494 réponses à ce sujet

[napushenko]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

napushenko wrote...

I agree. But somehow, i cared more for DA2 companions, (except maybe Alistair) and felt that i knew them  better.

Having not played through all of DA2, I can't compare them directly, but being able to control more of how the companions dress and what skills they learn I think helps a lot with me getting to know them - because I'm the one deciding what their characteristics are.


If I have Wynne learn Blood Magic, that says a lot about Wynne.  If I have Leliana wear heavy armour and act as a tank, I learn a lot about that particular iteration of Leliana.

DA2 doesn't offer this level of control, and thus DA2 doesn't allow us to get to know the companions as well.

For me its quite the opposite, i enjoy seeing my companions acting more self minded, from their place to live, chat, quests and their general agenda. I think it distanced itself more from DAO. But yeah, i dont know what would go bad if you can put armor on them, or at least propose them to wear it or something.  

Modifié par napushenko, 13 mai 2011 - 02:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

What do you mean by "when you have Wynne learn blood magic"? For that to convincingly work for me, that would need to have hooks within the plot/story also. I don't think just "giving" Wynne that specialization makes any sense - it is totally against her portrayed character. Now, to allow the PC to influence her to become a blood mage and then to open up that specialization  - now that would be interesting. As far as I remember DAO didn't do any such thing; it just allowed the PC to choose her second specialization for her.

Yes, having Wynne learn Blood Magic runs contrary to her "portrayed character".  So why might someone who acts as if Blood Magic is awful actually learn Blood Magic?

The answer to that question (and you get to decide what that answer is) creates some excellent roleplaying opportunities.

You're missing the point, because you're looking at the game as if you are the PC and the other characters are somehow distinct from you in ways that the PC is not.  I don't accept that dichotomy.  The PC and the companions are all separate from me, but I - as the player - get to decide what they do.  So when I have Wynne learn Blood Magic (or have Leliana equip a shield, or have Alistair drink a poultice), that does not represent the PC giving an instruction and having that instruction carried out.  No, that represents that character doing what I suggest, and any justification for why that took place is mine to invent.

If Zevran lays a trap, is it because the Warden told him to?  Since that instruction, if it exists, takes place off-screen, there's no reason why every player would need to see it that way.  Maybe for me Zevran opted to lay that trap on his own, even though the Warden didn't want him to because the party didn't have many left.

This is roleplaying, to me.  The whole party acts as a group of individuals, and I'm in control of all of them.  Restriction the player's control over the party only serves to exacerbate the disconnect betwween the player and the game world - and I think the game should be trying to make that gap smaller, not bigger.

[Sylvius the Mad]

napushenko wrote...

For me its quite the opposite, i enjoy seeing my companions acting more self minded, from their place to live, chat, quests and their general agenda. I think it distanced itself more from DAO. But yeah, i dont know what would go bad if you can put armor on them, or at least propose them to wear it or something.  

I don't see how that's different.  The DAO characters can still be self-minded - it's just that you, the player, gets some say over what that self-minded action is.

[tonnactus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...




And she could kill you with her bare fists. If this  wasnt world-breaking,i dont know what is.
I never played the expansions.

Marjoleine was part of the core game,not an expansion....

The core game was generally pretty good about this sort of thing

Weaker darkspawn are lower ranked creatures.  Hawke and his party are roughly equivalent to Lietenant level opponents.  Can Lieutenants easily kill each other?  No, they can't.

Hawke and his party,even the supposed to be tanks are not even at normal rank. They are critters.(judged by hp only)
An abomination,an normal enemy,has like 4000 hp. That is more then hawke and his party together have.
Hawke is only good at dealing damage,but not taking it.

Modifié par tonnactus, 13 mai 2011 - 06:13 .

[tonnactus]

Alexander1136 wrote...
you could also trust spells like Cone of Cold would always work no matter the foe.

