136 réponses à ce sujet

[randName]

mrcrusty wrote...

I think that the 3 styles isn't a bad idea and I agree that this should be expanded.

AP informational.

Just like the influence system, Obsidian creates the innovation, and Bioware gets the credit.

Yes, the problem is only that in AP it felt that it mattered more, certainly they also rewarded you with the same sort of rivalry/friendship system as DA2 does (almost exactly the same) - but your choices had much more consequences in AP than in DA2, sometimes it felt a bit too restrictive in AP but in general it was better done, and it was easier going back and forth between the three.

mrcrusty wrote...
But yes, it forces you to play in character, and to use a Laidlaw quote, it rewards you for being consistent.

What would be nicer is if these tones correlated to different ways to complete quests. While this is an obvious point, Dragon Age 2 rarely provides choices in choosing how to complete quests.

I think that using certain dominant tones should either open up, or close down, certain ways to complete quests. For example, if you have a character who is constantly aggressive, why would he be able to talk his way out of problems?

Similarly, if you have a "witty" or casual character, you should be able to talk enemies and prevent combat from happening.

Having a professional, or diplomatic character for example, would work really well with merchants and authority figures. So quests involving those types of NPCs should yield better rewards.

Yeah. Depth is the key.

Agreed, and yes they did this from time to time, but at most it was that by having a certain personality ingrained, as in the most commonly used, you would get the 4th option that would give you an alternative solution - never, or at least very rarely would people react differently from the normal three. For example some should get insulted by the jovial humour that they might attack, and some so respectful and frightened of the angry that they won't and so on, just by using the normal three.

mrcrusty wrote...

randName wrote...
I'd also prefer less of a tasklist when doing missions, and never when it comes to talking with companions, as I want some sort of exploration left.

I'm not sure what you mean here, can you elaborate?

I prefer some investigation when doing quests, a subtle hint to go somewhere and do something, not a journal that points everything out, nor a map that tracks everything - they could add an optional hint system for those geographically challenged, but it feels like an insult that I can't even be trusted to talk to people and try to find the solution myself. This is especially prominent when I'm being told when to talk to my companions.

And the Journal is the task-list.

mrcrusty wrote...

randName wrote...
A more open world, at least not one closed off by constant circular narrow path and reused levels ad naseum.

The re-used assets is an obvious one, but I honestly don't think that better exploration is in the cards. Bioware games have always been weak at exploration. While it would be nice and appreciated, I'm not sure how well it would turn out.

Yes, but they don't have to give you narrow paths all the time, open fields works rather well since you will go to what ever stands out - I'm not asking for vast expanses, just that maybe maybe you don't need to always walk through trenches.

mrcrusty wrote...

randName wrote...
A personal story, and skip the need for GoW and DMC bosses, nor do I want daemons and magic to drive the evil of the world, but people - Merridith would have been a much better character if she wasn't tipped over by an idol, but by her own volition.

The personal story depends on the execution. Mixed on the bosses. From a gameplay perspective, it added some interesting things. From a narrative perspective, it feels a little cheap.

But I don't think those types of bosses are a bad thing if it's done well.

Played Fallout 2? I like the end there as you can go and talk to the president of the enclave and that's your end game from a personal perspective - you can solve your issues there, either by killing him or through diplomacy.

After you get climax fight, and it's not the fight that are to resolve the story.


Or for me I felt that DA:O did this better as the more personal story was resolved and the landsmeet, while the rather droll monster story was kept aside and only used in its right way as to give the game an oppressive coming doom and then only after the personal more humane story of Loghain was resolved did we have to tie up the bag with a last big fight.

mrcrusty wrote...

randName wrote...
More options to circumvent combat, as in being able to talk to people and have them back off, or killing tons of bandits only makes the game worse, and it doesn't give anything to the game.

Hell yes.

Fallout has a good general theme for this. Or at least people have adapted it to Fallout because it offered so many options.

Action Boy, Stealth Boy, Charisma Boy and Science Boy. That is, to solve quests and problems via combat, stealth, diplomacy or knowledge.

Agreed.

Modifié par randName, 25 avril 2011 - 12:28 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Ahh... aside from suggesting I did not play Fallout 2 (!), I completely agree.

Okay, here's something I'm just putting out here. This is what I would like for DA 3 quests.

Okay, for a general example, let's take a look at the Hightown mansion quest. The one where you look for the deed/inheritance.

In Dragon Age 2, you slog your way through the level, killing anything and everything in your path.

How about, instead of that, you have multiple ways to complete the quest.

