161 réponses à ce sujet

[go.apostate]

You know, if you hate all these changes, you aren't forced to buy it.
Just saying, wasting your time complaining isn't going to change much, 
considering it's almost game-time. 

Maybe you'll get lucky with the next DA, sorry.

[Beerfish]

I almost cancelled my pre order when I found out we couldn't use bitcoins.

[Kleon]

You know, if you hate all these changes, you aren't forced to buy it.
Just saying, wasting your time complaining isn't going to change much, 
considering it's almost game-time. 

Maybe you'll get lucky with the next DA, sorry.

 

Because it is so much better to say nothing and play copy/paste The Cave^TM and spam awsome button?

[go.apostate]

Because it is so much better to say nothing and play copy/paste The Cave^TM and spam awsome button?

Exactly.

Have a nice day.

[xkg]

You know, if you hate all these changes, you aren't forced to buy it.
Just saying, wasting your time complaining isn't going to change much, 
considering it's almost game-time. 

Maybe you'll get lucky with the next DA, sorry.

 

Thanks for the advice, here is mine for you -

You have the choice to not read the thread if you don't like it. Just saying.

[Kleon]

Exactly.

Have a nice day.

 

Then I guess you are BioWare's target audienice with all the simplification and dumbding down decisions. 

 

Good for you?

[xkg]

 

On the contrary, 8 active abilities (especially if there are far more abilities for a given class which all do useful things) would actually tend to increase diversity between people's playstyles, because it forces you to think about what you want your character to actually DO. Rather than being able to do anything because you have a million abilities to choose from, you have to decide what your playstyle will be and build toward that,

 

All of the abilities that I've already "bought" should be available to me at any given time.

The number of currently available abilities (for my lvl) and which one of them to choose on level-up should be the limiting factor, not some artificial barriers.

[go.apostate]

Thanks for the advice, here is mine for you -

You have the choice to not read the thread if you don't like it. Just saying.

I like to know who to avoid on the internet. 

[Timate]

Lol kids you are crazy first off they have a million things going on in this game sometimes you have to take away to add something else. Or they just did not have the time aka it was not a priority I have done a little scripting and it's a whole new engine I don't think you have any real idea on how much different it is doing things from scratch. Also it's rather easy to understand why they did it and how it makes sense stop nuking something that does not need to be nuked. You have way more options in this game then the previous titles. I never really bothered to care when it came to the cash flow other then grinding for gold anyways to me there wont be much a difference. Yes you can be entitled to what you have to say but this is far from game breaking. If they took more away then they added that would be different but they added far more in it this time around pretty sure there was not to much focus going into the money system. plus the amount of bugs that would come with that would be crazy. Again you are allowed to say what you want as do I. Have a good day

[Kleon]

I like to know who to avoid on the internet. 

 I guess that DA2 NPC agrees with you.

 

[Zu Long]

Are you serious? 

If anything 8 abilities limit enforces cookie-cutter builds. More distinc abilities? Really? You have about half of what you had in DA2 and maybe 1/4 of what you had in Origins. 

All you say is BioWare PR bullshit, its almost painfull to read it. Not only you seem completely oblivious to hard facts right in front of you, but also forget that people are different and they might look for different things than you in the game. 

 

I am serious, and I'm sorry you feel that I'm somehow "Bioware PR" though if Allan Schumacher were here he'd probably find that hilarious given some of the conversations I've had with him about Bioware's actual PR efforts.

 

From my perspective, I feel I'm giving a reasonable response to your complaint by pointing out the simple truth that all that's been cut were peripheral content that didn't actually change anything core about the game. You can still create unusual builds by taking paths and combinations others wouldn't for a character. You can still customize your character's ability traits, you just use armor to do it now. (This has the added bonus of making sure you don't accidentally build into a character that can't do what they're supposed to do, like a fighter who can't hit anyone). The character's ability scores set the baseline, which you can then use equipment to customize. There is still plenty of atmosphere and mood in the different environments.

 

Despite your claims of hard facts, you don't seem to have stated any besides your basic tenants that Bioware changed certain things, which is certainly true. Your opinion that those changes are bad, however, is not a fact, and in truth seems to lack much of a basis beyond "It won't be just like the other games."

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I also think that the Grey Warden in Awakening rarely ever used silver and copper in any of their major points in that game it was 80 gold to hire stone masons and 50 gold to hire the Dark Wolf, hell the cheapest job that that I recall that rewards the GW in coin is either 5 or 10 gold. Since the Inquistor is also running a major organization it makes sense that they deal in gold, 

[Zu Long]

 

 

 

All of the abilities that I've already "bought" should be available to me at any given time.

