190 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

That will lead into the debate of what is an rpg. That is a very slippery slope and a very contested argument.

 

It perennially pops up, of course. Inevitable. It's kind of like an elephant in the room. Never seen the debate not come up on CRPG forums, and I've been on many.

 

Of course, as I've encountered, some don't even like the word "CRPG" although I'm not exactly sure why. I mean, it absolutely is a description for a "role playing game/RPG played on a computer" and BTW IMHO gaming consoles are computers, because they can run operating systems like Linux and contain processors. 

[Maiden Crowe]

That's not necessarily the case.  The player can make decision-making a character function.

 

I populate my character's mind during character creation (just as I choose his skills and physical abilities), but then the character makes the in-game decisions.  I am merely the mechanism by which those decisions are implemented - but the decision-making is not mine.

 

Solving puzzles can be an in-character event.  You, the player, can approach the problem as your character would, and then see what outcome that produces.

 

This is partly why I'd like to see quests have failure as a possible result.  If we're going to roleplay our way through quests, then sometimes our characters will make the wrong decision and fail.  That shouldn't require a reload; that should simply produce a different result.

 

You will have to explain that one to me, as far as I am concerned it doesn't matter whether you are making decisions based on what you would do or what your character would do, unless somebody is whispering in your ear telling which options to pick or the game allows character's within the game to make decisions without player input it is still you making the decisions.

[Maiden Crowe]

The problem is that the player keeps working at the puzzle thinking it maybe on the main quest line. The player is unable to solve it. Gives up in frustration comes to the forum and bad months Bioware about it and proceeds to tell all of his/her friends about the frustration. Bioware gets bad word of mouth through no fault of its own.

By  hinting at the point it may be a side quest and the puzzle optional the player can then go on his/her way and experience the rest of the game. Thereby that player may have a more positive experience and recommend rather than condemn.

 

Ughh personally I think those people are best ignored when it comes to this sort of thing, ok yes catering to the lowest common denominator is probably the most profitable way to make a game however it also holds games back from being as good as they can be. I do get a little sick of seeing game developers constantly cater to those who neither appreciate or understand the intricacies of the video game genre, while I understand that in order to stay in business games need to be profitable but does this mean they need to sacrifice all their artistic integrity to achieve it?

[Realmzmaster]

Ughh personally I think those people are best ignored when it comes to this sort of thing, ok yes catering to the lowest common denominator is probably the most profitable way to make a game however it also holds games back from being as good as they can be. I do get a little sick of seeing game developers constantly cater to those who neither appreciate or understand the intricacies of the video game genre, while I understand that in order to stay in business games need to be profitable but does this mean they need to sacrifice all their artistic integrity to achieve it?

 

The problem with artistic integrity is that at the end of the day it does not pay the bills. PST is a good game , but was a commercial disappointment. A game has to make a profit especially if gamers want to see another one in the series.

 

The unfortunate point is that while the hardcore gamer is the most loyal (and at times the most critical) that is not where the majority of the sales (and profit) come from.

 

If a developer is going to get new players there has to be a way to attract them. An overly complex game is not going to do it especially when it comes to crpgs.

 

Some of the gamers like myself cut their teeth on P n P rpgs. So, we were looking for computer games that mimic the tabletop experience. Many of the gamers now are not involved in P n P rpgs. They have a different experience and are not looking for a lot of complexity, but are looking for depth with some complexity.

[MDCT506]

This is partly why I'd like to see quests have failure as a possible result.  If we're going to roleplay our way through quests, then sometimes our characters will make the wrong decision and fail.  That shouldn't require a reload; that should simply produce a different result.

I agree.  This is something that's pretty much a staple in tabletop.  IMO, one of the hallmarks of a good DM is the ability and willingness to make failure as interesting (and as possible to obtain) as success.  

 

That in and of itself opens up room for character customization and complexity, IMO, since you no longer need to build a party to win every fight.  As long as a party can beat most encounters, most of the time, I say that's good, balanced gameplay.

[Sidney]

You know what else is a function of the player rather than the character? Making decisions, are you saying we should remove that as well?

 

A ludicrous extension of the argument. You play through the PC. You have to be the "prime mover" but why are puzzles different than combat or persuasion? If solving puzzles because you are role playing as you (you aren't but we will ignore that) shouldn't combat come down to you? Shouldn't we build a lock pick simulator and the heck with your characters lockpick skills (I just relaized I described some of why Skyrim is a such a suck RPG). Puzzles force too much onto the player and not the character.

