702 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Really, everyone here is lucky that Fallout was released during a dark period when I wasn't playing any games (1993-98). Otherwise I'd probably be that Fallout guy.

But as it is, I have no special attachment to Fallout. I never got a chance to try playing it until 2004 or so, and I don't think I ever really understood how Action Points worked.

[CybAnt1]

Well, there are many things that I would accuse of "dumbing down" or "streamlining" or otherwise ruining a CRPG, but I've never seen a problem with diversifying the ways in which players are awarded XP. Everyone's perennial apogee of gaming, BG2, also awarded quest experience. I'm not against getting XP for combat, but I can see ways awarding of XP could be diversified. BTW, I am against the "do-it-to-improve-it" systems, I just think they suck. The bottom line is XP like HP is an abstraction. The reason I get better at killing by doing lockpicking or vice versa is because we're simply using an abstraction to represent by getting better at everything I do, and that abstraction is XP. Simple.



BTW, let's get real; the other fact is, CRPGs are combat heavy because the major way to get not just XP but LOOT, the other holy grail, is by killing things who drop treasure, n stuff. You can stealth or dialogue your way out of a lot of encounters (if the option's available; it usually isn't), but you'll miss out on both loot and XP. And let's face it, players want both.

[Tirigon]

CybAnt1 wrote...


BTW, let's get real; the other fact is, CRPGs are combat heavy because the major way to get not just XP but LOOT, the other holy grail, is by killing things who drop treasure, n stuff. You can stealth or dialogue your way out of a lot of encounters (if the option's available; it usually isn't), but you'll miss out on both loot and XP. And let's face it, players want both.

You maybe.
I don´t care for loot since I´m using many armor and weapon mods and don´t use any vanilla items at all, and I don´t really WANT XP. I NEED it. I would totally prefer if there was a cheat to get all talents that are available for your class - or, even better, all talents for all classes - and then I choose which I want to use and equip those on the shortcut list at the bottom of the screen.

[Aratham Darksight]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Really, everyone here is lucky that Fallout was released during a dark period when I wasn't playing any games (1993-98). Otherwise I'd probably be that Fallout guy.
But as it is, I have no special attachment to Fallout. I never got a chance to try playing it until 2004 or so, and I don't think I ever really understood how Action Points worked.

We may have truly dodged a bullet there. The thought of the soul-crusing power of Fallout fanboyism being wielded by your formidable hands is... terrifying.

[Altima Darkspells]

I think people are confusing removing xp per kill with ME2's mission bonus.



XP per kill is, well, annoying. As the OP said, all it does is encourage you to track down every last enemy on a map in order to eek out enough experience for the next level.



Comparing the system in use by DAO and most other RPGs to, say, Oblivion or Fallout 3 is inherently flawed. There is an inherent limit of experience one can acquire in DAO--without using bugs. However, experience is effectively unlimited in the two aforementioned games.



However, those who wish to go around and murder the map will still receive a reward--loot.



The mission-based experience from ME2 is equally as flawed in this sense. Because of the linearity of the levels in ME2, you will more often than not be forced to kill every enemy on the level anyway. This is often the case in DAO, as well, so one cannot point out the lack of xp-per-kill will vastly reduce combat.



As for those saying it wouldn't make much sense for those in the camp to be switched out for quests, well, you can do that anyway for DAO. Also, those in camp are never more than two levels behind you--another convenience.



Also, this is a fantasy game. So cries of what is or isn't realistic has no place. Heck, darkspawn don't need to eat. Take that, perpetual motion!

[Tirigon]

What´s with all this Fallout love?



Crappy game, boring story, ugly as hell...... What´s so cool about Fallout?!

[soteria]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would argue that an RPG only needs to include roleplaying and a coherent setting in which to do it (which would probabaly require everything be stat-driven - so no action combat).
But that would make XP, levels, and hit points entirely optional.

Just as an aside, I find it funny that I would entirely agree with the claim that an RPG needs only to include role-play and a setting to do it in to be an RPG, yet we would disagree on absolutely everything else, including what it means to include roleplay and have a coherent setting.
Just had to get that off my chest.

