494 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelFinnegan]

mindbody wrote...

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 see. But you're just playing the roles of characters that the game has already prescribed for you. Do you change this behavior from one playthrough to another? Would it make sense from a story point of view to do that (at least for DA2)?

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 14 mai 2011 - 03:40 .

[mindbody]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.

RIght, you aren't role-playing for companions outside of combat in DA2. They do it on their own.

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).

Each companion in DA2 has their own unique specialization tree based on their character. These are roleplaying cues from Bioware. You take control of companions in combat, right? You make their decisions for them? That means you're roleplaying as them. It's up to you to make them behave in combat as they would by themselves out of combat.  In other words, you don't have to create or change a character to be roleplaying them.

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.

No, I don't think they do in DA2.  Not 100%.

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?

I'm definitely saying they don't have that function.  But they should.  Or they could be used in other ways.  In D&D there was a bend bars/lift gates percentage based on strength.  There are almost infinite possibilities for using stats like strength outside of combat.  There's no good reason not to use them.  How much more fun might we have if you could use a high strength score to settle a dispute by arm wrestling?  Or use cunning to open the option of kicking the Arishok in the groin?

[mindbody]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

mindbody wrote...

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 see. But you're just playing the roles of characters that the game has already prescribed for you. Do you change this behavior from one playthrough to another? Would it make sense from a story point of view to do that (at least for DA2)?

Absolutely. I think Sylvius was talking about this earlier in the thread about using blood magic with Wynne.  You can come up with in character reasons for making Wynne take blood magic spec, which would be a significantly different playthrough for her than, say, the usual anti blood magic diatribe. 

Perhaps when you complete her personal quest to find Aneirin and she realizes that he turned out ok, perhaps better, outside of the circle, you might roleplay her character as evolving to embrace alternate ways of approaching magic.  Remember, she already has a spirit inside her, and blood magic is the magic of demons, so it's not that far-fetched.  If she could be convinced that Blood magic can be used to help people, perhaps by sacrificing one's own life force to strengthen others, then it makes sense to do that in a playthrough.  

Whereas in another playthrough she would be totally opposed to it based on chantry and circle dogma.  The story of DA:O doesn't contradict you either way.

[MichaelFinnegan]

mindbody wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.

RIght, you aren't role-playing for companions outside of combat in DA2. They do it on their own.

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).

Each companion in DA2 has their own unique specialization tree based on their character. These are roleplaying cues from Bioware. You take control of companions in combat, right? You make their decisions for them? That means you're roleplaying as them. It's up to you to make them behave in combat as they would by themselves out of combat.  In other words, you don't have to create or change a character to be roleplaying them.

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.

No, I don't think they do in DA2.  Not 100%.

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?

I'm definitely saying they don't have that function.  But they should.  Or they could be used in other ways.  In D&D there was a bend bars/lift gates percentage based on strength.  There are almost infinite possibilities for using stats like strength outside of combat.  There's no good reason not to use them.  How much more fun might we have if you could use a high strength score to settle a dispute by arm wrestling?  Or use cunning to open the option of kicking the Arishok in the groin?

I agree with whatever you've written 100%. Earlier I just wasn't sure how you were using the term roleplaying.

[MichaelFinnegan]

mindbody wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

mindbody wrote...

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 see. But you're just playing the roles of characters that the game has already prescribed for you. Do you change this behavior from one playthrough to another? Would it make sense from a story point of view to do that (at least for DA2)?

Absolutely. I think Sylvius was talking about this earlier in the thread about using blood magic with Wynne.  You can come up with in character reasons for making Wynne take blood magic spec, which would be a significantly different playthrough for her than, say, the usual anti blood magic diatribe. 

Perhaps when you complete her personal quest to find Aneirin and she realizes that he turned out ok, perhaps better, outside of the circle, you might roleplay her character as evolving to embrace alternate ways of approaching magic.  Remember, she already has a spirit inside her, and blood magic is the magic of demons, so it's not that far-fetched.  If she could be convinced that Blood magic can be used to help people, perhaps by sacrificing one's own life force to strengthen others, then it makes sense to do that in a playthrough.  