[Sidney]

I agree.  This is something that's pretty much a staple in tabletop.  IMO, one of the hallmarks of a good DM is the ability and willingness to make failure as interesting (and as possible to obtain) as success.  

 

That in and of itself opens up room for character customization and complexity, IMO, since you no longer need to build a party to win every fight.  As long as a party can beat most encounters, most of the time, I say that's good, balanced gameplay.

 

 

I'm sure the reason in most cases the only failure state in a game or quest is death is that 95% of the people will merely reload and get it right. This is a problem if catering to a market and finite resources. When the outcome is as stark as success = XP and money and failure = too bad people will work around it. Not saying you or I would because failure is interesting as you said, but if I am making the game I understand their approach. 

[CybAnt1]

Some of the gamers like myself cut their teeth on P n P rpgs. So, we were looking for computer games that mimic the tabletop experience. Many of the gamers now are not involved in P n P rpgs. They have a different experience and are not looking for a lot of complexity, but are looking for depth with some complexity.

 

Well, to me it's always an interesting question as to what people can or won't handle. I don't know why DA has only three classes, for example. It certainly affects simplicity of development, but it also seems to relate to the player base. I certainly have heard they do it that way because they don't want people to be paralyzed by having too many choices (same reason there originally were only 3 races, well now 4, and 3 specs for each class). 

 

... Yet one of the most popular MMOs out there (and I do play it, not because it's popular, but because it has things I like) ... has 11 classes and 13 races. Needless to say, players there are constantly asking for more, in fact, the biggest disappointment over its most recent expansion is that there are no new classes or races. Oh, and BTW, every class also has 3 specs, so if you wanted to try out every class-spec combo you need 33 characters. (The max you can have, BTW, is 50.)

 

My main point ... are devs possibly underestimating what people - gamers in general, 'casuals,' the masses, whatever label you prefer - can handle? 

[AlanC9]

I'm sure the reason in most cases the only failure state in a game or quest is death is that 95% of the people will merely reload and get it right. This is a problem if catering to a market and finite resources. When the outcome is as stark as success = XP and money and failure = too bad people will work around it. Not saying you or I would because failure is interesting as you said, but if I am making the game I understand their approach.

I wonder if tracking data backs this up. It's a difficult thing to test since so many quests don't have fail-state resolutions. The Witcher and ME2 have some, though.

[Realmzmaster]

Well, to me it's always an interesting question as to what people can or won't handle. I don't know why DA has only three classes, for example. It certainly affects simplicity of development, but it also seems to relate to the player base. I certainly have heard they do it that way because they don't want people to be paralyzed by having too many choices (same reason there originally were only 3 races, well now 4, and 3 specs for each class). 

 

... Yet one of the most popular MMOs out there (and I do play it, not because it's popular, but because it has things I like) ... has 11 classes and 13 races. Needless to say, players there are constantly asking for more, in fact, the biggest disappointment over its most recent expansion is that there are no new classes or races. Oh, and BTW, every class also has 3 specs, so if you wanted to try out every class-spec combo you need 33 characters. (The max you can have, BTW, is 50.)

 

My main point ... are devs possibly underestimating what people - gamers in general, 'casuals,' the masses, whatever label you prefer - can handle? 

 

It is possible the developers could be underestimating the casuals, but then one could look at the sales of Skyrim (16.51 million and counting) and make a case that they are not. Skyrim streamlined the system that was used in previous Elder Scroll games. In fact Skyrim doubled the sales of Oblivion. 

 

Did Skyrim do better because it streamlined the complexity but kept the depth?

[Maiden Crowe]

The problem with artistic integrity is that at the end of the day it does not pay the bills. PST is a good game , but was a commercial disappointment. A game has to make a profit especially if gamers want to see another one in the series.

 

The unfortunate point is that while the hardcore gamer is the most loyal (and at times the most critical) that is not where the majority of the sales (and profit) come from.

 

If a developer is going to get new players there has to be a way to attract them. An overly complex game is not going to do it especially when it comes to crpgs.

 

Some of the gamers like myself cut their teeth on P n P rpgs. So, we were looking for computer games that mimic the tabletop experience. Many of the gamers now are not involved in P n P rpgs. They have a different experience and are not looking for a lot of complexity, but are looking for depth with some complexity.