The number of currently available abilities (for my lvl) and which one of them to choose on level-up should be the limiting factor, not some artificial barriers.

 

 

Leveling and having to "buy" an ability are already artificial barriers. The design choice to add in another one (you have to select which 8 you want to use at a given time) is just that- a design choice.

[xkg]

Leveling and having to "buy" an ability are already artificial barriers. The design choice to add in another one (you have to select which 8 you want to use at a given time) is just that- a design choice.

 

Ok but the first barrier is less artificial than the second one. The first one comes from the game mechanics.

The second one is there "just because".

 

Besides that,

 

"2 barriers" > "1 barrier"

Barrier = some kind of a limit.

 

The game is more limited now.

[Tel]

So they decided to go with just gold instead of the copper , silver and gold system of Origins and II ?.   -4 personality points for Dai.

[Timate]

All this time spent talking about what you don't like when you know you just going to play it and love it stop this silly stuff because you are not patient enough till it comes out. Crazy kids

[hellbiter88]

how did this thread turn from money to ability restrictions?

[ElitePinecone]

Ok but the first barrier is less artificial than the second one. The first one comes from the game mechanics.

The second one is there "just because".

 

The second one is also game mechanics.

 

They want people to be smart about which abilities they put in the hotkey bar. They want people to tailor the bar for big encounters.

 

A restriction is never arbitrary (by definition!) if there's a conscious design decision behind it, whether you agree with that decision or not.

[ElitePinecone]

how did this thread turn from money to ability restrictions?

 

People love to find reasons to complain about their pet issues in unrelated threads.

[xkg]

how did this thread turn from money to ability restrictions?

 

 

Happens now and then, in every thread.

But yeah, let's get it back on track.

 

 

Sooo... the coin system, used in DA:O and in many other games (i.e. for 10 years in the most successful MMORPG - World of Warcraft).

Is it good that it's gone or not ? Let's hear some more opinions.

[hellbiter88]

People love to find reasons to complain about their pet issues in unrelated threads.

 

 

 

Happens now and then, in every thread.

But yeah, let's get it back on track.

 

 

Sooo... the coin system, used in DA:O and in many other games (i.e. for 10 years in the most successful MMORPG - World of Warcraft).

Is it good that it's gone or not ? Let's hear some more opinions.

 

Thorough explainations from the both of you haha. Thank you.

[Zu Long]

Ok but the first barrier is less artificial than the second one. The first one comes from the game mechanics.
The second one is there "just because".

Besides that,

"2 barriers" > "1 barrier"
Barrier = some kind of a limit.

The game is more limited now.

I doubt they did anything about this game "Just because," and certainly that's not true here, where we've been told they did it to give the game a tactical component. I wouldn't be surprised if there were also technical reasons for it, as less abilities the computer has to worry about at a given moment means more memory available for other things.

As for the second point, the characters may be more limited, but I would argue the game itself is actually more interesting because of it, since I like tactical games, though some will of course, disagree.

[Aimi]

You're right that the DA economy is far more monetized, but that's why plausibility is the right term. The cultural consciousness we have is that all transactions are done via money. That's not exactly true today depending on where you are in the world - for example in Eastern Europe there's still holdover barter-related payments, largely dealing with people from the country-side having to pay for services like medical treatment with the few things they have available. 
Still, people in the west who play videogames have their intuition about the economy built up based on our monetized economy and that's what they want to see. It might be realistic for the Inquisition to issue promissory notes for all the goods it purchases from and sells to Antiva, but that's a bit much for the game.

 
Sure. I wasn't suggesting that the DA:O/DA2 system was, generally speaking, a bad thing. Fantasy games need fantasy conventions, whether that means dialogue delivery, monetization, hit points, or what have you. What I do take objection to is the complaint that using gold instead of a tiered denomination system is in any way less realistic, with specific real-world examples in mind. (Hence why I chose to respond to a guy comparing the situation to US pennies and dollars.) None of this stuff is particularly realistic, but using gold instead of paying attention to other denominations is perfectly plausible in a historical context. (And it opens up possibilities for acknowledgment of a more realistic amount of barter, if not in the actual economy then at least in dialogue.) If there's a complaint to be made about Inquisition's monies, the realism charge isn't it.
 

Yep.
 
Currency in fantasy videogames is never realistic, so people complaining about realism in this case don't really know what they're talking about.
 
As other people said, it makes zero sense that the conversion rate in Origins is 10,000 copper coins to one sovereign. It makes zero sense that the coins have standardised weights and values, that every country and merchant apparently uses the same coinage, that you can find ancient coin buried for centuries and still use them, etc.
 
They simplified it regardless in Origins to work in a videogame economy system, and I have no objections to doing the same thing in Inquisition.

