3034 réponses à ce sujet

[Star fury]

It's a bit of a problem to lose all your cunning, dexterity and constitution when you're making love

Big man in a suit of armour. Take that off, what are you?

 

Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Well, yes.  People like removing things that they don't like, but not things that they like.

 

 

It makes more sense if you're OK with the world of Dragon Age being absolutely littered with suits of magical power armour

 

That's not really much more of an abstraction than your character literally being five or six times stronger/more cunning/smarter than he was at level 1 in a couple of month.

 

I mean, the way I see it, we're trading one abstraction for another. But apparently one of these abstractions is an untouchable sacred cow even when it's definitely not a mechanic most RPGs use, including some of the deepest, most acclaimed ones.

[andar91]

I'll also point out that the crafting system has been dramatically reworked into something resembling a fully-baked, deep gameplay mechanic. Criticising a game for less customization while ignoring an expansive avenue the game gives you to customize your characer is not actually being critical of the system at all, but only reflecting one's own arbitrary preferences for how they want to customize their character. With the inclusion of the crafting, I suspect I'll find Inquisition's customization deeper than any previous Dragon Age game.

 

I don't think it's the depth of customization that's actually bothering a lot of people; it's the belief that customization should be seated in their character, not in their stuff.

 

I don't really share their sentiments - I agree with you completely, but I still understand their point. I agree with it for things like tabletop rpg's (I hated how 4e made loot necessary and part of progression, for instance), but since our stats go up without equipment and equipment just adds to those base stats, I don't really mind.

[xkg]

You CAN change your attributes. You just do it through customising your equipment in the way you want instead of clicking the + button next to the stat on level up.

 

Yes I get that. But still, knowing the base stats doesn't change anything and Is not helping at all.

 

I know I am going to wear "+20 Str" armor now. Knowing, how high is my base STR won't help me at all. I know I am a warrior,every warrior is strong, but none is very dexterous. Do I need numbers ?

[Nohvarr]

Yes I get that. But still, knowing the base stats doesn't change anything and Is not helping at all.

 

I know I am going to wear "+20 Str" armor now. Knowing, how high is my base STR won't help me at all. I know I am a warrior,every warrior is strong, but none is very dexterous. Do I need numbers ?

When you hover your mouse over an enemy in tac view it shows you their strengths, and weaknesses so you have a better idea of how to attack them.

[rocsage]

No to both, though once you're done the initial prologue (takes me about 10 minutes) you can get your first respec potion for free (or maybe 1 coin).  After that you can buy an indefinite number of respec potions, though they have a tangible cost associated with them.

"tangible" as in "material" in that the re-specing costs will influence my other decisions/options such as ability to buy a 100+ gold/sovereign trinket?

[Star fury]

Wasteland 2 made $1.5 million in 4 days, and Divinity Original Sin sold 500K units.

 

Diablo 3 (which is more streamlined than DA:I) sold 20 million units world wide.

It's funny how you compare Wasteland 2, the indy game financed by a Kickstarter campaign with the AAA game with a huge budget from one of the behemoths of game developing. Try more.

[PhroXenGold]

Yes I get that. But still, knowing the base stats doesn't change anything and Is not helping at all.

 

I know I am going to wear "+20 Str" armor now. Knowing, how high is my base STR won't help me at all. I know I am a warrior,every warrior is strong, but none is very dexterous. Do I need numbers ?

 

But knowing your base strength has always been meaningless. What mattered was your total strength that included both your innate ability and the effect of your gear. Nothing here has changed.

[Nukekitten]

I believe there has been some talk of being able to delegate some resource gathering, for what it's worth

 

Well, if that's how it works out, it wouldn't be too bad I suppose. Just have terrible images of their potion making system writ large, perhaps coupled with AC's send on a mission to get the shiny items map. But if it's more along the lines of you guys go off and gather nugs while I'm doing something else - that wouldn't be too irksome

 

Dunno, maybe I'm just being unreasonable? There might be some people out there who really like this sort of crafting mechanic. Haven't seen any figures on it after all.

[SirGladiator]

It seems that the folks at Bioware need to put a big sign on the wall of the room where they make the major decisions, a sign that reads 'RPGs are about CHOICES' so they don't forget that and keep taking them away like they've done here.  I really like the option to spend our attribute points however we see fit, it's one of the major ways you make your character unique.  Its fun, and there's no sense in taking that fun away just to 'streamline' or 'make things simpler'.  I hope they reconsider this decision and bring our attribute points back at the earliest possible opportunity. 

