480 réponses à ce sujet

[TMZuk]

Karlojey wrote...

My first RPG was BG2. I wasn't able to finish it because I got bored because I felt the pace was slow; I didn't feel like there was any sort of urgency with the quest at hand. I also felt the same with Neverwinter Nights 1 (but not so much with NWN 2).
That's why I personally like the Origins was made. It was cinematic and immersive IMO. I'm guessing I'm part of the new school RPG players eh?

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there's no new school of RPG'ers in that sense. There are -and have always been- people who prefer a fast-paced linear story, rather than a slow, gradually progressing tale. What I and many others loved about BG2 is the very fact that there's no rush with the the main quest, that there's many other things to do, see and experience.

Comparing the SP campaign of NWN to BG2 is utterly off target. NWN had nothing of what made BG2 great. The story was boring and predictable, the npc's and companions were flat and shallow, and the whole setting felt rushed and uninspired. I have read claims that originally it wasn't the idea to have a singleplayer campaign. Wether that's true or not, I don't know, but it would certainly explain why it had the most boring crop of companions ever produced by Bioware. NWN's power was the multiplayer part.

Orgins was a good game, make no mistake. If it wasn't, there'd be no reason to be so annoyed with what is known about DA2. Because all we hear about is restrictions in character creation, shorter game, silly weapon-restrictions, voiced protagonist, the focus on combat, combat and more combat. In short: Dragon Effect.

And that is why there's no new school of RPG'ers. Mass Effect 2 is not a RPG, in my opinion. It's a fast-paced, slick adventuregame, with witty dialogue and lots and lots of combat. It's full of silly rules that makes no sense. Everyone who has been in the army can shoot an assault rifle, only not in ME2. It's an interactive SF/action flick. You kill some monsters/bad guys, and lean back and watch the movie. It's entertaining, yes, but it has no lasting value and it's not an RPG.

It isn't nostalgia that makes me and others sigh for a "new" BG2. It's the fact that RPG's seems to be vanishing, and where DA was a step in the right direction, all we hear of DA2 tells us it a huge step in the wrong direction.

Modifié par TMZuk, 17 septembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[Chriagon]

A very good post, TMZuk. Sums it up pretty well imo.

[Lyssistr]

TMZuk wrote...

Karlojey wrote...

My first RPG was BG2. I wasn't able to finish it because I got bored because I felt the pace was slow; I didn't feel like there was any sort of urgency with the quest at hand. I also felt the same with Neverwinter Nights 1 (but not so much with NWN 2).
That's why I personally like the Origins was made. It was cinematic and immersive IMO. I'm guessing I'm part of the new school RPG players eh?

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there's no new school of RPG'ers in that sense. There are -and have always been- people who prefer a fast-paced linear story, rather than a slow, gradually progressing tale. What I and many others loved about BG2 is the very fact that there's no rush with the the main quest, that there's many other things to do, see and experience.

Comparing the SP campaign of NWN to BG2 is utterly off target. NWN had nothing of what BG2 great. The story was boring and predictable, the nc's and companions were flat and shallow, and the whole setting felt rushed and uninspired. I have read claims that originally it wasn't the idea to have a singleplayer campaign. Wether that's true or not, i don't know, but it would certainly explain why it had the most boring crop of companions ever produced by Bioware. NWN's power was the multiplayer part.

Orgins was a good game, make no mistake. If it wasn't, there'd be no reason to be so annoyed with what is known about DA2. Because all we hear about is restrictions in character creation, shorter game, silly weapon-restrictions, voiced protagonist, the focus on combat, combat and more combat. In short: Dragon Effect.

And that is why there's no new school of RPG'ers. Mass Effect 2 is not a RPG, in my opinion. It's a fastpaced, slick adventuregame, with witty dialogue and lots and lots of combat. It's full of silly rules that makes no sense. Everyone who'd been in the army can shoot an assault rifle, only not in ME2. It's an interactive SF/action flick. You kill some monsters/bad guys, and lean back and watch the movie. It's entertaining, yes, but it has no lasting value and it's not an RPG.

