210 réponses à ce sujet

[Sinuphro]

FedericoV wrote...

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.

Actually...in DAO enemies did use spell combos or combos at times. Examples?
When ur warden and Allistar are trying to light the torch in the tower to alert for reinforcements, the darkspawn mage intentionally cast a fireball spell on the slime you are standing on which creates an area that burns for some time. Another example...the archers in the sacred ashes quest in the main dungeon also take advantage of ur character tripping their slime trap

[macrocarl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's the great thing about a silent protagonist. The lines can be delivered however the player wants.

Sure, if you buy that. 

But this ground has been covered before.

As I've explained several times in reponse, David is just flat wrong about that.

I don't think David is 'wrong'. He presented some scenerios in DAO where VO would have worked better. I personally think VO is better in terms of immersion, but that's my opinion, and I get where your opinion is coming from.

[chunkyman]

had a hard time role playing a voiced protagonist, I at least hope we can shut off voice acting and have a DA:O system as an option for those of us that want that it DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As I've been playing more DAO of late, I wanted to restate my initial position (established shortly after the release of DAO) that DAO's combat is too fast.

It would be a fine combat speed if we had some sort of combat log so we could could review what had just happened, but in the absence of a persistent combat log I find DAO's faster than I would like.

So, naturally, DA2's combat is simply dreadful.

[Wissenschaft]

Sounds like you would prefer a turn based game.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 03 novembre 2011 - 04:47 .

[Lord_Saulot]

Sylvius, great review, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I especially liked the distinction you made between the authored and emergent narratives.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Sounds like you would prefer a turn based game.

I want a game that doesn't intentionally hide information from me.  A game that gives me time to make decisions on behalf of my character.  A game that gives me the freedom to make decisions on behalf of my character.

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wissenschaft wrote...

Sounds like you would prefer a turn based game.

I want a game that doesn't intentionally hide information from me.  A game that gives me time to make decisions on behalf of my character.  A game that gives me the freedom to make decisions on behalf of my character.

Exactly how much time do you need? Because, you know, nothing is stopping you from hitting the pause button after every move.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 novembre 2011 - 06:17 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

If my character is locked in an overly elaborate auto-attack animation, pausing doesn't help.

Not to mention that I would need to pause several times per second to ensure that I'm capturing every detail.

[b09boy]

So it's not so much the need for time as it is a need for proper feedback. Like is the character being hit a lot? Is he hitting in return? For how much damage? Which spell was cast? Did the character resist that spell or a different one? You'd like a dedicated log to look at this info rather than have it flash across the screen for a second.

[Sylvius the Mad]

True. The call for time is more of a pre-emptive attempt to prevent them from adding something like ME2's dialogue interrupts.

Those things are appalling, and they do not allow the player adequate time (or information) to make a decision.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
True. The call for time is more of a pre-emptive attempt to prevent them from adding something like ME2's dialogue interrupts.

Those things are appalling, and they do not allow the player adequate time (or information) to make a decision.

They are like a wacky random button - push button, random thing will happen.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

True. The call for time is more of a pre-emptive attempt to prevent them from adding something like ME2's dialogue interrupts.

Those things are appalling, and they do not allow the player adequate time (or information) to make a decision.

Isn't that the point though? Not making a well informed thought-out action, but rather just going with the flow (In character)? After all... sometimes life itself doesn't give you the time to think carefully what to do.

Admittedly... the system could (and should) broadcast better what that action you wll attempt to make is. But is the idea of making a quick in character reaction so bad?

[Xewaka]

Sir JK wrote...
Isn't that the point though? Not making a well informed thought-out action, but rather just going with the flow (In character)? After all... sometimes life itself doesn't give you the time to think carefully what to do.
Admittedly... the system could (and should) broadcast better what that action you wll attempt to make is. But is the idea of making a quick in character reaction so bad?

Except with interrupts it's not the character making a quick reaction, but rather the player. You can have the character react quickly while giving the player ample time to consider the movement. It might break a little the flow of the cutscene, but it's better to have the cutscene stitled while the player decides in behalf of his character (even if his character will, afterwards, act in a quickly manner) than having the cutscene break the character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Isn't that the point though? Not making a well informed thought-out action, but rather just going with the flow (In character)?

If the character is markedly different from me, it might take me some time to determine what he would do in the moment.

After all... sometimes life itself doesn't give you the time to think carefully what to do.

If a game wants to force that sort of immediacy on the player whenever it is present for the character, then the game shouldn't be pausable under any circumstances.

But it is.

Admittedly... the system could (and should) broadcast better what that action you wll attempt to make is. But is the idea of making a quick in character reaction so bad?

Yes, it is.  I find it completely unacceptable.  Only if I'm the one being tested by the situation does a time-limit make sense.  A character shouldn't fail because its player clicked the wrong button in haste.

