3034 réponses à ce sujet

[falconlord5]

That isn't tactical, that's just begging for trial-and-error.

 

If you can't create a build, using four characters, eight abilities drawn from however many specializations, that can take on any situation, that's your lookout, not BioWare's.

 

Who cares about being "overpowered" in a single player game? That only matters if multiplayer is added into the equation, and-

 

Well, well, well.

 

I do. Being overpowered is boring as hell.

 

And we'll still end up that way at the end game anyway.

 

Not Superman; Batman. He is the one that relies more on an assorted range of gear and items while sacrificing in some Attribute loss when compared to the one from Krypton.

 

And balanced for a totally different universe.

 

No, you weren't. Only a tiny handful of abilities were level restricted, and the game allowed you to buff attributes far beyond your "level" with things like tomes, quest completions, and the like.

 

Which is what the perks will do here.

[Wulfram]

Being able to change weapons is good because it's just an obvious and natural part of fighting.  You don't go into battle with superglue on your hands.

[Muspade]

The railroad is just fine. 

Except the stats being allocated to the gear isn't railroading.

[leaguer of one]

How is it a leap in logic? The logic you're using is that you'll be able to entirely gauge an encounter from the outset. Do I even have to go into why this is wrong? Or why being able to adjust on the fly and use different tactics from your vast array of abilities and weapons is more tactical than having to start all over again because you didn't pre-plan right?

How is this wrong? I did that with bg1 and 2 and DAO. In fact not being able to do that with da2 was a big issue with me.

[Keroko]

Well, that still gives you quite a lot of control over your character.

 

Also, roling may have been official but I'm pretty sure point buy was the de facto standard.

 

Point-buy was mostly used by players, but it was a houserule. The pen-and-paper equivalent of a mod. By the book, you rolled for each of your stats. The only control you had was which attribute got which of your randomly generated scores, which meant that any sane person would stuff the highest points into their class' main attribute and dumped the lowest in the one they'd use least (that's where the saying "charisma is a dump-stat" comes from).

 

 

That isn't tactical, that's just begging for trial-and-error.

 

Sometimes you make a tactical mistake and lose, yes. How is this a problem?

 

If anything, the ability to not have to bother with making preparations, or not having to bother thinking of the enemy and their forces you'll be facing because you can face anything and switch combat-modes effortlessly is the easy-mode here.

 

The reduction of options does not heighten versatility. I almost always spam Pause and Tab keys anyway, so tactical mgt is not increased, as it is my chosen play-style.

And party optimization is not enhanced; one is seemingly coerced into taking all Classes, as opposed to the ones desired based on dialogue, romance, or other criteria besides mechanics. While I prefer to take one from each Class as norm does not mean that my three Mage and Rogue party was not viable. But that may not be the case now.

 

Versatility not, no. The tactical level? Yes. Yes, this means we are coerced in bringing balanced parties if we want maximum efficiency (though I'm sure the number crunchers will come up with a perfect party that beats tank/rogue/mage soon enough once the game goes live) but when you think about it, the fact that we are coerced in doing so for efficiency's sake means that this game is harder than the previous one to require such thinking.

So which complaint are we raising here? That Inquisition is easier? Or harder? If you want to pick any party member you want and still roll through the game, then difficulty is clearly not a top priority.

[Paul E Dangerously]

You still have those options.

 

Different roads to the same destination and all that.

 

No, not really. Where you had different roads that branched off in different directions, you've got a one-lane highway that occasionally appears to branch off, but in reality just loops you back into the one you're already on.

[falconlord5]

How is it a leap in logic? The logic you're using is that you'll be able to entirely gauge an encounter from the outset. Do I even have to go into why this is wrong? Or why being able to adjust on the fly and use different tactics from your vast array of abilities and weapons is more tactical than having to start all over again because you didn't pre-plan right?

 

Which you will. The enemy has a tooltip that pops up whenever you look at him in tactical view, showing his strengths and weaknesses. Enemies will be highlighted if they're behind the environment.

 

It's not hard to see what you're getting into and plan appropriately.

[Wulfram]

One other thing about weapon swapping:
You're not getting more pre-planning by disallowing it in battle.  If you can't swap between weapons during battle, you're not going to do it because there's no way it makes sense to lock yourself off from your talents.  Short of respeccing you're going to be stuck with the one weapon the whole game.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Which you will. The enemy has a tooltip that pops up whenever you look at him in tactical view, showing his strengths and weaknesses. Enemies will be highlighted if they're behind the environment.

 

It's not hard to see what you're getting into and plan appropriately.

 

Yeah, who needs to figure anything out by thinking, or anything. All this vaunted planning is useless if they just tell you flat out what you're facing. Never expect the unexpected, because there can't be anything unexpected.

