184 réponses à ce sujet

[skylr616]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Taking away choice for no benefit is absolutely always a bad thing.  There's no reason why those armour upgrade pieces in DA2 need to be companion-specific, but they are.  That's just bad design.

Who says there was no benefit? As stated here and in a variety of other threads... raw data mining from DAO indicated a huge portion of the customer base was overwhelmed early on and didn't give DAO a chance as a result... they reduced complexity a bit and in return they produced a game that (based on early numbers, at least) will be an even bigger success than DAO. (in this case I am talking "financial" success... lol)

I have a hard time calling that anything but good design. *shrug*

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 09:10 .

[moilami]

Sidney wrote...

moilami wrote...

They should be able to be dressed up. Pros get their hands on better gear. Now they use the same gear all the time except swap some jewelry.

Again, do you have issues with FO:NV not allowing you to swap guns on NPC's? Is it wrong NPC's won't just wear any armor you toss at them - dear god they have a will of their own and aren't just your thrall? Do the people who play NV not understand what an RPG is?

Haven't played FO:NV.

Dude, I play RPGs like I read books (except I have an active role in games) and observe how the world changes between series. So I read Two Towers before Return of the King. I play Fallout I before FO:NV.

My Fallout series playthrough is in Fallout I, and in Fallout big immersion breaker was that I could not make NPCs wear armour I found. They used crap armour even though I had better for them. It made no sense.

[Lord_Saulot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

skylr616 wrote...

In most RPG you outfit your character and NPC (non player characters) get to make their own decisions... many Bioware games have deviated from this as they incorporate some RTS elements (control over dozens of characters, tactical RTS views).

The changes in DA2 really seem like a shift away from RTS towards more traditional RPG.

You've just invented the defintion that excludes party-based RPGs out of whole cloth.  DAO followed not only from games like BG, but also Wizardry, Might & Magic, Ultima, Bard's Tale, and the Gold Box games that gave the player control of an entire party.

That's what party-based RPGs do.  You can't just declare that they don't exist.

I would add that having grown up playing party-based Japanese RPGs on consoles, those games generally let you outfit and control your party members too.

[moilami]

skylr616 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Taking away choice for no benefit is absolutely always a bad thing.  There's no reason why those armour upgrade pieces in DA2 need to be companion-specific, but they are.  That's just bad design.

Who says there was no benefit? As stated here and in a variety of other threads... raw data mining from DAO indicated a huge portion of the customer base was overwhelmed early on and didn't give DAO a chance as a result... they reduced complexity a bit and in return they produced a game that (based on early numbers, at least) will be an even bigger success than DAO.

I have a hard time calling that anything but good design. *shrug*

That is because you fail to understand the difference between commercial success and quality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

Who says there was no benefit? As stated here and in a variety of other threads... raw data mining from DAO indicated a huge portion of the customer base was overwhelmed early on and didn't give DAO a chance as a result... they reduced complexity a bit and in return they produced a game that (based on early numbers, at least) will be an even bigger success than DAO.

Even the developers said their goal wasn't the reduce complexity, but not to overwhelm players with that complexity right at the start.

They could have eased players into it by not giving them any gear to use for the first 5 hours of the game.  Removing complexity was never something they said they wanted to do.  They just wanted to make the game more accessible.  One doesn't require the other.

[skylr616]

moilami wrote...

skylr616 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Taking away choice for no benefit is absolutely always a bad thing.  There's no reason why those armour upgrade pieces in DA2 need to be companion-specific, but they are.  That's just bad design.

Who says there was no benefit? As stated here and in a variety of other threads... raw data mining from DAO indicated a huge portion of the customer base was overwhelmed early on and didn't give DAO a chance as a result... they reduced complexity a bit and in return they produced a game that (based on early numbers, at least) will be an even bigger success than DAO.

I have a hard time calling that anything but good design. *shrug*

That is because you fail to understand the difference between commercial success and quality.

The difference is a bit moot when one of those results in a company that continues to produce product and one that doesn't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

I would add that having grown up playing party-based Japanese RPGs on consoles, those games generally let you outfit and control your party members too.

Thanks.  That's another data point.

I don't know anything about JPRGs (I tried FF7 when I was about 22, but I hated it and haven't tried another one since) so I can't speak to them.

[skylr616]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

skylr616 wrote...

