260 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

It does in a party-based computer game.

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?

When they're speaking on behalf of the party, yes.

And if you decide to defile the sacred ashes in DA:O, you continue to control Leliana and Wynne as they attack your party? 

No.  By then they have left the party.

They follow the main PC's orders--as long as they choose to remain in the group--nothing more.

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?

Obviously they cannot simply be following orders.

They are exactly like henchman in pen 'n paper settings.  They are clearly NPC's.  These games are not party based games.

Then I shouldn't be able to choose what abilities they learn, or what equipment they use.

More importantly, you're attacking a position I didn't espouse.  I said that interclass balance didn't matter in a party-based game.  Nothing about that requires that DA2 is a party-based game (I would argue that it is not).  I do think DAO is, though.

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).

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 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.

See my above descriptions.

But, again, more importantly, you're arguing against a position I hadn't taken.  If this were a Wizardry 8 forum, you wouldn't have objected at all, I suspect, eevn though the substance of my remark would have been identical.

Sylvius, you're fond of comparing CRPG's to tabletop.  When I was a GM, I absolutely did allow players to choose their henchman's skills and control them in combat, and could (upon request) speak on behalf of the party.  I would even allow them to do something apart from the main character (which would be analogous to the prison break scene) under the player's control.  but they remained NPC's.  At any point by DM fiat, I could have them balk if they were given orders I didn't think they would follow. Have you ever had control of your player character seized by the DM, excluding situations where they mind controlled by magic?

And yes, you're correct, Wizardry 8 is a true party based game, as are the Might & Magic games.  Unlike Bioware's games, they quite clearly do not have a primary character and a bunch of followers. And yes, it still matters even in a genuinely party based game CRPG if one character is always inferior to another in virtually any plausible circumstance. The argument that being fragility at low levels is balanced by power at high levels doesn't work in Bioware games because you can switch the characters out at the levels that they are not useful.  And balance aside, the fact is that, especially in 1st edition, high level fighters were practically indistinguishable from each other and dull to play.

Modifié par maxernst, 20 novembre 2011 - 01:39 .

[Marvin_Arnold]

maxernst wrote...

[snipalot: general stuff about RPG]

[railroad mode]And there I thought this thread was about missing bowstrings.[/]

My first suggestion would have been, if there hadn't been someone else suggesting something similar: 

Thedas bowstrings are spun out of the silk of the Nevarran bowstring spider. They are so fine they can't be seen on a screen with a resolution under 16,000*9,000...

Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 20 novembre 2011 - 07:25 .

[TwistedComplex]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around.

Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

Modifié par TwistedComplex, 21 novembre 2011 - 07:55 .

[Riknas]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around.

Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

That's true, becasue I hear that EA is patient and has a very relaxed release schedule, right?

[TwistedComplex]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Just because they could go to the effort of creating bowstrings doesn't mean it's time well spent. There are probably other animations or visual gimmicks the majority of players, not to mention the developers, would put above this one.

So attention to detail in a video game isn't time well spent?

Making a believable immersive video game isn't time well spent?

What's next? You wanna take out different eye color because eye's really aren't that noticable to begin with?

The best video games are the ones where you stop, look around and say "Wow, the developers really put alot of effort into their games."

There is NO effort put into the details of Dragon Age 2.

You think Michelangelo looked at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and compromised on effort vs worth?

That's what separates artists from business, and Bioware is a business

[TwistedComplex]

Riknas wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around.

Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

That's true, becasue I hear that EA is patient and has a very relaxed release schedule, right?

DICE sure didn't seem to have a problem with EA when they made BF3 at the level of quality that they did. Quit blaming EA and let Bioware take responsibility for once in a while.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around.

Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to, does not mean they are not working very hard and very creatively on what does appear in the game. We simply do not have time to implement every individual player's preferred visuals.

[TwistedComplex]

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around.

Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to

OH BOY HERE WE GO

"What YOU want, you entitled gamers"

Ya know what? I don't want someone slinging dog s**t at my house, that doesn't mean it's unresonable to request that people NOT throw little bags of dog feces.

Just STOP. Quit trying to shift the blame onto the customer for Biowares lack of effort.

Whats next? "You don't want to get shot in the face? Well just because YOU don't want it doesn't mean they shouldn't do it"

[bEVEsthda]

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...
Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to, does not mean they are not working very hard and very creatively on what does appear in the game. We simply do not have time to implement every individual player's preferred visuals.

