702 réponses à ce sujet

[Haexpane]

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

Apparently you have a geenie in a bottle because the wish has already been granted

[Haexpane]

yoda23 wrote...

  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

Someone needs a timeout

[Haexpane]

Cynical Being wrote...

  and the only decisions that seemed to matter at all were those at the Landsmeet. I suppose they're is alot that could be made better, for any game. 

Anyway, to be more on topic.. Significant leveling! Woot! 

 I just finished 2nd playthrough of DAO, and I having already played it with another toon, for some reason I had the same idea, that Landsmeet was important.

But on playthrough 2 I realized that the results of Landsmeet really didn't matter.  One way or the other, I would lose 2 characters, it was simply, which 2?

I thought the final battle was longer, so I never even used the Elves or Templars,  Archdemon was dead and I was like, OHH SNAP bag o chips!, I forgot to summon the templars.

I was waiting for a bunch of mages or something to show up.

Of course I also cheese out and had the weak characters fire the crossbow cannons until they expired

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...
 

It is true: The worst things about RPG is the so-called "RPG-Elements" like leveling, which, in fact, have nothing to do with roleplaying.

We should get rid of them.

You're mixing LARP w/ videogames, always dangerous.

Videogames are software, they are 100% dependent on systems.  

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...
 
Well, this is again a personal opinion. I would dare to disagree:

In fact, the necessity of dice rolling (that means, luck instead of skill) is the reason why I prefer PC games over tabletop -

not only in RPGs but also in RTS games and everything else that exists both as PC game and tabletop / cardgame / whatever else.

Imo, luck shouldn´t play a role in a game but only skill.

 I dont tabletop, but Dice Rolling for videogames started on the PC FYI

[Haexpane]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Do you honestly believe there is no randomness in the results of your own actions?

Numerical statistical systems are excellent at representing personal ability. Remember that the whole point is that the character on the screen is not you, and is not represented by your skill. The "dice rolling" provides the natural element of randomness, while the rest of the system represents the "skill" of the character. Odds of success increase as the character gains experience. That's just like real life.

It's not you. It's the character on the screen. So your physical skill should have nothing to do with it. That's role playing.

Final Fantasy X would fit his desire, the attacks are always for the same amount, no dice rolls, no variation. IMO one of the worst RPG combat systems ever created.

Oddly FFX has a mini game Blitzball which factors stats and chance in a lot more, it was a lot of fun actually compared to the FFX mainquest

[the_one_54321]

FFX had a fantastic leveling system though. Lots of freedom but still with distinct progression.

FFXII still has my favorite RPG combat system of all time.

[angj57]

Haexpane, posting eight times in a row hijacks the thread and really screws with the discussion.



I agree with you that the Baldur's Gate series was one of the great series ever made-- I would say BG2 and Mass Effect 2 are pretty much tied as my favorite games. But do remember that Baldur's Gate 1 was a pretty radical shift for RPGs in that it scrapped the old turn based system and went with real time gameplay. I'm sure a lot of purists thought that this was blasphemy and was pandering to casual gamers, but looking back it was a logical change which kept the important aspects of RPGs while improving the gameplay experience. Try and keep an open mind.

[Vaeliorin]

angj57 wrote...
But do remember that Baldur's Gate 1 was a pretty radical shift for RPGs in that it scrapped the old turn based system and went with real time gameplay. I'm sure a lot of purists thought that this was blasphemy and was pandering to casual gamers, but looking back it was a logical change which kept the important aspects of RPGs while improving the gameplay experience. Try and keep an open mind.

It made the gameplay experience worse.

Turn-based forever!


:innocent:


Oh, and yeah, xp per kill is kind of traditional, and certainly old school, but I think it's something that would be better done away with, unless it's a game that's largely focused on combat.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

[quote]Haexpane wrote...

No one said "ANy variation"  just that, we would not have had BG2 as we know and love it.  BG2 stands alone, lightning in a bottle if you were. 

[/quote]
 
You said explicitly that removing xp per kill would be a rejection of the inspiration of Baldur's Gate 2.  That seems to me to be a pretty minor variation.  This is particularly true in light of the fact that designers using xp have to count every point up to control pacing. 

