154 réponses à ce sujet

[Gtdef]

If I had to review DA2 by having played only act 1 and not understood the quest system, I'd thought it was a good game. The real problems imo start a bit later.

[Tielis]

I think the entire problem can be boiled down to BioWare changing the characterization customization from main character to the Inquisition itself.  

 

While this is an interesting concept, I do think that it dilutes the game for the player.

[In Exile]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean. The KE gets a spirit blade but that's an active ability whose mechanic is currently unknown.

[Nohvarr]

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

Last thing I will say on this, even if that's accurate assessment of my statement, what I have said recently overrides it. That post I presented has me admitting that the game could be bad. I acknowledge here and before that not everyone will like this game no matter what Bioware does.

 

I am not a fanboy or an optimist, I am a human being who is just as complex as you with a different point of view.

[In Exile]

If I had to review DA2 by having played only act 1 and not understood the quest system, I'd thought it was a good game. The real problems imo start a bit later.

Despite it going downhill with reuse and Kirkwall being indentical (and having lots of plot wonky elements) I thought Act II was culminating toward something interesting. But that's probably because I liked the Arishok.

[Yggdrasil]

I have every confidence that I'm going to enjoy DA:I, but I have to agree with the OP that I'm disappointed in these changes.  I think Bioware has to walk a razor's edge between hardcore RPG'ers and the more casual gamers, so they simplify some mechanics.  I'm just not sure that these things were good choices.

[WidePaul]

It'd be nice if we could go around skyhold in normal clothes like DA2, especially when we're chilling in the tavern, being in full battle gear while relaxing like that would be a bit strange, but its not that big of a deal for me. As for the other points, I shall reserve judgment until I've played the game.

[Ieldra]

I'm not sure what you mean. The KE gets a spirit blade but that's an active ability whose mechanic is currently unknown.

If I can actually wield the blade while the ability is active, I will be able to play outside the standard mage archetype. Not as good as the Arcane Warrior, but good enough I guess. Removing equipment will still be an issue though.

[AlanC9]

Also, the biggest advantage of the new perky stem is that it separates combat abilities from dialogue abilities. The old D&D style of making charisma, wisdom, and intelligence dialogue perks just gimped mundane characters relative to magical ones. For example, once I figured out the game, I NEVER went through Planescape Torment as anything but a Mage. The concept of giving persuasiveness an opportunity cost relative to combat effectiveness was always bad design (and unrealistic).

I'd argue that this can work in two situations. If the game really is party-based -- no main hero PC -- then gimping the mundane characters out of combat isn't important. And if the game offers significant noncombat paths to success, then trading off combat ability for noncombat ability is a viable playstyle choice, though there's still a problem with balancing any mandatory combats.

Doesn't matter, though, since neither of these things have ever been true of Bioware games.

[Lumix19]

It'd be nice if we could go around skyhold in normal clothes like DA2, especially when we're chilling in the tavern, being in full battle gear while relaxing like that would be a bit strange, but its not that big of a deal for me. As for the other points, I shall reserve judgment until I've played the game.

I'm pretty sure we do get normal clothing in Skyhold. I remember one of the questions to the devs being whether we could change our clothing, since in DA2 we couldn't, and they said that they might look into that in the future. Or maybe I dreamed this...

[In Exile]

If I can actually wield the blade while the ability is active, I will be able to play outside the standard mage archetype. Not as good as the Arcane Warrior, but good enough I guess. Removing equipment will still be an issue though.

Oh, I get it. It's apparently like Gandalf from what we heard - so it will be different.

[In Exile]

I'd argue that this can work in two situations. If the game really is party-based -- no main hero PC -- then gimping the mundane characters out of combat isn't important. And if the game offers significant noncombat paths to success, then trading off combat ability for noncombat ability is a viable playstyle choice, though there's still a problem with balancing any mandatory combats.

Doesn't matter, though, since neither of these things have ever been true of Bioware games.

The first step to a Bioware RPG is to beeline to the dialogue skills. Though to be fair Obsidian isn't much better in their philosophy, they just implement it way, way better.