1. You do it like Dragon Age 2, break in and kill everything.

2. You ask Varric to arrange the keys for the mansion to be "misplaced". Or steal them yourself if you are a Rogue. You then can access the mansion through the front door during the day time so there's less guards. This is where you can:
a) Kill them all.
Sneak around the guards, picking door locks and disarming traps and alarms to avoid them seeing you.

3. You ask Isabela or Aveline to arrange a meeting with the noble who owns the mansion. From here you can
a) Persuade him to give you the house/deed using Persuasion skill. Aveline approves, Isabela does not.
Blackmail him into giving you the house/deed using Isabella. Isabela approves, Aveline does not.
c) Intimidate him into giving you the house/deed through violence, either physical or magical depending on class. Neither approves or disapproves, but many comment on it.

Zero change in narrative. There's absolutely no changing to the story.

Now, part 2.

Once you complete the quest in Dragon Age 2, you go to Gamlen/Family and reveal what a scumbag he's been.

Why? Here is where your choices come in.

You arrive home with news. You can:
1. Reveal the truth to the family. This is what happens in Dragon Age 2.
2. Choose to keep the secret of the deed by
a) Lying to everyone that the deed is gone. All that work for nothing, except XP. Sometimes, we have to keep crap options.
Blackmail Gamlen and threaten to reveal his secret unless you receive money and/or fetch quests from him (odd jobs). Carver overhears you, and pissed off, gains lots of rivalry.
c) Give the deed to Carver and let him decide what to do with it. He reads it, gets pissed at Gamlen and beats up the poor fellow. Your family being happy that the issue has closure (minus Gamlen, of course). Carver gains friendship.

Of course, this is just a fancy. And with reality settling in, it's obvious Dragon Age 3 won't have the time for Bioware to develop such depth.

But when we talk about choices in RPGs and when we talk about depth, that is what we mean.

[randName]

mrcrusty wrote...

example.

Of course, this is just a fancy. And with reality settling in, it's obvious Dragon Age 3 won't have the time for Bioware to develop such depth.

But when we talk about choices in RPGs and when we talk about depth, that is what we mean.

Aye - I think the rule that each quest of importance should have three different solutions is a good one - or at least try to have three different solutions.

And when you are given choices most of them should be rather morally ambigious and not clear cut, the later is something BioWare mostly do instead of the harder and more rewarding moral choices other games present you with.

I personally like the really simple example from FO2 from the dreaded trial at the begining of the game.

To exit the last door you can.
1. fight the guardian in hand to hand battle, if you win he unlocks the door.
2. convince the guard that fighting isn't really neccesary and either of you could get hurt in doing so.
3. steal the key from the guard.
4. lockpick the door.

And perhaps you can also lure ants into the chamber and have them fight, but I've never tried this.

Either way ~ choices on how to solve quests and situations and not just as you said the same droning combat solution with once or twice every hour that you will be presented with a different solution, that at most will remove one enemy, or add a friend half the time before sending you back to the fighting.



EDIT: 

And yeah the last part is the hard part, especially if the narrative wants you to end up in the mansion, a solution would be that you simply don't and instead that you acquire a room beside Varric in the Hanged Man if you turn down the deed for more money or favours.

Modifié par randName, 25 avril 2011 - 12:49 .

[randName]

mrcrusty wrote...

Ahh... aside from suggesting I did not play Fallout 2 (!),

Just didn't want to assume that you did.

but yeah I agree with the example, anyway I better go back to being taunting and horrible as to appease the Crazy Eyed One

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

You horrible troll, you.

Anyways, I don't think you'll get your wish on the journal thing. These days, games have to be idiot proof. Even if it makes you feel like one.

That's an uphill battle I don't see you winning anytime soon.

[randName]

mrcrusty wrote...

You horrible troll, you.

Anyways, I don't think you'll get your wish on the journal thing. These days, games have to be idiot proof. Even if it makes you feel like one.

That's an uphill battle I don't see you winning anytime soon.

Yeah, but I really don't get why they can't add in a hint feature for those that want it - or simply have two seperate difficulty settings, one for dialogue/puzzles/journal-hints etc and one for combat, again like FO1 & FO2.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

That would require two different games, really. Options need to be scalable, or else, they wouldn't be good options and people miss out on content they might want.

People need to play the way they want. That's part of a roleplaying game. I think having better written dialog and journal entries (New Vegas did this recently) with hints and directions is possible. But you will still need the big shiny icon which says "Continue Quest here!"

Whether it's on top of the NPCs or in the map menu.

Those won't go away imo.

[randName]

mrcrusty wrote...