I disagree with you that most minor variations would have resulted in something vastly different.  Certainly large changes would have had a greater impact, but you wouldn't have had BG to compare it to.  The same team would have produced a great game, no matter what the ruleset, and I suspect you would have loved it every bit as much, because it would have been what had given you joy.  If you'd never played with xp per kill, do you really think you would have invented the idea to improve whatever games you'd played?


[quote]

Nope, removing *core* mechanics would tho

[/quote]

You consider xp per kill a core mechanic?  I would consider levelling a core mechanic.  The manner in which those levels are reached is pretty superficial.  I come down on the side of streamlining, as has no doubt been made clear by now.

[quote]

Nope, BG2 is a licensed product, so theme and atmosphere were 100% off limits.  The idea was to capture the type of game, and general "swords and magic and dragons" party based western RPG

[/quote]

You completely lost me here.  Are you really suggesting that theme and atmosphere can be licensed as IP?

[quote]
Indeed, another licensing issue, although Bioware has stated repeatedly that they prefer the make your own rules w/ DA approach.

I would counter that BG2 has much better and more balanced gameplay, so "make your own rules" is more FUN for developers, trying to stick to the AD&D ruleset at the time made for a better game

[/quote]

I'm not sure Bioware's developing its own system was a licensing issue.  Trying to shoehorn a tabletop system into a computer game can be difficult.  Hell, D&D has found rules bloat difficult to shoehorn into its own system, particularly in 3rd Edition.

I'm not sure what you mean by balanced gameplay in BG2.  AD&D 2E wasn't even well-balanced internally as a tabletop game.  D&D has spent two editions trying to iron out the imbalances, in fact.


[quote]

I am not disagreeing that lack of combat XP would not work functionally.  I am stating that lack of combat XP would removing a lot of the fun from combat.

[/quote]

Which is a good argument for making the combat fun in and of itself, and this is the direction Bioware is taking.  If I don't like the gameplay, a "50xp" floating over a slain enemy won't retroactively make the action entertaining.  I prefer the model in which the player concentrates on completing the mission, without worrying that he didn't dig all of the xp out of the entrails of every enemy in the area.

You apparently prefer the model in which rewards are given out more incrementally, and a game mechanic is installed to give the appearance of a functional difference.

There's no wrong answer here.  I'm not speaking out against xp per kill so much as the idea that there is some inherent tie to roleplaying in the mechanic.  I find a mission-centered approach to be more immersive, myself.  If I save the damsel in distress, I don't want to feel as though I've missed something by not exterminating three henchman in a dark corner somewhere.  Some gamers prefer sticking a blade into every nook and cranny (or crook and nanny, depending on the game style).

I would repeat, however, that if the action of the game isn't entertaining in itself, that the action of the game should be redesigned.

[quote]
 
This isn't war, it's art.  I'm not against the WoW model of combat.  The point is even KOTOR had better combat than DAO.

Dice Rolling isn't some "ancient technology" like stone tools.  It's a rule set that's constantly evolved and time tested, it's one of the few systems that has been PROVEN to be functional, fun and universal for BOTH table top and videogaming.

Everquest DPS model has not.  
[/quote]

Whether war or art, the media and the techniques still evolve.  There were no cubists among the Dutch Masters, but no one argued that Picasso wasn't painting or wasn't producing art.  Considering the evolution in RPG rulesets and computer technology, it would be strange and disappointing if CRPG's didn't start taking on some bold new qualities.

As for the die-rolling, my point is that BG had it built right into the design.  You could see your D20 roll right on the display.  You don't get that with DA:O.

It seems that you are largely untroubled by the differences between BG2 and DA:O, that none of them detracted from its quality as an RPG.  It seems odd that so many of the expected differences between DA:O and DA2 are deal-breakers for you.

[quote]
Personally, I like the differences between Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age as much as I enjoy the similarities.  I look forward to an improved design in DA2, as well.[/quote]

Everyone knew that's where you'd end up.   I'm not saying DA is bad.

