Dragon Age: Inquisition

[volsung]

@ [MENTION=2092360].Volsung. Didn't DnD restrict things like what classes could use what? Or is that somehow not an RPG? If you ask me, though, role-playing is about the character you play, not the equipment he or she uses.

There are some silly restrictions in AD&D (2.0) like clerics not being able to use piercing weapons, and so on. This doesn't exist in 3E, instead you have to learn feats to be able to use weapons proficiently. That doesn't stop you from creating a sword wielding wizard or a staff-master warrior.

As you say equipment is not what defines the genre. But the genre is defined by the freedom to act according to variable choices, and about the world responding accordingly to these variations. If our choices are taken away, the game loses part of its defining elements. So role-playing is about "how you play a character", not THE character. In every single game we play as a character, even abstract game-playing characters as in the case of Tetris.

 

[Blothulfur]

I think Pillars of Eternity has around 30 different weapon groups, which can be used by any of the 11 classes, all for $4 million with a small team. Wonder why a huge firm like Bioware with a massive budget and far more staff can't equal a tiny indie project?

 

[eskiMoe]

I think Pillars of Eternity has around 30 different weapon groups, which can be used by any of the 11 classes, all for $4 million with a small team. Wonder why a huge firm like Bioware with a massive budget and far more staff can't equal a tiny indie project?

Because they suck.

 

[Blothulfur]

Oh no you didn't!

 

[JimmyQ]

Probably wasn't about the money. More likely it was about BW's apparent development priorities. Y'know, like romances.

 

[DuranA.111]

I think Pillars of Eternity has around 30 different weapon groups, which can be used by any of the 11 classes, all for $4 million with a small team. Wonder why a huge firm like Bioware with a massive budget and far more staff can't equal a tiny indie project?

Because Obisidian isn't making a 3d game?

Also numbers means nothing in of themselves. Dark Souls, which has the best medieval weapon variety of any game I've played, doesn't have 30 weapons groups.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

I can't even read an article about DA:I without getting bored. That last one could be torn to shreds for the banality the PR robot tries to dress up as ground breaking. Apologies to the fans, but this just continues to look wick.

 

[octavian123]

I think Pillars of Eternity has around 30 different weapon groups, which can be used by any of the 11 classes, all for $4 million with a small team. Wonder why a huge firm like Bioware with a massive budget and far more staff can't equal a tiny indie project?

Even though it is an kickstarter project, the developers are all industry veterans.

 

[Blothulfur]

Seems to me that a similar industry veteran like like Bioware, with a far bigger budget and far more staff, should be able to at least match Eternity, even though it's 3d. But maybe i'm expecting too much of them, ah well never mind, least said soonest mended eh?

 

[Veleda.980]

Piece of shit. This is turning out to be another DA2 gameplay wise.

At least now we know Bioware has clearly defined their target audience.

Yep, I said it a few pages back.

In other news, Mike Laidlaw said Varic isn't a love interest. Too manly and well balanced, apparently.

 

[Garrison72]

Yep, I said it a few pages back.

In other news, Mike Laidlaw said Varic isn't a love interest. Too manly and well balanced, apparently.

And yet you get to shag the 400 lb gorilla thing with horns.

 

[braindancer12]

I can't even read an article about DA:I without getting bored.

same goes for me, the hype train just wont start for me

 

[BigMank]

Restricting the weapons that our character can and can't use just seems stupid to me, considering that we have so much choice every else in the game, even in regards to what the companions wear.

 

[TheDespondentMind2]

I hate any kind of restrictions, but I also can't stand seeing a guy in full armor wearing two daggers,it's just looks stupid and counter-productive.

In Elder Scrolls it always pissed me off how a mage-rogue can take a war hammer and swing it with the same proficiency as an experienced warrior and wear heavy armor just like that. That's what I like about Dark souls, you can use a weapon your character is not proficient in, but he's not gonna be very effective with it.