 

PS:T is probably a bad example as at the time of release many people diddn't even know it existed, while it is true that the game only really appeals to a certain audience I believe it could have done better if it had a bit more exposure.

 

Also while it is true that simpler games with mass appeal are more profitable I am not sure that creating deeper and more complex gameplay experiences really hurt developers in the sales department as much as some developers would like you to think, I mean look at Dark Souls, despite being far more complex and deep than your standard game and having a far higher difficulty curve it still did well enough to warrant a sequel.

[Maiden Crowe]

A ludicrous extension of the argument. You play through the PC. You have to be the "prime mover" but why are puzzles different than combat or persuasion? If solving puzzles because you are role playing as you (you aren't but we will ignore that) shouldn't combat come down to you? Shouldn't we build a lock pick simulator and the heck with your characters lockpick skills (I just relaized I described some of why Skyrim is a such a suck RPG). Puzzles force too much onto the player and not the character.

 

Nonsense, that was the logical extension of your argument, if I am not mistaken you were saying that anything that is a function of the player rather than the character should be removed from the game and is not decision making a function of the player? Why should puzzles not be solved by the player while decisions are made by the player?

 

When it comes to persuasion I never said that it should be different to puzzles, in fact I believe that if developers are going to make persuasion a viable method of solving problems then it should be based more on the player paying more attention to the information available and using it to their advantage by selecting the relevant options in conversation to get the upper hand rather than pumping all their points at character creation into the "Win" button.

 

As for combat I wouldn't necessarily say that it is entirely character based, when it comes to physical attributes and skills it is almost entirely character based and for a good number of reasons (most of which I am sure you can figure out yourself) however combat is not just based on physical attributes and you would hope that in a game that labels itself a "tactical party based RPG" that tactics (which again deciding which tactics to use in combat is a function of the player rather than the character) would play a major role. 

[Realmzmaster]

PS:T is probably a bad example as at the time of release many people diddn't even know it existed, while it is true that the game only really appeals to a certain audience I believe it could have done better if it had a bit more exposure.

 

Also while it is true that simpler games with mass appeal are more profitable I am not sure that creating deeper and more complex gameplay experiences really hurt developers in the sales department as much as some developers would like you to think, I mean look at Dark Souls, despite being far more complex and deep than your standard game and having a far higher difficulty curve it still did well enough to warrant a sequel.

 

Which simply means that Dark Souls did as well as DA2. That would not be considered awe inspiring especially on the PC side were even DA2 outsold  Dark Souls by a factor of more than 10 times. Dark Souls like PST only caters to a certain audience.

[Maiden Crowe]

Which simply means that Dark Souls did as well as DA2. That would not be considered awe inspiring especially on the PC side were even DA2 outsold  Dark Souls by a factor of more than 10 times. Dark Souls like PST only caters to a certain audience.

 

Not the point, my point was it was still profitable enough to warrant a sequel, besides Bioware is a well known game developer with a lot of exposure which also helps them in the sales department while From Software was still relatively unknown at the release of Dark Souls and the game certainly diddn't get as much exposure as Dragon Age 2 did, but that said even though DA2 might have sold well due to the Bioware name the quality of the game speaks for itself and I am pretty sure there are a lot of people regretting their purchase which in the end has only turned more than a few potential buyers away hurting the sales of their future games.

 

The fact that the Souls series has been successful despite the lack of advertising and the relatively unknown developer is a testament to its quality, hell if it weren't for the recommendations from other players I might have passed on Demon's Souls mistaking it for just another shallow action JRPG, after playing it I am glad I diddn't.

[Realmzmaster]

Not the point, my point was it was still profitable enough to warrant a sequel, besides Bioware is a well known game developer with a lot of exposure which also helps them in the sales department while From Software was still relatively unknown at the release of Dark Souls and the game certainly diddn't get as much exposure as Dragon Age 2 did, but that said even though DA2 might have sold well due to the Bioware name the quality of the game speaks for itself and I am pretty sure there are a lot of people regretting their purchase which in the end has only turned more than a few potential buyers away hurting the sales of their future games.