Because it was bugged,like explained on the first site. And only bartrand and coterie rogues resist petrify on nightmare difficulty.For those,horror,winters blasts and cone of cold work if they fail a resistance check.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is roleplaying, to me.  The whole party acts as a group of individuals, and I'm in control of all of them.  Restriction the player's control over the party only serves to exacerbate the disconnect betwween the player and the game world - and I think the game should be trying to make that gap smaller, not bigger.

Having played games where I control everyone and only my PC, my preference is for teammates (in games where they're essential) who act on their own initiative with a general sort of input from me.  For me, it's more immersive when my teammates make their own on-the-fly decisions and I have to make tactical adaptations to them as well as the enemy.

One of my problems with the Origins way of doing things is that my PC's build/role doesn't really change my window into the gameworld, since every party role is represented equally.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

What do you mean by "when you have Wynne learn blood magic"? For that to convincingly work for me, that would need to have hooks within the plot/story also. I don't think just "giving" Wynne that specialization makes any sense - it is totally against her portrayed character. Now, to allow the PC to influence her to become a blood mage and then to open up that specialization  - now that would be interesting. As far as I remember DAO didn't do any such thing; it just allowed the PC to choose her second specialization for her.

Yes, having Wynne learn Blood Magic runs contrary to her "portrayed character".  So why might someone who acts as if Blood Magic is awful actually learn Blood Magic?

The answer to that question (and you get to decide what that answer is) creates some excellent roleplaying opportunities.

You're missing the point, because you're looking at the game as if you are the PC and the other characters are somehow distinct from you in ways that the PC is not.  I don't accept that dichotomy.  The PC and the companions are all separate from me, but I - as the player - get to decide what they do.  So when I have Wynne learn Blood Magic (or have Leliana equip a shield, or have Alistair drink a poultice), that does not represent the PC giving an instruction and having that instruction carried out.  No, that represents that character doing what I suggest, and any justification for why that took place is mine to invent.

If Zevran lays a trap, is it because the Warden told him to?  Since that instruction, if it exists, takes place off-screen, there's no reason why every player would need to see it that way.  Maybe for me Zevran opted to lay that trap on his own, even though the Warden didn't want him to because the party didn't have many left.

This is roleplaying, to me.  The whole party acts as a group of individuals, and I'm in control of all of them.  Restriction the player's control over the party only serves to exacerbate the disconnect betwween the player and the game world - and I think the game should be trying to make that gap smaller, not bigger.

You're right. I approach such games (party based CRPGs) as only controlling the PC (taking the term pretty much literally). I think of the rest of the elements as being decided by the developers and writers who created them. I think of companions as having their own identities, backgrounds, and needs, all of which I'm not in control of; think of them simply as NPCs, whom I form special bonds with.

That said, I admit that it doesn't make all that much sense to assume the roles of companions only during combat; to decide their specializations, stats, abilities, armor (and clothing), and so on and so forth, unless I was role-playing as them also. But still, I thought this had its advantages; mainly to get around the AI, make combat  more tactical, and more suited to how I wanted to play it than how the game engine played it; and in general make it all the more fun.
 
I think you just take it one level further.

But, let me emphasize again what I said earlier. The dichotomy would come about not because I consider the PC and companions as apart, but because in-game there would be clash of personalities - one created by me, as a player, and the one the game developer put in place. Wynne would not be a good example to consider for this, but Anders would be. Let's suppose DA2 allowed the same level of liberty in companion character customization that DAO did. The story/plot would still dictate that he not be a blood mage, because he makes references during Acts 1 and 2 that he thinks blood mages are ruining the cause of all mages in general; jeapordizing their freedom. So making him a blood mage would not work and will ruin the gameplay experience, and perhaps even the plot.

If the gameplay were designed in such a way that the game makes no such assumptions regarding the companions, then I perfectly see your point.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 13 mai 2011 - 09:05 .

[AlanC9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote..One of my problems with the Origins way of doing things is that my PC's build/role doesn't really change my window into the gameworld, since every party role is represented equally.

How do you get around that in a party-based game? I guess NWN1 sort of did it because you can't access all of the NPCs capabilities the way you can with your PC.

