190 réponses à ce sujet

[Maiden Crowe]

I am talking more variety in classes and weapons, more complexity in character building than just ballooning your classes main stat and more complexity in battle tactics. I mean Bioware loves to talk about how you can "think like a general" but it seems a little disingenuous when they show gameplay footage where they send all their dooooooooods to attack a heavy shield troop head on.

 

Am I the only one who finds character building, gear selection and tactics in the Dragon Age series really stale and simplistic?

[JimboGee]

I agree I would like to see RPG's becoming more complex. However, not everyone has the time for this. I think finding a good balance of strategy and flow is important.  I also dont want to be playing a spreadsheet manager either where I am bombarded by numbers.

 

I have to say Bioware games are becoming more about the story and characters than the combat but they seem to still put up a worthwhile challenge at times.

[SNascimento]

Only in design and not in background statistics and stats. 

[ReadingRambo220]

Perhaps the Veil sundering changes the fundamental fabric of Thedas, and now our characters will use THAC0 to hit things!

On a serious note, DAs rule set does lack personality.

[JeffZero]

I wouldn't be opposed to learning something, but I am not much of a hardcore Western RPG sort nor do I have more than ten hours logged in tabletop settings so I appreciate the relative simplicity as it stands.

[philippe willaume]

yes DA:I would benefit of a more complex rule set than the one DA:2

For me from the complexity level DA:0 got it about right.

 

I liked the  skills and all the attribute being useful to all classes. (though that could be more tailored to each classes.

and i liked the tactical options given by scouting using the terrain choke points and being able to modify the terrain, and having two weapons available (and the ability to develop both weapons.

 

The thing is that the complexity can be abstracted form the player so the game play feel can be almost unaffected .

phil

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree that it is often quite easy to stat dump in DA games. Warriors get Str and Con, Mages get Mag and Will, Rogues Dex and Cun, with a sprinkling of other stats to balance out things. 

 

I'd like to see them get away from the "this stat increase damage" mechanics, personally and go with more ancillary uses to the stats. What if strength could be used to allow a Mage to cast spells with heavy armor and not suffer a penalty? What if Rogues with points in Magic could increase their Crit Chance when using magical weapons? What if a Warrior could have a high Dexterity and be able to parry incoming attacks, making a fencing-type character a possibility?

 

Where DA usually offers the complexity (more in DA2 than in DA:O) is the skills category, which has its ups and downs. DA:O has more "non-useful" skills than in DA2, which offered a number of different ways to build characters, which was nice. However, it all comes down to DPS in execution, which is unfortunate.(to my tastes, I suppose).

 

That being said... there are some interesting changes for DA:I that could turn this around. For one, limited health (and possibly mana?) regen. As well "exploration skills" we've heard rumors about, which will allow actions to be done outside of combat. 

 

For the non-regen part, this could lead to situations where resource management is more important, which could mean every character might benefit from a high boost of Con and Dex to absorb and avoid blows. Then again, maybe characters packing a big wallop can end battle faster, managing the risk of taking too much damage. Or perhaps this will make Magic points in every character (even non-Mages) useful, as the added Resistance could be helpful. In addition, who knows if certain stats (again, like Magic) could also make potion using more or less effective, which could affect how the overall use of resources is handled. 

 

And for the exploration skills, if they go the route of DA:O, where each level may have base-stat requirements, this could also be intriguing. If I want to have the ability to persuade a group of Mages that returning to the Circle may be the best solution for them, might I require point in Magic to unlock the knowledge set used to be able to make that attempt successful? What if a Rogue would benefit from Magic points when disarming magical traps? Or a Mage benefiting from Cunning when using an illusion spell?

 

 

All of this is speculation, of course. But my real point is that with the game's overall design being adapted not just for all-combat, after which all wounds are magically healed, but rather a deeper experience that allows more options, we will likely see more variance in how we spread out our stat points in DA:I.

[Steelcan]

That's why you get mods for Skyrim Qistina

[Steelcan]

What about magic, stamina, and other things like lockpicking?

[CybAnt1]

Dunno. Sylvius says he is a GURPs fan. I would agree, I've played games based on it. (It's a flexible generic ruleset that in turn can be adapted for all kinds of RPG genres, from fantasy to superhero to sci-fi). GURPs actually goes for simplicity rather than needless complexity, and it's very adaptable. I can see why he likes it. They ALMOST used it for Fallout, then went for their own in-house SPECIAL system instead. 

