702 réponses à ce sujet

[Dick Delaware]

I agree with CybAnt. One of the most important aspects of what an RPG is, is that character skill trumps player skill. You might be covered in acne and have terrible breath, but the character you're playing could be so suave he makes James Bond look like McLovin. You might be an awesome MMA fighter in real life, but you could also have a character that gets their ass kicked the moment the dukes are up. Really, the character customization (and I mean REAL character customization, not having 100 different hairstyles) is vital here.

[TMZuk]

There's been a lot of interesting pros and cons here, reading through the replies.

However, it strikes me as odd that some people seem to think I want to get rid of combat altogether. What I would like to see is options.

Example: A group of darkspawn commanded by a Hurlock Emissary occupies a village.

---------------------------------------One: The fighter approach --------------------------------------

Attack and Kill all the Darkspawn. You may succeed, kill all the darkspawn, save the villagers, everyone happy. Or you may kill all the darkspawn, but not before they killed some of the villagers. Or you may die against overwhelming odds.

Absolute succes: 1000 xp.

Partial succes: 500 xp.

Failure... well... death.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------Two: The sneak approach --------------------------------------

Sneak in and kill the emmisary. You may succeed. Darkspawn confused without leadership and flee, everyone happy. You may succeed partially, the emmisary manages to kill some villagers before you get to him. Or you are spotted and have to flee.

Succes: 1000 xp

Partial succes: 500 xp
Failure! Whole village dies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you have two different approaches, that gives variable xp, and many different outcomes. Combat is ONE option, instead of the ONLY option. This is a super-simplified example, and if you replace darkspawn with robbers or Lohgain sympathizers, you have more options opening up, such as diplomacy.

Put in bonus xp for discovering a planned raid on the next village, an apostate hiding in the village, or some such thing.

This would make fast and efficient killing worthwhile, but it would leave open other options as well, instead of the system we have now, where the ONLY option is to get the meatgrinder running.

Modifié par TMZuk, 21 juillet 2010 - 10:28 .

[Dick Delaware]

tmp7704 wrote...
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!"

Why yes? Why should you talk to 20 bandits individually, let's say, so that they're not hostile to you? You can talk to their leader and persuade him not to attack you or bribe him so that they don't attack you for instance. In this hypothetical example, talking to their leader is enough.

tmp7704 wrote...
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?

In the Bloodlines example I cited, you can kill the guards with stealth kills, but attacking the leader will still provoke the rest of the gang. Which makes sense. Why would the goons just bolt? I'm not sure what you mean by "apples and oranges in terms of effort involved".

Besides, there are four solutions to that quest, four of which are diplomatic.

1) Kill everybody, or stealth-kill everybody.
2) Sneak in, turn off the power to the gang's building, then take the explosives without anybody being the wiser.
3) Persuade the gang leader to give you the explosives because you need it for some fabricated reason.
4) If you have a seductive female character, seduce him, drain his blood, and take the explosives without drawing hostility. You can leave him alive if you like, too.

It's not that I prefer alternative solutions because they can cause you to skip large amounts of content (Fallout 3, for example) it's because it really allows you to role-play a particular character, rather than a monster-killer who uses a big sword instead of a monster-killer who throws fireballs. It allows a lot of different ways to accomplish things.

I'm not certain what you are arguing. Are you saying multiple quest solutions like the one I outlined are a bad idea? I'm not sure, please explain.

tmp7704 wrote...
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...

Why does this have to be the case? The quest where you prepare for the defense of Redcliffe was entirely dialogue, yet it was pretty meaty. Torment was very dialogue-heavy, it's not like you could complete it in as much time as you could Modern Warfare 2.

It's not about bypassing whole parts of the game, it's about giving you different ways to achieve a goal. It puts control in the player's hands rather than the designer going "GO!!! KILL THOSE ORCS THERE!" I think that simplifying it to "talk/shoot one guy, talk/shoot another guy, collect your xp reward" is simplifying it. If anything, that's got a lot more depth than "shoot one guy, shoot another guy, then collect your xp reward." I don't mean to be difficult, but I fail to understand what is wrong here, particularly with giving the player more options on how to achieve a certain goal.

