360 réponses à ce sujet

[ozmiz]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Is BG the best series that is opinion. It is a great series. I think there are other great series like Ultima, Wizardry, and Bards Tale. I do not know if the developers who voted played those series. YMMV.

Those were some great games all right, however they didn't make much of a crossover impact in the sense of pulling people into playing a genre they normally wouldn't touch. I played the ones you mentioned (yup, I'm showing my age), but only me and a few of my friends that were already into rpg type gaming (pnp or crpg, etc) were fans and followers of the games you mentioned.

When BG came out I had a teaching job at the time at a state college. I remember the buzz in the classroom over BG from students I knew, that up until BG, had never even played an rpg game, (much less a DnD game, that up until that time got a lot of bad press for being taboo, yup that used to happen. For clarification, this college was in the bible belt area where DnD was preached about as something that would cause you to split hell wide open!)

Hence maybe the vote win here? Just a guess on my part and may not even be true.

Modifié par ozmiz, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:18 .

[AmstradHero]

FedericoV wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

By this definition, you're saying that what makes the switch from tactical to strategic challenge is the need to judge usage of your limited resources. In this way, any lengthy fight that can see you deplete your "regular" reserves and force to utilise resources that come in a (periodically) limited amount, it becomes strategic.

Don't want to sound rude but it's not my definition of strategy. It's what the terms means. Strategy is linked to long term plans and tactics is linked to short term goals.  Yes, the management of resources normally is a strategic element.

No offense taken. I just wanted to clarify because I've had discussions before where people used terms like "strategic" and "tactical" and weren't able to clearly define what they meant by them. I just wanted to make sure we were working from the same page here.

FedericoV wrote...
Btw, that's because they have designed bosses as MMO "stone wall" who have not any big weakness, who are immune to most form of damage and resistant to the too few debuff options. You have not to play smart: you just need potions, a little bit of kiting and a good dose of patience, untill you find the escamotage the devs have studied to win the fight.

This is one aspect of modern encounter design that I dislike. Kiting stinks. I dislike it as a strategy as a player, and I detest it if it's mandated by the encounter's design. Running away is not heroic. I found this to be the key shortcoming with the final boss fight in Legacy. If it wasn't for the constant need to run, I would have enjoyed it a lot more.

I agree with most of you what said regarding MMOs "stonewall" bosses and being forced to find specific strategies, but my the same token, repetition is present in BG fights as well and falls into specific patterns of stripping buffs as enemy mages cast them while fighters mop up. I have to disagree in that I'm not sure I find Firkraag a particular strategic fight.

As for wave combat, I think there are number of reasons why it didn't work and felt flat, but I'm still trying to put my finger on how I'd solve it.

Where I agree entirely is that the lack of protections and debuffs as were present in BG2 means that most other games don't compare favourably in terms of overall combat complexity. However, I also find that it only works when you compare it to BG2. In BG1 there wasn't really sufficient variety for it to come into play, and in BG2 your warriors were so powerful with items and your spellcasters had so many wands/rod to strip defenses that it wasn't much of a challenge. Though if you install the Ascension mod, it does come back into play, but then you've also got a bit of the MMO stone wall behaviour present because some of those fights are really brutal.

This is why I get annoyed in particular about claims that we need weapon breakage/repair or food systems, because these weren't present in the BG series, and a lot of people declare it to be the best CRPG ever. I also think people are wearing rose tinted glasses as well (just like with people who still declare Deus Ex to be the best game ever), but it's hard to get people to recognise their own bias.

FedericoV wrote...
Well, those games were meant to be played that way. You try, you die and you start again with a new party. Then you die again and you start again. And so on. In The Bard's Tale you could find the dead bodies of your former parties in the dungeon and then resurrect them. I know, it's not the best kind of design but that was the idea of longevity at the time: it all originated with Roguelike games. The difficulty was brutal. As I said before, the BG trilogy already addressed most of those problems. They were even more balanced games than anything Bioware has done after (even with D&D mechanical chaos and all).

