27 réponses à ce sujet

[R1C3PATTY]

Concerning character customization, one of the best parts of DAO was that you had a variety of weapons and armor to choose from. Rogues could weild longswords if they wanted and even dual weild them, which was nice for those rogues who wanted to take a less stealthy route, but in DA2 they were limited to daggers. And in DA2 each class had one armor type, when in DAO you were allowed to pick from five different types no matter what class you were. I understand the need to have a distinct feel to the classes, but there also needs to be enough freedom to make them fit varied play styles. Some games, like Kingdoms of Amalur, have gone as far to make hybrid classes. The specializations could substitute for this by allowing access to normally restricted items, like swords for mages or rogues.

[Mirrman70]

not gonna happen. first off there have been people asking for hybrid classes for ages. second, Dragon Age is a party based game; the class-restricted armor and weapons help to define and separate each class. third, they had this in DAO with the Arcane Warrior which was OP as hell.

 

also Mages are unique in that only specific people can use magic in universe, the only thing you could do for warriors is give them dual wield, bow or something of that nature. rogues could get heavy armor (which in my mind would simply create a warrior that pick locks) which won't happen as it doesn't fit the character class. Mages are really the only ones that can plausibly borrow from the other two class. I don't want to be forced to be a mage in Dragon Age which is what it would take to open up full access to every classes abilities.

[SerCambria358]

The only thing i hate is that Rogues are restricted to daggers, i wish there was a class that allowed them to wield longswords, ive asked for a fencer type rogue class for the longest.

[Deflagratio]

I support organic restrictions and incentives. Things that don't arbitrarily block you from using things, but instead reasons why your class shouldn't

 

Like Staves improving magic damage, heavy armor slowing casting speed and/or magic cooldown, light armors specialized around Critical hits and evasion, hammers having low critical chance/damage but high base damage.

 

Attribute requirements factor into "Organic Restrictions" as well, assuming they aren't ridiculously high, while Stat modifiers are organic incentives.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I understand the need to have a distinct feel to the classes

I don't.  A classless system is the way to go.

[Uccio]

Concerning character customization, one of the best parts of DAO was that you had a variety of weapons and armor to choose from. Rogues could weild longswords if they wanted and even dual weild them, which was nice for those rogues who wanted to take a less stealthy route, but in DA2 they were limited to daggers. And in DA2 each class had one armor type, when in DAO you were allowed to pick from five different types no matter what class you were. I understand the need to have a distinct feel to the classes, but there also needs to be enough freedom to make them fit varied play styles. Some games, like Kingdoms of Amalur, have gone as far to make hybrid classes. The specializations could substitute for this by allowing access to normally restricted items, like swords for mages or rogues.

 

Thats because DAO was more of a RPG and DA2 was more hack´n slash FPS. "Unique appearance" my ass.

[Gamemako]

Thats because DAO was more of a RPG and DA2 was more hack´n slash FPS. "Unique appearance" my ass.

DA2 was not a first-person shooter. And if I recall correctly, armor will not be class-restricted in DA:I.

Class splits seem a bit necessary right now due to the position of mages in lore. The only real point of contention is whether to give warriors DW or bows, which is a mechanical matter. I suppose you could in theory go "mage vs. non-mage", but that ends up feeling pretty boring as a class choice, especially when your mage is categorically superior to your non-mage option.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I really hope we rogues won't be forced to use daggers again. I'm not particularly keen on that concept.

You can use bows too. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I was talking about melee weapons. Didn't think about bows.

 

I just prefer longswords.

The bigger weapons will probably be for Warriors. Though DA2 did give Rogues a couple axes in the Rogue Item Pack II DLC so maybe it's a sign of things to come.

[Uccio]

DA2 was not a first-person shooter. And if I recall correctly, armor will not be class-restricted in DA:I.

Class splits seem a bit necessary right now due to the position of mages in lore. The only real point of contention is whether to give warriors DW or bows, which is a mechanical matter. I suppose you could in theory go "mage vs. non-mage", but that ends up feeling pretty boring as a class choice, especially when your mage is categorically superior to your non-mage option.

