204 réponses à ce sujet

[Melca36]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because the player should be allowed to know that Fireball damage equals 60+(spellpower*0.6).

The game should be designed such numbers like that don't matter.  It should be pure rock, paper, scissors designed to add action, suspense, and pacing to a story.  That's what I'm after.

Sorry but some of us like depth to our games.  If you don't appreciate that, you should NOT be playing rpgs.

Its that simple. Duke Nukem Forevr is coming out soon, its probably more your speed.

[Chromie]

Don't you insult Duke Nukem. The world has been awaiting his return!

[Rixxencaxx]

I think that devs try hard to find excuses for their bad skills.
Assassin creed is for console and cities are far better than da2 ...a lot more people into the cities.
Witcher 2 will go xbox and judging from the trailer will be a lot of things on screen.
Bioware need new pr and new devs.

[Lumikki]

Melca36 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because the player should be allowed to know that Fireball damage equals 60+(spellpower*0.6).

The game should be designed such numbers like that don't matter.  It should be pure rock, paper, scissors designed to add action, suspense, and pacing to a story.  That's what I'm after.

Sorry but some of us like depth to our games.  If you don't appreciate that, you should NOT be playing rpgs.

Its that simple. Duke Nukem Forevr is coming out soon, its probably more your speed.

It's not that simple, because depth can be arrived many ways. Numbers front of the player eyes isn't the only way.
So, I disagree with all of you.

Point here is if you show numbers to players, the game it self becomes number based gameplay. Lets call is statical gameplay. Now many statical gameplay support player's say it's because it offer's variation and customation. That's not it. It can offer that, but it also offers powerplaying what is close to min max playing.

Same customation and variation can be arrived without showing numbers for players. Depth of the game isn't showing the numbers, but having choises with meaning. Example you can have "swim" skill. Then player go in stat sheet and adjust that skill manually. Make players character better in swimming. That's not only way to do it.

You can also mimic real life. To learn swim go in water and start swimming. Meaning the numbers aren't front of player, they are hidden behind the game system. This kind of system offers same variation and customation, but it doesn't cause statical gameplay. So, if you ask statical gameplay, then ask it because you love powerplaying with numbers, because that's only reason it really exists.

Why then so many classic RPG's has so many numbers? Because it's heritage from board RPG's. In real life board RPG you need numbers, because there isn't  computer taking care of them. Human has to do it manually. In first computer RPG's, they where just simulation of board games. So people got use to that numbers are part of it. In modern computer games, you don't anymore need to leave numbers for players to manually adjust. Computers can do it alot better than humans. Humans need to make choises and do actions what they want to do.

UI's job is provide minimal information for player what player needs to play the game. Then have hidden addional information, when more information is needed as option. Example pressing key "M" brings map. You don't need map all the time in screen. There are people who can't seem to play without numbers. I how ever, think less numbers in UI, better impression game can provide. it's choise between number based gameplay and impression based roleplaying.

How badly you need to see the numbers?
Why you need them?
Have numbers become point of you gameplay?

Point here been, not having visual numbers in eye of player doesn't mean there is less depth in game. Those numbers can still be there, just hidden from players eyes. Because those numbers can provide variety and customation, even if you don't see them.

Other point has been, showing or not showing numbers can be done by game options. That's not the big deal. Big deal is, don't force every player manually adjust some statical numbers. There is at least two way to do this. Automatic leveling up system, what works only some what, because it make decission behave player, what's not allways good thing. Other option is design game so that players actions and choises in game is directly adjusting those numbers. So player doesn't have to go to stat sheet to adjust, but action it self did it.

If we go back to UI design. Then best option is allow players to customize it as much as possible. Meaning from minimal information trough option more information. There are people who don't want anything in game screen and then there is those who wants a lot of information. Only way to provide both is have it as optional, as customation.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juin 2011 - 12:02 .

[Fredvdp]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The PC version of Mass Effect has a new custom UI to suit its platform. That was a good idea.

