702 réponses à ce sujet

[soteria]

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.

How can you feel this is possibly true? Combat doesn't make a game dark and serious any more than lack of combat makes it simple and bright. Sometimes violence is necessary, but that doesn't mean finding a non-combat solution to a problem is like running through a field of flowers enchanting anything. To use a real-life example, was the Cuban Missile Crisis not serious simply because it wasn't resolved with violence?

[iTomes]

Dick Delaware wrote...

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.

thats just what i say. its fine to be able to avoid many fights and to solve many situations peacefully. but if you make "everything can be solved without a fight", you lose potentiall. for example: cold blooded assassins wont stop killing me if i ask them to. and if a situation is so desperate that someone feels forces or is forced to fight you and you cant stop him from hit, this proves that serious things happen and the world just isn't always a flowerfield.

[iTomes]

soteria 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.

How can you feel this is possibly true? Combat doesn't make a game dark and serious any more than lack of combat makes it simple and bright. Sometimes violence is necessary, but that doesn't mean finding a non-combat solution to a problem is like running through a field of flowers enchanting anything. To use a real-life example, was the Cuban Missile Crisis not serious simply because it wasn't resolved with violence?

not the point i was making: i was saying if EVERY situation is solved peacefully it takes the seriousness out of the game. kuba was solved peacefully yes. vietnam? nope. korea? neither. thats what life is like. one time somethings solved peacefully, the other one not. if youre making everything peacefully, youre making something very bright shiny and pretty that is really far away from the real life...

[somebody99000]

iTomes wrote...
thats just what i say. its fine to be able to avoid many fights and to solve many situations peacefully. but if you make "everything can be solved without a fight", you lose potentiall. for example: cold blooded assassins wont stop killing me if i ask them to. and if a situation is so desperate that someone feels forces or is forced to fight you and you cant stop him from hit, this proves that serious things happen and the world just isn't always a flowerfield.

That's not true. Assassins by definition are people who kill for the money (well, in games, at least). If I'm really rich, why don't I just offer to pay them more than they would have gotten for killing me to leave me alone (from a distance of course, so they can't just kill me after I pay up)? I could also point out that I have powerful friends (ex-party members, or current party members) who would take unkindly at best to killing me. If they have a reputation to keep, I could offer to help fake my death, letting everyone be happy: the guy who hired them thinks I'm dead, I'm not, and the assassins get paid twice and keep their reputation. Or what if I happen to be so persuasive, like Napoleon, that I can convince the people who are trying to kill me that they'd rather work for me, instead? I could then find out where the assassins are based and who's paying for them, and then take them out. In short, there are a lot of non-combat or at least minimal-combat ways to deal with assassins, it doesn't have to be all about kill kill kill.

[soteria]

not the point i was making: i was saying if EVERY situation is solved peacefully it takes the seriousness out of the game. kuba was solved peacefully yes. vietnam? nope. korea? neither. thats what life is like. one time somethings solved peacefully, the other one not. if youre making everything peacefully, youre making something very bright shiny and pretty that is really far away from the real life...

I still disagree. I've read enough novels that were plenty dark without any violence at all that I just can't agree that a story needs violence to be dark and/or serious. In some of them, a violent solution would have made the story more light-hearted, not the opposite.

Now, my preference in RPGs tends toward the violent solutions because I happen to enjoy combat in video games (usually). I'm not sure I would enjoy playing a purely non-combat character in an RPG. All the same, the non-combat solutions are not necessarily lighter, simpler, or less mature, by any means.

[iTomes]

somebody99000 wrote...

iTomes wrote...
thats just what i say. its fine to be able to avoid many fights and to solve many situations peacefully. but if you make "everything can be solved without a fight", you lose potentiall. for example: cold blooded assassins wont stop killing me if i ask them to. and if a situation is so desperate that someone feels forces or is forced to fight you and you cant stop him from hit, this proves that serious things happen and the world just isn't always a flowerfield.

