252 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Dundalis wrote...

AFAIC genuine role playing games should have customisation. The more customisation the deeper the role playing experience.

The more you can create your character into the character YOU want the deeper the rpg experience. Of course making choices through the story is important, but it starts with being able to customise your character. It extends to your companions too, the more you can customise them, the better you can role play as a group.

That's what rpg is, role play. Playing a role with your characters. It's kinda hard to do that when your character is set in stone and you have practically no customisation options over your companions. You are basically playing a role someone else set for you. Aint no rpg.

Let's avoid the issue of what an RPG is and instead focus on a particular mechanic. The issue, from my perspective, is reactivity. I don't think a deeper role playing experience is satisfied with just more customization. If you look at a 'create-your-own-party' game like IWD, I think it dramatically lacks in RP compared to its contemporaries, like PS:T and BG.

I think the essence to a deeper roleplaying experience is reactivity. The idea is to create a character concept, customize it to some great extent, and then have the game react to the fact that your character is different and distinct. 

Why is something like PS:T or TW2 praised as a great RPG even with a highly fixed character (e.g. fixed gender & apperance, though with PS:T it was just the portrait & sprite)? Because there is lots of variation. If you have a different person (personality wise) you can have a different gameplay experience.

Of course, there is one counter to this: combat reactivity.

I don't like New Vegas very much. But one person I discussed the quality of the game with, long ago, said the RP options were much deeper than DA:O because you had the opportunity to solve the quests in many diffferent ways and were not restricted at all in character building. He said that overall, the opportunity to define your character through dialogue was weak, but faction membership and some branching quests paths made it an RPG.

Which kind of reactivity provides for a deeper RPG experience? It think it's based largely on taste. But I do think that to get a truly deep RPG, we want reactivity and not customization (per se).

mrcustry wrote...
I think that for all the mumbling about how Dragon Age 2 was unique
or evolutionary and that Origins was traditional and old, Origins was a
more groundbreaking game than Dragon Age 2 simply because of the Origin
stories.

It's pretty rare to find an RPG which lets you pick a
backstory and then allows you to play through it. Excellent form of
tutorial from a roleplaying perspective.

I think the origins were a good idea; it let you connect your character at the start to the setting, the word, and the story.

But ask yourself - why was this any different than just imagining a background and starting at Ostagar? I say it is due to the fact in-game, characters acknowledged and reacted to your different origin, and you had some unique content as a result.

Now, I personally found the origins to be very cosmetic (especially compared to what they were convceived as) but they certainly were a step in the right direction. Just as quasi-indpendent NPCs, the sort of which Bioware envisioned at the start of BG and began developing, were a step in the right direction.

Modifié par In Exile, 30 mai 2011 - 05:04 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

In Exile wrote...

I think the origins were a good idea; it let you connect your character at the start to the setting, the word, and the story.

But ask yourself - why was this any different than just imagining a background and starting at Ostagar? I say it is due to the fact in-game, characters acknowledged and reacted to your different origin, and you had some unique content as a result.

Now, I personally found the origins to be very cosmetic (especially compared to what they were convceived as) but they certainly were a step in the right direction. Just as quasi-indpendent NPCs, the sort of which Bioware envisioned at the start of BG and began developing, were a step in the right direction.

I think the different origins may have been the best thing about the game, even if they weren't particularly deep.  Anything that allows me to identify more closely with my individual PC is an improvement for me.

[Sidney]

In Exile wrote...

Which kind of reactivity provides for a deeper RPG experience? It think it's based largely on taste. But I do think that to get a truly deep RPG, we want reactivity and not customization (per se).

Now, I personally found the origins to be very cosmetic (especially compared to what they were convceived as) but they certainly were a step in the right direction. Just as quasi-indpendent NPCs, the sort of which Bioware envisioned at the start of BG and began developing, were a step in the right direction.

You are 100% right about reactivity and not customization. I really don't care about the endless tweaking of a few more points of damage out of my weapons or to a tweak bit higher % chance of critical - franklly in most cases it doesn't matter. I think one reason we keep getting the "middle ages fantasy" and "space future" is that they can have "magic" and lots of items to keep OCD people happy. I'd love to see RP in other eras but a lot of the looting/customization stuff makes a lot less sense if it is the world of Alexander Dumas, Zane Grey, or Dashiell Hammett and I think, and based on the hysterical reaction to DA2 I think I'm right, that "Real" RPG fans wouldn't go for it.

