623 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

Addai67 wrote...
It's up to the player to help make the world coherent.  This sort of game is a two-way street.

Actually, no. The player objective is to have a character consistent with the setting (world, if you prefer). But the world must be a coherent place without player intervention to allow for proper interaction with it. This is, regardless of system and medium. The main necessity of any roleplaying game is a coherent setting. An incoherent setting destroys any attempt at player interaction with it.

[Addai]

Xewaka wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
It's up to the player to help make the world coherent.  This sort of game is a two-way street.

Actually, no. The player objective is to have a character consistent with the setting (world, if you prefer). But the world must be a coherent place without player intervention to allow for proper interaction with it. This is, regardless of system and medium. The main necessity of any roleplaying game is a coherent setting. An incoherent setting destroys any attempt at player interaction with it.

And Skyrim isn't, because the Dovahkiin can become head of the college without being able to plink x fireballs per minute?  This discussion is ridiculous.  It's not like Bioware really cares about Skyrim anyway.  People are taking one marketing line and blowing it to extremes, as per usual for the forum.

[Wulfram]

Addai67 wrote...

It's up to the player to help make the world coherent.  This sort of game is a two-way street.

The player shouldn't have to fight the game to make the world coherent

[Addai]

How do you have to... oh, never mind.

[Realmzmaster]

The reason why some gamers have problems with the way Skyrim allows the Dragonborn to become a leader of a guild is that the Dragonborn does not have to master any of the tools of that trade. The Dragonborn can become Archmage without having to learn any high level spells or being proficient at spellcasting. The term Archmage is used in fantasy fiction to identify an especially powerful wizard who is first among his/her peers. That is the definition that has been used for quite sometime. Archmage was not seen as an administrative or political position.

Skyrim allows you to kill your way to the top without having to cast spell the first except maybe to gain entrance and even then you can use a dragon shout.

Now if the game wishes to change the established definition of archmage then it has to say that in the game, otherwise it causes the disconnect some gamers are having.

You can roleplay in your mind a reason why you can become Archmage without having to know much magic which is fine. It simply does not jive with other gamers and fantasy fiction as a whole.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 13 janvier 2012 - 11:58 .

[Wulfram]

Really, the College plotline would be pretty good - though it would have been nice to be able to try to screw the Psijics and take the eye's power for yourself - if only it didn't feel the need to make you archmage at the end of it, which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense even if you are a mage. Just have the Dragonborn declared "Defender of the College" or something at the end of the quest

It really comes pretty much out of nowhere at the end and feels to me like it only happens because the previous games in the series all allowed you to become Archmage. I guess you can't kill all your sacred cows in one go.

[casadechrisso]

Wulfram wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

The game rewards natural, logical roleplay, while keeping possibilities open for off the wall type characters.  That is the best kind of game IMO.  And Skyrim does it so beautifully.

I find natural, logical roleplay extremely difficult in Skyrim.  In a large part because the game practically forces you into taking up high ranking positions almost immediately.  But if you let it, then the game starts to become farcical because no one except the occasional guard cares one jot that you're Arch Mage and Harbinger and Hero of Skyrim.  The only way to avoid this is to break away from the various quest lines - which also makes no real sense, because the quest lines tend not to include many sensible occasions to break off and do other things.

Considering the various leadership positions are ignored anyway, the game would be far better served if they didn't hand them out at all, let alone dish them out to people who don't have any relevant skills and who have barely interacted with the organization.

This problem extends to the Main quest - you're revealed as Dragonborn basically immediately unless you make a point of ignoring anything resembling a main plot, yet no one cares, and there aren't really any occasions when you're given a decent excuse to sidequests - despite the sidequests really being the point of the game.  So if you play the game logically you'll end up completing the main plot facing a bunch of low level mooks.  Then if you want to play the sidequests you'll have to face being made to do silly errands just to get admitted, despite being the hero who averted the Apocalypse and who has a dragon at their beck and call.  And the random nameless guys you fight on these errands will probably prove to be more powerful than the adversaries you faced which saving the world.