It isn't nostalgia that makes me and others sigh for a "new" BG2. It's the fact that RPG's seems to be vanishing, and where DA was a step in the right direction, all we hear of DA2 tells us it a huge step in the wrong direction.

I agree with most points, one thing however, I don't mind Bioware making a "Dragon Affect" game nor am I opposed to most changes, bar combat (not too eager for an aRPG).

What I do mind is turning this franchise. that supposedly was about reviving old school RPGs, into "Dragon effect".

[AlanC9]

TMZuk wrote...
Sorry to dissapoint you, but there's no new school of RPG'ers in that sense. There are -and have always been- people who prefer a fast-paced linear story, rather than a slow, gradually progressing tale. What I and many others loved about BG2 is the very fact that there's no rush with the the main quest, that there's many other things to do, see and experience.

The problem is that Bio's become more interested in more traditional forms of heroic narrative. It's relatively rare for a hero to have no rush. There are exceptions, of course, like Severian in The Book of the New Sun.

Comparing the SP campaign of NWN to BG2 is utterly off target. NWN had nothing of what made BG2 great. The story was boring and predictable, the npc's and companions were flat and shallow, and the whole setting felt rushed and uninspired. I have read claims that originally it wasn't the idea to have a singleplayer campaign. Wether that's true or not, I don't know, but it would certainly explain why it had the most boring crop of companions ever produced by Bioware. NWN's power was the multiplayer part.

There seems to have always been a campaign planned. However, it was going to be somewhat different from the one we got. Notably, it would have had an extremely linear design, in the style of PnP campaigns.

Here are design documents that Rob Bartel confirmed as genuine.

http://nwvault.ign.c....Detail&id=2700

As for whether the campaign was going to be SP or not, it's interesting. The original design had no companions and IIRC no pausing. I don't know how this was supposed to work for a single player, or how Bioware could have thought this was a good plan for a D&D game. Companions were added at the 11th hour. The NWN1 companions aren't anything more than NPCs with some special scripting that makes them follow the PC and attack his enemies, which is all Bio had time to do on that schedule.

Everyone who has been in the army can shoot an assault rifle, only not in ME2.

That's an ME1 rule too. And if you're going to complain about arbitrary weapon restrictions, a thread about making games more like BG2 probably isn't the best place to do it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 septembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[maxernst]

AlanC9 wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
Sorry to dissapoint you, but there's no new school of RPG'ers in that sense. There are -and have always been- people who prefer a fast-paced linear story, rather than a slow, gradually progressing tale. What I and many others loved about BG2 is the very fact that there's no rush with the the main quest, that there's many other things to do, see and experience.

The problem is that Bio's become more interested in more traditional forms of heroic narrative. It's relatively rare for a hero to have no rush. There are exceptions, of course, like Severian in The Book of the New Sun.

http://nwvault.ign.c....Detail&id=2700

As for whether the campaign was going to be SP or not, it's interesting. The original design had no companions and IIRC no pausing. I don't know how this was supposed to work for a single player, or how Bioware could have thought this was a good plan for a D&D game. Companions were added at the 11th hour. The NWN1 companions aren't anything more than NPCs with some special scripting that makes them follow the PC and attack his enemies, which is all Bio had time to do on that schedule.

Everyone who has been in the army can shoot an assault rifle, only not in ME2.

That's an ME1 rule too. And if you're going to complain about arbitrary weapon restrictions, a thread about making games more like BG2 probably isn't the best place to do it.

What really bothered me in ME1 is that Commander Shepherd starts the game completely inept with any weapon at all. The RPG tradition is that you start as a nobody and work your way up to hero--which made sense with the backstory you have in BG1 for example--is ridiculous for someone who is being considered as a recruit for an elite organization that has never taken on a human before.

