252 réponses à ce sujet

[AAHook2]

We're looking at a bit of a mish mash of qualities with the dialogue.

I suppose a Mad Libs type of entry system would be an advancement of the currently seen systems of dialogue. If you could choose the content in terms of words and then assign a tone or intent to the words that may or may not have something to do with an established character angle...

As for customization of NPCs..I've always longed for your close companions to be as complex and adaptive as the main character. If they have limitations in customization, the least I think should be done is to provide some kind of in story explanation. In Dragon Age 2 at least Varric explains why he prefers to keep Bianca to some degree. In contrast we had no explanation why he prefers to wear basically the same outfit for 7 years.
In a perfect world (or RPG) you could change your companions' gear but they'd make adjustments to them on their own. So if for example Varric has his preference of clothing, maybe there would be a way to break down other pieces of armor or materiel to enhance his garb.

I kind of liked Wade's Emporium on wheels in Awakenings. It gave me something to care about in between missions.
I think they could merge the junk concept with Wade's material requirements and make a new crafting dynamic.
When I was first playing Dragon Age 2, I thought that eventually something usefull would come of the junk category, like I'd need 30 dwarven pins to enhance the armor rating of Varric's clothing. That would have been awesome and would have put some use to the dozens of useless items they dropped in that game.
I think the items and customization features really go hand and hand. Each item should serve SOME purpose, otherwise why bother with it?
Just some brief ideas. Carry on.

[centiumcuspis]

I like shooting people in the feet and watching them limp or react in a "YOU SHOT MY FOOT" sort of way I think that there should be more foot shooting. hows that for a game mechanic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Because the words rarely match the characters I have, especially when the writing is specific.

Abstraction cures all ills.

[centiumcuspis]

IT ALL MAKES SCENCE NOW I DON'T LIKE IMMERSION, IMMERSION IS NOT EPIC BECAUSE WE ARE NOT EPIC AND NEED SOMEONE ELSE TO BE EPIC FOR US. I like revelations that hurt. and no I don't actualy belive this I just found the thought funny.

[GodWood]

I want both the voiced protaganist and the dialogue wheel gone.

[Sidney]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The 'Role' and the "Roll' go hand in hand. Stats and skill checks, dice rolls over player skill. Character role defined by player choice in stats and skills and often also defined by 'Roll" determing certain values as well. Although the idea of rolling for stats died quite some time ago (in CRPG at least).

I would make the argument that a hypothetical game like AC with actual choices in the storyline is more of a RPG than IWD or Diablo ever could be because the game mechanics in the latter don't allow for any role playing. The latter are almost no different, other than their inferiority, to me than Jagged Alliance or XCOM.

Still, I overall agree that having a player character matters. My gripe with TW2 is that I have to do too much in combat. I hate that in FNV I have to hack a computer - if I'm bad at word games my character no matter his INT is bad at them. Oblviion's lockpick system, ME's hacking and so on are all player controlled not PC controlled. Heck in FNV or oblviion I have to aim and raise shields and such things that also are really outside my bounds. I don't want skills to "influence" my player skills.  It is something DA* hasn't lost. If I want a lock picked it is all about my PC skills not my ability.

Now, that is really where my need for "roll" stops. For so many people the more game mechanics you can pile on the "deeper" the game is. There is no game mechnic that makes a game deeper. Depth is about the depth in tactics or story not a host rules. The size of the manual doesn't make for a better game. Chess remains a beautiful and deep game despite a ruleboook that could fit into an average video game manual with room to spare. Adding more things to bolt onto to your gun in ME2 doesn't make it a deeper role playing experience. Having trash looting in DAO doesn't make it deeper than DA2. Being able to play dress up with companions sure as hades isn't a deeper experience.  Why? None of those things affect who I am and how I play my role where role is something other than "I'm a  snaiper type character so I want a laser sight".

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Some mechanics can make for more roleplay options though. Keeping the Coercion skill, for example, would of allowed people who invested effort in that skill for their characters to open up new character options in dialogue. If they kept racial options for the protagonist, that too opens up dialogue and plot options for the player.

