302 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

To echo others in this conversation, I too despise level scaling. There is nothing more satisfying then meeting up with a group of enemies I had to struggle against in an earlier encounter and am now able to trounce them. Conversely, it was always exciting to be able to walk into an area and never know if there were going to be enemies I could encounter that would be FAR beyond my ability to kill.

An example of a fail of this is in DA:O. After Denerim, the quintessential intro town, I decided to visit the Brecillian Forest. Within two hours of being there, I walk into a dragon's lair (not a high dragon, mind you, but a dragon nonetheless). And, against my highest expectations, I was able to take it down without much problem in the least. Mind you - this is not a drake, or a dragonling, but an adult dragon, a step below being an object of worship. And I just killed it at level 6. Meanwhile, human rogues and soldiers remain difficult to kill even up level 15.

Allen, to your comment and point... I don't think determining the difficulty of the Critical Path to match up with the lowest common denominator of experience of not doing any side quests is a wise idea. While it does make the side quests more enjoyable by making them difficult, it has two major flaws.

One, for a completionist such as myself, it makes the main quest, which should be the true struggle and where you would want a greater level of difficulty in order to feel a sense of accomplishment, a cake walk. This is not a reward. While I do not want untold, horrific difficulty at every turn (at least on my first playthrough, I'll go back and muck around with Nightmare later), I feel like a super easy main quest experience cheapens the entire journey. Case in point is ME3 - the new way of doing their Reputation system (while not a true level up mechanic, is based on how many side quests you do and less on staying true to a particular style of behavior) let me do everything in the main quest with the best possible outcome, hands down. No challenge or sense of loss or choice, I can just select "Auto-Win" every time because I did side quests. That detracts from the meaning of choice and, while there should be a best case scenario that can be achieved, it shouldn't be as simple as beating someone over the head with my High Level Hammer.

Two, if you make all side quests harder, then that penalizes my ability to pick and choose what side quests I do. For instance, if, at the beginning of the game, I want to skip all the side quests about saving kittens from trees because they sound like time killers, but then late in the game, I want to tackle really interesting side quests, such as "Forging the Armor of The PROTAGONIST!" will I not have a high enough level to this without countless reloads or starting over, because I skipped the kitten saving?

My solution is that you make the game progressively hard, regardless of if you are doing the main quest or a side quest. You make the end of the main quest the hardest part of the game, not make it a footnote (hello, Skyrim). And then you give a way for the player to level grind. After all, are we REALLY to believe that the only enemies you can fight in all of Thedas just HAPPEN to be the ones we run into in our quests?

Keep the necessity of level grinding at a minimum, if possible. And give multiple approaches to situations OTHER than just strict combat, so that a player with the right skills and some creative problem solving could get past an area, despite being a lower level than what one would think would be required if they were doing the combat route.



Its not an easy task, and I don't want to pretend it is not. But there is a fine line between making the game incredibly easy for anyone who is a completionist and then making every fight the same difficulty throughout the game, which alternates between boring and infuriating.

[AkiKishi]

As long as you don't put anything deadly on the main path I don't see a problem really. Depending on how things react , having to naviagate through a high level area can be exiting.
Using Xenoblade as an example, creatures have various trigger conditions. Some will attack if they see you, usually in the front arc. Others will attack if they hear you, others still will attack if you cast spells near them. This means even though these high level creatures share the same map, they are usually in out of the way places when you explore, or occasionally you need to navigate through them to get to an area.

Of course if everything just spawns and attacks you, or falls from the sky, this gameplay element won't work.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 avril 2012 - 12:07 .

[Kyle Kabanya]

Leveling up in both DA games didn't feel like anything important to me. Especially in the first one, no matter how many points were put into health, I never lost any.

In DA2, putting points into mana didn't matter because skills that were sustained used a certain percent, so instead of gaining more mana, it felt like I was at the same amount. Plus it prevented me from using multiple sustained abilities.

I want four minor details in DA3. I'm not asking for alot
1. The Warden
2. I want him to yell Fist of the Maker. Loved that spell.
3. Morrigan
4. More attribute points

[fchopin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

fchopin wrote...

I thought the levelling in DA2 was about the worst i have ever played.

I felt stronger in the beginning than the end of the game, the more i levelled up the weaker i became.

No offence, but you were probably doing it wrong.

Why do you assume that i was doing it wrong?
 
