702 réponses à ce sujet

[Dick Delaware]

Indoctrination, why was it bad for ME2, and why is it bad for Dragon Age?

The hybrid idea is good too, as would a Bloodlines-style XP system, but really, either of these are significantly better than what we have right now. The hybrid would be a decent compromise though. It would also require a restructuring of the way loot is set up. I think this would mean less generic loot from random enemies (i.e. hauling around tons of useless trash just so you can sell it) and more loot to obtained as rewards for completing quests and sub-boss and boss fights, which I think is ultimately more rewarding. Also, better loot from opening chests. Every damn time I opened one of those things, I was bound to be disappointed, and then I wondered why I brought Leliana along when Sten could have provided some much needed manliness to the party to balance out Alistair.

I thought the quest rewards in Origins were lacking in some places. So, I've made Harrowmont King of Orzammar single-handed, and what does he give me? A totally sweet Dwarven battle-axe carried by the Paragon Aeducan? An ancient, enchanted set of power armor made by Caridin that turns the user into a super-powered juggernaut who can shrug of spells like raindrops? Not exactly - he gives me a very mediocre staff... that he's been using as a back-scratcher (I'm serious, look at the description). Kind of a let down.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 22 juillet 2010 - 12:21 .

[TMZuk]

ElectricWizard wrote...

because then, the problem becomes that people will STOP fighting and start taking the "secret route" everytime it is presented to them because "they get bored of fighting everything" (I can see it now)

in effect turning DA2 into a roleplayed espionage game.

Dragon Cell: Hawkeviction

Why would they do that?

Would you? Would anyone who prefer fighting? What is so hard to comprehend about the word: Options?

It seems to me that a large number of those in favour of the current system is giving a knee-jerk reaction. They want their diablo-clone to a degree where everyone else has to be deprived of options. The point is: If you want to fight, do so, as long as the game makes room for other approaches as well, when feasible.

[Dick Delaware]

TMZuk wrote...
Would you? Would anyone who prefer fighting? What is so hard to comprehend about the word: Options?

It seems to me that a large number of those in favour of the current system is giving a knee-jerk reaction. They want their diablo-clone to a degree where everyone else has to be deprived of options. The point is: If you want to fight, do so, as long as the game makes room for other approaches as well, when feasible.

Yeah, I seriously don't get this reaction. I thought that this idea would get the most support from the so-called "hardcore roleplayers" who hated the lack of RPG elements in ME2. Guess not . Right now, in Dragon Age, there are times where the game feels like a dungeon crawler with romances and a few chatty bits rather than a true RPG that really gives you the freedom to tackle challenges and experience the game in a unique manner. Occasionally, you can avoid combat for a few parts of the game, but that doesn't really do anything for you except leave you short of loot to sell and XP.

[Indoctrination]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Indoctrination, why was it bad for ME2, and why is it bad for Dragon Age?

It's a bad system because it gives the same amount of EXP to people who put in the minimal effort to finish something and people who put in the maximum effort to finish something. You want to talk about taking away motivation to do quests in different ways? How about changing quests so that doing anything past the bare minimum is a waste of time because you get the same rewards regardless? Why would I go out of my way to check every room looking for goodies and enemies to battle when I would get the same amount of items and EXP from just running to the end? It takes fun out of exploring every inch of the game.

Also, in ME2 the bad EXP system went hand-in-hand with a really bad level cap which made it so you could easily reach the level cap with many missions left to complete, essentially leaving you with hours of game play where you have no character progression. This also is one of the reasons why ME2's NG+ is kind of pointless and not worth doing.

[AlanC9]

Indoctrination wrote...
It's a bad system because it gives the same amount of EXP to people who put in the minimal effort to finish something and people who put in the maximum effort to finish something.

Noncombat = no effort, combat = effort???? Have you actually played DA?

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 juillet 2010 - 01:37 .

[Dick Delaware]

Indoctrination wrote...

