183 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the lowly console gamer agrees. I just need to know if my new 'Bad Guy Kabob' is better then my current one. Also, I would prefer an American footbal analogy in the future.

If an American football game like Football Manager existed, I'd have used that.  But there ain't.  Plus, if you don't know anything about soccer, it's an even better example, because the star system in DA:2 exists to help people who don't know much about RPGs.

Or don't care about specifics, them too.

Sounds similar to Battrick, a cricket managing team thingy.

Anyway, I like how it simplify things. Sometimes simpler is better. All I want to know is "Is this better? What are the drawbacks if any, do I need a higher dex stat to wear it or can I put it on right away? Oh hey it has more stars. Sweet, changing clothes now!"

As for preferred analogies to describe DA 2 game mechanics, I prefer Canada Dave's food analogy from another thread. 

[Dsentinel]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...


And we could all use more gifts!

I'd like a Signature Edition DA2 signed by the man himself Mike Laidlaw. No rush (other than they stop selling signature editions at 1.11.11). Thanks

[Mykel54]

I for one like the new start rating system, even if i have already played many rpgs, there is one thing i never have too much of: time. I don´t like wasting my time reading and re-reading all the items to see exactly which one is better or worse, i expect that the star system will help in discarding the "bad" items more quickly and then among the "good" ones you can examine then closer, also i think it would help in vendors to find the good items more quickly as well. I really liked that the stars do change as you level up, unlike the item colours say of wow (which is just another system of showing at a glance item quality), i think that is essential to make the system practical and useful and not just like the mentioned item colours of wow, which are barely useful.



Also i agree completely with the explanation Mike gave about the player-base and making it easier for people to get started. Thing is, many companies end up making the game "simple" just to invite casual players, what DAO2 promises (to have a outward simplicity, but you can dig deeper and find a complex game) is not new, but few games have managed to achieve that to satisfy both camps. I think the prime example here (where i do include myself) is ME2 simplicity, which went too far for many fans of rpg games (ex.loss of inventory), but it pleased many shooter players. I hope DAO2 manages to remain true to their objectives and keep the game complex but at the same time easy to get started in. The last part i know you will do (otherwise the game won´t sell enough to new people) but the former, is the part most companies forget about.

[-Semper-]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Cleaner interface design: Art direction decision that has nothing, at all, to do with the platform.

this is the final gui? damn... it would fit well for a science fiction rpg or alpha protocol but not a medievel one. where are all the details? books covered in leather, burned pages and so on? it feels really cold and empty.

[In Exile]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
*Steeples fingers*

And you all thought I was lying to you. I've never seen a reason flashy couldn't co-exist with stats. Look at professional sports. Stats on performance up the wazoo, yet some damn flashy moves.

And yes, I'm aware stats in sports are reactive, not predictive like they are in an RPG, but still, the metaphor holds...sorta...ish.

The thing is, I never doubted that. I mean, I think ME2 is similar to ME1 in a lot of significant ways, including the inventory scaling up with level being replaced with upgrades scaling up, and with certain abilities replacing mods or collapsing other talents (i.e. all weapon talents becoming integrated in high shooting fidelity from the start).

The danger I think is that people will rarely look at what you're doing under the hood for the presentation. Like with inventory. I'd bet that if it's the case we either can find or repeatedly upgrade companion armour so that we can have unique statistics for all companions, people will still complain the inventory for companions is functionally different because they look the same regardless of what they wear.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Not really. Every character has a
number of skill trees to choose from, and followers have one that's
"follower specific." You don't need to buy from it, if you don't want
to, but they have some fun stuff.

With the swashbuckler tree, do the red and blue icons represent the rival system?  If yes, does that mean that when we reach a certain level of friend rival, part of the tree should open up for us with new abilities?  If that's the case, what happens to the stats we've unlocked if we "lose" friend or rival points?  Do we lose the skill?  Or are we locked into friend or rival once we progress far enough?

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
It's like saying that you never use
holding right and left mouse down together to run, and you have no
intention of using it, so that feature is useless. Meanwhile there's
someone out there who only has use of one hand who relys on that exact
control scheme for something as fundamental as locomotion.

No one should hate on this feature. It's the best ever! It's the only way I can snack and play...

[StingingVelvet]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Have you considered that it might, just maybe, help someone who has never played an RPG before understand the concepts of equipment and stats at a high level, and then encourage them to go a little deeper into the stats themselves and maybe start to love a genre for which you apparently have so much passion? That, maybe, just maybe, they might become an RPG fan that helps keep the genre alive, and maybe, just maybe, even more robust than it is today because it's got a larger fan base than it currently does?

