58 réponses à ce sujet

[ScotGaymer]

I think the problem is with Bioware is they are occassionally prone to overreaction about certain things.

Examples of this would be:
People complained about the morass of loot in ME1, and the inaccessibility of the inventory screen in the same game. Bioware responded by stripping out loot and inventory completely, when people only wanted it to be less spreadsheety and more accessible.
People complained about the Mako levels sucking, and the Mako itself being difficult to drive and fight in. Again Bioware stripped it out completely when it only needed tweaking Granted they added it back in later (in the form of the Hammerhead) by as it isnt part of the main game it isnt integral at all.

Granted what Bioware introduced in ME2 to replace what they took out of ME1 largely worked fairly well; but that doesnt change the fact that they intially overreacted to the "problems" that people complained about.

They did the same here in Dragon Age.

People complained about the Wall o' Text way the game communicated information to you, a lot of it wasnt explained and what was explained was explained in a bad way. People wanted this information to say but for it to be presented in a more sensible and accessible way. Bioware's response was to rip it out completely and replace it with in most cases nothing at all.

Stripping out worked in ME, but it hasnt in DA because they are two different animals.

[FedericoV]

@OP: I hate against level scaling too! Level scaling is the worst thing that happened to RPG ever. It's one of the so called "evolutionary" features that are ruining what makes the RPG genre actually any good.

It removes challenge. It removes difficulty curve. It removes the meaningfull progression of your characther and party. It destroys loot system and economy. It removes the meaning of rewards to players who invest time exploring the world and doing side quests. It kills internal logic (a critter you meet at level 20 is harder than a level 5 boss). It makes boss fights impossible to design in an interesting way. It removes variety.

Yes, it saves a lot of work on the devs part actually balancing and testing stuff: thanks a lot! But it does not do anything for the player.

I can understand the usefulness of level scaling in an open world sandbox game. Mind, only if used in a moderated way. But I honestly cannot understand what's the point of DA2 radical level scaling when the game is so linear.

I still hold dear to my heart the moment I gained the Holy Avenger in BG2 after beating Firkragg. One of the best moment I ever had in a game. It has taken a lot of work to gain that item and it was the best sword in the game, period. That would be impossible or worthless in an evoluted "level scaling" game and it's simply sad.

Modifié par FedericoV, 13 octobre 2011 - 10:14 .

[Heather Cline]

i hate level scaling because it makes certain weapons useless after only a few level ups. then you have to try and find enough money in DA2 to buy the next best thing. Which is nearly impossible to do since DA2 only gives you a finite amount of money for each battle you complete and the stuff you pick up to sell is worth not that much to merchants at all.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How bout this?

The more adept you are at your class, the more effectiveness you can utilize from the weapon. The limitation isn't in the weapon, but in the character's ability to wield it properly.

That would be fine, but the best way to represent that wouldn't be in the weapon's stats, but the character's stats.

Not necessarily. The concept is similar to rune weapons from the Rifts PnP RPG system. Rune weapons house the soul of some creature in it; that soul is what powers the weapon's abilities. As the character levels up, the rune weapon's bond to its owner increases and unlocks new abilities that are usable by the character. In the case of DA2, the weapon's enchantment could simply be reacting to the abilities of the character wielding it. The character must use the specific enchanted weapon to get these benefits; any other weapon would not be as effective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How bout this?

The more adept you are at your class, the more effectiveness you can utilize from the weapon. The limitation isn't in the weapon, but in the character's ability to wield it properly.

That would be fine, but the best way to represent that wouldn't be in the weapon's stats, but the character's stats.

Not necessarily. The concept is similar to rune weapons from the Rifts PnP RPG system. Rune weapons house the soul of some creature in it; that soul is what powers the weapon's abilities. As the character levels up, the rune weapon's bond to its owner increases and unlocks new abilities that are usable by the character. In the case of DA2, the weapon's enchantment could simply be reacting to the abilities of the character wielding it. The character must use the specific enchanted weapon to get these benefits; any other weapon would not be as effective.

That would work well, too, but these details are important.  That would suggest that the bond should grow stronger at a lower rate if the character swaps out weapons a lot.

The game mechanics need to match the lore-based descriptions of those mechanics.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How bout this?

The more adept you are at your class, the more effectiveness you can utilize from the weapon. The limitation isn't in the weapon, but in the character's ability to wield it properly.

That would be fine, but the best way to represent that wouldn't be in the weapon's stats, but the character's stats.

Not necessarily. The concept is similar to rune weapons from the Rifts PnP RPG system. Rune weapons house the soul of some creature in it; that soul is what powers the weapon's abilities. As the character levels up, the rune weapon's bond to its owner increases and unlocks new abilities that are usable by the character. In the case of DA2, the weapon's enchantment could simply be reacting to the abilities of the character wielding it. The character must use the specific enchanted weapon to get these benefits; any other weapon would not be as effective.

That would work well, too, but these details are important.  That would suggest that the bond should grow stronger at a lower rate if the character swaps out weapons a lot.

The game mechanics need to match the lore-based descriptions of those mechanics.

I'm not saying that it has to be exactly the same. I'm saying that there could simply be similar (but not identical) explanations for the enchantment on said weapons. You're the one who wants to use his imagination, can't you come up with your own solution that can consisently satisfy your lore-based requirements?

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm not saying that it has to be exactly the same. I'm saying that there could simply be similar (but not identical) explanations for the enchantment on said weapons. You're the one who wants to use his imagination, can't you come up with your own solution that can consisently satisfy your lore-based requirements?

I can't control the behaviour of NPCs.  If the lore-based explanation (which I would argue everyone needs in order to understand the setting) should influence the behaviour of characters, then the lack of that behaviour breaks the explanation.

Recall how BioWare explained that they'd eliminated resurrection magic because of how it should impact people's view of death, but they didn't want to do that, so the only option was to scrap resurrection.

That was smart.  Every aspect of the game's mechanics should be examined in the same way.

[Reno_Tarshil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm not saying that it has to be exactly the same. I'm saying that there could simply be similar (but not identical) explanations for the enchantment on said weapons. You're the one who wants to use his imagination, can't you come up with your own solution that can consisently satisfy your lore-based requirements?

I can't control the behaviour of NPCs.  If the lore-based explanation (which I would argue everyone needs in order to understand the setting) should influence the behaviour of characters, then the lack of that behaviour breaks the explanation.

Recall how BioWare explained that they'd eliminated resurrection magic because of how it should impact people's view of death, but they didn't want to do that, so the only option was to scrap resurrection.

That was smart.  Every aspect of the game's mechanics should be examined in the same way.

Are you talking Ressurection via dialogue and cut scenese or in Combat?

Because the Spirit Healer and Anders Vengence Tree have Revival/Ressurection spells..

I'm sorry I'm not really following what your are getting at by saying they scrap ressurection.

[mesmerizedish]

Reno_Tarshil wrote...

Are you talking Ressurection via dialogue and cut scenese or in Combat?

Because the Spirit Healer and Anders Vengence Tree have Revival/Ressurection spells..

I'm sorry I'm not really following what your are getting at by saying they scrap ressurection.

Actual resurrection. The Spirit Healer slash Vengeance abilities don't bring people back from the dead because party members who fall in combat don't actually die.