934 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I'm not disagreeing with you on the criteria, I'm just pointing out that most CRPGs give you far more than just an envronment to play in. They give you goals, story progression and a concrete ending point. (though that ending point is often extended with later additions)

They provide available goals, but they don't require that those be your goals.

If you play them like games, they play like games, yes.  But if you don't play them like games, they play nothing at all like games.

[fchopin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Drasanil wrote...
But will Varic's coat with the right combination of runes/upgrades/whatever allow you to use him in a similar manner to Zevran decked out in Juggernaught armor? I doubt it, hence it is a net gameplay loss from one game to the other no?

Mabye you will? As of right now we do not know that you will not.

And why are the developers saying nothing? are they afraid?
There are no spoilers in telling us if we are able to change garments in the game.

[Drasanil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Drasanil wrote...
But will Varic's coat with the right combination of runes/upgrades/whatever allow you to use him in a similar manner to Zevran decked out in Juggernaught armor? I doubt it, hence it is a net gameplay loss from one game to the other no?

Mabye you will? As of right now we do not know that you will not.

So you're admitting there is the potential for gameplay loss due to fixed companion armors and therefore that in all likelyhood Bioware did cut something substantive out of the game? If not, I refer you to the second paragraph of my previous post which you conspicuously failed to address

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I'm not disagreeing with you on the criteria, I'm just pointing out that most CRPGs give you far more than just an envronment to play in. They give you goals, story progression and a concrete ending point. (though that ending point is often extended with later additions)

They provide available goals, but they don't require that those be your goals.

If you play them like games, they play like games, yes.  But if you don't play them like games, they play nothing at all like games.

Can't you say that about any game that doesn't imediately take to a "game over" screen should you try to play it differently? I remember playing Mario Kart by just driving around wherever I wanted to sometmes. It never stoped me.

[the_one_54321]

fchopin wrote...
And why are the developers saying nothing? are they afraid?
There are no spoilers in telling us if we are able to change garments in the game.

Drasanil wrote...
So you're admitting there is the potential for gameplay loss due to fixed companion armors and therefore that in all likelyhood Bioware did cut something substantive out of the game? If not, I refer you to the second paragraph of my previous post which you conspicuously failed to address

Until we know exactly what the game will be like there is always the potential that everything could go to hell with the next information update. That does not preculde discussing what we already know. And one of the things we already know is that you can customize your companions armor, you just can't change how it looks.

[soteria]

I see nothing on the wikipedia video game page that mentions a key component being goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game

Modifié par soteria, 30 novembre 2010 - 10:49 .

[Ryzaki]

soteria wrote...

I see nothing on the wikipedia video game page that mentions a key component being goals.

Try the second paragraph of the introduction.

Nope it's on the plain Game page not the video game page.

The small segement on video games on the game page has this to say

Video games are computer- or microprocessor-controlled games. Computers can create virtual tools to be used in a game between human (or simulated human)
opponents, such as cards or dice, or can simulate far more elaborate
worlds where mundane or fantastic things can be manipulated through
gameplay.
A computer or video game uses one or more input devices, typically a button/joystick combination (on arcade games); a keyboard, mouse and/or trackball (computer games); or a controller or a motion sensitive tool. (console games). More esoteric devices such as paddle controllers
have also been used for input. In computer games, the evolution of user
interfaces from simple keyboard to mouse, joystick or joypad has
profoundly changed the nature of game development.[citation needed]
There are many genres of video game; the first commercial video game, Pong, was a simple simulation of table tennis.
As processing power increased, new genres such as adventure and action
games were developed that involved a player guiding a character from a
third person perspective through a series of obstacles. This "real-time"
element cannot be easily reproduced by a board game, which is generally
limited to "turn-based" strategy; this advantage allows video games to
simulate situations such as combat more realistically. Additionally, the
playing of a video game does not require the same physical skill,
strength and/or danger as a real-world representation of the game, and
can provide either very realistic, exaggerated or impossible physics,
allowing for elements of a fantastical nature, games involving physical
violence, or simulations of sports. Lastly, a computer can, with varying
degrees of success, simulate one or more human opponents in traditional
table games such as chess, leading to simulations of such games that can be played by a single player.
In more open-ended computer simulations, also known as sandbox-style
games, the game provides a virtual environment in which the player may
be free to do whatever they like within the confines of this universe.
Sometimes, there is a lack of goals or opposition, which has stirred
some debate on whether these should be considered "games" or "toys".
(Crawford specifically mentions Will Wright’s SimCity as an example of a toy.[1])

Some debate. I'd consider it a game the same way I considerpeople playing dress up and house playing a game.

