1080 réponses à ce sujet

[Fraevar]

Sorry, BioWare but this is the last straw. This outfit craze you are on is downright stupid. It was completely immersion breaking in ME2 (vacuum anyone?) and while that isn't a problem in DAII, now we are stuck with a look we might not like for a character, which is great for your art team but not really for us if we wanted to switch things up. Do not like.

[Kileyan]

MerinTB wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...
But if one wants to endeavour in a comparatively easy genre, one doesn't pick RPGs.

Um , I do.  RPGs are dirt simple, even the supposedly "complicated and challenging" ones.  Even sports games and multiplayer shooters are immensely more challenging than RPGs.

And there's goes whatever respect I did have for your opinion.

How did this go in that other thread - when it comes to your opinion on this matter, "who cares?"


EDIT - I don't find reflex skills "challenging" or "difficult" just tedious and boring.

What genre of games is more or less challenging is also subjective.  You may find the greater challenge in how quick you hit buttons or reactive fast you can react.  I find greater challenge in tactical combat, in turn-based games where I have plenty of time to make a choice so reaction speed is not the skill being "challenged".

Which is "more challenging" - basketball or chess?

I think the important factor of hard in Upsettingshorts eyes is real time vs pause and play. Doing the correct thing isn't important to Upsetting, what is important is being faster and doing the correct thing quickly.

Basketball isn't easy, it takes coordination. It would be ridiculous easy if you could stop time and any moment to look at the defense, and plan out your next move when ever you wanted.

Chess is more intellectual, but not necessarily harder than a physical sport where each decision plays out in milliseconds to make a move, combined with the need for you to physically be able to make that move.

Dragon Ages is easy, because we can pause. I'm fine with people looking down their noses at that gameplay option. It sure beats no pause and having to click non stop frantically like a Starcraft game in every battle.

RPG's are fine, and I don't care where they land on someones difficulty list:)

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...

Which is "more challenging" - basketball or chess?

Your metaphor completely misses the point.  My point is simply this:

Traditional RPGs demand only understanding.  Execution is abstracted.
There are other games that demand understanding in addition to execution.

An example?  Let's take the much-maligned (on these boards) Madden franchise, a game I haven't bothered to pick up in years, but it serves as a good test case.  I know that a Cover 2 Defense is vulnerable up the middle to deep passes, but it attempts to cover this hole by dropping back the middle linebacker into the space.  My tactic for dealing with the Cover 2 Defense is to max protect, since it is a zone scheme, and challenge the safeties to cover three receivers down field - splitting the zone into thirds when there are only two of them, then hit the middle one by passing over the middle linebacker.  This is no different than knowing that in a traditional RPG, skeletons are vulnerable to crushing damage and equipping my characters accordingly.  Where the sports game adds a level of challenge, is that if I do not time my pass correctly it will be intercepted or knocked down by the linebacker, or broken up by the safety, or any number of execution-based issues might come up.  Or maybe my quarterback isn't skilled enough - he's got a bad spec - to make accurate deep throws and I have to attack the defense entirely differently.

I do not view twitch as inherently more challenging than tactical thought.  I view twitch plus tactical thought as more challenging than one or the other by themselves.

The most challenging game I've ever played, for me personally, is Hearts of Iron III.  A game whose tactical and strategic depth makes Dragon Age and by extension all over traditional RPGs I've been exposed to look like checkers.  It doesn't have twitch at all.  If it did incorporate twitch in addition, it would be more challenging than I could legitimately comprehend.  

Kileyan wrote...

I think the important factor of hard in Upsettingshorts eyes is real time vs pause and play. Doing the correct thing isn't important to Upsetting, what is important is being faster and doing the correct thing quickly.

Incorrect.  It is not a question of relative value or importance.  Just that demanding the player physically execute his plan is inherently more challenging than simply coming up with that plan and having an abstracted ruleset execute it for you.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:28 .

