154 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

Sir JK, just a note on that long post. In DAO abilities were locked by both level and attribute.

 

That's right. Made a slight adjustment for clarification. Thanks for pointing it out

[SetecAstronomy]

No more so than having them magically float on one's back.

I agree. Those are silly as well.

[UniformGreyColor]

So.....I have no way of knowing what my actual words were, or the context of the conversation. I have to rely on your memory alone that my words could be taken the way you claim.

 

Noted.

 

I'm not good with specifics but my conclusions are usually sound. I think it had to do with armour if i recall.

[AshesEleven]

I don't think my opinion is any more objective than anyone elses because that would mean its an opinion and not say, a fact. Its a fact that if you see something you don't like and never bring it up either directly or indirectly you won't have an effect on that particular potential change if there is one. If someone chooses to not voice their concerns with something they will have no control over that issue. Its like voting, if you don't vote you have no say. Saying only good things tells people you don't think things should change. Simple as that.

Sorry, just because someone doesn't see flaws with something doesn't mean they're an idiot fanboy. How is fanboy even an insult? Are we not all fans?

You're acting like your opinions are objective. They're not. I'm disappointed in you, because you're making a childish argument. Try again, but this time think about what you're saying.

[Nohvarr]

I was just playing through Shadowrun Returns Dragon Fall....and I think the attributes used there had a significantly greater influence on the player character than in any DA:O game. Though to be fair that games uses 'Templates;' instead of classes. Meaning my "Street Samurai" could suddenly awaken and gain mystic abilities

[UniformGreyColor]

Sorry, just because someone doesn't see flaws with something doesn't mean they're an idiot fanboy. How is fanboy even an insult? Are we not all fans?

You're acting like your opinions are objective. They're not. I'm disappointed in you, because you're making a childish argument. Try again, but this time think about what you're saying.

 

I'm sorry, what? There is still a distinction between an opinion and a fact which I think I balance pretty well if you ask me. So you resort to saying you're disappointed in me (which I couldn't care less about) and that I am using childish arguments, then say "try again, but this time think about what you're saying."? I fail to see why your arguments are not childish.

[Nohvarr]

I'm not good with specifics but my conclusions are usually sound. I think it had to do with armour if i recall.

I just went through 10 pages of my own quotes, searching for anything talking about Armor....and had not luck finding what you were talking about. So either you've mixed me up with someone else, or your memory is not as infallible as you think.

 

By all means prove me wrong and provide a link to the quote. I'm genuinely curious to see what I said and why I said.

[KoorahUK]

In my humble opinion Ieldra, attributes have never been true character customisation in Dragon Age at all. Not a single one of them marks any form of significant change in how your character can interact with the world. The only true impact they had was lock away certain abilities from you and have an obfuscated impact on your damage/defense. This essentially made the attributes in DAO a pacing mechanic, an extension of the level systems.

 

Would you truly have noticed if the abilities and equipment were locked away only by level rather than both level and attribute in DAO?

 

The only attributes that was tangibly reflected in the world itself in a enabling manner was cunning and strength, in their effect on persuasion checks. But even then it was the skill, not the attribute, that did the heavy lifting.

 

For anything else you'd need a spreadsheet to notice the difference (apart from, as I said, it's function as a pacing mechanic). Putting points in high strength did  not allow you to use that to overcome obstacles. High magic did not grant your character a closer connection or understanding of magic. Constitution did not allow your character to run for longer. What was average scores? What was considered strong? Gifted?

 

This is what essentially makes it what I would call false character customization, in that it has a purely mechanical effect. Whereas hair colour, which abilities/skills you picked, what equipment you wore are examples of true character customization in that they all have tangible effects in what you see or can do.

Whether you had 34 or 38 in strength was not tangible, whether you could talk down Ser Cauthrien was. The difference between 12 or 17 dex was invisible but whether your characters hair were red and black was something that was reflected. The attributes were even more abstract than hitpoints, and that's not saying a little.

 

Now, what we lost was the ability to make a less than perfect character. I can see this being a rather significant loss in terms of defining your own character. It was a freedom we had and could be very rewarding. Unfortunantely, such builds are also traps easily fallen into by new players. Which makes it a feature that might be appriciated by experienced players but alienate new ones. Sabotaging your own character is only fun if you do so intentionally after all.

