148 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

Good riddance.

[andar91]

ErichHartmann wrote...

75% of the loot in DAO was crap. Oh look, a standard dagger from a locked chest!

Exactly.  In my opinion, less loot is a good thing.

[Maria Caliban]

Helena Tylena wrote...

All the moaning about ME2's lack of inventory system got me wondering, what's the difference between having a system where you replace a 45 damage weapon with a 50 damage weapon and a system where you upgrade your weapons to do 50 damage instead of 45?

The difference is in the mind of the player but it's an important difference.

The human brain can handle abstraction but it prefers the concrete. "I have a new gun" will be more appealing than "I have +5 to damage" to many (I'd even suggest the majority) of players.

If you've ever listened to Blizzard designers, they've often said that while making Diablo and WoW, they always want the player to be getting 'stuff' and to always be aware that there's better 'stuff' to get if they'd just put a bit more time into things. In Diablo, they even had an average number of clicks they wanted (don't remember the number) before a mob dropped something.

I'm not saying that Blizzard are good designers, but these games are both known to be very popular and addicting.

[AtreiyaN7]

BrotherShepherd wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Therefore, it is logical to assume that you will still get plenty of junk to carry around. The devs have previously said that they were trying to reduce the amount of junk loot though. Presumably, that means all those sodding useless darkspawn longswords, shields, etc.

I just hope they dont end up making combat even less rewarding then it was in DA:O (Seriously you'd fight trough 50 diffrent darkspawn and you'd get what? a few coppers and a health potion maybe?) 

Well, maybe the darkspawn are suffering from an economic recession in the Deep Roads? Hah! I'm trying to make myself laugh with lame jokes atm because my team (Hawaii) is getting smacked down by Boise State right this minute (GRRR - I had some hope that they'd at LEAST put up a good showing).

[Helena Tylena]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...

All the moaning about ME2's lack of inventory system got me wondering, what's the difference between having a system where you replace a 45 damage weapon with a 50 damage weapon and a system where you upgrade your weapons to do 50 damage instead of 45?

The difference is in the mind of the player but it's an important difference.

The human brain can handle abstraction but it prefers the concrete. "I have a new gun" will be more appealing than "I have +5 to damage" to many (I'd even suggest the majority) of players.

If you've ever listened to Blizzard designers, they've often said that while making Diablo and WoW, they always want the player to be getting 'stuff' and to always be aware that there's better 'stuff' to get if they'd just put a bit more time into things. In Diablo, they even had an average number of clicks they wanted (don't remember the number) before a mob dropped something.

I'm not saying that Blizzard are good designers, but these games are both known to be very popular and addicting.

Hunh... Maybe my mind works weird, then. If I have a weapon or armour I really like the look of, I'm usually sad when a statistically better, yet aesthetically inferior one comes along. Quite often I don't upgrade at all until I come across something better that's also aesthetically pleasing.
Or until the game's difficulty forces me to change.
I usually see loot as a chore more than a reward system. Unless, ofcourse, it's really shiny loot.

[slimgrin]

Why all the loot hate? Other games do it just fine.

[PsychoBlonde]

slimgrin wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Although not in and of itself, but I sorta liked the junk. It was more interesting than simply getting a crafting item, a potion, or coin and it kept me going back to the shops, so I could check to see if there was new stuff available.

I like loot too. But making it more useful and/or varied would be nice. Otherwise, just give us cash drops like Psychoblonde said.

Varied, yes.  The main problem I saw in DA:O with loot was that since the bonuses were generally so small individually and you only got a real benefit by aggregating a lot of stuff on top of itself, your only real option was to wear the Biggest Bonus Item of Each Type.  Meaning that you'd be using the same gear a LOT, because there weren't many of these.

Much more interesting would have been to have items that give some really massive bonuses in narrow areas, so you have to decide--do I want to stack 6 items that all increase damage and be a glass cannon, or do I want to stack up defense and get hit less often . . . and trying to figure out a way to get all the bonuses you need out of available items.

Dungeons and Dragons Online does this (fairly) well, to where there's no "best in slot" gear for ANYONE, because what you choose for each slot depends on precisely how you've built your character and what you want to focus on.  They do this by having big bonuses that cap out (stacking-wise, most bonuses don't stack) and also have slot restrictions, so figuring out how to get Heavy Fortification AND Deathblock AND Poison Immunity AND Disease Immunity AND a big boost to between 4 and 6 different stats AND a big boost to the DC's of your favorite ability and a good AC and lots of HP and plenty of damage and don't forget your DR and freedom of movement and +15 to that skill you use and spell resistance and evasion and . . .

