925 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.)

Those were BG2's addition, and weren't a particularly good idea.

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

It's sorted in a standard order, but that means that you won't know where anythng is unless you have perfect knowledge of the contents of your inventory.

If they'd used a grid instead of a list (I'm thinking of an icon-based grid, not a NWN-style tetris grid) , they could fit more items on the screen at a time and allow you to sort the items manually, thus ensureing that anything you want is exactly where you left it.

I don't want to have to find the potion I want each time.  I want to know exactly where it's going to appear on the screen when I open my inventory.

To use NWN as an example (which is directly analogous for small items), if you wanted to find your Potion of Owl's Wisdom in NWN, and you'd arranged your potions, you'd always know that your Potion of Owl's Wisdom was third from the left on the bottom row (or wherever you'd left it), so you'd never need to look at the potions to figure out which was which, or scroll through a list to find the one you want.  Everything would be exactly where you'd left it every time.

That's an efficient UI.  DAO's list was terribly inefficient by comparison.

In Exile wrote...

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.

That wasn't strictly my position (I thought that the PC would have accurate quantitative data, but perhaps not perfect formulae - but I held that perfect forumlae were the best way to give the player the information he needed to play his character appropriately), but it's close enough in this case.

Good point.  Any PC whose personality revolved around efficiency (though not all PC's would have such a personality) would approach party construction is exactly that way.  You are correct.

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).

David asserted that the lines were written with a specific tone in mind.  That is immaterial to whether they need to be selected as if they had that particular tone.  The PC could well deliver them with a different tone.  Why do you think the writer's intent matters at all (especially since it isn't knowable to the player)?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 septembre 2010 - 08:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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'm 35.

Though I don't see how that's relevant to the content of my posts.

[Vandrayke]

I think that there should be one type of potion that scales throughout the game

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vandrayke wrote...

I think that there should be one type of potion that scales throughout the game

How would you explain that inside the game's lore?

It would be easier to do away with HP growth and just reduce damage taken as you gain combat prowess.  the potions would remain the same all game, but you'd use them less often.

The effect would be the same, but it would make more sense than the current HP design.

[Vandrayke]

I think combat should be more fast paced and action based



But I also think that some fights should be impossible to win without using tactics on normal difficulty

[Heavenblade]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How would you explain that inside the game's lore?

It would be easier to do away with HP growth and just reduce damage taken as you gain combat prowess.  the potions would remain the same all game, but you'd use them less often.

The effect would be the same, but it would make more sense than the current HP design.

Agreed, this system makes much more sense to me.

[shootist70]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It would be easier to do away with HP growth and just reduce damage taken as you gain combat prowess.  the potions would remain the same all game, but you'd use them less often.

The effect would be the same, but it would make more sense than the current HP design.

Wouldn't an even better solution be to have a character that can move faster as he gains experience, so is able to block/evade more effectively? And I don't mean dice roll block/evade, but actual player control. In other words, your character actually does the things that stats managed dice-roll combat merely simulates.

Modifié par shootist70, 04 septembre 2010 - 09:34 .

[Vandrayke]

Heavenblade wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How would you explain that inside the game's lore?

It would be easier to do away with HP growth and just reduce damage taken as you gain combat prowess.  the potions would remain the same all game, but you'd use them less often.

The effect would be the same, but it would make more sense than the current HP design.

Agreed, this system makes much more sense to me.

absolutely.  That makes a lot more sense than what I said about scaling potions.  The concept of HP growth is stupid anyways.  As you get better at combat, your evasion should increase,  so you take glancing blows instead of direct hits.  

[Lusitanum]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...

How
much of this conversation if just flying over your head, btw?

If
any of it is then you're not expressing yourself well.

No, I did it just fine, it's just your limitations on viewing the world from outside your own PoV that's getting in the way.
Give it a real try now.

Altima Darkspells wrote...

