95 réponses à ce sujet

[taine]

Sorry, I don't have the patience to read your massive wall of text, but I have played all 4 games multiple times, so I think I'm qualified to respond, I will say that I actually agree that DA is not as good as either Fallout 2 or the overall BG series -- Fallout 2 and BG2 are 1a and 1b on my favorite games of all time list.



I disagree about Arcanum though, and I love Arcanum. It simply fell apart towards the end, and was too riddled with bugs (this description can be applied to all of Troika's games, sadly -- I'm looking at you VTM: Bloodlines) for me to measure up to DA.

[Glottisthedriver]

Yeah Troika made a bunch of games with amazing potential that were too ambitious/had major technical shortcomings. The one silver lining is that with VTM: Bloodlines, TOEE and Arcanum the fan community really stepped up. There are a number of great fan mad mods and patches that fix bigs, restore content and do a lot of other things to help make the games work as intended.

[AlanC9]

Nukenin wrote...
]The title of the thread isn't "What makes one RPG better than another", it's "Why DA isn't as good as Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate, or Arcanum".  That's what we dwarves refer to as "fightin' words", so I of course came to this thread for the comedy.

And when I see your name attached to a thread, I know the comedy is either already there or soon to follow.

We could use you over in that "Bioware needs to take responsibility" thread.

[ztemplarz]

Hmm, returning thrown weapons WAS nice... Maybe I should have just made that my initial argument. I actually can't stand gnomes, but I liked how they were re-done in Arcanum, as wealthy influential technocrats. I just really love steampunk and am sad because it seems no one that produces RPGs is attempting to make any. I have high hopes for Fall Out: New Vegas, but my expectations aren't equally as ambitious.

[soteria]

I don't have time to read this whole thread or reply right now, but I had to laugh at this:

...It was at this time that everything really clicked into place and I figured out WHY I didn't enjoy it as much and why it is "inferior," which I will attempt to concisely explain below.

Concise explanation fail. Sorry, it just made me laugh.

[Nukenin]

AlanC9 wrote...

And when I see your name attached to a thread, I know the comedy is either already there or soon to follow.

We could use you over in that "Bioware needs to take responsibility" thread.

What?  I thought I had graced that thread, but sometimes I will get the post all ready to drop then decide—nah, the world is not ready for this.  

Alas, googling "nukenin bioware responsibility" turns up nothing.  Well, except for the usual gnome-related post (from two years back on the NwN2 forums).

[AlanC9]

ztemplarz wrote...
Well, I actually didn't mind it.  It's much the same as someone having diplomatic immunity, and in that game universe, it makes perfect sense (in that religious factions have all sorts of authority, and many have nothing against "dropping charges" against unsavory characters provided they donate massive sums of coin to that sect). 

I find all of that unbelievable, both as a player and as a DM.  But I'm going to chalk this up to a difference in tastes.

When you only have one principal way of defining evil, ie the dictates of the Chantry (which is essentially their version of Christianity), then it is very easy to define evil in that setting since there are no legitimate, authoritative alternatives.  While there might be a "moral system" in Faerun, it is NOT illegitimate to worship Bane, or Tyr, or Mystra, which all have conflicting value systems.  

They don't have conflicting value systems. They all agree on what evil is, and all three of them agree that Bane is evil. The funny thing about evil in the FR is that it's just another lifestyle choice. Except when it isn't; you really can't think too hard about how those societies operate.

I'll agree that the Chantry has authority that's unmatched in the FR. But that's a matter of power, not morality.

Yes, to the last part.  Me selling 6 guns to a pawn shop allows me to buy a REALLY nice pistol, to replace my current, okay pistol.  

Given the way tier pricing works in DA, we're talking about 20+ drops to get to the next level.

I'm saying that if they had something in the fight, they should have it afterwards.

Yeah, but you framed this in terms of your characters needing to gain more power through loot, while simultaneously talking about your character being underpowered in the context of the rogue/warrior relative power issue. I didn't realize that the actual power of your party wasn't relevant to the loot mechanics issue.