But if you don't think BG2 is better, that's ok.  But it won't change BG2's place in history as one of the all time great games, that is still playable today even with it's 1917 graphics
[/quote]

I don't really have an opinion on whether BG or DA are better games.  It's a little like arguing over baseball players playing in different eras.  I think Ted Williams is the greatest hitter of all time.  If you think it was Babe Ruth, the best we can do is compare stats in different eras.  I'll point out that Williams lost big years to WW2 and the Korean War, and you'll point out that Ruth lost at-bats because he pitched.  I will then say that Williams was facing more sophisticated pitching and that Ruth would have been lucky to manage a .300 lifetime average, and you will tell me that's hogwash.

And there the argument ends.

Similarly, the Baldur's Gate series was a tour de force in its time.  I think DA suffered from being designed too much like Baldur's Gate, though.  Dragon Age should bring 12 years of tech advancement and learned lessons with it.  Did it?  I dunno.  I liked the approach in character and storytelling (romances excluded), and I liked the fact that I got to see the game world from eye level a bit.  DA also has the advantage of being something we'd seen before.

It reminds me of 3rd Edition D&D, in a way.  You could tell that the designers wanted to make a quantum change from the 2nd Edition rules, but they feared to change the game so much that it didn't look enough like D&D.  4th Edition took the changes much farther.  Similarly, I wonder if DA:O wasn't something of a jumping-off point.  An homage to BG, even as it prepared to move on.

Modifié par Tantum Dic Verbo, 29 juillet 2010 - 03:03 .

[Aradace]

Haexpane 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

Apparently you have a geenie in a bottle because the wish has already been granted

What are you complaining about? Youll still be able to customize Hawke....Just not choose his/her race.  When you argue the semantics of it, that is STILL character customization and creation....You're still picking his/her class....And still have level progression in DA2...So again, what are we complaining about?

[Nekator]

Aradace wrote...

Haexpane 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

Apparently you have a geenie in a bottle because the wish has already been granted

What are you complaining about? Youll still be able to customize Hawke....Just not choose his/her race.  When you argue the semantics of it, that is STILL character customization and creation....You're still picking his/her class....And still have level progression in DA2...So again, what are we complaining about?

People like you seemingly don´t get it... so why explain it ten times..

And no, XP per kill should be received.. in DA and ME.. it just sucks to kill a Boss and get  a lousy reward, if any at all for it.

[AlanC9]

When people just don't get something, maybe the problem is with the something that you want them to get, rather than with them.



As for your XP point, you say you need the rat chow right away to make winning a battle feel worthwhile?

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Nekator wrote...

People like you seemingly don´t get it... so why explain it ten times..

And no, XP per kill should be received.. in DA and ME.. it just sucks to kill a Boss and get  a lousy reward, if any at all for it.

Disagreement isn't a sign that people don't "get it".

XP per kill is semantic.  In a game with level advancement, the devs have to find a way to move your character along as you play.  Whether it's a "200 XP" floating over a carcass, or an increase in level at the end of the chapter, the reward was the same.  The difference is whether or not it becomes necessary to kill everything on the screen every time to avoid losing out, or whether options beside wholesale slaughter become available.

It's interesting to see how the argument for XP per kill starts as an ostensible defense of role-playing and descends into something out of the B.F. Skinner chapter of an entry-level Psychology class.

[the_one_54321]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
It's interesting to see how the argument for XP per kill starts as an ostensible defense of role-playing and descends into something out of the B.F. Skinner chapter of an entry-level Psychology class.

I am entirely just for keeping this about the game being about role playing. The less it resembles an action game or a shooter the better. Not that there is anything wrong with action games or shooters. I just don't want any peanut butter in my chocolate, and no chocolate in my peanut butter.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
It's interesting to see how the argument for XP per kill starts as an ostensible defense of role-playing and descends into something out of the B.F. Skinner chapter of an entry-level Psychology class.

I am entirely just for keeping this about the game being about role playing. The less it resembles an action game or a shooter the better. Not that there is anything wrong with action games or shooters. I just don't want any peanut butter in my chocolate, and no chocolate in my peanut butter.