[soteria]

Nope it's on the plain Game page not the video game page.

No kidding, since we were talking about "games" and specifically the definition of a "game" as per the wikipedia page on it.

[Ryzaki]

soteria wrote...

Nope it's on the plain Game page not the video game page.

No kidding, since we were talking about "games" and specifically the definition of a "game" as per the wikipedia page on it.

I thought we were talking about video games? This is a video game forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy

Huh.  I woudn't consider a game CD to fall into that category. But eh.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 novembre 2010 - 10:58 .

[the_one_54321]

(Crawford specifically mentions Will Wright’s SimCity as an example of a toy.[1])

It's semantics. I agree with this fellow is all.

[soteria]

I thought we were talking about video games? This is a video game forum.

/shrug. Then you should have followed the conversation I was replying to.

[Ryzaki]

soteria wrote...

I thought we were talking about video games? This is a video game forum.

/shrug. Then you should have followed the conversation I was replying to.

Guess so.

Though if we're talking about games did playing house turn into something other than a game recently? 

[Alet]

Aermas wrote...
How can someone take 10 hits to go down & wearing lace be equal to someone taking 10 hits to go down & wearing Chain Maille?

My understanding while playing DA:O (and from what I understand about DA2) is that a character  who is wearing chainmail will take considerably more hits before dying than a character (with the same number of hitpoints) wearing nothing.  However, depending on the stat distribution, weapon proficiencies, and general character build, the one wearing nothing (a mage or ranged attacker of some kind, say) might take 3 hits over the course of a battle and still live, while the person wearing mail (who waded into the middle of a horde of enemies and drew more than half the enemy ranged fire) might take 20 hits and die over the course of the same battle.  It's also true that the less armor, the more damage per hit.  And all of this is might: your tank could live and your rouge could die every battle.  This actually says more about your personal gameplay style than armor effectiveness.  Playing as a rouge, I rarely even come close to dying (and I'm a dual-weilding charge-into-the-fray kind of rouge, not an archer), yet I find Sten useless because he dies every battle no matter how much metal I pile on him (same for Alistar actually, but I like the sheild abilities more than the two-handed).  Maybe I'm playing "wrong" in that there's a way to utilize heavily armed companions better than I do (not actually a maybe, there has to be a way to do it better than I do) but again, that's how I play the game, not how the game functions independantly of my choices.

Specifically about Isabella's outfit -- it makes sense that her character would choose aesthetic qualities over combat functionality.  She's a sexy chick who uses sex to get what she wants, so she dresses provacatively.  Imagine this;

Hawke: Isabella, you look ridiculous/you're taking too much damage in fights/looking at you makes me cold/shaving your legs to the tops of your thighs every night is slowing down our progress.  Put this armor on.

Isabella: **** you.  I'll pick out my own clothes, thanks.

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
Though if we're talking about games did playing house turn into something other than a game recently?

I'm not trying to use wikipedia as a justifitcation, I am just referencing back to it as an example that games are understood to be based around goals, rules and interaction. Playing house is play. Playing tag is playing a game. Not that there is anything wrong with either.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They provide available goals, but they don't require that those be your goals.

If you play them like games, they play like games, yes.  But if you don't play them like games, they play nothing at all like games.

Can't you say that about any game that doesn't imediately take to a "game over" screen should you try to play it differently? I remember playing Mario Kart by just driving around wherever I wanted to sometmes. It never stoped me.

Sure (though I recall a NASCAR game from about 10 years ago that wouldn't allow you to turn the car around and drive the wrong way - that was a game)

What's the core gameplay mechanic?  In MarioCart, the core gameplay mechanic is driving, yes.  If it's also racing, then it's a game, though it's certainly possible to play it in a non-game way (as you just demonstrated).

How about an RPG?  Is the core mechanic the story?  The combat?  The dialogue?  The roleplaying?  If it's the roleplaying, then I think it's clearly not a game, because there's no way to lose.  But if it's the combat, then it clearly is, as each encounter eventually progresses to victory or defeat regardless of whether you consent).

Sometimes BioWare says the core mechanic is the authored narrative, in which case I would argue that they're neither games nor toys, as they cease to be interactive.

[Ryzaki]

Which begs the question if she doesn't trust Hawke's judgement why exactly is she following him?