And yes, you're right about the narrative issue...I've said it many times that I'd prefer not to have to save the world in every game.  It would open the door for different kinds of stories as well as making side quests make more sense.  Although I did it anyway, from an RP standpoint, I found it hard to justify my Commander Shepherd exploring random planets for mineral resources while he's in a race against time to save the galaxy from the reapers.  I couldn't quite see any reason for me to have a great mania for collecting writings of Asari matriarchs or Turian insignia either.

Modifié par maxernst, 17 septembre 2010 - 06:10 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

maxernst wrote...

What really bothered me in ME1 is that Commander Shepherd starts the game completely inept with any weapon at all. The RPG tradition is that you start as a nobody and work your way up to hero--which made sense with the backstory you have in BG1 for example--is ridiculous for someone who is being considered as a recruit for an elite organization that has never taken on a human before.

Well, when I think about it, Shepard was perfectly capable of handling any weapon he had, even if he were a level 1 sentinel. He used that shotgun better than I could, that's for certain. I say one shouldn't trouble himself with "starting from scratch"; you know, having no visible "talent points" on some "talent tree" in a RPG doesn't necessarily mean a character cannot perform the desired feat better than a 5-year-old. I'd suggest thinking of talent/attribute/whatever points in RPGs as marginal increments rather than linear increases. Sten starts out with 15 STR; his STR will be somewhere around 30 when you recruit him. And then you can pump up his STR to, say, 90. Now, does this mean Sten is three times as strong as when he joined you? Does it make any sense?

Short of importing the "same" character from a prior playthrough, be it from a previous game or for a new game plus, there's little point in starting a character from level ##. In a sense, you're still level 1 anyway. After all, your "inept" Shepard made short work of all those husks and Geth, didn't (s)he?

[DarkSpiral]

maxernst wrote...
And yes, you're right about the narrative issue...I've said it many times that I'd prefer not to have to save the world in every game.  It would open the door for different kinds of stories as well as making side quests make more sense.  Although I did it anyway, from an RP standpoint, I found it hard to justify my Commander Shepherd exploring random planets for mineral resources while he's in a race against time to save the galaxy from the reapers.  I couldn't quite see any reason for me to have a great mania for collecting writings of Asari matriarchs or Turian insignia either.

Yes, I admit I'm tired of saving the world as well.  One of the reasons I'm looking forward to DA2 is that the world isn't in danger.  Kirkwall seems to be, but not necessarily at first, and maybe even because of something Hawke does during the game.  That's much easier to wrap your mind around.

I thought the sandbox ending in ME2 offset the race against time somewhat, since you could do the sidequests later, but nevertheless in ME1 I agree completely.  It's an issue I have with sidequests in general, even if when I'm playing the game I do them anyway.

It wasn't much of an issue in BG and BG2, though.  In BG there wasn't any push until you'd delved a little bit more deeply in the main quest.  In BG2 there was technically a need to hurry up and save Imoen, but collecting the money you need wasn't all that quick, so it took time.

[maxernst]

[quote]Ortaya Alevli wrote...

[quote]maxernst wrote...


Short of importing the "same" character from a prior playthrough, be it from a previous game or for a new game plus, there's little point in starting a character from level ##. In a sense, you're still level 1 anyway. After all, your "inept" Shepard made short work of all those husks and Geth, didn't (s)he?

[/quote]

Actually, no, Kaidan & Ashley made short work of all those husks and geth.  My infiltrator recorded very few kills early in the game because I couldn't seem to hit anything.  And there's no particular reason that the power curve has to be such that by the end of the game you could easily slaughter an army of people with the skills that you start the game with.

[Bryy_Miller]

AlanC9 wrote...

The problem is that Bio's become more interested in more traditional forms of heroic narrative. It's relatively rare for a hero to have no rush. There are exceptions, of course, like Severian in The Book of the New Sun.

I really hope that DA2 is a step AWAY from the Hero's Journey. As much as I love that concept, it - just like every other storytelling "ruleset" - can be abused to high heaven. And, I mean, is it just me, or are a lot of "classic" storytelling rulesets (like the horror movie rulesets and the "final girl" in particular) just blueprints for bad writing?

[Ortaya Alevli]

maxernst wrote...

