3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

sbvera13 wrote...

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.

It was worse than that IMO, it wasn't just that every quest was beatable but that every quest was also impossible at the same time depending on build.  The one that nailed me the first was this lame quest where a farmer wants you to protect his sons while they fight off gobllins on the family farm.  Perfectly fine quest if you take it at a low level, go on a high level and the sons are fighting level 20 goblins and get killed in one hit, also level up with speachcraft, mercantile etc. and your combat skills are not up to snuff to handle pretty much everything you bump into from in the open world.  Without level scaling you just take on quests that are targetted to a lower level combat skill and goblins that are powerful enough to take over countries aren't harrassing a small farm.  ME2 at least only failed in one direction with there level scaling woes.  

[Nashiktal]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Wrong. 

He is missing the underlining point in the entire REASON for stealing the candles and napkins, and why you do so. In oblivion (albeit in this case not naturally without mods) you create your character how you want them to be, and that mod opens up petty theft as a viable option as an option to solve your lack of wealth.

Lets say my character is a poor and downtrodden person, who makes his living not with adventuring and dungeon crawling, but by thievery. My character goes into peoples houses at night, steals what he can, then tries to sell it. when he does it however, he realizes that  he cannot sell stolen goods without a fence! After listening to rumors, I discover a thieves guild. I join the guild, find a way to make a profit from my petty thievery, and through the guild move up from candles and napkins, to the greatest hiest in all the empire, and perhaps the world! 

He says that someone who finds stealing the napkins and candles is fun... is breaking reason. That someone must be crazy (paraphrase) to enjoy such a thing. This line of reasoning is missing the point of the Oblivon game.

Hell you don't even have to roleplay a poor person to do this, my character in oblivion wanted to take over ALL the guilds, and as such stealing such napkins and forks was his path to greatness. 

Modifié par Nashiktal, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:39 .

[sbvera13]

Ahglock wrote...


It was worse than that IMO...

You're right of course.  I had forgotten just how terrible it was.  I started using the "randomized Oblivion" mod 1 week after release as a placeholder for the real overhauls (which, notable, started appearing within 3 weeks of launch. you'd think people had incentive or something), and even THAT was better then vanilla OB.  Aside from the first day or two, I don't think I ever played the game without serious modding.

[In Exile]

Nashiktal wrote...
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.

Err.. what? There's a difference between a quest and just farming just to up your gold because you're too weak to go questing.

sbvera13 wrote...
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. 

No, what you said was: "Just have a stat set that doesn't affect controlled actions."

This is a stat set that affects controlled actions.

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.

But KoTOR has no controlled actions. I don't understand why you're bringing up the game. You don't click to attack in KoTOR.

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.

No, you really have a terrible system. Why should a sharp sword hitting someone cause less damage when being swung the same way? Real skill should mean swinging the sword differently.

[In Exile]

Nashiktal wrote...
Wrong. 

He is missing the underlining point in the entire REASON for stealing the candles and napkins, and why you do so. In oblivion (albeit in this case not naturally without mods) you create your character how you want them to be, and that mod opens up petty theft as a viable option as an option to solve your lack of wealth.

Well, no, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference in taste between myself and you if inventing this sort of content for yourself is your idea of fun.

He says that someone who finds stealing the napkins and candles is fun... is breaking reason. That someone must be crazy (paraphrase) to enjoy such a thing. This line of reasoning is missing the point of the Oblivon game.

.... ???? That has nothing to do with what I said.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:44 .

[sbvera13]

In Exile wrote...
<snipped for space>

I guess it woould be more accurate to say "Have a stat set that doesn't take away player control of their actions."

Dark fire semantics will not avail you, flame of Ûdun!

[In Exile]

sbvera13 wrote...
I guess it woould be more accurate to say "Have a stat set that doesn't take away player control of their actions."

Dark fire semantics will not avail you, flame of Ûdun!

Yeah, but that totally changes the meaning. I would contend that when you're allowed to physically move your character in a way that corresponds to other control schemes where you do have full control of actions (bullets respect laws of physics but otherwise go where aimed) introducing any kind of random dice rolls takes away control from the player.

[Nashiktal]

In Exile wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...
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.

Err.. what? There's a difference between a quest and just farming just to up your gold because you're too weak to go questing.

I'm not saying the gameplay system in oblivion, (or the mod) isn't flawed, but the reason you listed is. You said there was a break when someone considered stealing napkins was fun, when really thats the point of roleplaying in the first place!

Yes you have to work within limitations of the game (or mod), but with the way you said it... Why bother with the thieves guild? The thieves guild required you to sell fenced goods (which to start with was small time stuff like candles and plates, whatever easy stuff you could grab). 

Someone roleplaying as a petty thief, as one I made up on the spot above, would indeed go after napkins and plates, and would find it fun. Not because stealing random napkins and plates in itself is fun (although I can find a humor in it) but because of the subtext behind it!

