702 réponses à ce sujet

[Aratham Darksight]

Back when ME2 was released, it was amusing (and by amusing I mean exasperating) to see the concept of quest-only XP go from "holy grail of deep roleplaying" to "patronising kiddie s***" suddenly. It really drove home how many people hadn't played any RPG other than ME1 and thought it was the height of sophisticated RPG-ness.

Personally, I like the idea of getting most of the XP from quest advancement and only getting combat XP for major, optional battles. Things like beating the High Dragon or the Corpse Walkers, even if you don't have an explicit quest telling you to kill them.

[Sneelonz]

Well... I see where you're going with this, but I think that might be a little too much. What I hated more was when your companions stole your kills. I think instead of individual experience bars for each companion, your party members should just level up whenever you level up.

[Dick Delaware]

tmp7704 wrote...
But as long as about the only benefit of gaining the xp is unlocking new moves that allow one to kill things even more efficiently, associating this with activities which avoid combat doesn't make much sense nor has much to do with "allowing true role-play". If there's problem with the system here then it runs quite deeper, and that's by not providing player with options other than combat to begin with.

On the other hand, while the idea of providing other options can feel great in one's head, when you translate it into the game it can quickly turn into something even more simplistic and boring than the combat -- if the alternatives are to stealth past enemy or to threaten them in dialogue, and these involve just hitting the "stealth" button or activating the dialogue and selecting "threaten" option... well, that's not really much fun, is that?

This is valid, the current skill system doesn't really lend itself to giving the player different options. It's not like sneaking in Dragon Age would be a very satisfying path to take, since it's meant to be an abstraction and an aid to combat rather than a full-fledged path to complete missions. Likewise, there's only one dialogue skill, compared to dozens of talent trees. This is something I should have considered.

And I know what you mean about the binary nature of diplomacy - you get a check, and you either pass it or fail it. It's not like combat where you can have varying degrees of difficulty, different builds, etc.

However, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Look at the conversation with the desire demon in The Fade. I think that's a good example of a well-developed diplomatic encounter, because even though you might use diplomacy, there are several different ways of going about it. You can accept her deal and get a talent book, blood mage spec, or seXorz (though, why would you compared to the other options?). You can also intimidate her into giving you the talent book and leaving, though I'm pretty sure you need high stats, if it works at all.

Another great example of this is the templar being under the desire demon's spell. No persuasion checks there, but a lot of solid dialogue and an interesting choice. It added a lot to the atmosphere there and is a nice change of pace compared to just combat-combat-combat against mobs of enemies that with similar abilities.

It's not a simple matter of clicking the "threaten" button, then never having to deal with Jarvia's henchmen. It could have really used some alternate ways of doing things - it's not like it would have drastically altered the story or forced the devs to account for some serious consequences, but it would have been nice to have another way of doing things.

[Biserthebomb]

No.

[Dick Delaware]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

Back when ME2 was released, it was amusing (and by amusing I mean exasperating) to see the concept of quest-only XP go from "holy grail of deep roleplaying" to "patronising kiddie s***" suddenly. It really drove home how many people hadn't played any RPG other than ME1 and thought it was the height of sophisticated RPG-ness.

Personally, I like the idea of getting most of the XP from quest advancement and only getting combat XP for major, optional battles. Things like beating the High Dragon or the Corpse Walkers, even if you don't have an explicit quest telling you to kill them.

ME1 is serious arrpeegee. It's not like you can get to level 50 or 60 then pretty much max out all the skills you could possibly want, right? ME1 is a hard-core RPG because instead of having four bars for a skill in ME2, you have 12. That makes it like, at least 3 times more hardcore right there.

Yeah, I don't mind XP for boss battles either. It makes you feel awesome after going to toe-to-toe with a Revanent, You aren't exactly going to talk him into killing himself anyways, obviously.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 21 juillet 2010 - 06:08 .

[AlanC9]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

Back when ME2 was released, it was amusing (and by amusing I mean exasperating) to see the concept of quest-only XP go from "holy grail of deep roleplaying" to "patronising kiddie s***" suddenly. It really drove home how many people hadn't played any RPG other than ME1 and thought it was the height of sophisticated RPG-ness.

The really weird part was seeing people who actually have played lots of RPGs attack ME2 over this issue.

[ArcanistLibram]

It would work, but there wouldn't be much of a point unless the devs bothered to implement viable non-combat options for most encounters.

[Kalfear]

Slidell505 wrote...

Get. The. **** out.

So totally agree

If they went with ME2 bull**** sytem of mission xp in DA2.

I would never buy anouther Bioware product again in this life time!
That would literally be the final straw for me that broke my back!

Modifié par Kalfear, 21 juillet 2010 - 06:57 .

[DA Trap Star]

Slidell505 wrote...

Get. The. **** out.

+1

[Ravenwoud]

i certainly dont want that either. just mission xp, why bother attacking verything you see?

you can just say well they r dead meh whatever or you could fight to earn xp.



i didnt play ME1 but i did play ME2 and i know that its mission only xp system sucks like hell

[DA Trap Star]

Ravenwoud wrote...

i certainly dont want that either. just mission xp, why bother attacking verything you see?
you can just say well they r dead meh whatever or you could fight to earn xp.

i didnt play ME1 but i did play ME2 and i know that its mission only xp system sucks like hell

There already was mission XP, you got XP for every quest you finisheed. And you also got XP for codex entries. It wasn't all from killing.

