3034 réponses à ce sujet

[Muspade]

Based on the reply I sought, it appears that you were incorrect on speaking for others on all counts. Food for thought....

I can't be incorrect on my own opinion.

Not certain why you think I answered for any other but myself.

[Eledran]

 

Having combat and a level system that is pretty much an exact copy of Diablo 3 isn't a superficial similarity.

Come on now, Diablo 3 is hardly the first RPG to do away with attribute points in favour of an automatic system. Trying to claim that Inquisition copies D3 with this system is ridiculous. Rather it follows a long trend in both RPG's and MMORPG's to do away with stat point allocation.

 

Why? Because stat points are more about metagame than actual gameplay. Your character will still whack stuff in exactly the same way whether or not he has 30 points in cunning or dexterity. The only difference is the numbers that appear when using a given set of gear.

 

Now, don't get me wrong: the metagame is important too. But if DA:I manages to add more actual gameplay choices than the previous games by adding meaningful skill choices, I won't give a rat's  ass about taking away my ability to spend more on either dex or con in order to live 2 seconds longer or do 2% more damage.

 

If they don't manage to add those choices with skill, then yes they do deserve to be critiqued for removing player choice. But that's too early to say.

[Rawgrim]

@Rawgrim:  Okay - why is there a need to be nasty?  It's not a "mistake" just because you don't like it.

 

I've got an RPG pedigree too - and I say it's totally fine and not at all important for my character.

 

Cause how "I" define my character are the choices I make and the personality I take... the numbers can be a reflection of that, but in no way am I slave to numbers as I find that terribly mechanical and trite.  

 

Gear is a defining trait of a character... just like skills and attributes... and the choices you make with NPCs and the Inquisition.

 

Have you even played Diablo 3?  

 

Not sure where I was being nasty? I certainly didn't intend to be.

 

The look of the gear can be a defining trait of a character, but not a part of the base character.

 

Yes I have played Diablo 3. I am on chapter 3. Playing as a monk.

[Rawgrim]

Come on now, Diablo 3 is hardly the first RPG to do away with attribute points in favour of an automatic system. Trying to claim that Inquisition copies D3 with this system is ridiculous. Rather it follows a long trend in both RPG's and MMORPG's to do away with stat point allocation.

 

Why? Because stat points are more about metagame than actual gameplay. Your character will still whack stuff in exactly the same way whether or not he has 30 points in cunning or dexterity. The only difference is the numbers that appear when using a given set of gear.

 

Now, don't get me wrong: the metagame is important too. But if DA:I manages to add more actual gameplay choices than the previous games by adding meaningful skill choices, I won't give a rat's  ass about taking away my ability to spend more on either dex or con in order to live 2 seconds longer or do 2% more damage.

 

If they don't manage to add those choices with skill, then yes they do deserve to be critiqued for removing player choice. But that's too early to say.

 

 

Stats are about roleplaying. If I want to play as an oaf, I disregard the cunning stat, but focus on Str instead, for example.

 

DA:I probaly has more gameplay choices than the previous game. No doubt about it. But it has less actual character options.

[Nohvarr]

You are just trying very hard to keep it from looking like Diablo. Are you paid to blindly defend every move Bioware makes? Just curious. I have heard several people, recently, go on about how it looks pretty much like Diablo stuffed into Skyrim. The combat does look like Diablo. The abilities look like Diablo. the animations look like diablo. the focus on items looks like diablo.

Interesting, I've been fairly nice and respectful in expressing my views and now you accuse me of being a blind fanboy because i disagree with how you see the game? And just because other people think it looks like 'Diablo' dosen't actually make it true.

 

Here, people thought this:

 

 

looked like this:

 

 

Because they both involved Giant creatures slugging it out with humanity......they were wrong.

 

Now, something for you to consider the next time you want to go accusing someone of being a blind fanboy....they may not simply have your interest or perspectives. You're decision that the Inquisitions impact on the game is not a valid choice worthy of comment is not one I agree with. I also disagree with the assertion that we can't dictate our characters growth since talents/skills impact attributes along with Gear and the way we build or Organization and our party. I also don't think it looks like Diablo for the reasons I stated. I am no more a blind fan-boy than you are an RPG-elitist /Hater.

