3034 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

And in DA:I, to customise your character you have to increase the attributes on your gear manually. And so for that you need to know the exact number of your base stats. The end result is exactly the same.
 
Or, to put in another way, in DA:O, your stats were X+3, where X is the variable you chose. In DA:I, they're 3+X.
 
Where is the streamlining?
Where is the difference?

Because in DAO, if I did not require +3 CUNNING because I chose to play with higher STR, I could choose something else, and my PC was far different than other Rogue Players and NPC's in the game. Now everyone has the same design; same stats.

Not that this is bad in itself, as I also enjoy playing ME. However, in ME we never had CC for Attributes as everyone played the same character; varied class, where in the DA series, we used to have indv characters. Now every Class is exactly the same in Attributes; no CC apparently. Removing options is precarious; not always a bad thing, but one can expect some to balk at change.

[Rawgrim]

Instead the game is going to do exactly that for us now. And exactly the same way every single time.

 

You are a warrior, you killed 20 mobs, so there you go. Now you have +5 strength. Kill another 30 and you will get another boost, +7 this time.

 

Exactly. No need to think about it. Just let it happen.

[Heimdall]

I know by picking the class. I am strong because I am a wrrior, I can't be weak since the game forced me to be like that.
Every 10 lvl warrior will have the same stats (base stats). Do i need to know the exact number ?

Base stats for strength was always higher for warriors in previous games starting out. Same thing. Even if you refuse to put points in strength, why would you need numbers? Why not simply: "I am a weak warrior". You're going to have to explain why one merits numbers and the other is different. They're not, as far as I can tell. You need numbers in both if you want more than ballpark estimates of how your stat increases will affect gameplay.

Anyway, a weaker warrior can still be achieved, probably, in Inquisition through the selection of appropriate armor and skills that don't put points in strength.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

The lore or the game itself never states that the inquisitor is at the peak of anything. That is your own headcanon, and for you that is perfectly ok.

 

You are not a superhuman if Hawke, The Warden, and all of their companions can have 10 times the inquisitors stats gained naturally. That makes him a wimp.

Or it means they're in two different systems.  

 

A D+D dragon can beat seven shades of **** out of most enemies from other systems if each plays by their own rules, even if what they're facing has nano-crystalline armour, self repair bots and plasma guns.  Why?  Because they're made for different systems.  What you said made about as much sense as me saying 'lol, Commander Shepard would wreck these Thedas noobs.'  

 

And of course the Inquisitor is at the peak of physical condition.  They are a solider, or fighting in a war for their survival in a period where either of those things required you to be in tip top shape OR DIE.  By the very fact that the Inquisitor ISN'T DEAD we must assume they're in peak physical shape.  

[Vox Draco]

So, I understand right: No point-spending per level up? True? Didn't want to read an amzing 50 pages thread...

 

Okay, let's look at this: You are a mage...what will you spend your points on anyway? Magic, Willpower, an occasional point in constitution? Rogue ... dexterity and cunning, and occasional constitution-point?

 

Of course you might lose some illusion of control over your char...but in the end, it was an illusion. You need magic and willpower mostly for a mage, and you will assign your point that way...so why even bother in the first place...I didn't much miss spending attribute-points in Skyrim, guess I wouldn't in DAI either...

[xkg]

...but that's how real life works.  Also I note you missed my next line.  

 

No it isn't. People are different. Different people need the different amount of time to learn the same thing/ gain the same ability/ ... on and on. 

[nialler]

Instead the game is going to do exactly that for us now. And exactly the same way every single time.

 

You are a warrior, you killed 20 mobs, so there you go. Now you have +5 strength. Kill another 30 and you will get another boost, +7 this time.

Potentially, 

 

But you don't have to pick the same passives.  The same specializations.  The same weapons, the same gear, the same slotted items, the same customized items, the same quest results, the same quest rewards, the same companions, and all of the decisions for those companions, and what the companion will wear, who to romance, what cities to save, what decisions to make, who to bring along in your party, etc. etc. etc.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

No it isn't. People are different. Different people need the different amount of time to learn the same thing/ gain the same ability/ ... on and on. 

Sure.  And that what the classes/races represent, I assume.  

 

Different people with different skills learning things differently.  