In ther end that is why the Origins really turned me off. I thought "how cool" but by the end of my first playthrough (city elf) I realzed that not only did being an elf not matter a whit in the game but the actual origiin itself didn't either other than a few toss away lines and cameos. I'd love to see DA3 have an elven protagonist and have that "elvishness" really mean something to story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think customisation should trump reactivity, and that's because I think the roleplaying lies within the customisation.

The customisation of the PC's personality is what I think matters, and if the game allows that then it cannot react to the player's choices, as there are simply too many of them.

[AAHook2]

mrcrusty wrote...





------

Getting back on topic, in terms of "deepening RPG mechanics", I've got another suggestion:

Better integrating the character system into the game. That's the grandaddy of all RPG mechanics.

Also, if Bioware are scared at throwing character sheets at people, how about making character creation more intuitive instead of just removing them or making them mean less?

The question/answer character creation of the old Ultima games, the Elder Scrolls games and the newer Fallout games are perfect examples.

The "here's the tutorial dungeon, we'll setup your stats and skills depending on how you play through it" design of Oblivion is also worth a look at.

Finally, the "here are ready made builds with a small description of it's strengths/weaknesses, pick your favorite" method also works just fine.

I like that idea mrcrusty.
You would start out with a general character/morality.disposition build. You would have a background, and as the game progresses, options and responses would be shown to you that more or less play to that build, but have open options to start a slide in a different direction if the player chooses to engage.

Origins kind of had a system like that, except it was the Origin that kind of informed you what direction you might want to go.
Humans tend to be entitled. Human warriors, seek vengeance.  It's built into the story, yes?
Elves have an inferiority complex built in. They don't trust humans for good reason.
Dwarves are xenophobic. They are isolationists. A Noble has a vendetta. A commoner on the other hand, has every reason to want to start a new life, and the surface provides that opportunity.

Then there are NPCs who inform where a character may lean. Morrigan of course. Every Companion seems to carry a disposition.

Do we want to go a step further? Should each skill carry an impact on character development and morality? Should an Assassin automatically lean towards darker spectrums?
What if you just like the skill set?
Should a healer necessarily lean towards being "good"?

I believe it should all be integrated, but you should be able to understand where your character is going for the most part. There should be morality milestones, certain things that tell you you're on this path or that...

It's an area of RPG that gets a little convoluted, but I believe it's integral to the genre. It's pretty much the point of the journey. Yes, it's supposed to be fun, but if you're looking to go beyond your run of the mill hack and slash or shoot em up adventure, an RPG has to pay close attention to this notion that the character matters.
If you give that player the power to define a character or at least put their own touches on a character. That's the height of interactive RPGs.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sidney wrote...
You are 100% right about reactivity and not customization. I really don't care about the endless tweaking of a few more points of damage out of my weapons or to a tweak bit higher % chance of critical - franklly in most cases it doesn't matter. I think one reason we keep getting the "middle ages fantasy" and "space future" is that they can have "magic" and lots of items to keep OCD people happy. I'd love to see RP in other eras but a lot of the looting/customization stuff makes a lot less sense if it is the world of Alexander Dumas, Zane Grey, or Dashiell Hammett and I think, and based on the hysterical reaction to DA2 I think I'm right, that "Real" RPG fans wouldn't go for it.
[/quote]

I am anti-loot. I dislike the way the loot system is handled, and it generally just means lots of vendor trash with a few usable items as the top tier items for a particular class, rank ordered on how many NPCs you have of that class. I thought the "Junk" you kept finding in DA2 was just poking fun at the whole notion.

That being said, I like the statistical development side. It just has to be approachable.

/quote]In ther end that is why the Origins really turned me off. I thought "how cool" but by the end of my first playthrough (city elf) I realzed that not only did being an elf not matter a whit in the game but the actual origiin itself didn't either other than a few toss away lines and cameos. I'd love to see DA3 have an elven protagonist and have that "elvishness" really mean something to story.[/quote]

This was part of my eventual disatisfaction with origins. The other part was the forced Grey Warden sympathizer role for the main character.

