925 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Ah, you mean gimp yourself. Okay, then play ME2 without shooting - powers only + companions. Play ME2 without buying any upgrades, using base weapons, and turning party powers off.

There is a lot of depth to THINK about encounters if you're running stupid suboptimal builds entirely for the sake of gimping yourself. You can do this in any game. This does not make DA tactical; it makes you a gluton for punishment.

It's good that we have your wisdom to save us. The exact same thing can be said for ME2 - create artificial challenges that involve much greater difficulty in any encounter on any difficulty. You happen to think that this state somehow makes DA special. Good for you.

Like in DA - more spell spamming depending on the difficulty you choose. Unless you pick a gimp build, like no offensive spells. In which case it's entirely like a no-guns ME2 playthrough.]

There are good roleplauying reason to choose a less than optimal build.  Or you might have specific gameplay preferences that run contrary to what would be optimal.  For example, I don't like using any weapon that isn't a sniper rifle.  If I'm going to forced to play a shooter, I want to engage everything from extreme range.

Except, of course, ME2's ammo system (which makes no sense within the game's lore) means that I can't use just one weapon all the time.  So, I use my rifle, and when I run out of ammo I stop shooting, because I don't want to use a submachine gun.  I don't want to use a pistol.

And I generally choose squadmates based on which ones I thnk would most like to go on that particular mission.  It's primarily an HR concern.

There are other reasons to choose one option over another in an RPG aside from just min/maxing.  I played a mage in DAO who started out with on the Glyph spells, because I decided she thought they were nifty and didn't learn anything else while at the tower.  Is that an optimal build?  No (though it does make the Ogre in the tower really easy when you can drop a paralysis explosion on him), but it is fun.

[Merced256]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Ah, you mean gimp yourself. Okay, then play ME2 without shooting - powers only + companions. Play ME2 without buying any upgrades, using base weapons, and turning party powers off.

There is a lot of depth to THINK about encounters if you're running stupid suboptimal builds entirely for the sake of gimping yourself. You can do this in any game. This does not make DA tactical; it makes you a gluton for punishment.

It's good that we have your wisdom to save us. The exact same thing can be said for ME2 - create artificial challenges that involve much greater difficulty in any encounter on any difficulty. You happen to think that this state somehow makes DA special. Good for you.

Like in DA - more spell spamming depending on the difficulty you choose. Unless you pick a gimp build, like no offensive spells. In which case it's entirely like a no-guns ME2 playthrough.]

There are good roleplauying reason to choose a less than optimal build.  Or you might have specific gameplay preferences that run contrary to what would be optimal.  For example, I don't like using any weapon that isn't a sniper rifle.  If I'm going to forced to play a shooter, I want to engage everything from extreme range.

Except, of course, ME2's ammo system (which makes no sense within the game's lore) means that I can't use just one weapon all the time.  So, I use my rifle, and when I run out of ammo I stop shooting, because I don't want to use a submachine gun.  I don't want to use a pistol.

And I generally choose squadmates based on which ones I thnk would most like to go on that particular mission.  It's primarily an HR concern.

There are other reasons to choose one option over another in an RPG aside from just min/maxing.  I played a mage in DAO who started out with on the Glyph spells, because I decided she thought they were nifty and didn't learn anything else while at the tower.  Is that an optimal build?  No (though it does make the Ogre in the tower really easy when you can drop a paralysis explosion on him), but it is fun.

"There are good roleplauying reason to choose a less than optimal build. 
Or you might have specific gameplay preferences that run contrary to
what would be optimal"

Some of us tried drilling this in to his head 25 pages ago but he still doesn't get it, especially for someone who was previously so concerned about the story telling and rp aspect of DA.

[HarryThePlotter]

Since NWN2 is my all time favorite RPG and I want to jump the argument wagon too, I will make the following points:

Role Playing + Game is what I want. Not just one, not just the other.

It is true that story is supportive to Role playing. No denying it. Expression is essential and gives you character. But elements such as Skills, Feats and Attributes are important mechanic that make the GAMEPLAY interesting.That's the Min/Maxer in me speaking, I guess. I am saying this because I bought NWN2 2 years back and I am STILL discovering glorious new builds that I use in PvP (not really relevant to DA2 I know) and PvM (relevant). This represents to me the GAME part of the RPG. The story and non-linearity and characterization are the RP part.

Modifié par HarryThePlotter, 03 septembre 2010 - 10:28 .

[In Exile]

Merced256 wrote...
"There are good roleplauying reason to choose a less than optimal build. 
Or you might have specific gameplay preferences that run contrary to
what would be optimal"

Some of us tried drilling this in to his head 25 pages ago but he still doesn't get it, especially for someone who was previously so concerned about the story telling and rp aspect of DA.