It still strikes me as being a bunch of busywork.

Right- all the games I referenced utilized that definition of a rogue (or at least the application of rogue abilities).  Some people don't like that, while I do because it creates a set of balances where you assume certain disadvantages to gain definite advantages in other areas- that is one of the things I liked about the D&D ruleset in BG2.

And I'm not taking a stand against that design principle,  though it's not my personal taste. I'm just pointing out that this way of handling noncombat abilities has, um, lost. It's like Vancian casting. That design was never particularly popular even among D&D players.

In a sense, CRPGs are a museum of obsolete RPG design. Sort of like an isolated population that didn't evolve; there isn't as much selection pressure for better rules in the CRPG field because CRPGs aren't typically sold on the ruleset's strengths. And of course, a CRPG player generally isn't stuck playing the rogue because he has the rest of the party to work with.

[Nukenin]

ztemplarz wrote...

Hmm, returning thrown weapons WAS nice... Maybe I should have just made that my initial argument. I actually can't stand gnomes, but I liked how they were re-done in Arcanum, as wealthy influential technocrats. I just really love steampunk and am sad because it seems no one that produces RPGs is attempting to make any. I have high hopes for Fall Out: New Vegas, but my expectations aren't equally as ambitious.

If someone were to take Arcanum's setting, fix it up, flesh it out, and make it the basis for a comprehensive contemporary CRPG, I'd be first in line to snatch it off the shelf.  (Well, okay, I'd be preordering the digital download unless a deluxe edition offered all sorts of feelies, then I'd preorder the deluxe edition.  Sorry, brick and mortar!)

Fallout: NV is probably going to be an automagic get for me as well.

[soteria]

Not going hugely in-depth here, but I will say that it seems like a lot of these points really are simple matters of preference:



Strictly speaking I prefer "binary" lockpicking to random chance. I have better things to do with my time than re-attempt the same lock over and over again until I roll a 17 or 20 or whatever. I don't see what's so great about having a game that wastes my time trying to get a good roll, or worse, encouraging me to reload and try again until I succeed.



The whole rogue vs warrior thing, that's also preference I guess. I don't really enjoy playing a character who is useless in combat... though I'm puzzled that you think BG2 is better in this regard. Ever play a Kensai/Thief or an Assassin? Even a generic thief could one-shot a lot of stuff, and those builds were even more extreme. I ended up soloing large chunks of the game because hide -> backstab -> hide -> backstab was just the easiest solution. And after they get Use Any Item in TOB... /shrug. By comparison, DA rogues are pretty tame.



To answer the earlier question about who would win, rogue or warrior, it depends, but my gut says the 2h warrior with max str will trounce most rogue builds. Even a max dex "unhittable" rogue can be hit by specials, and unless he resists pommel strike, it would be a pretty quick game over regardless. Indomitable > stuns, and perfect striking could be all the warrior needs to end it. This all assumes some sort of rules for the duel like no potions, and limited fighting area and time. It's not a very balanced game, after all.



I disagree that DA:O has more limited role-playing than BG2. In BG2, you basically had two choices: paragon of virtue or kitten-eating, puppy-punting evil. The game told you immediately which way you were headed with the reputation system. I hated it. Instead of role-playing a character with thoughts, feelings, and opinions, my RP choices came down to deciphering which choices were noble and which ones were evil. In DA:O I get to make a choice based on my characters personality, rather than always going with the "bad" or "good" option.



Not that there are no "bad" and "good" options. I disagree with the people who say that--I think the game lets you do and say some pretty downright evil things. But, I think it's a more realistic type of evil. Think about the people you know... now tell me, how many of them would you classify as evil? Even if you think of public figures that you don't know, but hate, like, say, Hillary Clinton or George Bush or whoever, how many of them would you say are actually evil? My guess is not very many. I think the evil the game allows you in the form of racism, indifference, cowardice, or greed, is a lot more realistic than the sadistic form of evil the older games allowed you.

