MESSAGE POPULAIRE !
We KNOW the reason they have a different head slot is due to the fact that managing headgear with horns is very tricky. Why try to pass off an issue they ran into as doing something extra for their fans?
Because if we only wanted to solve the issue of clipping horns, we would simply have disallowed qunari from wearing helmets--not gone in and designed an entire headgear system solely for qunari.
In general the recent livestream was very good, but when Mike said this I arched my eyebrow.
We KNOW the reason they have a different head slot is due to the fact that managing headgear with horns is very tricky. Why try to pass off an issue they ran into as doing something extra for their fans?
Because it's entirely possible for both statements to be true. At worst it left out the origin of not having helmets by focusing on why they have warpaint, which is an entirely benign redirection.
You are of course free to voice your opinion, but it is very odd to me that someone would get worked up enough about this to post a thread.
Because if we only wanted to solve the issue of clipping horns, we would simply have disallowed qunari from wearing helmets--not gone in and designed an entire headgear system solely for qunari.
A system that only involves textures, and not meshes however.
What else were you going to do? Leave Qunari with one slot less?
I don't really mind to be honest, although i would indeed have liked more hair variation for the Qunari, especially since i can't hide it under a helmet.
Because DA2 wasn't a mistake. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean that Bioware needs to burn DA2 down and salt the earth.
I've been more positive to DA2 than most. I do not think killing player options is even remotely a good thing. I still remember when my characters could use any weapon and wear any armor if I met the statistics for it, not based on some silly limitations.
My rogue in DAO could use any number of melee weapons. Long swords, daggers, axes, maces, and so on. My rogue in DA2? Daggers. That's all. Is that an improvement?
I personally would've preferred helmet slot be represented by putting bells and other decorations on their horns, but warpaint is still cool.
I've been more positive to DA2 than most. I do not think killing player options is even remotely a good thing. I still remember when my characters could use any weapon and wear any armor if I met the statistics for it, not based on some silly limitations.
My rogue in DAO could use any number of melee weapons. Long swords, daggers, axes, maces, and so on. My rogue in DA2? Daggers. That's all. Is that an improvement?
It's a change, that's all. I agree that the number of weapons available to rogues in DA2 was paltry compared to the warriors, but the staffs left a lot to be desired, too, in terms of variety. But that's not something that would've magically been solved by giving rogues access to warrior weapons and vice versa; it needed to get solved by putting more time into the individual weapons available. And for DA2, they just didn't have the time to do it.
To me limiting weapons based on class a little more strictly is an improvement, since it makes the difference between a rogue and a warrior actually mean something. Getting bent out of shape about this makes as much sense as getting angry over the fact that warriors and rogues can't fight with staffs, or that mages (usually) can't fight with melee weapons. They're different classes. What's wrong with putting a little more actual distance between them?
It's a change, that's all. I agree that the number of weapons available to rogues in DA2 was paltry compared to the warriors, but the staffs left a lot to be desired, too, in terms of variety. But that's not something that would've magically been solved by giving rogues access to warrior weapons and vice versa; it needed to get solved by putting more time into the individual weapons available. And for DA2, they just didn't have the time to do it.
To me limiting weapons based on class a little more strictly is an improvement, since it makes the difference between a rogue and a warrior actually mean something. Getting bent out of shape about this makes as much sense as getting angry over the fact that warriors and rogues can't fight with staffs, or that mages (usually) can't fight with melee weapons. They're different classes. What's wrong with putting a little more actual distance between them?
You're killing versatility for the sake of "uniqueness". Which is better suited to a game that values tactics - a character that can only use one weapon class (melee or ranged) and is totally unable to switch, or a character with a wide range of weapon options and skills? In DAO, I can switch to a bow if I want to pop something at range (like say, a dragon), or have my archer switch to a melee weapon if enemies close in. In DA2 onward, you can't.
Now with the skills even more limited in addition to weapon restrictions, you're just more pigeonholed into a concrete role that can never, ever change.
You're killing versatility for the sake of "uniqueness". Which is better suited to a game that values tactics - a character that can only use one weapon class (melee or ranged) and is totally unable to switch, or a character with a wide range of weapon options and skills? In DAO, I can switch to a bow if I want to pop something at range (like say, a dragon), or have my archer switch to a melee weapon if enemies close in. In DA2 onward, you can't.
Now with the skills even more limited in addition to weapon restrictions, you're just more pigeonholed into a concrete role that can never, ever change.
I think it all comes down to a fundamental disagreement we have on what makes for a good, challenging gameplay. The way you're talking makes it sound like you're planning to try at least a portion of your game solo - why else would versatility for one specific character be so important? This is a four-character gameplay setup - the fact that my PC can do only this number of things means the other members of my team will be all the more important. I think that's cool, and gives me a lot of really awesome choices. It also means that rogues and warriors aren't interchangeable and you have to actually think about team composition rather than assuming your PC can handle anything and everything thrown at them.