The "strategy" of "you have to die in order to work out how to succeed" is still the MMO model, particularly for raids. Raid groups die over and over while trying to figure out the strategy for a raid/raid boss and how their group can implement it. I don't particularly like being forced to die, but some defeat and reloading, a game usually feels a bit too easy.

I think the popularity of games and the ease of finding information about them is partially to blame. Any exploits to defeat a boss are going to be quickly publicised thanks to the internet (e.g. taking down Firkraag with a whole bunch of traps), and designers want to prevent these kinds of shortcuts to ensure "epic challenging fights" which ends up in a mandated strategy in order to succeed rather than a fight that can be won in a number of different ways. That said, designing a good boss fight isn't easy, because it's like designing a logic puzzle that can solved in different ways.

In short, I agree that BG2 did an excellent job of managing combat complexity, and that no doubt contributes to the series being voted the best by game devs. I do, however, vehemently disagree with the commonly voiced opinion that modern RPGs are inherently less complex than all older RPGs.

[FedericoV]

AmstradHero wrote...

No offense taken. I just wanted to clarify because I've had discussions before where people used terms like "strategic" and "tactical" and weren't able to clearly define what they meant by them. I just wanted to make sure we were working from the same page here.

Oh, I completely understand the point. You know, I'm not a supporter of DA2 (mostly because of the execution and not because of the general design plan wich I liked before release). But at the beginning there were many biased criticism about the game not being as strategical as DA:O, when DA:O requires no strategy at all. It was impossible to explain the fallacy of such criticism because for many players strategy and tactics are the same .

FedericoV wrote...
I agree with most of you what said regarding MMOs "stonewall" bosses and being forced to find specific strategies, but my the same token, repetition is present in BG fights as well and falls into specific patterns of stripping buffs as enemy mages cast them while fighters mop up. I have to disagree in that I'm not sure I find Firkraag a particular strategic fight.

Well, it's strategic because you have to understand when you are strong enough to fight him effectively. You have to build up your band effectively and learn to use most of your powers. And what I loved most about the fight is that when the buff/debuff sequence is over (and it's not that easy, Firky is smart and can recast all his protections) you could challenge him in many different ways. My favourite strategy is to attack him with Insect Plague, it makes the whole fight a cakewalk since as far I can remember there is no saving throw for it. Once I've reduced his saving throw with some stupid cleric spell and then I turned him in to a squirrel with polymorph. Freedom, variety and reward for your insight about the rule system: modern games have completely lost that element sadly.

That's the good thing about BG: there was some strategy that could allways work for "actiony" gamers, but if you care to read the manual and the spells description you could allways find creative ways to make your life easier in certain situation. And that's a the good element of the vancian system (with all his known cons).

But honestly, what I loved most about the fight was Carsomyr +5: the best sword in the game and you would not need another sword since there was no level scaling .

This is why I get annoyed in particular about claims that we need weapon breakage/repair or food systems, because these weren't present in the BG series, and a lot of people declare it to be the best CRPG ever. I also think people are wearing rose tinted glasses as well (just like with people who still declare Deus Ex to be the best game ever), but it's hard to get people to recognise their own bias.

I don't think that we need the return of those elements too. The IE/BG series allready discarded them for good reasons. But I think that you could find some ways (maybe linked to difficulty levels) to improve the strategic depth of the DA franchise. Potion addiction/diminishing return was a good idea. You could work on the inner workings of stamina and mana regeneration (linking them to the level of danger of the area you are in: slower in dungeouns, quicker in cities and safe zone) and put back in to the game buff/debuff/protection options (thus making more feasible the return of friendly fire and having more tactical options), you could use CCC even as protective options and so on. There are so many options.

I know, it's very difficult to find that sweet spot between depth and accessibility, it's difficult to make a game that is easy to learn and difficult to master, even because modern gamers are different from my generation and do not like to spend hours reading to learn how you have to play a game. They want to play it as soon as they get it and learn while playing. And that's not bad in itself. My only real gripe is that sometime I feel like Bioware is not even trying anymore for that sweet spot. I could accept an honest failure. I find harder to accept "surrender" to current trends even because trends are there to be contested from time to time. 