It's a bad system because it gives the same amount of EXP to people who put in the minimal effort to finish something and people who put in the maximum effort to finish something. You want to talk about taking away motivation to do quests in different ways? How about changing quests so that doing anything past the bare minimum is a waste of time because you get the same rewards regardless? Why would I go out of my way to check every room looking for goodies and enemies to battle when I would get the same amount of items and EXP from just running to the end? It takes fun out of exploring every inch of the game.

Also, in ME2 the bad EXP system went hand-in-hand with a really bad level cap which made it so you could easily reach the level cap with many missions left to complete, essentially leaving you with hours of game play where you have no character progression. This also is one of the reasons why ME2's NG+ is kind of pointless and not worth doing.

Why should you be rewarded more for going into a room and shooting a bunch of geth and taking stuff than a player, who, say, hacks into a mainframe and shuts them down?  But that's the precise problem with XP per kill - it encourages the player to just do things like head into rooms and brainlessly shoot things for more XP, and is partially the cause for the mostly poor encounter design in Origins. How many of times in Origins were you mobbed up by groups of enemies that had the exact same tactics, roughly the same numbers, doing the same things? A lot. And I'd bet that the bias towards XP per kill had a great deal to do with that. Well, that and the desire to pad the game out so people have a 70 hour time sink. And of course, the player doesn't mind the repetitive filler combat as much because they're getting more XP. It's really a cover-up for bad design.

Also, what do you mean by bare minimum? Whether you kill 50 geth on a base or 40, you're still doing the exact same quest in the exact same way with probably the same result. It doesn't really alter the way you experience the game, the way that say playing a Nosferatu would change the experience of Bloodlines to that of a Toreador. You're not completing the quest in a more thorough manner, you're just shooting more things.

It's not thorough in the sense that say, getting a quest to save villagers from Darkspawn, then doing so without any loss of life is more through than saving the village with only a few civilians left standing and getting more XP for the former. You didn't do something more intelligently, solve a quest in the most optimal manner - all you did was level grind for XP and loot. Why should the game reward you for that?

And really, that's the fundamental problem with XP per kill, and where a hybrid style would be infinitely better. It just confines you to one style of play (killing everything) instead of offering the player more creative options on how to do things and really allow for some real role-play finally. There was lot of great discussion in the past couple of pages, look at it if you haven't done so.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 22 juillet 2010 - 01:44 .

[Indoctrination]

AlanC9 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...
It's a bad system because it gives the same amount of EXP to people who put in the minimal effort to finish something and people who put in the maximum effort to finish something.

Noncombat = no effort, combat = effort???? Have you actually played DA?

Please do not re-write my posts. I do not re-write your posts, so please show me the same courtesy. Did I say anything about no effort? No, I did not. That is something you made up. I said MINIMAL effort and MAXIMUM effort. Do you understand the difference between those two terms and the words you just tried to shove into my mouth?

[AlanC9]

ElectricWizard wrote...

because then, the problem becomes that people will STOP fighting and start taking the "secret route" everytime it is presented to them because "they get bored of fighting everything" (I can see it now)

in effect turning DA2 into a roleplayed espionage game.

Dragon Cell: Hawkeviction

This confuses me. How is players playing a game the way they want to play it a problem?

[AlanC9]

Indoctrination wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...
It's a bad system because it gives the same amount of EXP to people who put in the minimal effort to finish something and people who put in the maximum effort to finish something.

Noncombat = no effort, combat = effort???? Have you actually played DA?

Please do not re-write my posts. I do not re-write your posts, so please show me the same courtesy. Did I say anything about no effort? No, I did not. That is something you made up. I said MINIMAL effort and MAXIMUM effort. Do you understand the difference between those two terms and the words you just tried to shove into my mouth?

Suit yourself

Noncombat = minimal effort, combat = maximum effort? Have you actually played DA?

