243 réponses à ce sujet

[Youknow]

Sure. Talk sidequest are fun when the dialogue is done well enough. I don't mind.

[Sir JK]

I have been looking for non-combat quests in rpgs for a long time. It's really something I miss in some games. So it makes me happy to hear that they're being considered at least.

But binary non-combat quests are not better. Quests that rely on "Do you have x skill? Congratulations, you've completed the task" isn't any better than a fed ex quest in my mind. It's still an arbitrary conditional thing with virtually no interactivity.
I don't want my combat that way and I don't want my non-combat that way. Both should be interactive. I could imagine putting points in social/physical/crafting skills making things easier or unlocking new tiers. But I should always be the one completing the task. And not solely through proper character development planning (allthough it should preferably be an aspect) but through putting in a effort.

Social could be about constructing an argument through picking a combination of lines and weighing in a value at the end (for instance). Kind of like the Landsmeet in a way. Not a single check but more like a large combination lock. Ideally with a possibility to pick different combinations the first few times and still succeed. Not too easy, but not "only one way to win" either.

Physical tasks like climbing, sneaking and swimming should also be similar. Interactive primarily but with character progression assisting. One idea could be that you have a "time limit" and if you don't succeed before it ends then you lose out on goodies... or even better, you get a different story progression when you reach the end.

Basically: combat and non-combat should be designed according to the same principles. There should be risk. There should be interactivity. There should be character building. And there should be rewards.

That, I think, would make non-combat so much more awesome.

Modifié par Sir JK, 19 décembre 2011 - 08:26 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Firky wrote...

Edit: PS. Modern fantasy RPGs need more telekinesis.

EVERYTHING needs more telekinesis.

In regards to those who hate puzzles versus those who love them... how does this sound?

A return to non-combat skills (been suggested many times before) that includes a new skill type, Engineer.

Points in this skill allow puzzles or other thought-required areas of the game to be easier or, at higher levels, completely circumvented. One click of the mouse with a high enough Engineer skill and the drawbridge drops down (or some equivalent thereof).

This would mean that there would be less points to spend in such other non-combat skills, such as crafting, speech skills and the such. However, this gives a skill that the combat junkie can dump all their non-combat points in, so they can get right back into the action, while those who prefer to take their time with such puzzles will be rewarded with being able to use those points in other areas.

Just a suggestion.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

I have been looking for non-combat quests in rpgs for a long time. It's really something I miss in some games. So it makes me happy to hear that they're being considered at least.

But binary non-combat quests are not better. Quests that rely on "Do you have x skill? Congratulations, you've completed the task" isn't any better than a fed ex quest in my mind. It's still an arbitrary conditional thing with virtually no interactivity.
I don't want my combat that way and I don't want my non-combat that way. Both should be interactive. I could imagine putting points in social/physical/crafting skills making things easier or unlocking new tiers. But I should always be the one completing the task. And not solely through proper character development planning (allthough it should preferably be an aspect) but through putting in a effort.

Social could be about constructing an argument through picking a combination of lines and weighing in a value at the end (for instance). Kind of like the Landsmeet in a way. Not a single check but more like a large combination lock. Ideally with a possibility to pick different combinations the first few times and still succeed. Not too easy, but not "only one way to win" either.

Physical tasks like climbing, sneaking and swimming should also be similar. Interactive primarily but with character progression assisting. One idea could be that you have a "time limit" and if you don't succeed before it ends then you lose out on goodies... or even better, you get a different story progression when you reach the end.

Basically: combat and non-combat should be designed according to the same principles. There should be risk. There should be interactivity. There should be character building. And there should be rewards.

This. I totally support everything this post states and more.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 décembre 2011 - 10:46 .

[vania z]

Sir JK wrote...

I have been looking for non-combat quests in rpgs for a long time. It's really something I miss in some games. So it makes me happy to hear that they're being considered at least.

But binary non-combat quests are not better. Quests that rely on "Do you have x skill? Congratulations, you've completed the task" isn't any better than a fed ex quest in my mind. It's still an arbitrary conditional thing with virtually no interactivity.
I don't want my combat that way and I don't want my non-combat that way. Both should be interactive. I could imagine putting points in social/physical/crafting skills making things easier or unlocking new tiers. But I should always be the one completing the task. And not solely through proper character development planning (allthough it should preferably be an aspect) but through putting in a effort.

Social could be about constructing an argument through picking a combination of lines and weighing in a value at the end (for instance). Kind of like the Landsmeet in a way. Not a single check but more like a large combination lock. Ideally with a possibility to pick different combinations the first few times and still succeed. Not too easy, but not "only one way to win" either.

