861 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Something tells me Isabela  will never be a tank-type character.

Shouldn't the player be the one to decide that?

I unequivocally think so.

Depends on the story and the role of the companions, I would say.  Also, if we are going to be changing companion equipment, I want it to feel like it is "their" equipment and not just some random outfit that happens to also fit them.  If we could have both companions having multiple armors and being distinct, then I would be happy, however, I personally found the armors to either be very meh or ugly for the most part.

[AlanC9]

Vaeliorin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I suspect we'd have rather different opinions on exactly which of Obsidian's projects were gold.

Of things they've done as Obsidian?  KOTOR2 and Mask of the Betrayer.  But I'm one of those people who thinks KOTOR2 was much better than KOTOR1.

Arcanum as Troika (I haven't played Bloodlines, as I really dislike the modern-era Vampire: The Masquerade setting) and Planescape:Torment, Icewind Dale (never finished IWD2...it bugged out on me back in the day, and I was so frustrated I've never finished it), Fallout and Fallout 2 as Black Isle.

I guess we wouldn't disagree about Obsidian, then. I was worried you might be an SoZ fan.

The Fallouts are games that I admire more than actually like, and since party creation bores me I've got no real use for unmodded IWD.

[Vaeliorin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I suspect we'd have rather different opinions on exactly which of Obsidian's projects were gold.

Of things they've done as Obsidian?  KOTOR2 and Mask of the Betrayer.  But I'm one of those people who thinks KOTOR2 was much better than KOTOR1.

Arcanum as Troika (I haven't played Bloodlines, as I really dislike the modern-era Vampire: The Masquerade setting) and Planescape:Torment, Icewind Dale (never finished IWD2...it bugged out on me back in the day, and I was so frustrated I've never finished it), Fallout and Fallout 2 as Black Isle.

I guess we wouldn't disagree about Obsidian, then. I was worried you might be an SoZ fan.

I wouldn't say I hate SoZ...but I was tremendously disappointed by it.

The Fallouts are games that I admire more than actually like, and since party creation bores me I've got no real use for unmodded IWD.

I kind of feel the same about the Fallouts, actually.  I think they're tremendous games, but they don't exactly match my preferred playstyle (give me control of the party members, and they'd be a lot better, imo.)

IWD, I will admit, would be better with companions who had personalities, but I really like the story, and I really like what Black Isle did with having significant changes in certain places by having extra dialogue and options for certain classes (mainly bard and paladin, admittedly, but those are both classes I like.)  I do hate being randomly teleported by crypt things, though...1 Fighter/Rogue versus 3 revenants isn't a fun (or winnable) fight.

[Stick668]

Stick668 wrote...

Party leader != dev.

Tactical combat control and rewriting the non-player part of the world are not the same kind of tree-fruit. 

Wicked 702 wrote...

Disagree completely. They are exactly the same kind. Especially since I don't see how "armor" and "equipment" fall into any "non-player" category. That just makes no sense.

Armor and equipment of non-player characters are part of the non-player world? The extent to which they can be adjusted has nothing to do with the "leadership" of the player character. It's an arbitrary metagame function. "I have surplus gear / can't use this fancy stuff on my own character, so the others get it." 

Customizability != total authorship, then?

Changing or upgrading a non-player character's gear (and lightly tweaking their mechanical progression) is one thing.

What I'm hearing is...

"You! Minion! Use this!"
"I spent fifteen years perfecting lightly armored combat."
"I'm in charge. Greatswords and tin suits for everyone."
"I lack the physical strength to..."
"I'll be the judge of that!"
"..."
"And your shameless display of feminine assets offends me. Cover up, wench."
"Ooooh-kay."
"Also, I've decided that your favourite colour is blue. You were raised by wolves, enjoy writing poetry and always wanted to become a seamstress."
"Of course, whatever you say, boss."
"Are you sassing me? Because I reserve the right to kill sassy underlings. Or underlings that aren't sassy enough."
"I approve!"
"... good."
"Can I at least ask a question?"
"You may speak."
"Are you absolutely sure you wouldn't rather go write a novel, run a pen & paper campaign or play the Sims?"

