1380 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkSpiral]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But if you're having trouble in the Deep Roads, leave and go to Redcliffe.  Or if the Sacred Ashes quest is too hard, go fight some werewolves.  This exploration aspect - this need for the player to discover the best route (and even this assumes there is one best route for all characters - why not have different quests be easier for different combinations of party abilities?) - is part of the fun.  It's part of the journey.  It's part of the story.

What?  Sylvius, you don't make blatant errors often but that's just plain inaccurate.  it is not part of the story.  Part of the experience, the fun, the journey I'll grant you.  It can be built into the story if the non-scaling is part of the plan from the get go, and if that's what you mean, fine.  But DA:O wasn't built that way, and it isn't part of the game's story.

The rest of that post I have no real arguments with.  I don't necessarily agree that your opinions are going to be as much fun (one level for every 10 hours?  Seriously?) but that's opinion and not fact.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DarkSpiral wrote...

What?  Sylvius, you don't make blatant errors often but that's just plain inaccurate.  it is not part of the story.  Part of the experience, the fun, the journey I'll grant you.

What are you talking about when you talk about "the story"?

If you're only talking about the authored narrative - the story pre-written and crafted by teh game's writers - then yes, you're correct.  But that's an incredibly narrow view of story.

I an RPG, the story is, I think, the protagonist's journey, both in the world and internally within his own mind.  Every protagonist will have a different story, and BioWare's writers will literally never know what they are.

(one level for every 10 hours?  Seriously?)

Yes.  Baldur's Gate speed.  It was an 80-100 hour game, and you finished at level 7-9 (depending on class).

[CLime]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But if you're having trouble in the Deep Roads, leave and go to Redcliffe. Or if the Sacred Ashes quest is too hard, go fight some werewolves. This exploration aspect - this need for the player to discover the best route (and even this assumes there is one best route for all characters- why not have different quests be easier for different combinations of party abilities?) - is part of the fun.  It's part of the journey.  It's part of the story.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you're only talking about the authored narrative - the story pre-written and crafted by teh game's writers - then yes, you're correct.  But that's an incredibly narrow view of story.

I an RPG, the story is, I think, the protagonist's journey, both in the world and internally within his own mind.  Every protagonist will have a different story, and BioWare's writers will literally never know what they are.

That's the thing, you can't allow the players to follow the path they choose without putting every major quest area within their reach.  Someone else said they would have been pissed if they had been unable to do Orzhammar right away on their dwarf warden.  Yet, when I played through on my elf, I saved the Brecilian Forest for last.  "Leave and go do something else" isn't an attitude that works with the myriad of paths offered by the Origins system.

At this point I get the feeling that Sylvius is just describing his fantasy RPG (both defintions there) rather than Dragon Age.  As I understand it, the game BioWare set out to make has a relatively steep power curve, and permits players to take on and complete the mid-game plotlines in any order.  It's fine if someone disagrees with one of those two choices (see below), but that's a different discussion altogether.  The fact is that scaling is an unavoidable consequence of the aims set out for Origins, and suggesting alternatives isn't going to get anywhere.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

(one level for every 10 hours?  Seriously?)

Yes.  Baldur's Gate speed.  It was an 80-100 hour game, and you finished at level 7-9 (depending on class).

That system has its own drawbacks.  Either you don't end to game much stronger than you began, similar to the complaint levied against the scaling system, or the power progression is much more jagged and sudden.  The BG system is mostly a legacy from DnD, where one level is many times as valuable as one level in Dragon Age.  Such a system can and has worked, of course, but I wouldn't say it's better from a design perspective.

Modifié par CLime, 19 septembre 2010 - 01:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

CLime wrote...

At this point I get the feeling that Sylvius is just describing his fantasy RPG (both defintions there) rather than Dragon Age.  As I understand it, the game BioWare set out to make has a relatively steep power curve, and permits players to take on and complete the mid-game plotlines in any order.  It's fine if someone disagrees with one of those two choices (see below), but that's a different discussion altogether.  The fact is that scaling is an unavoidable consequence of the aims set out for Origins, and suggesting alternatives isn't going to get anywhere.

