80 réponses à ce sujet

[otis0310]

Not really seeing the issue here. 

 

The points are automatically allocated to the attributes that best fit your class. 

 

Why would you want to point points into attributes that don't fit your class? 

 

 

While this is true of Magic, Dexterity and Strength, it is not true with Cunning, Constitution and Willpower.  

 

You might want to allocate more points to Willpower to a warrior because it increases their stamina reserves.  While they oviously do not need it as much as a mage, you might find that you keep running dry on Stamina in combat and want to put a few points there just in case.  

 

Cunning likewise increases critical chance, again maybe a few points here for a warrior too, not as important as for a rogue, but you might want a higher critical chance.   

 

Finally constitution effects health, and everyone could use more health across the board, that is not just true of warriors.  Mages need it to, although they are not in the front lines you do not want yoru mage falling to an archer in 2 seconds because you could not allocate points into constituion to improve their health.

 

 

 

So while your statement has some merrit that some attributes are only useful to a particular class,  there are other attributes that could be useful to a couple of classes, or in the case of constitution, everyone.

 

Ps.

 

In both DAO and DA2 I always have a minimum of 20 constituion.  For a warrior or dual wielding rogue, even higher, esp. the warrior.  This is because  regardless of what armor you have you will always take damage, and not putting any points into constitution leaves as vulnerable as a  5 year old girl.

 

In this game I would argue that putting being able to put points into constitution is even more important because you can't heal without  potions, which you get very few of.

[Medhia_Nox]

It's interesting to me how much people equate character building to "roleplaying". 

I wonder how many of this type of roleplayer is primarily a CRPG gamer.

 

Roleplaying - to me - is about 10% character building.

[Sidney]

It's interesting to me how much people equate character building to "roleplaying". 
I wonder how many of this type of roleplayer is primarily a CRPG gamer.
 
Roleplaying - to me - is about 10% character building.

The stats on a character sheet have no bearing on role playing. I can be the same sort of inquisitor with a high strength or high magic.

[LunaticAsylumLA]

I agree with the first two posts. We need the management. Why would someone take that away at all? To avoid extra dialogue options? We can live without that.

[StingingVelvet]

They way they built DA:O and DA2's systems I always just split my points between the two class-focused attributes anyway. No thought was put into it. So might as well be automatic.

 

The crafting system is better character customization than attributes in the previous games, IMO.

[ashwind]

To say that there is no attribute points on level up is not entirely accurate. The skills you pick upon level up comes with attribute.

 

Want to increase strangth? Go train Skill A. B or C that is physical and you get +3 str. The old stat system I have complained since the time of Advance Dungeons and Dragon. Imagine a warrior that train with a mace for an entire season accidentally hit himself in the face, broke his nose and he is more charismatic upon level up.... ok that could happen but become wiser or smarter because the mace vibrated his brain in a positive way.....

 

In short I like this system. You want certain attribute, train them through skills.

[Stahl33]

Meh,

 

I loved the old D&D.  You rolled a character.  He had defined stats (like real life).  You couldn't modify them apart from very very rare magic.  They helped define you.

Bring that Back I reckon!!! 

 

Hit Points went up as they levelled, because they had learnt how to take blows and damage better (by dodging, allowing a glancing blow, twisting when struck, falling back to take the weight off the blow, and only very slightly by being more tough).  And then they levelled out a lot! After level 9, you only gained like1 to 3 hitpoints per level.

 

Levelling increased your skills and ability to take damage and to hit (not specifically to damage unless you were a mage, or backstab multipliers). 

Too often today we see this crazy increasing in stats, and damage and health that has no realism in it at all (not that it is all about realism, but come on!!)

 

DAI tends back towards this.  I reckon they just drop the whole attribute system all together as we don't impact it at all (apart from choosing certain skills on the tree, but you don't usually choose a skill due to its ability bonus).  Either do it properly or get rid of it I reckon!!!

 

Role playing is all about taking on a role, and playing in that role.  There are lots of discussions on this point.  The thing I love about role playing is that you can potentially be anything.  You can create the character you want to be (and there are significant and defined ways to define the character), and the way you play or define your character has an impact upon the story / the environment.  The more branches in a story, the more environment interactions based on character definitions, the more ways to define your character, the better the RPG is (In my opinion)!

[iniside]

And older RPGs never had it in the first place. Increasing stats on levelup is one of those bad ideas from the 90s that's finally dying out.

(Assigning stat points during character creation is a whole different matter, though.)

Disagreed. Increasing stats manually is best thing about building character.