Modifié par Stick668, 11 novembre 2010 - 02:24 .

[Ziggeh]

Stick668 wrote...

"Are you sassing me? Because I reserve the right to kill sassy underlings. Or underlings that aren't sassy enough."

ahaha

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 11 novembre 2010 - 02:25 .

[Wicked 702]

Stick668 wrote...

Stick668 wrote...

Party leader != dev.

Tactical combat control and rewriting the non-player part of the world are not the same kind of tree-fruit. 

Wicked 702 wrote...

Disagree completely. They are exactly the same kind. Especially since I don't see how "armor" and "equipment" fall into any "non-player" category. That just makes no sense.

Armor and equipment of non-player characters are part of the non-player world? The extent to which they can be adjusted has nothing to do with the "leadership" of the player character. It's an arbitrary metagame function. "I have surplus gear / can't use this fancy stuff on my own character, so the others get it." 

Well, I was being SORT of silly but:

So you're telling me that as the party leader I can guide the development of my team members, by assigning them the skills and attribute points I want as they level up, and I can also tell them exactly how to tactically engage in combat, by setting their tactics and/or controlling them manually, but the line then stops at outfitting them with the proper equipment needed to accomplish the job I've ordered and guided them to do? That makes no sense.

[Ziggeh]

Wicked 702 wrote...

So you're telling me that as the party leader I can guide the development of my team members, by assigning them the skills and attribute points I want as they level up, and I can also tell them exactly how to tactically engage in combat, by setting their tactics and/or controlling them manually, but the line then stops at outfitting them with the proper equipment needed to accomplish the job I've ordered and guided them to do? That makes no sense.

You can guide them within the confines of what's available, their personal potential if you will. You can't change who they were before you met them, or the potentials available to them. If learning how to walk in eighty pounds of metal isn't among the things they're able to learn, then ya, it'd be rewriting what they are.

[Wicked 702]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

So you're telling me that as the party leader I can guide the development of my team members, by assigning them the skills and attribute points I want as they level up, and I can also tell them exactly how to tactically engage in combat, by setting their tactics and/or controlling them manually, but the line then stops at outfitting them with the proper equipment needed to accomplish the job I've ordered and guided them to do? That makes no sense.

You can guide them within the confines of what's available, their personal potential if you will. You can't change who they were before you met them, or the potentials available to them. If learning how to walk in eighty pounds of metal isn't among the things they're able to learn, then ya, it'd be rewriting what they are.

"I'm training you to be a front line behemoth! Now go forth and do so in your default, completely inappropriate for the situation outfit!"

GAHHHHH!

[Stick668]

Wicked 702 wrote...

So you're telling me that as the party leader I can guide the development of my team members, by assigning them the skills and attribute points I want as they level up, and I can also tell them exactly how to tactically engage in combat, by setting their tactics and/or controlling them manually, but the line then stops at outfitting them with the proper equipment needed to accomplish the job I've ordered and guided them to do? That makes no sense.

I'm telling you that as the player you can of course guide the development of party NPCs and adjust their equipment within the confines of the design. I.e, that's all metagame, not related to your character's role as leader.

What got me riled up was reserving the right to turn one type of character into an entirely different type of character.

Which might not have been exactly what you meant. Sorry about that.

[maxernst]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Stick668 wrote...

Stick668 wrote...

Party leader != dev.

Tactical combat control and rewriting the non-player part of the world are not the same kind of tree-fruit. 

Wicked 702 wrote...

Disagree completely. They are exactly the same kind. Especially since I don't see how "armor" and "equipment" fall into any "non-player" category. That just makes no sense.