[Rawgrim]

Interesting, I've been fairly nice and respectful in expressing my views and now you accuse me of being a blind fanboy because i disagree with how you see the game? And just because other people think it looks like 'Diablo' dosen't actually make it true.

 

Here, people thought this:

 

 

looked like this:

 

 

Because they both involved Giant creatures slugging it out with humanity......they were wrong.

 

Now, something for you to consider the next time you want to go accusing someone of being a blind fanboy....they may not simply have your interest or perspectives. You're decision that the Inquisitions impact on the game is not a valid choice worthy of comment is not one I agree with. I also disagree with the assertion that we can't dictate our characters growth since talents/skills impact attributes along with Gear and the way we build or Organization and our party. I also don't think it looks like Diablo for the reasons I stated. I am no more a blind fan-boy than you are an RPG-elitist /Hater.

 

I was asking. Not accusing.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Rawgrim:  When you make a character in a tabletop RPG - do you get a set of "base gear" on your "base character"? 

 

Would a warrior use a spellbook and a staff?

Would a wizard use a holy symbol and a shield?  

 

In fact - characters like Clerics have "base item" requirements (holy symbols) and characters like druids have "base item" restrictions (like no metal) in D&D.

 

Stats have nothing to do with actually roleplaying... they're only a "game" representation of the RP(G).  I can roleplay whatever I want. 

 

And Cunning is not intelligence... all predatory animals are cunning.

[Dunbartacus]

Have a look at rpg forums and such and you will see it.

 

My point was that they are both an outside element. Not a part of the base character.

 

You are conveniently forgetting Willpower and Cunning. Also part of the stats. If you want your character to be really cunnng, that should be up to you, and not some default.

Combat attributes shouldn't be representative of a players intelligence, cunning etc. For example why can't a character be an exceptional warrior and a cunning diplomat. The way you want it to work is my mage character has the cunning of a bunny rabbit unless i sacrifice combat effectiveness.

[Rawgrim]

@Rawgrim:  When you make a character in a tabletop RPG - do you get a set of "base gear" on your "base character"? 

 

Would a warrior use a spellbook and a staff?

Would a wizard use a holy symbol and a shield?  

 

In fact - characters like Clerics have "base item" requirements (holy symbols) and characters like druids have "base item" restrictions (like no metal) in D&D.

 

Usually I get a set amount of money to spend on gear at level 1.

 

A warrior can use a staff, yes. In fact in d&d he is proficient with the use of a staff as a weapon. I think it can be used to disarm opponents with too, actually.

 

Yes. If the wizard is religious he would use a holy symbol. He can also use a shield. I had Aerie use a shield plenty in BG2. Imoen used a buckler sometimes too.

 

Clerics have the base items because they are part of an organization that gives the symbol to them. This depends on the religion they are following, though. Not all of them use holy symbols.

 

Druids can't use metal armours and such no. It is due to an oath they swear when becoming druids. They can still use them, but they will get punished for doing so later.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Dunbartacus:  And what's great about DA:I is that you can be a militant mage by using Cullen or a Diplomatic Rogue... or a Cunning Warrior.  

 

By buying perks... which are modifications... to your "base character".  

 

Unless we're saying things like social "Feats" (in D&D) aren't additions to your character.

[Nohvarr]

I was asking. Not accusing.

[Rawgrim]

Combat attributes shouldn't be representative of a players intelligence, cunning etc. For example why can't a character be an exceptional warrior and a cunning diplomat. The way you want it to work is my mage character has the cunning of a bunny rabbit unless i sacrifice combat effectiveness.

 

Sure it could be. A high intelligence or cunning could mean he knows a lot of dirty moves, or where to hit to make sure it hurts more. Or know of weaknesses in the opponent's armour.

 

Never said a warrior can't be a cunning diplomat. All I am saying is that it should be up to the player who created the character.

 

No I am saying that if you want to make a character like that, you should be able to. I making choices and sacrifices is really at the heart of the entire genre. Are you saying that the game should just hand you everything you don't get to pick when you level up?

