1080 réponses à ce sujet

[Maconbar]

Addai67 wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

So, can I ask, why is it that you play tactical team RPGs exactly?

And tmp is exactly right.  I've seen the rage on the boards about the fact that Alistair can't be persuaded to stay in the party with Loghain or won't let a Warden he's been in love with take the final blow.  Players want to do what they want to do.  It's our game, I paid the 60 bucks, not Alistair.  LOL

If controlling all the companions and having all of them do exactly what we want is so great why give the companions any independent personality at all. In what you are describing wouldn't it be better if we could name all the companions? We should be able to select what dialogue the companions use.

I think that many people play these games because the companions have their own personalities. I am glad that they do.

Do you ever set their tactics?  Change their weapons?  Level them yourself?  Pick their specializations?

I am not claiming that the companions are entirely independent. I am just saying that I like them to have some independence. I don't want them to be entirely blank slates that I can completely control. I am glad they have personalities. The fact that companions react differently to the PCs actions and statements is a good thing in my book. I think that many people play BW games because the companions have distinct personalities.

Modifié par Maconbar, 07 novembre 2010 - 10:37 .

[Nighteye2]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Hence Sylvius claiming it's not a party based rpg. He has a point.

And I'm more or less totally on board with his notion - at least in concept - that a game either give you full control over your party or no control over NPCs at all.  That's what "NPC" means.

The only character I really want to be the PC is the protagonist, whether team exists or not.  And that's where I imagine Sylvius and I part ways on that particular issue.

I actually prefer an in-between form, that has sort of been used in many old games. Imagine a table-top setting where other players each control their own character alongside yours, but are very open to your suggestions on what they should let their character do. That's kind of how the system in BG and DA:O was.

[upsettingshorts]

Nighteye2 wrote...
I actually prefer an in-between form, that has sort of been used in many old games. Imagine a table-top setting where other players each control their own character alongside yours, but are very open to your suggestions on what they should let their character do. That's kind of how the system in BG and DA:O was.

If you replace "very open to your suggestions" with "completely subservient to your will as long as you aren't talking to them" I'd agree with you.

There are obvious exceptions - like Alistair at the Landsmeet - of course.

[Vaeliorin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
Hence Sylvius claiming it's not a party based rpg. He has a point.

And I'm more or less totally on board with his notion - at least in concept - that a game either give you full control over your party or no control over NPCs at all.  That's what "NPC" means.

The only character I really want to be the PC is the protagonist, whether team exists or not.  And that's where I imagine Sylvius and I part ways on that particular issue.

I actually would agree with you, if I'd ever seen a game designer who didn't build horrible characters that have stupid AI.  Every game I've played, if you auto-level the companions, they'll be absolutely terrrible.  Bad builds, poor stat distribution, etc.  Maybe if your model allowed a high leadership score to point NPC party members in a particular build direction/suggest talents, them being out of the player's control would be okay.  It just really bothers me in a game if my character is like Superman and all the NPCs are like Bob the Couch Potato.  Why would I even bring them along if they're dead weight and just need to be protected (I want to bring them along for the banter, etc., but I tend to play non-moronic characters, and it would be out of character for them to take people into harm's way who aren't fully capable of taking care of themselves)?

So yes, in a perfect world, it'd be lovely to have the NPC party members actually be NPC's (and it would do a better job of replicating the PnP experience, generally) but unfortunately we don't seem to be at the stage of game development where that's possible (actually, that's probably not really true.  I seem to recall some discussion once of the fact that game designers specifically make auto-leveled companions gimpy so that they don't outshine the characters of players who have no idea how to build a decent character.)

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

I got the strong impression from the podcast that only the appearance is fixed. Mr. Laidlaw said you can upgrade your companion's armor with runes, and that companions will upgrade their own armor/you can find upgrades. It sounded like we might see changes in armor in the gaps in the 10-year period, but I'm not sure if those are statistical or cosmetic.

Of course, only the actual armor is fixed in the first place. The belt, ring slots, and weapons are all variable as in Origins. What remains to be seen is whether we'll actually have options for companion armor or just upgrades a la Morrigan's Robes of Possession.

But if you look at DAO, the statistical value of the accessories, and even the runes, was quite small relative to the armour itself.

You never saw a +16 armour rating on a belt, for example.

Yep, but I assume that the balance will change since companion armours are graphically fixed.

[upsettingshorts]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I actually would agree with you, if I'd ever seen a game designer who didn't build horrible characters that have stupid AI.

Oh I agree with this completely.  I don't have any expectation that a game could or will be made that implements the kind of features or take the approach I'm talking about.  By contrast take the arguments of CoS Sarah Jinstar:  She's arguing (however abrasively) for features, at least from what I can gather, that have actually been put in games before.  I suppose that's why I take the preferences I've outlined less seriously, until I've actually seen them used - and used well - I can't reasonably expect for developers to start now. 