Since it seems you are not particularly bright, I am going to break this down for you in simple terms, brosky (you like that term, it seems).

You can use whatever reason you want to gimp yourself - roleplay or not. When debating whether or not the combat is itself tactical (particularly in comparison to some other thing) we have to compare relevantly similar things.

In this case, whatever faux standard of difficulty you want to invent for DA and argue that it makes it tactical, I can provide a relevant counter-example from ME. If the mere fact you can gimp yourself for higher difficulty makes a game tactical, then ME is tactical.

So, once again, your standard is stupid. If DA is tactical simply because you can gimp yourself, ME2 is tactical because you can gimp yourself.

ETA:

And for like the 15th time, what I think is roleplay is not what you seem to think is roleplay, beyond the very obvious fact that I could just role-play a character that picks direct damage spells and is otherwise not an idiot and can see which abilities are obviously more efficent killers than others (for example that force paralysis is very useful, and exploding their insides with fire is better than +3 bonus to attack).

Modifié par In Exile, 03 septembre 2010 - 10:44 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There are good roleplauying reason to choose a less than optimal build.  Or you might have specific gameplay preferences that run contrary to what would be optimal.  For example, I don't like using any weapon that isn't a sniper rifle.  If I'm going to forced to play a shooter, I want to engage everything from extreme range.

There is nothing particularly wrong with this. I never denied this, in fact.

What we are debating, however, is what it is that makes a particular game tactical. One definition offered was that, if you so choose, in Dragon Age you can create a very difficult experience with particular builds, while in ME2 this is impossible; hence DA is tactical and ME2 is not.

My counter, as you so aptly prove, is that in fact, in ME2 this is possible. You can dramatically alter your combat experience and the difficultly of it in virtue of what restrictions you choose to apply for yourself (the reason for being irrelevant for the moment).

So if being able to restrict yourself for greater difficulty is a sufficient condition for being tactical, then ME2 is tactical. But the argument was that DA was tactical while ME2 was not tactical, for precisely this reason. So the argument is self-contradictory, and therefore invalid.

Except, of course, ME2's ammo system (which makes no sense within the game's lore) means that I can't use just one weapon all the time.  So, I use my rifle, and when I run out of ammo I stop shooting, because I don't want to use a submachine gun.  I don't want to use a pistol.

There is nothing wrong with this, either. Preference. Adds difficultly. But you would agree that there is no reason for a game to make any gameplay choice equally viable.

And I generally choose squadmates based on which ones I thnk would most like to go on that particular mission.  It's primarily an HR concern.

Again, fairly reasonable.

There are other reasons to choose one option over another in an RPG aside from just min/maxing.  I played a mage in DAO who started out with on the Glyph spells, because I decided she thought they were nifty and didn't learn anything else while at the tower.  Is that an optimal build?  No (though it does make the Ogre in the tower really easy when you can drop a paralysis explosion on him), but it is fun.

Certainly. I am simply saying that the combat in Dragon Age is not tactical if you set out with the expressed purpose of defeating the combat engine, which is precisely what everyone who plays ME2 does (oh, it's a shooter - let's take the most efficient path in killing things!).

[Skyplant]

I agree that it is extremely annoying having the inventory like it is in DA:O, unless you run around actively searching for backpacks, you sometimes have to make several trips in a level, especially in the deep roads.



I havent played mass effect 2 yet because I have a ps3, so I dont know exactly what it will be like or if I'll prefer it, the more traditional RPG style it is a bit annoying in DA:O tbh

[HTTP 404]

Skyplant wrote...

I agree that it is extremely annoying having the inventory like it is in DA:O, unless you run around actively searching for backpacks, you sometimes have to make several trips in a level, especially in the deep roads.

I havent played mass effect 2 yet because I have a ps3, so I dont know exactly what it will be like or if I'll prefer it, the more traditional RPG style it is a bit annoying in DA:O tbh

Even though I thought the combat played out very nice when I tried it (just my opinion).  I do hope the inventory system isnt changed too much.  In fact I would want more armor pieces, cloaks,  and more options.  Not less.  I can see maybe streamlining so we dont need an iron dagger for every kill to every 30 kills.

Also, I noticed a lot of name calling and some nasty comments that thought may warrant a ban,

[Riona45]

Merced256 wrote...
Some of us tried drilling this in to his head 25 pages ago but he still doesn't get it...

What a douchey thing to say to someone.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Certainly. I am simply saying that the combat in Dragon Age is not tactical if you set out with the expressed purpose of defeating the combat engine, which is precisely what everyone who plays ME2 does (oh, it's a shooter - let's take the most efficient path in killing things!).

And my point is that if you play an RPG like that you're playing it wrong.  Or, at the very least, you're playing it in a way contrary to its design, so you cannot then reasonably expect the game to accommodate you.