FedericoV wrote...
I think the popularity of games and the ease of finding information about them is partially to blame. Any exploits to defeat a boss are going to be quickly publicised thanks to the internet (e.g. taking down Firkraag with a whole bunch of traps), and designers want to prevent these kinds of shortcuts to ensure "epic challenging fights" which ends up in a mandated strategy in order to succeed rather than a fight that can be won in a number of different ways. That said, designing a good boss fight isn't easy, because it's like designing a logic puzzle that can solved in different ways.

I know, it's really hard. I was a DM for a long time and in my little experience I know that is difficult to design a good boss battle and that for any success there are countless failures. But I'm still convineced that removing mechanical freedom is not the solution to the problem and that devs should not care about exploits being made public in the net. If someone does like to play games following a guide, that's their problem. Games should not be builded with that thought in mind.

In short, I agree that BG2 did an excellent job of managing combat complexity, and that no doubt contributes to the series being voted the best by game devs. I do, however, vehemently disagree with the commonly voiced opinion that modern RPGs are inherently less complex than all older RPGs.

They are not inherently less complex. But many times they give the impression that they do their best to look dumb on the surface, even if the inner workings are maybe even more complex than older games. Don't know if I'm making any sense.

Btw, Deus Ex is a great game . Not the best of all time, and it has aged really badly, but it was damn good.

Modifié par FedericoV, 02 décembre 2011 - 11:13 .

[Midz]

Arcanum ..........Steam and magic )) guns and fire balls ...jaded graphics buggy but an excellent RP for me made BG seem good not excellent .

[AmstradHero]

FedericoV wrote...
I know, it's very difficult to find that sweet spot between depth and accessibility, it's difficult to make a game that is easy to learn and difficult to master, even because modern gamers are different from my generation and do not like to spend hours reading to learn how you have to play a game. They want to play it as soon as they get it and learn while playing. And that's not bad in itself. My only real gripe is that sometime I feel like Bioware is not even trying anymore for that sweet spot. I could accept an honest failure. I find harder to accept "surrender" to current trends even because trends are there to be contested from time to time. 

Could not agree more. I lament the loss of manuals from Oblivion to Skyrim, and even more potently, from DAO to DA2. I still have my BG, BG2 and even Diablo 2 manuals. I hate the fact that manuals are now potentially just 2-12 pages containing the bare minimum of information to let someone get in and start mashing buttons. Where are my lists of spells, characters, locations, bits of lore and background and all those other things that made the act of opening up a game and flicking through the manual fun? Now I get a bare minimum of information, most of which is mechanic information on how to play which is repeated in the game itself within the first 5 or so minutes.

I too like games that require a dedicated effort to succeed. The question is how that learning is done. In Batman Arkham Asylum, it was very easy to mash your way through the game. If, however, you wanted to master the combat challenges, you really needed to take the effort and time to learn how to master the game's mechanics in order to prevail. It's not an RPG, but it required that dedication. I guess the potential problem is that if your learning in order to succeed is done entirely via reading instead of playing, then the learning process is being abstracted and separated from the gaming experience itself.

FedericoV wrote...
(Modern games) are not inherently less complex. But many times they give the impression that they do their best to look dumb on the surface, even if the inner workings are maybe even more complex than older games.
Don't know if I'm making any sense.

I agree that games are trying to appear simplified even when that appearance is masking a lot of depth. Accessibility is potentially coming at the expense of perceived complexity. I'm not sure whether this simplified appearance is necessary, or of a good way to alleviate the issue for those who want to see the complexity.

FedericoV wrote...
Btw, Deus Ex is a great game . Not the best of all time, and it has aged really badly, but it was damn good.

I don't deny it was a great game for its time, but the implementation does not hold up well anymore, even if some of the ideas still do.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 02 décembre 2011 - 11:52 .

