154 réponses à ce sujet

[Gtdef]

Some abilities say that "unlocking this talent gives you x stat"

[In Exile]

I think we're all speaking a bit past each other. What I meant when I said customize stats as an jn-character decision was that armour costumization is still an RP decision.

[Rawgrim]

I think we're all speaking a bit past each other. What I meant when I said customize stats as an jn-character decision was that armour costumization is still an RP decision.

 

Some perks you take when leveling up gives you bonus to stats, unless I have understood it right.

 

In-character, yes. And it is an rp desicion too. But it has nothing to do with the choice the player makes about the character's mental\physical statistics. You pick something to stuff on an item, that boosts your stats. The same way you put runes in your swords and such things. Its not directly tied to the character. So if you level up in DA:O or DA2, you stuff points into the characters strenght, for example. Magic items that increases that stat is an outside bonus to a physical stat. Which makes it different.

[In Exile]

Some perks you take when leveling up gives you bonus to stats, unless I have understood it right.

 

In-character, yes. And it is an rp desicion too. But it has nothing to do with the choice the player makes about the character's mental\physical statistics. You pick something to stuff on an item, that boosts your stats. The same way you put runes in your swords and such things. Its not directly tied to the character. So if you level up in DA:O or DA2, you stuff points into the characters strenght, for example. Magic items that increases that stat is an outside bonus to a physical stat. Which makes it different.

 

I agree with you on all points.

 

... I'm not sure if/what we're disagreeing about now. 

[Medhia_Nox]

Yeah - but the bonus stats you get with each ability you pick aren't.

[EnduinRaylene]

I personally don't have an issue RPing in regards to attribute points and where they are derived from. To me they are simply an abstract construct necessary in a game, whether they are points I directly apply to my character at level up or bonuses I obtain from equipment really doesn't change anything for me. They are simply a means to an end, which is combat and how my character preforms in it and their role. If anything the new system is far better for my preferences since I greatly enjoy finding weapons and armor that fit the personality and style I attach to my character and companions and stick with those items, so being able to then really buff that equipment more to not only look the way I want but also enhance my character's abilities only makes the system more appealing. 

 

Similarly things like persuasion or coercion and how I acquire those really doesn't matter to me, it's again a means to an end which is the actual dialogue and conversations in the game. Whether my character has 3 points in Coercion to represent their ability to coerce or because I invested time and resources so my Inquisition can spy or investigate certain topics granting me additional knowledge doesn't matter at all to me. Though honestly the latter sounds a lot less abstract and gamey than the former. But again all that matters in the end is that I acquired those skills to use in actual dialogue where i get to define my character in a much more tangible fashion. 

 

I already know who my character is when I start the game, I know what they're like and how they go about things. I don't need in-game systems to justify or validate that identity I've created, I just need it insofar as to express that characterization within the game. 

 

That's not to say everything is peachy keen. I am sad and disappointed to see some things like how Rogues can only use Daggers and Long Bows, I like have a Rogue in DA2 with a long dagger and hatchet, that was a unique and fun weapon combo. Crossbows and shortbows as well were interesting options. So I can't say I'm happy to see them go. 

[Rawgrim]

I agree with you on all points.

 

... I'm not sure if/what we're disagreeing about now. 

 

I think we both misunderstood something, thats all

[HTTP 404]

It is simplified, however, because unless these perks don't have any strong requirements, like in previous RPGs where attributes have been essential to unlocking an upgrade for an existing skill "like persuasion", then it's essentially easier to achieve and become as charismatic as a sect leader. The word refers to improving the efficiency of a process, business or organization by simplifying or eliminating unnecessary steps, using modernizing techniques, or taking other approaches.

 

From what I'm seeing -- That is essentially what it is. 

 

Admittedly, it is a step-up above Mass Effect at least.

 

having vastly more options in persuasion isn't simplification.  Having one route to being good at persuasion is.

[Rawgrim]

having vastly more options in persuasion isn't simplification.  Having one route to being good at persuasion is.

 

If the game just hands all the options to you "for free" its simplification, though. Not 100 percent sure how this bit will work in DA:I.

[Muspade]

It was already pretty easy being suave in Origins. I could do it with every character I made, no trouble by allocating my stats in suboptimal ways.

Just put points into cunning and insert the effort coin into "Coercion". Tada, you're now a suave bastard.

Not certain how Inquisition is "simplifying" anything that's already simple as cutting cake.

[In Exile]

If the game just hands all the options to you "for free" its simplification, though. Not 100 percent sure how this bit will work in DA:I.

 

There's some limit on perks for the Inquisition, and there's an XP growth scale for it. That's about all I know. 

[HTTP 404]

If the game just hands all the options to you "for free" its simplification, though. Not 100 percent sure how this bit will work in DA:I.

 

I think I am looking at the whole character being more complex with this perk system so I couldn't get what some of you meant by simplification.  But you are looking at the process as being complex by increasing cunning then selecting coercion skill but it results in a simple solution which is one way to persuade.  (TBH, two steps isn't complex at all)  Whereas I see a simple process by selecting one option resulting in a varied solution from possible options.  I prefer that.

[TheChris92]

I think I am looking at the whole character being more complex with this perk system so I couldn't get what some of you meant by simplification.  But you are looking at the process as being complex by increasing cunning then selecting coercion skill but it results in a simple solution which is one way to persuade.  (TBH, two steps isn't complex at all)  Whereas I see a simple process by selecting one option resulting in a varied solution from possible options.  I prefer that.

Except of course that you don't even need to pick coercion in order to improve your abilities in persuasion, at least not in Origins. In regards to other older western RPGs, as I'm sure you're aware, you could use any of your attributes to your advantage in conversation, not just necessarily "cunning" dependening on how many points you've placed into it. That, in of itself, is complexity. Now, it is simply handed to you by picking a few perks which I imagine is easily unlocked. Hence, simplifying the process of being the greatest suave gentlemen in the land.

