623 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

*snipped my post*

*snipped google's post*

*snipped Realmzmaster's post*

*snipped The Ethereal Writer Redux post*

The unconcious mechanic has been used in other cRPGs like Temple of Elemental Evil (TOEE). The party member would go down in battle. Another party member with the first aid skill had until the injured party member's lost in hitpoints equaled the injured party member's stamina. It the first aiding party member got there in time the injured party member would stabilize and not die provided the first aiding member's skill was high enough. Otherwise dead party member. That happens in the same battle. The Final Fantasy method is a variant of that method.

[Yrkoon]

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 flat out die in the BG series.  Their portrait turns black & white and they're  plain dead, until you find some magical means to raise/ressurect them.

And that's not all.  The BG series  also takes it a step further.  Depending on *how* they died, there's a chance that  they can die forever and  not be  raised  even by magical means.  If they die from, say,   a frost attack, their bodies  freeze solid.... as in, they turn into an ice sculpture and can be shattered into a million pieces at the slightest hit.  If that happens, they're gone from the game.  Their portrait disappears  from the party lineup, as well.

They're also  permanently dead and gone if they get chunked  (if the killing blow/spell brings them down to below -9 hitpoints and  they "explode")

The BG series also has  petrification.    If someone or something turns one of your characters to stone, you can bring them back with a stone to flesh spell/scroll, or, if they annoyed the hell out of you in life  (I'm looking at you, Anomen and Tiax)  you can  choose to  whack their statue  forms with your weapon or a spell, shatter it, and then they're permanently gone from the game.

BG2  has additional  ways  for your companions to be eliminated.   They can be Disentigrated.  This turns them to dust.  And since you can't ressurect dust, they're gone forever.   And then there's Imprisonment.   Imprisonment is a spell a high level mage can cast.  it captures the character and instantly places them in a forcefield cage, then   thusts that cage  deep below the surface of the earth and that's where the victim remains.  Forever.  Until the reverse of the spell (freedom) is cast.  Neat, huh?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 14 janvier 2012 - 05:35 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

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.

What you see as a deterrent/punishment, I see as a challenge, but regardless, explain to me how needing to return to camp or apply an injury kit is any less tedious than calling a raise dead spell and resting.  There is no difference between those.

As for searching the world in which you are, that is part of an RPG, so I don't see the big deal about having to look for something.

But I digress.  My point to all of this is that there should be a penalty for a party member dying.  Whether it's needing to find a location where a resurrection can be done (and paid for) or something else along the lines of resurrecting a dead party member costing experience points or perhaps health from other members of your party, the punishment/challenge needs to be more severe than automatic resurrection with no more consequence than the current battle and fixing a small injury or two.  There is no challenge in that.

Take, for instance, what I just did in DA:O on NIGHTMARE using the NIGHTMARE PLUS mod.



I killed Flemeth with two party members: my Warden and Leliana.  That means had I gone in with a full party, I could have lost three fourths of that party and still beat one of the bosses.  I also could have gone in with a full party and used my party members as a distraction for Flemeth, letting her flail away at them while my Warden sat by the way side completely healthy and waiting to take her out.  It wouldn't matter that everyone except my Warden died.

There is no consequence in that.  Call it masochistic if you want, but to me, it's just wanting a game that brings a bit more to the table than, "Oh, my party member died.  I'll just wait til this is over, and voilla, all will be right again."

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:19 .

[DreamwareStudio]

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.

This happened in the Baldur's Gate series if the choices you made strayed too far from a party member's outlook/alignment.  If you had a mixture of good members and evil members and your choices aligned you too far to the light or the dark, you would suffer a member deserting the party.

Cool stuff.  It really made you consider your choices.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:00 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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 .

Exactly.  It adds consequence, a major facet of the RPG experience.

[DreamwareStudio]

Realmzmaster wrote...



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

I so, so agree with that.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:00 .

[DreamwareStudio]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

That's more or less how BG handled the deaths unless the member suffered a permanent death by disintegration or shattering.

[DreamwareStudio]

Joy Divison 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.

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.

