53 réponses à ce sujet

[Knight of Dane]

Warriors keep getting better across the games imo.

 

But mages suck.

 

I've had fun with all classes. I do miss the variety in the mages though, they are much more dps focused I liked having mages for different purposes in the other games.

[ShadowLordXII]

That's gameplay in a pen-and-paper sense, sure. In gameplay that has nothing to do with moving your character around in a combat encounter. To-hit and dodge chance are just number generators with different ranges, it's not related to control and mobility. 

 

Altering those ratios and generators to your favor is part of customization and player control. While the animations don't reflect lightning fast movement, the fact that your ability to dodge attacks shows that increasing your dexterity has a favorable effect.

 

Remember that BW based a lot of this stuff on pen-and-paper rpg systems, thus the concept is the same. Even then, the primary point is that you had more options and tools for crafting your character as you saw fit as opposed to later games where things get more and more restrictive, streamlined, linear and non-rpg like.

[The Baconer]

Altering those ratios and generators to your favor is part of customization and player control. While the animations don't reflect lightning fast movement, the fact that your ability to dodge attacks shows that increasing your dexterity has a favorable effect.

 

Remember that BW based a lot of this stuff on pen-and-paper rpg systems, thus the concept is the same. Even then, the primary point is that you had more options and tools for crafting your character as you saw fit as opposed to later games where things get more and more restrictive, streamlined, linear and non-rpg like.

 

Yeah, but we all know what Duelist meant when they said "Mobility". Talking about the old way Dexterity used to operate, as if it were a function of that, is disingenuous. I do agree with you on attribute allocation, though. 

[BansheeOwnage]

A pain in the ass when enemies used them too.

Definitely, but that made things interesting. I generally (though not always) like enemies to have access to the same abilities as the player, like DA:O.

[straykat]

Definitely, but that made things interesting. I generally (though not always) like enemies to have access to the same abilities as the player, like DA:O.

 

I like it too.. but I also like bosses and stuff to have unique tactics of their own. But that's probably another subject.

[Riot Inducer]

Definitely, but that made things interesting. I generally (though not always) like enemies to have access to the same abilities as the player, like DA:O.

Indeed, it was nice having to actually adjust your tactics based on enemies with abilities that could match your own. I'm finding the more I play DA:I that enemies mostly just turn into damage sponges after a while, as long as you have a basic team comp there isn't much tactics needed. 

 

There are limits and exceptions to be sure (I rue the day archers learn scattershot in every DA:O playthrough), but overall giving enemies interesting tools to use against you results in more satisfying and challenging gameplay. 

[KaiserShep]

Definitely, but that made things interesting. I generally (though not always) like enemies to have access to the same abilities as the player, like DA:O.

 

Imagine running into an enemy Knight-Enchanter. I mean, they'd still die like the rest, but they'd sure make us work for it. 

[AlanC9]

Well honestly, the dragon age series has been morphing as well.   DA:O sat solidly in the RPG genre.    It was had squad-level tactical combat with real-time pausing.   By the time we get  to DA:I, it is clearly now an action RPG.   The game difficulty and encounter design was clearly reduced so that it could be played in real time.    Pausing is still an option, but they clearly didn't design the game to be played that way.   

Hmm... so "RPG "= paused combat and "action RPG" = non-paused combat?

[BansheeOwnage]

Hmm... so "RPG "= paused combat and "action RPG" = non-paused combat?

In my opinion, no, but I think it mostly has to do with how tactical you can and need to be (combat-wise, anyway). So being able to pause and issue commands is directly related to that, but not required. I think most people would agree that DA:I is more "hack and slash-y" than DA2, and DA2 was more "hack and slash-y" than DA:O.

 

And with the afterthought of the Tac Cam, it certainly seems like DA is getting more "action-y" in a similar progression to the Mass Effect series. Interestingly enough however, while I have a lot of problems with DA:I's combat and find it lacking in many ways compared to previous games, I absolutely adore ME3's combat and will probably never tire of its MP. Though ME3's combat did have an adequate amount of strategy to it, just not the same kind as DA:O.

[Fiskrens]

Like many here, I also miss the buff/debuff features for mages in previous games. Then again, a lot of that came in the form of potions and grenades.

But that's about it; lack of healing was a nice try to rebalance the game but questionable how successful that was. I generally like that most classes were made more specialized, no real point in making jack-of-all-trades.

[Knight of Dane]

Definitely, but that made things interesting. I generally (though not always) like enemies to have access to the same abilities as the player, like DA:O.

 

One thing I miss especially is archers switching to melee weapons instead of just aiming point blank or trying to flee.

 

Another thing is varied equipment. I get that factions such as the red templar or just the templars has uniforms, but it has always bothered me that bandits, carta and other groups like that all had "uniforms" and looked the same. A part of the interesting visuals in the original game was that most enemies looked like they relied on their own equipment, which was true for both mercenaries and actual armies in most countries before the modern ages. The bulk of armies would usually consist of the healthiest peasants and whatever they could carry, cannon fodder as it were, and most who lived like a fighter owned their own equipment.

