1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Lusitanum]

moilami wrote...

I find this strange that you criticise repetative combat so much since on abstract level combat in RPGs is just "kill & loot" pressing keys in keyboard in every game.

If you're going to be reduce every game to its core like that, then everything is repetitive. A strategy game is just "build and move units", a puzzle game is just "move the pieces" a game with shooting elements is just "shoot stuff"... you get the idea.

But we have to see things on a broader scale. Any of these games has the potential to be varied, if it uses a variety of gameplay elements and makes you use them with a variety of different obstacles.

DA:O could have been a lot less repetitve if it forced (or at the very least encouraged) the player try different things depending on the situation. Maybe give different strenghts and weaknesses that would force you to adapt, rely more on certain abilities that would normally go underused or something like that.

But no, pretty much every mob you face, be it elves, dwarves or darkspawn all die the same. And that's what makes the combat a chore to play through.

moilami wrote...
Interesting difference came in Fallout where companions were not controllable by player and you had to actually support them instead of them supporting you.

And pray that Katja wouldn't blow Ian to pieces because she decided that using a burst fire of her SMG to kill a goddamned rat while Ian was in her line of fire was a good idea.

Seriously, I screamed like a maniac at the computer when that happened. Again, another of those "you just had to know it was going to happen" moments that forced me to reload a game that I'd saved about half an hour before.

moilami wrote...
The dryad thing worked in first time. It gave very good WTF! I can actually die here, as it should be.

A WTF moment doesn't automatically mean it's a good idea. It depends on the kind of WTF.

And again, you don't need to resort to that kind of cheap shots to make a player feel like they can die. Just provide a challenge. My favorite kind of enemies are those that beat the crap out of me over and over but when I die I think "I lost because I wasn't good enough/didn't think things through. But I know I can beat this guy, I just need to keep my focus and I can do this. Come on, let's try this again!"

Which is a lot better than those "yeah, you can only kill me if you cheat like a %&@#)€, that's great" kind of enemies.

moilami wrote...
These mainstream RPGs are just lame hero power play beyond words. Gimp noob rises to power to strip power away from something very powerful and none can stop him. Very interesting...not.

I'll agree with you on one thing here: I'm sick of saving the world/kindom/universe/whatever in games. Can't we just get a good game where your goals are merely personal (besides "they killed his family and now he's out for revenge... while saving the world in the process")? Wouldn't that make things a lot more meaningful and interessting.

moilami wrote...
Thanks of the game suggestion but I don't like puzzle games.

Hemm... Amnesia isn't a puzzle game, it's a first-person survival horror.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SaviorPilate wrote...
The company that helped pioneer CRPGs is dead, and has been for years. 

If you mean Origin Systems, I agree with you.

Actually, I'm pretty certain he meant Sir-Tech.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

I don't think there were scaled. And if they were, it wasn't all that well. Some friends of mine found DA:O too hard while others found it a breeze and I only understood why when I asked them about what areas they visited first and found out that those that started in areas like Orzamar or the Brecilian Forest just kept getting their asses handed to them a lot more often than those that started with Redcliff or the Circle Tower.

I still have to try this out myself (should have started in the Brecilian Forest on this playthough... damn it!) but from what I've seen so far, the scaling system seems to be broken.

As far as scaling systems go, DAO wasn't bad.

Each creature type had a level range, and each area had a level range.  Both were used to scale encounters, but encounter levels were set the first time you entered an area.

So, if you visited the Circle Tower immediately after Lothering, but then didn't get locked inside and went somewhere else instead, the Circle Tower woud have been set to suit you as if you were level 7 or so, even if you later came back at level 15.

However, some areas had level ranges with higher floors.  Orzammar and Denerim had level floors of 10, so if you went to either place immediately after Lothering, you'd face a stiff challenge.  That fight outside Orzammar killed many people, I'm sure.

The good thing about DAO's scaling system was that it didn't scale things as much as ME's scaling system did, for example.

I don't think the game needs to limit your resources to be challenging it just needs to give you a variety of tools and then give you challenges that forces you to use them according to the situation so that you'll learn what works best with a given kind of obstacle and then just keep changing it up to keep you on your toes.

I don't really like that suggestion, because that means that the optimal way to face any given enemy is basically the same.  There's no variety there from player to player, or from playthrough to playthrough.

