311 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The story is always about what your character does.  That can happen anywhere.

I think it's fair that many people love a BioWare game due to the plot and how it progresses.  Baldur's Gate 2 is much more structured in its plot and you can make a reasonable argument that it's more Irenicus' story than the player's.  And this is the game that many consider the pinnacle of BioWare.

[Dakota Strider]

Perhaps I should start another thread with this subject, but it sort of fits here. I am thinking that DA needs to reduce the scale of everything visual, by at least 25%. The reason being is that the larger the characters are, the more room they take up on the screen, and the less room you have for the area. In older Bioware games, because the depiction of party members were so much smaller, it made the outdoor maps they travelled through seem like miles across. In the DA games, an outdoor map where the character fills about half the screen, it feels like an outdoor map may be a few hundred yards across, at the most.

Save the close-ups, full body shots for the cut scenes. But we would be able to have a chance for better exploration, and I think much better tactical combat, if we reduce the size of all elements within the screen.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The story is always about what your character does.  That can happen anywhere.

I think it's fair that many people love a BioWare game due to the plot and how it progresses.  Baldur's Gate 2 is much more structured in its plot and you can make a reasonable argument that it's more Irenicus' story than the player's.  And this is the game that many consider the pinnacle of BioWare.

The plot is a very important part of the game's setting, and BioWare's games are rightly heralded for having very good ones.

But in any roleplaying game, the point of the game is roleplaying.  Following along a pre-written story can be a part of that, but does not constitute that.

And I continue to maintain that BG2 is but a pale imitation of the original BG.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 juin 2012 - 09:20 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The plot is a very important part of the game's setting, and BioWare's games are rightly heralded for having very good ones.

But in any roleplaying game, the point of the game is roleplaying.  Following along a pre-written story can be a part of that, but does not constitute that.

And I continue to maintain that BG2 is but a pale imitation of the original BG.

This just turns into a semantic argument about what the precise definition of an RPG is (to which I'll contend that there isn't a precise definition).

Sometimes I find games with similar premise (Fallout 3 vs. Oblivion) come across completely differently, and I infinitely prefer FO3 to Oblivion (which was a game that unfortunately took 40 hours for me to realize I wasn't really having any fun).  Essentially, I feel that a good RPG is a well done synergy of common themes that don't all necessarily need to be present to be an RPG, but typically have elements in common.

Though I'm sure we'll both have fun with Wasteland 2

[Sylvius the Mad]

Any term without a precise definition is a meaningless term.

And I try always to write out "roleplaying game" rather than RPG, because I want to reinforce the roleplaying aspect of it. I will not allow RPG to become divorced from its original meaning the way R&B has.

[deuce985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The plot is a very important part of the game's setting, and BioWare's games are rightly heralded for having very good ones.

But in any roleplaying game, the point of the game is roleplaying.  Following along a pre-written story can be a part of that, but does not constitute that.

And I continue to maintain that BG2 is but a pale imitation of the original BG.

This just turns into a semantic argument about what the precise definition of an RPG is (to which I'll contend that there isn't a precise definition).

Sometimes I find games with similar premise (Fallout 3 vs. Oblivion) come across completely differently, and I infinitely prefer FO3 to Oblivion (which was a game that unfortunately took 40 hours for me to realize I wasn't really having any fun).  Essentially, I feel that a good RPG is a well done synergy of common themes that don't all necessarily need to be present to be an RPG, but typically have elements in common.

Though I'm sure we'll both have fun with Wasteland 2

I agree with this 100%. That's why it's the most diversified genre in the gaming industry.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you only ever play the parts of the game where the "interesting" things happen, then those events are going to seem really contrived.  I'd rather those "interesting" moments feel more natural than that.  Your proposal would only servie to draw attention to the fact that we're playing a game.  Making the game feel less game-y is good.  Making it feel more game-y is bad.

Moreover, by only modelling the "interesting" parts, you'll get situations like in DA2 where players wanted to know why their character had behaved a certain was off-screen when they didn't think that was in-character.

The amount of stuff the PC does off-screen should be minimised to avoid those situations.

I'm all for having major choices occur on screen, or at least being reflective of the character's on screen choices.  However having those choices presented doesn't require me to schlep my mans around on the highway and fight random, pointeless things.  If I have to quest grind, it should happen in places that tie into the main story, like a suburb of Kirkwall or Val Royeaux.  Or when the Super Friends are tromping along the road and encounter a story point.