I agree that many of the (poor) design decisions were a necessary consequence of other design decisions.  My point is that those initial decisions weren't mandatory, and those unappealing consequences should be considered when making those decisions in the first place.

If you choose a steep power curve, recognise that it either breaks the setting (scaling) or player agency (railroading).

But you can choose to keep those things by not having a steep power curve.

No decision can be made in isolation.

That system has its own drawbacks.  Either you don't end to game much stronger than you began, similar to the complaint levied against the scaling system

The complaint about scaling is purely one of plausibility.  It has no relevance here.

or the power progression is much more jagged and sudden.

That brings with it the gameplay benefits I described.  You have time to learn your new abilities before gaining any more.

The BG system is mostly a legacy from DnD, where one level is many times as valuable as one level in Dragon Age.

But that was true for a reason.  Let's not just discard a good idea because it is an old idea.

[CLime]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The complaint about scaling is purely one of plausibility.  It has no relevance here.

We'll have to disagree here.  The scaling of enemies is no more implausible that any one of hundreds of RPG conventions.  Where does the Warden keep all those backpacks?  Why does killing ten wolves increase my Magic? Why can't I use a Phoenix Down on Aeris?

There's not even a noticeable difference from scaling in the context of a single playthrough.  Enemies in a given zone are even locked in when you first visit; it's not like Oblivion where the cave you cleared at level 5 will respawn level 15 enemies later in the game.  I can understand, in the abstract, why playing through the same dungeon twice and fighting groups of enemies very distinct in power might be a bit annoying, but what I imagine is a very slight annoyance for most people is worth the freedom it provides the player in other ways.

Hell, the Origins themselves wouldn't even work without the environment shaping itself around the player; Duncan only visits one of the six candidates in a given story.

]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

or the power progression is much more jagged and sudden.

That brings with it the gameplay benefits I described.  You have time to learn your new abilities before gaining any more.

The average player doesn't need 10 hours to figure out how to use Fireball or Rejuvenate.  Origins does have rather bloated and unwieldy talent trees, but that isn't a necessary consequence of an increased leveling pace.

Anyway, I don't envision this debate going anywhere after this point.  Both sides recognize the realities of Origins and its decisions, leaving only ideaology and preference on the table.  We agree on the matters of fact; I'm content to disagree on the matters of opinion.

[Vizkos]

*sigh* Dual Wielding on warriors was just insane, especially in Awakening.



Dual wield dragonbone weapons + Momentum + Beyond The Viel = insane.



Lame that they are removing it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CLime wrote...

We'll have to disagree here.  The scaling of enemies is no more implausible that any one of hundreds of RPG conventions.

And each of those should also be addressed.  That there exist other problems is not reason to fix those we can.

Where does the Warden keep all those backpacks?

At camp.  Why can he access them all of the time?  I complained about that during development.  A shared, massless inventory is stupid.

Why does killing ten wolves increase my Magic?

Because XP is an abstraction.

Why can't I use a Phoenix Down on Aeris?

I have no idea what that means.

The average player doesn't need 10 hours to figure out how to use Fireball or Rejuvenate.

In combination with his other abilities and those of his party (remember, in that 10 hours all of the characters gain one level) .

And, as I said, then there's the time enjoying the success gained from learning those new tactics.  If I'm constantly learning new abilities I'm never given time to enjoy the ones I have.

And shouldn't the game get easier as you level?  Isn't that the reward for levelling?  But scaling does the opposite and makes enemies more challenging.  That's like your boss saying to you, "Great job!  As a reward, I'm cutting your pay to make your life that much more of a struggle."  That's insane.

[DarkSpiral]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CLime wrote...