In DA 2, stats only mean armor or weapon advancement scaling, they have nothing to do with roleplaying, which is a shame. It just encourages min/maxing because Hawke essentially can be a genius, captain persuasion or a court jester regardless of statistics rolled during leveling. I miss stats reflecting options within a game and actually playing a role which is interactive to the player. DA 2 just reminds me every minute that I'm playing a character Bioware created, and a boring one at that.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Sidney wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The 'Role' and the "Roll' go hand in hand. Stats and skill checks, dice rolls over player skill. Character role defined by player choice in stats and skills and often also defined by 'Roll" determing certain values as well. Although the idea of rolling for stats died quite some time ago (in CRPG at least).

I would make the argument that a hypothetical game like AC with actual choices in the storyline is more of a RPG than IWD or Diablo ever could be because the game mechanics in the latter don't allow for any role playing. The latter are almost no different, other than their inferiority, to me than Jagged Alliance or XCOM.

Still, I overall agree that having a player character matters. My gripe with TW2 is that I have to do too much in combat. I hate that in FNV I have to hack a computer - if I'm bad at word games my character no matter his INT is bad at them. Oblviion's lockpick system, ME's hacking and so on are all player controlled not PC controlled. Heck in FNV or oblviion I have to aim and raise shields and such things that also are really outside my bounds. I don't want skills to "influence" my player skills.  It is something DA* hasn't lost. If I want a lock picked it is all about my PC skills not my ability.

Now, that is really where my need for "roll" stops. For so many people the more game mechanics you can pile on the "deeper" the game is. There is no game mechnic that makes a game deeper. Depth is about the depth in tactics or story not a host rules. The size of the manual doesn't make for a better game. Chess remains a beautiful and deep game despite a ruleboook that could fit into an average video game manual with room to spare. Adding more things to bolt onto to your gun in ME2 doesn't make it a deeper role playing experience. Having trash looting in DAO doesn't make it deeper than DA2. Being able to play dress up with companions sure as hades isn't a deeper experience.  Why? None of those things affect who I am and how I play my role where role is something other than "I'm a  snaiper type character so I want a laser sight".

Funny, I have the opposite opinion to you, yet I'd use the exact same examples to prove my point that the character system should be more integrated. I hated those minigames. It comes down to creating a good character system that can support the way the player wants to play. Dragon Age 2 limits that, whether it be the removal of conversational skills, non combat skills, limits on customisation or w/e.

Let me lay down an example. While a natural Mage, Hawke is more than adequate at typical melee combat, preferring to use buffs to aid the party without alerting the guards or Templars of their magical nature.

It's not the smartest build, but in Origins, you could roleplay that character concept and seal up a major narrative/gameplay segregation element of Dragon Age 2: Templars not noticing Mage Hawke.

However, the game's limited customisation and character system does not allow you to roleplay as that character.

The "depth" of a character system need not be overly complex, it just needs to be able to support everything that the player would reasonably want to do. Truth be told, I felt that BG 2 (didn't much like BG 1) was great in spite of the 2nd ed ruleset, not because of it.

But when some elements are handled poorly because of a lack of focus, not concept, then the ideal method is to make said element better integrated into the game. Not to cut it off. That just reduces the perceived depth of the game. Was trap making and potion making ideal? No, of course not. The solution is to make them better and more relevant, not cut them off completely. Why? Because they are successful concepts that help support the player roleplay their character.

Same goes for conversational skills. Was the implementation of Coercion or Intimidation ideal? No, but they were great to have. Not only did they provide an alternative to combat, they allowed players to roleplay using the character system. When you remove the relevancy of the character system and base it all on the player or restrict you to what the game wants, you are removing part of it's depth.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 31 mai 2011 - 01:48 .

[abaris]

Sidney wrote...

Now, that is really where my need for "roll" stops. For so many people the more game mechanics you can pile on the "deeper" the game is. There is no game mechnic that makes a game deeper. Depth is about the depth in tactics or story not a host rules.