That being said, would I love for someone like Mike Laidlaw or Peter Thomas to look at what I posted for Upsettingshorts Age: The Never Happening, take the points seriously, and respond to them?  Even if it's just to explain how it would never work?  Yes.  Absolutely.  But I'm not exactly raising the idea in every thread in which it could possibly be considered on topic.

...not like I am with Age of Conan's combo system, anyway.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 12:14 .

[Aermas]

If we could "ask" the companions to adopt a build pattern that they followed when leveling (i.e. Tank or Scrapper) this could get rid of the Complete control/No control issues, & I don't mean that you get to choose what they take, but you can choose what they are building towards

[soteria]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

I actually would agree with you, if I'd ever seen a game designer who didn't build horrible characters that have stupid AI.

Oh I agree with this completely.  I don't have any expectation that a game could or will be made that implements the kind of features or take the approach I'm talking about.  By contrast take the arguments of CoS Sarah Jinstar:  She's arguing (however abrasively) for features, at least from what I can gather, that have actually been put in games before.  I suppose that's why I take the preferences I've outlined less seriously, until I've actually seen them used - and used well - I can't reasonably expect for developers to start now. 

In FF13 (I promise this relates), combat is quasi-turn-based with a segmented action time bar.  You might get three actions per combat round.  The game gives you the option of manually selecting the abilities you use (basic attack, fire spell, aoe physical attack, etc) or going with auto.  Surprisingly, the auto option is extremely good at picking the optimum abilities to use.  In fact, given the pace and nature of combat in FF13, it's pretty much superior to the player--you're just gimping yourself if you try to manually select abilities.

Now, while I was pleasantly surprised that the AI was that good, it was also a little disconcerting.  I kinda like manually selecting abilities to use in combat, but if the AI does it better, why bother?  Let's imagine that the auto-level feature in DA:O was actually good.  Well, some people would make an argument that solidly built characters should be earned, not given out by the autolevel.  On a certain level, knowing that the computer could have done just as good a job at building your character takes a little bit of the joy out of character building.  That might be a little elitist, but I think it's true.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Your gaming background is irrelevant.  You still chose to limit your interpretation of the game's implicit content.

Jumping to a conclusion is always jumping to a conclusion, regardless of how neatly packaged your incomplete information was.

It's not jumping to a conclusion. We had this debate before. My claim is that if we allow for off-screen content, the only thing that could justify the absence of wildly insane scenarios (Duncan is alive, the archdemon is a shapeshifting asari, the Warden is the son of Shepard who crash landed on Ferelden) is preference. There is literally no reason not to suppose anything if your only standard for experience is the idiosyncracy of what the PC believes to be true.

I reject post hoc justifications. There is nothing wrong with starting from an arbitrary position and deriving a system, but once you've established your key axioms, any further post hoc arbitrary presuppositions are just wrong.

[In Exile]

Anarchosyn wrote...
I hate to point out the obvious but you're already projecting your interpretations onto the characters with the bit I highlighted. Why wouldn't Morrigan wear plate armor? Why would she gravitate towards fire over ice magic? Why [insert any preference]? Because you intuited something in her presentation which implicitly suggested this but never forget that such preferences are never directly stated. They exist in your head, as well they should.

Why does Morrigan wear clothes at all? Why is she not trying to shag Teagan? Because you intuited something in per presentation which implicitly suggest this but never forget such preferences where never directly stated. They exist in your head.

Our argument is that there are no preferences unless they are shown. Morrigan has no attitude toward armour unless an attitude toward armour is expressed.

Perhaps Morrigan's experiences with the Warden have broadened her to the benefits of death dealing up close and personal with an axe. I wouldn't play her this way but nothing in her personality explicitly contradicts such growth. She existed in a very closed and voyeuristic existence before meeting the warden -- who's to say what kind of dynamic growth potential could be role played into her over the course of the adventure.

Perhaps Morrigan's experiences with the Warden have broaden her to the benefits of not wearing clothes and attemtping to have sex with Teagan. I wouldn't play her this way but nothing in her personality explicitly contracts such growth. She existed in a very closed and voyeuristic existence before meetng the warden - who's to say what kind of dynamic growth potential could be role played into her over the course of the adventure?

And the answer to that is the writers. If Morrigan's character develops (i.e. she goes from wanting to use the Warden to produce a child for the DR to being in love with the Warden), then it has to get shown in-game. Otherwise it doesn't happen.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Half the things people are offering as interpretations don't come from the writers but people here making it up, their own personal take on those NPCs.

It's Ockam's razour. If Morrigan wanted to wear armour, she would wear armour. She does not wear armour, so we can say that she currently does not want to wear armour, and it is impossible to pressupose anything further because she does not express an opinion.

