243 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Ukki wrote...

I just recently replayed Planescape Torment and I have to say how delightful it was to solve a lot of the games issues just by talking.

PST is a masterpiece in that regard. Unfortunately, not many others at the the time of release thought so. The game barely broke even. I would like to see more elements of PST included in the Dragon Age games.

The use of stealth in MotA was a step in the right direction. The puzzles in both Legacy and MotA showed a return to the puzzles found in DAO.

At the risk of derailing the thread, why did PS:T fail commercially?  Was it the freaky looking PC and odd setting, the downbeat title?  Do people really hate reading that much?  Bad marketing?  It got very good reviews.

[Realmzmaster]

maxernst wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Ukki wrote...

I just recently replayed Planescape Torment and I have to say how delightful it was to solve a lot of the games issues just by talking.

PST is a masterpiece in that regard. Unfortunately, not many others at the the time of release thought so. The game barely broke even. I would like to see more elements of PST included in the Dragon Age games.

The use of stealth in MotA was a step in the right direction. The puzzles in both Legacy and MotA showed a return to the puzzles found in DAO.

At the risk of derailing the thread, why did PS:T fail commercially?  Was it the freaky looking PC and odd setting, the downbeat title?  Do people really hate reading that much?  Bad marketing?  It got very good reviews.

I am afraid it was a combination of all you stated. The Planescape setting is not as well known as some of the other settings in the D & D universe. The game was text heavy.  The title actually fit the game, but Torment does not evoke high fantasy. Marketing was actual very good. The premise may have turned some gamers off. You are the Nameless One ,  trying to find out who you are and why are you immortal. The companions were also kind of odd, (a talking skull for one). It did not appeal to many gamers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

For some stupid reason, at the beginning of Skyrim, when you jump from the tower to a beam, I got it into my head that I had to get onto the roof of the next building rather than drop down into the room.  Yes, I realize this makes no sense if you're trying to get away from a dragon, but in my idiocy because  I could almost do it, I wasted a good fifteen minutes on many attempts at something that (if even possible) would have been pointless to succeed in.

I did the same thing.  Because my character was panicking, he didn't wait around to hear Ralof's instructions to jump into the building, so I just jumped down onto a ledge and then hopped down to the ground, which left me standing outside the tower again, with two guards cowering from the dragon, and I had no idea how to get out of there.  I wandered back and forth watching those guards do absolutely nothing for probably ten minutes before I headed back into the tower to see if there was somewhere else I should have jumped.

Realmzmaster wrote...

The use of stealth in MotA was a step in the right direction. The puzzles in both Legacy and MotA showed a return to the puzzles found in DAO.

While I didn't play MotA (I'd already given up on DA2 by then), my understanding is that MotA's stealth mechanic was entirely story-based, so there was no ability to use stealth tactically, or for recon where the game didn't specifically allow for it.

If that's the case, I insist that's a step in the wrong direction.  Good stealth would be stealth like DAO's, but with environments that offered more opportunities to do things with it.

A non-combat skill should be usable any time (or at least anytime outside combat), not just when the game expects it to be used.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 janvier 2012 - 12:15 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

maxernst wrote...
For some stupid reason, at the beginning of Skyrim, when you jump from the tower to a beam, I got it into my head that I had to get onto the roof of the next building rather than drop down into the room.  Yes, I realize this makes no sense if you're trying to get away from a dragon, but in my idiocy because  I could almost do it, I wasted a good fifteen minutes on many attempts at something that (if even possible) would have been pointless to succeed in.

I did the same thing.  Because my character was panicking, he didn't wait around to hear Ralof's instructions to jump into the building, so I just jumped down onto a ledge and then hopped down to the ground, which left me standing outside the tower again, with two guards cowering from the dragon, and I had no idea how to get out of there.  I wandered back and forth watching those guards do absolutely nothing for probably ten minutes before I headed back into the tower to see if there was somewhere else I should have jumped.