Armor and equipment of non-player characters are part of the non-player world? The extent to which they can be adjusted has nothing to do with the "leadership" of the player character. It's an arbitrary metagame function. "I have surplus gear / can't use this fancy stuff on my own character, so the others get it." 

Well, I was being SORT of silly but:

So you're telling me that as the party leader I can guide the development of my team members, by assigning them the skills and attribute points I want as they level up, and I can also tell them exactly how to tactically engage in combat, by setting their tactics and/or controlling them manually, but the line then stops at outfitting them with the proper equipment needed to accomplish the job I've ordered and guided them to do? That makes no sense.

They draw the line at being told what to wear.  They're highly suspicious of Hawke's fashion sense.

[Ziggeh]

Wicked 702 wrote...
"I'm training you to be a front line behemoth! Now go forth and do so in your default, completely inappropriate for the situation outfit!"

Wildly stabbing in the dark, but I'd guess that frontline behemoth isn't part of the personal potential thing I mentioned. Wildly stabbing in the dark probably is though.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 11 novembre 2010 - 02:56 .

[Ziggeh]

maxernst wrote...

They draw the line at being told what to wear.  They're highly suspicious of Hawke's fashion sense.

I wouldn't take fashion advice from the man.

"You've got something on your face, no, no, higher, yeah, no, you didn't get it"

[Maria Caliban]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Well, I was being SORT of silly but:

So you're telling me that as the party leader I can guide the development of my team members, by assigning them the skills and attribute points I want as they level up, and I can also tell them exactly how to tactically engage in combat, by setting their tactics and/or controlling them manually, but the line then stops at outfitting them with the proper equipment needed to accomplish the job I've ordered and guided them to do? That makes no sense.

I'd be happy removing the players ability to assign skills and attribute points to companions. I still maintain that the ability to control followers has nothing to do with role-playing, but is a war-game element highly utilized in the genre because of the lack of robust AI.

I don't spend my time objecting to these things, even though I see them as taking away from role-playing, because I believe in compromise.

From my viewpoint, that you get all these things, and still object to even the *slightest* indication that a companion might not be under your total control is unreasonable. I don't even get the illusion of them being people. Instead, you want to force the player to constantly dress up what the story tells us are grown adults, striping away their individuality so they can wear the same armor that NPC 392 wears.

Yes, I understand what you want, and I think it's fair that you want it. Heck, for every game, I ask for same-sex romances even though I know that statistically unrealistic. But not everyone wants what you want, and BioWare should not only cater to people who want what you want.

Let me ask you this: You're getting to fiddle with their skills, talents, and attributes. You're getting to change out their weapons, rings, belts, and amulets. You're getting to control them completely in combat. How does this *one compromise* ruin your game?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 11 novembre 2010 - 03:19 .

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

How does this *one compromise* ruin your game?

If this one compromise means (theoretical situation) having to play entire game with bunch of people dressed in DA2 equivalent of mage condom hats, it can be highly irritating experience alright. After all, if the visuals weren't so important they wouldn't be wasting so much resources on developing them and attempting to lock them down, would they?

Modifié par tmp7704, 11 novembre 2010 - 03:22 .

[Itkovian]

Aaah, I see, thank you.

Doesn't look bad at all. You still get good control over NPC inventory, except for the armour chest/boots/gloves.

You could come up with plenty of reasons for and against it (for example, why would anyone assume in an RPG that NPCs will wear wahtever you want them to? They're not slaves after all), but I imagine there is a more practical reason for this, such as making NPCs more distinctive and making the animators' job easier.

The question is whether or not the benefits outweigh the losses, and I don't think there is _any_ data for us to pass any judgement. The only ones who have that data are the devs. Whether or not their choice is the correct one will have to wait for the game's release.

Itkovian

[Itkovian]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd be happy removing the players ability to assign skills and attribute points to companions. I still maintain that the ability to control followers has nothing to do with role-playing, but is a war-game element highly utilized in the genre because of the lack of robust AI.