 

Losing control of the attribute system also makes has an effect in the immersion of the development of your character as you could gauge your character slowly developing themselves. But I'd argue that the ability system serves the same role, though reflecting more the learning and mastery of techniques rather than purely increasing muscle mass (or equalient).

 

So, I'd argue that we haven't lost much in terms of character customization at all. What we had before in terms of character build has simply moved to other parts of the build. Fewer questions are asked, but we're not left with less choice. And if the non-combat use of abilities holds what it promises, we may in fact have gained in terms of customization in this part of the game.

 

That's not saying that attributes shouldn't have a tangible non-mechanical impact. I'd like that too. But it's not something DA has really had in any significant degree thus far. That's not something we've lost, it's something we've never had.

Best post I've read all day. Wish I'd written it. 

[NotBeouwulf]

I think that the skills granting attribute points method is better than the spend points at level method. It turns an abstract representation into a sign of your character progressing.

Think about it this way. Your warrior upgrades his two-handed ability. This is a result of him using his weapon and gaining increased competence with this. This increased use will also result in the warrior gaining strength both as a result of practicing using his weapon (swinging a two handed sword around is a workout) and an increased ability to properly use the weapon. As he gains abilities in the defensive skill he also gets more used to having been hit and gains greater ability to survive wounds that would knock out a less seasoned fighter (CON increase).

Before it was just putting points in an attribute because it provided a benefit and was separate from how your character was progressing as a member of his/her class

[Majestic Jazz]

What matters is will the mainstream reviewers like IGN notice this? It is obvious that Bioware has been streamlining the RPG experience since ME2.

If DAI is criticized by big media for this like they were with DA2, perhaps things will change with DA4.

[Medhia_Nox]

My opinion is that our character "is" the Inquisition.  

 

And look at what we can do with our organization: 

 

- Customize look

- Craft Items, Name them.

- Fill it with various groups of our choosing. 

- Grow it by conquering regions and setting up camps.

 

All of this goes into personalizing my character. 

 

As for unequipping - I think we need to look no further than the ball Vivienne is reported to giving us.  I cannot imagine in any way - shape - or form that you're going to have to attend the ball with a shield equipped (also, two handed warriors clearly wouldn't have a shield equipped).  

 

As for Coercion - if I'm understanding properly - our ability to coerce individuals is now based on the military backing and reputation of our organization?  I love this.  I'm under the impression that our Inquisition will not be able to be all things... so a character who wants better coercion just sticks with Inquisitor keeps devoted to diplomacy and trade. 

 

But what if I want a military Inquisition with a charmer... I understand, I just don't think that's how things usually work in any believable story.  

 

I also think there will be items you can find that might help mitigate and assist in molding your Inquisition to add variety to your Inquisitor's capabilities in the field.  

[In Exile]

 

(1) Attributes

 

As I mentioned, attributes have been traditionally used as a fundament for other aspects of character customization. In early tabletop RPGs, they determined what class you could play, and later, they were chosen in order to benefit a specific class. Either way, they were an important way to make our characters unique. Even in games as late as DAO, they influenced what you could learn in many different ways.

 

In DAI, they do not have that role anymore. Basically, attributes are irrelevant except as they influence combat. In that, we may now even be more variable than before, because attributes are now more influenced by equipment and we can change equipment to create different configurations. Since learning of skills does not depend on attributes any more, this results in an overall increase in the degrees of freedom when playing the game. However, equipment is not a part of our characters, and now that all variables are external to the character and all characters remain unrestricted by individual attribute allocation with regard to what abilities they may learn, this results in a net loss of ways to make our characters unique.

 

While I agree that in the abstract attributes that have actual in-setting effects are an important element of characterization, the reality is that Bioware never really adopted this approach to design. It was not an element in BG. It was not an element in BG2. It did not substantively feature in KoTOR. It was non-existent in DA:O.

 

To go from 3-4 options in the entire game to zero is not a substantial difference. So while in the abstract I agree with you, and putting aside the very real criticism about how the removal of attribute customization impacts on character customization in combat, I think this isn't actually as impactful as you suggest for the simple fact it never mattered in a Bioware game.

 

(1) Persuasion / Coercion

 

This, too, is not part of our character anymore. Instead, we get Inquisition perks that serve the same purpose in addition to a few other things. Now, I'm absolutely thrilled by the perk system and the ways we can shape our organization, and yet again, this may result in an increase of the overall degrees of freedom for the player. However, again a customization element is moved away from the character, creating a rather odd mixed impression of "the player's gain is the character's loss". 