And why does the game need to be that long anyways? There were parts of Origins that kinda felt like padding. Look at a lot of the encounters in The Deep Roads, if anything the game could have been shorter. If you gave me a 30 - 40 hour game where all the quests were as tightly constructed as Redcliffe, I'd go nuts.

[Dick Delaware]

TMZuk wrote...
This would make fast and efficient killing worthwhile, but it would leave open other options as well, instead of the system we have now, where the ONLY option is to get the meatgrinder running.

Absolutely. Nobody is saying that combat is no longer a viable option, but damn, it shouldn't be the only game in town every goddamn time. Just in this simple example, an encounter that would normally be completely run of the mill is just made a little more interesting.

[Haexpane]

Aratham Darksight wrote...
 
..... God of War doesn't have mission XP. It, in fact, awards "XP" for kills.

Oh, been a while.  I havent even touched GoW 3.  Actually now that I think about it, wasn't it "style points" like you got more Orbs for more stylish kills or chaining combos?

You also got somes stuff at the "mission complete" screens to didnt you?  I remember getting a new weapon after beating a boss for example.  

[Haexpane]

Dick Delaware wrote...
 

So yeah, what is the problem with providing it according to quest completion, or at least a combination of monster-killing (i.e. boss fights) and quest completion, particularly if you managed to complete a quest without using violence.
 

It sort of already has that doesnt it?  I thought you got XP for completing quests, opening chests etc..?

[Haexpane]

CybAnt1 wrote...

BTW, the alternative to XP systems is the other wonderful system of "do-it-to-improve-it" utilized by Dungeon Siege and other games. Yes, it does seem illogical to get better at lockpicking by killing rats, or better at killing rats by opening traps. But where logic leads is us games where people sit there throwing fireballs at midair to improve their magic score, because every time they throw a fireball their "fireball throwing" skill goes up. It seems more logical, but leads to a ****ty gaming experience (imho).

Exactly, skill based leveling doesn't work in games. Anyone who has played Morrowind and Oblivion can attest to this.  

It's a nice idea, but horribly difficult to balance.

I played the first Dungeon Siege, and I played it w/ one hand watching TV at the same time, I can't even remember the leveling system

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

Ah. Not an issue for me, since I play worse in Dragon Age when I'm tired (or whatever).

You don't pause nearly as often as I do.  I've seen your videos (which are wonderful, by the way - everyone should watch those).

[Haexpane]

In Exile wrote...
 

Bloodlines was more RPG than DA:O. Hell, it had more origins.

 I'm pretty sure it was the first game to meaningfully integrate your character background with the story. Playing as a Malkavian versus a Toreador made a huge difference. Characters acknowledged your clan in the game, and your clan impacted what skills you could have.
 

Right, but none of that has to do with anything we were talking about, specifically you saying that mission XP is not RPG like.

yes, bloodlines has a cool integration of story/character/origin.  I honestly think of that game as a hybrid, and more story shooter than RPG.  Ive only played a very little tho

I should have clarified but what I mean by "mission XP"  Currently I love completing a quest and getting XP

What I *DO NOT WANT* is Mass Effect 2 Mission Complete screens/leveling.  That's where I draw the line

[Blacklash93]

Seeing as the combat is such a huge part of Dragon Age's gameplay, I couldn't disagree more.

[Tirigon]

CybAnt1 wrote...

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.

You have just reminded me that I badly need someone to play Chess against:)
I haven´t played it for so long I almost forgot how it works^^


Anyways, I see your point. However, what I don´t like is that you sometimes can´t beat a certain enemy (or at least not without multiple reloads) just because your stats are too low.

The ultimate example of how it shouldn´t be is, imo, Darkspawn Chronicles. You have to know, I play Nightmare with mods that make it even harder, and while a few fights (Ser Cauthrien, e.g. or multiple archers) are really hard, I have never found a fight I couldn´t beat with the right party setup an tactics.
Then i played DC - and suddenly, easy was almost too hard. Simply because the Hurlocks have such a horrible skill setup, and especially your main char sucks like hell.

