Dragon Age: Inquisition Pre-Release Thread

[Roguey]

Inb4 Roguey thinks skeletons shouldn't be immune to stabbing damage, so we can defeat hordes of skeletal undead with a butter knife.

DA:O didn't have blunt/slash/pierce; instead weapons had different armor penetration values. DA2 didn't have it because they switched from flat-damage thresholds to %-damage resistance.

 

[Cadmus]

Abstraction of what..?
You mean abstraction as in..instead of showing the flames bounce off the dragon's scales, they abstracted this effect by adding a fire resistance statistic to their character sheet?

It's a thing they did to make dragon battles, and armor received from that battle, more interesting in comparison to others.

Just saying that RPGs benefit abstraction and mechanical balance over hyperrealism would help.

I honestly thought it was self-evident, unless someone thinks I believe that wearing an outfit in real-life actually makes you more skilled at tasks. I've answered a little over 2,700 questions on Formspring. In almost all cases where gameplay and realism are in conflict, I favor abstraction and mechanical balance over realism.

Rogue you don't understand what an abstraction is, apparently. Your love interest here wasn't talking about what we're talking about.
If you say that the dragon having a fire resistance statistic is an abstraction, it must be an abstraction of something, in this case of the fact that the dragons don't get hurt by fire very much.
If you take away the abstract part (the 75% resistance) then the dragon will literally deflect 3/4 of the fire blasts thrown at him. Because that's impractical to show, they abstract it to a statistic in the character sheet.

Yes, it's a thing they did to make stuff more interesting, but that thing is not an abstraction, it's making stuff more interesting.

Inb4 Roguey thinks skeletons shouldn't be immune to stabbing damage, so we can defeat hordes of skeletal undead with a butter knife.

DA:O didn't have blunt/slash/pierce; instead weapons had different armor penetration values. DA2 didn't have it because they switched from flat-damage thresholds to %-damage resistance.

And this here is just a retarded attempt at looking smart.

 

[eremita]

we dragons dogma now

Had to comment. They are shooting fire at a fire dragon.

And? The reason why a lot of creatures in fantastical settings are resistant to something is a) magic b) the creature itself is of the same essence (fire vs fire), or combination of both. I guess i don't need to tell you that this shit is absolutely arbitrary. Meaning, the fact that Dragon has some kind of fire gland or something doesn't mean the rest of his body is made of different material than rest of the world (thus, being resistant to fire, while everything else change/is destroyed when exposed to high temperature).

So the conclusion is, there's nothing wrong with killing dragon spitting fire with fire, unless it contradicts the lore, which it doesn't. You try too hard to be nitpicky, yet your post is retarded.

I don't dont try hard to be nitpicky. I just made a off-hand comment on something I saw which by all means make no sense.

It is enteirerly logical that a creature that create fire itself is resistant to it. its body should have no problem with heat or it would be very hazardous to itself.

What you say is the non-logical conjuncture. yet you have the guts to call my post retarded.

Logical? Things concerning facts don't depend on logic, but on physics/psychology (or lore or whatever). If it was possible to teleport somewhere and you had to act quickly, then there wouldn't be a reson to walk there (thus teleportation is not nonsensical). That is the reason why I said your assumption is based on abstract and arbitrary fantasy bullshit. Flamethrower creates fire yet it can burn like everything else. Dragon spitting fire might have some kind of glands producing materials that might create inflammable compound when combined while leaving body... "t is enteirerly logical that a creature that create fire itself is resistant to it" - Are you kidding me? Maybe in DnD and other shitty settings... Which asumption is more "logical" (just a manner of speaking), magical fire resistant material or theory based on laws of our universe?! You made stupid comment based on fantasy bullshit (not even convincingly explained in majority of settings, btw) without knowing the lore of DA, which makes it retarded. YOUR POST WAS RETARDED.

What part of abstraction don't you understand?

Well, if we put aside the whole derp of someone trying to troll kris for making a fairly innocent and p. logical assumption (bitch about someone who noted that it might be questionable choice to fight dragon with fire, lolo, new KKodex level of derp)

Fuck you, I'm not trolling. That "off-hand comment" was obviously wannabe analyst bullshit. Also, it was probably motivated by the "lol, Bioware makes everything shitty, lol" fever presented in this thread.

 

[Malpercio]

Personally, I like random resistance shit, like "no fire on dragoons", "can't sleep undead", "need acid for trolls" etc. It helps differentiate encounters and mobs, something that the DA series desperately needs.

ALL encounters in Origins were basically the same, it had one of the worst encounter design I ever seen (and this without counting the Derp roads).

 

[eremita]

Abstraction of what..?
You mean abstraction as in..instead of showing the flames bounce off the dragon's scales, they abstracted this effect by adding a fire resistance statistic to their character sheet?

It's a thing they did to make dragon battles, and armor received from that battle, more interesting in comparison to others.

Just saying that RPGs benefit abstraction and mechanical balance over hyperrealism would help.

I honestly thought it was self-evident, unless someone thinks I believe that wearing an outfit in real-life actually makes you more skilled at tasks. I've answered a little over 2,700 questions on Formspring. In almost all cases where gameplay and realism are in conflict, I favor abstraction and mechanical balance over realism.

