181 réponses à ce sujet

[Paul E Dangerously]

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.

 

Everyone accepts the fact a company wants to be positive about their products.

 

Not many people, however, like the culling of options while it's phrased as a good thing via marketing doublespeak.

[Paul E Dangerously]

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.

 

Not at all. What I despise is the hammering of characters into concrete, unchangeable "roles" instead of being characters. I want to take a person along because I want to take them along - not because I'm forced to because I need those concrete "roles" in order to play effectively.

Let's just look at Shale, who has multiple different skill trees - damage (melee), damage (range), tanking, and support. If I need her to take some heat, I can do that. If I need her to pelt something from range, I can do that. It opens up all sorts of tactical possibilities.

Rogues can be pretty effective at range as well as in melee, as can warriors. Mages have a ton of different abilities to use, making them a wonderful utility class.

Now take a gander over at DA2:

Want a healer in DAO? Wynne or Morrigan can serve, and so can the Warden as a mage.
Want a healer in DA2? You're stuck with Anders. Bethany is gone at the start or end of Act 1 regardless. Merill can't do it, and Spirit Healer with a Mage PC removes your offensive options entirely.

Warriors? You now have no range options whatsoever. The maps are all tinier than DAO making range a bit less useful, but being able to switch to a range weapon was a nice option. Now you can't, even if you wanted to.

Rogues? Two weapon options, that's it. Daggers and bows, and nothing else. Except that one DLC axe. Anything longer than a dagger is no go, and all the crossbows in the world except for Bianca disappeared in the Fifth Blight. Even if you wanted to have both range and melee options, you can't - no weapon swapping in combat.

 In DAO, it's possible to beat the game using pretty much any combination. In DA2, you're much more limited. DAI doesn't seem to be changing that, but actively punishing you for even thinking about it. Each character is good at one thing, and only one thing, and they can never be good at anything else. The eight slot limit is going to murder utility characters, unless, of course you want to save and reload before battles. That's tedium, not tactics.

[Orthiad]

Not at all. What I despise is the hammering of characters into concrete, unchangeable "roles" instead of being characters. I want to take a person along because I want to take them along - not because I'm forced to because I need those concrete "roles" in order to play effectively.

Let's just look at Shale, who has multiple different skill trees - damage (melee), damage (range), tanking, and support. If I need her to take some heat, I can do that. If I need her to pelt something from range, I can do that. It opens up all sorts of tactical possibilities.

Rogues can be pretty effective at range as well as in melee, as can warriors. Mages have a ton of different abilities to use, making them a wonderful utility class.

Now take a gander over at DA2:

Want a healer in DAO? Wynne or Morrigan can serve, and so can the Warden as a mage.
Want a healer in DA2? You're stuck with Anders. Bethany is gone at the start or end of Act 1 regardless. Merill can't do it, and Spirit Healer with a Mage PC removes your offensive options entirely.

Warriors? You now have no range options whatsoever. The maps are all tinier than DAO making range a bit less useful, but being able to switch to a range weapon was a nice option. Now you can't, even if you wanted to.

Rogues? Two weapon options, that's it. Daggers and bows, and nothing else. Except that one DLC axe. Anything longer than a dagger is no go, and all the crossbows in the world except for Bianca disappeared in the Fifth Blight. Even if you wanted to have both range and melee options, you can't - no weapon swapping in combat.

 In DAO, it's possible to beat the game using pretty much any combination. In DA2, you're much more limited. DAI doesn't seem to be changing that, but actively punishing you for even thinking about it. Each character is good at one thing, and only one thing, and they can never be good at anything else. The eight slot limit is going to murder utility characters, unless, of course you want to save and reload before battles. That's tedium, not tactics.

Varric can use his crossbow or dual daggers so you know. So in my eyes it seems that you will be able to do more customisation here than in the other Dragon Age games.

[thevaleyard]

Varric can use his crossbow or dual daggers so you know. So in my eyes it seems that you will be able to do more customisation here than in the other Dragon Age games.