At this point I get the feeling that Sylvius is just describing his fantasy RPG (both defintions there) rather than Dragon Age.

He is.  I'm fairly sure Sylvius is perfectly aware that he's a niche player.

The complaint about scaling is purely one of plausibility.  It has no relevance here.

Why is that?  Most of your complaints are matters of opinion, afterall.  Why is scaling a less relevant issue?

The BG system is mostly a legacy from DnD, where one level is many times as valuable as one level in Dragon Age.

But that was true for a reason.  Let's not just discard a good idea because it is an old idea.

This assumed you do indeed believe it's good.  After several playthroughs, I find the speed at which you level in BG to be boring.

[DarkSpiral]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you're only talking about the authored narrative - the story pre-written and crafted by teh game's writers - then yes, you're correct.  But that's an incredibly narrow view of story.

It's the literal story of the game.  What you make up in your head as you go along is no more a part of the story than fanfiction is part of the story of the narrative it's based on.

I an RPG, the story is, I think, the protagonist's journey, both in the world and internally within his own mind.  Every protagonist will have a different story, and BioWare's writers will literally never know what they are.

Cannot know Sylvius.  There is a world of difference, and judging the game based on whether or not the game allows you to create a personalized inner monologue isn't realistic.  I'm not saying I don't do it, because of course I do.  I' am saying you can't judge game desing on that principle.  The design isn't flawed because they didn't consider every possible possibility.  They considered the most likely ones, and that's all they can humanly do.

And just as an aside, the writers probably considered more possibilities during the events of the protagonists journey than the limitations of the media allowed them to put in the game.  Most people at Bioware are really quite good at this job.

[DarkSpiral]

Sylvius the Mad wrote:

Why can't I use a Phoenix Down on Aeris?

I have no idea what that means.

It's a refernce to Final Fantasy 7.  A major plot point is the death of a party member (Aeris) and he's asking why the game's restorative item (Phoenix Down) doesn't can't be used to revive her like it would be used in battle.  I'm preety sure it's a rhetorical question.

And shouldn't the game get easier as you level?  Isn't that the reward for levelling?  But scaling does the opposite and makes enemies more challenging.  That's like your boss saying to you, "Great job!  As a reward, I'm cutting your pay to make your life that much more of a struggle."  That's insane.

Preferably not, no.  The enemies you challenge should always be more powerful than the ones you bested at the begining of the game.  The reward for leveling is access to new, more powerful abilities, equipment, and so forth.  Not so that the combat at the end of the game is a cakewalk.

[Lokanaiya]

I'd like to point out something against scaling: Overleveling. It doesn't matter how. But let's say you did... what about the end boss, for instance? You overlevel, and it can be ridiculously easy. Or you underlevel, just slightly, and can't beat the end boss, no matter how hard you try. That leads to a bunch of angry and frustrated players. Just my two cents.

[FieryDove]

Lokanaiya wrote...

I'd like to point out something against scaling: Overleveling. It doesn't matter how. But let's say you did... what about the end boss, for instance? You overlevel, and it can be ridiculously easy. Or you underlevel, just slightly, and can't beat the end boss, no matter how hard you try. That leads to a bunch of angry and frustrated players. Just my two cents.

Very good point.

Also the scaling needs to work. I think it was broken in awakenings...on my transfers that were high lvl the mobs were spawning at lvl 11-15ish and my pc was 24/25, then when I was 30ish most mob groups were in the 20's....I could fight bare-fisted methinks and win.

I will miss dw and archer warriors very much. Two-handers just bored me to tears and I would have to see a lot of gameplay to make me think they are worthwhile now.

[svendigo]

Oh, yes. Awakening level-scaling was broken as hell. That, or somehow Bioware decided that tweak difficulty settings several notches down for some obscure reasons.

[Tissa]

People, don't be sad! we can still use some cheat codes! ^.^

I remeber DAO having cheat codes to enable abilities for other classes, like magical abilities to warriors.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DarkSpiral wrote...

