152 réponses à ce sujet

[Lulupab]

EJ107 wrote...

Rassler wrote...

You consider Anders Whiner and mood killer becuase you are probably pro templar. We pro mages consider Fenris as such. But we do have the advnatage of never taking Fenris with us though Sevres you right for hating mages.

It has little to do with whether you support mages or not. Having a character who revolves almost entirely around one opinion and is constantly going on about it even when It's not relevant  is what it's about. I personally found Anders intolerable and Fenris only slightly less annoying, Because he occasionally talked about Tevinter and slavery as well as mages. 

I think the following quote covers pretty much every dialogue with Anders in the game, whether the subject matter is magic, Qunari, politics, Aveline's love life or potatoes:

"Mages mages templars templars templars templars templars mages mages templars!"

As if 90% of DA2 plot is not about Mage Templar.

[R0vena]

The point is to have a more or less equal alternative if the player dislikes a party member, reasons why he does are irrelevant. Of course there is always a possibility that the player will not like an alternative either, but at least it was a choice.

[Commander Kurt]

R0vena wrote...

The point is to have a more or less equal alternative if the player dislikes a party member, reasons why he does are irrelevant. Of course there is always a possibility that the player will not like an alternative either, but at least it was a choice.

But this demonstrates perfectly my problem with this discussion. Sure, I really hope that I'll like the companions, quests, LI's, specializations, NPC's, weapons, armors and whatnot of the next game. I would, however, NEVER request that stuff in the game needed to come in two varieties in case I didn't like one of them. That is just... And the reason is that you don't like whining? I mean, really..?

There are perfectly good alternatives in the games already. They are different, but that's the only reason why putting them in the game is at all motivated. Having the same function duplicated with a different name/look/personality is a waste of resources that would lead to the game being more shallow.

I don't want that. In fact, I would hate it.

[R0vena]

Commander Kurt,

I wouldn't call Merrill 'perfectly good' alternative to Anders. As I wrote before, in my opinion perfectly good alternative would be Bethany. I don't miss Anders specific spell tree, I miss much more basic Creation Spells. I don't want the companions to be copies of each other, but I think they should be relatively easy replaceable. Bioware generally does that in their DA games - we have two or more warriors, rogues, mages for party balance purpose. In DA:O I couldn't stand Morrigan at first, for example (warmed up to her later), but it was no problem - Wynn filled her shoes just fine. Wynn and Morrigan were not the same at all, in my opinion, in terms of power and tactics (not even talking about personality), but the gameplay didn't feel much harder or easier depending who was in the party. A bit differrent approach to tactics, yes, but not that different.

I consider myself rather normal player, not greatest, but not the worst. I can play on NM with practically any group combination. Playing with non mage Hawke and without Anders is the one I always find more difficult. He is the only one companion I feel really weaker without. But maybe it's just me, I don't know.

And I never said I don't like Anders because of whining. I don't like him for many reasons, but I don't consider him a whiner, not at all.

Modifié par R0vena, 26 mai 2013 - 11:48 .

[Tinxa]

Commander Kurt wrote...

R0vena wrote...

The point is to have a more or less equal alternative if the player dislikes a party member, reasons why he does are irrelevant. Of course there is always a possibility that the player will not like an alternative either, but at least it was a choice.

But this demonstrates perfectly my problem with this discussion. Sure, I really hope that I'll like the companions, quests, LI's, specializations, NPC's, weapons, armors and whatnot of the next game. I would, however, NEVER request that stuff in the game needed to come in two varieties in case I didn't like one of them. That is just... And the reason is that you don't like whining? I mean, really..?

There are perfectly good alternatives in the games already. They are different, but that's the only reason why putting them in the game is at all motivated. Having the same function duplicated with a different name/look/personality is a waste of resources that would lead to the game being more shallow.

I don't want that. In fact, I would hate it.

What? By your logic we should only have 3 companions to fill your party and that's it. If you don't like them, too bad.

But instead we already have 2 warriors, 2 mages and 2 rogues to choose from. All people are asking for is for is that both mages have available basic heal like it was in DAO, since only mages can heal anyway. Was that a duplication and waste of resources? Was DAO more shallow because of it?

[Commander Kurt]

R0vena wrote...

I consider myself rather normal player, not greatest, but not the worst. I can play on NM with practically any group combination. Playing with non mage Hawke and without Anders is the one I always find more difficult. He is the only one companion I feel really weaker without. But maybe it's just me, I don't know.

But maybe nightmare is supposed to be difficult..?

And I know we disagree, but I actually want to miss a companions skills when I don't bring them. I don't want to be able to bring anyone and still use the same tactics. I want each and every companion to change the gameplay (if that's possible).

