Dragon Age 2

[Malcador]

Keep fighting the Man.

[Hassat Hunter]

What the? I just learned that warriors can't dual wield weapons in DA2.

So they nerfed the attack and defense of warriors, while adding cool tricks to rogues (who already could steal and open locks, which was pretty important in DA:O).

 

Any reason at all to use warriors then?

[Thorton_AP]

They nerfed the attack and defense of warriors?

[sorophx]

supposing long sword/two-handed sword DPS is as high as that of two short swords, then no, they didn't. they just made warrior a lot more boring

[Thorton_AP]

The warrior would be more interesting if he could dual wield?

[sorophx]

absolutely, it's my favorite build in every game that allows it

[Thorton_AP]

So it's just a personal preference of how you like the combat, even if functionally the ability to play the game, and special moves, and so forth were identical (and hence, the class not actually any different to play).

 

 

That you'd play a dual wielding warrior in DAO is pretty surprising (and somewhat impressive) though, given how gimped that build is.

 

 

If "Ooo I'm holding two weapons" is what it takes to shift a class from interesting to "a lot more boring," just keep that in mind the next time people call out today's games as being made for simpletons that are easily pleased.

[Nepenthe]

So it's just a personal preference of how you like the combat, even if functionally the ability to play the game, and special moves, and so forth were identical (and hence, the class not actually any different to play).

 

 

That you'd play a dual wielding warrior in DAO is pretty surprising (and somewhat impressive) though, given how gimped that build is.

 

 

If "Ooo I'm holding two weapons" is what it takes to shift a class from interesting to "a lot more boring," just keep that in mind the next time people call out today's games as being made for simpletons that are easily pleased.

[sorophx]

dual-wield builds are more challenging usually. you can't tank at all and have to work on your damage output and hate control instead. this is how I like to play RPGs.

[Hassat Hunter]

They nerfed the attack and defense of warriors?

Yup, no dual-wielding (DW gave far more damage than all other weapon combo's in DA:O), and the "leveling up weakens your armor" mechanic discussed in the previous topic because warriors had too much armor and that was giving troubles for BW apparently.

Would there be ANY reason to play Warrior in DA2?

So it's just a personal preference of how you like the combat, even if functionally the ability to play the game, and special moves, and so forth were identical (and hence, the class not actually any different to play).

And even if they were the same, the additional abilities of the rogue would make it the class of choice in DA2 then. Why play a boring warrior without boosts if you can play the warrior with stealing, lockpicking, dual wielding boosts AND powerful additional special abilities?

That you'd play a dual wielding warrior in DAO is pretty surprising (and somewhat impressive) though, given how gimped that build is.

Seriously? From my point-of-view dual wielding pawns two-handed and shield. Two-handed weapons are rare and sucky, 2-handed? Twice the boost. Same as KOTOR2. There are a few really good shields, but they are hardly worth it above some nice good armor, which all warriors can carry. Nightmare can (and pretty much is) be a cakewalk with a dual-wielding PC Warrior. No-one can harm you (even bosses have severe difficulty), yet everyone dies if you so much as stare at them.

If "Ooo I'm holding two weapons" is what it takes to shift a class from interesting to "a lot more boring," just keep that in mind the next time people call out today's games as being made for simpletons that are easily pleased.

It's more the abilities with dual wielding than having 2 swords. The ones in DA:O from shield/dual were boring, dual wielding has quite a selecting of multiple attacks, which need you to be far more precise in when to trigger, aside from those boring "1 person attack".

Edited December 30, 2010 by Hassat Hunter

[Enoch]

Ugh. I really despised managing the threat mechanic in DA:O. I mean, it worked, after a fashion, to create defined roles for the party members, but it's just soooooo gamey, without the slightest whiff of verisimilitude. From every enemy's basic "I should hit the guy wrapped in impenetrable steel first!" assumption to the talent (only known to people fighting on your side) allowing warriors to successfully "taunt" each and every possible opponent (regardless of their discipline, experience, or inability to understand spoken language), it was just wrong all over. It made every fight feel like the opponents were just graphical representations of the same AI algorithm (and a bad one, at that) rather than a group of (possibly) thinking beings going about combat in a sensible fashion. By the time I was through the game once, not a single fight went by where I didn't think about how much more satisfying the game would be with a system of proper tactical positioning, zones of control, etc., in place of all that "threat" nonsense. (It would even work great with the "Tactics" menus, if they incorporated some party-wide defensive formations-- "If # of melee enemies > X, Use Diamond formation.")

