is that what epic fantasy settings are pretty universally trying to evoke...and the more primitive, glorified weapons being used are a key part.  Note that in Lord of the Rings, only the villains even consider using gunpowder (Tolkein hated it more than most, I suppose).

I suppose you could could argue that DA isn't trying to stick to the classic epic fantasy territory, which would be a pretty interesting discussion in and of itself.  But it's a difficult case to make when the first game largely centers on putting forth your friend's case as the true king and fighting the usurper to the death (more or less) in a one-on-one duel.

Modifié par Shinnyshin, 19 novembre 2012 - 02:30 .

[Rawgrim]

We allready have bows with unlimited ammo, that can fire 200 arrows in 3 seconds. No need for guns.

[DarthLaxian]

why should Dragon Age be eternally frozen?

really, no world is frozen, unless you want to prohibit/punish creativity/new ways of thinking

so why should DA not develop - maybe more slowly then we did (they have magic, which might either slow change down (no need to develope something as there is already magic, also it might still happen in time because normal people might want to compete with magic or combat it) or accellerate it, if it is used to say make trains/cars/powered-ships etc.) but surely

even more, stories could become a lot more diverse if the setting changed and things happening in the past might be viewed in another light

hell, they could show how slavery is fought against and then abolished, then racial segregation (elvs, dwarfs etc.) etc.

i for one would love to play in an ever changing world (a world were maybe factions die out, new ones are founded etc.)

so, yes, new technology is good

greetings LAX

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 19 novembre 2012 - 02:40 .

[Shinnyshin]

DarthLaxian wrote...

why should Dragon Age be eternally frozen?

really, no world is frozen, unless you want to prohibit/punish creativity/new ways of thinking

so why should DA not develop - maybe more slowly then we did (they have magic, which might either slow change down (no need to develope something as there is already magic, also it might still happen in time because normal people might want to compete with magic or combat it) or accellerate it, if it is used to say make trains/cars/powered-ships etc.) but surely

even more, stories could become a lot more diverse if the setting changed and things happening in the past might be viewed in another light

hell, they could show how slavery is fought against and then abolished, then racial segregation etc.

i for one would love to play in an ever changing world (a world were maybe factions die out, new ones are founded etc.)

so, yes, new technology is good

greetings LAX

No REAL world is frozen.  That's why people bother thinking up fantasy worlds which has growth and development in some areas (e.g. rise and fall of Elves, Dwarven kingdoms, arrival of Qunari), yet is permanantly in this idealized pseudo-medieval time/place.  That's why our myths, stories, and legends are relatively time-locked, even if they have slight alterations or the occasional addition.  You'll never hear about Lancelot whipping out his blunderbuss.

Dragon Age was created to be the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate".  And many people play it because they like that type of game.  That model is (as we've previously established) largely incompatible with guns and certainly incompatible with full-on modernization.  Both mechanically and lore-wise.

So if you're trying to make that kind of game for that kind of playerbase, you have two options.

1) Let the world organically develop and hope there's a market for a game that fits into this new world

2) Freeze the world and continue making the game you set out to make

See, people who are playing the third game in a series probably are doing so because they like the series.  That means, often, that they want a relatively consistent experience.  So even if time passes or the world develops between game I and IX, the games will (often) try to deliver a similar kind of experience.

I think I've argued pretty fairly that Dragon Age cannot be a classic fantasy P&P-influenced game if it introduces firearms.  And I think it's pretty widely acknowledged that is the original intended nature of DA.  This is my case why, for people like me (I'd like to think the primary targeted demographic for this game, given its origins, influence, marketing, and design team), firearms are kind of a deal-breaker on several levels.  If you disagree with me at this point, it's because we have entirely different perceptions of what this game is and where it stands in terms of influences and design direction...and it'd be pretty tasteless for me to tell you that you want the wrong things from your game.  So there's, uhh....really nothing more to say.  You either see where I stand or there's no point in us continuing to communicate anyways.  So either way, g'night!

Modifié par Shinnyshin, 19 novembre 2012 - 02:52 .

[Kail Ashton]

Well going by what dragon age is based off of: on the one hand lord of the rings apparantly has no firearms , on the other hand final fantasy 12 does have firearms but on the 3rd mutant hand the movie dungeons & dragons (which bioware seemingly stole most of it's plot from, as well as the exact krogan design!! look it up!) does not have firearms i belive

So going by the creative teams basis, probarly won't see fire arms anytime soon

[Sidney]

Shinnyshin wrote...

As to the specifics of armor technology across the centuries, I'd have to do some research before I could give a real answer to you there--though my impression was that small arms (once developed enough to use on the battlefield) were responsible for the elimination of full plate. 

I suppose you could could argue that DA isn't trying to stick to the classic epic fantasy territory, which would be a pretty interesting discussion in and of itself.  But it's a difficult case to make when the first game largely centers on putting forth your friend's case as the true king and fighting the usurper to the death (more or less) in a one-on-one duel.

Artillery was being used in the European World, Islamic World and Chinese World by no later than 1275, handguns (hand cannon) are documented by the 1300's.  Full plate was developed actually slightly later.  I get that the world isn't historical (I mean we've got magic) and so timelines aren't critical but the weapons themselves wouldn't do a lot to harm the feel of the world. I mean you have gunpowerder weapons and bows side by side at things like Crecy.  Guns win histoircally  on the basis of being easier to learn to use, require little physical strength and having ammo that could be produced by monkeys and not artisans like arrows.


Early weapons were unwieldly, slow, inaccurate and generall less effective than bows so they'd not immediately displace any of the "normal" weapons we see and in particular melee weapons would work just fine since gunpowder weapons would be one shot before closing to range type affairs. They might even be a nice flavoring as a status symbol that someone has guards with the newest stuff even if it doesn't work as well - like almost any early tech adopters.

In fact, in a world that is defined more by being about an age seeing those little signs of changes can make the "era" feel more dynamic and real.

[Dhiro]

I'm not even going to pretend I know how guns work, so... maybe they could make it a weapon with a long pause between shots, but every shot deal a lot of damage and maybe applies a burn effect? A small chance of knockdown, maybe? Or a higher armor penetration, if we this is ever coming back?

idk, I just like crossbows. o3o

[DarthLaxian]

Sidney wrote...
Artillery was being used in the European World, Islamic World and Chinese World by no later than 1275, handguns (hand cannon) are documented by the 1300's.  Full plate was developed actually slightly later.  I get that the world isn't historical (I mean we've got magic) and so timelines aren't critical but the weapons themselves wouldn't do a lot to harm the feel of the world. I mean you have gunpowerder weapons and bows side by side at things like Crecy.  Guns win histoircally  on the basis of being easier to learn to use, require little physical strength and having ammo that could be produced by monkeys and not artisans like arrows.


Early weapons were unwieldly, slow, inaccurate and generall less effective than bows so they'd not immediately displace any of the "normal" weapons we see and in particular melee weapons would work just fine since gunpowder weapons would be one shot before closing to range type affairs. They might even be a nice flavoring as a status symbol that someone has guards with the newest stuff even if it doesn't work as well - like almost any early tech adopters.

In fact, in a world that is defined more by being about an age seeing those little signs of changes can make the "era" feel more dynamic and real.

exactly that (also the weapons fastly became accurat enough to use and save enough to use without blowing the user up in one case of two)

and the quunari seem to have artillery for some time now, so hand-helds would be the next logical step - even more for  a race that has to contend with (blood-)mages (tevinter!) most of the time and does not train its own mages or like to use them (not that i want to help those heathens...i'd rather throw my lot in with the tevinters...but that is something they would develop i think)

greetings LAX