188 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

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.

An interesting idea as long as the eight potential allies differ enough from one another, but are also relatively balanced in term of their effectiveness in say the final battle. If four amies among the eight are perceived as being stronger then you are basically back to the four arc armies unless you deliberately chose the "weaker" armies.

[Realmzmaster]

Ashlag wrote...

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.

The consequence you speak of would also limit any exploration outside of the main plot line. In my opinion part of a CRPG is the ability to explore the land and do sidequests.
Or are you trying to say that the gamer can do all the sidequets they want to do, but if they try for a fifth army there is a percentage chance that the country could be overran or the final battle starts sooner. If the gamer tries for the sixth through eighth army the percentage chance increases.
But if the gamer is allowed to do as many sidequests as they want that loses the sense of urgency.
Are you saying there should be a timer. You have 9 months  to gather your armies before you are overran or force to fight. You can do whatever you want within that time period. The game would have a day clock in a corner either counting up or down the number of days.

[eucatastrophe]

Off topic: But I wish the maps were open-ended.

I love exploring.

[Vaeliorin]

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.

It's an interesting thought, but not something you'll ever see a major developer do.  Studies show most people don't even finish games (thus why development of the end of games is always pushed off to last, and often seems rushed and disappointing) let alone replay them.  The devs would essentially be making a lot of content most people would never see, and that's a waste of resources (at least according to the beancounters who are in charge.)

Realmzmaster wrote...
Are you saying there should be a timer. You have 9 months  to gather your armies before you are overran or force to fight. You can do whatever you want within that time period. The game would have a day clock in a corner either counting up or down the number of days.

In my experience, people hate timers in games.  I've yet to see anything but complaints about them (other than perhaps in Fallout 1...maybe it's an old school versus new school thing?)

Personally, I don't mind them, but you'd ****** off a lot of people (and lose a number of potential customers based of word of mouth) by putting in a timer.

[filetemon]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

http://kotaku.com/54...ine-of-the-jrpg

[AlanC9]

Vaeliorin wrote...

In my experience, people hate timers in games.  I've yet to see anything but complaints about them (other than perhaps in Fallout 1...maybe it's an old school versus new school thing?)

I'm not sure the FO1 timer was all that popular either -- IIRC it had to be severely nerfed in a patch.

But yeah, to some extent it's an old-school thing. The crybabies who couldn't handle MotB's SM were typically either younger players or Morrowind fans.

@filetemon: thanks for the like. But that's just isn't mockery of FF. The statement is that JRPGs haven't evolved. Game design strategies that used to work aren't working anymore, which isn't the same thing as saying that they were enver good.

Is the charge accurate? Beats me. I don't like JRPGs enough to know.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 avril 2010 - 04:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

In my experience, people hate timers in games.  I've yet to see anything but complaints about them (other than perhaps in Fallout 1...maybe it's an old school versus new school thing?)

No, timers just suck generally.

[k9medusa]

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.

They did that already --- Magi or Tamplars & Elves or wherewolves -- Dwarfts or Golums 

[Frolk]

k9medusa wrote...

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.

They did that already --- Magi or Tamplars & Elves or wherewolves -- Dwarfts or Golums 

Yes, but recruiting the mages or the templars, for example, still involves the same quest, for the most part.   What CybAnt1 seems to be talking about is the idea of adding more main quest lines.  I rather like the idea; having a different army at the end of the game doesn't make subsequent playthroughs any "fresher" to me, but having to go through a completely different quest line to get them would.

[AlanC9]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The consequence you speak of would also limit any exploration outside of the main plot line. In my opinion part of a CRPG is the ability to explore the land and do sidequests.

Of course, the OP's proposition is that you're completely wrong about this, and exploration makes RPGs worse.

I don't really have a dog in that fight, except that I think insisting on either design principle must necessarily limit the design of the main plot, so I really don't want to see either approach branded as necessary to an RPG.

Or are you trying to say that the gamer can do all the sidequets they want to do, but if they try for a fifth army there is a percentage chance that the country could be overran or the final battle starts sooner. 

Note that HotU chapter 2 did something similar to this; it is not possible to do all the  sidequests because the Valsharess will attack at some point. Or at least, that seems to be the design intent, since you can work around it.