I think in terms of structure, DA2 was just more consistent wiht what an RPG ought to have been, and so the fanbase wanted to overlook flaws in terms of story and choice much more.

It's absolutely true that DA:O has a lair of finish to choices and the story than DA2 didn't. But a lot of the same structural flaws are present in both.

[AlanC9]

Dundalis wrote...
That's what rpg is, role play. Playing a role with your characters. It's kinda hard to do that when your character is set in stone and you have practically no customisation options over your companions. You are basically playing a role someone else set for you. Aint no rpg.

Itals mine. What do customization options for the companions have to do with playing a role with your character?

[Aesieru]

Actually that is one of the aspects that a RPG is defined by, the ability to customize.

[Sidney]

Aesieru wrote...

Actually that is one of the aspects that a RPG is defined by, the ability to customize.

Two games:

Game #1: Set in the real Middle Ages. You are a noble given a set of chainmail, helm, shield, sword and throwing axe as befits someone of your age and station. You have 100% stats based combat like DAO has. There are no magic items, no plate mail, no better shield than your kite shield. You are at the top of the technological food chain in 11th century so there's no reason to loot and most people don't carry pocket change on them anyways. You are tossed into a complex and morally ambiguous plot with all the conflicting issues of the arrival of Christianity, the stucture of a feudal society and so on. Your choices affect the plot and outcome of the narrative.

Game #2: Icewind Dale

Which one is a RPG to you? Chosing who your character is or chosing what they look like and dress?

[Aesieru]

I'm telling you the definition of the term.

[Sidney]

Aesieru wrote...

I'm telling you the definition of the term.

Now you are avoiding the issue. :happy: Is game #1 an RPG without customization and furthermore is Game 2 really an RPG to you?

[Teredan]

Sidney wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

I'm telling you the definition of the term.

Now you are avoiding the issue. :happy: Is game #1 an RPG without customization and furthermore is Game 2 really an RPG to you?

It's definitely not a standart rpg, I don't know it's a step closer to being an rpg, than heavy rain is (which is basically what you described with a different setting and without stat based combat). It's pretty blurry but whatever it's just semantics anyway.

[AlanC9]

Sidney wrote...
You are 100% right about reactivity and not customization. I really don't care about the endless tweaking of a few more points of damage out of my weapons or to a tweak bit higher % chance of critical - franklly in most cases it doesn't matter. I think one reason we keep getting the "middle ages fantasy" and "space future" is that they can have "magic" and lots of items to keep OCD people happy. I'd love to see RP in other eras but a lot of the looting/customization stuff makes a lot less sense if it is the world of Alexander Dumas, Zane Grey, or Dashiell Hammett and I think, and based on the hysterical reaction to DA2 I think I'm right, that "Real" RPG fans wouldn't go for it.

The only thing I disagree with here is the idea that traditional RPG looting actually makes sense in SF games. You need a very peculiar society for this sort of thing to work, since you need a large spead of technologies that are still viable, with massive income inequality to keep the cheap tech around, and a legal system that allows players to still use the mil-spec stuff when they do finally get their hands on it.

I'm not sure whether ME1 failed worse at making a fun loot system or at making a loot system that made sense.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

AAHook2 wrote...

I like that idea mrcrusty.
You would start out with a general character/morality.disposition build. You would have a background, and as the game progresses, options and responses would be shown to you that more or less play to that build, but have open options to start a slide in a different direction if the player chooses to engage.

Origins kind of had a system like that, except it was the Origin that kind of informed you what direction you might want to go.
Humans tend to be entitled. Human warriors, seek vengeance.  It's built into the story, yes?
Elves have an inferiority complex built in. They don't trust humans for good reason.
Dwarves are xenophobic. They are isolationists. A Noble has a vendetta. A commoner on the other hand, has every reason to want to start a new life, and the surface provides that opportunity.

Then there are NPCs who inform where a character may lean. Morrigan of course. Every Companion seems to carry a disposition.

Do we want to go a step further? Should each skill carry an impact on character development and morality? Should an Assassin automatically lean towards darker spectrums?
What if you just like the skill set?
Should a healer necessarily lean towards being "good"?