Heh, I would say the same thing.  I was right with you, Sylvius, with "an RPG only needs to include roleplaying and a coherent setting in which to do it," but then you added the stat-driven part.  That's is a total non-sequitor to me.

[Tirigon]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Also, this is a fantasy game. So cries of what is or isn't realistic has no place. Heck, darkspawn don't need to eat. Take that, perpetual motion!

Well, then let´s not call it Realism but "internal consistency".

An example: Throwing fireballs is impossible in Real Life, but fine in DAO because it fits to the magic lore.

Teleporting isn´t because the codex says magic can´t move things, so if there was a teleportation spell that would suck.

[Dick Delaware]

tmp7704 wrote...
Well, just to get it straight. This is interesting diplomatic encounter because you get to choose the kind of reward you get?

I thought it was cool because the entire situation with how the demon possessed Connor and took control of Redcliffe with the arl being poisoned was interesting. It gave you plenty of options with how you could deal with it - you could bypass the Demon altogether if you just killed the kid. I liked it because it gave you many different ways to handle the situation. I don't think that's trivial.

tmp7704 wrote...
But at the bottom of it and when all the solid dialogue is ignored, this encounter boils down to: choose option A and skip the fight or choose option B and have to duke it out. You mention something important here -- that it is "nice change of pace" when you get through hours of nothing but combat only. But what if the OP got their wish and this "interesting choice" was just another in series of 20-30+ such encounters the player already clicked through on their way to get there? (always picking option A because, duh, they don't want to fight)  Leaving aside the mental work associated with inventing all these interesting problems for every NPC on the way (since otherwise player goes "zomg no alternative solution, oooooldskool!") ... would it be really so entertaining experience as game?

OK, that's fair. In the end, the reward is irrelevant because you're choice boils down to whether you're going to fight or not. But I don't see situations where you click through 20-30 encounters to avoid fighting them. You aren't going to go up to every bandit and say "hey, let's be pals! Don't kill me!" 

To cite Bloodlines as an example again, early in the game you have to retrieve some explosives from a group of gangbangers. The diplomatic solution here requires that you pass speech checks from the guy guarding the front gate to let you in, and a speech check to lie to the gang leader holding the explosives so that he'll give it to you. It's not like you have to talk to every single thug there. That would be infuriatingly annoying.

There's a significant difference between clicking through 20-30 encounters like what you mention and a well thought-out, diplomatic solution to a quest like in Bloodlines (well, at least up until the end) or the end of Fallout 1.

tmp7704 wrote...
Incidentally, i'm bit surprised these are cited as examples when there's bits in game which actually do require some more complicated mental "diplomatic" work -- the Landsmeet and the discussion with Alistair about the Dark Ritual. Both require the player to be careful about arguments they make, because these can just as well damage the player's position rather than help it. But then it may be telling there's quite a few complaints about these sections if anything. And well even if there wasn't, there's still this small problem of workload involved in preparing such content in amount which would allow to use it as viable alternative path for most of the game.

It doesn't have to be a viable alternative path for most of the game, however, it would be interesting to see it where it makes sense.

[TMZuk]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Blackbaron15 wrote...

The old system works so what the hell is the point of changing it?

Because it's not a particularly good system. The problem is that it forces you into completing every mission the exact same way. When you're going through Jarvia's Hideout, the quest is completed the exact same way regardless of whether you've sided with Bhelen or Harrowmont, or whether your class is Mage, Warrior or Rogue. You don't have a way of intimidating her thugs, maybe getting in by lying and pretending you're working for Jarvia as a lyrium dealer (a nice alternate solution to the Rogek sidequest), pretending you're one of the Cartel if you're a Casteless Dwarf, sneaking past her guards, etc. You're just having trash mobs with the exact same tactics and abilities thrown at you in a poorly thought out manner. So of course you'll just kill them all for MOAR XP. It's just not particularly interesting and it makes the game feel more like a dungeon crawler with a few chatty bits in this place than a great RPG.

Compare this to something like Bloodlines, which had the best levelling system that I've seen in an RPG. Here, you don't gain XP for killing enemies, you gain it only for completing quests, regardless of the method. In fact, a diplomatic or stealthy approach might garner you extra XP in situations where it's appropriate.

