79 réponses à ce sujet

[Doominike]

But I'd find find it way more fun that way

[viperidae]

then play on casual and use cheat engine, i don't know. The game will never be designed to be easy, and a role-playing game will never be designed without opportunity cost. Generally people DO want to be challenged in gaming

 

Just to draw a parallel, in some games you can learn any skill, so in a way, choosing a class is opportunity cost. yet would the game be better if everybody was the same class? For a lot of people, the answer to that is no.

[Doominike]

In many games with player upgrades you can get all of them. I literally have every single perk in Skyrim. Also, it will be easy anyway, I don't want more skills so it's easier, I just want to have more cool abilities

[CasbynessPC]

I'm confused - if we can't pick stats when levelling then what happens to fun aspects like Charisma, used for intimidating or charming people in conversations? O.O

[phantomrachie]

I'm confused - if we can't pick stats when levelling then what happens to fun aspects like Charisma, used for intimidating or charming people in conversations? O.O

 

Instead of using the 'cunning' stat like in DA:O. Inquisitors can choose an Inquisition perk that allows them persuade others

[viperidae]

In many games with player upgrades you can get all of them. I literally have every single perk in Skyrim. Also, it will be easy anyway, I don't want more skills so it's easier, I just want to have more cool abilities

 

I can understand a desire for that, but even the developers at Bethersda who made that game agree that it's bad design, and in a much better example of that type of game (in my opinion), Fallout New Vegas, you actually can't have every perk and every skill at 100.

 

Fact is, it's a win-win for developers. They can talk about how it's realistic (becuase it is) that not every character can do everything, decisions upon level-up becomes memorable choices, and it adds replayability to the game.

 

Anyhow, if that's really what you want then playing Skyrim is really your best bet. Not every game is going to be skyrim and i don't think every game should try be. DA:I is a game about choices and to have gameplay be devoid of meaninful ones would be doing it a disservice. The game, and by extension the game world is all about and will always be about choice: choice of class, choice of race, choice of who you support and what your ideology is.

[BloodWarden]

Ok so when did no attributes come into play?

[phantomrachie]

Ok so when did no attributes come into play?

 

It's not that there wont be any attributes, its that you wont get points to put into them each level. Instead gear, Inquisition perks & passive skills increase your attributes. 

[Ser Jynx]

Personally, I'm sick of healer classes. I much rather prefer any mage classes to be support and damage. It enables my warriors to not be pancaked by even the most feeble mobs without mystical god healing powers.

[Doominike]

I can understand a desire for that, but even the developers at Bethersda who made that game agree that it's bad design, and in a much better example of that type of game (in my opinion), Fallout New Vegas, you actually can't have every perk and every skill at 100.

 

Fact is, it's a win-win for developers. They can talk about how it's realistic (becuase it is) that not every character can do everything, decisions upon level-up becomes memorable choices, and it adds replayability to the game.

 

Anyhow, if that's really what you want then playing Skyrim is really your best bet. Not every game is going to be skyrim and i don't think every game should try be. DA:I is a game about choices and to have gameplay be devoid of meaninful ones would be doing it a disservice. The game, and by extension the game world is all about and will always be about choice: choice of class, choice of race, choice of who you support and what your ideology is.

But in Fallout 3 you could, and it was way better

[viperidae]

But in Fallout 3 you could, and it was way better

 let me reiterate this. YOU THINK it is better, that is fine, but NOBODY agrees. nobody in this thread, and none of the game developers. why do you think on FNV you can't have every skill? becuase they saw the fiasco that F3 was, and the fact that it had exactly ZERO replayability, and they weren't gonna do that again. If you want that go cheat, go play easy games, but don't get your easymode in my opportuniy cost filled RPG please, this isn't an action adventure game like shadow of mordor or batman where you will be amazingly OP at the end (incidentally this is when i lose interest in these games) and it shouldn't have to try to be.

[phantomrachie]

But in Fallout 3 you could, and it was way better

 

I don't agree, with all the content that Fallout 3 had, it was really easy to hit the level cap & be maxed out on everything way before you completed the game.

 

At level 30 in Fallout 3, I was a god, not even Deathclaws were a threat anymore.