And this is what bothers me - I am not a worse player than I was in the original game, but suddenly I have no chance anymore because of worse stats?
Another example is the well-loved Mass Effect 2. Some bosses require multiple headshots to kill even with the widow... What´s the point in sniping if you can´t 1hit enemies?

[Tinxa]

I agree. I think you should get the same amount of xp if you resolve a situation another way as you would get if you kill everything in your path. Mostly situations like these are about a single room of enemies anyway. So you kill your way through 50 guards and come to a room with another group of guards where conversation starts. You notice your "personality" is high enough to scare them or otherwise convince them to leave and get nothing for it except a warm feeling that your PC is all that. If you attack the guards you just kill 10 more which is boring and not difficult since they're a fodder enemy anyway BUT you get xp for killing 10 guards and are that much closer to levelup.

It's like you get punished for using a different approach which the game itself provides. You're killing your way through the game anyway and when you get the option to poison, persuade, intimidate or sabotage an enemy instead you get no xp for it.

[soteria]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

Ah. Not an issue for me, since I play worse in Dragon Age when I'm tired (or whatever).

You don't pause nearly as often as I do.  I've seen your videos (which are wonderful, by the way - everyone should watch those).

Thank you.  That means something, coming from you.  In regards to how I play, I'll mention that my videos are edited.  Where possible, I shorten or eliminate pauses--a three minute fight is closer to four in uncut footage.  Actually, for my first videos, I tried to capture the video without pausing.  That made the Spider Queen a royal pain, let me tell you... I was trying to beat her without pausing, using potions, or using a nature balm, and I think out of some eighteen takes on that fight, only two were successful.

Blacklash93 wrote...

Seeing as the combat is such a huge part of Dragon Age's gameplay, I couldn't disagree more.

That's true, but we're talking about DA2.  I, for one, don't think that a "rise to power" has to mean killing lots of monsters.  Are there not other ways to become a powerful person?  Certainly, given that Bioware is making the game, combat will be an integral part of the game, but I hope it won't be so exclusively the only path to success.

Modifié par soteria, 21 juillet 2010 - 11:31 .

[gotthammer]

Haexpane wrote...

What I *DO NOT WANT* is Mass Effect 2 Mission Complete screens/leveling.  That's where I draw the line

Yes. None of that please. While 'informative', it could have been presented better. 

As for xp per kill: 
I personally don't see anything wrong w/ that system, and am content w/ what DA:O's currently using, and wouldn't mind seeing it in DA2. 

soteria wrote...
  Certainly, given that Bioware is making the game, combat will be an integral part of the game, but I hope it won't be so exclusively the only path to success.

Yup. I hope so, as well.

Modifié par gotthammer, 21 juillet 2010 - 11:34 .

[Tirigon]

soteria wrote...

Thank you.  That means something, coming from you.  In regards to how I play, I'll mention that my videos are edited.  Where possible, I shorten or eliminate pauses--a three minute fight is closer to four in uncut footage.  Actually, for my first videos, I tried to capture the video without pausing.  That made the Spider Queen a royal pain, let me tell you... I was trying to beat her without pausing, using potions, or using a nature balm, and I think out of some eighteen takes on that fight, only two were successful.

Seeing as the combat is such a huge part of Dragon Age's gameplay, I couldn't disagree more.

That's true, but we're talking about DA2.  I, for one, don't think that a "rise to power" has to mean killing lots of monsters.  Are there not other ways to become a powerful person?  Certainly, given that Bioware is making the game, combat will be an integral part of the game, but I hope it won't be so exclusively the only path to success.

The spider queen is not only one of the most difficult but also one of the most luck-depending fights in the game.

[KethWolfheart]

While I hate the idea of removing XP for kills I do like the idea of more approaches. Instead of removing XP I would prefer to see doors open and close. For example if you stealth your way through a mission then that mission is done without an option to then go back and kill everything.