 

The fact that the Souls series has been successful despite the lack of advertising and the relatively unknown developer is a testament to its quality, hell if it weren't for the recommendations from other players I might have passed on Demon's Souls mistaking it for just another shallow action JRPG, after playing it I am glad I diddn't.

 

 

What do you mean unknown developer? I have known about From Software since their release of King's Field series (I-IV) on the Playstation  back in 1996. Their games have always been tough in the gameplay department Demon Souls and Dark Souls are just extensions of that. The company is also known for Armored Core (mecha based warfare) which has to date fifteen installments. Armored Core: Verdict Day being the latest.

[Remmirath]

I favour more complexity in some areas, but overall more realism or elegance of mechanics. I do not particularly care for a large number of classes -- the core classes have always been enough for me in D&D, for instance, and I typically don't even use half of Rolemaster's core classes -- and in the case of Dragon Age, I don't see a good argument for having more than three.

Considering that there is already a system for injuries, that is what I would most like to see expanded on -- criticals dealing injuries, and laying people out when there are enough of them. I'd love to see characters even being outright killed, but I'm guessing that's not going to happen. In fact, greater lethality of combat combined with more ways to build an effective warrior is what I most want -- particularly being able to build an effective warrior without relying on activated abilities, which to me, muddles the line between playing a warrior and playing a mage with warrior-spells.

As an example of what I mean by more elegance and realism, less complexity: weapons choices. I do not think weapon choices should be restricted between the classes, nor do I believe that general combat styles should be, or armour. I believe that any class should be able to use any item, although perhaps not well (only mages could use mage items for magic, for instance). I'd rather see as class-specific abilities more of how once is trained in the weapon, rather than if one can be effective with the weapon at all.

DA:O did much better at that than DA II did. Simply returning to DA:O's combat would be a great improvement, but there are still more improvements that could be made.

It is possible the developers could be underestimating the casuals, but then one could look at the sales of Skyrim (16.51 million and counting) and make a case that they are not. Skyrim streamlined the system that was used in previous Elder Scroll games. In fact Skyrim doubled the sales of Oblivion. 
 
Did Skyrim do better because it streamlined the complexity but kept the depth?

That would imply that a very large number of people bought the game solely because they removed classes and stats, and that is not something I am inclined to believe easily without proof. I think it more likely that the Elder Scrolls is a well-enough established series that, particularly with good advertising, any new installment is likely to do quite well unless they make a massive misstep, and that didn't tick off enough people to count -- and Skyrim was the first game in the series that worked equally well on all platforms (at least, from what I have heard the previous ones had some issues on consoles; I've no first-hand experience of anything but their performance on the PC). I'd be more inclined to put it to that, combined with the fact that games in general have sold more copies over the years.

Also, Oblivion had graphical requirements that were enough in advance of the general PC of the time that many people probably held off on buying it because of that, whereas Skyrim didn't. There are all sorts of factors that go into this. Lack of classes may have been one for some people, but I would be surprised if anybody bought the game purely because it did not have them.

[Robtachi]

I'd love more variety in class/combat mechanics but I keep thinking back to something specific David Gaider said about his early days writing for Baldur's Gate 2; he specifically voiced frustration with aspects of the Forgotten Realms settings and ruleset because in some cases - specifically divine magic in his example - it can paint writers into a narrative corner where they are not totally free to shape the world or characters who comprise it because they have to be mindful of X, Y and Z restrictions stemming from the ruleset.

 

Obviously not being married to an established ruleset/setting like D&D/Forgotten Realms gives them a bit more latitude to tailor the narrative how they please, but I'd hate to see them hamstrung by petty ruleset restrictions such as "this shadowy rogue can't use the Murder Knife to assassinate this person because his/her sub-class specifies no weapons of blah blah type". Really hurts the narrative potential and freedom.

[Realmzmaster]

I favour more complexity in some areas, but overall more realism or elegance of mechanics. I do not particularly care for a large number of classes -- the core classes have always been enough for me in D&D, for instance, and I typically don't even use half of Rolemaster's core classes -- and in the case of Dragon Age, I don't see a good argument for having more than three.

Considering that there is already a system for injuries, that is what I would most like to see expanded on -- criticals dealing injuries, and laying people out when there are enough of them. I'd love to see characters even being outright killed, but I'm guessing that's not going to happen. In fact, greater lethality of combat combined with more ways to build an effective warrior is what I most want -- particularly being able to build an effective warrior without relying on activated abilities, which to me, muddles the line between playing a warrior and playing a mage with warrior-spells.

