Lol, you are hilarious.
If the best argument you can raise in the absence of any proof of your claim is "well he must be lying", I'm not going to indulge you any further.
Except the MP site makes it absolutly clear: single player has MP mechanics, and he didn't address this catastrophic choice, which is a lie of omission.
Stats that YOU CHOOSE, either at creation in IE games, or at level up..here nothing nope all warriors have the same stats can't be more clever, or cunning or dexterous than any other warrior. Unless your magic pants make you cleverer you are exactly the same.
D&D 3.5 had a random generation system. The dice decided your stats, with the only choice being allocation which score goes where. Which on average rolls meant you better invest those higher rolls in strength and constitution if you didn't want to gimp yourself. And level ups? one attribute point every four levels. Any player would have triple that through items.
Or perhaps more video game examples? Let's see, there are the Final Fantasy and Tales games, which upgrade solely through auto-assigment and gear. Or games like Skyrim, in which you upgrade mainly through talents and gear.
What Bioware is doing may be different from previous Dragon Age games, but it's still as RPG as you can get.
Except the MP site makes it absolutly clear: single player has MP mechanics, and he didn't address this catastrophic choice, which is a lie of omission.
D&D 3.5 had a random generation system. The dice decided your stats, with the only choice being allocation which score goes where. Which on average rolls meant you better invest those higher rolls in strength and constitution if you didn't want to gimp yourself. And level ups? one attribute point every four levels. Any player would have triple that through items.
Or perhaps more video game examples? Let's see, there are the Final Fantasy and Tales games, which upgrade solely through auto-assigment and gear. Or games like Skyrim, in which you upgrade mainly through talents and gear.
What Bioware is doing may be different from previous Dragon Age games, but it's still as RPG as you can get.
Never played a dex warrior I see, but that does work better in pathfinder. Don't enjoy JRPGs so can't comment on FF apart from to say I disliked FF7 and haven't played another since. The level up system in Skyrim is my biggest gripe with it, but the ability to wander off and ignore the plot completely makes up for it.
Never played a dex warrior I see, but that does work better in pathfinder. Don't enjoy JRPGs so can't comment on FF apart from to say I disliked FF7 and haven't played another since. The level up system in Skyrim is my biggest gripe with it, but the ability to wander off and ignore the plot completely makes up for it.
Oh, I'm not saying you should like them, but to claim that the system Bioware is using is moving away from RPG's while hundreds of well known RPG's have used systems similar to Inquisition's is a false accusation.
While I oppose the restrictions on customization, this appears to be false logic. Simply because the NPC's in DA-MP are static, and nothing was said about limiting Attributes does not equate to anyone lying; omission or otherwise. Perhaps leaving Olympus for the companionship of mortals, and leaving such judgments to our betters would be wise.
if clearly states on the MP site that combat and gear mechanics for both sides of the game have been developed in the MP environment, which makes the claim that MP has no impact on SP a lie, it has complete and utter power over how SP Plays.
Oh, I'm not saying you should like them, but to claim that the system Bioware is using is moving away from RPG's while hundreds of well known RPG's have used systems similar to Inquisition's is a false accusation.
ok then GOOD rpgs, tho I have an issue with calling JRPGs rpgs as they are incredibly linear and I didn't see many choices to make in the amount I could force myself thru FF7.
ok then GOOD rpgs, tho I have an issue with calling JRPGs rpgs as they are incredibly linear and I didn't see many choices to make in the amount I could force myself thru FF7.
A JRPG is no different from a railroaded D&D campaign. Might not be to everyone's liking to just play a story rather than create a story, but it's rather bad taste to insult those that do enjoy them by claiming they aren't RPG's.
i have no idea where the discussion is now, but i fully support no attribute points on levelup. i hope the stats tell extra story and information about characters, giving a feel about characters capabilities and limitations, instead of being extra gamey element with no connection to chars, resulting in hilariously buffed up number in stat or two by the endgame.
automatic increase does sound lame especially if only one or two stats get increased. i would preferred fixed numbers. in general it seems on a right track.