I believe it should all be integrated, but you should be able to understand where your character is going for the most part. There should be morality milestones, certain things that tell you you're on this path or that...

It's an area of RPG that gets a little convoluted, but I believe it's integral to the genre. It's pretty much the point of the journey. Yes, it's supposed to be fun, but if you're looking to go beyond your run of the mill hack and slash or shoot em up adventure, an RPG has to pay close attention to this notion that the character matters.
If you give that player the power to define a character or at least put their own touches on a character. That's the height of interactive RPGs.

I personally don't think skill sets should be limited according to the personality. Unlike in D&D, the skills and abilities in the Dragon Age universe are pretty alignment neutral. I don't like the idea of limiting a player's ability to player or create their build based on alignment.

That said, I want certain specialisations to be plot restricted again. I'd like some of them to be tied to a moral choice, the Spirit Healer/Blood Mage specialisation being an obvious example.

So I don't like the player being limited purely on alignment or morality, but access to certain specialisations should be tied to a moral choice in the plot. Like Origins, just refine the process a bit.

I think that less than a morality meter, the game should track your dominant personality and choices instead. If we want to paint Dragon Age as a dark fantasy or w/e, we can't have clearly defined good and evil, which is I think, what Dragon Age 2 wanted to show. An adaptation of the New Vegas reputation system along with a global reputation based on your dominant personality, along with your choices in the narrative, ought to be enough.

And reactivity > customisation.

A game that responds to your choices, whether it be choice in character personality, choice in build, choice in narrative, choice in playstyle, etc is what I think RPGs should aim for. On top of a strong narrative, the gameplay has to support roleplaying your character concept. It's why I'm a fan of the Fallout games (1/2/NV) over Bioware's games. The ability to roleplay doesn't just come from the narrative, it comes from the gameplay. Something I find lacking in most Bioware games. Dragon Age 2 sticks out especially for me.

Ideally, this is where games like Mask of the Betrayer and Planescape: Torment fall under. The narrative is very strong, but allows for an incredible amount of reactivity and variation whether in personality, narrative choices, build or playstyle.

Customisation, while important, plays a secondary role to all that.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 30 mai 2011 - 11:48 .

[AAHook2]

Maybe skill sets shouldn't be limited to personality, but the acts that a character commits should effect the personality.
If I'm an assassin and I have no trouble killing women and children as part of a job, do I really go back to being a normal person who can joke about farts?
Something should happen if I do something. Reactivity.
Now, if I learn the skill set of an assassin, does this mean I have to be an assassin? Absolutely not.

I liked that in Origins you learned a specialization from a companion. It made more sense than in Dragon Age 2 where you would pick up a manual or the option to learn a skill tree just appeared for whatever reason.
However, learning something should have a significance on character development. For example, if I learned to be a Bard from Leliana, certain things in the plot should adjust to that fact.

I think the fact is that Reactivity should be a means to which a player gains Customization. And of course when you customize a character it should change the reactivity of a game...hmm...

It's like we're talking about two parts of the same thing. Interactivity, for lack of a better phrase.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

AAHook2 wrote...

Maybe skill sets shouldn't be limited to personality, but the acts that a character commits should effect the personality.
If I'm an assassin and I have no trouble killing women and children as part of a job, do I really go back to being a normal person who can joke about farts?
Something should happen if I do something. Reactivity.
Now, if I learn the skill set of an assassin, does this mean I have to be an assassin? Absolutely not.

I liked that in Origins you learned a specialization from a companion. It made more sense than in Dragon Age 2 where you would pick up a manual or the option to learn a skill tree just appeared for whatever reason.
However, learning something should have a significance on character development. For example, if I learned to be a Bard from Leliana, certain things in the plot should adjust to that fact.

I think the fact is that Reactivity should be a means to which a player gains Customization. And of course when you customize a character it should change the reactivity of a game...hmm...

It's like we're talking about two parts of the same thing. Interactivity, for lack of a better phrase.

Ideally, you're right and to some extent Alpha Protocol provides this with how they do handler relationships. If you choose personality options that favour the aggressive SIE, she grants you a bonus as a result of that favorable disposition. Conversely, Thorton becomes more aggressive in his tone (I think) and some of the calmer, more professional and diplomatic options are harder to come by. This also affects his disposition with other characters/handlers such as Mina, who prefer the professional and diplomatic approach.

