764 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

bzombo wrote...

I think the bottom line in this whole discussion should be to look at DAO's sales and DA2's sales. Next, look at the major differences between the two games and what the major gripes have been. That should help Bioware understand what its core audience is and what it expects. Stop trying to create the next Call of Duty game. DAO was Bioware's game. DA2 was EA's game. Just sayin'.

Just sayin' nothing that has a shred of evidence.

The major differences between the two games boiled down to "DA2 did not get as much dev resources as DAO."   As a result, it did not hide the area reuse as well as DAO did, it did not have the same completeness to the story (especially act III and passive main character), and it did not use the waves as well as it could (compare to the DLC).

There is no information available on whether it would have sold well if the devs had been given the time to address those issues.  But the complaints about the VO and the faster pace of combat were trivial compared to the above issues during those first weeks the game was out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I also play table top cRPGs and you can bet if a choice like this is presented in a tabletop game the DM would make sure there is a probability that something could go wrong. The probability would be decide by the roll of the dice. The choice would be nothing happens at Redcliffe and the party gets back in time, the demon destroys the village while the party is gone, Tegan and company are forced to kill Connor or Jowan performs the ritual with either good or bad results. DAO has no consequence if you go to the Circle.

But the PC has every reason to believe there will be a consequence, which is what makes the choice exciting.

If the PC has reason to expect a positive outcome, then a positive outcome isn't as much of a triumph.  But when the PC can succeed while expecting to fail, that's triumphant.  That's good game design.

I love how Redcliffe was done in DAO.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I also play table top cRPGs and you can bet if a choice like this is presented in a tabletop game the DM would make sure there is a probability that something could go wrong. The probability would be decide by the roll of the dice. The choice would be nothing happens at Redcliffe and the party gets back in time, the demon destroys the village while the party is gone, Tegan and company are forced to kill Connor or Jowan performs the ritual with either good or bad results. DAO has no consequence if you go to the Circle.

But the PC has every reason to believe there will be a consequence, which is what makes the choice exciting.

If the PC has reason to expect a positive outcome, then a positive outcome isn't as much of a triumph.  But when the PC can succeed while expecting to fail, that's triumphant.  That's good game design.

I love how Redcliffe was done in DAO.

No it is not exciting for me because I the gamer know that there is no urgency. Therefore I kinow nothing will happen. You will say that the PC does not know, but the PC is not the one trying to have fun with the game. I want the choice I tell the PC to make to have a chance of dire consequence. There is none and on a subsequent playthrough I know there will continue to be none. The way I lay it out gives me the player uncertainty in every playthrough. I do not role play the way you do.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster vs. Sylvius... its like Ali and Frazier of the old school cRPG camp on the BSN!

For what its worth, I liked that there was the possibility of a totally 100% happy ending if you did the right thing, I like that most people did not choose to go to the Circle the first time because of the inherent riskiness of the choice and I like that this option makes sense, given that the mages would give you access to their lyrium stores after you had saved their lives.

I didn't like how the game barely recognized that you took this risk. And, despite how long you could dawdle not just at the Circle, but other locations as well and that it had no impact. Running from the Circle and back if you had already saved it is one thing. Running to the Circle, clearing it of abominations, then doing quests in the Brecillian Forest, the Deep Roads and Denerim, all of which have zero effect of doing any further damage suspends the disbelief a little.

So good idea, could have been done with better execution.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster vs. Sylvius... its like Ali and Frazier of the old school cRPG camp on the BSN!

Okay, Now you have set yourself up for the question who is Ali and who is Frazier?

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster vs. Sylvius... its like Ali and Frazier of the old school cRPG camp on the BSN!

Okay, Now you have set yourself up for the question who is Ali and who is Frazier?

HA! Nope, I'm not going to walk into answering a question like THAT!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

No it is not exciting for me because I the gamer know that there is no urgency. Therefore I kinow nothing will happen. You will say that the PC does not know, but the PC is not the one trying to have fun with the game. I want the choice I tell the PC to make to have a chance of dire consequence. There is none and on a subsequent playthrough I know there will continue to be none. The way I lay it out gives me the player uncertainty in every playthrough. I do not role play the way you do.

Your style of play makes no sense to me.  I can't imagine considering my own preferences when roleplaying.

Each time I play the game with a new character, it's a brand new story.  Every twist is new to that character.  That character experiences triumph or sorrow, fear or elation, just the same as any previous characters did.

That said, if you want the outcome not to be known to you, we can accommodate that without making the outcomes contrived or predictable to me.