 

My continued rage about the idiocy of this system is probably the biggest reason why I don't have any interest in playing through DA:O again, or in buying any of the add-ons. It's also the biggest reason why I'm in firm "wait and see" territory with regard to the sequel.

[Monte Carlo]

You know that Bio, really, want to make games where your pre-defined character is completely pre-defined in terms of weapons, attacks, attire... everything. It makes the game "more consistent with our vision of the game we want to make."

 

The only thing you'll get to choose is, yes, facial appearance (Bio fans spend many, many hours playing with that it looks pretty and doesn't involve math, although why micro-managing your chin is more meaningful than your inventory is beyond me) and of course RomANceSSSSS!!!

 

Damn your eyes Bio!!!

 

[Nepenthe]

dual-wield builds are more challenging usually. you can't tank at all and have to work on your damage output and hate control instead.

Can't remember ever playing an RPG were the above was true. Certainly never has been in a Bio game, where dual-wielding warriors have been a win button whenever available. (Celestial Fury + Crom Faeyr? Oh, I'm SO challenged and taxed for my damage output!)

[Volourn]

"(Bio fans spend many, many hours"

 

I spend less than 5 seconds on appearance. R00fles!

[Monte Carlo]

"(Bio fans spend many, many hours"

 

I spend less than 5 seconds on appearance. R00fles!

 

You would say that Vol, wouldn't you. You don't want the truth YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! (apologies to Jack Nicholson / Col. Nathan Jessup USMC).

[Volourn]

Great movie, but nah. I see appearnace in games the same way i do in real life. An annoyance to get done with as soon as pssible. Get it down ASAP and go live life/play the actual game.Barbies are for little boys (in modern times) and girls.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Volourn

[sorophx]

Certainly never has been in a Bio game, where dual-wielding warriors have been a win button whenever available.

that's certainly not true in my experience. maybe that's because I tend to skip a lot of side-quests and avoid unnecessary battles.

[HoonDing]

Certainly never has been in a Bio game, where dual-wielding warriors have been a win button whenever available.

maybe that's because I tend to skip a lot of side-quests and avoid unnecessary battles.

You're playing for the romances story?

[sorophx]

You're playing for the story?

why, yeah why else would I play that piece of junk? not for the combat mechanics, that's for sure.

[HoonDing]

Are you talking about Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate? Because I really wish it was possible to avoid even one battle sequence in Dragon age.

Edited December 30, 2010 by virumor

[sorophx]

Baldur's Gate and NWN. I don't remember if DA had a lot of side-quests, but I skipped them all too (collecting phylacteries and pieces of that doom armor comes to mind...)

[Tigranes]

Great movie, but nah. I see appearnace in games the same way i do in real life. An annoyance to get done with as soon as pssible. Get it down ASAP and go live life/play the actual game.Barbies are for little boys (in modern times) and girls.

 

This is what real men are like, ladies. Listen to the man.

[entrerix]

i spend about 10 minutes making my character look right. im not playing a 60 hour game with a snazzlefaced lumpkin staring at me whenever a cutscene starts up.

[Guest Slinky]

Baldur's Gate and NWN. I don't remember if DA had a lot of side-quests, but I skipped them all too (collecting phylacteries and pieces of that doom armor comes to mind...)

If you mean the optional revenant fights, I thought they were one of the best things in the game. They felt so refreshing after all the bloody endless grinding.

[Hassat Hunter]

@ Enoch;

Did we play the same DA:O? Cause despite the loading screens claiming it works as you said, enemies in my DA:O pretty much went after the guy that hit them first/was seen first. You know, the way AI worked in BG1 and 2 and IWD1 and 2 and PST etc.?

So mostly my archer and mage thus, desperately avoiding my warriors (sure, I could use the powers you told me about. But why should I?)

They did fall down pretty much every heavy battle :D. Or run around faster than the enemy, casting a spell once in a while when there was distance.

 

The Revenants were pretty good. Although if you were too high leveled you just waltzed over them. Same with the dragons.

I completed pretty much all side-quests I could, I am a completionist.