 

Professional armies were usually city guard garrisons and smaller units of elite or veteran soldiers.

[Knight of Dane]

Like many here, I also miss the buff/debuff features for mages in previous games. Then again, a lot of that came in the form of potions and grenades.

But that's about it; lack of healing was a nice try to rebalance the game but questionable how successful that was. I generally like that most classes were made more specialized, no real point in making jack-of-all-trades.

 

I never really used potions and grenades outside healing and whatever acid flasks i picked up.

[AlanC9]

In my opinion, no, but I think it mostly has to do with how tactical you can and need to be (combat-wise, anyway). So being able to pause and issue commands is directly related to that, but not required. I think most people would agree that DA:I is more "hack and slash-y" than DA2, and DA2 was more "hack and slash-y" than DA:O.

Gotcha. I've never really seen that myself. Then again, I play DA:O and DA:I the same way, except that I pause DA:I more often because, unlike DA:O, it's fast enough that I have trouble keeping the camera where I want it in real time. (Except for the battles where there's some sort of terrain issue we have to resolve. DA:I doesn't have much of that.)

[In Exile]

The "schools" are part of the nonsense branch of lore - the part of lore that gets invented to justify a gameplay feature that's totally arbitrary. It's lore that shouldn't exist. It's like the guns not having ammo in ME1 - nonsense lore gets invented to justify the gameplay, then the gameplay changes, and Bioware has to overwrite their lore. 

[In Exile]

In my opinion, no, but I think it mostly has to do with how tactical you can and need to be (combat-wise, anyway). So being able to pause and issue commands is directly related to that, but not required. I think most people would agree that DA:I is more "hack and slash-y" than DA2, and DA2 was more "hack and slash-y" than DA:O.

 

I have to disagree with that one. DA2 was the most tactical of the three. DA:O was easily broken by way of very simple combinations of mage-builds. You could make the game complex if you actively worked towards sub-optimal builds, but that's true of every single RPG ever. DA2 required a lot more work to get at a powerful build, and a lot more terrain management to handle the waves of enemies. People were very bad at managing the battlefield and were static in their positioning, but DA2 rewarded mobility and control-type spells a lot. 

DA:I is simpler than DA2, and harder on PC to control than DA:I because of the **** UI, but ultimately - and in theory, at least - the combat system is somewhat less broken due to the absence of ubersmench mages. 

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Imagine running into an enemy Knight-Enchanter. I mean, they'd still die like the rest, but they'd sure make us work for it. 

 

Knight Enchanters are mages who rely too much on Barrier. All you really need to deal with them is Dispel or Spell Purge.
 

[AlanC9]

DA:I is simpler than DA2, and harder on PC to control than DA:I because of the **** UI, but ultimately - and in theory, at least - the combat system is somewhat less broken due to the absence of ubersmench mages.

In practice, however, DA:I ends up having ubermensch everything. Onve you've mastered the system there are too many ways to break the game open.

[The Baconer]

In practice, however, DA:I ends up having ubermensch everything. Onve you've mastered the system there are too many ways to break the game open.

 

I'd hope that would be the case, in this game and any other. How could that even be reasonably avoided? 

[In Exile]

In practice, however, DA:I ends up having ubermensch everything. Onve you've mastered the system there are too many ways to break the game open.

 

I'm split on this conclusion. Because I think a lot of it - with other classes - turn on skills that come closer to action-RPGs than the old isometric RPGs. For example, rogues are very powerful numbers wise. But I can't use one. I'm not adept enough with the gameplay style that makes them work, versus mages. 

[BansheeOwnage]

The "schools" are part of the nonsense branch of lore - the part of lore that gets invented to justify a gameplay feature that's totally arbitrary. It's lore that shouldn't exist. It's like the guns not having ammo in ME1 - nonsense lore gets invented to justify the gameplay, then the gameplay changes, and Bioware has to overwrite their lore. 

What? That made perfect sense lore-wise, and I thought it was cool.

 

In practice, however, DA:I ends up having ubermensch everything. Onve you've mastered the system there are too many ways to break the game open.

Which happens to almost every game. So I don't really bother taking into account that you can make totally overpowered classes by exploiting overpowered abilities etc. when describing how tactical I feel a game is. To me, it's almost redundant.

[In Exile]

What? That made perfect sense lore-wise, and I thought it was cool.

 

It was invented nonsense to justify why the game didn't have ammo, until they realized that it's not that fun of a gameplay feature to not have ammo, and they had to backtrack. It's just applied phlebotinum. 

The sole purpose it exists is to justify a gameplay decision. It's just like biotics, which is the Not Force, on the heels of wanting to build on the success of KoTOR I without the SW license. 