We can randomise the outcome.  If, at Redcliffe, choosing the third option would work some of the time, but not all of the time, and not for any reason other than chance, would that be acceptable to you?  That would satisfy my need for unpredictability while also satisfying yours.

How's that?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster vs. Sylvius... its like Ali and Frazier of the old school cRPG camp on the BSN!

Okay, Now you have set yourself up for the question who is Ali and who is Frazier?

You are Ali, but I am George Foreman.

You might win the contest proper, but in the end you will be a broken shell of a man while I am a popular spokesperson.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster vs. Sylvius... its like Ali and Frazier of the old school cRPG camp on the BSN!

Okay, Now you have set yourself up for the question who is Ali and who is Frazier?

You are Ali, but I am George Foreman.

You might win the contest proper, but in the end you will be a broken shell of a man while I am a popular spokesperson.

True, but you will forever be in my shadow as the world chants my name and remembers how I floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee. And I would still be pretty.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 20 juin 2012 - 07:30 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

No it is not exciting for me because I the gamer know that there is no urgency. Therefore I kinow nothing will happen. You will say that the PC does not know, but the PC is not the one trying to have fun with the game. I want the choice I tell the PC to make to have a chance of dire consequence. There is none and on a subsequent playthrough I know there will continue to be none. The way I lay it out gives me the player uncertainty in every playthrough. I do not role play the way you do.

Your style of play makes no sense to me.  I can't imagine considering my own preferences when roleplaying.

Each time I play the game with a new character, it's a brand new story.  Every twist is new to that character.  That character experiences triumph or sorrow, fear or elation, just the same as any previous characters did.

That said, if you want the outcome not to be known to you, we can accommodate that without making the outcomes contrived or predictable to me.

We can randomise the outcome.  If, at Redcliffe, choosing the third option would work some of the time, but not all of the time, and not for any reason other than chance, would that be acceptable to you?  That would satisfy my need for unpredictability while also satisfying yours.

How's that?

I could live with that.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

No it is not exciting for me because I the gamer know that there is no urgency. Therefore I kinow nothing will happen. You will say that the PC does not know, but the PC is not the one trying to have fun with the game. I want the choice I tell the PC to make to have a chance of dire consequence. There is none and on a subsequent playthrough I know there will continue to be none. The way I lay it out gives me the player uncertainty in every playthrough. I do not role play the way you do.

Your style of play makes no sense to me.  I can't imagine considering my own preferences when roleplaying.

Each time I play the game with a new character, it's a brand new story.  Every twist is new to that character.  That character experiences triumph or sorrow, fear or elation, just the same as any previous characters did.

That said, if you want the outcome not to be known to you, we can accommodate that without making the outcomes contrived or predictable to me.

We can randomise the outcome.  If, at Redcliffe, choosing the third option would work some of the time, but not all of the time, and not for any reason other than chance, would that be acceptable to you?  That would satisfy my need for unpredictability while also satisfying yours.

How's that?

I could live with that.

For what its' worth, so could I. In retrospect, I am a little surprised the random generation of outcomes doesn't play a bigger role in decision based RPGs more. Given the age we live in where people look up a walkthrough before they even begin playing a game (a true crime, in my book), it would be interesting to see a game that, despite choosing a certain path, could have a different outcome in a number of instances based on a digital dice roll.

Of course, this would be a feature that could lead to a lot of confusion and rage-quit of people who do not understand or appreciate it. And its primary purpose would be to make replays more exciting, something that Bioware has stated they aren't that concerened with doing (they'd prefer people have access to all content on their first playthrough). But still, a very novel idea. 

One that might result in some SERIOUS metagaming of people reloading a choice over and over until it "jackpotted" the "good" ending, however.

[ElitePinecone]

Didn't the d20 based RPGs have dialogue outcomes like coercion or intelligence checks depend on dice rolls that were modified by character attributes? Or am I getting that completely wrong?

I don't think a purely random system would be very fun at all, to my mind being reactive to player choices (even if that choice is inaction, accidental or otherwise) is much more engaging and satisfying. For example, I can understand why people think it's realistic for Redcliffe to end badly if the player waits enough - it's not necessary for every situation to have a happy ending, especially if the player does illogical or stupid things (I thought ME2 handled this well with the crew kidnapping on a timer, although it could've been made more clear).

But I don't think introducing an element of narrative randomness would be a good idea at all, it'd only frustrate and confuse people. Short of some kind of emergent storytelling or (as Allan suggested in another thread) actual AI that could design scenarios or plot outcomes on the fly, I just don't think it could work well enough in the existing plot system.

