156 réponses à ce sujet

[TsaiMeLemoni]

That is one of the things I was disappointed with in DA2. I would like to be a bow wielding mage again, please!

[PsychoBlonde]

You could make precisely this same argument for eliminating the concept of "class" at all. Every game is going to contain arbitrary restrictions of one kind or another. Why can't my warrior cast spells? Why can't my Mage pick locks? Why can't I adventure wearing a g-string and a leather hat?Why can't I romance the dog?

The answer is "this is the game they made". You can prefer one way or the other, sure, but it's a *preference*, not an argument. I'd like there to be more types of weapons. I prefer classless systems (because I want my character to do EVERYTHING). I ask for these things loudly. But I don't portray my opinion as the "correct" method unless I'm being outrageously silly.

[TexasToast712]

Because the Dragon Age series is more of a tactical RPG than a free roam, do anything RPG like Skyrim. Why play as a warrior if you can play as a mage warrior? Same thing goes for people who want no armor restrictions or the return of the Arcane Warrior. Its for balance.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 18 juin 2013 - 09:53 .

[Face of Evil]

I think it's a resource issue.

Yes, they could make it so that your rogue could use a sword or shield, but those talents use the Strength stat and your rogue makes a pretty ******-poor sword and shield warrior anyways.

So they should be investing effort and time enabling you to use equipment that you can't use effectively anyway? Or should they just commit to this three-class system and be done with it?

Myself, I don't really mind this idea of specializing. I think my two-weapon rogue used a bow only a handful of times in DAO, and it was mostly just to land a first strike against far away enemies.

[Maverick827]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Why can't I adventure wearing a g-string and a leather hat?

Unfortunately, in a lot of games you can.

[PsychoBlonde]

JimmyRustles wrote...

Good point. However what I am saying is that classes should not only restrict but they should benefit. Why not have the weapons fully avialable but have talents or skills that are exclusive to the class?

Then why not have all talents and skills be available to all classes?  Why have classes at all?

You are treating it as if everyone normally has access to all weapons and normally has skills restricted, so limited weapons is a "restriction" but limited skills is a "benefit".  Neither is the case--historically in RPG's extremely limited weapon selection was par for the course, to the point where being able to use non-class weapons was considered a special ability ON PAR WITH BEING A SPELLCASTER.  I've played RPG's on every part of the spectrum.  There is NO ARGUMENT aside from preference for WHY it should be one way or another.  Heck, sometimes it can be fun to be stuck with a role you normally wouldn't try.  It can also be fun to try wacky combos with complete freedom.  Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

The major issue with allowing everyone all weapons is that it primarily benefits the classes who get a ton of special abilities IN EXCHANGE for weapon alternatives--yet people never propose that using the weapon inflict a penalty on those classes.  No, they want to have the best of everything--the best weapons, AND the best spells.  Would you jump for a sword-fighting mage if it meant that you couldn't cast ANY spells?  Yes, you'd basically be a fighter--but that's the point.  Why should you get to be fighter+mage when the fighter ONLY gets to be fighter no matter what?

Now, some of this doesn't apply in DA2 because warriors and rogues ARE restricted in the weapons they can use.  This was done to differentiate the classes--in Origins there was no difference between warriors and rogues except that rogues could pick locks and disarm traps.  I don't think they did it well enough--they should have made it so that warriors can use all weapons (except mage staves), rogues could use a restricted list, and mages could use staves.  Warriors would have actually had some serious flexibility going for them to make up for the fact that they couldn't cast spells and couldn't do locks/traps.  That would have been more interesting to me--I dislike warrior and have never completed either game on one largely because it's BORING to me.

[AresKeith]

Maverick827 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Why can't I adventure wearing a g-string and a leather hat?

Unfortunately, in a lot of games you can.

That's better 

[Maverick827]

AresKeith wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Why can't I adventure wearing a g-string and a leather hat?

Unfortunately, in a lot of games you can.

That's better 

No, it really isn't.

It's getting to the point where I can't make my female characters not ****s in RPGs anymore.

[billy the squid]

Maverick827 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Why can't I adventure wearing a g-string and a leather hat?

Unfortunately, in a lot of games you can.

That's better 

No, it really isn't.

It's getting to the point where I can't make my female characters not ****s in RPGs anymore.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Qyla]

billy the squid wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Why can't I adventure wearing a g-string and a leather hat?

Unfortunately, in a lot of games you can.

That's better 

No, it really isn't.

It's getting to the point where I can't make my female characters not ****s in RPGs anymore.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is.

Anyway the reason you can't have anything in dragon age is because every class has a specific training that your chara did before you start playing. You can't do everything because your chara isn't trained to do everything, and it would take years to learn a different class combat.That's the whole point, the difference from sandbox and rpgs where a chara is someone with a past and a mind of his/her own.