This is a false dichotomy.  There is nothing about top-down tabletop mechanics that are necessarily part of a CRPG.  As a matter of fact, there are elements of the traditional tabletop game that detract from role-playing when shoved into a computer game.  There is nothing inherently more immersive about a squad-level tactical board game (which is the BG/DA/Traditional model)  than an action game or a shooter.

Yes, that model looks more like what I was doing in 1978 in my friend's dining room, reading out of a blue softcover book with a dragon on the cover.  But that has more to do with the facts that D&D evolved (rather haltingly, by the way) out of tabletop miniatures games which had nothing to do with role-playing themselves; and the fact that all we had were paper, pencils and dice.  There was no computer around to handle visual detail and math for us.

And this is the point to which I keep returning.  A great number of people seem to think that what they're used to actually defines the genre.  Just as our early childhood imprints upon us a certain worldview (which may vary wildly away from the rest of the world, depending on one's parents), our early experiences with a sort of game may tend to define the game for us.  My experiences in my friend's dining room almost 32 years ago does not define the RPG in some objective way.  If only defines how we had fun for a few afternoons, and it created no obligation in Bioware to design games in a futile attempt to recreate that experience.

[AlanC9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
It's interesting to see how the argument for XP per kill starts as an ostensible defense of role-playing and descends into something out of the B.F. Skinner chapter of an entry-level Psychology class.

Well, the start isn't unexpected. Since DA's brand identity is the game for real role-players, saying that your personal taste equals role-playing is a standard rhetorical move here.

But as someone upthread  (Aratham Darksight?) pointed out, using mission XP rather than kill XP was considered the epitome of role-playing up until ME2 did it.

[the_one_54321]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
This is a false dichotomy.  There is nothing about top-down tabletop mechanics that are necessarily part of a CRPG.  As a matter of fact, there are elements of the traditional tabletop game that detract from role-playing when shoved into a computer game.  There is nothing inherently more immersive about a squad-level tactical board game (which is the BG/DA/Traditional model)  than an action game or a shooter.

I feel your claim is inaccurate because the moment it becomes your reflexes and physical abilities deciding the outcomes in combat (read point reticule and shoot, or press button to swing sword) the role in the game has been replaced by you. And if the role is replaced by you then you are no longer role playing. Otherwise God of War is a role playing game, and The Legend of Zelda is a role playing game, and any game that has a complete story attached to it is automatically a role playing game. It's semantics, but it matters in terms of the definition of the game.

Tabletop mechanics are necessarily part of a CRPG because they create the imerision through the systematic removal of your own reflexes from the game. That makes the game about the role of the character and not about your own abilities.

[AlanC9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
.  A great number of people seem to think that what they're used to actually defines the genre.  Just as our early childhood imprints upon us a certain worldview (which may vary wildly away from the rest of the world, depending on one's parents), our early experiences with a sort of game may tend to define the game for us.  My experiences in my friend's dining room almost 32 years ago does not define the RPG in some objective way.  If only defines how we had fun for a few afternoons, and it created no obligation in Bioware to design games in a futile attempt to recreate that experience.

I think my receptiveness to changes in the CRPG model might really be due to my different PnP experience. My PnP group largely moved away from D&D to superior role-playing systems:  Champions, GURPS, etc. So when someone wants to do away with classes, kill XP, or loot, I've already been there.

OTOH, we abandoned D&D because it was failing us, so that doesn't really explain anything.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
My PnP group largely moved away from D&D to superior role-playing systems

I think you meant to say that you moved to systems that better suited your tastes. Although your phrasing does a lot to support your "we gravitate to what we're used to" claim.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
I feel your claim is inaccurate because the moment it becomes your reflexes and physical abilities deciding the outcomes in combat (read point reticule and shoot, or press button to swing sword) the role in the game has been replaced by you. And if the role is replaced by you then you are no longer role playing

