78 réponses à ce sujet

[Jay Archer]

See 0:38.....

"Daggers which go to the thighs = swords in my book"

Also he is wearing heavy armor or at least the armor warrior inq wears always.

 

 

See 12:48. There is no "Dual Wield" skill line as he browses through the warrior skill trees. There is however a "Dual Daggers" tree but that's on Sera's page, who is a rogue.

 

As for the armor, I was under the impression that you could wear whatever you wish as long as you have the stats required for it. I had hoped Dual Wielding made a return as well, though it would seem it has not.

[DumSheeps]

I do not think those things in the trailer i provided are daggers. They are way too long to be such.

[Jay Archer]

I do not think those things in the trailer i provided are daggers. They are way too long to be such.

 

 

Keep in mind daggers are known to be rather large in DA, and based on the acrobatics the Inquisitor is displaying in his move set at 1:44, I would conclude he is a rogue.

 

I like that you still have hope, I too have hope until I get the game and see for myself (or BW confirms DW is in or out), however the odds do not seem to favor us at this point.

[Fallstar]

Full support for this; it has been one of the most requested features to return since DA2 was released.

[Jay Archer]

 

I do not think those things in the trailer i provided are daggers. They are way too long to be such.

 

 

 

User

Mike, please tell me are these swords or long daggers ? I have been watching this shot a week now...   pic.twitter.com/mmejrdWCmF

 

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw

Those are daggers, as in equipped by a rogue.

 

 

It would appear they are in fact very long daggers.

[rocsage]

dual wielding access for warrior definitely adds variety, but its fundamental mechanism in origins is very dexterity aligned.

the skill tree puts extreme emphasis on finesse in terms of attribute prerequisite, limitations (phased out weapon size restrictions), perks (bleeding effect suggests numerous but minor wounds over the course of the battle) and motion: even whirlwind and low strike, despite being aoe, are multi-hitting, emphasizing on speed rather than strength.

not inherently a problem, but all these traits seem to pertain to rogue class, and by "dual-wielding swordsman", I typically picture something along the lines of Musashi.

[G. Recruit]

As much as I would like to be dual wielding as a warrior again from what I have seen from E3 I think the sword and shield are the best option. If they can keep to their word on allowing us to create a character that we want regardless of class then I have no issue with being a sword and shield or two handed. As long as it is better then Bound By Flame. Holy heck was that bad.

 

Though through that game I will never diss two daggers ever again.

[Th0r1369]

You know you can delete your account yourself, right? Or stop visiting the forum? You're not (I'm assuming) under any legal obligation to being an active user on this forum as long as your account is going. Furthermore, all this "cut content" hooplah needs to stop. THINGS GET CUT. It happens in EVERY creative undertaking. J.K. Rowling initially wrote Arthur Weasley dying in OotP. The Killers of Scream 2 were Hallie and Derek. For all we know, the Mona Lisa was originally going to be an ant trying to eat a full plate of spaghetti. When things have deadlines, budgets and limitations such as video games, there is always going to be a ridiculous number of things intended or suggested to be in the game that are not going to ship with it for numerous reasons.

I legit lol'd... like, loudly at this...

Bravo hahaha

[Red Panda]

I miss the sword and shield rogue.

[DumSheeps]

They are never answering this in straight up way. Mark my words. The game will make its release and they will keep silent on the matter. They know it is heavily requested feature and are panicking. I have never seen devs so afraid to ignore easy yes/no question to the point of hiding and pretending they do not see the demand. Their choice, sales will prove me right.

[Jay Archer]

Some new info,

 

User

@BioMarkDarrah I have been asking this for 4 months, probably wasting my time but....Are there dual wielding swords in DAI? Answering wont

 

Mark Darrah ‏@BioMarkDarrah 

@user you have been? sorry I missed that. Dual wield is limited to a variety of short blades (ie shorter than swords)

 

Though still no clarification as to whether dual wielding is restricted to rogues or open to all (I suspect the former).