[iTomes]

well i never really had a problem with the mass effect system but that is because i just dont care for my level. if im level 16 during the endboss fight of DA it doesnt make a real difference to me as if im 20. but besides, if youre making all random encounters and stuff missions, itll get this kindof boring....

[Dick Delaware]

ArcanistLibram wrote...

It would work, but there wouldn't be much of a point unless the devs bothered to implement viable non-combat options for most encounters.

Maybe they should do that.  I don't see why it's so difficult to implement, there are plenty of RPG's that allow you to solve quests without killing everything in sight. It's a shame that you don't get XP for say, convincing Ser Landry not to fight you.

DAII will still be a combat-heavy game, and that's fine (it's not setting itself up as a game like Fallout 1, anyways), but there should be some situations where alternate solutions are viable. Obviously, some parts will be completed using only combat (you're not going to start negotiating with brainless undead), but I don't see a reason why an alternate solution couldn't be included where it would make sense. It wouldn't have to result in a different set of consequences down the road, but it would give you a different method and more freedom.

[mordy_was_here]

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.

Gaining experience in your field of expertise for actually going out and practicing your abilities is highly unreaslitic.

If you want to stick with the idea that talking to someone is going to make you better with a sword, that's fine. Don't call it realistic.

[Solmanian]

In ME2 killing enemies doesn't give you Xp, or loot (exept for themal clips). It made fighting pointless. A menial labour best delegated to the squadies while you do something more importent (reading the paper?, eating launch?). I do support being given substantial xp rewards for completing quests. (The D&D player in me, will gladly support anything that involves substantial xp rewards...)

[Sylvius the Mad]

In principle I agree with the OP. In fact, even D&D never actually had XP per kill. D&D awarded XP for defeating encounters, but how you defeated it (sneaking past it, scaring it away, killing it, tricking it) was up to you.

XP per kill arose in CRPGs because killing enemies was pretty much the only way to defeat them in the early computer adaptations of RPGs, and then it became a convention. A silly one.

[B3taMaxxx]

I needs my XP!



While being in the minority, I loved Mass Effect 2, however slamming it down on the "cutting table" really killed the replayability for me. I played through it probably 4 times in full while Dragon Age at least a dozen. Getting that litte xp pop at the end of a boss fight was........well the only gratifying conclusion, because if you'd beat the boss before the loot wasn't a surprise.



Leveling right after a mob fight or boss fight is also gratifying, unlike a tighty little "end of mission brief".

[Lord Gremlin]

Please go away. If you like new so-called RPGs go and buy some. And let this series be what it is.

[The Edge]

I understand how you can work your way around a fight through persuasion or intimidation (same thing, but I tend to do this, too), but if all battles were that way, then where would the fighting be? What's the point in having a sword/staff/bow and arrow if you never have to use it?



Exp. from fighting shouldn't be the only means to gain exp., but it should still be there. Otherwise, what's the point? I guess you could substitute gaining gear with exp., but gear can (hopefully) be upgraded upon by buying it or finding it in chests and stuff.

[Aratham Darksight]

Solmanian wrote...

In ME2 killing enemies doesn't give you Xp, or loot (exept for themal clips). It made fighting pointless. A menial labour best delegated to the squadies while you do something more importent (reading the paper?, eating launch?). I do support being given substantial xp rewards for completing quests. (The D&D player in me, will gladly support anything that involves substantial xp rewards...)

I don't see how preventing your face being stabbed is pointless. Fighting can only be a menial labour unworthy of your attention if the game is too easy. Even if enemies give you no XP or loot (the latter not even being argued here), there are still plenty of reasons to fight. Our of self-defense, or because they have something you want, or because they're blocking your proges... or simply because you enjoy fighting, whether from an in- or out-of-character perspective.

Must an activity involve large, increasing numbers and filling up bars in order to be fun?

[B3taMaxxx]

filaminstrel wrote...

I think certain enemies should award their kill XP if you sneak past them. That way, if you go back and kill them, you don't get any more XP.

I don't think anything else needs to be, or should be changed.

 Persuasion and Intimidation checks qualified through skill points spent, should in my opinion give xp. Afterall you did have to build your character in a certain way to pass said checks, but xp awarded for "evading a fight"? I don't think so..............

[Aratham Darksight]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Please go away. If you like new so-called RPGs go and buy some. And let this series be what it is.

This is not a new idea. It's older than Baldur's Gate and it's been suggested by people on the forums back when Dragon Age was just a name and a vauge description.

[B3taMaxxx]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

In ME2 killing enemies doesn't give you Xp, or loot (exept for themal clips). It made fighting pointless. A menial labour best delegated to the squadies while you do something more importent (reading the paper?, eating launch?). I do support being given substantial xp rewards for completing quests. (The D&D player in me, will gladly support anything that involves substantial xp rewards...)

I don't see how preventing your face being stabbed is pointless. Fighting can only be a menial labour unworthy of your attention if the game is too easy. Even if enemies give you no XP or loot (the latter not even being argued here), there are still plenty of reasons to fight. Our of self-defense, or because they have something you want, or because they're blocking your proges... or simply because you enjoy fighting, whether from an in- or out-of-character perspective.

Must an activity involve large, increasing numbers and filling up bars in order to be fun?

 But you're sorta missing the point. *I (as in me, myself and...) found xp pops gratifying. And don't most if not all rpgs have the "filling up bars" structure? Sure not all are graphically displayed in a neat lttle on screen bar, but they all have it, so why not an xp bar?