I never said that i found the combat difficult, i said that levelling made me appear weaker the more a levelled up.
 
I found nothing difficult in the game.

[AkiKishi]

fchopin wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

fchopin wrote...

I thought the levelling in DA2 was about the worst i have ever played.

I felt stronger in the beginning than the end of the game, the more i levelled up the weaker i became.

No offence, but you were probably doing it wrong.

Why do you assume that i was doing it wrong?
 
I never said that i found the combat difficult, i said that levelling made me appear weaker the more a levelled up.
 
I found nothing difficult in the game.

That makes zero sense.

[fchopin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

That makes zero sense.

That’s life.

[Dragoonlordz]

fchopin wrote...

I thought the levelling in DA2 was about the worst i have ever played.

DA2 combat was highly flawed on many levels. From the dropping from sky random locations to make up for any lacking applied tactical approach, ninjutsu and also scaling up each enemy type to match your character. These are flawed and are detrimental to combat and tactics. DAO did it better with new creatures and enemy types brought in through the period of the game, both static enemy and set up enemy fights as well as larger scale reinforced battles occasionally all with more appropriate ways to enter the battle from the enemies. Even if DAO was far from perfect itself it was better in general plus ideally the best speed of battle would be half way between DAO and DA2 as DA2 was just borderline silly speed meaning too childish and fast. The best way to handle monsters and enemies as you get stronger the new stronger enemy creatures and monsters start to show up in fights and battles. The original creatures were not scaled up but instead became cannon fodder to back up the stronger types joined the fray.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 avril 2012 - 12:30 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Oh wow. The walls of text I could write about this topic. For now, I'll just say that I felt that the character systems and basic systems of progression (items, enemy design, etc) were passable in Origins, but absolutely horrendous in Dragon Age 2 in terms of logically grounded roleplaying systems.

Dragon Age 2's combat and progression systems looked to me like they were emulating a Diablo-esque game, without really understanding what or why Diablo-esque combat and progression can be fun.

It's fair to say that there were probably specific elements that Dragon Age 2 did better than Origins in this area, but I'm a sucker for holistic game design, so I couldn't care less.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 23 avril 2012 - 01:35 .

[DahliaLynn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Some monsters are just tougher than others. And then leveling does more than just give you new flashy stuff to use. The monsters actually gradually become easy.

What are your thoughts on determining the challenge of crit path, presuming that there is optional content? Are you thinking along the lines of "Allow that content to be optional (in that you can choose what to do), but some/most of it still must be completed in order to achieve a sufficient level of proficiency with your character?

A tough nut to crack, but this is what popped into my head and hopefully it makes some sense.

Variable scaling and varied enemy encounters.

Option 1:

If player chooses side quests:

Adjust level-up rate during side quests to take longer and be harder.
Base the level-up structure by flagging the side quests. When in side quest, give the player the feeling of level-up accomplishment, and slightly scale crit path enemies upon crit path return.

If player doesn't do side quests:

No scaling. New creatures would be exceedingly difficult. But weaker previously encountered creatures should be fought along the path as well. Player feels stronger by wiping old enemies, yet is challenged by tougher creatures on crit path.


Option 2: 

If only crit path, force the player to side quest (up to the player which)  in order to level up to crit path levels. Either by providing a "Practice place" or extra fights as in Orzammar, or by providing any number of optional side quests. This puts concentration on leveling up as being an intergal part of gameplay, but gives the player a choice as to how.

If player becomes overpowerful, then slightly scale crit path, and compensate by providing more tactical approaches to killing a boss. 

All this would depend on the type of game you're making though. For DA2 style the above seems fitting. If it is more DA:O style, and there are many choices presented initially, i.e. Redcliffe, or Orzammar, I feel that if the game asks you to go to Redcliffe first..because it makes the best sense (at least according to your Warden Buddy) then yes, it's alright that this would be easiest and defined levels of difficulty per area is alright. If my companion in the game advises against a particular hard area, then I simply won't go there until I can. It feels more realistic that way. It also allows the designer to guide me along the story's intended path. If I choose to break it, I'll have to suffer the consequences (and perhaps be rewarded for the hard work in a different way )

I realize I've barely covered all possible factors..but I figured these could be a possible conceptual approaches.