And, I feel the need to point out, not everyone plays ME2 like that, as demonstrated by my post which you just quoted.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 septembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Skyplant wrote...

I agree that it is extremely annoying having the inventory like it is in DA:O, unless you run around actively searching for backpacks, you sometimes have to make several trips in a level, especially in the deep roads.

I havent played mass effect 2 yet because I have a ps3, so I dont know exactly what it will be like or if I'll prefer it, the more traditional RPG style it is a bit annoying in DA:O tbh

DAO did have an especially poorly designed inventory system for an RPG.  Those lists are hard to navigate, and the backpack mechanic was just a bad idea.

Not to mention the item limit was too low.  If you're going to punt realism (which they did as soon as nothing had mass and all inventory was shared) then there's no good reason to have an item limit aside from making saves load faster, but that seems like a secondary concern at best.  Yes, there does need to be a limit for technical reasons, but that limit shouldn't ever mean that a party stuck in the Mage Tower can't pick up the loot it finds because there was too much in the tower for them ever to carry all at once.

[Torhagen]

slimgrin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Skyplant wrote...

I agree that it is extremely annoying having the inventory like it is in DA:O, unless you run around actively searching for backpacks, you sometimes have to make several trips in a level, especially in the deep roads.

I havent played mass effect 2 yet because I have a ps3, so I dont know exactly what it will be like or if I'll prefer it, the more traditional RPG style it is a bit annoying in DA:O tbh

DAO did have an especially poorly designed inventory system for an RPG.  Those lists are hard to navigate, and the backpack mechanic was just a bad idea.

Not to mention the item limit was too low.  If you're going to punt realism (which they did as soon as nothing had mass and all inventory was shared) then there's no good reason to have an item limit aside from making saves load faster, but that seems like a secondary concern at best.  Yes, there does need to be a limit for technical reasons, but that limit shouldn't ever mean that a party stuck in the Mage Tower can't pick up the loot it finds because there was too much in the tower for them ever to carry all at once.

I thought it was one of the better inventories, but really, which rpg's have nailed this seemingly simple aspect? 

i think "the Witcher" pretty much nailed it

[wowpwnslol]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...



Not to mention the item limit was too low.  If you're going to punt realism (which they did as soon as nothing had mass and all inventory was shared) then there's no good reason to have an item limit aside from making saves load faster, but that seems like a secondary concern at best.  Yes, there does need to be a limit for technical reasons, but that limit shouldn't ever mean that a party stuck in the Mage Tower can't pick up the loot it finds because there was too much in the tower for them ever to carry all at once.

God forbid you have to manage your inventory and make sure you have enough room before embarking on an adventure in a dungeon. Or spend some of that precious gold on backpacks instead of gear. Kids today want everything to be easymode.

Modifié par wowpwnslol, 04 septembre 2010 - 12:42 .

[OriginsIsBest]

No, no no no no!

[Vandrayke]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...



Not to mention the item limit was too low.  If you're going to punt realism (which they did as soon as nothing had mass and all inventory was shared) then there's no good reason to have an item limit aside from making saves load faster, but that seems like a secondary concern at best.  Yes, there does need to be a limit for technical reasons, but that limit shouldn't ever mean that a party stuck in the Mage Tower can't pick up the loot it finds because there was too much in the tower for them ever to carry all at once.

God forbid you have to manage your inventory and make sure you have enough room before embarking on an adventure in a dungeon. Or spend some of that precious gold on backpacks instead of gear. Kids today want everything to be easymode.

yes because it is SO DIFFICULT to manage your inventory

tedious != challenging 

[Vandrayke]

and I enjoyed the tactics in DAO as well as the tactics in ME2



I think that it should be obvious from ME2 that tactics do not need to be punted when you pick up the pace of combat



Jade Empire-like feel to combat would be great as long as you can pause and tactics are still necessary to succeed on higher difficulties

[HTTP 404]

Vandrayke wrote...

and I enjoyed the tactics in DAO as well as the tactics in ME2

I think that it should be obvious from ME2 that tactics do not need to be punted when you pick up the pace of combat

Jade Empire-like feel to combat would be great as long as you can pause and tactics are still necessary to succeed on higher difficulties

It can be paused

[MerinTB]

I personally found buying bigger and bigger backpacks an odd thing, though DA:O isn't the only game to have done such a thing (the Infinity Engine games with ammo bags and scroll cases and gem bags and such.)



I don't think the maneuvering of the inventory system was clunky at all - I just found (like in most cRPGs) that a vast majority of the items were either redundant or unnecessary. The multiple sizes of healing and mana potions, for example. All the materials for the weapons, while cool in concept, ended up being just an annoyance for me in practice. The introduction of Starfang all but renders most other weapons obsolete, and even without that it's hard to justify maces or axes outside of RP reasons (I used them, but for RP reasons.)