[Sir JK]

Xewaka wrote...
Except with interrupts it's not the character making a quick reaction, but rather the player. You can have the character react quickly while giving the player ample time to consider the movement. It might break a little the flow of the cutscene, but it's better to have the cutscene stitled while the player decides in behalf of his character (even if his character will, afterwards, act in a quickly manner) than having the cutscene break the character.

I'd argue that making a snap decision shouldn't be breaking character at all. As long as the action in question is clear, such as that the other person turns their back to you and while talking a figure of one person stabbing another in the back flashes over the screen. What the action is should be clear enough, but it only makes sense to allow it while the other person has their back turned.

Time shouldn't have to freeze there. Either you seize the moment and try to stab or you play it safe and don't. That alone is a very meaningful choice about the character.

Freezing time (mid sentence even) for the benfit of the player ruins that moment because it allows you to carefully think it through. Then it's not a rushed decision. You might say it's a rushed choice for your character, but it isn't. Because you've already had ample time to think "Am I this kind of person?". You have carefully and dutifully spent time choosing... when in praxis... you shouldn't have been able too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I'd argue that making a snap decision shouldn't be breaking character at all. As long as the action in question is clear, such as that the other person turns their back to you and while talking a figure of one person stabbing another in the back flashes over the screen. What the action is should be clear enough, but it only makes sense to allow it while the other person has their back turned.

And the character can make that quick decision.  But there's no need to force the player to work out whether his character would make that quick decision with a timer hanging over him.

Time shouldn't have to freeze there.

Nor should time be prevented from freezing there.  The player should always be allowed to ause the game to consider his character's next action.  If the player has spent some time away from the game, he might not have his character's thoughts at the front of his mind.  Or if the player needs to consult some notes to be reminded of what his character's deeply held opinion on some issue is, the game should wait for him to do that.  The character can make a snap decision on this, because there's an important value that drives his action, but the player doesn't necessarily share that value.

There is no roleplaying benefit at all to forcing fast-paced decision-making on the player.

Either you seize the moment and try to stab or you play it safe and don't. That alone is a very meaningful choice about the character.

The character, yes.  The player, no.

Freezing time (mid sentence even) for the benfit of the player ruins that moment because it allows you to carefully think it through. Then it's not a rushed decision. You might say it's a rushed choice for your character, but it isn't.

It can be.  Only the player can decide that.

Because you've already had ample time to think "Am I this kind of person?".

It depends how complicated an issue it is from the player's perspective.  it might be a simple choice from the character's perspective, but he might be drawing a stark line between two things where the player doesn't see one.

Aside from forcing a playstyle upon all players which some players may simply not enjoy, you're ignoring the possibilty to deep roleplaying of characters who differ severely from their players, not just in what opinions they hold, but in what method of reasoning they use, or what their standard of evidence is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I'd argue that making a snap decision shouldn't be breaking character at all.

Oh, and you're ignoring the user interface.

Why risk the player hitting the wrong button because he's in a hurry?  Why risk the player not noticing the interrupt icon?  Why risk the player missing the input because he's stretching his hand right then?

And perhaps most importantly, why make the game less accessible to disabled players?  One of the hallmarks of CRPGs is that they're playable by physically disabled players.  Any CRPG should be playable by a quadriplegic.  Playable slowly, but playable.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius, please. Don't split my posts like that. It's not conductive of a good discussion. I have great respect for you and really enjoy discussing things with you . Don't ruin it by trying to show me how wrong I am sentence by sentence. Please.

As for my asnwer:
I understand that you wish to make the right decision for your character I really do. Neither of us wants to act out of character. And I truly do understand not being capable of remembering a character fully one has spent time away from.

And I agree. There's a full range of various characters one can play. All with different reasonings and standards of evidence. As wide a range of characters as there are people I'd say. And as you say... sometimes a situation can be very complicated.

And that's what the snap decisions are all about. -Not- being given the time to weigh all that in. -Not- being allowed to consider the possibilities. -Not- be given time to consider what they really think.
The true value of a snap decision... lie in making an in character mistake.

To clarify... that's not choosing the wrong thing for your character but rather your character acting rushed and thus making a mistake.
By consulting notes or thinking hard about it, you've already started to decide what the right cause of action for your character is. Which again... is exactly what the character shouldn't have the time to do. Even if you conclude: my character will do something rash here... you have still made that choice on behalf of the character. Despite being frozen in time.. you've still have had time to think about it.

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If my character is locked in an overly elaborate auto-attack animation, pausing doesn't help.

Not to mention that I would need to pause several times per second to ensure that I'm capturing every detail.

I can't imagine why anyone would want what you're asking for. Even with a dedicated log, you'd still be pausing frequently to check it over. I can't thinkof any real-time combat system that works at the speed you seem to desire.

