156 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Urazz wrote...

Here's a reason, it takes up resources for the game that can be better spent on something else.  Why even bother giving the false choice of allowing a class to use any kind of weapon if you make it unappealing to use said weapon in the first place?  Why allow rogues to use a shield when it gimps them anyways even when you do allow them to use shields?

Because effectiveness isn't the only reason to choose something.

DAO shows us that we can absolutely have it both ways.  So that's my standard.  Restricting weapons by class is unnecessary, as demonstrated by DAO's failure to do so.

[Sable Rhapsody]

I've been enjoying Guild Wars 2's weapon system. There are still restrictions, but also interesting subversions of the "usual" weapons available to different types of classes.

My short little asura mesmer (illusionist mage caster) runs around with a greatsword shooting lasers out of it. Win.

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But that would be terrible DMing.  In an emergency, with no other available option, a mage should absolutely be able to pick up a sword and wave it around ineffectively.

No such "emergency" will ever occur in any DA game to date. It is impossible for weapons to be lost or broken, so this is a moot point.

Limiting the game's mechanics to make all the PCs behave similarly is a gigantic blow to roleplaying freedom.

Video game mechanics are limited by necessity of the medium, you will never have "complete roleplaying freedom". And honestly, I don't believe that you even want that, since there are many inconsistencies in DA:O that you don't address.

[mickey111]

Urazz wrote...

Here's a reason, it takes up resources for the game that can be better spent on something else. 

It's common practice for a long time now for developement of a game to continue well beyond the initial development cycle of a game. But I'm going to assume you knew that already and haven't been living under a rock. So time isn't a huge factor anymore, and developer can make make whatever little changes that they damn well please to a games combat system in a post release patch along with bug fixing and other stuff that is deemed to be of utmost priority.

[Rawgrim]

Wozearly wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Why does a game have any restrictions at all? Why doesn't Chess allow me to move all my pieces right up to the other side of the board and kill the King immediatly?

This isn't about a game.  This is about a world.  It doesn't make any sense for a Rogue to be unable to pick up a sword just because he's a Rogue.

No, the game is about a world. This is about a game.

Chess is supposed to be a battle simulator. It doesn't make sense for pawns to move one square at a time just because they are pawns. The rules are an abstraction, just like the rules in Dragon Age. Specific roles perform specific functions.

Dare I even enter this argument? I suppose I do...

The rules in chess are an abstraction to ensure that the game is effective and balanced as a game. Its value as a 'battle simulator' in its historic past is that honing skills such as prediction, planning ahead, counteracting opponents and the principle that different martial elements had different strengths and weaknesses.

The DA rules exist similarly, to ensure that the game is effective and balanced as a game. So some of them will be abstract. But unlike chess, DA:O (as with many RPGs) also presents itself as a simulation of a world and environment.

In this context, rules that are purely abstract can appear arbitrary. Such as rogues being physically incapable of picking up shields.

If its valuable to keep a strong illusion of credibility in simulating the world, then stat requirements are a far better solution for balancing weapon use, because they ensure trade-offs occur without arbitrarily enforcing that the player must always choose one specific trade-off.

Spot on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

No such "emergency" will ever occur in any DA game to date. It is impossible for weapons to be lost or broken, so this is a moot point.

The mage origin begins with the PC having no weapons.

The Wardens weapons are taken away when he's improsoned in Fort Drakon.  It's entirely possible (even plausible) for a mage character to be escaping from the Fort, not find his own equipment, and instead grab a sword from a fallen guard.

Video game mechanics are limited by necessity of the medium, you will never have "complete roleplaying freedom". And honestly, I don't believe that you even want that, since there are many inconsistencies in DA:O that you don't address.

I never asked for complete freedom.  I'm just asing for all the limitations to be limitations we actually need and from which we benefit.

This isn't one of them, again, as DAO demonstrated by not having it.

[Alodar]

Are there people really arguing to bring back the system that didn't let fighters use bows?

Really?

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Here's a reason, it takes up resources for the game that can be better spent on something else.  Why even bother giving the false choice of allowing a class to use any kind of weapon if you make it unappealing to use said weapon in the first place?  Why allow rogues to use a shield when it gimps them anyways even when you do allow them to use shields?

Because effectiveness isn't the only reason to choose something.

DAO shows us that we can absolutely have it both ways.  So that's my standard.  Restricting weapons by class is unnecessary, as demonstrated by DAO's failure to do so.

So Baldur's Gate is a bad RPG because it restricts weapon classes to class in-game?