[KoorahUK]

"tangible" as in "material" in that the re-specing costs will influence my other decisions/options such as ability to buy a 100+ gold/sovereign trinket?

Allan clarified that respeccing doesn't affect attributes, its just spells/abilities. In that respect, its no different from the respec potions in DA2

[The Elder King]

Regardless if this was a good or bad choice, I think it'd have been better If Bioware would've explained this change (along others) in a detailed post or video.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

Changing the focus of a character by just changing gear wouldn't really help, since they'd have not talents to use that would help them utilize the new focus.  It would require using a respec potion/book and spend several minutes going through their talents like in DAO/2...

 

It should also be pointed out that there is gear in DAO/2 that increases stats, that you can swap out if you choose to change the focus of a character in those games...

 

The only difference is in option 2, you have zero control over the allocation of attribute points.  And while I care less about attribute distribution than I do about being seemingly forced to use the crafting system, I don't believe anyone has adequately explained why this is a good thing for a single-player game.  Because in most other single-player games where you don't touch attributes, you can't even see them to know what they are....

1) Why wouldn't they?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but let's take the example of Dexterity and Cunning.  

 

Dexterity, if I recall correctly, increases one's critical chance.  Cunning increases one's critical damage.  Let's say one has an ability that causes one to do two fast strikes with double chance of a critical hit.  Now, with gear promoting high dexterity this means that a critical hit is almost assured with the ability.  However, with high cunning it will do more damage.  Two situational deployments of the same ability in different situations with different stats and gear.  Derp.  

 

2) Yes, there is.  Generally no more than a +10 increase.  Here we have +36 increases or more.  Larger swings means more variation - if you have more points on a line, you have more points one can stand on.  DAI beats DAO/2 again.  

 

3) I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  Why does the crafting upset you?  Why is this bad for a single player game?  I'd feel more confident if you could explain yourself.  

[xkg]

But knowing your base strength has always been meaningless. What mattered was your total strength that included both your innate ability and the effect of your gear. Nothing here has changed.

 

It was necessary when you could distribute the points freely on level up. It would be hard to do it without numbers. Now, it's done automatically so it doesn't matter anymore. 

In the new system, "I am weak", "I am strong", "I am very strong" is all I need to know. And I will from the start by picking the class.

[Nohvarr]

It's funny how you compare Wasteland 2, the indy game financed by a Kickstarter campaign with the AAA game with a huge budget from one of the behemoths of game developing. Try more.

The response was in reference to why Bioware is 'backing away' from classic RPG elements when they've become so popular. I was simply pointing out that this popularity was not as great as the poster was suggesting.

 

Try again.

[thevaleyard]

Regardless if this was a good or bad choice, I think it'd have been better If Bioware would've explained this change (along others) in a detailed post or video.

 

Agreed. Bioware took the time and effort to write a blog post on romances (which are a tiny and optional part of the game in their own words) so they should really think about doing the same on gameplay mechanics.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Id forgotten how entertaining the bickering in this place can be.....carry on

[PhroXenGold]

It was necessary when you could distribute the point freely on level up. It would be hard to do it without numbers. Now, it's done automatically so it doesn't matter anymore. 

"I am weak", "I am strong", "I am very strong" is all I need to know now. And I will from the start by picking the class.

 

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't understand what your saying here.

 

In DA:O, your strength was a combination of your innate ability and the bonuses from your equiment. Looking at either of these in isolation was utterly pointless as it didn't tell you anything about how well your character would actually fight. When you added points to your strength when levelling up, all that mattered was that it added to your total strength. In DA:I, the same applies, except you apply those points to the gear instead of the character. The result is still the same. It still increases your total strength. Where's the difference?

[CronoDragoon]

I don't think it's the depth of customization that's actually bothering a lot of people; it's the belief that customization should be seated in their character, not in their stuff.

 

I don't really share their sentiments - I agree with you completely, but I still understand their point. I agree with it for things like tabletop rpg's (I hated how 4e made loot necessary and part of progression, for instance), but since our stats go up without equipment and equipment just adds to those base stats, I don't really mind.