[andar91]

Personally, I don't mind the restrictions, though ideally, I'd like there to be no restrictions on equippability except attributes, but abilities for weapon sets still restricted by class. So technically, a Rogue with a high Strength can wield a sword and shield, but they cannot use any sword and shield abilities.

Ultimately, I think tying certain weapon types to classes makes that class more unique and flavorful on its own. I think you should go all the way with class-based systems or non-class based systems. Which is to say, either have classes that feel VERY distinct from each other, or don't have classes at all. Either system can work fine.

[daholyone11]

I think weapons should be class specific in rpg games, not like skyrim where it's jack of all trades. Restricting weapons to certain classes makes it so that you have to improvise during certain situations, keeps the game fresh.

[addiction21]

Because I said so. Send all your hate to me please

[Alodar]

The freedom to use any weapon you had the stats for was there in Dragon Age Origins.

Mages could use swords if they designed their character that way.
Fighters could use bows instead of being restriced to melee only.
If they wanted to a Rogue could even use a shield.

IMHO this was much better class design.

There is no reason that fighters shouldn't be able to use distance weapons -- especially when encounters can have dragons that perch high above and make the class useless for a portion of the encounter.

IMHO restricting weapons to class is a mistake that I would love to see changed back to the way it was implimented in DAO.

Modifié par Alodar, 19 juin 2013 - 12:28 .

[Nerdage]

Animations would be one reason, I guess. If a mage can only wield a staff then you don't have to worry about whether or not they're poking their eyes out with an off-hand dagger during a cast animation.

And it probably makes the classes easier to balance.

Not that I think either of those issues should take precedence over expanding the player's freedom in building their characters; imbalance is more interesting and more fun, and I can overlook animation hiccups (although from the series that gave us the "stab yourself through the chest with the blunt end of a staff" animation, I don't think clipping issues would even register).

[Rylor Tormtor]

One can make an argument about class restrictions and weapon restrictions being arbitrary and up to the developer, and at the end of the day it is, but there is one important point that only one poster made so far.

This is how they did it in DA:O. Such a sweeping change did upset a lot of people. In the pre DA:O forums and interviews Bioware often played the ability to use whatever weapons (and armor) your character wanted as long as they fulfilled the basic requirements. I think this ability should be brought back, but that is my opinion. I was quite attached to my duel-wielding longsword/axe city elf rogue (the irony being that I am not a fan of non-class RPG systems, and I absolutely loathed Skyrim, again, just an opinion).

[Qyla]

Alodar wrote...

The freedom to use any weapon you had the stats for was there in Dragon Age Origins.

Mages could use swords if they designed their character that way.
Fighters could use bows instead of being restriced to melee only.
If they wanted to a Rogue could even use a shield.

IMHO this was much better class design.

There is no reason that fighters shouldn't be able to use distance weapons -- especially when encounters can have dragons that perch high above and make the class useless for a portion of the encounter.

IMHO restricting weapons to class is a mistake that I would love to see changed back to the way it was implimented in DAO.

I partially agree. Surely the switching weapon system and the ability to use close and long range combact weapons is important, but I can't picture in my mind a rogue with a double-hand sword. If your goal is to have a chara like this you should play the warrior to begin with.

[Hazegurl]

I agree, I loved that about Origins. My favorite character is my duel wielding mage. She had armor etc and when I needed a staff I had one handy. In Dragon's Dogma I was a magic archer type. hated the game itself but the combat was awesome. if I could be a magic archer in this game i would be so happy.

[Alodar]

Qyla wrote...

I partially agree. Surely the switching weapon system and the ability to use close and long range combact weapons is important, but I can't picture in my mind a rogue with a double-hand sword. If your goal is to have a chara like this you should play the warrior to begin with.

Why should the weapon choices my rogue has be limited to what you can picture in your mind?

[Nightdragon8]

TexasToast712 wrote...


Because the Dragon Age series is more of a tactical RPG than a free roam, do anything RPG like Skyrim. Why play as a warrior if you can play as a mage warrior? Same thing goes for people who want no armor restrictions or the return of the Arcane Warrior. Its for balance.

love the arguements about "for balance" in single player games.

the balance shoud always be in favor of "fun" not causing me headache and rage.

don't get me wrong Dark souls was great but I don't want that in EVERY game.

[Zeldrik1389]

I hope they make it similar to weapon system in ME 3. You can use any type of weapon, carry as many weapons as you want, but there's penalty for carrying too many. I really like that system, give you many options yet not making you a moving weapon shop.

[goofyomnivore]

I imagine in DA2's short dev time it was easier to create specific animations for each class/weapon type rather than accounting for clipping/bugs across all three classes. Hopefully with more time DA:I will allow a more diverse weapon typing across all three classes.

[Qyla]

It just popped out in my mind that nobody can use a staff (a plain staff, not a magic one) as a weapon.