[Magissia]

Hi ztemplarz, i'm do prefer old Bioware's game too, Baldur's gate 1&2 will stay the best games from Bioware, and best video game rpg i played. You could steal merchants, you could attack people you don't like, you could attack your companions, you could take what people had on them, EVERYTHING they had ! When someoen was dead, you needed a ressurect to get them back, even when you're not fighting, you was not able to have 100 heavy iron armor on your bag with a mage.



But Dragon Age isn't a bad game : It's nearly fully voiced (My character don't talk that much)

Mage don't need to sleep all the time in order to cast spells (but they should have longer cooldown)



Before i buy Dragon Age, i seen it was done by Bioware, and i tough it would be a brothergame of Baldur's gate with improvements, meaning a baldur's gate with more ! (Like the things i stated before that are good in this game, there's some more too but a full list of everything would takes too long, and i'm not as much courageous to do such long posts)



If you make a Dragon Age 2 Bioware, take a base on Baldur's gate, and add Dragon Age 1 improvement on camera, spells ... really

[Realmzmaster]

BioWare cannot take a base on Baldur's Gate. BioWare does not hold a license for the D & D ruleset nor any of the settings And would not be able to do so for at least 7 years. BioWare developed their own IP. The Dragon Age universe belongs to Bioware and they have even licensed it to Green Ronin to make a p n p version.

By owning their own IP they can develop it as they wish. Will we see prestige classes like in D & D? No, because those are copyrighted by WoTC/Hasbro. BioWare would have to devise more specializations or other classes that do not infringe on the more exotic copyrighted D & D classes.

[ztemplarz]

Hmm, thought of some other reasons.



No waypoints. Can't save any information on the maps (like, this room had chests I couldn't open, or high-ranking enemies I wanted to avoid). Additionally, can't just click the destination and allow my party to navigate to it- have to tediously control them the entire way. Every RPG I can remember allowed you to click the destination, but not DA.



Inventory. First off, they didn't include a party chest in the beginning, as many people noticed and complained about. Secondly, you can't DISCARD items, you have to DESTROY them- how retarded is that? Oh, I want that dagger, so I guess I'm going to break that wooden shield up so I can fit it in my inventory... Again, every RPG I could remember allowed you to discard. How this is good in any way I just don't know...

[wanderon]

ztemplarz wrote...

Hmm, thought of some other reasons.

No waypoints. Can't save any information on the maps (like, this room had chests I couldn't open, or high-ranking enemies I wanted to avoid). Additionally, can't just click the destination and allow my party to navigate to it- have to tediously control them the entire way. Every RPG I can remember allowed you to click the destination, but not DA.

Inventory. First off, they didn't include a party chest in the beginning, as many people noticed and complained about. Secondly, you can't DISCARD items, you have to DESTROY them- how retarded is that? Oh, I want that dagger, so I guess I'm going to break that wooden shield up so I can fit it in my inventory... Again, every RPG I could remember allowed you to discard. How this is good in any way I just don't know...

To be fair the business if saving info on maps was added later on in the BG series IIRC and for my own personal taste I mostly prefer to navigate my character/party on my own and hopefully there will be some interactions along the way that will make that journey interesting. I very much dislike the whole teleport from place to place ignoring all the travel in between and still think the BG1 travel system was the very best design (altho I also thought the NWN2 SOZ Overland Map had huge potential as well)

I agree the destroy item mechanic is a bit strange and I'm not sure what brought that mechanic into being for DA. A couple of possibilities that come to mind are:
 
1) cluttering up the landscape with items may cause performance issues - I am not a builder/programmer but it seems I recall discussions about this from other games - why one had loot bags instead of corpses (NWN2?) why items disappeared after a period of time in BG1 - etc so perhaps this was a new way to eliminate those sort of problems without having to program in a manner of deterioration to clear up the landscape (and eliminate the possible performance problems) I mean if the item is destroyed then there is nothing to clean up.