This system is better because it allows you to truly role-play, as it doesn't limit reward simply to killing things. Though you can do that, too. So you can really do things in a variety of ways and solve quests in a manner that fits your character, like if you're playing as a silver-tongued rogue or a scheming blood mage. Providing XP per kill really limits your options if you want to play a different type of character than "monster slayer". It encourages you to go out and actively seek trash mobs, which isn't really all that interesting.

Realism has nothing to do with it - all RPG mechanics are meant to be an abstraction of real life anyways. You know anybody who can fit 70 Dragonbone Plate Mails inside of their little backpacks? Do you know any adventurers who can fight hordes of darkspawn, but never need to go to the bathroom? Neither do I. It has to do with good design, and I don't think it's good design to simply reward the player to just kill all the time every time as it's detrimental to role-playing. A combat-heavy build should be a viable way to play the game, of course, and obviously some enemies like the darkspawn aren't up to negotiating, but I think it really hampers the experience in a lot of quests where the only difference in how you play them is that instead of killing things with a big sword, you're killing things with fireballs instead.

Thank You! You put my thoughts to words better than I was able too.

And to those posters who seems to think I considered ME2 a particularly good game, maybe you should go back and read my original post properly this time.

[mr_nameless]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Luke Bioware wrote...

Yeah. It's way more realistic if you get a trillion points for handing in some ashes than if you get them kill for kill.

Wait--realistic?  You're talking about a fantasy game in a fictitious setting with magic and elves and dragons.  It uses a hit point system, which means that characters can take hammer blows and sword thrusts (dozens of them) without any degradation in combat performance.  In the case of Dragon Age (which mirrors more modern trends in RPG design in this regard) resources are replenished after a fight, meaning that the axe stroke your mage (you know, the one wearing the dress and the placemat on his head) just took in the face will take care of itself with about 45 seconds of rest.

Ah, but you're addressing the real-life problem of experience points for killing things.  It's well established that bomber pilots have returned from missions with enormous increases in personal power.  In fact, it was common for experienced bomber crews to have more hit points than the bombers in which they flew.  They would sometimes drape themselves over essential parts of the aircraft, since they could handle machine-gun damage better than the airplane itself.  The crew of the Enola Gay actually ascended into godhood because of the incredible xp totals they racked up on a single mission.

And, of course, the xp derived from killing people in real life makes people better at all of their skills.  Want to be better at theoretical physics?  Take the skill and get to mass-murdering.  Those xp with secure that top university research post in no time at all.

To clarify, game design is game design.  D&D derivatives, like Dragon Age, don't exist to simulate reality; they exist to simulate a certain kind of play experience.  If you want to debate whether xp should exist in the entrails of monsters or in the goodwill of quest givers, have at it.  Just understand that the debate is about achieving a certain game experience.

Well said.
In regards to xp per kills,
I think the game should be smart enough to tell wether you are killing just for the exp./power game or fighting an epic battle for survival, and award the numbers accordingly. Is that possible?  

[soteria]

Well, then let´s not call it Realism but "internal consistency".

Internal consistency is important. How does it relate to an abstraction like exp gain?

[MaxQuartiroli]

Honestly.. on a linear RPG game you'll have almost always to follow a determined path in the areas that you visit, therefore you'll have to face always all the enemies which were put in every area.. they don't respawn and they never change.. you'll always find THOSE enemies, in THOSE place.

Therefore, if they give 5000 points for the kills + 5000 points for the quest, or they give 10000 points at the end of the quest it won't change anything for the gameplay.. You'll always have to face those enemies because you don't have free areas to explore or 3/4 different ways to reach a point in the map

Removing the xp per kill points would not be a bad thing on a linear RPG, becuase it would just avoid you to go into that left corner of the map just to see if you left away that single enemy and to not loose therefore those 25xp

Modifié par MaxQuartiroli, 21 juillet 2010 - 09:40 .

[TMZuk]

Tirigon wrote...

Daewan wrote...

Gotham’s Legendary Crime-Fighter Gradually Learns to Fight Crime

Adventurer Finds Killing Mole Rats Makes Him A Better Lockpick

This is the incarnation of awesome.

Epic!!!