Eh whatever she's optional so I don't care about her outfit anymore I just hope Bethany doesn't end up in something similar.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 novembre 2010 - 11:06 .

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Though if we're talking about games did playing house turn into something other than a game recently?

I'm not trying to use wikipedia as a justifitcation, I am just referencing back to it as an example that games are understood to be based around goals, rules and interaction. Playing house is play. Playing tag is playing a game. Not that there is anything wrong with either.

...We're not going to agree. They're both games. When do you stop playing tag? When have you "won?" .

Forget it. This is a circular arguement that'll go nowhere.

I always thought the goal of the Sims was to make your Sims happy. That is a goal.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 novembre 2010 - 11:04 .

[In Exile]

Qset wrote...
As I stated earlier - this has not been proven yet if we use DAO as a benchmark of companion stat customisation ability. We have only been told some level of customisation is possible via the following mechanics:

1. some sort of rune customisation mechanic - details not defined but indicated that has some similarity to DAO.
2. companion outfits upgrade by themselves over game world time duration
3. all other inventory slots (not outfit slot) can have equipment changes as per DAO.

You might want to reinforce that concrete with some dev quotes but I have been unable to find one that says there will be an equivalent level of stat customisation possible.

I'm not sure I would file that under armour. What affected the gameplay in DA:O was the statistical distribution. If you wanted more armour on a rogue, that meant an STR build unless you wanted to gimp your character.

We don't have enough information to know how DA2 will handle builds in general for any character. I would assume DA2 gives you new ways to gimp your characters, though, so fret not.

[Addai]

Are we still on this asinine discussion? It is even more useless than "what is an RPG." So "the one" doesn't give a fig about the sandbox elements of a video game... so what. Other people do. It adds to the experience, and hence taking it away is bad in our sad little worlds. I spent hours re-arranging potion bottles and food in my Oblivion house. It didn't make a bit of difference to the main quest or any quest, but it was part of what made that game fun for me. Less fun= less money I'm willing to shell out for a game= me whining about it in the forum.

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
...We're not going to agree. They're both games. When do you stop playing tag? When have you "won?" .

Forget it. This is a circular arguement that'll go nowhere.

I always thought the goal of the Sims was to make your Sims happy. That is a goal.

It's a matter of definition for the purpose of explanation. It doesn't really matter if you agree with the label "game" so long as you understand the distinction being made. We can leave out the notion of being or not be a game entirely.

Cloths do not effect how you progress DA][ from the beginning to the end. (presumably)

[In Exile]

Drasanil wrote...
But will Varic's coat with the right combination of runes/upgrades/whatever allow you to use him in a similar manner to Zevran decked out in Juggernaught armor? I doubt it, hence it is a net gameplay loss from one game to the other no?

You mean gimped? I'm sure there will be new and creative ways to create inferior builds.

[the_one_54321]

Addai67 wrote...
Are we still on this asinine discussion? It is even more useless than "what is an RPG." So "the one" doesn't give a fig about the sandbox elements of a video game... so what. Other people do. It adds to the experience, and hence taking it away is bad in our sad little worlds. I spent hours re-arranging potion bottles and food in my Oblivion house. It didn't make a bit of difference to the main quest or any quest, but it was part of what made that game fun for me. Less fun= less money I'm willing to shell out for a game= me whining about it in the forum.

And I have no objection to that.

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote...
It's a matter of definition for the purpose of explanation. It doesn't really matter if you agree with the label "game" so long as you understand the distinction being made. We can leave out the notion of being or not be a game entirely.

Cloths do not effect how you progress DA][ from the beginning to the end. (presumably)

They affect how I view the characters progress- ah forget it this is pointless.

[Ryzaki]

Anyways how many different armors do you think there is anymore anyways? I hope Hawke doesn't end up with generic bland armor #33 that average enemy mook wears while everyone else looks all unique in their outfits.

...Actually that would get pretty annoying seeing Hawke wearing the same outfits as the antagonists. Or do they all have unique outfits too? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 novembre 2010 - 11:12 .

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
They affect how I view the characters progress- ah forget it this is pointless.

I know that it is important to you. You don't need to keep bringing that up because I already understand it. What's pointless is trying to make the conection from "it's important to me" to "it effects getting from Point A to Point B." The two concepts are unrelated. Nothing about how the cloths looks changes anything about how you get from Point A to Point B in the game, though it does effect how much you personally enjoy the game. (again, presumably)