1080 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

FieryDove wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Bad AI doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater, not from where I sit.

Devs do it all the time...anything is fair game.

(mentioning as in all devs in all companies)

Sure, but I'm not a dev.  I don't have to make the same choices and thus they don't influence my preferences.

[RifuloftheWest]

In Exile wrote...

We are not saying that the clothing should be static. I, for example, am not very pleased with what Bioware
is doing with the clothing. Sure, I think from an aesthetic standpoint acustom mesh is superior to generic equipment, but I'm not arguing for a custom mesh for the sake of aesthetic. I want it to impact the game.

So in this case, if you found Robes of Infinite Power +10, Morrigan should explicitly ask for them. If you give her the item it becomes impossible for you to equip it but she gains approval and the new item, or you keep it for
yourself and she losses approval.

This is role-playing, as opposed to fan fiction. I want my role-playing game to involve
reactivity, not whatever fan fiction I feel like writing.

Essentially, our conflict is whether role-play is internal or external. I think it's external, and the game has to show it. This is why VO > No VO, why custom mesh > generic loot, etc.

Despite my advocating the nonsense of being the human based algorithm to equip the companions or evidently confusing the definition of fan fiction and role-playing, what you described with Morrigan - an event to ask for a high level item along with consequences sounds really good. I would be very interested to experience a system like that.

In Exile wrote...

Yes, basically. This stuff doesn't happen. To me, it's like writing a fan fiction, and if I wanted to do that, I'd just
write my own game. My imagination and writing >>> anything Bioware produces. That I play a game is for me a clear sign that I am not currently interested in inventing content for myself.

I feel that the label of fan fiction is a bit extreme but I can understand where you are coming from. For me it's not so much about inventing content for myself (which I admit I am doing within my head) but to utilize my imagination to make up for whatever technical limitation the game may have or what the writer's glossed over.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yes I do.  Give me a Tactics-like system of indirect control, which could easily be described as "gameplanning" the same way a sports team draws up plays, practices them, and agrees to execute them when the time comes
and I'll happily give up direct control. I never liked it.

I'm the opposite. I dislike an automated tactics system and hope that it will always be a choice in this franchise (assuming future games remain party based). An unfortunate resist of a particular spell or talent can easily change the flow of the battle and the automated tactics system cannot readily handle situational changes. When I did play around with the tactics system, I found that the party members always used up their stamina/mana too quickly. Plus the benefit for me is the effect of increased game play.

Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 07 novembre 2010 - 02:40 .

[upsettingshorts]

That's fine. I just took issue with explicit denial that my preferences existed, or I was somehow lying to myself about them.

[In Exile]

RifuloftheWest wrote...
Despite my advocating the nonsense of being the human based algorithm to equip the companions or evidently confusing the definition of fan fiction and role-playing, what you described with Morrigan - an event to ask for a high level item along with consequences sounds really good. I would be very interested to experience a system like that.

I apologize for the use of the term if it's offensive. It's just that... I don't have a good term for how to describe a case where the player is essentially overwriting the writers. Adding an interpretation to the character of an NPC to me seems more than just playing - it's essentially adding traits that aren't there. And I am not quite sure how to call that, but in fan fiction I get the impression that people pilot their addendums to the story based on their tastes/interpretation, so that's the best I can do.

I feel that the label of fan fiction is a bit extreme but I can understand where you are coming from. For me it's not so much about inventing content for myself (which I admit I am doing within my head) but to utilize my imagination to make up for whatever technical limitation the game may have or what the writer's glossed over.

See, it's the bolded I have an issue with. Whatever the writer put in, that's all there is (to me, anyway). If the content is poor, that's becasue the writer is a bad writer. If the game is limited technically, then it's a failure on the part of the devs.