Whereas in another playthrough she would be totally opposed to it based on chantry and circle dogma.  The story of DA:O doesn't contradict you either way.

This is precisely the reason why I replaced Wynne with Anders, when it came to that blood magic example. DA2's characters (and storyline) are a bit more rigid when compared to DAO, and that is the reason why some of those specializations are so much more fixed in-game. So that makes DA2's roleplaying potential so much more limited when compared to DAO.

[AlanC9]

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

(snip)

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.

I wouldn't say that Bio always struggled with this. NWN1 is a perfect example of the second case, since the player can't take direct control of the companions -- all you can do is discuss their combat tactics pre-battle and issue limted voicechat requests in battle. Of course, NWN1's control scheme wasn't especially popular -- apparently, a lot of the player base doesn't care about incoherence between combat role-playing and non-combat role-playing.

[Sabriana]

AlanC9 wrote...

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

(snip)

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.

I wouldn't say that Bio always struggled with this. NWN1 is a perfect example of the second case, since the player can't take direct control of the companions -- all you can do is discuss their combat tactics pre-battle and issue limted voicechat requests in battle. Of course, NWN1's control scheme wasn't especially popular -- apparently, a lot of the player base doesn't care about incoherence between combat role-playing and non-combat role-playing.

Well, yes. That's why I'm personally wondering why they went back to the schematic of a game that received a lot of flak in its time. Namely NWN.

[AlanC9]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

This is precisely the reason why I replaced Wynne with Anders, when it came to that blood magic example. DA2's characters (and storyline) are a bit more rigid when compared to DAO, and that is the reason why some of those specializations are so much more fixed in-game. So that makes DA2's roleplaying potential so much more limited when compared to DAO.

Sure, if you're interested in role-playing the NPCs in the first palce.

[AlanC9]

Sabriana wrote...

I wouldn't say that Bio always struggled with this. NWN1 is a perfect example of the second case, since the player can't take direct control of the companions -- all you can do is discuss their combat tactics pre-battle and issue limted voicechat requests in battle. Of course, NWN1's control scheme wasn't especially popular -- apparently, a lot of the player base doesn't care about incoherence between combat role-playing and non-combat role-playing.

Well, yes. That's why I'm personally wondering why they went back to the schematic of a game that received a lot of flak in its time. Namely NWN.

Did they? They didn't go back to NWN1's combat controls as far as I can see. What changed in DA2 was the non-combat role-playing for NPCs being limited. I didn't think you should be allowed to make Wynne a blood mage in the first place., so I'm fine with that sort of option going away. Not that I particularly care if it's that option exists or not, though I do wish there was a second specialization for Wynne that actually made sense.

Edit: this is one of those rare game-design times where keeping the option is cheaper than not keeping the option, though, so I'm actually on the fence about what designers should do here. While I prefer specializations for the NPCs to be set, I'm not sure I consider this a worthwhile expenditure of dev time.

Edit again: Oh, I see. Yeah, NWN1 did take some grief for not being able to control NPC leveling or  (on release) inventory. That wasn't the aspect of the design I was talking about, though.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 mai 2011 - 05:26 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

AlanC9 wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

This is precisely the reason why I replaced Wynne with Anders, when it came to that blood magic example. DA2's characters (and storyline) are a bit more rigid when compared to DAO, and that is the reason why some of those specializations are so much more fixed in-game. So that makes DA2's roleplaying potential so much more limited when compared to DAO.

Sure, if you're interested in role-playing the NPCs in the first palce.

I would be interested in trying it, sure. I just didn't realize it could be done.

I'm fairly new to RPGs.

[MichaelFinnegan]

AlanC9 wrote...

What changed in DA2 was the non-combat role-playing for NPCs being limited. I didn't think you should be allowed to make Wynne a blood mage in the first place., so I'm fine with that sort of option going away. Not that I particularly care if it's that option exists or not, though I do wish there was a second specialization for Wynne that actually made sense.