This is a stupid decision. That combined with the fact that talents can't be used from the radial menu leaves my hype... Tempered and low. Guess that's good, low expectations means that you'll either be pleasantly surprised if it's better than expected or you won't be as disappointed as you would have been because it's only about as good as your low expectations anticipated.
Still, this decision about attributes is something I greatly dislike.
Except the MP site makes it absolutly clear: single player has MP mechanics, and he didn't address this catastrophic choice, which is a lie of omission.
if clearly states on the MP site that combat and gear mechanics for both sides of the game have been developed in the MP environment, which makes the claim that MP has no impact on SP a lie, it has complete and utter power over how SP Plays.
No it doesn't say that at all. Thats what you are choosing to see because you clearly don't like the thought of multiplayer, you don't like some of the design choices being made in the combat and seem determined to believe one has caused the other.
Collelation does not prove causality. Never has, never will.
I believe this is the quote to which you are hanging you claim:
Was multiplayer (MP) mode created by the same team that made single-player (SP)?
· MP and SP were developed side by side. The multiplayer environment gave us a perfect opportunity for testing combat, creatures, and encounter design, and since the two environments are near-identical, every improvement spread to both parts of the game.
They have made design choices to change how combat encounters are balanced and approached as explained in Lukas' post. The fact that they tested the impact of those choices in multiplayer is simply one of efficiency for the devs. It does not - in any way - prove that the choices to limit healing, hotbar slots, single specialisations, no persistant injuries after incapacitation or attribute distribution on level were made BECAUSE of multiplayer.
The fact that the Lukas didn't mention that they tested it in multiplayer in his post is because the test environment is utterly irrelevant to the games combat design process that happens long before you build anything to test. Its not a "lie of ommission" for heavens sake, it just had nothing to do with what he was posting about.
If, when you are testing (be that in sp or mp), you find areas that need improvement you feed that back and implement changes. That is the entire point of testing. If the two environments are near-identical, what is the point in doing the same tests twice? Its the same combat, its the same enemies, its the same mechanics. Improvements made after testing affect combat in both SP and MP because its the same combat.
(Exhale)
And thats me done on the subject.
I'm sorry you don't like multiplayer (that you've never tried) and I'm sorry that you don't like radical changes to game mechanics (that you've never tried). Blaming one for the other is your right and if you still want to staunchly cling to that tenuous notion, knock yourself out. If you ever stop being angry about your interpretation of a single line in an FAQ which doesn't say what you think it does, please give the group in my sig a look. We'd be happy to help you.
Back simply to say that pointless bickering has infected my dreams - I dreamt that a new gameplay vid came out with some dialogue between Cass and the Inquisitor, and there was some discussion about why she seemed to be really pissed off with him. I felt it was likely because she had a broken hand which a tree was lying on in the cutscene, which was enough to make anyone pissed off, whereupon I was told I was an idiot who failed to understand games and that couldn't possibly be the reason.
No it doesn't say that at all. Thats what you are choosing to see because you clearly don't like the thought of multiplayer, you don't like some of the design choices being made in the combat and seem determined to believe one has caused the other.
Collelation does not prove causality. Never has, never will.
I believe this is the quote to which you are hanging you claim:
Was multiplayer (MP) mode created by the same team that made single-player (SP)?
· MP and SP were developed side by side. The multiplayer environment gave us a perfect opportunity for testing combat, creatures, and encounter design, and since the two environments are near-identical, every improvement spread to both parts of the game.
They have made design choices to change how combat encounters are balanced and approached as explained in Lukas' post. The fact that they tested the impact of those choices in multiplayer is simply one of efficiency for the devs. It does not - in any way - prove that the choices to limit healing, hotbar slots, single specialisations, no persistant injuries after incapacitation or attribute distribution on level were made BECAUSE of multiplayer.