 

In Fallout NV, even at high levels Deathclaws were always an enemy to be cautious of, just like they should be they're fecking Deathclaws, at no stage in a Fallout game should I be like, oh look its a Deathclaw whatever.

 

As much as I liked Fallout 3, I felt that the level system was pointless. Whats the point in asking me to put points into 'guns' or 'barter' when at some stage I know I'm going to be 100 in everything, yes my choice impacts me when I'm low level, but at a certain stage it doesn't matter what my tagged skills were.

 

By preventing us from getting all the skills in DA:I, BioWare are giving us more flexibility, my 2 hander Inquisitor could be leveled & speced in a different way to yours.

 

Each Inquisitor is a little bit more unique.

[Fast Jimmy]

Deathclaws for lyfe!


Or... err... death. I guess that would actually be more accurate.

[Doominike]

Obviously it's how *I* think is better, do you all generally speak objectively ? I sure don't, just because I don't add "imo" at the end of every phrase doesn't mean I'm stating facts. 

 

Also, I don't necessarily want to have all of everything maxed out, just the trees I use. Taking FO3 for exemple, sure I had all skills at 100, but a bunch of them could have been at 0 for all I care because I didn't use them. And I was totally fine with not having every perk too, because I had those I wanted. Actually I even got some I didn't really find worthwhile just because I got more perk points than there were perks I wanted. Not maxing everything isn't even the reason I didn't like NV, it was because I found the story mostly boring and I disliked the DT system because it forced me to wear bulky armor if I wanted to be resilient in the end game. More realistic sure but I found more fun in FO3 cause I could just wear whatever I wanted since I had like 40-45 dmg res naked anyway. 

 

To return to topic and speak of DA proper, I don't want my mage(s) to be able to get every spell from every tree, that would actually bother me since taking skills I don't want annoys me just as much as not being able to take skills I do want. What I'd like is, say I make a fire mage, eventually get all fire spells. That's not unreasonable, especially since we get 1 specialization instead of 2 or like, 5. It'd be akin to maxing out, for exemple, the Sniper Rifle skill in ME1 if you mainly snipe. 

 

Also also, my original point wasn't even that. It was that I don't like skills and attributes being attached. What if I want lots of evasion on my rogue but skills I like/want give lots of critical instead ? You're gonna say "well it's a trade-off decision, it's tactical" but I'm saying, manual attribute distribution involved strategic choices too, in fact it was more flexible. If the goal is have wider build variation it's a failure because it does the opposite.

 

But I'm aware Bioware are not dumb, skills are probably (mostly) paired with attribute boosts that work well with them so it'll likely be ok. Doesn't mean I can't say I dislike the idea anyway 

[viperidae]

so your idea is basically that the game should just cater to you and make every little thing and combo you want, possible. Tell that to all the people who like dual-wield warriors, spirit warriors, battlemage, arcane warrior spec, the keeper spec, blood mages, etc. etc. etc. it's not gonna happen mate.

[Nakorius]

I read some of the posts here and my brain just wants to shut down...

 

"Ill be a mage, put all points into strength and ask why my fireballs do no damage.."

 

The lack of stat point allocation is in my mind the best there is. Lorewise if someone aquires a skill, spell , he takes time and effort to learn it.  Gets stats to str if its a sword skill,  mag if its a spell..  That is logical. If your character learns  defence skills/talents he will have more con or str. If  you learn talents like barrier and its upgreades then you get stats  giving you magic resistance... Its logic pure.

 

Morrowind had somethin simmilar. You leveled sword skills and on a level up  atributes alocated to that skill  had a multiplier.

[Doominike]

I said that's most likely how they did it, and if so it'll work fine. But I can still say I'd prefer the previous way. I'm not asking to have all my ideal preferences. If I was I'd be asking to not have followers or being able to kill anyone I want whenever, etc

[phantomrachie]

Obviously it's how *I* think is better, do you all generally speak objectively ? I sure don't, just because I don't add "imo" at the end of every phrase doesn't mean I'm stating facts. 