This was precisely my line of thinking as I was playing DAO. I just left her with that spirit healer specialization.

To me, though, I wouldn't try to role-play the NPC, unless I could come up with a good enough reason. The story itself should make allowances to do this; otherwise, I wouldn't try.

Letting options remain would be good, in my opinion. Those restrictions could be enfored by the player himself, if he so decides. But DA2 seems to handle it in a totally different way, by making specializations character-specific. So, well, I'm not sure how that would work.

[AlanC9]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure, if you're interested in role-playing the NPCs in the first palce.

I would be interested in trying it, sure. I just didn't realize it could be done.

I'm fairly new to RPGs.

Well, it's an old, old dichotomy in RPGs. The very earliest CRPGs -- Wizardry, Starflight, Might and Magic and the like -- typically had you create all the characters, whether just one PC or a whole party. I think there were a couple early games with a pre-set character, but this was really uncommon. The joinable-NPC style comes in, I believe, with Ultima IV in 1985. Bio picked that style up when they came along with Baldur's Gate in 1998. While the BG games supported creating the whole party, it's become clear since then that Bio doesn't really believe in the player playing more than one character. (Black Isle, which someone mentioned upthread, used the BG engine for a couple of games where you do create the whole party.)

We've had fairly contentious debates on these boards from time to time over whether palyers shoudl be allowed to create their whole party. So much chatter, in fact, I finally gave in and wrote a mod for NWN2 that allowed you to create a whole party, which is kind of ironic since I find the feature worthless myself. (Note that Obsidian made the second NWN2 expansion so that you can create your own party if you like; I don't think I had anything to do with inspiring that design, though.)

Games where you create the whole party seem to be dying out , as far as I can tell. I can understand why Bio isn't interested in the style, since creating interesting party members is one of their core competences.

[MichaelFinnegan]

I appreciate the information, Alan. I didn't know about the history of CRPGs, certainly nothing about the divide as you explained below.

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, it's an old, old dichotomy in RPGs. The very earliest CRPGs -- Wizardry, Starflight, Might and Magic and the like -- typically had you create all the characters, whether just one PC or a whole party. I think there were a couple early games with a pre-set character, but this was really uncommon. The joinable-NPC style comes in, I believe, with Ultima IV in 1985. Bio picked that style up when they came along with Baldur's Gate in 1998. While the BG games supported creating the whole party, it's become clear since then that Bio doesn't really believe in the player playing more than one character. (Black Isle, which someone mentioned upthread, used the BG engine for a couple of games where you do create the whole party.)

I just now read through the gameplay and plot of Icewind Dale, by Black Isle. I can clearly see what you mean. In that game, I am at the same time one and all of the upto six player characters I can create at the start. And it appears none of the characters has any kind of backstory whatsoever; in fact, backstories aren't even part of the plot. The game makes no assumptions in this regard.

Icewind Dale is a party-based RPG, but it isn't the kind of game that DAO is. Branding them both as "party-based" would only be providing part of the information. You've explained the difference much more precisely.

We've had fairly contentious debates on these boards from time to time over whether palyers shoudl be allowed to create their whole party. So much chatter, in fact, I finally gave in and wrote a mod for NWN2 that allowed you to create a whole party, which is kind of ironic since I find the feature worthless myself. (Note that Obsidian made the second NWN2 expansion so that you can create your own party if you like; I don't think I had anything to do with inspiring that design, though.)

I suppose some gamers are trying to get as much role-play out of DA games as they can get. This includes role-playing as the companions also. I can see their motivations. But where it seems to clash is that Bioware is actually telling the story of the companions, at the same time giving the player the ability to customize and control them.