I think it then becomes a question, of how much reactivity can a game reasonbly handle in which areas before it becomes too complex.

-------

To elaborate on my point, AAHook2, I believe what you're suggesting is an ideal situation for a voiced protagonist with a system of paraphrasing or tonal based dialog option. A system where your dialog dynamically changes based on a personality shaped through your in-game choices.

For a silent protagonist however, I feel like this is un-necessary. The trick for a silent protagonist (+ full text) is having dialog options that are deep and nuanced enough to support roleplaying with different character concepts, with the game reacting to the dialog in a way that's appropriate.

This is an area where I feel that Planescape: Torment really excels at. The story itself is relatively linear, but it's strength lies in how much freedom you're given over TNO, even if he's a preset character. You get the feeling that no two TNOs are ever the same (lol), and the game is able to react to those different personalities without ruining the core narrative or introducing mechanics such as dynamically changing dialog.

That game was just so cool....

Modifié par mrcrusty, 31 mai 2011 - 01:44 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dundalis wrote...
That's what rpg is, role play. Playing a role with your characters. It's kinda hard to do that when your character is set in stone and you have practically no customization options over your companions. You are basically playing a role someone else set for you. Ain't no rpg.

Itals mine. What do customization options for the companions have to do with playing a role with your character?

Aesieru wrote...
Actually that is one of the aspects that a RPG is defined by, the ability to customize.

All completely meaningless. For one, trying to define "RPG" among a group is an exercise in futility because the marketing departments have deliberately made the term a constant self-contradiction. For another thing, whatever you do or don't get to customize in the NPCs has no effect on how you do or don't play the PC. If some people want to be able to customize the NPCs it's just because they enjoy that and they want to do it. Personally, I don't care either way. The writers can create an interesting character independent of my customization or within my customization. It makes no difference to me.

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
For a silent protagonist however, I feel like this is un-necessary. The trick for a silent protagonist (+ full text) is having dialog options that are deep and nuanced enough to support roleplaying with different character concepts, with the game reacting to the dialog in a way that's appropriate.

This is an area where I feel that Planescape: Torment really excels at. The story itself is relatively linear, but it's strength lies in how much freedom you're given over TNO, even if he's a preset character. You get the feeling that no two TNOs are ever the same (lol), and the game is able to react to those different personalities without ruining the core narrative or introducing mechanics such as dynamically changing dialog.

I started playing Fallout. One thing I really like about the dialogue in the game, is how well developed the dialogue is. Bioware does not write very good PC dialogue by that standard. They have very vague responses for the most part. I think more colourful responses (an especially the stat and skill based responses) help develop your character.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
For a silent protagonist however, I feel like this is un-necessary. The trick for a silent protagonist (+ full text) is having dialog options that are deep and nuanced enough to support roleplaying with different character concepts, with the game reacting to the dialog in a way that's appropriate.

This is an area where I feel that Planescape: Torment really excels at. The story itself is relatively linear, but it's strength lies in how much freedom you're given over TNO, even if he's a preset character. You get the feeling that no two TNOs are ever the same (lol), and the game is able to react to those different personalities without ruining the core narrative or introducing mechanics such as dynamically changing dialog.

I started playing Fallout. One thing I really like about the dialogue in the game, is how well developed the dialogue is. Bioware does not write very good PC dialogue by that standard. They have very vague responses for the most part. I think more colourful responses (an especially the stat and skill based responses) help develop your character.

That is why I always get confused when people claim that having a full text silent protagonist makes dialog boring and bland. The first thought that comes to mind is "ffs, play a game not made by Bioware or Bethesda". I always also a little confused when you said Vegas doesn't allow for much roleplaying through the dialog. While it is true that  a lot of the "normal" dialog is ordinary, there is plenty of dialog with personality, especially when they are related to skills or perks.

[AlanC9]

Aesieru wrote...

Actually that is one of the aspects that a RPG is defined by, the ability to customize.

Assuming that was supposed to be a reply to me, why is customizing characters that aren't your own something that defines an RPG? Or perhaps I should ask why it should be something that defines an RPG.

