420 réponses à ce sujet

[Thomas Andresen]

The kind that's not actually an army, but rather a bunch of Tevinter cultists who have moved into an ancient abandoned keep?

I think it was dragon cultists actually, and that does significantly help your point. Those folks are hardly sane.

[Mr.House]

iakus wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

You do know back in old CRPGs oyu could break down doors and locks right? This is not new.

I don't think being able to break down a door or a lock is the problem.  I think the problem is the appearance of smashing the keep to a gate.

The scene would probably work if they tweaked it a bit so it looked like you're forcing a rusted old door.  Or prying open a gate that has been sabotaged to not lock correctly.  Rather than smashing it to flinders with a piece of metal and mortal muscle.

There is no problem. The gate is cleary old and weak, Cass being able to break it is not strange or stupid at all.

[Welsh Inferno]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

The kind that's not actually an army, but rather a bunch of Tevinter cultists who have moved into an ancient abandoned keep?

I think it was dragon cultists actually, and that does significantly help your point. Those folks are hardly sane.

That would be fine if it was a singular event or if you can use agents to similar effect on other Keeps. I doubt it will be a singular event though.

I just hope for some variation at other Keeps. Where this wont be possible at some as they reinforced the gate or whatever.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 14 novembre 2013 - 05:52 .

[The Elder King]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Why didn't the Warden just walk across the bridge and bash down the gate in Redcliffe? Would of saved a lot of trouble 

Because its silly.

The Warden compensated the lack of super strenght with a super resilient body, capable of resisting being used as a chewing gum by dragons.
That was equally silly. If Bioware will come up with an explanation why Cassandra/warriors can destroy gates with their shields, it'll be more than I had for DAO, and more than I'd expect.

[upsettingshorts]

Maybe it normally only works on rusted doors. Maybe in the demo it was buffed to do a metric asston of damage to demonstrate it during a keep assault to show that the game has keep assaults as well as door bashing. Maybe the video was explicitly meant to demonstrate the existence of features and not necessarily how the game will play.  Maybe you can do things pre-assault to weaken the keep in practical as well as abstract ways, like they mentioned in the narration. Maybe we don't jump to conclusions about game mechanics based on a short demo video a year out from release.

Maybe.

(Alternatively, remove all instances of "maybe" from the above, and discover the reason why this thread and others like it shouldn't exist)

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 novembre 2013 - 05:54 .

[AresKeith]

Mr.House wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

You do know back in old CRPGs oyu could break down doors and locks right? This is not new.

I don't think being able to break down a door or a lock is the problem.  I think the problem is the appearance of smashing the keep to a gate.

The scene would probably work if they tweaked it a bit so it looked like you're forcing a rusted old door.  Or prying open a gate that has been sabotaged to not lock correctly.  Rather than smashing it to flinders with a piece of metal and mortal muscle.

There is no problem. The gate is cleary old and weak, Cass being able to break it is not strange or stupid at all.

I think they also said in the demo that there are other ways to get inside, knocking down the gate isn't the only way to do it

[Dabrikishaw]

I don't see what the big deal is personally.

[Han Shot First]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

I don't see what the big deal is personally.

There are two potential problems with giving the warrior and rogue classes magical abilities. The first is that if there isn't some backstory in the game to explain these abilities within the lore, they shouldn't have them. The second is that even if there is backstory that establishes all classes as varying degrees of magic users, is that in some ways it reduces differentiation between the classes. Warriors and rogues are now lesser mages.

[upsettingshorts]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

I don't see what the big deal is personally.

There are two potential problems with reading into demo videos the wrong way.  The first is that interpreting them in the wrong context leads to memetic misinterpretations that leave lasting, incorrect, and ultimately false conclusions.  The second is that even if some people do manage to realize all the hand-wringing is bull****, enough will be up in arms over nothing that developers may continue to question the wisdom of previewing incomplete features.

[Thomas Andresen]

Maybe we don't jump to conclusions about game mechanics based on a short demo video a year out from release.

See, this is what gets me. Why is this so hard?

[upsettingshorts]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Maybe we don't jump to conclusions about game mechanics based on a short demo video a year out from release.

See, this is what gets me. Why is this so hard?

Especially when it comes to a specific feature the developers explicitly said was not indicative of how the game would actually play, and gave an incredibly straightforward reason why not.

Manufacture the controversy!

[The Elder King]

@Han Shot First: I think that being able to become fully invisibile and summoning animale out of air (rogues), or knock back enemies with a shout (was the Champion Warden a Dovahkin? ), orknocking down golems with their shields, and regaining stamina with each kills (warriors) could count ad 'magical abilities', right? By your logic, templars, Reavers and bersekers shoudn't exist, since while explained in the lore (Berseker not fully) it makes warriors lesser mages.

Modifié par hhh89, 14 novembre 2013 - 06:10 .

