343 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

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.

I'd say that for that to work you need more tools at your disposal as a player. If you have too few methods of engagement then adding all those abilities will be more frustrating and tedious than difficult. I mean, if all I can do is do frontal attacks with the warriors, stealth and backstab with the rogues and light up the fireworks with the mage, then facing an opponent with a petrifying gaze will either be very very frustrating or the gaze will hardly be noticeable.

A better approach is perhaps to make every fight a bit more of a puzzle? Focus on finding the opponent's weaknesses and applying those while avoiding their strengths? That not every combat falls in the same old "tank tanks, rogue backstabs and mage supports". Provide fights that you, as a player, have to outwit rather that "out-excel" (meaning something you have to beat by figuring it out rather than beat with having the optimal numbers).

Perhaps golems cannot be harmed meaningfully by weapons and magic and must be tricked into traps? In the deeproads, perhaps the fights should be primarily limited by light? That you have to carry torches and you cannot see anything outside the radius of light and that the fights there take this into account.
Perhaps the undead cannot be truly killed and fighting requires you to knock them down (where they'll stay... for a while)?
Naturally there being some clue how to beat every fight.

Just off the top of my head. Once you have that you can provide for more punishing opponents I think?

[In Exile]

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.  Rust monsters destroying equipment and experience loss for resurrecting too. 

Those features all suck. It just turns the game into a long series of traps. Every encounter is an incredible challange until you see the trick, and then it's trivial.

[ErichHartmann]

In Exile wrote...

Those features all suck. It just turns the game into a long series of traps. Every encounter is an incredible challange until you see the trick, and then it's trivial.

Of course most games becomes "trivial" once you know all the tricks.  I'm more interested in a challenge for the first run through.  DAO didn't really make me rage at any point.   

[Cigne]

edit: wrong thread.

Modifié par Cigne, 27 novembre 2010 - 02:59 .

[slimgrin]

ErichHartmann wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Those features all suck. It just turns the game into a long series of traps. Every encounter is an incredible challange until you see the trick, and then it's trivial.

Of course most games becomes "trivial" once you know all the tricks.  I'm more interested in a challenge for the first run through.  DAO didn't really make me rage at any point.   

It sure punished me, but I'm unfamiliar with turn-based play, with hardcore RPG's. I played D&D for a grand total of an hour or two. I'm used to twitch-based games. 

I still want DA2 to be hardcore. Too many games today are tailored for casual play.

[Meltemph]

It sure punished me, but I'm unfamiliar with turn-based play,

When did DAO become turn based or is it a mod?

[slimgrin]

Meltemph wrote...

It sure punished me, but I'm unfamiliar with turn-based play,

When did DAO become turn based or is it a mod?

It's not turn based.

I think its a variation on turn-based play. Maybe I'm way off base. You're free to elaborate instead of just criticizing.

[Sir JK]

slimgrin wrote...
It's not turn based.
I think its a variation on turn-based play. Maybe I'm way off base. You're free to elaborate instead of just criticizing.

It's not, DA:O (and DA2) are both realtime with pause ability.

[slimgrin]

Sir JK wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
It's not turn based.
I think its a variation on turn-based play. Maybe I'm way off base. You're free to elaborate instead of just criticizing.

It's not, DA:O (and DA2) are both realtime with pause ability.

Real time? You mean I could control the speed of those two handed attacks? I could ask my character to run and attack?

Sorry, but it's definitely not real time gameplay. 

[Leonia]

You have an interesting definition of turn-based gameplay. I was also unaware that turn-based means something cannot be hardcore. But I have yet to hear a definitive defintion of what hardcore actually means.

Modifié par leonia42, 27 novembre 2010 - 03:25 .

[Pocketgb]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Of course most games becomes "trivial" once you know all the tricks.

That's kind of ignoring his concern, isn't it? 'Traps' aren't challenging. If you make an invisible trap that is only made known to exist once I activate it - and thus it kills me - that's not a challenge. Sure I know to evade it next time, but it's not an improvement to my 'skill'. I just walk a bit out of the way next time.

A good player shouldn't have to be successful based on memorizing the 'raid dance', he should be good because he's able to react correctly to the current situation.

ErichHartmann wrote...

DAO didn't really make me rage at any point.

DA:O never made me 'rage'. Disappointed is a more proper word, and I was disappointed in the fact that the only thing that presented a 'mild' challenge was a pack of wolves.
Not a high dragon. Not Loghain, nor Cauthrien. Just dogs.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 27 novembre 2010 - 03:24 .

[Maria Caliban]

In real-time games, game time progresses continuously according to the game clock. Players perform actions simultaneously as opposed to in sequential units or turns. Players must perform actions with the consideration that their opponents are actively working against them in real time, and may act at any moment. This introduces time management considerations and additional challenges (such as physical coordination in the case of video games).

