702 réponses à ce sujet

[KethWolfheart]

Dick Delaware wrote...
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.

I see your point and agree to some  degree. . but I think you missed mine.  I meant XP experience not emotional/mental experience.    In a nut shell I prefer the illusion of Xp gained all the time doing things - whatever the option or method - versus just completing a misison and getting one set lump amount irregardless of how you approached all the things you do in the mission.

[filetemo]

by having xp per kill, you can level up on the battlefield, so you can raise atribute points to wear your new armor in the next room, you don't need to finish the "mission" to get new skills.



Also, this game is a dungeon crawler, not every room can be designed to sneak out of it, to assassinate the boss mob silently or to talk out your way from a fight with persuade and intimidate, most of the dungeones are kill kill kill.



A 5% of rooms with traps/dialogue/sneak design would be ok, no more.

[Sylvius the Mad]

filetemo wrote...

by having xp per kill, you can level up on the battlefield, so you can raise atribute points to wear your new armor in the next room, you don't need to finish the "mission" to get new skills.

You could have XP per encounter.  It still won't reward senseless killing, but it won't affect gameplay otherwise.

[CLime]

TMZuk wrote...

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.

This is a good idea, and one I believe would improve most RPGs out there.  I can't speak for BioWare, but my game philosophy (as a non-developer, of course) is that roleplaying and power gaming should move on totally separate axes, depending on each other as little as possible.  Anecdotally, players are encouraged to be the sort of Archon of Justice character, helping as many good NPCs and slaughtering as many bad ones as possible.  Any less and you're usually sacrificing ability for characterization, and that never feels good.

Using an ME-style "mission complete" screen would break the flow, but standardizing XP for missions would go a long way towards evening the playing field for all points on the moral spectrum.

Take the City Elf origin.  Infitrating the Arl's manor, you can try to remain incognito for as long as possible, or you can go in guns (knives) a-blazing, killing every guard you meet on the way to rescuing the bridal party.  Making up numbers, say you've got 10 killable NPCs in the manor that each give 5 xp, and an additional 40 xp base for finishing the mission.  You could put a floor on the mission of say 70 xp, so even if you avoid 8 guards you only miss out on 4 guards' worth of xp at most.

I would actually prefer standardizing experience across the board, since you're still getting items and money for kills regardless of xp floors or caps.  You could just set total xp to 90 regardless, so there's no additional xp for any number of kills.  Alternatively, you could require players to pick a specific route, either killing a certain number of guards or avoiding a certain number for maximum XP, similar to what the OP suggested.  The latter would still reward skillful play through whatever route the player chose, rather than encouraging only speed runs or only bloodbaths.

Haexpane wrote...

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

Too true.  Oblivion is a great game, but the leveling system is terribly broken to anyone with even a hint of Power Gamer personality.  The fact that skills like Illusion and Mysticism leveled up very quickly while things like Mercantilism and Restoration took forever was annoying enough, but the whole major/minor skill system was so counter-intuitive that you were actually discouraged from specializing in your most commonly-used skills.

Modifié par CLime, 22 juillet 2010 - 12:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Haexpane wrote...

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

Skill-based levelling was very poorly implemented in Morrowind and Oblivion (in large part because they tied it to their insane scaling system).

Imagine if monsters hadn't scaled in Oblivion.  Then that skill system would have been terrific.

[TMZuk]

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

Outstanding article!

Now, how to get someone from Bioware to read it???? With just some of these options implemented, we could have a TRUE rpg, instead of a Hack'n Slash game.

I especially enjoyed the part where the exploits of sir Richard Francis Burton was used as an example. He was the epitome of an adventurer, a larger than life character who pulled of the nigh impossible more than once, and a hero of mine since I read Philip Jose Farmer's: To Your Scattered Bodies Go.

[soteria]

Well, I think skill-based leveling *can* work. I didn't spend $20 to play the full game, but the dungeon crawler Fate looked promising, and I understand it was fairly popular.