[slimgrin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Incorrect.  It is not a question of relative value or importance.  Just that demanding the player physically execute his plan is inherently more challenging than simply coming up with that plan.

Unless the plan itself is more complicated, requiring difficult strategy  (like chess), not real-time tactics. 
As an avid SF4 fan, which is at the apex of difficult fast twitch games, I still can't agree with you. It's apples and oranges.

~edit~

Modifié par slimgrin, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:23 .

[MerinTB]

slimgrin wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Incorrect.  It is not a question of relative value or importance.  Just that demanding the player physically execute his plan is inherently more challenging than simply coming up with that plan.

Unless the plan itself is more complicated, requiring difficult strategy  (like chess), not real-time tactics. 
As an avid SF4 fan, which is at the apex of difficult fast twitch games, I still can't agree with you. It's apples and oranges.

This.  Much of this.  Even the SF4 stuff.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Which is "more challenging" - basketball or chess?

Your metaphor completely misses the point.  My point is simply this:

Traditional RPGs demand only understanding.  Execution is abstracted.
There are other games that demand understanding in addition to execution.

I do not view twitch as inherently more challenging than tactical thought.  I view twitch plus tactical thought as more challenging than one or the other by themselves.

I disagree.  I don't find basketball challenging at all.  I find it boring.  Sheer repetition of drills and all but the most clumsy and inept people can work well together.  Yes, I played basketball in school - grade school through high school - and I personally believe chess is far more challenging.
Basketball is more physically exhausting, but to me tedious.  It's why I finally quit middle of high school when I no longer cared about "social status" that was granted from being on a sports team.

You can take all the freaking time in the world before making your move against a chess master, Upsettingshorts.  You go ahead and prove that it'll make the game less challenging because there's no clock or no reflexes involved.

I don't find real-time strategy more challenging than turn-based strategy... I find it more annoying.  I don't have fun with reaction-time games.

Fighting games like SF4 or MVC2 the exceptions, but they are glaring exceptions.

I play almost all of Fallout 3 (or what I have of NV) in VATs.  If I run out of action points I run away until I have more for more VATs.  I NEVER FPS the game.  Never.

You can't by fiat define "more challenging" as requiring fast reaction times.

Ergo, which is more challenging - basketball or chess?
That depends on what you, the individual, finds challenging.

Perhaps you mean "difficult" - which is not an absolute synonym with "challenge."

Modifié par MerinTB, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:29 .

[Pocketgb]

So, it definitely looks like I won't have as much control over companion customization as I did in DA:O. Sad.



...Which isn't always a bad thing, considering that I could order them to be completely naked in DA:O if I so choose - and they complied with no dissent whatsoever. Happy!

[upsettingshorts]

slimgrin wrote...
Unless the plan itself is more complicated, requiring difficult strategy  (like chess), not real-time tactics. 
As an avid SF4 fan, which is at the apex of difficult fast twitch games, I still can't agree with you. It's apples and oranges.

The plan is not complicated in RPGs.  It's rock-paper-scissors.  Hearts of Iron III, Victoria 2, these games make the "complexity" of RPG mechanics look like childs play.  And they are.

Anyway, I added an example to my response.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:27 .

[aaniadyen]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Which is "more challenging" - basketball or chess?

Your metaphor completely misses the point.  My point is simply this:

Traditional RPGs demand only understanding.  Execution is abstracted.
There are other games that demand understanding in addition to execution.

I do not view twitch as inherently more challenging than tactical thought.  I view twitch plus tactical thought as more challenging than one or the other by themselves.

The most challenging game I've ever played, for me personally, is Hearts of Iron III.  A game whose tactical and strategic depth makes Dragon Age and by extension all over traditional RPGs I've been exposed to look like checkers.  It doesn't have twitch at all.  If it did incorporate twitch in addition, it would be more challenging than I could legitimately comprehend.  

Kileyan wrote...

