248 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Take Hearts of Iron III for example: I have no idea what is expected of me.  Even if I understand how the mechanics work, I have a hard time figuring out how to apply them because almost no decisions in the game have an explicit and well described context.  Therefore I can build additional divisions, or ships, even guide my research in some kind of logical progression - but putting it together is a struggle.

Well, presumably that would be the part where your knowledge of WW2 would help you out. HoI3 is enough of a simulation that you can try something historical and see if it works. As opposed to DA, which isn't really trying to simulate anything -- concepts like Threat have to be understood in the "game" context.

Of course, step 2 of learning HoI3 is finding out what works semi-historically and what just doesn't.

[crimzontearz]

addiction21 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Whoops. Didn't mean to pull this off-topic - let's steer the good ship Dragon Age 2 at Gamex back on-topic.

Cant remember which Dev it was but they mentioned the learning curves of the old flight sims and how they steadily increased with each new release.

Maybe this is where some concerns of the "dumbing down" comments come from. For those of us that have played these games for years we take these things for granted but for those new players it could almost feel insurmountable or at the least detract enough from enjoying the game that they put it down and never pick it back up.

EVE online being a good example of that also. It has continued to grow over the years but CCP has made a effort to ease people into to better.

Maybe I am still off topic. Just going to go sit in my corner for a while.

So uhmmmm who can I bribe to get that kind of info...and what is the best way to bribe them?

[upsettingshorts]

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, presumably that would be the part where your knowledge of WW2 would help you out. HoI3 is enough of a simulation that you can try something historical and see if it works. As opposed to DA, which isn't really trying to simulate anything -- concepts like Threat have to be understood in the "game" context.

Of course, step 2 of learning HoI3 is finding out what works semi-historically and what just doesn't.

Kinda.  I mean, I consider myself a history buff but even I don't have the slightest clue how many divisions the Wermacht had on the French border during their invasion of Poland.  "Um, enough?" would be my answer offhand.  Just as one example.

Anyway to bring it back on topic to DA:2.   The point is that a learning curve and eventual depth don't seem to necessarily be in conflict.  But I'm not a developer and the opposite could very well be true.  Can a simple tutorial level teach a new CRPG player all they need to know to have an enjoyable experience with the game even if it isn't oprtimal?  I think so.  Star-ratings for gear to give them an idea of which items deserve a second look for either being too poor or remarkably good?  Same thing.  As long as the depth isn't sacrificed at the altar of accessibility, I don't see the problem.  

I just get the impression around here - from all sorts of people - that depth being sacrificed is the only way accessibility is ever achieved, and I'm not sure I can buy that yet.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 novembre 2010 - 11:50 .

[addiction21]

crimzontearz wrote...

So uhmmmm who can I bribe to get that kind of info...and what is the best way to bribe them?

I am more then happy to take money or waffles. Not sure what info your looking for.

[Maria Caliban]

Thank you to the OP for the review. No thank you to the people who had to drag yet another thread on this forum down with the same fight as you've had on twenty other threads.

[crimzontearz]

addiction21 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

So uhmmmm who can I bribe to get that kind of info...and what is the best way to bribe them?

I am more then happy to take money or waffles. Not sure what info your looking for.

Official word on NH+ in DA2

Modifié par crimzontearz, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:22 .

[addiction21]

crimzontearz wrote...

Official word on NH+ in DA2

Good thing I am accustomed to being lost and confused. NH+ do you mean new game +?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

crimzontearz wrote...

Sarah, you know I am far from a BDF (gasp I said it.....jk) and I give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar but you are becoming more and more needlessly abrhasive at which point regardless of the validity of your points you are just going to be disregarded and ganged upon....and what is that going to accomplish?

Its because I'm completely frustrated at the direction the game is taking. I honestly wish no ill will towards anyone to be honest with you.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Anyway to bring it back on topic to DA:2.   The point is that a learning curve and eventual depth don't seem to necessarily be in conflict.  But I'm not a developer and the opposite could very well be true.  Can a simple tutorial level teach a new CRPG player all they need to know to have an enjoyable experience with the game even if it isn't oprtimal?  I think so.  Star-ratings for gear to give them an idea of which items deserve a second look for either being too poor or remarkably good?  Same thing.  As long as the depth isn't sacrificed at the altar of accessibility, I don't see the problem.  

I just get the impression around here - from all sorts of people - that depth being sacrificed is the only way accessibility is ever achieved, and I'm not sure I can buy that yet.

A more important question is what precisely Bioware is doing when they design a game. What features are centra? What is the game there to do?

This is a big division, IMO, in terms of RPG fandom. Is the RPG about role adoption? Is the RPG about the combat, the mechanism?

The designers have to make a choice. Is the game about the deep and detailed war-game like combat system, and the role adoption is a bit of window dressing? Is the role adoption the central attraction of the game, and the combat syste is the window dressing, and regardless of what form it takes it just ought to be fun?

Depending on the answers to these questions, well, that determines a lot about the game.

[Morroian]

In Exile wrote...

A more important question is what precisely Bioware is doing when they design a game. What features are centra? What is the game there to do?