^ this, this and again this. To avoid being leadership-raped in the game, you actually have to go out of character, check the wiki on how the quests turn out instead of just playing naturally, and then force your character to stop following the questline you just stumbled over and run away just because of OOC reasons (they call that metagaming I think).
And I'm really starting to bang my head on the keyboard now: How, just how would a single dialogue option saying "No, sorry, I don't want to be your friggin' Archmage, take the other guy" - How would that put alleyways into the game, how would that actually limit your freedom of roleplay and drive you into a fury about people wanting their RP to be limited? Sorry, I just don't get it. I want to be immersed, and I want to play a character that follows questlines naturally and doesn't have to break out of one due to the ooc knowledge that some totally psyched  wizard would actually make you archmage for helping out?
It IS immersion breaking, and asking for a simple option to say no and just stay a low key person without ten guild leaderships means more freedom of RP, not less. It is this limitation of roleplay freedom and brute force on my character that ruined the Skyrim experience for me, and NOT the open world where everything is possible.

[casadechrisso]

And just for the record, I'd never say that DA2 is better than Skyrim (I'm a loud DA2 hater) or that I prefer streamlined, alleyway games. I liked Origins more than Skyrim, yes, because it had the much better storytelling (or at least, the much better companions), but I'm not the least against Bethesda's concept. I simply don't like Skyrim's writing (as in, it actually ruins it for me), and Oblivion leaves as much if not more to be desired. Fallout New Vegas again is far up in my top ten of RPGs, it does what I ask for - open, immersive world WITH better companions, WITH better writing, WITH interesting sidequests, WITH good dialogues compared to Skyrim. And it is the same open world Skyrim is.

Modifié par casadechrisso, 14 janvier 2012 - 01:34 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Addai67 wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
And because you were not forced to work for it, those lollipops do not taste as sweet and the gold does not shine as it should. 

You do work for it.  The college quest line did seem short, but there was still a lot of fighting, exploring and *cringe* puzzling to get there, and it only really made sense if you were a mage.  If people can't see that and shape their own story in a way that makes sense to them, then I don't really have any sympathy.  It doesn't treat the player as a "casual," it treats them as someone who is capable of making a character story that is compelling and logical for them.  Since that is not going to be the same for every player, Bethesda leaves things more open.  This drive to want to put alleyways on players is just... maddening.

I was not speaking of any specific game but more in generalities of games that make things too easy or cut out roleplaying for the sake of pandering.

[DreamwareStudio]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I understand the lack of weight limits in many rpgs. i will pick on DA2 as an example. I understand that weight requirements were removed to make hauling inventory for a mage centric party easier (not focused on strength), but at the same time it stretches credibility. How can a party carry 10 suits of plate armor. You really have to suspend belief along with  of the idea an unlimited supply of arrows. DAO at least had the special arrows limited in supply.
The city of Kirkwall only has one tavern? I guess you could include the Blooming Rose, but that is a place more suited for other pursuits.

I can understand the lack of water and food requirements especially in a city. I assumed that in DAO the party was hauling those items in a wagon (even if it was not shown) or Shale was carrying everything (if she was in the party).
I can almost understand the regenerating health/stamina/mana. IMHO, it means that certain roleplaying opportunities get ignored. Example, a companion falls in battle, you do not have to worry about them in Dragon Age. The enemy does not make a final killing blow because there is none. You do not have to worry about rushing to their aid to stabilize their injuries, You simply win the battle and your companion is alive with a few injuries that can be cured with an injury kit or by going home.

I can almost understand weapons and armor not breaking in combat. That has basically been streamlined out of a lot of cRPGS in the name of gameplay verus realism. Again for me roleplaying opportunties are missed. You are in the middle of battle and your sword breaks, what do you do? Do you quickly search the battlefield and pick up the nearest weapon and proceed, can you switch to a secondary weapon or do you retreat? In Dragon Age it does not happen. A certain amount of simish is necessary to help with belief. Now all of this is my humble opinion, YMMV.

