210 réponses à ce sujet

[Malanek]

tmp7704 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Chain Lightning wasn't that symetrical.

How so? THere's nothing in the script of that ability that even checks whether the caster/target is on the player's side or not, nevermind changing anything in the code based on that.

I know it does much, much more damage to players. I can't remember exactly what it is but isn't it, and a number of other spells, based on "party size" which makes it 4 times stronger?

[Wulfram]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

He apparently only played up until the beginning of Act 3 where Meredith sends him a letter. I'm assuming he sided with Orsino in the opening.

Frankly, that's where I didn't quite get what Act III was supposed to be about. I sided with Orsino over Meredith and Meredith is the one asking me for help. Orsino should've been the one asking for help.

The whole game only makes sense if you play a pro-Templar ****, and that makes me mad.

I think the game does a pretty good job of justifying Meredith asking for the Champion's help in this matter.  It's partly an attempt to get the Champion to understand and sympathise with the Templars, and partly an attempt to use their popularity to locate people who the Templars can't find.

While for anti-Templar Hawke this is an opportunity to help the non-dangerous ones escape.  And she's the most powerful person in the city, so just ignoring her isn't really an option.

And frankly we need to have some interaction between Meredith and the PC at some point.

(Best Served Cold on the other hand is a truly awful and stupid quest on the mage side, despite being handed out by Orsino)

[TEWR]

Wulfram wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

He apparently only played up until the beginning of Act 3 where Meredith sends him a letter. I'm assuming he sided with Orsino in the opening.

Frankly, that's where I didn't quite get what Act III was supposed to be about. I sided with Orsino over Meredith and Meredith is the one asking me for help. Orsino should've been the one asking for help.

The whole game only makes sense if you play a pro-Templar ****, and that makes me mad.

I think the game does a pretty good job of justifying Meredith asking for the Champion's help in this matter.  It's partly an attempt to get the Champion to understand and sympathise with the Templars, and partly an attempt to use their popularity to locate people who the Templars can't find.

While for anti-Templar Hawke this is an opportunity to help the non-dangerous ones escape.  And she's the most powerful person in the city, so just ignoring her isn't really an option.

And frankly we need to have some interaction between Meredith and the PC at some point.

(Best Served Cold on the other hand is a truly awful and stupid quest on the mage side, despite being handed out by Orsino)

I think On the Loose failed too because not only can Hawke promise to protect Nyssa but you can bring the Captain of the Guard to hear Nyssa say she's afraid Huon will try something and yet you can't protect her at all.

I mean, I don't mind killing Huon if the game makes me -- though I'm not going to do that in my fanfic, but it won't be all lovey-dovey happy ending either -- but being unable to protect Nyssa when I'm just a few feet away is god awful.

Evelina was a little better considering she was possessed and nothing could be done, but I could donate money to her (though Hawke acts like a cheap bastard) and it doesn't matter. I'm assuming she went to Kirkwall's Circle in the years between Act II's climax and Act III's beginning.

Emile though I'm glad I could let go, but dammit anyone that sends him back to the Circle needs to watch this:  

and this: 

And agreed on Best Served Cold. I find that quest's problems can be directly traced back to Act of Mercy's stupidity with Decimus.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 octobre 2011 - 08:28 .

[FedericoV]

tmp7704 wrote...

DAO was largely symmetric, actually -- both the NPCs and PC + companions utilized the same abilities, levelling mechanics, tactical systems and stats. Any modifiers applied to both sides were tied to difficulty level and as such up to the player's discretion.

What the NPCs + companions have to do with asymmetrical combat systems? AFAIK, you talk of asymmetrical systems when the party (PC+allies) and the "encounters" does not follow the same set of rules during combat gameplay (or have a different set of bonus and malus).

DA:O was largely asymmetrical as Sylvius correctly stated in the OP. A very basic example: the darkspawn could not use cross class combos.

Modifié par FedericoV, 25 octobre 2011 - 08:58 .

