The less dual wielding, the better. I'd suggest they remove it from rogues as well, but I recognize we need a fantasy midway point between the melee warrior and the pure ranged mage, so I'll accept rogues as the 'either' option.
lets completly remove a real word combat technique employed by various cultures with completly seperate martial traditions across various historical periods...lets remove bows as well.
Comparing an extremely common/reliable battlefield tactic employed in a diverse array of combat scenarios (the bow) to a highly specialized, controversial, and demanding tactic which has very relation to how dual wielding is employed in either DA:O or DA2. Yes, your point makes perfect sense.
I don't understand why they don't just drop the nonsensical concept of class restrictions. Nevermind warriors, if a mage meets the strength requirement they should be able to dual wield, or wear armor for that matter. They may not have many abilities to complement dual wielding, but there is no good reason to make it impossible. As for animations, who needs them? I'd much rather have the options with recycled animations than not have them. It doesn't even make sense to have radically different animations to differentiate classes. There is a correct way to swing a sword, it shouldn't vary much. A warrior in heavy armor could have more or less the same animation, just slowed down a bit. That's sufficient for me.
I smell bull on this. If they were able to do it in older game how come it is suddenly hard to do in this ah-so-wonderful new engine. Better is suddenly worse?
I don't understand why they don't just drop the nonsensical concept of class restrictions. Nevermind warriors, if a mage meets the strength requirement they should be able to dual wield, or wear armor for that matter. They may not have many abilities to complement dual wielding, but there is no good reason to make it impossible. As for animations, who needs them? I'd much rather have the options with recycled animations than not have them. It doesn't even make sense to have radically different animations to differentiate classes. There is a correct way to swing a sword, it shouldn't vary much. A warrior in heavy armor could have more or less the same animation, just slowed down a bit. That's sufficient for me.
I don't understand why they don't just drop the nonsensical concept of class restrictions. Nevermind warriors, if a mage meets the strength requirement they should be able to dual wield, or wear armor for that matter. They may not have many abilities to complement dual wielding, but there is no good reason to make it impossible. As for animations, who needs them? I'd much rather have the options with recycled animations than not have them. It doesn't even make sense to have radically different animations to differentiate classes. There is a correct way to swing a sword, it shouldn't vary much. A warrior in heavy armor could have more or less the same animation, just slowed down a bit. That's sufficient for me.
On another note if they're not putting dual wielding in for the warrior then they should at least do it for the rogue where they can wield two swords. That was the only rogue I played in Origins.
It shouldn't really be a matter of cost and time either. They have another year and they are an AAA company. They can afford and make time yet since it's been a well wanted feature since they removed it from DA2.
Comparing an extremely common/reliable battlefield tactic employed in a diverse array of combat scenarios (the bow)
Duel weapons fits that description as well.
to a highly specialized, controversial, and demanding tactic which has very relation to how dual wielding is employed in either DA:O or DA2.
I do not understand this. I understand that you want to make a "this is good, that is bad" statement but I don't understand how this is supposed to be read.
Also, bows have been used in various specialized and demanding ways as well. I can assure you that two Kali sticks are much easier to use effectively than a Mongol bow on horseback.
The less dual wielding, the better. I'd suggest they remove it from rogues as well, but I recognize we need a fantasy midway point between the melee warrior and the pure ranged mage, so I'll accept rogues as the 'either' option.
lets completly remove a real word combat technique employed by various cultures with completly seperate martial traditions across various historical periods...lets remove bows as well.
Comparing an extremely common/reliable battlefield tactic employed in a diverse array of combat scenarios (the bow) to a highly specialized, controversial, and demanding tactic which has very relation to how dual wielding is employed in either DA:O or DA2. Yes, your point makes perfect sense.
Except we are fighing the kind of combat in which DW shines, small, skirmish actions, and at which the bow is less useful, (unless arrow storms are going to become a thing, with massed units and full field deployments..which would in fact be awesome)
I don't see what the problem is with giving the player the freedom to choose his/her own fighting style. If the player wants to be a dual wielder (regardless of class), I say let them. The only thing it affects is the player's mind-set and who they want to be, and it's only in that sense that it affects the storyline.
I mean seriously... Some Warriors would want to dual-wield waraxes, maces, swords or a combination of any two... And why not? A player is only as unique as their playstyle, so why not give them the freedom to choose?
Except we are fighing the kind of combat in which DW shines, small, skirmish actions, and at which the bow is less useful, (unless arrow storms are going to become a thing, with massed units and full field deployments..which would in fact be awesome)
But where exactly are you hearing that dual wielding "shines" in these circumstances? You yourself mentioned Schola Gladiatora and their overall assessment of dual wielding is less than optimal, with some minor exceptions made for dual swords in Japan:
My point is that your comparison of removing dual wielding being the equivalent of removing bow combat doesn't really have a basis in realism or as it relates to Dragon Age. Assessments of dual wielding combat I'm finding indicate that it was practiced for the sheer sport of it, with a short off-hand designed primarily for countering, or that it had very little utility outside of one on one scenarios.