[WillieStyle]

I think I am looking at the whole character being more complex with this perk system so I couldn't get what some of you meant by simplification.  But you are looking at the process as being complex by increasing cunning then selecting coercion skill but it results in a simple solution which is one way to persuade.  (TBH, two steps isn't complex at all)  Whereas I see a simple process by selecting one option resulting in a varied solution from possible options.  I prefer that.

I think they're referring to the opportunity costs of persuasion. According to the D&D design ethos, the proper path to persuasiveness is to sacrifice your combat skills (unless of course you are a Mage, Sorceror, or Cleric). According to this way of thinking, a series of conversation perks that give one persuasiveness in different ways depending on context, and must be balanced against other non-combat perks, isn't optimal. Since the inquisitor can gain perks without sacrificing attributes, it must be streamlined.

Really, you are arguing against people who prioritize nostalgia above all else. Good game design isn't really about choice, or immersion. Good game design is about doing things the way D&D or Baldur's Gate, or [insert RPGS fondly remembered from childhood here] did things.

[WillieStyle]

Except of course that you don't even need to pick coercion in order to improve your abilities in persuasion, at least not in Origins. In regards to other older western RPGs, as I'm sure you're aware, you could use any of your attributes to your advantage in conversation, not just necessarily "cunning" dependening on how many points you've placed into it. That, in of itself, is complexity. Now, it is simply handed to you by picking a few perks which I imagine is easily unlocked. Hence, simplifying the process of being the greatest suave gentlemen in the land.

Which older Western RPGs would those be?

[In Exile]

Which older Western RPGs would those be?

 

I guess planescape and fallout? Or are we going back to the 80s and gold box games. 

[TheChris92]

Which older Western RPGs would those be?

Any Obsidian RPG I can think of, for instance, KOTOR 2, New Vegas, pretty sure NWN2 had some of it too if I recall.

Quite a few old isometric RPGs like Shadowrun did it too.

[Ieldra]

During the PC UI livestream today, Mike equipped a mace on the Iron Bull and I don't think I saw a shield!

I noticed that, too. Odd. Perhaps the earlier statement only applies to Cassandra.

[Ieldra]

I guess planescape and fallout? Or are we going back to the 80s and gold box games. 

Those are the primary examples. A newer example is Fallout:New Vegas, which did this quite extensively.

[Rawgrim]

I think I am looking at the whole character being more complex with this perk system so I couldn't get what some of you meant by simplification.  But you are looking at the process as being complex by increasing cunning then selecting coercion skill but it results in a simple solution which is one way to persuade.  (TBH, two steps isn't complex at all)  Whereas I see a simple process by selecting one option resulting in a varied solution from possible options.  I prefer that.

 

Just having it handed to you on a plate is simplification. There is zero choice involved, and you don't have to invest in it at all. As opposed to having to make some sort of choice about sacrificing something else, or postponing a different choice. That makes it simplified.

 

I agree that just spending a point or two on it is rather simple too, of course.

[Rawgrim]

I think they're referring to the opportunity costs of persuasion. According to the D&D design ethos, the proper path to persuasiveness is to sacrifice your combat skills (unless of course you are a Mage, Sorceror, or Cleric). According to this way of thinking, a series of conversation perks that give one persuasiveness in different ways depending on context, and must be balanced against other non-combat perks, isn't optimal. Since the inquisitor can gain perks without sacrificing attributes, it must be streamlined.

Really, you are arguing against people who prioritize nostalgia above all else. Good game design isn't really about choice, or immersion. Good game design is about doing things the way D&D or Baldur's Gate, or [insert RPGS fondly remembered from childhood here] did things.

 

Wasteland 2 does it this way, Pillar's of Eternity does it this way, Deus Ex, Skyrim, and tons of other new games also put the choice of it in the player's hands. So unless you are talking about 2 year olds fondly remembering their their first game, or some fetus waiting to hatch and play Pillars, I do belive your argument is abit off

[AlanC9]

So it's simplified, but not simplified from DA:O -- or KotOR or ME -- which were already simple.

I wouldn't exactly say that Skyrim puts choice in the player's hands. I don't see any (sane!) way to avoid gaining levels in Speech as you play the game. Sure, there are a couple of Speech perks that you can take or not take, but those are pretty deep in the tree. Not very different from ME3, really.

[In Exile]

Just having it handed to you on a plate is simplification. There is zero choice involved, and you don't have to invest in it at all. As opposed to having to make some sort of choice about sacrificing something else, or postponing a different choice. That makes it simplified.

 

I agree that just spending a point or two on it is rather simple too, of course.

 

But to be fair DA:O didn't do that either, and even games like PS:T disproportionately rewarded dialogue, so the trade-off is basically always worth it.

It's only a real choice if you either get dialogue skills or some super special combat skill that makes an unotherwise unwinnable fight winnable. 

[Rawgrim]

But to be fair DA:O didn't do that either, and even games like PS:T disproportionately rewarded dialogue, so the trade-off is basically always worth it.

It's only a real choice if you either get dialogue skills or some super special combat skill that makes an unotherwise unwinnable fight winnable. 

 

True that. Or, in some games, better deals when buying or selling stuff. It was in the player's hands, though. Not something you just got as a default.

[Hyperion]

I absolutely don't care about what customization aspect is tied to my character or not, what interests me is what I have at my disposal, as a player.

To me, this is the crucial point. Personally, I see a slight loss in customization of our character, but the opening up of an entirely new realm of customization in the form of the inquisition. I think that when people claim that the game is "streamlined" they forget that DA:I is playing with several new systems outside of just bog standard character customization that sound like they will add a lot to the game.