702 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I don't especially care how many levels are in a game. My problem with CRPGs starting with, I guess, NWN1's OC is that they run you up to the top of the scale in the first installment, which causes problems when you want to do a sequel.



ME1 I give a pass; starting Shepard at level 1 didn't make sense in the first place, so running him up to the top of his world's scale couldn't break anything any worse than it was already broken.

[DPB]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't especially care how many levels are in a game. My problem with CRPGs starting with, I guess, NWN1's OC is that they run you up to the top of the scale in the first installment, which causes problems when you want to do a sequel.

I don't think high level combat has ever been done particularly very well in a CRPG - you end up with situations like in Throne of Bhaal where a lowly bandit or soldier carries +3 weapons and would probably able to take on most enemies in the previous games single-handedly. That's one reason why I'm glad we're not carrying on with the same character in DA2, combat wouldn't be plausible anymore.

[Orchomene]

Exactly : the important part is the power you have in the end of the game. The concept of begining as a poor farmer and ending as powerful as a god in a single game doesn't allow much place to either a sequel or a 'no level scaling' concept. Of course, it gives the 'epic' feeling, but with a good story, it's not really necessary to be a half god at the end. That was the base of a game designed as a trilogy like BG. During BG, you go from level 1 to level between 7 and 9 (more or less) and in BG 2 from those levels to levels around 17. I don't understand why they didn't use this system in ME, but it's their choice.

But the point was just to say that xp system may be tailored to allow a slower progression curve from begining to end of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Orchomene wrote...

That was the base of a game designed as a trilogy like BG. During BG, you go from level 1 to level between 7 and 9 (more or less) and in BG 2 from those levels to levels around 17. I don't understand why they didn't use this system in ME, but it's their choice.

I've long argued that the ideal rate of advancement is one level gained for every 10 hours of gameplay.

[Haexpane]

dbankier wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't especially care how many levels are in a game. My problem with CRPGs starting with, I guess, NWN1's OC is that they run you up to the top of the scale in the first installment, which causes problems when you want to do a sequel.

I don't think high level combat has ever been done particularly very well in a CRPG - you end up with situations like in Throne of Bhaal where a lowly bandit or soldier carries +3 weapons and would probably able to take on most enemies in the previous games single-handedly. That's one reason why I'm glad we're not carrying on with the same character in DA2, combat wouldn't be plausible anymore.

Everquest 1 handled expanded levels quite well after a few launch issues.  New continents, new creatures, new enemies.

Instead of "Bandits in full Deadric"  you get "Ice Bandits" with "ice armor/weapons"   A new type of bandit, something different.

That's how you handle new high levels, new challenges

[Monstruo696]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

That was the base of a game designed as a trilogy like BG. During BG, you go from level 1 to level between 7 and 9 (more or less) and in BG 2 from those levels to levels around 17. I don't understand why they didn't use this system in ME, but it's their choice.

I've long argued that the ideal rate of advancement is one level gained for every 10 hours of gameplay.

You can't be serious.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Monstruo696 wrote...

You can't be serious.

Why not?  10 hours is enough time to learn to use your new abilities effectively and then enjoy the fruits of those labours.

10 hours/level was roughly the advancement rate in Baldur's Gate.

[Monstruo696]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

You can't be serious.

Why not?  10 hours is enough time to learn to use your new abilities effectively and then enjoy the fruits of those labours.

10 hours/level was roughly the advancement rate in Baldur's Gate.

How many levels did BG have?
How many hours did it take to complete BG?

I've never played BG and came late to this thread, so I'm assuming you're speaking of applying said 10hpl system to DAII, which has the same system as DA:O.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 27 juillet 2010 - 07:51 .

[soteria]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

You can't be serious.

Why not?  10 hours is enough time to learn to use your new abilities effectively and then enjoy the fruits of those labours.

10 hours/level was roughly the advancement rate in Baldur's Gate.

That's part of why I really didn't like that game.  Not because you level slowly, but because low-level DnD characters are borderline unplayable, and you spend something like a quarter of the game from level 1-3.  For many characters, combat was as exciting as clicking on the wolf and hoping you one-shot it before it one-shots you.  One thing the NWN games did right was speed you through those low levels.  I don't necessarily disagree that 10 hours is too long to spend at a level, but in Baldur's Gate it was bad because you had no abilities to learn in the first place.

[Tirigon]

Haexpane wrote...

Everquest 1 handled expanded levels quite well after a few launch issues.  New continents, new creatures, new enemies.

Instead of "Bandits in full Deadric"  you get "Ice Bandits" with "ice armor/weapons"   A new type of bandit, something different.

That's how you handle new high levels, new challenges

Lol.

Just how exactly is it better to have new enemies if they are, essentially, the same as before with a new name?

Reminds me of Borderland´s "Badass" and "Badmutha" creatures. They sucked.

[Orchomene]

Sure, first levels in AD&D 2nd edition were a bit tough. But around level 4, it becomes more interesting. I'm not at all against a low progression system, maybe not to the point of D&D, but say, at D&D equivalence, going from level 3 to level 9 in a game and then above in an extension would be more interesting than going from level 5 to level 20.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Monstruo696 wrote...