Personally, I didn't see much gain in casting Wynne as a blood mage (putting aside for the moment questions of right/wrong). My reason mainly is that nothing during the non-combat mode of the game is going to react to that decision of mine - no NPC, including Wynne herself, is going to even recognize that fact; so whatever roleplaying happens has to happen outside the game, in the player's own mind. That is not why I play these games. However, what I'm interested in is the way that "mindbody" is roleplaying some companions during combat. That offers some potential for me, and hence I replied in the affirmative to your question earlier. Aside from that, for what Sylvius said earlier to work for me, either the game has to actively react to everything I do; or the characters shouldn't come with an inherent specialization/character bias, either of which I'm sure Bioware is not going to provide anytime soon.

I didn't know you were a modder. Do you do that often?

Games where you create the whole party seem to be dying out , as far as I can tell. I can understand why Bio isn't interested in the style, since creating interesting party members is one of their core competences.

I understand; DA2 seems to be just cementing that notion for future DA games. What I hope for, though, is that Bioware keeps making companions customizable (armor, weapons, abilities etc.) and controllable, exactly like in DAO. If not anything, it just simply enhances my gameplay experience. I know that others are probably going to find this frustrating. I see the solution for this also - by providing both options; they already have the mechanisms in place. I'm just not sure Bioware is willing to pour in the required development time and resources.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 14 mai 2011 - 10:21 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Deleting the double post.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 14 mai 2011 - 10:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]mindbody wrote...

In my experience most people don't understand the concept of role-playing well enough to roleplay multiple characters. [/quote]
Then they shouldn't be playing roleplaying games.
[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.[/quote]
Yes, that's exactly what it does.
[quote]Let's just hope Bioware is still keeping that option open.[/quote]
Some among them have explicitly denied that they ever kept that option open, and any perception of such on my part was an error.
[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.[/quote]
Both approaches have their appeal.  But I would like to see both, from time to time.  NWN worked well with the player controlling only one character.  DAO works well with the player controlling all of the characters.

The problem arises when the game can't decide which system it is using.  DA2 allows conrtrol of all of the characters some of the time, but not other times, even when they're related activities (like equipping gear and fighting things).

Luckily, the Equip Your Party mod improves DA2 enormously.
[quote]Sabriana wrote...

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.[/quote]
Absolutely.  This is how party-based RPGs work.  When players play them differently, their gameplay experience suffers.

This is akin to people sitting down to play poker, but one of them decides instead he's going to play bridge.  It just doesn't work.
[quote]mindbody wrote...

I think combat is roleplaying.[/quote]
Of course combat is roleplaying.  It's in-character decision-making.  That's all roleplaying ever is.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I couldn't agree more.  This is absolutely correct.
[quote]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. Either that, or set tactics for your companions and never take direct control.[/quote]
I disagree entirely.  If this were true, then it would be impossible to roleplay The Nameless One in Torment because the player doesn't get to create him.

No, as long as the player is given control of the character at some point after the character is intriduced, and then not later contradicted by the game (ideally by leaving the character under the player's control all of the time), absolutely a player can roleplay pre-generated characters.

BG is a gerat example of this.  The characters are presented to you with a fixed background and even a stated motivation, but then the player is given increasing control over them.  They can even speak to NPCs on behalf of the party, or use their social skills to deal with merchants -- all under the player's direct control.
[quote]Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

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".[/quote]
That's not necessarily true.  You're ignoring the PC's henchmen or followers - though admittedly newer game rules tend not to include those.

But look at 1st edition AD&D rules.  The PC gained followers upon reaching a given level, and the player controlled those followers (because they followed the PC without question, though they did have to make morale checks).
[quote]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.[/quote]
And here you're making the implicit assumption that the player in a CRPG takes the place of a player in a tabletop RPG, while the other players and the GM of the tabletop game are portrayed by the computer in the CRPG.

But that's also not necessarily the case.  Instead, why not have the computer act as GM, and have the player take the place of all of the players?
[quote]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.[/quote]
Why do you assume you can't roleplay in that scenario.

Also, I take issue with your perjorative suggestion that my approach is less immersive.  I'm fully immersed in my gameplay - someone here once called my approach the "willful induction of psychosis" as I would rather not be aware that I'm playing a game or that the characters are not real.
[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I see. But you're just playing the roles of characters that the game has already prescribed for you. Do you change this behavior from one playthrough to another? Would it make sense from a story point of view to do that (at least for DA2)?[/quote]
I can't speak to DA2, but certainly in DAO the companions' personalities can change quite a bit from playthrough to playthrough.
[quote]mindbody wrote...