Rogue you don't understand what an abstraction is, apparently. Your love interest here wasn't talking about what we're talking about.
If you say that the dragon having a fire resistance statistic is an abstraction, it must be an abstraction of something

It's a COMBAT abstraction for fuck's sake! If you make a guy resistant to damage, would you immediately say he has some kind of inpenetrable skin? No, he's just a tough dude, maybe a boss, so you gave him some shit in combat encounter. That's fucking it.

 

[Shadenuat]

Which asumption is more "logical" (just a manner of speaking), magical fire resistant material or theory based on laws of our universe?!

The fantasy one is more logical (or for a better word, something that is more expected), because when it comes to magic, myth and behavior of mythological creatures, people rely on familiar patterns in a genre and history. Especially when they were actually supported by mechanics in most games in the same genre, including Dragon Age itself.

Also, I think you're melting.

Also, it was probably motivated by the "lol, Bioware makes everything shitty, lol" fever presented in this thread.

There's good reason for that (DA2).

If you make a guy resistant to damage, would you immediately say he has some kind of inpenetrable skin?

I would say he has shitty asymmetrical design on his side.

 

[RPGMaster]

 

[Borelli]

Spoiler

 

[Delterius]

I was fucking around before, but only in this thread could the fact that dragons might be resistant to flames be an incredible mindly blowing leap of logic.

Hey guys! Let's try and prove a point by discussing the true nature of magical fire. Its a metaphysical gold mine!

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

more gameplay this time dwarf male warrior

 

[DalekFlay]

Looks sexy.

Plays button mashy.

I won't lie and say I won't play it.

 

[imweasel]

I have to admit, I am really unimpressed.

Beautiful graphics, but lame and cartoony art direction. Shit inventory system. Button mashing action (does the game even have decent combat, or why are you not showing it Bioware?). Same outdoor corridor levels, just now with longer corridors. MOAR (gay) fucking options than ever before.

I certainly won't spend money on this game, that's for sure.

 

[XenomorphII]

I wonder if they will release a demo for this one at release.

 

[Shadenuat]

I'm not that hyped for graphics, I think it is actually relatively simple, with simple shapes and textures and effects - if we compare it to other releases at least. I look at screenshot of a forest from DAI and think - well, it does look good, Bioware finally will deliver great looking fantasy environments; but then I look at one with the forest from Witcher 3, and I realise that some people actually been to forests and perhaps brought a few pictures back, while others think that in a forest everything has the same washed out plastic green look - every leaf, or grass, or a bush... or a copy-pasted pine tree growing from a stone cliff.

 

[Alonebadman]

Bioware has that same problem mortal kombat did. Everything is too shiny and plastic looking but I guess you could say that's their "style" now. This game actually looks ok for button mashing rpg lite kind of game. Hell, bound by flame entertained me despite its short comings. I know a lot of people shit on Bioware-myself included but I've come to accept them as the casual rpg maker. They don't and can't make a quality crpg anymore. And that's ok. Other companies can fill that void. Bioware should move into the action button masher direction. Even origins was meh at best when it came to crpg combat. I like to be entertained and have fun. bioware fills the void where I can turn off my brain and enjoy it for what it is. Casual fun.

Besides, divinity is right around the corner and it'll Probaly be better than inquistion as well

 

[Morgoth]

Turning off the brain does not produce fun.

 

[Xbalanque]

I was fucking around before, but only in this thread could the fact that dragons might be resistant to flames be an incredible mindly blowing leap of logic.

Hey guys! Let's try and prove a point by discussing the true nature of magical fire. Its a metaphysical gold mine!

Can't agree more.

I think the problem is not whether the dragons are or aren't immune to fire. The thing I lack in all these new games are debuffing spells which were required in order to make the bosses/dragons more vulnerable to magic or other stuff (like in BG2). Instead of just having all those shitty damaging spells the game should force you to mix many different options so that, especially that you have a party, you are not a god damn lone adventurer, who deals only one kind of damage.

 

[Tytus]

I was fucking around before, but only in this thread could the fact that dragons might be resistant to flames be an incredible mindly blowing leap of logic.

Hey guys! Let's try and prove a point by discussing the true nature of magical fire. Its a metaphysical gold mine!

Can't agree more.

I think the problem is not whether the dragons are or aren't immune to fire. The thing I lack in all these new games are debuffing spells which were required in order to make the bosses/dragons more vulnerable to magic or other stuff (like in BG2). Instead of just having all those shitty damaging spells the game should force you to mix many different options so that, especially that you have a party, you are not a god damn lone adventurer, who deals only one kind of damage.

But you might as well be one.

Don't forget that these games let you pick 4 characters out of X amount. And for example I could play a Fighter and pick 3 other fighters (Oghren, Sten, Alistair) making the whole team deal one type of damage. And because of that fact Bioware creates enemies that can be defeated by any type of party configuration, even 4 fighters. And that alone sucks all the complexity out of combat.

 

[Xbalanque]

I was fucking around before, but only in this thread could the fact that dragons might be resistant to flames be an incredible mindly blowing leap of logic.