Good idea, yes, and in ME1 the user interface was very well made. Mass Effect 2's UI was a bit of a disaster. The combat UI was good, but when you leave out basic PC controls like double click, mouse wheel scrolling and menu shortcuts, you have to realize you're not using the strengths of the platform.

[Chromie]

Lumikki wrote...
How badly you need to see the numbers?
Why you need them?
Have numbers become point of you gameplay?

Have you not even bothered reading some previous posts?

[Kilshrek]

So Lumikki, to use your example, how will you track how well your swimming lessons are going? In real life you realise that your continued failure to drown is leading to a slight improvement in swimming, improved time to do a lap is improvement, and so on.

How do you measure that in a game, if not without numbers? The player needs some way of tracking progress, and even when using a bar, numbers are involved. You can't "feel" that you're improving in a game, not in the way you do in real life.

[FieryDove]

Lumikki wrote...

How badly you need to see the numbers?
Why you need them?
Have numbers become point of you gameplay?

Aha! You are Jack Emmert in hiding!
He said the same thing when CoH was in development and first came out. It didn’t go over well with the fanbase…at all.

I have never thought you could have too much information in some type of games as long as its presented neatly/easily to access. RPG's where you create a character or entire party this seems even more important. There is always pre-made characters/auto-level options for those that want to jump in and just play in most games.

Clean/uncluttered UI is fine and all but when "Spartan" takes a turn for the worst its just not very nice to look at and can help pull you OUT of a game setting. (DA2 UI) imho

[In Exile]

Kilshrek wrote...

So Lumikki, to use your example, how will you track how well your swimming lessons are going? In real life you realise that your continued failure to drown is leading to a slight improvement in swimming, improved time to do a lap is improvement, and so on.

How do you measure that in a game, if not without numbers? The player needs some way of tracking progress, and even when using a bar, numbers are involved. You can't "feel" that you're improving in a game, not in the way you do in real life.

You can certainly feel an improvement in a game. For example, it could take less time to swim the same distance. Your physical appearance could change. Your performance in other areas could improve (e.g. run faster or lift more). There's a subjective feeling of improvement on our part, but most of it is just present performance relative to past.

Again  - I love powergaming & numbers. But you don't need either.

[Kilshrek]

In Exile wrote...

You can certainly feel an improvement in a game. For example, it could take less time to swim the same distance. Your physical appearance could change. Your performance in other areas could improve (e.g. run faster or lift more). There's a subjective feeling of improvement on our part, but most of it is just present performance relative to past.

Again  - I love powergaming & numbers. But you don't need either.

And to achieve that within a game, numbers are crunched. A menu showing exactly how much of an improvement you've made within the game is more reliable than changing things subtly, and in ways only the most eagle eyed gamer would detect anyway. Plus it makes no sense within a single player RPG context, unless it's super open ended.

Even Fable has "numbers", on top of physical changes (Fable 2). For example if you improved your Hero's strength stat, your hero deals more damage and looks more buff. Simple, but the UI gives you numbers all the same. The 'skill' stat however was much more subtle and isn't always apparent. You can grow taller as you progress and consequently get better at ranged attacks and attack speed, but not drastically so from the start of the game. You never become a ninja.

Within a DA 2 context, how would you reflect increases in stats? How would you display a more skilled character or a tough tank sort of character? Character models are set. Character attacks are set. Character appearances too are set. From start to finish your character is always the same, so say your character is stronger than Aveline stat-wise, she will always look stronger than you are. Varric has skill and dexterity that belies his bulky dwarf frame. Fenris wields two handers like they're made of PVC, and he could be stronger than Aveline.

Hiding the UI and pretending things happen "under the hood" without any way of knowing what is what doesn't seem sensible to me.

And for the last part, improvement when compared to past performance, especially in matters of time doesn't always work since game time and real world time aren't always the same thing, and unless you have a stop watch right next to your monitor/TV that you start and stop when trying to measure improvement (as you do in real life), I'd prefer things to be given in easy to understand and far more reliable numbers, thanks all the same.

