702 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

slimgrin wrote...

If we are to get xp only at the conclusion of a mission or quest, what about random encounters in between such quests?

You could treat each random encounter as a mini-quest with an XP reward at the end.

[Vandrayke]

hmm. Tough to figure out. The old model of leveling characters and looting everything feels really archaic. But it's hard to find out what to do instead... Oblivion's leveling makes sense conceptually but is really boring in practice and you end up doing outrageous things to maximize every level up. ME2 was great but the progression was so simple-feeling that I didn't even care about reaching the next level or not and sometimes just threw the points wherever after I got the one skill I actually wanted.

Maybe it would be possible to learn a trait from one of your companions while going on a given side quest; that could make some conceptual sense. And there are only X number of side quests and X number of companions, so there are only X "levels" that you can get. Maybe make progression feel more like character development and less like I'm doing math or something.

Modifié par Vandrayke, 25 juillet 2010 - 10:04 .

[Vandrayke]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

If we are to get xp only at the conclusion of a mission or quest, what about random encounters in between such quests?

You could treat each random encounter as a mini-quest with an XP reward at the end.

true... only instead of it saying HERE HAVE SOME XP, maybe there would be a scene transition where you could choose an action for your character to perform that would result in gaining X skill.  *shrug*

[Haexpane]

Since "Ninja gaiden" combat has been confirmed, we can safely assume Kill XP is gone too and we will get the gaudy "rank up/mission accomplished" screens like every other generic action game now

[Sharn01]

I would be ok with awarding XP based on missions and quests but I will not buy a game if I get teleported to the quest zone run through it in 20 minutes and teleport back to the ship with a mission complete screen ala ME2. It was one of the worst changes the game made with the sequel.

[Kileyan]

I fully admit I am an old school rpg player. I like the xps per kill. I also like trash loot I can sell. I like exploring every inch of the map, killing every critter, squeezing out every bit of xps I can, so that I can get that extra 2 points of skills that much earlier, so that I can play with more cool skills before the game is over.

If all that is removed, it just becomes a rush to get to the dialog and cutscenes in the quickest manner possible.

The side affect of such a game mechanic is the dev's convince themselves that areas don't need to be as big, there don't need to be easter eggs and hidden cool stuff. All they really need to do is create a narrow path to the big foozle at the end of each mission.

Now I know some of you are thinking, to combat that, all they have to do is add extra xps to the end mission screen if your explore everything, rather than running down the path directly to the end foozle.

At this point, what is the difference between giving xps per kill, or rewarding extra xps for exploring and defeating everything.

As for xps for not fighting at all. Is this that type of game? Sure some encounters can have peacefull, or trickery solution, and should reward the same xps as killing, That is a different story than changing the entire game to no xps at all for kills. Why make it harder than it needs to be. Just design the alternate solution encounters to give equal xps as killing, not remove all rewards for tracking down every combat, and enjoying the chance to get extra xp, is that is your playstyle. 

Modifié par Kileyan, 27 juillet 2010 - 03:12 .

[HTTP 404]

HTTP 404 disapproves -50 towards OP and kills OP for 5 xp.

[Bryy_Miller]

TMZuk wrote...

That's right. Get rid of the killpoints, and let us attempt to create a more "realistic" feel to the game when it comes to killing, instead of the legalized and glorified mass-murderer approach.

Wait, what?

[wwwwowwww]

Can't say I agree, experience is just that, experience for using your skills and getting better with them the more you use them. Yeah you might be able to justify giving a rogue experience for going through an entire temple avoiding fights, using stealth, setting traps and opening locks, hand out 1000xp when he/she hands in a treasure for quest points, but exactly how do you justify leveling up the fighter who didn't improve on any of his skillset?

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Kileyan wrote...

I fully admit I am an old school rpg player. I like the xps per kill. I also like trash loot I can sell. I like exploring every inch of the map, killing every critter, squeezing out every bit of xps I can, so that I can get that extra 2 points of skills that much earlier, so that I can play with more cool skills before the game is over.

I'm an old-schooler, too, but I think that's why I now prefer the idea of quest-based xp.  Of course, I also don't care for the normal levelling systems, either, so maybe I'm just being an iconoclast

[Gatt9]

Tirigon wrote...

BomimoDK wrote...

a game without a steady stream of XP would get boring because progression and sense of evolution would just not be there. Not saying that other genres are boring... but Da:O without XP... imagine the bore. no Dragon killing...

Oblivion had no steady stream of experience and it didn´t get boring (well it did, but only after I was too imba to enjoy a fight. 200% damage return + 100% spell reflection ftw:devil:)

Also, you would still level by exp from quests.


Edit: Also, there is a mod that makes leveling impossible, and while I haven´t played that way yet (hate the early levels cos of no spec yet), it seems quite well-liked by many people.

Oblivion isn't an RPG for a laundry list of reasons,  many of which are the same reasons Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG,  and so far it looks like many of which will prevent DA2 from being an RPG.

An RPG requires Character based skill,  all 3 look to be Player based skill,  which is the hallmark of shooters and adventure games.

The worst day in the history of gaming was when Final Fantasy 7 was released,  ever since then there's hordes of people who hate RPG's but want to think they're RPG players have been demanding every game be either Doom or Tomb Raider.