Tinxa wrote...

What? By your logic we should only have 3 companions to fill your party and that's it. If you don't like them, too bad.

But instead we already have 2 warriors, 2 mages and 2 rogues to choose from. All people are asking for is for is that both mages have available basic heal like it was in DAO, since only mages can heal anyway. Was that a duplication and waste of resources? Was DAO more shallow because of it?

Two warriors - 1 sword 'n board tank, 1 damage dealer two-hander
Two mages - 1 glass healer, 1 close-range crowd controller
Two rogues - 1 dual-wielding duelist, 1 archer.

There are a lot more variations in the classes than 1 mage, 1 warrior, 1 rogue, you must know this..? The "If you don't like them, too bad"-part is exactely what I'm saying, that's really how I feel (and it goes for the whole game, they probably aren't going to make two slightly different DA:I, so if you don't like it, too bad).

Was DA:O more shallow? Yeah, I guess in a sense it was. Sten and Oghren were just different skins on the same fighter, story-wise they both had purpose but combat-wise they didn't. The difference between the characters in Origins was only ever skin deep.

As I've said before in this thread, giving all mages basic heal wouldn't kill me. Using potions probably wouldn't kill you. But this whole "I need two companions that are basically the same in case I don't like one of them" is beyond silly. That's like renting fully furnished and asking that the landlord provide two couches in case you don't like one of them.

[ArcaneJTM]

I don't think anyone was seriously asking for all companions to be functionally identical. Just able to substitute for each other. For example, if you want healing, you take a mage companion. If you want super deluxe never let you die healing, you take a specific mage companion. If you want a tank, you take a warrior. If you want a virtually immortal damage sponge, you take a specific warrior. That's what is meant by having alternatives in party composition.

That's what DA2 fell a little short on. If you wanted a tank, you had Aveline or Fenris. One was better at it than the other, but both could fill the hole. But then if you wanted healing, you had Anders. Period.

[Ketten]

Hah, as someone that was pro-mage AND pro-fenris, sorry, but I have to agree. I did not like having Anders in my party in DA2, which is massive surprise for myself because I actually adored the guy in Awakening.

It was a bummer, but I didn't really need him 90% of the time because I was playing a mage myself, so I just tossed a heal once in a while.

[Commander Kurt]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

I don't think anyone was seriously asking for all companions to be functionally identical. Just able to substitute for each other. For example, if you want healing, you take a mage companion. If you want super deluxe never let you die healing, you take a specific mage companion. If you want a tank, you take a warrior. If you want a virtually immortal damage sponge, you take a specific warrior. That's what is meant by having alternatives in party composition.

That's what DA2 fell a little short on. If you wanted a tank, you had Aveline or Fenris. One was better at it than the other, but both could fill the hole. But then if you wanted healing, you had Anders. Period.

I honestly don't see the difference..? Healing potions are geared more towards healing than Fenris is geared towards tanking. On nightmare, I often used Merrill as a tank. Substituting companions for each other isn't an issue at all in DA2, it only ever becomes an issue if you do want the companions to be functionally identical.

The dev's chose a different route, making viable alternatives so that not only could you choose not to use a specific healer in DA2, you could actually choose not to use a healer at all. This gives you more options with who you bring along than just giving Merrill heal, so I prefer it.

[R0vena]

Commander Kurt,

I guess we have to agree to disagree.)

Out of curiosity - are Anders and Bethany absolutely identical then (tactic wise) in your opinion?

[Commander Kurt]

R0vena wrote...

Commander Kurt,

I guess we have to agree to disagree.)

Out of curiosity - are Anders and Bethany absolutely identical then (tactic wise) in your opinion?

Yeah, that works.

And as for Bethany, she was pretty redundant once Anders joined the party (of course, she had to be). They are only as identical as you make them, naturally, but I prefer the solution they went with in DA2 (making healers redundant rather than making specific companions redundant).

[Ridwan]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

I don't think anyone was seriously asking for all companions to be functionally identical. Just able to substitute for each other. For example, if you want healing, you take a mage companion. If you want super deluxe never let you die healing, you take a specific mage companion. If you want a tank, you take a warrior. If you want a virtually immortal damage sponge, you take a specific warrior. That's what is meant by having alternatives in party composition.

That's what DA2 fell a little short on. If you wanted a tank, you had Aveline or Fenris. One was better at it than the other, but both could fill the hole. But then if you wanted healing, you had Anders. Period.

Yup. Don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

[Patchwork]

There should be basic abilities for each class e.g. mages have heal, arcane dps and mindblast. Rogues, sneak, lockpick and pickpocket. Warriors have taunt, slam and precision.