[tmp7704]

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

While that article is interesting, the part that summarizes it for me is:

"Q: Yeah, yeah, whatever. Non-combat gameplay = giving your character high intelligence and choosing the wordiest options available. It's a great read, but from a player-game interaction standpoint, not much is going on there."

"That would be bad design again. The way I see it, the diplomatic path, for example, should require a lot of in-game knowledge, interacting with characters, forming relationships, and so on. (..)

So, as you can see, kids, non-combat gameplay is interesting, realistic, and more complex than clicking on lines with more than three words."

... and yet, his detailed example of 'non-combat approach to assassination" is exactly that from the player's standpoint -- clicking on lines with more than three words with couple skill checks thrown in. Having these wordier lines may or may not require clicking on some similarly long lines when talking to other characters earlier. But still, it appears to fail moving beyond what the author himself calls bad design.

Also, on somewhat ironic sidenote, the author is developer for Age of Decadence. The only demo of that game possible to download from that game web page?

"Combat demo".

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

I'm glad to see the game design concepts being discussed in a substantive manner here. The idea that every RPG doesn't need to be some derivative of D&D makes me happy. Many of these treasured RPG conventions are arbitrary decisions from 35 years ago, and time has not been kind to all of them. I think the truth is that many of them would not be missed if they were dropped from modern game design. And I'd also bet that many of them never would have been devised if the first RPG's didn't use them.



Admittedly, I've drifted into the rules-lite camp over the years, and I like systems where the rules don't get in the way of immersion. Some of the things that are likely to remain popular (like shiny new gear upgrades throughout the game) aren't really my cup of tea. I certainly don't blame other players for wanting fun loot as the game develops, but I prefer ability to be defined by the character more than his gear.



I also like to see unnecessary math thrown out whenever possible, but that's my PnP design bias showing. Computers can handle math without slowing a game down. But I also prefer systems that don't punish role-playing choices (like having to do something reprehensible to get the best bow in a game, which dovetails with my previous stated preference). Then again, I don't consider a level-based system to be a particularly effective way to tell a story, anyway, so I'm kind of an oddball, maybe too avant garde for my own good.

[konfeta]

I love some of these counter-arguments. "If you remove XP from combat it becomes pointless and ruins the game."

Question - if the combat of this game is so incredibly ****ty that you cannot bear it unless it assigns a trickle of rewards in form of a pretty number per kill, why the hell are you playing this game? What kind of a depraved sadomasochist are you? This is the single most annoying argument I have ever saw applied to games. If you percieve the gameplay itself to be low quality, why are you so pathetically easily tricked into liking the game via arbitrary number assignments? Grow a god damned backbone and play a game you actually enjoy in the act of playing instead of demanding digital pat on your head every time you pull a lever.

The character building element is not damaged by reassigning XP from kills to objective completion or general progress. The loot from killing enemies is still there. All it does is expand options. It frees Bioware to design more varied ways to progress through the game. The game does not become any less of an RPG even if you are a pure mechanics freak (an audience, quite frankly, that should be playing games like Diablo if numerical character building aspect is their primary source of endorphin in a game).

Modifié par konfeta, 22 juillet 2010 - 12:38 .

[Patrickblah]

no because this is da not me2 maybe a more complex leveling system like killing people levels up ur overall combat skills and other stuff levels up different areas but that would be annoying so don't change it bioware

[Tirigon]

Dick Delaware wrote...


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

Apparently these guys are making a game that seems interesting; I´m just downloading the Combat demo. Do you know if there is more demos released or if the game is even out yet? The latest infos I´ve seen is from 2009.

[Dick Delaware]

tmp7704 wrote...
While that article is interesting, the part that summarizes it for me is:

"Q: Yeah, yeah, whatever. Non-combat gameplay = giving your character high intelligence and choosing the wordiest options available. It's a great read, but from a player-game interaction standpoint, not much is going on there."

"That would be bad design again. The way I see it, the diplomatic path, for example, should require a lot of in-game knowledge, interacting with characters, forming relationships, and so on. (..)