Who says there was no benefit? As stated here and in a variety of other threads... raw data mining from DAO indicated a huge portion of the customer base was overwhelmed early on and didn't give DAO a chance as a result... they reduced complexity a bit and in return they produced a game that (based on early numbers, at least) will be an even bigger success than DAO.

Even the developers said their goal wasn't the reduce complexity, but not to overwhelm players with that complexity right at the start.

They could have eased players into it by not giving them any gear to use for the first 5 hours of the game.  Removing complexity was never something they said they wanted to do.  They just wanted to make the game more accessible.  One doesn't require the other.

"removing complexity" or "refining game elements"... all a matter of perspective ;P

[Sidney]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

There was no "move to junk" option on my PC version, so no, that has nothing to do with it.

Also, it is not relevant whether you think that putting the Legion of the Dead armor on someone was intellectual.  Having the ability to put any helmet on a character, and the ability to choose any of their other armor pieces is inherently more complex than not being able to change anything other than pursuing a linear upgrade path.  More variables is greater complexity.  That is just what the word means.  Of course, runes were in both games, so they don't really affect complexity either way.

But other ways the inventory was simplified?  In Origins, every item had a description to be read.  This was eliminated.  In Origins, all the random rings and amulets you refer to had specific names.  In Origins, every item had an image; in DA, all the images are generic.  In DA2, there isn't even a menu to view your quest items.  I have no way of knowing, for example, how many qunari swords are in my inventory at a given time.

If you like these changes, that is fine, but please don't act like anyone is unjustified in saying the inventory was simplified.

No move to junk option? PC people got screwed on that. What a waste of time given the volume of vendor trash.

Runes weren't in both games, not for armor, not until DAA so you are wrong there. You can play mix n' match with items but since the game rewards you for not doing so (set bonuses) and since the items in sets are better than any standalones you are making a distinction w/o a difference. You are celebrating complexity w/o purpose - but again that also is a running theme.

I'm not sure that item description/pictures fall under "inventory" is simplified. You might argue that lore has been toned down but that isn't any part of inventory control. BG2 didn't have item description for most generic +1 weapons but I wouldn't say that made the inventory system lesser in anyway.

 There are plenty of real problems - Act III appears to be a raftload of bugs for example - but by focusing on what are at best minor isssue and often not even real issues you take away from meaningful criticism of the game - but most of the critiicms of the game is full of epci levels of meaninglessness.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

"removing complexity" or "refining game elements"... all a matter of perspective ;P

You're the one who said "reduced complexity".  You can't throw that back at me like it was something I came up with.

And no, reducing complexity is not a mater of perspective.  Complexity is a measurable quality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Runes weren't in both games, not for armor, not until DAA so you are wrong there. You can play mix n' match with items but since the game rewards you for not doing so (set bonuses) and since the items in sets are better than any standalones you are making a distinction w/o a difference. You are celebrating complexity w/o purpose - but again that also is a running theme.

Only if you assume that combat effectiveness is the only relevant criterion.

That's not necessarily true.

[skylr616]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

skylr616 wrote...

"removing complexity" or "refining game elements"... all a matter of perspective ;P

You're the one who said "reduced complexity".  You can't throw that back at me like it was something I came up with.

And no, reducing complexity is not a mater of perspective.  Complexity is a measurable quality.

I was only using it so folks woldn't get confused regarding what I was talking about... just stressing a point, not making a jab at you personally.

Degree of complexity is a matter of perspective though... to some DA2 is still too complex and DAO is beyond reason. They are no more wrong than you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

Degree of complexity is a matter of perspective though... to some DA2 is still too complex and DAO is beyond reason. They are no more wrong than you.

What are you talking about?  Even for those people DA2 is less complex in the ways you describe.  That it's still too complex doesn't change that it's less complex than DAO.

That's what relative measures are.  They're relative.

That one game is more complex doesn't tell us that it's too complex, or that it's complex enough.  It tells us only that the game is more complex.  That's all the information that's there.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 mars 2011 - 09:20 .

[Lord_Saulot]

@Sidney: You are correct about armor runes - I was thinking of Awakening and I concede my mistake. However, set bonuses were not always better than individual items in all circumstances, and in an RPG, player choice is usually not considered an invalid purpose. In any case, you still get tons of armor dumped on you in DA2 - the only difference is that not only won't you use the bulk of it, but you can't even give it to companions.