[MichaelFinnegan]

AlanC9 wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote..One of my problems with the Origins way of doing things is that my PC's build/role doesn't really change my window into the gameworld, since every party role is represented equally.

How do you get around that in a party-based game? I guess NWN1 sort of did it because you can't access all of the NPCs capabilities the way you can with your PC.

If I understood that correctly, ME/ME2 is perhaps what he prefers. I (as PC) don't get to "assume" companion's roles at anytime. As a battlemaster, I can control their positioning and special attacks only during combat.

[TerraMantis]

The largest drawback of Dragon Age II, for me, was the battle scenarios. Not so much the combat mechanics, but the actual battles. I really liked the new combat system of cross-class effects like; Brittle, Stagger, and Disorient. They made your skill-tree abilities feel paramount and encouraged "cross teammate skill interactions". Which enhanced the combat experience.

On the other hand, the lamest horse was the one that goes hand-in-hand with combat, Battle Scenarios. The battle situations felt regurgitated. The battles seemed unchanging throughout the entire game. I never felt intellectually challenged throughout. The fights seemed to always fit a "formula" and contained many archers and melee pawns. Enemies would "pop-out" of nowhere making fights seem tactically childish. Team placement was meaningless. Between the "formula" and the "pop-outs" battle's situations seemed as though their mechanics were extremely oversimplified. It felt like no one actually sat down and really thought of unique and interesting combat scenarios. In combination with the reuse of maps it also made them pathetic. This is because you began to know every nook and cranny of each map from going there repeatedly and you know exactly where each and every "ambush" will take place. The pitiful "ambush" is used so often in the game that it is not an ambush...and ambush is only an ambush if it doesn't happen 95% of every enemy encounter. The game seemed to have basically one single battle mechanic which was throwing additional enemies at you, "adds". More than often, adds would be thrown at you which was a sorry excuse for a mechanic in every situation. Really the only boss in the game that had a interesting battle mechanic was the stone giant in the Deep Roads. His mechanic involved two different forms with different fighting styles and his "power blast" required you to position your team behind pillars to protect you from the power blast. Although, even this fight had "adds" that would come out during certain health percentage intervals. What was the Arishok surrounded by? What happened when you fought Meredith and the Mature High Dragon that gave you your "Champion armor chest" piece? Oh that's right, adds came during health percentage intervals. I almost forgot, what was that never before used battle mechanic in DA2 when you fought first enchanter Orsino? Where are the fights that take some trial and error...or intellect? With these combat mechanics you could easily run a boss around in circles to bide time and slowdown your aggro. I want an actual challenge...intellectually. Not "Dynasty Warriors" with skill trees.

The battle scenarios need to be stimulating even for "non-boss" pulls (trash pulls). Sure it doesn't need to be much different than it was for normal, but the other difficulties should have introduced unique battle mechanics. The difference between Normal, Hard, and Nightmare shouldn't just be the weak implementation of...you guessed it, more adds with more HP. On hard there will be more adds than normal and on nightmare there will be MORE ADDS than HARD MUAAAA HAHAHAHAHA. Great brainstorming. What i am getting at is, even these trash pulls should have intellectual mechanics and thought thrown into their development. The difference between Normal and hard shouldn't be just more guys, it should be a special battle mechanic. Maybe a single new special enemy among the group. That if not killed first and if you kill the other peons first the special enemy will actually absorb their souls and enrage it making it next-to-impossible to kill. Perhaps vice-versa that situation. Wherein, you need to kill the special enemy last or when he dies he explodes and hits the remaining enemies with his blood which enhances their strengths. A real game about tactics and battle situations...not just throwing more adds and trash at the player and slapping a battle mechanics sticker on it.

Before any of you start to say "well DA2 was WAY harder on Nightmare than DA:O" you obviously missed the entire point of my post.

The way Dragon Age II's battle scenarios where made the game feel like it was nothing more than a childish Dynasty Warrior's game with deeper RPG elements. Should have said "no brain required" on the box.