In turn-based games, game flow is partitioned into well-defined and visible parts, called turns. A player of a turn-based game is allowed a period of analysis (sometimes bounded, sometimes unbounded) before committing to a game action, ensuring a separation between the game flow and the thinking process, which in turn presumably leads to more optimal choices. Once every player has taken his or her turn, that round of play is over, and any special shared processing is done. This is followed by the next round of play. In games where the game flow unit is time, turns may represent such things as years, months, weeks or days.

[slimgrin]

leonia42 wrote...

You have an interesting definition of turn-based gameplay. I was also unaware that turn-based means something cannot be hardcore. But I have yet to hear a definitive defintion of what hardcore actually means.

Hard. It means something is hard.

But if we want to fudge this definition, why don't we all go play the Sims?

[Leonia]

My Sims are so hardcore, you have no idea.

[Sir JK]

slimgrin wrote...
Real time? You mean I could control the speed of those two handed attacks? I could ask my character to run and attack?
Sorry, but it's definitely not real time gameplay. 

Realtime as in: Time passes in "realtime" as opposed to turns. Everything is based on it's cooldowns rather than once/twice/thrice per turn limitations. Hence, realtime (and not turn-based).

[slimgrin]

Sir JK wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
Real time? You mean I could control the speed of those two handed attacks? I could ask my character to run and attack?
Sorry, but it's definitely not real time gameplay. 

Realtime as in: Time passes in "realtime" as opposed to turns. Everything is based on it's cooldowns rather than once/twice/thrice per turn limitations. Hence, realtime (and not turn-based).

Very well. It's real time combat. Lets see what the devs call it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Slimgrin, what you're calling "real-time" is just twitch-based combat. Some might call it action combat, but there have been games in the past called action RPGs that contained no twitch aspect (Dungeon Siege is probably the best example - it was a Diablo-clone, but without the click-to-attack mechanic).

There have been stat-driven RPGs that were turn-based (Fallout, Temple of Elemental Evil, Wizardry), and there have been stat-driven RPGs that were real-time (DAO, KotOR, Baldur's Gate). Whether the player's reaction time is part of the game's combat has no bearing on the turn-based/real-time dichotomy.

Though, your mistake is a common one among those used to twitch-based gaming.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 novembre 2010 - 05:32 .

[slimgrin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Slimgrin, what you're calling "real-time" is just twitch-based combat. Some might call it action combat, but there have been games in the past called action RPGs that contained no twitch aspect (Dungeon Siege is probably the best example - it was a Diablo-clone, but without the click-to-attack mechanic).
There have been stat-driven RPGs that were turn-based (Temple of Elemental Evil, Wizardry), and there have been stat-driven RPGs that were real-time (DAO, KotOR, Baldur's Gate). Whether the player's reaction time is part of the game's combat has no bearing on the turn-based/real-time dichotomy.
Though, your mistake is a common one among those used to twitch-based gaming.

Fair enough. I've been educated. Real time does not equal twitch. 

[Lukertin]

I think some of the issues here is that in an RPG the gameplay is always going to be you (person) vs computer (AI). Battles are hard because a) your player characters don't have much hp, or don't do much damage, while the computer AI characters have lots of hp, or do more damage. And as far as I can tell, the majority of enemy mobs in the majority of games don't do things like heal each other, or work in tandem (at the very least, not like a human would direct them). So once you, as a player, get a rhythm down, the difficulty of an arbitrary fight ends up being related how the fight is scaled to your characters' levels and not much else.



This contrasts with other games, like FPS, where players with the exact same weapons/stats/etc. can do a 1v5 and the outnumbered person can still win--A similar fight carried out under the mechanics of an RPG would basically be impossible. And compared to an RTS, the game's difficulty lies entirely in the skill of your opponent, which essentially allows for infinite degrees of difficulty for the average player--whereas in the RPG the 'difficulty' is static in that the same AI is controlling pretty much every battle. So in other games, difficulty is determined by the abilities/uses/strategies of the other player, and not a list of 'predictable' commands given by the computer AI that controls enemies with increased durability.



In the end P v. PC difficulty, I think, is a silly distinction to make. I play RPGs primarily for their story, not their ability to challenge my ability to play a computer game. The level of creativity, intelligence, and understanding to win at other games normally far exceeds the challenge any RPG could throw. Mere example is in an RPG, if you fail a battle, you try again. You try until you find something that works, and once you find that something, it's done. Every subsequent time you face a similar situation, you do the same thing to win. In a RTS, if you fail against your opponent's strategy, you try and execute a strategy that works against your opponent's. And you can still lose.