[In Exile]

Kilshrek wrote...
And to achieve that within a game, numbers are crunched.

To achieve that in reality, chemical reactions are processed, physical stats change, etc.

There's a structural sub-level you can zoom to for any ordered system.

A menu showing exactly how much of an improvement you've made within the game is more reliable than changing things subtly, and in ways only the most eagle eyed gamer would detect anyway. Plus it makes no sense within a single player RPG context, unless it's super open ended.

Unless the changes were significant. Numbers are a form of feedback; but they aren't the only form. Arguing that numbers are better or more exact isn't the point, because that was never at issue. What was at issue was whether there was another functional way of doing things.

Even Fable has "numbers", on top of physical changes (Fable 2). For example if you improved your Hero's strength stat, your hero deals more damage and looks more buff. Simple, but the UI gives you numbers all the same. The 'skill' stat however was much more subtle and isn't always apparent. You can grow taller as you progress and consequently get better at ranged attacks and attack speed, but not drastically so from the start of the game. You never become a ninja.

But if you could become a ninja, and if you did, you wouldn't need numerical feedback to know it.

Within a DA 2 context, how would you reflect increases in stats? How would you display a more skilled character or a tough tank sort of character? Character models are set. Character attacks are set. Character appearances too are set. From start to finish your character is always the same, so say your character is stronger than Aveline stat-wise, she will always look stronger than you are. Varric has skill and dexterity that belies his bulky dwarf frame. Fenris wields two handers like they're made of PVC, and he could be stronger than Aveline.

I thought we were talking about a hypothetical implementation in a hypothetical game, one where there wouldn't be numbers at all. I'm not sure why you are trying to tie this to DA2.

Hiding the UI and pretending things happen "under the hood" without any way of knowing what is what doesn't seem sensible to me.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not it could be done.

And for the last part, improvement when compared to past performance, especially in matters of time doesn't always work since game time and real world time aren't always the same thing, and unless you have a stop watch right next to your monitor/TV that you start and stop when trying to measure improvement (as you do in real life), I'd prefer things to be given in easy to understand and far more reliable numbers, thanks all the same.

But you don't need to measure improvement in numerical terms. You could just jump in a pool and see how you swim. Whether you can swim more, or better.

[Lumikki]

Kilshrek wrote...

So Lumikki, to use your example, how will you track how well your swimming lessons are going?

You missed the point.

Show numbers to player and player manipulating manually numbers  is different than computer keeping track of numbers, as actions and choises it self can also manipulate numbers.

So, question wasn't does numbers exist in computers, because of course they do, because that's what computers do, manipulate binary numbers. Real question was, does humans as player need to manually manipulate numbers in computer RPG, when that's all what computers does.

Player doesn't need to track progression, player may want to track prossession. Player doesn't need to manipulate numbers manually, player may want to manipulate numbers manually.  Player doesn't need to see numbers, but player may want to see numbers. Like I sayed, how important has numbers become to you? How you know in real life if you are better swimmer? You can use numbers for it or you can just feel it, as you seem to do something better than before.

How ever, this is half way off the topic. Topic was about how much information and how you need it in UI. My opinion make it as customized as possible, because some people want less information and some more.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juin 2011 - 10:23 .

[Elhanan]

For the GUI, my hope is for versaltility and ease of use; wish is for matching genre appearance.

[ApostleinTriumph]

I liked the DA:O UI. DA 3 UI feels too streamlined and too minimalistic. DA:O had the "feeling" to it, this one is just too cold and consolized. Especially the great and stylized ability icons being replaced by boring signs all over the place.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

To achieve that in reality, chemical reactions are processed, physical stats change, etc.

There's a structural sub-level you can zoom to for any ordered system.

Yes.

And I want the game to let me see it.

Here's why:

But you don't need to measure improvement in numerical terms. You could just jump in a pool and see how you swim. Whether you can swim more, or better.