I might agree with you as far as mechanics are concerned. But when it comes to fighting, if there's nothing else than pushing a button, one might ask, why do it at all if its on autopilot anyway. Kanzee would be well equipped to be up to this task and methinks, we should set out standards a little higher than our removed hairy cousins.

Second, leaving out all the social skills, leaving out Alchemy, leaving out trap making, is leaving out richness. I for one never was much into alchemy. But it was there for me to use and it added to the feeling of still having something left to explore in my next playthrough.

Third, depth in story. There was some serious removal going on in that department. Companions no longer are there to form a relationship. You can't talk to them at will, but at the games will. Another choice gone and another thin putting you in the passenger seat of something taking a ride with you.

[Keladis]

things I want to see back in the game.

1: More focused story that allows our choices to have an impact.

2: The ability to talk to my companions whenever I like, or at lest a lot more then just when there is a quest the want my help with.

3: World Exploration, for a company that stated many times that Dragon Age was a store more about the world the one person or group. Bio Ware sure made it focused on Hawke and from the ending looks like the next game will be about him too.

4: More interaction with a world that feels alive.

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

[Sidney]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Some mechanics can make for more roleplay options though. Keeping the Coercion skill, for example, would of allowed people who invested effort in that skill for their characters to open up new character options in dialogue. If they kept racial options for the protagonist, that too opens up dialogue and plot options for the player.

If Coercion is a skill why isn't kindness? Humor? Since I doubt "coercion" is about using advanced KGB torture techniques it doesn't make sense since it is little more than a personality trait. The old BG2 reputuation system actualy makes more sense than the coercion skill because at least then your actions are influencing the reaction of people not just the fact that you are Mother Teresa but pumped skills into Coercion so people fear you. That is a case where a game mechanic gets in my way of roleplaying by taking away options.

Racial option can you are right and it should make a difference but in DAO they didn't other than a few stray "knife ear" lines. The effort to make them mean something would basically be a whole new dialog tree and that'd be valuable but in the real world of time, effort and money they're not gonna pour money into that "alternate" and potentially wasted effort - I mean if I never play as an elf then that content is useless. I understand why it doesn't get built out but if it isn't mademeaningful then it is just aesthetic and worthless.

[Sidney]

abaris wrote...

I might agree with you as far as mechanics are concerned. But when it comes to fighting, if there's nothing else than pushing a button, one might ask, why do it at all if its on autopilot anyway. Kanzee would be well equipped to be up to this task and methinks, we should set out standards a little higher than our removed hairy cousins.

Second, leaving out all the social skills, leaving out Alchemy, leaving out trap making, is leaving out richness. I for one never was much into alchemy. But it was there for me to use and it added to the feeling of still having something left to explore in my next playthrough.

Third, depth in story. There was some serious removal going on in that department. Companions no longer are there to form a relationship. You can't talk to them at will, but at the games will. Another choice gone and another thin putting you in the passenger seat of something taking a ride with you.

I like the button press but I like that press to fire off skills. Frankly DAO, and DA2, have a good mix of skills. They allow what pass for tactics in an RPG to be used. I'm not advocating not having combat skills but I want my PC to execute the skills not me the player. Put another way, in AC Ezzio could learn counter-moves but you the player must be the one who makes it happen. There's a big difference in turning on "Turn the Blade" in DA2 and parrying a sword thrust in AC.

Alchemy and trap making don't add depth. There's nothing difficult about them. There's nothing challenging. They don't change the plot or decisions you make. There's nothing about your character that changes with them. They're what you do not who you are.

Your last point is not very useful in terms of the game. Three reasons:
1. No matter how "available" your companions are it doesn't change how much you can say to them or them to you. There's a fixed conversation arc so it isn't like availability = increased conversations. You can't just grab a beer and talk football. Once you burn through topic all you get are more of the same which really bugged me.
2. There is timing on conversations in DAO. Certain topics and subjects won't come up at anytime but only after certain points in the game so just like DA2 you aren't able to have any convo at anytime.
3. It made sense in DAO. They're stuck in camp with you. They're not busy. Now DA2's impementation of "busy" is a bit odd - the guard captain has a LOT of freetime - but these people are not just "in your party" they have other things they are doing. They're supposed to be alive and out in the world not just waiting for you to act on them.

