260 réponses à ce sujet

[devSin]

A healing potion by any other name is still a healing potion. What happens when your characters don't "eat"? If you say "They eat anyway", then you acknowledge that the fake food item is unnecessary, don't you?

Pretend your guys eat if you want. Make sure they stop regularly at the Hanged Man for food. What exactly are you saying another item that restores health would accomplish beyond what you're already able to do?

Modifié par devSin, 16 novembre 2011 - 04:18 .

[devSin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You don't have to see the actual person chewing. It could just show the back of the body as they stab their food and eat it.

They'd have to; I don't think they can get the face to work right. They already mostly do this with the drinking (they just sort of obscure the face with the implement—the glass or bottle or whatever—and leave it up long enough for you to get the idea), and it still looks rigid and unnatural IMO.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Question though: would one be able to motion capture eating? Or do what CGI movies like Shrek did, assuming that was all created through computers and no motion capture was involved?

You'd have to ask John Epler or somebody. My guess is that they couldn't motion capture the face anyway because of the facefx they use, but I don't know how much control they really have over the facial animations. (My nonexistent understanding is that they use third-party software to give them the face-gen, lip-sync, and facial expression support that all normal character models in this engine get.)

I eventually removed that part of my post, though. They know more about it than I ever could, and it's not my business.

Modifié par devSin, 16 novembre 2011 - 04:34 .

[Zeevico]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Want Otto to struggle with money? Super easy! Reduce the amount of available coin and treasure in that area or jack up the prices! It doesn't necessarily have to be an entire system dedicated to that one "immersive" feature in order to appear in a game. What I've described above are just one way the things you love about simulation RPGs can be simulated in games that aren't necessarily simulation-type RPGs.

Or you could hire an economist to develop a functioning economic simulation for a medieval economy in depression for your game. I mean, who wouldn't want a tragedy of the commons in an rpg?

"You come upon a field with too many cows. By the side of the road is an article from Science magazine by Garrett Hardin entitled 'the Tragedy of the Commons'. You can READ the article, OBSERVE the cows or ASK THE NEARBY WHETHER THEY SHOULD DECIDE TO ACT RATIONALLY IN THEIR COLLECTIVE SELF-INTEREST."

Modifié par Zeevico, 16 novembre 2011 - 05:15 .

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I continue to insist that the only thing CRPGs are supposed to do is recreate the PnP experience without the need for other people.

They used to strive for this.  Now they don't even seem to try.

That's like when I say the second and third Matrix movies were actually good films; insist as you may like, that does not make it true.

Maybe they aren't trying, and even if they aren't, they don't have to. Never mind Dragon Age is not exclusively for computer use.

[Andraste_Reborn]

I continue to insist that the only thing CRPGs are supposed to do is recreate the PnP experience without the need for other people.

They used to strive for this. Now they don't even seem to try.

I, on the other hand, am glad that they've abandoned this goal. This is because I've never played a CRPG that's come anywhere near replicating my tabletop gaming experiences. In some way, the Old Skool ones I played in the early nineties were the worst at it - no GM I've had ever made me roll to see if I get pneumonia every single time I travel into the mountains without snow shoes and a stack of blankets.

I don't think a pen and paper game can be adequately simulated by a computer, because they rely too much on spontaneity, flexibility and imagination. In a pen and paper game, my Warden could have tried to make a deal with Uldred in the Circle Tower instead of fighting him, or sought out a third candidate to rule Orzammar, or even fled the Blight and run away to Antiva. Depending on the GM none of those things might have worked, but a game with a human in charge offers infinite possible options and opportunities for negotiation. For me, picking dialogue options from a list (however extensive) will never compare with saying what my character would say.

CRPGs have their own advantages. They can create atmosphere with graphics and audio instead of relying solely on the GM's descriptive and acting abilities. Probability calculations are a lot faster when they're done behind the scenes by a computer, so you spend less time sidetracked by number crunching. The virtual dice don't fall off the table and your virtual character sheet never gets Coke spilled on it. Most importantly, you don't have to round up four other people to play one and you can stop and start whenever you like.

As a fan of both kinds of game, I generally feel that CRPGs should stick to the stuff they're good at instead of trying to emulate pen and paper games slavishly. (And vice versa, for that matter.)

Modifié par Andrastee, 16 novembre 2011 - 11:33 .

[Stanley Woo]

blothulfur wrote...

I can understand what you're saying Stanley, creative methods of informing the player rather than brute mechanics, but as an aid to immersion show is always better than tell (i.e. Sten is a much better descriptor of the Qunari than the codex entry for them). Pull off those tricks too many times and the game becomes less believable and immersive, it's the little details and the obeyances of the in game reality that create the sense of place, for me at least

As for the simulation versus story, I want both. Action is just something to endure and hopefully enjoy if it's well made and i've focused on an action oriented character, but story and setting are the meat of the matter and my impact on the plot whether defeated or victorious.