[Suhiira]

Apparently the target market average gamer couldn't figure out/be bothered with things like allocating stat points and non-combat skills so both were removed from the game.

[Soopy]

I remember when RPG's had a static level up system to begin with. I quite like that DA:I has returned to that system.

[Sartoz]

 Big Snip

------------

 

In this game I would argue that putting being able to put points into constitution is even more important because you can't heal without  potions, which you get very few of.

Level 11, here.

Choosing the team for your  'adventure'  party is critical. Each member of the teams must have complementary skill sets that brings the team. into one cohesive whole.  While I understand the lack of manual points assignment, there are new abilities that compensate for said lack. Meaning, in my case, my team survives vis-avis an enemy with = or +2 levels higher.

 

Having said that, I still miss my personal character(s) development efforts.  Giving us a choice makes Bioware look better.

[Wolven_Soul]

And older RPGs never had it in the first place. Increasing stats on levelup is one of those bad ideas from the 90s that's finally dying out.

(Assigning stat points during character creation is a whole different matter, though.)

Ahh but the oldest RPG in the world has always had stat increases.  Dungeons and Dragons.  How is it a bad idea to build a character exactly as you want?

[Wolven_Soul]

sure. you choose the abilities, thats always what mattered imo. in a game with only stat points as the only things to differentiate a character, i agree with you. but most games now don't need them, and no, they are not "dumbed down" because they dont have them, they just are not necessary if the developers choose not to have them manually allocated. abilities are much more important now and its just as important choosing the right abilities as stat points we're back in the olden days. Skyrim for example, you choose what perks you can use, but its not like you can master all trees seeing as you can only level (reasonably (no glitches) unless your a nerd with no life) a number of times. you still have to plan out what area's you want to invest in, if you allocate the perks wrong for your class, say you want to be an stealthed archer but focus on all fighting areas, like magic and two handed, fighting a legendary dragon on normal or higher, well your fucked, no other way around it. and thats  just like back in the day with, say, Diablo 2, if you allocate all points in 1 or 2 stats and dont level the character right, your fucked against the Devil in the end. its the same thing but because people dont like change they are resistant to it. its just like when cars started to replace horses at first, most people didn't buy into it and wanted to keep the horses, but obviously cars ended up being more efficient. people just dont like change, but better to ride the wave then get swept under it, especially for such a minor change in something we all love (games).

Change is fine when it is for the better.  I do not agree that taking away our stat points is for the better.  It is limiting us.  It gives us fewer options in how to play the game.  One of the reasons Skyrim was so great was all the different kinds of characters you could make.  I do not like having limits in epic, open world RPGs.  The whole point of such games is to have as few limits as possible.

[AlanC9]

Change is fine when it is for the better.  I do not agree that taking away our stat points is for the better.  It is limiting us.  It gives us fewer options in how to play the game.  One of the reasons Skyrim was so great was all the different kinds of characters you could make.  I do not like having limits in epic, open world RPGs.  The whole point of such games is to have as few limits as possible.

Wait... wasn't Skyrim the game that took most of the attributes out of the TES series?

[Corto81]

Wait... wasn't Skyrim the game that took most of the attributes out of the TES series?

What do you mean?

 

TES games have Health, Magicka and Stamina.

And skills.

 

No attributes.

[Polantaris]

I agree with the issue with skills being low in quantity, and I agree with the annoyance towards skill building (like how you can't build outside of your class in any way), but the stat distribution is not all that great of a system. In the end, most people look up a common build and follow it, or they risk potentially screwing over their game late-game because they built towards an incorrect path that the developers didn't expect/want, and the end result is the game becomes ten times harder than it should have been because the developers were unable to prepare for every possible build outcome.

 

In the end it's not worth the effort, from a development standpoint, to allow stat allocation. Either no one will use it as intended, or people WILL use it as intended and then complain about the game's difficulty.

[MiyoKit]

Games like NWN, BG etc: work really well with stat point allocation, and you can really build any type of class you want (including multiclassing). However, it never worked in a DA game. It was basically a race to stack cunning (to open master locks / persuasion) and the highest 'primary' stat (str, dex, magic) to wear armour, there was little role playing about it. I'm glad its gone - it was either make it more indepth like NWN (never going to happen) or get rid of it and give us lockpicking etc: another way.

[K3m0sabe]

The amount of people who think that roleplaying games are all about romances and npc's is depressing. 

