146 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Even before level scaling became really in vogue, there was still some major disconnect between level and story power. Look at the disparity between the power of town guards and bandits in BG1 and BG2.

The Warden kills an ogre at level 5-6 IIRC, which isn't all that different from Hawke's 3rd level. And may have slaughtered their way through a palace full of guards, or won a tournament in the Provings. The truth is, RPG protagonists start out as major badasses, even if they're level 1.

The fundamental difficulty is that people like to have a progression going on, to feel like they're growing in power rapidly. And it's difficult to make sensible decisions about what skills and abilities to invest in if you're levelled straight up to high level.

But you can't tell a coherent story in a CRPG if the only bad guys capable of challenging the PC are High Dragons and the most powerful demons. Things just grow very silly very quickly.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

But you can't tell a coherent story in a CRPG if the only bad guys capable of challenging the PC are High Dragons and the most powerful demons. Things just grow very silly very quickly.

Being able to handle one bandit versus one HIgh Dragon, I agree with you. However, you have a party of four. Four ogres at once should be insanely impossible, at any level. Or four demons at once (which isn't impossible, but actually part of the DA2 Forbidden Knowledge quest). And using DAO as an example of why level scaling isn't wrong is flawed, since DAO uses level scaling to the same degree DA2 does, honestly.

We had seven years to make Hawke into the hero he eventually became. Why not make him feel incredibly weak starting out, then make him feel progressively more powerful?  Its believable that Hawke could have realistically progressed in his skills over seven years to go from wimp to Whomp-a-stomp. 

During Varric's "embellishment" portion of the Intro, I didn't feel stronger or more powerful, I felt like I just had a few extra abilities. I didn't feel like I was laying waste to the darkspawn enemies I was fighting. And that's how it feels at higher levels in DA2... boring, because there is no palatable feel to my level up or my increase in power. And in case any one is keeping score, boring combat in a game that forces you to fight every fifteen steps is bad.

[Wulfram]

Starting out incredibly weak is lame. Who wants to be clearing out rats from cellars? I much prefer it if that's left for the backstory.

Most stories I'd want to play in a CRPG (at least a CRPG with combat as a major gameplay element) require that the player be at least a cut above your average guy with a sword. And also that they'd still find guys with swords a potential challenge. Which means you either reduce the power differential between start and finish of the game, or you use some sort of level scaling. Or a mix of both.

Actually, one thing I think improved the early game experience in DA2 a fair bit is to use the console to cheat yourself more levels at the start. Makes the combat more interesting since you've got a few more talents to play with, makes Hawke start out a bit less incongruously weak. Even makes all the DLC stuff you pick up when you get to Kirkwall a bit less OP.

Which isn't to say that DA2 couldn't have done things better to give a more sensible feeling of progression. Like saving the huge hordes of enemies for later in the game, rather than making them a regular occurance from the start. And the opening could have done with giving you a better impression of the idea that the Hawke's are actually running away.

Modifié par Wulfram, 10 mars 2012 - 10:29 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

Starting out incredibly weak is lame. Who wants to be clearing out rats from cellars? I much prefer it if that's left for the backstory.

Most stories I'd want to play in a CRPG (at least a CRPG with combat as a major gameplay element) require that the player be at least a cut above your average guy with a sword. And also that they'd still find guys with swords a potential challenge. Which means you either reduce the power differential between start and finish of the game, or you use some sort of level scaling. Or a mix of both.

Actually, one thing I think improved the early game experience in DA2 a fair bit is to use the console to cheat yourself more levels at the start. Makes the combat more interesting since you've got a few more talents to play with, makes Hawke start out a bit less incongruously weak. Even makes all the DLC stuff you pick up when you get to Kirkwall a bit less OP.

Which isn't to say that DA2 couldn't have done things better to give a more sensible feeling of progression. Like saving the huge hordes of enemies for later in the game, rather than making them a regular occurance from the start. And the opening could have done with giving you a better impression of the idea that the Hawke's are actually running away.

Well, there's two ways I can see addressing the problem without level scaling.

One, is starting out the game with a stronger, higher level "leader" companion. Think Duncan in DAO, but actually involved in combat. This can teach you the basics, help your starting character grow, and introduce threats gradually, then fade the stronger companion out of the story.

