71 réponses à ce sujet

[T-Kay]

They spent all their time creating the world and characters and no time writing a decent story or adjusting the animation so women move like women. I'd rather see an interesting story in Fearun than a boring one in a new developed world. How many different enemies does Dragon Age really have? And how many of them actually look all that different? There's creativity in the fact that they created the world from scratch, but there's no creativity in the contents of this world. Most of it is copied straight from LOTR and D&D. It's basically an unoriginal story in an unoriginal world with unoriginal people/beings. It's told well, but that's about it.

[Mnemnosyne]

Baher of Glory wrote...

I always prefered games with a clear rule-set. Alas, there weren't many besides AD&D, ROA (DSA in Germany) and GURPS (e.g. Fallout series). I love these rule-sets, because I can always check, why my character was successful or not. Thus, I knew exactly, what attribute / talent to increase, which skill to "buy" etc.

Now I wonder, how would DA:O be under the rules of the new AD&D edition?

Some thoughts:

There are many discussions about NWN 2 in regard of "missing animations", like cleave, flurry of blows and some more.
The reason - so said the programmers - lies within the short timeframe of rounds and turns. Hard to understand for me, because it seemed to work in NWN 1.
So, are these "timeframes" a reason to skip an established and somewhat reliable ruleset, to gain more "freedom" to show all the moves we want to see? As far as I can tell, all possible (battle)animations of our characters are performed properly, some of them in a really amazing way.

OTOH, I miss the inferability of my character's action. I just can guess, why (s)he takes so much damage, why (s)he misses so often, why spells are resisted and so forth; this counts of course for the contrary - success - , too.

Now, what are your opinions?

I liked AD&D 2nd Edition rules, and that's part of the reason the Infinity Engine games still have a lot of pull with me.  But overall, no, I don't think Dragon Age would be better under the AD&D ruleset, because the AD&D ruleset is not particularly well designed for a computer game.  Dragon Age's rules and system are designed with a computer game in mind, which makes it much easier to work with.  Further, some of the elimination of typical concepts from AD&D such as resurrection and teleportation make things much easier.  Finally, absorbing the entirety of the AD&D ruleset and multiverse concept takes a lot of time, and a large number of computer/console players would be unfamiliar with it and unwilling to learn.  Something such as understanding the thirty-eight planes of existence and the rules governing magic, travel, and summoning would be difficult, at best, to explain to players unfamiliar with the settings.

And that's all disregarding the licensing considerations and so on, which are a bigger issue.

Dragon Age's main failing in what you're talking about is the complete lack of documentation for their rules system.  This is the reason we don't understand the things you mention, because the documentation is missing.  If a thoroughly written manual had been included with the game as it should have been, we wouldn't have this problem.

[termokanden]

I think the new system definitely leaves a lot to be desired. It's not that bad, but it could be a lot better.



Still, I think there's a good argument NOT to use systems such as AD&D or D&D other editions. They are designed for pen and paper and really work best like that. A lot of spells, for example, as well as other character abilities, are immensely useful in pen and paper but make no sense in a computer roleplaying game.



For example, bards just plain sucked in Infinity Engine games. They don't in pen and paper AD&D. Rogues also sort of suck in the old games as well, except you need one for traps and locks. In pen and paper, a lot of non-combat abilities are really good. Generally in CRPGs, non-combat abilities are a neat bonus at best.

[marshalleck]

http://dragonage.gul...t.org/doku.php/ - DAO Missing Manual

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 décembre 2009 - 12:19 .

[Skellimancer]

2nd edition? yes please.

[termokanden]

Those were the days...

[Selvec_Darkon]

Wouldn't be as good. DnD has it's own set's of pitfalls, balance issues and problems. You'd just be trading one developing ruleset for a preset ruleset that fails to see it's own issues and do anything about it.

Not to mention it would require the agreement of Wizards of the Coast, and NOBODY wants them involved in their games these days after what they did to 4.0's lore.

[T-Kay]

termokanden wrote...