Lastly i think that the "click on your enemy from far away and close the gap as melee" is a bad addition to the combat. I do really like it aesthetically, but the ability to "close the gap" should be just that, an ability skill. Your travel time to the enemy, as a melee character, is part of mechanic. If you don't want it to take so long to get to your enemy...use a range attack and take distance out of the equation then.

I think BioWare seriously misjudged why the fans loved DA: O so much. They really spent a lot of time on the aesthetics of the game to make it more...prettier...er. It almost feels like a slap in the face that they thought we were so shallow. I want a beautiful challenge through intellect, not a sexy shell that is only skin deep.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

But, let me emphasize again what I said earlier. The dichotomy would come about not because I consider the PC and companions as apart, but because in-game there would be clash of personalities - one created by me, as a player, and the one the game developer put in place. Wynne would not be a good example to consider for this, but Anders would be. Let's suppose DA2 allowed the same level of liberty in companion character customization that DAO did. The story/plot would still dictate that he not be a blood mage, because he makes references during Acts 1 and 2 that he thinks blood mages are ruining the cause of all mages in general; jeapordizing their freedom. So making him a blood mage would not work and will ruin the gameplay experience, and perhaps even the plot.

It would make him a hypocrite, yes (or perhaps an idiot).  But that's not character-breaking; that's character-altering.

If the gameplay were designed in such a way that the game makes no such assumptions regarding the companions, then I perfectly see your point.

That would be ideal, yes.  The game should bend over backward to avoid contradicting the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

One of my problems with the Origins way of doing things is that my PC's build/role doesn't really change my window into the gameworld, since every party role is represented equally.

Whereas, I think that's a great feature.  The characteristics of one character shouldn't change how I perceive the world.  The world is still fundamentally the same.

The player is not the protagonist.  The player doesn't even exist within the game world.  So the player's ability to experience the game world should be unaffected by the specific attributes of just one person.

[mindbody]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

napushenko wrote...

For me its quite the opposite, i enjoy seeing my companions acting more self minded, from their place to live, chat, quests and their general agenda. I think it distanced itself more from DAO. But yeah, i dont know what would go bad if you can put armor on them, or at least propose them to wear it or something.  

I don't see how that's different.  The DAO characters can still be self-minded - it's just that you, the player, gets some say over what that self-minded action is.

This was a problem in tabletop gaming and continues to be a problem now.  In my experience most people don't understand the concept of role-playing well enough to roleplay multiple characters. So cRPGs are naturally doing more and more of that roleplaying for the players. Hence the reduced companion options in DA2 regarding build, armor, weapons, along with the inevitable plot actions a la Anders. Anders is not allowed to change as a character (as far as the main plot goes) except as dictated by Bioware.

The ultimate end of this line of thinking is the Mass Effect type of companion interaction where companions are issued orders but are not roleplayed by the character nor controlled directly.  I personally could like it either way, but I suspect most would prefer only one character to roleplay. 

Of course, when PC control of companions disappears, then roleplaying opportunities disappear, too.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

But, let me emphasize again what I said earlier. The dichotomy would come about not because I consider the PC and companions as apart, but because in-game there would be clash of personalities - one created by me, as a player, and the one the game developer put in place. Wynne would not be a good example to consider for this, but Anders would be. Let's suppose DA2 allowed the same level of liberty in companion character customization that DAO did. The story/plot would still dictate that he not be a blood mage, because he makes references during Acts 1 and 2 that he thinks blood mages are ruining the cause of all mages in general; jeapordizing their freedom. So making him a blood mage would not work and will ruin the gameplay experience, and perhaps even the plot.

It would make him a hypocrite, yes (or perhaps an idiot).  But that's not character-breaking; that's character-altering.

Since DA2 isn't designed with that in mind, it wouldn't work for me. The game would just keep contradicting my decisions every now and then, ruining my experience.

If the gameplay were designed in such a way that the game makes no such assumptions regarding the companions, then I perfectly see your point.

That would be ideal, yes.  The game should bend over backward to avoid contradicting the player.