I think the important factor of hard in Upsettingshorts eyes is real time vs pause and play. Doing the correct thing isn't important to Upsetting, what is important is being faster and doing the correct thing quickly.

Incorrect.  It is not a question of relative value or importance.  Just that demanding the player physically execute his plan is inherently more challenging than simply coming up with that plan.

Upsetting makes a fine point. I personally find it interesting when I need to take my implimentation into consideration when thinking of a strategy. For example, in an FPS, I might not be able to aim as quickly as some others, so I won't put myself in a situation where I'll be on even terms with an opponent. I'm not saying it's better, or even more difficult, but it is more involved. Some people aren't fans of that type of thing, and Bioware (generally) doesn't make it's games like that.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The plan is not complicated in RPGs.
 It's rock-paper-scissors.  Hearts of Iron III, Victoria 2, these games
make the "complexity" of RPG mechanics look like childs play.  And they
are.

Anyway, I added an example to my response.

Not so sure I agree with this. I played Victoria 2, and I seriously thought DA:O was more difficult.

Modifié par aaniadyen, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Fraevar]

I think the broader implication of this is that we can kiss any notion of a toolset goodbye, eh? After all, why would BioWare's art team surrender their "splendid vision and superlative designs" to the community. We might decide to mod out Isabela's head-wear, for example!

[Meltemph]

How did this go in that other thread - when it comes to your opinion on this matter, "who cares?"

I think you are confusing shorts for me. I was the one who said "who cares", about the changes in teh game, in regards to my tastes, in that last topic. I dunno if shorts even posted in that one.



As for:

Which is "more challenging" - basketball or chess?

I would have to say it depends on the person and his personality. However, difficulty in regards to DAO and its likeness(CRPG's/JRPG's as a whole), I would say, I find to be quite simple in regards to difficulty(not that I really care about difficulty as long as I find it fun). To me, a difficult game is something more similar to Master of Orion.

[MerinTB]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

I think the broader implication of this is that we can kiss any notion of a toolset goodbye, eh? After all, why would BioWare's art team surrender their "splendid vision and superlative designs" to the community. We might decide to mod out Isabela's head-wear, for example!

Fixed that for you.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...

You can take all the freaking time in the world before making your move against a chess master, Upsettingshorts.  You go ahead and prove that it'll make the game less challenging because there's no clock or no reflexes involved.

False equivalency is false.  Traditional RPGs are not chess.

MerinTB wrote...

I don't find real-time strategy more challenging than turn-based strategy... I find it more annoying.  I don't have fun with reaction-time games.

Good thing I'm not making value judgments.  I never once stated what my preferences are in the context of this argument.
Perhaps you mean "difficult" - which is not an absolute synonym with "challenge."

aaniadyen wrote...

Not so sure I agree with this. I played Victoria 2, and I seriously thought DA:O was more difficult.

Victoria 2 is easy once you understand.  Same with DA:O.  Execution is abstracted.  Though I should ask: Did you play an uncivilized one province minor? 

Oh and Hearts of Iron III kicked my ass.  That game's got too steep a learning curve, even for me.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:34 .

[Kileyan]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Incorrect.  It is not a question of relative value or importance.  Just that demanding the player physically execute his plan is inherently more challenging than simply coming up with that plan and having an abstracted ruleset execute it for you.

I think that is what I said.  Thinking about what needs to be done, and doing it, is harder than just having to know what needs to be done........pause and play. Not really sure what you are talkinga about with relative value and importance. Either way, not going to argue further about my game is harder than your game.

[upsettingshorts]

Kileyan wrote...
I think that is what I said.  Thinking about what needs to be done, and doing it, is harder than just having to know what needs to be done........pause and play. Not really sure what you are talkinga about with relative value and importance. Either way, not going to argue further about my game is harder than your game.

Well, the pause thing is the sticking point.  I don't think that matters to the point I was raising.  It's just simply that thought + execution > thought or execution.  

