Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, Deus Ex had no stats at all, Does Fire Emblem count?
Being able to allocate stats isn't the be-all end-all of a great RPG. I understant your frustration with this change, but please don't blow it out of proportion.
Deus Ex isn;t an rpg
No, the content of that particular argument of yours made it entirely apropriate to invoke Planescape. Yes, they're different games, and Planescape was not the 3rd game in its series. However, due to the content of that particular argument you made, that doesn't matter. You were whining that we can only buy skills when we level up now, and our attribute point allocation is done for us, as if that's inherently bad design. My point is that other great games have done pretty much the same thing.
Most of those rpgs allow us to allocate initial stats or roll until we reach a desirable stat allocation. So there is player control .
deus ex certainly counts as an rpg. it has character progression dialogue choices, partially branching story, gear with different capabilities, it just so happens to be FPS capable 
hell, it even inspired the wonderful ME3 ending sequence
deus ex certainly counts as an rpg. it has character progression dialogue choices, partially branching story, gear with different capabilities, it just so happens to be FPS capable
By that logic Day of the Tentacle is an rpg too. But Deus Ex certainly has more rpg elements than a lot of other games developers stick the rpg label on.
For those who don't count the latest Deus Ex was the first Deus Ex an RPG? On top of the augs (perks) there were points allocated to skills.
And Day of the Tentacle didn't have a branching story at all... which is the thing that engages me the most in a game regardless of what it is called.
I'll play. All three Mass Effects (only actual stat is health; everything else is skills). Morrowind with the GCD mod. Several of the Ultimas. Quite a few early CRPGs, back before the form got stale. Plus some things like Starflight that you might say aren't RPGs because they don't have actual levelling, only skill developmentName 5 great rpgs that allocate the stats on Level-up for the player.
I would. Oh, gods..... are we about to start playing another round of "what is an RPG?"For those who don't count the latest Deus Ex was the first Deus Ex an RPG? On top of the augs (perks) there were points allocated to skills.
Can someone summarize to me about pros and cons for removing manual attribute allocation, and to what extend about putting the allocation work to equipment customization instead?
I have played Dragon Nest (which is an MMO) and the stat build is 95% relying on equipments only, even for some skill improvement (skill rings like DA:I). If DA:I is similar then player's freedom of stat allocation will be the same as the games that allow it directly like Ragnarok Online.
I can't because no game has a system exactly like Dragon Age.
But I don't see why, if one did exist, not allowing you to distribute stats at level up would preclude it from being great. Why that one, single factor is so important. I understand liking it. I understand not understanding or being upset that it's gone. But I don't get why it's such a sacred cow to so many people. Why its absence is so detrimental to their experience.
And I've read all the posts in this thread and the last one. It still doesn't make sense to me.
Thing is, this generic warrior can either use 2H or S&S; no daggers, ranged weapons, staves, etc. And any errors can/ could have been fixed with Respec potions that will be available in game.
Respec'ing several hundred stat points each time you want to change your role is incredibly tedious.
Availability of weapon choices/relevant specializations is independent of the attributes tied to gear vs attributes tied to character issue.
Ultimately, how we increase stats as we level up is arbitrary. Ultimate flexibility would be having an allocated stat budget and using sliders(so as to conveniently make large stat changes without hundreds of clicks) so that you can change your stat allocation on the fly. However, people would likely find that immersion breaking. Players are willing to accept the idea of leveling up making a character inherently stronger, but not being able to suddenly change all your endurance or strength into dexterity(which admittedly is extremely gamey and has no in-world explanation). Enchanted gear with different stat allocations is the compromise, people can accept swapping gear to use the best equipment for any given situation.
Respec'ing several hundred stat points each time you want to change your role is incredibly tedious.
Respec'ing several hundred stat points each time you want to change your role is incredibly tedious.
Availability of weapon choices/relevant specializations is independent of the attributes tied to gear vs attributes tied to character issue.
Ultimately, how we increase stats as we level up is arbitrary. Ultimate flexibility would be having an allocated stat budget and using sliders(so as to conveniently make large stat changes without hundreds of clicks) so that you can change your stat allocation on the fly. However, people would likely find that immersion breaking. Players are willing to accept the idea of leveling up making a character inherently stronger, but not being able to suddenly change all your endurance or strength into dexterity(which admittedly is extremely gamey and has no in-world explanation). Enchanted gear with different stat allocations is the compromise, people can accept swapping gear to use the best equipment for any given situation.