[ashwind]

soteria wrote...
In FF13 (I promise this relates), combat is quasi-turn-based with a segmented action time bar.  You might get three actions per combat round.  The game gives you the option of manually selecting the abilities you use (basic attack, fire spell, aoe physical attack, etc) or going with auto.  Surprisingly, the auto option is extremely good at picking the optimum abilities to use.  In fact, given the pace and nature of combat in FF13, it's pretty much superior to the player--you're just gimping yourself if you try to manually select abilities.

Now, while I was pleasantly surprised that the AI was that good, it was also a little disconcerting.  I kinda like manually selecting abilities to use in combat, but if the AI does it better, why bother?  Let's imagine that the auto-level feature in DA:O was actually good.  Well, some people would make an argument that solidly built characters should be earned, not given out by the autolevel.  On a certain level, knowing that the computer could have done just as good a job at building your character takes a little bit of the joy out of character building.  That might be a little elitist, but I think it's true.

Because I bought the game so that I can play it!! I didnt buy it so that my computer/console can play it!

It is like MMO botting. Yes, the bot can "play" those games more effectively and infinitely better but why am I paying so that my computer can play!? 

Modifié par ashwind, 07 novembre 2010 - 01:06 .

[RifuloftheWest]

soteria wrote...

Now, while I was pleasantly surprised that the AI was that good, it was also a little disconcerting.  I kinda like manually selecting abilities to use in combat, but if the AI does it better, why bother?  Let's imagine that the auto-level feature in DA:O was actually good.  Well, some people would make an argument that solidly built characters should be earned, not given out by the autolevel.  On a certain level, knowing that the computer could have done just as good a job at building your character takes a little bit of the joy out of character building.  That might be a little elitist, but I think it's true.

I don't see why the knowledge that a computer could have done just as good a job at building my character should take anything away from manually doing so. If you enjoy the aspect of manually building a character, an automated feature that does the same thing should not bother you because there is enjoyment in the former.

If a game like Upsettingshorts Age: The Never Happening was ever made with its fantastically designed tactics system that could allow the party to kill darkspawn faster, easier, and more efficiently - I would still choose to manually control my party (assuming there was a choice in the matter) and it wouldn't bother me knowing I'm gimping myself. I'd be having too much fun controlling the party to care.

If the situation you describe with DAO's auto-level feature did occur, I just do not understand why the potential for the arguements would come up at all. Not that I'm doubting people would make the complaint you outlined, I just think it's irrelevent in a game like DAO where the auto-level feature is optional. If they prefer for solid builds to be earned, then they are free to do so.

Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 07 novembre 2010 - 01:47 .

[tez19]

if companions have the same outfits throughout the game then they should AT LEAST have sheaths for their weapons.
I enjoyed ME2 but i am against this constant outfit for companions. That is taking away ALOT of customization.
AT LEAST GIVE US SHEATHS WITH CONSTANT OUTFITS, THE WITCHER 2 HAS SHEATHS!

[In Exile]

RifuloftheWest wrote...
If a game like Upsettingshorts Age: The Never Happening was ever made with its fantastically designed tactics system that could allow the party to kill darkspawn faster, easier, and more efficiently - I would still choose to manually control my party (assuming there was a choice in the matter) and it wouldn't bother me knowing I'm gimping myself. I'd be having too much fun controlling the party to care.

I would agree with this. I simply do not enjoy (what is to me) the work required in developing tactics for a party and then the absence of actually controlling the game. I'm a twitch gamer in that sense, because I like ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL in all cases.

I remember one thing that aggravated me very strongly about older RPGs (like BG) was how hard it was to get the right sort of character I wanted (either a brilliant talent or a barely functional sack of flesh). But at least those let you re-roll. NWN forced me to use the console to either gimp or pump starting characters so they'd represent the qualities I wanted them to have.

Modifié par In Exile, 07 novembre 2010 - 01:30 .

[RifuloftheWest]

In Exile wrote...

Our argument is that there are no preferences unless they are shown. Morrigan has no attitude toward armour unless an attitude toward armour is expressed.

Interesting, as one could argue that Morrigan has quite clearly expressed that she values power. She even states that magic outside of the magic taught in the Circle is worth preserving. Based on these two things, if the Warden had the ability to teach her what little Arcane Warrior magic was available, would Morrigan not exploit this and utilize the benefits of having Arcane Warrior abilities - such as wearing more protective armor?

It can be considered at most a stretch, sure. But my point is one can make those types interpretations based on what has been shown in game statisfying your premise. She may not have said she would like to wear armor, but we definitely know she would be open to things that make her more powerful.

[crimzontearz]

RifuloftheWest wrote...

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.