[Joy Divison]

FedericoV wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

DAO was largely symmetric, actually -- both the NPCs and PC + companions utilized the same abilities, levelling mechanics, tactical systems and stats. Any modifiers applied to both sides were tied to difficulty level and as such up to the player's discretion.

What the NPCs + companions have to do with asymmetrical combat systems? AFAIK, you talk of asymmetrical systems when the party (PC+allies) and the "encounters" does not follow the same set of rules during combat gameplay (or have a different set of bonus and malus).

DA:O was largely asymmetrical as Sylvius correctly stated in the OP. A very basic example: the darkspawn could not use cross class combos.

Maybe it's bc/ PCs couldn't use CCCs in DA:O that I'm confused...

For the sake of clarification, what exactly do you mean by asymmetrical combat?

If by what you say above, namely that PCs can do stuff that NPCs can't, then I have no problem with that.  Though the complete lack of any ability of 95% DA:2 enemies can make combats boring.

What the OP critiqued, and I agree with, is the lack of verisimilitude when PCs have 180 HPs whereas trash mobs have 5000+.

Claiming a broken FF mechanic is ok simply because "it's called nightmare for a reason" is dubious reasoning at best.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 octobre 2011 - 09:42 .

[FedericoV]

Joy Divison wrote...

Maybe it's bc/ PCs couldn't use CCCs in DA:O that I'm confused...

Maybe they were not named CCC but you could shatter an enemy with cone of cold + any critical hit ability (even melee one) for instakill. What's the name in DA:O, spell combos? Still, enemies could not use Spell Combos.

For the sake of clarification, what exactly do you mean by asymmetrical combat?

Sorry, don't want to sound arrogant or rude but I do not "mean" anything. It's what the term means in game design (and I suppose it's what Sylvius meant in the OP using that expression).

If by what you say above, namely that PCs can do stuff that NPCs can't, then I have no problem with that.

Yep, that's it.

Technically, you have an asymmetrical gaming system every time the various "players" (player vs. encounters in case of RPGs) use a different set of rules/bonus.

A very simple example, if I play chess with my nephew and restrain myself with a different and limitated set of rules to allow him a better chance to win, I'm playing asimetrically. If I play by the same rules, I'm playing simmetrically and being an ass in the process :happy:.

Though the complete lack of any ability of 95% DA:2 enemies can make combats boring.

That really depends on the design of the system and not in the symmetric/asymmetric nature of it. It can be as boring if you are forced to reload when you miss a saving throw.

What the OP critiqued, and I agree with, is the lack of verisimilitude when PCs have 180 HPs whereas trash mobs have 5000+.

I do not find that disturbing if and when the system can convey a fun and balanced experience that resonates with the story. In a storytelling game, the combat system can sacrifice verosimilitude and inner logic for the sake of narrative and to express personality and comradery.

Claiming a broken FF mechanic is ok simply because "it's called nightmare for a reason" is dubious reasoning at best.

I've never played at nightmare so I cannot judge. But I agree that a broken or unbalanced mechanic is bad, whatever the context. I had not understood your argument at first since I have never played with FF on. I suppose that you were complaining about the hardness of it in general.

Modifié par FedericoV, 25 octobre 2011 - 10:30 .

[Joy Divison]

OK, I see what you are saying. I actually agree with much of it. The issue is that if you play with FF it would detract from the story experience...Varric would constantly tell Cassandra of Hawke's vanguard charge merely knocking enemies off balance but knocking teammates unconscious. At some point Cassandra would be like, "Wait..."

[tmp7704]

Malanek999 wrote...

I know it does much, much more damage to players. I can't remember exactly what it is but isn't it, and a number of other spells, based on "party size" which makes it 4 times stronger?

No, the code is pretty simple for this one -- it deals electricity damage to a target, then determines if there's another target(s) nearby enough and hits these. This is repeated for each affected target until 4th 'jump' from the initial person affected by the spell.

Perhaps the players get affected by it more because they tend to have little protection from electricity damage? The damage equation doesn't take party size or anything like that into account, only the 'jump generation' i.e. whether the target was primary, secondary, tertiary etc. The damage gets reduced for these latter 'generations'.

