188 réponses à ce sujet

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
It seriously bugs me that you aren't able to make any attempt to try and find out who's trying to kill you.
...
I have a hard time coming up with sufficient reason for my character to want to get involved in any of the iron shortage stuff...it seems to pale in comparison to trying to find out who's trying to kill me.
...
I'm still more bothered that you're not given any chance to try and find out who killed Gorion (and incidentally tried to kill you)
...
I just wish I'd been able to take a more proactive approach (I hate using that phrase) to finding out who's trying to kill me

This didn't bother me because the game doesn't give you any leads at all.  You really have no idea who tried to abduct you (he did ask Gorion to hand you over, rather than just attacking straight away), so it's not like there's something in particular you think you should be doing but aren't.

I ran away to hide in the wilderness (I got off the road and didn't go anywhere near the Friendly Arm Inn for quite a while).
 
Without any information about who this guy was, what was it you wanted to do?

I knew what he looked like.  I could ask around about someone of his description.  It just seems out of character for a reasonable person to not make any attempt to find out who was trying to kill them.

It certainly promotes roleplaying in those of us who roleplay.  I think you'd find (I'm not stating this as a certainty, mind you, just a reasoned supposition) that those who don't roleplay are more likely to just become frustrated and toss the game aside.

It's a roleplaying game.  I have no idea why those other people are even trying to play the game.

Because the genre name has been tossed around so much that it means almost nothing, so people who don't actually like RPGs buy games that are actually RPGs (and then complain about the roleplaying being boring or their being too much talking.)

[soteria]

everybody arguing about how certain features, as different story paths, more banter, more armors, more quests and more content "require too much scripting" and "it would cost too much money" to people who asks for them.



It's the automatical response all people use when disagreeing with enabling more choices and content in game.

What they mean is "that can't be done without taking development time away from other features that I like better, which is probably true. That just means some people value certain features more than others, not that implementing a given feature is really impossible.

[Frolk]

soteria wrote...

everybody arguing about how certain features, as different story paths, more banter, more armors, more quests and more content "require too much scripting" and "it would cost too much money" to people who asks for them.

It's the automatical response all people use when disagreeing with enabling more choices and content in game.

What they mean is "that can't be done without taking development time away from other features that I like better, which is probably true. That just means some people value certain features more than others, not that implementing a given feature is really impossible.

I wonder which features they like better.

Truth be told, I'd happily sacrifice voice acting, game length, and graphics if it meant making the game more replayable.

[Mlai00]

Hollingdale wrote...
erh no, there is an exoritant amount of additional development and dialogue needed for that actually if it's to be anything but very very brief and genericaly done so as to not have to bee extensively programmed in order to work with each combo of alliances in whatever order. Not mentioning the amount of sidequesting that could be ****ed by losing towns (although I personally think that'd be cool).

Nah, you're just saying that out of reflex to defend your original argument.
There are only 3 treaty armies for you to gather, and a total of 6 charas possible to be present in a briefing dialogue.  3 are mutually exclusive from the other 3.
Dalish quest -> 2 possible mutually exclusive representatives
Circle quest -> 2 possible mutually exclusive representatives
Orz quest -> 2 possible mutually exclusive representatives
18 total possible combinations for each mission briefing, if you say you cannot ever have all 3 treaty allies because these in-between missions only trigger before that happens.  That's 18 *short* briefings where everyone present blurts a quip about the situation, and the Warden says something to each representative present (short dialogue tree), and 1 inter-npc banter.  The inter-npc banter will be the only thing affected by the combination difference.
And losing Lothering... Redcliffe... and the Dalish Camp...

*SPOILER BELOW*




You can already lose them in the game.  How does the option to save them suddenly become game-breaking?  Obviously Lothering is scripted to be attacked first.  Then Redcliffe.  Dalish would be last, so it's safe from a game-breaker.

[Hollingdale]

It's not really a reflex, but it is moving away from your specific idea and bringing the discussion to a more ''in general'' level. Think about it for a second, it's only natural that you will get more content with a linear story than you would with a free one because linearity is simpler and requires less programming.



It's a matter of opinion but I would very much prefer the linear scenario ie: one (instead of 18 different short) extremely well done battle against the darkspawn.



In fact if the whole game was linear the one freedom that I do care a lot about that is: freedom of choice in dialogues, the moral choices and their (often grave) consequences aswell as building a personality could in fact be even more well done with a linear story simply due to the fact that they would have spare resources. The kind of metaroleplaying that is imagening intentions, thoughts, etc would of course get less room as the player good or bad pragmatist or idealist follows a mostly laid out path. Although there's no need for absolute linearity, there should be cases where ones character may pick one route over another due to his/her personality.