Actually, no, Kaidan & Ashley made short work of all those husks and geth.  My infiltrator recorded very few kills early in the game because I couldn't seem to hit anything.

You know, this delves into a totally different territory. My guess is still that Shepard was designed to be more capable than his sidekicks; I myself was able to record more kills than Kaidan or Ashley, and I suck at shooters.

And there's no particular reason that the power curve has to be such that by the end of the game you could easily slaughter an army of people with the skills that you start the game with.

Of course it doesn't have to be so. It's a matter of preference, a matter of implementing a formula which worked well so far. At any rate, since enemies also scale in power as you gain levels, ideally they pose as much threat later in the game as they did earlier. Well, except maybe the final dungeon. BioWare has a habit of cramming the last dungeons with one-shot-kill fodder and turning it into a battle royale, which I personally enjoy to no end.

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 17 septembre 2010 - 08:24 .

[maxernst]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Actually, no, Kaidan & Ashley made short work of all those husks and geth.  My infiltrator recorded very few kills early in the game because I couldn't seem to hit anything.

You know, this delves into a totally different territory. My guess is still that Shepard was designed to be more capable than his sidekicks; I myself was able to record more kills than Kaidan or Ashley, and I suck at shooters.

And there's no particular reason that the power curve has to be such that by the end of the game you could easily slaughter an army of people with the skills that you start the game with.

Of course it doesn't have to be so. It's a matter of preference, a matter of implementing a formula which worked well so far. At any rate, since enemies also scale in power as you gain levels, ideally they pose as much threat later in the game as they did earlier. Well, except maybe the final dungeon. BioWare has a habit of cramming the last dungeons with one-shot-kill fodder and turning it into a battle royale, which I personally enjoy to no end.

Later in the game, I recorded far more kills with Shepherd, but early on, interface struggles prevented that.  And I would never use the word "ideally" and level scaling in the same sentence, since it's always immersion-breaking and makes you wonder why you bother to have levelling in the first place.   Although to be fair, the enemies don't actually seem to scale up to the same degree as the PC in Bioware games. 

[Ortaya Alevli]

maxernst wrote...

Later in the game, I recorded far more kills with Shepherd, but early on, interface struggles prevented that.  And I would never use the word "ideally" and level scaling in the same sentence, since it's always immersion-breaking and makes you wonder why you bother to have levelling in the first place.   Although to be fair, the enemies don't actually seem to scale up to the same degree as the PC in Bioware games.

Right, I thought as much. Interface struggles. Not Shepard's ineptitude. Unless I misunderstood you.

"Ideally" as in "intended with enemy level scaling system". Not that I advocate this kind of scaling myself. I understand it allows more freedom within the story by reducing the restrictions regarding quest priority (I always do Broken Circle and Orzammar before everything else so I can get Wynne and Oghren early, for example), but I agree it trivializes the entire concept of leveling. Like, if I can kill Flemeth at level 10, then why bother.

The point is, even with invariable enemy levels, logically you encounter more difficult enemies as the story progresses, so they'll always provide some measure of challenge after your own leveling balances it out. So we want to level up in order to catch up.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I understand it allows more freedom within the story by reducing the restrictions regarding quest priority

Does it, though?  Isn't the party's struggles when overmatched part of their story?  If they waltz through an area with no effort at all, isn't that part of their story?  Ideally the game would actually react to that ("Seriously, people attack you on purpose?"), but even if it doesn't it's better that those opportunities are available.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I understand it allows more freedom within the story by reducing the restrictions regarding quest priority

Does it, though?  Isn't the party's struggles when overmatched part of their story?  If they waltz through an area with no effort at all, isn't that part of their story?  Ideally the game would actually react to that ("Seriously, people attack you on purpose?"), but even if it doesn't it's better that those opportunities are available.

It does, indeed.

Let's face it; we rarely get to play the loser in CRPGs. We're almost always the hero who wins all their battles. Probably the only battle you "can" lose in DA:O is the one with Ser Cauthrien in Howe's estate, and that's nothing more than a setback anyway. You have to win every single battle in order to continue with your story.