As for item descriptions and images, we will have to disagree. But, I have to take issue with your final paragraph. Just because you consider an issue minor or meaningless does not mean that others have to rate it the same way. The elements of game that impact people's enjoyment are different for different players, and for some of us, the inventory experience is a substantial element of gameplay.

[moilami]

skylr616 wrote...

moilami wrote...

skylr616 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Taking away choice for no benefit is absolutely always a bad thing.  There's no reason why those armour upgrade pieces in DA2 need to be companion-specific, but they are.  That's just bad design.

Who says there was no benefit? As stated here and in a variety of other threads... raw data mining from DAO indicated a huge portion of the customer base was overwhelmed early on and didn't give DAO a chance as a result... they reduced complexity a bit and in return they produced a game that (based on early numbers, at least) will be an even bigger success than DAO.

I have a hard time calling that anything but good design. *shrug*

That is because you fail to understand the difference between commercial success and quality.

The difference is a bit moot when one of those results in a company that continues to produce product and one that doesn't.

Maybe for you. But I am not a fanboy. I am a cherry picker. If a company stops making quality products I stop buying their products. So a company who begins to produce subpar products ceases to exist in practise in my world.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Only if you assume that combat effectiveness is the only relevant criterion.

That's not necessarily true.

Aesthetics? Really? That's not really an issue of complexity then either.

[skylr616]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

skylr616 wrote...

Degree of complexity is a matter of perspective though... to some DA2 is still too complex and DAO is beyond reason. They are no more wrong than you.

What are you talking about?  Even for those people DA2 is less complex in the ways you describe.  That it's still too complex doesn't change that it's less complex than DAO.

That's what relative measures are.  They're relative.

That one game is more complex doesn't tell us that it's too complex, or that it's complex enough.  It tells us only that the game is more complex.  That's all the information that's there.

You miss the point. You are trying to state that it is never ok to reduce complexity (like in the case of taking away the ability to equip armor on NPC). I am stating that is clearly not true. Reducing complexity (taking away options, in this case) will improve the enjoyment of the game for a large number of players (as is clearly the case by the number of positive reviews from folks that didn't like DAO).

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 09:25 .

[Captain_Obvious]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Complexity is a measurable quality.

Complexity is a property of something, and has nothing to do with whether that something is of high quality.  For example, the RPG FATAL was/is quite complex.  I read through part of the core manual, even though it made my eyes bleed, and I can confirm this.  It does not follow that it was a quality RPG simply because it was observably complex.   Some might even say unecessarily complex. 


EDIT: I think I misread your above post.  If so, my bad. 

Modifié par Captain_Obvious, 18 mars 2011 - 09:26 .

[skylr616]

moilami wrote...


Maybe for you. But I am not a fanboy. I am a cherry picker. If a company stops making quality products I stop buying their products. So a company who begins to produce subpar products ceases to exist in practise in my world.

I guess if I am a fanboy that makes you a megalomaniac(game makers should bend to your will eh, otherwise they don't exist?).

[moilami]

skylr616 wrote...

moilami wrote...


Maybe for you. But I am not a fanboy. I am a cherry picker. If a company stops making quality products I stop buying their products. So a company who begins to produce subpar products ceases to exist in practise in my world.

I guess if I am a fanboy that makes you a megalomaniac(game makers should bend to your will eh, otherwise they don't exist?).

Lol, I support freedom. I extend that naturally to corporations. I don't try to force game makers to bend on my will. But if they begin to produce subpar products I lose my interest on their products, which effectively means they cease to exist in my world.

I see gaming companies no different to movie companies or book authors. It would be creativity killer to begin to say what kind of movies, games, and books should be made. I just buy something I get as a good bargain or think is very much worth to pay premium. After that I discuss the product, if I want.


Edit: It is You who try to bend creative companies on Your will. I have seen many examples of it here. The most outrageous being campaign against big boobs.

So actually I should had replied to you just by saying "no u".

Modifié par moilami, 18 mars 2011 - 09:36 .

[skylr616]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Complexity is a property of something, and has nothing to do with whether that something is of high quality.  For example, the RPG FATAL was/is quite complex.  I read through part of the core manual, even though it made my eyes bleed, and I can confirm this.  It does not follow that it was a quality RPG simply because it was observably complex.   Some might even say unecessarily complex. 
 

