208 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Nimpe wrote...

It's a videogame.

Yes it is.  And sometimes, a videogame is so immersive, that you forget that you are playing a videogame, and you are simply the character in the world.  Similar to reading an excellent book.  When something sad happens, you feel sad - you don't just look blankly at the screen and think "Well that person that meant everything to my character just died.  Oh well.  Moving onto the next combat!"

I appreciate that everybody gets different things out of games.  For me, the main two things that make games enjoyable are immersion and intelligent difficulty.  DA2 doesn't really have either.  I never really cared in any of the more emotional parts of the game, and was constantly pulled out of the world by the things I've listed above.  I won't go into the 'intelligent difficulty' thing here though.

At any rate, I'm sure there are plenty of players out there who don't care about immersion - in which case, Dragon Age 2 is probably a more enjoyable experience for them than I find it to be.  That's fine - but not really the point of this topic.

I'm simply asking, were you immersed in the game or not?  By your response, I take it that you were not immersed in the game at any point, and aren't really bothered by that fact.

I found it completely non-immersive, and like you, I have to wonder if that was intentional. I can't imagine whay they'd want to do that, but there were so many things that worked against it, I have to wonder. Unrealistic battles and combat style, third person camera views in conversation, shallow and unrealistically timed personal interactions, limited and out of the moment conversation, the dialogue wheel and everything that it caused, and a host of other things.... It was exactly as you say--just a video game. In Origins, I felt like I was dropped into a real world, and that people and situations were important on a personal level. I never felt that in DA2.

[Boiny Bunny]

Roxlimn wrote...

Frankly, I don't get the attraction to bypassing encounters by using up character build points.  Do they make you feel smart or something?

Nobody cares if you don't get the attraction to doing this.  Bioware games have included these options for years, and there are many people out there that enjoy these options.

Secondly, the concept of using character build points to allow specifically built PCs to access content or bypass challenges is BAD GAME DESIGN.  The reason DA2 doesn't incorporate these aspects is because it's a better game.

You appear to be passing your personal opinions off as facts.  Kindly stop doing so.

The concept of using character build points to allow specifically built PCs to access content or bypass challenges is flexible - it allows the player to enjoy the game in the way that they want to.  A player interested in building an incredibly powerful warrior with no social skills can - and a player interested in building an alternative type of character can do so.

If you personally are not interested in playing a charismatic rogue that can get out of a good deal of combat scenarios, then that's fine - don't play that character.  To simply exclaim that something you personally don't like is bad game design,  makes you sound like a fool.

Have you ever played Deus Ex (the first one)?  There's a game where you have a (relatively speaking) incredible amount of flexibility in the way you build your character.  You can be a combat machine, you can play the game in a stealthy manner, you can be an expert computer hacker and get by most of the game using those skills, or a master manipulator.  Even somebody who specialises in none of these but simply likes exploring is heavily rewarded.  The game is flexible, it allows many kinds of players to go through in the way they like.  It is possible to go through Deus Ex and kill nobody except certain boss enemies (even those are debatably avoidable) - this is deliberate too, not just an accident of the way you can place your stats.

[Roxlimn]

Boiny Bunny:

Nobody cares if you don't get the attraction to doing this. Bioware games have included these options for years, and there are many people out there that enjoy these options.

What's the payoff? What's the difference between siphoning off skill points to have lockpicking and just having lockpicking from increasing Cunninng?

That is a totally valid question. "I just like it, no reason," is not an answer to that question, but I don't say that you can't say that.

You appear to be passing your personal opinions off as facts. Kindly stop doing so.

The concept of using character build points to allow specifically built PCs to access content or bypass challenges is flexible - it allows the player to enjoy the game in the way that they want to. A player interested in building an incredibly powerful warrior with no social skills can - and a player interested in building an alternative type of character can do so.

If you personally are not interested in playing a charismatic rogue that can get out of a good deal of combat scenarios, then that's fine - don't play that character. To simply exclaim that something you personally don't like is bad game design, makes you sound like a fool.

Tell that to the designers of 4e D&D. Strong segregation between combat and noncombat spheres was one of the cornerstones of that design. I guess those professionals are fools, too. Good thing you informed us. I'll just go ahead and tell them.