That's not true. Assassins by definition are people who kill for the money (well, in games, at least). If I'm really rich, why don't I just offer to pay them more than they would have gotten for killing me to leave me alone (from a distance of course, so they can't just kill me after I pay up)? I could also point out that I have powerful friends (ex-party members, or current party members) who would take unkindly at best to killing me. If they have a reputation to keep, I could offer to help fake my death, letting everyone be happy: the guy who hired them thinks I'm dead, I'm not, and the assassins get paid twice and keep their reputation. Or what if I happen to be so persuasive, like Napoleon, that I can convince the people who are trying to kill me that they'd rather work for me, instead? I could then find out where the assassins are based and who's paying for them, and then take them out. In short, there are a lot of non-combat or at least minimal-combat ways to deal with assassins, it doesn't have to be all about kill kill kill.

ok this is slowly getting a little silly.... everything appearantly happening here is that single events are taken (mostly contextless) as prove that violence isn't necessary. cold war? well there was a lot of shooting... napoleon? that guy fought many many wars... and the assassins?? well usually a bunch of murders doesn't come to you and says "hey were the friendly assassins from the neighbourhood and are about to ambush you. see josh here? hes supposed to stay hidden until he sees a good moment to out an arrow into youre back - say hello josh! and jenny for example..."

[Dick Delaware]

iTomes wrote...
not the point i was making: i was saying if EVERY situation is solved peacefully it takes the seriousness out of the game. kuba was solved peacefully yes. vietnam? nope. korea? neither. thats what life is like. one time somethings solved peacefully, the other one not. if youre making everything peacefully, youre making something very bright shiny and pretty that is really far away from the real life...

Playing as a diplomat is not necessarily the same thing as being peaceful. You could trick, manipulate and lie your way through situations to benefit yourself too. 

There are some examples where forced combat encounters make sense, sure. Fighting the spirit army in Mask of the Betrayer at the end of Act I is a great example of this. But they are a drop in the ocean compared to forced boss fights. I find it really annoying when I meet some boss, he gives me the standard villain's exposition detailing what he wants to do, and we're having a civilized chat. Then I get three dialogue options that look like this, in order of how nice you are:

Option #1: I'm sorry, I can't let you live.
Option #2: Let's end this!
Option #3: I'm going to enjoy gutting you!

Dude, if you're going to railroad me, just have him fight me right away!

[iTomes]

soteria wrote...

not the point i was making: i was saying if EVERY situation is solved peacefully it takes the seriousness out of the game. kuba was solved peacefully yes. vietnam? nope. korea? neither. thats what life is like. one time somethings solved peacefully, the other one not. if youre making everything peacefully, youre making something very bright shiny and pretty that is really far away from the real life...

I still disagree. I've read enough novels that were plenty dark without any violence at all that I just can't agree that a story needs violence to be dark and/or serious. In some of them, a violent solution would have made the story more light-hearted, not the opposite.
Now, my preference in RPGs tends toward the violent solutions because I happen to enjoy combat in video games (usually). I'm not sure I would enjoy playing a purely non-combat character in an RPG. All the same, the non-combat solutions are not necessarily lighter, simpler, or less mature, by any means.

okay, a novel is a novel a game is a game. thats a difference. in a novel the limits of the character are usually the limits of the authors mind. in a game you always have to performe a fightening solution, at least thats what the article were talking about assumes. besides, were still talking about fantasy rpgs here right?? if i didn't say that i request to apologize for the not saying the important thing. in other genres other rules count. but in a fantasy rpg its usual that there are strong evil creatures to fight. thats part of the game. theres an arch-villain, and that guy has to die or something. besides, for a non fightening solution in every part of the game the enemy always has to be in a little disadvantage or at least not in a too strong advantage. thats what i meant with "bright". if a situation is inlogically performed inviolent or if situations who arent solvable with violence arent accuring, because there always *has* to be the peacefull way.