As you correctly point out, DAO doesn't even offer variety from encounter to encounter within a single playthrough.  But it does allow a variety of successful tactics (though whichever tactics you find that works for your party works in nearly every encounter - I can think of only three exceptions in the entire game: Jarvia, the Broodmother, and Caridin if you brought Shale with you).

And again, I don't want the game to limit your resources.  I want your choices to limit your resources.

Yeah, Bioware was a lot more indie when they took an extremely popular and lucrative licence to make their game. Now that was risky of them, taking the D&D word, which was extremely popular among PC players and just running with it to make what was basically a traditional PnP game where the computer took the place of the DM.

That's not actually what they did, though.

They built a game called Battleground Infinity (hence the name of the engine), and when they tried to sell it to publishers, one of them (Interplay) said, "Sure, but could you please convert it to a D&D game first?" because they happened to own the license.

Yeah, now that sure was smart gameplay: just put a Dryad in your way with an instant kill that came completely out of nowhere and you had no way to avoid other than knowing it beforehand. Oh, and I hope that the character that spoke to her wasn't your PC, because if it wasn't, congratulations, your party member just gets revived.

Your party member only gets revived under some circumstances.  If, for example, you can't defeat Droth the Ogre Mage and you have to run away, then you're stuck with a dead party member.

I love that encounter.

Anyone can make a dragon appear out of nowhere and eat you, but it takes true skill to make a challenge where when you fail, you think "well, you've got me, I could have avoided that if I'd thought it through". And insta-kills that come out of nowhere don't fit into that category.

I'd like to see the occasional encounter where success is extremely unlikely, and the best solution is to flee.  Sort of like the fight with Ser Cauthrien in DAO, but have getting defeated produce a game over screen just like every other fight.  And, of course, offer a path of egress for those who figure it out in time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SaviorPilate wrote...
The company that helped pioneer CRPGs is dead, and has been for years. 

If you mean Origin Systems, I agree with you.

Actually, I'm pretty certain he meant Sir-Tech.

I guess he didn't mention EA specifically.  Good point.

I didn't realise it had been so long since Sir-Tech died.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 mars 2011 - 12:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

Heh Sylvius Origin Systems also made the games I grew up on - or at least informed most on my tastes. The Wing Commander games and their spinoffs.

Great developers. Too bad they're deceased.

[Lusitanum]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As far as scaling systems go, DAO wasn't bad.

Each creature type had a level range, and each area had a level range.  Both were used to scale encounters, but encounter levels were set the first time you entered an area.

So, if you visited the Circle Tower immediately after Lothering, but then didn't get locked inside and went somewhere else instead, the Circle Tower woud have been set to suit you as if you were level 7 or so, even if you later came back at level 15.

Yes, I know that.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't really like that suggestion, because that means that the optimal way to face any given enemy is basically the same.  There's no variety there from player to player, or from playthrough to playthrough.

Why not? Let's take the example of a great game that I've played recently: Batman Arkham Asylum and its sneaking sections. The game starts at a pretty easy level. You learn how to take out henchmen, how to hide, how to get away if you get spotted, etc.

And then the game starts giving you new options and/or imposing restrictions. Don't get seen or the hostages die, the gargoyles that were almost like a "get out of Jail free" card and helped you so much when you were starting out are now booby trapped, the bad guys start using collars that set off an alarm when you knock them out, etc.

And on the other hand, you get new tricks. You get a batclaw to pull people off ledges, you get explosive gel to set up traps, you get a batarang that simulates the sound of colar alarm and this set new ways to go about your business. You and I might have the same gear, but I'll probably use tactics that you won't. Like setting explosive gel by some stairs, so the fall automatically takes out a henchman. When I talk to my friends about the game, we all learn something completely different from each other's experiences.

With Dragon Age... it's basically "I used two mages (because they're freaking broken), a rogue (the can-opener, because he's the only one who has the lockpicking skill) and the Tank to draw aggro)" versus "I used one mage, one can-opener, Sten (because I liked the guy) and my dude Tanked".

Not really all that exciting. Or interessting.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As you correctly point out, DAO doesn't even offer variety from encounter to encounter within a single playthrough.  But it does allow a variety of successful tactics (though whichever tactics you find that works for your party works in nearly every encounter - I can think of only three exceptions in the entire game: Jarvia, the Broodmother, and Caridin if you brought Shale with you).