[Naivor]

I didn't really care about the visual changes, like the qunari, jRPG style flipping and flying around and those exploding bodies. The last one because Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 had those. Brought a smile to my face when I could hit someone hard enough for them to explode in small pieces of meat.

What I would want is an actual story. DA2 story had potential, but only as an expansion or something similar, but not as a direct sequel. But even this could still be remedied by save imports. You know, import a your old save to DA3 and so forth until there's been 5 or so Dragon Ages and you'd have built a history.

Now if only those choices had visible reprecussions, other than a few lines of dialogue and a couple of smalltime quests. Make the elves more aggressive towards humans if you slaughtered the wild elves in both DA: Origins and Dragon Age 2; Give me two wholly different storylines, differing on if I chose templars or mages at the end of DA2, making only sidequests the same for both storylines.

And lastly, take your time. A year isn't a long enough time to even partly flesh out a memorable plot for an RPG.
Also bring back the lighting mechanics you had in Origins, BioWare. And the old Darkspawn. The new ones are just undead.

[Naivor]

Sidney wrote...

Alchemy and trap making don't add depth. There's nothing difficult about them. There's nothing challenging. They don't change the plot or decisions you make. There's nothing about your character that changes with them. They're what you do not who you are.

Alchemy and trapmaking added depth to my character, thus deepening my actual RP experience. When I was a warrior, I could feel like an actual tactical thinker, what with setting up traps to key locations and such. And as a rogue or a mage, poison making and alchemy were extensions to my characters personality; my mage liked to blow stuff up, but was also responsible for his groups well being, thus his passion for making potions to help the rest of the party.
And rogues.. Well, rogues play dirty, thus the poisons.

Also, if laying traps and throwing bombs didn't help me on my harder difficulty runs then I'm the son of a goat and a barrel of cheese. Taking down a few darkspawn before they got a hit through was in most cases what ensured my victory.

Gameplay isn't everything, not in a Roleplaying Game.

[MDT1]

Naivor wrote...

Gameplay isn't everything, not in a Roleplaying Game.

I guess you mean combat mechanics and their accessablity are not everything in a Roleplaying Game

[Naivor]

MDT1 wrote...

I guess you mean combat mechanics and their accessablity are not everything in a Roleplaying Game

That too, that too. Those are just a part of the gameplay mechanics, anyway. A good example of a roleplaying game from a different part of the spectrum than Dragon Age games is The Witcher 1. That game had some really ass gameplay when everything is counted in, but how the plot, characters and the feel was executed was absolutely amazing. Wish the next Dragon Age would have that sort of gray area, instead of the forced "Oh my god, all the mages were ****s after all and not all the templars were ****s after all!" that DA2 had.

[AlanC9]

Sidney wrote...

abaris wrote...
Third, depth in story. There was some serious removal going on in that department. Companions no longer are there to form a relationship. You can't talk to them at will, but at the games will. Another choice gone and another thin putting you in the passenger seat of something taking a ride with you.

Your last point is not very useful in terms of the game. Three reasons:
1. No matter how "available" your companions are it doesn't change how much you can say to them or them to you. There's a fixed conversation arc so it isn't like availability = increased conversations. You can't just grab a beer and talk football. Once you burn through topic all you get are more of the same which really bugged me.
2. There is timing on conversations in DAO. Certain topics and subjects won't come up at anytime but only after certain points in the game so just like DA2 you aren't able to have any convo at anytime.
3. It made sense in DAO. They're stuck in camp with you. They're not busy. Now DA2's impementation of "busy" is a bit odd - the guard captain has a LOT of freetime - but these people are not just "in your party" they have other things they are doing. They're supposed to be alive and out in the world not just waiting for you to act on them.

I think this issue is more about the illusion than anything else. Even though we all know that it's just a dialog tree where certain nodes become active when the appropriate variables are set, we can fool ourselves into thinking that it's an actual conversation.