The fact that the Lukas didn't mention that they tested it in multiplayer in his post is because the test environment is utterly irrelevant to the games combat design process that happens long before you build anything to test. Its not a "lie of ommission" for heavens sake, it just had nothing to do with what he was posting about.
If, when you are testing (be that in sp or mp), you find areas that need improvement you feed that back and implement changes. That is the entire point of testing. If the two environments are near-identical, what is the point in doing the same tests twice? Its the same combat, its the same enemies, its the same mechanics. Improvements made after testing affect combat in both SP and MP because its the same combat.
(Exhale)
And thats me done on the subject.
I'm sorry you don't like multiplayer (that you've never tried) and I'm sorry that you don't like radical changes to game mechanics (that you've never tried). Blaming one for the other is your right and if you still want to staunchly cling to that tenuous notion, knock yourself out. If you ever stop being angry about your interpretation of a single line in an FAQ which doesn't say what you think it does, please give the group in my sig a look. We'd be happy to help you.
Not being able to choose where we put our attribute points in lvl up and gear that give different attributes when equipped somthinng you usually see in western RPGs not worried much about it tho, while I would prefer to see attributes manually doled out like in previous Bioware games I've played many rpgs that used this lvl up method and most of them are very good games... even if the main protagonists of said games sometimes have silly hair styles and are usually below drinking age
Orly...?
we are arguing peoples subjective opinions about a mechanics change......
What I want to know is how are the attribute points allocated at level up? Is there a fixed formula for each class? Does it alter once you acquire a specialization?
What I want to know is how are the attribute points allocated at level up? Is there a fixed formula for each class? Does is alter once you acquire a specialization?
What I want to know is how are the attribute points allocated at level up? Is there a fixed formula for each class? Does is alter once you acquire a specialization?
Speculating, I assume a fixed formula emphasizing the main stats of the class.
Agreed for the most part. But what concerns me are changes to a system I have tried and enjoyed to another untried form. I like both the ME series and Skyrim, but DA was not like these initially; it had internal customization of many PC's from varied origins, or a single one such as Hawke. Externally, each Inquisitor may appear to be different, but the base design for everyone now appears to be the same. And based on the PC photo of a Rogue with high DEX, but no Cunning makes me question decisions I no longer control.
No arguments from me on that. I've been quite 'pro' toward the changes to combat in general, especially after seeing Lukas's post in the healing thread. The logic behind it makes sense to me. I think that when viewed holistically I can see how the the different components work together - theoretically at least - and it makes sense to me that attribute distribution, which directly affects your combat prowess, would be in scope for that too. Not sure I like the idea but I'm willing to try it before condemning it. Thats because for me, roleplaying my character is expressed in the choices I make in the plot, the decisions I make in combat and the abilities my character chooses to level up with.
The system being described still allows me to do all those things. I'm not going to try and tell anyone this is better, but I've never been a fan of saying things shouldn't change just because they worked before. If allowing manual attribute distribution actively screws the design goals of making combat more consistant throughout the game, I think I can understand why devs have taken the decision that combat balance for all players is more important than fredom to create obscure builds for some.
Appreciate thats not going to go down well with some people.
Mike said that points Are automatically allocated when leveling up.As far as we know, attributes are increased along with abilities.
Picking Mighty Blow for example gives you +3 strength.
Mike said that points Are automatically allocated when leveling up.
Thats true, but you also gain attribute points when taking some abilities, both active and passive. Therefore attribute distribution is influenced by the abilities you can perform which makes as much sense as boosting attributes so that you can perform certain abilities. If I train to learn how to deliver a Mighty Blow that can cause the effect it does, it stands to reason my strength attribute would have increased as a result of the training.
Thats true, but you also gain attribute points when taking some abilities, both active and passive. Therefore attribute distribution is influenced by the abilities you can perform which makes as much sense as boosting attributes so that you can perform certain abilities. If I train to learn how to deliver a Mighty Blow that can cause the effect it does, it stands to reason my strength attribute would have increased as a result of the training.
I agree with this.
Retour en haut