That would require two different games, really. Options need to be scalable, or else, they wouldn't be good options and people miss out on content they might want.

People need to play the way they want. That's part of a roleplaying game. I think having better written dialog and journal entries (New Vegas did this recently) with hints and directions is possible. But you will still need the big shiny icon which says "Continue Quest here!"

Whether it's on top of the NPCs or in the map menu.

Those won't go away imo.

Do you really feel that they couldn't add an option to hide the map markers and glowing arrows over peoples heads? 

Personally I feel that they could, they need to write it so that people could understand it even without the markers anyway - so why not allow us to hide then? (FONV did fine without arrows floating over the heads, and I used a mod that removed the markers on the map and it worked as well).

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Well, I mean, that's it right there. Mods.

I honestly can't imagine it happening on a vanilla game though, there would just be too many complaints from people not knowing what to do. And while it's great to have the elitism and "haha idiots" attitude towards it, these are the bulk of people who will pay the bills of developers. For me, hints and no handholding is nice, but far from an essential element of RPGs. So I will not complain about that if I can't see anything changing in the future, especially when other things, like choices and consequences are removed. I find that element of gameplay far more vital to an enjoyable RPG.

Maybe an option, maybe. But I wouldn't bank on it.

[randName]

mrcrusty wrote...

Well, I mean, that's it right there. Mods.

I honestly can't imagine it happening on a vanilla game though, there would just be too many complaints from people not knowing what to do. And while it's great to have the elitism and "haha idiots" attitude towards it, these are the bulk of people who will pay the bills of developers. For me, hints and no handholding is nice, but far from an essential element of RPGs. So I will not complain about that if I can't see anything changing in the future, especially when other things, like choices and consequences are removed. I find that element of gameplay far more vital to an enjoyable RPG.

Maybe an option, maybe. But I wouldn't bank on it.

From the RPG aspects of it I think it gets to be a negative as you are always led, its not like you can play the careful investigator or the one that rushes through - take FONV or FO1 & FO2 - you can play the careful wanderer that goes through the land slowly, trying to build the best possible case and then act.

Same with AP, as you explore levels and potential data sources to improve the dossiers, or you can just skip them - in DA2 all these moments are just given to you - save what happens if in deep roads depending on if you take Janders or not if you also bring your sibling, but you need to know before hand what will happen for that to work so it's kind of a bad point. (Even if it makes sense to bring a Warden to some extent).

And mods are good and fine if the games comes with a toolset - but a simple option to make it harder shouldn't raise too many concerns from those that can't hack it (as you can always turn the option off as well).

So I should retract one thing from it - leave the standard option the one that holds your hand through out, and if you don't like it you have to turn the hint system off.

Anyway it's not a huge part, but combat, exploration, dialogue etc. all bring RPG elements, just like System Shock is a good cRPG yet lacks dialogue, its simply how you solve the problems that makes you play a role.


EDIT: If you are also told when to speak with people you also remove much of the role, as I sometimes play the anxious one that's always checking, and sometimes the silent character that hardly goes by to prod their minds - it leaves an impression and I think all these small things are together making DA2 to be one of the more disappointing cRPGs I've played, I even want to refrain from calling it a cRPG.

Modifié par randName, 25 avril 2011 - 02:32 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I'd like a system like that. There's actually a few interviews by JE Sawyer and Chris Avallone floating around regarding this issue in New Vegas. They wanted to have a compromise, where the quest compass shows you the general direction of the quest but not specific.

Like for example, you needed to talk to Mr. House, and the quest compass to point to the Strip, or the Lucky 38, but not exactly where Mr. House is. The directions in your Pipboy quest log would take you from there.

But apparently, there were too many issues with the engine.

I think something like that would work and would be appreciated. I personally don't like floating icons above NPC heads. It's too MMOish and makes you feel like a 5 year old.

But an optional system would definitely be best. I just can't see anyone implementing it if they were rushed for time. It's definitely one of the things that's of lower importance...

[Gotholhorakh]

Speakeasy13 wrote...
So, let me get this straight.

We, as customers, can say whatever we want, however unfounded, immature, and biggoted our opinions might be, and it's okay because we're not "professional"; but as soon as those who got paid responded in anyway that isn't self-compromising, he is "unprofessional"?

No, no, I don't know where you got all of that nonsense from at all.

I mean that being professional means "behaving in a manner appropriate to the position you are employed in", and that is definitively distinct from "just do whatever you like and behave how other people do, including being rude".

That's not something you can really refute - regardless of the specific instance and whether or not it was professional

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 26 avril 2011 - 07:58 .