Story and characters are pretty clearly their driving mantra, and role playing within that framework.

With the DA series I would hope they include tactical combat as another fundamental. I know they did for DAO but I can easily see it falling by the wayside as the franchise grows and I'd be a sad panda if that happened.

[ENolan]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, presumably that would be the part where your knowledge of WW2 would help you out. HoI3 is enough of a simulation that you can try something historical and see if it works. As opposed to DA, which isn't really trying to simulate anything -- concepts like Threat have to be understood in the "game" context.

Of course, step 2 of learning HoI3 is finding out what works semi-historically and what just doesn't.

Kinda.  I mean, I consider myself a history buff but even I don't have the slightest clue how many divisions the Wermacht had on the French border during their invasion of Poland.  "Um, enough?" would be my answer offhand.  Just as one example.

Anyway to bring it back on topic to DA:2.   The point is that a learning curve and eventual depth don't seem to necessarily be in conflict.  But I'm not a developer and the opposite could very well be true.  Can a simple tutorial level teach a new CRPG player all they need to know to have an enjoyable experience with the game even if it isn't oprtimal?  I think so.  Star-ratings for gear to give them an idea of which items deserve a second look for either being too poor or remarkably good?  Same thing.  As long as the depth isn't sacrificed at the altar of accessibility, I don't see the problem.  

I just get the impression around here - from all sorts of people - that depth being sacrificed is the only way accessibility is ever achieved, and I'm not sure I can buy that yet.

So where did you stand on the idea of Tier-based armor ratings? Did that correlate around the same system as a more simplified star-based system would? Did putting bonuses in green and restrictions in red help at all? Just a question; I don't to accidentally sound confrontational. [Sorry, I get that a lot]

I do so miss the days when we would read the booklets to understand our new games. Reading was fun...

[SirOccam]

The Director wrote...

I do so miss the days when we would read the booklets to understand our new games. Reading was fun...

I enjoy reading as much as the next guy, but there are lots of good reasons and methods for removing it or reducing it in video games. It's not always the best answer. I don't think having to read through a manual before beginning a video game is such a great use.

If it was so unarguably great for every situation, we'd never have moved beyond Zork and the like.

Modifié par SirOccam, 12 novembre 2010 - 03:55 .

[ENolan]

SirOccam wrote...

The Director wrote...

I do so miss the days when we would read the booklets to understand our new games. Reading was fun...

I enjoy reading as much as the next guy, but there are lots of good reasons and methods for removing it or reducing it in video games. It's not always the best answer. I don't think having to read through a manual before beginning a video game is such a great use.

If it was so unarguably great for every situation, we'd never have moved beyond Zork and the like.

Sorry, I did get hit with nostalgia. But of course there is a limit to what should be read. I don't think there is any reason to explain one action with 5 pages, (just a random example I made up), but my point is yes, I agree reading instructions for absolutely everything is too much, but taking away from that notion and going the complete opposite direction isn't exactly the best decision either.  Obviously there is a fine line to balance on, but I'm wondering where does the line get shaky, if that metaphor made sense.


I doubt it did.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SirOccam wrote...

The Director wrote...

I do so miss the days when we would read the booklets to understand our new games. Reading was fun...

I enjoy reading as much as the next guy, but there are lots of good reasons and methods for removing it or reducing it in video games. It's not always the best answer. I don't think having to read through a manual before beginning a video game is such a great use.

If it was so unarguably great for every situation, we'd never have moved beyond Zork and the like.

C'mon Occam, you're making it out to sound like traditional CRPG's are this overly complicated mess, and thats just not the case. There's a difference between streamlining features to make them better, and out right gutting them to the point of such simplicity to try and sell more copies. Unfortunately Bioware seems to be making a Beeline towards the later as of late. Because RPG's are too complex for the casual fanbase they so desperately want to reach out to.

[Onyx Jaguar]

I didn't have to read a booklet to figure out Baldur's Gate



But I didn't find it as complex as people would make it out. Pretty much just a real time tactics game, except without the depth which often depth means bull**** difficulty so it was all good

[Brockololly]

And there comes a point where you go too far in your crusade to simplify and make things accessible such that you end up making things needlessly more tedious and obtuse than they were in the first place *cough* Fable 3 *cough*

[Piecake]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

The Director wrote...

I do so miss the days when we would read the booklets to understand our new games. Reading was fun...

I enjoy reading as much as the next guy, but there are lots of good reasons and methods for removing it or reducing it in video games. It's not always the best answer. I don't think having to read through a manual before beginning a video game is such a great use.

If it was so unarguably great for every situation, we'd never have moved beyond Zork and the like.

C'mon Occam, you're making it out to sound like traditional CRPG's are this overly complicated mess, and thats just not the case. There's a difference between streamlining features to make them better, and out right gutting them to the point of such simplicity to try and sell more copies. Unfortunately Bioware seems to be making a Beeline towards the later as of late. Because RPG's are too complex for the casual fanbase they so desperately want to reach out to.

I dont think he was implying that at all.  I think he was simply advocating something like creative, in-game tuturials(either woven into the story or optionally outside of it, etc).  And if he meant just that, i wholeheartedly agree with him.  I cant say I find reading a video game manaul particularly entertaining or thrilling.