I agree with much of your post except for the bolded. The setting actually does have a reasonable explanation of those things.

According to the Codex, the dwarven merchants' guild has used its privileged position with respect to mining to keep Thedosian countries on standardized weights and measures since the Imperium's heyday. While individual rulers coin with different types - different faces, emblems, icons, text - the weights and compositions of their coins are always the same across countries. Failure to maintain the dwarven standard meets with severe penalties from the guild, which almost everybody is afraid of enough to avoid. The dwarves have kept this standard, apparently unaltered, for centuries.

That certainly makes sense, and it's not as though similar standardizations didn't occur to some degree historically (e.g. the Attic standard, or the Byzantine standard). It stretches plausibility, I suppose, to suggest that the monies found in the Primeval Thaig (for example) were on the same standard as everything else, but those could be reasonably abstracted to an equivalent in modern dwarven currency. It's a similar abstraction to this: it's not like DA:O/DA2 royals found in the wild always meant "one royal" anyway, but could have indicated, say, a hundred nobles.

[ElitePinecone]

I agree with much of your post except for the bolded. The setting actually does have a reasonable explanation of those things.

According to the Codex, the dwarven merchants' guild has used its privileged position with respect to mining to keep Thedosian countries on standardized weights and measures since the Imperium's heyday. While individual rulers coin with different types - different faces, emblems, icons, text - the weights and compositions of their coins are always the same across countries. Failure to maintain the dwarven standard meets with severe penalties from the guild, which almost everybody is afraid of enough to avoid. The dwarves have kept this standard, apparently unaltered, for centuries.

That certainly makes sense, and it's not as though similar standardizations didn't occur to some degree historically (e.g. the Attic standard, or the Byzantine standard). It stretches plausibility, I suppose, to suggest that the monies found in the Primeval Thaig (for example) were on the same standard as everything else, but those could be reasonably abstracted to an equivalent in modern dwarven currency. It's a similar abstraction to this: it's not like DA:O/DA2 royals found in the wild always meant "one royal" anyway, but could have indicated, say, a hundred nobles.

 

Ah, I forgot about the dwarven merchants' guild... that's a neat way to bring standardisation into the setting.

 

You're very right that a lot of it is abstraction at the end of the day, and I suppose we could assume that old coins were to some extent convertible to "modern" currency.

[bEVEsthda]

Personally, I find it pointless to discuss the limits on abilities without having played the game. It's different. Yes, but that's kinda all we can say about it at this point. It may be part of a brilliant system. It's also OT. So back to the coins.

 

A number of posters have claimed "that's it's easy to understand why they did it". No it's not. It's pretty incomprehensible. You can't seriously mean that DA:I players are supposed to be so stupid, that they can't handle the three-coin-system? So, please explain.

 

Somebody that contrives to write without punctuation, for some reason, claimed there would be bugs. Nope, The three coins are only in the interface to the player. It's the same underneath.

 

It doesn't matter that some say this is a trivial detail. Trivial details are not irrelevant. They give the feel and taste of the game. Hi-def graphics doesn't influence the gameplay at all. So we can just remove it and replace it with stick-men, yes? The game would be the same, right?

 

As for Eirene's excursions, I find them irrelevant to the issue. I don't know, but are they supposed to be in defense of gold only? Doesn't work. A society that trades needs currency that is practical and useful. Even if there aren't any minted currency, societies tend to evolve some kind of currency anyway. Even in a barter economy. In prisons, the currency used to be cigarettes, for instance. In nomad cultures it's typically cattle. And both currencies comes in different values. Individual cigarettes, packs and cartoons. Lambs, Sheep, cows, bulls...

 

And gold coins are typically way to valuable to function in most trades. The video on Tudor coins is relevant. Complex, yes, but that complexity arose from practical needs. The reason it became complex was that they lacked a complete, single plan. So coins of different values is 'realistic'. Not realistic in sense of mimicking an authentic historical example. But nothing in these games are that. They are their own world. But 'realistic' in terms of allowing for practical concerns and paraphrasing real practical solutions. Gold only is not. But perhaps we should do as In Exile proposed, and say 'plausible' instead. It doesn't matter for the question itself.

It only matters for poster who are looking for angles to attack those other posters who are critical of this change.

 

It's not plausible to need a wheelbarrow of gold coins to pay for things. If this world has such abundance of gold, why is it so valuable in the first place?

 

It's a done deal. So we aren't going to change this. But it's a disappointing detail from several angles. Not just that it was a neat touch that is now gone, but also because removing it reveals something of how the developers view this game. And that - is kinda alarming.

...But, lets play the game and see.