 

Yeah I know, it just annoys me how perfectly good rpg features are being removed and replaced with something semi-auto-shoot-em-up style. Just like ME went down the toilet with the features. 

[R1C3PATTY]

I've kind of given up on dual-wielding longswords, but I would love to just be able to use one (hopefully without a shield).

I don't understand why more games haven't done this! I'm not going to use a greatsword because its too bulky but there's never a point to using a longsword by itself, I am pushed to use it with a shield or another weapon.

[R1C3PATTY]

 I understand the need to have a distinct feel to the classes, but there also needs to be enough freedom to make them fit varied play styles. Some games, like Kingdoms of Amalur, have gone as far to make hybrid classes. The specializations could substitute for this by allowing access to normally restricted items, like swords for mages or rogues.

 

 

not gonna happen. first off there have been people asking for hybrid classes for ages. second, Dragon Age is a party based game; the class-restricted armor and weapons help to define and separate each class. third, they had this in DAO with the Arcane Warrior which was OP as hell.

 

also Mages are unique in that only specific people can use magic in universe, the only thing you could do for warriors is give them dual wield, bow or something of that nature. rogues could get heavy armor (which in my mind would simply create a warrior that pick locks) which won't happen as it doesn't fit the character class. Mages are really the only ones that can plausibly borrow from the other two class. I don't want to be forced to be a mage in Dragon Age which is what it would take to open up full access to every classes abilitI

 

I don't think many rogues took advantage of the opportunity to wear massive armor in DAO... I just liked having the choice to maybe armor-up as rogue with the medium armor, and even armor-down with medium armor as a warrior. And I do not want to see hybrid classes in DAI. I said there is a need to have classes feel distinct from one another, and the specializations give your class an even more distinct feel. Duelist made rogues more capable of fighting head-on, Battlemage and Arcane warrior did the same for mages. I would like to see more of this in DAI. Maybe a specialization for the warrior that relies a little more on finesse to deal damage rather than wielding a slow, bulky weapon to deal damage.

[Uirebhiril]

I'd personally just like to be able to put a set of simple padded clothing or even leathers/light armor on a mage character so they aren't tripping over their skirts running all over the wilderness. And while they may be able to cast armor spells to help with bad things swinging swords at them, I'm still one for practicality as far as trousers over robes are concerned.

 

Or maybe kilts? A mage in a utility kilt would be glorious.

[Gamemako]

Yeah I know, it just annoys me how perfectly good rpg features are being removed and replaced with something semi-auto-shoot-em-up style. Just like ME went down the toilet with the features.

Honestly, the only thing from ME1 I really missed in ME3 is the armor selection, and ME1 had an unfortunate habit of squandering that by giving you obvious upgrades (Colossus X armor for everybody!). Individual ability cooldowns rather than GCD is a design choice that isn't right or wrong. Detonations felt like a suitable reason to forgo individual cooldowns, at least for the most part.

I don't understand why more games haven't done this! I'm not going to use a greatsword because its too bulky but there's never a point to using a longsword by itself, I am pushed to use it with a shield or another weapon.

Well, there is a point to a single weapon in some DnD-based games like KOTOR. Good for stacking AC, for example. There are a lot of things to mean with "one-handed sword without a shield", though, when you're talking 3D games with animations that match the action.

1) Broad-bladed longsword wielded with nothing in the offhand and not wielded with both hands. Not really effective or sensible for the most part. Need something in the other hand or the hand brought back to the weapon.

2) Thin-bladed thrusting weapon (i.e. styles from the middle to late Renaissance period) wielded with nothing in the offhand. That could work, though those were often used with an offhand tool as well, typically a parrying dagger (main gauche). No matter how you implement that, though, you have to create a new animation set, so it becomes fairly intensive. This is especially so when you're using a weapon notorious for small movements and quick parrying.

3) Broad-bladed longsword weapon wielded with both hands. Basically, this could just as well be the greatsword weapon class with a speed bonus and damage reduction. If you wanted a full weapon style based on this rather than a weapon swap, you'd have all the problems of above -- animations, moveset, balance -- with somewhat less payoff due to comparatively limited uniqueness.