As an example of what I mean by more elegance and realism, less complexity: weapons choices. I do not think weapon choices should be restricted between the classes, nor do I believe that general combat styles should be, or armour. I believe that any class should be able to use any item, although perhaps not well (only mages could use mage items for magic, for instance). I'd rather see as class-specific abilities more of how once is trained in the weapon, rather than if one can be effective with the weapon at all.

DA:O did much better at that than DA II did. Simply returning to DA:O's combat would be a great improvement, but there are still more improvements that could be made.


That would imply that a very large number of people bought the game solely because they removed classes and stats, and that is not something I am inclined to believe easily without proof. I think it more likely that the Elder Scrolls is a well-enough established series that, particularly with good advertising, any new installment is likely to do quite well unless they make a massive misstep, and that didn't tick off enough people to count -- and Skyrim was the first game in the series that worked equally well on all platforms (at least, from what I have heard the previous ones had some issues on consoles; I've no first-hand experience of anything but their performance on the PC). I'd be more inclined to put it to that, combined with the fact that games in general have sold more copies over the years.

Also, Oblivion had graphical requirements that were enough in advance of the general PC of the time that many people probably held off on buying it because of that, whereas Skyrim didn't. There are all sorts of factors that go into this. Lack of classes may have been one for some people, but I would be surprised if anybody bought the game purely because it did not have them.

 

 

Skyrim did not work as well on all platforms. In fact the best platform was the 360. The PS3 version of Skyrim was a disaster between the memory lags, frame rate problems and freezes making the game at times unplayable. Those problems also existed in Oblivion. You would think in five years Bethesda would have corrected those problems.

 

The PC version showed that it was based off the console version with out any refinement for the the PC (for the use of keyboard and mouse). The vanilla  UI on the PC version was bad and showed its console roots. The player had to have a controller to make the most of the PC UI. One of the most downloaded mods is a total enhancement of the UI called Skyrim UI making it easier to use on the PC.

 

Realism is two edged sword. What is realism for one person is tedium for another. I want to see limited ammunition (in terms of arrows). I want to see weight restrictions on what can be carried. I want to see characters get diseases or poisoned that do not show up for sometime later in the game. I would like to see the return of perma-death. If the character dies in combat, by disease or poison that the character stays dead. If a character wants to switch weapons the character has to either drop the current weapon or put it away to draw the other weapon unless dual-wielding.

 

I would also like to see parties have to rest, eat and drink. I want to see weather affect combat. I want the time to affect combat. I want weapons and armor that degrade, break and need repair.

 

Realism is a slippery slope. How much realism do you really want? I know how much I want? But I know DAI will not be giving me that level of realism.

[OdanUrr]

Realism is a slippery slope. How much realism do you really want? I know how much I want? But I know DAI will not be giving me that level of realism.

 

Exactly. People will always want varying levels of realism and, in the end, we're not talking about a simulator.

[Maiden Crowe]

What do you mean unknown developer? I have known about From Software since their release of King's Field series (I-IV) on the Playstation  back in 1996. Their games have always been tough in the gameplay department Demon Souls and Dark Souls are just extensions of that. The company is also known for Armored Core (mecha based warfare) which has to date fifteen installments. Armored Core: Verdict Day being the latest.

 

"Relatively unknown" as in nowhere near as well known and popular as Bioware, even among those who have played the Souls series I think you will find that unless they have done their research few will even know what King's Field is and even fewer would have actually played it as it was never officially released outside of Japan. As for Armored Core I don't believe the series has been all that popular due to the fact that the series is kind of ****, it was certainly never popular or good enough for people to really take notice of From Software.

[InvincibleHero]

Except Sylvius the journal is basically the thoughts of your pc. If he thinks it is a main quest and he has information on his world then it is perfectly fine for the developers to categorize them. They do this as a convenience for the players obviously. It is pretty obvious in most games killing six rats in Old lady Jasmine's basement will be a side quest. I think there could be merit labelling something a sidequest which later becomes revealed as actually being plot relevant and vice versa the main quest that is a red herring and games have done both things.