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maybe it normally only works on rusted doors. Maybe in the demo it was buffed to do a metric asston of damage to demonstrate it during a keep assault to show that the game has keep assaults as well as door bashing. Maybe the video was explicitly meant to demonstrate the existence of features and not necessarily how the game will play.  Maybe you can do things pre-assault to weaken the keep in practical as well as abstract ways, like they mentioned in the narration. Maybe we don't jump to conclusions about game mechanics based on a short demo video a year out from release.

Maybe.

(Alternatively, remove all instances of "maybe" from the above, and discover the reason why this thread and others like it shouldn't exist)

Maybe the feature demonstrated was one people don't like.  Maybe people come on this forum to discuss what they like and dislike about things they've been shown about the game.  Maybe people are capable of disagreeing with you without being deficient in intellect.  Maybe if you don't think people should discuss what we've been shown about the game, you shouldn't come to a discussion forum about the game.

[TurretSyndrome]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
(Alternatively, remove all instances of "maybe" from the above, and discover the reason why this thread and others like it shouldn't exist)

I'm just here for the fun discussion. Just can't get enough of explaining things to people. 

[The Hierophant]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maybe it normally only works on rusted doors. Maybe in the demo it was buffed to do a metric asston of damage to demonstrate it during a keep assault to show that the game has keep assaults as well as door bashing. Maybe the video was explicitly meant to demonstrate the existence of features and not necessarily how the game will play.  Maybe you can do things pre-assault to weaken the keep in practical as well as abstract ways, like they mentioned in the narration. Maybe we don't jump to conclusions about game mechanics based on a short demo video a year out from release.

Maybe.

(Alternatively, remove all instances of "maybe" from the above, and discover the reason why this thread and others like it shouldn't exist)

You can take this well reasoned post and shove it. 

I kid, but i think that by assuming the worst i'm trying to save myself from future disappointment. It's like some self fulfilling BSN tragedy.

[Han Shot First]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Maybe we don't jump to conclusions about game mechanics based on a short demo video a year out from release.

See, this is what gets me. Why is this so hard?

Especially when it comes to a specific feature the developers explicitly said was not indicative of how the game would actually play, and gave an incredibly straightforward reason why not.

Manufacture the controversy!

I think you're blowing things out of proportion a bit. I don't think anyone is getting too worked up by this, they are merely discussing it. Sure, maybe a few replies were snarky. But welcome to the internet.

The alternative is not discussing any feature that is not yet confirmed at all, in which case this forum would be deader than dead. As DA:I still has quite a long time left in development, there would be very little to discuss.

Also people voicing criticism of certain features, whether or not those features are confirmed, does serve a purpose. DA:I is still an unfinished product and any feedback, whether positive or negative, could affect that development. The players could wait until DA:I is released to comment on features that were only rumored prior to release, but then at best their feedback might only have an impact on the next game.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maybe it normally only works on rusted doors. Maybe in the demo it was buffed to do a metric asston of damage to demonstrate it during a keep assault to show that the game has keep assaults as well as door bashing. Maybe the video was explicitly meant to demonstrate the existence of features and not necessarily how the game will play.  Maybe you can do things pre-assault to weaken the keep in practical as well as abstract ways, like they mentioned in the narration. Maybe we don't jump to conclusions about game mechanics based on a short demo video a year out from release.

Maybe.

(Alternatively, remove all instances of "maybe" from the above, and discover the reason why this thread and others like it shouldn't exist)

Maybe the feature demonstrated was one people don't like.  Maybe people come on this forum to discuss what they like and dislike about things they've been shown about the game.  Maybe people are capable of disagreeing with you without being deficient in intellect.  Maybe if you don't think people should discuss what we've been shown about the game, you shouldn't come to a discussion forum about the game.

The thread is full of people whining that Cassandra knocking down a keep gate with one blow is unrealistic.  It's also full of people further extrapolating sweeping conclusions about warriors and lore from this premise.  Implicitly summarizing the alleged "feature demonstrated" that "people dislike" as the concept of warriors being able to bash doors is disingenuous.  If you or anyone else wants to have that discussion, I certainly wouldn't be among those telling you that it's a dumb one to have.  While I'd disagree on the grounds that I like having options when specializing my team, including giving the "door opener" job to a warrior instead of a rogue, I wouldn't imagine anyone who felt differently was "deficient in intellect."

On the other hand, a case where "omg Cass shouldn't break down gates in one blow" when devs said in the immediate aftermath of the demo that "Cass won't be able to break down gates in one blow" is perhaps evidence of being deficient in either knowledge of that statement (which would be fine) or wilfully ignoring it (which would be stupid).

Han Shot First wrote...

The alternative is not discussing
any feature that is not yet confirmed at all, in which case this forum
would be deader than dead. As DA:I still has quite a long time left in
development, there would be very little to discuss.

Or discuss them in a context that acknowledges certain facts and the limitations of information known. 

For example, "Would Cassandra ever be able to bash down a gate in this manner in the game given say... she has maxed out whatever abilities define her bashing's damage, and the gate has been weakened via whatever means the player has access to?"

Then there might actually be productive discussion over what it would take for such a thing to happen, if it could, and it what circumstances.  Lines could be drawn that aren't completely arbitrary or, baselessly hypothetical. 