I think the new system definitely leaves a lot to be desired. It's not that bad, but it could be a lot better.

Still, I think there's a good argument NOT to use systems such as AD&D or D&D other editions. They are designed for pen and paper and really work best like that. A lot of spells, for example, as well as other character abilities, are immensely useful in pen and paper but make no sense in a computer roleplaying game.

For example, bards just plain sucked in Infinity Engine games. They don't in pen and paper AD&D. Rogues also sort of suck in the old games as well, except you need one for traps and locks. In pen and paper, a lot of non-combat abilities are really good. Generally in CRPGs, non-combat abilities are a neat bonus at best.

Same goes for the Warhammer tabletop to computergame transistion. Still, they did a good job on the whole.

[marshalleck]

The problem with D&D rules or any PNP system is that they don't account for the most powerful spell combo one can cast in a CRPG--the almighty Save & Reload Until You Get the Result You Want combo. It neuters any sort of significant penalty for poor decision making or carelessness. Especially the AD&D and AD&D 2E rule sets, which are my personal favorites.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 décembre 2009 - 01:03 .

[Lycidas]

Hell no! The D&D ruleset just does not fit to computer games IMHO. Sleeping to recover...sleeping to learn spells...you just end up sleeping after every fight if you don't want your mages to just stand there and save up their spells.

[TheDrunkenPanda]

I like the pseudo-MMO/Diablo-ish system they have going for DA, just seems to fit for PCs (consoles, what? I know not of these console things you speak of.). Though, I would like to see a game based on 4e D&D since certain spells in that can be cast any time, once a fight, or once a day...

[marshalleck]

Somewhat off-topic, is there an abstract of the D&D 4E ruleset online anywhere? I keep hearing about how controversial it is, but I can't imagine it mangling the system worse than 3E did, which was partially rectified in 3.5. I'd love to see what all the hoopla is about.

[termokanden]

Selvec_Darkon wrote...

Wouldn't be as good. DnD has it's own set's of pitfalls, balance issues and problems. You'd just be trading one developing ruleset for a preset ruleset that fails to see it's own issues and do anything about it.

Not to mention it would require the agreement of Wizards of the Coast, and NOBODY wants them involved in their games these days after what they did to 4.0's lore.

There's a fourth edition now?

I'm starting to feel a bit nostalgic. Playing AD&D 2nd Ed. in a room with no light except some black candles. Damn hard to read your character sheet, but those were the days

Or Call of Ctulhu. Or Vampire: The Masquerade. They really butchered those rule books in the new editions, by the way. Well they butchered the lore in Vampire anyway.

[Auraad]

T-Kay wrote...

They spent all their time creating the world and characters and no time writing a decent story or adjusting the animation so women move like women. I'd rather see an interesting story in Fearun than a boring one in a new developed world. How many different enemies does Dragon Age really have? And how many of them actually look all that different? There's creativity in the fact that they created the world from scratch, but there's no creativity in the contents of this world. Most of it is copied straight from LOTR and D&D. It's basically an unoriginal story in an unoriginal world with unoriginal people/beings. It's told well, but that's about it.

This.

Plus, we don't see and *feel* much of the rest of the world - it really is only Ferelden.

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Nah. I rather like DAO as is, especially by the realistic checks on magic. D and D worlds tend to be overly magiced, magic being an easy way out for anything you want. In the battle part, its also more realistic, as checks and dice rolls are not how things work in real life. There are far more factors involved in striking than mathimatical formulas.

In DAO, its pretty cut and dry why your character doesn't hit, or does, or takes damage. Far more realistic, too.

I take it that you haven't seen your characters get shield bashed despite moving ten feet away before they completed the act. Or have been hit by arrows despite moving around a corner thus they are firing through walls...

Um, it is realistic when you are in the fight but... No it isn't. One of the things I had to relearn with DA:O is that it uses a lot of D&D-ish rules in that numbers matter a lot.