 

Clicked quote to one of his posts but didn't post anything guess I need to figure the new boards out

 

 

As to the main topic sure if it adds detail and richness without bogging the game down. If it is just there to add numbers then I would be against it. I am fine with how it is each class getting special attacks while drawing from the same stat pool and then having specialized skills. Just adding more skills won't work if they are unequal in usefullness. Some might choose hairweaving (to change their pc looks and affect some minor quests) but I probably wouldn't.

[CybAnt1]

Exactly. People will always want varying levels of realism and, in the end, we're not talking about a simulator.

 

It's interesting. I've yet to see anybody ever insist their character should need to stop at an outhouse every few hours or so to relieve themselves. 

 

Actually, in WoW, you need to do an outhouse stop for a quest, because you swallowed some quest-needed seed by mistake ... and well, you can probably guess how the rest goes. 

 

Oddly, outhouses feature in a lot of WoW quests. 

[Realmzmaster]

"Relatively unknown" as in nowhere near as well known and popular as Bioware, even among those who have played the Souls series I think you will find that unless they have done their research few will even know what King's Field is and even fewer would have actually played it as it was never officially released outside of Japan. As for Armored Core I don't believe the series has been all that popular due to the fact that the series is kind of ****, it was certainly never popular or good enough for people to really take notice of From Software.

 

Incorrect, King Field's II-IV were released in the United States as KIng's Field 1 to 3. The first one was the only one not released in the United States and that was rectified with a fan made translation into English. . 

[Remmirath]

Skyrim did not work as well on all platforms. In fact the best platform was the 360. The PS3 version of Skyrim was a disaster between the memory lags, frame rate problems and freezes making the game at times unplayable. Those problems also existed in Oblivion. You would think in five years Bethesda would have corrected those problems.
 
The PC version showed that it was based off the console version with out any refinement for the the PC (for the use of keyboard and mouse). The vanilla  UI on the PC version was bad and showed its console roots. The player had to have a controller to make the most of the PC UI. One of the most downloaded mods is a total enhancement of the UI called Skyrim UI making it easier to use on the PC.

Ah, well, I don't know what the answer is in that case. Right game at the right time or some such? In any case, while its popularity could prove that people prefer a lack of classes and abilities and a lot of action, by this same token it could mean that people prefer not having a voiced PC or prefer having multiple species to choose from. There were many differences between Skyrim and the other RPGs that came out in a similar time frame. My guess is that they all contributed somewhat to its success, and there was nothing that bothered anybody enough that they didn't buy the game because of that (I quite missed classes and stats myself, but it wasn't enough to put me off the game entirely, for instance).

I had figured that the UI was just terrible in general, not terrible as a symptom of having been a console game. That explains a lot about it, actually.
 

Realism is two edged sword. What is realism for one person is tedium for another. I want to see limited ammunition (in terms of arrows). I want to see weight restrictions on what can be carried. I want to see characters get diseases or poisoned that do not show up for sometime later in the game. I would like to see the return of perma-death. If the character dies in combat, by disease or poison that the character stays dead. If a character wants to switch weapons the character has to either drop the current weapon or put it away to draw the other weapon unless dual-wielding.
 
I would also like to see parties have to rest, eat and drink. I want to see weather affect combat. I want the time to affect combat. I want weapons and armor that degrade, break and need repair.
 
Realism is a slippery slope. How much realism do you really want? I know how much I want? But I know DAI will not be giving me that level of realism.

I'd like all those things you name, especially in the first paragraph. I don't want complete simulation out of an RPG, but I want a good helping of realism to ground things. I care in particular about combat being realistic, because when it isn't it often simply looks silly to my eyes and makes it harder to take things seriously. It's also something that one spends a good deal of one's time doing in game. I also personally find realistic combat much more interesting, but that I know is not the case for everyone.

[Vilegrim]

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.

 

 

Well it looks like we are getting the Skorpion Mortal Kombat harpoon of idiocy

 

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?

 

 

It is, when the answer to a Shield wall is LOL I R A SUPANINJA ROLL! or MORTAL KOMBAT HARPOOONNN! You know the system is flawed just from trailers.

 

Mind you I have spent all past weekend doing a LARP in a tunnel network and being part of a shield wall, so I may be a touch jaded the answer to a shield wall? Another wall, or mages (or explosives/molotovs ofc) but an intact well run wall is murderous, especailly with spearmen in the second rank, and magic support... unless you get a crossbow bolt in the back of the head from your own side..still sore about that.