But that wasn't my point anyway. What I meant is, with set levels for every enemy in the game, either you'd be forced to follow a fixed order of quests instead of collecting the "plot coupons" randomly or all "planets" would be roughly the same difficulty and things would grow boring as you began to overpower your enemies with each new level you gained.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
I say one shouldn't trouble himself with "starting from scratch"; you know, having no visible "talent points" on some "talent tree" in a RPG doesn't necessarily mean a character cannot perform the desired feat better than a 5-year-old. I'd suggest thinking of talent/attribute/whatever points in RPGs as marginal increments rather than linear increases. Sten starts out with 15 STR; his STR will be somewhere around 30 when you recruit him. And then you can pump up his STR to, say, 90. Now, does this mean Sten is three times as strong as when he joined you? Does it make any sense?

And this is why DA was dissapointing, mechnics-wise. Its' not intuitive. Numbers made little sense.

IF Sten starts with 15, then that 15 should mean "above avegage" and stats shouldn't be able to go up a lot from that point.
Just like the MMO's have loot infaltion - where you get tons of useless and even-better, soulless loot - so do modern games have stat points/level inflation. Just because you give me more points to spend per level doens't make it a better system. in fact, it's the opposite. Each of my stat choices matters less. Levels and stats were more substantial and there was less of them in early RPG.s I'd like that back.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

But that wasn't my point anyway. What I meant is, with set levels for every enemy in the game, either you'd be forced to follow a fixed order of quests instead of collecting the "plot coupons" randomly or all "planets" would be roughly the same difficulty and things would grow boring as you began to overpower your enemies with each new level you gained.

Only if there's a steep power curve in the game.

Or, difficulty could be less linear.  Perhaps different types of enemies are vulnerable to different types of tactics or abilities, so each diferent character build would find a different optimal route through the content.

You're making unnecessary assumptions about the game's design.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I say one shouldn't trouble himself with "starting from scratch"; you know, having no visible "talent points" on some "talent tree" in a RPG doesn't necessarily mean a character cannot perform the desired feat better than a 5-year-old. I'd suggest thinking of talent/attribute/whatever points in RPGs as marginal increments rather than linear increases. Sten starts out with 15 STR; his STR will be somewhere around 30 when you recruit him. And then you can pump up his STR to, say, 90. Now, does this mean Sten is three times as strong as when he joined you? Does it make any sense?

And this is why DA was dissapointing, mechnics-wise. Its' not intuitive. Numbers made little sense.

IF Sten starts with 15, then that 15 should mean "above avegage" and stats shouldn't be able to go up a lot from that point.
Just like the MMO's have loot infaltion - where you get tons of useless and even-better, soulless loot - so do modern games have stat points/level inflation. Just because you give me more points to spend per level doens't make it a better system. in fact, it's the opposite. Each of my stat choices matters less. Levels and stats were more substantial and there was less of them in early RPG.s I'd like that back.

When you think about the increments as absolute proportions, yes, it does make little sense. Bottom line is, in DA:O mechanics 90 STR doesn't make you three times as strong as a character with 30 STR. It simply makes you relatively stronger than a character with 30 STR. It makes more sense when you think of it that way, and saves you inconvenience. Not that I'm the one who developed this system; BioWare has the final word, of course. Just for the record, I like BG2 style (D&D2, if I'm not mistaken) better, where you didn't get any stat points at all as you leveled.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

But that wasn't my point anyway. What I meant is, with set levels for every enemy in the game, either you'd be forced to follow a fixed order of quests instead of collecting the "plot coupons" randomly or all "planets" would be roughly the same difficulty and things would grow boring as you began to overpower your enemies with each new level you gained.

Only if there's a steep power curve in the game.

Or, difficulty could be less linear.  Perhaps different types of enemies are vulnerable to different types of tactics or abilities, so each diferent character build would find a different optimal route through the content.

You're making unnecessary assumptions about the game's design.

