338 réponses à ce sujet

[AngelicMachinery]

Zanallen wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Keep in mind what you're arguing. I'm not arguing that the gameplay mechanics are not internally consistent. I'm arguing that the gameplay mechanics and lore are divergent on an as-needed basis in games, and you are extremely hard-pressed to find a game where this is not the case.

They never explain why Sabin can suplex the phantom train in FF6, but can't force open locked doors.

They never explain why casting Meteor kills Tellah, but Rydia learns it like any other spell when she reaches a sufficient level and suffers no negative effects whatsoever.

Tellah only has 90 MP. Meteo costs 99 MP to cast. Obviously, that last 9 MP came from Tellah's HP at an absurd ratio. Because he was so old, he couldn't handle the HP -> MP conversion and died from the strain.

Fail blood mage is fail.

[Zanallen]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

Fail blood mage is fail.

Its cause he mained as a Sage.

[the_one_54321]

It's the cutscene rule. One that has existed and been followed in FF games since an FF game first had a cutscene.

[Zanallen]

I would argue that the Arishok's impalement move is a quasi-cutscene. Same with all deathblow type effects.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's the cutscene rule. One that has existed and been followed in FF games since an FF game first had a cutscene.

That sounds totally consistent with the lore of the series and nothing at all like a metagaming handwave that's used to justify a discrepancy between gameplay and lore.

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Could you provide an example of a game that doesn't violate its own lore with gameplay concessions?

Pong.

Okay, a game with actual lore? Exalted, but it's PnP. Though I'd say the gameplay violates the themes of the setting, which is even worse.

Hmm... Vampire: Bloodlines?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 26 mai 2011 - 04:50 .

[Zanallen]

Maria Caliban wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Could you provide an example of a game that doesn't violate its own lore with gameplay concessions?

Pong.

Okay, a game with actual lore? Exalted, but it's PnP.

Hmm... Vampire: Bloodlines?

The abilities present in the PnP version of Vampire the Masquerade don't match the game versions in some cases. Mostly, options were removed or powers were weakened.

[hoorayforicecream]

Maria Caliban wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Could you provide an example of a game that doesn't violate its own lore with gameplay concessions?

Pong.

Okay, a game with actual lore? Exalted, but it's PnP. Though I'd say the gameplay violates the themes of the setting, which is even worse.

Hmm... Vampire: Bloodlines?

I haven't played it, so I'm not sure about that.  Pen and paper games are the only ones I could think of that would work, because a living, thinking game master can react to anything the players can do. When you've got a static, closed system, it will have to eventually break down at some level of granularity.

[Maria Caliban]

Zanallen wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Could you provide an example of a game that doesn't violate its own lore with gameplay concessions?

Pong.

Okay, a game with actual lore? Exalted, but it's PnP.

Hmm... Vampire: Bloodlines?

The abilities present in the PnP version of Vampire the Masquerade don't match the game versions in some cases. Mostly, options were removed or powers were weakened.

That's not gameplay clashing with lore. That's gameplay in the cRPG being different than in the PnP game.

[Zanallen]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That's not gameplay clashing with lore. That's gameplay in the cRPG being different than in the PnP game.

Quote from T.V. Tropes: Vampire Bloodlines is based on the tabletop RPG Vampire The Masquerade. Of course, for gameplay reasons, disciplines work differently in the game than in the RPG... except in cutscenes.
For example, in one scene, Beckett uses his Protean discipline to
change into a wolf, which is a perfectly valid usage in the tabletop RPG
but something you can't do even with maxed Protean in-game. Later on, a
vampire uses Presence to seduce a mortal: Again, perfectly valid in the
RPG, but in the game Presence is entirely useless to you outside of
combat.

[Drachasor]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Drachasor wrote...
Which is a decidedly poor argument to implement sexist armors.

It is the exact same argument as those that don't want them: "I want what I want."

Actually, the principle against sexist armors is that you should treat each gender equally.  There are a lot of good reasons for this such as potential consumers, simple egalitarianism, providing good role models, etc.  There are many reasons why double standards are a bad idea.

Again, if you want a shallow double standard, then go get a mod.  There's no good reason to have it in the official game.

[bandfred]

Chainmail bikinis and other "sexy armors" can be put in a giant pile with the virtual representation of a lack of dwarf and qunari women and be set alight.

[Maria Caliban]

Zanallen wrote...

For example, in one scene, Beckett uses his Protean discipline to
change into a wolf, which is a perfectly valid usage in the tabletop RPG
but something you can't do even with maxed Protean in-game.

Except if you read the lore of the setting, you'd know that not all vampires have access to every power within a discipline.

In the setting, there's no such thing as 'maxed out Protean,' that is totally a gameplay element.

Later on, a
vampire uses Presence to seduce a mortal: Again, perfectly valid in the
RPG, but in the game Presence is entirely useless to you outside of
combat.

Because you're playing one vampire. Not all vampires. Different vampires have different powers.

Again, that matches the lore of the setting. The PC is a neophyte in the time of thin blood. We encounter vampires that can't even pierce someone's throat with their teeth despite being older than you.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 26 mai 2011 - 05:32 .

[Winterfly]

There was not really any "masculine" or "feminine" armor in real life Europe for example. Since women did not really go to battle but I am pretty sure they could carry a plate non the less. I presume if you trust all little paintings of Jean D'arc (spelling) she did carry a plate.

A plate is not that heavy either, especially not while being sitting on a horse so its not that strange that a woman, in the hundred year war that begun in 1337, working on a farm which was lots of physical job! Could carry a plate.

Modifié par Winterfly, 26 mai 2011 - 07:08 .

[abnocte]

the_one_54321 wrote...

abnocte wrote...
Aribeth armor is totally ridiculous
And this Saskia has the very same problem.