[Dianjabla]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dianjabla wrote...

So, I'm curious, what in particular do you think makes it a better experience?

It has to do with the game's content being designed around the game's mechanics.  For example, the walking speed in BG2 is significantly faster than in BG, so the closing speed of enemies is higher.  This changes combat tactics a great deal.

Similarly, the weapon proficiencies in BG were broader and less specific than BG2's system.  This gave each character more flexibility in choosing a weapon.  As a consequence, it was less important that each different type of weapon be available as valuable loot throughout the game.  In BG2, you could take proficiency in Bastard Sword, and the game actually contained useful magic Bastard Swords.  But BG doesn't.  I think the best Bastard Sword in BG is a Bastard Sword +1.  If your character has specialised in Bastard Sword, then the game fails him.  But BG's mechanics don't let him specialise in Bastard Sword.  The broader category is Long Blades, which allows him to use Long Swords and Two-Handed Swords, as well, of which there is a wider variety available within the game.

Actually it's a Bastard Sword +1, +3 vs Shapeshifters, unless you count the golden sword of Balduran - but that's definitely nitpicking.

I see your point, though. Had me stuffed trying to fight the loup garou (sp) when none of my party had proficiency in bastard swords.

[Fast Jimmy]

AmstradHero wrote...

Could not agree more. I lament the loss of manuals from Oblivion to Skyrim, and even more potently, from DAO to DA2. I still have my BG, BG2 and even Diablo 2 manuals. I hate the fact that manuals are now potentially just 2-12 pages containing the bare minimum of information to let someone get in and start mashing buttons. Where are my lists of spells, characters, locations, bits of lore and background and all those other things that made the act of opening up a game and flicking through the manual fun? Now I get a bare minimum of information, most of which is mechanic information on how to play which is repeated in the game itself within the first 5 or so minutes.

This past weekend, I was cleaning out my house and stumbled upon the Fallout 2 instruction manual.

Part journal of your Fallout 1 character, part introduction to RPG's 101, part explanation of the deep and still used SPECIAL and skill system and 100% absorbing and informative, all fifty+ pages of it. It was truly a masterpiece, and didn't even require information from the manual to get past pirated software (like some games back in the 90's tried). I understand why companies are tryng to get away from using these, as it leads to wasted material, heavier shipping and people do tend to throw them out when opening the box, but they are truly a work of art.

Games nowadays do a decent job of introducing mechanics, but DA2 didn't do this in the least. Then again, neither did DAO. You walked into the first battle and started auto-attacking or mashing buttons. I would like to see a bit of a tutorial, done tastefully, in games, even if I know the mechanics. Plus, the Cross class combos, the best combat feature in DA2, is never explained in game, and only has a few sentences in the manual to explain how it even works, but is a PROFOUND strategy tool, and shaped the way I leveled up all my characters.

If companies are going to kill the manual, at least provide us with some in-game support. Otherwise, you run the risk of your game's mechanics being so easy to pick up, it becomes boring within the first couple hours... <eyeing DA2 and whistling inconspicuously>

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 janvier 2012 - 04:35 .

[Realmzmaster]

The manual could be provided as a pdf on the DVD. I remember the old SSI D & D gold box games used the manual as a means of copy protection. At certain times in the game you would be ask to enter the word on page 26, paragraph 5, line 2 word number 6. They also made use of a code wheel with three moving parts. The code ring was used to solves some puzzles in the game, but it was also a means of copy protection. Without the wheel you could not proceed further.

Gamers got around this problem by taking apart the wheel and photocopying the pieces and putting the copy together. You had to be careful because if you did not remember or write down the original alignment the wheel would not work.

Infocom (text based adventures) went a step further in that they provided feelies for their games. The feelies were necessary to complete the game. Deadline had a newspaper feelie with stories you had to read to get pass the problems in the game.

I remember that Alternate Reality: The City if you had a pirated copy or was using a third party drive the copy protection had two invincible FBI agents come out and back your character to death with the Long Arm of the Law.

