3223 réponses à ce sujet

[sbvera13]

Ahglock wrote...

They needed a scapel for trimming but they went in with a machette.  

Perfect analysis, couldn't sum it up better.

[Lunatic LK47]

haberman13 wrote...

Go screw yourself, Niddy'. The alternate screenname isn't fooling me, jack-ass.

[Redcoat]

Terror_K wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  that's the wrong way to design an RPG.  That's the Bethseda way,  and increasingly the Bioware way,  and definitively the wrong way.

An RPG will feature a series of progressively more difficult opponents that you cannot kill at level 1,  until you progress in power.  Your goal is meant to seem insurmountable,  because if it was something you could handle at level 1,  it wouldn't be very threatening.  If the average farmer can handle the problem,  there's no need for a Hero.

The method an RPG does this through is Character based skill,  so that you are removed from the equation and it is possible for your character to fail.  This way,  the character can progress such that a once insurmountable foe,  such as a Dragon,  ultimately becomes challengable.

What you describe is textbook lazy design.  Rather than put the effort into creating challenges that might initially be insurmountable,  and ultimate doable,  they just level scale everything because then they don't have to spend the 3 days it takes to develop a system.

Which then results in the gameplay of some other game,  TPS or Action-Adventure,  since you've now made the entire basis of RPG mechanics useless.

Which begs the question,  if you never intended to make an RPG,  then why start making one?

There's reasons these systems exist,  and why they've survived and thrived for approaching 40 years,  and it's not because they were wrong.

Actually, as much as I usually agree with you here, I have to counter these points somewhat. While they aren't technically wrong, the more progressive system you speak of only really works when you're creating a linear path for the player to travel, at least to a certain degree. With open-world cRPGs and ones like BioWare has implemented in KotOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age where once you reach a certain point (or points) in the game you get to branch off and choose your path, you have far more freedom where to go overall, so you can't place a more linear type of progressive difficulty and enemies because otherwise the player risks going to "the wrong" area when they are told they have complete freedom and get slaughtered for it.

If you're going to give the player choice of where to go, whether it be an open world area or several branches you can do in any order, you kind of have to scale the enemies, loot and difficulty up with the player. In PnP RPGs this isn't an issue, because despite the whole scenario and world being somewhat dynamic, the DM does still largely put you on a linear path and you follow the story. Sure, it can branch due to your choices, and far more than any cRPG can, but a DM can work with that on the fly to a certain degree, and then adjust between sessions. A full cRPG doesn't allow that freedom and adjustment as much.

So in the end, either you have to do progressive scaling properly and keep the players on a set path to a certain degree (e.g. games like Baldur's Gate, NWN, Fallout 1&2, The Witcher, etc.) or you have to scale things to the player if you want to actually allow them some freedom of choice in where to go (KotOR, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout 3&NV, etc.). And to be honest, as much as I kind of agree that progressive scaling is better and as much as I prefer the former list of stronger RPGs, I'd prefer to still have the freedom the latter list give me, even if it falls into the trap.

Your post reminds me of a popular mod for Oblivion - Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul. Everyone went on about how much they detested Oblivion's level scaling, so what OOO does it make the levels of enemies mostly static, so whether you're at level 1 or level 40, you'll end up encountering both low-level creatures in dungeons along with high level creatures (many of which are new, that the mod adds to the game) which will completely curb-stomp you at a low level. And this applies to any dungeon, even the ones right outside the sewer entrance, the ones that most players would logically go to first.

Unfortunately, the gameplay experience with OOO is what I consider anti-fun, because it's immensely frustrating getting killed by every single thing in the world, and being unable to complete a huge number of quests simply because there are enemies totally beyond your character's skill level. Now, when this happens in an RPG, that's usually a sign that you should change course for an easier area in order to build up your skills, but the way Oblivion works is that there is no easier area to go to. It was designed from the beginning to be a game where you could go anywhere and do anything no matter what you level you were at.

So I agree that some level scaling is necessary for non-linear games, but the challenge is implementing it in a way that, A: still makes the levelling system relevant, and B: still makes the player feel as if he is getting stronger over time.