I actually did that with Oblivion.  I went into the first dungeon I encountered after leaving the tutorial area, and there were 3 weird little fragments of historical text that I found.  I thought these fragments were clues on how to summon a boss of some sorts (or at least make something interesting happen in the dungeon) so I spent an hour or more trying to summon said boss.  Eventually, I got incredibly frustrated and went to the Elder Scrolls Wiki to figure out what I was missing, and it turned out those three little lore bits were just that...little bits of lore that if you were incredibly familiar with the Elder Scrolls lore would actually mean something to you.

That said, I'm a big fan of quests that have little or nothing to do with fighting.  I've always been a fan of progress based XP instead of combat based XP, which means you can get through dungeons/quests by whatever means is best for your character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I've always been a fan of progress based XP instead of combat based XP, which means you can get through dungeons/quests by whatever means is best for your character.

Agreed.   In a game that awarded XP through an explicit in-game event like Fable does, you could simply have the available XP in hard to reach places.  You could get there by killing things, or by sneaking, or by whatever other means you could devise.

I've been trying to figure out how to do that in a less fantastic title.  How could we award XP in that way without ruining to mood of Skyrim or DAO, for example?  And I don't want to do it based on reaching plot-related waypoints, because I'd rather not beat the player over the head with news about his progression through some pre-written story.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Agreed.   In a game that awarded XP through an explicit in-game event like Fable does, you could simply have the available XP in hard to reach places.  You could get there by killing things, or by sneaking, or by whatever other means you could devise.

A good XP system just adds so much coherence to the world, instead of the tortured rationalization that has to take place when you reason out why murdering globins improves your haggle skill.

I've been trying to figure out how to do that in a less fantastic title.  How could we award XP in that way without ruining to mood of Skyrim or DAO, for example?  And I don't want to do it based on reaching plot-related waypoints, because I'd rather not beat the player over the head with news about his progression through some pre-written story.

XP has to come part and parcell with the skill system that is created. I think we need to divide XP by types, each skill have it's own XP counter to level up, and award both skill specific and category specific XP. So for example, if the quest is diplomacy and you solve it by haggling, then you should get a general "social pool" skill (because presumably throughout the quest your general social nature has been taxed) as well as haggle speciifc XP, as that was the skill you used to resolve the quest.

[syllogi]

maxernst wrote...

At the risk of derailing the thread, why did PS:T fail commercially?  Was it the freaky looking PC and odd setting, the downbeat title?  Do people really hate reading that much?  Bad marketing?  It got very good reviews.

Personally, I remember looking at PS:T at a Virgin Megastore everytime I went in for about a year before taking the plunge, and I was totally the audience for it.  The thing was that I had not heard ANYTHING marketing wise about it, and I was on the Bioware forum, and the Interplay forum before that, talking about Infinity Engine games.  I loved BG2, but wasn't crazy about Icewind Dale, so PS:T was a roll of the dice without knowing anything else offhand about it.

That's just my experience, when it came out, and I was a pretty big CRPG geek.  I really do wish I had snapped it up earlier, although I don't love it as much as many, it's still a great RPG.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I've been trying to figure out how to do that in a less fantastic title.  How could we award XP in that way without ruining to mood of Skyrim or DAO, for example?  And I don't want to do it based on reaching plot-related waypoints, because I'd rather not beat the player over the head with news about his progression through some pre-written story.

Objective based XP would be the closest to a PnP RPG experience, in which XP is distributed usually at the end of a module or a similarly appropriate pause in the game. Granted, simulating "gaming session" in a computer is a bit of a hassle, so it has to be objective based instead.

[Riffuel_Raffit]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I've always been a fan of progress based XP instead of combat based XP, which means you can get through dungeons/quests by whatever means is best for your character.

I also would like more quests that doesn´t involve necessarily fighting, but progresss based XP is diffucult to implement in a party-based RPG.
How would you sneak through a dungeon with your rogue when you have at least 3 other pary-members that doesn´t have the required skill?
So the only possibility I see are either talk-or-fight moments, puzzles or more quests (or at least parts of certain quests) that doesn´t require fighting at all, of which I´d really like to see more.
Idunnas interrogation, for example, was very well done. Someone here suggested a murder investigation, which would also be awesome.
XP could be provided regarding how well you solve these quests.

