152 réponses à ce sujet

[Zelto]

Rassler wrote...

This is not exactly a derail since it kinda justifies why Anders was forced to be in party. Anyway Anders killed for a noble enough cause while people like Zevran who kill for money and pleasure still run amok. I respect people's decision to kill Anders as you could kill Zevran as well. Anders can be considered a murderer but that doesn't mean he is. This is a video game and we all made different dicisions. I didn't kill Anders and even romanced him because I believed in his cause and second chances and you probably killed him. When you call him a murderer its your opinion not a fact. This applies to me as well, when I say he is not a murderer its my opinion as well. So its indeed incorrect to firmly call Anders a murderer it can only be an opinion, nothing more.

Besides after what Anders did we clearly see the nobility of his cause. Meredith orders ALL MAGES to be killed for something they didn't have anything to do with. That's outright genocide and murder. They imprison all mages just because a handful of them turn to blood magic.

I don't see all Templars getting punished for doings of a single Templat no matter how extreme. His point was proven that there is a clear injustice to all mages.

Ok firstly murder is not subjective. It is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing for someone (techincally a human but for theadas I think it can be widened to sapeint beings). Anders is by this definition a murderer. He planned it, he acted it out. Yes Zevran is a murderer (except that actually as of Origins he never actually killed him mark iirc). The exclusions for murder do not apply with Anders as it was not self-defence, was not defence of another (it didn't stop any harm to anyone, indeed caused much more), it was not the act of a soldier with lawful orders. Therefore by the definition of nearly all civilised nations it was murder, not an opinion a logical legal fact.

Further to that, your argument about Meredith is totall irrelivent, she orders the anulment without autherisation breaching protocal after Anders actions. Second her actions do not absolve Anders from his, and for many they agree her actions were wrong and side with the mages to stop the genocide, but no one can stop the actions of Anders despite the forshadowing. What you are describing in your last statement is vigialantiasm or street justice, which is illegal and murder

[berelinde]

Sure, duplicate each and every character's skill set so that any warrior/rogue/mage can fill in for any other warrior/rogue/mage... and then post ad nauseum how characters are too generic.

Players who don't like playing mages and don't like Anders have to do without Creation spells. Players who don't like playing rogues and don't like Isabela have to do without a melee rogue. Players who don't like playing warriors and don't like Aveline have to do without a tank. Each character contributes something to the party, and there are bound to be people who hate them passionately. It's just fashionable to whine about Anders. Good news, though. Odds of him appearing as a companion in future games are nil, so this is basically a thread about nothing.

[deuce985]

Agreed. It's ok to give specializations and skill trees based on the personality of the character. It's not ok to do this when it's a critical part of the gameplay. If you lack healing, you can't survive. Either allow all mages to be healers, remove pot cooldowns or completely overhaul the healing system. I don't like being forced to take a specific companion just because only they can heal. That's actually a big problem in both Dragon Age games for me when you're playing on nightmare. You're almost forced to use a specific set of companions and that's kinda annoying. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if we had full control over how their skill trees work instead of basically pushing an Aveline to a tank role. It makes sense from a character personality standpoint but it's not very practical for gameplay balance purposes. I never get to see my favorite companion because I must use her as the tank.

Modifié par deuce985, 20 mai 2013 - 10:44 .

[ashesandwine]

Rassler wrote...

This is not exactly a derail since it kinda justifies why Anders was forced to be in party. Anyway Anders killed for a noble enough cause while people like Zevran who kill for money and pleasure still run amok. I respect people's decision to kill Anders as you could kill Zevran as well. Anders can be considered a murderer but that doesn't mean he is. This is a video game and we all made different dicisions. I didn't kill Anders and even romanced him because I believed in his cause and second chances and you probably killed him. When you call him a murderer its your opinion not a fact. This applies to me as well, when I say he is not a murderer its my opinion as well. So its indeed incorrect to firmly call Anders a murderer it can only be an opinion, nothing more.

Besides after what Anders did we clearly see the nobility of his cause. Meredith orders ALL MAGES to be killed for something they didn't have anything to do with. That's outright genocide and murder. They imprison all mages just because a handful of them turn to blood magic.

