161 réponses à ce sujet

[Aimi]

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?

It's obviously not about player intelligence. It's a simplification that's probably easier to code and implement, makes UI development easier, and which replaces a system that the developers probably thought didn't add much to the game when it did exist.
 

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?

You probably find them irrelevant because you either did not read them or did not comprehend them. Every point you brought up in this paragraph relevant to my posts was already addressed, and in my second post I clearly and explicitly stated why I was making the posts that I did.

It was not an "in defense of". I don't particularly care whether they use gold-only or gold/silver/copper. And I don't particularly care what other people think of the change, either. What I do take issue with is when other people misrepresent history - or when they flat-out don't know it - and use that bad history to try to prove a point. My posts were a criticism of the complaints that gold-only is somehow unrealistic in comparison to real-world examples, which it is not.

You're certainly entitled to your "they changed it now it sucks" opinion, and I won't try to dissuade you from it. I am gratified that you eventually, by the end of your post, seemed to change your reasoning from reference to historical examples, to a general desire for more granularity and a belief that using gold for even the tiniest expenditures seems wrong. I can't argue with that, and I have no desire to do so.

[bEVEsthda]

I never changed my reasoning and I never based it on reference to historical examples.

 

I asked if it was supposed to be in defense of gold only, because I didn't understand your motives.

[Sadomatic Kouretes]

Alas twas Naive of me to have though the thread might not have derailed into a general flamebait... and for that i apologize in advance.

 

So before the thread proceeds further I thought I ought to justify myself in illustrating the elavated place of the trimetallic system in the lore: 

 

1. the old system is INTERNATIONAL, it has been established for centuries in Ferelden, Orlais, the Marches, and Tevinter;

 

2. Its use is EXPLAINED, in that the Dwarven control of the lyrium trade forces all nations of Thedas to buy into the Dwarven currency hegemony (not unlike the petrodollar) and i find it to be one of the most intriguing and well-thought out economic takes amongst all high fantasy settings.

 

3. its removal amounts to a challenge to the 'exorbitant luxury' of the controller of the lyrium Trade, that is the economical foundations of the Chantry; Unseating of the system would require extensive justification lorewise.

 

4. There are no realistic replacements; it is utterly inconceivable for any organization to remove the vast amounts of old coin and introduce a replacement in the short interim between DA2 and DAI, much less so in times of crisis.

 

the point stands that there is very little lore wise that Bioware could do to justify removing the trimetallic standard. It just saddens me to see such a great part of the lore gutted, I think it is far less justifiable than say, removal of healing.

 

I guess to be honest the most I coulda hoped is to get enough buzz for one of the writers to lean in and say something about it, I by no means wish to start some sort of emotional complaint train.

[AppealToReason]

Probably just a nice way to simplify it consideirng we're going across a few countries.

 

If the game made me deal with exchange rates I'd punch Dragon Age right in its dick.

[hellbiter88]

It's obviously not about player intelligence. It's a simplification that's probably easier to code and implement, makes UI development easier, and which replaces a system that the developers probably thought didn't add much to the game when it did exist.
 

You probably find them irrelevant because you either did not read them or did not comprehend them. Every point you brought up in this paragraph relevant to my posts was already addressed, and in my second post I clearly and explicitly stated why I was making the posts that I did.

It was not an "in defense of". I don't particularly care whether they use gold-only or gold/silver/copper. And I don't particularly care what other people think of the change, either. What I do take issue with is when other people misrepresent history - or when they flat-out don't know it - and use that bad history to try to prove a point. My posts were a criticism of the complaints that gold-only is somehow unrealistic in comparison to real-world examples, which it is not.

You're certainly entitled to your "they changed it now it sucks" opinion, and I won't try to dissuade you from it. I am gratified that you eventually, by the end of your post, seemed to change your reasoning from reference to historical examples, to a general desire for more granularity and a belief that using gold for even the tiniest expenditures seems wrong. I can't argue with that, and I have no desire to do so.

 

To just throw some more gasoline on the fire here... are we really going to start on with the "realism" angle of video games. This person has a point, but aside from that... Dragon Age is about as fictionally unrealistic as it gets.

 

Also I can see why gold and silver might be missed for minor purchases, but truthfully rounding everything down to 1 gold isn't the end of the world. I'd much rather the team devote the time and resources to perfecting combat, skill trees, plot and story, character animations, physics, cause and effect of choices, etc. that piddle around with their UI over some fictional currency.

[bEVEsthda]

It's obviously not about player intelligence. It's a simplification that's probably easier to code and implement, makes UI development easier, and which replaces a system that the developers probably thought didn't add much to the game when it did exist.

 

No, it's not easier to code and implement. It makes nothing easier. It's the same. It's just a whiff of code.

 

As for what the developers thought,.. Well, the three-coin system was originally adopted for DA because there was a vocal and widespread dissatisfaction with the hundreds of thousand "GP" system of BG and NWN. Maybe they forgot that? Or the decision was made by people who weren't around then?

 

So if it's "obviously not about player intelligence", we still - just as I said - lacks a reason why this was done.

[Timate]

Oh you crazy kids and stop nuking it lol already I am going to laugh my ass off if I keep reading the nuking

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

You mean gold (sovereigns), silvers, and coppers (bits)? I loved that system. I prefer it! But think of it like this. You wouldn't buy things in America with British pounds, would you?