 

That's nullified by not allowing us to swap weapons in combat. So if Varric did equip daggers he's gonna be stuck using daggers and unable to switch to Bianca to attack enemies at range.

[Paul E Dangerously]

That's nullified by not allowing us to swap weapons in combat. So if Varric did equip daggers he's be stuck using daggers and unable to switch to Bianca to attack enemies at range.

 

This. You can switch weapons, but only out of combat. And since you're limited to eight skills and can't change those in combat either, you're going to be doing a lot of UI Tetris any time you actually want to switch to something. It's pretty counter-intuitive.

[Orthiad]

When did they say we cannot switch weaponds in combat? If i remember they said you could spec half bow half dagger rogue. Hope fully you will be able to make Two setups of abilities one for bow and one for dagger. If not i can see that being a problem.

[thevaleyard]

When did they say we cannot switch weaponds in combat? If i remember they said you could spec half bow half dagger rogue. Hope fully you will be able to make Two setups of abilities one for bow and one for dagger. If not i can see that being a problem.

 

And... the answer.
 
A'koss ‏@Megin_Akoss
I'm not sure if this is still spoilery, but are we able to switch weapons in combat? Eg. A rogue starting with ranged -> melee
 
Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
Not mid-combat, no. Anytime in the field, however.

[In Exile]

The problem is, with BG (and D&D in general) you've got more spells to choose from per level than you do ability slots in DAI. A level one mage can choose from 22 spells. And spell slots? Those grow per level. It's not even comparable.

So many of these "choices" just seem like Bioware doesn't think DA2 was a mistake. Player options are limited and it's covered up with "well, having less options is tactical".

Most of those spells are pure garbage in D&D. Depends on if we're talking 2e or 3e but there's a very good reason why the sorcessor class worked and that's because you didn't need more than 3-4 spells/level.

The other difference is that Bioware has infinite casting. In D&D you could cast more types of spells, but only if you limited yourself to 1-2 castings of each or otherwise abused the hell out of the resting mechanic, which made mages completely broken.

[In Exile]

This. You can switch weapons, but only out of combat. And since you're limited to eight skills and can't change those in combat either, you're going to be doing a lot of UI Tetris any time you actually want to switch to something. It's pretty counter-intuitive.

The system is incredibly badly designed if it doesn't allow you to store ability configurations.

[Gallan]

Critisizing the crtisizing is not against the freedom of speech
Telling them to shut up or implying so is

 

No...no in fact it isn't. Freedom of speech protects you from the *gasp* government. ONLY the government, and not all the time. Using freedom of speech as a defense in a forum argument only makes you look wrong of ill informed.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

Not at all. What I despise is the hammering of characters into concrete, unchangeable "roles" instead of being characters. I want to take a person along because I want to take them along - not because I'm forced to because I need those concrete "roles" in order to play effectively.

Let's just look at Shale, who has multiple different skill trees - damage (melee), damage (range), tanking, and support. If I need her to take some heat, I can do that. If I need her to pelt something from range, I can do that. It opens up all sorts of tactical possibilities.

Rogues can be pretty effective at range as well as in melee, as can warriors. Mages have a ton of different abilities to use, making them a wonderful utility class.

Now take a gander over at DA2:

Want a healer in DAO? Wynne or Morrigan can serve, and so can the Warden as a mage.
Want a healer in DA2? You're stuck with Anders. Bethany is gone at the start or end of Act 1 regardless. Merill can't do it, and Spirit Healer with a Mage PC removes your offensive options entirely.

Warriors? You now have no range options whatsoever. The maps are all tinier than DAO making range a bit less useful, but being able to switch to a range weapon was a nice option. Now you can't, even if you wanted to.

Rogues? Two weapon options, that's it. Daggers and bows, and nothing else. Except that one DLC axe. Anything longer than a dagger is no go, and all the crossbows in the world except for Bianca disappeared in the Fifth Blight. Even if you wanted to have both range and melee options, you can't - no weapon swapping in combat.