And yes, the amount of challenge in either is subjective to the extent that Hearts of Iron III can be and very likely is more difficult than Madden 11.  But traditional RPGs in my view do not qualify to be placed on that same pedestal of strategic and tactical complexity.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:36 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
Unless the plan itself is more complicated, requiring difficult strategy  (like chess), not real-time tactics. 
As an avid SF4 fan, which is at the apex of difficult fast twitch games, I still can't agree with you. It's apples and oranges.

The plan is not complicated in RPGs.  It's rock-paper-scissors.  Hearts of Iron III, Victoria 2, these games make the "complexity" of RPG mechanics look like childs play.  And they are.

Anyway, I added an example to my response.

So if you're against people criticizing FPS games as mindless because they require reflexes and dexterity- something I concede readily because I'm very poor at both- how is it acceptable for you to do the same sort of patronizing generalization in reverse?

Besides which the "challenge" of RPG to me is not in terms of gameplay but creativity.  Just a matter of flexing different muscles.  And I think the comparison of chess vs. basketball is apt in bringing out that idea.

And to bring it back to the thread topic, if you give me a party that's under my control, that creativity should bear on them as well.  Otherwise it's less fun.  Less of a game.  Less isn't good.  Not when I'm being asked to pay the same as I did for Origins.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

MerintTB wrote...
How did this go in that other thread - when it comes to your opinion on this matter, "who cares?"

I think you are confusing shorts for me. I was the one who said "who cares", about the changes in teh game, in regards to my tastes, in that last topic. I dunno if shorts even posted in that one.

Oh, no, I know it wasn't him - I just decided that since I was told that being dismissive of someone's opinion wasn't rude, I'd go ahead and use "who cares?" here.

Credit where credit's due, though - it was you who told me that.

Meltemph wrote...
As for:

Which is "more challenging" - basketball or chess?

I would have to say it depends on the person and his personality. However, difficulty in regards to DAO and its likeness(CRPG's/JRPG's as a whole), I would say, I find to be quite simple in regards to difficulty(not that I really care about difficulty as long as I find it fun). To me, a difficult game is something more similar to Master of Orion.

And I agree - which is why, in context, I had included stuff like

MerinTB wrote...
I don't find reflex skills "challenging" or "difficult" just tedious and boring.

What
genre of games is more or less challenging is also subjective.  You may
find the greater challenge in how quick you hit buttons or reactive
fast you can react.  I find greater challenge in tactical combat, in
turn-based games where I have plenty of time to make a choice so
reaction speed is not the skill being "challenged".

before the one line that got quoted and has been taken out of context.  I wasn't saying that, universally, one or the other was more challenging - just that which is more challenging is subjective to the person looking at the two.
As in I don't find "reaction speed" or "timers" as adding to a "challenge" for me but adding to tedium and annoyance.

[slimgrin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Victoria 2 is easy once you understand.  Same with DA:O.  Execution is abstracted. 

My point is: the quicker the reaction time, the less complicated the strategy, and vice versa.

I get what you're saying and its a worthwhile discussion, but off topic. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:37 .

[Meltemph]

 

before the one line that got quoted and has been taken out of context.  I wasn't saying that, universally, one or the other was more challenging - just that which is more challenging is subjective to the person looking at the two.As in I don't find "reaction speed" or "timers" as adding to a "challenge" for me but adding to tedium and annoyance.

Oh, I was not trying to take you out of context and I understood what you meant, I just used that line as a step in to explain my view.  Did not mean to confuse.

Credit where credit's due, though - it was you who told me that.

You know it! 

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

So if you're against people criticizing FPS games as mindless because they require reflexes and dexterity- something I concede readily because I'm very poor at both- how is it acceptable for you to do the same sort of patronizing generalization in reverse?