That's fair. But I don't think that has anything to do with the lack of attribute allocation?Only speaking for myself, but the changes have removed the type of Rogue I wished to play.
That's fair. But I don't think that has anything to do with the lack of attribute allocation?
Like I've said before, I can certainly understand people upset with the change. I just don't get how it could ruin the game.
Actually..
In DAO, you could choose from Strength-focused, Dexterity-focused, or Cunning-focused Rogues. Then add in weapon choice (Sword, dagger, axe, mace) as well as dual full-size weapons later on, and you've got a lot you can throw up before you really get into abilities and gear. Now it's just abilities and gear.
And I still don't get it.
I also wish they would have let rogues use swords and axes et al, and let warriors use bows and dual weapons. But that has little to do with changed allocation of stats from level-based to gear-based.
Ignoring that, the end result is the same. Giving yourself +20 cunning with equipment will end the exact same way as giving yourself +20 cunning in level up. Complaining that you're just "playing your gear" seems like a meaningless distinction to me.
No, it really doesn't. A Rogue with +20 cunning is a more adept character. A Rogue with a +20 cunning hat is a dimwit with a shinier hat.
To me it will allow me to expand my arsenal of choices in a very MMO-esque fashion.
Such as I remember in Aion as a spiritmaster I invested countless hours into a "Magic resistance" set so I could dodge all spells.
And then I had a maccuracy set (main set) that allowed me to hit spells consistently.
In total truth I am soooo much happier for this. Yes I understand the qualms about "cunning" but in the end the only one making your actual character cunning is if you (the player!!!!) make wise strategic decisions.
So "cunning' is a terribly bad phrase, cunning is more up to your own tactics and strategies and dialoge options.
Last I checked Dragon Age wasn't an MMO, or maybe that was days long passed
To me, the importance and meaning of attributes depends on the kind of RPG I'm playing.
In action RPGs like Diablo III, attribute points are merely tools to build the ultimate killing machine. That's all what the game is about, after all - how fast can you massacre these greater rifts. I don't care whether they come from my character or my equipment, I care about the result - tons of dead monsters.
In story driven RPGs, which I hope DA:I will be, attributes also describe a character's personality for me, in a way. For example, when I play a warrior, I like to play smart warriors, a thinking man with a long blade. That means I generally put a few points into Intelligence or Cunning, even if I don't gain any gameplay advantage from it. Of course, if that unlocks additional dialogue as it does in some games, all the better. In this scenario, I very much care whether actually my character is smart or whether he's of average intellect and only gets smarter when he wears his clever hat. Therefore, I like it when story driven RPGs let me allocate attribute points manually and to my character, not my gear. I'm also fine with games without main attributes like Skyrim, because that at least does not actively contradict the personality I have in mind for my character. However, in DA:I every attribute seems to remain at 10, unless it's a primary for the class that goes up with skills you pick, or with items your character wears. It means I cannot play my smart warrior, I can only play a warrior with smart gear. A character who is not more cunning than the average yokel unless he uses equipment as a crutch.
Of course, if I would be playing with merely efficiency in mind as I do in games like Diablo, nothing of the above would matter. But I want to play a certain personality, and so it does.
But there is no stat in Dragon Age for intelligence; the choice to be intelligent or not comes in the dialogue options.
Now if dialogue options are blocked out due to Cunning stat (very unlikely, since even "Persuade" being Cunning blocked was already removed in DA2 and there are no signs they are going with that), you'd have a point. But I seriously doubt that will happen. I know there were a few instances of this in DA:O but there removal in DA2 felt freeing and I doubt they'll reverse that as they seem to want to keep the combat experience fluid, fun, and responsive. Really, what they have done is removed those kinds of roleplay choices from the combat attributes in order to give players more choice since people in video games often balk at sacrificing being a killing machine for roleplaying choice - So, you can be a smart warrior without sacrificing strength. You can be a dumb warrior too. The "Cunning" stat is really about trapfinding and battle weaknesses, instead of being an overall intelligence stat. The stats are only related to battle (and things like lockpicking or barrier removal, which can alternately be done by other party members).
You get to build your personality separate from combat so that the combat is fun, people get to be efficient killing machines, AND you can RP a wide array of characters through the various choices provided. Things like intelligence are personality traits, not combat attributes, in this system. (This was not necessarily the case in DA:O, but I think they realized the occasional use of combat attributes in dialogue didn't quite work for combat or dialogue. Hence the changes.)