I have rarely disagreed with you more, Sylvius. Feeling that features that add entry-level usability without taking away hardcore functionaly are "pointless," by my reckoning, is a sentiment that will kill RPGs.

In this case he is being silly since the core functionality is still there without compromise, but I do think him and others are understandably concerned that developers are killing RPGs to "save" them.  It seems like every new "AAA" RPG that comes out is less and less an RPG at all.  At some point you're not saving it, you're not bringing in new RPG fans, you're just not making RPGs anymore but still calling them that.

Again though, in this specific case I agree with you he is wrong.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 07 novembre 2010 - 02:58 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

With the swashbuckler tree, do the red and blue icons represent the rival system?  If yes, does that mean that when we reach a certain level of friend rival, part of the tree should open up for us with new abilities?  If that's the case, what happens to the stats we've unlocked if we "lose" friend or rival points?  Do we lose the skill?  Or are we locked into friend or rival once we progress far enough?

These seem to be passive abilities/bonuses (they have round icon shape) gained when you reach certain level of friendship/rivalry and was said to be "result" of that system, yeah. I'd guess they work just like they worked in DAO, you just have them included in the ability tree now so you can decide in advance which one you'll try to get.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

You can't. You can't trust anyone. Luckily, it's clear that you don't need stars.

I don't need them, but they might still be a nice (and useful) feature if I know how they work.  But if how they work is a mystery, then they can't actually convey information to the players.

I manage databases for a living.  Often people give me proprietary database software where all the SQL happens under the hood and I can't see it.  With those, whenever someone wants to to build something for that database I always dump the entire contents of the database to some other system where I can see what's happening.  That's the only way to know for sure that whatever I've built works as intended.

Is it? You have the ability to go through the stat of every thing in every store and every piece of equipment in your inventory. So you have lost not one iota of functionality there.

True, but nor have we gained any.

But you now have a thing in place that suggests, that, just perhaps, that armor you were wearing at the beginning of the game isn't good enough for you at this later point in the game. What's pointless about that?

"Suggests" isn't useful.  I would hope we'd actually want to know whether something is true rather than have it "suggested" at us.

Have you considered that it might, just maybe, help someone who has never played an RPG before understand the concepts of equipment and stats at a high level, and then encourage them to go a little deeper into the stats themselves and maybe start to love a genre for which you apparently have so much passion? That, maybe, just maybe, they might become an RPG fan that helps keep the genre alive, and maybe, just maybe, even more robust than it is today because it's got a larger fan base than it currently does?

Or maybe it will serve as a crutch, and they'll rely on it rather than learning how the stats actually work, only to be frustrated later when the two disagree.

And given that frustration, you'll design the next game to eliminate those conflicts, thus reducing every stat-based decision to comparing single numbers to each other.

This is exactly the pattern you've followed with voice-over.  It's exactly the pattern you're following now with inventory.

Feeling that features that add entry-level usability without taking away hardcore functionaly are "pointless," by my reckoning, is a sentiment that will kill RPGs.

I agree entirely with this statement.

I worry that this star-rating system might carry unforeseen consequences in future games, and I want everyone to be aware of that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

I thought he was pretty explicit.  "Isabela is a dagger-user.  She's not really a bow girl."  I didn't think he left much question but that companions are largely going to be restricted to a single weapon style.

Isabela is a dagger user.  Present tense.

So that's what she is when we get her.  Can we change that going forward?

[Fortlowe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

I thought he was pretty explicit.  "Isabela is a dagger-user.  She's not really a bow girl."  I didn't think he left much question but that companions are largely going to be restricted to a single weapon style.

Isabela is a dagger user.  Present tense.

So that's what she is when we get her.  Can we change that going forward?

Why? Zev was a dagger rogue and Lel was an archer. I'm sure there will be a similar scenario in the sequel.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 07 novembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
So does that mean you couldn't respec Isabela out of her Swashbuckler tree? And is it like one tree for mage, rogue, warrior, plus one companion/Hawke specific one, plus ones for different specializations?

Well, you can't make the pirate into a not-pirate, if that's what you're asking.

Yes, but can I make her into an archer?

She gets access to the two regular rogue trees. Unless they've removed the archery tree, the answer is 'yes.'

[axa89]

In DA2 there are six trees per class. Two of these are weapon specific (one tree dual wield, one archery, in case of rogues). Mike said in the podcast that companions will get access to *almost* all abilities. Coupled with the no bow girl thing, I'm pretty sure Isabela won't be able to access the archer tree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

Why? Zev was a dagger rogue and Lel was an archer.