[tmp7704]

FedericoV wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

DAO was largely symmetric, actually -- both the NPCs and PC + companions utilized the same abilities, levelling mechanics, tactical systems and stats. Any modifiers applied to both sides were tied to difficulty level and as such up to the player's discretion.

What the NPCs + companions have to do with asymmetrical combat systems? AFAIK, you talk of asymmetrical systems when the party (PC+allies) and the "encounters" does not follow the same set of rules during combat gameplay (or have a different set of bonus and malus).

... yes, which is why i mentioned that DAO was largely symmetrical in this regard because the party (that is, the PC  + companions) to large extent do follow the same rules and systems utilized by the enemies (the NPCs) they face.

DA:O was largely asymmetrical as Sylvius correctly stated in the OP. A very basic example: the darkspawn could not use cross class combos.

As soon as you enter the tower at Ostagar you get treated to the grease + fire combo set up by the darkspawn.

If you don't witness these things much it's probably more due to limited number of spellcasters you face (and the player's tendency to focus on them first) than actual inability to perform combinations.

I think it'd be also difficult to provide other example of that supposed asymmetrical design. And i said DAO was largely symmetrical, not completely.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 octobre 2011 - 11:22 .

[Quething]

tmp7704 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

I know it does much, much more damage to players. I can't remember exactly what it is but isn't it, and a number of other spells, based on "party size" which makes it 4 times stronger?

No, the code is pretty simple for this one -- it deals electricity damage to a target, then determines if there's another target(s) nearby enough and hits these. This is repeated for each affected target until 4th 'jump' from the initial person affected by the spell.

Perhaps the players get affected by it more because they tend to have little protection from electricity damage? The damage equation doesn't take party size or anything like that into account, only the 'jump generation' i.e. whether the target was primary, secondary, tertiary etc. The damage gets reduced for these latter 'generations'.

The problem with Chain Lightning was actually exactly the bolded. PCs faced parties of a dozen to two dozen darkspawn at once. A single casting of Chain Lightning would arc to an enemy, then arc to another two enemies, then arc to another two from each of those, and everyone in the crowd would get hit once, maybe twice.

Emissaries faced a party of four to six (depending on Ranger pets). A single casting would arc to Alistair, then arc to Morrigan and the PC, then from Morri and the PC to Alistair and Morri and the PC, then from all three of them back to the other two --

-- you get the idea.

I suspect that's why it's 'bugged' not to scale with spellpower; they purposefully neutered it so it wouldn't be a TPK, rather than try to script some complex mechanic that could prevent one casting from arcing back and forth between the same target multiple times.

Also, in terms of spell combos, those were actually completely symmetrical too. Lieutenants and bosses can't be shattered. Guess what rank a party member holds?

I don't swear to it, but from what I remember of my last scan through the code, it should be perfectly possible for an enemy to shatter a ranger summon or raised undead.

Modifié par Quething, 25 octobre 2011 - 11:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Ramante wrote...

Edit: another question, what exactly is your main problem with Legacy?[/quote]
The encounters are contrived and game-y (particularly the final battle and those three golems is disparate resistances), and the ambient dialogue steals even more control of Hawke from the player than DA2's core dialogue system did.

The things DA2 does badly, Legacy does even worse (with one exception - I mentioned Legacy's level design was superior).
[quote]seraphymon wrote...

I honestly dont know how you can say that, when its the complete opposite. Hawke is not my character, and i
hardly ever got to decide what to do, none of the decisions mattered. Only thing was in what order to do them, and many of them have no reason other to just help a person you dont know, some of which you still do even when you refuse.[/quote]
Which is why I had such bad things to say about the emergent narrative and the dialogue system.  The structure of the game is ideal for a first-person roleplaying experience wherein the player creates his character's mind from scratch, but the implementation of the game's roleplaying systems are antithetical to that style of gameplay.

The game's structure serves one master (which I like), while the game's mechanics serve another (which I do not).
[quote]nightscrawl wrote...