When they swing, if you are there when the hit starts, you only have your defense/armor to stop the hit despite any moving you do before the hit connects. You can also use this against them too. Not really cut and dry realistically as mathematically.

IE, D&D -esque rules.

[biomag]

Worst thing that could happen to DA:O.

D&D has a terrible system. I hated it since day one. All loved BG-games as well as Neverwinter Nights 2 + Mask of the Betrayer and I played Icewind Dale 1+2, but I hated that D&D part as hell. Especially as I am rather a fan of GURP's approach than this silly character-classes-BS, but D&D has also this annoying spell-system...


Nah, no D&D for me...

[Suron]

personally I think DA:O would be significantly better with 3.5e rules.  But NOT 4.0...4.0 is WoW made PnP....and I don't like it.

3.0 and 3.5 were great...and honestly I do wish DA:O used it....as it is there are far too little choices with characters talents and skills.......the skill to raise tactics slots is absolutely idiotic, makes no sense, and is poor design...but..what else is there to flesh out your characters?

EDIT: to clarify.  I'm also fine with DA:O's system..but it needs documentation..and it NEEDS fleshed out more..there are FAR TOO MANY LIMITATIONS on abilities/skills/talents...it's just way to limiting.  and probably DA:O's biggest failing in my eyes.  Throw in Sten and Oghren, both being default 2h warriors...and they end up the same except maybe one or two warrior abilities because of specs.  There needs to be more specs with more abilities then just 4 per "class"..and the talents/skills (whatever, like herbalism) are just far too limiting...and as said above..the tactics slot increase skill is just downright idiotic....as it's not really any kind of ability...and only matters if you're not controlling the character...it's stupid.

Modifié par Suron, 14 décembre 2009 - 04:41 .

[ReubenLiew]

The problem with the D&D system in video games is the lack of information. They never specify the exact mechanical calculations of the stats, how the stats effect spells/skills mechanically, the requirements for certain skills, hidden requirements, throwaway fluff lines that actually have a mechanic behind it. Lets not forget that they don't even bother telling you what skill comes next, the requirements for certain classes, or the ability to flip over pages to figure out ways to build your character effectively.



For most noobs they'll end up with horribly weak characters that can barely do anything. The only way to build a powerful character was to know EXACTLY what you needed to build and in which order. Granted that power-gaming and munchkinism is not always condusive to good roleplaying, but at least allow us to build a character that has a semblance of competency in his area of expertise. Besides it's a computer game. When I started the older bioware games the information didn't help whatsoever, I was completely lost.



I like the new system, it's much harder to royally screw up your character now, even though it is still possible.

[Suron]

Mikinori wrote...

2) I feel the specializations in DA:O leave a bit to be desired when compared to previous games based on D&D rules. I like how customizable the base classes are with so many skills but I'm a little disappointed that each specialization only brings four skills.

exactly part of my point.  Ranger and Shapeshifter being the two worst offenders.....Shapeshifter GIMPS the mage..there's almost no reason to EVER use it....and Ranger summoned pets are fine..but...c'mon...you're telling me ranger spec shouldn't give you some kind of bow perks...or tracking of some sort...or..SOMETHING...just a pet that is summoned like a spell? L O L  stupid.  and sustained at that???? ranger pets should be perma pets that cost no freaking stamina to have out....the Ranger spec is honestly more fitting as a mage spec...as you magically summon the animal..and it takes part of your mana/stamina to "maintain" it.....as it is Ranger spec (while I like the animals and use it on Leli most of the time) is just plain stupid in how it works

[Realmzmaster]

Bioware were not being cheapasses. Hasbro has an exclusive contract with Atari. Even if Bioware wanted to they could not get the license until the contract runs out. I am sure that Atari has a clause in the contract that allows them to renew. As far as copying from D & D and LOTR, that can be said for almost every CRPG, because many of the designers and developers grew up with D & D and have read Tolkien among other authors. The basic mechanics of all RPGs are the same with some having a simpler ruleset and others more complex. Some have a classless system, others have classes. Some may called it Stamina, others Endurance. The ruleset gives it a different name but the effect is the same. The big thing is how well the story is crafted.
It is like having two DMs using the same ruleset, you will can get widely different results.
By creating its own ruleset Bioware has control and creative freedom. And the money that would be spent on a license (if they could get it) is spent on the game.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 décembre 2009 - 04:49 .