[iTomes]

Dick Delaware wrote...

iTomes wrote...
not the point i was making: i was saying if EVERY situation is solved peacefully it takes the seriousness out of the game. kuba was solved peacefully yes. vietnam? nope. korea? neither. thats what life is like. one time somethings solved peacefully, the other one not. if youre making everything peacefully, youre making something very bright shiny and pretty that is really far away from the real life...

Playing as a diplomat is not necessarily the same thing as being peaceful. You could trick, manipulate and lie your way through situations to benefit yourself too. 

There are some examples where forced combat encounters make sense, sure. Fighting the spirit army in Mask of the Betrayer at the end of Act I is a great example of this. But they are a drop in the ocean compared to forced boss fights. I find it really annoying when I meet some boss, he gives me the standard villain's exposition detailing what he wants to do, and we're having a civilized chat. Then I get three dialogue options that look like this, in order of how nice you are:

Option #1: I'm sorry, I can't let you live.
Option #2: Let's end this!
Option #3: I'm going to enjoy gutting you!

Dude, if you're going to railroad me, just have him fight me right away!

could it be we are pretty much of an similar opinion??

[soteria]

Option #1: I'm sorry, I can't let you live.

Option #2: Let's end this!

Option #3: I'm going to enjoy gutting you!

Heh, reminds me of KotOR 2. Those are, nearly verbatim, the dialogue options you get on Onderon when you face the Jedi master defending the queen if you sided with General Vaklu earlier. Only difference is that one of the options is, "Before I kill you, I'd like to know..." It ticked me off to no end, because I was trying to RP a mostly LS Jedi who didn't care for the Republic.

[Dick Delaware]

slimgrin wrote...

Its my understanding RPG's already do stuff similar to this.

I can recall a couple of quests in Oblivion where I got rewarded with some bonus gear for not killing during the mission. Just do this with xp.

Too much talking, though, tends to get a little bland. I kinda like the fighting part.

Oblivion is not a good example of non-combat design. The only places that had any semblance of player freedom for completing a quest was in the Dark Brotherhood and Thieve's Guild questlines. 99% of the game was combat anyways - Persuasion and Mercantile were completely useless since you could simply bribe/charm anyone and dialogue was limited to "I saw a mudrab the other day... horrible creatures!"

But anyways, nobody is suggesting that fighting is out. That's an important part of the gameplay too. If you want to play as a badass barbarian who lets his sword do the talking, you should. But what I'm advocating is a more diverse approach that allows you to do that AND more. Right now, in like 95% of RPG's, a different class or build simply means that you kill things in a different way, rather than experience the game in a different way. Which is what I think is what it should be about.

[Pocketgb]

Bethesda put it best in Daggerfall's (NOT Oblivion's!) manual:

"If my thief wants to get better at lock-picking, he has to go stab a rat. Why can't my thief get better at lock-picking by *lock-picking?*"

That's why I kind of liked where things were going with ME2: Shooting a noob is easy, but you actually learn and are rewarded something for doing the task in its entirety.

Of course, it could make more sense if you were given chunks of EXP in certain increments, but ME2 was onto something interesting.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 juillet 2010 - 02:27 .

[iTomes]

"But anyways, nobody is suggesting that fighting is out. That's an important part of the gameplay too. If you want to play as a badass barbarian who lets his sword do the talking, you should. But what I'm advocating is a more diverse approach that allows you to do that AND more. Right now, in like 95% of RPG's, a different class or build simply means that you kill things in a different way, rather than experience the game in a different way. Which is what I think is what it should be about."



agreed. but theres one last problem and the ultimate finishing argument: content like non violent solutions are pretty expensive (level design, dialoges and stuff) and dont take that much time to play (at least if there not totally overcomplex so noone gets it and following to that almost noone uses it) while sending the player hundreds of enemys is pretty cheap, takes a long time to play and can be done over and over again^^.

[Dick Delaware]

iTomes wrote...
agreed. but theres one last problem and the ultimate finishing argument: content like non violent solutions are pretty expensive (level design, dialoges and stuff) and dont take that much time to play (at least if there not totally overcomplex so noone gets it and following to that almost noone uses it) while sending the player hundreds of enemys is pretty cheap, takes a long time to play and can be done over and over again^^.