[EkhidnaDrakaina]

I am not sure which is worse... These "Dual Wielding Warrior" threads or "Inquisitor is OGB" threads. I vote these ones. At least reading someone's crazy new theory about how the OGB is a grown man/woman capable of being any race is moderately entertaining.

[Deflagratio]

I won't play a Rogue if "Dual Daggers" is the only option for melee with the class. That's as far as my rage will go though. It's mostly because I have this ridiculous (And I openly admit it's petty and ridiculous) peeve about these giant "daggers" Dragon Age is fond of. Varric's dagger gave me a little bit of hope that we had something more reasonable, but the E3 stuff crushed those hopes thoroughly.

 

The Twitter comment put what could be defined as the final nail in the coffin, with "MegaDaggers" seemingly always coming in identical pairs. I probably could have dealt with one or the other, but both... I've been a developer apologist through the entire DA:I cycle, so I'm allowed to be petty this one time! <Crybaby mode Disengaged>

 

I'd be enthusiastic if there was some kind of Blade-Empty setup though. You know, a proper duelist.

[dduane o]

There have been so much of this thread already, I even started one of these even before the pre alpha showed up, and even before the social site was changed. I really like this sub class: warrior-> dual wielding since I have the strenght that i need from a warrior and the dexterity of a rogue and honestly, this defines my mind sets in rpg battle.

I also see this as the vanguard of dragon age if compared with mass effect since it's all offense and speed but lacking in defence/hardiness.

I really, really want this. I don't even mind if it just copied and pasted from DA:O and DA:A skill tree, I just wanted it to be there. I also didn't mind if this is race exlusive to the qunari since they could probably handle two long swords better than a human.

[dutch_gamer]

They are never answering this in straight up way. Mark my words. The game will make its release and they will keep silent on the matter. They know it is heavily requested feature and are panicking. I have never seen devs so afraid to ignore easy yes/no question to the point of hiding and pretending they do not see the demand. Their choice, sales will prove me right.

That nonsense again? Dual wielding warriors do not make or break a game nor should developers be demanded to answer "easy" questions with most questions being easy questions. There is zero reason to believe they are panicking because you deem this particular feature more important than anything else.

[Nohvarr]

That nonsense again? Dual wielding warriors do not make or break a game nor should developers be demanded to answer "easy" questions with most questions being easy questions. There is zero reason to believe they are panicking because you deem this particular feature more important than anything else.

 

The funny thing is, we have a post where they do answer the question, disproving D.S. theory that the devs are 'panicking'.

[DaySeeker]

No.

 

For so many reasons, no. Balancing reasons, class reasons (this isn't Skyrim- it is party based, classes mean soemthing), graphic reasons, even dare I say, reality reasons.  No.

[Jay Archer]

No.

 

For so many reasons, no. Balancing reasons, class reasons (this isn't Skyrim- it is party based, classes mean soemthing), graphic reasons, even dare I say, reality reasons.  No.

Allow me to counter your "reasons", if I may.

 

Classes: DA:O included dual wielding warriors and if I remember correctly DA:O was also a party based RPG (It wasn't named "Skyrim" either).

 

Balancing: I'm sure BioWare knows how to balance and could do so if they chose. Balancing is part of their job as developers and after making RPG after RPG, i'm sure they're more than capable.

 

As for graphics, care to explain that one to me? I have trouble seeing your reasoning as to why dual wielding warriors would be graphically unfeasible.

 

On to reality; I can't speak to "our" reality as I am not a professional in the art of weaponry and how to wield them, however if you look into Dragon Age's reality you'll find many NPCs have dual wielded weapons other than daggers (Duncan, Cassandra, and Michel to name a few).

 

I think the only valid reason you may have is simply that you don't like dual wielding warriors, which is fine. After all everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

                  

 

Would I be happy if dual wielding was back in full force? Yes. Will the fact that it is likely not stop me from enjoying Inquisition? Hell no. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on this game more than ever.