You could make Zev an archer.  You could make Leliana dual-wield maces if you wanted (as I just said in another thread, I think she made a decent tank).

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Why? Zev was a dagger rogue and Lel was an archer.

You could make Zev an archer.  You could make Leliana dual-wield maces if you wanted (as I just said in another thread, I think she made a decent tank).

I'd argue those features shouldn't be present in an RPG, because they make no sense within the setting. You either have total contol over the characters (including what they say and possibly how they look ala IWD and SoZ)  or no control whatsoever (ala NWN), controlling what NPCs do through the tactics system. Anything else fails to make sense. So I control Zevran and choose to have him be an archer, but next time he wants to kill the main character?

[Fortlowe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Why? Zev was a dagger rogue and Lel was an archer.

You could make Zev an archer.  You could make Leliana dual-wield maces if you wanted (as I just said in another thread, I think she made a decent tank).

But, those characters are already optimized for melee and archery respectively. So respecing them is an option, but not necessarily an efficient one. Sten could be an archer if I wanted, but he's already good to go as a two handed warrior so why rock the boat? Just because I can?

Modifié par Fortlowe, 07 novembre 2010 - 10:38 .

[Maria Caliban]

Fortlowe wrote...

But, those characters are already optimized for melee and archery respectively. So respecing them is an option, but not necessarily an efficient one. Sten could be an archer if I wanted, but he's already good to go as a two handed warrior so why rock the boat? Just because I can?

I'm not sure how Leliana is optimized for archery. I give her duel swords and she went to town. By the end of the game, she had the entire DW block as well, so I didn't lose anything.

When I played a sword and board warrior, I gave two-handed weapons to Alister to use and leveled him up that way. The idea that I did this to 'rock the boat' is a bit odd. It never occurred to me that there was a 'wrong' way to level up a companion.

[Fortlowe]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

But, those characters are already optimized for melee and archery respectively. So respecing them is an option, but not necessarily an efficient one. Sten could be an archer if I wanted, but he's already good to go as a two handed warrior so why rock the boat? Just because I can?

I'm not sure how Leliana is optimized for archery. I give her duel swords and she went to town. By the end of the game, she had the entire DW block as well, so I didn't lose anything.

When I played a sword and board warrior, I gave two-handed weapons to Alister to use and leveled him up that way. The idea that I did this to 'rock the boat' is a bit odd. It never occurred to me that there was a 'wrong' way to level up a companion.

Specing them against the grain is not 'wrong', however these characters start out with characteristics that lend them to a certain spec (Allister's was of course sword and shield warrior). So starting over with a different specialty can result in the specialty being completed, but other complementary (stealing, stealth, bard, templar, champion, etc.) talents will have go incomplete or be abandoned altogether.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

But you now have a thing in place that suggests, that, just perhaps, that armor you were wearing at the beginning of the game isn't good enough for you at this later point in the game. What's pointless about that?

"Suggests" isn't useful.  I would hope we'd actually want to know whether something is true rather than have it "suggested" at us.

It's "suggest" because the game doesn't know if player isn't using their own, custom criteria to determine whether item is an upgrade for them -- you brought up example of that yourself earlier, with theoretical situation of player who is looking for armour with specific attribute.

It doesn't make the feature not useful, merely not always useful.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 novembre 2010 - 11:59 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Why? Zev was a dagger rogue and Lel was an archer.

You could make Zev an archer.  You could make Leliana dual-wield maces if you wanted (as I just said in another thread, I think she made a decent tank).

I'd argue those features shouldn't be present in an RPG, because they make no sense within the setting. You either have total contol over the characters (including what they say and possibly how they look ala IWD and SoZ)  or no control whatsoever (ala NWN), controlling what NPCs do through the tactics system. Anything else fails to make sense. So I control Zevran and choose to have him be an archer, but next time he wants to kill the main character?

I though we already went over that removing choice from the player in a party based RPG is going over board? Tactics are an option, as they should be. Removing control over the party defeats the purpose of a party based single player RPG.

[tmp7704]

The Masked Rog wrote...

I'd argue those features shouldn't be present in an RPG, because they make no sense within the setting. You either have total contol over the characters (including what they say and possibly how they look ala IWD and SoZ)  or no control whatsoever (ala NWN), controlling what NPCs do through the tactics system. Anything else fails to make sense.