[AlanC9]

The first step to a Bioware RPG is to beeline to the dialogue skills. Though to be fair Obsidian isn't much better in their philosophy, they just implement it way, way better.

Well, I'm not sure it makes sense in DA:O for a non-rogue to throw points into Cunning for more Coercion. But other than that, yeah. ME2 was the worst since you needed the class passives early or you'd fall behind

[In Exile]

Well, I'm not sure it makes sense in DA:O for a non-rogue to throw points into Cunning for more Coercion. But other than that, yeah. ME2 was the worst since you needed the class passives early or you'd fall behind

You could pretty much make it happen with just the Fade bonuses I think. And cunning was always confusing for me - in setting are rogues supposed to be brilliant, even though mages are academics by default like in D&D?

The setting just lacks verisimilitude when it comes to the stats.

[Lebanese Dude]

You could pretty much make it happen with just the Fade bonuses I think. And cunning was always confusing for me - in setting are rogues supposed to be brilliant, even though mages are academics by default like in D&D?
The setting just lacks verisimilitude when it comes to the stats.

What?

Cunning is a trait that defines ones ability to successfully achieve something via deceit, trickery, distraction, or evasion. So it works.

I'm glad there isn't an intelligence attribute. It would imply that mages are smarter all around, which is definitely not true. A successful general is intelligent, but lack magic etc...

The rest are self explanatory.

[In Exile]

What?

Cunning is a trait that defines ones ability to successfully achieve something via deceit, trickery, distraction, or evasion. So it works.

I'm glad there isn't an intelligence attribute. It would imply that mages are smarter all around, which is definitely not true. A successful general is intelligent, but lack magic etc...

The rest are self explanatory.

Except that cunning related options in dialogue are all critical thinking related (see the Redcliffe spy one) or knowledge related (the HN knowledge check about history).

[Gtdef]

If you want to be nitpicky, magic and willpower don't make sense for mage. Mana is the connection of the mage to the fade. The stronger connection, the higher the mana pool. What does magic exactly do? Makes the mage perform the mannerisms and pronounce the magic words better?

[In Exile]

If you want to be nitpicky, magic and willpower don't make sense for mage. Mana is the connection of the mage to the fade. The stronger connection, the higher the mana pool. What does magic exactly do? Makes the mage perform the mannerisms and pronounce the magic words better?

If it wasn't for attribute growth I would say it reflects your natural talent at actually using magic. Willpower is your innate magical connection, magic is how you use it.

Still silly, but sort of logical?

[Gtdef]

I think a more lore friendly approach would be to have magic increase both mana and magic ability and have willpower dealing with concentration issues and perhaps influence mana usage. For example having to cast with heavier armor is more taxing to your concentration and you tire more easily so you raise some willpower. Or make the crowd control requiring more damage to break. This way support characters will still have to increase willpower but the "hedge" mages will only have raw magic ability.

[Medhia_Nox]

Two notes: 

Gear is heavily tied to increasing stats (and since it's about crafting - basically you "craft" your stats through interaction with the game world.  In my opinion that's actually much deeper than.  Lvl up = Add 5 to stats)

 

Unlocking Abilities for each character also assists in modifying states (which is brilliant in my opinion - you modify the stat that affects the ability)  

[WillieStyle]

One question regarding increasing stats by unlocking abilities: how good is willpower for a rogue? From screenshots we see that some abilities unlock cunning while others unlock willpower. Hopefully, willpower affects stamina regen in a noticeable way or cunning-increasing abilities will be necessarily superior.

[KoorahUK]

Stam/Mana regen seems much faster in this than in previous games. Not sure stacking willpower will be of much benefit for that otherwise abilities would end up virtually cost free.

[WillieStyle]

I'd argue that this can work in two situations. If the game really is party-based -- no main hero PC -- then gimping the mundane characters out of combat isn't important. And if the game offers significant noncombat paths to success, then trading off combat ability for noncombat ability is a viable playstyle choice, though there's still a problem with balancing any mandatory combats.
Doesn't matter, though, since neither of these things have ever been true of Bioware games.

