3034 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

Social cunning is not the same as combat cunning.

 

True. But that was what made the coercion skill useful. Simplifying that bit removed the distinction.

[Lumix19]

Because rpgs arn't 100 percent about combat. And being cunning is something you can take adtvantage of in most aspects in life.

True except you can't, you're just stuck with a whole bunch of points in cunning and the occasional piece of dialogue. At least when I was investing points in persuasion over herbalism I felt like it was worth the trade. Though to be fair Mass Effect had a similar system with Charisma and Intimidate and I quite enjoyed it hmmm...

[Lumix19]

Your human inquisitor is a circle mage.

The game is not built around the human inquisitors. They could have developed two (or even three) separate systems of magic for each race but that would require a lot of effort and be extremely confusing.

[Rawgrim]

True except you can't, you're just stuck with a whole bunch of points in cunning and the occasional piece of dialogue. At least when I was investing points in persuasion over herbalism I felt like it was worth the trade. Though to be fair Mass Effect had a similar system with Charisma and Intimidate and I quite enjoyed it hmmm...

 

Very true. The whole package just feels richer when you have skills outside of combat. It also makes the playthrough abit different (in some cases) depending on wich non-combat skills you pick. Just being able to pick spills that you use to kill stuff, kind of limits your character development to combat alone.

[Rawgrim]

The game is not built around the human inquisitors. They could have developed two (or even three) separate systems of magic for each race but that would require a lot of effort and be extremely confusing.

 

True that. Or they could just stuck with the rules they set down in the first two games.

[Kleon]

But most of the Mage Inquisitors aren't raised in the circle and thus don't have the circle's schools of magic. That's probably why they developed these more neutral schools.

 

I guess that Vivienne and Dorian are apostates then. Or the human mage Inquisitor. The Dalish kepper probably didn't teach her apprentice the Dlaish magic. 

 

You can read their describtions on the Inquisition website. Vivienne was a first enchanter in the circle, Dorias was student to a Tevinter magister and human Inquisitor was in the circle. 

 

None of them know entropy or creation shcools of magic.

[Lebanese Dude]

Divorcing stats from roleplaying is a bad move. Look at Planescape and tell me what that game would be like if they had done that.

 

Why are you comparing inherently different games? Planetscape is not Dragon Age and should be examined differently.
 

Look at Fallout... you can increase your stats but they are essentially fixed according to the SPECIAL system.

 

What happens is that your stats unlock different conversation options, but this is necessary because if they don't, all characters would be the same. It is their way of differentiating characters with the same overall set of options.

 

In Dragon Age, you receive variations to dialogue and roleplaying based

1) Race

2) Class

3) Gender

4) Relationship status/Approval

5) Import Choices

etc....

 

So Dragon Age already provides a massive amount of permutations for each playthrough. 

 

Now you can say that attributes can provide even more differentiation and that is obviously true.

 

However, it is apparent that BioWare is trying to separate the gameplay and roleplaying to allow a bigger range of options for both.

In the end, it seems that DAI will provide us with more roleplaying options, independant of stat allocations required for gameplay.

 

Now if you wish to be a charming guy, you don't need a lot of points into cunning. You just need to pick the right set of dialogue with the optional extra non-combat skills for even more options.

[Muspade]

True. But that was what made the coercion skill useful. Simplifying that bit removed the distinction.

Not entirely, you still had to put points into cunning to get into the deep end of Coercion.

[Lumix19]

I guess that Vivienne and Dorian are apostates then. Or the human mage Inquisitor. The Dalish kepper probably didn't teach her apprentice the Dlaish magic. 

 

You can read their describtions on the Inquisition website. Vivienne was a first enchanter in the circle, Dorias was student to a Tevinter magister and human Inquisitor was in the circle. 

 

None of them know entropy or creation shcools of magic.

Yes but like I said above they could have developed multiple systems of magic to accommodate for the different groups (Circle, Dalish, other) but they chose not to and instead have a single, neutral system. The former would have been too confusing and require far too much work.