I have done no such thing.  I have simply said that RPG mechanics are based on rules that, once understood, are easily and uniformly mastered.  How long it takes each individual player to master the ruleset is not for me to judge or patronize.  There are people out there who would view my struggles with Hearts of Iron III's learning curve as inexplicable, but that's not the crux of my argument.  Learning curve is only peripherally involved.  If a ruleset exists, it can be mastered and exploited, but the execution is abstracted without a twitch element.  And if a twitch game doesn't call for any thinking, all it requires of you is to have quick reflexes. 

The argument is simply that requiring both is harder than either.

Addai67 wrote...

Besides which the "challenge" of RPG to me is not in terms of gameplay but creativity.  Just a matter of flexing different muscles.  And I think the comparison of chess vs. basketball is apt in bringing out that idea.

Basketball can't be creative?  That's rather patronizing to rather a lot of professional coaches who get paid a lot of money to prove otherwise on a daily basis. 

Addai67 wrote...

And to bring it back to the thread topic, if you give me a party that's under my control, that creativity should bear on them as well.  Otherwise it's less fun.  Less of a game.  Less isn't good.  Not when I'm being asked to pay the same as I did for Origins.

I agree mostly.  I'm not sure what we're gaining from unique outfits makes up for what we're losing.

MerinTB wrote...


Oh, no, I know it wasn't him - I just decided that since I was told that being dismissive of someone's opinion wasn't rude, I'd go ahead and use "who cares?" here.

I try not to do this unless I have extensive experience that tells me reasoned debate is not possible.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:42 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

You can take all the freaking time in the world before making your move against a chess master, Upsettingshorts.  You go ahead and prove that it'll make the game less challenging because there's no clock or no reflexes involved.

False equivalency is false.  Traditional RPGs are not chess.

If I were shooting for equivalency.  Which I wasn't.  I was shooting for an analogy.  Which, for my purposes, was fine.

Some reading for you -

wikipedia says on False Analogy...
Incorrectly classifying an analogy false
Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy,
often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an
existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not
share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge
of fallacy". But as analogies are comparing two different things there
are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting
to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the
purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that
difference is relevant for the analogy or not.

And, again, I never said anything about equivalency.  I was making an analogy.
RPG vs. twitch games (or, for you, TBS vs RTS if you prefer)
AND
chess vs. basketball

One requires thinking and decision making with (more or less) no time limits, the other requires quick reactions (and maybe thinking / decision making - basketball can be quite tactical.)

The analogy is true for my purposes.  Anything you bring up about how different RPGs are from chess is being nitpicky, and can be done to ANY analogy that doesn't compare identical things.
Analogy != equivalency.

Attacking me for false equivalency = setting up a strawman

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...
The analogy is true for my purposes.  Anything you bring up about how different RPGs are from chess is being nitpicky, and can be done to ANY analogy that doesn't compare identical things.

My argument is that the difference between RPGs and chess is important, and that trying to get me to alter my argument to cover chess is an irrelevant sidetrack.  The same could be said for the basketball aspect, since in sports games the player takes the role of not just himself, but the entire team, coach, and even - if he so wishes - the general manager.  The comparison doesn't work, and it's irrelevant.

We're talking about RPGs and other game genres.  Stay on point, or you don't have one.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:45 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

MerinTB wrote...

yukidama wrote...

Good thing there's no liquor in my house or I'd be dead over taking shots every time someone says Dragon Effect.

Heh... well, I encourage everyone upset with this change to finally add to there sig -

DRAGON EFFECT

and therefore you can just drink yourself dead anytime one of us posts.

Also -

Dragon Effect.
Dragon Effect.
Dragon Effect.


--

I've got an idea - why let us choose a class?  Wouldn't it be easier to tell a more compelling narrative if they could just focus on Hawke the Warrior or Hawke the Mage?
Of course it would!
And why the story choices?  That makes it harder for a compelling narrative!  How about the game proceeds on a set game pattern, and all the player can affect is how they fight the combats and where they put upgrade points!
That'd be awesome!
That'd be Final Fantasy!