 

Oh, also by your logic the levels we get ability points at should be randomised as people learn things at different rates, so each playthrough the number of levels it takes to get an ability point should vary.  

[Rawgrim]

Or it means they're in two different systems.  

 

A D+D dragon can beat seven shades of **** out of most enemies from other systems if each plays by their own rules, even if what they're facing has nano-crystalline armour, self repair bots and plasma guns.  Why?  Because they're made for different systems.  What you said made about as much sense as me saying 'lol, Commander Shepard would wreck these Thedas noobs.'  

 

And of course the Inquisitor is at the peak of physical condition.  They are a solider, or fighting in a war for their survival in a period where either of those things required you to be in tip top shape OR DIE.  By the very fact that the Inquisitor ISN'T DEAD we must assume they're in peak physical shape.  

 

I used the other dragon age games as comparison (oddly enough I thought that might make the most sense). D&D and mass effect are two entirely different things than the DA games and that gameworld.

 

If he is in peak shape or not, should be up to the player.

[nialler]

I used the other dragon age games as comparison (oddly enough I thought that might make the most sense). D&D and mass effect are two entirely different things than the DA games and that gameworld.

 

If he is in peak shape or not, should be up to the player.

If you want every decision in everything to be up to the player, you should play a pen and paper role playing game.  Dragon age, while similar, is not a substitute for tabletop experiences.

[Rawgrim]

So, I understand right: No point-spending per level up? True? Didn't want to read an amzing 50 pages thread...

 

Okay, let's look at this: You are a mage...what will you spend your points on anyway? Magic, Willpower, an occasional point in constitution? Rogue ... dexterity and cunning, and occasional constitution-point?

 

Of course you might lose some illusion of control over your char...but in the end, it was an illusion. You need magic and willpower mostly for a mage, and you will assign your point that way...so why even bother in the first place...I didn't much miss spending attribute-points in Skyrim, guess I wouldn't in DAI either...

 

Personally I liked putting points in str and endurance for my mages and rogues in the previous games. Can't do that now. The game forces me to powerplay.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

I used the other dragon age games as comparison (oddly enough I thought that might make the most sense). D&D and mass effect are two entirely different things than the DA games and that gameworld.

 

If he is in peak shape or not, should be up to the player.

Ok then, edition changes might be a better example.  Toss a 4e party of level 20 against a 3e party of level 20 and the 3e party will win.  Does this mean there is any real difference between them - or that the rules changed?  The latter, I think.  

 

No, it should not.  It should be up to common sense, as the average IQ is 90 which means that half the people in the world - and thus a decent percentage of any customer base - will have IQs below 90 and cannot be trusted to have common sense.  

[Rawgrim]

If you want every decision in everything to be up to the player, you should play a pen and paper role playing game.  Dragon age, while similar, is not a substitute for tabletop experiences.

 

Every decision about the PC, absolutely. 99 percent of the rpgs out there (that lets you create your own character) lets the player do this. I'd rather have no choice than the game making the choices for me, and basically creating my character.

[Muspade]

Every decision about the PC, absolutely. 99 percent of the rpgs out there (that lets you create your own character) lets the player do this. I'd rather have no choice than the game making the choices for me, and basically creating my character.

I think you're searching for something akin to Skyrim.

[Rawgrim]

Ok then, edition changes might be a better example.  Toss a 4e party of level 20 against a 3e party of level 20 and the 3e party will win.  Does this mean there is any real difference between them - or that the rules changed?  The latter, I think.  

 

No, it should not.  It should be up to common sense, as the average IQ is 90 which means that half the people in the world - and thus a decent percentage of any customer base - will have IQs below 90 and cannot be trusted to have common sense.  

 

The reason why the 4ed party would lose is actually explained in the d&d lore. Its due to certain gods having been killed etc. If affected the gameworlds and it was all explained. Although terribly so.

[PhroXenGold]

The game levels your stats up automatically. The ones you used to get to plae where you wanted. That is streamlining. Its auto-level up.

 

Addng stats to your gear via crafting etc is OPTIONAL.

 

So there is your difference. What used to be up to the player is now forced\simplified. That other bit, wich has zero to do with the actual character, is just the player enchanting a piece of clothing through the crafting system. The character himself doesn't get any stronger. Just the stuff you chose to put into his pants.