Physical tasks like climbing, sneaking and swimming should also be similar. Interactive primarily but with character progression assisting. One idea could be that you have a "time limit" and if you don't succeed before it ends then you lose out on goodies... or even better, you get a different story progression when you reach the end.

Basically: combat and non-combat should be designed according to the same principles. There should be risk. There should be interactivity. There should be character building. And there should be rewards.

That, I think, would make non-combat so much more awesome.

Skill/class requirements for certaint quests is a must. It was always that way in rpg and it allows you better fit into the world. Doing something with solely your players skills is for shooters. In party rpgs you should be able to use your companions skills - that also gives you a reason to make your party members specialists in different skills. For example, I helped to heal halla in dao with survival skill of alistair and crafted some poisons in lothering with leliana's help. That gives you better options of classical rpg team play. 

[Lithuasil]

vania z wrote...


Skill/class requirements for certaint quests is a must. It was always that way in rpg and it allows you better fit into the world. Doing something with solely your players skills is for shooters. In party rpgs you should be able to use your companions skills - that also gives you a reason to make your party members specialists in different skills. For example, I helped to heal halla in dao with survival skill of alistair and crafted some poisons in lothering with leliana's help. That gives you better options of classical rpg team play. 

Because the second someone takes up the study of the arcane, they loose all knowledge on how to even wield anything but staffs. The Mages in Thedas probably need Templars (those with the rogue class of course) to cut their bread, since no one else knows how to operate daggers and knives.

Among the many things that were always wrong with "old school" rpgs, the numbercrunchy attitude is by far the greatest sin - and we should be grateful for every step that we take away from having to take several party members to the toilet, because the PC doesn't have enough skillpoints in "wiping".

[vania z]

Lithuasil wrote...

vania z wrote...


Skill/class requirements for certaint quests is a must. It was always that way in rpg and it allows you better fit into the world. Doing something with solely your players skills is for shooters. In party rpgs you should be able to use your companions skills - that also gives you a reason to make your party members specialists in different skills. For example, I helped to heal halla in dao with survival skill of alistair and crafted some poisons in lothering with leliana's help. That gives you better options of classical rpg team play. 

Because the second someone takes up the study of the arcane, they loose all knowledge on how to even wield anything but staffs. The Mages in Thedas probably need Templars (those with the rogue class of course) to cut their bread, since no one else knows how to operate daggers and knives.

Among the many things that were always wrong with "old school" rpgs, the numbercrunchy attitude is by far the greatest sin - and we should be grateful for every step that we take away from having to take several party members to the toilet, because the PC doesn't have enough skillpoints in "wiping".

Have you actually played da2 and da:o? Nwn maybe? In da2 mages can't use daggers or swords. In dao they can - if they meet strength/dex requirements. In nwn mages can take feats to use swords and can use daggers from the beginning. In da2 there is no way mage can take a dagger. Old school approach is much better and gives more freedom. Nothing like arcade-like dragon age 2. 

[Lithuasil]

vania z wrote...

Have you actually played da2 and da:o? Nwn maybe? In da2 mages can't use daggers or swords. In dao they can - if they meet strength/dex requirements. In nwn mages can take feats to use swords and can use daggers from the beginning. In da2 there is no way mage can take a dagger. Old school approach is much better and gives more freedom. Nothing like arcade-like dragon age 2. 

I thought we were trying to establish what to do in the future here? I'm the first one to say, that DA2's mmo-style gameplay, coupled with the pathetic difficulty, was it's weakest link. But it was still an improvement over DA:0, not to mention the tedium that was Nwn2.

The primary prerequisition for roleplaying is immersion. Therefore, combat in an rpg should be as immersive as possible - ideally a mix between Dark Messiah and Mount and Blade, or something along those lines.

[vania z]

Lithuasil wrote...

I thought we were trying to establish what to do in the future here? I'm the first one to say, that DA2's mmo-style gameplay, coupled with the pathetic difficulty, was it's weakest link. But it was still an improvement over DA:0, not to mention the tedium that was Nwn2.

The primary prerequisition for roleplaying is immersion. Therefore, combat in an rpg should be as immersive as possible - ideally a mix between Dark Messiah and Mount and Blade, or something along those lines.

We have skyrim/mass effect/etc for that.  I wont buy DA game with such mechanics. From this franchise I expect classical rpg gameplay, strategic combat, interesting companions, lots of skills and ability to use them in game. The more game has skil/class specific quests - the better.

[Lithuasil]

vania z wrote...


