139 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is only true if min/maxing is based on the item loadout, like in AD&D. You could have a design where items are relatively generic but characters designs themselves are complex. Many modern PnP systems work this way; CRPGs are in some ways a museum of obsolete design principles.

I would argue that those principles were a mistake in the first place.

Look at the loot guidelines in 1st edition AD&D.  Magic equipment (anything other than generic equipment) was extremely rare.  I'd like to see that again.  Of course, back then the differences weren't found in the character's either, but instead the differences resided in how those characters were played.

I'd love to see less min-maxing of equipment and instead just give us more complex characters to build.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Older PnP systems often has more generic items, as well. The variety wasn't in the characters or their equipment, but in how they were played.

And then there's original Traveller, with fairly generic items, limited control over character builds, and no experience system.  I'd like to see someone release that character design system in a modern game.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would argue that those principles were a mistake in the first place.

Look at the loot guidelines in 1st edition AD&D.  Magic equipment (anything other than generic equipment) was extremely rare.  I'd like to see that again.  Of course, back then the differences weren't found in the character's either, but instead the differences resided in how those characters were played.

Or there weren't any real differences. I've always suspected that one of the reasons everyone -- even TSR - started violating the loot guidelines was to get around the generic nature of AD&D characters.

I'd love to see less min-maxing of equipment and instead just give us more complex characters to build.

Agreed. DAO actually did a relatively good job at this with mages. It failed spectacularly with rogues and warriors, though. DA2 may do better, from what I've heard.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Agreed. DAO actually did a relatively good job at this with mages

It's perhaps DAO's best feature.  Two different mages with different spells play completely differently.

My first mage ended up relying heavily on the Sleep + Horror combination, while my second was heavily Glyph-based.  Even the various primal chains offered different tactical options.

[upsettingshorts]

Maverick827 wrote...
I think the idea is that some (myself included) want min/maxing to matter, even if just on Nightmare or Super NIghtmare or whatever difficulty setting it takes so that those opposed to such an idea cannot object.  Subsequently, the gear spread needs to be made more complex to support proper min/maxing.  Items need to have more than two or three stats for this to happen.  I'm not saying items have to be this complicated, but when the best items in the game have only a few different stats with only a few points in each stat, there is no opportunity to min/max at all.

That makes sense.  Though we can't know if min/maxing will be necessary in DA:2, it wasn't necessary in DA:O.  Ergo, there is no strict need for our companions to be ideally levelled.  Does that mean it wouldn't be fun to be able to do so?  Not at all.  Just that you could beat the game by using Bioware's characters regardless of how late you recruited them or how un-optimized their stats ere.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That makes sense.  Though we can't know if min/maxing will be necessary in DA:2, it wasn't necessary in DA:O.  Ergo, there is no strict need for our companions to be ideally levelled.  Does that mean it wouldn't be fun to be able to do so?  Not at all.  Just that you could beat the game by using Bioware's characters regardless of how late you recruited them or how un-optimized their stats ere.

There's a fun element, too.

Making Sten an archer is more fun if Sten can be a good archer.  If he's always going to be a terrible archer, that's just annoying.

[upsettingshorts]

Right, I said it was fun. Just not necessary. I'm splitting hairs for sure, but lets imagine a game where you actually did need optimal characters in order to win, but the game wouldn't allow it because the auto-leveling was so borked.



Then we'd have serious problems.

[Sylvius the Mad]

On subsequent playthroughs I've found that auto-levelling in DAO is a serious barrier to fun. That's why I modded it out.

[Lukertin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That makes sense.  Though we can't know if min/maxing will be necessary in DA:2, it wasn't necessary in DA:O.  Ergo, there is no strict need for our companions to be ideally levelled.  Does that mean it wouldn't be fun to be able to do so?  Not at all.  Just that you could beat the game by using Bioware's characters regardless of how late you recruited them or how un-optimized their stats ere.

But Loghain isn't optimally levelled when you get him at the end of the game.  He can't use some of the best armor you get because he doesn't have enough strength.  And since he is like Alistair in that his abilities are leveled as if he is meant to be a tank...you could have serious issues on harder difficulty settings in the endgame.

[upsettingshorts]

Loghain is a pretty good counter example. I never played the Redeemer ending on Nightmare so I can't say how that turns out.

[Harid]

He's pretty awful and has to be kept in Silverite Armor or you have to abuse stat bugs via equipment/maxing his approval if you want any type of good use out of him.

Again, I state everything wrong with the auto level up system in Jerrick Dace. He is, honestly the worst rogue in the game, and half the difficulty of Golems is the fact that you have, by in large, 2 large albatrosses hanging around your neck.

Modifié par Harid, 02 novembre 2010 - 08:35 .

[upsettingshorts]

I didn't play Golems, but the number of issues with Dragon Age DLC could pretty much fill a novel at this point.

[Dave of Canada]

Harid wrote...