Now regards to the Cunning trick - yes, if you wear gear enchanted to help you see weaknesses in your enemy (like Celene does in The Masked Empire), you will score more critical hits. This fits with lore. And works nicely with giving you freedom to change your load-outs.
Why was MP easier for them, its not like they have to play 10 hours to get to the next combat encounter before they can design it. Bioware can go to any part of the SP game they want when they are designing encounters, yet they think using a separate system that has different maps and enemies will make the SP encounters FUN.
To make the SP encounters the best they could be they should be designed for that encounter itself, taking into account the map, enemies and level of the party, not if it was fun in another game.
Using the MP game for encounters is using the MP mechanics because they are different to the SP game mechanics.
The main thing that you seem to be ignoring is that we have constantly been told that the MP game had no effect what so ever on the SP game, which we now know to be false. If Bioware uses the MP game for a major feature as encounter design then what else have they used MP for, could it be that Attributes were taken out because of MP.
Dude, by "easier" they mean "faster". The MP setup is lighter on content, so they can just whip in and out without having to load or tweak a more asset heavy SP build. You seem to think they went into the MP environment, used the MP mode to play with encounters, and then threw it all back into the SP mode. They didn't. You are twisting the information they provided and then saying that they lied about it, which they haven't. SP combat has at least two major differences from MP combat (the number of abilities available and the ability to pause and use a tactical camera). One is not a hastily revised version of the other, and BW did not gimp SP mode because all they cared about was making MP fun.
And I still don't get it.
I also wish they would have let rogues use swords and axes et al, and let warriors use bows and dual weapons. But that has little to do with changed allocation of stats from level-based to gear-based.
Ignoring that, the end result is the same. Giving yourself +20 cunning with equipment will end the exact same way as giving yourself +20 cunning in level up. Complaining that you're just "playing your gear" seems like a meaningless distinction to me.
Now if dialogue options are blocked out due to Cunning stat (very unlikely, since even "Persuade" being Cunning blocked was already removed in DA2 and there are no signs they are going with that), you'd have a point. But I seriously doubt that will happen. I know there were a few instances of this in DA:O but there removal in DA2 felt freeing and I doubt they'll reverse that as they seem to want to keep the combat experience fluid, fun, and responsive. Really, what they have done is removed those kinds of roleplay choices from the combat attributes in order to give players more choice since people in video games often balk at sacrificing being a killing machine for roleplaying choice - So, you can be a smart warrior without sacrificing strength.
No, it really doesn't. A Rogue with +20 cunning is a more adept character. A Rogue with a +20 cunning hat is a dimwit with a shinier hat.
And like I said, i really don't see that as a meaningful distinction. In gameplay terms, they're exactly the same.
As to Deus Ex, it's an ARPG. I think that makes it an RPG pretty clearly, but if someone wanted to make the distinction of ARPGs they could be - albeit saying "Deus Ex isn't an RPG" is a poor way to do that. (Mass Effect is also an ARPG, as is DA2. But DA:O and DA:I are classically just labeled RPG.)
The obvious problem with this kind of design is that we all end up being trapped into playing characters who are very persuasive. There's no way to fail Persuasion checks in late-game Skyrim or ME3, unless you deliberately avoid using shops or blow off all the sidequests, respectively. Though it's less of a problem for a TES game where you're supposed to end up pretty much omnipotent.
But you're right -- constraints on your character aren't very popular. Most problems with CRPG design turn out to be problems with the fans themselves.
Can't you pick poor dialogue choices and fail? In ME3, if a Paragon or Renegade persuasion is available, you can use it with success (that's what the game is telling you by making it available) but you don't have to. You could play a big dummy who says the wrong thing. But you would have to make the choice. Additionally, you have to play in a certain way to even have those persuade checks available to you in ME3. I agree it was very easy to do, but I think that's an accessibility choice. I do think Bioware makes accessible games - I like that, personally, but if that's the main beef, then I get it. However, most AAA games are accessible games. That's just the way it goes. There are plenty of games available for people who aren't interested in that, particularly on PC.
I played a lot of Skyrim, but don't remember the Persuade/Intimidate checks mattering there at all except to avoid the occasional fight with thug on the roads or whatever. So I'm unsure on that one.
Retour en haut
