3034 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

They were in DA:O.

If you only look at their combat utility, maybe. But then I generally think that's what Rogues should be.

Their value comes from their non-combat utility.

[Rawgrim]

Okay you can stop using that label right now. They are not 'The Anti-RPG' crowd they just happen to have a different opinion on what makes a good RPG.

 

Simplified, not anti.

[cjones91]

Again, weapon choices between swords vs axes vs maces were largely cosmetic.  Now rogues and warriors play vastly differently, allowing more choices in playstyle instead of "this rogue has all the same dual wielding moves as my dual wielding warrior, but he can go invisible and drop a trap too!".

Warriors got gimped too you know?They've been reduced to using great swords and S&S.Back in Origins they could use any weapon ranging from bows/crossbows to battle axes/hammers and wear any type of armor.

 

The same thing with rogues since they are reduced to daggers and only daggers as their main melee weapons whereas in Origins they had access to swords,hand axes,and mauls.

 

So how exactly do the two classes play differently if both are gimped in weopon choice?Aside from talents and locking picking what changes between the rogue or warrior in both this game and previously DA2?

[Nohvarr]

You can swing wide with the two handed weapons too. In fact quite a few of the abilities did that.

This is for the basic attack, all two handed Warmammerbs and Mauls do single target damage. All Great Swords and Great axes do damage in a  cone. So now you choose your warriors talents, skill armor, weapon and gear to maximize how you want them to play. Heck each character has an independent slot that can mount regen potions and much more, but will lose out on other options like carrying a jar of bees.

 

 

Simplified, not anti.

Considering all the options we've seen to upgrade the character, the companions, the Inquisition itself , "Simplified" is also a misnomer.

[The Elder King]

I am being fair.  Specializations in DA:O offered you 4 abilities, some of which were passive, not all of which were useful.  Now you can only pick one specialization, but it has a branching tree of abilities with passive, actives and upgrades to active abilities.  DA:O was not the be all, end all of CRPGs.  To me, it looks like most everything has been improved upon, and attribute points are automatically assigned, but further augmented through significant bonuses through the gear you craft and customize. And now there is gear that improves your active abilities as well. Did any gear in DA:O do that?

First off, I didn't say anything about DAO being the ultimate crpg. I merely noted That all the choices you listed aren't related to combat builds, Which was the point of the discussion.
I agree thatSpecializations are probably better then in DAO. It doesn't change the fact that We have no clue if they'll lead to more builds then DAO. I don't think DAI will allow for more builds. So no, in terms of combat builds DAI offers probably less choices then DAO, Regardless if it turns out I'll prefer DAI's system over DAO (Which is possible. I can't say I'll prefer one before playing the other).

[nialler]

Maces and axes had more armour piercing than the daggers. So no. It wasn't only a cosmetic choice.

 

I never did that. I used 2 axes for my dwarven rogue, even though they were alot worse than the swords I found.

I know there was armor piercing - still didn't affect how I chose my weapons, to be honest.

 

I understand that weapon appearance can be important to roleplaying.  I also understand that "dual wielding daggers" is a combat style that the rogues use.  Its a set of animations for having two weapons in hand.  Now there's been nothing shown that says those two weapons can't be axes, or bigger daggers, or even two maces.  In DA2 there were all sorts of daggers you could use, including the weird punching fist weapons. Can you say theres a set of daggers in DA:I that isn't two axes with the attribute "does more damage against heavily armored enemies"?

[cjones91]

"Anti-RPG"

Spoiler

That's the only term I could think of to describe the people who advocate having less options in terms of character builds.They support streamlined linearity.

[Heimdall]

That is not new choices. Those choices and more were allready in the series to begin with. they could have kept that, and just had the rogues use different animations anyway.

They could have, but they made the choice that they wanted Warriors and Rogues to be distinctly different experiences instead of more or less the same thing with a few unique abilities.  I don't see the point in maintaining the distinction in that case.  I'd like it if they made a single non-mage class, but if there are different classes I don't think they can be expected to support circumventing them.

[nialler]

You can swing wide with the two handed weapons too. In fact quite a few of the abilities did that.

I'm pretty sure hes talking about the DA:I gameplay livestream that just ended...