 

 

DA:O levelled your character up automatically, unless you took the optional path of choosing it yourself.....

 

 

Because in DAO, if I did not require +3 CUNNING because I chose to play with higher STR, I could choose something else, and my PC was far different than other Rogue Players and NPC's in the game. Now everyone has the same design; same stats.

Not that this is bad in itself, as I also enjoy playing ME. However, in ME we never had CC for Attributes as everyone played the same character; varied class, where in the DA series, we used to have indv characters. Now every Class is exactly the same in Attributes; no CC apparently. Removing options is precarious; not always a bad thing, but one can expect some to balk at change.

 

You can still chose your stats. You just chose them when you make gear instead of when you level up. In terms of gameplay, in terms of customisation where is the difference? I can conceed that from a lore perspective, from an RP perspective, there might be some flaws - although the previous system had arguably greater flaws as I have repeatedly highlighted in this thread - but from a mechanical sense, which is what you seem to be talking about here there is no functional difference.

[Rawgrim]

I think you're searching for something akin to Skyrim.

 

Or Dragon Age Origins, or fallout 1-3, new vegas, baldur 1-2, neverwinter 1-2, icewind dale 1-2, might and magic 1-9, drakensang 1-2, Kotor 1-2, + + +

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

The reason why the 4ed party would lose is actually explained in the d&d lore. Its due to certain gods having been killed etc. If affected the gameworlds and it was all explained. Although terribly so.

What about a 2nd ed party, that would also lose?  

[xkg]

So, I understand right: No point-spending per level up? True? Didn't want to read an amzing 50 pages thread...

 

Okay, let's look at this: You are a mage...what will you spend your points on anyway? Magic, Willpower, an occasional point in constitution? Rogue ... dexterity and cunning, and occasional constitution-point?

 

Of course you might lose some illusion of control over your char...but in the end, it was an illusion. You need magic and willpower mostly for a mage, and you will assign your point that way...so why even bother in the first place...I didn't much miss spending attribute-points in Skyrim, guess I wouldn't in DAI either...

 

That is all linked together. It started with the armor and weapon class restrictions.

So you are partially right. Now it doesn't matter all that much anymore, I can't be daggers wielding warrior for example, soo there would be no point in puting much into DEX.

 

But that doesn't mean we can't voice our opinions.

It all comes to that cursed "streamlining" concept. It has to stop somewhere unless we want Bioware to make point and click adventure games. That's how it will end up soon.

[Rawgrim]

DA:O levelled your character up automatically, unless you took the optional path of choosing it yourself.....

 

 

 

You can still chose your stats. You just chose them when you make gear instead of when you level up. In terms of gameplay, in terms of customisation where is the difference? I can conceed that from a lore perspective, from an RP perspective, there might be some flaws - although the previous system had arguably greater flaws as I have repeatedly highlighted in this thread - but from a mechanical sense, which is what you seem to be talking about here there is no functional difference.

 

DA:I removed that option. Wich is exactly my point.

[Rawgrim]

What about a 2nd ed party, that would also lose?  

 

Yup. Harder saving throws on 2ed + the hitpoints stop at around level 10.

[PhroXenGold]

DA:I removed that option. Wich is exactly my point.

 

Except it didn't remove the option. It simply moved it to the equipment customisation.

[nialler]

Every decision about the PC, absolutely. 99 percent of the rpgs out there (that lets you create your own character) lets the player do this. I'd rather have no choice than the game making the choices for me, and basically creating my character.

You are just so wrong dude.  I can't even fathom it. 

 

Role-playing games are not designed to follow a strict set of design rules.  If the devs feel they can add adequate character customization (and, in fact, they insist and have shown they've added MORE, qualitatively and quantitatively, meaningful customization than was in previous dragon age games) while simultaneously streamlining the distribution of attribute points upon level up, then it is still totally capable of being a good, if not exceptional, role playing game.

[nialler]

Except it didn't remove the option. It simply moved it to the equipment customisation.

This guy knows exactly what I've been trying to say.  Please, please read his post and take it to heart.  It's the truth.

[Rawgrim]

Except it didn't remove the option. It simply moved it to the equipment customisation.

 

Which (again) has nothing to do with the character itself. Equipments are items. Not the character. Even though the character can put these on, they are separatet from his mind and body. If you played a living suit of armour it would make sense.