The game which impressed me the most with it´s various options of solving quests is "Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines". Regarding which clan, sex and abilities you choose there are various ways to go through the game, XP is also quest- and not combat-related.
But it´s a completely different type of game, this wouldn´t work in Dragon Age.

Modifié par Valaun, 05 janvier 2012 - 12:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

XP has to come part and parcell with the skill system that is created. I think we need to divide XP by types, each skill have it's own XP counter to level up, and award both skill specific and category specific XP. So for example, if the quest is diplomacy and you solve it by haggling, then you should get a general "social pool" skill (because presumably throughout the quest your general social nature has been taxed) as well as haggle speciifc XP, as that was the skill you used to resolve the quest.

That's a learn-by-doing system.  While I see the appeal, there needs to be some way of simulating learning a new skill during the character's downtime.  Just because you haven't been casting fireballs at enemies shouldn't prevent you from getting better at casting fireballs.  You could study theory, or learn from someone else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Valaun wrote...

I also would like more quests that doesn´t involve necessarily fighting, but progresss based XP is diffucult to implement in a party-based RPG.
How would you sneak through a dungeon with your rogue when you have at least 3 other pary-members that doesn´t have the required skill?

The same way we did it in BG and KotOR: leave the non-stealthy party members behind.

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

XP has to come part and parcell with the skill system that is created. I think we need to divide XP by types, each skill have it's own XP counter to level up, and award both skill specific and category specific XP. So for example, if the quest is diplomacy and you solve it by haggling, then you should get a general "social pool" skill (because presumably throughout the quest your general social nature has been taxed) as well as haggle speciifc XP, as that was the skill you used to resolve the quest.

That's a learn-by-doing system.  While I see the appeal, there needs to be some way of simulating learning a new skill during the character's downtime.  Just because you haven't been casting fireballs at enemies shouldn't prevent you from getting better at casting fireballs.  You could study theory, or learn from someone else.

In fact, I would argue that quite often you would learn more in your down-time than in your adventure time, and that mostly what you would learn adventuring is how best to quickly decide where to cast a fireball in the heat of battle, rather than how to cast stronger fireballs.  Another important drawback of the learn-by-doing method is that you can only acquire skills the game has given you opportunities to use.  Which gives you much less control over your character development.  Admittedly, TES does allow you (in additon to hiring trainers) to sit around casting fireballs all day and gain skill, but while realistic, it's also rather tedious.

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Valaun wrote...

I also would like more quests that doesn´t involve necessarily fighting, but progresss based XP is diffucult to implement in a party-based RPG.
How would you sneak through a dungeon with your rogue when you have at least 3 other pary-members that doesn´t have the required skill?

The same way we did it in BG and KotOR: leave the non-stealthy party members behind.

I actually did do that in DA:O as well with the crime wave quests.  I did a PS:T playthrough once where I used only TNO and Annah throughout the game and avoided virtually all combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

In fact, I would argue that quite often you would learn more in your down-time than in your adventure time, and that mostly what you would learn adventuring is how best to quickly decide where to cast a fireball in the heat of battle, rather than how to cast stronger fireballs.  Another important drawback of the learn-by-doing method is that you can only acquire skills the game has given you opportunities to use.  Which gives you much less control over your character development.  Admittedly, TES does allow you (in additon to hiring trainers) to sit around casting fireballs all day and gain skill, but while realistic, it's also rather tedious.

A learn-by-doing system only works if we accept its implicit assumption that the character never does anything except that which is modelled within the game.  So if the game doesn't model sleeping, the character doesn't sleep.  If the game doesn't model eating, the character doesn't eat.

As soon as we allow for the possibility that the more mundane aspects of the character's life are merely glossed over rather than being completely absent, we now have space in which to have the character acquire, learn, and practise skills off-screen.