Copy protection was imaginative back then.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 31 janvier 2012 - 08:51 .

[Firky]

In Zak McKraken, you got thrown in jail and given a lecture.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The manual could be provided as a pdf on the DVD.

This would only work for PC versions, of course.

I think that may be the ultimate decider - a game manual now has to be small enough to fit into a console game's case. Otherwise you are making multiple manuals, which is doubling the effort.

[Suspire]

The best cRPG I have played, to me, is Fallout 2>1
It has alot of things I appreciate in RPGs... most importantly freedom. I don't think any game has ever come close to that afterwards.  You could play as you liked, as a dumb character even, really low intelligence points meant you couldn't even talk properly, that gives you a different role to play. NPC reacted to it. Lots of way to handle quests, meaning you do not have to fight all the time, do not even have to accept the quests, many types of replies to NPCs (not just a nice, a neutral and an evil one), even non-verbal replies, you could even kill everyone in the whole game if you wanted (including important quest givers), etc.
Though that wasn't all that made the game for me, they had wonderful black humour Bethesda was just too dumb for or scared of. It was also much easier than Baldur's Gate series (which was a bit too hard to me).

While I'm on Bethesda, I love Skyrim as much as the next guy, but Bioware has clear strengths in the character department, which is very important in RPGs to me and Bethesda just fails.  I'll just leave this here: http://positech.co.u...on-skyrim-npcs/


Back to Dragon Age... I really love Origins, and I still haven't finished it. Actually  I'm pretty early on the game because I love taking my sweet time on it. I love how you can talk to companions at length, I wished Mass Effect had that, so much. It makes a lot of difference to feel you actually get to know your friends and matter to them! (instead of just doing favors for them)
I've made countless characters and replayed the beginning many times over. I even bought the game BOTH for pc and Xbox! (do not regret it for one second)
I love how you can pick a race ( I'm a boring human already in real life), and play through different Origins, get attached to your little guy/girl, define your story. I'd say that was somewhat groundbreaking as an RPG for me, except it was too small a part of the game for that.
Lack of dialogue also helps me make me feel the character is mine, and a different character every time. I'd trade voiced dialogue for more dialogue any time. There is no such thing as "too much dialogue" in my vocabulary.


While I love the Mass Effect series (ME1 >>> ME2), I remember being on the forums when I read BW staff saying DA2 would NOT be a Dragon Age: Mass Effect.... which is what people were scared of.... and can you guess, that's exactly what happened.
So I don't understand how BW wouldn't know fans would react badly to DA2. By doing exactly what you said you wouldn't. That fans expressed they didn't want. (???)

Modifié par Suspire, 01 février 2012 - 12:52 .

[HolyAvenger]

The BG series will never be matched as the greatest story ever told in computer games that I experienced. BG2 will never be dethroned as my favourite game of all time. That's not just nostalgia speaking (I replayed it recently).

The amount of content...was staggering. Each individual stronghold quest in BG was like one of the 4 treaty quests in DAO. And they were all optional. That's beyond amazing. The gameworld that you could explore was brilliant. Man I'd go back to the isometric graphics in a heartbeat for games to be wonderful like that again...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The manual could be provided as a pdf on the DVD.

This would only work for PC versions, of course.

I think that may be the ultimate decider - a game manual now has to be small enough to fit into a console game's case.

That's never going to be adequate, though.  That's just not enough manual to document the game's mechanics.

Unless they charge extra for it, a digital manual is the only option.  Make it downloadable if you want console players to have it.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The manual could be provided as a pdf on the DVD.

This would only work for PC versions, of course.

I think that may be the ultimate decider - a game manual now has to be small enough to fit into a console game's case.

That's never going to be adequate, though.  That's just not enough manual to document the game's mechanics.

Unless they charge extra for it, a digital manual is the only option.  Make it downloadable if you want console players to have it.