[AlanC9]

Frolk wrote...
Yes, but recruiting the mages or the templars, for example, still involves the same quest, for the most part.   What CybAnt1 seems to be talking about is the idea of adding more main quest lines.  I rather like the idea; having a different army at the end of the game doesn't make subsequent playthroughs any "fresher" to me, but having to go through a completely different quest line to get them would.

Is that worth making the sidequests half the length of the current ones?

Hey, where's Hollingdale at? Suddenly his thread's turned into how to make DA less linear, not more so.

[Realmzmaster]

I spoke of timers in response to Ashlag's statement on the sense of urgency. I have no wish to see a timer incorporated in Bioware CRPGs. But Asklag was asking how do you get that sense of urgency if CybAnt1 idea of more areas to gather the four armies is implemented.

What is the consequence of trying to get that fifth to eighth army? Should there even be a consequence?

[Hollingdale]

AlanC9 wrote...

Frolk wrote...
Yes, but recruiting the mages or the templars, for example, still involves the same quest, for the most part.   What CybAnt1 seems to be talking about is the idea of adding more main quest lines.  I rather like the idea; having a different army at the end of the game doesn't make subsequent playthroughs any "fresher" to me, but having to go through a completely different quest line to get them would.

Is that worth making the sidequests half the length of the current ones?

Hey, where's Hollingdale at? Suddenly his thread's turned into how to make DA less linear, not more so.

What have you done... You've ruined everything!

On a sidenote: Imo I doubt bioware meant the final fantasy games in that kotaku article. If they did they did so out of ignorance as Square is pretty much the only developer of jrpg's that's brave enough to actually make big changes to their gameplay.

Also I think that the main reason Jrpg games have declined is due to the fact that the gaming community today is larger and less geeky and that thus: people are no longer interested in the crappy one dimensional characters and cliché filled messy nonsense plots that Jrpg's still contain.

In short, they need to work on their scripts and storytelling just as much as they need to develop their gameplay. And no they don't necessarily need to make their games nonlinear although I confess it would be damn interesting to see an jrpg with a moral system like kotor or an open world like oblivion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Of course, the OP's proposition is that you're completely wrong about this, and exploration makes RPGs worse.

I'm firmly on the pro-exploration side of that divide, not because I think exploration is super-fun, but because being able to wander off in other directions offers the players more opportunities to make decisions.

Again, like in Baldur's Gate, do you stay on the road, or not stay on the road, and in doing so, where are you headed?  A more linear game never asks these questions.

As a general rule, an RPG should ask the player to make more decisions, not fewer, and linear gameplay asks fewer questions.

Furthermore, since the OP's concern seemed to be with the strength of the central narrative and how that related to linearity, I suggest that he's focussing too much on the central narrative, and not paying enough attention to the emergent narrative created through his roleplaying choices.

[Hollingdale]

Sylvius did make some really great posts where he showed that Dragon Age could be improved greatly even without linearity. Now I myself, kinda dig the linearity found in nwn2 (and MotB) but I understand that few others here do.

In any case the discussion has highlighted a lot of weaknesses in Dragon Age's plot that I wasn't so aware previously, I just didn't really like the way the game was made (hell I enjoyed it and I still do, but it could've been a lot better) but now I can also see why clearer.

Also I do like exploration, it helps present the world and can be very atmospheric and relaxing (okay I'm aware that sounded a bit weird). One that was lacking in Dragon Age was moving through enviroments that weren't either cities or dungeons. Imo one should move from city to city not on a stupid map but by actually travelling through woods and stuff. Of course one may have to allow instant travelling to locations that have been previously visited though. That's the kind of exploration I feel is lacking in Dragon Age.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 13 avril 2010 - 10:30 .

[Frolk]

AlanC9 wrote...

Frolk wrote...
Yes, but recruiting the mages or the templars, for example, still involves the same quest, for the most part.   What CybAnt1 seems to be talking about is the idea of adding more main quest lines.  I rather like the idea; having a different army at the end of the game doesn't make subsequent playthroughs any "fresher" to me, but having to go through a completely different quest line to get them would.

Is that worth making the sidequests half the length of the current ones?