You can have an extensive investigative style quest without any sort of combat that can take a while. Hell, Mass Effect 2 had Samara and Thane's Loyalty quest - no combat in either. Sure, you couldn't complete them violently, so you were still doing only one thing, but it's not entirely without precedent. Those quests still contained a good amount of length.

Again, I have to cite Mask of the Betrayer here. It has a ton of optional fights with NPC's that you can avoid depending on what you do, choices you make in the game, etc. Great example of nonlinearity. Of course, there are plenty of places where you fight too in places where it makes sense, but you also have a ton of freedom to really play your character as you see fit. This game was created on a much smaller budget than Dragon Age was, yet it is a lot less linear as well.

Part of the reason is the gaming industry's hilarious desire for MOAR production values. It's really not necessary. Now, especially with DAII, you need voice acting for everybody, doesn't matter if it's the love of Hawke's life or that fugly-looking Casteless Dwarf, they need a voice or else the precious IMMERSHUN!!! goes down the drain. God forbid you give a merchant or a random guy on the street a text line without voice-over.

If it were up to me, I'd only have companions, major characters, and have Villager #3 relegated to text. So, let's take Redcliffe. You'd get voices for Connor, Teagan, Isolde, but text for knights like Ser Perth, villagers like Tuomas, etc. Cheaper. 

Also, it's this bullsh*t achievement/completionist mentality at work. If I miss out on some content because I can complete things in different ways, the game sucks! Can't let two different people experience the difference in vastly different ways, that's just crazy talk.

I think that part of the reason, other than cost, is laziness. Nobody is willing to give you that kind of experience that really provides you with a ton of freedom to solve quests as you see fit. A lot of folks that like playing BioWare games, like playing them for a fun adventure story and some romances. They aren't really looking for an experience that provides the kind of role-playing I'm looking for. I thought Dragon Age was pretty good, particularly compared to past BioWare games when it comes to consequences, so I don't see why they can't continue this. 

However, also considering the large budget BioWare gets on account of EA, I'm not sure how strong the cost argument is. 

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 22 juillet 2010 - 03:13 .

[In Exile]

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

Ok, yeah, that's just stupid. That should never have been in and I curse whoever thought it would be a good idea. I think it was supposed to stand in for a debrief with the illusive man.... but I still hated it.

[In Exile]

KethWolfheart wrote...
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.

I have to disagree. Side quests are optional and did offer XP, and companion quests are optional and did offer XP. It is entirely possible to have different games. I suppose you're saying that in DA if you found hidden codex entries or something you'd have a marginal difference in XP... but that's just quibling, because it's like the quest issue in ME2 but not as well hidden.

[darth shango]

I respect the OP's opinion but I disagree. XP per kill makes killing worthwhile in an RPG. In ME2 I found no satisfaction in killing enemies (and wasting "clips") because I didn't gain anything from it. Games like Halo and COD6:MW2 make no XP kills satisfying, but that's not what I want from an RPG. I'm pretty sure DA:O does reward you with XP for opting not to fight in some situations. Bottom line is XP per kill is an RPG mechanic that I enjoy.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I dont think it is a case of removing XP per kill but rewarding a similar amount of XP for completing your mission in a different way like sneaking past your enemies and whatnot. However the problem with Bioware games is that the missions are pretty linear and it is impossible to sneak past the bulk of the enemies (unless you have a party of rouges), the enemies that you can avoid however are down dead end paths that you would only see if you took the time to explore, to take away xp from kills and reward you for not engaging these enemies would be just like rewarding the player for being lazy.
Bioware really needs to improve their mission structure, they need to give us multiple ways to complete a mission instead of just making us grind through enemy after enemy and making a black or white choice at the end that doesnt really change much. Lets take a look at Leliana's Song, I really thought that this would be different and would force you to use your head to solve tasks and find a different way to complete a mission other that slaughtering guards, however it wasnt. As soon as you do one of the tasks the guards turn hostle and with Tug and Sketch tagging along it is impossible to avoid conflict, even if you get Tug and Sketch to hold their positions out of sight and get Leliana to stealth as soon as you get near a guard they will turn hostile (even though they cant see you) and Leliana will go into combat mode and you cant do anything till the guards are taken care of. That is just the first part of the game, the rest is just a linear dungeon crawl.

