134 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

Because it's a game and I want something to fight? What would be preferable? It's hard to be realistic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

[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.

[Provi-dance]

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.

But but... !! Enemies furiously leaping out and spawning from thin air fits perfectly with the ninja mages machine-gun-staff action, styrofoam house-sized warhammers and all. If it wants to be anime then it should be anime through and through!

[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.

[Vaeliorin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

I'd like to think so.  Personally, I liked the waves conceptually, as they had the potential to make combat more challenging/interesting (making you react to a changing situation instead of dealing with a static one), but enemies appearing out of nowhere/parachuting off of rooftops was kind of silly.

The fact that they occurred every single fight was something of an issue as well.

[MagmaSaiyan]

maybe it was because they wanted to add as many fights as there was in Origins? i mean if they just had the 1 round of enemies, would it come even close to the amount? would it be a bad thing if it was that way? to some...probably not

[Dakota Strider]

Waves are fine, when they appear in a more realistic way. And preferably from directions that make sense. But when a party moves through an area in a strategic manner, to protect their flanks, and not leave themselves open to ambush, and have that all go to waste, when the combat happens, and opponents start sprouting out of the ground, and from the sky to surround them, it is certainly frustrating.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Absolutely.  This makes the game feel game-y, and is a huge threat to verisimilitude.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Not by me.  If an enemy exists in the world, I should be able to find him before the encounter starts.

If there's a bandit camp I'm supposed to attack, DA2 would require that I march into the camp, have a chat with the bandit leader, and then start the combat surrounded.  And after I kill them, I'd then be surrounded again as more bandits magically appear.

Instead, I'd like the opportunity to sneak up to the camp and kill at least some of them one at a time until I'm noticed.  And this should be a natural in-game feature, rather than a planned narrative event.  Let the player decide how to deal with the bandit camp.  Not every encounter needs to play out the same way for every player.

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

The raining down should only have been used for the Reining Men gang.

And it would've helped a little bit, but it wouldn't have changed my perception of the incredible disparity in the gameplay system.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 31 mai 2012 - 11:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

[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 .

[Dakota Strider]

To clarify, I only believe in waves in very limited situations. Like when encountering a large army, when you are attempting to fight through them. Unless you have a Total War type engine that can show hundreds and thousands of troops on the screen at once, the Wave is justifiable then. Even then, the waves cannot appear like they popped out of a Monster Generator in 25 year old Gauntlet arcade game. The enemy would need to come in a steady stream, from the same direction, and there should be a way to see them in the distance, before they get within bow/spell range.

Other than these few unique situations, I also believe that your opponents should be available for you to see, sneak up on, ambush, or avoid if you wish. If they are able to hide successfully, (due to failed perception checks from the party), so much the better. Smart and diverse combat situations are what are best.

[Wulfram]

One observation I'd make is that Mass Effect - which uses waves a lot, but doesn't get the complaints - basically never spawns people behind you, even in situations where this would make perfect sense - like when Geth are being dropped from orbit.  Fundamentally, I think having bad guys turn up behind you is just frustrating and feels unfair and thus unfun.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

It would be better I guess, but it would still annoy me if it still resulted in random gangs and bandits and whatnot all having huge numbers that rushed in to be slaughtered.

Modifié par Wulfram, 31 mai 2012 - 11:41 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 31 mai 2012 - 11:48 .

[knarayan]

I thought the Jarvia fight in DA:O used waves well. "To me, I need help" worked as hook, there was the room and the passageway at the far end of the chamber where there fight took place where carta members would come in from.
On the flip side, the first time I fought Jarvia, I thought I'd be clever and trapped the doorway, only to be locked in after the cutscene.
I agree that waves should be used sparingly - more for an Oh Crap effect than as a constant combat mechanic.

[Provi-dance]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Yes, and this problem (..of only existing to react to the player) is especially accentuated by level scaling. The first thing that needs to be done for a healthy combat system is removing this abomination from the picture. With level scaling combat is always more of the same. It's boring, it's dull, it slaps the player in the face each time his character advances a level and it works against the goal of making the world not feel like it's constantly spinning around the player.

There's nothing "new" that needs to be discovered for this concept to work.

Waves are also a perfect example. Here comes Hawke and rivers of cannon fodder enemies start flowing suddenly! Why can't the player character sneak up to them, to a place in the woods/city/cave/building and ambush the group? Because they don't exist until he activates the river of meat...

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.

And had it not been used in every combat encounter. Yes.

Oh, if only waves were the be biggest problem of DA2's combat encounters and combat mechanics.. I'd sign a big yes to waves in an instant. But from the myriad of combat issues I've only heard waves waves waves being mentioned by Bioware, sadly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

knarayan wrote...

I thought the Jarvia fight in DA:O used waves well. "To me, I need help" worked as hook, there was the room and the passageway at the far end of the chamber where there fight took place where carta members would come in from.
On the flip side, the first time I fought Jarvia, I thought I'd be clever and trapped the doorway, only to be locked in after the cutscene.
I agree that waves should be used sparingly - more for an Oh Crap effect than as a constant combat mechanic.

Absolutely, the Jarvia fight in DAO used waves very well.  There was no way to reach the space from where the waves came, so there was no way to see that they didn't first exist (ideally, though, they would have).  And because the waves came from a sensible and visible location, the player could react accordinly.  I tended to drop a Blizzard in the space where the waves appeared to slow down their arrival.  If Jarvia can lock me in, I can lock her in.

I do think we need to lose the inexplicably locked door mechanic, though.  ME2 suffered very badly from this, I thought.

[Dakota Strider]

Provi-dance wrote...

Oh, if only waves were the be biggest problem of DA2's combat encounters and combat mechanics.. I'd sign a big yes to waves in an instant. But from the myriad of combat issues I've only heard waves waves waves being mentioned by Bioware, sadly.

Very true.  But perhaps this is the start of their new approach.  We can only hope.

[Nomen Mendax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

It would be slightly better, but if you must have waves please (a) use them rarely and ( only when it actually makes sense. Having waves of robbers attacking you is just silly for all sorts of reasons. Why don't they all attack at once?  And once they've seen you wipe out the first wave why on earth don't the rest of them just run away?

As far as I'm concerned having waves of enemies as a general combat mechanism just comes across as lazy and also very much a video-game trope that breaks immersion.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 01 juin 2012 - 12:26 .

[Blastback]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Better, but only somewhat.  It wasn't just that the waves were ridicuoulsy implemented, "It's raining men! Through the ceiling!"  but it just got really really tedious.  I stopped looking foward to combat, it felt like a neverending chore.  "Oh great.  Another group of enemies.  Which means that i have to fight two or three more groups after them.  Joy."

[FieryDove]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I think so. The waves didn't really bother me by themselves.

It's the throw the tactics out the window and just blitz every fight that annoyed me. I would tuck my mage safely in a corner of an alley and next thing I know not one but three mooks are dropped on his head. Not even rain could have gotten to him with a lil overhang sitting there but the mobs sure did.

I remember the vids that came out on more *actiony* and one more tactical before da2 shipped, After watching and blinking a few times I thought to myself there was no difference in the combat except the *tactical* paused more. If mobs constantly appear from all sides there goes formation and tactics out the window. There must be a better way. imho

[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 .

[Firky]

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.)

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.)

Modifié par Firky, 01 juin 2012 - 02:03 .