Indeed. And there is also the point that some of us would maybe be somewhat annoyed, if resources were wasted on meaningless fluff, at the same time as saving are made at other more important content.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 novembre 2011 - 08:25 .

[TwistedComplex]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...
Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to, does not mean they are not working very hard and very creatively on what does appear in the game. We simply do not have time to implement every individual player's preferred visuals.

Indeed. And there is also the point that some of us would maybe be somewhat annoyed, if resources were wasted on meaningless fluff, at the same time as saving are made at other more important content.

There's no such thing as meaningless fluff when it comes to art.

You have to pour your body and your soul into it, and that's not something that can be rationed and put into a time/effort cost value

[bEVEsthda]

TwistedComplex wrote...
There's no such thing as meaningless fluff when it comes to art.

Now this, is a very, very big subject. I'm afraid I won't go there today.

You have to pour your body and your soul into it, and that's not something that can be rationed and put into a time/effort cost value

Dude, everything has to be rationed and put into value/effort. Everything.
Because your life is not enough.

P.S. That is not to say that bowstrings always are meaningless fluff. But in a situation when you're forced to re-use environments, then I say it is.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 novembre 2011 - 08:33 .

[TwistedComplex]

bEVEsthda wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...
There's no such thing as meaningless fluff when it comes to art.

Now this, is a very, very big subject. I'm afraid I won't go there today.

You have to pour your body and your soul into it, and that's not something that can be rationed and put into a time/effort cost value

Dude, everything has to be rationed and put into value/effort. Everything.
Because your life is not enough.

P.S. That is not to say that bowstrings always are meaningless fluff. But in a situation when you're forced to re-use environments, then I say it is.

Than Bioware should have alloited more time to make the game. Bioware themselves said EA has very little to do with the game development of their games so im just going by what theyre saying

[Zanallen]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Than Bioware should have alloited more time to make the game. Bioware themselves said EA has very little to do with the game development of their games so im just going by what theyre saying

They spent five years making DA:O and it still didn't have bowstrings. It just isn't a major priority for them.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to

OH BOY HERE WE GO

"What YOU want, you entitled gamers"

Whoa. Stop. Let's take this back down to where you're not putting words in my mouth and getting your hackles up when your personal preferences are challenged. If you're going to get super defensive and put up your dukes every time someone disagrees with you, we're not goingt o be able to have this discussion.

All I'm saying is that it is unreasonable to believe that we don't care / are lazy / are incompetent / don't know anything just because we have chosen to put our resources somewhere different than what you would have chosen. We have millions of people representing our fanbase. Do you really believe that every single one of them likes the same things in games that you do? That each and every one of them thinks "hey, the artists didn't do visible bowstrings. They must have been slacking off"? If so, I would consider that unreasonable and don't see any way I could address that opinion.

If, however, you accept that different people will like different things about games, I think (hope, anyway) that you will see that some of these other people might have other features or details in games that they prefer. Possibly, some of these details actually appear in DA2, like some of the reactivity to DAO plots, returning characters, character models, even codex entries.

So, given those things, IF we have failed to include a detail you like but have included a detail someone else likes, our "caring" about the game or the "effort" we put into the game is still the same, but is viewed differently by you and this other person. This is what I mean by "you as an individual." Each person has their own opinion, but in a group of potentially millions of people, there are going to be many different preferences and game experiences (some people actually like the game. Bizarre, I know, them having different opinions than you!). We are going to meet some of those preferences, and we are going to fail to meet others. Neither means we don't care or don't put forth effort into our games. It just means that, this time around, we weren't able to include the thing or things that you were looking.

Just STOP. Quit trying to shift the blame onto the customer for Biowares lack of effort.

Not assigning blame, but we do tend to get at least a little defensive when accused of not caring or not putting forth any effort. We love games and we love what we do and the games we release. It doesn't mean they're perfect or that they'll please everyone, but we do work hard on them. All of us.

[Marvin_Arnold]

Agreed, I'd have preferred item lore or non-repetitive dungeons any time over... bowstrings...

Art is business and an artist has to pay his rent, too. Those who disagree obviously aren't artists themselves.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Than Bioware should have alloited more time to make the game. Bioware themselves said EA has very little to do with the game development of their games so im just going by what theyre saying

That's not always possible. While EA has very little to do with the actual development side of things, they are responsible for advertising and manufacturing, which involves cores of people in a dozen or so departments in a handful of studios all around the world. And all these people need to ramp up and take time to do their jobs. "Allotting more time" means dates slip, and that means people, departments, maybe even entire offices have to be rescheduled. In an organization as big as Electronic Arts, a department that sits idle or is double-booked can lose the company millions of dollars. And no one wants that.