Secondly, there is a matter of scale. DA2 did a horrible job of throwing twenty guys at you, every fight. Bandits can be on the weaker side of the scale, but if your party of four has trouble beating five or six of them at level 3, then they'd probably still have trouble beating twenty of them at level 13. I'm just of the mind that the difficulty of a fight should be congruent with the story.

Fighting a giant, rock boss with magical powers who is 20 feet tall and has boulders for hands, all the while summoning reinforcements every three minutes, should not be, in plot congruency, nearly as difficult a fight as fighitng Sister Patriece's goons who try to kill the Qunari. A bunch of radical people off the street should not be anywhere near the challenge of trained soldiers, blood mages, abominations, mercernaries, demons or any of the other more in-game dangerous types, but that's what we see in DA2.

I'm not asking for perfection... but at least throw us a logic bone here.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The easiest way, I think, to solve the leel scaling problem is to give the entire game a much shallower level curve.  Look at BG - you started the game at level 1 (and level 1 in 2nd edition AD&D was awfully weak), and finished the game at about level 8.  Coverting to DAO's level scale, that would be like finishing DAO at level 10 (but without DAO rushing you through the first 2 levels the way it did).

I would love to see now only a game with a shallower overall power curve, but a game that allowed us more time with each level so we could learn how to use our new abilities and then enjoy the experience of applying what we've learned.  BG's rate of one level-up per 10 hours of gameplay was just about perfect, I think.

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think that taking levels so literally is a good idea. This is clearly a case of gameplay/story segregation, and it's present in virtually every RPG - which of course doesn't make it a good thing, but it is something that should be acknowledged.

I flatly deny that gameplay/story segregation ever exists.  It makes no sense, and it breaks the game.  How can the player be expected to make in-character decisions for his PC when there are two incompatible sets of rules governing the PC's reality?  Which set of rules will govern this decision and its consequences?

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To be fair, its not in virtually every RPG, only in RPGs of the past five years, which seem to believe that enemy level scaling is the Holy Grail of design mechanics. If it takes the same amount of time and effort to kill an enemy when I am level 1 as it does to kill the same enemy when I am level 20, that's a disconnect. It basically means that my leveling up means nothing, it only unlocks new skills. And, given that the varying skills don't really offer too much in the way of improved tactics, if I could just pick out two or three skills that I will spam throughout combat (which is what people wind up doing anyway) and then stop leveling, it will make things easier, since I won't be leveling up to make my enemies stronger to only reward me with skills that don't bring any true value.

There should be no way I can kill an ogre at level one. No way I should be able to kill even a hurlock at level 1, to be honest. A human bandit should be as low level as they come, since one darkspawn rips through multiple human soldiers.

I should be terrified the first time I come across a new enemy because I should know that a new enemy means a tougher enemy, more than likely. Instead, I fight humans that are tougher than abominiations and Pride demons. Like that makes any sort of sense.

Baldur's Gate handled this very well.  You could encounter an Ogre at level 1 (an Ogre Mage), and if you did you were almost certainly going to die.

Wulfram wrote...

Starting out incredibly weak is lame. Who wants to be clearing out rats from cellars? I much prefer it if that's left for the backstory.

I completely disagree; I think that's the best part of the game.  I routinely play through the beginnings of these games far more than I ever complete them, because at high levels the game becomes less interesting.

I want my PC to start as an average guy with a sword.  That way I get a sense of achievement from making him something more than that.  If I'm handed a character who is already exceptional, what exactly is my job?  If his success is already predetermined, why should I care about taking part in his journey?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 mars 2012 - 04:38 .

[Xewaka]

Most of the issues of gameplay and story segregation probably come from the fact that the game system does not acknowledge the setting. Fact is, most cRPG haven't moved their progression system past D&D, and that is a mistake. Designers are looking at other videogames, films, etc... and they're forgetting to come back to the source routes. RPGs. To simply go back to the original source and learn from how games deviated from the race, class, level form in several ways, they'd probably have a much better, engaging, and cohesive narrative within the rules. So, for example...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The easiest way, I think, to solve the leel scaling problem is to give the entire game a much shallower level curve.  Look at BG - you started the game at level 1 (and level 1 in 2nd edition AD&D was awfully weak), and finished the game at about level 8.  Coverting to DAO's level scale, that would be like finishing DAO at level 10 (but without DAO rushing you through the first 2 levels the way it did).