[In Exile]

Nashiktal wrote..
I'm not saying the gameplay system in oblivion, (or the mod) isn't flawed, but the reason you listed is. You said there was a break when someone considered stealing napkins was fun, when really thats the point of roleplaying in the first place!

I said there was a break between me and another person, i.e. a fundamental difference in taste. As in, we don't like the same things. I have no idea where you get this idea I said the game was broken because the mod made stealing napkins a feature; I just said I don't think it's fun.

Someone roleplaying as a petty thief, as one I made up on the spot above, would indeed go after napkins and plates, and would find it fun. Not because stealing random napkins and plates in itself is fun (although I can find a humor in it) but because of the subtext behind it!

I don't think you're reading my responses. Like I said: I don't think imagining content is fun; quests are different.

[sbvera13]

In Exile wrote...
I don't think imagining content is fun;

I'd suggest sports then.  Gaming is all about imagination.  Like books, movies and TV, they give you just enough to draw you into an idea that's larger then the game's content itself.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

There's also the Thieves Guild, which requires you to fence stolen goods before proceeding in the questline.

Now, if Oblivion had been balanced and designed better, this could actually be very fun. You can more or less get it with mods, so it's all good, I guess.. Rich and affluent characters have much more expensive items, whereas poorer ones have cheaper crap. You then are faced with a risk/reward scenario. Will you steal from poorer characters with less risk but less challenge, or will you go for a big heist?

Then, there's the idea of infiltration, scouting out security if any(I think like one quest has this), determining AI routines and the best course of action. Once you're actually in, then it becomes how well can you execute your skills to get in and out undetected with the loot. Sneak, lockpicking, etc.

Now of course, Oblivion's broken skill system and lack of multiple entry points in most buildings, along with invisibility exploits, wonky AI, insane crime detection and mostly worthless items makes this concept really hard to actually accomplish in-game.

But again, mods do fix most (if not all) of that.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:03 .

[Praetor Knight]

mrcrusty wrote...

There's also the Thieves Guild, which requires you to fence stolen goods before proceeding in the questline.

At least it was one heck of a questline. Once you learn who is giving the orders and why, I enjoyed it, maybe a bit more than the main questline now that I think about it a little more.

And I agree that Oblivion can get wonky with leveling; with the 5/5/1 or 5/5/5 styles and so forth, but as soon as I figured how leveling worked, I didn't really bother get past level 33, 34.

At least the higher level creatures were fun and oh the Trolls! Kinda like ME1 Krogan on Insanity, as I reminisce right now.

[sbvera13]

mrcrusty wrote...

But again, mods do fix most (if not all) of that.

In the end, OB was really nothing but a collection of art assets and a construction set.  It was nearly unplayable out of the box, IMO.

Modifié par sbvera13, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:12 .

[In Exile]

sbvera13 wrote...
I'd suggest sports then.  Gaming is all about imagination.  Like books, movies and TV, they give you just enough to draw you into an idea that's larger then the game's content itself.

...

Imagination: " The faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of
external objects not present to the senses:"

Video Game: "An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a
video display or television screen."

....?

There's nothing about movies or video-games that have anything to do with the imagination. In fact, neither do books - all that they involve the imagination in is visualization, but that's very different from inventing content.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

It's not the pace of leveling that's too fast in ME2, it's the way the skills progress.

Put it this way: if the skills in ME2 were levels, it would be the equivalent of sayings that as you earn XP you first have Level 1 and then you can't go to Level 2 and upgrade at all, you have to wait until you're Level 3. Then after that Levels 4 and 5 don't technically exist, and you can't improve until Level 6. Then Levels 7 to 9 are non-existent and you don't really level up until Level 10, etc. And because it works this way, instead of gradually getting better, you can only make these big leaps that get bigger each time with the gap widening further each time. Instead of gradually getting better, you're suddenly leaping ahead. It's stupid and counter-intuitive, and can leave you with leftover points to spend which really shouldn't be because the system is busted.

[Epic777]

@sbvera13 I am not seeing eye to eye. KOTOR while the game played in the 3rd person, the player never directly controls Revan. The player clicks power attack whether the attack is successful is determined by dice rolls/attack and defense ratings(i.e stats). What I want to avoid is Morrowinds combat. The player is given direct and full control. Press the left mouse button, your character attacks. What to avoid an attack? Move out the way. However what the player directly was overidden by the stats. Unless your long blade skill was high enough you couldn't hit the broadside of an elephants backside. The player could see said elephant, get up close and never hit anything. This was especially painful as the player was stuck in either the third or first person perspective wise as your manual directions were overriden by stats.

Modifié par Epic777, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:29 .

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...
I'd suggest sports then.  Gaming is all about imagination.  Like books, movies and TV, they give you just enough to draw you into an idea that's larger then the game's content itself.

