Well, we should be happy then
, since it fits so well with the "very realistic" combat animations.
You don't like the new ones? Animation, effects ... 
Everything looks great in Star Dragons 3 : Inquisition Strikes Back. We have lasers now and all that, don't we
At least it looks like that
But let's not open that can of worms here.
Lol well you must have never played BG2 and any game similar then even the final fantasy you can't beat the game unless you are geared out unless its FF7 and FF10 lol just need to summon the best summon beats mode. Fighting naked only works in games where its balance is way off.
Lol well you must have never played BG2 and any game similar then even the final fantasy you can't beat the game unless you are geared out unless its FF7 and FF10 lol just need to summon the best summon beats mode. Fighting naked only works in games where its balance is way off.
No I want to put the gloves (+34 STR) on, and then knockout Klitschko. Because that's how it is going to work now, in the game. And it is very realistic.
So, is it realistic to level up?.., suddenly you are stronger, healthier, etc, than before..., even a beauty. 
They were not neither is this game from what I see also it's taking things that several older games used to do and some new ideas that some games did but its going more in depth in.
I have played so many RPG's its really crazy I have a video game addiction I have played great games to horrible games I own games worth a good amount but that's a different note.
The balance looks pretty good in this many people have gotten use to games that were hand holders they don't even know what a game is any more. Not saying you have not played as many games as you have but I have played many games and I only have a few I really like and many I feel so, so about.
This game is either going to be great or horrible it won't have much of a middle ground many people who are not sure about it because some have not seen combat similar to this one. I understand why people have there doubts or unsure off something they don't understand how it will play out.
Sorry for the rant lol
I am fine with attribute level ups being gone.
So, is it realistic to level up?.., suddenly you are stronger, healthier, etc, than before..., even a beauty.
Much more realistic. I won't repeat what I already said so :
There are activities that enchance your personal, physical or mental attributes, .
Somoene can do stretches every day. His body is getting more flexible - he is more agile - in terms of the game his AGI attribute is growing. He is not any more skilled at gymnastics, he won't win an olympic medal. He just got more agile.
Another one can lift at the gym. His body is getting stronger. He doesn't get "lifting" skill since what he gained can be used for hundred of other activities. His body got stronger - again, in terms of the game his STR attribute increased.
There are many more examples for other attributes. Sit-ups, running and alike excersises for CON, logical and deductive thinking excersises and courses for INT, reading hundred of technical books for WIS ... on and on .
It's your turn now.You can give me examples of how I can suddenly become a genius, by puting some "Hat of Intelligence" on.
So, has it been confirmed that there are no attribute increases on level up? If not, are we talking 2nd Edition D&D like Baldurs Gate, where we just got extra hit points and ability slots, plus a better chance to hit an opponent vs. their armour strength?
So, has it been confirmed that there are no attribute increases on level up? If not, are we talking 2nd Edition D&D like Baldurs Gate, where we just got extra hit points and ability slots, plus a better chance to hit an opponent vs. their armour strength?
There are. But they are auto allocated by the game.
@Sarevok Snyder: You'll get a whole laundry list of new options for your character - you'll just miss out on +3pts./lvl.
@xkg: Guess you've never heard of a "thinking cap".
But it's not a great amount it's similar in the idea of gear levels helped you in BG as far as specializations and maybe every so many levels you put a point into plus sword skill ect but this is more gear reliant as was the older CRPG games. Yes the older games gave you plus to STR and such not to this extent as far as numbers go but a similar idea to some degree.
Basically it's using the similarities but in a small dose between older games and new and some people can't see how that works or think that games have never been geared base. I am sorry but you could not beat BG or any of those different games without good to high end gear.
Most games have always given you a gear bonus of some kind as far as RPG's go. Granted not all of them just most.
@xkg Well, that's a bit disappointing.
Thing is, I was fully on the DAI bandwagon until about six months ago. Then Bioware started delivering one kick in the nuts after the other. It's a little hard when damn near every bit of news since July has been disappointing.
Not saying people don't have a right to dissaprove what they announce or to be dissapointed. But we cannot accuse Bioware to have led a misleading marketing campaign, and saying that anyone who's even remotely positive about the game is a brainwashed PR slave is just ridiculous.
I cannot decide if I like this change or not. I wasn't that keen on AP anyways so it isn't going to hurt me that much, but eh. At the same time I really hate having to equip **** all the time especially if I like a specific look.
I cannot decide if I like this change or not. I wasn't that keen on AP anyways so it isn't going to hurt me that much, but eh. At the same time I really hate having to equip **** all the time especially if I like a specific look.
"Good news everybody!" You can create a look you like and have the stats you desire!
But really, they've said that if you like a particular look - you can potentially keep that look the entire game and change the stats should you need to.
well that's nice. I hope it isn't too much of a pain in the ass to do that. I'm really picky about what I like my characters to wear.
But the thing is, the game does not RP at all; it simply is a mechanic that can aid the Player to RP.
Right – the game creates a scenario where players can RP. To me, this system seems to allow for a more immersive and cohesive experience (from what I’ve seen so far) that would allow for more RP. To me, RP is as much helped by smart limits as it is by freedoms, especially in the context of a video game where all reactivity must be planned for in advance (in a P&P rpg, obviously you can just react as needed and thus a LOT more freedom is good) in a cohesive and meaningful way to make any creative choices matter. The game can better react to a limited (but still varied) array of roles than it can to infinite possibilities – at least with the tech we have at such.