 

I really think Dragon Age would be better with more classes, at least 4 if not say 5-8. But, of course, they've restricted magic to one kind of being/source/class, so there can't be druids, shamans, warlocks, or anything else that are not mages (with schools). They've made religion a mysterium, so no playable clerics or priests. So far, there's no "Orient" to Thedas, so no monks/martial artists or ninjas or samurai. To me, some things they've made "specs" could be their own class (they are in other games), like bards, or rangers.  

 

Other than that, the mechanics seem fine enough, although I do think it's odd your STR starts at around 10, but then can max out to 100. (As well as other attributes.) Most games cap you at somewhere around 18-30. Since I don't think even the world's best bodybuilders can increase their strength tenfold (unless they are a demigod like Hercules), it's clear that this must be a nonlinear scaling system, as we've discussed. 

 

I think any RPG that offers noncombat activities also has to have noncombat skills. Noncombat activities disappeared in DA2 (well, except for lock picking doors and chests, or disarming traps, but the latter is really a combat activity) and the few that remained were simply based off your Cunning score. I think this game is bringing back both noncombat activities - and Exploration skills. Which to me is good. Games need them. 

 

I hope with the return of skills comes the return of the "linguistic"/"communicative" ones. There are pros and cons to the inclusion of Persuade, Intimidate, Coercion, etc., etc. I tend to think the pros outweigh the cons. 

[Wulfram]

Non-combat skills might be nice. Though CRPGs stuggle to really make them work - without the spontaneity that's only possible with a live DM, if you're lucky you end up wtih some heavily signposted opportunities to Use Skill Here that I don't find very satisfying.  And if you're unlucky and picked the wrong skill then you basicalyl don't get anything.

 

As for combat, I want less complexity, more depth.  Get rid of fiddly sillyness like attributes that do nothing but allow you to raise your DPS to heights that make actual tactics superfluous.  DA attributes add nothing that couldn't be done better with talents.

[Gebert]

I'll chime in and agree on the notion that Attributes could benefit becoming more static ala Fallout, and to make them useful for all types of characters.

Personally, though, I'd also only have two classes; Mundane and Mage. Give them the same skills, attributes (maybe only Mage could have Magic) and access to equipment. Differentiate them by giving Spells only to Mages (duh), have different Specializations, and most importantly, different story experiences. After all, it is kind of a defining trait of the DA franchise that Mages are NOT treated the same way as everyone else are.

[LinksOcarina]

Complexity for the sake of it is stupid. Previous Elder Scrolls games show that off until Skyrim, when the system was revamped and, despite my own longing for the previous system when I first played Skyrim, I realized what a smart move that actually was.

 

Stat dumping was going to happen anyway, for one thing. It is entirely possible to play without doing that though. Of course the mechanics dictate behavior so people will bulk up what they need first...I guess the way to do change this is to make it more difficult to stat dump in some form, give you a need to invest in constitution if you are a non-blood mage or strength if you're a rogue. Perhaps the secondary skills that were hinted at will be using combined stats like strength and dexterity to work properly. 

[Mansse]

A more complex "ruleset" does not add substance. Better combat design would.

[Beerfish]

I'm happy enough with the way things are now to be honest.  Games that have too much complexity and too many 'features' can lead to just too much time spent learning things or conversely the player just ignores a number of features through the whole game.  I guess it depends on how good the game explains additional things in character building.

[Saints]

We need moar help! Add V.A.T.S. Into the system.

[wcholcombe]

I think broadening the attributes affects would be a good start.  I thiknk implementing more of a give take to the combat skills and such would be good to.  In that regard I have given more thought to the magic side of it then the mundane.  Basically having to have skills for the mage to be able to resist possession, but at the cost of not being able to fully max your mages offensive abilities.  If you go for max offensive you risk being possessed in battle and than attacking your comrades.  That would definitely add some spice.

 

Don't know how you would truly use it in non magic skills, but I am sure it is there.