You're luckier than I am, I honestly can't think of one fight where I had to change my "tactics", and I've played Awakening and all the DLC to boot.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And again, I don't want the game to limit your resources.  I want your choices to limit your resources.

I personally prefer the game to give me a reason to use my resources, so I don't have to tie my hands behind my back to have a challenge.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's not actually what they did, though.

They built a game called Battleground Infinity (hence the name of the engine), and when they tried to sell it to publishers, one of them (Interplay) said, "Sure, but could you please convert it to a D&D game first?" because they happened to own the license.

Well, that's an interessting bit of trivia. 

Still, they made a game out of an extremely popular and lucrative licence with a fully staffed company, I'd hardly consider that "indie".

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd like to see the occasional encounter where success is extremely unlikely, and the best solution is to flee.  Sort of like the fight with Ser Cauthrien in DAO, but have getting defeated produce a game over screen just like every other fight.  And, of course, offer a path of egress for those who figure it out in time.

Have you ever played the first Deus Ex? There was a bit in that game (avoiding spoilers here) where your character faces a group of people trying to arrest him, just like the bit with Ser Cauthrien. And you're also offered the option to either surrender or resist. The difference being that there's no way in hell that you can beat this fight. I don't care how good you are, you're just not going to be able to beat these odds.

But in the end, the result is the same: if you surrender, you're captured, and if you resist, they ripp you a new one and then you're captured (although you're much worse for wear). Either way, the story continues exactly the same way, but at least you're given the choice.

And I'd like to see that kind of thing more often in games. And maybe not by the end, where you're virtually God-on-Earth, so that you don't think "I've beaten Broodmothers, Demons and High Dragons, there's no way I'm surrendering to freaking guards". Maybe near the beggining, where you're still low-levelled and you're aware there are a lot more people that can kick the crap out of you.

And in the end, maybe you can actually turn the tables on those people. After all, Calo Nord was able to kill you without even breaking a sweat when you first met him in that Cantina, but that just made killing him later all the sweeter, right? 

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

Lol Mako.

Not sure how to interpret what you said. It could be interpret that you hated the combat so much that even sucky Mako game was better.

I'm neutral on ME's combat (it was certainly better than ME2's combat, which I strongly dislike).  ME's true failure, I think, was the dialogue system.

I liked the Mako because it allowed me an open environment in which to make decisions.  And in-character decision-making -- roleplaying -- is the only reason I play these games.

So far we agree on nothing when it comes to Mass Effect. I prefered 2's combat though I miss the statistical influance, didnt really like the Mako, and thought the dialog system was the best thing it had going. 

[darth shango]

In my day it took three commands to initiate a basic attack and there was no jumping across the screen to meet your enemy. The hero stood on his side of the screen and waved his sword a few times, whilst the enemy on the other side of the screen shook and received it's damage. This Dragon Age 2 is way to fun and exciting to be a real RPG.

[JohnPazur]

To quote a Mass effect 2 character.

"the most interesting thing about humans is, if you have 3 in a room you will get 5 opinions." Or something like that.

the point is that everyone will like it, and that is fine. I will play it out before making my opinion known.

[ceski]

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

Modifié par ceski, 07 mars 2011 - 02:07 .

[Aurgelmir]

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

Wow.

It really is a shame, especially when you've followed Bioware almost from the start.

[SgtPatches]

I've played a number of RPG's both Japanese and American and honestly I don't see anything wrong with the direction they have chosen to take the game. The combat is smoother, faster and looks nicer to me. I feel like the core elements of the game are there just upgraded. You can argue its done for money because its a business they want to sell X amount of copies and if making the game a bit more fast pace and flashier helps them they will do it. 

Modifié par SgtPatches, 07 mars 2011 - 03:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

Why not? Let's take the example of a great game that I've played recently: Batman Arkham Asylum and its sneaking sections. The game starts at a pretty easy level. You learn how to take out henchmen, how to hide, how to get away if you get spotted, etc.

And then the game starts giving you new options and/or imposing restrictions. Don't get seen or the hostages die, the gargoyles that were almost like a "get out of Jail free" card and helped you so much when you were starting out are now booby trapped, the bad guys start using collars that set off an alarm when you knock them out, etc.