Far from a perfect solution but way better then taking away yet another aspect of the RPG game. One thing I disliked a great deal about ME2 was the set experience. Horrible. It further reduces the game so that every game you play, every game everyone else plays, is always the same. No matter how clever you are, how many mobs you hunt down to kill or how many cool hidden spots you uncover, etc., it is all irrelevant as all you get in the end is the same experience that every other character or player gets. It removes *choice* in game style. Every one plays games different ways. The more you remove options the more you remove choice. Some are itty bitty things but they add up over time. Eventually you just end up with a movie you can sit and watch with minimal input other than clicking on a dialogue flow chart. Of course this is exaggerated a great deal ... but then I am old fashioned and prefer games with a bit more thought, choice and interaction so anything that strips something away always raised as red flag.

[Dick Delaware]

 Guys, here is a great article on non-combat gameplay design. It's really interesting, funny and sums up a lot of what could be done in this regard with games. It articulates my view on the subject pretty well. Since I don't want to paste a huge wall of text, here's a link for folks that are interested:

Non-Combat Gameplay: Myths and Reality
www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,231.0.html

[Warlokki]

Agree with OP 100%

[Vaeliorin]

I certainly agree with the OP. I'd much rather have XP given by achieving certain goals instead of from kills. However, I think that it needs to be broken up much more than it is in ME2 (as an example.) Instead of getting one huge lump at the end of a mission, the XP should be given out at discrete progression points through whatever mission/dungeon/quest you're doing.



As I recall, we had this argument back on the old DA forums, but it obviously didn't amount to much of anything, seeing as we still had kill XP in DA.

[Dick Delaware]

KethWolfheart wrote...

While I hate the idea of removing XP for kills I do like the idea of more approaches. Instead of removing XP I would prefer to see doors open and close. For example if you stealth your way through a mission then that mission is done without an option to then go back and kill everything.

Far from a perfect solution but way better then taking away yet another aspect of the RPG game. One thing I disliked a great deal about ME2 was the set experience. Horrible. It further reduces the game so that every game you play, every game everyone else plays, is always the same. No matter how clever you are, how many mobs you hunt down to kill or how many cool hidden spots you uncover, etc., it is all irrelevant as all you get in the end is the same experience that every other character or player gets. It removes *choice* in game style. Every one plays games different ways. The more you remove options the more you remove choice. Some are itty bitty things but they add up over time. Eventually you just end up with a movie you can sit and watch with minimal input other than clicking on a dialogue flow chart. Of course this is exaggerated a great deal ... but then I am old fashioned and prefer games with a bit more thought, choice and interaction so anything that strips something away always raised as red flag.

You mean like KotOR? Or Jade Empire? Or Mass Effect 1? Or Origins except for maybe Redcliffe and The Landsmeet? That's pretty much the exact problem with BioWare's design philosophy - the experience is pretty much the same whether you're a saint or the devil.

Look at a huge missed opportunity in KotOR. I just found out I'm Revan, but I need one more Star Map. I go to Korriban I head into the Sith Academy and talk to Uthar. I pass the persuasion check, he knows I'm Revan and he believes me. Wait - wtf?! I have to pass your lame little tests like I'm some scrub? No way, bow before me, I own your ass! This is a serious problem in BioWare games.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 21 juillet 2010 - 11:41 .

[AlanC9]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

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.

OTOH, if that really had happened to Sylvius he probably wouldn't be here. He'd be hanging over at RPGCodex. I suppose I should insert some snark there, but it would be a bit superfluous.

[AlanC9]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Why yes? Why should you talk to 20 bandits individually, let's say, so that they're not hostile to you? You can talk to their leader and persuade him not to attack you or bribe him so that they don't attack you for instance. In this hypothetical example, talking to their leader is enough.

SoZ implemented this, didn't it? I can't remember if the XP awards were comparable or not, but given NWN2 area load times, avoiding going to an RE map was reward enough.

[AlanC9]

Haexpane wrote...
I should have clarified but what I mean by "mission XP"  Currently I love completing a quest and getting XP

What I *DO NOT WANT* is Mass Effect 2 Mission Complete screens/leveling.  That's where I draw the line

So you're against the cosmetics but not the mechanism?

[gotthammer]

Dick Delaware wrote...

 Guys, here is a great article on non-combat gameplay design. It's really interesting, funny and sums up a lot of what could be done in this regard with games. It articulates my view on the subject pretty well. Since I don't want to paste a huge wall of text, here's a link for folks that are interested:

Non-Combat Gameplay: Myths and Reality
www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,231.0.html

Nice article (just did a fast read...kinda tired  ).