Shallower power curves are present in XP buy systems, such as Legend of the Five Rings, Dark Heresy, World of Darkness, The Dark Eye, et cetera. While some of these systems still use class and levels, the levels are a consequence of progression, not a cause. This management of XP alone shallows the power curve. The DA:O and DA 2 system, by design, cannot keep a shallow power curve working.

Wulfram wrote...
I don't think that taking levels so literally is a good idea. This is clearly a case of gameplay/story segregation, and it's present in virtually every RPG - which of course doesn't make it a good thing, but it is something that should be acknowledged.

Again, this is solved by removing levels from the equation. Make the character learn progressively.

I am more and more convinced that the only thing the designers need to make Dragon Age better from a system perspective is to stop playing D&D almost exclusively and go for the less known but much more interesting systems. class and level systems are not the only way. I dare say it's not even a good way.

[Wulfram]

Xewaka wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
I don't think that taking levels so literally is a good idea. This is clearly a case of gameplay/story segregation, and it's present in virtually every RPG - which of course doesn't make it a good thing, but it is something that should be acknowledged.

Again, this is solved by removing levels from the equation. Make the character learn progressively.

No it's not, not at all.  The issue exists as long as rapid PC power increase exists.  And the speed of power progression is independent of the system which models it.

edit: Non class and level systems tend to be fairly massively unbalanced.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 mars 2012 - 10:51 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Xewaka wrote...
I am more and more convinced that the only thing the designers need to make Dragon Age better from a system perspective is to stop playing D&D almost exclusively and go for the less known but much more interesting systems. class and level systems are not the only way. I dare say it's not even a good way.

That's an interesting point. I wonder how a Bioware game would play if they used White Wolf's Storytelling System, or something like it. The division of stats into mental/physical/social makes a lot of sense for a dialogue-heavy game.

[Xewaka]

Wulfram wrote...
No it's not, not at all.  The issue exists as long as rapid PC power increase exists.  And the speed of power progression is independent of the system which models it.
edit: Non class and level systems tend to be fairly massively unbalanced.

You've been playing the wrong games then. Try Drakensang: XP buy system, shallow power curve, and a nice "old school" feeling. It's a more spiritual sequel to BG than Origins ever was.
It used the german "The Dark Eye" system as a template for character building. It does have levels, but the character progression comes almost exclusively from expending experience points to improve skills.

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...
That's an interesting point. I wonder how a Bioware game would play if they used White Wolf's Storytelling System, or something like it. The division of stats into mental/physical/social makes a lot of sense for a dialogue-heavy game.

They've already stated they want to try their own IPs, rather than keep with licenses. Then again, TOR happened.
They should probably have the higher ups sit up once a week around a table and game different systems. See what ticks and what doesn't. The industry in general needs to get out of "race, class, level" complacency.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 mars 2012 - 12:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Xewaka wrote...

They've already stated they want to try their own IPs, rather than keep with licenses. Then again, TOR happened.
They should probably have the higher ups sit up once a week around a table and game different systems. See what ticks and what doesn't. The industry in general needs to get out of "race, class, level" complacency.

I did like the way Skyrim did levels and progression, personally. Race and class are merely influences of your starting skills and abilities, not determinate of your gameplay expereince. And the use of perks each level, to essentially customize not only my character, but how the game itself handles and plays (Archery perks essentially make the game a sniper shooter, rather than a normal RPG, for example) is pretty ingenious. In addition, the progressive tiers of how much skill advancement it takes to level you up encourgaes more diverse gameplay later on to keep on unlocking perks and increasing stats. Although I was not a fan of picking the Health/Stamina/Mana to increase. It would be nice if they all increased slightly, then I could choose which one I wanted to bump up the most.

And honestly, race does affect things in the Dragon Age universe, from a realistic point of view. You can't tell me a dwarf character and a Qunari character wouldn't, in a real setting, have VERY different natural aptitudes and roles. I mean, there is like a four foot difference in height alone.

An XP Buy system is acceptable to me, either through a "X amount of skill points given each level up, where powering up higher powered skills requires more skill points than powering up lower powered skills as seen in Mass Effect" or in a system where you gain XP for completing tasks and then spending it as you see fit.. but that only works for me if there are multiple types of XP (melee, ranged, communication, magic or specific magic schools, etc.). It always bothered me that resolving conflict using a peaceful solution could let me level up sword skills. That's a disconnect.