While I agree this is a useful distinction, note that the intelligence and decision-making are always supplied by the player, so the distinction is between a game where some functions are handed off to the character and a game where fewer of those functions are handed off. Though a game can hand off some of the intelligence too, typically by making some dialog options unavailable to characters who don't pass a mental stat threshold.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I feel your claim is inaccurate because the moment it becomes your reflexes and physical abilities deciding the outcomes in combat (read point reticule and shoot, or press button to swing sword) the role in the game has been replaced by you. And if the role is replaced by you then you are no longer role playing

While I agree this is a useful distinction, note that the intelligence and decision-making are always supplied by the player, so the distinction is between a game where some functions are handed off to the character and a game where fewer of those functions are handed off. Though a game can hand off some of the intelligence too, typically by making some dialog options unavailable to characters who don't pass a mental stat threshold.

You're right. But it's unlikely that a game will ever really be able to fully remedy this. However, there is something to be said for the notion that a game could lose its fun very quickly if you aren't even allowed to think about the actions you choose. Hard to say.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I think you meant to say that you moved to systems that better suited your tastes. Although your phrasing does a lot to support your "we gravitate to what we're used to" claim.

No, I really do mean superior. Champions, for instance, encourages individualized role-playing through the psychological limitations mechanism. (For those who haven't played it, a character's starting points are increased if he takes disadvantages. If you have a character with a defined personality, you get free points, in a sense; since you were going to play the character that way anyway, you might as well take a psych limitation and get points for it).

AD&D, meanwhile, not only doesn't support individualized characters, but is designed to enforce class-based stereotypes; the DMG is absolutely explicit on this point.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
AD&D, meanwhile, not only doesn't support individualized characters, but is designed to enforce class-based stereotypes; the DMG is absolutely explicit on this point.

But not D&D3.x. You are free to customize your character as much as you wish. The players handbook and DMG are very clear about creating as much freedom in design and in personality as possible.

[Vaeliorin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
AD&D, meanwhile, not only doesn't support individualized characters, but is designed to enforce class-based stereotypes; the DMG is absolutely explicit on this point.

But not D&D3.x. You are free to customize your character as much as you wish. The players handbook and DMG are very clear about creating as much freedom in design and in personality as possible.

The thing is, D&D 3.X (or any class-based system, really) fails to truly give you freedom to develop your character as you wish.  It forces abilities on you that you may not want.  For example, were I to want to make a smooth-talking, diplomat-type character, your best choice for that (at least in core 3.X) would be a rogue or bard.  But that means your smooth-talker who tries to avoid combat whenever possible knows how stab people in the back just right to make it hurt a heck of a lot more, even though knowing how to do that would be completely out of character for him, or knows magic and inspires people by singing/playing/oratory, which could be equally out of character (particularly the magic part.)

This is even further hurt by the idea of class skills.  For some reason my warrior can't be as good at diplomacy as a rogue (since diplomacy isn't a class skill for fighters and it is for rogues)?  How does that make any sense?  Or my veteran mercenary can't know how to use non-magical healing as well as a cleric, even if he's served as a field medic before...that doesn't make any sense at all.

Honestly, the whole idea of classes and levels is kind of an outdated concept, only really good if you want your characters to go from nobodies to tremendously powerful.  There are much better systems that do a better job of offering a much smoother power curve.

(Before anyone decides to call me a D&D hater or whatever, I have 2 bookshelves full of D&D stuff.  But D&D hasn't really progressed all that far from being a miniature-based wargame into being a game that lets you fully realize a character concept nearly exactly how you imagine it (within the limits of the campaign you're playing in.)  The simple fact of the matter is that there are systems that have been developed that do a much better job of incorporating the role-playing aspect into the whole game aspect, whereas in D&D they're largely 2 different things.)

Honestly, I'd much prefer a classless, levelless system that awarded xp on the basis of task completion (and role-playing, but that doesn't really work in a cRPG), that could then be spent on improving whatever aspects of your character were most appropriate (something like the old Storyteller system or 3rd Edition Shadowrun, I guess...I've not touched the newer editions, so I don't know if they're better or worse.)

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 29 juillet 2010 - 04:32 .