Let's just hope Bioware is still keeping that option open.

[MichaelFinnegan]

mindbody wrote...

The ultimate end of this line of thinking is the Mass Effect type of companion interaction where companions are issued orders but are not roleplayed by the character nor controlled directly.  I personally could like it either way, but I suspect most would prefer only one character to roleplay.

I certainly hope Bioware doesn't do that; and, as much as I liked those ME games, I haven't touched them since I started playing DAO. In hindsight, I should have played those Overlord and Shadow Broker DLCs when I had the chance. I purchased them months ago, but for some odd reason decided to play DAO first. Now those DLCs just keep gathering dust...

The question I think is whether more people prefer controlling party members during combat or whether they want the game to do it for them. This isn't exactly roleplaying those other characters, at least in DA2. And if someone doesn't want to control them, well, he/she can still leave it up to the game.

[Sabriana]

It certainly works that way for me. My PC didn't customize the companions, *I* did. Me, the player. It was also me that moved them around in battles, and not my PC. It was also I, the player who set the tactics, including the PCs tactics. She had nothing to do with that.

It was also me, who leveled them up. All of them. Not my PC - she was treated just as all the companions were. Namely being a Player Character who *I* build up, customized, and outfitted. Right in line with the companion NPCs.

[mindbody]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I certainly hope Bioware doesn't do that; and, as much as I liked those ME games, I haven't touched them since I started playing DAO. In hindsight, I should have played those Overlord and Shadow Broker DLCs when I had the chance. I purchased them months ago, but for some odd reason decided to play DAO first. Now those DLCs just keep gathering dust...

The question I think is whether more people prefer controlling party members during combat or whether they want the game to do it for them. This isn't exactly roleplaying those other characters, at least in DA2. And if someone doesn't want to control them, well, he/she can still leave it up to the game.

I think combat is roleplaying.  In the beginning of rpgs, the combat and non-combat mechanics were not divorced.  So stats had non-combat functions.  You might roleplay a character with high intelligence to behave very differently in combat from one with higher constitution, even if they were the same class.  The fact that the word "optimal" is even used in conjunction with playing an rpg shows how far we've dumbed-down roleplaying in combat.

Of course stats have no effect outside of combat in Dragon Age, and even if they did, they don't have any explicit relation to the game world, so they're really hard to roleplay.  For example, what does strength of 42 mean in the game world?  How strong is that?  How much stronger is 42 than 22 when it comes to how much weight a character can pick up and carry?  There's no good reason why the mechanics need to be dissociated from the game world when there is so much to be gained by relating them.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

mindbody wrote...

I think combat is roleplaying.  In the beginning of rpgs, the combat and non-combat mechanics were not divorced.  So stats had non-combat functions.  You might roleplay a character with high intelligence to behave very differently in combat from one with higher constitution, even if they were the same class.  The fact that the word "optimal" is even used in conjunction with playing an rpg shows how far we've dumbed-down roleplaying in combat.

Of course stats have no effect outside of combat in Dragon Age, and even if they did, they don't have any explicit relation to the game world, so they're really hard to roleplay.  For example, what does strength of 42 mean in the game world?  How strong is that?  How much stronger is 42 than 22 when it comes to how much weight a character can pick up and carry?  There's no good reason why the mechanics need to be dissociated from the game world when there is so much to be gained by relating them.

As a side effect of being narrative heavy and companion driven, Bioware have never been able to address this issue well.

In terms of party based games, it's impossible to roleplay as an NPC character who already has a strong character of his/her own who act independently of the player, so the control of your companions in combat has to be segregated from the concept of roleplaying, and instead looked at from the player perspective of doing things ingame that relate to combat/gameplay, but not RP'ing.

If you want to roleplay in a party based game during combat, you have to create your own party from scratch and have the ability to shape those characters in the same way as you do with your PC. Either that, or set tactics for your companions and never take direct control.

It's a sacrifice many gladly pay for engaging companion characters and NPC driven narrative.