The story is always going to be a bit contrived or set up.  That's what makes it a game.  As long as it's a good story, I'll bite.

[Allan Schumacher]

Or when the Super Friends are tromping along the road and encounter a story point.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're open to the "bridging zones" as long as there's a story (main plot) reason for being there, right?

[LolaLei]

Lol tromping, I like that.

So long as the story is interesting and the characters are of the usual Bioware standard then I'm good. And if they let us fan girls have Cullen as a companion/LI then I'll be one very happy camper.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Or when the Super Friends are tromping along the road and encounter a story point.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're open to the "bridging zones" as long as there's a story (main plot) reason for being there, right?

I hope that's what he's saying, because I would support that design.

But I would also hope that the player could visit those bridging zones even if there wasn't a story reason for being there.

Don't constrain the player's freedom to enforce the pacing of the story.  If the player wants to stick to the story, let him, but don't force him.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Or when the Super Friends are tromping along the road and encounter a story point.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're open to the "bridging zones" as long as there's a story (main plot) reason for being there, right?

If by bridging zones you mean something like the road from Ostergar to Lothering where we meet The Bodster and Enchant-man, then yes, I'm ok with that kind of bridge zone.  An encounter like meeting new NPCs means something and is totally worth playing through.  A zone that offers me nothing but a delay between story points in exchange for an opportunity to kill some Bandits or spiders or bears for Old Man Crinkles, the random farmer...  That kind of bridge zone is not worth it to me.

Now, you turn those bandits into a trio of chevaliers flirting with a farm girl who is trying to herd her sheep across the road, and the knight's flirting is maybe edging up to or even going over the line...  Now I'm ok with that bridge zone.  Because that encounter tells me something about the city I'm travelling too.  It's not just random XP.

[LolaLei]

I like the idea of "bridging zones" if it's something like what RinphocheSchnozberry is talking about, DA:O had some good ones, like the Monty Python inspired Easter egg with the axe in the stump... I only ever managed to get that one once though.

[joshko]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Or when the Super Friends are tromping along the road and encounter a story point.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're open to the "bridging zones" as long as there's a story (main plot) reason for being there, right?

If by bridging zones you mean something like the road from Ostergar to Lothering where we meet The Bodster and Enchant-man, then yes, I'm ok with that kind of bridge zone.  An encounter like meeting new NPCs means something and is totally worth playing through.  A zone that offers me nothing but a delay between story points in exchange for an opportunity to kill some Bandits or spiders or bears for Old Man Crinkles, the random farmer...  That kind of bridge zone is not worth it to me.

Now, you turn those bandits into a trio of chevaliers flirting with a farm girl who is trying to herd her sheep across the road, and the knight's flirting is maybe edging up to or even going over the line...  Now I'm ok with that bridge zone.  Because that encounter tells me something about the city I'm travelling too.  It's not just random XP.

This

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But I would also hope that the player could visit those bridging zones even if there wasn't a story reason for being there.

Don't constrain the player's freedom to enforce the pacing of the story.  If the player wants to stick to the story, let him, but don't force him.

So you want to be able to visit different towns or locations without any main quest reason to be there beyond "I wanted to go to there," right?  That I can understand, because it makes the world seem bigger and more alive, but I'd rather see something like that saved for a TES game where wandering at your whimsey is de rigueur.  For BioWare games, I want to be aware of these other cities and towns and locations, but I don't really want to visit them until there's a reason.

[LolaLei]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Exploration for me has to have some meaning. I agree with posts before me that walking through a bridgestone that has nothing else to offer then some random encounters with no backstory; it's just filler to gain exp.

Have no idea what is involved to create that kind of thing when working from a map like in DAO when you travel from say Kirkwall to Orlais as been said earlier. You would just arrive there 'inbetween' the points I guess like the encounters on the DAO map. The encounter should give some additional info on quests or people involved in one. That would be great . In DAO most points were no longer accessible after the encounter.

Of course I do not know how the set up in the next installment will be but if there will be time labs it would be great if those points changed somewhat. F.e. an inn is build there where you can rest and can get a quest.