I don't see all Templars getting punished for doings of a single Templat no matter how extreme. His point was proven that there is a clear injustice to all mages.

I think you are so infactuated with Anders that you cannot discern between what is is objective and what is subjective. Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations. Subjective is a statement that has been distorted by the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through the speaker's view of reality (emphasis greatly for your case).

In this discussion, you argued that Anders is not a "murderer" for what he did because he did it with a noble cause. We know that a "murderer" is a person who commits "murder". So to be objective, I looked up the definition of "murder" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". Now, we have something that is objective and concrete to judge Anders by. We know that what Anders did was premeditated since there was a plan involved. He did it deliberately. Next, we know that it is indeed against the law to blow the Chantry up and killing many people inside including Grand Cleric Elthina. So from the definition and evidences we have, Anders is a person whom committed murders, therefore, making him a "murderer". Look, we are not even discussing whether or not what he did was justifiable. We are merely arguing over whether or not what he did was considered "murder". And by definition, he is a murderer.

The only reason why you are defending him is because you associated the term "murder" as something morally bad. But the definition itself is unbiased. Go read it again: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". There was nothing in that definition that suggests "murder" is morally bad. It only mentioned "unlawful". You can kill someone lawfully. It's called execution by death sentence. So to kill someone unlawfully is murder. Anders did not recieve any orders from any lawful authority to blow up the Chantry. It is ok for you to accept his action and sympathized him, I'm not going to judge you. But to argue that Anders is not a "murderer" is foolish. Sorry for wall of text, but I really want you to understand where we are coming from. You cannot  bring philosophical and moral values into an objective debate.

Modifié par ashesandwine, 21 mai 2013 - 12:51 .

[Ianamus]

I think the best solution would be to give healing abilities to rogues/warriors. One of the things I liked about Guild Wars 2 was that all classes had healing abilities, and I think a similar thing could be implemented here. Gives rogues and warriors bandaging/first aid skills, healing salves, ability to toss a healing potion to aoe heal on a cooldown, there are lots of ways to implement healing abilities that do not involve magic. Maybe even a whole alchemy/first aid tree for warriors/rogues.

Obviously spirit healer mages would still be the best healers, but if the other classes at least had the ability to heal then we could use a party without mages and not have to rely entirely on potions.

Modifié par EJ107, 21 mai 2013 - 01:00 .

[Realmzmaster]

EJ107 wrote...

I think the best solution would be to give healing abilities to rogues/warriors. One of the things I liked about Guild Wars 2 was that all classes had healing abilities, and I think a similar thing could be implemented here. Gives rogues and warriors bandaging/first aid skills, healing salves, ability to toss a healing potion to aoe heal on a cooldown, there are lots of ways to implement healing abilities that do not involve magic. Maybe even a whole alchemy/first aid tree for warriors/rogues.

Obviously spirit healer mages would still be the best healers, but if the other classes at least had the ability to heal then we could use a party without mages and not have to rely entirely on potions.

I agree with the first aid skills. Dragon Age II had Mythal's Favor which revived fallen companions. Are you suggesting something like that but it heals companions within a certain radius?

[Commander Kurt]

Zelto wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...

What if the other character has bad hair, or an annoying voice? What if you really wanted to roll an all-dude playthrough and the other character is female?

Seriously, just go with potions. The dev's made it so you don't need Anders, rather then have all characters' skillsets identical, and I for one prefer it this way. I enjoy the fact that they're all useful, and that I'm missing something by not bringing them along.

They can all be useful through their personal specilisation, which if uniqueness is needed could easily be expanded and make more important, i.e OP.

Not personally I would rather this isn't the case but if they feel that character uniqueness is absolutely necessary this would allow it without the rather arbitary restrictions on both the player and the companions.

This should allow every mage to learn basic healing/primal/etc, every rogue to open locks/use bows/daggars and also allow warrior to use a wider range of weapons like daggers/bows.

I'm guessing you want it to be more like Origins? I get the idea, wanting to be able to use the companions you like rather than the skills you need, but what I feel is that doing it that way takes away from both the characters and the tactical aspect of having to use different tactics when using different people.