And of course, I wasn't actually playing the RPG definition game in the first place. Knowing whether a game is an RPG or not is about as important as knowing where the DVD was manufactured.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 mai 2011 - 04:07 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...
Actually that is one of the aspects that a RPG is defined by, the ability to customize.

Assuming that was supposed to be a reply to me, why is customizing characters that aren't your own something that defines an RPG? Or perhaps I should ask why it should be something that defines an RPG.

Please stop. Seriously. "RPG" means whatever marketing wants it to mean.

The more important question is "why is this feature important to you?"

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 mai 2011 - 04:06 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
That is why I always get confused when people claim that having a full text silent protagonist makes dialog boring and bland. The first thought that comes to mind is "ffs, play a game not made by Bioware or Bethesda". I always also a little confused when you said Vegas doesn't allow for much roleplaying through the dialog. While it is true that  a lot of the "normal" dialog is ordinary, there is plenty of dialog with personality, especially when they are related to skills or perks.

I don't think the dialogue is very good RP dialogue for Fallout. It's oddly specific and doesn't really work for most characters I have, and generally involves picking the least wrong thing. I prefer intent & motivation as a build, and for the game to acknowledge those versus the words that are said. Because the words rarely match the characters I have, especially when the writing is specific.

As for New Vegas, I don't think there is the opportunity to RP through dialogue, because it's not very reactive. You have a sentence recognition for using a particular persuade option, but that's generally it.

Vegas has a quality faction mechanic, and it allows for multiple approaches, but essentialy the PC is entirely disconnected from the story. I can expand my criticism and how I feel the system employed does not provide for a deeper RPG experience, if you're interested.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...
Actually that is one of the aspects that a RPG is defined by, the ability to customize.

Assuming that was supposed to be a reply to me, why is customizing characters that aren't your own something that defines an RPG? Or perhaps I should ask why it should be something that defines an RPG.

Please stop. Seriously. "RPG" means whatever marketing wants it to mean.

The more important question is "why is this feature important to you?"

See my edit above. Not my game, but if Aesieru wants to play, I'll play.

Though since you asked nicely, I figure I'll give it a rest tonight.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

I don't think the dialogue is very good RP dialogue for Fallout. It's oddly specific and doesn't really work for most characters I have, and generally involves picking the least wrong thing. I prefer intent & motivation as a build, and for the game to acknowledge those versus the words that are said. Because the words rarely match the characters I have, especially when the writing is specific.

Weird, because I tend to be perfectly fine with the text that comes out. Fits my characters perfectly. I see what you're saying to a degree, but that's really a problem inherent to all specific text dialog systems. I'm a kind of person who can easily work within such a system though and I find the dialog in games like Fallout, VtMB or PS:T often compliment my character concepts as opposed to working against it.

Obviously, this is a person to person thing and I think it's unfortunate it doesn't work out for you.

I personally don't mind a system that bases itself on intent and/or motivation, but I think that would be much easier done with a voiced protagonist as opposed to the silent one. As I said before, the problem you're describing is something that's likely to happen with specific text dialog options.

You either need to make the dialog text open enough to allow the player to fill in their own motivations and intent, which is the approach that Bethesda and Bioware have taken or do what the Black Isle/Troika/Obsidian games do and make dialog options vibrant and cater to various character personalities.

The weakness in the Bioware/Bethesda method is that it makes the player dialog look bland, uninspired and at times, simplistic when it comes to linking the dialog options with a moral choice. KotOR and just about any Bethesda game are especially guilty of this. The strength is that it allows the players to deliver the dialogue in a manner that matches their character.

The opposite is true for the Black Isle/Troika/Obsidian method. It's strength lies in having dialog options that provide intent, personality and vibrancy. The problem is that it may alienate some players as none of the dialog options are what they want their character to say, at least in terms of the delivery and intent.

In Exile wrote...
As for New Vegas, I don't think there is the opportunity to RP through dialogue, because it's not very reactive. You have a sentence recognition for using a particular persuade option, but that's generally it.

Vegas has a quality faction mechanic, and it allows for multiple approaches, but essentialy the PC is entirely disconnected from the story. I can expand my criticism and how I feel the system employed does not provide for a deeper RPG experience, if you're interested.