And on the other hand, you get new tricks. You get a batclaw to pull people off ledges, you get explosive gel to set up traps, you get a batarang that simulates the sound of colar alarm and this set new ways to go about your business. You and I might have the same gear, but I'll probably use tactics that you won't. Like setting explosive gel by some stairs, so the fall automatically takes out a henchman. When I talk to my friends about the game, we all learn something completely different from each other's experiences.

That wasn't my understanding of your position.  That sounds good.

However...

I personally prefer the game to give me a reason to use my resources, so I don't have to tie my hands behind my back to have a challenge.

...I'd still like the game to give me a reason not to use my resources.  That's what I think a strategic requirement adds.

You're luckier than I am, I honestly can't think of one fight where I had to change my "tactics", and I've played Awakening and all the DLC to boot.

I didn't use a tank.  Surprisingly, that only mattered a few times during the game.  And the Broodmother only called for tactics because of its absurd vulnerability to ranged attacks.

Well, that's an interessting bit of trivia. 

Still, they made a game out of an extremely popular and lucrative licence with a fully staffed company, I'd hardly consider that "indie".

Granted, though I'm not sure the "fully-staffed" description really applies.  That BG team was assembled in a pretty ad hoc manner, as I recall.

They were indie in that they were independent, and tended to develop games prior to finding publishers for them.  Certainly DAO, and I think Jade Empire, were developed prior to finding publishers.

Have you ever played the first Deus Ex?

No.  Shooter.  Though I've heard nothing but good things about it.

Before ME, the last time I played a shooter RPG was, I think, System Shock 2.

And in the end, maybe you can actually turn the tables on those people. After all, Calo Nord was able to kill you without even breaking a sweat when you first met him in that Cantina, but that just made killing him later all the sweeter, right?

There's just so much good in KotOR.

[Yrkoon]

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

That video tells us exactly nothing....

  Lets see. 

Bonus  content/items for pre-orders?  Ugh!  
Online  marketing?  Ew!  
Different types of Romances?  Fail! 
Responsive controls in combat?    Nooo! Anything but that!

Yes.  Horrible.   I grieve for the state of gaming today.  lol

[Tenshot]

I say if you want old school RPG then go play pen and paper D&D. I think Bioware is doing just fine, March 8th cant come soon enough!

[Aurgelmir]

Yrkoon wrote...

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

That video tells us exactly nothing....

So I take it you can't remember when games used to be something other than a marketing tool, aimed at the lowest common denominator with a wallet.

[Det_Nosnip]

Everyone has their opinions about what RPGs "should be," but the truth is that the only real answer of what they are is "just about anything."

While I agree that an open world is preferable, sometimes games that focus too much on that can get...well, dull (the old Baldur's Gate series struck the perfect balance for me, but I could never get into the Elder Scrolls series TBH). That's never been Bioware's thing...if people want open worlds, wait for Skyrim. Bioware's focus has always been about storytelling, which is why they're my favorite game company - I like the fact that their games make you feel like you're a part of something important and that your actions are relevant. As far as the combat goes, I actually greatly prefer it because it's, despite the comically outlandish moves your character can pull off, much more realistic than "classic RPGs." Real combat is brutal, quick, and deadly, and because Bioware made their combat system that way, I feel the experience is much more immersive.

This video sums up the appeal of the game MUCH better. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing.

[JemyM]

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

I found that to be hillarious... I was actually sceptical when I heard the rumors but after watching this video, seeing that it was all true, I am a true believer.

It almost made me feel dirty for being a gamer.

[JemyM]

Responsive controls in combat?

"Where's the A-button"

vs

"*PAUSE* Hmmm... What in my arsenal do I have that can I can use to overcome this challenge?"

[Grunk]

Aurgelmir wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

That video tells us exactly nothing....

So I take it you can't remember when games used to be something other than a marketing tool, aimed at the lowest common denominator with a wallet.

How dare they take advantage of current trends to try to make money and change the game from something you like to something slightly different! Those money-grubbing, capitalist bastards! Luckily, you don't believe in games being made for money and are starting a company that gives out games for free. Or maybe you're working with the government to start a kind of welfare system for video games?

My point is that what you're saying is stupid. It's fine to dislike it, but all of this stuff that you're saying is hilariously dramatic. It's somewhat different and I guess you don't like DLC or pushing buttons. Sadly, DLC is the most direct revenue stream for developers, so I expect that to get pretty popular, and pushing buttons doesn't make a game less strategic, especially when an auto-attack option is included.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Det_Nosnip wrote...