Lesser versions of the skills they can later focus on.

[Fiery Knight]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

I don't think anyone was seriously asking for all companions to be functionally identical. Just able to substitute for each other. For example, if you want healing, you take a mage companion. If you want super deluxe never let you die healing, you take a specific mage companion. If you want a tank, you take a warrior. If you want a virtually immortal damage sponge, you take a specific warrior. That's what is meant by having alternatives in party composition.

That's what DA2 fell a little short on. If you wanted a tank, you had Aveline or Fenris. One was better at it than the other, but both could fill the hole. But then if you wanted healing, you had Anders. Period.

What you mean period? It's been awhile since I played DA2, but couldn't Merrill replace Anders as a healer? Or did she miss that talent tree?

[Ridwan]

Hawke_12 wrote...

ArcaneJTM wrote...

I don't think anyone was seriously asking for all companions to be functionally identical. Just able to substitute for each other. For example, if you want healing, you take a mage companion. If you want super deluxe never let you die healing, you take a specific mage companion. If you want a tank, you take a warrior. If you want a virtually immortal damage sponge, you take a specific warrior. That's what is meant by having alternatives in party composition.

That's what DA2 fell a little short on. If you wanted a tank, you had Aveline or Fenris. One was better at it than the other, but both could fill the hole. But then if you wanted healing, you had Anders. Period.

What you mean period? It's been awhile since I played DA2, but couldn't Merrill replace Anders as a healer? Or did she miss that talent tree?

She doesn't have it.

[Zelto]

Commander Kurt wrote...

R0vena wrote...

Commander Kurt,

I guess we have to agree to disagree.)

Out of curiosity - are Anders and Bethany absolutely identical then (tactic wise) in your opinion?

Yeah, that works.

And as for Bethany, she was pretty redundant once Anders joined the party (of course, she had to be). They are only as identical as you make them, naturally, but I prefer the solution they went with in DA2 (making healers redundant rather than making specific companions redundant).

If healers are redundent, then the devs might as well have removed Anders, after all to nearly everyone he is a healer, and merril is the dps mage. They should remove Aviline because tanks aren't necessary and remove Isabela and Varic because you don't really need rogues, just add a big hammer to the game. (I'm being sarcastic btw).

I get you are saying that you want every companion to have a different flavour but chocolate chip and double chocolate don't taste the same, but they are both chocolate. Merril and Anders already have shared trees, primal, spirit and entropy. What most here are simply saying is they should have changed maybe Merrills entropy tree to creation for example.

All three warriors, Aveline, Carver, Fenris or 4 Hawke),share Vanguard, battlemaster, defender and warmonger, indeed the only trees they don't share is their weapon type (Carver and Fenris actually do) and their personal specialisation. The same is true with Isabela, Varric and Sebastion (although again Sebastion and Varric share the weapon tree). The massive difference between the warrior/rogue companions and the mages is that all of the warriors can tank, just Avilene is better, all the warriors can dps, just Carver and Fenris are better, all the rogues can picklocks and disarm traps and dps. Why then with mages does the difference between them have an effect on the roles they can be used for, no matter what you do Merrill can't heal, while Anders can heal and dps. The only reason I can see for this choise is to try and encourage more people to take Anders with them because he is effectivly the most important companion (similar to Alistair in DA:O)

Personally I feel the companions matter to the story, their interactions. Sten and Ogrin are identical in combat but both feel very different ingame because they have different personalities. Their use it combat doesn't really matter, after all they game could be developed without companions at all and the combat wouldn't need to change very much, but the rest of the game would be totally different.

[KingoftheZempk]

This may have been said, but here's my proposal:

Personally, I liked how in DA:O my party members had access to all ability and trees for their class, no matter what. In DA2, as we all know, Anders (and Bethany, and mage Hawke) had access to healing spells. Now, in DA:O, my party was a 2handed Warden, a S&S Alistair, long range Leliana, and Morrigan for damage with basic healing. But I would switch either LEliana or Alistair out for Wynne (as much as I hated her) for a dedicated healer so Morrigan could do some major damage when I switch her tactics. DA2's party was a 2 handed warrior Hawke, Varric or Isabela (Isabela as long range), Merrill, and Anders. (The women were around for romance, etc).

What I think should be done is have access to all, like in DA:O, but have party member specific specializations or abilities shooting off of the trees. Like have healing be access by all mages, but Mage Y of your party can access the better healing spells than Mage X, or Mage Z has access to better damage spells than Y.