Edit: P.S. I loved Coersion in DA:O. Unlocking hidden conversational options and hoping they would be convincing enough based on my skill was a ton of fun.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 23 avril 2012 - 01:59 .

[MichaelStuart]

For my own opinion I think we should get rid of levels entirely.
I believe that a game's difficultly should only be determined by skill as a player, not by how many quests I complete or enemies I kill.
I think that all enemies should be a challenge, but different for each enemy.
I think the main quest should be the most challenging and side quest should be used to train you for that challenge, but not feel like your being trained.
I not opposed to some side quests being really hard for advance players, but we should be told its hard.
Completion of a quest should be its own reward.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Levels are an abstraction that gives players a tangible sense of progression and development in their characters. It's not a necessary abstraction, simply the easiest and most common one for RPG developers to use. Though I'm not entirely sure what MichaelStuart means either.

[AmstradHero]

MichaelStuart wrote...

For my own opinion I think we should get rid of levels entirely.
I believe that a game's difficultly should only be determined by skill as a player, not by how many quests I complete or enemies I kill.
I think that all enemies should be a challenge, but different for each enemy.
I think the main quest should be the most challenging and side quest should be used to train you for that challenge, but not feel like your being trained.
I not opposed to some side quests being really hard for advance players, but we should be told its hard.
Completion of a quest should be its own reward.

Then you don't want to play an RPG. RPGs have always been about the advancement of the character through the actions of the player. Levelling is an inherent part of the RPG structure because it's the advancement of the character that helps define the genre. Note I say "helps", because it's not the sole defining factor.

If you took levelling out of RPGs, you'd take away a core reason that many people play them. The levelling allows players to provide their character with new inherent tools to deal with combat situations as the game progresses. It allows them to select which tools that they want rather than being told "okay, now you unlock the super wiffle punch"... later at a set point in the story "now you unlock mega ice spike". The customisation aspect of RPGs, which is inherent in the levelling, is a major drawcard of the genre.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 23 avril 2012 - 02:27 .

[MichaelStuart]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

For my own opinion I think we should get rid of levels entirely.
I believe that a game's difficultly should only be determined by skill as a player, not by how many quests I complete or enemies I kill.
I think that all enemies should be a challenge, but different for each enemy.
I think the main quest should be the most challenging and side quest should be used to train you for that challenge, but not feel like your being trained.
I not opposed to some side quests being really hard for advance players, but we should be told its hard.
Completion of a quest should be its own reward.

I read some contradiction here.

You do not want levels but on the other hand you want to train.

Playing RPG's is about leveling by combat/quests and whatever the game provides you with.
Leveling gives access to better skills and better equipment which are a reward for het effort on themselves that you put in your character.

Or did I misunderstand what you're trying to say here?

To use chess as an example.
Player character are like pawns.
I should be training to use my pawns to checkmate the king(complete the game) than trying to get them across the board to promote them(leveling up)
Yes, promoting pawns is valid form of gameplay, but feel it should not be the entire point of combat.

[AkiKishi]

MichaelStuart wrote...

For my own opinion I think we should get rid of levels entirely.
I believe that a game's difficultly should only be determined by skill as a player, not by how many quests I complete or enemies I kill.
I think that all enemies should be a challenge, but different for each enemy.
I think the main quest should be the most challenging and side quest should be used to train you for that challenge, but not feel like your being trained.
I not opposed to some side quests being really hard for advance players, but we should be told its hard.
Completion of a quest should be its own reward.

That's like the opposite of a role playing game.

[MichaelStuart]

AmstradHero wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

For my own opinion I think we should get rid of levels entirely.
I believe that a game's difficultly should only be determined by skill as a player, not by how many quests I complete or enemies I kill.
I think that all enemies should be a challenge, but different for each enemy.
I think the main quest should be the most challenging and side quest should be used to train you for that challenge, but not feel like your being trained.
I not opposed to some side quests being really hard for advance players, but we should be told its hard.
Completion of a quest should be its own reward.

Then you don't want to play an RPG. RPGs have always been about the advancement of the character through the actions of the player. Levelling is an inherent part of the RPG structure because it's the advancement of the character that helps define the genre. Note I say "helps", because it's not the sole defining factor.

If you took levelling out of RPGs, you'd take away a core reason that many people play them. The levelling allows players to provide their character with new inherent tools to deal with combat situations as the game progresses. It allows them to select which tools that they want rather than being told "okay, now you unlock the super wiffle punch"... later at a set point in the story "now you unlock mega ice spike". The customisation aspect of RPGs, which is inherent in the levelling, is a major drawcard of the genre.