2) Perhaps they also saw this as another factor of the inventory management mini-game. I know I have had occasions where I had to make tough decisions about what to take or keep at times when I was a long way from a merchant and our backpacks were full.

I'm one of those oddballs that actually enjoy having to make those "hard" choices as part of an inventory mini-game as opposed to being able to just take everything I want without restriction so it doesn't bother me much. 

[ztemplarz]

Hmm, it's an odd mini-game, since your inventory size is based wholly off a set value that you can only improve by investing an in-game fortune.

[AlanC9]

You really need to avoid saying stuff like this:

ztemplarz wrote...
Every RPG I can remember allowed you to click the destination, but not DA.

The number of RPGs that don't allow this is greater than the number that do. Pretty much anything that relies on WASD movement wouldn't have this, for starters. And there have been plenty of games with inventory that worked the way DA's does too, though AFAIK it's still a minority of RPGs that work that way

Don't go out of your way to be wrong about RPGs. It's OK to not be all that familiar with how other RPGs have done things -- many RPG design conventions are downright stupid. But then you shouldn't be citing RPG history.

[AlanC9]

Thinking about why they didn't implement dropping stuff,it strikes me that inventory is different in DA, or KotOR, or similar games, from how it works in an IE game or an NWN game. In those games every item has a physical location in the world. It's on the map or it's in a container on the map, including the "container" of a creature. But in games with a single pooled inventory, the items are not in the world at all. The inventory is... something else, a kind of no-place.

Transferring an item from in a container to outside of that container is one thing, transferring an item from outside the world into the world is another.

[WarChicken78]

The mother of textwalls...



I played Fallout 2 and Baldurs gate.



While Fallout 2 was great (I still liked the first better) I think you can hardly compare it to DA directly. Fallout was very very good at that time, but due to the time that lies between F2 and DA, you really can't compare them.



Baldurs Gate is a better comparison, even that is quite old now, too. People will hate me for this: I hated Baldurs Gate. Maybe I should try it again - it's from BioWare, it has to be good (Yep, ME2 and DA made me a fanboy, I admitt it).



If you want comparisons that could do, then try compare it to Oblivion or Fallout 3 (three) and maybe to Biowares own Mass Effect 1 and 2.

That will be a better comparison. In my opinion DA is vastly superior to Oblivion and Fallout 3 (even I loked both) as well as ME1. I cant decide if I like DA or ME2 better - they're both incredible.

[AlanC9]

I knew I was forgetting something about DA. The areas don't support items lying around in the first place. All items have to be in the general inventory or in the particular inventory of a placeable or creature. So dropping items would have required a whole new class of data for the areas.

[ztemplarz]

Tonkarz wrote...

It seems to me, ztemplarz, that you are mostly complaining that DA is different to the other games you mention. I have played both the BG the Fallout series, so I am familiar with those games. Also, I'm only replying to your first post at this point, having not yet read any further.

Yes, it could be said that there are no strictly "evil" characters. You haven't explained how this is a bad thing, which I think is probably something that you'd need to do in order to consider this important.

Also, it is true that you can't randomly kill anyone you like. Again, so what? Sure, you can't play as a remorseless serial killer, but you can't play as a totally straight laced paladin-esque character either. Or for that matter, any other character that is outside the scope of the game. Of course the other point is that you can't play as a serial killer in Baldur's Gate or Fallout 2 either. Yes, you can kill everyone, but the NPCs rarely ever react to this sort of behaviour or even acknowledge it. Spawning some guards or bounty hunter encounters do not count when you can go to the next area and talk to a shop keeper like everything is fine.

Your next point is about searchable containers everywhere. Once again, you've made a minor point and not explained how it makes the game any worse. You've just pointed out a difference between the two games. In fact, a point could be made that these makes DA a superior game. After all, why encourage the player to spend time looting random barrels and crates for the occasional tiny reward when you should be encouraging them to experience the fun parts of the game? There is no reason to do this.

