Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Phthartic]

Sorry if this is an old topic; I just discovered DA2 and then DA:O. I've been playing an MMPORPG for years and just got back to my Baldur's Gate kind of roots.

I'm currently on my first playthrough of DA:O. I love many elements of the game, like the way they took things like the musical score, the quality of writing and voice acting seriously. They didn't just say, "Who cares... it's just a game for kiddies... good enough." They really made the effort to produce a high quality product in many areas.

But I find the AI to some extent, and the pathfinding to a great extent just awful. In no where near the same class as the other high quality aspects of the game.

So I was googling "DA:O pathfinding" and found a vid and a scholarly paper (beyond my level in "Computing") indicating how GREAT the pathfinding in DA:O was, and several reviews of the game that didn't mention it, so I started wondering what could explain the disparate experiences I and the average player seemed to be having.

My standards are by no means high. Baldur's Gate is ancient in computer technology terms, but it's pathfinding was fine from one side of a map to the other after an early patch. In DA:O I literally can't click more than a few paces away if there are ANY possible obstructions like trees, people, freaking CLUMPS OF GRASS.... I'm not exaggerating. Sometimes literally 3 steps away on open, flat ground with no obstructions and my character takes one step and gives up hopelessly lost. I honestly don't get it.

Needless to say it rather detracts from the enjoyability of the game. Likewise the AI frequently has characters ignoring commands or doing things completely unexplainable (to me) based on their tactics settings. As far as I'm concerned, if a character has a ranged weapon equipped, and their behavior is set to "Ranged" and I specifically order them to attack an unobstructed, in-range target, they shouldn't equip melee weapons and run off into the enemy group and attack some other target a second later when I'm directing a different character. No matter WHAT other settings or scripted actions they have. There is no "Do Random Stupid Things" setting on the tactics screen. I mean to say I shouldn't have to have a college degree in AI to set tactics or to see how the settings I had chosen caused them to make a specific bad decision.

And I'm not one to let the battle go in real time. I pause A LOT to micromanage the battle. I'd almost rather there were "rounds" and I could have it autopause after each round and issue new commands so I wouldn't have someone miss half the battle running back to do what I told them to do in the first place.

I wonder if it's possible that a computer that's not fully tricked out might not be able to handle the AI and pathfinding as well as one with more memory/higher speed/with graphics card, etc.? My Toshiba Satellite laptop is newer than the game is. It wasn't the bottom of the line either, but definitely towards the cheaper end. It just seems unlikely that the program could say "Oh, this is a really fast computer, so I can afford many more waypoints in my pathfinding calculus than in a slower one." But it's the only explanation I can think of. Could the difference be in the platform, i.e. PC vs. XBox, etc?

When my brain was still plastic enough to absorb this high level theory we thought 64K of RAM was all anyone should EVER need... so if someone KNOWS or at least has some sound computing knowledge to put towards the real answer to this problem I'd appreciate it, but please resist the temptation to make yourself sound more knowlegeable than you are by just publicly GUESSING that a lame computer equals lame AI and pathfinding.

Thanks a lot...