I said PUSH not FORCE

after trial and error you did realize just how much useless some stats were of course it required some digging and and trial and error

as for NG+ upsetting shorts explained it

at the beginning of a new game you choose wether to import the character you were using at the previous run's endgame keeping level skill and non plot equipment or make a brand new one

this practice allows a lot of people ro replay the game for a longer time since it allows to focus on the story and not on the grinding and building (also some people get attached to one build/character). more and more games are adopting this tecnique including non RPG games with progressions like say Dead Space, Resident Evil, Darksiders had a kinda NG+, DMC had a chapter NG+ which worked and so on

[In Exile]

RifuloftheWest wrote...
Interesting, as one could argue that Morrigan has quite clearly expressed that she values power. She even states that magic outside of the magic taught in the Circle is worth preserving. Based on these two things, if the Warden had the ability to teach her what little Arcane Warrior magic was available, would Morrigan not exploit this and utilize the benefits of having Arcane Warrior abilities - such as wearing more protective armor?

Who knows? We know Morrigan values power, but we have no idea how Morrigan would act when offered different kinds of it. Would she wear armour as an arcane warrior? The armour could get in the way. Maybe she likes being half-naked the entire time because she thinks that gives her power by keeping men too busy worrying about their rhymes with election to fight her properly, and armour isn't worth it.

I

t can be considered at most a stretch, sure. But my point is one can make those types interpretations based on what has been shown in game statisfying your premise. She may not have said she would like to wear armor, but we definitely know she would be open to things that make her more powerful.

Sure, but we have no idea how that plays out. We have no idea if she isn't a hypocrate who likes to say she values power but wouldn't change her apperance if given the choice.

[RifuloftheWest]

In Exile wrote...

Maybe she likes being half-naked the entire time because she thinks that gives her power by keeping men too busy worrying about their rhymes with election to fight her properly, and armour isn't worth it.

I've actually had playthroughs where Morrigan liked being half-naked - far more so than what the vanilla robes show even. My Warden found it annoyingly pleasant but the party died a lot .  Although strangely, the darkspawn weren't affected by it. Huh, go figure.

Sure, but we have no idea how that plays out. We have no idea if she isn't a hypocrate who likes to say she values power but wouldn't change her apperance if given the choice.

Joking aside, I'm curious as to how you handled this with your playthrough(s) of DAO. Let's take Leliana: when we first meet her she is in Chantry robes and has one dagger. If we were to go strictly with what is presented in game, we have no idea what kind of armor she would prefer.  Over the course of getting to know her, we find out she likes shoes, has talent with a bow, can use a dagger but we never really get any definitive indication as to what kind of attire she prefers to wear in combat (other than Chantry robes).

Did you leave her in Chantry robes? If not, did it bother you to impose XYZ armor on her and found it immersion breaking?

[Ortaya Alevli]

Addai67 wrote...

What if he flips you the bird and says he wants to use the weapon he wants to use?

Assuming the game would go so far as to include such practical levels of second-guessing, my player character would consider this a serious threat to tactical integrity of the team and take appropriate action within the bounds the game allows. I do not expect any sane game designer to include a "I am not giving up the armor, so suck it up" response and no device to help resolve the crisis, that would be dumb.

An automatic item loot/equipment feature for companions does not neccessitate another feature that involves disobeying any order your character gives. I still say it could work. Just for the record, my saying it could work does not necessarily mean it is what I personally prefer hands down, either.

[ErichHartmann]

tez19 wrote...

AT LEAST GIVE US SHEATHS WITH CONSTANT OUTFITS, THE WITCHER 2 HAS SHEATHS!

Yes, because Geralt only needs to use two swords the entire game.  Who said DAII will only have constant weapons? *hears crickets*

[Ortaya Alevli]

Sheaths would look cool...if you aren't using an axe. Or a maul. Or a two-handed sword. Or...

[crimzontearz]

ErichHartmann wrote...

tez19 wrote...

AT LEAST GIVE US SHEATHS WITH CONSTANT OUTFITS, THE WITCHER 2 HAS SHEATHS!

Yes, because Geralt only needs to use two swords the entire game.  Who said DAII will only have constant weapons? *hears crickets*

it was basically confirmed the weapons will work like in PST so......

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

I remember one thing that aggravated me very strongly about older RPGs (like BG) was how hard it was to get the right sort of character I wanted (either a brilliant talent or a barely functional sack of flesh). But at least those let you re-roll. NWN forced me to use the console to either gimp or pump starting characters so they'd represent the qualities I wanted them to have.

The NWN character design system had to be balanced for multiplayer. Of course, that doesn't mean you should like it any better. This is one of the rare instances where I think a toggle would have been worth it.

[AlanC9]

RifuloftheWest wrote...
Did you leave her in Chantry robes? If not, did it bother you to impose XYZ armor on her and found it immersion breaking?

Actually, some folks over on the build boards advocate this -- they say that armor is never worth the stamina cost for an archer, since if you're playing properly the archer shouldn't ever be targeted anyway. I don't buy it myself, but it seems to be a viable style.