^<this is more what I mean... getting caught up on some finer points that don't really matter.

There is no arguing with the fact that the equipment and NPC customization has been somewhat simplified in DA2 when compaired to DAO... whether that is good or bad is the part that is entirely subjective.

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[Lord_Saulot]

skylr616 wrote...

There is no arguing with the fact that the equipment and NPC customization has been somewhat simplified in DA2 when compaired to DAO... whether that is good or bad is the bit that I find subjective.

That is a fair statement, in my opinion.

[Chadthesad]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Chadthesad wrote...

This is the way action rpg's work. It would not be much fun, if your opponent's could do everything you could do.

This used to be how RPGs were designed.  I think it's the only way to design a truly good RPG.

Your heroes would not be able to stand toe to toe.

The fight qould be equal.  My characters would be as capable as their enemies.

Staggered enemies can easily be struck with five to eight hundred plus damage in the mid tier levels.  Ultimately based on the contribution of constitution to your characters overall health, you would be one shotted quite frequently.

Are Lieutenant-rank enemies one-shotted quite frequently?  Because that's roughly equivalent to the PC and his companions.

If the enemies had roughly equvalent HP levels to the PC, then there would be no need to have anyone do 800 damage at a time.  You're not even trying to see how interconnected all these feeatures are. 

Do you wish to play a video game under those circumstances? I surely do not.

Baldur's Gate.  Everyone in the game followed the same rules.  It was brilliant.

Yes, if you use the correct cross class combo's you can actually one shot Lieutentant ranked enemies on Hard difficulty. After level 12 you'll be able to. Critical chance/damage also becomes a factor. I haven't been able to replicate such in Nightmare mode though.

Baldur's Gate is a great game, do not get me wrong, but it follows the D&D system. There's no wiggle room in that system for not allowing enemies to follow your characters same abilities, statistics and spells. Seeing how DA II & Origins are not traditional cRPG's with a d20 system, they can't allow npcs/mobs equal ground to the heroes. Bioware gave the NPC's enough punch to challenge the player, without causing them frustation. The Nightmare fights are not a picnic, nor were the Icewind Dale's/Baldur's Gates. Insane mode in those games caused monsters to do double the damage. You had to as a player challenge yourself and construct a balanced group.

Anyway, I can understand your points of view. The direction mainstream cRPG's are going, d20 based games are a relic. However, games like Drakensang give a reformed approach, The Dark Eye pnp system is a nice alternative to the D&D system.

[Sidney]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

@Sidney: You are correct about armor runes - I was thinking of Awakening and I concede my mistake. However, set bonuses were not always better than individual items in all circumstances, and in an RPG, player choice is usually not considered an invalid purpose. In any case, you still get tons of armor dumped on you in DA2 - the only difference is that not only won't you use the bulk of it, but you can't even give it to companions.

As for item descriptions and images, we will have to disagree. But, I have to take issue with your final paragraph. Just because you consider an issue minor or meaningless does not mean that others have to rate it the same way. The elements of game that impact people's enjoyment are different for different players, and for some of us, the inventory experience is a substantial element of gameplay.

Choice isn't invalid but it is part of a panoply of options. Choice about armor set against visual style, ease of recognitrion on the battlefield and immersion all weight against what is really not a terribly useful game mechanic not to mention one that, especially in DAO, is silly since armor is generic and not even race specific - I can swap LoD armor from Sten to Oghren w/ no issues. Other than you being able to choose for the sake of choice there's not much gain for a player in doing so. As for the tons of stuff, I hate the mony haul aspects of all the Bioware games because there's just way, way too much good stuff floating about in most of their games.

I get that people like the inventory and lore stuff. Some of us hate it with a passion. I'd rather play a 1920's RPG with no magic items and only a .45 pistol rather than having to loot and play mix n' match with dress up game play and vendor trash. That's my preference but dear god as much as I hate the broken worthless inventory system of BG2, DAO and ME1 those weren't crushing OMG they're ruined RPG's issues either. Why does it seem like the RPG's "hardcore" are the gaming equivilent of the Southern Baptists where any slight deviation from the same old, same old is a damnation type issue and not mere;y one of a variety of types of gameplay?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Aesthetics? Really? That's not really an issue of complexity then either.

Stop thinking like a player.  Start making in-character decisions about armour and see where that takes you.