How can I know that my performance is better if I haven't measured it?

If it matters, measure it.  There is literally a sign on my wall that says that exact thing.

[Kilshrek]

In Exile wrote...

To achieve that in reality, chemical reactions are processed, physical stats change, etc.

There's a structural sub-level you can zoom to for any ordered system.

But how is this reflected in a game? Or perhaps, how is this reflected in a game so as to leave the player with no doubt that there has been improvement?

In Exile wrote...

Unless the changes were significant. Numbers are a form of feedback; but they aren't the only form. Arguing that numbers are better or more exact isn't the point, because that was never at issue. What was at issue was whether there was another functional way of doing things.

I would like to know what that is, since it relates to my first question.

In Exile wrote...

But if you could become a ninja, and if you did, you wouldn't need numerical feedback to know it.

No, I wouldn't, but ninjas have skills like any other, and how then do I keep track of the many legendary skills of a ninja? Many aspects of athleticism, stealth, combat skills, evasion skills, deception skills, I argue that numbers are a way of providing the player with the necessary information without overwhelming them with having to memorise how good they are at what.

In Exile wrote...

I thought we were talking about a hypothetical implementation in a hypothetical game, one where there wouldn't be numbers at all. I'm not sure why you are trying to tie this to DA2.

Because I'm trying to not get this thread locked for being completely off-topic, and because it might be directly relevant to DA 3.

In Exile wrote...
But that has nothing to do with whether or not it could be done.

If you're saying it can be done just because it can be done then I have nothing to argue there, my point is how sensible is it to implement within a hypothetical game, where a hypothetical player may want to know what is going on. How then is that relevant information relayed to the player?

"Hey, look, you're this strong. You can bench press XX kgs of weight." Games being what they are these days, combat is almost guaranteed, so how does that strength "stat" then translate into combat? How does the player know what they're doing? Unless you were sat in a complete simulation, where your consciousness is in the game, I don't see why you'd want to remove the easiest form of communicating information to the player.

In Exile wrote...
But you don't need to measure improvement in numerical terms. You could just jump in a pool and see how you swim. Whether you can swim more, or better.

And bringing this back to a game, how do you measure it? If you measure it outside of the game then you're not doing it right, because the standard is in the game, not outside it. If you're doing it in the game, then how is it done?

[Kilshrek]

Lumikki wrote...

You missed the point.

Show numbers to player and player manipulating manually numbers  is different than computer keeping track of numbers, as actions and choises it self can also manipulate numbers.

So, question wasn't does numbers exist in computers, because of course they do, because that's what computers do, manipulate binary numbers. Real question was, does humans as player need to manually manipulate numbers in computer RPG, when that's all what computers does.

Yes, I do think so, or how else would you expect to have any sort of control over what is going on? Do you want to do it the Oblivion way?(which I never got very far in, because it really wasn't my thing) That's still player input, but instead of easily adding numbers to a stat, the game makes the player go out and do things like bash anything that moves over the head with a sword to improve the sword skill(simplification, yes), but that is really no different to adding numbers on a level up screen. All it takes is more effort for the same reward.

Lumikki wrote...

Player doesn't need to track progression, player may want to track prossession. Player doesn't need to manipulate numbers manually, player may want to manipulate numbers manually.  Player doesn't need to see numbers, but player may want to see numbers. Like I sayed, how important has numbers become to you? How you know in real life if you are better swimmer? You can use numbers for it or you can just feel it, as you seem to do something better than before.

How ever, this is half way off the topic. Topic was about how much information and how you need it in UI. My opinion make it as customized as possible, because some people want less information and some more.

And why does a player not need to track progression? If, say, 5 years down the road(in-game) you want to know if you were as green as the day you started out on your adventure, how then would you know? Because you don't need a change of underwear every time there is a fight? How do you know that? Because you can kill this creature faster than 5 years before? Maybe those creatures are weaker, more pathetic versions now. We're trying to tie this all to a game Lumikki, and in a game the most efficient way of giving the player this information is through numbers. You'll get no argument from me about a customizable UI since like you said some people don't want to know things, and some people want to know more.