Also, since you only played through the game once you might not have had the opportunity to play Hawke as a
different personality. I can understand how the dialogue wheel with six different icon types is daunting at first, but it's logical if you understand how it works. There are three core icons that determine personality, and then three secondary icons that determine tone. The very first dialogue option you make in the game during the prologue
(telling your brother/sister to attack or step aside) determines your initial personality. You are then able to alter it over time with your dialogue choices.

In addition, the strength of your personality type will also determine what you hear if you choose an option that
deviates from your normal tone. For example, a diplomatic/nice (green/blue) Hawke who picks a direct (red) choice will typically say the line in a nicer tone than a Hawke who has a purely aggressive personality. So you see, there are variations that are allowed within each type.

I do agree however that there could have been more options. I sorely wished for it on many occasions.[/quote]
I reloaded incessantly and played through many conversations several times each.  There was generally no way to get Hawke to say things in the way I wanted her to say them.  She could never be both direct and agreeable at the same time.  She was forced to behave as if she held an irrationally negative opinion of some people, and an irrationally positive opinion of others.

DA2's dialogue system was horribly broken.  Irredeemably so.
[quote]I'm kind of confused about your notions on the companions leaving. Other than Isabela in Act 2 who can really leave and you never see her again if certain conditions aren't met, no other companion abandons you
until you tell them to leave (ie Anders asking specifically if he should go.)[/quote]
I lost Carver for more than an entire Act.  I lost Isabela for the climax of an Act.  This is a big deal, particulaly since each companion has unique abilities.  If the companions all obeyed the same class rules - for example, if every ability available to Isabela was also available to every other Rogue (including Hawke) - then this wouldn't run the risk of crippling the party the way it does.
[quote]FedericoV wrote...

You do not resolve it.[/quote]
That's an untenable position unless you're not roleplaying your character.  Your character surely must be aware of these mechanical differences, as they directly affect his life.

Either you resolve the incongruities, or the PC and every other character in the setting is so mind-bogglingly oblivious that they bear no resemblance to real people.
[quote]You sacrifice inner logic for the narrative.[/quote]
The logic is part of the narrative.  If you sacrifice logic, the narrative instantly becomes demonstrably nonsensical.  Furthermore, it would then be impossible for you to have any idea what any character's opinions are within the game, as their system of reasoning would be necessarily incomptible with yours.

Put another way, the system of reasoning the PC uses to make decisions must be compatible with, and ideally even a coherent part of, the game's setting taken as a whole.  If the game's setting is internally inconsistent, then no such system of reasoning can exist.

If you have managed to formulate a system of reasoning that is compatible with DA2's mechanics, I'd like to see it.
[quote]Dubya75 wrote...

What?! Sylvius, you only managed to complete the game now? Only once?[/quote]
It took me this long because I really don't like it.  The game was a chore to play from start to finish.  Right from the start, with Hawke not behaving at all how I would like him to, and me having literally no idea what he's going to say or do from moment to moment, DA2 prevented me from roleplaying a coherent character.

Perhaps there is a coherent character than can be played, but there's no way for any player to know what that character is without first having perfect knowledge of the game's content.  And that obviously isn't possible.

The game should be playable as a roleplaying game right out of the box.  That means no metagame information required, and a fully documented set of game systems.  DA2 had nothing of the sort.
[quote]MerinTB wrote...

Such a review can miss a lot of nuance in the game... and some reactions to the game do need to be taken with a grain of salt.

If someone felt railroaded in one playthrough you could say that they didn't experience making different choices, for example.  But if they've played it, say, three times making wildly different choices and seeing the same end results everytime then you know they aren't missing much.[/quote]
And I played through several sections of the game several times each, trying (and failing) to get Hawke to so anything even vaguely like what wanted.

But it didn't happen.  Hawke routinely behaved entirely contrary to my preferences.
[quote]FitScotGaymer wrote...