Unfortunately, I think there are a few like him.  I saw a post earlier from someone who was not interested in the smallest challenge.  They simply wanted to play the game for the story, and didn't want to be bothered with anything else.  Why people who want no challenge can't set the difficulty to easy and leave well enough alone is beyond me.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Unfortunately, there are a few like me. You continue on with your elitism and "When i was a boy!" nostalgia, my superior gaming master.

I, and the unfortunate few like myself, will continue on with our dirty thoughts on what constitutes good gameplay; not what makes us sweat the most.

[DreamwareStudio]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Unfortunately, there are a few like me. You continue on with your elitism and "When i was a boy!" nostalgia, my superior gaming master.

I, and the unfortunate few like myself, will continue on with our dirty thoughts on what constitutes good gameplay; not what makes us sweat the most.

Who said I was an elitist?  Where did you get that idea?  Is it truly elitist to want a challenging game while stating others who don't want a challenge can always play on easy?  Seems to me you are the one who's being elitist.

And why the smarminess of that "when I was a boy" nostalgia remark?  My stance has nothing at all to do with when I was a boy nor is it nostalgia.  It's simply a more realistic and challenging approach to role-playing.

If you don't understand that, look up II Devo's post about role-playing in this thread.  It will educate you.

Until then, drop the attitude or ignore my posts.  I was not snippy with you at any time, merely explaining my take.  If you got upset because I stated that you seem to be one of those who dislikes a challenge of any sort, I'm sorry if that offended you.  It is, however, my opinion, and what you have led me to believe.

As for me, yes, I appreciate challenges.  Without them, there is no reward nor sense of accomplishment, and I would like both after spending fifty or more dollars on a game.  The greater the challenge, the better the reward/accomplishment.  I do not see where masochism fits within that.  If you do, please let me know exactly where you see it.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:28 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

"Unfortunately, there are a few more like him"

Probably the most offensive and elitist remark i've ever had the pleasure of reading. I was just responding in kind. Nevertheless, i've nothing more to add.

[DreamwareStudio]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

"Unfortunately, there are a few more like him"

Probably the most offensive and elitist remark i've ever had the pleasure of reading. I was just responding in kind. Nevertheless, i've nothing more to add.

I've seen far worse on these forums in the brief time I've been on them.

Nevertheless, I apologize if I made you feel like I was pigeon-holing you.  That was not my intent.  The statement was meant simply as a means of calculation, a way of saying that there is more than one who appreciate very easy game-play.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:43 .

[Vaeliorin]

I just feel the need to point out that having the ability to bring the dead back to life in a game tends to be more immersion breaking for some people (like myself) when the game setting completely ignores that the ability exists. Pretty much every D&D setting is this way (I'm sure there might be one that takes resurrection into account, but I've never seen it.)

Resurrection would fundamentally change the nature of the world, and having the setting behave no differently towards death than a setting without resurrection makes absolutely no sense. At least the unconscious mechanic can somewhat be justified without having to make massive changes to the setting.

I would, admittedly, be happy with a system that leaves people unconscious until you heal them/use a potion on them/whatever. But I don't think having death makes a game inherently more challenging, unless you play to the metagame assumption that people can't die unless the whole party does. In the end, all a death system does in encourage more reloading.

[Demon Velsper]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

And under this system, how am I supposed to break into the shop and rob it blind if it never closes?

[DreamwareStudio]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I just feel the need to point out that having the ability to bring the dead back to life in a game tends to be more immersion breaking for some people (like myself) when the game setting completely ignores that the ability exists. Pretty much every D&D setting is this way (I'm sure there might be one that takes resurrection into account, but I've never seen it.)

Resurrection would fundamentally change the nature of the world, and having the setting behave no differently towards death than a setting without resurrection makes absolutely no sense. At least the unconscious mechanic can somewhat be justified without having to make massive changes to the setting.

I would, admittedly, be happy with a system that leaves people unconscious until you heal them/use a potion on them/whatever. But I don't think having death makes a game inherently more challenging, unless you play to the metagame assumption that people can't die unless the whole party does. In the end, all a death system does in encourage more reloading.