Everyone has their opinions about what RPGs "should be," but the truth is that the only real answer of what they are is "just about anything."

While I agree that an open world is preferable, sometimes games that focus too much on that can get...well, dull (the old Baldur's Gate series struck the perfect balance for me, but I could never get into the Elder Scrolls series TBH). That's never been Bioware's thing...if people want open worlds, wait for Skyrim. Bioware's focus has always been about storytelling, which is why they're my favorite game company - I like the fact that their games make you feel like you're a part of something important and that your actions are relevant. As far as the combat goes, I actually greatly prefer it because it's, despite the comically outlandish moves your character can pull off, much more realistic than "classic RPGs." Real combat is brutal, quick, and deadly, and because Bioware made their combat system that way, I feel the experience is much more immersive.

This video sums up the appeal of the game MUCH better. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing.

I dont see how you can get that from the demo. There are just too many landing blows. Nobody can get out of the way and everyone has a boat load of hp especially the 2nd oger. 

This to me is an example of quick brutal deadly combat

The TB version Without the ability to dodge the hero would have no chance. He kills two of three foes with one hit. 



The action version
A few shanks with that knife is all it takes to kill Ryu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGiX2cw8Nvo&feature=related



real time pause
Darts can kill in seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9zJrKPMXjY

[The Greye Hawke]

JemyM wrote...

Responsive controls in combat?

"Where's the A-button"

vs

"*PAUSE* Hmmm... What in my arsenal do I have that can I can use to overcome this challenge?"

Its more like this.

"Where's the A-button?"     OR        *PAUSE* Hmmm... What in my arsenal do I have that can I can use to overcome this challenge?"

Both playstyles are there.

[Graunt]

ManiacalEvil wrote...

Graunt wrote...

ManiacalEvil wrote...

I currently have 4 Gigs of RAM, a GTX560 and a i5 2500k and it costed me around 750$, keeping my HDD, optical drive and case. This is an update to a 5 years old build I built for around the same cost and that lasted me 5 years. It would have lasted more, had the mmotherboard not died from elecrical surges, which can also happen to a console.

Ok, congrats on keeping a five year old HD?  It's not like a 1TB costs more than $99 anyway.  I'm not sure what your point is either, because you aren't even comparing a new system to a new system.  

My graphics card was $375 when it first hit, the processor $250, the motherboard $200, the case $100, the 8gb ram $200 (and before anyone makes any comment, RAM prices fluctuate quite a bit, especially when you're not going for bargain bin high latency), , monitor was $300, heatsink/fan $50, Hard Drives were $200, DVD rewriter was $80. Power supply was $130. That's not including Windows 7 either.  If you think that's "high end" it would help to do a little research.  Most of what I buy is overclocked too...which is why I'm NOT paying for the top of the line.

I don't know why people just throw away their HDDs, DVD writers and cases and then complain the computer costs too much. You don't throw your TV away when you buy a new console, do you? For your informatio my 320GB disk is still doing quite well. If I want I can buy a 25$ 320 GB disk and put them in RAID0, getting speed and more than enough space (for me at least, YMMV). And exactly why do you need to pay for windows 7 if you have XP? For DirectX11, which is  used in a total of what? 11 games?

I don't throw away some of the salvagable peripherals like a floppy or DVD drive, but I also just keep them in the previous computer as a backup. (This is why USB drives are so good)  There's no sense in keeping an older HD either aside for emergency purposes simply because you can get one that's not only larger, but it's faster and they are also usually dirt cheap (unless you're going the SSD route).  A HD is about as reliable as an LCD monitor too...they simply aren't built to last, especially if they are used every day for at least a few hours at a time.

I'm also not going to gut a prevous PC for it's case and have all of the components lying around in a box.  I also sometimes give away PCs to friends that do not have one for a specific purpose.

The problem here is that you're basing how good a computer is by how
"up to date" the parts are. That's a largely meaningless meter--all
that matters is whether you can run your games at max settings without
stuttering or a poor framerate. I can. Good job owning an up to date
computer when a cheaper one can do the job just as well? By all means,
spend more money to get that bleeding edge computer, but please stop
trying to tell people that they have to do the same. The truth is you
just don't need an up to date computer.