***gasps***

Real, you bring back fond memories of some realism today's games are sadly missing.  That was one of my favorite aspects of Baldur's Gate 1 (yes, it's been that long since I've seen any developer have the cajones to allow breaking weapons).  You never knew when that weapon would bust in your hands.  That was exciting, and I miss it.

May developers bring this back to games.

I like some sim which is why I've been arguing for it.  Sim not only brings about some ambience (with day/night for instance) but if done properly, can actually assist in the immersion and gameplay.

You also mention one of my BIGGEST peeves with both Dragon Age games.  The fact your dead party members automatically come back to life took all the urgency out of saving them.  You know when the fight ends, they'll return with a bit of an injury and that was it.  The only member whose death I fear is Morrigan's because she becomes pretty damn powerful and losing her can mean losing the battle.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 01:53 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Wulfram wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

It's up to the player to help make the world coherent.  This sort of game is a two-way street.

The player shouldn't have to fight the game to make the world coherent

Fight may be too strong a word, but the player should have to ADJUST and learn to live within the world in which the game occurs.  The world should not bend towards making the game easier to play.  As soon as that happens, you lose roleplaying aspects.  If you struggle to understand how this is so, please look up II Divo's earlier post on roleplaying in this thread.

[Realmzmaster]

The other problem DA2 had among others is that there was no in game explanation of why the gamer could not customize the companions armor except may be for Aveline.

Aveline states that I wear the armor of the guard, but no other companion has an in game reason for lack of armor customization.

For example the PC could try to give Fenris some plate armor, but Fenris could reject it in a cut scene by saying metal armor reacts badly with his lyrium enhanced skin.

Isabela could say the armor you are giving me does not work well with my duelist style of combat.

Merrill could say these are the robes of a first. I know it sounds sentimental but I cannot not wear them.

Sebastian could say this armor was passed down from my grandfather to me. I will not abandon my grandfather's memory.

Bethany could say Father gave me this robe. You know that. How can you ask me to wear something else. Same thing with Carver.

Varric could say This vestment Hawke is magically enhanced and has places where more enhancements can be placed.

Anders could say What wrong with my robes. They have served me well and plus it has a pocket for Ser Pounce-a-lot.

Some in game reason why, beside the iconic look excuse especially if the developers are not going to allow customization. For gamers who do not wish to micromanage that much an automatic armor and weapon level up button if armor customization is allowed.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 janvier 2012 - 02:46 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

google_calasade wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I understand the lack of weight limits in many rpgs. i will pick on DA2 as an example. I understand that weight requirements were removed to make hauling inventory for a mage centric party easier (not focused on strength), but at the same time it stretches credibility. How can a party carry 10 suits of plate armor. You really have to suspend belief along with  of the idea an unlimited supply of arrows. DAO at least had the special arrows limited in supply.
The city of Kirkwall only has one tavern? I guess you could include the Blooming Rose, but that is a place more suited for other pursuits.

I can understand the lack of water and food requirements especially in a city. I assumed that in DAO the party was hauling those items in a wagon (even if it was not shown) or Shale was carrying everything (if she was in the party).
I can almost understand the regenerating health/stamina/mana. IMHO, it means that certain roleplaying opportunities get ignored. Example, a companion falls in battle, you do not have to worry about them in Dragon Age. The enemy does not make a final killing blow because there is none. You do not have to worry about rushing to their aid to stabilize their injuries, You simply win the battle and your companion is alive with a few injuries that can be cured with an injury kit or by going home.

I can almost understand weapons and armor not breaking in combat. That has basically been streamlined out of a lot of cRPGS in the name of gameplay verus realism. Again for me roleplaying opportunties are missed. You are in the middle of battle and your sword breaks, what do you do? Do you quickly search the battlefield and pick up the nearest weapon and proceed, can you switch to a secondary weapon or do you retreat? In Dragon Age it does not happen. A certain amount of simish is necessary to help with belief. Now all of this is my humble opinion, YMMV.

You also mention one of my BIGGEST peeves with both Dragon Age games.  The fact your dead party members automatically come back to life took all the urgency out of saving them.  You know when the fight ends, they'll return with a bit of an injury and that was it.  The only member whose death I fear is Morrigan's because she becomes pretty damn powerful and losing her can mean losing the battle.