[DaySeeker]

It seems tat there will not be dual wielding warriors in DAI, probably for the same reasons they weren't in DA2.  Graphically it is another hurdle, now we need to prevent clipping and other glitches from two full-sized weapons.  Daggers make sense to be dual wielded as they are light, meant for speed and finesse and are not giant hacking things people would not be able to use effectively in both hands. If you want a finesse warrior use a rogue.  Balancing: one character using two full-sized weapons means without penalty they do twice as much damage, so now we must create a penalty system and another weapon tree because dual weilders are going to want to do things beyond swing their weapon.

 

I don't see the benefit or need for a dual wielding warrior.  There is a rogue for dual wielding.  I like the class system as it makes gameplay different between classes, add specializations to that and there is more customization.   The warrior customizations add, for lack of a better word, magic, templars are better against spells, can create auras or debuff, reavers forsake accuracy for damage, etc.  These are things already established in DA.  In my head it is just sily to have a woman or man come at me with two longswords or giant axes.  It wouldn't work. And yes, I know it is a fantasy game and yes it is sillier than the other things characters can do in the game to me. Others obviously feel differently; I just don't think it is worth the time.

[Jay Archer]

Daggers make sense to be dual wielded as they are light, meant for speed and finesse and are not giant hacking things people would not be able to use effectively in both hands.

Firstly, you have seen videos and screens of DA:I correct? The daggers shown off in some of the trailers and screens we've seen have very much been the length of swords to the point where many wondered if they were such (though we now know they are daggers). I can see more animation work being needed for dual swords, however clipping shouldn't be an issue due to the extremely large daggers already in play.

 

Secondly, you mention that this is a fantasy game, I don't think real world limitations involving the effectiveness of dual wielding should necessarily come into play. You play as someone who can shoot magic out of his hands after all.

 

Balancing: one character using two full-sized weapons means without penalty they do twice as much damage, so now we must create a penalty system and another weapon tree because dual weilders are going to want to do things beyond swing their weapon.

 

BioWare would not have to create another weapon tree if they handled it as they did in DA:O; There was one dual wielding tree shared between Warriors/Rogues and Swords/Daggers, if they wished they could've done the same with DA:I.

 

 In my head it is just sily to have a woman or man come at me with two longswords or giant axes. 

 

In my head it's silly not to be able to pick up a weapon in my second hand if I wish instead of a shield. Dual wielding is actually a style that has seen use In the past; Some European soldiers would use a sword in each hand for one on one duels, mostly as a show of skill but a practiced fighting style nonetheless.

 

         

 

We could go back and forth on the issue all day. I respect your opinion and I know mine differs greatly, however I think we can both agree that we will enjoy the game regardless of whether dual wielding is in or not. I know I will at least. 

[VilhoDog13]

They are never answering this in straight up way. Mark my words. The game will make its release and they will keep silent on the matter. They know it is heavily requested feature and are panicking. I have never seen devs so afraid to ignore easy yes/no question to the point of hiding and pretending they do not see the demand. Their choice, sales will prove me right.

 

 

This is a good thing. I don't know if you're familiar with the Fable series, but I remember when Fable 3 was going to be released Peter Molyneaux was saying stuff like "you'll be able to roll around in your money." He made it seem like there was going to be SO MUCH that you could do in the game. Well, half of what he said didn't come true. (I later learned from a couple of people that he tends to exaggerate).

 

Bioware is doing the opposite. ME3 tried to keep quiet, but with all the leaks that happened (and there were plenty... the demo leak, and even the entire script leak), Bioware couldn't really get out of anything. Even when they tried, people were like "but it was in the script," or "but it was said you could do this." Things do get cut.

 

So, if this means Bioware keeps their mouths shut and lets the community speculate until they're ready to share the information, let them. They'd know better of what was going to be included and what wasn't the closer to the date the product is to be released. If they were to share every idea they had, chances are a lot of it would be cut and people would be up in arms.

 

They're being smart this time around. Especially when people keep mentioning DA2 and ME3 as being horrible games. (I rather enjoyed both of them).