iTomes wrote...
agreed. but theres one last problem and the ultimate finishing argument: content like non violent solutions are pretty expensive (level design, dialoges and stuff) and dont take that much time to play (at least if there not totally overcomplex so noone gets it and following to that almost noone uses it) while sending the player hundreds of enemys is pretty cheap, takes a long time to play and can be done over and over again^^.

And this is why Bioware will never be the great developer they were when they made the Baldur's Gate series, they simply dont give a **** about their games anymore and instead only care about their profits. Bioware simply wont comit the funds needed to make their games great and instead recycle the same old story and the same types of characters, hell they cant even commit the funds to turn out unique armour sets (hey guys we need a really cool armour reward for Leliana's Song, I know lets just give the studded leather armour a slight recolour and call it a day) or make unique side missions (Mass Effect is the worst offender for this). The way Bioware cuts corners you would think they were hardly turning a profit at all (horses are too expensive so lets cut them from the Ostagar cutscene).

[Rubbish Hero]

XP bar help cocaine RPG like habit, very good, makes you want to keep playing.

No sense of progression in Mass Effect, lame spend points and barely any items.

[Dick Delaware]

darth shango wrote...

I respect the OP's opinion but I disagree. XP per kill makes killing worthwhile in an RPG. In ME2 I found no satisfaction in killing enemies (and wasting "clips") because I didn't gain anything from it. Games like Halo and COD6:MW2 make no XP kills satisfying, but that's not what I want from an RPG. I'm pretty sure DA:O does reward you with XP for opting not to fight in some situations. Bottom line is XP per kill is an RPG mechanic that I enjoy.

Why do you find kills in Halo or Modern Warfare satisfying, but not in ME2? You don't necessarily have to remove XP per kill entirely (although Bloodlines was a fantastic RPG that showed that you easily could) but at the very least, you HAVE to not gimp alternate methods. The way things are now, XP and loot is given for killing things, but not for avoiding fights. This is a problem of bad design that we've been talking about in general, but really, putting in that Diablo style of XP onto a game that's trying to present itself as an RPG is just ridiculous and I don't see why so many folks are so up in arms about it. There is a precedent for this kind of thing, other great games have done it, and it would open up new doors and allow players to experience the game in different ways. What's not to like?

[iTomes]

@ Dick Delaware: 1.the cost argument pulls if youre trying to make the whole game non linear and without fighting. besides, that everyone must have a voice wouln't have been in there when it wouldn't have brought more money then it cost.

2. i think the financial problem only comes up now. you see, i think the costs for DA1 were gigantic (i think). the game was 7 years or so in development (or less or more whatever friggin long), and that is kinda expensive. i guess that DA2 will be less linear again.

[joriandrake]

soteria wrote...

not the point i was making: i was saying if EVERY situation is solved peacefully it takes the seriousness out of the game. kuba was solved peacefully yes. vietnam? nope. korea? neither. thats what life is like. one time somethings solved peacefully, the other one not. if youre making everything peacefully, youre making something very bright shiny and pretty that is really far away from the real life...

I still disagree. I've read enough novels that were plenty dark without any violence at all that I just can't agree that a story needs violence to be dark and/or serious. In some of them, a violent solution would have made the story more light-hearted, not the opposite.

this is especially true for mystery/detective books


oh, how I would love to have a proper detective RPG, or an RPG focusing on that a lot

[godlike13]

Slidell505 wrote...

Get. The. **** out.

This

[iTomes]

"this is especially true for mystery/detective books"



indeed, but were talking about fantasy here ^^