It's a matter of taste. Honestly, I play the same way in DA:O so changing it back wouldn't kill me, it just helps me make better builds while still encouraging me to change things up. Keeping it as it is probably won't kill you guys either since, as I said, a healer isn't required. You can beat the game on any difficulty with any party, I guarantee you. You just need a good build and make use of the tools available to you.

[Zelto]

Commander Kurt wrote...

I'm guessing you want it to be more like Origins? I get the idea, wanting to be able to use the companions you like rather than the skills you need, but what I feel is that doing it that way takes away from both the characters and the tactical aspect of having to use different tactics when using different people.

It's a matter of taste. Honestly, I play the same way in DA:O so changing it back wouldn't kill me, it just helps me make better builds while still encouraging me to change things up. Keeping it as it is probably won't kill you guys either since, as I said, a healer isn't required. You can beat the game on any difficulty with any party, I guarantee you. You just need a good build and make use of the tools available to you.

I do believe that it can be completed on any difficulty with any companion selection, I managed complete it without Anders on nighmare after I killed him (thankfully I had Bethany for the final part). The only problem I have with this is the necessity to optimise Hawke. Don't get me wrong I don't want a game where you can make the worst possible builds and still walkthrough nightmare like its nothing. The opposite is true in DA:O (kinda) where due to companion selection you can play your PC anyway you like, with a massivly sub-optimal Warden, and that is probably to much in the other dirrection tbh.

I get that having each companion bring something unique to the party makes them more interesting, and makes companion A less like a reskined version of companion B. I just think that maybe the core aspects of each class should be available to every companion, as well as a wider armour/weapon choice for the PC and companions. I think that Origins is actually too open, Wynne for example should never be able to become a blood mage, and Alistair shouldn't be able to be a reaver, Morrigan probably shouldn't be able to be a spirit healer either, because its against the character.

Modifié par Zelto, 21 mai 2013 - 10:40 .

[Commander Kurt]

Zelto wrote...

I do believe that it can be completed on any difficulty with any companion selection, I managed complete it without Anders on nighmare after I killed him (thankfully I had Bethany for the final part). The only problem I have with this is the necessity to optimise Hawke. Don't get me wrong I don't want a game where you can make the worst possible builds and still walkthrough nightmare like its nothing. The opposite is true in DA:O (kinda) where due to companion selection you can play your PC anyway you like, with a massivly sub-optimal Warden, and that is probably to much in the other dirrection tbh.

I get that having each companion bring something unique to the party makes them more interesting, and makes companion A less like a reskined version of companion B. I just think that maybe the core aspects of each class should be available to every companion, as well as a wider armour/weapon choice for the PC and companions. I think that Origins is actually too open, Wynne for example should never be able to become a blood mage, and Alistair shouldn't be able to be a reaver, Morrigan probably shouldn't be able to be a spirit healer either, because its against the character.

Hmm.. I find it hard to point out any obvious flaws in your ideas, at the same time it seems like a shame to ruin our disagreement merely on account of us agreeing. I think I prefer it like it is, but I can see a good compromise in the way you suggest it.

I don't think warriors should get to use bows, so there's always that.

[Zelto]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Zelto wrote...

I do believe that it can be completed on any difficulty with any companion selection, I managed complete it without Anders on nighmare after I killed him (thankfully I had Bethany for the final part). The only problem I have with this is the necessity to optimise Hawke. Don't get me wrong I don't want a game where you can make the worst possible builds and still walkthrough nightmare like its nothing. The opposite is true in DA:O (kinda) where due to companion selection you can play your PC anyway you like, with a massivly sub-optimal Warden, and that is probably to much in the other dirrection tbh.

I get that having each companion bring something unique to the party makes them more interesting, and makes companion A less like a reskined version of companion B. I just think that maybe the core aspects of each class should be available to every companion, as well as a wider armour/weapon choice for the PC and companions. I think that Origins is actually too open, Wynne for example should never be able to become a blood mage, and Alistair shouldn't be able to be a reaver, Morrigan probably shouldn't be able to be a spirit healer either, because its against the character.

Hmm.. I find it hard to point out any obvious flaws in your ideas, at the same time it seems like a shame to ruin our disagreement merely on account of us agreeing. I think I prefer it like it is, but I can see a good compromise in the way you suggest it.