We have skyrim/mass effect/etc for that.  I wont buy DA game with such mechanics. From this franchise I expect classical rpg gameplay, strategic combat, interesting companions, lots of skills and ability to use them in game. The more game has skil/class specific quests - the better.

Your taste, however questionable, is your own business. I'd suggest checking out the Heroes of Might and Magic series which offers just that.
In a roleplaying game however, I'd still wager that immersion and actual roleplaying should outweigh your personal love for numbers and spreadsheets.

[vania z]

Lithuasil wrote...


Your taste, however questionable, is your own business. I'd suggest checking out the Heroes of Might and Magic series which offers just that.
In a roleplaying game however, I'd still wager that immersion and actual roleplaying should outweigh your personal love for numbers and spreadsheets.

M&M, not HOMM. Yes, I know of them, thanks. 
And I still say that if you want immersion - you can go and play skyrim. Your taste, however questionable, is your own business. DA is classical rpg and leave it at that. 

[Lithuasil]

I was talking about HOMM alright - since rpgs are clearly not what you seek. Dragon age has moved away from the faults of the past, just not nearly far enough. Still, it left you (and a lot of people for that matter) in unjustifiable rage.

But humor me - why would an rpg want combat to actively break the immersion, rather then add to it. Name one good reason - and no, "Ultima did it" doesn't count, neither does "Baldurs gate did it".

[vania z]

Lithuasil wrote...

I was talking about HOMM alright - since rpgs are clearly not what you seek. Dragon age has moved away from the faults of the past, just not nearly far enough. Still, it left you (and a lot of people for that matter) in unjustifiable rage.
.

Wow, I didn't know that I'm in rage. Certainly you know me better than myself. Are you a psychologist?

Lithuasil wrote...

But humor me - why would an rpg want combat to actively break the immersion, rather then add to it. Name one good reason - and no, "Ultima did it" doesn't count, neither does "Baldurs gate did it".

I would suggest to add taking crap and peeing in skyrim. To get full "immersion". Surely, there is nothing more important in rpg than total IMMERSION. 

[Lithuasil]

vania z wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

But humor me - why would an rpg want combat to actively break the immersion, rather then add to it. Name one good reason - and no, "Ultima did it" doesn't count, neither does "Baldurs gate did it".

I would suggest to add taking crap and peeing in skyrim. To get full "immersion". Surely, there is nothing more important in rpg than total IMMERSION. 

What a mature and convincing argument in support of your point. I take it there's no reason then?

[G00N3R7883]

A few thoughts after skim reading the thread.

I'd definately like more quests that can be solved without resorting to just killing everyone. I might actually decide to kill everyone, but it would be really nice to at least have the option to talk my way out of a situation or use some prior gained knowledge or an item that I found through exploration, or whatever else you can think of. And its certainly pleasing that, based on Mike Laidlaw's cryptic posts, it sounds like Bioware are already thinking along those lines.

I'd also like to see more quests that we can "fail" but the game carries on and we deal with the consequences, rather than just asking me to reload and try again. Like the Thane and Samara loyalty missions in ME2.

From a similar point of view, although I support the idea of including stealth missions, I didn't like the nature of implementation in MotA. Instead of "you've been detected ... warp back through time and try again!" I'd prefer some consequence to my failure. I'm not particularly good at stealth sections in games in general, I'll pretty much always get seen at some point, and have to fight my way through to the end. That's fine. I failed, I suffered the consequences. But then that one time I actually get through without being seen, I feel like king of the world. Rather than feeling like "well the game forced me to succeed eventually, glad its over".

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Keep in mind that the much-lamented FedEx quests ARE "quests with non-combat activities". They involve no combat whatsoever. You find something, pick it up, and shuttle it to its owner.

My dislike of the DA2 fedex quests is because 1) they make Hawke appear psychic (I just found a pair of socks on the ground in the middle of a forest, somehow I know they belong to Dave even though there is no nametag or any other such identifying feature, and even though I've never met Dave before or even heard of him until just now, I somehow know the exact position of his house and/or place of business in the vast city of Kirkwall) and 2) virtually no dialogue which results in a lack of interesting details (why did Dave lose his socks? why is it so important for Dave to have his socks returned that he would give me a reward of 1000 gold coins rather than just buy a new pair?).

Basically, those quests were very low quality and broke my immersion. But the actual act of finding an object and returning it to its owner was fine with me.

[vania z]

Lithuasil wrote...


What a mature and convincing argument in support of your point. I take it there's no reason then?