4) Thin-bladed thrusting weapon wielded with both hands -- the estoc, basically. Effective in combat, but also a lot of pushing and shoving that is hard to emulate in a video game. Much more brutally efficient than comic-book "cool".

To me, only 2) is a viable addition to DA, and it has pretty large drawbacks. I don't recall anything indicating that this style really exists at all in Thedas, though. Since we know the DA:I specs already, it's pretty unlikely that we'll get this right now, either. I could think of a few ways to implement it for DA4. You could cross weapons with classes to balance things. Thrusting swords for rogues and mages, cross bow with warrior, cross W&S with mage. All 3 have 1 unique (staff, greatsword, DW) and 2 non-unique (bow, W&S, thrusting) weapon styles. Solves the option problem, but is hard to balance and reduces class uniqueness. Kinda defeats the reason DA2 took DW and bows away from warriors in the first place. You could add it as a weapon for one class, but the only class you could fairly add it to is mage. As much as I'd like to have a mage wielding a rapier combined with arcane spell augmentation gauntlet, it wouldn't solve the issue at hand. If you want to fill things out, you could add thrusting swords for rogues, plus perhaps polearms for warriors to balance. Mages might use elemental gauntlets, maybe -- or maybe they really don't need another weapon class anyway. Would be labor-intensive, regardless, and might be a bit of option overload. 3 classes, 3 specs, and 3 weapons are 27 unique combinations without even considering skill builds. Gotta find space to put all this stuff, too.

I don't think many rogues took advantage of the opportunity to wear massive armor in DAO... I just liked having the choice to maybe armor-up as rogue with the medium armor, and even armor-down with medium armor as a warrior.

Bit of a red herring. Defense dominated in DA:O, and only AW stacked armor proper. Even powerful light armors fell in around 22 armor anyway (e.g. Battledress at 14.00, stompers at 4.66, any light gloves at 1.5, any light helmet at 2.25) where a full set of T7 massive is 32.5 (only variable-tier DLC sets or mix-and-match sets exceed this). Since armor only mattered on auto-hit attacks, people didn't bother putting points to wear massive armor most of the time. Many DW rogues still wore some massive armor, though, as you could take T2 WC plate for the crit bonus. Naturally, that came at an armor penalty compared to TFC. It's not that rogues couldn't wear it, it's that... well, massive armor was mainly just good for AW armor stack and a certain spell resist Templar build. The bow speed penalty was more crippling than it could return most of the time. Medium armor was a total red-headed stepchild, having no mechanical reason to exist in the game at all.

My mage Hawke wore heavy armor just fine in DA2, enjoying the only good way to avoid getting pounded across the map by every hit prior to the fortitude patch. Hit 93% physical reduction that way once. Main problem with armor in DA2, though, is that tier is a straight upgrade all the time. Heavy > medium > light, wear what you can afford. Not much incentive to put the points to wear heavy on a rogue (small upgrade for large investment), no incentive to wear medium on mages (same investment for weaker outcome), no incentive to wear anything but heavy on warrior (negative return).

Also, that turned into a total wall of text. Whoops.

[Gamemako]

Maybe I've played too much Final Fantasy.

I assume you mean about one-handed weapons without a shield. Up until FF7, nearly everyone had a shield. Same thing with the Tactics series and other spinoffs. Go back and look -- even Kain wielded a shield alongside his spear. Really been the mainline series since FF7 that have featured anything using a one-handed weapon without a shield, and in those, you had machine guns as well. Well, that, and when a giant cat doll with a megaphone and a red cape riding a giant robotic moogle is your teammate, you're a bit past reason. I don't think DA is going down that road, at least not yet.

Even then, what one-handed swords are there since FF7, anyway? Cloud, Squall, and Steiner all carried two-handed swords. FF12 had shields with one-handed weapons, as did Tidus (AAAH HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA!). Lightning had a machine gun for a sword (but I also didn't play that game, so my knowledge is limited).

[metatheurgist]

I think you know you're in trouble when your character's outfit is "class distinction" and not what he does or how his class operates. I'm pretty sure FX-2's dress-spheres were not meant to be taken seriously as a gameplay mechanic.