Are you suggesting a Baldurs gate mechanic? This is where i think John Epler's line about "Annoying realism" comes into play. There is no challenge in hiring a party member whom knows the "Raise dead" spell to revive a companion, its just tedious. If there was no such spell, people will just reload. I really don't think there is any benefit to having this mechanic, other than for nostalgic purposes.

The urgency of not letting your companion die comes immediately, as you are disadvantaged greatly in a large fight. I think there was a reason games have done away with this masochistic mechanic.

[DreamwareStudio]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Are you suggesting a Baldurs gate mechanic? This is where i think John Epler's line about "Annoying realism" comes into play. There is no challenge in hiring a party member whom knows the "Raise dead" spell to revive a companion, its just tedious. If there was no such spell, people will just reload. I really don't think there is any benefit to having this mechanic, other than for nostalgic purposes.

The urgency of not letting your companion die comes immediately, as you are disadvantaged greatly in a large fight. I think there was a reason games have done away with this masochistic mechanic.

The only time I felt urgency about a party member was during the Deep Roads.  Otherwise, I knew my PC and at least one or two others would survive to finish whatever fight it was.  Unfortunately, I'm finding that DA:O (even with the Nightmare Plus mod and the difficulty on nightmare) is becoming very easy.  This was also a letdown in the Witcher 2 towards the end of Act II even on dark mode.

As for the Baldur's Gate mechanic...

Before I found out about the raise dead spell, things could get quite hairy locating an area to resurrect the dead.  The anticipation of running into trouble while searching for a place was intoxicating.  Have two members of your party dead, you better be ready for some serious hell.  Even with the raise dead spell, you could only use it once per day to resurrect one party member at a time (unless of course you have two clerics or became advanced enough for the multiple raise dead spell).

Personally, I would prefer having to find a location to resurrect and have no raise dead spell.

Unless the game is designed to stop such activity, if people want to take the cheap way out of a game, they're going to do it regardless whether it's resurrecting a party member or something else...in the case of DA, too many injuries for instance.  That is exactly the type of argument that has led to the stripping down of RPGs.

My point is there should be a serious ramification to having a party member die.  It certainly should not be automatic that their life is restored.  Besides, you tell me, is it any less tedious clicking on the DA party member who's died and come back to life, then giving them a fix from the injury kit?  Where's the difference?

There is none.

I say location only, and the player better hope and pray they run into nothing else.

Oh, and dare I say it, but some deaths should be permanent.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 03:12 .

[TEWR]

When you guys are talking about characters dying in BG, do you mean they would literally die and you would have to use something called raise dead to bring them back or would they just be knocked unconscious and rendered unusable until you took the time to heal them like the Final Fantasy games also do?

I've never played BG, so if it's like the latter and not the former I could definitely get behind the latter being implemented in DA. Along with other gameplay concepts from the Final Fantasy series.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 janvier 2012 - 03:11 .

[DreamwareStudio]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

When you guys are talking about characters dying in BG, do you mean they would literally die and you would have to use something called raise dead to bring them back or would they just be knocked unconscious and rendered unusable until you took the time to heal them like the Final Fantasy games also do?

I've never played BG, so if it's like the latter and not the former I could definitely get behind the latter being implemented in DA. Along with other gameplay concepts from the Final Fantasy series.

They would die.  If you did not have a cleric who could cast raise dead, you needed to find one who would charge you to resurrect them.  Until then, they were a grayed out icon on your player menu.

Some deaths were indeed permanent.  If an NPC was shattered for instance, that was it.  Not even raise dead would bring them back.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 03:15 .

[Realmzmaster]

google_calasade wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

When you guys are talking about characters dying in BG, do you mean they would literally die and you would have to use something called raise dead to bring them back or would they just be knocked unconscious and rendered unusable until you took the time to heal them like the Final Fantasy games also do?

I've never played BG, so if it's like the latter and not the former I could definitely get behind the latter being implemented in DA. Along with other gameplay concepts from the Final Fantasy series.