[Elhanan]

You seem to think there's inherent value in your character, with the same specialization, being completely different from other players characters that will never affect your game ever. Why is this?

Some less meaningful choices (attribute distribution through level up) were removed in favor of dev time being spent in areas providing more choices (gear customization, new inquisition features, etc.).  I'm not sure what the issue is here.

In DAO, my Mages always took AW to be able to wear helms, and avoid those fowl hats; pun intended. Because of this choice, DEX became a more important Attribute to me, even if I still chose a staff over weapon as a primary weapon (S&S was secondary, and used for extra armor and Mana Regen). Now some other DAO Players may have have used AW and gone with S&S; know of one that played with 2H.

Apparently now, without being able to switch weapons, same Attributes, and a single sub-class, they will all generally tend to have a sim design. I prefer CC to be greater than appearances and color schemes; also like to have different base designs, too.

[Giubba]

We're talking about a level one character. What options do I have?

In DA:I few for what i can see because this system afaik develop the character through the time and not by defining the bulk at the beginning and than refine it.

I would also argue that Awakening didn't ultimately have many choices, because we maxed out most of the trees. Very few abilities were left unlearned by the end.

Maxing out all those tree give you a LOT of choice in combat but was meaningless having all those choice because managing it wasn't worth the trouble so people stick to their prefered skill.

[AresKeith]

That's the only term I could think of to describe the people who advocate having less options in terms of character builds.They support streamlined linearity.

 

But calling them the anti-RPG crowd is just silly and exaggerating 

[cjones91]

Okay you can stop using that label right now. They are not 'The Anti-RPG' crowd they just happen to have a different opinion on what makes a good RPG.

If you have a better term then I'm all for it.And what exactly makes a "good" RPG?

 

Less choice?

Less options?

More restricted character building?

[Paul E Dangerously]

I know there was armor piercing - still didn't affect how I chose my weapons, to be honest.

 

I understand that weapon appearance can be important to roleplaying.  I also understand that "dual wielding daggers" is a combat style that the rogues use.  Its a set of animations for having two weapons in hand.  Now there's been nothing shown that says those two weapons can't be axes, or bigger daggers, or even two maces.  In DA2 there were all sorts of daggers you could use, including the weird punching fist weapons. Can you say theres a set of daggers in DA:I that isn't two axes with the attribute "does more damage against heavily armored enemies"?

 

1) It's "dual daggers" and not "dual weapons". They're clearly sticking to the DA2 standard on this. It's daggers or nothing - unless you get DLC.

2) Again, the only non-dagger weapon in the game for a melee rogue were two axes, and those were in the DLC.

[Rawgrim]

I know there was armor piercing - still didn't affect how I chose my weapons, to be honest.

 

I understand that weapon appearance can be important to roleplaying.  I also understand that "dual wielding daggers" is a combat style that the rogues use.  Its a set of animations for having two weapons in hand.  Now there's been nothing shown that says those two weapons can't be axes, or bigger daggers, or even two maces.  In DA2 there were all sorts of daggers you could use, including the weird punching fist weapons. Can you say theres a set of daggers in DA:I that isn't two axes with the attribute "does more damage against heavily armored enemies"?

 

You said those choices were meaningless in DA:O

 

Yes. the devs have said that the rogues can only dual wield daggers. Not swords or anything else. Just daggers.

[nialler]

That's the only term I could think of to describe the people who advocate having less options in terms of character builds.They support streamlined linearity.

Sorry buddy, we understand the concept of development budgets for time, money and energy.  We also understand that DA:O already exists.

 

We trust bioware, given everything they've shown us, to make a new, good dragon age game called DA:I, with meaningful gameplay choices, exciting combat, great characters and a good story.  And we happen to understand they might make a decision to streamline attribute point distribution in lieu of giving us new, exciting features like improved crafting and even further branching ability trees.  In real life, there are trade offs, and we aren't going to cry about not clicking strength twice and constitution once when my warrior levels up.

[Heimdall]

Wouldn't it be better if the player got to make their own distinctive character?

I don't have a problem doing that with the current system.  Like I said though, I like the idea of losing the warrior/rogue distinction, I'm not opposed.  I just don't think you should expect Bioware to support playing a rogue as a warrior as long as the class distinction exists.