Honestly man, you are aruging against mechanical effiicency for a video game. DAO shows us we can do that, but it is poor design as a video game over a tabletop because it gives us a false sense of choice, like everything else. 

Unless if you can give me a real role-playing benefit of a Rogue with a shield, your argument is insignificant because what you are advocating is inefficient. 

Of course, the solution to this problem is to make the game classless, but that is impossible because the three primary classes make up the crux of the standard RP aspect of the Dragon Age series. It also wouldn't make a lick of sense for mages. And if you give the warrior/rogue this benefit it would cause game imbalance. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 24 juin 2013 - 11:04 .

[LinksOcarina]

Alodar wrote...

Are there people really arguing to bring back the system that didn't let fighters use bows?

Really?

I'm all for Warriors getting crossbows again.

[In Exile]

Wozearly wrote...
In this context, rules that are purely abstract can appear arbitrary. Such as rogues being physically incapable of picking up shields.

If its valuable to keep a strong illusion of credibility in simulating the world, then stat requirements are a far better solution for balancing weapon use, because they ensure trade-offs occur without arbitrarily enforcing that the player must always choose one specific trade-off.

The very essence of an RPG is an arbitrary set of rules that defies even the most basic concepts of how reality operates. The combat exists only on the basis of this absurdity. 

Take the contrast of Duncan vs. the darkspawn/ogre cutscene, and the gameplay. Ducan experiences fatigue. Falling injures him - whereas HP is an all or nothing proposition where 1 HP is identicial to MAX HP, and 0 HP = absolute unconsciousness. 

Weapons don't have anything to them - you can be repeatedly bludgeoned with swords or turned into a pincushion with arrows, set on fire, and frozen, all in one go, and be perfectly fine if you drink a small vial. 

To complain about things like not being able to use specific weapons as "unrealistic" or "arbitrary" is absurd without complaining about the very basic mechanics of an RPG, like HP. 

[Wulfram]

Alodar wrote...

Are there people really arguing to bring back the system that didn't let fighters use bows?

Really?

Warriors not having access to ranged weapons is the one thing I do really want to change.

But I don't see much point in allowing mages to use swords when there's no real benefit to them doing so

[metatheurgist]

Wulfram wrote...
But I don't see much point in allowing mages to use swords when there's no real benefit to them doing so

There's no benefit to mages using swords because some people said that if their mages couldn't constantly pew-pew-pew magic bolts they didn't feel magical enough. And Bioware agreed.

[Solmanian]

Did noone ever heard of a spellsword?

[Solmanian]

Mages, shouldn't use swords?
https://encrypted-tb...CgQPdNceYKuIsmA
Gandalf dissagrees.

[Solmanian]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Alodar wrote...

Are there people really arguing to bring back the system that didn't let fighters use bows?

Really?

I'm all for Warriors getting crossbows again.

It did make sense for heavy armor warriors to favor crossbows, cause they are easier to use. And if you went with high dex warrior with light/med armor you could use bows easily.

That what possibly annoyed me the most in DA2: attribute points. We were actively being penalized for not dumping our point into our class two dump stats... no more high dex warrior... no more high strength rogue... Despite what people may claim, there was a case for a rogue wielding 2Handers in DA:O (even though they didn't a weapon tree for it), because they were very effective for backstabbing. You know what's worse than being backstabbed with a dagger? Being impaled on a two handed sword.

[MKfighter89]

I guess it has to be some what logical, a rogue has to be quick, flexible, and quiet. A greatsword is heavy, very big, and can make a lot of noise bumping things in tight spaces if you can even fit with it.

[MKfighter89]

Solmanian wrote...

Mages, shouldn't use swords?
https://encrypted-tb...CgQPdNceYKuIsmA
Gandalf dissagrees.

DAO had a sword for mages only who were arcane warriors. I forgot the name it was spell something i think.

[CROAT_56]

I just hope Bioware allow me to use my Heavy Archer. Yea its a contradiction but I have Used that set up for all the TES games and even in DA:O but couldn't in DAII. So I hope in DA:I I can choose my class (Rogue) and heavy armor because that is the way I portray my PC in any Fantasy RPG.

[Twisted Path]

Forcing rogues to duel wield in DA2 always bothered me, since in real life fencing very few people ever actually fought that way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Unless if you can give me a real role-playing benefit of a Rogue with a shield, your argument is insignificant because what you are advocating is inefficient.

I did that earlier in this very thread.  My favourite DAO PC was a shield-using Rogue.  He never learned any offensive combat skills, because he never wanted to fight anyone.  He was a coward, so he used a shield to maximise his defense, completely eschewing offense.