I don't spend my time objecting to these things, even though I see them as taking away from role-playing, because I believe in compromise.

From my viewpoint, that you get all these things, and still object to even the *slightest* indication that a companion might not be under your total control is unreasonable. I don't even get the illusion of them being people. Instead, you want to force the player to constantly dress up what the story tells us are grown adults, striping away their individuality so they can wear the same armor that NPC 392 wears.
 

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

I think a similar issue is at cause for some of the anti-alistair rage in DAO (for example). Some people hate Alistair because he refuses to go along with your decision and acts like he has a mind of his own (which he does, due to excellent writing). It shatters the full control players have over the party and storyline and angers them, when in fact as an RPG you should not have that full control at all. The only thing you do have a right to control is your own PC (and even then, that control can be lost at times as well).

Anyway, well said.

Itkovian

[In Exile]

Stick668 wrote...
The clever molestation of the setting is what I loved about it. Perhaps because I share the writer's outlook on the SW universe; "Doesn't the Force kind of suck?"
... I like to refer to K2 as "Farscape: Torment". 

I don't mind that theme; my problem is more with this issue of walking entity of destruction and devastation.

Vaeliorin wrote...
I like dark and tragic, and I've never been
a huge follower of Star Wars as a setting (the only one of the prequels
I've seen is Phantom Menace.)  So taking a hammer to the setting
doesn't bother me (especially since George Lucas does it on a regular
basis and I think the setting is kind of juvenile to begin with.)  And I
really didn't feel my character was any more derailed in KOTOR2 than it
was in KOTOR1 when they told me that I'd used to be this completely
different person whose personality was antithetical to my own (and then I
wasn't allowed to be particularly upset about who I'd been...kind of
like Shepard doesn't seem to care that he's been resurrected,
coincidentally...hmm...)

I don't find KoTOR II to be dark and tragic so much as... overtly concerned with hitting you over the head with this "reinvention" of the setting.

Regarding the derailment, in KoTOR I you can make the plausible argument you are an entirely new person with the mutilation of Revan. How your character reacts to this revelation, and if you character actually tends more toward the dark side or not or whatever, is up to you.

On the other hand, in KoTOR II, there were facts about your character's past that were central to the story but you did not know about and could not know about. The worst of which is Kreia's whole argument that you turned away from Malachor V because of fear.

Vaeliorin wrote...
If Isabella should decide...shouldn't she
also complain if I use her as a tank even if she isn't properly equipped
for it?  Or if I bring a non-balanced party such that she's put in more
jeopardy than she should be?  Shouldn't she refuse to run into a party
of enemies all by herself?

It just seems that drawing the line at
what she wears seems kind of strange to me, when there are things that
are much more significant that she should potentially have an issue
with.

No, because there is a distinction between "story" Isabella and "gameplay" Isabella. Put another way, insofar as actual combat is concerned we are in some kind of special metaphysical reality where an entirely different sort of law of nature applies than when we are experiencing the story via dialogue and so on. Parf of this comes from the obvious logical inconsistency of how easily someone is hurt - to take the DA:O example, an Ogre can smush Cailan like a bug in two hands, but Alistair can get repeatedly punched, thrown, hit, kicked, stabbed etc. but not even break a bone. HP introduces a special separate reality.

"Story" can constrain "gameplay" insofar as it may determine certain traits and abilities a character has. But once we cross into the metaphysical state of combat, all bets are off. Bodies no longer react to blows as they did; injuries are nothing; death is irrelevant; characters change from living beings to puppets; the player becomes an omnipotent controller who can physically move his companions instead of a separate person.

Wicked 702 wrote...

Disagree completely. They are exactly
the same kind. Especially since I don't see how "armor" and "equipment"
fall into any "non-player" category. That just makes no sense.

Do you believe characters have HP as a part of the real world reality that they live in? Do you think that when Cailan fought the ogre, he received 225 HP worth of damage with a special attack the ogre will never again repeat in combat with you?