Indeed when linearity is for a moment broken it should be to give consequence to the players actions. But of course this is a matter of what kind of roleplaying you prefer and If you want to sacrifice some replay value for a more intense inititial gaming experience.

[AlanC9]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not at all.  The game wouldn't have to explain why you can't travel beyond the map until the end.  But that there was an explanation (and a hint that it would come) eventually, the problem is solved.[/quote]

The game already gives you special abilities without explaining them.  Why not throw is a vague compulsion not to travel too far from the city?
[/quote]

I guess so. But having had that sort of thing happen in a couple of PnP games, I'm not a huge fan of the technique.

[Ulicus]

In answer to the thread question: I think so, yes.

I'd prefer Dragon Age 2 to return to something closer to the BG/SoA model.

Wozearly wrote...
...and for what its worth, given the choice, I personally prefer the 4-arc approach to the linear one.

A 4-arc approach is fine; good, even. But I dunno, I still think it'd be better if each arc followed on from the last and could take into account the ones you'd already been through.

Modifié par Ulicus, 11 avril 2010 - 04:52 .

[AlanC9]

Ulicus wrote...

In answer to the thread question: I think so, yes.

I'd prefer Dragon Age 2 to return to something closer to the BG/SoA model.

Wozearly wrote...
...and for what its worth, given the choice, I personally prefer the 4-arc approach to the linear one.

A 4-arc approach is fine; good, even. But I dunno, I still think it'd be better if each arc followed on from the last and could take into account the ones you'd already been through.

I'm baffled. How is BG2 more linear than DA:O?

[Astranagant]

If you want a linear game, Final Fantasy 13 is probably up your alley.

[Realmzmaster]

Everything mentioned here shows the developer's delimma. Some gamers think the game would benefit from more linearity. Others think it has enough already and the system just needs to be refined. Others think more areas and sidequests should be used.
Others think too many sidequests distract from the main plotline or do not hook well into the plotline. Others think the Blight and darkspawn were a poor game mechanic. (But, this is a problem with many CRPGs. The reason for you being in the game is usually contrived.) Other think the opposite.
The developer is never going to please everyone. Also the developer has to work within a certain budget. To add more on one end, something has to be scarficed on the other end.
There is not an unlimited money well to draw from.
Also the developer and publisher need to attract new players to genre. Bioware needs to be responsive to the old school CRPG gamer, but at the same time it needs to appeal to a bigger audience.
Dragon Age is already a linear game with some freedom. If you want a relative short game, just do the four areas, the necessary sidequests and head straight for the final battle. Does it really need to be any more linear.
If you want super linear games any of the Action-CRPGs like Titan Quest, Dungeon Seige etc will suffice.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 12 avril 2010 - 01:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I knew what he looked like.  I could ask around about someone of his description.  It just seems out of character for a reasonable person to not make any attempt to find out who was trying to kill them.

I can accept that.  Simply some dialogue options here and there would solve that problem, but as long as they're not there it is a problem.

Because the genre name has been tossed around so much that it means almost nothing, so people who don't actually like RPGs buy games that are actually RPGs (and then complain about the roleplaying being boring or their being too much talking.)

Right.  The genre would be better served by not attracting those sorts of customers.

RPGs might benefit from becoming more of a niche product.  The ROI would be pretty consistent, and while you probably wouldn't make any blockbusters, you also wouldn't produce any complete duds that wasted tens of millions of development dollars.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I knew what he looked like.  I could ask around about someone of his description.  It just seems out of character for a reasonable person to not make any attempt to find out who was trying to kill them.

I can accept that.  Simply some dialogue options here and there would solve that problem, but as long as they're not there it is a problem.

Right.  It just bothered me that my character couldn't even seem to make an effort in that direction.

Because the genre name has been tossed around so much that it means almost nothing, so people who don't actually like RPGs buy games that are actually RPGs (and then complain about the roleplaying being boring or their being too much talking.)

Right.  The genre would be better served by not attracting those sorts of customers.

RPGs might benefit from becoming more of a niche product.  The ROI would be pretty consistent, and while you probably wouldn't make any blockbusters, you also wouldn't produce any complete duds that wasted tens of millions of development dollars.

That would work for me.  Most of my favorite RPGs weren't exactly massive blockbusters anyway.

[Suron]

no. linearity ruins replayability. I have over 500 hours (according to steam, sick I know) in DA:O...BECAUSE there's so many ways to play and approach it to get different outcomes as you make your way to killing the Arch-Demon.



if it was linear..I wouldn't have HALF that many hours in it.



so no..it can't benefit from it.