If a player wishes to circumvent the spirit of the game, they can reload.  There are many instances besides a death state where this might apply, though.

I do see where bringing the death back to life could be immersion breaking for some, but the opposite end of the spectrum is that no one in your party dies, even temporarily.  That takes all the suspense from battles.  That is immersion breaking as well, isn't it?

[DreamwareStudio]

Demon Velsper wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

And under this system, how am I supposed to break into the shop and rob it blind if it never closes?

I think it was Epler who came up with a much better idea, and that was to have different (shadier) merchants available at night at other locations where getting to them might not be so easy.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 09:02 .

[Realmzmaster]

The possibility of death makes you coordinate your forces more closely to avoid it.
Resurrection is known in all the D & D settings I have played. It is noted that resurrection is rare and requires a high level cleric, even then failure is possible. Resurrection in the BG series is expensive and can result in permanent destruction of the companion.

The resurrection of a companion can become a quest in its own right in raising the necessary funds or finding a cleric who can perform the rite. Even if the party consist of a high level cleric success is not assured. Also there can be a sense of urgency because resurrection must be done within a certain time period before the companion's spirit can no longer be called back to the body.

Another possible decision is that the gamer can have the PC decide to abandon the companion to death.

There are roleplaying possibilities that get ignored because death in Dragon Age has no consequence. The way Dragon Age works is equally unrealistic, The whole party has to die for death to happen and you still end up reloading.

The problem I have with the mechanic is that if your healer (assuming the party has a healer) dies who is doing the healing. No potions are consumed. The party's health, stamina and mana are simply restored. No resting is involved. It is simply fight over on to the next fight or action. That is simply not believable. I have seen gamers on this forum get upset because the bow lacks bowstrings and they cannot customize the armor, but this is OK?

[DreamwareStudio]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The possibility of death makes you coordinate your forces more closely to avoid it.
Resurrection is known in all the D & D settings I have played. It is noted that resurrection is rare and requires a high level cleric, even then failure is possible. Resurrection in the BG series is expensive and can result in permanent destruction of the companion.

The resurrection of a companion can become a quest in its own right in raising the necessary funds or finding a cleric who can perform the rite. Even if the party consist of a high level cleric success is not assured. Also there can be a sense of urgency because resurrection must be done within a certain time period before the companion's spirit can no longer be called back to the body.

Another possible decision is that the gamer can have the PC decide to abandon the companion to death.

There are roleplaying possibilities that get ignored because death in Dragon Age has no consequence. The way Dragon Age works is equally unrealistic, The whole party has to die for death to happen and you still end up reloading.

The problem I have with the mechanic is that if your healer (assuming the party has a healer) dies who is doing the healing. No potions are consumed. The party's health, stamina and mana are simply restored. No resting is involved. It is simply fight over on to the next fight or action. That is simply not believable. I have seen gamers on this forum get upset because the bow lacks bowstrings and they cannot customize the armor, but this is OK?

I never got how that could be either, that someone is upset about lack of bowstrings and the inability to customize armor unless those players are simply about the aesthetics and don't actually care about the game-play difficulty.  To me, of course, none of that (lack of bowstrings, cannot customize armor, inconsequential death) is okay.

I knew that the Dragon Age games lacked consequence with death, but until we talked about it tonight, I did not realize just how much inconsequential death takes away from a game.  The death aspect is one I have not seen anyone touch on, and I hope the powers that be are reading this and reconsidering their approach to the issue. 

On my next playthrough of TW 2, I believe I'll run it on insane.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 09:36 .

[Dokarqt]

Wulfram wrote...

I find natural, logical roleplay extremely difficult in Skyrim.

One of my main gripes with "roleplaying" in Skyrim is that the game is very much based on exploration, however when you've played for awhile and explored and cleared a good amount of caves/towers you come across, it eventually feels pointless from a character motivation standpoint to me unless you're roleplaying a spelunker with an unhealthy obsession with caves. Why should my character delve into yet another random cave he comes across? Whats the point/motivation?

Also, I found the game only really feels like it makes sense if you play as a Nord. I had alot more difficulty playing the game as a non-Nord from an RP perspective.