[Onyx Jaguar]

The advantage of games these days is that they ease the gamer into the experience, a proper difficulty curve which is something like X-Com lacked, but the first Baldur's Gate had adn I would argue that Baldur's Gate 2 does somewhat of a poorer job of it.



ME 1 is pretty much the only game that Bioware has made outside of Shattered Steel that somewhat fails in this regard.



A manual is never a replacement for actual experience. I can be told how to fire a gun and I can read how to fire a gun but I won't know how to fire a gun until I have that gun in my hands

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

C'mon Occam, you're making it out to sound like traditional CRPG's are this overly complicated mess, and thats just not the case. There's a difference between streamlining features to make them better, and out right gutting them to the point of such simplicity to try and sell more copies. Unfortunately Bioware seems to be making a Beeline towards the later as of late. Because RPG's are too complex for the casual fanbase they so desperately want to reach out to.

What the hell is a twenty-sided dice? D&D games had a silly high learning curve because you had to learn an entire system of nonsense abstraction before you could even approach the actual game. You fill find that people that want a lot of complexity and challenge for their game to not have the patient to learn an entire treatise on mathematical abstract of combat before delving into their game.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 novembre 2010 - 05:12 .

[In Exile]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I didn't have to read a booklet to figure out Baldur's Gate

But I didn't find it as complex as people would make it out. Pretty much just a real time tactics game, except without the depth which often depth means bull**** difficulty so it was all good

Did you play D&D before BG? Then I got NWN back when I came out, I popped in the game, and then was taking to an entirely incomprehensible character creation that involved selecting a series of abilities that were absolutely incomprehensible. Which meant diving into the manual to try and figure out what was going on, realizing that this involved some kind of mathematical abstraction of reality, and shelving it because, what the hell, this is a game, the abstract part ought to be under the hood.

At this age I have more of an appretiation for that sort of approach to gaming, but working your way through some arbitrary system of abstraction is not depth; it's just a pain.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

C'mon Occam, you're making it out to sound like traditional CRPG's are this overly complicated mess, and thats just not the case. There's a difference between streamlining features to make them better, and out right gutting them to the point of such simplicity to try and sell more copies. Unfortunately Bioware seems to be making a Beeline towards the later as of late. Because RPG's are too complex for the casual fanbase they so desperately want to reach out to.

What the hell is a six-sided dice? D&D games had a silly high learning curve because you had to learn an entire system of nonsense abstraction before you could even approach the actual game. You fill find that people that want a lot of complexity and challenge for their game to not have the patient to learn an entire treatise on mathematical abstract of combat before delving into their game.

Its a die, with 6 sides. Hardly that complex to figure out. There's always a middle ground to game systems between complexity and ease of use. There's zero need to go to extreme ends of the spectrum just to please some people and not others.

[Onyx Jaguar]

That's why many D&D games are quite useless. Baldur's Gate suffers from this but once you figure out that you want your THACO (Which is a stat hidden away from the inventory) and Armor actually lower instead of Higher then it proceeds to turn into any other RPG system including JRPGs, just in reverse in a way

[Onyx Jaguar]

In Exile wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I didn't have to read a booklet to figure out Baldur's Gate

But I didn't find it as complex as people would make it out. Pretty much just a real time tactics game, except without the depth which often depth means bull**** difficulty so it was all good

Did you play D&D before BG? Then I got NWN back when I came out, I popped in the game, and then was taking to an entirely incomprehensible character creation that involved selecting a series of abilities that were absolutely incomprehensible. Which meant diving into the manual to try and figure out what was going on, realizing that this involved some kind of mathematical abstraction of reality, and shelving it because, what the hell, this is a game, the abstract part ought to be under the hood.

At this age I have more of an appretiation for that sort of approach to gaming, but working your way through some arbitrary system of abstraction is not depth; it's just a pain.

No I have never played D&D, my only knowledge of it comes from a Baldur's Gate FAQ on Gamefaqs

Granted that knowledge is useless in NWN so when I play that I just cheat my way through it.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Its a die, with 6 sides. Hardly that complex to figure out. There's always a middle ground to game systems between complexity and ease of use. There's zero need to go to extreme ends of the spectrum just to please some people and not others.

Yeah, that was a moronic statement since all die have six sides. I meant 20-sided, and correct the post.

It is not about complexity. D&D is not complex. It's a very rudementary system. It just involves a very arbitrary abstraction of reality, all of which is something that can (and frankly should) be handled by a computer. This is a game literally designed to take all of the calculations a computer would be doing when you're playing an RTS and making you go through it. D&D wasn't complex to appeal to some highly intellectual segment of the population; it was just involved because this is how a numeral abstraction of reality would work. A game like Half-Life does the same thing, but it's all under the hood.

We can certainly say there's a kind of fun involved in this, but that's just a matter of preference, and not wanting to engage in the kind of ****work your computer can handle for your is not a sign of a lack of sophistication.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

I don't see whats so wrong about reading a game manual to learn how to play a game that isn't just say a simple first person shooter for example.