...

Imagination: " The faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of
external objects not present to the senses:"

Video Game: "An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a
video display or television screen."

....?

There's nothing about movies or video-games that have anything to do with the imagination. In fact, neither do books - all that they involve the imagination in is visualization, but that's very different from inventing content.

cRPGs try to replicate it though, but they can't due to limitations. In a P&P RPG you often have the DM/GM asking you all, "what do you do now?" and the choice is pretty much whatever you can imagine, so long as it doesn't violate the rules of the setting and universe (much like in real life one can't suddenly just decide to fly into the air or project fire from their hands, etc.). In a cRPG you're still asked, "what do you do now?" but then you get a finite list of options. There are only so many outcomes and variations you can do, and the entire game is limited overall (while a P&P adventure could have years worth of content and technically never end, as long as the players are interested enough in it.).

[sbvera13]

Epic777 wrote...
<snipped for space>

Not arguing those points.  I didn't like the MW method either.  Go back and read the examples, and the clarification I posted later.  My initial choice of words was poor, but I think the overall idea was spelled out as best I can.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
cRPGs try to replicate it though, but they can't due to limitations. In a P&P RPG you often have the DM/GM asking you all, "what do you do now?" and the choice is pretty much whatever you can imagine, so long as it doesn't violate the rules of the setting and universe (much like in real life one can't suddenly just decide to fly into the air or project fire from their hands, etc.).

I would rather avoid a debate on what role imagination has in a PnP RPG, since that's entirely unrelated. Instead, let me ask this: why should there be any connection between a cRPG and a PnP RPG? Would you say that a PnP RPG must be like a wargame, since it was inspired by wargames?

In a cRPG you're still asked, "what do you do now?" but then you get a finite list of options. There are only so many outcomes and variations you can do, and the entire game is limited overall (while a P&P adventure could have years worth of content and technically never end, as long as the players are interested enough in it.).

That has nothing to do with the claim games are about imagination.

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

I would rather avoid a debate on what role imagination has in a PnP RPG, since that's entirely unrelated. Instead, let me ask this: why should there be any connection between a cRPG and a PnP RPG? Would you say that a PnP RPG must be like a wargame, since it was inspired by wargames?

If that's the logic, then cRPGs should also therefore be like a wargame.

Of course the answer is "no" but that doesn't mean that many of these elements don't have merit and that (some) players don't enjoy them. I think the direction the cRPG in general these days is trying to shift more though. While it started out as an attempt to bring P&P RPGs into the realm of electronic entertainment and replicate them somewhat, even with the limitations, lately with the move to more cinematic gaming it seems to have become more about trying to make an interactive cinematic experience. Not a bad thing really concept wise, but I do think we're getting to the point where it's leaving a little too much of what it started as behind, and often for the wrong reasons. I think KotOR and DAO pretty much nailed that middle-ground balance.

That has nothing to do with the claim games are about imagination.

I personally don't think they always are. But nor do I think they aren't either. There are plenty of games out there (particularly sandbox ones) where you can create your own fun without necessarily  following the game where it wants to take you or doing things by the games' book. In some games you can use imagination to mix and match mods or gamemodes to come up with something different (my friends and I did this quite a bit with the original UT back when we studied IT together and played LAN games).

Beyond that, I do believe RPGs are supposed to encourage at least a degree of imagination.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:58 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote..
If that's the logic, then cRPGs should also therefore be like a wargame.

Only if you think cRPGs have to be like PnP. But why would you?

Of course the answer is "no" but that doesn't mean that many of these elements don't have merit and that (some) players don't enjoy them.

Sure, but that's neither here nor there.

I think the direction the cRPG in general these days is trying to shift more though. While it started out as an attempt to bring P&P RPGs into the realm of electronic entertainment and replicate them somewhat, even with the limitations, lately with the move to more cinematic gaming it seems to have become more about trying to make an interactive cinematic experience.

Categories tend to be fluid. But what does that have to do with imagination?

Not a bad thing really concept wise, but I do think we're getting to the point where it's leaving a little too much of what it started as behind, and often for the wrong reasons. I think KotOR and DAO pretty much nailed that middle-ground balance.

Whereas I think we still have a long way to go before we find any kind of balance (and ME2 went too far in the wrong direction).

I personally don't think they always are. But nor do I think they aren't either. There are plenty of games out there (particularly sandbox ones) where you can create your own fun without necessarily  following the game where it wants to take you or doing things by the games' book.

But you're never need to imagine anything to do it. If I rampage around in GTA, do I have to imagine reasons to do it? That some people have this as a playstyle doesn't mean a game is "about" this.

In some games you can use imagination to mix and match mods or gamemodes to come up with something different (my friends and I did this quite a bit with the original UT back when we studied IT together and played LAN games).