Hey guys! Let's try and prove a point by discussing the true nature of magical fire. Its a metaphysical gold mine!

Can't agree more.

I think the problem is not whether the dragons are or aren't immune to fire. The thing I lack in all these new games are debuffing spells which were required in order to make the bosses/dragons more vulnerable to magic or other stuff (like in BG2). Instead of just having all those shitty damaging spells the game should force you to mix many different options so that, especially that you have a party, you are not a god damn lone adventurer, who deals only one kind of damage.

But you might as well be one.

Don't forget that these games let you pick 4 characters out of X amount. And for example I could play a Fighter and pick 3 other fighters (Oghren, Sten, Alistair) making the whole team deal one type of damage. And because of that fact Bioware creates enemies that can be defeated by any type of party configuration, even 4 fighters. And that alone sucks all the complexity out of combat.

But you could do the same in BG2 it just didn't make sense.

 

[Tytus]

I was fucking around before, but only in this thread could the fact that dragons might be resistant to flames be an incredible mindly blowing leap of logic.

Hey guys! Let's try and prove a point by discussing the true nature of magical fire. Its a metaphysical gold mine!

Can't agree more.

I think the problem is not whether the dragons are or aren't immune to fire. The thing I lack in all these new games are debuffing spells which were required in order to make the bosses/dragons more vulnerable to magic or other stuff (like in BG2). Instead of just having all those shitty damaging spells the game should force you to mix many different options so that, especially that you have a party, you are not a god damn lone adventurer, who deals only one kind of damage.

But you might as well be one.

Don't forget that these games let you pick 4 characters out of X amount. And for example I could play a Fighter and pick 3 other fighters (Oghren, Sten, Alistair) making the whole team deal one type of damage. And because of that fact Bioware creates enemies that can be defeated by any type of party configuration, even 4 fighters. And that alone sucks all the complexity out of combat.

But you could do the same in BG2 it just didn't make sense.

Yeah but BG2 punished you for it. Bioware has the tendecy to "respect player choice" and " not cutting off a player from content" and also "you can't play their games wrong". So their games are designed to be retard friendly. So 4 fighter team must be as viable as a well balanced party. That's Bioware for you.

 

[Delterius]

The thing I lack in all these new games are debuffing spells which were required in order to make the bosses/dragons more vulnerable to magic or other stuff (like in BG2).

In DA:O there's a whole tree of magic meant for debuffing and vulnerability. There's even a spell called Vulnerability Hex.

So 4 fighter team must be as viable as a well balanced party. That's Bioware for you.

The fact that any class combination allows for an effective party isn't a bad thing.

On the other hand, if the one major decision you make about your characters is their class then the game might be lacking on the content side of things.

 

[Xbalanque]

The thing I lack in all these new games are debuffing spells which were required in order to make the bosses/dragons more vulnerable to magic or other stuff (like in BG2).

In DA:O there's a whole tree of magic meant for debuffing and vulnerability. There's even a spell called Vulnerability Hex.

True, DA2 also had them. The problem is, however, that they didn't make as much a difference as they should have (at least that's my impression after one gameplay not using them and another investing in the Hex tree).

The fact that any class combination allows for an effective party isn't a bad thing.

On the other hand, if the one major decision you make about your characters is their class then the game might be lacking on the content side of things.

You should be able to do it, but it should make the game extremely hard as it limits your tactical options and it doesn't.

 

[Delterius]

The thing I lack in all these new games are debuffing spells which were required in order to make the bosses/dragons more vulnerable to magic or other stuff (like in BG2).

In DA:O there's a whole tree of magic meant for debuffing and vulnerability. There's even a spell called Vulnerability Hex.

True, DA2 also had them. The problem is, however, that they didn't make as much a difference as they should have (at least that's my impression after one gameplay not using them and another investing in the Hex tree.

That's because of two reasons: 1) Magic isn't the only way to do stuff, your melee attackers, especially in DA2, can also do quite a bit off tactical shit and 2) DA:O is way too easy overall, look for things like sea's module Thirst for a more satisfying experience.

but it should make the game extremely hard as it limits your tactical options and it doesn't.

The game should be extremely hard if your tactical options are more limited on average. Class composition doesn't do that in DA2 and even DA:O doesn't do that nearly to the same extent as BG2. Character development, not creation, is key here.

If the game is too easy on the hardest difficulty settings then you have to find more interesting reasons than these.

 

[tuluse]

You can't make a 4 fighter party in DA:O because there are only 2 NPC fighters.

 

[Tytus]

You can't make a 4 fighter party in DA:O because there are only 2 NPC fighters.

What?

Did you even play the game or have you got a memory of a retarded goat?

Alistair - Fighter-Templar
Oghren - Fighter-Berserker
Sten - Fighter/Something (don't remember)


But essentialy Alistair is a fighter that uses sword and shield, Sten uses doublehanded sword and Oghren double handed axes.

Three NPC fighters.

Four if you count the DLC golem.
Five if you count the Dog. (also if fighter with no spells)
Six if you count Loghian (he can join at the end of the game)