To put it bluntly,  if you think your ability to click a button should have any effect on a battle's outcome,  it's really likely you hate RPGs.

Modifié par Gatt9, 27 juillet 2010 - 04:04 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Gatt9 wrote...

Oblivion isn't an RPG for a laundry list of reasons,  many of which are the same reasons Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG,  and so far it looks like many of which will prevent DA2 from being an RPG.

An RPG requires Character based skill,  all 3 look to be Player based skill,  which is the hallmark of shooters and adventure games.

The worst day in the history of gaming was when Final Fantasy 7 was released,  ever since then there's hordes of people who hate RPG's but want to think they're RPG players have been demanding every game be either Doom or Tomb Raider.

To put it bluntly,  if you think your ability to click a button should have any effect on a battle's outcome,  it's really likely you hate RPGs.

Excuse me while I laugh at this posts pretentiousness.

[Massadonious1]

I take it he just auto attacks his way throughout all the "RPG's" he's played.

[Bryy_Miller]

"If you think this genre should be done like this, then that means you hate that genre."

[wwwwowwww]

When you cannot determine the personality of your character, take that character in a certain direction, build that character from the base up, it's not an RPG IMHO.

[Bryy_Miller]

wwwwowwww wrote...

When you cannot determine the personality of your character, take that character in a certain direction, build that character from the base up, it's not an RPG IMHO.

Well, in any game, you have limitations. RPGs included. Often times, RPGs have the MOST limitations. 

[Tirigon]

Kileyan wrote...


The side affect of such a game mechanic is the dev's convince themselves that areas don't need to be as big, there don't need to be easter eggs and hidden cool stuff. All they really need to do is create a narrow path to the big foozle at the end of each mission.

Halo has no levels and still has big areas and eastereggs.

[Tirigon]

Gatt9 wrote...


Oblivion isn't an RPG for a laundry list of reasons,  many of which are the same reasons Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG,  and so far it looks like many of which will prevent DA2 from being an RPG.

An RPG requires Character based skill,  all 3 look to be Player based skill,  which is the hallmark of shooters and adventure games.

The worst day in the history of gaming was when Final Fantasy 7 was released,  ever since then there's hordes of people who hate RPG's but want to think they're RPG players have been demanding every game be either Doom or Tomb Raider.

To put it bluntly,  if you think your ability to click a button should have any effect on a battle's outcome,  it's really likely you hate RPGs.

That´s bullsh!t, really.

Believe it or not, some people (like me) play RPGs for the Roleplaying not for the game mechanics.
Also, both ME2 and Oblivion require more Character-based skill than player-based.
Lastly, your ability to click on a button affects the outcome of a battle in DAO, too..........

[dragon_83]

Kileyan wrote...

 Just design the alternate solution encounters to give equal xps as killing, not remove all rewards for tracking down every combat, and enjoying the chance to get extra xp, is that is your playstyle. 

This. Removing xp for kill entirely is not a good ide IMO, but getting xp ONLY for killing isn't a good one either. Finishing a mission using stealth should yield the same ammount of xp as killing the beast. There should also be more missins when you can talk yourself out of a battle. You should get lots of xp for this too.

Modifié par dragon_83, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:10 .

[wwwwowwww]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

When you cannot determine the personality of your character, take that character in a certain direction, build that character from the base up, it's not an RPG IMHO.

Well, in any game, you have limitations. RPGs included. Often times, RPGs have the MOST limitations. 

Where did I mention limitations at all? 

[Orchomene]

In a RPG campaign, you could have preset characters, it happens. Roleplaying is not always choosing the personality of your character, it may also be playing a character with its own personality and maybe trying to push the evolution in some direction depending on what is is facing.

What is important in a RPG is the possibility to play a role (thus rules are required for some parts of the action resolutions, abilities/skills defining the character in some way), seeing some evolution in the personality and power (level based or not, slow or quick).

In a game where you have all freedom in defining your character, you will certainly face outcomes that are less strongly linked to your character (DM or designers can't really tailor scenarii for every kind of character). That's why, for ex, the origins are the most personal parts in DAO (tailored for the origin). In a scenario really linked to a specific character, you feel generally a higher link to the story (Planescape is a good ex).

In action-RPGs (as opposed to old school RPG), the leveling is generally very quick (see BG 1 leveling, it's slow as pain) and the equipment progression too. In such games, the story has not to be as strong as in 'non action' RPGs since the leveling and the 'loot' act as a drug to keep the attention of the players (see how many people play MMOs).

I wouldn't mind at all having a slow progression, a lower level at the end of the game if the story is very interesting. BG1 again as a reference.

[AlanC9]

Orchomene wrote...
In action-RPGs (as opposed to old school RPG), the leveling is generally very quick (see BG 1 leveling, it's slow as pain)

I'm not sure the old-schoolness of BG1 is the determining factor there. It's more likely to be related to the number of levels in the game. In really old-school games it's variable, IIRC. In the mid-period Ultimas levels come slowly, but that's because there are only eight levels total. In a Might and Magic you'd level fairly quickly.

Though OTOH nobody releases a game with few levels anymore. Personally, I blame Diablo.

[Haexpane]

20 levels is standard WRPG . 50 is the new standard, 70 is the kiddy standard



I thought 60 was a great level cap for EQOAF (PS2 EQ) as going from 50-60 took forever but when you finally got there, the power was worth it.