Hey, guess what?  A three year old computer is not going to be able to run a current game at max settings, unless the game was purposely made with low end machines in mind (see: any Blizzard game) or the PC was overkill when it was built three years prior.  I also like how you completely sidestep the fact that I said up to date as in when the technology came out and that I could probably get the same system I built at the end of 2009 today for around $500 less.  

The fact is the computer I had prior to Origins would not run Origins without framerate issues all over the place, nor would it have been able to handle the texture pack upgrades.  But hey, apparently I don't know what I'm talking about, and my new system wasn't needed and I should have just kept the old one and waited a year to play a year old game!  For reference, the card I had previously was an 8800 GTS (640mb).  Look it up if you don't know what the release date was.

Modifié par Graunt, 07 mars 2011 - 06:39 .

[JemyM]

Real combat is brutal, quick, and deadly, and because Bioware made their combat system that way, I feel the experience is much more immersive.

Many designers and gamemasters are corrupted with the "it's reality" fallacy, because it's usually just a replacement for "personal opinion".

Since emulating reality is impossible you end up with a construct that is limited by the programmers imagination and time, a long with hardware limitations. After following that line of thought for awhile they usually end up in a trainwreck and learn that a game is a game, not reality.

When a designer design a game rather than trying to simulate reality, the design is very different. When creating an RPG one thing to realize is that there's no magic food, people enjoy different things and there are different things that draw them to the game. Emulating combat in real time might not be interesting to some gamers at all. In fact, considering the amount of games on the market that offers precisely that as well as plenty of other hobbies that offers precisely that, it might actually be an advantage to focus on different kinds of content.

Following your point of view you might have a problem with the fact that people still play chess. Real combat is brutal, quick and deadly... so how can that explain the movement of a peasent? It can't. Chess isn't meant to simulate reality, it's a game that provides a gamer with certain rules and challenges that gamer find intruiging enough to play. So before you decide to design battle-chess, the fast-and-furious chess with immersive controls and brutal, quick and deadly movements, perhaps you should take a step back and ponder why a chess player play chess rather than join the army or become a boxer.

Perhaps you can then consider, why a player might prefer to play a game such as DA:O, Command & Conquerer or Civilization rather than DOOM, Call of Duty or God of War.

I happen to be a player who play a lot of different genrés. Every once in awhile I enjoy a good shooter. But after playing such games for awhile, I also like to lean back in the comfy chair to engage in some tactical and strategical games that instead of brutal, quick and deadly movements offer me a toolbox and challenges that need a good plan to beat.

Modifié par JemyM, 07 mars 2011 - 06:24 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SaviorPilate wrote...
The company that helped pioneer CRPGs is dead, and has been for years. 

If you mean Origin Systems, I agree with you.

Actually, I'm pretty certain he meant Sir-Tech.

I guess he didn't mention EA specifically.  Good point.

I didn't realise it had been so long since Sir-Tech died.

Sir-Tech has only been gone for 8 years, technically (10 years since they last put out a game.)  Still, they're my favorite old school developer/publisher, and I never pass on a chance to bring them up.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...
Why not? Let's take the example of a great game that I've played recently: Batman Arkham Asylum and its sneaking sections. The game starts at a pretty easy level. You learn how to take out henchmen, how to hide, how to get away if you get spotted, etc.

And then the game starts giving you new options and/or imposing restrictions. Don't get seen or the hostages die, the gargoyles that were almost like a "get out of Jail free" card and helped you so much when you were starting
out are now booby trapped, the bad guys start using collars that set off an alarm when you knock them out, etc.

And on the other hand, you get new tricks. You get a batclaw to pull people off ledges, you get explosive gel to set up traps, you get a batarang that simulates the sound of colar alarm and this set new ways to go about your business.
You and I might have the same gear, but I'll probably use tactics that  you won't. Like setting explosive gel by some stairs, so the fall automatically takes out a henchman. When I talk to my friends about the game, we all learn something completely different from each other's experiences.

That wasn't my understanding of your position.  That sounds good.

The bad thing about it was that you never needed to use any of those.  My biggest complaint about Arkham Asylum was that the encounter (and particularly the boss) design was so repetitive and uninteresting.  Every boss fight except 1 (Poison Ivy) was essentially the same, and the one different one only really added one minor element.

My point being that sure, it's nice to have all these options, but it's important that you actually need to use those options at some point.  Options are kind of pointless if you can just ignore them and brute force your way through every fight.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 07 mars 2011 - 06:43 .