Sylvius claimed in this very thread he ran out of content to play in DA2. And then in the next breath confessed to have not actually completed the game.
So he cant have actually run out of content to play if he hasnt completed the game; claiming there is nothing more to do in game when there is still quests left to play makes ZERO sense.[/quote]
I did complete the game.  I just didn't see the end of the authored narrative.
[quote]FedericoV wrote...

Simply because the player is not as awesome as the charachter he is roleplaying and even because the game
was not balanced to be played with FF on. FF in DA2 is simply an innatural layer of difficulty for the player who likes an absurd level of challenge. It's called nightmare for a reason. But I'm not saying that DA2 is balanced perfectly. I'm just saying that asymmetrical combat is better for storytelling RPGs (especially for videogames that
have to focus on visual storytelling). [/quote]
FF is better for storytelling because its lack creates incoherence within the setting.
[quote]n2nw wrote...

As a roleplayer (and being Dr. Spock), wouldn't you *like* this? It's totally illogical that if someone really hated what you did that they would stay with you.  Do you really see Anders slaughtering the mages?  I don't like losing a party member, but them leaving makes sense.  It would irritate me if they stayed, regardless of their personal beliefs or how much they hated me, unless I somehow bribed or talked them into it. It just doesn't fit otherwise.[/quote]
I don't agree that the companions are entirely independent of me.  In fact, the game's mechanics ensure they are not, as they learn the abilities I want them to learn, and they travel where I want them to travel, and they employ the tactics I want them to employ.

The companions are distinct from Hawke.  They are not distinct from me.
[quote]And I don't want to know what's junk. [/quote]
I don't want to know what's a plot item, either.  If I have a quest-related item, let me sell it if I'm careless, and force me to buy it back later if I want to complete that quest.
[quote]FedericoV wrote...

Well, I don't agree. Asimmetry is the way to go for any kind of "heroic" RPG storytelling (if the focus is storytelling). Asymmetry allows a lot of flexibility and can be used in many different ways.[/quote]
It's unecessary.  There is no reason at all to do such a thing.

I much prefer a balanced system where everyone can have the same (or comparable) abilities.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

DAO was largely symmetric, actually -- both the NPCs and PC + companions utilized the same abilities, levelling mechanics, tactical systems and stats.[/quote]
The damage and HP totals in DAO were not symmetrical, though they weren't nearly as skewed as DA2's.
[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

He apparently only played up until the beginning of Act 3 where Meredith sends him a letter. I'm assuming he sided with Orsino in the opening.[/quote]
I tried to side with neither of them.  Their dispute wasn't my concern.

Though Meredith's behaviour during the Act II climax didn't endear me to her.  Ideally, I'd have liked to take advantage of the chaos and kill her right then.
[quote]FedericoV wrote...

DA:O was largely asymmetrical as
Sylvius correctly stated in the OP.  A very basic example: the darkspawn could not use cross class combos.[/quote]
Most glaringly, the Warden and his companions most certainly were not shatterable.  Though that was corrected in a patch, when Lieutenants were also made unshatterable, thus fixing the imbalance.

DAO enemies could use at least some spell combos.  Grease + Fire worked for them.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 octobre 2011 - 12:30 .

[tmp7704]

Quething wrote...

Emissaries faced a party of four to six (depending on Ranger pets). A single casting would arc to Alistair, then arc to Morrigan and the PC, then from Morri and the PC to Alistair and Morri and the PC, then from all three of them back to the other two --

-- you get the idea.

Yup, that makes sense. From the glance at the code there is no check if the target wasn't already hit by the previous generation of the spell so with smaller poll of targets there's higher chance of the same person getting hit multiple times.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The damage and HP totals in DAO were not symmetrical, though they weren't nearly as skewed as DA2's.

(..)

Most glaringly, the Warden and his companions most certainly were not shatterable.  Though that was corrected in a patch, when Lieutenants were also made unshatterable, thus fixing the imbalance.

These two are actually aspects of the same misunderstanding i think -- the PC and companions are handled/implemented as lieutenant* (yellow con) creatures by the game, not the base rank. That's why in sections like the Gauntlet you face 4x yellow enemies rather than 'whites' and why shatter and such don't affect them. As a result they have damage output and hp as expected from creatures of this rank, i.e. more than the most typical enemies.