 

From a design point of view, not having similar options for both the organization and the character makes sense because this would reduce the impact of either, and Bioware has made the decision to give the organization customization at the character's expense. I tend to think we'll be fine with it, but it is still a net loss for shaping the character as a person, and people have to adapt to the fact that they're roleplaying the Inquisition as an expression of who their Inquisitor is. 

 

I think you're wrong on this point as well. The fact that the perk attaches to the organization - or rather that it's acquired through the organization - does not change the impact it has on character design. There are two main reasons.

 

1. The perks are not all available - that is, there is a limited number of perks that the Inquisition will actually have, meaning that your character as the Inquisitor determines - via his or her qualities what these Inquisition will be as an organization. 

2. The choice of perks is a character driven decision. It is no different from choosing abilities at level up. Or better yet, choosing skills through a trainer as is the case in many RPGs.

[RedIntifada]

I think some of the different mechanics are interesting and I will give my assessment after I play them. The main one I am concerned about is the 8 powers in combat limiter, which I can't see logic for

 

In terms of coercion/persuasion I think this system is a lot better. I always invested early and to the maximum on these skills, for the simple reason that they changed the plot and gave me access to more story... where as a lot of other skills just made combat easier (and I enjoy a combat challenge anyway). However it also meant things greatly favored a rogue, because they got skills every 2 levels where as warriors/mages got it every 3. Meaning you could max out the persuasion tree around level  8 rather than level 12 (I probably have that wrong because from memory I think you can pick new skills at the start but you get the idea). This meant that if you wanted to play a warrior or mage your character wasn't as articulate which limits role playing and drives people towards rogue. I am more open to being a mage in DAI then I was in Origins for this reason.

As for the unable to unequip items, my main concern  is how are you going to transfer items from one character to another, if you don't have a "filler weapon" i.e. lets say I want to bring Cassandra out but I want her to have Iron Bull's sword, because I am leaving him at camp and it is the better sword, do I need to find him another weapon first, meaning I need to have a third item in my inventory to allow them to swap back and forth, or can I just select his sword and place it in her inventory and they will automatically switch. I try and keep as little junk in my party as possible and try to focus on simply having the best weapons for my characters going out.  

[UniformGreyColor]

I just went through 10 pages of my own quotes, searching for anything talking about Armor....and had not luck finding what you were talking about. So either you've mixed me up with someone else, or your memory is not as infallible as you think.

 

By all means prove me wrong and provide a link to the quote. I'm genuinely curious to see what I said and why I said.

 

 I think it was the inquisition helmet thread. Way back.

[In Exile]

(1) Attributes
In KOTOR you only got to spend 5 points after your initial character creation was done. You were able to get much more from equipment and abilities.If you compare it to that, the DAI decision to not allocate any attribute points on level up is not that jarring. The problem for you, I think, is that attribute points serve dual purpose - one is game mechanics calculation and the other is RP-ing. But most of the time, one would spend the points so that they contribute to the build they are going for. So why not dispense with this false freedom option and move it to the abilities trees (e.g. + Dex for some archery skills, + Cun for some dagger skills)?! Personally, I've always treated attribute points as part of the build, and the build itself gave me the feeling for the character (Armor Tank, Bruiser, Defense Tank, Archmage, CC mage, etc.). About the only exception I can think of is again KOTOR, where for metagaming reasons I insisted on the PC having high Charisma (cause that was how he/she is described in his "glory years"). Which had very limited practical application.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that attribute allocation offers an illusory freedom of choice. Once past a certain point , you need to conform the points according to the build you are doing, even on Normal.

(2) Persuasion
I think it's better when these kind of skills/situations are moved away from character statistics and into dialogue- and story-choices. If my character is big on Persuasion or Intimdation, then choosing the corresponding Inquisition perk or dialogue option will only be keeping consistent with his ... character (pardon the pun).
The question really is if it irks you that you cannot open the char sheet and see, a-ha, this guy/gal is quite the conversationalist.

(3)inability to unequip
Personally, I like that you can't change equipment during battle, that's more realistic and a plus in my book. As for the other situation, I had the same thing with ME1 to ME2 to ME3 holstering of the gun. I guess it does reduce the RPing a bit, but it's not too much for me. As someone said in the Cass thread - Demons are pouring through the Veil, I'd sleep in armor, too.