Have you ever played Deus Ex (the first one)? There's a game where you have a (relatively speaking) incredible amount of flexibility in the way you build your character. You can be a combat machine, you can play the game in a stealthy manner, you can be an expert computer hacker and get by most of the game using those skills, or a master manipulator. Even somebody who specialises in none of these but simply likes exploring is heavily rewarded. The game is flexible, it allows many kinds of players to go through in the way they like. It is possible to go through Deus Ex and kill nobody except certain boss enemies (even those are debatably avoidable) - this is deliberate too, not just an accident of the way you can place your stats.

That's a different game design. For one thing, it's first person. For another, it's a single player action game.

Allowing players to shift skill points from combat to noncombat skills completely messes up leveling estimates for encounters, unless you just make all encounters basically the same, which kind of obviates leveling itself.

[Vaern Sul]

I myself thought that DA2 wanted to be immersive, but failed to actually be so. And when you think about it, failing to be immersive is a rather big failure for a RPG.

Consider this : I game genres such as STR, immersion is, in almost every cases, utterly irrelevant. In fact, it's totally irrelevant in every competitive multiplayer (the famous "e-sport").

In most singleplayer games on the market, like fps, hack'n'slash, city builders and whatnot, it's a nice plus, hardly anything more.

Now, in simulation games, however, immersion is a decisive factor in the experience. It's common sense, a flight simulator will be more enjoyable if you actually feel like you're on an actual plane.

And in that regard, I believe rpgs are very similar. You're supposed "be one" with the character you play. What's the point of having companions, choices and consquences when you can't relate to your character and his/her surroundings ? I could go on, but I think you get my point.

That, in my opinion, is the major letdown in DA2. the airborne waves, the Pointless Deaths of The Unknown Sibling ("o hai, i'm ur bro/sis aparently, o look, an oger" *squish*), the Empty Crowded City of Chains... In fact, it wasn't the sum of all these who made the game feel hollow for me, but the overall ambience, or lack thereof, during the whole game.

[Roxlimn]

I have never been one with any character I've played in any cRPG. This is because cRPG characters are generally prescripted - not made by me from scratch. I'd never feel the same kinship as I do with PnP characters.

Yes, I know I could pick from a variety of options in DA:O.  They were still all prescripted.  Why can't I play a non Noble Fighter?

Modifié par Roxlimn, 16 avril 2011 - 05:32 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Roxlimn wrote...

neppakyo:

Don't know about feel. I've played a lot of maps in my time and very few of them are as big as Kirkwall because you don't want players getting spaced too far apart (I've designed some MP maps myself). If it takes an FPS more than a minute to sprint headlong from one part of the map to the nearest opposite border, it's too big.

Size in game design is actually something most gamers do not understand very well, even when they flatter themselves into thinking that they do. You do NOT want a largely featureless Kirkwall where you spend 15 minutes to get from any place of interest to any other place of interest, just because it's that big.

How many elves do you believe can actually live in the alienage in Kirkwall? 

Just the one neighborhood, the alienage in Denerim in DA:O, feels larger than Lowtown, Darktown, The Gallows, and The Docks combined in DA2, and that original alienage actually feels like it could hold a lot of elves.  It has corners, allies, shacks, buildings, passages, etc.   

The "zones" of Kirkwall feel symbolic of large areas -- not like large areas. 

[Roxlimn]

That's kind of actually the point. One of the failures of DA:O design is that you're just running through maps a lot of the time. I remember getting massively annoyed at having to run through the Hall of Ancestors just to get to Orzammar merchants.

Map size in games shouldn't be based on what's plausible, but on what works for the game. Otherwise, we'd have games where it takes you half a real day to cross from the city border to the high courts of a major metropolis.

[Agamo45]

I have to agree that DA2 is rather shallow when compared to DA:O or ME. I enjoyed the game, but only by turning my brain off. I also ran into several story-breaking glitches. Overall a poor effort, it seems Bioware cut corners wherever they could. EA's scent is all over it.

[TJSolo]

Roxlimn wrote...

That's kind of actually the point. One of the failures of DA:O design is that you're just running through maps a lot of the time. I remember getting massively annoyed at having to run through the Hall of Ancestors just to get to Orzammar merchants.

Map size in games shouldn't be based on what's plausible, but on what works for the game. Otherwise, we'd have games where it takes you half a real day to cross from the city border to the high courts of a major metropolis.

That sounds like fun.

[Mecher3k]

Roxlimn wrote...

 I remember getting massively annoyed at having to run through the Hall of Ancestors just to get to Orzammar merchants.

