77 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

No.Seriously, are we gonna keep taking everything special about the rogues just because some people can't be bothered to use different classes in their team?

I LOVE playing a rogue.  It's great and it's actually my most played class, but, I don't love having to take a character with me just because they are a rogue.  I don't always want to play a balanced game.  

I enjoy taking 3 mages out or taking 3 fighters out or taking my three rogues.  I don't really enjoy having every game the same, mage, fighter rogue.  I also like having control and if my mage accidently destroys some of the items along with the lock, or if  my fighter breaks into the chest and some of the items are destroyed that's ok.  Sometimes they get lucky and nothing is broken.

Having Mage's unlock things and fighters bash things certainly is not going to make me leave my rogue team members in the camp all the time but sometimes I want to be with others of my class. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...



It really is depressing to me how games in the past had such advanced systems for dealing with solutions, but these days the "combat/action-only" approach to game design has let all of these types of ideas completely slip into obscurity. NWN, Baldur's Gate, Ultima, Quest for Glory... all of these series took pretty novel approaches to allowing freedom (and consequence for said freedom) into the gameplay itself. 

Now when a game has a "cutscene/action fight/cutscene/action fight/dialogue choice!" it is considered the pinacle of RPG game design. 

So true, but we have to remember Fast Jimmy those were the days of death actually being meaningful, traps being lethal, and  non regenerating health and mana. There were also magic systems where the spellcaster could control the power put into a spell like in Wizardry. Now alot of what we have is pretenders to the throne.

I blame increased technology to allow for nicer and nicer aestethically appealing games that have outpaced the ability of tools to create these types of games within the same budget. Now a game has to have over a million units sold to be considered successful in order to be created. 

I'm looking forward to the day when graphics improvements are no longer meaningful, as things are as nice as they are going to get. I'd rejoice at the day when computer voice acting can realistically replace a human actor - not because I'd want to see human voice acting removed, but because its easier to type and later edit 10,000 lines of dialogue than it is to record them, which is the standard for the gaming industry now.

Once those two hurdles are overcome (or, in the case of some Kickstarters, ignored altogether in favor of the older model), we'll (EDIT: HOPEFULLY) see a return to some deeper gameplay mechanics and story options again. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 novembre 2012 - 06:24 .

[mopotter]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<sigh> How is it Quest for Glory, an RPG made by Sierra (of all people) figured out how to do skills, stats and showcasing multiple solutions for many classes over two decades ago, and games are still struggling with the most basic of mechanics? For Pete's sake...

BioWare has done it.  Neverwinter nights had open lock spells, open lock skills and bashing.  Baldur's Gate and a knock spell to open locks along with the bashing and picking locks.  

[Fast Jimmy]

mopotter wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<sigh> How is it Quest for Glory, an RPG made by Sierra (of all people) figured out how to do skills, stats and showcasing multiple solutions for many classes over two decades ago, and games are still struggling with the most basic of mechanics? For Pete's sake...

BioWare has done it.  Neverwinter nights had open lock spells, open lock skills and bashing.  Baldur's Gate and a knock spell to open locks along with the bashing and picking locks.  

I know... but where did they go? That's my question.

[mopotter]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

I am all for rogues being the only ones that have the lockpicking spell, or I would probably never have tried playing as one (and loved it). What I would like to see go away though, is the need to cycle to my rogue party member for every damned locked chest. If they're in my party, give my PC some magical buff that let's me just open the chest and be on my merry way. If there's a trap, then sure, make me have to switch to the rogue to disarm it, but even that still makes my eye twitch a bit.

One of the nice things I remember about Neverwinter Night was my rogue automatically opened a chest or took care of a trap.  i didn't have to do anything other than give the instructions once.  of course the down side to this was I couldn't control any character except mine.

[mopotter]

Wulfram wrote...

Lockpicking is not interesting and never has been.

It could work as part of a more stealth based game, in which it offers a way to get past an obstacle quietly. In a party based game, it's just a bad way to make people take rogues in their party.

I really don't find it boring, well, I like opening things in FO and Skyrim,  The way DA is set up however I agree, is a bit lackluster, but I just want the option of not having to take a rogue if I don't want to.  If I like them I'll take them even if my character can open locks.

And really they aren't going to force me to take someone I don't care for.  I have played games where i did not take any of the rogues and just didn't get any of the goodies from the chest.  I also like to take different team members for different quest.  If I have control it's a lot more interesting for me.

[mopotter]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<sigh> How is it Quest for Glory, an RPG made by Sierra (of all people) figured out how to do skills, stats and showcasing multiple solutions for many classes over two decades ago, and games are still struggling with the most basic of mechanics? For Pete's sake...

BioWare has done it.  Neverwinter nights had open lock spells, open lock skills and bashing.  Baldur's Gate and a knock spell to open locks along with the bashing and picking locks.  

I know... but where did they go? That's my question.