I'm the opposite. I dislike an automated tactics system and hope that it will always be a choice in this franchise (assuming future games remain party based). An unfortunate resist of a particular spell or talent can easily change the flow of the battle and the automated tactics system cannot readily handle situational changes. When I did play around with the tactics system, I found that the party members always used up their stamina/mana too quickly. Plus the benefit for me is the effect of increased game play.

See, I want party control in combat. Not because tactics suck, but because I just like party control.

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

I apologize for the use of the term if it's offensive. It's just that... I don't have a good term for how to describe a case where the player is essentially overwriting the writers. Adding an interpretation to the character of an NPC to me seems more than just playing - it's essentially adding traits that aren't there.

Intentional delusion.  I think Sylvius even actually agreed to this description once, although probably not without qualification.  Don't take my word for it, in any event.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 03:00 .

[MDarwin]

MorseDenizen wrote...

I'm just wondering, (I've been away since july and mobile phones are bad for staying informed, please bear with me) party inventory is to be limited to runes and accessories as far as i can understand in order to give each companion their own unique look/body, if thats the case and I can see some rage here and there, but, in theory its feasible to make custom/modded stock armour for an individual character's body isn't it? My theory hinges on the existence of a toolset but wondering if this may be the case, given that games like NWN2 and Oblivion seem to have a wealth of armour to fit particular bodies, so despite lack of inventory some armours could be made/used, sorry for being long winded, excited to be on the forum again

No news on the TS as yet. If there will be no TS, I believe BW will release maybe DLC Companion Armor .

[MadLaughter]

As someone who puts Mass Effect 2 at the top of my GOTY list despite going in this exact same direction (minus what I imagine will be pretty arbitrary trinkets and accessories), I feel that this is a pretty big step back for Dragon Age.



One argument was that the equippable armors in DAO were too generic, didn't give the characters personality. While it's probably true that these new outfis will make themslightly more individual and easily recognized, I would have preferred that the devs just put more effort into designing more better and cool and awesome fantasy armor for everyone to wear. A greater variety at a higher quality seems like it would be a lot cooler than this.



I also hope that this doesn't mean a further shift towards the Mass Effect model of 5 or 6 armor sets in the entire game if you don't count the pre-order stuff. One of my favorite things about fantasy RPG's is the large variety and choice in equipping these gauntlets with those leggings, etc.



This part is an assumption, and I'd love to be told otherwise. But I don't doubt that the lackluster facial/hair editor will not get very many upgrades despite being a new graphics system/design. There's been hints of a few, but I'd rather them be pretty substantial..



Mass Effect at least was kind enough to give us alternate outfits ,even if they were mainly recolors. I'd be slightly less disappointed if each companion had at least one alternate appearance that differed in a meaningful way from their standard, unfortunately unchangable appearance.



I'm glad DA2 is improving the fluidity and combat, I like the shift to the conversation wheel, I like the box art (Hated that of Mass Effect 2, so much so that I had to get the CE), I like most of what has been said so far.



I don't like removing a feature as opposed to improving it by making cooler, switchable armors.

[crimzontearz]

FedericoV wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Well Federico I discovered Bioware through BG and MDK...althiugh BG never appealed to me very much because I never liked the forgotten realms as a setting (muchly preferred ravenloft)...muchto the dismay of my DND group Massimiliano + Marco who hated dealing with it

No...bioware is more the symbol of a gaming company whose producs I can and will play more than 100 hours each...only company that ever did that for me

Yep, I have the same relation with Bio games. It's the only company in the gaming market that I'm faithfull too and even if there are games that I liked more and games that I liked less, I never feel disappointed with them and I still preorder their games every time.

And honestly, I don't understand all that talk about chore gamers. In the 90's chore CRPG gamers valued more story, setting, quest design, scope of the gaming experience, choice and consequences and so on... inventory micromanagement, min maxing and focus on combat was considered as the territory of powergamer.

The real strenght of the BG series was the scope of its storytelling (at least for the times): even I do not love FR and prefer other old D&D setting (Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Darksun). But what was great about the BG saga was the scope of the story from the beginning to the end.