[falconlord5]

One other thing about weapon swapping:
You're not getting more pre-planning by disallowing it in battle.  If you can't swap between weapons during battle, you're not going to do it because there's no way it makes sense to lock yourself off from your talents.  Short of respeccing you're going to be stuck with the one weapon the whole game.

 

And this is a bad thing, how?

 

Weapon swapping in both DA:O and KOTOR 2 annoyed me. It was redundant feature that forced you into jack of all trades build and killed party-effectiveness.

 

 

Yeah, who needs to figure anything out by thinking, or anything. All this vaunted planning is useless if they just tell you flat out what you're facing. Never expect the unexpected, because there can't be anything unexpected.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that using the information the game provides for you is not thinking?

 

NO! The opposite of thinking would be rushing in blindly, not looking at the enemies tooltips.

[Heimdall]

How is it a leap in logic? The logic you're using is that you'll be able to entirely gauge an encounter from the outset. Do I even have to go into why this is wrong? Or why being able to adjust on the fly and use different tactics from your vast array of abilities and weapons is more tactical than having to start all over again because you didn't pre-plan right?

The leap is that your character will be absolutely incompetent without armor, though I'd question why you ever thought it made sense for someone to be punching out armored knights in their smallclothes.  I wasn't responding to that topic.

 

Though now that you mention it, choosing your abilities so that you leave room for adaptation is part of the challenge, one I look forward to tackling.

[leaguer of one]

Yeah, who needs to figure anything out by thinking, or anything. All this vaunted planning is useless if they just tell you flat out what you're facing. Never expect the unexpected, because there can't be anything unexpected.

How is planning ahead not thinking? Even in dao you had to do it as well.

[Paul E Dangerously]

And this is a bad thing, how?

 

Weapon swapping in both DA:O and KOTOR 2 annoyed me. It was redundant feature that forced you into jack of all trades build and killed party-effectiveness.

 

No, it didn't. You could still main one combat style and be effective, but if you wanted to be something other than a one trick pony, you could do that as well. You actually had a choice, unlike with the following games.

[Wulfram]

And this is a bad thing, how?

 

Weapon swapping in both DA:O and KOTOR 2 annoyed me. It was redundant feature that forced you into jack of all trades build and killed party-effectiveness.

 

I was responding to the person who was arguing that not being able to swap weapons encouraged preparation

 

The option to swap weapons doesn't create an obligation to swap weapons.

 

I like being able to swap weapons because it opens up extra tactical options and allows me to approach different foes in different ways.  It doesn't stop you from sticking to the single approach.

[Joe-Poe]

One other thing about weapon swapping:
You're not getting more pre-planning by disallowing it in battle.  If you can't swap between weapons during battle, you're not going to do it because there's no way it makes sense to lock yourself off from your talents.  Short of respeccing you're going to be stuck with the one weapon the whole game.

Which is a problem....In DAO i could have a rogue or a warrior that was an archer and melee and switch on the fly as needed or just when i felt like it....Now ever since DA2 and now DAI I cant. 

[PhroXenGold]

Which is a problem....In DAO i could have a rogue or a warrior that was an archer and melee and switch on the fly as needed or just when i felt like it....Now ever since DA2 and now DAI I cant. 

 

So you don't like having to chose what weapon style you want to use....funny, I though thought people wanted choices in their RPGs...

[Elhanan]

If you can't create a build, using four characters, eight abilities drawn from however many specializations, that can take on any situation, that's your lookout, not BioWare's.

And blocking the notion that while one knows how to do something more, they cannot because they failed to remember that for the fight. Reminds me of D&D memorization for Wizard's, except this affects all three classes.
 
 

I do. Being overpowered is boring as hell.
 
And we'll still end up that way at the end game anyway.
 
 
And balanced for a totally different universe.
 
 
Which is what the perks will do here.

Simply used the context that was presented.

Generally, be it almost any RPG that I have played for almost 40 yrs, versatility has been key in my designs. My Mages used ingredients as choking powder on bears when out of spells for the day. My Rogues used assorted items and devices to safely make their way through dungeons. Powers were used for various purposes, as were Spells. And all of this was done in Class based or Skill based games.

Again, I have enjoyed playing the same character as another Player (eg; Shepard, Revan, Conan, etc), but my preference in a system with variations (eg; Class, Race, Specialization, etc) is to avoid being a clone of some other build. Simply prefer to design my own.

[falconlord5]

No, it didn't. You could still main one combat style and be effective, but if you wanted to be something other than a one trick pony, you could do that as well. You actually had a choice, unlike with the following games.

 

Right. A choice between playing the game as it was meant to be played, or creating a jack of all trades build that can't do anything to save its life.