Also there remains the possibility that the devs could answer, "Sure in the full game maybe you could choose to have Cass beat on the gate for ten minutes while archers and mages shoot at you, but yeah it'd eventually break" and the conversation would end there.

We don't know, possibly because they don't know, seeing as the game still has a year left to be finished.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 novembre 2013 - 06:38 .

[Wulfram]

I'm not aware of Bioware saying anything so straightforward. They have made wishy-washy statements along the lines of it being a pre-alpha, while defending the principle and aggressively attacking the principle ("realism") behind the complaints as unreasonable, worthless and dishonest.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

I'm not aware of Bioware saying anything so straightforward. They have made wishy-washy statements along the lines of it being a pre-alpha, while defending the principle and aggressively attacking the principle ("realism") behind the complaints as unreasonable, worthless and dishonest.

I've quoted them from a post-demo panel at PAX in this thread saying that her bash was ludricrously buffed.  That means you can draw one of several conclusions:

1) I'm lying
2) I forgot something I had heard something mere hours before sharing it with the BSN
3) The developers are lying
4) The developers don't know what they did with their own demo

or

5) Cassandra's bash was ludicrously buffed along with a host of other abilities for the demo

I think a potential reason for the "wishy-washy" statements here is that David Gaider is a writer, and Allan Schumacher is QA.  Whereas the people talking at the panel were gameplay guys describing the work they personally put into the aspect of the demo they had responsibility for, and as a consequence could be precise with confidence.

[Wulfram]

Did they say her bash was buffed specifically in regard the gate bash, or were they talking in general?

[General TSAR]

Same reason why Women can apparently wear, move, and fight in plate armor.

Modifié par General TSAR, 14 novembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Her Bash being buffed has little to do with the gate, more to do with enemies. Allan said yesterday(Or was it David?) that they wouldn't make it take a lot of bashes to take down the gate simply because who wants to stand there bashing a gate twenty times? It would useless filler. Which is a good point.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Did they say her bash was buffed specifically in regard the gate bash, or were they talking in general?

In the post I made at the time, I only wrote bash.  As to how specific they meant that statement to be, or if they elaborated on those specifics, I can't remember now.  Months later.  You may be able to hear it in the Nerd Appropriate recordings, if they've been put up.  I haven't been following that development.

Keep in mind that they stressed a LOT of things were buffed for the sake of time.  Fights were also nerfed.  The encounter with the strong enemy with the shield was specifically mentioned.  You would not typically encounter one by itself, but with other enemies you would have to consider.  The reason he was alone in the demo was to demonstrate that enemies like him exist, and demand you respond with certain tactics.  That should give you some hints as to the demo's goals and the developers' reasons for putting in the things they did the way they did.

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Her Bash being buffed has little to do with the gate, more to do with enemies. Allan said yesterday(Or was it David?) that they wouldn't make it take a lot of bashes to take down the gate simply because who wants to stand there bashing a gate twenty times? It would useless filler. Which is a good point.

So we can safely estimate the number of bashes required to bust down a keep gate as anywhere between 1-20.  That's a lot of room for balancing in, you know, the next year of gameplay design.  Maybe it will be one bash.  If you spec all the way up the Cassandra bashing tree.  And/or you fully weakened the gate before assaulting.  Who knows?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 novembre 2013 - 06:39 .

[Heimdall]

Nohvarr wrote...

I'll say nothing of Berserkers, but a Spirit Warrior gets his power from a pact with a spirit, nothing ambiguous about that.

Regular lyrium doesn’t grant super strength, but it, plus red lyrium and specilizations like Berserkers and Spirit Warriors establish humans can be enhanced with abilities they wouldn’t normally have. Smashing through a gate fits into that mold.

Red lyrium causes madness by all accounts and you'll simply have to accept lore/gameplay segregation on the part of the Berserker.  As for the Spirit Warrior, I checked and none of its abilities increase strength.  In any case, the only human being to demonstrate the sort of human enhancement you're talking about is Meredith and it killed her.  This is a fortified metal gate we're talking about.

[Han Shot First]

The issue with Cassandra isn't that she can one-shot a castle gate, its that she can bash open a castle gate at all. A single warrior with a shield could have bashed on a castle gate all day long and the gate wouldn't have flung open. That is why ancient and medieval armies built things like battering rams, siege towers, onagers, catapults, and trebuchets.

I'd rather warrior and rogue abilities were a bit more down-to-earth, and the fantastical stuff was limited to mage player characters or companions. *If* Cassandra or a warrior player character is going to have the ability to shield-bash open castle gates however, I hope there is a reason within the lore why this is so. Whether that be a magical item (the shield for example) or some magical ability possessed by Cassandra or a warrior PC, there should be something that makes that ability believeable within the world of Thedas.

As a fantasy game DA:I should not be realistic in the real world sense, but characters should conform to the rules and limitations that exist within that fictional universe. Characters who aren't mages performing magical feats needs some explanation to remain consistent with the established lore.