96 réponses à ce sujet

[Aimi]

A renaissance in Thedas would be a rediscovery and adoption of classical cultural forms by modern aristocratic elites.

Unfortunately, the classical forms have inconvenient modern examples still. Tevinter isn't dead, so adopting Old Tevinter motifs and language (and, to an extent, religion) as a 'rediscovery' would be really silly. Human aristocrats - say, Orlesians - going all out on ancient Dalish, or Arlathan-era elven culture, would be even goofier. I mean, I guess they could happen (and do, to an extent, given Celene's apparent fetishization of those f***ing halla statuettes) but taking on the strength of a full-blown movement would be hard to swallow. Not that that would stop the devs from making use of those ideas if they so desired. In fact, much of the aesthetic of Inquisition, especially the scenes in 'civilized' Orlais, owes a great deal to European aristocratic art and style during the Italian Renaissance and the seventeenth century. Italian society enjoyed a renaissance in part because the Roman Empire conveniently died shortly before the renaissance really got going, in 1453, and had been politically and culturally irrelevant for at least a century before that.

Renaissances (European aristocratic society is usually said to have had between two and four: the one associated with the court of Charles the Great, the one associated with the court of Otto III, the Twelfth-Century Renaissance, and the Italian/Northern Renaissances that everybody remembers) are cultural, artistic, literary, and philosophical tropes. Referring to them outside of that context - labeling condottieri as "renaissance Italian mercenaries", for example - is very bizarre. When historians discuss the early employment of firearms, which is what the OP seemed to be doing, they refer to the 'era of pike and shot' or simply 'early modern European warfare', not to the 'renaissance'. Another trope sometimes applied is that of the 'gunpowder empires' that dominated central Eurasia in the sixteenth century, but this has been steadily deprecated over the last few decades.

Any person that thinks that firearms would ruin the balance or aesthetic of gameplay probably overstates the importance of gunpowder weapons in warfare before the eighteenth century or so, and probably understates the tactical effects of battle magic.

[Elfyoth]

OP, you only want a Renaissance so you can use new weapons and armor for gameplay combat? No interest whatsoever in the overall shift in the cultural, intellectual, artistic, political, or socio/economic environment of Renaissance Europe?

 

What's more, the Renaissance didn't happen all over Europe all at once. It wasn't like everyone woke up one day and said, "We're Renaissance now," and started crafting new weapons and armor to reflect that. It was a shift in attitude regarding art, literature, and learning, which slowly spread into every facet of their lives (philosophy, religion, sciences, fashion, politics, technology, and the overall socio/economic climate), which slowly spread across Europe as new ideas and attitudes spread.

 

Since Antiva has been specifically cited as modeled after Renaissance Italy, if we DID see hints of a (physically) Renaissance-modeled society, it would be a game set in that area.

I agree with you.

 

 

Oh and OP I dont want guns in DAI. 

[leaguer of one]

I agree with you.

 

 

Oh and OP I dont want guns in DAI. 

but we are already in a renasaince thedus...

[Handsome Jack]

No. Never. Please. For the love god can we just keep it medieval like it's meant to be?

[Solace]

No. Never. Please. For the love god can we just keep it medieval like it's meant to be?

I felt that way about Fable II and III.

[Ashagar]

No. Never. Please. For the love god can we just keep it medieval like it's meant to be?

 

You mean with the nice fantasy gun control to keep the gunpowder weapons that existed during the middle ages away I gather.

[leaguer of one]

No. Never. Please. For the love god can we just keep it medieval like it's meant to be?

*points and printed books in thedus.

 

it's pretty clear the games setting is not medevil.

[The Loyal Nub]

Early firearms were notoriously unreliable. The employers of things like the Arquebus tended to be lightly armored if armored at all and were often at the mercy of heavily armored melee fighters or cavalry who could swoop down on the poor gun owner while the poor fellow was trying to load the damn thing while praying it did not go off in his face.

 

In the Pike and Shot era, that Aimi mentions above, the soldiers with guns were distributed among the pikemen squares or Tercios to give them protection from melee fighters and cavalry and in that capacity their deadliness grew (and the bayonet does not become commonplace until the 1690's and even then the first ones were plugged into the barrel so that you had to remove it to fire the gun).

 

But if BioWare wants to give us some fighter with an Arquebus or early flintlock in the next game fine by me. Just leave him sad and alone and in the open, desperately trying to load the thing, while I bear down upon him ready to take his head! 

[DeadEyeMaster1]

Then that would be - Dragon Age: Assassin's Creed. 

[KaiserShep]

Then that would be - Dragon Age: Assassin's Creed. 

 

One thing I wish Dragon Age had that Assassin's Creed used is the ability to grab onto the edges of things. Like, come on. You have hands. Use them gotdangit. I just wanna get that stupid shard so I can get out of here already. It's come to the point where I feel like I shouldn't even bother to mention it because of reasons, but the Witcher 3 does seem to employ this, which is nice.