*cough* Well, it works for an MMO where loot-grinding is one of the main reasons people keep playing.  But if you're going to make a game where digging out the good loot is, at best, a sideline, you're better off with really unique, big-bonus stuff so people can find (say) the weird-ass ring that gives +100% to spirit damage and be like, damn, Imma make a character to use that ring!  Or, that armor looks sweet!  Imma make a character to wear that armor!  I did this in Diablo all the time, where I'd finally manage to get ALL the parts of an item set, and I'd make a character specifically to use THAT SET.  In DA it'd be more, you figured OUT where all the items in X set are, but same principle.

It sounds like the PC won't have a static look, which is fine with me because who builds an NPC so they can take advantage of the ossum stuff?  You put the ossum on your PC primarily and throw whatever's left to the NPC's, so I'm fine with NPC companions with "static" looks so you can tell them apart.  I think it'd be particularly cool if they go through several outfit iterations throughout the course of the game--this would be a great subconscious visual indicator of the passage of time.  Even better if your choices affect which outfit they adopt, like if (say) you talk the templars into accepting your sister Bethany as an official mage and stop chasing her as an apostate, in the next act she's wearing a Circle robe, but if you don't, she's got wonky apostate "I'm not a mage, I'm staff-chick in a miniskirt!" getup.

[Xallah]

Zep Rowsdower wrote...



Dammit Bioware! It's not a real RPG if I'm not lugging around 4 stacks of mushrooms, a dozen greatswords, 5 full suits of armor and the mage's pet cat in my pants!



Also we better be able to remove party member's armor because it's also not an RPG without the occassional naked time.

Totally agree!!!

Tiax Rules All wrote...



Some day the "full game" will come in episodic DLC's or you buy the base hero and buy the companions when you want to use them. Overall quality of finished games and content will go down because of "ongoing DLC" too. Shorter games will be excused because they will come out with a multitude of paid DLC's to supplement later.



DLC might be "extras" now but they will someday be the worst thing to happen to AAA titles.

Sometimes I have the same view on the future. That's just unfair! Why do we always have to wait for DLCs and Ultimate packs now? That's just enraging... I hope though some day soon this practice will come to a dead end.



Oh... Can't say goodbye to loot... Dear loot...

[PsychoBlonde]

Maria Caliban wrote...
If you've ever listened to Blizzard designers, they've often said that while making Diablo and WoW . . .

One of those is a shoot-and-loot game and the other is an MMO, where loot-grinding to trick out your character is one of the biggest continuation draws and the loot is random drops.

The continuation draw for Bioware's games in the past is not "maybe that ossum Sword Of Ultimate Destiny will drop THIS time" but trying out new combinations of race/class/skills/equipment/story outcomes, so the loot value is *more* based on its *effects* within that overall schema.  You won't be killing the same boss 40 times and gradually increasing your DPS output each time, after all.  So the value of apparent loot-improvement is greatly reduced.  Not to mention how goofily mismatched most WoW characters look.

Plus a lot of the best loot in DA:O was just plain ugly, so you had to choose between being cool and looking cool, which sucked.  Who's idea was it to make ALL the high level leather armor that same appalling shade of ichor purple.  UGH.  I think my favorite moment in Awakening was (seriously) when I found that sweet suit of BLACK leather armor for my rogue just because it didn't look like a sandworm had puked on it.

I don't care how they manage to achieve "look cool AND be cool".  If it means static outfits for NPC's and less lootz, so be it.  I just want them to get there.

[slimgrin]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm not saying that Blizzard are good designers, but these games are both known to be very popular and addicting.

Then I will: Blizzard are good designers.

They make games diametrically opposed to Bioware's, but they have helped to shape the pc and rpg gaming market.

Modifié par slimgrin, 06 novembre 2010 - 10:04 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Expect 254% more overreacting.

Low ball.

[Fishy]

in DAOC i used the same armor for 125 Day played.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Good! The less time I have to spend sorting through the trash to find good items, the more time I can spend playing the game and having fun.

[abat223]

They can hammer outfit DLCs up their you know whats.. I could care less what my companions look like.



90% of loot in DA origins was useless anyway, so less useless is good

[Maria Caliban]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
If you've ever listened to Blizzard designers, they've often said that while making Diablo and WoW . . .

One of those is a shoot-and-loot game and the other is an MMO, where loot-grinding to trick out your character is one of the biggest continuation draws and the loot is random drops.