Maybe.  To me, it doesn't matter how long or short a single playthrough is.  What matters is how long the game can keep me interested.  I'd rather play a short game that can be replayed many times than a long game that loses its novelty after the second or third playthrough.

[Hollingdale]

Ugh I so disagree on that notion. Hell, I'd rather have a magical first playthrough and then have the game vanish into dark space rather than an replayable mediocre game.

[Frolk]

Shortness doesn't imply mediocrity.

Modifié par Frolk, 14 avril 2010 - 01:28 .

[Vicious]

I played FF13 and it's plot was a nerdy incomprehensible mess and I had to look stuff up to know WTF the characters were talking about. Also everyone looking like a damn anime character with not a single hair out of place even though they are supposed to be an accomplished warrior stopped sitting well with me when I hit my teens.



I gave it back to EBgames and got Splinter Cell Conviction instead.





I used to love JRPGs when I was younger... wonder what happened?

[SmokeyPSD]

meh, don't think how FFXIII turned out as a slight against JRPGS, I still love and playthrough 1 through to 9 everynow and then. They are aging quite well. The world, gameplay everything just isn't a solid experience and doesn't even feel like an RPG anymore.

[Hollingdale]

FFXIII has awesome gameplay but yeah, the story just isn't good enough and the plot can accurately be described as nerdy. It's hardly a mess though, if you just read the well written databook (FFXIII's codex) things do make sense.



But goddamnit what is wrong with the japanese, why do they keep making the same stereotypical characters over and over again and why do they insist on designing them so goddamn ugly?



But at least Final Fantasy has great music (unlike Dragon Age)! Or rather had, the dude they've got composing the songs must be mentally retarded or something because he sucks dick.

If they would just hire someone with the ability to write a proper scrift and tell Tetsuya Nomura to stop think he's a ****ing god of fashion and hiring some real composers (I mean jesus christ there are flocks of amateur musicians on forum that make better music than the dude they've got now)

Squareenix could make a truly awesome game.

FF6-10 were all solid but since then it's been a bit bleh.



What's the point of the massive production value if the core is still completely mediocre?

[TheRealIncarnal]

Faust1979 wrote...

I would like a game that breaks more from the bioware mold and a deeper story. I would like to see the next Dragon Age go with the chapters route like Jade Empire did

You know, I agree. I think that linearity of the events like Jade Empire would work just fine. I mean, I never felt like I needed more freedom in Jade Empire.

[Reaverwind]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As a general rule, an RPG should ask the player to make more decisions, not fewer, and linear gameplay asks fewer questions.

Furthermore, since the OP's concern seemed to be with the strength of the central narrative and how that related to linearity, I suggest that he's focussing too much on the central narrative, and not paying enough attention to the emergent narrative created through his roleplaying choices.

I concur. The emergent narrative is far more important to an RPG, and the central narrative should only provide the backdrop. Else, all you have is an interactive movie.

[Hollingdale]

The only WRPG were I've felt that the emergent narrative was on par with the central narrative was Kotor 2 and that's due to the deep conversations which allowed for a lot of character development and which asked a lot of questions actually, despite the game in itself being linear apart from the 4 arch system. In fact the game could've been completely linear without harming this emergent narrative, it may even have flourished as in a linear game events can be stringed together in more complex fashion's, which in turn can give more accurate consequences of your chosen actions.

I fail to see the what's interesting with an emergent narrative in terms off exploring or sidequesting. In fact I hardly think narrative is an accurate term to be used in such cases as it is really. In practice it's just a matter of strolling around doing stuff for no particular reason. Of course even a game were the main plot is linear needs to contain sidequests and additional areas to explore but theese should hardly make up a big part of the game and they should be fully skipable if the player instead chooses to focus on the main story.

A linear narrative which works out differently depending on the choices player's make in the dialogues of the actual game is to be preffered over an open ended world where one is forced to imagine the intentions and thoughts of ones character in order for things to make sense.

Of course this is a very different gaming philosophy than, I believe, most on this board have. I wan't the choices I make to be in the script, not in my head I guess.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 14 avril 2010 - 01:20 .

[nikki191]

personally i would of liked the option to have a timer in dragon age, i remember my first play through i was playing under the assumption that the darkspawn were spreading, it does take away the sense of urgency when you realise the darkspawn invasion depends entirely on you