67 réponses à ce sujet

[Celene II]

In DAO i remember seeing tons of discussion about the need to read up on skills, spells and talents, learn about their intricacies. Right there on the web was range data, damage data, everything you could every want to have in preparing your character.

Then DA2 came along, all the skills are very general. You could create your character by just throwing points around willy nilly without any effort.


So when did choosing your characters skills and abilities because a chore?

When did theory crafting your build out BEFORE you got your first talent point or attribute point become passe?

When did having more then 2 variables at level up become too much brain work for your average RPG player?

Did DA2 really need a talent calculator at all?

[XX-Pyro]

You can put as much effort or as little effort into creating and upgrading a character in DA2 as you could in DA:O.

[Dabrikishaw]

XX-Pyro wrote...

You can put as much effort or as little effort into creating and upgrading a character in DA2 as you could in DA:O.

[BanksHector]

I think the way DA2 did was a improvement over DAO. I wish they would of had the respec tomes in DAO instead of just Awakenings. I do not mind having to plan my character out like I did in DAO, but it would of been nice to beable to respec him when that build got boring like you could in DA2.

[Maria Caliban]

It didn't? There an entire forum dedicated to DA II mechanics.

If you throw point willy-nilly into skills, that your own choice.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 décembre 2012 - 09:56 .

[DarkSpiral]

I don't think theorycrafting means what you're using it for here. I'm actually pretty sure of it.

That nitpick aside, since I assumed you were starting a topic about something else altogether, I must agree with others that have responded to you, Celene. DA2 had many issues. Lack of options in bilding your character honestly wasn't one of them. If you didn't like the system as a whole, and *that* is the reason you're starting this thread, that is entirely your right. But yoru examples aren't particularly accurate.

[Gazardiel]

I've seen a lot of great theorycrafting here on the forums for character builds that have been good resources for me. One of the tricky parts (which means you may need to testdrive) is that sometimes there are bugs or overrides in skills that don't work as theorized.

[AlexJK]

Celene II wrote...

In DAO i remember seeing tons of discussion about the need to read up on skills, spells and talents, learn about their intricacies. [...] When did having more then 2 variables at level up become too much brain work for your average RPG player?

(MODEDIT: Removed quote to deleted post)

You guys must be pretty bad players if you can't work out how to build a character in DAO without reading up on all that extra information...

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 21 décembre 2012 - 09:51 .

[Plaintiff]

 People needed to "read up" on the skills in DA:O? It tells you what they do, right there on the screen.

If you have to go to a third-party source just to learn how to play the damn game, there's something very wrong; either with it or with the player.

Exactly what "variables" were present in DA:O that you imagine its sequel was lacking?

[Plaintiff]

Gazardiel wrote...

I've seen a lot of great theorycrafting here on the forums for character builds that have been good resources for me. One of the tricky parts (which means you may need to testdrive) is that sometimes there are bugs or overrides in skills that don't work as theorized.

I've always said that, compared to DA:O, DA2 just doesn't have enough bugs. 

[Aldandil]

Is this a question about what is being debated in the forums or about the information presented about the game? Before DA:O came out, there was a lot of nitpicking about every little morsel of information since the game had been so long in the works. A lot more information about combat mechanics was made available soon after the postponed release of DA:O for the PC from March to November, since most of the combat mechanics were locked down at that time, and they needed to post new information to keep people interested. That probably caused the intensive forum debate.

The information presented, on the other hand, wasn't really that helpful. Please don't forget that DA:O's skill descriptions were HORRIBLY vague. This was a common complaint on the forums for a long time after game release. That in itself I think caused a lot of discussion about the different skills, since it wasn't really possible to determine what each skill did based on the information from the game. DA2 skills mostly did what it said on the tin.

[Celene II]

XX-Pyro wrote...

You can put as much effort or as little effort into creating and upgrading a character in DA2 as you could in DA:O.

Tell that to Herbalism and Persuasion skills

[Allan Schumacher]

Celene II wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

You can put as much effort or as little effort into creating and upgrading a character in DA2 as you could in DA:O.

Tell that to Herbalism and Persuasion skills

Your counterpoint has nothing to do with the amount of effort one puts into planning their build, just that the non-combat skills don't exist (which many will argue were trivial to allocate and didn't require much thought anyways).

[Gazardiel]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gazardiel wrote...

I've seen a lot of great theorycrafting here on the forums for character builds that have been good resources for me. One of the tricky parts (which means you may need to testdrive) is that sometimes there are bugs or overrides in skills that don't work as theorized.

I've always said that, compared to DA:O, DA2 just doesn't have enough bugs. 

Ah, so it wasn't just the blinding special effects keeping me from seeing them?  Kewl.

Too much theorycrafting can a dull girl/boy make - I'm used to reading pre-calculus level equations over at Elitist Jerks, and there's a point where it ceases to be fun to learn the system as a gamer.  Also, an excess focus on theorycrafting can lead to "One True Build"s that make exploration and experimentation verboten.  I think there is a good balance here.