Again, I state everything wrong with the auto level up system in Jerrick Dace. He is, honestly the worst rogue in the game.

Really? Worse than Daveth? /kidding

[upsettingshorts]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Really? Worse than Daveth? /kidding

Only thing I hated about that guy was he couldn't unlock anything in the only zone he'd ever be used in.

[Harid]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
Really? Worse than Daveth? /kidding

Only thing I hated about that guy was he couldn't unlock anything in the only zone he'd ever be used in.

Oddly enough, he can unlock everything in that zone with this, but that only helps to prove my point with the fact that bioware doesn't know how to allocate stats.

Or they intentionally do a bad job in order to artificially increase difficulty.  Both are equally bad imho.

Modifié par Harid, 02 novembre 2010 - 08:43 .

[ladydesire]

deuce985 wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

I like what you refer to as "forced specs." To me, it makes no sense to have a character like Alistair (for example), who, through dialogue and the like, you find out received some Templar training. So, it makes sense that Alistair already had Templar as a specialization. It doesn't make any sense for characters living in the world, at least from my standpoint, to be introduced to the PC as a blank slate for you to specialize completely to your whim. If that was the case, why not simply start the player with four blank characters and completely take out companions?

It makes sense from a lore/story standpoint but not to a player. You shouldn't be forced to play a character a certain style. Especially when you consider the fact anybody can die off in your party permanetely. I suffered major consequences on my first playthrough at the Sacred Ashes quest. I lost my only healer, while playing on Nightmare(PC version). Which wasn't a pleasant thing to happen. I actually had to get a respec mod to get Morrigan the Spirit Healer spec. The point is, as it it is with most RPGs, it is about choice on how you want to build your characters. Nothing should be forced on you, even if it doesn't make sense to the story, it is a fun factor problem. I can balance my party how I want and not how the game thinks it should be. It only makes sense that way...

I know I'm a bit late here, but how is "losing your only (spirit) healer" going to be a consequence of your actions if you can simply respec out your decision by giving it to another character? I know what had to have happened for you to have lost Wynne at this point.

Now, if Bioware left every character blank when you get them and then couldn't respec them, I'd be fine by that. You'd have to think hard at your choices on what to spec and be sure of it. But because they had them a certain way, you had to follow that path, otherwise you wasted precious points. Where is the fun in that? I don't know about you but I like to build my characters in RPGs how I WANT them.

Bioware, and to some extent Obsidian, write story driven RPGs which requires certain things to be done for the story to make sense. It's all well and good for you to like having input into how your characters are built, but why can't the developer also design the game the way it needs to be for the story to work? To me, the game is much more fun when I don't have to be tweaking my companions for the best possible damage output (or whatever), but use them in the manner that is most in line with how the game developer made them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Harid wrote...

Or they intentionally do a bad job in order to artificially increase difficulty.  Both are equally bad imho.

However they assign points it is an important aspect of balancing the zone.

In Ostagar, when you're given those generic tower guards or a circle mage to storm the Tower of Ishal, that mage is fairly helpful, but if you assign his points differently (say, give him the first three Glyph spells) he basically renders the tower trivial because he can drop a Paralysis Explosion on every encounter - including the Ogre.

[Harid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Harid wrote...

Or they intentionally do a bad job in order to artificially increase difficulty.  Both are equally bad imho.

However they assign points it is an important aspect of balancing the zone.

In Ostagar, when you're given those generic tower guards or a circle mage to storm the Tower of Ishal, that mage is fairly helpful, but if you assign his points differently (say, give him the first three Glyph spells) he basically renders the tower trivial because he can drop a Paralysis Explosion on every encounter - including the Ogre.

This is more an issue as to how broken magic is rather than the zone.  If that were fixed, they wouldn't have to artificially increase difficulty by gving you stupid abilities.

[Lukertin]

ladydesire wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

I like what you refer to as "forced specs." To me, it makes no sense to have a character like Alistair (for example), who, through dialogue and the like, you find out received some Templar training. So, it makes sense that Alistair already had Templar as a specialization. It doesn't make any sense for characters living in the world, at least from my standpoint, to be introduced to the PC as a blank slate for you to specialize completely to your whim. If that was the case, why not simply start the player with four blank characters and completely take out companions?

It makes sense from a lore/story standpoint but not to a player. You shouldn't be forced to play a character a certain style. Especially when you consider the fact anybody can die off in your party permanetely. I suffered major consequences on my first playthrough at the Sacred Ashes quest. I lost my only healer, while playing on Nightmare(PC version). Which wasn't a pleasant thing to happen. I actually had to get a respec mod to get Morrigan the Spirit Healer spec. The point is, as it it is with most RPGs, it is about choice on how you want to build your characters. Nothing should be forced on you, even if it doesn't make sense to the story, it is a fun factor problem. I can balance my party how I want and not how the game thinks it should be. It only makes sense that way...

I know I'm a bit late here, but how is "losing your only (spirit) healer" going to be a consequence of your actions if you can simply respec out your decision by giving it to another character? I know what had to have happened for you to have lost Wynne at this point.