Now If there were some restrictions with "limits", I would be quite happy. Let's say you want to have a mage with one hand sword, well you're going to have to work for that, boy/girl!

I'm also so happy to see that Bioware is all about fulfilling wet dreams of keyboard jerk offs and fashion chicks-gamers so they still use "sexy" armor and other crap like that.

 

[Veleda.980]

^ Well sorry, but in a single player game it's none of your damn business what my mage wears or wields. I find it absolutely retarded that a mage couldn't also train in weapons, or should be forced to wear cloth.

 

[volsung]

I hate any kind of restrictions, but I also can't stand seeing a guy in full armor wearing two daggers,it's just looks stupid and counter-productive.

If your warrior uses daggers, he/she is probably dexterity-based and not strength-based. In this case you want to favor mobility. And therefore, use light armor. Otherwise you would have a severely gimped warrior. Who says warriors wear heavy armor? And who says heavier is always better? That silly notion has been disputed in multiple games, the latest idea coming from Pillars of Eternity.

Sadly Bioware has bought into that MMO crap with predefined functions such as "tank", "DPS", and so on, assuming warriors use heavy armor and heavy weapons, rogues (anything is a rogue damn it!) are thief-like (dex + int) and use daggers or bows and mages use robes and cast spells, period. What about clerics? What about bards? What about characters useless in combat that are fun to play with?

Anyway. Now we know what kind of game DA:I will be, and clearly there is a market for such a game.

 

[EliHarel]

I wonder - what makes a developer decide to place such a restriction? Honest question, not being snark here. What are their considerations?

It doesn't seem to be balancing issues, because no one is demanding for longswords to be useful for mages. So allowing it shouldn't require more time from the devs. If so, why?

 

[Sirnaq]

http://a.pomf.se/mknflb.webm
Found it funny so i'll just leave it here.

 

[volsung]

@eliharel

I don't think it's a (primarily) development issue. It's a core or concept issue. It has to do with game design and, in terms of a project, the depth, scope and goals.

Making it possible for all characters to use all weapon types involves designing gameplay mechanics and character progression schemes in terms of that. It has an impact in development of course. The problem is games such as this are designed from the ground up with these restrictions, which some people might consider to be reasonable assumptions or reductions. In a game pretending to be an RPG I find them undesirable. The current character archetypes such as heavily armed warrior, quick rogue/thief and clothed wizard are an example of streamlining. It works for the company because everything, from gameplay mechanics to character "skill trees", is simplified. But it doesn't work for us, the players, because it restricts what we can do in-game.

People buy into this sort of thing. It is not new, and it is not always improper. Action games such as the old Gauntlet series and Blade of Darkness feature a similar approach. Likewise, modern action RPG's such as Torchlight are built from the same principle. You choose an archetype, and "specialize" it further. But all the "builds" in between are inaccessible. It is also clear these predefined character archetypes are fully combat oriented.

As I said, Bioware has clearly declared their target audience and that's fine. Someone has to like these games.

 

[TheDespondentMind2]

If your warrior uses daggers, he/she is probably dexterity-based and not strength-based. In this case you want to favor mobility. And therefore, use light armor. Otherwise you would have a severely gimped warrior. Who says warriors wear heavy armor? And who says heavier is always better? That silly notion has been disputed in multiple games, the latest idea coming from Pillars of Eternity.

Sadly Bioware has bought into that MMO crap with predefined functions such as "tank", "DPS", and so on, assuming warriors use heavy armor and heavy weapons, rogues (anything is a rogue damn it!) are thief-like (dex + int) and use daggers or bows and mages use robes and cast spells, period. What about clerics? What about bards? What about characters useless in combat that are fun to play with?

Anyway. Now we know what kind of game DA:I will be, and clearly there is a market for such a game.

You can be a light warrior but a dagger can't be your primary weapon for a full one melee, that's just stupid.
I agree that mages and other non-melee character should have it as an last resort, but then again a stuff can do wonders also.