I do like the name Otto Protagonista though.

I try to come up with interesting versions of generic names to make my points seem more creative than they actually are. Shhhh, don't reveal my seekrit.

Yes, I agree that details are important and can really help with player engagement, but detail work is also really expensive for that benefit. The current discussion on characters eating is a good example. Currently, we can simulate eating with carefully edited shots and rudimentary character animation. Do we want there to be food on the utensil that disappears after it's put into the character's mouth? That requires way more work, since now you have to show the utensil entering the mouth with the food and exiting without the food. now you have to worry about utensils or the morsel of food clipping into the face, whether different model rigs will work the same way, and how to make this interesting regardless of whether it's your first time eating or the 100th time. And all this work and consideration for... well, how often are you going to pay attention to your charcter eating: once? a few times near the start of the game? The first hour? Or every single time you do it?

You want your character to chew realistically too? Okay, now we're getting into the details. Motion capture, maybe, which is expensive, then tweaking of the mocap to ensure everything looks non-freakish on any potential eater, then there's timing (how many chews, how big is the morsel of food, what does swallowing look like (oh wait, now we have to animate the neck too)), expression while eating, camera angles. And again, that's way more zots devoted to a very small, arguably necessary part of the game (assuming a DA2 type game) that most players will probably ignore after the first hour when they're already engaged/"immersed".

Not to say that details aren't important, but we will always have to weigh those benefits vs. zots.

[grregg]

Stanley Woo wrote...

(...)

It really does depend on what kind of RPG you're looking to play. It sounds like you're more a fan of the simulation type of RPG, where you want the world and your character to simulate real life as much as possible. Others prefer more gamey types that are more action-oriented and less simulation.

(...)

For me, it is not so much about a game attempting to simulate real life, but rather about gameplay that includes resource management. Sleep, food, health, inventory space, ammo are resources after all and managing them can offer interesting challenges with (hopefully) multiple solutions.

Unfortunately (for me anyway) BioWare seems to not enjoy resource management and it is steadily removing the strategic elements from its games. Inventory space is almost unlimited, ammo is actually unlimited, health regenerates between fights, etc, etc.

Of course, other elements (story, characters, dialog) gain more prominence and replace the strategic resource management as the focus of the game, but as Sylvius pointed out they cannot really replicate the experience.

[Sylvius the Mad]

grregg wrote...

For me, it is not so much about a game attempting to simulate real life, but rather about gameplay that includes resource management. Sleep, food, health, inventory space, ammo are resources after all and managing them can offer interesting challenges with (hopefully) multiple solutions.

Unfortunately (for me anyway) BioWare seems to not enjoy resource management and it is steadily removing the strategic elements from its games. Inventory space is almost unlimited, ammo is actually unlimited, health regenerates between fights, etc, etc.

This is certainly true, and it's unfortunate.  I think tactical play is more interesting within a broader strategic environment, and, frankly, if I had to choose to keep only one of strategy or tactics, I'd take strategy.

The explicit favouring of tactics over strategy in these newer games makes me sad.

[Tsuga C]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

grregg wrote...

For me, it is not so much about a game attempting to simulate real life, but rather about gameplay that includes resource management. Sleep, food, health, inventory space, ammo are resources after all and managing them can offer interesting challenges with (hopefully) multiple solutions.

Unfortunately (for me anyway) BioWare seems to not enjoy resource management and it is steadily removing the strategic elements from its games. Inventory space is almost unlimited, ammo is actually unlimited, health regenerates between fights, etc, etc.

This is certainly true, and it's unfortunate.  I think tactical play is more interesting within a broader strategic environment, and, frankly, if I had to choose to keep only one of strategy or tactics, I'd take strategy.

The explicit favouring of tactics over strategy in these newer games makes me sad.

^Concurs with all of the above.  It seems that the developers assume that the ability to plan and reason is beyond the ken or desire of the average player.  If this assumption is true, maybe the developers need to start marketing their games towards a better class of player.    Yes, I support Vancian spellcasting, too. 

Modifié par Tsuga C, 16 novembre 2011 - 08:01 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

I... cannot support Vancian spellcasting.

(And indeed, I do know what that means. )

[Atakuma]

Tsuga C wrote...

^Concurs with all of the above.  It seems that the developers assume that the ability to plan and reason is beyond the ken or desire of the average player.  If this assumption is true, maybe the developers need to start marketing their games towards a better class of player.    Yes, I support Vancian spellcasting, too. 