[Pistolized]

 

I dare you to tell Black Whirlwind that a Dual-Wield Warrior doesn't make sense, or that it's the same as a DW Rogue.  DARE YOU

[TurretSyndrome]

I really don't understand the "dual-wielding swords don't make sense" argument. If it didn't make sense, why did DA:O have dual-wielding, why do so many other games have dual-wielding? Also, why is it that people believe classes cannot be unique unless they are artificially restricted in every way? 

 

Seriously, this is the reason why I absolutely loathe the existence of DA 2 sometimes. Ever since this cursed game introduced weapon sets, more and more people seem to believe that that is the only way to have a proper combat system. Ugh...

[DumSheeps]

Everyone including BW will learn this the hard way. I hope they learn their lesson or at least hire someone competent to watch for fan suggestions since they fail to see the importance of including crucial mechanics.

They are not realising that the only thing that DA2 did right was voicing the main character but they insist on importing other things as well. Fine by me, its not my head on the chopping block. Stick to "DA2 strenghts" like you call them and see where this will take you. To no man's land.

[TheWhitefire]

Black Whirlwind was way more rogue than he was warrior, honestly. Right down from his mentality to his criminal background and dirty fighting.

 

TS: People don't like the idea of the warrior and rogue having shared skill trees, is the issue. The two classes should play significantly differently, but in DA:O an Archer rogue and Archer warrior played exactly the same, as did the Dual rogue and Dual warrior. The only differences came from the Specializations and the Rogue/Warrior skill trees, and those didn't have as much effect when you spent most of your time investing ability points into the Weapon trees. It made rogue and warrior play throughs so samey that I (personally) didn't see significant enough difference between the two. If you really liked micromanaging melee rogues, you could sometimes get a back stab bonus outta them, but Archer Rogues never got a back stab bonus, and worse yet archer rogues could only gain a significant benefit out of two of the Rogue specs.

 

DA2 for all it's flaws had a far better developed class system and combat system, and one of the results of that was making archery and dual-wielding strictly Rogue skill trees. A rogue played significantly differently from a warrior, and had a clear place in the party aside from "The guy who unlocks chests and disables traps."  Archer rogues could take the place of a damage or control mage, and melee rogues could take the place of a melee scrapper and damage output character. To put in terms of the D&D 4e class system, Archer Rogues could be Strikers or Controllers, and Melee Rogues could be effective strikers.

 

Warriors focused on dealing damage on a spread, hitting multiple targets, or on tanking, having high defense and drawing lots of aggression from enemies, letting the rogues come in and pick them off one by one with powerful single-target attacks. 

 

In DA:O, no such differentiation applied for the Rogue, since a Fighter could do that just as effectively. In fact, the dual-wielding warrior was so ridiculously powerful that they could level entire swarms of enemies with only a few attacks, especially with Bravery which increased their attack score based on the number of foes currently engaging them in melee. Even better, the dual wielding fighter doesn't need to worry about having a high cunning, and can focus purely on strength and dexterity, giving them quicker access to the higher echelons of the dual wielding tree. The rogue, on the other hand, had to invest in Cunning in order to get access to the essential lockpicking skills needed to disable traps and open certain chests and doors for a complete run. Thus, their ability to deal damage and unlock the higher echelons of the dual-wielding tree is hampered compared to the warrior, making rogues less and less different from warriors in any good way.

 

However, having a warrior and a rogue occupy these different tactical spaces like they do in DA:2 allows them to feel distinct and to feel useful in their own way, rather than simply being essentially slightly different flavours of the same class. The rogue is the lightly armored sneak who focuses on one enemy in close combat, or who manages battlefield control from a distance. The warrior is the close combatant who lays waste to groups of foes or blockades their allies from attack.

 

I'm not opposed to a DW warrior, but if they're going to include it, I'd want my rogue to have an additional weapon tree to pick from as well (maybe thrown weapons?) and I'd want the Warrior's DW tree to be distinct from the Rogues, perhaps focusing on muti-target attacks like the two handed tree.