343 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

Honestly, if clothes are such an integral part of the character, if they need such visual distinction to stand off, then their personality is much shallower and undefined.

Clothes ought to be customizable to a point. I certainly am no fan of the single outfit approach. But they need to be consistent with a character. I wear a lot of different clothes, but I wear a certain style of clothes that represents me. I wouldn't show up dressed like a hipster or a 50s gangster no matter who was asking.

And DA:O had you do this. Player customizability crosses a line when it gets into overwriting other characters.

The frame narrative I'll concede it makes for an intriguing idea. The rest, I see as drawbacks, or dispute their validity (as an example, the older design of the darkspawn looks better to me than the new one).

Okay, you liked the zombies? The chalkspawn aren't any better, but why were the zombie orcs good?

[hexaligned]

In Exile wrote...

relhart wrote..

Well maybe my logic is flawed in thinking people need to be (at least somewhat) stimulated  mentally from a game to be entertained.  I just know I do, pushing a button and watching explosions of flashy colors  and geysers of bood as I cruise effortlessly to the end credits doesn't do much for me (FF13 I'm looking at you). 

I need a game to be fun to be entertained. Just what precisely makes a game fun depends on the game. A multiplayer session of wii sports can be just as fun as Europa Universalis or Alpha Centauri.

Certainly a complicated game with a high learning curve can play a role in that, but only if you like that sort of thing in the first place.
 

Yes, your assertion as to game complexity is what I meant, based again on my assumption people need to be challenged and stimualted to be entertained.   but I will concede you are correct,I threw out the chart, and emphasized "normal" as opposed to "idiotic" more as a contrast to the poster above my OP that was implying the formula for DA2 was changing to appeal to the "lowest common denominator"  which I saw as insulting to people who prefered it, I guess people feel the same way about being percieved as average though.  

This was where you went wrong:

Honestly my fellow 130+ ers, you should be used to mass marketed media
being this way.

If you avoided that (and, to be honest, the really obnoxious chart) and just made your point as you did here, i.e. that no one would market to the lowest common denominator because there aren't that many of them, just like no one markets video-games to Nobel laureates, you would have avoided this mess.

Eh, I'm stuck at the (future) inlaws untill tomorrow, pointless forum banter in about my best option atm. (although apparently I've been nominated to go up on the roof and hang Christmas lights... damn christians).  I don't play video games for "fun" though, the things I consider fun, are all outdoor activities, Hiking, rock climbing, camping, that sort of thing.  Games are one of my "It's negetative 20 degrees outside with 5 feet of snow" hobbies.  (Granted I live in the Adirondack region, so that's like 9 months out of the year)  I just like them to be more stimulating than say.. taking a nap would have been. 
Also good to note: I'm a sarcastic ass, and most of my posts go along with the theme of that state of being.  I have a mantra and everything.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Okay, you liked the zombies? The chalkspawn aren't any better, but why were the zombie orcs good?

The teeth.

[MadLaughter]

Condescending. Again.

[The Masked Rog]

Honestly, if clothes are such an integral part of the character, if they need such visual distinction to stand off, then their personality is much shallower and undefined.

It's not the clothes themselves. Its' the fact companions choose them, not the player.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

The teeth.

I don't understand.

[Atakuma]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

The teeth.

I don't understand.

I'm guessing because they had sharp teeth in Origins.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

And DA:O had you do this. Player customizability crosses a line when it gets into overwriting other characters.

Only if you assume the companions' personalities are both immutable and beyond your control.

There is no need to do that.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Only if you assume the companions' personalities are both immutable and beyond your control.

There is no need to do that.

They are not immutable - there is a direction option to influence to companions in DA:O - Leliana and Alistair. This is the extent of your interaction with them.

We have an established way to interact with people in the game: the dialogue system. Anything that does not take part via the dialogue system is not interaction, and you are clearly restricted to one character in DA:O, with the exception of combat. Anything further goes into our debate about whether combat is a different metaphysical state or not. Which I will address in that PM. I'm just working on a paper this week on the separability thesis in legal positivism.

Anything else is the player overwriting who they are to serve personal fan-fiction, and you know my feelings on that.

[Bryy_Miller]

Monica83 wrote...
Anyways my "Credibility" its not something of we can debate

Credibility is how people perceive you, and how seriously they take you. So it is. I'm sorry if that insults you, but credibility is not an internal thing. It's an external one. And you say you are not an elitist, and then you say that people who "don't like" Baldur's Gate (when people can like it and still understand its limitations) don't know what a genre is. That is elitism. It's also condescending. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

We have an established way to interact with people in the game: the dialogue system.

That only applies to the non-PC characters.