In game development, decisions about release dates and "go/no go" decisions and such are among the most important decisions a company can make, and they are never made lightly. they can't be. Potentially millions of dollars are at stake.

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

Sylvius, you're fond of comparing CRPG's to tabletop.  When I was a GM, I absolutely did allow players to choose their henchman's skills and control them in combat, and could (upon request) speak on behalf of the party.  I would even allow them to do something apart from the main character (which would be analogous to the prison break scene) under the player's control.  but they remained NPC's.

The prison break scenario, I think, immediately stops them from being NPCs.  They're PCs as soon as you let the player control them in an independent environment.

They may well become NPCs again later.

At any point by DM fiat, I could have them balk if they were given orders I didn't think they would follow.

Rightly so.  I would hope you also rolled morale checks for them.  That's something I've been asking BioWare to do for years.  They haven't had a morale mechanic since the BG games (I'm not even sure they used morale in BG2, to be honest).

 Have you ever had control of your player character seized by the DM, excluding situations where they mind controlled by magic?

As a DM, I've told players that they cannot have their characters do what they've just decided they'll do, because it relies on metagame information, or is otherwise inconsistent with their character design.  A player can't just decide that his character is going to convert to a new religion, for example - that choice has to be earned through roleplay.

You seem to be assuming here thta a PC is always a PC, and never can that PC become an NPC (even though that's exactly what happens with henchmen).

In a party-based game, which really has no direct tabletop analogue as long as you continue to require a 1:1 relationship between the CRPG player and the tabletop player, the player controls the party as a unit.  It's not that he's playing 4 different characters.  He's playing the party.  Each of those characters could, at some point, stop being a member of that party if the party's decisions run contrary to the character's values, and at that point the character leaves the party and is no longer subject to the player's control of that party.  The player's control hasn't changed; he still controls the whole party.  But the party's roster has changed.

Now, I do think, from a gameplay perspective, that such a change needs to be used sparingly.  If the player designs the party around a specific character's abilities (particularly if those abilities are not available to the PC), and the that character leaves the party, the party then no longer works.

This is why I generally oppose having the different characters follow different rules.  There should be no ability Isabela has that other characters with her class cannot also learn.  And no party member should have a class that isn't also available to the PC.

And yes, you're correct, Wizardry 8 is a true party based game, as are the Might & Magic games.  Unlike Bioware's games, they quite clearly do not have a primary character and a bunch of followers. And yes, it still matters even in a genuinely party based game CRPG if one character is always inferior to another in virtually any plausible circumstance. The argument that being fragility at low levels is balanced by power at high levels doesn't work in Bioware games because you can switch the characters out at the levels that they are not useful.

That's a mechanic they should abandon.  I've long called for a return to the BG-style party construction, where characters you don't use don't gain XP.  So then you would have to suffer through the weaker lower levels to benefit from the more powerful higher levels.

And balance aside, the fact is that, especially in 1st edition, high level fighters were practically indistinguishable from each other and dull to play.

Fighters are still dull to play.  Run in and hit things doesn't have any tactical complexity.  I hate playing Fighters.  That's why I didn't have one in my party for most of DAO, and why I was annoyed by the reliance on MMO-style tank mechanics in DA2.

I don't like Fighters.  I want not to use them.  Ever.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 novembre 2011 - 09:26 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Would I like bowstrings? Sure, of course.

Are they critical to my enjoyment? No, not at all.

Are they more important than many of the other needed improvements that have been discussed at length? NO, not even close.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

Than Bioware should have alloited more time to make the game. Bioware themselves said EA has very little to do with the game development of their games so im just going by what theyre saying

That's not always possible. While EA has very little to do with the actual development side of things, they are responsible for advertising and manufacturing, which involves cores of people in a dozen or so departments in a handful of studios all around the world. And all these people need to ramp up and take time to do their jobs. "Allotting more time" means dates slip, and that means people, departments, maybe even entire offices have to be rescheduled. In an organization as big as Electronic Arts, a department that sits idle or is double-booked can lose the company millions of dollars. And no one wants that.