A lot of the ****ing about the inventory and lotting in DAO could (and should) be solved by simply making most of the best items found via quests or optional bosses, such as it was in BG2. Instead, BioWare put the 'best' items in stores selling for such high prices that you can--maybe--afford two or three through your whole playthrough, assuming you buy little to nothing else (or cheat/bug exploit).

Yeah, that's was a really stupid thing to do, which means that (unless you cheat/exploit, like you said), your best bet is to just buy the best items for yourself, since your character is the only constant in your party through the whole game and can be carried out to the Awakening and other modules. I understand the need to make it so that money isn't as much of a non-issue as it was in ME1 (after a while you could blow away all your money in anything you wanted and you'd probably still finish the game with 9.999.999 credits), but making the best items prohibitively expensive just doesn't make any sense.

And again, ME2 handled this aspect much better, in large part because it completely ditched the useless inventory system. Now, all you buy in shops are pieces of armor for Shepard for fairly reasonable prices but your biggest expenses will be on upgrades to shields, armor and weapons that benefit the whole party. So now you have management of resources that makes you think before you buy and there's no need to gimp only one character of your party at a time.

Tell me again, what do inventories actually add in the middle of all this? Apart from needless micromanagement?

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.

You do know that using "God forbid" in every sentence instead of defending your point with valid arguments and always refering to those who disagree with you as "kids" isn't really doing you any favors, right?

Maybe you should try explaining what you think the needless busywork with suitcase managment actually contributes to the game, instead of always going through the lazy road of insulting people for no reason. Maybe then you wouldn't look so immature. <_<

Modifié par Lusitanum, 04 septembre 2010 - 09:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

Wouldn't an even better solution be to have a character that can move faster as he gains experience, so is able to block/evade more effectively? And I don't mean dice roll block/evade, but actual player control. In other words, your character actually does the things that stats managed dice-roll combat merely simulates.

Aside from my strong opposition to direct player control, sure.

[Altima Darkspells]

Lusitanum wrote...

Tell me again, what do inventories actually add in the middle of all this? Apart from needless micromanagement?

It's an RPG.  One of the greatest features is (what some would call needlessly) complexity and micro-management.  I don't want combat and character systems to be stream-lined.  I want them to be as complex as, say, the D&D/D20 based systems.

If I wanted characterzation reduced to its simplest components, I'd play any other genre, since they already define your character for you.  Something that ME2 came dangerously to doing.

Remember, more complexity means more options, instead of the same thing over and over and over (which you can choose to do in, say, DAO, but you're not forced to).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

Tell me again, what do inventories actually add in the middle of all this? Apart from needless micromanagement?

Inventory should add some aspect of strategic planning (having the right equipment - having enough free space to collect what you find - choosing between selling loot and buying new vs. hoarding for when you need it).

That many recent games have used an inventory system so poorly designed that it fails at this basic function is not a reason to abandon the mechanic entirely.  It's a reason to stop streamlining it so much.

Have you ever played a game with a decent inventory system?

[The Masked Rog]

Mass Effect 2 was a huge step in the right direction. Just needs a little more depth and I'd call it a pretty good inventory system. Due to the lack of choices it still doesn't pass the mediocre mark though.

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

Have you ever played a game with a decent inventory system?

Eve online ? Ever seen a hangar stuffed with a few thousand items ?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

Eve online ? Ever seen a hangar stuffed with a few thousand items ?

That's not really analogous, though, as you never need to access your inventory on the fly in EVE, and there's only limited optons for sorting all those items.  It's just a big list.

[RoninOmega]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...

Tell me again, what do inventories actually add in the middle of all this? Apart from needless micromanagement?

Inventory should add some aspect of strategic planning (having the right equipment - having enough free space to collect what you find - choosing between selling loot and buying new vs. hoarding for when you need it).

That many recent games have used an inventory system so poorly designed that it fails at this basic function is not a reason to abandon the mechanic entirely.  It's a reason to stop streamlining it so much.

Have you ever played a game with a decent inventory system?