The continuation draw for Bioware's games in the past is not "maybe that ossum Sword Of Ultimate Destiny will drop THIS time"...

That they're different games doesn't really matter. They're operating with the same system: the human brain.

And the human brain goes 'I like stuff. Give me stuff.'

That stuff doesn't even have to be functional or worthwhile. Assassin's Creed 2 had a 'homebase' mechanism that many people enjoyed. Your home base gave you money, you'd spend that money on upgrading the homebase, and those upgrades would give you more money.

There was no functional benefit to the system; you could go the entire game without upgrading the home base and you'd still get all the equipment you needed.

What mattered though is that you could see a difference.

At the beginning, your town looked run down and your house was ugly. At the end, there were lots of NPCs wandering around, you had banners flapping outside your mansion, and you could do inside to see all the priceless works of art you 'owned.'

Yes, some people are pure number crunchers. As long as they see numerical increase, they're good. However, the majority of people have an active desire for stuff.

New stuff + more damage will be more appealing than just more damage.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 06 novembre 2010 - 10:08 .

[Dark Glasses]

Ceesko wrote...
I know that Bioware said we won't be able to change companion outfits AkA masseffect,

Oh you've gotta to be kidding me... Nice move Bioware. <_<

[Dasher1010]

Wow, this is really lame news. This basically means that party members will be weaker and thus we'll have an easier game to compensate. Hopefully they'll bring back companion armor for DA3.

[DarthCaine]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Good! The less time I have to spend sorting through the trash to find good items, the more time I can spend playing the game and having fun.

QFT

[lv12medic]

75% less items?



Not too bad considering ME2 was 99% less items from ME1.



Bioware is just trying to find a good balance for loot systems and inventory to be plentiful enough to even have a point in existing and also accessible enough it doesn't feel like I'm dragging a CostCo around all day in battle. That they'd get everything perfect on the first try is asking a lot.

[Dave of Canada]

Dasher1010 wrote...

Wow, this is really lame news. This basically means that party members will be weaker and thus we'll have an easier game to compensate. Hopefully they'll bring back companion armor for DA3.

... how would they be weaker if their armor scales? If anything, it means the game can be harder because they won't have to worry about people being undergeared.

[slimgrin]

The removal of loot doesn't guarantee better gameplay. It would remove an element of strategy, however. Fact is, Bioware really has never found a good way to incorporate loot. That's on them, not the convention. The convention can work just fine.

Modifié par slimgrin, 06 novembre 2010 - 10:31 .

[Helena Tylena]

As I understand it, we'll be able to 'upgrade' the armours of our party members with stuff we find in the game. The appearance, however, is set.

Like the weapons in ME2, only more advanced? I dunno. Either way, Isabela's overshirt/sash-skirt combo will grow more powerful over time, so I don't see how that would make the game easier.

[PsychoBlonde]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That they're different games doesn't really matter. They're operating with the same system: the human brain.

And the human brain goes 'I like stuff. Give me stuff.' 

The number of people in this thread who have said, "thank goodness they're getting rid of that crap" would demonstrate that this is untrue--unless you're claiming that you know more about what these people want than they do, which strikes me as supremely arrogant.  And if you can't even manage that much prediction, who knows whether this claim is accurate about the MILLIONS of people who will eventually buy copies of the game.

I know as many people who binge on austerity as I do people who compulsively hoard.  If you phrase the difference as the removal of a feature, some people will get annoyed at it.  If you phrase it as a NEW feature (now, no matter WHAT armor you put on them, THEIR CLOTHES WILL MATCH!!!!!) some people will like it.  It's not a bad thing or a good thing, it's just a change.  It's a stylistic difference.  If they'd had the same-outfits-regardless from the earliest games, people would be on here screaming because now their characters are going to look like a blind hobo instead of having beautifully designed unique outfits.

I like to fiddle around with my paper dolls too, but the amount of development resources this consumes becomes staggering as the models get more and more complex/realistic.  If you REALLY need a paper-doll fix, play Titan Quest--EVERY SINGLE ITEM of your character's gear appeared on your 3d model in that game.  (Er, except rings and amulets I think), there were HUNDREDS of RADICALLY DIFFERENT outfits.  I mean, they went NUTS with this thing.  And Iron Lore went out of business.  Guess the time they spent on fashion design didn't pan out.

[DAOME2FTW]

No... No, no... NO! NO! NO! Why would they do this?! So Carver will be wielding a huge sword the whole game, but wearing commoners clothing!?

[Albatroz]

If this means I won't be gettin 2000 darkspawn daggers per play-through, I think I'm ok with that.