So, as you can see, kids, non-combat gameplay is interesting, realistic, and more complex than clicking on lines with more than three words."

... and yet, his detailed example of 'non-combat approach to assassination" is exactly that from the player's standpoint -- clicking on lines with more than three words with couple skill checks thrown in. Having these wordier lines may or may not require clicking on some similarly long lines when talking to other characters earlier. But still, it appears to fail moving beyond what the author himself calls bad design.

In his example, you'd have to find an appropriate disguise, investigate the situation that the Lord in the fortress is in, and really know your sh*t to pull off the disguise well. It's not like you can go up to the guard and ask him to let you in and he just opens the door because you have a maxed out Charisma stat. There's an investigative portion to non-combat dialogue that fills up the time and makes it really interesting.

A lot of skill checks require the player to have gained knowledge about something beforehand, so finding things out is necessary.

To cite another example from Bloodlines. There's a gargoyle in this abandoned theater that could cause problems for the local vampire leadership in Hollywood by breaking the Masquerade and revealing the identity of supernatural beings. However, you might have picked up a book earlier in the game at an NPC's place about gargoyles. If you speak to him and persuade him to tell you more, he'll inform you that he created the Gargoyle from the abandoned theater, but it left him because it resented serving under the rule of scheming vampire lords like him. Armed with this information, and only if you have this information, you can manage to negotiate with the gargoyle to ally himself with the local vampire leader in Hollywood (who is opposed to the leader who created the gargoyle) and avoid conflict.

I'm interested in what you would suggest to avoid the "clicking on lines more than three words long with a couple of skill checks thrown in" problem. Thoughts?

tmp7704 wrote...
Also, on somewhat ironic sidenote, the author is developer for Age of Decadence. The only demo of that game possible to download from that game web page?

"Combat demo".

Yes, I have not tried it yet but I will soon. I don't see why it's particularly ironic - combat is still an important part of the game if you choose to create a combat based build. It should be done well. If you have a charismatic con artist or a brilliant scholar, for example, it's possible to avoid combat throughout the game. They released a demo I think Christmas 2009 

[Tirigon]

CLime wrote...


Too true.  Oblivion is a great game, but the leveling system is terribly broken to anyone with even a hint of Power Gamer personality.  The fact that skills like Illusion and Mysticism leveled up very quickly while things like Mercantilism and Restoration took forever was annoying enough, but the whole major/minor skill system was so counter-intuitive that you were actually discouraged from specializing in your most commonly-used skills.

Well I disagree.

I admit, the leveling system was not perfect but it was a great idea and with the mod I mentioned before that allowed you to level attributes as you see fit it was great.

However, on my first playthrough (about 100 hours ingame) I didn´t use any mods and I DID pick the skills I used most as main skills, and while my character was obviously not as strong as with mods he was still insanely powerful; to the degree where even the toughest fights were merely a little delay compared to walking away invisible, but not at all more challenging, and I only killed for amusement anymore.
Because, you know, it is sometimes funny to see 5 daedra-lords attacking you, and you kill the first with a single spell, stun the second, kill one with your sword, 1hit the next and then heal, so you´re not even wounded....

Anyways, long speech short: If you had trouble getting imba in Oblivion you suck at the game. Sorry for the harsh words but it´s the truth.

[Tirigon]

slimgrin wrote...

Lets remove the fun factor accrued per kill. More immersion that way.

Is this supposed to be a troll post or do I simply not understand you?

[iTomes]

well i think removing the necessarity of fightening from a game wont work. by some games, maybe. but dragon age for example is a mature game in an "dark" enviroment. making something like it a "awww im running through a world of flowers enchanting anything" just wouldn't make sense. when a fight is necessary, this just proves the seriousness of a situation, so a "non fightening everywhere" is rather an option for very simple, very bright games.

[IrishSpectre257]

They just need to reward the player with the same amount of exp they would have gotten from a fight, if they manage to avoid it through dialogue.



Which is the exact same thing, but people love to overreact when it comes to change.