If I have to say something bad about last Bioware CRPGs (with the exception of DA:O) is that there is less space for choices that really affects the story and that the storydriven/cinematic approach makes the games too linear. That's something that was really good in DA:O and that I would really do not like to see "dumbed down" in DA2. Who cares if Isabella wears a bandana or an helmet + 3...

see the point is that mimaxing and stat overplaying was yes the territory of powergamers and twinks BUT.....once you minmaxed a character yor character was vierually USELESS for everything but what you minmaxed him for (combat...magic...stealth...social) but in DAO you are pushed to minmax because otherwise your build is not just "less effective" but nearly BROKEN with stats that have NO value whatsoever like say constitution or stamina  which sound like good ideas on paper but are otherwise useless

also

Bioware might be making moves to break down its awesome storytelling or better yet to weane some people from playing their games more than once. A lot of the non compulsive grinders for instance DO NOT want to run more than 1 "work" playthrough grinding and building their character...from the second playthrough on they only want to focus on the brancing of the story but without NG+ each run results in another grindfest...hell even MAss Effect 2 was supposed not to have NG+. If they did not add it in I'd have never played it more than three times maybe four as opposed to the 20+ runs I have. What's the point of awesome storytelling if poeple are turned off from going through it more than once and try all the possible permutations?

I can only hope they will add it in DA2

but that's digressing

you are right Bioware games are about their storytelling which almost no other company achieved hence why I am OK with the fact that they are following the PST model for DA2

[RifuloftheWest]

In Exile wrote...

I apologize for the use of the term if it's offensive. It's just that... I don't have a good term for how to describe a case where the player is essentially overwriting the writers. Adding an interpretation to the character of an NPC to me seems more than just playing - it's essentially adding traits that aren't there. And I am not quite sure how to call that, but in fan fiction I get the impression that people pilot their addendums to the story based on their tastes/interpretation, so that's the best I can do.

There is no need to apologize as I did not take offense. My phrasing was intended to show that even though my posts seem to be in conflict with what you are looking for in the game, I am very open to the idea you had proposed. If it came off as snarky, then I apologize.

See, it's the bolded I have an issue with. Whatever the writer put in, that's all there is (to me, anyway). If the content is poor, that's becasue the writer is a bad writer. If the game is limited technically, then it's a failure on the part of the devs.

For the most part, I agree with what you stated above. However, technical limitations are not necessarily a failure on the devs part. If the technology does not exist or is not available to the current gaming platforms, then to wholey blame the devs would be unfair. I personally wouldn't call having to act as the medium to equip the companions a failure. The Silverite Mines bug in Awakenings on the other hand....

Obviously, I do not share such an issue with imagining a conversation I had "off screen" with a companion about a piece of equipment or whether the Warden taught a specialization. But make no mistake, if somehow a game was made that covered all of these things like an a consequential event for a particular piece of equipment for a companion, well - I certainly would not be complaining.

See, I want party control in combat. Not because tactics suck, but because I just like party control.

It's funny, I was under the impression that you may have been against party control. No matter, as I was mistaken. I also like party control, not simply because I find the tactics system limiting, but because controling the party is fun for me. I was emphasizing on the tactics system in response to Upsettingshorts perferences (not that they are any less valid than mine).

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Intentional delusion.  I think Sylvius
even actually agreed to this description once, although probably not
without qualification.  Don't take my word for it, in any event.

I've been lurking on these boards enough to be aware of the discussions about the term intentional delusion. In fact, I stated something similar in an earlier post about being delusionally imaginative when describing my take on why I as a player, had Sten "choose" the big shiny plate armor amongst the inventory pool.

At any rate, perhaps the term fan fiction is a little more flattering than refering to oneself as delusional.

Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 07 novembre 2010 - 03:52 .

[In Exile]

RifuloftheWest wrote...