[Dick Delaware]

Indoctrination wrote...
Please do not re-write my posts. I do not re-write your posts, so please show me the same courtesy. Did I say anything about no effort? No, I did not. That is something you made up. I said MINIMAL effort and MAXIMUM effort. Do you understand the difference between those two terms and the words you just tried to shove into my mouth?

Regardless, why would a non-combat solution contain any less "effort" than a combat solution? And, what do you mean by effort? Discovering documents, solving puzzles to avoid traps, getting the right information from NPC's in order to complete a quest - as cited in the article I linked to on page 8, all of that stuff takes effort too.

[iTomes]

well i dont think that exp per kill makes players running around and kill everything... i mean sure if you are on a total hack-and-slay action rpg trip, then yes, but i never found myself "uhhh i dont want to kill these guys but i have to for the exp". max level is twenty and you dont have to commit genocide on everything out there to get to that level. besides, you could simply add experience points for those who go the peacefull way. that way noone would be "forced" to fight. BUT if im going in a room and kill a bunch of enemys it still doesn't make sense to get no exp for it. i mean, im fightening here, i want my reward.

[AlanC9]

I guess my question is what good is kill XP in the first place. You'll get XP in some fashion. What's the advantage of getting it specifically from kills, besides that D&D did it that way and you're used to it now?

[Aratham Darksight]

Indoctrination wrote...

It's a bad system because it gives the same amount of EXP to people who put in the minimal effort to finish something and people who put in the maximum effort to finish something. You want to talk about taking away motivation to do quests in different ways? How about changing quests so that doing anything past the bare minimum is a waste of time because you get the same rewards regardless? Why would I go out of my way to check every room looking for goodies and enemies to battle when I would get the same amount of items and EXP from just running to the end? It takes fun out of exploring every inch of the game.

I don't recall anyone advocating that items should only be given on quest completion, just that there should be less emphasis on generic junk dropped by generic guards/monsters. Regardless of how XP is handled, exploration still gets you rare items, codex entires and optional story elements, sidequest material, unique encounters, etc.

Again, if exploration itself isn't interesting without numbers constantly increasing at the bottom of the screen, doesn't that mean that the game is doing something very wrong and compensating for it by rewarding you with pats on the head?

Also, in ME2 the bad EXP system went hand-in-hand with a really bad level cap which made it so you could easily reach the level cap with many missions left to complete, essentially leaving you with hours of game play where you have no character progression. This also is one of the reasons why ME2's NG+ is kind of pointless and not worth doing.

I don't see why ME2's level cap is inherently linked to its system of XP gain. You can put a low level cap on any game. I remember hitting the XP cap in both Baldur's Gate games and KotOR well before I ran out of things to do.

[Indoctrination]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Why should you be rewarded more for going into a room and shooting a bunch of geth and taking stuff than a player, who, say, hacks into a mainframe and shuts them down?

Because you put in the extra effort. More effort should result in more rewards. If there's zero rewards then why bother doing anything past what you have to do?

But that's the precise problem with XP per kill - it encourages the player to just do things like head into rooms and brainlessly shoot things for more XP, and is partially the cause for the mostly poor encounter design in Origins.

As opposed to no EXP per kill where the player brainlessly runs to the end? *shrug*

How many of times in Origins were you mobbed up by groups of enemies that had the exact same tactics, roughly the same numbers, doing the same things? A lot. And I'd bet that the bias towards XP per kill had a great deal to do with that. Well, that and the desire to pad the game out so people have a 70 hour time sink. And of course, the player doesn't mind the repetitive filler combat as much because they're getting more XP. It's really a cover-up for bad design.

I'm sorry that you felt that Dragon Age was badly designed. I rather enjoyed it, and yes I enjoyed killing things and receiving rewards for them. I did not enjoy doing missions in Mass Effect which offered me no reason to explore anything except to find extra wall safes, and then offered me no reason to do side missions at all once I reached the silly level cap.