Now in terms of linking stats to gameplay and the schism between combat and non combat, I agree completely. But again, this is something that Bioware has struggled at.

You really have to look at Black Isle/Troika/Obsidian games if you want such cohesion.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 14 mai 2011 - 02:24 .

[mindbody]

mrcrusty wrote...

In terms of party based games, it's impossible to roleplay as an NPC character who already has a strong character of his/her own who act independently of the player, so the control of your companions in combat has to be segregated from the concept of roleplaying, and instead looked at from the player perspective of doing things ingame that relate to combat/gameplay, but not RP'ing.

If you want to roleplay in a party based game during combat, you have to create your own party from scratch and have the ability to shape those characters in the same way as you do with your PC.

I can roleplay an NPC in combat.  I take what I know of their character and class build up to the point at which I'm given control of them, and roleplay from that.  For example, Fenris hates all mages and is a 2H with his own spec tree.   Therefore in combat Fenris will charge first and foremost at mages, and if possible will use his lyrium-granted spec abilities to kill them.  Failing that he will hack away at them in anger.  He sees this as poetic justice. 
Anders, on the other hand, tends to stay back and buff/heal the party in a support role. That is, until he encounters an enemy he perceives as unjust like slavers or Templars, at which point he uses his spec abilities to bring the pain as quickly as possible upon those enemies.  He will ignore damage to the point of risking death in order to kill as many as possible.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

mindbody wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

In terms of party based games, it's impossible to roleplay as an NPC character who already has a strong character of his/her own who act independently of the player, so the control of your companions in combat has to be segregated from the concept of roleplaying, and instead looked at from the player perspective of doing things ingame that relate to combat/gameplay, but not RP'ing.

If you want to roleplay in a party based game during combat, you have to create your own party from scratch and have the ability to shape those characters in the same way as you do with your PC.

I can roleplay an NPC in combat.  I take what I know of their character and class build up to the point at which I'm given control of them, and roleplay from that.  For example, Fenris hates all mages and is a 2H with his own spec tree.   Therefore in combat Fenris will charge first and foremost at mages, and if possible will use his lyrium-granted spec abilities to kill them.  Failing that he will hack away at them in anger.  He sees this as poetic justice. 
Anders, on the other hand, tends to stay back and buff/heal the party in a support role. That is, until he encounters an enemy he perceives as unjust like slavers or Templars, at which point he uses his spec abilities to bring the pain as quickly as possible upon those enemies.  He will ignore damage to the point of risking death in order to kill as many as possible.

I personally find it impossible unless the combat is turn based, so I should've mentioned that too.

Well, I take back the "impossible" part, but it's a matter of perspective and rather, how you roleplay. For me, where I create a character and I act out that character within the game, I find it very difficult to take on a role that I have had no hand in shaping in real time, because I had built that character and will always view it as the protagonist of the story.

So when I've got control over both, I'll always look at other characters are outside agents and NPCs as opposed to characters which I can roleplay.

It's much easier to do in turn based combat systems because it's much easier to distance myself from my character and assume the role of another.

But to each their own. Other people roleplay differently.

At least we agree on better integrating stats and skills.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 14 mai 2011 - 02:41 .

[mindbody]

mrcrusty wrote...

I personally find it impossible unless the combat is turn based, so I should've mentioned that too.

I think you're selling yourself short. But I take your point about turn-based combat.  The real barrier to good roleplaying in combat in DA2 is the rigid combat mechanic which requires you to pump one or two stats in order to max damage.  At least on nightmare, this is a must.  And nightmare is the only difficulty conducive to rp because of friendly fire.

ok, thanks for hearing my nonsense. I'm going back into forum hibernation now.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The player is not the protagonist.  The player doesn't even exist within the game world.  So the player's ability to experience the game world should be unaffected by the specific attributes of just one person.

I guess that depends on how immersive you're trying to make the experience.  In a tabletop RPG, you control one character, and that's your gateway into the "shared imaginary space".  You can't control the decisions of the other players, although you may be free to make suggestions.  For me, that's part of what nails the role-playing aspects of the game into place.  Just as in life, I can only really control what decisions my character makes.