I don't think warriors should get to use bows, so there's always that.

I'm really sorry... I'm really not that bothered about the bows either, just duel weilding...

[Beerfish]

I agree with the op. I hated Anders before he did the big deed.

[Beerfish]

Rassler wrote...

Regarding the comments about my post since I don't want to quote spam:

Ignoring others crimes is sometimes worse than actually committing them. Watching mages suffer and calling it maker's will and waiting for maker to solve everything is utter ignorance. As we all know clearly there can be no peaceful solution to mage vs Templar situation. As Anders himself says he gladly pays with his life for freeing mages and forcing circle's independence. He will be remembered as a hero who freed mages but sure one factions hero is the other factions murderer so there really isn't anything to argue about.

Forcing characters is bad thing and makes games less fun no argument here. But if someone says Anders had bigger role than Hawke in DA2 we can't outright deny him and its debatable. Therefore forcing Anders to assist you and being there is not as bad as forcing other less important albeit ignorable characters like Fenris and Isabela. I mean you can even not recruit them and finish the game.

Anders was not a hero to the mages.  He in fact has caused many innocnet mages deaths and has forced the majority of moderate mages to being under constant suspicion and having their freedoms further curtailed.

For some reason there is this total deluison that all mages think like Anders, which is in fact totally untrue.

Anders was a selfish fool who on the one hand facied huimslef as some benevolnet healer to the poor but on the ohter hand murdered a host of totally innocent people.  In his warped, twisted huburistic mind he felt that he was going to create this huge once and for all mage split without even once caring about all the innocent mages that would be negatively affected by his madness.

He was neither bright nor noble.

Modifié par Beerfish, 21 mai 2013 - 03:35 .

[-leadintea-]

Mages don't really need to be the only healers in the game, you know. In fact, it's really that mentality that creates arguments like this. It doesn't matter whether there's only one mage that can heal as long as there is another viable method of healing. In that way, they could easily create another specialization for the other classes to compensate for having only one Spirit Healer in your party such as having a Rogue specialization that has abilities to amplify and modify the effects of potions. As long as there are at least 2 characters that can heal effectively, it doesn't really matter what class they are since they'll at least offer some diversity in the characters we have in our party.

[R0vena]

I felt I was rather limited in choice of party if I am not taking Anders. Unfortunately I disliked him pretty much from Chapter 1 and really didn't want him in my permanent group. I had to restart the game as mage Hawke when I figured there was no alternative to his Creation Spells. I played the game many times and mostly as mage because of it. Too bad, in DA I really prefer playing rogues. I hope in DA:I we will really have some alternatives if the player dislikes certain party members.

[Tinxa]

I'm against all classes having healing. What's the point of having classes at all once every class can do everything and it's just renamed, instead of "heal" spell, a rogue has "first aid" ability and instead of "lockpicking" warrior has "bash".

I think some skills should be kept in certain class BUT all characters in that class should have access to it. Something as basic as healing only being available to one companion is too restricting. And no, saying "DA2 is so easy you don't need a healer" is no excuse. I want a healer and I need a healer, I just want to see what happens if I have Merrill along for once without having my other characters die repeatedly until Merril can at least cast a decent fireball so I can kill things before they hurt me.

If a character has some special story that gives him unique abilities, like Fenris and his tatoos and Anders having more powerful mass healing and ressurect spells that is enough to make each character unique. But basic healing is too important in combat for just one mage companion to have it.

[Ianamus]

Realmzmaster wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

I think the best solution would be to give healing abilities to rogues/warriors. One of the things I liked about Guild Wars 2 was that all classes had healing abilities, and I think a similar thing could be implemented here. Gives rogues and warriors bandaging/first aid skills, healing salves, ability to toss a healing potion to aoe heal on a cooldown, there are lots of ways to implement healing abilities that do not involve magic. Maybe even a whole alchemy/first aid tree for warriors/rogues.

Obviously spirit healer mages would still be the best healers, but if the other classes at least had the ability to heal then we could use a party without mages and not have to rely entirely on potions.

I agree with the first aid skills. Dragon Age II had Mythal's Favor which revived fallen companions. Are you suggesting something like that but it heals companions within a certain radius?