Your point about locked chests is a bit unimaginative. You assume that a chest would only ever be locked if it contained something valuable to you, the player. The correct assumption is that items under lock and key are valuable to someone else, which doesn't necessarily mean they are valuable to you. Also, what is in the container isn't limited to what shows up on the loot screen. For example, there are almost no food items in the entire game though it logically must exist in the setting. Also, the usual caveat about assuming that any differences automatically make the game worse appplies here.

As for not being able to bash open chests and doors, you've made another minor point. How does this actually make the game worse? Once again, you don't say. As for a 7 foot warrior not being able to knock down a door or a persistent lockpicker not being able to pick a given lock being unrealistic... well so what? This is meant to be a game, not a simulation. A better game is not one that encourages the player to spend 3 minutes on one lock. A better game is not one that encourages reloading until the items in the chest don't break.

Thieving is another activity that in previous games encourage the player to just reload until success or until the player gives up. By making the outcome less random,  this behaviour is not encouraged and thus the player spends more time doing fun things. This makes DA a better game, at least in this area. As for the other problems you have with the system, they are fairly minor. Planting evidence on someone would only be important if the game acknowledged it, and this would always be part of a quest where the behaviour can be scripted. Only one item from each mark? Big deal.

Stealing from merchants is another minor matter. It might be a nice feature, but ultimately it's just something you can't do. It's absence doesn't make the game less fun. Remember, this is not a simulation.

Your next point is that there are fun things you can do as a thief in previous games that you can't do in DA. Well the obvious response is that there are fun things you can do as a thief in DA that you can't do in those previous games, like kicking enemies in the balls.

As for apparently disappearing loot, another huge "So what?" is in order. This isn't a simulation. This is a game. Making players work to get better equipment makes eventually getting that equipment all the sweeter to the player as long as "working" to get the equipment is fun in itself. As far as small rewards go, the only point I'll make about that is it's related to working towards decent equipment, which I've already addressed.

Your complaint about combat mechnics is a bit dumb. Of course you shouldn't be able to sleep through combat. It would just be tedious if you could get through combat without thinking and only clicking once on each enemy in turn.

So, in conclusion, you exaggerate minor points, assume that any differences are bad, like and enjoy tedium and seem to feel that the more the game is a simulation the better. Honestly, if you like tedious simulation then your probably going to have trouble finding a game to enjoy because most games are designed with a view to cutting these elements out.

P.S.: I'm beginning to suspect that ztemplarz is a troll, but I've already typed this post so meh.

Key is that you hadn't read further- did address those other points further on.  And I don't think there is anything necessarily incongruous with allowing you to travel to other areas after having massacred everyone in some random home, because they didn't have 24 hour news networks back then, so how would anyone know who did it?  Even assuming that someone saw your face (which is questionable, depending on what class you were playing), at best they would begin circulating hand-drawn pictures of you, which probably wouldn't be all that good and it's doubtful that most people would ever even look at.  Do you know who the violent offenders in your community are?  The rapists?  Do you know who's on America's Most Wanted or the FBI's top 10?  I sincerely doubt it, and if you do, it's because of the internet or TV.

And I don't know if you realize, that by dismissing what I consider to be major points as your minor points, invalidates your arguments as much as mine.  Go into some random, real world place- a kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, office.  Then open a "random" container- I'm pretty confident you will find something, and it will fit with the general contents of that room (ie, medicine in a bathroom, cleaner or utensils in a kitchen, clothes or valuables in a bedroom).  It doesn't make sense to find a breastplate in a barrel next to some stairs.  It also doesn't make sense to just see some random chest next to the stairs- have you ever seen something similar to that?  Why would it be there?  If containers are included in a game, they should be in places that make sense, and their contents should also make sense based on their location.  While I'm not a huge fan of either ME game, I will grant that their container system by and large DID make sense- they were few and far between, and most commonly in living quarters or storage areas.