Interesting points but I'm not sure I agree. There's always the question of what each party member contributes. If magical characters are necessarily better talkers and equally good hitters, then mundanes are just semi-useless Swiss Army knives brought long to disarm traps. This was especially bad in the D&D/BG days when Mages and Priests could summon monsters that could tank better than a fighter.

As for non-combat means of overcoming challenges: the game is first and foremost a game. Unless one has compelling dialogue gameplay, combat will still need to take up the vast majority of play time (Fallout 1 and Planescape Torment notwithstanding). Therefore, the combat-poor wily character becomes something of a gimmick experienced players use on their nth play through to switch things up.

[EmperorKarino]

Let me first say that I'm not "up in arms" about this, nor do I think these things will have a significant adverse effect on my enjoyment of DAI should the other aspects be fine. Also, there may not be a significant loss in the overall degrees of freedom. However, the plain fact is that customization options have been moved away from the character, and we no longer have the option to walk unarmed or to be inconspicuous by appearing to be "civilian" (compared to DAO). To illustrate how this impacts the way we relate to our characters, and thus how this may feel while playing, consider the combination effect of these changes:

 

*In their intrinsic ability to convince people, all characters of the same class and race are identical.

*in intrinsic character traits traditionally seen as fundamental, on which many other traits used to be built, all characters of the same race and class are identical.

*In the type of weapons and armor they use, all characters of a class are restricted to one or two archetypes, and in the decisions about where to go armed or unarmed, all characters are identical.

 

The combined "felt" effect of these changes is unfortunately rather drastic. There may be things that make up for it, but the first impression is one of loss. In order to evaluate this further, let's go into the details:

 

(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.

 

I find it hard to evaluate if these things have ever really been that important in the past (speaking only of DA games), or if this was an illusion and my choices were so much determined by my class that this new system just canonizes what people did anyway, except for minor variations. I don't know how this will feel in the actual game, but it feels different from here and requires a significant mental switch to adapt to from the old mindset of "attributes are the fundamentals of your character". Also, that customization options are moved from character to equipment creates an unfortunate vibe of "what you have is more important than who you are".

 

(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. 

 

(3) Fixed weapon configurations and the inability to unequip

 

What is a mage? DA2's and DAI's answer is clearly "the people with the twirling staffs". The rogue is "the one with the bow" or "the one with the twin daggers". About the decision to implement such a restriction, I would like to know the rationale because unlike the abovementioned aspects, there isn't anything that can make up for it. We walk everywhere as the same archetype and can't even choose to appear "civilian". There is no way to spin this as being in any way desirable.

 

This may be a case of "people never do this anyway", but as a Bioware representative has said about dialogue options, even an option only used by 1% of all players increases the degree of freedom for everyone. There may be technical reasons for the restriction, in which case I'd like to know of them. Whatever the reason, this was a medium-level annoyance for me personally in DA2 because it creates the impression that gear is an inseparable part of your character. My preferred playstyle, especially as a mage, is to be as independent of equipment as possible. About the inability to unequip, I'm likely to forget about it while playing.....until some minor detail reminds me that a mage shouldn't be  married to their staff, or the next time I visit a town and don't want to walk around as if everything was a threat. Also, since in reality, characters do remove their weapons occasionally, this is also an immersion-breaker. In DA2, Hawke was appropriately unarmed while in their house. So why can't this be a choice anywhere else?

 

 

As I said, none of these things are critical flaws in my view, and some are made up for by added options in other areas. I understand, however, that people are slow to accept them because they're a net loss in an important aspect of roleplaying, even as they're possibly a net gain overall with the exception of the last point.

 

a good assessment of whats going on, i applaud you for making such a detailed discussion of it, these changes do have me concerned on the game play of inquisition.

[TheChris92]

The lack of Persuasion is a bit icky as I tend to love placing points into that in Bloodlines, KOTOR 2, New Vegas or what have you. Ultimately, I somehow knew there'd be a bit of streamlining in the gameplay department. 

 

In that respect, I miss the attributes too given they usually aren't mutually exclusive and persuasion was dictated upon how many points you've placed into charisma or any equivalent of such.