I personally prefer to try to play the game on Normal-ish with minimal spoilers first, and only consult guides when I get stuck.  It's fun for me to "feel out" the gaming system based only on what is given in game, and especially for generally familiar styles of game design, there shouldn't be anything too weird.  Then I play through again on a harder level with a familiar build (I prefer archers and DW rogue/fighter) and then work on optimizing.  Later I'll read up on builds for styles I don't do often - Sword & Board, Mage, 2H Warrior - and try those with established builds.

So maybe the lack of theorycrafting observed is from a larger proportion of players who are more Explorer/Experimentalists? 

[Maria Caliban]

Plaintiff wrote...

People needed to "read up" on the skills in DA:O? It tells you what they do, right there on the screen.

If you have to go to a third-party source just to learn how to play the damn game, there's something very wrong; either with it or with the player.

You've seriously never read up on character builds for an RPG?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 décembre 2012 - 10:02 .

[Plaintiff]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

People needed to "read up" on the skills in DA:O? It tells you what they do, right there on the screen.

If you have to go to a third-party source just to learn how to play the damn game, there's something very wrong; either with it or with the player.

You've seriously never read up on character builds for an RPG?

Character builds? No. Other things sometimes, like where super-rare equip xyz is.

I play games for story, mainly. I don't often go above whatever the easiest difficulty is, so I'm not concerned with "optimal" builds. I make my own by, you know, putting points in the skills I want and ignoring the ones I don't. And I figure that out by reading the descriptions. Apparently not all of them work as advertised? I never noticed.

I don't need to go on the internet, for example, to know that I'll never use whatever skill tree has the spells that make people fall asleep or whatnot. It's just an unnecessary extra step on the way to murdering them.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 21 décembre 2012 - 10:09 .

[Wulfram]

Well, most skills in DA:O didn't actually tell you what they did, IIRC, which I guess made you read up on them. And you could do with checking up which skills were actually non-functional too.

But aside from that I don't think either system was particularly more complicated than the other. Both encouraged just dumping skill points in one or two skills, though DA:O left open the possibility of Dex Fighters and Cunning Rogues

Generally, I think intuitiveness is a desirable trait in CRPG character creation, and that aside perhaps for the top level the player shouldn't be expected to do any "theorycrafting".

[Maria Caliban]

Plaintiff wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

People needed to "read up" on the skills in DA:O? It tells you what they do, right there on the screen.

If you have to go to a third-party source just to learn how to play the damn game, there's something very wrong; either with it or with the player.

You've seriously never read up on character builds for an RPG?

Character builds? No. Other things sometimes, like where super-rare equip xyz is.

I play games for story, mainly. I don't often go above whatever the easiest difficulty is, so I'm not concerned with "optimal" builds. I make my own by, you know, putting points in the skills I want and ignoring the ones I don't. And I figure that out by reading the descriptions. Apparently not all of them work as advertised? I never noticed.

I don't need to go on the internet, for example, to know that I'll never use whatever skill tree has the spells that make people fall asleep or whatnot. It's just an unnecessary extra step on the way to murdering them.

That's interesting.

[freche]

Celene II wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

You can put as much effort or as little effort into creating and upgrading a character in DA2 as you could in DA:O.

Tell that to Herbalism and Persuasion skills

Herbalism is mandatory ? Never had to use more then rank 1 in it (which Morrigan starts with) besides when crafting that Golem Shell Armor in Awakening.

[Tigerman123]

^Herbalism is mandatory because of the broken potion system in Origins, which allowed you to get infinite health and mana and trivialised the combat

..


There was less discussion about builds in DA2 than DAO because far fewer people replayed the game, it just wasn't popular enough

Modifié par Tigerman123, 21 décembre 2012 - 12:36 .

[freche]

Tigerman123 wrote...

^Herbalism is mandatory because of the broken potion system in Origins, which allowed you to get infinite health and mana and trivialised the combat

..


There was less discussion about builds in DA2 than DAO because far fewer people replayed the game, it just wasn't popular enough

I usually craft 99 Lesser Lyrim potions once I'm done with Lothering and then I never touch herbalism again (yes I play on NM). Morrigan can do that fine from the start.

Enemies drops so many potions and combat is usually quite one-sided that at the end game I could start a drug store and probably buy Ferelden from the profits.

Modifié par freche, 21 décembre 2012 - 12:50 .

[bleetman]

I distinctly remember reading through several guides on builds for all three classes back when DA2 was more recent. I myself refered to this one a fair amount. And whilst not based on a guide, I spent no less time looking over Merrill's available spells and working out how I wanted to set her up than I did with Morrigan. Probably more, given the less linear format of DA2's talent trees.

In short, I've no idea what this thread is even about.