[Gamemako]

I think you know you're in trouble when your character's outfit is "class distinction" and not what he does or how his class operates. I'm pretty sure FX-2's dress-spheres were not meant to be taken seriously as a gameplay mechanic.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Worth noting that X-2 had what I consider to be the best combat system in the series to date. Everything else about the game sucked, though.
 

So that should tell you what character in VII I was thinking of...and I'll agree, that stupid cat and the wolf were absurd. DA has had a dog though and a giant statue...
 
And as for the older games, not necessarily. A shield was an option, but not necessary. I typically dual-wielded swords for non-mages in FF3.
 
Oh--Light (Lightning) had a gunblade, like Squall. Not a machine gun. It's typically only used for a single shot in an attack animation.

I actually don't think Red XIII was so bad -- no worse than using unarmed combat at the very least. I wouldn't want to get in a fist fight with a lion. Just sayin'. I'd definitely take a giant humanoid rock animated with a dwarven soul over a caped cat doll perched on a moogle doll and controlled telepathically by a corporate triple agent, though. (Also, didn't Sephiroth attack with both hands when swinging the weapon? And though I never played the titles involving Genesis, he seems to be wielding a weapon styled after a rapier?)

You're right that in FF2 and FF3, you could wield two weapons at the same time. However, in none of these (FF1-6) did you carry a one-handed weapon in one hand with no shield. It was always carried with a shield, a second weapon, or wielded with both hands (doublehand ability in FF5 or the relatively few two-handed weapons). That offhand slot always had to pay rent. Not that it was super-realistic in the first place, but I'm just saying that even in FF, you didn't often see characters wielding swords one-handed with an empty offhand.

Re: Lightning, my knowledge of her weapon stops at the crossover event in FFXIV during the time I was playing that game.

[The Night Haunter]

not gonna happen. first off there have been people asking for hybrid classes for ages. second, Dragon Age is a party based game; the class-restricted armor and weapons help to define and separate each class. third, they had this in DAO with the Arcane Warrior which was OP as hell.

 

 

Actually they confirmed armors won't be class restricted. They might have stat requirements, but they said no class requirements. As for weapons they haven't yet said whether warriors can dual wield or rogues can use swords and axes, but mages have the Knight Enchanter specialization that appears to be a new version of the Arcane Warrior. It doesn't specify whether mages can wield swords, but it sounds very similar to AW.

[DumSheeps]

Some "little problems" with the current system.

- Distinct class feel ! This is my favorite. This would be valid idea, or at least not completely braindead if you had 10 classes. Not 3.

- Zero variety in weapon types - no long weapons such as polearms and spears, no dual wielding except for kitchen knives, no throwable daggers. Completely ridicilous.

- They actually took the time, to include a skill in which the inquisitior throws jar of bees. This is the most stupid thing i have ever heard/seen. Beats third season of Heroes, my ex girlfriend, finale of Lost and many other things i consider braindead.

- Warriors were the most pathetically limited class in Dragon Age 2. Now they continue to be so in Inquisition. Tell me one game in the last 5 years that features so limited character progression. I always play warriors, this is why i can not play the game. 

 

[The Night Haunter]

- Warriors were the most pathetically limited class in Dragon Age 2. Now they continue to be so in Inquisition. Tell me one game in the last 5 years that features so limited character progression. I always play warriors, this is why i can not play the game. 

 

Really? You've seen their skills and progression and know that Warriors are limited? I think we've seen maybe 2 skills thus far. Jumping to conclusions much?

 

Also in DA2 warriors had great progression, just take Reaver and look at all the options you have to kill everything around you.

 

 

Some "little problems" with the current system.

- Distinct class feel ! This is my favorite. This would be valid idea, or at least not completely braindead if you had 10 classes. Not 3.

I have no idea what it is you are trying to say here. Are you saying there should be 10 classes, and somehow that would make them distinct? I think you're confusing distinct with generic. Any game that has 10 classes is going to have each class overlap severely with at least 3 other classes. Or are you saying something else that I cannot parse out of your statement?

 

 

- They actually took the time, to include a skill in which the inquisitior throws jar of bees. This is the most stupid thing i have ever heard/seen. Beats third season of Heroes, my ex girlfriend, finale of Lost and many other things i consider braindead.
 

Lost credibility with that.