Sure, the system always has room for suggestions and development. The two options I put forth are the two routes that seem to have been followed so far. There's a reason someone somewhere came up with the idea of leveling-up enemies, but that doesn't necessarily mean a new system in which enemies have fixed levels cannot be implemented. Like I said before, I myself don't advocate the enemy leveling, though I'm aware of the fact that it's a rather easy way to make the story progression feel less linear.

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
When you think about the increments as absolute proportions, yes, it does make little sense. Bottom line is, in DA:O mechanics 90 STR doesn't make you three times as strong as a character with 30 STR. It simply makes you relatively stronger than a character with 30 STR. It makes more sense when you think of it that way, and saves you inconvenience. Not that I'm the one who developed this system; BioWare has the final word, of course. Just for the record, I like BG2 style (D&D2, if I'm not mistaken) better, where you didn't get any stat points at all as you leveled.

And what part of "not intuitive" do you fail to grap here?
Using some strange function to map STR is NOT as ituitive as having a simple linear progression. And it's downright stupid when combines with the escalating item requirements thing. with a STR of 30 I cna wear a steel plate wihout any trouble...and hten I need a STR of 40 for dragonbone plate?

I HATE this system HATE it..With the blazing itensity of a million Forman grills.

And b.t.w - you did get stat increases in D&D.. I believe 1 point every 3-4 levels. You physical attributes didn't change much, as it should be.


EDIT - the problem with enemy scaling is tied to character power progression. If HP inflates with each level, then the difficluty changes drasticly. IF however, that is not the case, then it's far easier to balance.
the bigger the difference in raw power between a lvl1 and lvl20, the harder it is to balance. Teh smaller hte difference, the easier it is. Simple.
And why I say raw power, I mena HP/ATT/DEF ... becoming nire powerful ltrough skills is another matter completely.
Which is why I favor the second route. Even low-level enemies can still be dangerous.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:37 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
When you think about the increments as absolute proportions, yes, it does make little sense. Bottom line is, in DA:O mechanics 90 STR doesn't make you three times as strong as a character with 30 STR. It simply makes you relatively stronger than a character with 30 STR. It makes more sense when you think of it that way, and saves you inconvenience. Not that I'm the one who developed this system; BioWare has the final word, of course. Just for the record, I like BG2 style (D&D2, if I'm not mistaken) better, where you didn't get any stat points at all as you leveled.

And what part of "not intuitive" do you fail to grap here?
Using some strange function to map STR is NOT as ituitive as having a simple linear progression. And it's downright stupid when combines with the escalating item requirements thing. with a STR of 30 I cna wear a steel plate wihout any trouble...and hten I need a STR of 40 for dragonbone plate?

I HATE this system HATE it..With the blazing itensity of a million Forman grills.

And b.t.w - you did get stat increases in D&D.. I believe 1 point every 3-4 levels. You physical attributes didn't change much, as it should be.


EDIT - the problem with enemy scaling is tied to character power progression. If HP inflates with each level, then the difficluty changes drasticly. IF however, that is not the case, then it's far easier to balance.
the bigger the difference in raw power between a lvl1 and lvl20, the harder it is to balance. Teh smaller hte difference, the easier it is. Simple.
And why I say raw power, I mena HP/ATT/DEF ... becoming nire powerful ltrough skills is another matter completely.
Which is why I favor the second route. Even low-level enemies can still be dangerous.

Easy. I get the "not intuitive" part well enough, thank you very much. I'm simply saying you're losing your hair strands over something unworthy. If getting one stat point every ten levels or starting with 200 STR and ending up with 250 STR or whatever other intuitive solution will help your immersion, by all means take it to developers. If they aren't convinced, tough break. You think it's a bad system because it hurts immersion, they think it's good system because it's practical. Or something. Considering the matter is thoroughly subjective, with no "right" or "wrong" leveling systems around, what you're doing here doesn't go far beyond venting.

Not all editions of D&D involve stat increases. Icewind Dale and KoTOR were based on a different edition, the one you were talking about. But BG2 didn't include stat increase during level-ups.

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:58 .