So you don't think a 7 foot tall warrior that weighs nearly 300lbs would have a good chance of getting through a locked wooden door or opening a locked wooden chest?  THAT'S what is wrong- they would, except they CAN'T.  And RPGs ARE supposed to be simulations, set in a particular game universe (whether steampunk, sci fi, fantasy, or apocalyptical)- that IS the whole point.  That you can play as a 300 lb warrior in a world that has it's own governing rules of physics and culture.  Last I checked, there is no "universe"-driven reason why locks can't be bashed in Fereldon (like shades will manifest and steal the soul of the interloper), which means it simply isn't a feature that the developers decided to include (for whatever reason).  All the other games had that mechanic, so it doesn't make sense that a similar, NEWER game, wouldn't.

Again, "fun things" versus what you obviously don't consider fun and apparently also have plenty of experience doing (ie, reloading).  And dismissing and argument with "big deal", doesn't mean you've made a better point, only that you are too lazy to argue it because YOU don't consider it a "big deal". Is there any good reason why you should only be able to steal 1 item?  If you are David Blaine, do you really think you should be restricted to taking some flower they have in their hair?  If you enter a Walmart, do you think you can only fit 1 cd into your pocket, and can't even attempt to steal anything else IN THE ENTIRE STORE?  As someone that stole as a kid, I can assure you, that when you steal things, you rarely steal 1 thing at a time.  And if you steal someone's wallet or purse, you aren't just going to find some money in there, there will be other things as well.  So again, unrealistic and "stupid" to make a game mechanic that has no relation on the real world and works in opposition to nearly every other similar game mechanism in RPGs since they were designed for the computer.

Can't kick in the balls in the other games?  Interesting.  Cause in FO, I believe you could specifically aim for the balls... or the eyes... or the leg...  And in D&D, there are huge numbers of feats and combat abilities, so while I don't remember if there was a specific "ball kicking" ability, there are plenty of similar abilities (like tripping, stunning, "sundering arms", "defensive spin", etc).

And your basic counterpoint to, "A fully armored warrior should be able to decimate a less skilled and armored opponent" is, "That would be boring."  So it should always be the game developer's objective to make things challenging, even if they really shouldn't be.  THAT makes sense.  Obviously you and I have different perceptions of how a game should be made- I believe it should be challenging BECAUSE it makes sense in context of the story.  For instance, let's say my party breaches the inner defenses of the castle and encounter the lord and his bodyguard- THAT should be challenging.  Now let's say my party gets involved in a brawl at a local tavern with some group of miners that feel we've been cheating at dice (which I can't play in the game).  THAT should NOT be challenging, since they aren't skilled fighters with weapons or armor...

But man, you sure nailed me down as a troll, because my arguments are largely based off of, "this is minor" without providing examples, and saying, "this is dumb" because I don't like it... wait a second...

[soteria]

You're going to have to do something other than cite realism if you want to convince me, at least.

And RPGs ARE supposed to be simulations, set in a particular game universe (whether steampunk, sci fi, fantasy, or apocalyptical)- that IS the whole point.

If that's the whole point, then you should stop now. The developers have already said they're not trying to create a simulation. Once you start using this argument, where do you draw the line? Are we going to add eating, drinking, other biological functions and apparently playing dice?



Not to mention, you're not even making a great argument. As a grunt, you probably know that using your shoulder to bash down a door is the worst possible way to do it... so why does this whole "7 foot 300 lb" thing matter? What you need is several well-placed kicks. Same with a chest. Technique is more important in either case than physical size.

For instance, let's say my party breaches the inner defenses of the castle and encounter the lord and his bodyguard- THAT should be challenging. Now let's say my party gets involved in a brawl at a local tavern with some group of miners that feel we've been cheating at dice (which I can't play in the game). THAT should NOT be challenging, since they aren't skilled fighters with weapons or armor...