Modifié par Redcoat, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:17 .

[AlanC9]

And yet you say OOO is popular. Any idea why? Do some folks just like anti-fun? I don't really know anything about Oblivion besides forum chatter; Morrowind didn't leave me wanting any more TES.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:18 .

[AlanC9]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

Go screw yourself, Niddy'. The alternate screenname isn't fooling me, jack-ass.

You might want to look at the join dates; it doesn't look to me like Niddy's a haberman13 sock puppet.

[Lunatic LK47]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

Go screw yourself, Niddy'. The alternate screenname isn't fooling me, jack-ass.

You might want to look at the join dates; it doesn't look to me like Niddy's a haberman13 sock puppet.

Could be an either/or.

[sbvera13]

Redcoat wrote...

<snipped for space>

And I refuse to play Oblivion without OOO.  It forces you to develop and explore, and think about what you're doing rather then storm into every dungeon you find. "Oooo, I wonder what'll drop in here...."

When Bethesdae did FO3, I think they found a nice balance.  Different areas scale within a limited range.  Springvale school will always be 1-5 or so, so you have a longer window to take it down for rewards.  Old Olney will always be 15-20, so going there earlier can get you rewards above your progression- if you don't get eaten alive, of course.  The system preserves the balanced encounters of scaling without giving up the progression of RPG's either.

[InvincibleHero]

Terror_K wrote...

Here's a tip from playing PnP RPG's: it's a lot more gratifying to level up and gain something when it takes work and time to get there than it is when it's just plattered to you instantly at almost every turn. RPGs are supposed to represent you gradually getting better via experience. That's what XP means. That's completely ruined when ME2 instead does the equivalent of putting you in a lab and injecting you with a hypo every hour or so that gives to a massive upgrade in abilitiy instead like you're a genetically engineered super soldier. In a good RPG you're slowly progressing and getting better, so that the transition is gradual like it would be if you were practicing something. ME2 lacks that entirely: it's just jerky leaps too quickly. You're not progressing naturally, you're just stagnating for a while then making a sudden jump.

Except in ME1 you could level up by finding things and marking deposits found right on the spot. That's better.  
Yes CRPGs skew how fast you level but I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with level 1= dweeb that can barely tie his shoes with a 10 strength yet by time he is level 40 or 100 or whatever is rocking a 50 strength and can arm wrestle giants. RPGs in no way are realistic indepictions. They give out pavlovian rewards. People need the trinkets and Xp dollops or they don;t enjoy the real meat. The real meat is the interactions and the stuff that makes you think. The story and the consequences of your chosen actions. That is what i consider fun. I enjoy Diablo but it is just a level grinder with random loot that haves you hoping the next one could drop me something good. It is like addiction to gambling but actually better since their only price is to buy the game.

I am a long time RPG player and I largely prefer the ME2 way where you get one big chunk for doing the whole mission. It makes sense you do something protracted and get the same reward no matter how you solved the problem. Simplicity and yet does the job perfectly. No need to give more XP for beating a YMIR vs a varren and instead of making tables for individual XP rewards, they can focus on making more levels amking NPCs better and so on.

[In Exile]

SalsaDMA wrote...
I will certainly argue against such a claim. I never once while playing the WC games felt like I was playing a rpg, despite the branching storylines, choices and dialogue.

That's your perrogative. I haven't played the game, so I have no idea what (if anything) I would feel. I think the static character works against it... but then it's basically TW2 with a different combat system. What I am saying though is that it cuts both ways: simply using a game as an example of what you think isn't an RPG doesn't help if the other person thinks these are the core features of what an RPG is.

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is that you have people like
Laidlaw,  Norman,  Bethseda's Todd who aren't content with just
releasing their game,  but they also feel it necessary to declare that
what constitutes an RPG is dead,  anyone who thinks otherwise is
invalid,  and that henceforth,  ME2(Fallout 3,  Oblivion) is what a true
RPG is.  When their game falls short,  they blame us for being "Stuck
in worthless traditions".