It makes as much as sense the absolutely idiotic notion of armour rating, armour penetration, attack, HP, etc.

[In Exile]

Wicked 702 wrote...
Well, I was being SORT of silly but:

So you're telling me that as the party leader I can guide the development of my team members, by assigning them the skills and attribute points I want as they level up, and I can also tell them exactly how to tactically engage in combat, by setting their tactics and/or controlling them manually, but the line then stops at outfitting them with the proper equipment needed to accomplish the job I've ordered and guided them to do? That makes no sense.

Well, I'm saying you can do none of these things insfoar as "reality" is concerned. Leveling doesn't happen. HP doesn't exist. Skills largely do not improve over the course of the game. These are exclusively "game" features that 100% divorced from the "reality" of the game.

[Wicked 702]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yes, I understand what you want, and I think it's fair that you want it. Heck, for every game, I ask for same-sex romances even though I know that statistically unrealistic. But not everyone wants what you want, and BioWare should not only cater to people who want what you want.

Let me ask you this: You're getting to fiddle with their skills, talents, and attributes. You're getting to change out their weapons, rings, belts, and amulets. You're getting to control them completely in combat. How does this *one compromise* ruin your game?

Oh for crap's sake. Haven't I already said multiple times in this thread (and separately in another) that what "I" want is both options. Considering the textures are already being programmed in the game, I simply want the OPTION.

I don't even care if it gimps my character's stats. That's not even the point. The point is exactly what I stated before, it makes no sense to NOT be able to do it this way. It makes the most sense to both have free customization AND have unique outfits that suit the individual's needs specifically. But just the second?

I realize every individual can't be bothered to read every other person's long history of posts but jeez...

[Wicked 702]

In Exile wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...
Well, I was being SORT of silly but:

So you're telling me that as the party leader I can guide the development of my team members, by assigning them the skills and attribute points I want as they level up, and I can also tell them exactly how to tactically engage in combat, by setting their tactics and/or controlling them manually, but the line then stops at outfitting them with the proper equipment needed to accomplish the job I've ordered and guided them to do? That makes no sense.

Well, I'm saying you can do none of these things insfoar as "reality" is concerned. Leveling doesn't happen. HP doesn't exist. Skills largely do not improve over the course of the game. These are exclusively "game" features that 100% divorced from the "reality" of the game.

Ok, so you want to have a subjective argument about "reality" in a "fantasy" game. There's a huge difference between what's "real" and what "makes sense." In a fantasy environment it's perfectly fine for something to throw around fireballs. Fine, we accept that. However, would it be acceptable for a character to fall forward (instead of backward) upon the impact of a weapon or fist? No, that's not ok. Thanks to Newtonian physics we know that's not how it works.

The reason is simple. While the game can take liberties, to an extent, there are some basic components of our physical world that must remain in order for us to have any connection to the medium. Anything beyond, is of course called "immersion breaking." Unfortunately, this criteria is subjective and means different things to each individual.

My standard for immersion breaking is detailed in the post you responded to. Obviously, such a thing does not reach the same level for you. However, there is a solution that would satisfy both our needs with relatively little additional work. And now of course I'm going to hear from people about how "I couldn't possibly know that" and such.

[In Exile]

Wicked 702 wrote...
Ok, so you want to have a subjective argument about "reality" in a "fantasy" game. There's a huge difference between what's "real" and what "makes sense." In a fantasy environment it's perfectly fine for something to throw around fireballs. Fine, we accept that. However, would it be acceptable for a character to fall forward (instead of backward) upon the impact of a weapon or fist? No, that's not ok. Thanks to Newtonian physics we know that's not how it works.

No, I don't want to argue about reality in a fantasy game. I want to argue about two standards the fantasy game itself uses.