It has nothing to do with planning or reasoning. A lot of people simply find things like eating and sleeping, tedious and annoying.

[Realmzmaster]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I... cannot support Vancian spellcasting.

(And indeed, I do know what that means. )

I also cannot support Vancian spellcasting. It had it use in D & D because it would seriously bog down gameplay if the DM had to remember how much mana or stamina each character had going into and coming out of a battle. You simply had to keep track of the number of each spell memorized and whether it was used or not. When the D & D system was transferred in whole to the computer the developers kept the Vancian spellcasting system partially because of license restrictions and the familarity players had with the system not because it was a good way of doing magic. IMHO. How do you forget which spells you know especially with a spell like magic missle.
Keeping track of stamina and mana is easy in a computer game.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 16 novembre 2011 - 08:31 .

[Tsuga C]

Atakuma wrote...
A lot of people simply find things like eating and sleeping, tedious and annoying.

Not all mundane activities need be acted out on screen.  Rations could simply be deducted from the inventory without the player needing to stop campaigning for a half-hour lunch break.

[Vaeliorin]

I honestly have somewhat mixed feelings about this. I certainly don't mind having strategic concerns, but I loathe Vancian casting (it makes knowing what you're going to fight too important, and makes it impossible to adjust tactics on the fly.) Limited inventory, food, sleep are all things that I don't mind having, and in fact, depending on how they're handled, might enjoy (for example, I find food an uninteresting mechanic if it's just a matter of having to remember to buy food every so often. If, however, you need to have character(s) to forage/hunt for you party and they aren't guaranteed to be successful, that's something worth having.)

However, I like regenerating health and mana, because it allows for better tuning of combat encounters (even if Bioware has been terrible about taking advantage of it.) If the designers don't have to worry about potential variations in combat readiness, they can tune the encounters to push the party to the limits every time, making combat much more interesting. If the fight doesn't have the potential to take out your party, it shouldn't be in the game, as far as I'm concerned.

[Tsuga C]

Realmzmaster wrote...
How do you forget which spells you know especially with a spell like magic missle.

*sigh*  Memorizing spells was the equivalent of seating a primer in a shotgun shell cartridge.  The spell itself wasn't "forgotten", but the activating or catalyzing energy had to be re-charged within the mind of the spellcaster for the spell to function when the various VSM components were used to cast the spell. 

Realmzmaster wrote...
Keeping track of stamina and mana is easy in a computer game.

This is true.  Cooldowns not withstanding, spamming spells is still quite common, though.  Perhaps the developers could remedy this by designing their encounters with a wider variety of spells (including non-combat spells) in mind.  Not all magic in a well made roleplaying game needs to go KABOOM or heal someone to be useful, after all. 

Modifié par Tsuga C, 16 novembre 2011 - 09:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I like Vancian casting, but I certainly don't need Vancian casting. A mana-based system would work just as well if mana didn't regenerate on its own, so that the player needed to weigh the tactical benefit of using a spell against the strategic value of having more mana left over once the fight was finished.

The original design of DAO was much like this. Mana didn't regenerate quickly, and while it could be accelerated with Lyrium potions, they offered diminishing returns (and they might have been addictive).

I'd love to see BioWare return to that design in a future DA title.

[maxernst]

Vancian casting was one of the reasons that D&D was such a horribly unbalanced game. Mages were worthelss at low levels, because once they cast the two or three spells that day, they had nothing to contribute to a party until they slept again. At high levels, not only did they get more powerful high level spells, the low level spells they cast became more powerful and could be cast more often, they became overpowering.

And in a computer game, the real outcome of Vancian casting is one of two things:

1) If you can sleep any time, the characters just sleep after every encounter or
2) If finding places you can safely sleep is rare, you have the frustration of wasting hours of gameplay because you don't have the right counterspells memorized for encounter X.

@Tsuga, you can rationalize any possible game mechanic you like if you try hard enough, but Vancian casting always felt extremely gamey. The approach taken for sorcerors & bards in 3rd edition D&D (and many other RPG's) doesn't feel nearly as artificial.

I never felt that the D&D system was one of the strengths of the BG series, although its familiarity made the game easier for me, personally.  In addition to Vancian casting, there was insufficient ability to customize characters in the early editions, dull, jack-of-all-trades spellcasting classes (illusionists and druids were the only good ones), ludicrous economics (DA is much more reasonable), dull combat with illogical effects of armor, bleah. There are far superior table top RPG systems, in my opinion. I'd love to see a computer game based on Rolemaster mechanics; combat was a chore on tabletop because there were too much to keep track of with all the "character is stunned for 3 rounds, cannot parry for 1 round, bleeding 3 hits/round and fighting at -20%" results, but the computer can manage those things easily.