[BackdoorPaco]

Stay classy BSN.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I preferred the old system as well. It felt more realistic.

No it didn't. It was decimalised.

If it had been 1 gold = 8 silver = 160 copper, maybe.

[Sylentmana]

Verily, tis a shame that our great currency hath been reduced so. I blameth yon poor economy.

[virtus753]

Perhaps changing the number of silver to equal 1 gold and the number of copper to equal 1 silver would have been better then. Any currency geeks on here?

 

Before Roman currency was debased,  on average how many bronze or cooper coins did it take to equal a silver, and how many silver did it take to equal a gold?

 

Sorry for being so late to the game -- just saw this!

 

Ancient historian with expertise in numismatics here. Unfortunately, Roman currency turned fiduciary from the moment it was created, although it took longer for debasement to kick in. (But boy, when it did...) There's no accurate quick answer here, since the Romans began minting coins soon after 300 BC and continued making them until their civilization collapsed/morphed into something else, and values fluctuated significantly over that time period.

 

That said, here's what I can say about Republican coinage (c. 300-late 1st c. BC), which was comparatively more stable than Imperial coinage ( ):

 

When we know that silver and gold coins were minted with the same dies, the gold coin (aureus) was typically valued at about 25 times the silver (denarius). That's a good clean number for mathematical purposes, but just be aware it's something of a fantasy to think it held true in practice for very long.

 

Bronze coins were never made with the same dies as gold and silver. (By which I mean that we have no examples of any such bronze coins, and we have no reason to believe it was ever done.) Bronze coins were made in different sizes that corresponded to different fractions of the silver coin. The standard bronze coin, called an as, was worth 1/10 of a denarius until 141 BC and 1/16 afterwards; it was approximately 6 times the mass. So you're looking at silver being valued at nearly 100 times bronze in the time of the 1st century BC (Cicero, Caesar, Virgil, etc.).

 

Disclaimer: I cannot stress how much of an approximation this is! The weight and fineness of ancient coins were constantly fluctuating. But if you want really nice numbers, gold would work well at approximately 25 times silver, and silver at about 100 times bronze.

 

Edited: because grammar. Also to say that those numbers are by mass/weight; the Romans worked around the "100 times" issue by using bigger bronze coins.

[Spider Pig]

No wonder its simplified. Skyhold will have a chamber to put all our gold a la Overlord series, if we go by that achievement pic.

[SolNebula]

First world problems

[Vilegrim]

Wow.. people actually care about this?
I love how people can complain about this.. even when this is their first open world game, with deep character customization, base building and crafting in it.. and most likely a longer story + insane amounts off side content.. compared to any of the previous games.

With the removal of stat points on level up (for example) I, for one, am treating the claim of deep customisation as suspect at best. i could care less about the drapes in skyhold as well.

[Dutchess]

First world problems

 

It's a video game. Whether the game is so bugged you can't play it or people are annoyed with the change in the coin system, any problem is going to be a first world problem.

[VikingDream]

Looks like the banking crisis hit the gaming world too lol 

[Elissiaro]

So the obvious answer to why we only have gold now is that a bunch of people got cursed like Midas and now gold is practicaly useless. So the dwarves went; "Hey, let's just make gold the new copper, and then copper can be silver and silver can be the new gold. We'd just have to make a bunch more gold coins, in stead of having to make an entire new top tier from, I dunno platinum or whatever."

And so it was.

The inquisition is basically super poor since they don't have any copper or silver. Just like all the nobles and kings and countries. The peasants are well off and the middle class people are filthy rich though.

 

Yeah, this is what I will force my brain to believe to be able to cope with my omfg-I-have-200-gold-sovreigns-I-should-be-able-to-get-the-end-game-armor feeling.

 

Though actually if they just made the coins reddish gold and called them bits (or pennies in Orlais), this wouldn't be so bad... Cause then we'd only have copper coins wich makes some small amount of sense. Money wise... Or something...

Really some leather armor was like 2 silver in past games iirc, so that'd be 200 gold. Hawke could have funded 4 freaking deeproads expeditions on that much money!

[Nattfare]

I would like if they kept it but I can understand why they didn't. 

 

Also I can't help but think of this little skit from Horrible Histories when reading this thread. 

 

 

I will never complain about Groszy again.

[Todd23]

The Inquisitor doesn't bother looting pocket change. Not worth the extra weight.

Except money is weightless.

[Shahadem]

I understand why they chose to simplify it, but I will also miss the old monetary system.  It really impressed me how uninflated the economy was in DA:O and that you didn't have people running around with thousands upon thousands of gold pieces.

 

Yes you did. I had thousands of gold, and by the end of the game items cost hundreds of gold each.

[bEVEsthda]

I think it's due to the fact you're running an army, a very expensive one with heavy external resources at that. You don't spend pennies in RTS games leading your army, do you? Nope, you use gold, or large amounts of cash in singular units. The Warden and company were more of a small-scale band of people, and the "army" they gathered wasn't directly supplied by the Warden; therefore, they used normal denominations of currency, whereas the wealthy Inquisition Army would probably need to get paid in gold on the whole. Some people referred to money as gold in Origins on a few occasions anyway.

 

So basically, you're saying that this is more of a Tycoon game and less of a RPG, so we don't need the old, classic role playing elements of private money and going shopping?

...hmm...

[frankf43]

We're in Orlais now. They won't sully their hands with common copper.