DA2 didn't do well at all... but talking about how a Bestheda game falls short is a little like saying facebook "could be more profitable". They define, market and sell their games as RPGs, and other games that call themselves RPGs borrow from their desgin. All a genre convention is boils down to a socially created category for a kind of thing, and social categories change all the time.

PnP RPGs were just wargames with non-combat stats and non-disposable characters at one point.

As far as Bioware goes,  this is the audience they wanted,  they spearheaded
the increase in non-combat interactivity and NPC's with personalities.

The
problem is,  it's not the audience EA wants.  Because EA doesn't make
games that won't appeal to the very largest demographic humanly
possible.

I think you're drastically underselling how Bioware wants to market themselves. They pioneered DLC (back with premium modules), they created IPs based on D&D and SW (as mainstream as either respectively gets) and independent forays in design led to J.E. and the ME series.

My point stands.
There's no
progression.  Once you've beaten the first end-boss in the game,  you
have everything you need to win the game without touching any of the
subsystems,  which means the subsystems are completely pointless and
could be excised without disrupting the flow of the game.

No, it doesn't mean any of the these things. It just means the progression curve is flat and the base mechanic is a high level of competence. It would be nothing more than having a D&D module start at lv. 15 and end at lv 17. A smart player could beat the entire module without leveling up, but that wouldn't mean the lv-up is meaningless.

Which is exactly the hallmark of bad design and bad implementation. 
When a system is so irrelevant that it can be excised without disrupting
the rest of the game,  then the system was unneccessary and served no
real purpose.

But that's wrong. Removing the upgrades and skills dramatically changes how ME2 plays.

In contrast,  excise ME's inventory/loot system,  or it's non-combat
skills.  The game breaks,  you can't complete the game without
them.

LOL. You could beat the entire game without leveling up any power, with level 1 guns, and without upgrading any ability.

[Redcoat]

sbvera13 wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

<snipped for space>

And I refuse to play Oblivion without OOO.  It forces you to develop and explore, and think about what you're doing rather then storm into every dungeon you find. "Oooo, I wonder what'll drop in here...."

When Bethesdae did FO3, I think they found a nice balance.  Different areas scale within a limited range.  Springvale school will always be 1-5 or so, so you have a longer window to take it down for rewards.  Old Olney will always be 15-20, so going there earlier can get you rewards above your progression- if you don't get eaten alive, of course.  The system preserves the balanced encounters of scaling without giving up the progression of RPG's either.

Well my problem with OOO isn't the difficulty, but that the scaling of it is downright horrible; it goes from ridiculously easy to impossibly difficult on a dice roll. In a game of D&D, for example, no sane DM is going to look at a party of level 1 characters, roll a dice, and say, "Oh, a six! That you means you get MIND FLAYERS."

I believe DA:O uses a similar system to the one you mentioned - there's a certain range of levels that enemies can scale up to.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
Here's a tip from playing PnP RPG's: it's a lot more gratifying to level up and gain something when it takes work and time to get there than it is when it's just plattered to you instantly at almost every turn.

Hmm ... what I learned for PnP RPGs was that if the players are thinking about levels there's something wrong with the campaign. Then again, all my favorite PnP systems don't have levels in the first place.

RPGs are supposed to represent you gradually getting better via experience. That's what XP means. That's completely ruined when ME2 instead does the equivalent of putting you in a lab and injecting you with a hypo every hour or so that gives to a massive upgrade in abilitiy instead like you're a genetically engineered super soldier. In a good RPG you're slowly progressing and getting better, so that the transition is gradual like it would be if you were practicing something. ME2 lacks that entirely: it's just jerky leaps too quickly. You're not progressing naturally, you're just stagnating for a while then making a sudden jump.

So you're saying that the ME2 levels give players too much new ability when you gain each one?  I thought we were supposed to dislike ME2's leveling because gaining levels wasn't important, not because you gained too much with each level.

You can't be arguing that the absolute pace of leveling in ME2 is too fast, unless you're prepared to level that charge against all RPGs since .... BG1?