Just to pick at the "realism" perspective some more, once again, this isn't even a good example of realism. If you got into a fight at a tavern, you probably wouldn't be armed or armored yourself. Do you wear your flak and kevlar off-duty, or any longer than you possibly have to? I know I don't. I find it highly unrealistic to expect that anyone wore their armor all the time. Marines have combat training, but I still know plenty who managed to get themselves beat up by civilians and (worse!) sailors at bars. Ergo, possessing weapons and armor and having combat training doesn't mean you and your buddies are going to go to a bar, get drunk, and win a fistfight against construction workers easily.



The dumb thing about arguing about realism is that as stated above, it's patently obvious that more "realism" isn't always better. The game should be credible, but you can get that without a heck of a lot of realism. You could make an argument for giving warriors Bash and mages Knock, but "it's realistic" isn't it.

[ztemplarz]

soteria wrote...

You're going to have to do something other than cite realism if you want to convince me, at least.

And RPGs ARE supposed to be simulations, set in a particular game universe (whether steampunk, sci fi, fantasy, or apocalyptical)- that IS the whole point.

If that's the whole point, then you should stop now. The developers have already said they're not trying to create a simulation. Once you start using this argument, where do you draw the line? Are we going to add eating, drinking, other biological functions and apparently playing dice?

Not to mention, you're not even making a great argument. As a grunt, you probably know that using your shoulder to bash down a door is the worst possible way to do it... so why does this whole "7 foot 300 lb" thing matter? What you need is several well-placed kicks. Same with a chest. Technique is more important in either case than physical size.

For instance, let's say my party breaches the inner defenses of the castle and encounter the lord and his bodyguard- THAT should be challenging. Now let's say my party gets involved in a brawl at a local tavern with some group of miners that feel we've been cheating at dice (which I can't play in the game). THAT should NOT be challenging, since they aren't skilled fighters with weapons or armor...

Just to pick at the "realism" perspective some more, once again, this isn't even a good example of realism. If you got into a fight at a tavern, you probably wouldn't be armed or armored yourself. Do you wear your flak and kevlar off-duty, or any longer than you possibly have to? I know I don't. I find it highly unrealistic to expect that anyone wore their armor all the time. Marines have combat training, but I still know plenty who managed to get themselves beat up by civilians and (worse!) sailors at bars. Ergo, possessing weapons and armor and having combat training doesn't mean you and your buddies are going to go to a bar, get drunk, and win a fistfight against construction workers easily.

The dumb thing about arguing about realism is that as stated above, it's patently obvious that more "realism" isn't always better. The game should be credible, but you can get that without a heck of a lot of realism. You could make an argument for giving warriors Bash and mages Knock, but "it's realistic" isn't it.

Didn't read that the developers had stated that, so will have to take your word on that, and it would help explain matters.  As to the line drawing, it is as far as it can be pushed- the more "immersive" an RPG is, the "better" it is (provided it doesn't sacrifice the story and dialogue, which are also immersion building/supporting elements- can't believe a completely, unrealistic, contradictory storyline with poorly written dialogue).  And there have been plenty of games that HAVE featured all those things, though I personally believe that is a bit overkill.  I don't see how forcing you to do completely mundane, everyday things improves the role-playing experience.  I understand that my character would have to eat and poop, because they are natural biological functions and I do them all the time;)  On the other hand, I don't cast fireballs all the time, nor do I break into people's vaults and steal their belongings, nor do I fight dragons with a spear.  The idea behind role-playing is to be able to enjoy the experience of things you can't ACTUALLY do, not to simulate doing things you ALWAYS do. 

I do enjoy playing dice, but however am not wealthy or confident enough to risk my moderate income doing so.  If, on the other hand, I am ROLE-playing a wily rogue gambler, I would LIKE to be able to make my in-game fortune utilizing my IN-GAME abilities (doesn't really have to be a rogue, for that matter, since there is nothing to say a fighter or mage couldn't be just as good at gambling).  When the GAME doesn't allow me any way to gather wealth besides slowly and incrementally, it's a tad annoying.