 

Edit: Also the circle doesn't really exist anymore (in most areas outside of Tevinter of course) so I don't think the term apostate is useful anymore

 

Edit 2: Why wouldn't the Dalish Keeper teach his/her First Dalish magic? It makes far less sense to teach him/her Circle magic 

[Rawgrim]

Why are you comparing inherently different games? Planetscape is not Dragon Age and should be examined differently.
 

Look at Fallout... you can increase your stats but they are essentially fixed according to the SPECIAL system.

 

What happens is that your stats unlock different conversation options, but this is necessary because if they don't, all characters would be the same. It is their way of differentiating characters with the same overall set of options.

 

In Dragon Age, you receive variations to dialogue and roleplaying based

1) Race

2) Class

3) Gender

4) Relationship status/Approval

5) Import Choices

etc....

 

So Dragon Age already provides a massive amount of permutations for each playthrough. 

 

Now you can say that attributes can provide even more differentiation and that is obviously true.

 

However, it is apparent that BioWare is trying to separate the gameplay and roleplaying to allow a bigger range of options for both.

In the end, it seems that DAI will provide us with more roleplaying options, independant of stat allocations required for gameplay.

 

Now if you wish to be a charming guy, you don't need a lot of points into cunning. You just need to pick the right set of dialogue with the optional extra non-combat skills for even more options.

 

By removing stats and limiting the weapon styles they are giving the players alot less to chose from when creating their character. Your own personal distinction, if that is a good way to put it, will mostly be gone.

[KoorahUK]

It is not for you to say how a person wishes to build their character.
That is why we have options to build how we like to play.

You still, the method of achieving those builds has changed. That is all. 

[Kleon]

Oh, so we're talking about gameplay. Then I can safely ignore you.

 

If you fail to see the connection between the lore and gameplay in previous games, like the fact that only spirit healers knew more advanced healing magic or that there were four schools of magic that were described in the lore, then I guess that it is safe to ignore your ignorance.

[Rawgrim]

Not entirely, you still had to put points into cunning to get into the deep end of Coercion.

 

Yes. You had to actually be cunning to get there. Made sense.

[Muspade]

If you fail to see the connection between the lore and gameplay in previous games, like the fact that only spirit healers knew more advanced healing magic or that there were four schools of magic that were described in the lore, then I guess that it is safe to ignore your ignorance.

Do you remember when Anders cast the fire spell in the beginning of Awakening yet didn't have it in his gameplay abilities?

Go figure.
 

 

Yes. You had to actually be cunning to get there. Made sense.

 

Arguably. You had to put combat stats into cunning to get there.

[TheCreeper]

This is sort of thing seems like it's going to be the norm in DA:I, your character doesn't instantly gain knowledge of subjects just because they've grown smarter, they know more about the subject because they took a perk that basically represents them actually acquiring knowledge about said subject

[Lumix19]

If you fail to see the connection between the lore and gameplay in previous games, like the fact that only spirit healers knew more advanced healing magic or that there were four schools of magic that were described in the lore, then I guess that it is safe to ignore your ignorance.

In Chantry/Circle lore. Not every race uses the same system.

[Rawgrim]

Do you remember when Anders cast the fire spell in the beginning of Awakening yet didn't have it in his gameplay abilities?

Go figure.
 

 

 

Arguably. You had to put combat stats into cunning to get there.

 

Yes. You had the choice to do so. Now you don't. In DA2 the game just gave it to you for "free" if you also wanted lockpicking. In DA:I you don't even have to use stats at all. Fun when there is less and less thinking required to level up...

[Gtdef]

Don't make attributes into something they are not. In DAO at most they were requirements for social skills. Not the social skills themselves, even if it overlapped. In DA2 they were combat only. Removing them makes sense because they failed at balancing them in 2 games. Unless they make a system that requires optimization to be beaten, then all attributes do is to make the game easier for some people and harder for others.

 

Bringing them back won't change the concept of persuasion or allow you to use different weapons and have crazy builds. They obviously took a different direction. It may make sense, it may suck, but I hardly think that the new mechanics (gameplay or roleplaying) being tied to attributes would make any difference.

[Lebanese Dude]

By removing stats and limiting the weapon styles they are giving the players alot less to chose from when creating their character. Your own personal distinction, if that is a good way to put it, will mostly be gone.

 

Yes they are removing some options but they are adding others. 