[straykat]

The "schools" are part of the nonsense branch of lore - the part of lore that gets invented to justify a gameplay feature that's totally arbitrary. It's lore that shouldn't exist. It's like the guns not having ammo in ME1 - nonsense lore gets invented to justify the gameplay, then the gameplay changes, and Bioware has to overwrite their lore. 

 

What are you talking about? It shouldn't exist? It was the first game and first exposure of the setting... for anyone. And how is it so arbtritary. It's a system. They put thought into it. The opposite of arbitrary.

 

Maybe it shouldn't exist on a wider sense of magic per se, but in the Circle, it sounds like something they'd come up with. Hedge mages are limited more by imagination, so they'd come up with different traditions.. and just random wonkiness. This may be closer to how a mage relates to the Fade, but the mages who come from the Circle or learn from books would not be this way.

 

And if there wasn't anything like this, everyone would be like hedge mages. Everyone's fireballs or buffs would be slightly different. You'd run across more mages who were outright bizarre or unhelpful. Especially apostates or these homeless Qunari in this game. It'd be like running into musicians who learn how to play "something resembling music" without ever tuning their guitars properly.

[BansheeOwnage]

It was invented nonsense to justify why the game didn't have ammo, until they realized that it's not that fun of a gameplay feature to not have ammo, and they had to backtrack. It's just applied phlebotinum. 

The sole purpose it exists is to justify a gameplay decision. It's just like biotics, which is the Not Force, on the heels of wanting to build on the success of KoTOR I without the SW license. 

What are you even talking about? You can not like it or not think it's fun, but that doesn't mean the feature is nonsensical. Of course it was invented. It was the first game in the series, and they were world-building.

 

And it's much more likely they backtracked on it because of executive meddling after EA produced ME2. They wanted to bring the system in-line with typical shooters, instead of leaving in something unique. It's what EA does.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is. That scifi shouldn't have, you know, scifi elements? Should fantasy not have magic?

[ThePhoenixKing]

Definitely, but that made things interesting. I generally (though not always) like enemies to have access to the same abilities as the player, like DA:O.

 

Absolutely! It added another layer to the challenge of Origins' combat, and really forced you to strategize. Made the moment-to-moment combat a lot more tense and exciting, instead of just spending ten minutes hacking away at some damage sponge and spamming Barrier.

 

I definitely think they need to expand the spells and abilities for all classes in future games. What they had in Origins worked. Hell, even DA2 was alright; while there were certainly fewer options, they still existed, the concept of spell schools remained in some fashion, and everything felt useful.

[In Exile]

What are you talking about? It shouldn't exist? It was the first game and first exposure of the setting... for anyone. And how is it so arbtritary. It's a system. They put thought into it. The opposite of arbitrary.

 

Maybe it shouldn't exist on a wider sense of magic per se, but in the Circle, it sounds like something they'd come up with. Hedge mages are limited more by imagination, so they'd come up with different traditions.. and just random wonkiness. This may be closer to how a mage relates to the Fade, but the mages who come from the Circle or learn from books would not be this way.

 

And if there wasn't anything like this, everyone would be like hedge mages. Everyone's fireballs or buffs would be slightly different. You'd run across more mages who were outright bizarre or unhelpful. Especially apostates or these homeless Qunari in this game. It'd be like running into musicians who learn how to play "something resembling music" without ever tuning their guitars properly.

 

My point is that the "taxonomy" of magic is totally made up to justify what they thought made good gameplay in DA:O. The problem is that, after DA:O comes out, they realize that there are structural problems with the magic system they design. Now, we can debate whether or not they went in a good direction with it with DA2 and DA:I (DA2 aside, they certainly didn't in DA:I). 

 

The idea that they should be hamstrung to some taxonomy they invented to keep a gameplay feature they no longer want because of the sheer fluke that they came up with the taxonomy for the first game isn't, to me, an argument, and is in fact the problem with over-including on the lore. The taxonomy of magic serves no purpose in the narrative of the game - absolutely nothing turns on it. It's the equivalent of an appendix entry in a knock-off of LOTR. The bad part of world-building, where you come up with minute details without really considering their broader implications for your world.

 

The exact opposite of this is blood magic, which is an active feature of the game, and goes through various iterations gameplay wise (to being cut entirely). 

 

 

What are you even talking about? You can not like it or not think it's fun, but that doesn't mean the feature is nonsensical. Of course it was invented. It was the first game in the series, and they were world-building.

 

And it's much more likely they backtracked on it because of executive meddling after EA produced ME2. They wanted to bring the system in-line with typical shooters, instead of leaving in something unique. It's what EA does.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is. That scifi shouldn't have, you know, scifi elements? Should fantasy not have magic?

 

My point is that writers shouldn't just invent lore to justify a gameplay feature subject to change in a sequel that has 0 connection to the narrative.