It's the literal story of the game.  What you make up in your head as you go along is no more a part of the story than fanfiction is part of the story of the narrative it's based on.

And again, that's an incredibly narrow definition of "story".

I do not accept it.

Cannot know Sylvius.

This is why I'm comfortable saying they will never know.

There is a world of difference, and judging the game based on whether or not the game allows you to create a personalized inner monologue isn't realistic.

Yes it is.  This is the entire point of roleplaying games.  And many games in the past - even BioWare games - have allowed it.

I'm not saying I don't do it, because of course I do.  I' am saying you can't judge game desing on that principle.

Why not?

The design isn't flawed because they didn't consider every possible possibility.  They considered the most likely ones, and that's all they can humanly do.

Considering specific possibilities is a terrible idea.  They should leave as much as possible of the PC's journey unwritten to allow the player to experience it as he sees fit.

And all of that is part of the story.  Story is narrative.  But you're limiting story just to the authored narrative, and completely ignoring the emergent narrative that arises from gameplay and roleplaying.

Why your characters do something is as much as part of the story as what they do, but BioWare can only write the actions - not the motives.

Read a book.  Motives matter.

And just as an aside, the writers probably considered more possibilities during the events of the protagonists journey than the limitations of the media allowed them to put in the game.  Most people at Bioware are really quite good at this job.

Yes, they are.  But sometimes the people in charge make some poor design decisions that impact the entire rest of the project.  That the games still mostly work is a testament to their skill.

DarkSpiral wrote...

It's a refernce to Final Fantasy 7. 
A major plot point is the death of a party member (Aeris) and he's
asking why the game's restorative item (Phoenix Down) doesn't can't be
used to revive her like it would be used in battle.  I'm preety sure
it's a rhetorical question.

Rhetorical questions are just questions to which you don't have the answer.

FF7 happens to be the only JRPG I have ever played.  Based on FF7, I have never again attempted any JRPG because they're arguably not even games, let alone RPGs.  They just tell a story at you in a really long drawn-out way and your input doesn't matter at all.

The plot holes (phoenix down) are an added bonus.

Preferably
not, no.  The enemies you challenge should always be more powerful than
the ones you bested at the begining of the game.  The reward for
leveling is access to new, more powerful abilities, equipment, and so
forth.  Not so that the combat at the end of the game is a
cakewalk.

Power is relative.  If everyting else gets more
powerful too, then my abilities haven't actually grown more powerful
relative to my foes.  Levelling up becomes pointless.

I want to outlevel my opponents.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lokanaiya wrote...

I'd like to point out something against scaling: Overleveling. It doesn't matter how. But let's say you did... what about the end boss, for instance? You overlevel, and it can be ridiculously easy. Or you underlevel, just slightly, and can't beat the end boss, no matter how hard you try. That leads to a bunch of angry and frustrated players. Just my two cents.

First, this assumes a fairly linear game where once you meet an opponent you have no other options but to defeat him and move on or be killed trying.

Yes, that would be frustrating.

I'd rather a game where an enemy exists you probably cannot defeat, but when you gain levels victory becomes possible.

Second, isn't overlevelling a reward for having grown that powerful?  What's the point in getting stronger if it doesn't make defeating the enemies easier?  Just being a higher level has no intrinsic value.

[Lokanaiya]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

I'd like to point out something against scaling: Overleveling. It doesn't matter how. But let's say you did... what about the end boss, for instance? You overlevel, and it can be ridiculously easy. Or you underlevel, just slightly, and can't beat the end boss, no matter how hard you try. That leads to a bunch of angry and frustrated players. Just my two cents.

First, this assumes a fairly linear game where once you meet an opponent you have no other options but to defeat him and move on or be killed trying.

Yes, that would be frustrating.

I'd rather a game where an enemy exists you probably cannot defeat, but when you gain levels victory becomes possible.