 

Great choice. Really.

 

I was responding to the person who was arguing that not being able to swap weapons encouraged preparation

 

The option to swap weapons doesn't create an obligation to swap weapons.

 

I like being able to swap weapons because it opens up extra tactical options and allows me to approach different foes in different ways.  It doesn't stop you from sticking to the single approach.

 

Point. But I'm still trying to figure out what 'tactical options' balancing out two diametrically opposed builds gave you.

[Keroko]

I was responding to the person who was arguing that not being able to swap weapons encouraged preparation

 

The option to swap weapons doesn't create an obligation to swap weapons.

 

I like being able to swap weapons because it opens up extra tactical options and allows me to approach different foes in different ways.  It doesn't stop you from sticking to the single approach.

 

It also makes the game easier due to not having to prepare for the unknown in advance.

 

Which, you know, kind of goes against the whole 'dumbing down' argument this 'no stat allocation' shpiel seems to be build around.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Right. A choice between playing the game as it was meant to be played, or creating a jack of all trades build that can't do anything to save its life.

 

Great choice. Really.

 

 

Point. But I'm still trying to figure out what 'tactical options' balancing out two diametrically opposed builds gave you.

 

You're projecting again, perhaps because of some ineptitude? A DAO Archer/DW Rogue might not be DA2's Assassin crit build that can one-shot the damned Ariskok, but it's still effective to the point that I had no problems clearing DAO, Awakening, and the DLC with it on Hard.

 

I think it's this mentality that the only way something can be effective is if it's optimized out the wazoo.

[Joe-Poe]

So you don't like having to chose what weapon style you want to use....funny, I though thought people wanted choices in their RPGs...

    ....How was that anything at all what I said.

[Paul E Dangerously]

It also makes the game easier due to not having to prepare for the unknown in advance.

 

Which, you know, kind of goes against the whole 'dumbing down' argument this 'no stat allocation' shpiel seems to be build around.

 

..or you are preparing for things in advance, just doing so every so often and not having to stop and check before every single battle to see if you need to go all the way home and get your Archer Spec Custom Gear™ instead of your Dual Wield Custom Gear™ for every fight. And then stop to redo all of your active abilities and tactics. Again. And again, and again.

Yeah, who needs that?

[falconlord5]

And blocking the notion that while one knows how to do something more, they cannot because they failed to remember that for the fight. Reminds me of D&D memorization for Wizard's, except this affects all three classes.
 
 

I'm still not convinced a final build will have more than eight active skills, unless you deliberately seek a jack of all trades build.

 

Simply used the context that was presented.

Generally, be it almost any RPG that I have played for almost 40 yrs, versatility has been key in my designs. My Mages used ingredients as choking powder on bears when out of spells for the day. My Rogues used assorted items and devices to safely make their way through dungeons. Powers were used for various purposes, as were Spells. And all of this was done in Class based or Skill based games.

Again, I have enjoyed playing the same character as another Player (eg; Shepard, Revan, Conan, etc), but my preference in a system with variations (eg; Class, Race, Specialization, etc) is to avoid being a clone of some other build. Simply prefer to design my own.

 

 

In a pen-and-paper RPG, which is what I assume the majority of your experience comes from, that's possible. In a CRPG, you are going to be a clone of somebody elses build.

 

It's a limitation inherent in the medium. There are only so many classes and talents, and so many variations on those, that a game designer can bring into the game. Four guys on a table can come up with far greater variation then a programmer can, because a pen and paper RPGer is not limited by the same external factors as a video game designer.

[PhroXenGold]

    ....How was that anything at all what I said.

 

You were objecting to having to make a choice in how your character fights. And most people here seem to want choice in their RPGs, so I assumed you did too, thus your objecting to a choice seemed amusing to me.

[Elhanan]

...
 
Versatility not, no. The tactical level? Yes. Yes, this means we are coerced in bringing balanced parties if we want maximum efficiency (though I'm sure the number crunchers will come up with a perfect party that beats tank/rogue/mage soon enough once the game goes live) but when you think about it, the fact that we are coerced in doing so for efficiency's sake means that this game is harder than the previous one to require such thinking.
So which complaint are we raising here? That Inquisition is easier? Or harder? If you want to pick any party member you want and still roll through the game, then difficulty is clearly not a top priority.

A reduction in tactical choices does not equate to an increase of tactical play. One will tend to select the abilities and skills that will be more useful; not the misc spells and abilities which might be used, but are more specialized. And reloading to switch is not the best option for those that enjoy immersive play. A focus on mechanics over character is not advisable.

In a nutshell, my complaint is that while my Inquisitor may appear to be different than someone else, it basically is the same as the default choice. And beauty is only skin deep....