Also, what do you mean by bare minimum? Whether you kill 50 geth on a base or 40, you're still doing the exact same quest in the exact same way with probably the same result. It doesn't really alter the way you experience the game, the way that say playing a Nosferatu would change the experience of Bloodlines to that of a Toreador. You're not completing the quest in a more thorough manner, you're just shooting more things.

If I go out of my way to kill an extra hall of enemies the game rewards me with more EXP, which gives me more power. I have an incentive to go out of my way and fight the good fight a little longer before reaching my goal. Under the ME2 system, you can just ignore everything except the bare minimum you need to complete a mission and get the same amount of EXP. That's what i mean about bare minimum effort receiving the same rewards as maximum effort.

It's not thorough in the sense that say, getting a quest to save villagers from Darkspawn, then doing so without any loss of life is more through than saving the village with only a few civilians left standing and getting more XP for the former. You didn't do something more intelligently, solve a quest in the most optimal manner - all you did was level grind for XP and loot. Why should the game reward you for that?

Well apparently, I love repeating myself, so I'll answer that question. If you put in more effort, then you should get more of a reward. Sorry, but sneaking by an enemy and choosing "[lockpicking] open door" does not make you look more intelligent or clever. You went up to a door, pressed a putting on your keyboard or controller, and passed a check on your lockpicking skill. If that makes you feel smart, well more power to you then. You can not however argue that solving a problem that way requires as much or more effort than fighting a horde of enemies who have the potential to end your game.

And really, that's the fundamental problem with XP per kill, and where a hybrid style would be infinitely better. It just confines you to one style of play (killing everything) instead of offering the player more creative options on how to do things and really allow for some real role-play finally. There was lot of great discussion in the past couple of pages, look at it if you haven't done so.

Again, like I said before, the opposite side of the spectrum is just as constricting. There's no point in putting in more effort, so there's no need to do it. In fact, under the ME2 system DA2 would be PUNISHING you for not taking the easiest and quiestest way out. If you do anything else, then the mission takes longer to complete for no extra reward.

Modifié par Indoctrination, 22 juillet 2010 - 03:48 .

[Indoctrination]

AlanC9 wrote...

Suit yourself

Noncombat = minimal effort, combat = maximum effort? Have you actually played DA?

You're not exactly debating my points here. You're just trying to dismiss what I say without actually addressing anythig I say. Yes, picking a dialogue option like "[persuade] you had better not fight me!" requires less effort than fighting a horde of baddies.

[AlanC9]

Indoctrination wrote...
You're not exactly debating my points here. You're just trying to dismiss what I say without actually addressing anythig I say. Yes, picking a dialogue option like "[persuade] you had better not fight me!" requires less effort than fighting a horde of baddies.

Really? An awful lot of DA fights require no effort. Not quite as bad as IE trash fights, but still, no effort. I'll have to sit there and mash a few buttons for a while, but it's not what I call effort.

But let's say that mashing those buttons feels like work to someone -- after all, not everyone is as awesome at RPGs as I am. Why should XP be a reward for the player's effort, as opposed to a reward for the character's success? You didn't even try to make a case there.

[AlanC9]

Indoctrination wrote...
If I go out of my way to kill an extra hall of enemies the game rewards me with more EXP, which gives me more power. I have an incentive to go out of my way and fight the good fight a little longer before reaching my goal. Under the ME2 system, you can just ignore everything except the bare minimum you need to complete a mission and get the same amount of EXP. That's what i mean about bare minimum effort receiving the same rewards as maximum effort.

That's exactly the problem. You're rewarding the player for doing something stupid. A rational solider fights when the mission requires it.

[Indoctrination]

AlanC9 wrote...

Really? An awful lot of DA fights require no effort. Not quite as bad as IE trash fights, but still, no effort. I'll have to sit there and mash a few buttons for a while, but it's not what I call effort. But let's say that mashing those buttons feels like work to someone -- after all, not everyone is as awesome at RPGs as I am. Why should XP be a reward for the player's effort, as opposed to a reward for the character's success? You didn't even try to make a case there.