What I've never quite understood is how this illusion survives using up the available dialog options. In DAO I'm constantly starting conversations only to find out that the companion has nothing left to say. Not to mantion Sten's convo option "I want to ask about something you said earlier", though that's just horrible design.

[Lethys1]

More choice?  The only choice I had was to play the game or to not play the game.  Otherwise, the game is exactly the same no matter what.


I can't believe the way the developers lied to us about how good this garbage will be.  Meanwhile, a small Polish independent games studio is able to make an AAA quality game with two entirely different second acts and some different first act quests based on the path you choose.  Plus you get the option of pursuing multiple goals instead of the "main" goal of hunting the main antagonist.  For example, you can take up a cause and fight for a coutnry's independence.

[Sidney]

AlanC9 wrote...

I think this issue is more about the illusion than anything else. Even though we all know that it's just a dialog tree where certain nodes become active when the appropriate variables are set, we can fool ourselves into thinking that it's an actual conversation.

What I've never quite understood is how this illusion survives using up the available dialog options. In DAO I'm constantly starting conversations only to find out that the companion has nothing left to say. Not to mantion Sten's convo option "I want to ask about something you said earlier", though that's just horrible design.

Well I hated talking to people and not having anything new to say, that was illusion breaking for me. Worse was if I skipped talking to someone after a node "unlocked" and all the conversations could spill out in one chit chat session. I went from 0 to best friends with Morrigan that way by accident by first playthrough.

Time, across all things, is still the bane of the non-linear game because it never feels right. Doesn't matter rather it is the fake timers on conversations, "OMG we have to hurry quests" that you can do at anytime or the "OMFG we have to save the world but let me explore this forest/planet/lost tomb first" thing. I know people worship at the altar of the non-linear and in sandbox games w/o much real plot (Bethesda games) that can work but the Bioware games really force you to suspend disbelief in a huge epic way because time doesn't work - and I suspect this is why you don't have real day/night cycles or actual time passing in them.

[AAHook2]

If there's no purpose, then chuck it.
With the junk section in Dragon Age 2, I was waiting for some alchemy skills to pop up or some kind of item customization to appear much like what was asked for when it came to potion making.

The problem with the potion making in Dragon Age 2 was that you really weren't encouraged to make anything on your own so you basically relied on third parties to make things for you. It took the life out of it. What's worse, the people who made things were mindless and with the exception of Sandhal, lacked any kind of personality that would even make you remember to go to them again for supplies.
In all honesty, I got the feeling that they had given up on crafting and alchemy altogether.

When I played Dark Alliance 2 with my nephew, I really enjoyed customizing weapons and armor, enchanting them with jewels and runestones, because they made an impact on the gameplay. I could give up a heavy weapon with lightning and ice enchantment to my nephew's character because we had just picked up a high level set of gloves that dealt acid and fire damage, which suited my Necromancer just fine because if anything got past his spells, he could just punch them in the face and they'd melt. heheh

I think a good solve would be for weapons to wear down or break over time or just by happenstance. If you assign a general value to a weapon that doesn't vary excepting the use of enchantment and smith work and alchemy, having a stash of weapons would serve a purpose other than to take up space or be converted to fenced gold.
Some weapons and armor would be of a quality that doesn't improve or wouldn't be salvageable, but the deep Roll would be to be able to break it for parts and improve a better quality weapon, or to forge a new one.
Of course there will be those who just want to fight with a competent weapon that doesn't break, and the option should be there to buy one for cost, but most weapons should be roughly the same strength.
I mean realistically what's the difference if you bash someone's face in with a mace as opposed to a big rock tied onto a branch? Some weapons are heavier, some are sharper. Practicality and durability are more realistic indicators of effect than what Level they are or how many stars they get. It should probably be more reliant on the user of the weapon to get any kind of bonuses out of a weapon.
If you implement alchemy/enchantment and smith work into the equation, then you won't have that weird detached feeling when you pawn a weapon you've used for the last 3 hours for one that was inexplicably rated higher at a random shop.
I liked that in Origins in the Warden's Keep expansion, you could sell your weapons to the Dryden Blacksmith and when you returned after a time, the weapon was improved incrementally. You could buy it back as an improved piece. Even if you couldn't improve weapons by yourself, I think that would have served well in its stead in a successor.