[Tirigon]

iTomes wrote...

well i think removing the necessarity of fightening from a game wont work. by some games, maybe. but dragon age for example is a mature game in an "dark" enviroment. making something like it a "awww im running through a world of flowers enchanting anything" just wouldn't make sense. when a fight is necessary, this just proves the seriousness of a situation, so a "non fightening everywhere" is rather an option for very simple, very bright games.

Well against darkspawn you are right. But even in a grim, dark world (or especially in such a one) it makes sense that you could, for example infiltrate your enemy´s castle and assassinate the lord instead of killing 50 guards.

And let´s face it - a lot of the combat in DAO was terribly constructed. Especially all the bandits in Denerim and the guards who attack you if you pickpocket too much. Seriously, in these encounters I killed probably as many guys as I killed darkspawn in the final battle.........

[Dick Delaware]

iTomes wrote...

well i think removing the necessarity of fightening from a game wont work. by some games, maybe. but dragon age for example is a mature game in an "dark" enviroment. making something like it a "awww im running through a world of flowers enchanting anything" just wouldn't make sense. when a fight is necessary, this just proves the seriousness of a situation, so a "non fightening everywhere" is rather an option for very simple, very bright games.

I don't think so at all. Fallout 1 was incredibly bleak at times, way darker than Dragon Age, yet you could go through it with very little fighting - well, if you were really smart.  Yes, there are some situations where you shouldn't be able to avoid a fight - darkspawn are bound to the Archdemon, so it's obviously not like you can have a nice little chat over some coffee with them. But my point is, it's not like there isn't precedent here.

Man, there are tons of real life examples of people avoiding getting killed in some horrible places using nothing but their wits, too. It's not like it's outside of the realm of plausibility. Read the article I linked to on the previous page, there are some interesting examples there.

[Dick Delaware]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

They just need to reward the player with the same amount of exp they would have gotten from a fight, if they manage to avoid it through dialogue.

Which is the exact same thing, but people love to overreact when it comes to change.

Exactly. Nobody is saying "remove combat from the game" they're (or, I am, at least) am just saying, give people more ways to accomplish things in ways they see fit and reward the player without giving a bias to combat. I'm not being unreasonable here.

[somebody99000]

iTomes wrote...

well i think removing the necessarity of fightening from a game wont work. by some games, maybe. but dragon age for example is a mature game in an "dark" enviroment. making something like it a "awww im running through a world of flowers enchanting anything" just wouldn't make sense. when a fight is necessary, this just proves the seriousness of a situation, so a "non fightening everywhere" is rather an option for very simple, very bright games.

Um, no it isn't. You can have a very dark, very grim atmosphere and quest without ever having to fire a shot (or swing a sword, as the case may be).

Just to make an example, let's suppose that in DAII you find a town that's deserted--there's no one there. Maybe not so odd, in Thedas, but when you camp there, overnight you're sucked into the Fade, and you learn that the town had a blood mage who made a deal with demons to protect it from the blight. However, one part of the deal was to prevent violence in his town, so you can't just run in and kill him (besides, that might have...undesirable effects). You have to find out the motivations of this mage, his relationships
with the people there, and so forth to convince him that what he's done is wrong and he needs to stop it, allowing him to overcome the demons and reverse the spell (incidentally killing everyone in the town). Or, you could just convince him to send you back--you don't belong there, anyways, so this is easier and more straightforward (preserving the town, but of course in a dream-world).

See? A relatively complex moral outcome (preserve the dream-world and semblence of life, or destroy it but liberate these people?), a quest you certainly wouldn't find in some "very simple, very bright" game, and no fighting whatsoever. And that's just something I whipped up in a couple of minutes, surely Bioware could do better.

EDIT: Also, even against the Darkspawn there are probably non-combat things you could do to get around them. For example, convincing people who otherwise would not have supported you to send armies and supplies to fight them, which to be fair was in DA to some extent, or sneaking in and killing important targets. You don't necessarily have to kill the whole horde to get the Archdemon, you know, nor do you have to do it by yourself.

Modifié par somebody99000, 22 juillet 2010 - 01:39 .