 

When projects like PoE, Torment, WL2, D:OS, Underrail, AoD and others, manage to get millions in funding and player following, it shows that there is a huge market for more in depth RPG's, a market that Bioware failed to address with DA:I, instead going for the "It's like Skyrim, but without mod support and sandbox gameplay" market which seems to exist only in someone's imagination in Bioware management. 

 

They basicly neutered every single RPG system that was present in DA:O, almost nothing was not downgraded, you have less choice and consequence, you have less skills, you have less character building, you have less depth to combat with no class ability combos and tactics.

[Eckister]

in case it would add weight - you are not the only one:
http://forum.bioware...vel-yay-or-nay/

[Sidney]

The amount of people who think that roleplaying games are all about romances and npc's is depressing. 

 

When projects like PoE, Torment, WL2, D:OS, Underrail, AoD and others, manage to get millions in funding and player following, it shows that there is a huge market for more in depth RPG's, a market that Bioware failed to address with DA:I, instead going for the "It's like Skyrim, but without mod support and sandbox gameplay" market which seems to exist only in someone's imagination in Bioware management. 

 

They basicly neutered every single RPG system that was present in DA:O, almost nothing was not downgraded, you have less choice and consequence, you have less skills, you have less character building, you have less depth to combat with no class ability combos and tactics.

 

 

The fact that you think it is about essentially tinkering with spreadsheets is even more depressing. BG didn't let you monkey with stats anymore than DAI does, BG2 didn't either. In Fallout there was a hard cap at 10 for stats, DAI doesn't prevent massive boosts in stats from skills and levels.   I don't think dumping points into stats makes it "deeper" in any way I think it offends people who think there is one pure true way for an RPG to be.

 

This game has a lot more impact to choice than DAO did because in DAO you could have it all. Here you must build your character carefully because you have limits on skills available for use. Just like people whining for a chest to store crap in, if you want choice and consequence, well here it is. You can't carry and store everything and you can't cast every spell (BTW, if you recall BG1/2 didn't allow you to willy nilly cast every spell you knew either  so that is two ways the BG series isn't in depth) so you must plan and balance.

[DangerKips]

Whether or not you spent your points in the same stats every time doesn't matter. At the end of the day you're still removing player choice for no reason at all. Allocating stat points is one of those touchy subjects that developers really just ought to leave alone.

[Eckister]

Sidney - obviously your BG1 playthrough was quite superficial... I used BG1 to get all attributes on my character to 25, to make BG2 easier. how? books... even Baldurs Gate (which wasnt made to give you the option to raise characters attributes, because the rule set was waaaaaaaaaaay different from the DA series, making this comparison HIGHLY irrelevant, by the way) had more options to customise your character than DA:I...

[K3m0sabe]

The fact that you think it is about essentially tinkering with spreadsheets is even more depressing. BG didn't let you monkey with stats anymore than DAI does, BG2 didn't either. In Fallout there was a hard cap at 10 for stats, DAI doesn't prevent massive boosts in stats from skills and levels.   I don't think dumping points into stats makes it "deeper" in any way I think it offends people who think there is one pure true way for an RPG to be.

 

This game has a lot more impact to choice than DAO did because in DAO you could have it all. Here you must build your character carefully because you have limits on skills available for use. Just like people whining for a chest to store crap in, if you want choice and consequence, well here it is. You can't carry and store everything and you can't cast every spell (BTW, if you recall BG1/2 didn't allow you to willy nilly cast every spell you knew either  so that is two ways the BG series isn't in depth) so you must plan and balance.

 

The hell are you talking about, BG allowed you to put stats where you wanted, going as far as having dice rolls that allowed for a wide range of stats in character creation, it had stat bonuses and penalties for race, it had alignment limitations for class, it had skill points, it had multiclassing, you could be a mage that could cast 80 fireballs or a mage that could cast 30 different spells once before resting, or a mage that had little control over what it cast and could through a cow at someone instead of a fireball. 

 

Fallout had stat points that allowed for any countless number of builds, it had perks with massive drawbacks for every advantage they gave, it had a shitton of skills you could use to resolve quests in different ways and influence healing and damage with weapons. 

 

Also DA:O is probably the most reactive game Bioware has ever done, the amount of choice and consequence you have "hidden" in the game and quests is enormous, you always had multiple ways to resolve issues, the story could widly diverge at key points, your companions could be affected in any number of ways, it so far surpasses DA:I in C&C department that there is no way we can even begin to compare both games. 

[Cl1cka]

dude a number of RPG's dont have this anymore, Witcher and Elder Scrolls stopped it too

Those are not classic RPGs but subgenre.

Bladur's Gate is RPG, DAO is RPG