As an example, I RP while playing XCOM; a tactical/ strategic game. And Skill based RPG's are as immersive as Class based ones. While some games may be better at allowing the RP to remain immersive, it is a subjective experience dependent on the indv Player, and their imagination.
I mean, as a kid I used to make up a story for Mario and try to RP, but it always felt forced and hollow. I loved RP even before I was given opportunities to really do it. However, in video games, I get really tired of the dissonance between trying to create something and it not being meaningful in the game itself. It breaks immersion. That’s my perspective. It sounds like you don’t mind if the feedback is mostly in your head – if I want that, I would just write a story personally, not play a game. Ideally, video games could be p&p rpgs, but they can’t. So I’d rather they do their own thing, within limits, and combine immersion and choice in ways that work. If that means 800 choices instead of 1000 (made up #s, but my point is still a lot of choice in game and ways to shape your character), I’m fine with that. It’s still a lot of choices and customization.
That said, if a PnP GM were to begin a storied campaign, then remove Player options during each break in the story, he should seemingly expect some to question the decision at least. And instead of the Player getting to create their own characters, or even one of the major characters in the tale, but instead are handed a Class template, then that expectation of debate will likely grow, IMO.
Well part of my point is that RPG video games really aren't anything like RPGs on paper, where you can have freedom with little consequence (though even P&P rpgs benefit from limits).
First - I guess I see each game as a campaign, not the games together, since you play different characters. I
Second – I don’t think it’s the same thing because I think Dragon Age is actually addressing problems in previous games that people have commented on, like the lack of reactivity to choices and builds, the meaninglessness of specializations, the lack of balance between classes and in combat, etc. You may not have had these concerns, but I’ve seen them voiced.
Third – I am just providing my perspective, but I think obviously you have every right to question decisions. I support the decisions and think they could make the game way better. It makes me really excited and hopeful the balance they’re trying to achieve and potential immersion.
Personally, I do not accept either balance or RP as a possible reason for losing more control over gameplay.
Fair enough. But they obviously did it for a REASON. I don’t see how shoehorned multiplayer (you’ve suggested MP was the problem) could be a reason, so what reason do you think it was? You may not accept it as a good reason, but balance seems the logical reason.
I think these auto&equipment -attribute points is an example of details which have been taken out of their context. I believe we have to experience the full game first, before we know how we like it.
Fair enough. But they obviously did it for a REASON. I don’t see how shoehorned multiplayer (you’ve suggested MP was the problem) could be a reason, so what reason do you think it was? You may not accept it as a good reason, but balance seems the logical reason.
yeah I fully believe it was because of MP as well, iv've seen this time and again in other games that were SP franchises then comes in MP and SP suffers, or MPs gameplay has a huge effect on how SP plays
Guess I have seen and experienced the dreaded re-balancing acrobatics that take place in other m/p settings, and this feels much the same. If Bioware balanced Classes and mechanics for use in m/p, then sim rules, mechanics, and Class designs could be injected into solo play. Again, a biased viewpoint here.
OK - That's still for the sake of balance though, so that was my confusion. I prefer SP games with excellent balance (the kind that is 100% necessary in MP), especially where you are making choices and there is replay value, to make all choices viable and not make one class optimal (like certain Mage specs in DA:O so clearly were). That's a preference some may not share, I get it, but I still think that's about balance.
All viewpoints are biased, so I don't think you need to state that. There's nothing wrong with disliking the re-balancing. People like what they like. My point was just to examine the intent and its potential benefits.
I think games can be hindered by MP, absolutely, but I think in this case, it is perhaps helped, by making co-op feel natural in terms of making every class important. Not that attribute points matters in that per se - I think that's more just a matter of balancing enemies against builds, not MP at all really.
Also, it's worth noting DA:I doesn't really have "Multiplayer" but rather "Co-op" which in this game should play like SP anyway since you are essentially playing Co-op with yourself in SP.
Much more realistic. I won't repeat what I already said so :
There are activities that enchance your personal, physical or mental attributes, .
Somoene can do stretches every day. His body is getting more flexible - he is more agile - in terms of the game his AGI attribute is growing. He is not any more skilled at gymnastics, he won't win an olympic medal. He just got more agile.
Another one can lift at the gym. His body is getting stronger. He doesn't get "lifting" skill since what he gained can be used for hundred of other activities. His body got stronger - again, in terms of the game his STR attribute increased.
There are many more examples for other attributes. Sit-ups, running and alike excersises for CON, logical and deductive thinking excersises and courses for INT, reading hundred of technical books for WIS ... on and on .
It's your turn now.You can give me examples of how I can suddenly become a genius, by puting some "Hat of Intelligence" on.
OK - That's still for the sake of balance though, so that was my confusion. I prefer SP games with excellent balance (the kind that is 100% necessary in MP), especially where you are making choices and there is replay value, to make all choices viable and not make one class optimal (like certain Mage specs in DA:O so clearly were). That's a preference some may not share, I get it, but I still think that's about balance.
All viewpoints are biased, so I don't think you need to state that. There's nothing wrong with disliking the re-balancing. People like what they like. My point was just to examine the intent and its potential benefits.
I think games can be hindered by MP, absolutely, but I think in this case, it is perhaps helped, by making co-op feel natural in terms of making every class important. Not that attribute points matters in that per se - I think that's more just a matter of balancing enemies against builds, not MP at all really.
Also, it's worth noting DA:I doesn't really have "Multiplayer" but rather "Co-op" which in this game should play like SP anyway since you are essentially playing Co-op with yourself in SP.
Retour en haut