I don't mind if some of the inbetween "bridge zones" are just random encounters, just so long as it isn't all "stab these bad guys to get XP." Maybe things like, for example, you're on your way to Orlais via the map or whatever and you come across a bridge zone in which you find a lone wounded Templar suffering from extreme lyrium withdrawal, you talk to him a little and then decide whether or not to help him by giving him some of your lyrium (if you have any on you, possibly costing you approval points if you have an anti-templar mage companion with you etc), promise to send help (to which you'd run into him again later when he's better and he thanks you with coin), just leave him there to die slowly, or stab him with your murder knife. Then maybe during another random encounter you come across someone who gives you a side quest to do in the main areas of the game.

I wouldn't mind even stumbling across new companions during bridge zones, like when we recruited Zev after he ambushed us.

Modifié par LolaLei, 05 juin 2012 - 01:17 .

[LolaLei]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

@LolaLei

The excamples you give are things that have meaning and are not simpel random encounters on the road. Like them . The feeling that you accomplish something with it is what gives the RP more enjoyment for me.


@deuce985

You are right; RPG's are the most diverse kind of games in the industry. For every gamer there is something out there. The difficult task for the devellopers is to find the middle way that appeals to a big as possible group of people who will enjoy the game.
Heh, I'm sure that they can never ever make each and every player totally content with what they come up with.

I'm just sure about one thing concerning RPG's: the player needs to have influence in the game (or at least really feel that s/he has) to make it roleplaying (iow having control over the story). Otherwise it is an action game or shooter even maybe IMHO.

I think something else that's nice to have in an RPG game is that connection/bond your character develops with his/her companions. Which, I felt was something that Skyrim lacked (for me personally,) because despite how vast and pretty it looked, regardless of the hundreds of interesting quests, the thing I missed the most was having a merry band of misfits with me that are full of personality. Sure, I could pick some random NPC to bring along on the journey but they didn't have much to say... or much of a personality for that matter lol. I like that Bioware games give our protagonists a bunch of friends to drag along on adventures, what good is doing a bunch of epic stuff without your friends with you to share the experience? Especially when said friends have opinions on the matter lol.

Modifié par LolaLei, 05 juin 2012 - 01:44 .

[LolaLei]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

@ LolaLei

Skyrim is a totally different sort of RPG that is absolutely true. Really like to roam the countryside and do a lot of non quest/plot related stuff. DA is a totally different game as you say because you have companions with which you can bond and have conversations with. That's something I truly enjoy in DA games. The whole 'buddy' concept is adding to the gaming experience for me.

Wouldn't it be great to have a companion f.e. that is a bit claustrofobic and does not like to venture into dark caves and expresses that to the MC? I for one like that kind of stuff.

Anders was claustrophobic lol.

I just find it weird playing RPG's without indepth companions now, I think Bioware have spoilt me lol.

[LolaLei]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Well @LolaLei; think you found your kind of RPG in the DA games .

Well, pretty much all of the Bioware games. Now I just have to wait for the EC dlc for ME3 and for DA3 to be released lol.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

So you want to be able to visit different towns or locations without any main quest reason to be there beyond "I wanted to go to there," right?  That I can understand, because it makes the world seem bigger and more alive, but I'd rather see something like that saved for a TES game where wandering at your whimsey is de rigueur.  For BioWare games, I want to be aware of these other cities and towns and locations, but I don't really want to visit them until there's a reason.

So don't visit them.  I'm not calling for the game to require or even encourage aimless wandering.  It just don't want the game to force me to go only where it thinks I will want to go.

I should get to decide where my character wants to go.  They don't know my character.  They can't know how he'll interpret a threat or a quest instruction.

I go back to my example from the beginning of BG.  Gorion tells you to go to the Friendly Arm Inn, and the next relevant plot point is there, but you don't have to go.  You can go somewhere else if you think it's a better idea.  You can even advance the plot without having visited the Friendly Arm Inn at all.

That the game expects you to go somewhere is not a good enough reason to prevent you from going somewhere else.

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The story is always about what your character does.  That can happen anywhere.

I think it's fair that many people love a BioWare game due to the plot and how it progresses.  Baldur's Gate 2 is much more structured in its plot and you can make a reasonable argument that it's more Irenicus' story than the player's.  And this is the game that many consider the pinnacle of BioWare.

That's true of any Bioware game. The PC may choose the branches, but it's a key NPC that drives the plot.
NPCs unlike PC's are predictable.