I suppose what I'm going for is a CRPG experience that emulates the tabletop in that regard.  If I'm controlling the whole team from the top down, it's just a squad level minis game. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

mindbody wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

I personally find it impossible unless the combat is turn based, so I should've mentioned that too.

I think you're selling yourself short. But I take your point about turn-based combat.  The real barrier to good roleplaying in combat in DA2 is the rigid combat mechanic which requires you to pump one or two stats in order to max damage.  At least on nightmare, this is a must.  And nightmare is the only difficulty conducive to rp because of friendly fire.

ok, thanks for hearing my nonsense. I'm going back into forum hibernation now.

That problem was still a problem (albeit a lesser one) in Origins. I think the problem is two headed: that combat is the defining gameplay aspect of the game and that as you said, the combat requires you to spend points in one or two stats to be the most effective.

This leads to character builds that are based on how well and quickly you can kill things as opposed to roleplaying, say a smart character, or a strong character. Which is all well and good in your hack n slash or Action RPGs, but compared to a game like Fallout, it really limits the character's ability to roleplay using the character system.

It's not necessarily a bad way of doing things, but it requires some working around in order to advance a player character's development and roleplay. The tones system is probably the obvious example of this in Dragon Age 2.

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The player is not the protagonist.  The player doesn't even exist within the game world.  So the player's ability to experience the game world should be unaffected by the specific attributes of just one person.

I guess that depends on how immersive you're trying to make the experience.  In a tabletop RPG, you control one character, and that's your gateway into the "shared imaginary space".  You can't control the decisions of the other players, although you may be free to make suggestions.  For me, that's part of what nails the role-playing aspects
of the game into place.  Just as in life, I can only really control what decisions my character makes.

I suppose what I'm going for is a CRPG experience that emulates the tabletop in that regard.  If I'm controlling the whole team from the top down, it's just a squad level minis game. 

This is pretty much how I play too.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 14 mai 2011 - 03:16 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

mindbody wrote...

I think combat is roleplaying.

I use the term roleplay in a broader sense. Not just during combat, but also outside of it. What I meant more generally is this: "I" can choose a response during a conversation, which I can't do for any other companions. The game engine does it and I don't have any control over it. The game engine, however, may allow me to influence their characters, indirectly, which is a different thing altogether.

So, in that sense for me, companions are NPCs, and I don't roleplay as them. Now, it is a different matter that I can choose some of the combat characteristics of my companions (none of which, as far as I'm aware, alters the storyline in any way). To me, it appears that this is allowed mainly to enhance the gaming experience, than for anything else. I don't think Bioware does it so that I can roleplay as my companions (at least in DA).

In the beginning of rpgs, the combat and non-combat mechanics were not divorced.  So stats had non-combat functions.  You might roleplay a character with high intelligence to behave very differently in combat from one with higher constitution, even if they were the same class.  The fact that the word "optimal" is even used in conjunction with playing an rpg shows how far we've dumbed-down roleplaying in combat.

Not sure I followed  you here. Don't some stats still have some non-combat functions? Cunning and strength still work for persuation, so that the story can be made to take different paths. Though I'm not sure if this is still true in DA2.

Of course stats have no effect outside of combat in Dragon Age, and even if they did, they don't have any explicit relation to the game world, so they're really hard to roleplay.  For example, what does strength of 42 mean in the game world?  How strong is that?  How much stronger is 42 than 22 when it comes to how much weight a character can pick up and carry?  There's no good reason why the mechanics need to be dissociated from the game world when there is so much to be gained by relating them.

I've never seen strength have any such function as you describe above. After all, we do carry the whole inventory around all the time, now, don't we?

Thought of something. In DAO, when we're supposed to "dispose" off the dead body from the Pearl for some of the quests, just imagine the game engine kicking in and informing "Sorry, not enough strength to do this job!"

But it is interesting how different people play RPGs differently. It's broadening my perspective every time I follow discussions on these boards.