But, as DG said previously... they aren't looking at making a full 180 on DA3. So I don't forsee any huge overall of the leveling or skill system, to be honest. I'd be excited if we got some non-combat skills or a more logical way to handle stats (seriously, having Cunning being the main defense predictor AND the main critical error determiner? WTF?), so, in my mind, this conversation is purely academic unless we are talking about the franchise further down the line.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 mars 2012 - 04:33 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I completely disagree; I think that's the best part of the game.  I routinely play through the beginnings of these games far more than I ever complete them, because at high levels the game becomes less interesting.

I want my PC to start as an average guy with a sword.  That way I get a sense of achievement from making him something more than that.  If I'm handed a character who is already exceptional, what exactly is my job?  If his success is already predetermined, why should I care about taking part in his journey?

My thoughts exactly, in cRPGs as well as in PnP. I enjoy low and mid levels very much, not only do they give a sense of progression (that's what all levels should do, really), but the game feels much "edgier", more dangerous and down-to-earth compared to that high-level Ultimate Badass stomp-everything-in-sight mode.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

edit: Non class and level systems tend to be fairly massively unbalanced.

Have you ever played GURPS?  GURPS was brilliant.

[Pasquale1234]

Not to go off-topic - but everytime I see the title of this thread, I find myself thinking about how odd it felt to play a mage in Kirkwall, and especially to go to the gallows and talk with Templars with an apostate or three in your party.

The first mage playthrough I attempted ended when Cullen said that mages are not people like you and me. I just couldn't quite get past that, and abandoned that playthrough at that point.

I don't know whether anyone else experienced the same sorts of issues, but would welcome some discussion about how it might be fixed or at least avoided. I apologize if this topic has already been discussed to death, or if my mentioning this would take this thread in a different direction than intended.

[Mr Fixit]

It's a perfectly legitimate topic, Pasquale, one that is in sync with this thread. I think many here agree that there is a hideous disconnect between gameplay and story in DA2. Your example with Cullen is a perfect... well, example, if you'll excuse my eloquence.

Seeing as how the templar-mage divide is the principal story in the game, the fact devs couldn't be bothered to showcase that through gameplay is inexcusable.

How can it be avoided? Well, for one, don't oversaturate your game with pointless combat which forces your mage Hawke to either flaunt his magic around or stand useless. Find in-game workarounds: make the fact that Hawke is using magic an important part of the story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

At the start of Act III, my mage Hawke witnessed Meredith being a complete lunatic. Immediately thereafter, Meredith sent Hawke a letter politely asking for help, and that request was promptly added to my Main Quest folder before I'd even read it.

Based on Meredith's previous behaviour, there was no way my Hawke was going anywhere near her, so I knew then that completing the game was impossible for my character. So I stopped playing.

The combat, the conversations, the cutscenes, and the quest structure were an incoherent mess. They didn't work together at all, and it ruined the game.

[Mr Fixit]

Yes, Act III was a total mess. I didn't even understand what was going on half the time. That first conversation forced me (if I remember correctly) to pick a side right then and there, when all my character wanted was to execute both those idiots on the spot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My character wanted to stay out of it. It wasn't his fight, and he didn't want to get caught in the middle.

[Das Tentakel]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My character wanted to stay out of it. It wasn't his fight, and he didn't want to get caught in the middle.

I felt that ‘my’ Hawke would have gotten the Hell out of Dodge, with his Mom and his newfound fortune, right after the Deep Roads expedition. Sure, Lothering’s gone but that place was a sad little dump anyway. Denerim sounded nice, what with all the necessary rebuilding after the end of the Blight. Considering the situation in Kirkwall and personal losses in Act II, there is no way that I could imagine a wealthy Hawke staying in that horrible city.

As a DM, I’ve learned the hard lesson that to get the players do something or stay in a particular place, you have the make the choice either attractive (‘fat lewt’) or force it, but in a believable manner (‘nobody refuses the Duke…and lives’). Being a rich dude or dudette in an awful city, ready to explode and without any real ties…well, there’s a reason why such places are net exporters of people….

[Pasquale1234]

Sounds like we're in agreement, then.