[Ponendus]

Dokarqt wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I find natural, logical roleplay extremely difficult in Skyrim.

One of my main gripes with "roleplaying" in Skyrim is that the game is very much based on exploration, however when you've played for awhile and explored and cleared a good amount of caves/towers you come across, it eventually feels pointless from a character motivation standpoint to me unless you're roleplaying a spelunker with an unhealthy obsession with caves. Why should my character delve into yet another random cave he comes across? Whats the point/motivation?

I could not have put this any better. Absolutely spot on. I find roleplaying in Skyrim terribly tedious. It is a great sandbox game, but after a while I need a reason to be playing in the sandbox. I still maintain that the 'human' element is needed for my own style of roleplay. Unless there are well-written characters then I get bored very quickly. Perhaps I thrive on the simulated 'social' aspect, I don't know. All I know is that the heroic tales I used to regale myself with as a child always were about the heroes and villains for me not about the fantasy world they lived in.

It is one of the reasons I find Tolkien so tedious (please don't yell at me, be nice to me), I find those stories too concerned on creating the setting rather than the people (or creatures) within. Just personal preference, but there you have it.

Modifié par Ponendus, 14 janvier 2012 - 10:54 .

[Pzykozis]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The problem I have with the mechanic is that if your healer (assuming the party has a healer) dies who is doing the healing. No potions are consumed. The party's health, stamina and mana are simply restored. No resting is involved. It is simply fight over on to the next fight or action. That is simply not believable. I have seen gamers on this forum get upset because the bow lacks bowstrings and they cannot customize the armor, but this is OK?

Different things, Bowstrings are aesthetics so is customisable armour to a certain extent though its also number crunching and stuff. I'm In favour of bowstrings mostly just because archery looks odd without them, but preferred not being able to  demand that people wear specific pieces of clothing (or well changing the way people look at least) which I always found slightly at odds with me being the main character and not me being 4 or 6 people at once whilst 3 or 5 of those somehow evidently have their own personality whilst also being controlled by me... I find that a strange situation. (then again I'm not a massive fan of full control squadness anyway so my voice is perhaps irrelevant in this case).

Having to revive people that fall in battle and having to spend time waiting for health and mana, are essentially pointless timesinks.

I don't see any benefits from having to run to a cleric to revive a squadmate who then might permanently die anyway, I don't feel like letting the game make you fail to revive is a particularly good thing, makes you consider the fights more or whatever? Shouldn't that just be done with the encounter design itself?

For me and I know there are others out there aswell, actually having a companion go down in battle means I've failed anyway, I don't need the computer to arbitrarily assign failure which goes beyond the failure itself and in and of itself acts as a hinderance to actually playing the game.

As for not having to wait, that is/was one of the weirdest arbitrary things I've encountered in old RPGs, it adds nothing at all to the game.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 14 janvier 2012 - 01:42 .

[Gotholhorakh]

google_calasade wrote...

I never got how that could be either, that someone is upset about lack of bowstrings and the inability to customize armor unless those players are simply about the aesthetics and don't actually care about the game-play difficulty.

Armour choice cosmetic? No, that's so wrong. Armour customisation is not merely about aesthetics, it's about choice in the RPG, like so many other things.

RPGs provide an adventure, and they are interesting games. More choice is good for the "interesting" bit if it's implemented well, and fewer choices from one game to the next will probably upset some players.

I'm not saying that can't be mitigated (say, by other choices being added or expanded upon) but it's always going to raise a question unless it's something nobody used. Armour choice is really, really prominent, you know?

For me: RPG gameplay should be respectably difficult and filled with the highest level of choice and customisation the developers can manage to implement well given time/resources.

Incidentally, failure to notice that the interestingness is NOT cosmetic but core to the experience, is one way I felt the new combat implementation failed in DA2 (and to a much lesser degree in DA:O), and I mention this because I can see it getting worse, if games that do twitchy combat and no character choice are to be pointed at as shining examples or fanbase's GOTY.