They would die.  If you did not have a cleric who could cast raise dead, you needed to find one who would charge you to resurrect them.  Until then, they were a grayed out icon on your player menu.

Some deaths were indeed permanent.  If an NPC was shattered for instance, that was it.  Not even raise dead would bring them back.

Also sometimes the spell would fail and the body would disintergrate from the attempt. Also note that raised dead is different from resurrect. Resurrection would bring the companion fully back to life (with a possible reduction in attributes). Raise dead put the companion under the control of the caster much like raising skeletons.

There was not a fight in DAO  which could not be finished with 1 or 2 characters left standing. It really was not a big disadvantsge even on nightmare. DA2 was a little more challenging because of the waves but one or more characters would still be standing. In DAO all the battles where basically set pieces which makes beating them on replays easy.

Many mechanics in terms of realism are being left behind for the sake of gameplay. Unfortunately to the point that the suspension of belief is broken. IMHO

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:53 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

google_calasade wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Are you suggesting a Baldurs gate mechanic? This is where i think John Epler's line about "Annoying realism" comes into play. There is no challenge in hiring a party member whom knows the "Raise dead" spell to revive a companion, its just tedious. If there was no such spell, people will just reload. I really don't think there is any benefit to having this mechanic, other than for nostalgic purposes.

The urgency of not letting your companion die comes immediately, as you are disadvantaged greatly in a large fight. I think there was a reason games have done away with this masochistic mechanic.

The only time I felt urgency about a party member was during the Deep Roads.  Otherwise, I knew my PC and at least one or two others would survive to finish whatever fight it was.  Unfortunately, I'm finding that DA:O (even with the Nightmare Plus mod and the difficulty on nightmare) is becoming very easy.  This was also a letdown in the Witcher 2 towards the end of Act II even on dark mode.

As for the Baldur's Gate mechanic...

Before I found out about the raise dead spell, things could get quite hairy locating an area to resurrect the dead.  The anticipation of running into trouble while searching for a place was intoxicating.  Have two members of your party dead, you better be ready for some serious hell.  Even with the raise dead spell, you could only use it once per day to resurrect one party member at a time (unless of course you have two clerics or became advanced enough for the multiple raise dead spell).

Personally, I would prefer having to find a location to resurrect and have no raise dead spell.

Unless the game is designed to stop such activity, if people want to take the cheap way out of a game, they're going to do it regardless whether it's resurrecting a party member or something else...in the case of DA, too many injuries for instance.  That is exactly the type of argument that has led to the stripping down of RPGs.

My point is there should be a serious ramification to having a party member die.  It certainly should not be automatic that their life is restored.  Besides, you tell me, is it any less tedious clicking on the DA party member who's died and come back to life, then giving them a fix from the injury kit?  Where's the difference?

There is none.

I say location only, and the player better hope and pray they run into nothing else.

Oh, and dare I say it, but some deaths should be permanent.

There is no tedium in reviving dead party members, because you don't revive them. Giving them an injury kit takes 2 seconds tops, looking for a reviival specialist can take upwards of 10 minutes if you don't know where you're going. Masochistic mechanics that serve to only annoy players are certainly not "Dumbing down" RPGs. 

Permanent companion deaths? You seem to prefer the mechanics that just punish you for playing the game. I can't agree with your view of what an RPG should be. The mechanics you're proposing would just serve as a deterrent for people looking to PLAY the game.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 14 janvier 2012 - 04:03 .

[TEWR]

Realmzmaster wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

*snipped my post*

*snipped google's post*

*snipped Realmzmaster's post*

I see. Well, I have to say that I am glad that mechanic isn't used in these current games. However, I would definitely welcome the Final Fantasy mechanic.

While the companions would still be alive, if they fall in one battle they remain unconscious until you heal them, which could be done through various methods. Going back to the main camp -- or resting at it if Bioware decides to implement rest, though if they implement rest there should be a randomized chance of a demon attacking a Mage --, using a specific potion like Mythal's Favor, or other things.

So that way, if they do fall in battle they stay unavailable for future battles but aren't actually dead.