[DarkSpiral]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I understand it allows more freedom within the story by reducing the restrictions regarding quest priority

Does it, though?  Isn't the party's struggles when overmatched part of their story?  If they waltz through an area with no effort at all, isn't that part of their story?  Ideally the game would actually react to that ("Seriously, people attack you on purpose?"), but even if it doesn't it's better that those opportunities are available.

Uh, yeah.  Yeah it does Sylvius.  If I can decide where to go and what quest to do first that would be more freedom.  The issue with yoru agrument of part of the story being how they ahndle a fight where they're overmatch is that the fight would have to be scripted.  If it isn't scripted then the exists the very real possibility that a player will in fact waltz through the fight, in which case the reaction makes no sense at all.  In fact, that quote you have up there?  Is it from the sidequests in the backstreets of Denerim?  I got my butt handed to me once or twice in those fight, and the quote made no sense.  You seem to be suggesting that certain areas be far more difficult than others.  That isn't freedome, that's just another way of enforcing linearity: "Go to Area A, then Area B, and then Area C, because going to Are C first will kill you every time."

Has anyone created a game that could react to how hard the fight just was?  A non-scipted fight?  Seriously?  That isn't "ideal" that is "future tech."  When discussing design elements we should stick with things that are actually capable of being implemented.

[DarkSpiral]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

But that wasn't my point anyway. What I meant is, with set levels for every enemy in the game, either you'd be forced to follow a fixed order of quests instead of collecting the "plot coupons" randomly or all "planets" would be roughly the same difficulty and things would grow boring as you began to overpower your enemies with each new level you gained.

Only if there's a steep power curve in the game.

Or, difficulty could be less linear.  Perhaps different types of enemies are vulnerable to different types of tactics or abilities, so each diferent character build would find a different optimal route through the content.

You're making unnecessary assumptions about the game's design.

Assumptions?  I don't see him directly referencing DA2 at all.  Ortaya is talking about possibilities, or stating preferences, just like you are.  What assumptions is he (or she) making about DA2?

[Sylvius the Mad]

DarkSpiral wrote...

Uh, yeah.  Yeah it does Sylvius.  If I can decide where to go and what quest to do first that would be more freedom.

Right, but Ortaya was saying that scaling is what grants that freedom, and that's not the case.  It's the choice that grants the freedom.

The issue with yoru agrument of part of the story being how they ahndle a fight where they're overmatch is that the fight would have to be scripted.  If it isn't scripted then the exists the very real possibility that a player will in fact waltz through the fight, in which case the reaction makes no sense at all.

Don't write the story like that.  If the game tried to refer to details of which it is unaware, it's going to make mistakes.  Don't do that.

In fact, that quote you have up there?  Is it from the sidequests in the backstreets of Denerim?  I got my butt handed to me once or twice in those fight, and the quote made no sense.

I didn't claim it did.  It's an example of the game trying to react to the ease of a particular battle.  As I said, ideally the game would do that (and do it well).  But even if it doesn't, having the choice is better than not having the choice.

You seem to be suggesting that certain areas be far more difficult than others.  That isn't freedome, that's just another way of enforcing linearity: "Go to Area A, then Area B, and then Area C, because going to Are C first will kill you every time."

Not necessarily far more, but certainly more.  There's no telling when one player will have difficulty with a different section of the game and find ease with another even though the typical player experiences the opposite.  And what if I'd rather have the big challenge first and them face only easy fights afterward (this is actually how I prefer games to go - levelling up should reward me by making the game easier - if not, why did I bother?)

Has anyone created a game that could react to how hard the fight just was?

Not that I'm aware.  And in its absence, the game simply shouldn't try.  You're suggesting that the better option is to force specific levels of difficulty (which DAO already demonstrated doesn't work very well either) so that the game can comment on it.  That's absurd.  You're taking away player agency to accommodate a feature that adds very little even if it works right, which it currently doesn't.

DarkSpiral wrote...