That's explicitly how the old D&D system worked.  If you picked up a new skill you'd never used, you were assumed to have been working on it in your downtime.  DA3 can do something similar.

Even the TES games, the most obvious learn-by-doing example in the modern era, allow skills to be gained through training rather than by doing.  That alone helps tremendously with the faults of learn-by-doing.

[Morroian]

maxernst wrote...

Admittedly, TES does allow you (in additon to hiring trainers) to sit around casting fireballs all day and gain skill, but while realistic, it's also rather tedious.

Skyrim has minimised that, eg. destruction spells only increase in skill level when they do damage. A few skills do still increase by the simple act of casting but not many. 

Modifié par Morroian, 05 janvier 2012 - 10:08 .

[Realmzmaster]

The Might and Magic series used trainers. Once the character had enough experience points you had to take the character to a trainer. The trainer would train the character for a fee to the next level. If the character did not have enough money the character had to stay at that level. Also there were trainers who could give promotion quests where the character could be promoted in class say from a Crusader to a Paladin or Ranger. The character had to perform the quest successfully to gain the promotion and advanced training. The trainers were found in various cities at the Training Hall. I think the system added to the role playing. Learning by doing I understand practice makes perfect, but you should be shown through training how to use a sword properly or cast a spell.

Now you may say my character does training in the down time while not adventuring, but showing it being done adds to the roleplaying.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 janvier 2012 - 05:33 .

[frustratemyself]

Without reading the entire thread I would say no. Too much chit chat and wandering around looking for crap was what made mota boring for me.

[nightscrawl]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

What I think RPGs lack these days are quests that involve more chit chat and less hack 'n slash.

Would you be offended if I expanded that to say: "more quests that involve non-combat activities, including talking but also other stuff."

And then said "Okay!"

And then remained distressingly vague about when/where and how, because I have to?

Yeah, maybe. Just pretend I didn't say anything. *nodnod*

I am not sure a skill like persuade would work with a dialogue wheel, not the way you did it in Dragon Age 1 anyhow. Buut if you look at how There were certain quests in Deus Ex: Human Revolution could have have exciting possibilities for your future games. Jus' saying.

Neverwinter Nights did this in an interesting way, and in a way that could be incorporated into DA2. When you were talking to an NPC you wanted to get information from, it used the Charisma stat, Persuasion skill, or Intimidate skill (dependent on Strength for a fighter class) as the modifier. You ask the NPC your question and you get success/fail depending on the roll check. Here's the catch: if your stat/skill is not high enough and you fail the first time, you have the option of continuing to talk to the NPC and ask him other questions. Perhaps the questions are unrelated to the information you want, and perhaps they're not. When you've finished asking all of the available questions you can ask for the information again. Most of the time you will be rewarded with a success, since you conversed with the NPC at length. I thought this showed astounding realism with the game mechanics, since a real person is likely to respond in the same way.

I imagine that conversing with the NPC added some sort of bonus to the dice roll, so that even in a following roll check where your stat/skill level was still too low for a success, you were given a bonus for talking that improved your chances. It didn't always work of course.

However, Dragon Age is not based on DnD rules like NWN was, but this could certainly be modified to the dialogue wheel's (?) question icons. Perhaps you are trying to convince Anders to tell you something about the thing he does in Act 3 (no spoiler forum) and he initially refuses. You might have the option of questioning him further, or persuading him with arguments, perhaps leading to an answer to your previous question. Or, perhaps even the side questions might get the NPC to reveal something he might not have otherwise, had you not decided to interrogate him further.

Currently, the DA2 dialogue wheel (?) question icons are mainly just for filler and conversation sculpting -- I've noticed that despite the apparent order the questions seem to be in when they are arrayed around the wheel, asking them in a different order will lead to better/more realistic conversation flow. You will sometimes see a different blue/purple/red choice depending on a specific question you might have asked, but that seems like a rare occurrence.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 06 janvier 2012 - 07:30 .