[orpheus333]

Tirigon wrote...

What´s with all this Fallout love?

Crappy game, boring story, ugly as hell...... What´s so cool about Fallout?!

Planescape: Torment was better you're right.

[Orchomene]

It all depends on the ruleset. In the WoD ruleset used in bloodlines, there is no level and experience is directly used as "skill points", that is you spend your experience points to upgrade attributes, powers or skills with different costs.

In Stormbringer, Hawkmoon and Call of Cthulhu, the system is also different : if during the quest you use a skill successfully, you then "tag" it and if you had a critical success, you tag it differently. Then, after the quest, for each tagged skill, you roll a test of that skill : if you miss, then you upgrade a bit your skill, if you are successful, you don't upgrade (to reflect that upgrading a high level skill is more difficult than upgrading a low level one). If you had a critical success, then you upgrade the skill automatically.

There is thus no grinding of the skills (only one test per skill).

P&P RPG have a lot of different way to manage the evolution of the character. The xp/level system is the oldest one (D&D) but others are good too and offer sometimes a more diverse gameplay.

[CybAnt1]

You maybe.
I don´t care for loot since I´m using many armor and weapon mods and don´t use any vanilla items at all, and I don´t really WANT XP. I NEED it. I would totally prefer if there was a cheat to get all talents that are available for your class - or, even better, all talents for all classes - and then I choose which I want to use and equip those on the shortcut list at the bottom of the screen.

#1, I'm not saying the situation is desirable. Frankly, it would be quite easily solveable by getting rid of the entire "loot its corpse" paradigm. I've never understood games where there's one set of loot you get by pickpocketing and another set by killing. Anything you can get by killing a creature/enemy, you should also be able to steal off it. Of course, it does get a bit unrealistic to be stealing the boots off its feet, or the sword out of its hands. (I assume that occurs through some form of temporary incapacitation.) But most treasure in the lair should be in chests or boxes rather than in its direct possession, so you can steal what you want from the encounter without killing, if that's the way you roll. 

#2, it's very possible with the dev. console or mods to get as much XP as you want without doing a thing, but yes, you have to be playing on PC, and yes, of course, you are "cheating". 

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

Heh, I would say the same thing.  I was right with you, Sylvius, with "an RPG only needs to include roleplaying and a coherent setting in which to do it," but then you added the stat-driven part.  That's is a total non-sequitor to me.

That the characters' skills might be based on something that doesn't exist within the gameworld (the player's skills) breaks the setting, I think.

Why is Shepard a good shot when I'm alert and a bad shot when I'm tired?  Or injured?  If I break my hand (keeping in mind that from Shepard's point of view I don't exist), Shepard's skill with a pistol suddenly goes away.  That doesn't make any sense at all.

[Tirigon]

CybAnt1 wrote...

#2, it's very possible with the dev. console or mods to get as much XP as you want without doing a thing, but yes, you have to be playing on PC, and yes, of course, you are "cheating".

Sadly, this will not only give me all the skills but also lots of level-ups, meaning the game will either be too easy (if the enemy stops scaling somewhere) or impossible (if they continue to scale)

Also, max level is 25. That´s not enough to have all skills.

[Orchomene]

mr_nameless wrote...

Well said.
In regards to xp per kills,
I think the game should be smart enough to tell wether you are killing just for the exp./power game or fighting an epic battle for survival, and award the numbers accordingly. Is that possible?  

It's possible. In Rolemaster, there was a system that managed this : first time you do something awarding xp (like killing a specific monster), you get 5 times the award. Then you get 2 times for a few following same cases, then just the normal award, then half of the award then a tenth of the award.
This way, it killing a gobelin first time may give you 100 xp and killing your 100th gobelin gives you 2 xp (arbitrary scale). That reflect the fact that if you get used to do something, you learn little of experience whereas if this is the first time, with the tension and concentration you have, you learn a lot.

[Tirigon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That the characters' skills might be based on something that doesn't exist within the gameworld (the player's skills) breaks the setting, I think.

Why is Shepard a good shot when I'm alert and a bad shot when I'm tired?  Or injured?  If I break my hand (keeping in mind that from Shepard's point of view I don't exist), Shepard's skill with a pistol suddenly goes away.  That doesn't make any sense at all.