We could have either upgrades or other abilites to be unlocked through party members, or like in DA:O have it where you have to learn specializations from books or characters again (Don't understand where my Hawke learned Reaver or Templar abilities). So that that could be how Mage X can access healing spells originally open to only Mage Y, but you have to have high enough approval, or whatever.

[Fiery Knight]

M25105 wrote...

She doesn't have it.

Ah, I see. My mistake.

[Commander Kurt]

Zelto wrote..

I get you are saying that you want every companion to have a different flavour but chocolate chip and double chocolate don't taste the same, but they are both chocolate. Merril and Anders already have shared trees, primal, spirit and entropy. What most here are simply saying is they should have changed maybe Merrills entropy tree to creation for example.

All three warriors, Aveline, Carver, Fenris or 4 Hawke),share Vanguard, battlemaster, defender and warmonger, indeed the only trees they don't share is their weapon type (Carver and Fenris actually do) and their personal specialisation. The same is true with Isabela, Varric and Sebastion (although again Sebastion and Varric share the weapon tree). The massive difference between the warrior/rogue companions and the mages is that all of the warriors can tank, just Avilene is better, all the warriors can dps, just Carver and Fenris are better, all the rogues can picklocks and disarm traps and dps. Why then with mages does the difference between them have an effect on the roles they can be used for, no matter what you do Merrill can't heal, while Anders can heal and dps. The only reason I can see for this choise is to try and encourage more people to take Anders with them because he is effectivly the most important companion (similar to Alistair in DA:O)

Personally I feel the companions matter to the story, their interactions. Sten and Ogrin are identical in combat but both feel very different ingame because they have different personalities. Their use it combat doesn't really matter, after all they game could be developed without companions at all and the combat wouldn't need to change very much, but the rest of the game would be totally different.

We're moving in circles. What I'm saying is that I'm fine with there being chocolate chip and double chocolate in the game. Hell, there already is (potions being a different flavor but still a cookie). What I'm hoping that the dev's ignore completely are the requests for two healers because it's totally redundant and only serves to cater to the crowd that want the same mage as Anders but in a different skin. Beth would have been redundant, for example. Why don't I want this? I admit that in part it's because I find it childish. Ask for better companions, by all means, but asking for doubles of everything so that we can all have what we want? What is this, pony land?

Mostly, however, I mind it because its a compromise tactically speaking that I don't agree with. The game is better, in my mind, by having companions matter both for story and combat.

[ArcaneJTM]

By your logic, Anders should not have had any offensive capabilities, Fenris should have been as fragile as a glass sculpture, and Varric shouldn't be able to spot a single trap or pick a single lock.

You're looking for a game of Rock Paper Scissors. We want something more.

And no, the ability to swig a potion every thirty seconds does not make one a healer.

[MissOuJ]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Was DA:O more shallow? Yeah, I guess in a sense it was. Sten and Oghren were just different skins on the same fighter, story-wise they both had purpose but combat-wise they didn't. The difference between the characters in Origins was only ever skin deep.

As I've said before in this thread, giving all mages basic heal wouldn't kill me. Using potions probably wouldn't kill you. But this whole "I need two companions that are basically the same in case I don't like one of them" is beyond silly. That's like renting fully furnished and asking that the landlord provide two couches in case you don't like one of them.

I agree with you 100 % about DA:O. Some of the companion customisation options, for instance, don't make any sence whatsoever. Wynne throws a huge fit if you use blood magic on the Broken Circle quest, but afterwards you can spec her as bloodmage and she's a-okay with that? That just goes against her character.

Having two different characters doing exact the same things feels nonsensical to me. If certain talents and spells are unique to a character they are an extencion of that character, and so they compliment them via storytelling as well. Case in point: a dual-wielding Sebastian would be just... wrong. I might not like him as a person, but he certainly isn't the backstabbing type. And giving Merrill Creation spells would be just as wrong, since being a blood mage is an important part of her character and her character arc in DA2, and blood magic and creation are opposing schools, no? Anders can't learn Entropy spells for similar reasons. Of course these limitations mean nothing to Hawke, but then again I find the thought of a Spirit Healer / Blood Mage Hawke very oxymoronic roleplaying-wise.

I wouldn't say that giving all mages heal would kill me either, but I have to say that if characters are given talents which seem to go against their morals / character, it might break my immersion somewhat. Like when I did one playthrough as a Diplomatic 2H warrior Hawke: that playthrough was somewhat comical most of the time when my Hawke would be perfectly polite young man one minute, and Scything baddies in half the next. Made him look a bit -- unstable. Gameplay and story segregation, I know, but still...