I mean, I think that would be interesting in an RPG outside of an MMORPG, to have a character who is more of a support character. Someone who crafts weapons, enchants them, makes traps is a camp follower type with some moderate combat skill. Seeing them rise to hero or even survive alongside some heavy hitters, providing them with crucial support. That's a tale that is not as common told in the RPG genre.
It's common enough in Fantasy literature. The thief. The craftsman turned hero. The Hobbit comes to mind.
Fable kind of tries this line of storytelling, but it's always a destined hero. It's rarely an unexpected hero.
In Origins the City Elf and the Commoner Dwarf kind of fit the bill. I really like that angle. I want to see more of it.

[Sidney]

Lethys1 wrote...

More choice?  The only choice I had was to play the game or to not play the game.  Otherwise, the game is exactly the same no matter what.

It isn't. There are a lot of smaller choices along the way but DA2 doesn't slap you in the face with "BIG CHOICE" like DAO did. They said it was a more personal game and it is. The choices aren't "Who rules dwarven kingdom" type things. I think Bioware overestimated people's ability to handle a smaller story and not the Michael Bay of stories.

[the_one_54321]

AAHook2 wrote...
The problem with the potion making in Dragon Age 2 was that you really weren't encouraged to make anything on your own so you basically relied on third parties to make things for you.

That's disappointing to hear. I spent a lot of time crafting things in DA:O.

[AAHook2]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...
The problem with the potion making in Dragon Age 2 was that you really weren't encouraged to make anything on your own so you basically relied on third parties to make things for you.

That's disappointing to hear. I spent a lot of time crafting things in DA:O.

How about Dragon Age 2?

Even though you could craft things to some degree, you weren't required to. I remember in Origins in the Orzammar section, for a sidequest, you needed to be able to make a potion and having a craftsman or craftswoman became a plot point.  In Origins there are several instances where you were in need of someone to craft.

In Dragon Age 2...what was the point? You could just buy most things you might need. As you were generally in one place most of the time, it wasn't hard to find things you needed. Why craft things on your own?

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Or we could just accept the uncertainty. I don't know the exact explosion radius or target location of some of my weapons in a shooter, but I still use them.

The targeting reticles and movable camera are just a proxy, I think, for depth-perception.  Since we're using 2D displays, we need some other way to judge the position of things in the world.  being able to move the camera, or see targetted enemis highlighted, or something, simply makes up for the loss of perception of depth.

I do not think a movable camera is essential for a sense of depth perception. I can tell without that, for instance, how some enemies are closer than others. What I cannot judge, however, is what precisely a 5m radius implies.

I'm inclined to agree that we don't need strict little circles and cones to tell us where are spells are going.  I was perfectly content not to have them in BG, for example.  but I also don't mind them being there, and I know that a lot of people really like them.

I simply think that the detachable camera and those circles for AoE spells are there just for convenience. Maybe an option to turn on/off those circles would have been a good feature; using a detachable camera, if present, will anyway be an option.

But we need a detachable camera or an isometric view, or some other means to look around and determine the relative position of the creatures and objects around us.

Actually, as one way of doing combat, I agree. It's a choice that they probably should just have left in the game. But I'm now displeased that the console version has a different feature than the PC one. I think a detachable camera especially on nightmare would have been useful.

A few of other things:

I'm not sure why they made rogue stealth a non-sustainable. It was an good  way of planning things in advance in DAO. Does this have anything to do with random enemy spawning?

And I don't know why mage spells now don't come with specified range modifiers, like short, medium, and long. If I'm not mistaken, I think the "medium" range no longer exists.

It is also weird how I can use basic mage attacks across some obstacles but not the spells. It seems more like a consistency issue, though.

[the_one_54321]

AAHook2 wrote...
How about Dragon Age 2?

After hearing about all the changes, I did not purchase or play DAII.