You say a character shouldn't be punished simply because his player makes the wrong decisons when forced into immediate action. I disagree. Games are supposed to challenge the player, and part of that challenge includes keeping up with the pace the game sets. If you've decided beforehand that you don't like the quick-time actions present in games like Mass Effect, you're perfectly free to not use them.

Characters being "punished" for failure on the part of the player is a staple of the gaming medium, all the way back to Dungeons & Dragons. Success cannot exist without failure. Without some definition of loss, winning is meaningless. How should the game respond to a player's failure, then? Insult them directly? Adminster an electric shock via the controller? Or maybe games should just be 'unloseable'.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

I can't imagine why anyone would want what you're asking for. Even with a dedicated log, you'd still be pausing frequently to check it over. I can't thinkof any real-time combat system that works at the speed you seem to desire.

Prior to DA2, all of BioWare's stat-driven RPGs worked very well in that respect.  All DAO needed to fix this aspect of the game was a combat log.

BG, NWN, and KotOR all worked very well, just as I describe.

Characters being "punished" for failure on the part of the player is a staple of the gaming medium, all the way back to Dungeons & Dragons. Success cannot exist without failure. Without some definition of loss, winning is meaningless. How should the game respond to a player's failure, then? Insult them directly? Adminster an electric shock via the controller? Or maybe games should just be 'unloseable'.

I think RPGs are unloseable.  Characters can die, but if they die as a result of in-character behaviour, then the player has succeeded.

The character faces risk.  The character can fail.  The player, however, cannot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

And that's what the snap decisions are all about. -Not- being given the time to weigh all that in. -Not- being allowed to consider the possibilities. -Not- be given time to consider what they really think.
The true value of a snap decision... lie in making an in character mistake.

To clarify... that's not choosing the wrong thing for your character but rather your character acting rushed and thus making a mistake.

By consulting notes or thinking hard about it, you've already started to decide what the right cause of action for your character is. Which again... is exactly what the character shouldn't have the time to do. Even if you conclude: my character will do something rash here... you have still made that choice on behalf of the character. Despite being frozen in time.. you've still have had time to think about it.

And I should have time to think about it.  The game isn't supposed to force the player into a mistake.

The risk of these fast-paced decisions isn't that the character will make an error, because the character can already make an error even when you give the player time to think.  The risk is that the player will make an error, and choose an option which, upon further consideration, is out of character for his PC.

I did this once in DAO, even without a time limit.  I did quests out of order, and I hoped that my mistake wouldn't make any material difference in the world.

But it did.  As such, I had to go back and replay a 25 hour section of the game (including all of Orazammar and the Deep Roads) to correct my error.

By adding quicktime events to the game, you're dramatically increasing the risk of this sort of error.

I'm trying to guard against the player being forced into a mistake by having him act in unnecessary haste.  The character can still make mistakes when the player has time to consider his decisions.  i've often had characters make decisions that I know are bad decisions, but they're in-character decisions, so that's why I choose them.

You're introducing an entirely unnecessary and potentially character-breaking element of risk into gameplay, and I very strongly object.

[Sir JK]

Ouch.... 25 hours? I've never quite bungled up a character that bad but I can sympathize. I too make decisions that might be less than stellar but were right for that character and indeed, making uninformed or misinformed mistakes are certainly still possible.

I still maintain that a character should, on occassion, be exposed to situations were snap decisions are required. Were there isn't time to consider the ifs, what ifs or even "am I really okay with this". Naturally, of one does add such things... the ui concerns you mention should be important to discuss. One idea could be a ui element signalling the player to pay attention because one of these might be coming up?

I think important in this case though is that these snap decision actions should always be optional stuff that you have to actively enact. This sort of stuff should never be used to -not- do something or do something reflexively. Only real situational stuff. Like stabbing someone in the back. Always something the character seizes the moment to do or misses the chance at (intentionally or otherwise). Nothing else.

It should be a tool, a powerful one, to use if you deem it proper. Not something you misses out a lot on by not using.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I still maintain that a character should, on occassion, be exposed to situations were snap decisions are required.

A character?  Absolutely.  A character should be exposed to these sorts of situations.

But a player should not.

[Sir JK]

So how would you propose a character otherwise could be exposed to such a situation?

Since if it involves a time freeze then it's no different from any other dialogue prompt. So in essence we'd need a third character telling you to seize the opportunity and informing you it is a snap decision. Or always give one the choice to act in such fashions... which is simply an impossibly big task.

Or we accept that it is a normal dialogue prompt at which point virtually all of us will sit down and think if it is the right thing to do for our character... at which point the "snap" bit of the snap decision evaporates.

Or should there perhaps be an ui element telling us that this is a snap decision?

How do you propose we establish a moment for a rushed decision for the character, but no the player?