Not a grunt, former forward observer.  And while you never tried to claim I said you should use your shoulder to break down a door, I most certainly didn't.  That being said, a 300lb dude does have an easier time kicking open a door than a 150lb dude, provided they both kick right above or below the handle- force = mass x acceleration.  More mass + equal acceleration means more force.  A 300lb dude that can run a 4.6 40m compared to a 170lb person that runs it in 5.7 not only has more mass, but more acceleration, which means FAR more force.  There's a reason why in the world's strongest men competitions, they are nearly all 300lbs and 6'2" - 6'7".

Speaking of bad examples... There used to be this thing called "line training".  Back when that was what was taught in the Marine Corps, civilians were rightfully scared of fighting Marines, because not only were they likely in better shape, but they knew how to bring the most hurt the most quickly and did.  That is part of the reason line training got stopped- too many Marines were beating the tar out of civilians and sending them to the hospital (meaning, lots of complaints).  That being said, the modern emphasis is much less on hand to hand combat and much more on MOUT and skills training (ie, calling for fire, in my case).  Since most Marines or soldiers don't have their tools of the trade available to them outside of being deployed (as you pointed out), you can expect they only have a marginal advantage, since they probably only have slightly more martial arts training.  Now let's put things in a proper perspective.  Construction workers in medieval settings (which is what DAO is) did NOT have ANY combat training, and when leveed, were meant to be used as nothing more than fodder for generals/kings.  A mercenary fighter or trained Grey Warden, on the other hand, WOULD have pretty extensive martial training.  While PERHAPS they wouldn't be wearing their armor the whole time (although I think I WOULD, given the whole "impending Blight"), they WOULD have their weapons, because it would be foolish to NOT wear them.  If they weren't allowed to in a town, then so be it.  But never in the game did I get approached by and NPC and told, "You have to surrender your weapons to enter this establishment". 

Oh, and mages should get "knock" and warriors should get "bash". 

[AlanC9]

ztemplarz wrote...
 As to the line drawing, it is as far as it can be pushed- the more "immersive" an RPG is, the "better" it is

But that is begging the question. "Immersive" seems to be a completely subjective thing. A lot of the things you've been asking for have been tried, as you say. And Bio has concluded that they are not worth doing. Isn't this thread packed with evidence that most of your issues only bother you?

There should be a place in RPGs for a more simulationist approach. But Bioware is not the company to provide such games, and never has been. Your memory of the BG games is faulty if you think it was. I'm just finishing up a BG1 run, and there were plenty of ludicrous item placements in that game.

Edit: I don't want to come across as defending the encounter scaling in DA:O, which I agree is rotten. Much worse pre-patch, of course. In the release version the toughest fights in the whole game were random encounter wolves.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 mai 2010 - 05:42 .

[Derengard]

The whole Fallout universe is more like joke than runs dry after a while than a setting that genuinely interests me. I haven't come to play any of the games indepth though, as I find the interface horrible, the pace painfully slow, the story in any case forgettable (refer to joke) and the quests not especially enticing. Also one problem was that it often crashed when I was trying to get more immersed.
That shouldn't be a criticism of Troika/Black Isle games in general, as I find Arcanum at least interesting (though all other problems remain), and Bloodlines even thoroughly admirable (I played it at a time when there weren't many surface bugs anymore).
I have a couple of criticisms with Dragon Age, but as I have thrown Fallout out of the comparison, there's no point in mentioning them here.

[mr_nameless]

 Dragon age was a fine cup of milk coffee. Still have a couple more blends to try..then its over.
What strikes me with DA is how BLEND all the main characters are. There isn't anything FANTASTIC about how their look or act. Everything is so generic/realistic...
Baldur's gate II  though is a fine wine that ages very well. Though the characters are generic fantasy characters there is a huge mix, with interesting weird, fantastic stories. The same goes for items in general all have this fantastic feeling in their description, they all have a story to tell.

[AlanC9]

That's just saying that you like weird. If you like weird, the FR is for you.