There is no need to apologize as I did not take offense. My phrasing was intended to show that even though my posts seem to be in conflict with what you are looking for in the game, I am very open to the idea you had proposed. If it came off as snarky, then I apologize.

No, you weren't snarky. I just had the impression from your post you were somewhat bothered by my phrasing, and while I sometimes come off aggresive when I debate, I'm really non-confrontational and like to keep things friendly.

All is good, so we can avoid the rainbows now and get on with the discussion.

For the most part, I agree with what you stated above. However, technical limitations are not necessarily a failure on the devs part. If the technology does not exist or is not available to the current gaming platforms, then to wholey blame the devs would be unfair.

The problem with that is that I wouldn't know how to fill in the blanks so to speak.

I personally wouldn't call having to act as the medium to equip the companions a failure. The Silverite Mines bug in Awakenings on the other hand....

Yeah, that sort of thing is unacceptable. Awakening was the most buggy Bioware game I played... well, ever. I had problems with BG, but I assuem that's because I was playing it on Vista.

Obviously, I do not share such an issue with imagining a conversation I had "off screen" with a companion about a piece of equipment or whether the Warden taught a specialization. But make no mistake, if somehow a game was made that covered all of these things like an a consequential event for a particular piece of equipment for a companion, well - I certainly would not be complaining.

Oh, I'm sure. It's just that we have this conflict on how we experience games. I've talked about this with others on the forum, and I think the concensus we reached was that part of it was my youth. I came in with 3D visuals and KoTOR, so for me it's natural to expect my content on-screen versus off-screen.

It's funny, I was under the impression that you may have been against party control. No matter, as I was mistaken.

I believe strongly in story/gameplay segregation. I want the story to simulate the PC as a person with a reactive world. But I want party-base combat for the gameplay. Hell, my ideal game would be turn-based hex combat like Heroes of Might and Magic.

I also like party control, not simply because I find the tactics system limiting, but because controling the party is fun for me. I was emphasizing on the tactics system in response to Upsettingshorts perferences (not that they are any less valid than mine).

Right. One of my biggest fears for DA2 will be that we cannot disable tactics. As much as out of combat I want characters to be their own person, in-combat I want souless puppets.

[Addai]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Not what I'm saying. In those cases you are influencing the NPCs through roleplaying you character. Definitely not controling them. What I mean is you should have to convince a NPC to wear a armor that isn't his style. For example, you shouldn't be able to give sten low quality armor. He should just pick one that better suited him from among the corpses of enemies.

You can't do that.  I mean, you could, but people don't want to play games like that.  They may say they do, but they don't.  Just look at the rage over the few times in DA that NPCs actually did go their own way.  Plus, the AI is stupid.  If you never changed their weapons or tactics, you'd be tearing your hair out.

It's still a game, and a roleplaying game.  I don't mind some free agency in NPCs that I don't have to see very often, but the party under my control is under my control.

I believe it could work so long as the NPC actually picks better armor all the time. Problem here is, AI in games generally lacks enough common sense to be trusted in such matters. Once the problem is overcome, I can't see why it wouldn't work.

And when the NPC puts on armor you want your PC to wear?

[Addai]

FieryDove wrote...

When they develop AI that can think for themselves..."Hey, this armor is better than what I have I'll use it". Or " I will change my tactics in this battle since the enemies are different." Then
yes, by all means let the npc's do it. This goes for skills/talents etc. to many games with characters lvled or go ahead and try to use the auto level just make eyesroll...everywhere.
At least we won't be doing spacewalks or shuffling around vacum frozen planets with our npcs exposed ala ME2.
That was such a cool concept.

No way.  It's my game.  I can deal with AI in the environment, even though it can be annoying, but multiply an annoyance over the entire game and an NPC starts to be the devil.  You might as well not make a party tactical game at all.

Modifié par Addai67, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:07 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Addai67 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Not what I'm saying. In those cases you are influencing the NPCs through roleplaying you character. Definitely not controling them. What I mean is you should have to convince a NPC to wear a armor that isn't his style. For example, you shouldn't be able to give sten low quality armor. He should just pick one that better suited him from among the corpses of enemies.