Thats not the same definition of imagination being used before.

Beyond that, I do believe RPGs are supposed to encourage at least a degree of imagination.

Cool. I think they actually do encourage imagination (like books, or movies). But that doesn't mean they're about imagination.

[AlanC9]

sbvera13 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I don't think imagining content is fun;

I'd suggest sports then.  Gaming is all about imagination.  Like books, movies and TV, they give you just enough to draw you into an idea that's larger then the game's content itself.

Funny. I could have sworn that In Exile actually does enjoy some games, despinte not approaching them the way you think he ought to.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

It's not the pace of leveling that's too fast in ME2, it's the way the skills progress.

Put it this way: if the skills in ME2 were levels, it would be the equivalent of sayings that as you earn XP you first have Level 1 and then you can't go to Level 2 and upgrade at all, you have to wait until you're Level 3. Then after that Levels 4 and 5 don't technically exist, and you can't improve until Level 6. Then Levels 7 to 9 are non-existent and you don't really level up until Level 10, etc. And because it works this way, instead of gradually getting better, you can only make these big leaps that get bigger each time with the gap widening further each time. Instead of gradually getting better, you're suddenly leaping ahead. It's stupid and counter-intuitive, and can leave you with leftover points to spend which really shouldn't be because the system is busted.

This is actually more confusing than your original post. How is this different from saying that you're gaining too much ability with each level? Edit: I didn't mean the absolute power levels, since that's meaningless in a scaled system.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:19 .

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

Whereas I think we still have a long way to go before we find any kind of balance (and ME2 went too far in the wrong direction).

Just a quick question then: if you could point to a game that you feel has got the closest yet (even if you think we're a long way off still), what would it be?

Cool. I think they actually do encourage imagination (like books, or movies). But that doesn't mean they're about imagination.

I don't think they are as such. Not directly. I was just making a point that that's what P&P RPGs are largely about: imagination. And they are the forefather to the cRPG, and since the cRPG was originally intended to bring P&P RPGs into the world of electronic entertainment, then in a certain sense it was intended to bring that aspect of it too. Except that due to the limitations of cRPGs it can't be done anywhere as effectively. You can't really have finite, limited imagination.

Still, if nothing else, it does encourage it, like we've both agreed on. I mean, the amount of fan stories out there people write about their own Shepards alone is evidence of that. ME1 and the first two ME novels encouraged me to write a more original story myself not tied direction to the canon and existing characters, which very much came from my imagination linked with the Mass Effect universe and setting. Kind of like running a P&P RPG campaign in a Mass Effect setting would, so in some ways I came full circle there.

But then as a final point, I don't think one can say a genre with as many factors as the RPG can be diluted down to being about one singular thing. As debates have shown on these forums, what an RPG means to different people can be quite different.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
Just a quick question then: if you could point to a game that you feel has got the closest yet (even if you think we're a long way off still), what would it be?

Every game fails at some level. I think ME1 handled the role of the protagonist relatively well. TW2 handled reactivity well. Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. handles character progression well. No one handles dialogue well, but Bioware's idea of PC VO is on the right track. ToEE handled combat well, and IWD had good encounter design (but you'd have to beat me to get me to play the game again).

I honestly can't pick a game, because I don't think character customization and reactivity are each crucial, and every game essentially trades off against these 2.

I don't think they are as such. Not directly. I was just making a point that that's what P&P RPGs are largely about: imagination. And they are the forefather to the cRPG, and since the cRPG was originally intended to bring P&P RPGs into the world of electronic entertainment, then in a certain sense it was intended to bring that aspect of it too. Except that due to the limitations of cRPGs it can't be done anywhere as effectively. You can't really have finite, limited imagination.

- Edit:

I need to preface this by saying I don't play PnP RPGs and this is based off what I've read, seen & heard.

- Edit.

I don't think PnP RPGs are actually about imagination. You don't (for example) get to imagine new areas, or new characters. All of these are set for you. You use your imagination in the same way you would for a book: as a mental simulation of the action that you're either picking or you're having described to you.

Still, if nothing else, it does encourage it, like we've both agreed on. I mean, the amount of fan stories out there people write about their own Shepards alone is evidence of that. ME1 and the first two ME novels encouraged me to write a more original story myself not tied direction to the canon and existing characters, which very much came from my imagination linked with the Mass Effect universe and setting. Kind of like running a P&P RPG campaign in a Mass Effect setting would, so in some ways I came full circle there.

That's something really valuable. But I think that's essentially true for everything. Literally. Including real events from our daily life.

But then as a final point, I don't think one can say a genre with as many factors as the RPG can be diluted down to being about one singular thing. As debates have shown on these forums, what an RPG means to different people can be quite different.

But when you design games, you have to narrow it down to core elements you can implemented versus peripheral elements you're willing to cut.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:32 .