The difference with a system like D&D and KOTOR is that you could pick the initial attributes distribution and they had a not insignificant effect on combat (especially in 2e D&D like BG1-BG2; it went away for 3e).

[In Exile]

(1) Attributes
In KOTOR you only got to spend 5 points after your initial character creation was done. You were able to get much more from equipment and abilities.If you compare it to that, the DAI decision to not allocate any attribute points on level up is not that jarring. The problem for you, I think, is that attribute points serve dual purpose - one is game mechanics calculation and the other is RP-ing. But most of the time, one would spend the points so that they contribute to the build they are going for. So why not dispense with this false freedom option and move it to the abilities trees (e.g. + Dex for some archery skills, + Cun for some dagger skills)?! Personally, I've always treated attribute points as part of the build, and the build itself gave me the feeling for the character (Armor Tank, Bruiser, Defense Tank, Archmage, CC mage, etc.). About the only exception I can think of is again KOTOR, where for metagaming reasons I insisted on the PC having high Charisma (cause that was how he/she is described in his "glory years"). Which had very limited practical application.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that attribute allocation offers an illusory freedom of choice. Once past a certain point , you need to conform the points according to the build you are doing, even on Normal.

(2) Persuasion
I think it's better when these kind of skills/situations are moved away from character statistics and into dialogue- and story-choices. If my character is big on Persuasion or Intimdation, then choosing the corresponding Inquisition perk or dialogue option will only be keeping consistent with his ... character (pardon the pun).
The question really is if it irks you that you cannot open the char sheet and see, a-ha, this guy/gal is quite the conversationalist.

(3)inability to unequip
Personally, I like that you can't change equipment during battle, that's more realistic and a plus in my book. As for the other situation, I had the same thing with ME1 to ME2 to ME3 holstering of the gun. I guess it does reduce the RPing a bit, but it's not too much for me. As someone said in the Cass thread - Demons are pouring through the Veil, I'd sleep in armor, too.

The difference with a system like D&D and KOTOR is that you could pick the initial attributes distribution and they had a not insignificant effect on combat (especially in 2e D&D like BG1-BG2; it went away for 3e).

[Ieldra]

My opinion is that our character "is" the Inquisition.  

 

And look at what we can do with our organization: 

 

- Customize look

- Craft Items, Name them.

- Fill it with various groups of our choosing. 

- Grow it by conquering regions and setting up camps.

 

All of this goes into personalizing my character. 

 

As for unequipping - I think we need to look no further than the ball Vivienne is reported to giving us.  I cannot imagine in any way - shape - or form that you're going to have to attend the ball with a shield equipped (also, two handed warriors clearly wouldn't have a shield equipped).  

 

As for Coercion - if I'm understanding properly - our ability to coerce individuals is now based on the military backing and reputation of our organization?  I love this.  I'm under the impression that our Inquisition will not be able to be all things... so a character who wants better coercion just sticks with Inquisitor keeps devoted to diplomacy and trade. 

 

But what if I want a military Inquisition with a charmer... I understand, I just don't think that's how things usually work in any believable story.  

 

I also think there will be items you can find that might help mitigate and assist in molding your Inquisition to add variety to your Inquisitor's capabilities in the field.  

That's a valid point of view. I'm also looking forward to "roleplaying the Inquisition." It is different from what many other games are doing and might actually turn out to be more interesting because of it. The question is rather how much the price we pay for that will be felt. Regaring Coercion and attributes - as I hinted in my OP - this may well turn out to be "not at all".

 

I'm less tolerant towards the fixed gear configurations though. Someone has asked why I think equipment isn't part of my character. Well, the crafting may mitigate that impression somewhat, but the fact remains that in order to count as signature gear, my main Inquisitor's equipment would make her unobtrusive as a mage at home and in civilian environments, for instance enchanted civilian clothing and a weapon small enough to hide instead of a staff. Signature gear only counts as such if it's suitably unique in its capabilities. Bianca is one of a kind and counts. I've only ever had such a thing in one game: back in TES Morrowind, I went to great lengths to acquire a suffiently enchantable shield and enchant it with a constant fly spell. It took exceptional skill, a long search and a fight I'd rather have avoided under any other circumstances, and most other people would've said it wasn't worth it just for the ability to pass over meaningless random combat, but that most people thought that was part of the reason why I felt this was signature gear. As a rule, though, I feel that equipment is not part of my character.