Second, isn't overlevelling a reward for having grown that powerful?  What's the point in getting stronger if it doesn't make defeating the enemies easier?  Just being a higher level has no intrinsic value.

1. Where is the epicness if you can steamroll a boss? I remember playing the Iphone version of Vay (a jRPG, where you can't view the enemy's HP) I defeated in half the time it took me to beat the last couple of bosses... When it was done, all I could say was "That's IT?! This is the guy with the world-destroying armor?! This is the guy who would have conquered the world in a couple of weeks?! What a joke!" I felt cheated. I didn't come close to half-life, not even once. I was overleveled. Not to mention, every new party member I got came at a preset level... usually 10-20 levels below me. 20!
With scaling this wouldn't be a problem. Would you have liked it if, in DAO, you could just say Abracadbra, stick a sword in the Archdemon, and he'd be dead, all because you decided to do an extra couple of side missions that gave a little XP?

2. On the other side of the coin: Underleveling. Once again, using the endboss and end area example. Let's say you were supposed to do a certain number of side missions, according to the game, but didn't. You can't just flee the end area... that's both unrealistic and immersion-breaking, not to mention impossible in most games. Once you start the end area battle (like Denerim) if you just said "Hey! This is too hard! Let's go beat up random Darkspawn while Denerim burns! It'll be all right when we come back, even if it's been a month or so!"
Very, very immersion breaking.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lokanaiya wrote...

1. Where is the epicness if you can steamroll a boss?

The epicness is in the journey that got you there.

Assuming the game needs to be "epic" in the first place.  I've been asking for years for an RPG with a smaller scope.

Would you have liked it if, in DAO, you could just say Abracadbra, stick a sword in the Archdemon, and he'd be dead, all because you decided to do an extra couple of side missions that gave a little XP?

Keep in mind that without scaling those side-missions would have been exceptionally difficult.  You're basing your conclusions on how DAO actually worked, and that was with scaling.  If you remove scaling everything changes.  Your assumptions fall apart.

2. On the other side of the coin: Underleveling. Once again, using the endboss and end area example. Let's say you were supposed to do a certain number of side missions, according to the game, but didn't. You can't just flee the end area... that's both unrealistic and immersion-breaking, not to mention impossible in most games.

It is impossible in most games, but that's stupid.  Why isn't running away realistic?  Running away happens all the time in the real world.  It's called retreat.

Once you start the end area battle (like Denerim) if you just said "Hey! This is too hard! Let's go beat up random Darkspawn while Denerim burns! It'll be all right when we come back, even if it's been a month or so!"
Very, very immersion breaking.

Yes, DAO's specific design would make this difficult.  But DAO's specific design wasn't mandatory.

[Hulk Hsieh]

The class and weapon system in DA:O and DA:A is very broken and I think that is why they need to be less ambitious and balance the game with less variables.

[CLime]

Like I said, this fellow here has a very specific view of what an RPG should be that's wildly different from Dragon Age's intended audience. I'm pretty I would find any game he designed incredibly frustrating and tedious. Luckily, I doubt I'll ever have that chance, since savvy developers like BioWare aren't willing to sacrifice enjoyable gameplay mechanics to satisfy incredibly nitpicky demands about plausibility.



At least we agree in one area: JRPG is a complete misnomer.



To get back on topic: DW warriors were inferior to DW rogues in every significant metric. Confirm/deny.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CLime wrote...

Like I said, this fellow here has a very
specific view of what an RPG should be that's wildly different from
Dragon Age's intended audience.

DAO pleased me very much.  DAO appeared to be aimed at people very much like me.

To get back on topic: DW warriors were inferior to DW rogues in every significant metric. Confirm/deny.

Deny.

In terms of combat effectiveness, yes, DW Warriors were a poor imitation of DW Rogues.

But they were an added roleplaying option.  That they've been taken away is more evidence that BioWare no longer cares about roleplaying within its games.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:45 .