I like lots of options and lots of items. That said, when you get 90% of your options being crap *coughcough3ED&Dcoughcough* you get lots of flotsam and jetsam.

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
The multiple sizes of healing and mana potions, for example.

Unless you're playing modded, different size mana and healing items have a very big effect -- they're on different cooldown timers.

[HTTP 404]

MerinTB wrote...

I personally found buying bigger and bigger backpacks an odd thing, though DA:O isn't the only game to have done such a thing (the Infinity Engine games with ammo bags and scroll cases and gem bags and such.)

I don't think the maneuvering of the inventory system was clunky at all - I just found (like in most cRPGs) that a vast majority of the items were either redundant or unnecessary. The multiple sizes of healing and mana potions, for example. All the materials for the weapons, while cool in concept, ended up being just an annoyance for me in practice. The introduction of Starfang all but renders most other weapons obsolete, and even without that it's hard to justify maces or axes outside of RP reasons (I used them, but for RP reasons.)
I like lots of options and lots of items. That said, when you get 90% of your options being crap *coughcough3ED&Dcoughcough* you get lots of flotsam and jetsam.

this. 

I do want some "streamlining" but only on things redundant but more options on armor pieces, even custom weapons, etc would be nice.  it would be difficult for bioware to create a system that appeased everyone however, I can imagine some people wouldnt like what I would like,

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 Those lists are hard to navigate

Hard? How so? The stuff is in a standard order, and it's easy enough to scroll the thumb to the section you're looking for.

Edit: I'll agree that viewing by type would have been an improvement, though. Even a button that took you to the first item on the list in the appropriate category would have worked.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 septembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And my point is that if you play an RPG like that you're playing it wrong.  Or, at the very least, you're playing it in a way contrary to its design, so you cannot then reasonably expect the game to accommodate you.

No, for you to make this claim is self-contradictory. You told me that you believe the spell descriptions as provided are in-game information that the characters have. In fact, you argued against me, and believe that even detailed, quantified spell descriptions are knowledge that characters in-game should have.

For according to your view, my mage ought to know that flame blast does (100+spellpower)*0.34 damage. If I play a character who has trained to become efficient at killing, who will sorround himself with others who are efficient at killing, and through playing the game (whose ruleset you believe is an accurate rendition of reality) I can develop a party that is precisely the kind of min-max build that happens to make tactics irrelevant, and make dragon age precisely as un-tactical as ME2.

I am not playing the game in any way contrary to its design, even by your standard (which as it happens I disagree is the way the video-game makers designed it; if you want proof, did up the old thread were David spoke about dominant designed and mentioned that he thought the silent VO lines had tone added to them, despite what you believe).

And, I feel the need to point out, not everyone plays ME2 like that, as demonstrated by my post which you just quoted.

Of course, but this demonstrates my point.

[In Exile]

wowpwnslol wrote...

God forbid you have to manage your inventory and make sure you have enough room before embarking on an adventure in a dungeon. Or spend some of that precious gold on backpacks instead of gear. Kids today want everything to be easymode.

LOL

You really, really need to read carefully. Sylvius thinks every design change since Baldur's Gate is the wrong step for an RPG. He things BG2 was represents a horrifying series wrong choice for design.

Keep your hate under control long enough to realize when someone is on your side (and, ironically, is not a kid; Sylvius is at least a decade to old for that).

I'd say you owe him an apology, but given your maturity...

[Sylvius the Mad]

wowpwnslol wrote...

God forbid you have to manage your inventory and make sure you have enough room before embarking on an adventure in a dungeon. Or spend some of that precious gold on backpacks instead of gear. Kids today want everything to be easymode.

I would love that, but I'd rather they be individual inventories and much smaller load limits.

As DAO is designed, the load limit is absurdly large, but it's still too small to let you pick up everything you find in the Mage's Tower, even if you started out carrying almost nothing (remember, early in the game you can't have bought all the backpacks yet).

Since it's not based on realism, or any real gameplay considerarion, DAO's load limit was entirely arbitrary, and seemingly intentionally frustrating.

DAO's inventory system is grossly inferior to either BG's or NWN's by virtue of being grossly unrealistic (those weren't entirely realistic either, but they were closer), but given that it's unrealistic why did they bother with such a low item limit?

[Vandrayke]

actually I'd be in favor of a "realistic" inventory



like if you found a sword that was worth keeping, it wouldn't be a big deal to carry an extra one around for a while



but carrying around 7 leather armors is just stupid because it makes no sense from either a realistic or an RP perspective. It's purely a game mechanic that needs to go away.