And we also have an established way to take direct control of the people in the game, by taking direct control of them.  And that happens not just in combat, but when equipping, shopping, learning, or walking around.

Doesn't the preponderance of evidence suggest that we can do more than interact with them through dialogue (and I would argue that we never interact with them through dialogue - the PC does that)?

[Qset]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Only if you assume the companions' personalities are both immutable and beyond your control.

There is no need to do that.

They are not immutable - there is a direction option to influence to companions in DA:O - Leliana and Alistair. This is the extent of your interaction with them.

We have an established way to interact with people in the game: the dialogue system. Anything that does not take part via the dialogue system is not interaction, and you are clearly restricted to one character in DA:O, with the exception of combat. Anything further goes into our debate about whether combat is a different metaphysical state or not. Which I will address in that PM. I'm just working on a paper this week on the separability thesis in legal positivism.

Anything else is the player overwriting who they are to serve personal fan-fiction, and you know my feelings on that.

Not meaning to butt in here between you and Sylvius  but I am interested in your point I bolded. I can kill my companions in DAO so interaction is not purely via dialogue is it although I think you might be right as I am struggling to think of a case where this option would occur without any dialogue foreplay although I think that if you haven't spent enough points in coercion the combats will be in some cases unavoidable in which case the dialogue foreplay is irrelevant as it won't change the outcome.

edited, anyway I can see Sylvius has replied and made some much better points than me so I will bow out and leave you two to continue your discussion...

:brings popcorn

Modifié par Qset, 26 novembre 2010 - 09:09 .

[Stanley Woo]

Please note that my tolerance for the "my RPG preferences can beat up your RPG preferences" type "discussion" in this thread is pretty low, so let's try and keep the elitism hidden from the old, cantankerous ninja with the lockhammer, shall we? And quit using my lawn as a shortcut. Thank you.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

The teeth.

I don't understand.

The  Chalkspawn have no sharp teeth, only squared ones (I don't know if that's the proper word to convey my meaning, sorry), so they look like herbivores; thus their threat is reduced. DA:O darkspawn had jagged and pointy teeth, giving them the carnivore look appropiate for a flesh-eating species.

Modifié par Xewaka, 27 novembre 2010 - 12:29 .

[Nerivant]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Please note that my tolerance for the "my RPG preferences can beat up your RPG preferences" type "discussion" in this thread is pretty low, so let's try and keep the elitism hidden from the old, cantankerous ninja with the lockhammer, shall we? And quit using my lawn as a shortcut. Thank you.

But your lawn is the only path back to my home that avoids the Straw Man.

I cannot wake him.

[Aesthioseae]

relhart wrote...

In Exile wrote...

relhart wrote..

Well maybe my logic is flawed in thinking people need to be (at least somewhat) stimulated  mentally from a game to be entertained.  I just know I do, pushing a button and watching explosions of flashy colors  and geysers of bood as I cruise effortlessly to the end credits doesn't do much for me (FF13 I'm looking at you). 

I need a game to be fun to be entertained. Just what precisely makes a game fun depends on the game. A multiplayer session of wii sports can be just as fun as Europa Universalis or Alpha Centauri.

Certainly a complicated game with a high learning curve can play a role in that, but only if you like that sort of thing in the first place.
 

Yes, your assertion as to game complexity is what I meant, based again on my assumption people need to be challenged and stimualted to be entertained.   but I will concede you are correct,I threw out the chart, and emphasized "normal" as opposed to "idiotic" more as a contrast to the poster above my OP that was implying the formula for DA2 was changing to appeal to the "lowest common denominator"  which I saw as insulting to people who prefered it, I guess people feel the same way about being percieved as average though.  

This was where you went wrong:

Honestly my fellow 130+ ers, you should be used to mass marketed media
being this way.

If you avoided that (and, to be honest, the really obnoxious chart) and just made your point as you did here, i.e. that no one would market to the lowest common denominator because there aren't that many of them, just like no one markets video-games to Nobel laureates, you would have avoided this mess.

Eh, I'm stuck at the (future) inlaws untill tomorrow, pointless forum banter in about my best option atm (first period ommited) (although apparently I've been nominated to go up on the roof and hang Christmas lights... damn christians).  I don't play video games for "fun" though, the things I consider fun, are all outdoor activities, Hiking, rock climbing, camping, that sort of thing.  Games are one of my "It's negetative 20 degrees outside with 5 feet of snow" hobbies.  (Granted I live in the Adirondack region, so that's like 9 months out of the year)  I just like them to be more stimulating than say.. taking a nap would have been. 
Also good to note: I'm a sarcastic ass, and most of my posts go along with the theme of that state of being.  I have a mantra and everything.