Last night, I abandoned (yet another) playthrough attempt in Act 3 - but started another attempt, so we'll see how it goes.  I'm trying a male Hawke this time - I'll have a different VO to ignore and won't have to watch the exaggerated hip swing of the female sashaying about.

It's kind of funny when people make accusations about ignoring NPC responses as it relates to playing a Warden, because that's exactly what you have to do to get through DA2.  I don't recall ever seeing so much plot armor and gameplay/story segregation in any story before, ever.

Das Tentakel wrote...
I felt that ‘my’ Hawke would have gotten the Hell out of Dodge, with his Mom and his newfound fortune, right after the Deep Roads expedition.

My first Hawke was willing to forego the Deep Roads expedition entirely, and wanted to high-tail it back to Ferelden as soon as she heard the archdemon had been slain and blight quelled.

[Das Tentakel]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Sounds like we're in agreement, then.

[snip]

My first Hawke was willing to forego the Deep Roads expedition entirely, and wanted to high-tail it back to Ferelden as soon as she heard the archdemon had been slain and blight quelled.

Well, that sort of also crossed my mind, but being rich and having had additional experience with Kirkwall's horrid inhabitants gave my Hawke, as I felt it, both motive and means to return and make something of life in Ferelden.

It's not as if the writers couldn't have given strong reasons for Hawke to stay out of Ferelden. One possibility would have been if Hawke's father had not been just a (covert) apostate Mage, but also a noted supporter of Loghain. Maybe even one with dirty hands. Not only would they have fled, say, Denerim instead of that dump called Lothering, but their family might no longer be welcome there. Plenty of enemies with a score to settle.

Well, never mind:mellow:

[Pasquale1234]

Das Tentakel wrote...

It's not as if the writers couldn't have given strong reasons for Hawke to stay out of Ferelden. One possibility would have been if Hawke's father had not been just a (covert) apostate Mage, but also a noted supporter of Loghain. Maybe even one with dirty hands. Not only would they have fled, say, Denerim instead of that dump called Lothering, but their family might no longer be welcome there. Plenty of enemies with a score to settle.

Yes, I think it would have helped immensely if we'd been given more reason to stay in Kirkwall - Uncle Gamlen and Mom's history just weren't all that compelling to me, especially considering that many Hawkes might have really wanted to get self or Bethany away from the Templars.  That is probably another artifact of the time pressure the developers were under, because they are usually much better at filling in those sorts of details.

[Das Tentakel]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

It's not as if the writers couldn't have given strong reasons for Hawke to stay out of Ferelden. One possibility would have been if Hawke's father had not been just a (covert) apostate Mage, but also a noted supporter of Loghain. Maybe even one with dirty hands. Not only would they have fled, say, Denerim instead of that dump called Lothering, but their family might no longer be welcome there. Plenty of enemies with a score to settle.

Yes, I think it would have helped immensely if we'd been given more reason to stay in Kirkwall - Uncle Gamlen and Mom's history just weren't all that compelling to me, especially considering that many Hawkes might have really wanted to get self or Bethany away from the Templars.  That is probably another artifact of the time pressure the developers were under, because they are usually much better at filling in those sorts of details.

Sigh, yeh, Mum.
Leandra Amell, alas, was no Caterina Sforza (www.youtube.com/watch).
I usually don't want to second-guess the doubtlessly experienced writers at Bioware, but personally I would have loved them playing, with, say, the plot of 'The Duchess of Malfi' (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Duchess_of_Malfi). 
Now that would have made for an interesting...family situation.

Instead, we got auntie Leandra and ne'er do well Gamlen. Fascinating.
I have to admit to laughing out loud when I saw 'Mum' after what Quentin did. On the other hand, Hawke's later emotional reaction was well done and I started feeling a bit guilty. 
Thing is, neither Mum nor Uncle Gamlen ever grew on me. They were neither interesting nor really sympathetic.
I can's speak for everyone, but my Mum, ordinary working class mother that she is, is capable of a sense of humour and occasional ferocity when sufficiently aroused. Same with other women I know who are mothers. Leandra was always a prim, proper and fairly humourless woman. I missed both the pride and elegance I would associate with somebody raised as an aristocrat, but also the playfulness I would expect from somebody who had been willing to give up everything to follow her heart. In short, the kind of things that would have made her interesting and sympathetic.

I suppose her character never got the love on the part of the writers that, say, Anders or Varric did.