Wow this guy is an idiot, what do inventories add besides "needless micromanagement"?  They help when your ass is being handed to you because you have the wrong type of weapon, or you want to add changes to some things.  Sylvius explained it already, and I agree, it isn't the system's fault some games do it horribly, it's the fact that it's being streamlined and modified to serve people who don't even know what an inventory system is that's at fault here.  You're just blind and think every inventory system is like mass effects.  It's useful, when developed right, true fact.

And this thread needs to be locked, ironic im the last poster saying it, but still.  Facts are facts, this thread is getting nowhere, except towards a pointless arguement, made from a stupid idea in my opinion.

Modifié par RoninOmega, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:18 .

[Taoist09]

'...You are the one and onlyyyyy....'
Seriously, however, you're falling into the same trap that a lot of journalists fall into, being asked to interpret their subjective impressions into 'matter-of-factly' statements. There are very little times that you're 'truly' are finding rubbish loot in DA:O for example, and loot dynamics and just the general micro-management, as long as it's not unjustifiably tedious, which it was not in DA:O, is vastly enjoyable, by a lot of people. As for the gameplay; it was AMAZING, hang your head in shame, sir.

I'll explain how I feel ME and DA:O compare; ME was from the very beginning a hybrid, a bastardized RPG if you will, it was inevitable that it was going to go the more visceral route in the next installment, instead of reverting back to number crunching, which felt tacked on. DA:O's gameplay is, quite literally, chess in a middle-earth setting [or something to that effect], it's very logical, very analytical, and rewards those of us willing to use the aforementioned skills, it would make NO sense to attempt to tame the flow of the river into a U-turn, if you'll pardon the metaphor; a DA:O style of gameplay lends itself far, far more to an analytical/RPG experience rather than a real-time, visceral one, where decisions are made on the fly.

Modifié par Taoist09, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:53 .

[Vandrayke]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Have you ever played a game with a decent inventory system?

Hmm I don't even know

I guess if I had to create an inventory system, I'd try to create one that would "make sense."  Like inventory in Fallout 3 made sense even if you could carry too much stuff because gathering/salvaging makes a lot of sense in the post apocalyptic setting.  

Picking up junk weapons and armor to regularly sell/equip is kind of lame.  I think that as a source of income, finding and selling jewels and gold makes sense.  Buying weapons and armor at merchants makes sense.  Finding the occasional rare weapon or piece of  armor makes sense.  Having to carry the right healing stuff makes sense.  

Maybe the inventory should be scaled back to what people would actually carry.  And maybe there should be less items to put in your inventory, but those items should matter more.  So instead of picking up 34 swords of various worth during a mission segment, you pick up one cool sword, a rare book, a magical item, and some jewels.  And maybe sometime during that mission there would be something that would reward you for being prepared by letting you use that rope you've been carrying around or something. And maybe you'd actually have to use torches in the dark.  Maybe you'd actually use lockpicks, but they would be a permanent set, and you'd add to your "thieves' tools" over the course of the game.  

[HarryThePlotter]

slimgrin wrote...

Fallout 3 has one of the best inventory and UI's I've encountered, as well as the most creative. I would kill for a mini map though.

The minimap was most-probably dropped to accomodate realistic wanderer complex.

[darknoon5]

Mass effect and Dragon Age are both great series but they are stronger in different ways, so yes, you are the only one.

[Rhayth]

I think the inclusion of the chest @ Warden's Vigil made the inventory more tolerable. I think each character having his/her own lockbox @ camp would have been better...WITH THAT SAID as this game is being told by Varric there could be some control over how much money the char has at each story pickup based on the way you play who knows. The way the game is set up there are just so many things they can do with money/inventory.

[Sylvius the Mad]

slimgrin wrote...

After viewing the combat on u-stream, I think they've adopted a similar philosophy the ME2 team had: to learn from other genre's.

Which I thik is crazy, as traditional RPG combat is the combat I most enjoy.

My second choice would be turn-based strategy combat.

But shooter combat, RTS combat, and hack-and-slash-action-game combat aren't fun to play.  I don't enjoy them.