Naps are especially stimulating; proven to reinforce skills, memory, and other various types of information. I should say that if you think so dimly of video-gaming you may well be inclined to read a book like, er, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance, put it down for a short while and have a nap, then perhaps do some juggling or what have you.

[Pocketgb]

Difficulty settings exist for a reason, and it's to cater to multiple interests. Having only one difficulty setting can lead down two paths: Too easy and too hard. The former upsets those who prefer the latter and vice versa. That's where the 'easy' and 'hard' difficulty settings come in, in addition to many more.



The problem here is having to appropriately balanced and design each area for each difficulty, something few developers have accomplished. Just boosting the enemy's health and damage is boring.



In regards to depth, I don't have much to comment on because I have very little faith in Bioware making a 'balanced' *and* 'in-depth' set of mechanics. For Bioware it may only be one or the other.

[In Exile]

The real problem is that even hard is not hard. Peter Thomas described nigthmare this time around as "possibl" but I'm not getting my hopes up given that nightmare received a similar description.

[hexaligned]

Well the real problem is AI schemes, you essentially have to give them the ability to cheat to be able to defeat a human player (as human players will min/max and exploit their little hearts out, and the AI needs to be able to adjust to it, for challenges sake). Which is fine, the trick is in not making it too damn obvious the AI is doing it. Removing things like Forcefield and taunt, or at least severely neutering their effectiveness on Nightmare (far more so than DAO did) would be a good start however... or better yet giving the AI an actual effective counter to it.

[StingingVelvet]

David Gaider wrote...

So the assumption is, evidently, that the more hardcore someone is the smarter they are? And the people who don't want a difficult game are therefore either average or dumb? And that, by extension, it's the smart people who are our more worthwhile customers?

I have no opinion on where game difficulty ends up-- gameplay is not my bailiwick-- but if you ask me it's opinions like this from the hardcore that make developers not regret making games more accessible in the slightest.

The problem is that people confuse dedication with intelligence.  I am very dedicated to CRPGs, so I like them to be longer, more complex, more in depth and similar such things.  That doesn't make me a genius it just means I am more "hardcore" than most people when it comes to CRPGs.  When it comes to music I am a complete idiot, I just put on whatever 80s station there is in my area and tone it out, basically.

It's not intelligence its just the effort people are willing to put into things.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 27 novembre 2010 - 02:22 .

[ErichHartmann]

Encounters need more punishment. Level drain, mind control, imprisonment, word kill, poison severely damaging stats, Medusa stone gaze, high magic or physical resistance, and anything else from Baldur's Gate II that made life miserable for running into fights without planning as needed.  Rust monsters destroying equipment and experience loss for resurrecting too. 

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 27 novembre 2010 - 02:36 .

[slimgrin]

David Gaider wrote...
So the assumption is, evidently, that the more hardcore someone is the smarter they are? And the people who don't want a difficult game are therefore either average or dumb? 

Well to be perfectly honest, I think that is a valid assumption David, especially if you throw dedication into the mix. 

* Casual gamers are free to send me hateful pm's.


Edit: Thats funny, I didn't even read StingingVelvet, who brought up the subject of dedication before I did. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 27 novembre 2010 - 02:34 .

[hexaligned]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Encounters need more punishment. Level drain, mind control, imprisonment, word kill, poison severely damaging stats, Medusa stone gaze, high magic or physical resistance, and anything else from Baldur's Gate II that made life miserable for running into fights without planning as needed.

For the hardest difficulty?  I'd rather something new, I'm sure Bioware could pull something out of their hats if they wanted to, that didn't steal BG2 mechanics.  Regardless, I wasn't suggesting easy mode,  be anything other than easy.

Modifié par relhart, 27 novembre 2010 - 02:43 .

[Leonia]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Encounters need more punishment. Level drain, mind control, imprisonment, word kill, poison severely damaging stats, Medusa stone gaze, high magic or physical resistance, and anything else from Baldur's Gate II that made life miserable for running into fights without planning as needed.

/seconded

And as someone who is currently playing BG for the first time, I will add that I wish there was a bit more "randomness" with the AI. I love how I can never know exactly what is going to happen on any map in BG. I can have a vague idea of where mobs might be or what sort of attacks they'll use against me but every time I reload after dieing, things get randomised a bit. In Dragon Age: Origins, I have pretty much every encounter memorised, I know where all the traps are, I can pretty much guess what sort of loot is going to drop where (though I always hate finding those stupid mushrooms), and generally.. every playthrough is identical minus the dialogue choices my character makes. Nevermind that the the fights are pretty easy once you've done them all at least once before. I'm not sure if the engine for DA 2 allows for a complex AI but I'm already impressed by the AI in a game from 1998 over what I experienced in Origins in 2009/2010.