*) to get really technical it's a separate creature rank named 'player' but stat-wise it's pretty much slightly weaker version of the lieutenant rank which doesn't drop loot.

Modifié par tmp7704, 26 octobre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Heimdall]

As I usually feel when reading your posts Sylvius...

I'm not entirely sure why you still play these games, or what definition of mechanics you use. I still dispute your assertion that you are roleplaying your companion characters or should be, but we've had that conversation before.

[FieryDove]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Having now played one entire playthrough (by my reckoning), I am now comfortable writing a review.

Excellent post and I agree with it.


Also on the *shuffle* part, try and select Varic or an archer hawke to run ahead and disarm traps, as soon as enemies appear the shuffle happens (Usually x3) before you can get them to the trap and disarm it before the rest of the party blunders into it. Hold button working as intended or not, it is an issue the game has that annoyed me to no end. It's the reason I'm glad they removed injuries on traps in a patch. I would be much happier if they could fix the shuffle.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

These two are actually aspects of the same misunderstanding i think -- the PC and companions are handled/implemented as lieutenant* (yellow con) creatures by the game, not the base rank. That's why in sections like the Gauntlet you face 4x yellow enemies rather than 'whites' and why shatter and such don't affect them. As a result they have damage output and hp as expected from creatures of this rank, i.e. more than the most typical enemies.

Really?  I don't see level 8 Lieutenants hitting anywhere near as hard as Sten's 2H talents do at the same level, for example.  Maybe I'm not adjusting for armour.

Lord Aesir wrote...

As I usually feel when reading your posts Sylvius...

I'm not entirely sure why you still play these games

Because they can till be great games.  DA2 just doesn't happen to be.

But DAO is a great game.  I've been having a great time playing a new Warden character since I stopped playing DA2.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 octobre 2011 - 05:55 .

[FedericoV]

Joy Divison wrote...

OK, I see what you are saying. I actually agree with much of it. The issue is that if you play with FF it would detract from the story experience...Varric would constantly tell Cassandra of Hawke's vanguard charge merely knocking enemies off balance but knocking teammates unconscious. At some point Cassandra would be like, "Wait..."

LOL: I understand! You are right of course. Just as I supposed: FF is a feature added on the fly without any kind of serious balancing and testing.

[FedericoV]

tmp7704 wrote...
I think it'd be also difficult to provide other example of that supposed asymmetrical design. And i said DAO was largely symmetrical, not completely.

Ah, sorry, then we agree. DA:O used an asymmetrical system with many symmetrical features for balance sake.

And yes, I never experienced Spell Combos because I focused on mages ASAP and it was very easy to bring them down quickly (and there was no reason for delay). That's what you loose when you completely remove Buff/Debuff systems and the good old D&D "onion" gameplay :happy:. The fire thing at the beginning of the Tower of Ostagar allways seemed more of a scripted tutorial than anything to me.

@Sylvius: I understand your position but I do not agree: but at the end it all comes down to personal preference I assume. Even as a pen & paper RP gamer I have allways preferred storytelling and freeform games over simulative and logical/realistic ones. Because they allow for a lot more freedom, because they are easier to adapt to various situation, because they ask generally less rules and subrules for their abstract nature and finally because they cause a lot less problem of balance and "rule lawyer" issues than games like D&D (even because combat should not be the focus).

Normally, asymmetric system are more easier to use in a storytelling/freeform context because they do not priorize verosimilitude.

The, the mix can vary a lot and the problem of DA2 is simple at the end: for a storytelling game it trows too much combat and not enough story/lore/rp elements at you (being autorhed or emergent) to be a fun experience. Basically, it feels like making a dungeoun crawl with Vampire the Masquerade. Akward and... I do not know: "disconnected". I mean, sometime the game does not seem to relate with its design goals. Like the flashy animations with the stat based combat. And so on...

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 octobre 2011 - 07:18 .