[Sir JK]

That was a rather good analysis Lukertin, I hadn't thought of it that way but I find myself agreeing with you.



I'm wondering if it is how the classic rpg combat systems are designed that causes this lack of difficulty. That once the ui has been mastered (and the ui is getting easier and easier to learn) the game will not really provide you with greater challanges because at it's core every battle will play out virtually the same. The only real challenge provided coming from wether or not you have the appropriate combination of items, bonuses, and allocated attributes/skills/talents.

[Maria Caliban]

Sir JK wrote...

I'm wondering if it is how the classic rpg combat systems are designed that causes this lack of difficulty.

classic RPG combat design is based on PnP design (mostly DnD) where there is no 'reload.' Until you got the resurrect spell, if you died you rerolled the PC, and after getting the spell, resurrecting could be expensive, difficult, or simply impossible.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 novembre 2010 - 08:00 .

[Sir JK]

Maria Caliban wrote...
classic RPG combat design is based on PnP design (mostly DnD) where there is no 'reload.' Until you got the resurrect spell, if you died you rerolled the PC, and after getting the spell, resurrecting could be expensive, difficult, or simply impossible.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I didn't mean in any specific instance, such as the example you provided, but rather how the system as a whole operates. That combat ability is primarily based on modifiers governed by attributes, allocated skill points, level and so on and not on and secondarily on basic tactics (often limited to: Which spell/ability should I use now and on who?)

[soteria]

Sir JK wrote...

A better approach is perhaps to make every fight a bit more of a puzzle? Focus on finding the opponent's weaknesses and applying those while avoiding their strengths? That not every combat falls in the same old "tank tanks, rogue backstabs and mage supports". Provide fights that you, as a player, have to outwit rather that "out-excel" (meaning something you have to beat by figuring it out rather than beat with having the optimal numbers).

A good example of a fight like that in DA:O is the rotating statue with the faces. Unfortunately, the bugginess makes it my least favorite fight in the game by a mile, but if you take the time to figure out the "puzzle" it's actually an interesting fight. A number of fights in Awakening had a lot of potential--the Mother and the lightning dragon in the Blackmarsh, for example.

I'm wondering if it is how the classic rpg combat systems are designed that causes this lack of difficulty. That once the ui has been mastered (and the ui is getting easier and easier to learn) the game will not really provide you with greater challanges because at it's core every battle will play out virtually the same. The only real challenge provided coming from wether or not you have the appropriate combination of items, bonuses, and allocated attributes/skills/talents.

In a real-time-with pause game, it's possible you're right. In a situation where you can manipulate time (pause/unpause, reload), it's hard to pose a legitimate challenge. Removing the requirement to think and adapt and act quickly in realtime removes a lot of the difficulty from a realtime game. Just imagine, if you will, chess in realtime--now imagine that you can pause and make decisions for all of your pieces at once, but your opponent can't. How long will that game remain a challenge?

[Maria Caliban]

soteria wrote...

A good example of a fight like that in DA:O is the rotating statue with the faces. Unfortunately, the bugginess makes it my least favorite fight in the game by a mile, but if you take the time to figure out the "puzzle" it's actually an interesting fight.

How is that a puzzle?

I obviously didn't take time to solve the puzzle but I know I finished the fight in a couple of minutes.

Sir JK wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
classic RPG combat design is based on PnP design (mostly DnD) where there is no 'reload.' Until you got the resurrect spell, if you died you rerolled the PC, and after getting the spell, resurrecting could be expensive, difficult, or simply impossible.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I didn't mean in any specific instance, such as the example you provided, but rather how the system as a whole operates.

You were asking a 'how?' question and I answered a 'why?' question.

That combat ability is primarily based on modifiers governed by attributes, allocated skill points, level and so on and not on and secondarily on basic tactics (often limited to: Which spell/ability should I use now and on who?)

But you apparently already know the answer to the 'how?' question as well.

RPG combat isn't difficult because it's based on simple stacking and knowing the right formula for the occasion. In a system with a 'reload' this isn't a challenge.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 novembre 2010 - 08:17 .

[Sir JK]

Actually I was asking if my theory was sound, rather than "how". It seems I'm getting some support for the question so maybe it is a correct assumption though. That it is indeed the fundamentals of the classic crpg combat system that makes the fights "so easy".



I agree with Soteria though, regarding the rotating faces. Together with the golems in the gas chamber and Caridin, it's one of the more tactically demanding fights (even if not particularly difficult). I haven't had the time to play Awakening yet though, so I cannot gauge those fights.

I like the analogy with the chess game where you play regular chess but your opponent lightning-chess, not perfect perhaps. But the point is good. And then we need to remember that chess is in itself one of the deepest games ever made where there's loads of ways to deal with every situation. Something no rpg ever made has been even close to.