 

 

Yes, we know its your opinion and we're debating it by putting forward our own opinion. That is why people are saying things like 'I disagree' or 'IMO'

 

Please use the same common sense when reading other peoples posts that you are asking people to use when they read yours

[Doominike]

That was in reply to the "viper" something person. I said it was better in FO3 and he went all "that's YOUR opinion", so I just replied "well duh, ofc that's my opinion"

[eternalshiva]

Attributes are increased through crafting and you can mess around with them via gear that way, you just don't have the "permanent skill points" you are used to seeing (that 1 point you get on level up) I'd ratehr mess around with gear and get my stats up then decide which 1 point to put in a permanent skill. Kinda silly thing to gripe about.

 

Healing still exists - there's regen potions/bombs, Potions/bombs that create a healing mist cicle while you fight, there's barriers, there's stats you can allocate to gear you craft to return HP on each hit or defeat of enemies, There's the Focus bility for your mage that will revive and heal characters, there's a revive spell, there's lots of things you can do that creates mitigation of dmg that can prevent you from even TAKING a hit.

 

Can't spam heals, have to pay attention to the group and your group's dymanics.

[Doominike]

Did I see that wrong or did some gameplay vid show we can hold a button to revive followers mid-battle like in ME or BL ?

[phantomrachie]

That was in reply to the "viper" something person. I said it was better in FO3 and he went all "that's YOUR opinion", so I just replied "well duh, ofc that's my opinion"

 

oh - since you didn't quote them and your post wasn't directly under their post, I thought you were addressing the entire thread.

 

My apologies 

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Did I see that wrong or did some gameplay vid show we can hold a button to revive followers mid-battle like in ME or BL ?

 

You saw right. Actually glad for the feature.

[berrieh]

In many games with player upgrades you can get all of them. I literally have every single perk in Skyrim. Also, it will be easy anyway, I don't want more skills so it's easier, I just want to have more cool abilities

 

 

I'm pretty sure Skyrim is literally the only mainstream RPG where you can have every "perk"/ability. And you couldn't at launch. That was a feature that was patched in later - quite a bit later IIRC. Before you couldn't reset a skill tree and there were a limited amount of abilities available. I think for Skyrim and the game that Skyrim is, the patched in ability to continue getting perks was a good call. However, Skyrim doesn't have a meaningful story with different ways to re-tell it and an imported history etc etc. Bethesda games and Bioware games are very, very different in purpose. 

 

You will be able to utilize MORE abilities in this DA because of the dynamic open-world elements (more EXP available) and customize more than ever before. However, your builds will also be focused by the class that you choose (this is really what self-allocating attributes does). You may or may not be able to make up for this with gear stat customization. I believe this was done in an effort to make the classes feel more distinct and to enfold the classes with their own lore (hence why you can't reset a specialization and why the specialization is now more intertwined with the story). 

 

Unlike Skyrim, Bioware games are designed with a distinct ending. Yes there is a mildly persistent open world (NOT a sandbox) spread over regional areas and they are taking some of those elements. But it will still be a linear experience, to many degrees, I'm sure. So the idea isn't that you stand around and collect all the cool powers, but that you grow in power over a distinct amount of time, and then tackle a major task. In short, not all games are what you want them to be. Nor should they be. 

 

To return to topic and speak of DA proper, I don't want my mage(s) to be able to get every spell from every tree, that would actually bother me since taking skills I don't want annoys me just as much as not being able to take skills I do want. What I'd like is, say I make a fire mage, eventually get all fire spells. That's not unreasonable, especially since we get 1 specialization instead of 2 or like, 5. It'd be akin to maxing out, for exemple, the Sniper Rifle skill in ME1 if you mainly snipe. 

 

 

We have no reason to believe this kind of thing will be made unfeasible in DA:I. There are probably like 3 fire spells and 3 passives that enhance them at most. You can probably collect them all. 

 

Also also, my original point wasn't even that. It was that I don't like skills and attributes being attached. What if I want lots of evasion on my rogue but skills I like/want give lots of critical instead ? You're gonna say "well it's a trade-off decision, it's tactical" but I'm saying, manual attribute distribution involved strategic choices too, in fact it was more flexible. If the goal is have wider build variation it's a failure because it does the opposite.

 

 

I believe the idea is for the skills to give the bonuses that most make sense, i.e. if the skill seems Strength based, it may give additional Strength points; this is to make builds more focused. I don't think it will be like go down the Fire Mage chain to get a skill that adds 10% Cold damage and +1 Strength. 

[Doominike]

Probably yes, I guess that works