Putting in a consequence that prevents you from being able to finish the game is sort of...bad, if they dont make it really really obvious that it would be a natural consequence of your action.  E.g., I don't remember either Leliana or Wynne say anything when Kolgrim makes his offer.  That's something you don't want to have happen.

Modifié par Lukertin, 02 novembre 2010 - 11:22 .

[ladydesire]

Harid wrote...

And I enjoy min-maxing. . .and I am not the only person out there, that's why they added respec books in Awakening in the first damn place.

No it's not; they put them in because they had added new abilities that people might want instead of the ones they had.

If you don't like min-maxing, then hit Y our Triangle, or whatever the Auto Level up button is and move along your day.  But I should still have the choice.

You want a challenge on higher difficulties; I want the ability to play those difficulties without min-maxing. Which of us is playing the game wrong? Neither; but one of us is going to lose out, simply because Bioware can't please us both.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ladydesire wrote...

You want a challenge on higher difficulties; I want the ability to play those difficulties without min-maxing. Which of us is playing the game wrong?

Wait, what?  You want to play at higher difficulties, but you don't want those actually to be more difficult?

Why not just play at lower difficulties?

The only problem I can see is if you want a specific feature (like friendly fire) that's only available at those higher difficulties, but if that's true then BioWare can satisfy you both simply by uncoupling that feature from difficulty.

If that's not it, then I fail to see the problem.  Unless playing at "the highest difficulty" has some intrisic value for you, but that would be insane.

[Collider]

I find min maxing to be boring and unsatisfying.

Dragon Age: Origins' gameplay was not fun for me at all. If I were able to skip all of the combat and just do the story, I would have played DA:O many more times than I actually did.

Of course, everyone's got their own thing.

I care most about the story.

[ladydesire]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ladydesire wrote...

You want a challenge on higher difficulties; I want the ability to play those difficulties without min-maxing. Which of us is playing the game wrong?

Wait, what?  You want to play at higher difficulties, but you don't want those actually to be more difficult?

Why not just play at lower difficulties?

The only problem I can see is if you want a specific feature (like friendly fire) that's only available at those higher difficulties, but if that's true then BioWare can satisfy you both simply by uncoupling that feature from difficulty.

If that's not it, then I fail to see the problem.  Unless playing at "the highest difficulty" has some intrisic value for you, but that would be insane.

What I am saying is that, for my playstyle and build preferences, Nightmare as it is in DAO is quite difficult enough for me, even though those that prefer to min-max find it a cakewalk. I'm thus saying that Bioware can't please those of us that liked having the option of playing on the higher difficulty setting with our build preference while also pleasing those that prefer to have a challenge with their min-maxed builds, unless they add a hardcore option that rescales everything and essentially adds 4 more difficulty levels; Bethesda did this with Fallout 3 and Obsidian has done it with Fallout: New Vegas.

[soteria]

I think John Keegan once wrote that what an infantryman carries has been essentially constant over the centuries.

I think I read that book. In essence, the requirements and capabilities of the soldier hasn't changed in thousands of years of warfare. It makes sense.

What I am saying is that, for my playstyle and build preferences, Nightmare as it is in DAO is quite difficult enough for me, even though those that prefer to min-max find it a cakewalk. I'm thus saying that Bioware can't please those of us that liked having the option of playing on the higher difficulty setting with our build preference while also pleasing those that prefer to have a challenge with their min-maxed builds, unless they add a hardcore option that rescales everything and essentially adds 4 more difficulty levels; Bethesda did this with Fallout 3 and Obsidian has done it with Fallout: New Vegas.

If they do that, then they have to playtest those difficulties. Wouldn't it be simpler to assume that people playing on the hardest difficulty are going to expect to be challenged? If the hardest difficulty allows you to essentially play however you like, as you say, something is wrong. You could step down to hard, which frankly is almost the same as nightmare anyway.

[TimelordDC]

ladydesire wrote...

What I am saying is that, for my playstyle and build preferences, Nightmare as it is in DAO is quite difficult enough for me, even though those that prefer to min-max find it a cakewalk. I'm thus saying that Bioware can't please those of us that liked having the option of playing on the higher difficulty setting with our build preference while also pleasing those that prefer to have a challenge with their min-maxed builds, unless they add a hardcore option that rescales everything and essentially adds 4 more difficulty levels; Bethesda did this with Fallout 3 and Obsidian has done it with Fallout: New Vegas.

That doesn't sound like a valid argument. What's the point of playing higher difficulties if you don't want to refine your strategy and builds? Going through the same motions for a longer time doesn't count.

Nightmare difficulty was advertised as something players would not be able to complete, something that would require the highest level of tactics and strategy and understanding of combat mechanics. As it stands now, it is not...remotely close to that. Casual gamers have Easy/Normal/Hard. Leave Nightmare for the experts (and that is not meant to be insulting)