In game development, decisions about release dates and "go/no go" decisions and such are among the most important decisions a company can make, and they are never made lightly. they can't be. Potentially millions of dollars are at stake.

When Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was published, Firaxis Games employed 17 people.

17.  I see no reason why quality games require hundreds of developers.

But more importantly, you mentioned earlier (either in this thread or another) that one of the big changes in the past 10 years is that "video games have become mainstream".  Here's the downside of that:

Making games for a mass market requires that they be designed to be consumed in the way that the mass market consmues things.  Mass market entertainment is designed to be disposible.  The mass market consmues a product, and then moves on.

The hobbyist market, which is what games used to target, does nothing of the sort.  Hobbyists delve deep into their hobbies.  Nothing they do within their hobby is disposible.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But more importantly, you mentioned earlier (either in this thread or another) that one of the big changes in the past 10 years is that "video games have become mainstream".  Here's the downside of that:

Making games for a mass market requires that they be designed to be consumed in the way that the mass market consmues things.  Mass market entertainment is designed to be disposible.  The mass market consmues a product, and then moves on.

The hobbyist market, which is what games used to target, does nothing of the sort.  Hobbyists delve deep into their hobbies.  Nothing they do within their hobby is disposible.

This part?  SO  DAMN TRUE.

[AlexXIV]

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

Than Bioware should have alloited more time to make the game. Bioware themselves said EA has very little to do with the game development of their games so im just going by what theyre saying

That's not always possible. While EA has very little to do with the actual development side of things, they are responsible for advertising and manufacturing, which involves cores of people in a dozen or so departments in a handful of studios all around the world. And all these people need to ramp up and take time to do their jobs. "Allotting more time" means dates slip, and that means people, departments, maybe even entire offices have to be rescheduled. In an organization as big as Electronic Arts, a department that sits idle or is double-booked can lose the company millions of dollars. And no one wants that.

In game development, decisions about release dates and "go/no go" decisions and such are among the most important decisions a company can make, and they are never made lightly. they can't be. Potentially millions of dollars are at stake.

So by merging with EA Bioware has turned from artists to businessmen. If this isn't irony then I don't know what this word means.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They were always businessmen.

But before they were freelancers, and now they're employees.

[AlexXIV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They were always businessmen.

But before they were freelancers, and now they're employees.

I didn't mean it literally. I see it that way, for artists their art is most important, money maybe second place. For businessmen money is important, their art maybe second place. Making games for computers or consoles is also an art, and many of these people are artists. And for artists, art should always come first. And even if it is an 'unnecessary detail' it is important for the art, and the artists, of Bioware.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 novembre 2011 - 11:56 .

[Stanley Woo]

AlexXIV wrote...

So by merging with EA Bioware has turned from artists to businessmen. If this isn't irony then I don't know what this word means.

No. BioWare have always been businessmen. In fact, in my time with the company, I have seen first-hand that one of the ways in which BioWare lasted so long as an independent company was due directly to the business savvy and forward thinking of the company's founders, Ray and Greg. They have always considered ways in which BioWare can survive as a company while still allowing its creators enough freedom to exercise their creativity, and made the decisions they did for the betterment (and survivability) of the company.

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. Without considering the commercial concerns of their art, how will they make enough money to survive long enough to make the one project that everyone considers a true work of art? Stephen King did not write Cujo or Carrie first. Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project. The iPod was not Apple's first piece of hardware. Most Hollywood hopefuls in L.A. work as servers and baristas not because the jobs are inspiration or vehicles for their art, but to make enough money to let them survive until their next project. it is not irony to not starve to death, and there is no shame in an artist being able to pay their rent month after month.

[Monica83]

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around.

Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to, does not mean they are not working very hard and very creatively on what does appear in the game. We simply do not have time to implement every individual player's preferred visuals.

you know bow needs two things to work properly... arrows and bowstrings..here we are not talking of one feature we are talking of something that must be in a weapon to work and don't develop it its just lazyness and lack of effort.. The witcher 2.. Skyrim and many other rpg have bowstring and since i don't think the bioware team don't have the time to implement a bowstring..

Its useless justify this lack with.. hey we simple don't had the time when the team just shovel out a quick sequel total different from the first one.. I suggest you bioware team this:

Next time try to make a sequel improving things and not just transform a saga in a middle of a franchise i assure you will find the time to implement a basilar thing like a bowstring.. you know even minecraft have bowstrings..

So please don't come out with answers like that next time its just inappropriate