[Muspade]

That's the only term I could think of to describe the people who advocate having less options in terms of character builds.They support streamlined linearity.

 

 

If you have a better term then I'm all for it.And what exactly makes a "good" RPG?

 

Less choice?

Less options?

More restricted character building?

 

 

Options that actually matter.

[PhroXenGold]

Being able to use a weapon that is alot more effective vs heavily armoured opponents isn't a meaningful choice?

 

"A lot" is exaggerating.

 

But I was actually responding to the part of the quoted post talking about differentiating between warriors and rogues. Because, in DA:O, those differences were pretty small. You had a lot of flexibility, a lot of choice in how you set up your non-mage character, but at the same time, there wasn't a huge amount of variety in how they played. By completely separating the warrior and rogue classes, it allows much greater distinctiveness between them, it allows for more focused weapon skill trees that complement the class they apply to. So you have less choice but the differences between the choices are greater. And to me, that is far more important.

 

It's like the weapons in the first two Mass Effect games - in ME1, there were somewhere in the region of 615735412 different weapons once you considered all the various upgrades. Except, to all intents and purposes, gameplay wise, there were actually two in each weapon class. Either you had one that fired constantly without ever overheating, or you had one where you stocked all the +damage to get one massive shot then waited to cool down. In ME2, out of the box, you had 2-3 weapons in each class. But they all played differently. At worst you had as much variety as the first game, and in some of the weapon classes you had 50% more. Throw in DLCs and you've got vastly more actual variety and distinctiveness between the relatively few choices than you did with the vastly more options available in the first game. Less choices, more meaningful distinction between those choices.

[cjones91]

But calling them the anti-RPG crowd is just silly and exaggerating 

Maybe,but the arguments I've seen here are the exact same that I've seen on other forums where people supported stripping a game of all it's RPG elements.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Sorry buddy, we understand the concept of development budgets for time, money and energy.  We also understand that DA:O already exists.

 

We trust bioware, given everything they've shown us, to make a new, good dragon age game called DA:I, with meaningful gameplay choices, exciting combat, great characters and a good story.  And we happen to understand they might make a decision to streamline attribute point distribution in lieu of giving us new, exciting features like improved crafting and even further branching ability trees.  In real life, there are trade offs, and we aren't going to cry about not clicking strength twice and constitution once when my warrior levels up.

 

You really don't know that yet. The game isn't out.

[nialler]

You said those choices were meaningless in DA:O

 

Yes. the devs have said that the rogues can only dual wield daggers. Not swords or anything else. Just daggers.

Yeah but what do all the daggers in the game look like?  Do you know for certain?

What attributes do all the daggers have in the game?  Do you know for certain?

 

We've already seen warriors using maces, hammers, axes and swords whether with a shield or two handed.  You think rogues wont have that sort of weapon variety when even in DA2 they had more than just "standard daggers" to use?  And this game has 4x the development time that DA2 did.  Come on man.

[Nohvarr]

If you have a better term then I'm all for it.And what exactly makes a "good" RPG?

 

Less choice?

Less options?

More restricted character building?

Different Choices

Different Options

A different way of building the character in a new system.

 

How about "People with a different opinion."

[Sylvius the Mad]

In DA:I few for what i can see because this system afaik develop the character through the time and not by defining the bulk at the beginning and than refine it.


Maxing out all those tree give you a LOT of choice in combat but was meaningless having all those choice because managing it wasn't worth the trouble so people stick to their prefered skill.

Again, we're talking about character design choices, not tactical options.

And I have no objection to defining the character over time, but I'd like to do it at the start, too. Let me play a scrawny skillless Warrior, or a beefy thuggish Rogue, or a particularly erudite anything at all.

But all level 1 archers should not be the same. And it appears they're selecting not only our stats, but our starting abilities as well.

They went too far with this in DAO and DA2. I was hoping they'd retreat from this design, nor forge ahead.

Once again, this game needs mods.

[Giubba]

Maybe,but the arguments I've seen here are the exact same that I've seen on other forums where people supported stripping a game of all it's RPG elements.

Basicaly.

The game is different.

I don't like it.

Everybody is wrong on supporting those change.