It doesn't "fail to make sense" if you take into account resource restraints -- if you want to give player full control over what NPC says etc, that effectively multiples amount of scripting, voicework etc that has to be done for this character X times, depending how many options you'd want to support. Now multiply it by number of companions and you're looking at huge extra effort.

If the devs find themselves unable to provide that then it doesn't mean they cannot or shouldn't give control in areas where it doesn't require such large extra investment. That being control in combat and such.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
It's "suggest" because the game doesn't know if player isn't using their own, custom criteria to determine whether item is an upgrade for them -- you brought up example of that yourself earlier, with theoretical situation of player who is looking for armour with specific attribute.

It doesn't make the feature not useful, merely not always useful.

Sylvius's argument (and I do appreciate it) is that without knowing why it's suggesting the item we can't know what to make of the suggestion.

Let's say a friend says that you should never wear blue. This is a somewhat strange request, so it is only natural to ask why. Well, this is what Sylvius is asking for. Knowing what algorithm is being used to get the star rating makes it more useful.

The thing to keep in mind with Sylvius is that he uses a slightly different standard of evidence/knowledge than is typical, so simply but if something is not certain he takes it to be the equivalent of not knowing it at all, with no acceptable continuum.

In this case, the game not telling you why the item is better is equivalent to having a random number generator produce the star rating.

[Addai]

Fortlowe wrote...

But, those characters are already optimized for melee and archery respectively. So respecing them is an option, but not necessarily an efficient one. Sten could be an archer if I wanted, but he's already good to go as a two handed warrior so why rock the boat? Just because I can?

Not everybody cares about maxing stats.  Having some flexibility in your companions' setup means a greater chance you'll use that NPC and thus get access to story content.  For instance I've heard people say they never took Zevran because he isn't optimized for lockpick or traps, but he could easily be turned into a cunning-based rogue even without a mod.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius's argument (and I do appreciate it) is that without knowing why it's suggesting the item we can't know what to make of the suggestion.

Let's say a friend says that you should never wear blue. This is a somewhat strange request, so it is only natural to ask why. Well, this is what Sylvius is asking for. Knowing what algorithm is being used to get the star rating makes it more useful.

Well, Sylvius' exact argument i was replying to was that "suggestion isn't useful" and it's posed in the usual sweeping manner that i just can't agree with -- value of suggestion can be very well just in bringing your attention to some particular item, especially for novice player who may get lost in the stats and how they apply. Plus as long as the advice in question actually is generally sensible, then it's likely to be useful indeed for such a player even without understanding the exact reasoning that led to it.

To use your analogy, if the friend that tells you not to wear blue is fashion designer and you don't know first thing about fashion, then it's possible you'll just accept their advice without delving into why's. And as long as there actually are valid reasons not to wear blue then hey, you got useful advice.

While yes, knowing how the game calculates the ratings can make it overally more useful (especially for advanced player) it doesn't exclude the mechanics being useful without that, like Sylvius has stated.

[Maria Caliban]

Fortlowe wrote...

Specing them against the grain is not 'wrong', however these characters start out with characteristics that lend them to a certain spec (Allister's was of course sword and shield warrior). So starting over with a different specialty can result in the specialty being completed, but other complementary (stealing, stealth, bard, templar, champion, etc.) talents will have go incomplete or be abandoned altogether.

Possibly. Leliana could also pick locks and disarm traps, which is all that rogues are good for.

And warriors felt married to their weapon until late game. I mean, I started many fights with everyone using ranged weapons, but for my melee character, I never felt the need to invest in those talent trees.

I think optimizing was most important for mages as they had both the most utility and the largest number of actual options.

Part of it may be difficulty. I never played on Nightmare.

[Fortlowe]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Specing them against the grain is not 'wrong', however these characters start out with characteristics that lend them to a certain spec (Allister's was of course sword and shield warrior). So starting over with a different specialty can result in the specialty being completed, but other complementary (stealing, stealth, bard, templar, champion, etc.) talents will have go incomplete or be abandoned altogether.

Possibly. Leliana could also pick locks and disarm traps, which is all that rogues are good for.

And warriors felt married to their weapon until late game. I mean, I started many fights with everyone using ranged weapons, but for my melee character, I never felt the need to invest in those talent trees.

I think optimizing was most important for mages as they had both the most utility and the largest number of actual options.

Part of it may be difficulty. I never played on Nightmare.

 My warden was always a rogue. *Sniff*
Seriously though, its cool. The debate I was having earlier was really about how the characters in DA2 will have a focused skillset, but that it is no departure from DA:O.