I have nothing against non-combat options/choices. some of my best pen-and-paper RPG experiences involved a lack of combat.
That said, I'm still content w/ the current kill xp + mission xp system that seems to be the norm.
I'm not sure anymore (it's been a while), but wasn't that still how Fallout 1 & 2 did it (I mention this game as it was used as an example in the article): kills produce XP, just as completing missions provided XP? (w/ variation on rewards depending on how you accomplished your missions/objectives?)

[tmp7704]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Why yes? Why should you talk to 20 bandits individually, let's say, so that they're not hostile to you? You can talk to their leader and persuade him not to attack you or bribe him so that they don't attack you for instance. In this hypothetical example, talking to their leader is enough.

Well, in the combat-oriented solution these 20 bandits tend to stand between you and the boss, generally in small groups so you don't aggro all at once, and they don't allow you to see him until they are dead. Why should these bandits let you "just talk to the boss" in the diplomacy-based solution simply because that's what you want, without even convincing them to see it your way first? Making things easy for you isn't in their resume, they're there to guard the big guy. And the big guys rarely speaks directly to every Joe who shows up -- it makes sense to require the player talk their way through at least a few steps up the organization ladder beforehand.

 I'm not sure what you mean by "apples and oranges in terms of effort involved".

I mean one approach apparently requires you to pass through literally two dialogues while the other sends you through much larger number of individual but similar encounters. Or to put it differently, one can be resolved much faster than the other.

I'm not certain what you are arguing. Are you saying multiple quest solutions like the one I outlined are a bad idea? I'm not sure, please explain.

Well, i thought i made it rather clear -- i have initially pointed out that the stealth and/or diplomacy routes tend to be implemented in a way which leads to them requiring very little involvement from the player, and because of this a game played mostly using these options wouldn't be very entertaining due to combined simplicity / repetition factors. You have argued this can be avoided by having very reduced amount of such encounters needed to accomplish a mission, and provided example of that. But from what i can see, if a game was indeed done in such manner then it would make the whole experience very short because the player could get through all encounters quickly. Do you find this conclusion wrong?

I suppose to put it differently -- while i do appreciate the idea of alternative ways to solve the quests, i don't find the mechanics of these proposed alternatives to be very entertaining. I think you actually admitted as much when you said that having to go through 20+ encounters like that would be a frustrating experience. So, i find the OP's request rather unrealistic in the sense, in order to make it really enjoyable it would require development of pretty much three full, different games (set in single environment/storyline) in place of just one.

Why does this have to be the case? The quest where you prepare for the defense of Redcliffe was entirely dialogue, yet it was pretty meaty. Torment was very dialogue-heavy, it's not like you could complete it in as much time as you could Modern Warfare 2.

Well, i went by the very example you gave me, which involved two discussions. The Redcliffe defense i think involves something like 7-8 dialogues so yes, by comparison it's quite bigger. But it's also not very taxing, isn't it? I mean, it basically requires the player to go through dialogue list with couple persons and then speak to 4-5 others and use "(persuade/threaten) Please help us!" on each of them. Which brings us back to the "well, is it really fun?" issue.

And why does the game need to be that long anyways? There were parts of Origins that kinda felt like padding. Look at a lot of the encounters in The Deep Roads, if anything the game could have been shorter. If you gave me a 30 - 40 hour game where all the quests were as tightly constructed as Redcliffe, I'd go nuts.

That's the thing, 30-40 hours of content when operating in manner of these alternative ways of solving quests... that'd require tons of content. I mean, let's take the Brecilian Forest quest as example -- we are taking the diplomacy route, in the manner suggested so far:

* speak to Zathrian
* go to forest, speak to Swiftrunner, use "take me to your leader" line
* speak to Lady of the Forest
* speak to Zathrian again
* happy conclusion, collect the reward.

there, whole arc done in... how long you reckon it'd take, 15-20 mins tops? 1 treaty down, 3 to go. At this rate i think a more reasonable guesstimate for the Origins would be 5-10 hours or so.