They are also allowing you to increase your "distinction" by greatly expanding the gear system. 

 

It's arguable that they are increasing the range of options.

Hell, they limited number of specializations but they made it more immersive. Weren't people complaining about "templars don't see muh staff"?

Sometimes you remove options to improve immersiveness an roleplaying.

 

It seems BioWare can never win.

[CrimsonHead]

I'm personally not bothered by this at all.

[Kleon]

 

Do you remember when Anders cast the fire spell in the beginning of Awakening yet didn't have it in his gameplay abilities?

Go figure.
 

 

Arguably.

 

 

Now you compare one, or even two cutscenes (Wynne casts winters grasp when we meet her, yet she doesn't have the spell when we recruit her), with codex entries and gameplay mechanics that were based on those codex entries? Gameplay came from lore in both Origins and DA2, it was enough to set the lore up and solidify it. Now they seem to be doing something that pretty much contradicts a lot of what they have estabilished in pevious games as well as novels and comics.

 

Yes but like I said above they could have developed multiple systems of magic to accommodate for the different groups (Circle, Dalish, other) but they chose not to and instead have a single, neutral system. The former would have been too confusing and require far too much work.

 

Edit: Also the circle doesn't really exist anymore (in most areas outside of Tevinter of course) so I don't think the term apostate is useful anymore

 

Edit 2: Why wouldn't the Dalish Keeper teach his/her First Dalish magic? It makes far less sense to teach him/her Circle magic 

 

I believe that Vivienne and human Inquisitor are not 2 years old? They are probably old enough to have been in the circle for many years before the mage/templar war.

[TheCreeper]

I got to say until today I never realized how emotionally invested some people where in attributes

[Muspade]

Yes. You had the choice to do so. Now you don't. In DA2 the game just gave it to you for "free" if you also wanted lockpicking. In DA:I you don't even have to use stats at all. Fun when there is less and less thinking required to level up...

 

There are stats engraved on armor and talents, if you didn't notice.

Those choices you speak of were never really as "fun" or "engaging" as you make them sound. Locking was basicall "choose this stat if you want more loot useless loot" which was the case 99% of the time in Origins.

 

 

Now you compare one, or even two cutscenes (Wynne casts winters grasp when we meet her, yet she doesn't have the spell when we recruit her), with codex entries and gameplay mechanics that were based on those codex entries? Gameplay came from lore in both Origins and DA2, it was enough to set the lore up and solidify it. Now they seem to be doing something that pretty much contradicts a lot of what they have estabilished in pevious games as well as novels and comics.

Contradicts what? You're saying a lot yet the substance in your speeches is lacking. Apart from that, how are you aware that gameplay was based DIRECTLY on lore in both games? Do all rogues flip around like super grasshoppers? That's what DA2 tells me. Rogues can apparently teleport too...

[Rawgrim]

Don't make attributes into something they are not. In DAO at most they were requirements for social skills. Not the social skills themselves, even if it overlapped. In DA2 they were combat only. Removing them makes sense because they failed at balancing them in 2 games. Unless they make a system that requires optimization to be beaten, then all attributes do is to make the game easier for some people and harder for others.

 

Bringing them back won't change the concept of persuasion or allow you to use different weapons and have crazy builds. They obviously took a different direction. It may make sense, it may suck, but I hardly think that the new mechanics (gameplay or roleplaying) being tied to attributes would make any difference.

 

They failed at balancing the enemies, actually. That was what made the games easy. If attributes are making a game hard for people they will struggle with a lot of things in life.

 

I think people are reacting to attributes being removed is because it is another thing on a growing list of features being removed\simplified. The game is looking more and more like Diablo with dialogue options.

[Rawgrim]

Yes they are removing some options but they are adding others. 

They are also allowing you to increase your "distinction" by greatly expanding the gear system. 

 

It's arguable that they are increasing the range of options.

Hell, they limited number of specializations but they made it more immersive. Weren't people complaining about "templars don't see muh staff"?

Sometimes you remove options to improve immersiveness an roleplaying.

 

It seems BioWare can never win.

 

Removing options never ADDS anything but simplification.

 

 

They won with Baldur's Gate 1-2, Kotor, and other games. Every played those?