Absolutely. I think Sylvius was talking about this earlier in the thread about using blood magic with Wynne.  You can come up with in character reasons for making Wynne take blood magic spec, which would be a significantly different playthrough for her than, say, the usual anti blood magic diatribe.  [/quote]
Yes, this exactly.
[quote]Perhaps when you complete her personal quest to find Aneirin and she realizes that he turned out ok, perhaps better, outside of the circle, you might roleplay her character as evolving to embrace alternate ways of approaching magic.  Remember, she already has a spirit inside her, and blood magic is the magic of demons, so it's not that far-fetched.  If she could be convinced that Blood magic can be used to help people, perhaps by sacrificing one's own life force to strengthen others, then it makes sense to do that in a playthrough. [/quote]
Shou could also still think Blood Magic is awful, but feel the need to use it in order to combat it.  If you abhor violence, that doesn't change that the best way to stop a violent person is to kill him.
[quote]Whereas in another playthrough she would be totally opposed to it based on chantry and circle dogma.  The story of DA:O doesn't contradict you either way.[/quote]
Again, exactly right.  BioWare's games, whether by accident or by design, have generally been very accommodating with regard to companion personalities.  And I honestly don't think BioWare really knew this until we started complaining about the feature being taken away.
[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

DA2's characters (and storyline) are a bit more rigid when compared to DAO, and that is the reason why some of those specializations are so much more fixed in-game. So that makes DA2's roleplaying potential so much more limited when compared to DAO.[/quote]
And this is a major reason why DA2 is by far the lesser game.
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

I wouldn't say that Bio always struggled with this. NWN1 is a perfect example of the second case, since the player can't take direct control of the companions -- all you can do is discuss their combat tactics pre-battle and issue limted voicechat requests in battle. Of course, NWN1's control scheme wasn't especially popular -- apparently, a lot of the player base doesn't care about incoherence between combat role-playing and non-combat role-playing.
[/quote]
But nor do they demand it.  So BioWare could accommodate those of us who think the feature is important, and the rest of the players probably wouldn't care.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I just now read through the gameplay and plot of Icewind Dale, by Black Isle. I can clearly see what you mean. In that game, I am at the same time one and all of the upto six player characters I can create at the start. And it appears none of the characters has any kind of backstory whatsoever; in fact, backstories aren't even part of the plot. The game makes no assumptions in this regard.

This is actually one of the standards I use to judge CRPGs.  If the game makes no background assumptions about the PC, then the game scores higher.  It is this specific feature that makes me rank KotOR so highly among BioWare's games, despite having significant party-control issues, a fairly linear overall structure, and being really quite small.

Icewind Dale is a party-based RPG, but it isn't the kind of game that DAO is. Branding them both as "party-based" would only be providing part of the information. You've explained the difference much more precisely.

I admit that I call them both simply "party-based RPGs" to create the impression that by limiting player control over the companions they have made some sort of error.

I suppose some gamers are trying to get as much role-play out of DA games as they can get. This includes role-playing as the companions also. I can see their motivations.

They are roleplaying games.  Roleplaying is the entire point of the games.

Everything else should be subservient to that. 

Aside from that, for what Sylvius said earlier to work for me, either the game has to actively react to everything I do; or the characters shouldn't come with an inherent specialization/character bias, either of which I'm sure Bioware is not going to provide anytime soon.

I think DAO is improved significantly by the No-Follower-Auto-Level mod, whereby when the companion is first met he has zero talent points assigned, so then you can do with him whatever you would like.

Sten makes a terrific archer.

I understand; DA2 seems to be just cementing that notion for future DA games.

For every game they release that unnecessarily limits roleplaying opportunities in this way, I'll be here to point it out.