I was just thinking of possible healing abilities that wouldn't have to involve magic, so that rogues/warriors would have access to something. An item like the one you mention that can heal is one option, although I could also see it being an ability for rogues or warriors using the same principle. 

[FenrirBlackDragon]

I think I agree with the basic idea the OP is putting forth, but there are workarounds to the problem. I was a mage Hawke so I picked up and maxed out the Spirit Healer tree and said adios to Anders.

In the case of a nonmage Hawke, just time your potions right and focus on damage reducing abilities. Of course I used Bethany a lot in Act 1 as a substitute to Anders but like other people have said, is doable.

What I want is a Healer who isn't possessed by a Spirit by Default. (Anders and Wynne) I liked Wynne because she could handle being in the company of a spirit and hers was of faith, something I see as a more passive spirit than justice. Which makes sense for a Healer, to be honest. If we get stuck with another possessed mage who is a healer, having them have a spirit like faith, love, hope, peace, fortitude, etc. would be a logical choice.

[DatOneFanboy]

the game is really class restricted, if u want to play on nightmare u need 3 tanks and a healer lol.

[Bleachrude]

Tinxa wrote...

I'm against all classes having healing. What's the point of having classes at all once every class can do everything and it's just renamed, instead of "heal" spell, a rogue has "first aid" ability and instead of "lockpicking" warrior has "bash".

I think some skills should be kept in certain class BUT all characters in that class should have access to it. Something as basic as healing only being available to one companion is too restricting. And no, saying "DA2 is so easy you don't need a healer" is no excuse. I want a healer and I need a healer, I just want to see what happens if I have Merrill along for once without having my other characters die repeatedly until Merril can at least cast a decent fireball so I can kill things before they hurt me.

If a character has some special story that gives him unique abilities, like Fenris and his tatoos and Anders having more powerful mass healing and ressurect spells that is enough to make each character unique. But basic healing is too important in combat for just one mage companion to have it.

Wait..what?

Aren't you contradicting yourself? How is that you're arguing that it is wrong for all classes to have access to a skill but then argue that Merill have access to healing?

[TheWayofPie]

 The thing is, if you play your cards right you never need a healer in Dragon Age 2 so not using Anders is completely fine. In fact, Haste and Heroic Aura are much more useful than his healing could ever be. Double hasting and healing with Mage!Hawke/Bethany and Anders is crazy good and yet you don't need any of that to beat the game. The only time you probably do is that ridiculous Qunari rally misson where 100s of Fanactics come from every concievable angle. Screw that battle.

Wish Merill could use those OP spells, but at least you could turn her into a blood mage tank of death to compensate.

[Ridwan]

To those not in favour, try to imagine Warp restricted to Jacob only.

[Plaintiff]

M25105 wrote...

To those not in favour, try to imagine Warp restricted to Jacob only.

It wouldn't matter, because there are other ways to break through Biotic barriers.

And there are other ways to heal in DA2.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 mai 2013 - 03:00 .

[ArcaneJTM]

Sure. You can drink a potion. Oh wait, you can't because you're too busy being eaten by a dragon and the potion is on cool-down anyway.

That's what healers are really for. They keep the other characters alive when the characters can't keep themselves alive.

[Commander Kurt]

Zelto wrote...

I'm really sorry... I'm really not that bothered about the bows either, just duel weilding...

Fine. Make it worse.

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Sure. You can drink a potion. Oh wait, you can't because you're too busy being eaten by a dragon and the potion is on cool-down anyway.

That's what healers are really for. They keep the other characters alive when the characters can't keep themselves alive.

So you revive them.

[ArcaneJTM]

Commander Kurt wrote...

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Sure. You can drink a potion. Oh wait, you can't because you're too busy being eaten by a dragon and the potion is on cool-down anyway.

That's what healers are really for. They keep the other characters alive when the characters can't keep themselves alive.

So you revive them.

Those things cost money you know.  I ain't gonna waste good coin that I can spend on a shiny new pair of boots just to revive your horribly mangled butt.

Besides, as long as the dragon is busy eating you, it's not busy eating me, meaning I'm free to keep poking it with a stick. 

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 22 mai 2013 - 06:18 .