Here is a perfect example in DA:O

At Ostagar, the darkspawn attack the combined might of Ferelden and the vanguard of the Grey Wardens. The following things happen:

• Archers release a volley of arrows on the darkspawn
• Each arrow is a 1-hit kill against a darkspawn it makes contact against - this is as it was in reality
• Dogs of war are released
• The dogs can be killed by a single sword thrust; several are cut open charging
• Cailan is grasped by an ogre
• When he ogre crushes him, his body behaves as a natural one; his entire body is crushed
• Duncan experiences fatigue; he does not fight as if it he was at the peak of his capacity and collapse
• Duncan dies tired and falls down because he is exausted instead of having reached 0 HP

At the tower of Ishal, the following can happen:

• An ogre grabs Alistar; he hits him repeatedly with his first and throws him away
• Alistair is not hurt or tired (loses some HP)
• Alistair and the Warden are hit by a giant rock
• Alistair and the Warden are not hurt or incapacitated

Most importantly, the following happens:

• While climbing the tower of Ishal, darkspawn archers can fire on your Warden
• Depending on the build, you can take tens of arrows
• In the cutscene after lighting the beacon, three darkspawn arrows almost kill you

The reason is simple. While the game can take liberties, to an extent, there are some basic components of our physical world that must remain in order for us to have any connection to the medium. Anything beyond, is of course called "immersion breaking." Unfortunately, this criteria is subjective and means different things to each individual.

This has nothing to do with breaking immersion. This has to do with a double standard that clearly exists within the game. Why do you suppose that when you level up, it represents the "reality" part of the game (cut-scene) instead of the abstract non-real "game" part (getting hit by 3 fireballs, and getting up on-fire and not being burned or maimed)?

My standard for immersion breaking is detailed in the post you responded to. Obviously, such a thing does not reach the same level for you. However, there is a solution that would satisfy both our needs with relatively little additional work. And now of course I'm going to hear from people about how "I couldn't possibly know that" and such.

This has nothing to do with immersion. Once again: it is about a double standard present in the game.

[Leonia]

If the whole game was 100% scripted cutscenes and the player never gets to do any combat of their own.. sure they could make it as realistic as they want. But then people complain "If I wanted to see a movie, I'd go see a movie!" The mechanics for gameplay and the mechanics for scripted cutscenes are totally different and they both play their role in telling the story. I don't see it as a double-standard really, just a limit on the game engine and how we can't "play" cutscenes, no matter how awesome today's graphics are. It just mechanically cannot be done yet. In one scenario the dev is in control, in the other the player.. there are going to be a few minor differences but does that detract from the overall realism?

[In Exile]

leonia42 wrote...

If the whole game was 100% scripted cutscenes and the player never gets to do any combat of their own.. sure they could make it as realistic as they want. But then people complain "If I wanted to see a movie, I'd go see a movie!" The mechanics for gameplay and the mechanics for scripted cutscenes are totally different and they both play their role in telling the story. I don't see it as a double-standard really, just a limit on the game engine and how we can't "play" cutscenes, no matter how awesome today's graphics are. It just mechanically cannot be done yet. In one scenario the dev is in control, in the other the player.. there are going to be a few minor differences but does that detract from the overall realism?

I'm not arguing it decracts from the realism. I'm just arguing that it's very clearly operating on a different principle. HP mechanics, leveling up, stat improvement from items, etc. are all "game" features that the characters in the game don't actually believe are real properties of the world.

It's not like Arl Eamon's plan for defeating the blight was to have 100 knights from Redcliffe grind against wolves to get to level 20 and so that they could kill the archdemon. So far as the "reality" of the game is concerned, a lot of things work the way they do in our world. But then there is the game part, where we pick inventory and have full party control, and that's just the game being the game.

This is how Isabella is her own character, in the "story" part, and you are Hawke, but in the game part you're the omnipotent hand of god guiding everyone in battle.

[Merced652]

Signing in to say "I told you so."



Enjoy the koolaid, suckers.

[Dave of Canada]

Merced652 wrote...

Enjoy the koolaid, suckers.

Is it fruit punch?