Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
@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."
Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 17 novembre 2011 - 03:30 .
That wasn't my experience at all. I found low-level mages very exciting, because surviving to see level 5 was an enormous triumph.maxernst wrote...
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.
I'll agree that the high levels are not fun. I'd say levels 1-12 work well.AD&D is only an enjoyable system from about levels 5-9, IMHO.
I completely disagree. My CRPGs characters routinely die. Sometimes I reload to see what would have happened had they survived, but death is absolutely possible within the game world.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.
I think having all the classes scale the same way is boring. That just forces the same type of progression upon everyone, and marginalises any players who want something different.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.
As I recall, food could also go bad in that game. Andblothulfur wrote...
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.
Ah, but balance is important even in a party-based game. I'm fairly certain we've had this argument before, but it's no fun when you want to play a fighter as your main character, but the mage NPCs totally dominate the party and your main character is simply there to carry around their loot. No one wants there main character to feel like little more than a henchman.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And, perhaps more importantly, in a party-based game inter-class balance isn't relevant anyway. So what if your mages are more powerful than your fighters?
They were only marked that way in the description, as I recall, not in the item name itself. Or possibly not until you'd actually picked them up. I don't recall exactly how it was, but I remember being confused as to how I got poisoned and died.blothulfur wrote...
I never got this, rations were marked as poisoned or spoiled and if you right clicked it clearly stated that the wrappings had been tampered with or that the food seemed none too fresh. Simply paying attention and reading desciptions was more than easy enough for me.
In fact i'd say one of the joys of that game was reading the well written and interesting item descriptions, items that retained there usefulness all game long.
Stanley Woo wrote...
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.
Stanley Woo wrote...
Not to say that details aren't important, but we will always have to weigh those benefits vs. zots.
Modifié par blothulfur, 17 novembre 2011 - 12:26 .
Excuse my ignorance, Stanley, but what are these zots of which you speak?
Vaeliorin wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And, perhaps more importantly, in a party-based game inter-class balance isn't relevant anyway. So what if your mages are more powerful than your fighters?
Ah, but balance is important even in a party-based game. I'm fairly certain we've had this argument before, but it's no fun when you want to play a fighter as your main character, but the mage NPCs totally dominate the party and your main character is simply there to carry around their loot. No one wants there main character to feel like little more than a henchman.
Vaeliorin wrote...
As I recall, food could also go bad in that game. Andblothulfur wrote...
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.
enemies would poison food they'd left behind, so there was a good chance
if you ate food you looted from somewhere you'd get sick and die.
Honestly, that food system drove me nuts...I died so many times when I
first started playing it because I couldn't figure out how I kept getting poisoned.Ah, but balance is important even in a party-based game. I'm fairly certain we've had this argument before, but it's no fun when you want to play a fighter as your main character, but the mage NPCs totally dominate the party and your main character is simply there to carry around their loot. No one wants there main character to feel like little more than a henchman.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And, perhaps more importantly, in a party-based game inter-class balance isn't relevant anyway. So what if your mages are more powerful than your fighters?
I don't think the concept of a "main character" has any place in a party-based game.Vaeliorin wrote...
Ah, but balance is important even in a party-based game. I'm fairly certain we've had this argument before, but it's no fun when you want to play a fighter as your main character, but the mage NPCs totally dominate the party and your main character is simply there to carry around their loot. No one wants there main character to feel like little more than a henchman.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And, perhaps more importantly, in a party-based game inter-class balance isn't relevant anyway. So what if your mages are more powerful than your fighters?
I disagree. The player controls the whole party. How the party works as a group is all that matters. The individual performances are irrelevant.Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
It does in a party-based computer game.
Stanley Woo wrote...
Not to say that details aren't important, but we will always have to weigh those benefits vs. zots.
games if it has to be frugal.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree. The player controls the whole party. How the party works as a group is all that matters. The individual performances are irrelevant.Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
It does in a party-based computer game.
FieryDove wrote...
Stanley Woo wrote...
Not to say that details aren't important, but we will always have to weigh those benefits vs. zots.
Apply for more zots...lots more please. You folk deserve it.
Let EA budget the sports
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree. The player controls the whole party. How the party works as a group is all that matters. The individual performances are irrelevant.Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
It does in a party-based computer game.
Modifié par maxernst, 17 novembre 2011 - 10:39 .
maxernst wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree. The player controls the whole party. How the party works as a group is all that matters. The individual performances are irrelevant.Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
It does in a party-based computer game.
Really? So you choose dialogue options for all the companion characters? And if you decide to defile the sacred ashes in DA:O, you continue to control Leliana and Wynne as they attack your party?
They follow the main PC's orders--as long as they choose to remain in the group--nothing more. They are exactly like henchman in pen 'n paper settings. They are clearly NPC's. These games are not party based games. There's one character who is always in the party, and that is the only character created by the player, and the only character for which he selects dialogue options, the only character which will never leave the party or attack the rest of the party (unless the player chooses). There is only one player character in Bioware games. Any other interpretation is untenable. You might want to have a true party game, but you don't., and you never have in Bioware's games.
Realmzmaster wrote...
All games get a budget and those titles that make the most revenue and profit will get more zots for the next game in the series if there is one. Also sports games that use actual players and stats must pay for the license therefore more money upfront.
maxernst wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree. The player controls the whole party. How the party works as a group is all that matters. The individual performances are irrelevant.
Really? So you choose dialogue options for all the companion characters? And if you decide to defile the sacred ashes in DA:O, you continue to control Leliana and Wynne as they attack your party?
[snip]
Vancian is ok but games that implement it need a "pre-battle buff script" so you can skip that torture.Realmzmaster wrote...
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.
When they're speaking on behalf of the party, yes.maxernst wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree. The player controls the whole party. How the party works as a group is all that matters. The individual performances are irrelevant.Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
It does in a party-based computer game.
Really? So you choose dialogue options for all the companion characters?
No. By then they have left the party.And if you decide to defile the sacred ashes in DA:O, you continue to control Leliana and Wynne as they attack your party?
How is it then that I can still control them when the main character is unconscious or dead? Or so far away as to be beyond communication range?They follow the main PC's orders--as long as they choose to remain in the group--nothing more.
Then I shouldn't be able to choose what abilities they learn, or what equipment they use.They are exactly like henchman in pen 'n paper settings. They are clearly NPC's. These games are not party based games.
That's true in DA2, certainly. That is not true in DAO. Recall the prison escape. In KotOR, similarly, that wasn't true. NWN was obviously not party-based. And in the BG games, any party member could act as party spokesperson, so the player was even allowed to have them speak on the party's behalf.There's one character who is always in the party, and that is the only character created by the player, and the only character for which he selects dialogue options, the only character which will never leave the party or attack the rest of the party (unless the player chooses).
See my above descriptions.There is only one player character in Bioware games. Any other interpretation is untenable. You might want to have a true party game, but you don't., and you never have in Bioware's games.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 novembre 2011 - 11:35 .
Retour en haut