Right.... You only have to go through the hall ONCE if you know how to use the map.

The more I read from you, the more I wonder if you are purposely trolling.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Roxlimn wrote...

That's kind of actually the point. One of the failures of DA:O design is that you're just running through maps a lot of the time. I remember getting massively annoyed at having to run through the Hall of Ancestors just to get to Orzammar merchants.

Map size in games shouldn't be based on what's plausible, but on what works for the game. Otherwise, we'd have games where it takes you half a real day to cross from the city border to the high courts of a major metropolis.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the map sizes in DA:O.  Moving through map areas doesn't bother me.

Load screens bother me.  I don't mind running from Dusttown to the Diamond Quarter.  I mind the two load screens along the way.


I want the game world, including the maps, to feel alive and plausible, including the maps.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 16 avril 2011 - 06:40 .

[Supreez]

Running around a lot is totally fine for me as well, although world depth and aesthetics have to give me a reason to do it. And this should really be player choice. If he wants to truck his but around a massive world cuz he feels excessively immersed in it and has a lot of time on his hands fine, but there should be a fast travel option for those that don't.

[Tirigon]

Regarding map size, i have t point at Oblivion:

Huge world, but if you didn´t want to walk all the way you could always use fast travel.

Those who prefer to walk through the world can do it, those who prefer a 10 sec loadingscreen over 10 min walking, can do that too.

Everyone wins.

[Roxlimn]

Killjoy Cutter:

I think you're just looking for a fundamentally different experience. What you want seems to be GTA: Thedas. I hate GTA, and not because of the crime content.

[Dragoonlordz]

Roxlimn wrote...

Killjoy Cutter:

I think you're just looking for a fundamentally different experience. What you want seems to be GTA: Thedas. I hate GTA, and not because of the crime content.

Don't use GTA if your going to use Rockstar at all use RDR. Otherwise use Bethesda as examples. There is nothing wrong with wanting bigger maps and more exploration. ME series understands this that is why ME3 is going with "25 Mar. - Mass Effect 3 to have 'big, big levels' says Mac Walters."

I feel DA3 should do the same. I much more enjoyed DAO style maps and areas than DA2 ones and thats not just because every other entire map in DA2 was the same as each other. Houses/Warehouses/Mansions and Caves (couple variations in entire game). Large maps add to atmosphere and exploration and people who view it the other way I cannot no matter how hard try, reduce the feeling that what is in question is their attention spans not the size of the map itself. That is just my opinion and is not stating a fact just a point of view. The Deep Roads in DA2 to me was nothing less than a joke, the main aspect of Act 1 is building up to that trip and in the end was tiny and felt insignificant to me when arrived and cleared it in a matter of 15-30 mins.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 avril 2011 - 04:30 .

[Roxlimn]

The average attention span of a human is about 15 to 30 minutes. After that, a lecturer should switch topics or activities for a bit to reset attention span.

I can concentrate on mnemonic activities (memorizing lists) for 3 or 4 hours continuously. My attention span is fine.

In general, I do not enjoy exploring maps in computer games because I have not seen maps that I actually like looking at all that much. If the game can provide me atmosphere through character models and text, I would prefer that to walking through a map for 15 minutes.

[upsettingshorts]

Immersion is 100% subjective. What enhances it for some, breaks it for others.

[Dragoonlordz]

Roxlimn wrote...

The average attention span of a human is about 15 to 30 minutes. After that, a lecturer should switch topics or activities for a bit to reset attention span.

I can concentrate on mnemonic activities (memorizing lists) for 3 or 4 hours continuously. My attention span is fine.

In general, I do not enjoy exploring maps in computer games because I have not seen maps that I actually like looking at all that much. If the game can provide me atmosphere through character models and text, I would prefer that to walking through a map for 15 minutes.

So I'm guessing you don't want to buy ME3? Because they are putting huge maps in that one. Though in reality your statement merely comes across as your awaiting a (map) or area you enjoy/love and wish to explore rather than hate large maps per se.

[Roxlimn]

I don't like moving through maps where I'm supposed to be admiring the artwork of second-string artists who didn't make it to be real architects and artists.

If I wanted to admire a building, I'd look at the work of a top tier talent.

I don't mind bigger maps in ME3 so long as those maps have interesting features beyond mediocre building and art design.

[Dragoonlordz]

Roxlimn wrote...