There is no reason to go for IMMERSION. And no reason to feed the troll. Bye. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

Remember this one from ME2?: A space ship you encounter appears to be unmanned. You find clues about a brain dead man and a woman fixated with keeping him alive. Do you shut his life support system down or not? ME did have more of those quests, where (what some call controversial) issues like these play a role. Tiny gems like these make you think for a bit about something that really matters and it is a welcome change from quests in which combat plays the most important role.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 décembre 2011 - 04:38 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I've mentioned Dishonored for the second time today. It's not that I am trying to promote that game, but it has some very interesting features concerning quests and the effects of violent and non-violent solutions. These game developers take violence and non-violence very serious, because they know how important it is in the games they have played and loved themselves. Here are two videos in which they talk about that:

Modeling Morality (Part 1): The Chaos Of Dishonored.

Modeling Morality (Part 2): The Choices Of Dishonored.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 décembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[Lithuasil]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I've mentioned Dishonored for the second time today. It's not that I am trying to promote that game, but it has some very interesting features concerning quests and the effects of violent and non-violent solutions. These game developers take violence and non-violence very serious, because they know how important it is in the games they have played and loved themselves. Here are two videos in which they talk about that:

Modeling Morality (Part 1): The Chaos Of Dishonored.

Modeling Morality (Part 2): The Choices Of Dishonored.

 

I've heard of that - it sounds promising enough actually. I'm always a little reluctant to cheer for rpgs that (to my knowledge) force a pre-set character on me - but then Arkane *are* the only ones to ever pull a fixed protagonist without ruining the game, so they deserve the benefit of doubt I guess.

[Lithuasil]

simfamSP wrote...

The primary prerequisition for roleplaying is immersion. Therefore, combat in an rpg should be as immersive as possible - ideally a mix between Dark Messiah and Mount and Blade, or something along those lines.

Then your best of sticking to action RPGs where combat is based on player skill. The tactical approach of the DA series and most Isometric based RPGs rely on stats to get things done.

It doesn't detract from the RP side of things in anyway, it just depends on the players tastes.

It's a matter of nostalgia, not taste. The approach that you mislabel as "tactical", was done in all the games that people now hold fond through the tinted glasses of hindsight. The thing is, back in the day - that approach wasn't chosen because it was smart, or a good design choice. It was chosen because the tech was limited, and because they were trying to mirror another medium (Pnp-rpgs.) And even in those Pnp games, the ruleset and number crunching is, and always was, a poor substitute for the things that are impossible to act out while sitting around a table.
Videogames have long passed the point, where they can simulate combat properly, and there's no good reason to keep doing it in a way that detracts from the roleplaying, by putting an artificial layer between the player and the gameworld. 
But again, feel free to bring up any that might exist.

[TEWR]

simfamSP wrote...

The primary prerequisition for roleplaying is immersion. Therefore, combat in an rpg should be as immersive as possible - ideally a mix between Dark Messiah and Mount and Blade, or something along those lines.

Then your best of sticking to action RPGs where combat is based on player skill. The tactical approach of the DA series and most Isometric based RPGs rely on stats to get things done.

It doesn't detract from the RP side of things in anyway, it just depends on the players tastes.

I have to wonder if there could be a game that combines both elements in full swing. Like where you could use the tactical approach of DA while also having the player skill aspect of action RPGs.

I guess this is what Bioware wanted to do, but they failed miserably because it just seemed like they only did a half-and-half type of thing and not a 100%-100% type of thing.

I really do think that is possible. You could try and tactically attack someone, and maybe it backfires, so then you can try and use player skill to change it up.

Obviously you wouldn't be forced to do it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Lithuasil wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

The primary prerequisition for roleplaying is immersion. Therefore, combat in an rpg should be as immersive as possible - ideally a mix between Dark Messiah and Mount and Blade, or something along those lines.

Then your best of sticking to action RPGs where combat is based on player skill. The tactical approach of the DA series and most Isometric based RPGs rely on stats to get things done.

It doesn't detract from the RP side of things in anyway, it just depends on the players tastes.

It's a matter of nostalgia, not taste. The approach that you mislabel as "tactical", was done in all the games that people now hold fond through the tinted glasses of hindsight. The thing is, back in the day - that approach wasn't chosen because it was smart, or a good design choice. It was chosen because the tech was limited, and because they were trying to mirror another medium (Pnp-rpgs.) And even in those Pnp games, the ruleset and number crunching is, and always was, a poor substitute for the things that are impossible to act out while sitting around a table.
Videogames have long passed the point, where they can simulate combat properly, and there's no good reason to keep doing it in a way that detracts from the roleplaying, by putting an artificial layer between the player and the gameworld. 
But again, feel free to bring up any that might exist.

Having fun with either system does not require logic.