As practiced, dual wielding doesn't seem to match up with its depiction in DnD or DA:O where you have characters performing whirlwind attacks and dual strikes.
Then I'm curious about your sources. I certainly don't consider myself even a martial arts novice, let alone a weapon expert, but pretty much every search I'm turning up indicates that dual wielding is a joke as depicted in media, especially the dual long sword variety as seen in DnD/Rpgs.
to a highly specialized, controversial, and demanding tactic which has very relation to how dual wielding is employed in either DA:O or DA2.
I do not understand this. I understand that you want to make a "this is good, that is bad" statement but I don't understand how this is supposed to be read.
Sorry, that should read "very little relation". My point is that even within the narrow scope which dual wielding has been employed, neither DA:O or DA2 seem interested in employing that style. It's like pointing to a historical basis for 2-handers as justification for characters doing 360 somersaults, as in games like Kingdoms of Amalur.
Personally, I love dual wielding in games and would rather see it stay. I just don't think citing the real world helps anything in that regard, compared to other more applicable styles.
I'm not sure I understand why there's this demand for dual-wield warriors. What is the defining difference between a dual wield warrior and a rogue? Is there any good reason to have both in game?
I've always assumed that the definition of a rogue is someone who is light on their feet and dexterous while the warrior relies on strength (which doesn't fit well with the idea of dual-wielding). The idea of dual wielding while wearing heavy armor always seemed silly to me.
I assume the problems they're having also concern rogues.
In DA:O, there was a blurry line between Rogues and Warriors. Really, the only thing a Rogue could do better than a warrior was lock pick and stealth. Warriors often made better dual-wielders, archers, and did it while being more durable because they're warriors.
In DA2 they made dual wielding and archery restricted to rogues to make them feel more unique and separate them from warriors. I liked that, but many people want dual wield warriors back anyways. Just my guess.
I assume the problems they're having also concern rogues.
In DA:O, there was a blurry line between Rogues and Warriors. Really, the only thing a Rogue could do better than a warrior was lock pick and stealth. Warriors often made better dual-wielders, archers, and did it while being more durable because they're warriors.
In DA2 they made dual wielding and archery restricted to rogues to make them feel more unique and separate them from warriors. I liked that, but many people want dual wield warriors back anyways. Just my guess.
I think it's doable, provided they give them very different style skill trees. I'm not sure the best approach though would be to just give Warriors/Rogues exact copies of the Archery/Dual Wield skill trees.
I suspect the problem is that they'd have to create a full set of extra animations for the DW warrior, and that's not cheap in two ways:it costs time and money to make and there's limited space for animations on the consoles (at least the older ones, I don't know about next-gen).
This seems to be the most popular thing to say these days. Honestly, what doesn't? If they make this an excuse every single time players ask for something, the end result is going to be something pretty shallow. It's upto them whether they want to provide gamers the freedom to choose the play style they want, or force them into using only one type of weapon the entire game(DA 2).
I play Dragon Age mostly(if not completely) for story, a lot of others don't. A lot of others want some freedom in trying out different weapons and skills and then stick with something. One's character does not need to be a chess piece with set moves. A 4-party combat system should not be the cause of lack of any further depth in character customization.
its the other one you need to look at not just the first. yes it costs money we all know that but what people don't reailze is that the space requirements for animations can take up memory space and what not. Heck look at GTA 5 that is pretty much at the top of what a system can do. consiering its running BOTH the Rom and the hard drive. its requiring both in order for it to be decent.
And from the looks of DA:I I wouldn't doubt they would need to do the same thing. Frostbite 3 is a rather large beast. So it isn't so much the money its the old consoles system limitations that are the problem.
Nightdragon8 wrote... And from the looks of DA:I I wouldn't doubt they would need to do the same thing. Frostbite 3 is a rather large beast. So it isn't so much the money its the old consoles system limitations that are the problem.
Why would that be a problem unless they plan on releasing it for last-gen consoles?
....
Aaand it actually appears that they do. Wow, what a waste.
Modifié par The Baconer, 10 décembre 2013 - 12:25 .
Then I'm curious about your sources. I certainly don't consider myself even a martial arts novice, let alone a weapon expert, but pretty much every search I'm turning up indicates that dual wielding is a joke as depicted in media, especially the dual long sword variety as seen in DnD/Rpgs.
Off the top of my head at least 3 Italian fencing masters (Giganti, Fabris, and Capoferro) included instructions on how to fight with sword(rapier) and dagger in their manuals and considered it a good option for dueling. That could fit a rogue fairly well. I think, but can't say for sure, that the earlier more cut heavy styles preffered a buckler to a dagger but could have used a dagger if the person was willing to exchange some defense for offense.
I don't know of any source for Long and short sword but if they are in the right proportions it could work similarly to sword and dagger. In my limited experience two longswords seems unlikely since the blades would either be useless for defense or run signifigant risk of being knocked or swung into eachother.