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, it's an old, old dichotomy in RPGs. The very earliest CRPGs -- Wizardry, Starflight, Might and Magic and the like -- typically had you create all the characters, whether just one PC or a whole party. I think there were a couple early games with a pre-set character, but this was really uncommon. The joinable-NPC style comes in, I believe, with Ultima IV in 1985. Bio picked that style up when they came along with Baldur's Gate in 1998. While the BG games supported creating the whole party, it's become clear since then that Bio doesn't really believe in the player playing more than one character. (Black Isle, which someone mentioned upthread, used the BG engine for a couple of games where you do create the whole party.)

Just a clarification: Might & Magic actually started in 1986 - after U4's release.  A better example of the earliest RPGs might be Phantasie, or The Bard's Tale (both 1985), or the single PC only games like Ultima I-III (1980-83), or Questron (1984).

Games where you create the whole party seem to be dying out , as far as I can tell. I can understand why Bio isn't interested in the style, since creating interesting party members is one of their core competences.

I still think that creating the whole party isn't necessary, as long as the player is free to control the whole party (inlcuding things like combat, levelling up, equipment, and ideally extra-party interaction).

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I wouldn't say that Bio always struggled with this. NWN1 is a perfect example of the second case, since the player can't take direct control of the companions -- all you can do is discuss their combat tactics pre-battle and issue limted voicechat requests in battle. Of course, NWN1's control scheme wasn't especially popular -- apparently, a lot of the player base doesn't care about incoherence between combat role-playing and non-combat role-playing.

But nor do they demand it.  So BioWare could accommodate those of us who think the feature is important, and the rest of the players probably wouldn't care.

Sure. The question is what accomodation costs, if anything. I don't imagine there are that many players who really liked the pre-set specializations for companions, so this one probably should have gone the other way.

Good catch on Might and Magic. I always think of that game as being older than it was.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 mai 2011 - 09:39 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Good catch on Might and Magic. I always think of that game as being older than it was.

So did I.  I was surprised (some years ago) when I looked it up and saw how late it was.  As a result, now I remember.

But M&M is a good example of how the create-your-party approach did persist even after the joinable companions came along.

The most extreme example I know is The Dark Heart of Uukrul (1989) where you not only created the whole party (4 characters), but the game had permadeath so you constantly had to hire new party members to replace the fallen.  By the end of the game, chances were that none of your party members had even met any of your original 4 characters
 
And only those first 4 were actually created by you; all the subsequently hired characters were pre-generated.

It's a rich genre.  At least, it used to be.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 mai 2011 - 10:17 .

[mindbody]

AlanC9 wrote...
Sure. The question is what accomodation costs, if anything. I don't imagine there are that many players who really liked the pre-set specializations for companions, so this one probably should have gone the other way.

I would like to suggest that unique specs for companions would make more sense if they had acquired all the talents prior to meeting the pc.  Then they would represent the character's past experience without impeding roleplaying opportunities moving forward.  So they should be able to learn any specs or talents from then on.

I think Bioware is finding that, of all the parts in their action-rpg, the rpg parts are the most expensive and most difficult to write/program.  I hope they realize that there is far more for the company to gain by cornering the roleplaying market than by struggling for a piece of the action market.  

Of course, someone in the company obviously disagrees with that last statement. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

mindbody wrote...

I would like to suggest that unique specs for companions would make more sense if they had acquired all the talents prior to meeting the pc.  Then they would represent the character's past experience without impeding roleplaying opportunities moving forward. 

Even then, why not let the player determine some of that background himself if he wants?

I think Bioware is finding that, of all the parts in their action-rpg, the rpg parts are the most expensive and most difficult to write/program.

I don't think we can safely draw that conclusion.  There are all manner of features that are missing from DA2 in addition to the so-called "RPG elements".  While BioWare has never been especially good at level design, DA2 is poor even by their standards.  They've made public statements that the part of the team that is most overtasked at crunch-time is programming, so I suspect they're cutting corners there, too (this is the reason they gave for not allowing us to disable the depth of field effects in cutscenes).