[Wulfram]

If there's a single tree that's unmissable then it's too good and should be balanced

Healing actually was well balanced enough in DA2, but some of the other stuff in the Creation was overpowered.

[Lulupab]

Wulfram wrote...

If there's a single tree that's unmissable then it's too good and should be balanced

Healing actually was well balanced enough in DA2, but some of the other stuff in the Creation was overpowered.

Many things are overpowerd yet people fail to notice them. It has come to my attention that enemies have 30% more health in nightmare difficulty in comparison to hard difficulty. So it means if any enemy has 100 health in hard difficulty then it will have 130 health in nightmare. When Anders have his vengeance active (improved with its passive upgrade) he deals 20% more damage with everything including every single spell and auto attack. His friendship bonus grants 10% increase to all damage as well. That makes it 30% increase to all damage Anders deals. I've tried and this is unbalanced in a whole new level. It turns nightmare diffculty to hard by negating the bonus health enemies have.

There are a lot of ways to negate damage resistance penalty Anders has in Vengeance mode. Easiest being having Aveline's body guard talent active on him, transfering 50% of damage taken to Aveline therefore completely negating the penalty (its also 50%). Not to mention all spells on cooldown become ready much faster with Anders due to bonuses in his Vengeance tree.

Spirit healer Hawke + Damage oriented Anders + Aveline + rouge of your choice makes nightmare difficulty a total joke to play. I've played through dragon age 2 a lot of times and I almost got bored of how easy it was with this combo. Though it was awesome at some points like when Anders casts chain lightning and all enemies with low HP die and he gets healed fully cause of his "blood of my enemy" passive talent.

Modifié par Rassler, 27 mai 2013 - 08:59 .

[sunnydxmen]

Not every mage is able to heal some specialized in other things healing is harder then destroying something.

[The Red Onion]

[1] It's a bad thing when a necessary mechanic is embedded in a character with unlikable dialogue and RP. I am not saying that healing is necessary in nightmare, and I personally do not hate Anders, but the point stands.

[2] But what is the meaning of necessary? As some people have pointed out, Anders-as-healer is not *absolutely* necessary on nightmare. So what leads to this perceived necessity? Maybe having at least one healer was a psychological precondition. Maybe having a non-mage Hawke was a psychological precondition. Maybe not resorting to potions was a precondition. Is the game punishing us for not using Anders, or is the game punishing us for not saving gold to buy pots? Which punishment is primary here may be more of a toss-up than we are willing to admit.

[3] Or perhaps we can salvage the case against the game design by the argument of customization and choice. It seems like a good argument, because it can at least negate the argument of "roll a healer Hawke." But then, how about customizing the morality of our squadmates instead? On my first blind nightmare run, it was jarring how Anders' ultimate choice could not be prevented in any way. And it's not like the hardening mechanic wasn't around since the heydays either. But no... some fans would not like this. The appeal they seek is precisely an Anders that embodies what they hate, so that they can sate their desire to kill such a person. This is why some would prefer to declone the healer, instead of giving a hardening mechanic that disrupts this appeal. So perhaps after all it was not a question of mechanics to begin with, but a question of message.

[4] In retrospect, the panacea (lol) might have been to rework the sibling mechanic, so that you can access an alternative healer. I don't think Anders fans would object to this, as it would in fact free him up towards the attacking build. But then again, if you are experienced enough to build a main-tank out of Fenris, you can probably build a healer out of pots.

-------------------------Edit:-----------------------

[5] On the other hand, there is a certain appeal to the two-of-everything arguement. I enjoyed playing most of the DA and ME franchise using the two-of-everything model. In fact the ME2 model somewhat encouraged you to do this because upgrades only apply to one class of weapons at a time.

Jack+Jacob with biotics, shotguns, and pistols.
Garrus+Ashley with sniper and AR
Wrex+Grunt in Citadel
Tali+James with shotgun
Kaidan+Javik with everything...
Garrus/Legion/Zaheed with sniper and AR

In DA1 I stacked arcane warriors and spirit healers (Warden/Wynne/Morrigan/Anders/Velanna) and I forced a respec on Sigrun to stack life and wear plate (and it worked on nightmare). I loved it because given any situation, I can have 3 melee, 3 plates, 3 ranged, and 3 heals, just between four people, and it was awesome. It actually made Alistair very impotent because he didn't fit into that paradigm.

All in all, I really wanted to distance myself from gaming paradigms that embeds and conflates "dedicated roles" with "challenging content." This has always been the major BioWare appeal for me since when I picked up ME1, and I do have to agree that DA2 has come up short in this regard... the likeable culture and characters notwithstanding.

Modifié par alexbing88, 28 mai 2013 - 10:05 .