Assumptions?  I don't see him directly referencing DA2 at all.  Ortaya is talking about possibilities, or stating preferences, just like you are.  What assumptions is he (or she) making about DA2?

Any game's design.  Ortaya's points only made sense if the game had a steep power curve.  That is by no means necessary.

We could easily look at DAO at see how little scaling would be required if the entire game spanned only levels 6-12.

Or, as I suggested, a less linear power progression generally.  It would work better with a classless system, but if each area was vulnerable to different sorts of abilities or tactics, so whichever you choose to emphasise in your party would determine the optimal order in which to tackle to quests.  The player would still have all the same choice - the choice would just have to be coupled with skill selection.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 septembre 2010 - 09:07 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
Easy. I get the "not intuitive" part well enough, thank you very much. I'm simply saying you're losing your hair strands over something unworthy. If getting one stat point every ten levels or starting with 200 STR and ending up with 250 STR or whatever other intuitive solution will help your immersion, by all means take it to developers. If they aren't convinced, tough break. You think it's a bad system because it hurts immersion, they think it's good system because it's practical. Or something. Considering the matter is thoroughly subjective, with no "right" or "wrong" leveling systems around, what you're doing here doesn't go far beyond venting.

I disagree. Simple logic dictates - if you have two systems that get you the same result, but one is more logical (realistic), then there is no need to go for the other one, espeially if you want a realistic world/setting.

Quite simply - the system I mentioned is better. Objectively. Better imersion, easier balancing, more challegne, more intuitive.

But it doesn't have as much "dings" and useless frills and ego-boosting. I weep for the world.

[adi4444]

TMZuk wrote...

Karlojey wrote...

My first RPG was BG2. I wasn't able to finish it because I got bored because I felt the pace was slow; I didn't feel like there was any sort of urgency with the quest at hand. I also felt the same with Neverwinter Nights 1 (but not so much with NWN 2).
That's why I personally like the Origins was made. It was cinematic and immersive IMO. I'm guessing I'm part of the new school RPG players eh?

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there's no new school of RPG'ers in that sense. There are -and have always been- people who prefer a fast-paced linear story, rather than a slow, gradually progressing tale. What I and many others loved about BG2 is the very fact that there's no rush with the the main quest, that there's many other things to do, see and experience.

Comparing the SP campaign of NWN to BG2 is utterly off target. NWN had nothing of what made BG2 great. The story was boring and predictable, the npc's and companions were flat and shallow, and the whole setting felt rushed and uninspired. I have read claims that originally it wasn't the idea to have a singleplayer campaign. Wether that's true or not, I don't know, but it would certainly explain why it had the most boring crop of companions ever produced by Bioware. NWN's power was the multiplayer part.

Orgins was a good game, make no mistake. If it wasn't, there'd be no reason to be so annoyed with what is known about DA2. Because all we hear about is restrictions in character creation, shorter game, silly weapon-restrictions, voiced protagonist, the focus on combat, combat and more combat. In short: Dragon Effect.

And that is why there's no new school of RPG'ers. Mass Effect 2 is not a RPG, in my opinion. It's a fast-paced, slick adventuregame, with witty dialogue and lots and lots of combat. It's full of silly rules that makes no sense. Everyone who has been in the army can shoot an assault rifle, only not in ME2. It's an interactive SF/action flick. You kill some monsters/bad guys, and lean back and watch the movie. It's entertaining, yes, but it has no lasting value and it's not an RPG.

It isn't nostalgia that makes me and others sigh for a "new" BG2. It's the fact that RPG's seems to be vanishing, and where DA was a step in the right direction, all we hear of DA2 tells us it a huge step in the wrong direction.

wow tamzuk i couldent have sayd it better i totaly agree with you
i am sooo disapointed about the direction da2 has taken...mibe ea? fpult
but we have hope the witcher 2 should came out in few mounthes mibe it will be good rpg...we also have obsidian mibe they will make a good rpg ...i am woried about this genre for me its the best genre of all!bg bg2 fallout 1 +2 planscape torment  was the best of best! now day no1 apraite good rpg all they wont is some action shooter action crp