234 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

But warrior abilities have never been that consistent in feats of strength and endurance standards.

I usually avoid playing or using warriors. The shoddy lore surrounding their abilities is partly why.

[leaguer of one]

I usually avoid playing or using warriors. The shoddy lore surrounding their abilities is partly why.

Then you have the same issue with Rogues.

[leaguer of one]

And everyone in the world is always honest about everything, so naturally they would have to be teeling the truth.

I think making Wynne a blood mage makes her a much more interesting character. She goes from being a paragon of virtue to being a massive hypocrite. That makes for an interesting playthrough.

Wynne doesn't need to be the same person in everyone's game.

No it does not. Why? Because she has no will on the issue of being a blood mage or not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then you have the same issue with Rogues.

In DA2, certainly, yes.

Endurance doesn't cause a problem, though, because we know nothing about endurance in the setting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No it does not. Why? Because she has no will on the issue of being a blood mage or not.

What are you talking about? If she learns those abilities and uses them, she must have wanted to.

[leaguer of one]

What are you talking about? If she learns those abilities and uses them, she must have wanted to.

It's not about wanting to, it's about choosing to. They don't choose to.  Being a hypocrite is about contradictions of actions based on the persons choice and free will. If someone else imposes it on them how can they be a hypocrite?

[leaguer of one]

In DA2, certainly, yes.

Endurance doesn't cause a problem, though, because we know nothing about endurance in the setting.

DOA has the same issues. Look at the  dual weapon tree or even stealth.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not about wanting to, it's about choosing to. They don't choose to. Being a hypocrite is about contradictions of actions based on the persons choice and free will. If someone else imposes it on them how can they be a hypocrite?

Who else imposed anything? Remember, the player doesn't exist inside the game world.

If Hawke learns an ability, it is because he chose to. No one made him do it. The same is true with Wynne, or any playable character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DOA has the same issues. Look at the dual weapon tree or even stealth.

You shouldn't be able to enter stealth while in combat, true. I never did that.

The invisibility-like animation didn't bother me, though, because I take most of the visible action as an abstraction of real events (just like in sprite-based games).

[leaguer of one]

Who else imposed anything? Remember, the player doesn't exist inside the game world.

If Hawke learns an ability, it is because he chose to. No one made him do it. The same is true with Wynne, or any playable character.

The player is Hawke. Thus Hawke did make the choice as the avatar of the player. Side characters not so much. The fact remains that Wynne never chooses to learn it. It just imposed on. It has no effect on her story wise. Ironicly, It can effect Anders.

[leaguer of one]

You shouldn't be able to enter stealth while in combat, true. I never did that.

The invisibility-like animation didn't bother me, though, because I take most of the visible action as an abstraction of real events (just like in sprite-based games).

What abstract about walking in front of an enemy and them not seeing you?

[LinksOcarina]

Who else imposed anything? Remember, the player doesn't exist inside the game world.

If Hawke learns an ability, it is because he chose to. No one made him do it. The same is true with Wynne, or any playable character.

 

No, you made them do it, for whatever reason you decided to do so.

 

Even if you as a player is not involved in the game world, you chose that path as a player, not as the characters themselves. You are not role-playing as Wynne or anyone else but your character. You can contradict what Wynne says, but thats a choice by the player, not the character of Wynne.

[Rawgrim]

No, you made them do it, for whatever reason you decided to do so.

 

Even if you as a player is not involved in the game world, you chose that path as a player, not as the characters themselves. You are not role-playing as Wynne or anyone else but your character. You can contradict what Wynne says, but thats a choice by the player, not the character of Wynne.

 

You can view it as the character convincing the NPC into going in that direction. The Blood Mage bit certainly is pushing it, though.

[Mr.Hmm]

Uh lets make a new Thread about this

 

Doesnt really fit to talk about the Different Specializations in the ... Two-Handed specialization thread

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, you made them do it, for whatever reason you decided to do so.

 

Even if you as a player is not involved in the game world, you chose that path as a player, not as the characters themselves. You are not role-playing as Wynne or anyone else but your character. You can contradict what Wynne says, but thats a choice by the player, not the character of Wynne.

Of course I'm playing as Wynne.  That's how I can control her in combat even when the Warden is unconscious.

 

I play the whole party.  I always have.  I always will.  Restrictions that prevent that will do nothing but annoy me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The player is Hawke. Thus Hawke did make the choice as the avatar of the player. Side characters not so much. The fact remains that Wynne never chooses to learn it. It just imposed on. It has no effect on her story wise. Ironicly, It can effect Anders.

Imposed upon her by what?  There's nothing in the game than can do that.