[svendigo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But they were an added roleplaying option.  That they've been taken away is more evidence that BioWare no longer cares about roleplaying within its games.

/sigh.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FF7 happens to be the only JRPG I have ever played.  Based on FF7, I have never again attempted any JRPG because they're arguably not even games, let alone RPGs.  They just tell a story at you in a really long drawn-out way and your input doesn't matter at all.

However it's worth noting that FF7 (and generally the installments of the series that followed) allows more freedom in building the characters than either DAO and especially DA2 -- most of the abilities come in form of materia bits which can be wielded by everyone, and swapped at will. And the "not even games" is debatable imo, while combat doesn't include (much) of positioning it can be more intricate than DA with debuffs and abilities that actually matter. Getting poisoned, slowed, blinded or petrified there is something that needs to be addressed if one wants to go through the encounters. Rest of gameplay is by the numbers but not really far from what BioWare RPGs offer, so if that's "no game, let alone RPG", well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

And the "not even games" is debatable imo, while combat doesn't include (much) of positioning it can be more intricate than DA with debuffs and abilities that actually matter. Getting poisoned, slowed, blinded or petrified there is something that needs to be addressed if one wants to go through the encounters. Rest of gameplay is by the numbers but not really far from what BioWare RPGs offer, so if that's "no game, let alone RPG", well.

Combat is the aspect of gameplay about which I care about least.

Combat matters only to the extent to which I can roleplay in it.

[CLime]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

And the "not even games" is debatable imo, while combat doesn't include (much) of positioning it can be more intricate than DA with debuffs and abilities that actually matter. Getting poisoned, slowed, blinded or petrified there is something that needs to be addressed if one wants to go through the encounters. Rest of gameplay is by the numbers but not really far from what BioWare RPGs offer, so if that's "no game, let alone RPG", well.

Combat is the aspect of gameplay about which I care about least.

Combat matters only to the extent to which I can roleplay in it.

That explains a lot.

As far as FF7 and it's ilk, I wouldn't dispute that they are, indeed, games.  That's only one third of the acronym, however; there's no role-playing to be found.

Many a time has a JRPG fan claimed, "[game] is an RPG, because you're playing a role."  With that kind of broad defintion, almost every game in the market is an RPG.  CoD: Modern Warfare is an RPG.  Madden 2010 is an RPG.  Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is an RPG.  The real defintion of RPG, at least before the term was corrupted by misapplication and overuse, hinged on an ability to define your character, to make choices that would impact the narrative.  FF7 and games like it don't allow for such decisions.  JRPGs are to real RPGs what railshooters are to normal FPSs.  The story and characters follow the same track independant of the player's choices, with the player's only real responsibility being getting through combat.

Here's a good test to weed out the mislabeled games.  Ask yourself, "What's the main character like?"  If you can provide a definitive answer, it's not an RPG.

About DW warriors, though.  Gameplay incentive is more important than roleplay incentive when deciding whether or not a talent or build is compelling.  Blood Mage is a very interesting specialization from both perspectives- it brings powerful, probably overpowered abilties into battle, and has a lot of lore surronding it as well.  Shapeshifter is an interesting spec lore-wise, but it's not much fun in combat: the transformations are slow and the forms are almost always weaker than the un-specialized mage.  As such, players who value mechanics more than concepts won't enjoy them.

DW warriors suffered because there was no reason to use one over a rogue in combat or exploration.  Both classes could wear the same armor and use the same equipment, but rogues blew warriors away because a) rogues could backstab,  rogue talents and specs added much more to DW builds than the warrior equivalents, and c) rogues brought more utility to the party in the form of lockpicking, added skill points, stuns, and stealth.  For most players, DW warriors simply weren't very compelling.  I would rather BioWare devote its limited resources to improving already interesting Warrior trees, AKA twohanders and sword 'n' shield, rather than work on another iteration of an experience already available through the rogue class.

Modifié par CLime, 20 septembre 2010 - 08:00 .