SO CLOSE.  Dragon Effect is so close to Final Fantasy I can almost taste it.

that should incite something

I'm sure they'll make those changes for Dragon Effect 2: The Reapers invade Ferelden.
Enjoy your new core audience Bioware, when their ADD kicks in and they move onto whatever the next trendy genre is, don't ask me to come back.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...

One requires thinking and decision making with (more or less) no time limits, the other requires quick reactions (and maybe thinking / decision making - basketball can be quite tactical.)

Do you play chess? You are generally swaping patterns. A huge part of chess is repetition. To be good at it, you need to have played it enough to be able to see several moves ahead with multiple pieces, which relies exclusively on practice.

Basketball has a baseline level of ability to play competently (ie learning to dribble, pass, shoot) and chess has the same 'automated' demand, except instead of it being 'twitch' it's related to memorizing patterns.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Honestly, maybe it's just me but I don't see why there's such an outcry. You can't put Chainmail instead of Splintmail on a companion, it's the end of the world?

The player csutomisation was hindered. Let's imagine if this inventory management was in DA:O aswell.

What if I wanted to play Zevran as a frontline DPS Momentum/Dual Strike one-sword-in-each-hand, but his designed outfit supports crit/backstab damage only?

BioWare's vision substitues your own.

Zevran decides he is not that and he won't wear that armor. I'd say that you shouldn't even be able to decide what abilities the character gains as it levels up.

Why not? Is it a role playing game or is it a every choice is already made for you simplistic action game? Next thing you know you won't choose any skills/talents for any character, David Gaider in his infinate wisdom will decide them for you and the designers will hardcode them right in.

The majority hated the one outfit deal with ME2, it was prolly the largest gripe about the game except to the vocal minority that doesn't want to be bothered with actually having to make a choice in regards to gear because thats apparently too boring for them.

In DA 1 they didn't have to do that, they could just leave party members in a default gear if they so chose. Now those who really enjoy that aspect of CRPG's get nothing, aside from maybe a minor rune stat bonus here or there. Removal of skills customization from party members, less choice. Streamlined and dumbed down for the lowest common demonimator. Way to **** go Bioware, well done.

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
The analogy is true for my purposes.  Anything you bring up about how different RPGs are from chess is being nitpicky, and can be done to ANY analogy that doesn't compare identical things.

My argument is that the difference between RPGs and chess is important, and that trying to get me to alter my argument to cover chess is an irrelevant sidetrack.  The same could be said for the basketball aspect, since in sports games the player takes the role of not just himself, but the entire team, coach, and even - if he so wishes - the general manager.  The comparison doesn't work, and it's irrelevant.

We're talking about RPGs and other game genres.  Stay on point, or you don't have one.

You're argument isn't about RPGs, per se, but pause and play vs. reaction timing.  Or that's how I read it when you said -
"I do not view twitch as inherently more challenging than tactical thought.  I view twitch plus tactical thought as more challenging than one or the other by themselves."
"Just that demanding the player physically execute his plan is inherently
more challenging than simply coming up with that plan and having an
abstracted ruleset execute it for you."
"Well, the pause thing is the sticking point.  I don't think that
matters to the point I was raising.  It's just simply that thought
+ execution > thought or execution."
"Twitch mechanics and human enemies add to the challenge, they don't
detract from it. Such systems demand greater player input as a matter
of objective fact."

You seem set on the "twitch" and there are plenty of RPG's that have twitch mechanics.

Again, you main points seems to be that reaction time ADDS challenge.

And my counterpoint is that I don't find reaction time components "challenging" - I find them "annoying", "tediuous" and "not fun."

Challenge, again, is not synonymous with difficult.  A challenge can be something that you have to work at to succeed but you WANT TO succeed at.  I'd say it's difficult to write a letter with a pencil and my feet, but I wouldn't call it a challenge as I've not the desire to complete it.

It's difficult to beat an olympic track star at a 100 meter sprint, but I wouldn't be challenged by that.  I'd rather not do it.

Modifié par MerinTB, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:59 .