 

That's why I said it's a matter of preference (what kind of customization do I like?) rather than an analysis of the depth of customization in the game (how many avenues does the game provide for customization and how robust/meaningful are my options there?)

 

Anyway, I'm sure some people are making a claim with that specificity, however others are conflating that with a game-wide accusation of dumbing down or casualization, such as this post:

 

It seems that the folks at Bioware need to put a big sign on the wall of the room where they make the major decisions, a sign that reads 'RPGs are about CHOICES' so they don't forget that and keep taking them away like they've done here.

 

Such statements selectively ignore all the things Inquisition is introducing that are an upgrade in terms of customization over the previous games in order to fit a narrative.

[Nohvarr]

I don't mean tactical camera and you know it.

Less specializations: 9 vs 18 in Origins.

But those specializations now have an actual impact on the games narrative

 

 

 

Narrow corridors: constant canyons, caves, paths between cliffs etc.[\quote]

 

Then we've not been watching the same gameplay vids.

1:20

No attributes on level up - I don't even need to explain. First dragon age game to take this feature out. Even dumbed down DA2 had it.

Actually your attributes go up depending on what skills/talents you learn. So you're still increasing them, but now you're also getting a new skill in the bargain.
 

[Wulfram]

That's not really much more of an abstraction than your character literally being five or six times stronger/more cunning/smarter than he was at level 1 in a couple of month.

 

I mean, the way I see it, we're trading one abstraction for another. But apparently one of these abstractions is an untouchable sacred cow even when it's definitely not a mechanic most RPGs use, including some of the deepest, most acclaimed ones.

 

Choosing attributes is a pretty universal RPG feature, even if adding attributes every level isn't.

 

(Though honestly I wouldn't mind losing attributes all together, I just dislike the equipment and crafting focus)

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

I don't mean tactical camera and you know it.

Less specializations: 9 vs 18 in Origins. Even if you don't count Awakening it's 9 vs 12.
Narrow corridors: constant canyons, caves, paths between cliffs etc. Watch gameplay videos. It's all there.
No attributes on level up - I don't even need to explain. First dragon age game to take this feature out. Even dumbed down DA2 had it.

I'm not misinformed.

No I don't.  I had no idea what you meant which is why I phrased it as a question.  I have noticed nothing strange about the camera at all.  

 

Ok, fair point on the Origins specs.  I would point out that some of them were so nugatory or similar to each other that it made no difference, and that some were completely useless, but still, there were more of them,  My comparison was to DA2 which also only had 9 specs, and I don't recall inordinate fuss being made over that, but I wasn't on the forums then so maybe I'm wrong.  

 

Narrow corridors: Also wide open grasslands, towns, roads with grassland on either side, forest glades, wide open caves, open courtyards, wide corridors, etc.  I seem to have seen more gameplay videos than you.  Also, given your love of DAO even if it had narrow corridors, what would be the problem if you were correct and I wrong?  That the devs described it as more open world than it actually was?  That's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with its marketing.  

 

Yes, no attribute points for you to permanently assign on level up.  Instead we get the much more flexible crafting system, and an added incentive to buy passive talents.  That is the whole point of this thread, and I'd refer you to my arguments about why it's a more flexible system elsewhere.  

 

You are sadly misinformed, as I've just shown.  

[realguile]

I'm tired of these debates! Release the game already!

[Giantdeathrobot]

Regardless if this was a good or bad choice, I think it'd have been better If Bioware would've explained this change (along others) in a detailed post or video.

 

True. They should have done a comprehensive post about their gameplay changes, how they interact with each other and why they made those changes. If friggin romances deserve that, the game's main mechanics do. We shouldn't learn about stuff like that from Twitter or fram-by-fram pausing of Youtube videos.

 

They kinda did that for the ''less healing'' aspect but IMO they should have gone farther. Personally the only gameplay change so far that bothers me is the 8 ability limit, but Bioware should have foreseen testing new ground would upset a lot of people.

[andar91]

Anyway, I'm sure some people are making a claim with that specificity, however others are conflating that with a game-wide accusation of dumbing down or casualization, such as this post:

 

Such statements selectively ignore all the things Inquisition is introducing that are an upgrade in terms of customization over the previous games in order to fit a narrative.

 

Very true; I agree.