[Rawgrim]

@Dunbartacus:  And what's great about DA:I is that you can be a militant mage by using Cullen or a Diplomatic Rogue... or a Cunning Warrior.  

 

By buying perks... which are modifications... to your "base character".  

 

Unless we're saying things like social "Feats" (in D&D) aren't additions to your character.

 

Those are other characters offering help to your character. It is basically someone you can call for help.

[Eledran]

Stats are about roleplaying. If I want to play as an oaf, I disregard the cunning stat, but focus on Str instead, for example.

 

DA:I probaly has more gameplay choices than the previous game. No doubt about it. But it has less actual character options.

Stats aren't the only way you can roleplay. Personally I would consider them a very poor way to roleplay compared to skill choices.

 

Only a select few dialogue choices have ever reflected your stat choice in the Dragon Age games. Even that can easily be done through skill choices as well as seen in the Kotor series (picking up mind trick for jedi).

 

You can be "Joe the Mighty with 100 points in strength, but you're never going to be a reaver or guardian if you don't pick up those specialisations.

Because of that "Joe the Mighty"is gonna continue to slap things just the same away as "Joey the Puny", until he gets through the reaver trials and completely changes his style of play as he can now heal himself back and gets a whole slew of new evil abilities to prove his superiority.

[Rawgrim]

 

My intention wasn't to accuse you. If you got offended, that wasn't my goal at all.

[Dunbartacus]

 

Sure it could be. A high intelligence or cunning could mean he knows a lot of dirty moves, or where to hit to make sure it hurts more. Or know of weaknesses in the opponent's armour.

 

Never said a warrior can't be a cunning diplomat. All I am saying is that it should be up to the player who created the character.

 

No I am saying that if you want to make a character like that, you should be able to. I making choices and sacrifices is really at the heart of the entire genre. Are you saying that the game should just hand you everything you don't get to pick when you level up?

No im saying that attributes are representative of combat choices they have no effect outside of that in DAI. If you want to play someone of a particular personality type make dialogue and inquisition perk choices that reflect that. This way you can create a beast in combat and still have the personality you desire reflected in game.

 

Edit: oops didn't mean to quote you medhia

[Medhia_Nox]

@Rawgrim:  Umm.. a lot of cleric and paladin powers can't work without a holy symbol in D&D.  And multi-class characters are "X/Y" not "Z" (something new)

 

Anyone can "trip" someone in D&D - and I meant a magical staff which - no - he cannot use.

 

And druids cannot use them as per rules... not "they get punished later".  

 

And you have this in any RPG that has classes. 

[Rawgrim]

Stats aren't the only way you can roleplay. Personally I would consider them a very poor way to roleplay compared to skill choices.

 

Only a select few dialogue choices have ever reflected your stat choice in the Dragon Age games. Even that can easily be done through skill choices as well as seen in the Kotor series (picking up mind trick for jedi).

 

You can be "Joe the Mighty with 100 points in strength, but you're never going to be a reaver or guardian if you don't pick up those specialisations.

Because of that "Joe the Mighty"is gonna continue to slap things just the same away as "Joey the Puny", until he gets through the reaver trials and completely changes his style of play as he can now heal himself back and gets a whole slew of new evil abilities to prove his superiority.

 

Quite right. I agree. They arn't the only way to roleplay at all. And skills are probably better. The issue is that the game just does it for you. Had there been no attribute points at all, there would be no issue. Its about someone else assigning stuff for the player.

 

I agree. The games never really did much about the stats affecting dialogue. But headcanon is a factor here. People roleplaying and making choices based on their stats. Inept choices when having a low cunning etc. It is a playstyle, though. Subjective.

 

Not sure what you mean with that last bit. Or what you are getting at.

[Rawgrim]

No im saying that attributes are representative of combat choices they have no effect outside of that in DAI. If you want to play someone of a particular personality type make dialogue and inquisition perk choices that reflect that. This way you can create a beast in combat and still have the personality you desire reflected in game.

 

Yes, exactly. But my cunning stat, for example, won't reflect that at all. The game just hands me the option to be very cunning in dialogues, when, according to the stats, the fellow is dumb as hog.