[Aren]

For me, trying to find decent looking armor in Origins was like a conversation with a sober Oghren: few and far between, especially if you were a dex-based rogue (infinitely worse if your rogue is female). 

 

Because there aren't good looking armors or clothes in DAO,but I'm grateful that for the pc version i have the possibility to use custom armors,especially the armor design from DAII.

Anyway this renaissance topic is an elegant way to say " i want guns and modern cannon so i can smash the Dragons to the ground with an epic Boom!"

[KCMeredith]

Qunari have gaatlok and fire cannons from their dreadnoughts, wouldn't surprise me if they showed up with some sort of musket when they decide to invade.

 

And I wouldn't mind it as long as the series doesn't turn into some sort of shooter, but that won't happen anyway.

[Uccio]

Early firearms were notoriously unreliable. The employers of things like the Arquebus tended to be lightly armored if armored at all and were often at the mercy of heavily armored melee fighters or cavalry who could swoop down on the poor gun owner while the poor fellow was trying to load the damn thing while praying it did not go off in his face.

 

In the Pike and Shot era, that Aimi mentions above, the soldiers with guns were distributed among the pikemen squares or Tercios to give them protection from melee fighters and cavalry and in that capacity their deadliness grew (and the bayonet does not become commonplace until the 1690's and even then the first ones were plugged into the barrel so that you had to remove it to fire the gun).

 

But if BioWare wants to give us some fighter with an Arquebus or early flintlock in the next game fine by me. Just leave him sad and alone and in the open, desperately trying to load the thing, while I bear down upon him ready to take his head! 

 

Firearms brought a change. They completely changed the dynamics of the battlefield. No longer a heavily armored noble could rule the fight and lead from the front. A dirty peasant could drop him of his high horse with a single round ball of metal. The change was subtle at first but it was the starting point of a new era. The end of the middle ages. From that on nobles started to pull back form the fight and remain in the background leaving the combat to the masses. A complete new mindset. 

[o Ventus]

Firearms brought a change. They completely changed the dynamics of the battlefield. No longer a heavily armored noble could rule the fight and lead from the front. A dirty peasant could drop him of his high horse with a single round ball of metal. The change was subtle at first but it was the starting point of a new era. The end of the middle ages. From that on nobles started to pull back form the fight and remain in the background leaving the combat to the masses. A complete new mindset. 

 

Guns have existed since around 1000 CE, with gunpowder being used in other weapons for longer. Armored knights were on battlefields for more than 4 centuries after this invention before beginning to be phased out around the middle part of the 15th century.

 

Also, good luck hitting an armored knight on horseback with a weapon that has an effective range of about 5 meters (assuming the weapon even fired at all, since a lot of early firearms were prone to jamming or the powder becoming damp). This is also being generous. Most muskets around the time of the American Revolution weren't rifled, and there was no standard when it came to making the musket balls. Oftentimes a soldier would make his own ammunition, and each bullet would be a different size (sometimes only slightly, sometimes fairly drastically). If the ball is too big and heavy, it won't be nearly as accurate, assuming it fires at all. Firearms from earlier periods were even less reliable.

[The Baconer]

Guns have existed since around 1000 CE, with gunpowder being used in other weapons for longer. Armored knights were on battlefields for more than 4 centuries after this invention before beginning to be phased out around the middle part of the 15th century.

 

Actually, heavy cavalry (often led by aristocrats) would see use until the 19th century.

[o Ventus]

Actually, heavy cavalry (often led by aristocrats) would see use until the 19th century.

"Beginning to be phased out [...]"

 

Key phrase: beginning to be

[Uccio]

 

Guns have existed since around 1000 CE, with gunpowder being used in other weapons for longer. Armored knights were on battlefields for more than 4 centuries after this invention before beginning to be phased out around the middle part of the 15th century.

 

Also, good luck hitting an armored knight on horseback with a weapon that has an effective range of about 5 meters (assuming the weapon even fired at all, since a lot of early firearms were prone to jamming or the powder becoming damp). This is also being generous. Most muskets around the time of the American Revolution weren't rifled, and there was no standard when it came to making the musket balls. Oftentimes a soldier would make his own ammunition, and each bullet would be a different size (sometimes only slightly, sometimes fairly drastically). If the ball is too big and heavy, it won't be nearly as accurate, assuming it fires at all. Firearms from earlier periods were even less reliable.

 

Like I said, the change was slow but it had started. There was no going back.

 

Actually, heavy cavalry (often led by aristocrats) would see use until the 19th century.

 

Yep, the ones with balls.

[o Ventus]

 

Like I said, the change was slow but it had started. There was no going back.

