10 réponses à ce sujet

[lyleoffmyspace]

Why was the wave based combat in DA2? It was stupid, ruined immersion and turned every fight into an endurance fest and threw positioning out the window entirely.

It's fine in some situations (eg. last stands) but stupid for the vast majority of fights.

So...any idea why Bioware put it in?

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It would be preferable to have the enemies actually exist in the game world prior to them springing from nowhere. It would be preferable to allow the PC to ambush his enemies from time to time, rather than having the enemies always ambush him.

This is actually an interesting problem that exists in many games I find, where the it seems the game world only exists to react to the player.  This applies to more than just combat too.

Although not doing that in some ways (i.e. timing the player) isn't necessarily a better solution.  I would like to see some new ideas in this regarding from gaming as a whole.

[Allan Schumacher]

Had the spawning come in more realistically (i.e. they came running from out of line of sight) would it have been received better?

It'd prevent the situation where a foe inexplicably spawns right beside the character.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Although not doing that in some ways (i.e. timing the player) isn't necessarily a better solution.  I would like to see some new ideas in this regarding from gaming as a whole.

Many games released 10-25 years ago handled this pretty well.

Ultima VII is the best one I can think of (although the game still waits for the player).  Fallout 1 had a timeline for the player, but it is actually pretty poorly received.

I'm going to need a bit more to go on unless there was a reason for the conciseness of your post.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 mai 2012 - 11:30 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It should have been in the previous post, which is why it sounds so tacked on.

BioWare has handled this well in the past, particularly in the original Baldur's Gate.  Unlike BG2, which never let you discover quest content until after you'd received the quest officially, BG allowed the player to stumble upon quests.  Monsters and quests existed independently of the player's actions.  Yes, they waited for the player, but they didn't exist because of him.

The issue of the content waiting for the player is related to the concept of a living world, and I think that's a much bigger issue.  But the question of whether the content is spawned by the player has, I think, a much easier fix.

In NWN, quest items could be found (and lost) before the player ever even met the quest giver.  The player could find content without ever having met the NPC that would tell him to go.

BG's one example of content being gated for no in-game reason stands out and looks sloppy because such a thing occurs nowhere else in the game.  That the PC can't visit Cloakwood until Chapter 3 is a significant problem (especially since he can get a quest that sends him to Cloakwood in Chapter 1, but Cloakwood is inaccessible until after he has completed both the Nashkel Mines and the Bandit Camp).

NWN2's (not a BioWare game, I recognise) level designs offer paths that serve no narrative purpose, but they're still there.  This is how you make it feel more like a world and less like a game.

But the main reason I was so concise is because I'd like to investigate how some of the current Indie games are handling this,.and then get back to you.  Does Avernum spawn enemies just for you, for example, or were they always there?

I think it's more we weren't quite talking about the exact same thing when I mentioned that I find most games react too much to the player rather than providing something more organic.  Though on some level the game must react to the player.

I got caught up on your word "ambush" because a genuine ambush is something that I don't think I've really ever seen in a game (at least not a story game) where you can sit and wait for a target to go by.  THe player still needs to enable stealth mode and go to the target he wishes to kill.  Sure Baldur's Gate had people that were already spawned in, but as you say they were also just waiting there until the player came along.  I'd be interested in seeing a game where if you didn't stumble upon some NPCs in Chapter 1, you end up stumbling upon them in a different context in level 2 because you weren't able to help them, or what have you.

Although as you mentioned, you could actually successfully complete a quest before you actually received it (which is a good thing, I agree), I was more thinking along the lines of "because I did quest 1, quest 2 was solved through some other means because I was too busy doing quest 1."

But I digress and it's not really the point of this particular thread.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 juin 2012 - 01:39 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Firky wrote...

Well. I'd just like to say I thought the waves in DA2 were fantastic. It was a refreshing change and supported the changed turn-based/action hybrid thing, IMO. I found an unknown volume and timing of enemies dropping really difficult to deal with, which was nice, and because cooldowns were so long. I found myself moving the party much more than I've ever had to do in a party game. I'd be happy enough to see it used less, but I found it really enjoyable. (And *heaps* more "strategic." Though I did miss the glut of abilities in Origins, having less made it more difficult again.)

This is actually very similar to how my best friend felt too.

What does "timing the player" mean? I'm confused. Are you still talking about combat. (Man, I loved Ultima VII. The main questline was actually fairly short but it required travelling very large geographical distances, so every incentive was to explore rather than progress, in my experience.)

This is why I'm not a writer...

By timing I mean, some sort of time restriction.  In the original Fallout if you waste too much time, settlements you help are just defaulted to being destroyed by the super mutants, and there's even time restrictions based on the water chip and the vault.  There's even a good choice and consequence in that if you seek outside help for the water chip, it reduces the time until the vault is discovered.

I actually enjoyed it, but such time restrictions are rarely well received I find.

[Allan Schumacher]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fallout would not have been half the game it was without the timer. The Atelier games still do it, everything you do from travel to combat takes time. Initially it does not seem like you have a lot of it and for someone unfamiliar it's probably quite overwhelming.

While I don't like "real time" because it means you need to rush around (finish dungeon X within 15:00 for an S rank). I do like abstract time which moves when you travel. It makes everything you do important and can have consequences later on. I don't think you will find many developers who will actually allow people to fail in that way though. Nothing beyond the obligitory mission critical fail reload stuff.

I don't know the Atelier games (I don't have a PS) but I agree with you about Fallout.  I never really understood the objections because you actually had a substantial amount of time to find the chip (and were periodically reminded that you needed to find it before everyone died).

I think timers are so disliked, much because it's so hard to judge the urgence. That's what bothers me anyway. You don't get a feel for the timer and your goals, the first time (or even times) you play the game. And I have to say that the first time I play a game, is the all important one. That's when I let all my choices stand. That's when I care.

That's what I liked so much about the original Fallout.  I had 150 days and for all I knew it was going to take 75 days to find the thing.... I hope it takes me less than 75 to get back!

For some players it adds tension. But for some, just frustration.  I also play Diablo 3 exclusively on hardcore, so take that for what you will!

[Allan Schumacher]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Which raises one (partial) solution - maybe timers could be allowed to vary like difficulty levels.

That could work, though I think in general timing the player is not very well received.  Especially for "crit path" stuff.  I think it's unfortunate, but many like RPGs for allowing them to do the things they want to do in the game world at a pace that is comfortable for them to do so.

[Allan Schumacher]

I have only died once so far, and it was because of the poor way they implemented their checkpoints. When you resume your game you start at the last checkpoint, which in this case for me was in a hostile zone. I died while loading in.

I wrote a ticket to Blizzard saying they should change this (always start in town) but learned that I should always make a note of where I am. If I don't remember, start at the most recent plot point which starts me off in town.


The constant fear of death makes the game 1000x more exhilarating for me though. Coming through that super close call is awesome haha.

[Allan Schumacher]

Rojahar wrote...
Another possibility is an ILLUSION of a timer. Let's say you're thinking of how to respond at the dialog wheel for... maybe a full minute, maybe 30 seconds, whatever felt like a good amount of time... and so the NPC you're talking to says something, like "What's wrong with you?" or "Make up your mind?" or if they're an enemy with a hostage, threatens to kill the hostage. Now, they'd never actually do anything in this scenario, they'd just act like they're going to, which wouldn't rush you, but create the illusion of the player character being rushed.

Hahaha I really like this idea!

[Allan Schumacher]

Noober actively followed you around though. If this is a comment line of "So what's it going to be" or something like that, and only happens after 10+ seconds of no response, I wouldn't be surprised if many people never even knew such a feature even existed.