[Gtdef]

I don't mind the attribute change. I'm actually supportive of this. Helps casuals get up to speed easier, doesn't make hardcores searching for the dump stats and helps keep the player's power in check for the balancing team. Which brings me to the second point.

 

Fixed weapons makes the previous decision even more sensible. It's not like you use the attributes for concept building. You hardly did in DAO. Strength is the best stat for warrior for every possible weapon combination other than double dagger. Rogue's best stat is Dex BY A MILE and he has Lethality as well so Str is only important for equipment requirements.

 

My main problem with fixed weapons is that Bioware have proven themselves inept at balancing. In DA2 2h and SnS have exactly the same dps. Someone may say that 2h has more nuking abilities so it's ok, but this is not the case. In fact warriors have 2 distinct playstyles. Autoattacking and Burst. Autoattacking is the superior spec. With all the power ups, it's burst matches that of the "burst" build, and it's sustained damage is way better.

Autoattacking builds take only dps into account and since berserker has an ability that increases the damage of every hit, a faster weapon will end up doing more damage than a slower even with the same basic dps. This means that SnS is a better damage setup than 2h. I can't possibly understand how the balancing team didn't see this.

 

If these are fixed, then the only suggestion I can make is to add different weapon skins that use the same animations. 2h swords have extremely silly animations. Using the same for 2h axes won't change much and will please a few people.

 

As far as coercion goes. People claim that DAO did this well. Well it didn't. There are 5 distinct dialogue options you can take with coercion. 2 make the ser idiots to stand down, 1 makes the legion of the dead leader to join you against the archdemon, 1 makes the werewolves attack the elves and 1 makes anora marry alistair. The last 2 are important, the other 3 are not and this is a 50 hour game. 

 

This is not what I call "good implementation". If the new system has better results I don't care if the skill is tied to the character's build. Also studying and becoming better at something makes sense to me.

 

Tl:dr version, I think these changes are acceptable sacrifices. Even if we have less options to make unique characters, the game will play better.

[Ieldra]

As far as coercion goes. People claim that DAO did this well. Well it didn't. There are 5 distinct dialogue options you can take with coercion. 2 make the ser idiots to stand down, 1 makes the legion of the dead leader to join you against the archdemon, 1 makes the werewolves attack the elves and 1 makes anora marry alistair. The last 2 are important, the other 3 are not and this is a 50 hour game. 

 

This is not what I call "good implementation". If the new system has better results I don't care if the skill is tied to the character's build. Also studying and becoming better at something makes sense to me.

 

Tl:dr version, I think these changes are acceptable sacrifices. Even if we have less options to make unique characters, the game will play better.

I don't disagree that DAO's use of Coercion very limited, but you forgot one significant option: the ability to acquire blood magic without paying anything for it.

[The Elder King]

What matters is will the mainstream reviewers like IGN notice this? It is obvious that Bioware has been streamlining the RPG experience since ME2.
If DAI is criticized by big media for this like they were with DA2, perhaps things will change with DA4.

As far as I recall DA2 wasn't that criticized by the big gaming sites. Well, at least in reviews.

[Gtdef]

I don't disagree that DAO's use of Coercion very limited, but you forgot one significant option: the ability to acquire blood magic without paying anything for it.

 

I didn't forget. I just though it isn't worth mentioning for 2 reasons ^^

 

Even if you make the deal with the Demon, it isn't addressed in the game. Also you can save scum cause the spec is tied to the achievement and not the actual plot.

[In Exile]

As far as I recall DA2 wasn't that criticized by the big gaming sites. Well, at least in reviews.

They critiqued it when they jumped on the hate bandwagon, which makes their previous praise even more hypocritical.

[phantomrachie]

I think its a bold move to disconnect attributes from leveling. Apart from unlocking certain talents & letting you were certain armour in DA:O, attributes never felt like they did much.

 

My 60 strength warrior, didn't feel stronger then my 40 strength rogue during game play, particularly when my rogue was getting so many criticals. Allowing players to choose talents that reflect how they want to play, will hopefully make each class feel different to play.

 

As for the coercion skills, I like the idea of it being linked to the Inquisition rather then to the Inquisitor. I'm hoping that it will add to the feeling of being the head of a powerful organisation with lots of resources and influence. 

 

It also helps explain were we get the knowledge we need to successfully persuade certain people

[Ieldra]

I'm just reading that we'll be able to summon a blade as Knight Enchanter. That would certainly mitigate my impression of the fixed gear configurations - if we can actually actively use them, which apparently is still in question.