[sbvera13]

Yes, it's quite awkward to head towards a ruin and get 1 shot. Ooops.

On the other hand, that level of progression actually gives a purpose to many things included in the original that were useless. Stealing household junk, for example, becomes a worthwhile profession while you are too young to plunder dungeons. Doing social quests around town is a good use of your time. City guards become important as actual guards, and not just scenery. Having a place to go in an RPG justifies the existence of most of the world and things to do that make a sandbox worth playing in.

Come to think of it, OB and ME2 make a good comparison study. They both included numerous RPG/character/personalization mechanics (whatever you'd like to call them) but they were all made useless by the way the game handles progression. The difference being that OB had a great development kit and ME2 is sacred and holy in BW's eyes. As a result, Bethesda was actually able to see changes in action, see the response to them, and integrate the successful ones into later titles (like FO). All BW has to go on when judging it's design is the complaints on internet forums.

Modifié par sbvera13, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:03 .

[Epic777]

cRPG style stats + Third Person or First Person perspective(inherently gives the player manual controls to dodge, aim, attack etc). How to avoid those same stats essentially overriding what the player manually does....

[In Exile]

sbvera13 wrote...
Come to think of it, OB and ME2 are quite comparable. They both included numerous RPG/character/personalization mechanics (whatever you'd like to call them) but they were all made useless by the way the game handles progression. The difference being that OB had a great development kit and ME2 is sacred and holy in BW's eyes. As a result, Bethesda was actually able to see changes in action, see the response to them, and integrate the successful ones into later titles (like FO). All BW has to go on when judging it's design is the complaints on internet forums.

I'm pretty sure that had more to do with the "OMFG level scaling in Oblivion sucks!" meme than the dev. kit, given that this very popular mod was not at all what was in FO.

Edit:

On the other hand, that level of progression actually gives a purpose to
many things included in the original that were useless. Stealing
household junk, for example, becomes a worthwhile profession while you
are too young to plunder dungeons.

I honestly think there is a fundamental break here when stealing candles and napkins is something someone sees as the fun part of the game...

Modifié par In Exile, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:05 .

[sbvera13]

Epic777 wrote...

cRPG style stats + Third Person or First Person perspective(inherently gives the player manual controls to dodge, aim, attack etc). How to avoid those same stats essentially overriding what the player manually does....

Just have a stat set that doesn't affect controlled actions.  Run speed, weapon damage, persuation bonus, etc.  Many games do this and work great.

[In Exile]

sbvera13 wrote...
Just have a stat set that doesn't affect controlled actions.  Run speed, weapon damage, persuation bonus, etc.  Many games do this and work great.

Which games? I haven't seen a game where this isn't handled badly (e.g. in TW2 these abilities are essentially useless even on hard; all they change is how often you die, and then only potentially depending on your skill).

[AlanC9]

How did Bethesda end up with the awful Oblivion scaling, come to think of it? I don't remember a Morrowind mod that leveled everything in the game to match the PC.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

How did Bethesda end up with the awful Oblivion scaling, come to think of it? I don't remember a Morrowind mod that leveled everything in the game to match the PC.

I think it was just their solution to make everything even more open-world. Basically pushing their perceived strength to their limit.

[sbvera13]

In Exile wrote...

Which games? I haven't seen a game where this isn't handled badly (e.g. in TW2 these abilities are essentially useless even on hard; all they change is how often you die, and then only potentially depending on your skill).

The original Fallouts, the new Fallouts, KOTOR , WoW (I hate to bring it up, but it still qualifies).  Most of those use some dice rolls, it's true, but they're all geared toward and RPG fan base so they never tried to eliminate them completely.  Look at how they handle task specific bonuses though, and still leave action in the hands of the player.  I  could easily imagine using that concept to make a dice-roll free RPG that still uses stats and progression.  It would just be a different style of stats.

[InvincibleHero]

AlanC9 wrote...

How did Bethesda end up with the awful Oblivion scaling, come to think of it? I don't remember a Morrowind mod that leveled everything in the game to match the PC.