But the real reason not to include the limitations is because the limitation doesn't add anything to the game.  At all.

Of course, the solution to this problem is to make the game classless, but that is impossible because the three primary classes make up the crux of the standard RP aspect of the Dragon Age series.

That's easliy undone.

It also wouldn't make a lick of sense for mages.

Sure it would.  Make mage a race selection rather than a class selection, and then let the different races choose from different skill trees (as lore requirs, but no further).

And if you give the warrior/rogue this benefit it would cause game imbalance.

Why do we care about class balance in a single-player, party-based game?  Really.  I don't understand why that's at all important.

In my experience, the best RPGs are those that lack class balance, because they don't have a bunch of inexplicable limitations or restrictions that exist purely to ensure balance.

Compare DAO and DA2 - is it really better than DA2 mages don't have any long-range crowd control abilities?  Is it better that basically all encounters require some form of tanking, and that mages cannot do that?  DAO both allowed mages to tank, and didn't require tanking at all.  DAO didn't even require melee combat most of the time.

[Wolfva2]

Why do weapons have to be class specific?

Cuz Garry Gygax said so.

[Xewaka]

Wolfva2 wrote...
Why do weapons have to be class specific?
Cuz Garry Gygax said so.

But then John Wick said "no classes, only backgrounds" and ended that.

[metatheurgist]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Why do weapons have to be class specific?

Cuz Garry Gygax said so.

Gygax said no such thing. He said only certain classes were proficient with certain weapons, they were still free to use them with a penalty. Also, one level of multi-class fighter enables a mage to use all weapons and armor with no penalty at all for the rest of his development. Mages are even free to wear armor, they just can't use their magic when doing so,

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Unless if you can give me a real role-playing benefit of a Rogue with a shield, your argument is insignificant because what you are advocating is inefficient.

I did that earlier in this very thread.  My favourite DAO PC was a shield-using Rogue.  He never learned any offensive combat skills, because he never wanted to fight anyone.  He was a coward, so he used a shield to maximise his defense, completely eschewing offense.

But the real reason not to include the limitations is because the limitation doesn't add anything to the game.  At all.

Of course, the solution to this problem is to make the game classless, but that is impossible because the three primary classes make up the crux of the standard RP aspect of the Dragon Age series.

That's easliy undone.

It also wouldn't make a lick of sense for mages.

Sure it would.  Make mage a race selection rather than a class selection, and then let the different races choose from different skill trees (as lore requirs, but no further).

And if you give the warrior/rogue this benefit it would cause game imbalance.

Why do we care about class balance in a single-player, party-based game?  Really.  I don't understand why that's at all important.

In my experience, the best RPGs are those that lack class balance, because they don't have a bunch of inexplicable limitations or restrictions that exist purely to ensure balance.

Compare DAO and DA2 - is it really better than DA2 mages don't have any long-range crowd control abilities?  Is it better that basically all encounters require some form of tanking, and that mages cannot do that?  DAO both allowed mages to tank, and didn't require tanking at all.  DAO didn't even require melee combat most of the time.

You can still tank as a Mage in Dragon Age II, and most of my mage builds were crowd controlling so the warriors can do their thing anyway through mix and matching build ideas.Rock Armor does wonders in that aspect really.

And I care about class balance in the game because it's just that, a game. Class balance means there is no wrong way to play the game, vs a right way to do it. This sound's counter-intuitive but think about it for a second; if your class has strengths and weakness, you can exploit the other classes by preying on their weaknesses. A mage fighting a rogue can come up with two or three strategies in dealing with rogues, just as they can come up with strategies for dealing with mages and warriors in a combative situation.

I am not talking about non-combat, because while that would be a nice option which I hope they add more of in future games, the class system is designed for RP-combat and ability scenarios; your shield rogue is an example of non-combat RPings I presume. Very rarely were traits like say cunning or intelligence, were used outside of combat. Now that is an easy fix by adding more outside parameters for the traits, but thats a different argument here. In terms of class-specific abilities and traits, it is all geared toward combat, and the restrictions allow balance between the classes so combat is not favored by one or the other 

 It is also important from a game design standpoint, which is something I look for since I have to write about games all the time. Limitations should exist in this case because its what keeps the game fair for all sides. 

The lack of class balance essentially ensures abuse. In tabletop games it annoys me both as a player and a GM when people do that, but of course that is their choice really. In a video game, it annoys me because as a design choice you are almost expected to do it since thats the way to get through. Espeically in older games where you needed to game the system to win.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 25 juin 2013 - 04:23 .

[NM_Che56]

A rogue would just throw a mage staff.