 

 

Firearms brought a change. They completely changed the dynamics of the battlefield. No longer a heavily armored noble could rule the fight and lead from the front. A dirty peasant could drop him of his high horse with a single round ball of metal. The change was subtle at first but it was the starting point of a new era. The end of the middle ages. From that on nobles started to pull back form the fight and remain in the background leaving the combat to the masses. A complete new mindset. 

 

The bolded part makes it sound like the invention of firearms just spontaneously prompted nobles to stop fighting and completely devalued armored cavalry. Like, as soon as the first gun was seen on the battlefield, all the knights and other nobles in the world dropped their weapons and threw their hands up and said "well s**t boys, they have guns, we better get going, don't bother sending in any swordsmen on horseback."

 

And guns didn't mark the end of the middle ages. The middle ages started (roughly) around 400 CE and lasted well into the 15th century, spread out across the early, high, and late middle ages. Firearms existed for the entire last third of the middle ages.

[Aimi]

Firearms brought a change. They completely changed the dynamics of the battlefield. No longer a heavily armored noble could rule the fight and lead from the front. A dirty peasant could drop him of his high horse with a single round ball of metal. The change was subtle at first but it was the starting point of a new era. The end of the middle ages. From that on nobles started to pull back form the fight and remain in the background leaving the combat to the masses. A complete new mindset.

Aristocrats dominated officer corps in European militaries until the first half of the twentieth century. They also led from the front for virtually all that time, a tradition that did not change until the Great War. In that war, commissioned officers suffered the highest casualty rate among any category - higher than civilians, enlisted soldiers, draftees, and noncoms. It was only as a result of the horrendous casualties of the Great War that the system of officers primarily leading from the front changed. Attributing that change to the employment of firearms five hundred years prior is horrendously bad causation.

Look at the charge of the Prussian Guard at St. Privat in 1870 and tell me with a straight face that aristocrats led from the rear.

As others - and myself - have pointed out, you're drastically overstating the technical effectiveness of early gunpowder arms. Gunpowder weapons were useful in the early modern era. Of course they were. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been used at all. But they were not the be-all, end-all. Musket infantry made up a minority of most European field armies until the early eighteenth century (after two hundred years of constant use) because while they could deliver a useful fire effect, the fire effect wasn't that good, and they were very fragile, and they usually required large contingents of melee infantry and cavalry (especially pike infantry) to actually engage enemy forces and defeat them.

Fundamentally, infantry tactics did not change that much. One of the most remarkable developments of the late sixteenth century was the 'rediscovery' by certain Western soldiers of old Roman military texts. Famously, the army of the Dutch Republic, commanded by Maurits van Nassauwe, adopted classical-style linear tactics to organize infantry, linear tactics that would eventually come to dominate the way Western armies tactically deployed for three hundred years. How big a sea change in tactics could there have been, if generals could plausibly claim to be inspired by the battles of two millennia ago? Infantry would get together in parallel lines, close in, hammer away at each other with missile weapons (arrows/slings/javelins/muskets), charge at each other to fight with cold steel (swords/spears/bayonets), disengage for a bit, regroup, rinse, and repeat. Cavalry would be employed in surprise shock attacks, or on the flanks of the army to defeat enemy cavalry and roll up the enemy infantry.

Those were the basics. Obviously, things were more complicated than that. Gunpowder artillery were more powerful field weapons than the stone projectors of classical and medieval times - but they didn't become truly deadly until the introduction of high explosive shell in the late nineteenth century. Body armor became less commonly used, not because it was ineffective but because it was insufficiently effective compared to the cost of supplying it to infantry especially considering the other expenses on state militaries. The existence of modern flak jackets and ballistic vests clearly indicates that firearms have not made the concept of body armor obsolete; the exploits of European cuirassiers, or the Australian outlaw Ned Kelly, indicate that such conditions held earlier in history as well.

Putting gunpowder small arms into the setting would cause far less of a tactical shift than the introduction of magic. Who needs a 75mm HE round when you can just drop a fireball on somebody? In some ways, mages bring warfare forward to the equivalent of the 1890s. The piddling arquebuses or wheel-lock pistols of the early modern era are irrelevant toys compared to that.

[leaguer of one]

....

[leaguer of one]

x

[DeadEyeMaster1]

One thing I wish Dragon Age had that Assassin's Creed used is the ability to grab onto the edges of things. Like, come on. You have hands. Use them gotdangit. I just wanna get that stupid shard so I can get out of here already. It's come to the point where I feel like I shouldn't even bother to mention it because of reasons, but the Witcher 3 does seem to employ this, which is nice.

Yeah, true, but that would be totally an action game XD.

 

When playing the Inquisition I totally have the same feeling playing the elder scrolls V, maybe it's becoz there're lots of common key bindings? 

 

And Inquisition is almost like a sandbox game now but there're still lots of steep slopes I can't just jump jump jump upon it XD (Im crying). Dunno it's good or not making it totally an action game losing all typical rpg elements.

 

What? Witcher 3 is gonna do that? That would be lotto fun.