People claimed DA2 became "tactical" if you turned sliders up and you might be able to pause and chug pots, but it never really got beyond the space invaders mechanic of "spawn waves, hit buttons, kill the big guys first if you can".

When you played the BG games, you would encounter some interesting groups of enemies, they would occasionally have abilities and spells on a par with/different to/better than yours, and sometimes they would require you to face, say, a new spell that turned combat on its head and required you to really plan. They would interfere with and ruin your I-kill-you-now strategy, and every now and then they would wreck your shizzle for you and you would be staring at grey portraits or worse the screen of death. This is without the game even being that difficult tbh, it was just kept a little interesting.

I feel like DA:O (although I loved the game) took the first baby steps away from interesting gameplay along the path of  "you want interesting? turn up the sliders", and that DA2 took giant steps further still.

I don't think we as a fanbase need to pedal harder, along that path towards twitchy gameplay and considering choices cosmetic. If anything I think we need to abandon it. That's just me though, I guess.

Not that I think that's what you were advocating, I just had to say "hey, armour customisation is an issue for more reasons than the look of the game"

I knew that the Dragon Age games lacked consequence with death, but until we talked about it tonight, I did not realize just how much inconsequential death takes away from a game.  The death aspect is one I have not seen anyone touch on, and I hope the powers that be are reading this and reconsidering their approach to the issue. 

On my next playthrough of TW 2, I believe I'll run it on insane.

Sounds fun for a TW2 playthough, although careful what you wish for WRT Dragon Age - while they sound great, consequences to death tend to be either annoying or irrelevant.

Pzykozis wrote...

Having to revive
people that fall in battle and having to spend time waiting for health
and mana, are essentially pointless timesinks.

I don't see any
benefits from having to run to a cleric to revive a squadmate who then
might permanently die anyway, I don't feel like letting the game make
you fail to revive is a particularly good thing, makes you consider the
fights more or whatever? Shouldn't that just be done with the encounter
design itself?

For me and I know there are others out there
aswell, actually having a companion go down in battle means I've failed
anyway, I don't need the computer to arbitrarily assign failure which
goes beyond the failure itself and in and of itself acts as a hinderance
to actually playing the game.

As for not having to wait, that
is/was one of the weirdest arbitrary things I've encountered in old
RPGs, it adds nothing at all to the game.

Well, I think it is a nice mechanic if you want to bother with it, and I would always want it to be possible for companions to actually die during combat as like you, success for me is getting through all combat without losing anyone.

I really pretty much always would reload, though, which wipes all clever mechanics associated with  death away, and I have to admit that anything which subverted this would probably make a game suck, Even Gothic 3's inspired and deliberate (ahaha) attempt to make death undesirable with very long load times is excruciating.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 janvier 2012 - 01:31 .

[esper]

Pzykozis wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
The problem I have with the mechanic is that if your healer (assuming the party has a healer) dies who is doing the healing. No potions are consumed. The party's health, stamina and mana are simply restored. No resting is involved. It is simply fight over on to the next fight or action. That is simply not believable. I have seen gamers on this forum get upset because the bow lacks bowstrings and they cannot customize the armor, but this is OK?

Different things, Bowstrings are aesthetics so is customisable armour to a certain extent though its also number crunching and stuff. (In favour of bowstrings and preferred not being able to be overlord of the universe and demand that people wear specific pieces of clothing which I always

Having to revive people that fall in battle and having to spend time waiting for health and mana, are essentially pointless timesinks.

I don't see any benefits from having to run to a cleric to revive a squadmate who then might permanently die anyway, I don't feel like letting the game make you fail to revive is a particularly good thing, makes you consider the fights more or whatever? Shouldn't that just be done with the encounter design itself?

For me and I know there are others out there aswell, actually having a companion go down in battle means I've failed anyway, I don't need the computer to arbitrarily assign failure which goes beyond the failure itself and in and of itself acts as a hinderance to actually playing the game.

As for not having to wait, that is/was one of the weirdest arbitrary things I've encountered in old RPGs, it adds nothing at all to the game.