You can't do that.  I mean, you could, but people don't want to play games like that.  They may say they do, but they don't.  Just look at the rage over the few times in DA that NPCs actually did go their own way.  Plus, the AI is stupid.  If you never changed their weapons or tactics, you'd be tearing your hair out.

It's still a game, and a roleplaying game.  I don't mind some free agency in NPCs that I don't have to see very often, but the party under my control is under my control.

I believe it could work so long as the NPC actually picks better armor all the time. Problem here is, AI in games generally lacks enough common sense to be trusted in such matters. Once the problem is overcome, I can't see why it wouldn't work.

And when the NPC puts on armor you want your PC to wear?

Just ask.

[Addai]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

And when the NPC puts on armor you want your PC to wear?

Just ask.

Ok, so we get to do everything we can do now, but there has to be dialogue about it?  And when the NPC says no, that's it?  This is really a game you want to play?  Don't kid a kidder.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Addai67 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

And when the NPC puts on armor you want your PC to wear?

Just ask.

Ok, so we get to do everything we can do now, but there has to be dialogue about it?  And when the NPC says no, that's it?  This is really a game you want to play?  Don't kid a kidder.

Here's a simple example: Order Garrus to switch to his assault rifle using the pause menu in ME2. Shepard yells "Switch weapons" and Garrus follows the order.

And yeah, ME2 is really a game I want to play.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
Ok, so we get to do everything we can do now, but there has to be dialogue about it?  And when the NPC says no, that's it?  This is really a game you want to play?  Don't kid a kidder.

I'd be fine with NPCs saying no to the PC, about practically anything.  Why is this so hard to imagine someone enjoying?

Heck, I'd love for Coercion to matter in all sorts of situation beyond where it is already used.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:19 .

[RifuloftheWest]

crimzontearz wrote...

but in DAO you are pushed to minmax because otherwise your build is not just "less effective" but nearly BROKEN with stats that have NO value whatsoever like say constitution or stamina  which sound like good ideas on paper but are otherwise useless

I disagree about being pushed to minmax. My first playthrough on hard was a mess for my 2H warrior Warden. Still influenced from my days on FF Online, I invested a significant amount in the dex stat thinking I really needed to avoid missing (stupid bloody slowass 2H swing). I had thought that dex was the only way to increase attack. I even invested a little into willpower. When I look back on it now, that character was the very definition of broken. But it did not inhibit my ability to enjoy that playthrough (there's nothing like the first time) nor finish the game.

I didn't even learn on my second playthrough as I had a DW rogue that used 2 long swords and I only invested in dex . My point is that DAO does not push you into strictly minmaxing. If it did, I would still be trying to finish my first playthrough.

I'm also ignorant to the term "NG+". Would you please explain what this means?

I definitely share your sentiment regarding the similarities this change to DA2 has with PST. Even though I would rather be in full control of the armor, there is still customization available to us.

Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[upsettingshorts]

RifuloftheWest wrote...

I'm also ignorant to the term "NG+". Would you please explain what this means?

New Game +.  Basically starting at the beginning of the game in terms of plot and story development, but retaining the equipment and level of the endgame.

[addiction21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Ok, so we get to do everything we can do now, but there has to be dialogue about it?  And when the NPC says no, that's it?  This is really a game you want to play?  Don't kid a kidder.

I'd be fine with NPCs saying no to the PC, about practically anything.  Why is this so hard to imagine someone enjoying?

Heck, I'd love for Coercion to matter in all sorts of situation beyond where it is already used.

Consider my mind blown with the possibilites... if I had one that is.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd be fine with NPCs saying no to the PC, about practically anything.  Why is this so hard to imagine someone enjoying?

Case in point: endless player rage threads over Alistair saying "no" once.