I get that you dislike the way DA2 changed the gameplay setups; I just don't think it was a bad move on Bioware's part.
God forbid anyone critisize or questions anything Bioware does. Jerks telling people to shut up... So much for freedom of speech
OP, good observation, pointless but good observation
Freedom of Speech isn't a shield against criticism or consequence.
Despite what many seem to think.
would you want to wear a helmet if you had giant horns? no
Because if we only wanted to solve the issue of clipping horns, we would simply have disallowed qunari from wearing helmets--not gone in and designed an entire headgear system solely for qunari.
I understand. I really don't mind. I have other issue with qunari.
I'm actually excited for the war paint.
In general the recent livestream was very good, but when Mike said this I arched my eyebrow.
We KNOW the reason they have a different head slot is due to the fact that managing headgear with horns is very tricky. Why try to pass off an issue they ran into as doing something extra for their fans?
It just felt a bit disingenuous to me. Like trying to twist a limitation into a Fantastic Fresh Feature For our Fabulous Fanbase™!
Did anyone else feel the same?
not the only one who caught that by far OP. it felt laughably pathetic them trying to pass that off as a unique super cool feature for us....and not what it really was (them not wanting to do the rework for quanari to wear helms, which is understandable if they had been honest about it)
Guest_simfamUP_*
Freedom of Speech isn't a shield against criticism or consequence.
Despite what many seem to think.
It's okay for me to say things but it isn't for you to say things. Especially when that thing is to say it isn't okay to say things.
It's basically my role here and anybody trying to play Phoenix Wright with me xD
I think it all comes down to a fundamental disagreement we have on what makes for a good, challenging gameplay. The way you're talking makes it sound like you're planning to try at least a portion of your game solo - why else would versatility for one specific character be so important? This is a four-character gameplay setup - the fact that my PC can do only this number of things means the other members of my team will be all the more important. I think that's cool, and gives me a lot of really awesome choices. It also means that rogues and warriors aren't interchangeable and you have to actually think about team composition rather than assuming your PC can handle anything and everything thrown at them.
I get that you dislike the way DA2 changed the gameplay setups; I just don't think it was a bad move on Bioware's part.
I think it is one of the worst decisions they could have ever make in terms of making the warriors and rogues more unique.. DAO made the mistake of ability overlapping.. and I am stunned that DAI decided to copy DA2 despite recognition from Laidlaw over the popular request for more weapon styles such as DW warrior.
I dont know soupa de gato's reason but trying to play the game solo for me isn't the reason. Versatility is always important I feel. THe more the better I feel, as long as it is done right anyways. They could have just added different abilities for different weapon styles among the classes. Like dual wield warriors could be for certain situations and a style that is different than dual wield rogues. I feel as if DA has been missing the mark lately in limitations. I could forgive DA2 in a sense due to time and budget, but DAI is inexcusable
You know they could of just went with what they originally planned and not given us Qunari at all as a playable race , would you be happier with that?
You know they could of just went with what they originally planned and not given us Qunari at all as a playable race , would you be happier with that?
Yes. In fact, scrap the elves and humans too. Just give us the dwarves. In fact, scrap the romance options too.
I thought taking out the helmet option for Qunari was a stupid decision. Is it so hard to make Qunari only helmets? It's not like we don't have templates: in DA2, some members of the Qunari had on helmets.
Because if we only wanted to solve the issue of clipping horns, we would simply have disallowed qunari from wearing helmets--not gone in and designed an entire headgear system solely for qunari.
agreed with david. some people just need to hold their peace before assuming they know what was said.
Yes. In fact, scrap the elves and humans too. Just give us the dwarves. In fact, scrap the romance options too.
*loads beam cannon*
*loads beam cannon*
Fine. Just the city and Dalish elves.
would you want to wear a helmet if you had giant horns? no
Some qunari in DA2 wore helmets.
Personally I don't care about the qunari's lack of headgear in Inquisition but they did wear headgear in DA2. So anyone saying they "don't" has forgotten this.
Personally I think the qunari's lack of hair options is a bigger problem but you can't have everything. It's not a deal breaker and I'm glad we even get to play as their race this time.
would you want to wear a helmet if you had giant horns? no
If people were shooting arrows at me? Yes.
Fine. Just the city and Dalish elves.
just scrap the humans. those have two origins too. is the double of the elves. 
What is this? Biowares marketing is talking about their upcoming game it in a positive way? Incomprehensible!
It's almost as if they wanted to sell Dragon Age: Inquisition. How absurd!
Next you are going to tell me that car companies don't make ads about all the shortcomings their cars have. Laughable.
/sarcasm.
Retour en haut