Modifié par maxernst, 16 novembre 2011 - 10:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think a Sorcerer-like approach is an excellent idea. Imagine if a mage could cast a certain number of spell levels per day - so he could cast 9 Magic Missiles or 1 Meteor Swarm and those counted the same - and once those were exhausted he needed to rest to recover that capacity.

I think that would be a lot of fun, but without raising any of the realism complaints regarding Vancian casting.

[Realmzmaster]

Tsuga C wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
How do you forget which spells you know especially with a spell like magic missle.

*sigh*  Memorizing spells was the equivalent of seating a primer in a shotgun shell cartridge.  The spell itself wasn't "forgotten", but the activating or catalyzing energy had to be re-charged within the mind of the spellcaster for the spell to function when the various VSM components were used to cast the spell. 

Realmzmaster wrote...
Keeping track of stamina and mana is easy in a computer game.

This is true.  Cooldowns not withstanding, spamming spells is still quite common, though.  Perhaps the developers could remedy this by designing their encounters with a wider variety of spells (including non-combat spells) in mind.  Not all magic in a well made roleplaying game needs to go KABOOM or heal someone to be useful, after all. 

What you say about spell castingin D & D is true, but that is not the way it was described in the early D & D rulebooks. The wizard forgot the spell and had to spend time memorizing the spell to refresh it in his mind. Much like clerics had to pray to their gods to receive spells.

The system was imbalanced at the low and high levels. The wizard was limited in how the wizard could contribute to the party once his/her spells were depleted especially at low levels. At high levels the wizard is way overpowered. class restrictions were even more problematic in games based on the D & D system than DA2

[Realmzmaster]

The system was still broken in that wizards could learn spells from scrolls and spellbooks but sorcerers could not. The primary attribute for sorcerers was Charisma and for wizards Intelligence. This was a way for the D & D system to address complaints about the wizard, but it still imposes an artificial distinction to differentiate the classes. The sorcerer innately knows the spell. and gains spells at higher levels through innate ability.

if it was because a sorcerer could copy a spell once the sorcerer has seen it and acquire the necessary power to fuel the spell I would buy in. But that is not the case.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The system was imbalanced at the low and high levels.

I disagree with this.  The power at high levels was balanced by the lack of power at low levels.  There's no reason to have all classes be comparably powerful every step of the way.

That low-level fragility was a very important balancing tool.  Taking that away badly unbalanced the game, because high-level mages became far more common.

[blothulfur]

Most of my mage characters kicked the bucket before reaching the holy level five and getting the sweet stuff.

As for eating, the best system i've seen for that was Betrayal at Krondor, simple, descriptive and easily implemented. Packs of rations could be bought (or stolen, or given) and were consumed automatically when resting. The true power of the system for me was how it figured into quests and encounters thus adding both to the need for sustenance and the believability of the world.

Of course betrayal had a very punishing rest and recovery system to go with this that was to a neophyte very offputting but the consumables it got right from the get go.

[Killjoy Cutter]

You can't balance a game at "level 15" by crippling a character at "level 1".

(Never mind the inherent problems with a level-based system.)

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The system was imbalanced at the low and high levels.

I disagree with this.  The power at high levels was balanced by the lack of power at low levels.  There's no reason to have all classes be comparably powerful every step of the way.

That low-level fragility was a very important balancing tool.  Taking that away badly unbalanced the game, because high-level mages became far more common.

That doesn't gibe with my experience in tabletop to be honest.  Even early on, fighters ended up dying nearly as often simply because they're the ones in the melee.  It was just boring to play mages at low levels and boring to play fighters at high levels.  AD&D is only an enjoyable system from about levels 5-9, IMHO.  In any event, your balancing argument is silly for a CRPG, because player and companion characters in a computer game never die unless it's part of the story, so you'll have the same number of mages at level 15 as you did at level 1 every time.

Instead of giving the mages exponentially increasing numbers and power of spells with level, I'd prefer a system where any mage could cast a fireball spell regardless of  level and that the amount of mana expended on the spell would determine the power of the spell rather than the level of the mage.  Thus, a powerful mage could throw a more powerful fireball, but it would in effect be a higher level spell, requiring more mana.  Thus, their effectiveness would scale more linearly with level, like the non-spellcasting classes.

Modifié par maxernst, 17 novembre 2011 - 12:55 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

@Stanley -- Just create an 'Invisible Bowstring' junk item in DA3 with a description along the lines of: "Made of silk spun from shreds of the Veil on looms of the Formari, this string is completely transparent and is rumoured to never snap."