[KennethAFTopp]

I want a more fantasy flavoured UI at least.

[Chairon de Celeste]

Maverick827 wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Hmm, is it not possible that the PC market is small because everything is limited as it is ported to consoles?

No, that isn't possible. The PC market is small (by comparison, of course) because the console market is more accessible, stable, and affordable. It's as simple as that: don't try to make it anything more than it is.

Hence when is 60 bucks for a console title more affordable than 45 bucks for the same title on pc?

Maybe that price strategy is only native to germany and it's calmer cashcows, I dunno...

Edit: the da o xbox version was what made me sell both console and game to a neighbour
and keep only the pc version, last not least due to bugs, graphics and ui.

Modifié par Chairon de Celeste, 09 juin 2011 - 07:30 .

[Kilshrek]

Chairon de Celeste wrote...

Hence when is 60 bucks for a console title more affordable than 45 bucks for the same title on pc?

Maybe that price strategy is only native to germany and it's calmer cashcows, I dunno...

Edit: the da o xbox version was what made me sell both console and game to a neighbour
and keep only the pc version, last not least due to bugs, graphics and ui.

Average new release console game in AUD, $110-100, average new release PC game in AUD, $80-100.

[dujh]

Kilshrek wrote...

Chairon de Celeste wrote...

Hence when is 60 bucks for a console title more affordable than 45 bucks for the same title on pc?

Maybe that price strategy is only native to germany and it's calmer cashcows, I dunno...

Edit: the da o xbox version was what made me sell both console and game to a neighbour
and keep only the pc version, last not least due to bugs, graphics and ui.

Average new release console game in AUD, $110-100, average new release PC game in AUD, $80-100.

at eb games maybe and if you pay their prices then your an idiot, places like jb-hi often have console games on day one for around $80 even that is yo much that's why you should by your games online

[Zanallen]

PC games are generally cheaper than console games. This has to do with licensing I believe. However, the consoles themselves are far cheaper than a PC of equal ability, at least at the time of release. And all games made for that console will work with it, unlike the PC which needs periodic upgrading to get the most out of newer games. Of course, consoles need to be upgraded as well, but that generally only happens once every few years.

[Chairon de Celeste]

safe to say the majority of pc owners goes for affordable good quality
instead of always cutting edge
- so the complete upgrade cycle is around 3 - 6 years

If all console graphics were easily upgradeable with a licensed
blackbox graphics module per type wich the console owner plugs
into a slot after dragging out the old module they'd have a clear
advantage over the pc and as a side effect probably make
ugly gui's and weaker graphics in comparison to the pc game
versions a thing of the past.
Give it enough time and a neglectable minority plays console games
on a  1+ century old tv set, even in countries where entertainment
electronic shop techs currently loot 5 1990ies monitors / tv sets and
sell the result as a single new device.

Modifié par Chairon de Celeste, 09 juin 2011 - 09:52 .

[Chromie]

Zanallen wrote...

PC games are generally cheaper than console games. This has to do with licensing I believe. However, the consoles themselves are far cheaper than a PC of equal ability, at least at the time of release. And all games made for that console will work with it, unlike the PC which needs periodic upgrading to get the most out of newer games. Of course, consoles need to be upgraded as well, but that generally only happens once every few years.

Full of fail.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zanallen wrote...

PC games are generally cheaper than console games. This has to do with licensing I believe. However, the consoles themselves are far cheaper than a PC of equal ability, at least at the time of release. And all games made for that console will work with it, unlike the PC which needs periodic upgrading to get the most out of newer games. Of course, consoles need to be upgraded as well, but that generally only happens once every few years.

"Getting the most out of newer games" is an unfair comparison, though.  The consoles offer a static level of performance.  We should compare them to PCs that do the same.

So no upgrades required.  And, if you count the cost of the television on which the console games are displayed, the price difference completely disappears.