It sounds good on paper in execution not so much. I liked being challenged constantly because one shot kills one after another get boring. However, it looks silly when bandits all have glass or daedric armor and want to rob people of a few coins. It was likely intended as a time saver in design. Instead of low level mobs and new character models for higher level mobs you could fight the same enemies with more HP and better gear. I didn't think the system was worthless but FO3 was much better.

[In Exile]

sbvera13 wrote...
The original Fallouts, the new Fallouts, KOTOR , WoW (I hate to bring it up, but it still qualifies). 

I haven't played WoW or the original Fallouts, so I can't comment on those.

But the new Fallouts have mechanisms under player control that are certainly stat driven - the most apparent of which is aiming. That's partly stat-based, meaning you can miss independent of your cross-hairs. KoTOR has no player control of any ability beside movement - it's essentially DA:O with a low OTS camera and a worse feat system but a better skill system.

Most of those use some dice rolls, it's true, but they're all geared toward and RPG fan base so they never tried to eliminate them completely.  Look at how they handle task specific bonuses though, and still leave action in the hands of the player.  I  could easily imagine using that concept to make a dice-roll free RPG that still uses stats and progression.  It would just be a different style of stats.

KoTOR has no action in the hands of the player, anymore than DA:O does. Fallout is all dice-roll oriented (VATS had dice rolls too).

[sbvera13]

AlanC9 wrote...

How did Bethesda end up with the awful Oblivion scaling, come to think of it? I don't remember a Morrowind mod that leveled everything in the game to match the PC.

Nobody knows why for sure, but it was probably something to do with accessiblility.  AS in, you could jump into any quest and be reasonably able to finish it.  The end result of course was to flatten the game, and make every quest trivial, every enemy beatable, and take away all variation.  Kind of what ME2 did with it's combat, IMO.  Although that's largely due to no variation in enemies or level design, the GCD and shields/etc making everything immune to 80% of your powers contributed to the lack of variety also.

[Nashiktal]

In Exile wrote...

On the other hand, that level of progression actually gives a purpose to
many things included in the original that were useless. Stealing
household junk, for example, becomes a worthwhile profession while you
are too young to plunder dungeons.

I honestly think there is a fundamental break here when stealing candles and napkins is something someone sees as the fun part of the game...

Seriously? I think you are missing the point of Oblivion and role playing my friend. Might as well cut out the thieves guild with that line of thought.

[AlanC9]

Nashiktal wrote...

In Exile wrote

...I honestly think there is a fundamental break here when stealing candles and napkins is something someone sees as the fun part of the game...

Seriously? I think you are missing the point of Oblivion and role playing my friend. Might as well cut out the thieves guild with that line of thought.

Not wanting to steal commoners'  junk = not wanting to role-play? How so?

[sbvera13]

In Exile wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...
The original Fallouts, the new Fallouts, KOTOR , WoW (I hate to bring it up, but it still qualifies). 

I haven't played WoW or the original Fallouts, so I can't comment on those.

But the new Fallouts have mechanisms under player control that are certainly stat driven - the most apparent of which is aiming. That's partly stat-based, meaning you can miss independent of your cross-hairs. KoTOR has no player control of any ability beside movement - it's essentially DA:O with a low OTS camera and a worse feat system but a better skill system.

In the aiming example, it set limits and a range of variation, but did not completely take away your control.  It forced you to stand still/crouch more often while at low skill, while you could run and gun easily at higher level.  In short, it made the game a hybrid.  Which is what it claimed to be and what I enjoyed it as.  KOTOR affected health, amount of power damage, amount of weapon damage, conversation options, etc (same thing WoW does).  Pretty standard stuff, really.  Now, KOTOR had dice rolls on TOP of all that, but that doesn't discount the underlying bonuses, which is the part I was talking about.  Combine a stat system like that with a player-controlled action system and you've got a good hybrid game.  Oblivion for example; you swing a sword, it WILL always hit and do damage.  It may do pitiful damage if you're unskilled, but what the sword does is under your control.