Except we are fighing the kind of combat in which DW shines, small, skirmish actions, and at which the bow is less useful, (unless arrow storms are going to become a thing, with massed units and full field deployments..which would in fact be awesome)
But where exactly are you hearing that dual wielding "shines" in these circumstances? You yourself mentioned Schola Gladiatora and their overall assessment of dual wielding is less than optimal, with some minor exceptions made for dual swords in Japan:
My point is that your comparison of removing dual wielding being the equivalent of removing bow combat doesn't really have a basis in realism or as it relates to Dragon Age. Assessments of dual wielding combat I'm finding indicate that it was practiced for the sheer sport of it, with a short off-hand designed primarily for countering, or that it had very little utility outside of one on one scenarios.
As practiced, dual wielding doesn't seem to match up with its depiction in DnD or DA:O where you have characters performing whirlwind attacks and dual strikes.
ridiculous combat moves and animations are a seperate topic (one that has caused me to rant before).
Anyway, several schools of two weapon fencing existed, rapier (which btw IS NOT LIGHTER THAN AN ARMING SWORD OR KATANA [/rant]) and main gauche, two daggers, Katana and Wakizashi, Basket Hilt Claymore and Dirk (with the bonus of a shield as well, the dirk is held in the Targe hand, and used to shank anyone who got inside your guard, the targe sometimes had a spike on the front for added shanking, and ofc you had a broad sword for choppy death, the Scots don't mess around.) Then you get into Kali silat with it's wreck face with two sticks/daggers approach, the Shaolin hook swords, you also got the Dimachaerus type of gladiator, but as that for for entertainment, it's value in a combat is debatable.
Given that we are in a game with magic, having skilled combatants weilding two weapons, is not a push, it was a thing, it vertainly didn't make you a walking blender, but it did allow more options than sword and shield, while sacrificng the defence of said shield (unless you are Scottish, in which case lay the smack down with that shanky/choppy/blocky system)
Except we are fighing the kind of combat in which DW shines, small, skirmish actions, and at which the bow is less useful, (unless arrow storms are going to become a thing, with massed units and full field deployments..which would in fact be awesome)
But where exactly are you hearing that dual wielding "shines" in these circumstances? You yourself mentioned Schola Gladiatora and their overall assessment of dual wielding is less than optimal, with some minor exceptions made for dual swords in Japan:
My point is that your comparison of removing dual wielding being the equivalent of removing bow combat doesn't really have a basis in realism or as it relates to Dragon Age. Assessments of dual wielding combat I'm finding indicate that it was practiced for the sheer sport of it, with a short off-hand designed primarily for countering, or that it had very little utility outside of one on one scenarios.
As practiced, dual wielding doesn't seem to match up with its depiction in DnD or DA:O where you have characters performing whirlwind attacks and dual strikes.
ridiculous combat moves and animations are a seperate topic (one that has caused me to rant before).
Anyway, several schools of two weapon fencing existed, rapier (which btw IS NOT LIGHTER THAN AN ARMING SWORD OR KATANA [/rant]) and main gauche, two daggers, Katana and Wakizashi, Basket Hilt Claymore and Dirk (with the bonus of a shield as well, the dirk is held in the Targe hand, and used to shank anyone who got inside your guard, the targe sometimes had a spike on the front for added shanking, and ofc you had a broad sword for choppy death, the Scots don't mess around.) Then you get into Kali silat with it's wreck face with two sticks/daggers approach, the Shaolin hook swords, you also got the Dimachaerus type of gladiator, but as that for for entertainment, it's value in a combat is debatable.
Given that we are in a game with magic, having skilled combatants weilding two weapons, is not a push, it was a thing, it vertainly didn't make you a walking blender, but it did allow more options than sword and shield, while sacrificng the defence of said shield (unless you are Scottish, in which case lay the smack down with that shanky/choppy/blocky system)
None of which is comparable to dual-wielding 5foot+ long metal fans(see OP's pics). DA: O's dual-wielding was based on D&D(and anything goes in D&D). The dual-wielding we saw in DA:O does not have historical basis. Now that's not a reason not to have the weapons, but historical usage isn't a strong argument for the dual-wielding in DA: O.
Off the top of my head at least 3 Italian fencing masters (Giganti, Fabris, and Capoferro) included instructions on how to fight with sword(rapier) and dagger in their manuals and considered it a good option for dueling. That could fit a rogue fairly well. I think, but can't say for sure, that the earlier more cut heavy styles preffered a buckler to a dagger but could have used a dagger if the person was willing to exchange some defense for offense.
I don't know of any source for Long and short sword but if they are in the right proportions it could work similarly to sword and dagger. In my limited experience two longswords seems unlikely since the blades would either be useless for defense or run signifigant risk of being knocked or swung into eachother.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that dual wielding was non-existent, just as that it's nowhere near as widespread as Vilegrim makes it out to be, especially with regard to the bow comparison.
I've seen a few sources which have mentioned (as you do above) its utility in one on one/dueling scenarios, but that makes up the minority of your typical Dragon Age encounter and would more likely see the Warden/Hawke impaled by arrows.
Personally, I don't think dual wielding needs to change to fit an accurate historical depiction, which would probably emphasize the off-hand weapon's defensive/parrying aspects over being a second attack. But given that some are using an argument to history, dual wielding as seen in games is nothing even remotely similar, based on what I'm finding.
Retour en haut