[Vicious]

The 4 arc approach has GOT to go.

[Hollingdale]

Suron wrote...

no. linearity ruins replayability. I have over 500 hours (according to steam, sick I know) in DA:O...BECAUSE there's so many ways to play and approach it to get different outcomes as you make your way to killing the Arch-Demon.

if it was linear..I wouldn't have HALF that many hours in it.

so no..it can't benefit from it.

You could retain all those options but just make the main plot linear rather than having the free roam 4 story arch. I dont get the magic boost in replayability that stems from being able to do the same things in different orders.

Furthermore the game shouldn't tbh be built around being replayed for 250+ hours because a vast majority of it's players will never do that.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 12 avril 2010 - 04:29 .

[AlanC9]

Vicious wrote...

The 4 arc approach has GOT to go.

Sure. But what do you want to replace it with?

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vicious wrote...

The 4 arc approach has GOT to go.

Sure. But what do you want to replace it with?

If you replaced the 4 arc approach, you'd need to replace it with something that mimicked that level of player choice.  There's roleplaying opportunity in the choices to do one section or another first.  Simply throwing that away would be yet another step away from the RPG.

[filetemon]

All I know is Bioware seems to be hinting that they'll allow less and less choices, dialogues, cutscenes, endings and character customization in their next games, while still maintaining their slogan of "choices are central pillars of our games"



they said that they are studying to give companions default apperarances to avoid using sets of generic armors in them

they said that they love the dialogue system in awakenings that gives you 80% less of character insight

they said voice acting needs to be severely cut, that inventorys are too difficult to manage for the average player.



Bioware puts a lot of mockery into final fantasy but they're becoming more like your typical jrpg company.



They, yes, I'm gonna say it, they dumbed down ME2 and pretend to do the same with DAO. And yes, the reason is they want to appeal the average console user, and yes, EA has a lot of fault in this

[SmokeyPSD]

I really hope DAO doesn't suffer what happened to mass effect 2.

[Realmzmaster]

DA:O is already linear. The only part that is not linear is how you do the four areas. You start with your Origin, go directly to Ostagar, now the party gets some freedom in which area(s) to tackle first. After gathering the armies it is the Landsmeet (gather your evidence), then to Redcliffe.
Back to Denerim because it was misjudged where the attack will take place. Everything but the 4 area arc is linear.
Why should I be railroaded into what area of the country I want to start gaining an army? The rest of the game already does enough railroading.

Edit: Corrected a spelling mistake

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 13 avril 2010 - 06:24 .

[SmokeyPSD]

Well said Real, anymore linear and Bioware will just succeed in what square have done. I won't buy their products.

[AlanC9]

filetemon wrote...

Bioware puts a lot of mockery into final fantasy but they're becoming more like your typical jrpg company.

Could someone source that? I don't remember any Bio statements about FF one way or the other.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vicious wrote...
The 4 arc approach has GOT to go.

Sure. But what do you want to replace it with?

If you replaced the 4 arc approach, you'd need to replace it with something that mimicked that level of player choice.  There's roleplaying opportunity in the choices to do one section or another first.  Simply throwing that away would be yet another step away from the RPG.

They could change the number of arcs. That's really the only difference between the 4 arc thing and everything else that isn't entirely linear.  The major advantage of the 4 arc approach as opposed to a bunch of smaller ones is that each of the 4 arcs gets to be more developed.  Basically, you have the choice of a few well developed arcs, or a lot of smaller, less developed ones.

Personally, I'd rather have the 4 well developed arcs as opposed to a bunch that aren't well developed at all.

[CybAnt1]

Here's a thought.



What if you needed to gather 4 armies for the final battle, but there were 8 possible places you could go for them, and you chose the 4 you wanted to visit.



Oh sure, it's a hell of a lot more dev. work for the devs., but is offering a real play choice for the players, and could make playthrough 1 meaningfully different from playthrough 2.



It truly could make each playthrough different, in other than just the order.

[Ashlag]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Here's a thought.

What if you needed to gather 4 armies for the final battle, but there were 8 possible places you could go for them, and you chose the 4 you wanted to visit.

Oh sure, it's a hell of a lot more dev. work for the devs., but is offering a real play choice for the players, and could make playthrough 1 meaningfully different from playthrough 2.

It truly could make each playthrough different, in other than just the order.

I think that could work if there was consequence for either getting/trying to get all eight options (darkspawn overrun stuff/you are forced to fight sooner than you want to). That would irk completionists, but I think it would add urgency to the gameplay, which would be interesting.

But yeah, that is a ton of dev work that players don't have to see. It is a very interesting concept though, and a good one, optional things are good.