 In DAO, it's possible to beat the game using pretty much any combination. In DA2, you're much more limited. DAI doesn't seem to be changing that, but actively punishing you for even thinking about it. Each character is good at one thing, and only one thing, and they can never be good at anything else. The eight slot limit is going to murder utility characters, unless, of course you want to save and reload before battles. That's tedium, not tactics.

I think that you're both talking about two different kinds of tactics.  You seem to want what an rts player would call macro tactics - the big shots, the overarching view of the situation, which is much better served by individually versatile units capable of leaping back and forth between a variety of roles.  

 

Whereas what Bioware seem to have done is focused much more on micro tactics - you have people, good at certain specific things, and you have to use their skills to solve a situation, combining them into a key to the door that works best for you.  

 

Now, I'll freely admit I'm a sucker for micro and put far more precedence on it than I should, but can you see that Bioware's idea of 'tactics' and your idea of 'tactics' are both still tactics?  They aren't making the game less tactical, or more punishing of clever innovation - they're making it tactical in a different way.  Now, as to whether that's a good idea or not - that's a different question.  

[TheGusWho]

Not at all. What I despise is the hammering of characters into concrete, unchangeable "roles" instead of being characters. I want to take a person along because I want to take them along - not because I'm forced to because I need those concrete "roles" in order to play effectively.

Let's just look at Shale, who has multiple different skill trees - damage (melee), damage (range), tanking, and support. If I need her to take some heat, I can do that. If I need her to pelt something from range, I can do that. It opens up all sorts of tactical possibilities.

Rogues can be pretty effective at range as well as in melee, as can warriors. Mages have a ton of different abilities to use, making them a wonderful utility class.

Now take a gander over at DA2:

Want a healer in DAO? Wynne or Morrigan can serve, and so can the Warden as a mage.
Want a healer in DA2? You're stuck with Anders. Bethany is gone at the start or end of Act 1 regardless. Merill can't do it, and Spirit Healer with a Mage PC removes your offensive options entirely.

Warriors? You now have no range options whatsoever. The maps are all tinier than DAO making range a bit less useful, but being able to switch to a range weapon was a nice option. Now you can't, even if you wanted to.

Rogues? Two weapon options, that's it. Daggers and bows, and nothing else. Except that one DLC axe. Anything longer than a dagger is no go, and all the crossbows in the world except for Bianca disappeared in the Fifth Blight. Even if you wanted to have both range and melee options, you can't - no weapon swapping in combat.

 In DAO, it's possible to beat the game using pretty much any combination. In DA2, you're much more limited. DAI doesn't seem to be changing that, but actively punishing you for even thinking about it. Each character is good at one thing, and only one thing, and they can never be good at anything else. The eight slot limit is going to murder utility characters, unless, of course you want to save and reload before battles. That's tedium, not tactics.

 

Look man, I just disagree with you here - I think that the DAO "let's make the difference between warriors and rogues minimal at best and allow for everyone to be kinda okay at seven different things" attitude made for less interesting game play and party makeup. Having mages who were both the same (and identical to a mage Warden) and warriors/rogues whose skills all overlapped meant that you could sail through the whole game with just your besties and no thought to actual practicality out in the field. Didn't want to take Oghren anywhere? No problem, Sten and Alistair do literally exactly the same things. Had some sort of bizarre hate for Wynne? No problem, there was no difference between her and Morrigan when it came to abilities. The game never challenged you to work with characters based on their abilities, with the possible exception of Leliana.

 

You talk about flexibility in companion builds as though it's the most important aspect of the game - and to you, perhaps, it is. But to me, a game is more interesting when it presents challenges in a realistic, interesting way. Having these incredibly talented companions who aren't all interchangeable makes for a more engaging game; if you think it's tedium, that's your perception, not objective fact.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Look man, I just disagree with you here - I think that the DAO "let's make the difference between warriors and rogues minimal at best and allow for everyone to be kinda okay at seven different things" attitude made for less interesting game play and party makeup. Having mages who were both the same (and identical to a mage Warden) and warriors/rogues whose skills all overlapped meant that you could sail through the whole game with just your besties and no thought to actual practicality out in the field. Didn't want to take Oghren anywhere? No problem, Sten and Alistair do literally exactly the same things. Had some sort of bizarre hate for Wynne? No problem, there was no difference between her and Morrigan when it came to abilities. The game never challenged you to work with characters based on their abilities, with the possible exception of Leliana.