Well for me, it's something it needed to build on. I think New Vegas did a great job on allowing roleplay through gameplay but had troubles in matching that roleplaying depth through the dialog, especially when it came to a player's motivation and personality shaping. It's essentially the polar opposite of Bioware games in that regard. Now the skill checks, perks and stat options add to the roleplay, but they stuck out as being "gamey" because of the skill and success/failure tags. They felt like a separate entity when it came to the dialog. I've got a mod that removes those tags and you'd be surprised at how much better roleplaying through dialog becomes.

So it's not so much the mechanics (though I'd argue it still needs work), but rather, the presentation.

I won't argue the point much more though as it's already off topic as it is.

--------------------

To get back on topic, I'll reiterate my primary design or mechanics that should be considered a "deepening" of RPG elements, or at least allow for more of it.

- Better character system (tiered)
- Better Tutorial
- Non combat skills
- Skill checks
- Reputation system
- Choices and Consequences mechanic
- Semi-Open Exploration

Modifié par mrcrusty, 31 mai 2011 - 04:48 .

[asaiasai]

AAHook2 wrote...

What I loved about Origins was the fact that each player had the high probability of having a very different experience compared to another player.
Not just the ability to look different, but to have a different background altogether. The story elements and overall narrative were the same, yes. Everyone hits roughly the same milestones, but it was your choice for the most part, as to when you would complete certain areas.
I realize it wasn't always immersive to say, complete half of Denerim, leave and complete part of Orzammar, then go back again. It was nice to be able to do that though.

Depth to me was being a Dwarf Assassin thief with a heart of gold while someone else played the same game and was an egotistical tactical genius of an elven mage, with a martyrdom complex.

That was just missing from Dragon Age 2.
I wish the series would go back towards Origins emphasis on customization BUT MORE. Creating an open RPG that has a solid world built around it to keep things cohesive. That is what I was hoping for with Dragon Age 2 and was disappointed that in most respects the game went in the opposite direction.
In Dragon Age 3 I would like to see a hero who could be anyone or anything. He or she could be a hero in every sense, big and bold, a juggernaut. But I really missed being sort of an outsider who eventually found his stride after the toils of the adventure forged him into something more than he was.
I would love to see the ability to play a character who is largely a support unit. A craftsman, or armorer, enchanter or healer who travels in a small camp to support the big hitters, eventually finding themselves in something more of a lead role unexpectedly.

This is what I glimpsed in Origins that was possibly deeper and more epic. Dragon Age 2 all but snuffed out that hope to play such a game.
Make a game where almost any story could be told, That's epic. I don't fancy following a railroad track to the end. I want something more organic, surprising, engrossing. I want to reach a great narrative feat, but I also find great satisfaction in chatting with companions, romancing some, learning from others. Going on a journey with them literally and in a relationship sense. That's satisfying.
Anyhow, that's the short end of it, what I enjoy in these games. Seems like a lot, but we got close to it with Origins. It baffles me how far we've gotten from that since.

I have 22 completed replays of DAO because of the design of the game allowed for it. I will not say that all of the characters were different in every way but there was enough of depth to make multiple characters that were similar yet different enough that the replay was not cookie cutter.

I have several plays where i went in as support. I have a couple plays where i played the healer mage, relied on AI tactics, buffing, de-buffing and healing the party as they fought according to the tactics i set up.  Those plays where i played support, relied on Shale to tank, Leliana to open boxes, Sten as DPS were some of the most challanging and difficult plays but also were some of the most fun. The AI will not always do what you think it should, but as a support character i chose to let it run its course and try and compensate for the inconsistency or in some case the consistency of AI decisions. I often found myself asking this question "Why Shale for example is on that target as opposed to this one?" yet in the spirit of RPG role playing  i chose to run with it. If you want to talk about a challange this play style was pretty difficult from alot of perspectives, and i did not need to artificially create difficulty by jacking up the skill. With the changes i read about during the development process, with the changes i saw in the demo, this play option was completely removed, and IMHO completely removed any alternative functionality of the mage class. In DA2 the mage is DPS that is the only role they have which is a limit on replay so in reality less in definately not more.

Asai