You're still dodging all of my points. Answer this question for me: Which requires more effort, killing a horde of enemies or picking a dialogue option? I'd like a very simply answer to this please, and not more attempts to dodge my points. Thank you.

AlanC9 wrote...

That's exactly the problem. You're
rewarding the player for doing something stupid. A rational solider
fights when the mission requires it.

First of all, Hawke isn't a soldier. Secondly, it's a fantasy-romantic driven game. Getting into huge battles is part of the excitement. Lastly, if you truly think fighting is "stupid", then maybe these games just aren't for you. Try a visual novel or something. I keep hearing great things about Tsukihime. No combat at all. Just plot and a decision every now and then. Maybe that would be a better option for you.

Modifié par Indoctrination, 22 juillet 2010 - 02:43 .

[iTomes]

AlanC9 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...
If I go out of my way to kill an extra hall of enemies the game rewards me with more EXP, which gives me more power. I have an incentive to go out of my way and fight the good fight a little longer before reaching my goal. Under the ME2 system, you can just ignore everything except the bare minimum you need to complete a mission and get the same amount of EXP. That's what i mean about bare minimum effort receiving the same rewards as maximum effort.

That's exactly the problem. You're rewarding the player for doing something stupid. A rational solider fights when the mission requires it.

yup, but the rational soldier is an ****. íf youre having a base full of mass-murdering-raping-enslaving-whatever-psych criminals you could say for everyone you kill you save someone elses life. and i want to be rewarded for saving someone elses live, goddammit, even if its just a little xp.

[Aratham Darksight]

Indoctrination wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That's exactly the problem. You're
rewarding the player for doing something stupid. A rational solider
fights when the mission requires it.

First of all, Hawke isn't a soldier. Secondly, it's a fantasy-romantic driven game. Getting into huge battles is part of the excitement. Lastly, if you truly fighting is "stupid", then maybe these games just aren't for you. Try a visual novel or something. I keep hearing great things about Tsukihime. No combat at all. Just plot and a decision every now and then. Maybe that would be a better option for you.

So, what you're saying is that the game should encourage the player to play like Sir Lancelot from Quest for the Holy Grail?

[Indoctrination]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

So, what you're saying is that the game should encourage the player to play like Sir Lancelot from Quest for the Holy Grail?

Well, no, I was trying to say that the game should play like Dragon Age. Good guess though.

[Tirigon]

Indoctrination wrote...

Aratham Darksight wrote...

So, what you're saying is that the game should encourage the player to play like Sir Lancelot from Quest for the Holy Grail?

Well, no, I was trying to say that the game should play like Dragon Age. Good guess though.

So you´re saying the game should have lots of pointless fights whose only reason is to fight?

If we´re talking about a Hack´n´Slash, Ißd agree.

In an RPG, not so much.

[Indoctrination]

Tirigon wrote...

So you´re saying the game should have lots of pointless fights whose only reason is to fight? If we´re talking about a Hack´n´Slash, Ißd agree. In an RPG, not so much.

Well if you read my very first post in this topic, you would have seen that I do believe that there are compromises. I was just caught a little off guard by some of the silly posts here like the one which condemns combat as "stupid." I'm almost willing to believe that some of these people would be happier if they made DA2 into Metal Gear Kirkwall or something. Really now.

[Aratham Darksight]

Tirigon wrote...

So you´re saying the game should have lots of pointless fights whose only reason is to fight?

If we´re talking about a Hack´n´Slash, Ißd agree.

In an RPG, not so much.

No, you misunderstand. The reason for the pointless fighting is not to fight. That would be completely boring and uninteresting. The reason is to make the XP counter constantly go up in small increments.

[Tirigon]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

No, you misunderstand. The reason for the pointless fighting is not to fight. That would be completely boring and uninteresting. The reason is to make the XP counter constantly go up in small increments.

And that´s so much more interesting.... I see...