 

You talk about flexibility in companion builds as though it's the most important aspect of the game - and to you, perhaps, it is. But to me, a game is more interesting when it presents challenges in a realistic, interesting way. Having these incredibly talented companions who aren't all interchangeable makes for a more engaging game; if you think it's tedium, that's your perception, not objective fact.

 

Not just companion builds, but player builds. It's just much less interesting if I'm so restricted there's only one path to anything. I get the daggers in DAO were the minmaxer's choice of weapon due to DPS and all, but making them mandatory is just dull. Just looking at the Qunari rogue with them equipped just makes me cringe.

 

That's kind of my problem with the whole thing. I get the fact that they want to make things unique, but it does not require removing whole chunks of player options in the process. You could have done DA2's rogues and warriors while retaining DAO's weapon flexibility without any problem.

 

It's kind of like Mass Effect 2 - where they did the same thing - except they actually listened to that feedback for ME3, and gave players back options. DAI's not only not giving you back options, but they're telling you that having less options is good for you.

[Ashira Shepard]

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

 

 

I see this come up way too often when people are being disagreed with, as if freedom of speech is meant to stop you from being criticised for whatever words make it out of your brain.

 

But that's not what freedom of speech is. All it means is that the government can't break your door down and squirrel you away in the middle of the night for saying something they don't appreciate. (legally anyway)

 

What freedom of speech actually means is that you're safe from that happening, you can say whatever the hell you want, but this means other people are free to challenge what you're saying if they disagree. If they happen to think what was said was pointless and finicky, they are free to say that, no? Course that means people are free to rebuff each other in an endless cycle of squawking about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!"

 

But I'll just be here quietly drinking my tea while you kids work it out.

 

[edit: had this tab open for way too long, where did those extra pages come from...]

[Darth Krytie]

I see this come up way too often when people are being disagreed with, as if freedom of speech is meant to stop you from being criticised for whatever words make it out of your brain.

 

But that's not what freedom of speech is. All it means is that the government can't break your door down and squirrel you away in the middle of the night for saying something they don't appreciate. (legally anyway)

 

What freedom of speech actually means is that you're safe from that happening, you can say whatever the hell you want, but this means other people are free to challenge what you're saying if they disagree. If they happen to think what was said was pointless and finicky, they are free to say that, no? Course that means people are free to rebuff each other in an endless cycle of squawking about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!"

 

But I'll just be here quietly drinking my tea while you kids work it out.

 

[edit: had this tab open for way too long, where did those extra pages come from...]

 

I wish I could give you more likes. But yes! Freedom of Speech is so often misused in discussions.

[Gtdef]

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?

 

This is common behavior. One look at their gameplay videos and you can see it bright as day.

[seraphymon]

Look man, I just disagree with you here - I think that the DAO "let's make the difference between warriors and rogues minimal at best and allow for everyone to be kinda okay at seven different things" attitude made for less interesting game play and party makeup. Having mages who were both the same (and identical to a mage Warden) and warriors/rogues whose skills all overlapped meant that you could sail through the whole game with just your besties and no thought to actual practicality out in the field. Didn't want to take Oghren anywhere? No problem, Sten and Alistair do literally exactly the same things. Had some sort of bizarre hate for Wynne? No problem, there was no difference between her and Morrigan when it came to abilities. The game never challenged you to work with characters based on their abilities, with the possible exception of Leliana.

 

You talk about flexibility in companion builds as though it's the most important aspect of the game - and to you, perhaps, it is. But to me, a game is more interesting when it presents challenges in a realistic, interesting way. Having these incredibly talented companions who aren't all interchangeable makes for a more engaging game; if you think it's tedium, that's your perception, not objective fact.