How many levels did BG have?

7-9 depending on your class (I'm assuming the TotSC expansion is installed)

How many hours did it take to complete BG?

80-100.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

That's part of why I really didn't like that game.  Not because you level slowly, but because low-level DnD characters are borderline unplayable, and you spend something like a quarter of the game from level 1-3.

That's not an uncommon opinion, and is the reason many D&D games start at level 3.

I don't share that opinion (I like the extremely low levels), particularly becaus BG's design was such that if you stayed on the road you weren't likely to encounter anything more threatening than a couple of diseased gibberlings (1/2 HD creatures).  The wolf you describe (a 3 HD creature) is a signficantly more dangerous opponent.

That you were allowed to venture off the road and encounter enemies which were so vastly more powerful than you is, I think, a strength of the game. 

[angj57]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't especially care how many levels are in a game. My problem with CRPGs starting with, I guess, NWN1's OC is that they run you up to the top of the scale in the first installment, which causes problems when you want to do a sequel.

ME1 I give a pass; starting Shepard at level 1 didn't make sense in the first place, so running him up to the top of his world's scale couldn't break anything any worse than it was already broken.

The thing I like about Mass Effect is that it doesn't assume that level 1 Shepard means rookie Shepard with no skill. For example, in ME2 you start out at level 1-3, but the game already conceeds that even at level one you have certain skills, like weapon skills, that you had to develop with xp in the first game. This helps get around the problem of super high-level combat that comes with most sequels. One of the things that kept me from enjoying Awakenings was how ridiculously fast you leveled up and how ridiculously powerful you and your enemies were. Most bandits gave you about as much experience as killing the Archdemon did and were more powerful than bosses like Loghain, which made no sense.

Really I think the best way to handle sequels is just to lower the characters level back down, whether arbitrarily or via plot device. It is better than the alternatives-- which are either to make combat silly or to ditch a perfectly good character just because he has reached a certain level in a previous game.

As to the original post, I guess I agree. Getting rid of xp for kills emphasizes the "role playing" part of a "role playing game." But I think a lot of people associate d&d style combat with role playing for whatever reasons and there would be all the usual accusations of "this isn't a role playing game anymore" and the like. It probably wouldn't be a popular move. Besides, as long as there is loot then there is still an incentive to sweep through a dungeon killing everything rather than acting rationally, xp or not.

Modifié par angj57, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:36 .

[Vandrayke]

lol 10 hours for one level... come on

[Vandrayke]

the idea that I'd play a game all day long and only gain one level is hilarious

[Vandrayke]

Either way I'm all about fewer, more significant levels. But they should be structured in a way that a 10th-level character can do a lot more than a level 1 character, not in a way that the 10th-level character simply has 11ty hit points and does 11ty damage per attack. That feels so cheap.

[yoda23]

Why not just remove XP all together? Hey I have an idea, remove XP and Character Creation, yeah that's it, remove all the RPG stuff from the RPG's so they will play more like action games, Man I really wish Bioware would start making great RPG's already just without all the RPG stuff included... ;P

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vandrayke wrote...

the idea that I'd play a game all day long and only gain one level is hilarious

Gaining levels isn't my primary objective in-game.  Is it yours?

[yoda23]

Sry I forgot, this is where some of you tell me that Bioware doesn't make RPG's... How silly of me...

Modifié par yoda23, 28 juillet 2010 - 05:55 .

[angj57]

yoda23 wrote...

Why not just remove XP all together? Hey I have an idea, remove XP and Character Creation, yeah that's it, remove all the RPG stuff from the RPG's so they will play more like action games, Man I really wish Bioware would start making great RPG's already just without all the RPG stuff included... ;P

Yeah!! We should reject any new idea about how to imrpove RPGs simply because they are new and would be different! Change sucks! Bioware should go back to a 2D turn based system, that would be a REAL rpg!!

[yoda23]

angj57 wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

Why not just remove XP all together? Hey I have an idea, remove XP and Character Creation, yeah that's it, remove all the RPG stuff from the RPG's so they will play more like action games, Man I really wish Bioware would start making great RPG's already just without all the RPG stuff included... ;P

Yeah!! We should reject any new idea about how to imrpove RPGs simply because they are new and would be different! Change sucks! Bioware should go back to a 2D turn based system, that would be a REAL rpg!!

New Ideas for improving RPG's would be great but I was stupid to assume anyone here would remember the great games Bioware made sans all the "help" on these boards... Give it a rest already. Bioware doesn't need any "help" from the fake gamers on here, go back to your xbox controllers little critters and leave bioware the alone....<3

[Massadonious1]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

the idea that I'd play a game all day long and only gain one level is hilarious

Gaining levels isn't my primary objective in-game.  Is it yours?

It depends on the rate of advancement you get per level. If it's siginificant enough that I can still get to experience the main narrative without any significant struggle, then that would be fine.

If it is like it is in Origins, I'd rather save myself the fustration of trying to complete the Brecillian Forrest questline at level 1 or the Orzammar questline at level 3.