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

"Why so Sylvius"

Still, I can't agree on how you complement writing (and some other features) on their own sometimes, not how they work in the game. Maybe writing has quality, maybe it is witty, but it's kinda witty only on paper. In the game, it feels more like I am playing with a traveling sircus behind my back.

But overall cool story bro

[Gabey5]

i agree with sylvius' review

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

@Sylvius: I understand your position but I do not agree: but at the end it all comes down to personal preference I assume. Even as a pen & paper RP gamer I have allways preferred storytelling and freeform games over simulative and logical/realistic ones. Because they allow for a lot more freedom, because they are easier to adapt to various situation, because they ask generally less rules and subrules for their abstract nature and finally because they cause a lot less problem of balance and "rule lawyer" issues than games like D&D (even because combat should not be the focus).

I don't think that makes any sense.  How can you know what your character wants to do if you don't understand how he perceives the world around him? 

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't think that makes any sense.  How can you know what your character wants to do if you don't understand how he perceives the world around him? 

Because the more abstract and vague the rules are, the less they contradict reality (even if only by merit of avoiding to explain how it works). Thus narrative games and the like can be assumed to work like reality does, while this is harder to justify in a rules heavy detailed game.
Essentially a: "Unless otherwise states, it works like IRL does"-kind of argument.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't think that makes any sense.  How can you know what your character wants to do if you don't understand how he perceives the world around him? 

I don't know: it's really hard to reply to that question without looking like the worst philosopher on earth. Especially with my english and all. I really hoped that you could accept my "olive branch"...

Sir JK expressed the argument perfectly on an objective level. I've nothing to add.

On a more personal level, I just need a system that it's flashed out enough so the story and its inner conflicts can work without distractions, while I'm having some fun and maybe (in very rare cases) some sort of meaningfull experiences through the symbols placed in the story. I know what I'm perceiving because my imagination and knowledge can fill the gaps of an abstract rule system. If the storytelling is more fluid and more enjoyable because of those abstractions and if everything is consistent with some general assumptions, there's only to gain with less rules and simulation.

I just need enough realism to get loose in the story and enough logic for inner consistency: any information or speculation in surplus seems just a dry waste of my time that's not improving my hobby in any interesting way.

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 octobre 2011 - 07:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Because the more abstract and vague the rules are, the less they contradict reality (even if only by merit of avoiding to explain how it works). Thus narrative games and the like can be assumed to work like reality does, while this is harder to justify in a rules heavy detailed game.
Essentially a: "Unless otherwise states, it works like IRL does"-kind of argument.

Except, asymmetrical mechanics show that the rules clearly don't work like in real life.  And yet none of the characters seem to notice.

Hawke is, apparently, one of the 10 most powerful beings in the world.  So is Varric.  So is Merrill.  And yet the narrative doesn't acknowledge this at all.

FedericoV wrote...

I really hoped that you could accept my "olive branch"...

It's not an olive branch if it directly attacks my core position.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 octobre 2011 - 07:20 .

[Fallstar]

 Excellent review Sylvius, I particularly agree regarding the dialogue systems; they are terrible. I have made a couple of threads regarding the use of paraphrasing, and the answer I was given, was that players generally don't like to read dialogue and then listen to it with the voiced PC. The obvious solution is a non voiced PC, but this isn't going to happen. At the very least I hope Bioware allow you to highlight a paraphrase and view the full text in future titles.

My main problems with DA:2 were the dialogue, the companions and the total lack of player agency. Combat Mechanics were flawed too, but I felt the first three issues were the most significant. The lack of a central location to meet with your companions was an issue, as was the inability to initiate companion dialogue. But I only actually liked two of the companions anyway, Anders and Varric, all of the companions felt less 'fleshed out' than they did in Origins.

And regarding player agency, its situations like with Petrice - I thought she was a total cow right from the beginning, and my character wanted to kill her; but instead Hawke agrees to work with her? If you're going to make a character so easily hateable, you shouldn't force us to work with them.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 26 octobre 2011 - 07:44 .