To me a RPG is when you play a role in a story.
I enjoy the stories of dragon age, but also the tactical combat.
Good tactical combat in my opinion has more to do with how I use my characters than how strong I can make them.

[byzantine horse]

The problem I have always had with levels is this: Enemies will get stronger as a game progresses else you would not have any challenge at all later on, but the enemies only get stronger because you are getting stronger, meaning that we only end up with a "stronger -> stronger -> stronger" cycle to balance difficulty and thus enjoyment for the player.

I find it very dodgy to be honest, what if you could just bypass levels and just get new spells and talents instead? Would that still make it a RPG if you kept hp pools for allies and enemies alike static through the game, but everything else just progressed as normal?

Edit: When I say "bypass levels" I obviously mean skip the attribute increases.

Modifié par byzantine horse, 23 avril 2012 - 02:52 .

[AkiKishi]

MichaelStuart wrote...

To me a RPG is when you play a role in a story.
I enjoy the stories of dragon age, but also the tactical combat.
Good tactical combat in my opinion has more to do with how I use my characters than how strong I can make them.

Yes and no. Dragon Age is scaled so going up a level is mostly down to adding more skills/stats and being able to access better gear. In a non scaled game a single character can be better than a team, regardless of how well they are played. 5 level 10 characters are never as effective as 1 level 50 character, which is why soloing stuff like Baldurs Gate is often easier than playing a party after a couple of levels.

[AkiKishi]

byzantine horse wrote...

The problem I have always had with levels is this: Enemies will get stronger as a game progresses else you would not have any challenge at all later on, but the enemies only get stronger because you are getting stronger, meaning that we only end up with a "stronger -> stronger -> stronger" cycle to balance difficulty and thus enjoyment for the player.

I find it very dodgy to be honest, what if you could just bypass levels and just get new spells and talents instead? Would that still make it a RPG if you kept hp pools for allies and enemies alike static through the game, but everything else just progressed as normal?

Edit: When I say "bypass levels" I obviously mean skip the attribute increases.

KOA does that.

Warrior skills give a lot of health
Mage skills give a lot of mana
Rogue skills give a mix of both.

KOA is not locked to a specific class though.

[MichaelStuart]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Okay MichaelStuart, this I can understand.

The problem is if a game is based on a leveling system it will apply for all the fights ingame normally. A different approuch for doing combat without it affecting your level could be done in DA as they did in Orzammar in the arena. You can fight and earn weapons/money f.e.

Could that be somethng that would appease you?

But wouldn't my that just determine how strong my charater is by my equipment in stead of level?

All I really want is for combat in dragon age 3 to be more about player skill and less about stats.

[Pasquale1234]

MichaelStuart wrote...

All I really want is for combat in dragon age 3 to be more about player skill and less about stats.

As others have said, you don't want an RPG, but an action game.

RPG mechanics use the characters' skills (not the player's sklls) to determine the outcome of combat.  It is the characters, not the player, that are engaging in combat.

[AkiKishi]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Okay MichaelStuart, this I can understand.

The problem is if a game is based on a leveling system it will apply for all the fights ingame normally. A different approuch for doing combat without it affecting your level could be done in DA as they did in Orzammar in the arena. You can fight and earn weapons/money f.e.

Could that be somethng that would appease you?

But wouldn't my that just determine how strong my charater is by my equipment in stead of level?

All I really want is for combat in dragon age 3 to be more about player skill and less about stats.

Hmmmm. In DA2 you developed your character by choosing skills in the trees. Your point here is to only have skill customization when you level up.

And in the arena example equipment does have a part of course but if you can fight as a team with companions and the tactical thing can be implemented perfectly.

You could do away with levels , but you would still get the overall same effect with skills and equipment. Final Fantasy XIII/-2 does it. If you don't spend any points on the crystalaniam or upgrade equipment your character does not change at all.
It's generally how I play all games of that type. Just play until I reach a point where I can't continue, then spend just enough points to get beyond it. Keeps the challenge level nice and high. FFX did the same thing, putting the stats and the skills on that sphere grid completely doing away with "level-up's".

I'd much rather a "job" system, but it does not fit so well with DA's lore and structure unfortuneately.