I don't like moving through maps where I'm supposed to be admiring the artwork of second-string artists who didn't make it to be real architects and artists.

If I wanted to admire a building, I'd look at the work of a top tier talent.

I don't mind bigger maps in ME3 so long as those maps have interesting features beyond mediocre building and art design.

Then your asking too much. In life as with games your never going to be in a place or viewpoint that is always the pinnacle of beauty and design. One way or another you will always have to walk through an empty corridor at some point to go from A to B. If your constantly running thorugh such areas until the time you do come across something more attractive then the only thing your going to get for it is tired.

[Redhot_1]

^Listen to this guy

Modifié par Redhot_1, 17 avril 2011 - 05:00 .

[Roxlimn]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
I don't like moving through maps where I'm supposed to be admiring the artwork of second-string artists who didn't make it to be real architects and artists.
If I wanted to admire a building, I'd look at the work of a top tier talent.
I don't mind bigger maps in ME3 so long as those maps have interesting features beyond mediocre building and art design.

Then your asking too much. In life as with games your never going to be in a place or viewpoint that is always the pinnacle of beauty and design. One way or another you will always have to walk through an empty corridor at some point to go from A to B. If your constantly running thorugh such areas until the time you do come across something more attractive then the only thing your going to get for it is tired.

I have to tolerate a commute in my everyday life.  I don't have to do it in a game.  I can choose not to play games where I have to commute to the scene of the action.  I have no problem with a 20 second or even a minute of some scene that I'm supposed to admire.  Fifteen minutes of trekking through desert or some hall I've seen 15 times is way too much.

[Dragoonlordz]

Roxlimn wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
I don't like moving through maps where I'm supposed to be admiring the artwork of second-string artists who didn't make it to be real architects and artists.
If I wanted to admire a building, I'd look at the work of a top tier talent.
I don't mind bigger maps in ME3 so long as those maps have interesting features beyond mediocre building and art design.

Then your asking too much. In life as with games your never going to be in a place or viewpoint that is always the pinnacle of beauty and design. One way or another you will always have to walk through an empty corridor at some point to go from A to B. If your constantly running thorugh such areas until the time you do come across something more attractive then the only thing your going to get for it is tired.

I have to tolerate a commute in my everyday life.  I don't have to do it in a game.  I can choose not to play games where I have to commute to the scene of the action.  I have no problem with a 20 second or even a minute of some scene that I'm supposed to admire.  Fifteen minutes of trekking through desert or some hall I've seen 15 times is way too much.

Unfortunately beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what you may find inspiring and beautiful, artistic or worthy of admiration is different to others. Should a game remove scenery because it's not worthy of your admiration therefore depriving others of it. Or would it be better rather you search for aspects in scenery and things of beauty within the larger wider enviroments and maps and depriving others of nothing. There is only one choice to me regarding those options and that is the latter not the former. The chance of finding something to admire and gaze upon that gives you some sense of delight is much bigger when the area and world you seek it is far greater in scope and scale. If your world is limited to the bubble of a garden the chance of finding something enjoyable is less then if that bubble is expanded to the scale and size of a town.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 avril 2011 - 05:27 .

[DocDoomII]

Roxlimn wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
I don't like moving through maps where I'm supposed to be admiring the artwork of second-string artists who didn't make it to be real architects and artists.
If I wanted to admire a building, I'd look at the work of a top tier talent.
I don't mind bigger maps in ME3 so long as those maps have interesting features beyond mediocre building and art design.

Then your asking too much. In life as with games your never going to be in a place or viewpoint that is always the pinnacle of beauty and design. One way or another you will always have to walk through an empty corridor at some point to go from A to B. If your constantly running thorugh such areas until the time you do come across something more attractive then the only thing your going to get for it is tired.

I have to tolerate a commute in my everyday life.  I don't have to do it in a game.  I can choose not to play games where I have to commute to the scene of the action.  I have no problem with a 20 second or even a minute of some scene that I'm supposed to admire.  Fifteen minutes of trekking through desert or some hall I've seen 15 times is way too much.

You can go back playing diablo 1 then... the city map is... what? 20 feet square?

[Roxlimn]

Dragoonlordz:

It's a game, not a real world. The chance of something remarkable actually being in the game is markedly increased if the developers were not forced to devote as much of their time to texturing 5 times the space for no real reason.

DocDoomII:

There's nothing wrong with Diablo.