And they both have access to magic. It's fantasy. There's magic and enchanted weapons and enchanted armor. There's no strict reason why armor needs to cover people to be protective. Unless the game specifically tells you otherwise.

It is obvious we have different outlooks on fantasy and how enchanded weapons/armor work.

As I see it, an enchanted armor gives you more protection because the enchantments make it more resistant to impact/piercing damage. They don't create an invisible wall around your exposed body so even a direct hit to your
flesh will result in little to no damage.

Just because it is fantasy it doesn't mean it doesn't have to make sense.

If Aribeth and Saskia are able to cast a spell that creates a invisible protective wall/sphere AND are able to sustain it as long as a battle goes... you only need to sneak attack them before they cast it...

I don't know about Saskia, but Aribeth didn't have such an ability, and I never ran across an armor whose description stated that it will create a protective wall around the wearer.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
That sounds totally consistent with the lore of the series and nothing at all like a metagaming handwave that's used to justify a discrepancy between gameplay and lore.

I'm glad you understand. The cutscene rule has become pretty universal in the past decade or so, after all.

Drachasor wrote...
Actually, the principle against sexist armors is that you should treat each gender equally.

The problem there is that a number of the people saying exactly that. Sexy skimpy armor for everyone.

abnocte wrote...
Just because it is fantasy it doesn't mean it doesn't have to make sense.

It doesn't not make sense. You just don't like it and your attempt at a justification is to claim that it doesn't make sense. Specifically in Aribeth's case we are looking at a D&D 3.0 ruleset. Wherein magical protections do specifically work without armor actually covering the body. It's called a shield bonus in that ruleset. In the Witcher we have alchemy.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 mai 2011 - 03:29 .

[Inzhuna]

bandfred wrote...

Chainmail bikinis and other "sexy armors" can be put in a giant pile with the virtual representation of a lack of dwarf and qunari women and be set alight.

Amen.

You want sexualized female characters? Look everywhere around you. I don't need it in my Dragon Age.

[Haexpane]

Nozybidaj wrote...

aduellist wrote...

Still, I agree with your points.  Sexualized female armor simply shows an inability or unwillingness to accept women as equally capable and professional warriors.

As noted above, you'd have a hard time convincing me that Sonja is not an equally capable and professional warrior.

Exactly, Red Sonja is NOT "equally capable" she is SUPERIOUR to other warriors in every way.

[Haexpane]

"sexualized female characters"? The most "sexualized" character in DA is Zevran, and he's male.

This is this myth that female characters are sexualized and males are not.

Kratos runs around 5 god of war games mostly shirtless.
Every wrestling game
Every MMA game
NBA games, tank tops and short shorts
NFL games - but slaps and tight pants
Final Fantasy 10 - half shirts and abs exposed
Every JRPG - naked 18 year old men in hot tubs

[Akka le Vil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You know what, just no. I don't agree with you at all. Gameplay does always need to agree with lore. Gameplay and lore are interchangable.

While I agree that gameplay SHOULD always be based on lore (hence the difficulty of having actually immersive RPG when half of the designers go for the lazy road), you're the one who have a completely ridiculous argument about how everything is okay and logical because it's a video game that include magic, and now you try to hold that the lore should hold its logic ?
Then just after saying that gameplay and lore are consistant in Final Fantasy, you then point at the difference between gameplay (fighting) and lore and use it as an evidence that gameplay and lore are consistent... *mindboggle*

Make up your mind, man, your reasoning is completely broken and inconsistent from start to finish.

Daradain wrote...

I think the DA team at Bioware is still trying to grasp the concept of hot-yet-protective armor. As a rule, armor must be form-fitting to work properly.

Actually, no, it's the opposite. It's pretty logical on top of that : if it's form-fitting, it means you directly take the aftershock of the impact.
In fact, well-designed breastplate had a large space between the actual breast and the armour (because the armour was convex to deflect blow).
The advantage of form-fitting is not protection, it's movement.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 26 mai 2011 - 07:16 .

[the_one_54321]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Make up your mind, man, your reasoning is completely broken and inconsistent from start to finish.

It's not so difficult a concept. In the older FF games the battle screen and gameplay screens are literally seperated from each other. In DAII they are not. In FFXII they are not separated from each other in much the same way that they are not in DAII but in FFXII the interaction remains consistant whereas in DAII whenever you are around Templars it is not.

[Akka le Vil]

So gameplay = lore is stopped by a change of screen ?

Man, that's one of the most garbled and twisted reasoning I ever seen.

[the_one_54321]

Akka le Vil wrote...
So gameplay = lore is stopped by a change of screen ?

Man, that's one of the most garbled and twisted reasoning I ever seen.

Are you being serious or are you just being difficult on purpose?

There's nothing garbled about the concept at all. Here's an example from FFVII. You're sneaking through a tower that has guards. If the guards make line-of-sight with your character you are sent to a battle screen. The other guards that may have been nearby are not also brought into this screen becaue they were not also alerted by the line-of-sight. You have your battle in the battle screen then you go back to where  you were to keep sneaking through. The game maintains complete consistency with this system.

The separation is clear, deliberate, explained and consistent. DAII does the opposite. It implies that there is no such separation but then shrugs its shoulders and treats the character interactions as though there is a separatioh.

[marshalleck]

neppakyo wrote...

Cowboy_christo wrote...

chainmail bikini for everyone!!!

Ask and ye shall recieve.

Awesome. Dragon Age art style needs more Frank Frazetta, less Disney.

Modifié par marshalleck, 26 mai 2011 - 09:04 .

[Haexpane]

So a technical/design limitation of FF7 means what exactly>? And how does that relate to bikini armor?