I agree the ability overlapping was a bad thing. It was an issue that needed solving. But I think they went the wrong way about it. I see as needing only your besties as a good thing. Not everyone is gonna like bringing  X or Y companion.  That is forcing things upon us.  I find it very funny how in the question and answer on crafting, Laidlaw mentions one of the goals in DAI was having you play the way you want..  Well I feel that goal is not fully accomplished.   You dont fix things by taking freedom and choices away.  I am all for having classes being different than one another but not by limiting weapon style.  Wanted a spirit healer,  ooh wait Anders is the only healer in the game but his character personality sucks, guess what, your screwed.  Its a wonder why mods were in order to fix alot of things Bioware screws up such as giving merril  healing trees.  Tactics and challenges should come with whats on the field and in battle.

[prosthetic soul]

I see this come up way too often when people are being disagreed with, as if freedom of speech is meant to stop you from being criticised for whatever words make it out of your brain.

 

But that's not what freedom of speech is. All it means is that the government can't break your door down and squirrel you away in the middle of the night for saying something they don't appreciate. (legally anyway)

 

What freedom of speech actually means is that you're safe from that happening, you can say whatever the hell you want, but this means other people are free to challenge what you're saying if they disagree. If they happen to think what was said was pointless and finicky, they are free to say that, no? Course that means people are free to rebuff each other in an endless cycle of squawking about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!"

 

But I'll just be here quietly drinking my tea while you kids work it out.

 

[edit: had this tab open for way too long, where did those extra pages come from...]

Ah, so you're condoning people being jerks to others for voicing criticism? 

[eyezonlyii]

Maybe the answer lies in a more Skyrim-esque leveling system, where the affinity for a skill determines your class. Something like, the deeper you get into a weapon tree, the more specialized the talents and passives become. This way people have more control over their character. Obviously, this would work most for the PC, but one could get away with mall tweaks for companions. Also, some specializations should be cross class. For instance, there is no reason one can

t be a templar rogue, given the fact that they did exist in DA2

[Allan Schumacher]

The discussions about free speech are not relevant to this thread's topic.

[Iakus]

When did they say we cannot switch weaponds in combat? If i remember they said you could spec half bow half dagger rogue. Hope fully you will be able to make Two setups of abilities one for bow and one for dagger. If not i can see that being a problem.

 

 

Hrungr, on 01 Oct 2014 - 6:54 PM, said:

And... the answer.
 
A'koss ‏@Megin_Akoss
I'm not sure if this is still spoilery, but are we able to switch weapons in combat? Eg. A rogue starting with ranged -> melee
 
Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
Not mid-combat, no. Anytime in the field, however.

 

Sadly, it looks like going down two specs like that will just make you a watered-down hybrid who's not much good at either

[andar91]

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?

 

They always put a positive spin on stuff. Emphasizing the positive reasons behind a design choice sounds a lot better than emphasizing the negative even if we all know it's true.

 

Also, claim A does not necessarily negate claim B and vice-versa. Just because one of the reasons for the decision was probably difficulty with horns does not mean that giving the qunari something unique is/was not a valid design decision or true.

[Commander Rpg]

Lol. No one said people can't disagree, that guy was telling him not to voice his opinion AT ALL.

Yes, and that quote you stressed ("stop yapping"), reminded me of a lyric in a famous song

 

"I think it is sad the opinion you had was the only one voiced."

 

[boissiere]

HMMMM!!! Is there any other opinion about the horns? The trip about weapon techniques didn't interest me for the moment. I will see when the moment of having the game will come. 

My claim is C : horns should have been difficult to put on characters and to  be modelized. So let's enjoy those we have before complaining.

[TaskCortez]

"Attacking BioWare." He is making a criticism. A valid one. I think you need to take your fanboy cap off and not get hurt everytime someone notices something you like isn't always perfect.

 

Everyone agrees the paint is a good idea, but the wording used in the livestream was somewhat dishonest, be it intentional or not. I'm sure Mike doesn't see it that way, but the OP isn't wrong for making an observation.

The wording wasn't dishonest, it was the truth. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.