Do they even need to do that? I've seen more games simply including the manual on the disc. That's what Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood did, if I recall.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The manual could be provided as a pdf on the DVD.

This would only work for PC versions, of course.

I think that may be the ultimate decider - a game manual now has to be small enough to fit into a console game's case.

That's never going to be adequate, though.  That's just not enough manual to document the game's mechanics.

Unless they charge extra for it, a digital manual is the only option.  Make it downloadable if you want console players to have it.

Do they even need to do that? I've seen more games simply including the manual on the disc. That's what Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood did, if I recall.

Someone above suggested that wouldn't work for console players.  I have no idea whether that's true.

I just want a better manual.  These 12 page pamplets we get now are worthless.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Someone above suggested that wouldn't work for console players.  I have no idea whether that's true.

I just want a better manual.  These 12 page pamplets we get now are worthless.

Agreed. Even just looking back at my Morrowind GOTY edition manual, we've gone so far downhill. That one did a fantastic job of laying out the mechanics of the game world. It even had this great 1-page intro letter by the developers explaining their philosophy behind the series.

[Realmzmaster]

Il Divo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Someone above suggested that wouldn't work for console players.  I have no idea whether that's true.

I just want a better manual.  These 12 page pamplets we get now are worthless.

Agreed. Even just looking back at my Morrowind GOTY edition manual, we've gone so far downhill. That one did a fantastic job of laying out the mechanics of the game world. It even had this great 1-page intro letter by the developers explaining their philosophy behind the series.

I understand about the console players. What could be done is a starter manual is included in the game box . The full manual could be a digital download. The manual can be included on the DVD for PC players. The manuals could be in color instead of the boring black and white of DAO and DA2 manuals. At least DAO Collector's edition manual had a color cover.

[AmstradHero]

Sorry, I'm a console player and a PC player, and I hate not getting a manual. Getting an online or on-disc manual is not a substitute as far as I'm concerned. How can I refer to the manual while I'm playing the game if I have to alt-tab out to do so?

AmstradHero disapproves (-25).

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

Sorry, I'm a console player and a PC player, and I hate not getting a manual. Getting an online or on-disc manual is not a substitute as far as I'm concerned. How can I refer to the manual while I'm playing the game if I have to alt-tab out to do so?

AmstradHero disapproves (-25).

I don't mind printing my own manual if that's the only way to get one.

The big problem is being denied all that information.  Whether they deliver it is a more important question than how they deliver it.

[Fast Jimmy]

In the case of DA2, I think the Gamer's Guide that came with the Signature Edition was one of the best things about the game.

Tons of concept art, lots of statistics, mechanics background, tactics, lore... it was a lot more than just a Walkthrough. It was where I truly got to delve into the possibilities of the Cross class Combo system.

It was $20 extra bucks, but it was a bit like having a DM Guide if I was allowed to mod my own stuff.

So take that for what you think its worth...

[Sylvius the Mad]

If they detail the combat mechanics in the Collectors Edition, I'll buy the Collector's Edition every time.

I'll happily pay extra for that. But being unable to get it at all is simply unacceptable.

I don't want spoilers, though. There needs to be a way to get the mechaincs without reading a walkthrough.

[Fast Jimmy]

The DA2 Guide is broken into sections, one devoted to mechanics, one devoted to strategy, one devoted to a walkthrough, one devoted to concept art, etc.,etc.

I used it my first playthrough without once getting any spoilers. It was the reason I got the Collector's Edition. I didn't even worry about Sebastian, he seemed like a real ****** (but I did get the Black Emporium and the mabari).

That being said, if as much attention and detail had gone into the game as was in the Guide, I might have been thoroughly impressed with DA2. Reading the guide gives me a feel for how the developers WANTED DA2 to be like, as opposed to how it came across.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I had no idea that was part of the DA2 SE package. If I had, I would have acquired it. Maybe then I would have had some idea of how resistances were calculated, for example.

[Fast Jimmy]

Indeed. Charts. They are wonderful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd rather formulae, but in a pinch I suppose charts would do.