[CARL_DF90]

More variety and creativity in the side-quests would definitely be a good idea. Bioware has been experimenting with that during the latest DLCs. Hope to see more of that in DAIII.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

More variety and creativity in the side-quests would definitely be a good idea. Bioware has been experimenting with that during the latest DLCs. Hope to see more of that in DAIII.

But what they need is more variety in the game mechanics, which will allow more creatitiviy on the part of the players.

A stealth-based sode-quest is no better than a combat-based side-quest.  What they need is a stealth mechanic and a combat mechanic which can co-exist.  Let the player decide what tools to use on a quest-by-quest basis, rather than having to choose quests on a tool-by-tool basis.

[Pedrak]

maxernst wrote...

At the risk of derailing the thread, why did PS:T fail commercially?  Was it the freaky looking PC and odd setting, the downbeat title?  Do people really hate reading that much?  Bad marketing?  It got very good reviews.

I remember that the trailer was a mess. Once couldn't even understand that it was a party-based RPG like BG.

Add to that the creepy mug of TNO on the cover, and there you have it.

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A stealth-based sode-quest is no better than a combat-based side-quest.  What they need is a stealth mechanic and a combat mechanic which can co-exist.  Let the player decide what tools to use on a quest-by-quest basis, rather than having to choose quests on a tool-by-tool basis.

I believe Realmzmaster was more suggesting that the mechanics of stealth were more compelling, rather than the one-time implementation into the story (If that is not what he is saying, well, then I'm saying it on my own).

Furthermore, it is better than a solely combat based side-quest if only because you have the ability to choose between handling the quest via combat, or stealth. If you like combat, you fight through it. If you want to try the stealth, then you try the stealth.

For the record, Mike Laidlaw had said that the MOTA stealth portion of the game was largely used as an experiment to see what they could do more with the stealth mechanics, to  use in the future.

Modifié par Riknas, 09 janvier 2012 - 12:35 .

[blaidfiste]

Agreed. Bring back what removed for no apparent reason. I remember KOTOR's murder scene investigation at Dantooine. Going back and forth between the two suspects and the robot. Good stuff.

[Realmzmaster]

Riknas wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A stealth-based sode-quest is no better than a combat-based side-quest.  What they need is a stealth mechanic and a combat mechanic which can co-exist.  Let the player decide what tools to use on a quest-by-quest basis, rather than having to choose quests on a tool-by-tool basis.

I believe Realmzmaster was more suggesting that the mechanics of stealth were more compelling, rather than the one-time implementation into the story (If that is not what he is saying, well, then I'm saying it on my own).

Furthermore, it is better than a solely combat based side-quest if only because you have the ability to choose between handling the quest via combat, or stealth. If you like combat, you fight through it. If you want to try the stealth, then you try the stealth.

For the record, Mike Laidlaw had said that the MOTA stealth portion of the game was largely used as an experiment to see what they could do more with the stealth mechanics, to  use in the future.

Yes that is what i was saying regarding stealth. In MotA it was used in the story. I want to see the ability improved to be used in any situation or quest. The method used in MotA is more compelling and you stand a greater risk of detection.
DAO had it  if your stealth rank was not high enough you could not even get the character to try. You simply got the message stealth rank not high enough. You could max out stealth and have high cunning, but you could not stealth around the high dragon or other bosses. I would rather be allowed to try and it immediately detects my stealth character. The method used in MotA had Hawke actually using the shadows and limited light to hide, detracting the guards or quietly knocking them out.

[HiroVoid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CARL_DF90 wrote...

More variety and creativity in the side-quests would definitely be a good idea. Bioware has been experimenting with that during the latest DLCs. Hope to see more of that in DAIII.

But what they need is more variety in the game mechanics, which will allow more creatitiviy on the part of the players.

A stealth-based sode-quest is no better than a combat-based side-quest.  What they need is a stealth mechanic and a combat mechanic which can co-exist.  Let the player decide what tools to use on a quest-by-quest basis, rather than having to choose quests on a tool-by-tool basis.

But why bother with two ways to handle things when just making one costs less resources and comes to the same conclusion anyway?