I'd also welcome other things that Final Fantasy and more than likely other games have done. Like were Bioware to introduce flying enemies, they should only be able to be damaged through Mages and Archers.

Currently, we have Dragons but they stay on the ground. However, DAII did introduce a concept akin to what I said by having the High Dragon sit atop a perch where only Mages and Archers could damage her.

Also, I think the party's health and mana/stamina should automatically upgrade upon level up like FFXII did, but the player should still be allowed to invest points in Constitution and Willpower if they so desire. This way, enemy health and party health would be about equal. I like how the enemies have more health in DAII -- because battles in DAO would just end too quickly for me -- but I don't like how my health is only at 300 and I'm kicking their asses. That seems jarring.

Though the bonus from investing points would probably have to increase, as 5 just wouldn't really seem like something that should happen.

EDIT: Also, from a story standpoint I absolutely abhor killing off companions as a method to remove them from the party, like what happens with Merrill and Fenris at the endgame if their approval isn't high enough.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 janvier 2012 - 04:26 .

[Realmzmaster]

I thought roleplaying was playing the game. The possible lost of a companion makes one think more tactically and strategically not just with the battle at hand. Since I know my companions cannot die I can take far more risks with them than one normally would if death was imminent for the companion from that decision. I would have to think of a better way to battle the enemy or resolve the situation if I could not afford the lost. But since there is no loss I can send a companion on that suicide mission knowing full well that once I win the battle the companion is back to life and I simply give them an injury kit. Therefore death has no real meaning in the game except when the whole party dies and I have to reload.

You may say that the gamer can just reload in the situation I mentioned, but if I just won a tough fight with the enemy it maybe far better to seek a healer for my companion. Even if I reload I would have to think of another way to win the encounter which could have been done in the first place .

[Ponendus]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EDIT: Also, from a story standpoint I absolutely abhor killing off companions as a method to remove them from the party, like what happens with Merrill and Fenris at the endgame if their approval isn't high enough.

I generally agree, unless there is a roleplay reason for killing them. I would much rather a conversation mechanic that results in either a 'get out of here!' or something.

[TEWR]

Ponendus wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EDIT: Also, from a story standpoint I absolutely abhor killing off companions as a method to remove them from the party, like what happens with Merrill and Fenris at the endgame if their approval isn't high enough.

I generally agree, unless there is a roleplay reason for killing them. I would much rather a conversation mechanic that results in either a 'get out of here!' or something.

Exactly. On a few other threads I've said that I would prefer Bioware explore other avenues of removing companions from the party that don't involve killing them off.

Betrayal, leaving in a fit of rage, etc.

[Mclouvins]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ponendus wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EDIT: Also, from a story standpoint I absolutely abhor killing off companions as a method to remove them from the party, like what happens with Merrill and Fenris at the endgame if their approval isn't high enough.

I generally agree, unless there is a roleplay reason for killing them. I would much rather a conversation mechanic that results in either a 'get out of here!' or something.

Exactly. On a few other threads I've said that I would prefer Bioware explore other avenues of removing companions from the party that don't involve killing them off.

Betrayal, leaving in a fit of rage, etc.

They do a bit already with Sten, Morrigan, Aveline, Fenris, etc.

[Joy Divison]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Are you suggesting a Baldurs gate mechanic? This is where i think John Epler's line about "Annoying realism" comes into play. There is no challenge in hiring a party member whom knows the "Raise dead" spell to revive a companion, its just tedious. If there was no such spell, people will just reload. I really don't think there is any benefit to having this mechanic, other than for nostalgic purposes.

The urgency of not letting your companion die comes immediately, as you are disadvantaged greatly in a large fight. I think there was a reason games have done away with this masochistic mechanic.

Having God-mode as the standard for RPGs is not the solution.  Death has ZERO consequences.  Hell, you don't even want it to be an inconvenience.

[Ponendus]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Exactly. On a few other threads I've said that I would prefer Bioware explore other avenues of removing companions from the party that don't involve killing them off.

Betrayal, leaving in a fit of rage, etc.

Yes please! That sounds exactly right TEWR.