[Rawgrim]

@Rawgrim:  Umm.. a lot of cleric and paladin powers can't work without a holy symbol in D&D.  And multi-class characters are "X/Y" not "Z" (something new)

 

Anyone can "trip" someone in D&D - and I meant a magical staff which - no - he cannot use.

 

And druids cannot use them as per rules... not "they get punished later".  

 

And you have this in any RPG that has classes. 

 

Turn undead won't work. Or rather, I think you get a penalty to it if you don't have a holy symbol.

 

Yes he can use a magical staff. Even a wand if he has points in the Use Magic Device skill.

 

Yes they can use it with a -4 penalty. You can use anything in d&d as long as you can hold it. They do get a penalty later when they break their oath. Their spellcasting ability gets removed, and their druid abilities gets removed. This can be fixed by doing a pennance quest to "return to the path of the druid".

[Dunbartacus]

Yes, exactly. But my cunning stat, for example, won't reflect that at all. The game just hands me the option to be very cunning in dialogues, when, according to the stats, the fellow is dumb as hog.

Assuming cunning increases crit chance in DA:I it represents how good your character is at spotting weak points on enemies. It has no bearing on whether your character is a master of deceitful schemes as your cunning value has no effect on this and so it is reflected by dialogue and inquisition perk choices.

[Eledran]

Quite right. I agree. They arn't the only way to roleplay at all. And skills are probably better. The issue is that the game just does it for you. Had there been no attribute points at all, there would be no issue. Its about someone else assigning stuff for the player.

 

I agree. The games never really did much about the stats affecting dialogue. But headcanon is a factor here. People roleplaying and making choices based on their stats. Inept choices when having a low cunning etc. It is a playstyle, though. Subjective.

 

Not sure what you mean with that last bit. Or what you are getting at.

I was simply giving an example there.

 

Agreed upon the fact that the Dragon Age games have never really reflected your character build choices a lot in dialogue. As you acknowledged this doesn't really have to do with stat allocation as much as it's simply not in the design. Previous DA games didn't allow to play the Warden / Hawke as a total drooling idiot either. But it's pretty hard for me to remember any games that did that, other than the Fallout series.

 

I would love to have specialisations etc. reflected in the dialogue more than they have done in the past. Can't tell whether or not they've considered that.

 

If they do manage to give more variety in terms of dialogue through your Inquisition choices however, that's gonna be an improvement regardless of stat points.

[KoorahUK]

Abilities can be chosen, but not Attributes; the base design. Those are the same for everyone.

I like SWTOR, and had a good time while playing. That said, there were hundreds of the same builds with the same Followers in the same lines for the same quests. Unique or rare does not meet such an environment.

My Champion 2H will have the same base design, as would a 2H reaver, were I to ever play one. certainly, personalities and choices during each campaign can vary, but the base designs are all the same; nothing varied about them.

It would seem you will love DA-MP, as you appear to get your wish. However, I desire to have more control in my solo game.

Ah of course, its multiplayers fault.

 

I may seem like I'm arguing for this change, but I'm not really. I just don't see it as the disaster that many of you do. The fact is you can get the same result by crafting than you can be clicking the "raise attribute" button at level up time, Its just that people don't like that gameplay design choice, which is always going to happen. 

It seems too hard for some to accept that the design choices were made because BioWare didn't much like some of the ways previous games hung together. From what I've seen, these changes are in line with their desire to improve combat balance, which means - yes I'm going to say the 'L' word - limiting the variance the player is able to introduce into the system by tighter controls on attribute distribution. 

Laying every change we don't like at the door of multiplayer is perhaps easier than admitting BioWare don't want to make the kind of games that some people want to play anymore. Its disappointing, I get that. I wouldn't give a toss if there was no MP in DA, but I'm pretty sure that these changes would be happening anyway.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Rawgrim:  Interesting... so items that remove your powers and you have to pay penance for are not "part of your character"

[Rawgrim]

Assuming cunning increases crit chance in DA:I it represents how well your character is at spotting weak points on enemies. It has no bearing on whether your character is a master of deceitful schemes as your cunning value has no effect on this and so it is reflected by dialogue and inquisition perk choices.

 

Fair enough, but it did affect your diplomatic skills in the previous games. Just going with what the stat has been used for so far in the series.