 

I hate cool downs.  Especially for magic.  Stamina it would work but would seem unbalancing to mages.  DA has an established precedent about mages having a limited amount of mana to draw upon and than they are out, would be cool if the game kind of followed lore and using all your mana resulted in a mage basically collapsing, but I can see that being troublesome gameplay wise.

 

I think there needs to be more made of the high damage ability of mages with lower survivability vs. the lower damage output over longer time and higher survivability of warrior and rogues.

 

Making more use of the attributes and non combat skills in non combat situations would be great.  Negotiations, recruitment, motivating your soldiers.  Tying charisma to an affect on your party members would be cool.  lots of ways it could go.

[Giubba]

I am talking more variety in classes and weapons, more complexity in character building than just ballooning your classes main stat and more complexity in battle tactics. I mean Bioware loves to talk about how you can "think like a general" but it seems a little disingenuous when they show gameplay footage where they send all their dooooooooods to attack a heavy shield troop head on.

 

Am I the only one who finds character building, gear selection and tactics in the Dragon Age series really stale and simplistic?

 

Yes i can agree with the sentiment but this need a lot of time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As mentioned, I would enjoy a classless skill-based system like GURPS. And I'm a big fan of stats - they give us more options in building our characters. Simpler is definitely not the way to go.

[vania z]

What if DA:I became turn based, as xcom? 

[Realmzmaster]

As mentioned, I would enjoy a classless skill-based system like GURPS. And I'm a big fan of stats - they give us more options in building our characters. Simpler is definitely not the way to go.

I agree with you, but it would require a good tutorial and/or better manual for newcomers and some not so newcomers to get into the system.

 

I would avoid complexity for the sake of complexity. The complexity would have to be well explained and serve a purpose in the game. For example weight and carry restrictions

[Realmzmaster]

What if DA:I became turn based, as xcom? 

There would be joy in some corners of the forum and gnashing of teeth in other corners. The idea may not go over well. I myself would have no problem with the idea. I think Fast Jimmy and Sylvius the Mad would agree, but I will not speak for them.

[Fast Jimmy]

One thing I think DA could also benefit from is some stat maxes. Either totally static ceiling (Strength can never go over, say, 20) or limits that increase as you level (like, for instance, a Level 5 character cannot have Strength over 20, but a Level 10 character can have a Strength up to 30).

 

This would still allow for stat dumping, but it would also be hedged with "okay, so what am I going to do with these other points now that I've got my primaries at their max?" 

 

While this may seem artificial, it actually reflects the real world equivalent of diminishing returns. Spending an hour doing strength training every day when you are supremely out of shape will cause you to bulk up quickly and your max lifts to accelrate quickly. Yet doing so for a year means that your one hour a day workout won't yield high results. However, spending an hour a day running would dramatically increase your oxygenation levels, cardio strength and other factors.

 

Point being, if you swing a giant sword and kill your enemies with strength, progressing at the same geometric rate every level (even if your enemies get harder and harder) just isn't normal. 

[The Baconer]

Yes.

[PsychoBlonde]

I am talking more variety in classes and weapons, more complexity in character building than just ballooning your classes main stat and more complexity in battle tactics. I mean Bioware loves to talk about how you can "think like a general" but it seems a little disingenuous when they show gameplay footage where they send all their dooooooooods to attack a heavy shield troop head on.

 

Am I the only one who finds character building, gear selection and tactics in the Dragon Age series really stale and simplistic?

 

No, I've been complaining about this since DA2 came out.  There is a limit to how much complexity (in terms of how many buttons you have to push to make things go off properly) you can manage in a party of 4 people, but DA2 just had NO build variety and the samey gear didn't help, either.  It's part of the reason why I just didn't replay the game that much.  Origins had the same problem but in that case it was more a factor of some of the abilities just being insanely more effective than others.  You COULD do an alternate build--but it would be a lousy build.

 

I think most of the problem is simply that there's no systemic depth in Dragon Age.  You have stats, and you have abilities.  The end.  Compare this to DDO where you have:

 

Racial abilities

Racial enhancements

Class abilities (from up to 3 different classes from multi-classing)

Stats

Feats

Skills

Spells

Class Enhancements (from up to 3 different classes)

Past lives

Epic Past lives

Iconic Past Lives

Epic Destinies

 

And they ALL interact with each other.  I'm not saying it's necessary to go that far but SOME depth would be nice.