[I saved Star Wars :D]

I take the view that D&D is just too massive and complex to be properly implemented in a computer game of this type. NWN 1 & Obsidian's NWN 2 must have had 30 patches between them, still with many things not working as intended, and both were built on an engine designed to incorporate the ruleset.



To touch on a point in the first post, NWN 2 dropped many combat animations in order to fit with the rules. In NWN 1, for example, characters could lose out on some attacks per round as the game struggled to fit all of animations into the 6 second window.



Imagine the uproar here if your character only got 3 hits on a dragon per round istead of 4, in order to play the animations.

[Havokk7]

Of the tens of game systems I've used, I always thought Fuzion and CORPS would work well in a computer game.



Both GURPS and AD&D seemed to be too complex for computer games. AD&D had the additional problem of having the whole "resting" concept. Saying "My mage rests and learns spells"is fine in tabletop but bad in a computer game, especially a multiplayer game. Why was AD&D/D20 the basis for BG, IWD, KOTOR and NWN? I suspect for marketing reasons and for the reason that lots of people knew it.



B

[LaztRezort]

Havokk7 wrote...

Why was AD&D/D20 the basis for BG, IWD, KOTOR and NWN? I suspect for marketing reasons and for the reason that lots of people knew it.

Yes, and I also suspect that the previous success of the "Gold Box" games had something to do with it (made by TSR, who also owned the rights to AD&D at the time).

It should be noted that whenever a game has used D&D rules, they are heavily modified (I can't speak for 4e, since I know nothing about it).  D&D assumes there will be a real-person DM/referee who can use and throw-out whatever rules he sees fit to make for a good story.  D&D is complicated because there are so many different rules that are basically a suggestion of how to handle many conceivable actions of a player.  It's up to the referee to cherry pick and bend them to make for a fun game (it's 'role-playing,' not 'roll-playing' used to be common mantra).  "Rules Laywer" used to describe an unpleasant member of a gaming group, the bane of a referee.

In computer games, everyone is a rules lawyer, and there is no referee.

Modifié par LaztRezort, 15 décembre 2009 - 03:27 .

[aerathnor]

I really see DA:O's engine as far as combat goes as essentially 3.5. Your to hit is based on your attack, your AC is your defense rating (hence the reason that shields grant additional defense not armor) and they threw armor on top of that which is essentially a blanket form of damage reduction. So if I have a total armor of 12 I basically have a damage resistance of /12 to all. There's so many similarities it drives me wild.



Yes it needs better documentation, but BG-NWN2 has got me pretty much permanently thinking in dice rolls. The thing I really like about the system is how weapons have attack speed. Anyways, I'm gonna quit before I ramble on being that I'm in love with theorycraft.

[Drakron]

Zenon wrote...

 What I liked very much was, how Bioware adapted D&D system to a sci-fi setting in SW KotOR.

Yes, because its not as if there was a Star Wars D20 rulebook at that time .... oh wait ...

Also said D20 system was IMHO better.

In case you do not understand, 3rd Ed. D&D was build on the D20 system that Wizards of the Coast was trying to push as a basic system and WotC did created a Star Wars D20 system and even revised it at least once.

Of course that was pre-Hasbro as WotC changed after Hasbro taken over ... even if BioWare "adapted" the D20 system for KotOR its not as if that was not already done, not as if the D20 system was not designed from the start to be easy "ported" outside the D&D setting (its a modular system) and honestly I think BioWare did poorly on the job as the things that really required work (Force system) were pretty much left as "D&D spells" (Star Wars D20 have a very diferent Force system that is skill based)