OH!!! sorry, misunderstood.  That is a great question.  I wish we knew the answer.  

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I know... but where did they go? That's my question.

People complained that they made rogues pointless.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

Rogue is my go to class when I play. I love playing one. But I agree other classes should be able to magic or bash a chest open. But I also agree with other people here that there should be a penalty if a rogue doesn't do it. Be that being hurt by a trap or breaking some of the contents. What I don't agree with is that it should break quest items. I can see a lot of reloading and a lot of frustrated players due to this. If things break then have them be some good weapons or armour, not things need for quests.

[mopotter]

Wulfram wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I know... but where did they go? That's my question.

People complained that they made rogues pointless.

I could see this in some kind of co-op but it really makes no sense to me when it's a single player game.  

DA:O when I played a rogue, I did the locks and doors, I didn't put any skills in this for Leliana or Zev.  I had their skills in other areas.  

I would do the same thing if my mage or warrior could open or bash and I didn't want my rogue to do it.  I would have my rogue pick pockets use the bow and be really good at killing people or whoever is attacking me from a distance and my warrior would do the close up stuff.   

[TheJediSaint]

As a player how mostly plays fighters/warriors in RPGs, my preferred lockpicking tool is the sole of my boot.

[Zeta42]

Wulfram wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I know... but where did they go? That's my question.

People complained that they made rogues pointless.

But rogues aren't pointless in DA. I love them for being dual-wielding knife nuts (especially in DA2), not because they can deal with locks and traps. And their specializations are plain awesome, my Rogue/Assassin/Duelist Hawke could kill anything in the blink of an eye. Warriors and mages have their own ways of wreaking havoc, too. Nobody is useless in DA.

[Bernhardtbr]

Why people always look at thing in black and white?

Rogues aren´t "useless". No one ever said they were. However let me give an example. You can go to Washington from New York on foot, by bus and by plane. Either way you will reach the destiny. However it´s obvious which way is the easiest.

It´s the same if you compare, say, a 3 rogue party + warrior with a 3 mage party + warrior. Can you finish the game with a 3 Rogue party? Yes. Will it be easy? No. It will be pain in the ass. Try killing Gaxkang on hard with a 3 rogue party and tell me how many reloads you will need. "Oh but I use magebane". Yeah sure, but mages can do the trick for free without spending on potions.

No one loses the game by not getting loot. I´ve already said that´s compulsive behavior. Getting and selling a boot from a chest you lockpicked will hardly make a huge difference. Giving an extra ability to an already very powerful class is ridiculous, period. It isn´t about realism, it´s about gameplay as well.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 08 novembre 2012 - 08:25 .

[Patchwork]

Rpgfantasyplayer wrote...

Rogue is my go to class when I play. I love playing one. But I agree other classes should be able to magic or bash a chest open. But I also agree with other people here that there should be a penalty if a rogue doesn't do it. Be that being hurt by a trap or breaking some of the contents. What I don't agree with is that it should break quest items. I can see a lot of reloading and a lot of frustrated players due to this. If things break then have them be some good weapons or armour, not things need for quests.

Quest ones could either be opened by a key the boss drops or not be locked. The breakable rules wouldn't apply. Rogues are good for more than lockpicking, I can't choose my favourite playstyle between duelist assassin rogue and force mage. They're both fun and I hope they return in DA3.

IMO a rogue being manditory just for loot reasons hinders the class more than it helps. I resent having to have one in the party because I can't pass on loot.

[iorveth1271]

I remember another, older Bioware game, KotOR 1, did exactly this. Don't have the security skills to pick the lock, you had to bash it open. In KotOR 2, this was even introduced as a valid option in the Prologue where you had to bash a box open and certain items inside simply broke into components, which - in turn - could be used to create new items.

If they added something like this in DA:I, that'd be cool. I just hope the good folks at Edmonton don't decide to do the ME3 thing to simply have no lockpicking/hacking at all anymore.

[Shadow Fox]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Are you saying that a Rogue's *only* useful skill is being able to pick locks, and *that* is the only reason you bring a Rogue?

Because if so, then there is a serious problem with your view of game design.

Lockpicking is just a skill. It's a skill anyone can learn. You don't need to be a 'Rogue' in order to learn it. Perhaps Rogues can be better at it than other classes, but there is no reason that other classes can't do it. Or have their own methods of getting through locks.

Lockpicking is far from being the 'signature' skill of a Rogue.

Actually it is along with stealth everything else a Rouge has a warrior does too and warriors have a higher surviablity than Rogues so why would anyone use what amounts to a gimped warrior?

[StarcloudSWG]

Because of stealth, maneuverability, tricks and traps, dirty fighting, and higher damage potential than a warrior or a mage?