I don't consider companion that falls in battle dead, just knocked out/severly wounded. Perhaps it is because I come from jrpg were the 'dead companion status' is often named K.O. In fact I found the feature in Baldurs gate were companions really die and then is revived to be much more jarring, escpially because the lore also treat them as such and there is in game dialog that proves that dead is not dead if you have a revival spell and it actually turned me off from the game.

Only special circumstances can avert dead in dragon age and it has only been happening twice to known dead characters.

If companion dead in battle has to mean actually dead then the dead off a companion should mean automatically game over (if it is one of the plot important one) which can make the game unnecessary hard. I have played game where it actually worked, but it does make the game too hard for some espcially if not implemented correctly.

[Pzykozis]

Gotholhorakh wrote...
Well, I think it is a nice mechanic if you want to bother with it, and I would always want it to be possible for companions to actually die during combat as like you, success for me is getting through all combat without losing anyone.

I really pretty much always would reload, though, which wipes all clever mechanics associated with  death away, and I have to admit that anything which subverted this would probably make a game suck, Even Gothic 3's inspired and deliberate (ahaha) attempt to make death undesirable with very long load times is excruciating.

Aye, a death mechanic wouldn't really affect me because if people went down I'd just reload anyway, because I failed essentially, but at the same time, if I wanted to do a speed run (which I did with Origins) or even just a casual jaunt (not on casual mind) through the game sometime where I accept the losses as they came, all I see a death mechanic bringing is strict punishment and with no overal benefit. It came up with the other talks about sim stuff but is realism in this case a benefit.. or does it irritate and basically waste time?

@Esper, I similarly agree with the idea of people going down not being dead and similarly I also played JRPGs before I got into WRPGs, but my whole feeling of failure isn't necessarily tied down to thinking/feeling those people just died and I bring them back to life, Its more to do with challenge than anything I guess albeit maybe a bit of my party is far too awesome to go down in a fight.

[cephasjames]

JohnEpler wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

What I think a lot of people misunderstand (including me) is to why are you looking at sources of inspiration? Bioware have been making the best games since Baldur's gate, all you have to do is look at yourselves.

But granted, I'm not part of the group that ignorantly thinks that by looking at Skyrim your going to make an open world RPG, that's just ludicrous. Nor do I understand the major principles of game design. But by your example, it's a clear conclusion no? When people have been screaming 'more DA:O' 'more BG' 'more...etc...' it's clear that what they want is more of you guys and gals at Bioware. Though I'm guessing your understand that :-) and you certainly are. There is no harm in looking at other games because the Bioware formula could use a Beth touch (NPCs that react to you for example.)

Well, here's an example. When looking at Skyrim, it's obvious that the open world approach appeals to a lot of people. Yet what, specifically, is it about that style of game that people like? Personally, I'd argue that a lot of it comes down to the open world allowing for the creation of a highly immersive experience - it's the feeling that you're in a 'real world', with everything that entails. So then, the question becomes, how can you achieve something similar in a more linear, BioWare-style game? And there are certainly things that can be done without taking away from the things that we are, generally, known for.

As to why we look elsewhere instead of just at our own games, well, we do look at our own games. We look at everything we've ever done and pick it apart. While I understand there's a persistent belief among some forum members that we're convinced of our own infallibility, I doubt you'll find anyone who's more critical (and note that I'm saying critical rather than insulting) of any product than the people who've worked on it. We know every flaw, and we know how we've tried to address them.

But we're certainly not going to suggest that there is nothing we can learn from other games. There are things that other companies have done better than we have. And, of course, there are lessons to be learned insofar as what not to do, but every developer has something that they wish they'd done differently. I know I would've handled at least a few major scenes in DA2 differently in hind sight. But still, I think it's worth at least looking at what everyone else in the industry is doing and seeing what lessons we can apply to our own projects.

I apologize for rambling a bit towards the end. Getting a little tired, but still awake due to too much coffee.

Making games is artistry and I have yet to find an artist who is ever satisfied with any work she has done, even when it is 'finished.' Artists look at their past work and the work of others all of the time to see how they can improve or change, etc. It shouldn't be a surprise at all that BioWare, a company that deals in the art of game making, does the same thing.