This is not to say you personally couldn't possibly enjoy it, but rather that such feature would from we've seen generate lot of backlash if implemented on wide scale.

edit: And asking for coercion in these situations to matter is basically to ask for ability to override that NPCs "no" as you see fit. Why would you want to override something you supposedly enjoy?

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Case in point: endless player rage threads over Alistair saying "no" once.

Threads I laugh at?

tmp7704 wrote...

This is not to say you personally couldn't possibly enjoy it, but rather that such feature would from we've seen generate lot of backlash if implemented on wide scale.

The preferences of other people are not my concern.  I am not a developer.

tmp7704 wrote...

edit: And asking for coercion in these situations to matter is basically to ask for ability to override that NPCs "no" as you see fit. Why would you want to override something you supposedly enjoy?

Because you and I aren't thinking about the same situations.  I don't think Coercion should be used to convince Alistair to stay in the party if Loghain is inducted into the Wardens for instance, but in cases of changing their equipment beyond that they consider useful, telling them to engage in tactics they consider suboptimal, etc.  I support using Coercion as a replacement for decisions the protagonist is already allowed to make with an absolute, tyrannical authority over his team - not override characterization.

The protagonist's leadership ability, in that sense, shouldn't be taken for granted.  It should be earned through investment in attributes.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I don't think Coercion should be used to convince Alistair to stay in the party if Loghain is inducted into the Wardens for instance, but in cases of changing their equipment beyond that they consider useful, telling them to engage in tactics they consider suboptimal, etc.  I support using Coercion as a replacement for decisions the protagonist is already allowed to make with an absolute, tyrannical authority over his team - not override characterization.

The protagonist's leadership ability, in that sense, shouldn't be taken for granted.  It should be earned through investment in attributes.

Does it in practice result in anything but players ****ing how dumb developers are forcing them to waste points on mandatory skills just to have game actually function? I mean, we have very sample of this in DAO already -- the tactics slots have to be unlocked through point investment and levelling up. It doesn't exactly seem popular.

I think it's a mistake to presume that companions are following player character's orders in combat and such the first place (as opposed to player filling in for their own minds) -- not when you can visually "jump" from one person to another at any time to manage them directly and to view things from their own perspective, and not when you can still do that (as well as gear changes etc) even when the player's character is incapacitated or otherwise not "physically" present.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Does it in practice result in anything but players ****ing how dumb developers are forcing them to waste points on mandatory skills just to have game actually function?

Again, it's not my concern what other players think. 

I'd view it as exactly the same choice as making a Speech/Charisma character vs. a more combat oriented one in the Fallout games.  Those don't have parties in the same way, but it's the same concept I'm trying to get across.

tmp7704 wrote...

I mean, we have very sample of this in DAO already -- the tactics slots have to be unlocked through point investment and levelling up. It doesn't exactly seem popular.

I'd be fine with the concept if the number of relative slots were doubled. 

tmp7704 wrote...

I think it's a mistake to presume that companions are following player character's orders in combat and such the first place (as opposed to player filling in for their own minds) -- not when you can visually "jump" from one person to another at any time to manage them directly and to view things from their own perspective, and not when you can still do that (as well as gear changes etc) even when the player's character is incapacitated or otherwise not "physically" present.

It's not that I assume that.  It's that I hate ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL systems even more.  I only got involved in the discussion because it was explicitly stated  that players who wanted NPCs with backbone didn't exist.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 05:00 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's not that I assume that.  It's that I hate ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL systems even more.

pah, this is true power. i know you feel this.

more seriously ok, there doesn't really seem to be anything to debate here -- if you dislike games which give player control over multiple characters then it's personal preference and there's no point in arguing these.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...
pah, this is true power. i know you feel this.

more seriously ok, there doesn't really seem to be anything to debate here -- if you dislike games which give player control over multiple characters then it's personal preference and there's no point in arguing these.

Basically nope. Though its not really an active dislike, just a preference.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 05:13 .