This is a fascinating theory because, if you look at it like this, you are right.


Nevertheless, I prefer it if the player´s skill determines the outcome because it´s boring if it´s only the stats that matter.

[coomber]

Amazing. Someone puts forward a perfectly reasonable suggestion and immediately gets insults thrown at him, mixed in with the obligatory, utterly irrelevant, Mass Effect 2 comparisons.

[soteria]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I've never understood games where there's one set of loot you get by pickpocketing and another set by killing. Anything you can get by killing a creature/enemy, you should also be able to steal off it.

Well, it's because exp is granted for kills. If you have a choice between robbing someone for some of their loot or killing them for all of it + exp, I don't think it's a hard choice for many people. Stealing is just a waste of time. But if no exp is granted for kills, stealing becomes a quick way to get some loot off enemies you don't want to waste time killing--exactly as it should be, imo.

That the characters' skills might be based on something that doesn't exist within the gameworld (the player's skills) breaks the setting, I think.

Why is Shepard a good shot when I'm alert and a bad shot when I'm tired? Or injured? If I break my hand (keeping in mind that from Shepard's point of view I don't exist), Shepard's skill with a pistol suddenly goes away. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Ah. Not an issue for me, since I play worse in Dragon Age when I'm tired (or whatever). Both games require some skill, after all. I just accept that it's a video game and certain real life factors are going to affect my performance.

[CybAnt1]

Nevertheless, I prefer it if the player´s skill determines the outcome because it´s boring if it´s only the stats that matter.

Just a question. Of course, it's hard to argue about the subjective, and I can't tell you what to like or not like. 

Do you enjoy chess? I enjoy chess. Of course, I get a different kind of enjoyment out of chess than I do practicing real life archery or target practice. One tests my skill at thinking and planning and strategizing, the other at hand-eye coordination. 

I do agree RPGs test player skill. It's just that they test your skill at planning how to develop your character, set his/her tactics, coordinate his abilities with that of his team, etc. Some people don't like them because I think they require more of the skills of chess and less the skills of games like side-scrollers, shooters, etc. 

It is all taste. I'm not pretending to be talking about anything objective. But I guess I am just trying to suggest to you why some people enjoy what yo do not.

Making RPGs more action-oriented takes away this form of enjoyment from me. 

[tmp7704]

Dick Delaware wrote...

OK, that's fair. In the end, the reward is irrelevant because you're choice boils down to whether you're going to fight or not. But I don't see situations where you click through 20-30 encounters to avoid fighting them. You aren't going to go up to every bandit and say "hey, let's be pals! Don't kill me!"

Well that's the thing, why not? After all, the OP complained that the combat-based xp encourages the player to kill every single NPC in sight, because that's beneficial to them. And that if that xp was removed then the player would be more inclined to use the 'alternative solutions'. The alternative to killing being well, not killing i.e. avoiding the fight in some manner. That being either stealth or essentially clicking some equivalent of "let's be pals!"

To cite Bloodlines as an example again, early in the game you have to retrieve some explosives from a group of gangbangers. The diplomatic solution here requires that you pass speech checks from the guy guarding the front gate to let you in, and a speech check to lie to the gang leader holding the explosives so that he'll give it to you. It's not like you have to talk to every single thug there. That would be infuriatingly annoying.

But let me guess, the combat-based solution doesn't allow to get in by blowing the guard's brains out without anyone noticing, and then simply shoot the gang leader in the head to send all other goons running in panic? I.e. it's apples and oranges in terms of effort involved?

I suppose the point here would be, if the "alternative solutions" were applied in the same manner combat is used, they would likely be found infuriatingly annoying even by the people who asked for them in the first place. On the other hand if these solutions are preferred by the players because they basically just allow them to skip large chunks of content... it brings a question maybe the game would be better without these skippable chunks in the first place, also when it comes to the combat?

Except it creates a slightly different problem -- if the game gets shortened to point where a mission is "talk/shoot one guy, then talk/shoot another guy, collect your xp reward"... then there either better be lot and lot of missions (with associated problem of inventing them in such numbers)  or the whole thing will be over really fast...