 

Why does she cast Heal ever?  Why does she equip any gear?  Because she chooses to.

[Muspade]

Imposed upon her by what?  There's nothing in the game than can do that.

 

Why does she cast Heal ever?  Why does she equip any gear?  Because she chooses to.

Correction. Because you make her.

[In Exile]

Nope. Because spinning around while holding a sword is actually possible to do. Chopping a sword down into the ground and sending a shockwave of energy through the huge gash in the ground you just created, isn't. If magic had been involved, yes. Since magic isn't involved, it makes zero sense.

It's as possible to do as holding 2 pistols upside down, which is to say that physically you could try it but it's completely worthless in actual fighting. 

[Zanallen]

Of course I'm playing as Wynne.  That's how I can control her in combat even when the Warden is unconscious.

 

I play the whole party.  I always have.  I always will.  Restrictions that prevent that will do nothing but annoy me.

 

But you don't control Wynne. Hence why you don't control her dialogue or how she reacts to the situations that the party finds itself in. She is an NPC that you, as the player character, can influence in certain ways. You can say that making Wynne a blood mage makes her a hypocrite and a more interesting character; however, I think it breaks her character as the game never acknowledges her being a blood mage other than in combat nor can you call her out on it.

[Maria Caliban]

Okay guys, Sylvius the Mad has held this viewpoint for ten years.

Ten.

Feel free to disagree with him, but he's not going to change his mind.

[Kage]

The BG games still stuck to the lore. Nobody said realistic, by the way. Just that the game is coherent with the lore and rules the developers allready have laid in place.

 

Dragons are magical creatures and part of the fauna of Thedas. they are also in the lore. Shockwaves from a non magic-user goes against the lore.

 

I know what you are trying to say with all this "lore respect" thing, but this are games and their combats will never be totally in tune with the lore. Combat is for you to have fun. Because that is the real goal of games.

 

In BG for example, people die. Now tell me, how could people die within the lore if during combat I am constantly resurrecting people non stop? Wouldnt that mean that wealthy people who can afford resurrection-scrolls and healers, would be inmortal? Are all rich people in BG inmortal? Because that is what it would happen, if the lore-gameplay were correct.

 

Also, if your character is leveled enough in BG, I am sure you can for example kill a dragon by yourself. The dragon can breath fire onto you directly, and still you can kill it. Why are dragons a problem then? Why are they even feared if a skilled single man can kill them?

 

Also, usually your character will have around 20 years if human. Will start the game being a nobody, and then after 1 year has passed, he is a badass level 20, 21 year old human who can totally kill of type of things without even a scratch. This means that within that lore, a very very skilled and special person can become godly within 1 year of adventures/training. So it is quite obvious than regular people, if they train for 20 years, would become much more badass or at least equal. But no, they are just trash you can kill in 1 blow. How is that possible? Because you are special in a XXX way? Ok, but what about your companions who are just NORMAL and happen to experiment the same improvement?

 

 

Where is your LORE now? Call him. You cannot, for he does not exist.

[Vilegrim]

But warrior abilities have never been that consistent in feats of strength and endurance standards.

 

 

the main problem with DA2 combat for me was this getting turned up to DERP it appears they have turned it up to DOUBLE DERP for DA:I

[Sylvius the Mad]

Okay guys, Sylvius the Mad has held this viewpoint for ten years.

Ten.

Counting only BSN and the BioBoards, it will be 13 years next month.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In BG for example, people die. Now tell me, how could people die within the lore if during combat I am constantly resurrecting people non stop? Wouldnt that mean that wealthy people who can afford resurrection-scrolls and healers, would be inmortal? Are all rich people in BG inmortal? Because that is what it would happen, if the lore-gameplay were correct.

The rules actually address this. Under D&D rules, death due to natural causes can't be undone.

Also, if your character is leveled enough in BG, I am sure you can for example kill a dragon by yourself. The dragon can breath fire onto you directly, and still you can kill it. Why are dragons a problem then? Why are they even feared if a skilled single man can kill them?

High level characters are extremely uncommon, and ordinary civilians are extremely weak. A non-adventurer typically has only 1 hit dice, so he'll have 1-8 hit points. Ordinary workplace accidents can kill him. So yes, a dragon would be scary as hell.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

The rules actually address this. Under D&D rules, death due to natural causes can't be undone.
 

I've thought about that for five seconds and already come up with a way to break it.  You get someone to stab you every 50 years and pay for your resurrection (and a cure all diseases thing as well).  Even if you return at the same age, as long as you make sure that each time you 'die' you get stabbed, or fireballed, or whatever, you could easily expand your life by vast amounts.