[Shadow Fox]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Because of stealth, maneuverability, tricks and traps, dirty fighting, and higher damage potential than a warrior or a mage?

stealth is not that useful and Warriors are better at drawing arrgo,same as a high dex warrior,warriors can use traps and poisons ,have abilites that function simarilly and Rogues have only higher damage potential against SINGLE targets*and even that's debatable* plus warriors and mages have much better AOEs.

[Plaintiff]

Sure, if Rogues and Warriors get the ability to cast magic.

Heck, why even bother to have classes at all, if you're going to strip them of their unique skills?

[Fortlowe]

I support rogue only lock-picking. That would be some kind of lousy lock or chest if it could be bashed open with an axe in a realm where battle axes are a dime a dozen.

As far as mages using magic? Well don't templars have some kind of anti magic mojo? Whose to say all smiths don't add some kind of rune inside every locks workings to ward magic so that a subtle enough spell to simply melt the lock won't work? To overcome the runes ward, the mage would have to conjure up so much mana they would incarcerate the whole chest, contents and all. I would think in a realm with so many mages, this would also be a pretty standard practice.

[Inside_Joke]

Considering most chests had rusty spoons, is it that big a deal?


Okay, snark aside, I think if the other classes start busting locks, then some items should break. Especially if you have a rogue in your party.

Rogues pick locks, Warriors take it like a champ, and Mages shoot lightning out of their very being. Seems fair, eh?

Modifié par Inside_Joke, 09 novembre 2012 - 06:29 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Or do away with lockpicking entirely and let all locked chests have keys on nearby enemies.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Being forced to bring a character based on their class is one of the worst designs of Dragon Age. I agree, warriors should be able to bash locks open and mages should be able to magic them open.

Wait what? The whole point of creating an adventuring party is to have different characters that can do things that other characters in the party cant as to create an effective unit with a diverse range of skills allowing them to overcome most obstacles they come across, if one character could do everything then why bother with the group at all?

[esper]

Realmzmaster wrote...

esper wrote...

I do not see the logic behind the content of the treasure test being destroyed if you aim the lock of the chest and not the chest itself with sword magic. I also don't see why rouge should be the one class with any out of combat use. Unless the warrior is so stupid as to stab though it instead of just carefully bash the other shell/lock I don't see why the destruction are necessary.

Rouge give massive single damage and are medium sturdy also as of da2 they have acces to ranged weapoms, as oppossed to warriors who tanks, and give medium area damage, and mages who gives massive area damge, but is fragile. The massive single damage, with a somewhat okay survival rate is the rouge purpose. Why they alone should be able to open stuff is beyound me and seems like an old rpg cliche, just like mages must wear robes.

The reason for the chest items being destroyed depends on the contents. If the chest has the possibility of glass items or items in glass vials then the possibility of breakage should exist. For example the Tears of Andraste are contained in a locked chest with an acid trap. Acid is contain in a glass vial and so are the tears. If a warrior bashes the chests' lock then there is the possibility of destroying the tears and breaking the acid vial. If magic is used to melt the lock or open it then the acid trap should activate harming anyone in the vicinity. Replace the acid trap with a trap like poison gas or poison needle.

Let's suppose the chest contains armor then the armor gets destroyed by the acid.

Bioware has used this possibility in games before like NWN. If a warrior bashed open a chest without knowing its contents there was a possibilty of destroying the contents. 

NWN also had a check and balance for the spellcaster. If the chest was enchanted by a wizard of higher rank then the possibility of opening the chest was dependent on the difference between the levels. A first level wizard could not open a chest sealed by a tenth level wizard.

Also some chest have the locks built into the chest not a separate lock. So bashing or pointing magic at the lock meant bashing or subjecting the chest to magic..

I have yet to see a mage use acid. Simply apply a small fire to melt the lock/hinges  of the lid and it should be simply enough to force the lid up. The same with a warrior, bash the lock or the hinges of the lid and then take the lid off, the content need not be destroyed and if an armor can take that who the chest would be shaken by meddling with the hinges then I will say it wasn't that good in the first place.

I don't see the logic behind it other than an rpg cliche of rouges open stuff. Rouges in da are not thieves, they have never been and will never be. Rouges a dexetery/speed warriors I don't see the Arishok (who was a rouge) sitting down and fiddling with locks.

I would much rather that all classes had acces to some out of combat skill with lockpick being one of them.

[Kidd]

I think this debate is coming from the wrong point of view.

Yes, lockpicking stands out like a sore thumb in the gameplay right now, I definitely agree with that. But that's because it's the only non-combat skill any class has. Rogues have lockpicking (and in DAO, stealing - even though it's not even close to being as useful), warriors and mages have absolutely nothing. This makes it easy to see rogues as lockpicking machines before they're considered combat game pieces in their own rights.

Lockpicking is out of place as it is right now. Warriors and mages need some non-combat functionality added to them, or lockpicking needs to go. If the game design is meant to reward well-rounded parties out of combat, then why is there no difference between single rogue and four rogue parties?