[AkiKishi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
For what its' worth, so could I. In retrospect, I am a little surprised the random generation of outcomes doesn't play a bigger role in decision based RPGs more. Given the age we live in where people look up a walkthrough before they even begin playing a game (a true crime, in my book), it would be interesting to see a game that, despite choosing a certain path, could have a different outcome in a number of instances based on a digital dice roll.

Of course, this would be a feature that could lead to a lot of confusion and rage-quit of people who do not understand or appreciate it. And its primary purpose would be to make replays more exciting, something that Bioware has stated they aren't that concerened with doing (they'd prefer people have access to all content on their first playthrough). But still, a very novel idea. 

One that might result in some SERIOUS metagaming of people reloading a choice over and over until it "jackpotted" the "good" ending, however.

Pretty easy to get around. Just do what FireEmblem does and have the RNG work out the outcome before the event. Even if you save and reload you still get the same result.

[berelinde]

Purely random = bedlam. Outcomes are more satisfying when there is at least some predictability involved. Think about it. If you have carefully constructed a plan, how much fun would it be if the outcome were solely a matter of chance?

Edit: If this is in regards to Redcliffe, I can see DG's point. I don't necessarily think it would have been better, especially not if the PC has already dealt with the problem in the Circle tower and is just ducking across the lake to ask for a mage or two, but I do see where he's coming from. Making the outcome random, especially with no possibility of reload, would make me rage.

Modifié par berelinde, 20 juin 2012 - 01:16 .

[ElitePinecone]

berelinde wrote...

Making the outcome random, especially with no possibility of reload, would make me rage.

It would make the game unplayable for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Didn't the d20 based RPGs have dialogue outcomes like coercion or intelligence checks depend on dice rolls that were modified by character attributes?

Yes they did.  This is how persuasion should work.  Persuasion should not be the "I Win" button it is in the ME games.

I don't think a purely random system would be very fun at all, to my mind being reactive to player choices (even if that choice is inaction, accidental or otherwise) is much more engaging and satisfying. For example, I can understand why people think it's realistic for Redcliffe to end badly if the player waits enough - it's not necessary for every situation to have a happy ending, especially if the player does illogical or stupid things (I thought ME2 handled this well with the crew kidnapping on a timer, although it could've been made more clear).

I didn't say purely random.  By all means, have the likelihood of various outcomes affected by the PC's actions.  But the way to prevent predictablity is to eliminate purely scripted outcomes.

But I don't think introducing an element of narrative randomness would be a good idea at all, it'd only frustrate and confuse people. Short of some kind of emergent storytelling or (as Allan suggested in another thread) actual AI that could design scenarios or plot outcomes on the fly, I just don't think it could work well enough in the existing plot system.

Emergent story-telling is the whole point of roleplaying games.  That's exactly what I'm trying to accentuate.

ElitePinecone wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Making the outcome random, especially with no possibility of reload, would make me rage.

It would make the game unplayable for me.

I think reloads should be allowed.  I think reloads should always be allowed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How's that?

I could live with that.

For what its' worth, so could I.

I just brokered a compromise.  Sound the trumpets.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

No it is not exciting for me because I the gamer know that there is no urgency. Therefore I kinow nothing will happen. You will say that the PC does not know, but the PC is not the one trying to have fun with the game. I want the choice I tell the PC to make to have a chance of dire consequence. There is none and on a subsequent playthrough I know there will continue to be none. The way I lay it out gives me the player uncertainty in every playthrough. I do not role play the way you do.

Your style of play makes no sense to me.  I can't imagine considering my own preferences when roleplaying.

Each time I play the game with a new character, it's a brand new story.  Every twist is new to that character.  That character experiences triumph or sorrow, fear or elation, just the same as any previous characters did.

That said, if you want the outcome not to be known to you, we can accommodate that without making the outcomes contrived or predictable to me.

We can randomise the outcome.  If, at Redcliffe, choosing the third option would work some of the time, but not all of the time, and not for any reason other than chance, would that be acceptable to you?  That would satisfy my need for unpredictability while also satisfying yours.

How's that?

I could live with that.

For what its' worth, so could I. In retrospect, I am a little surprised the random generation of outcomes doesn't play a bigger role in decision based RPGs more. Given the age we live in where people look up a walkthrough before they even begin playing a game (a true crime, in my book), it would be interesting to see a game that, despite choosing a certain path, could have a different outcome in a number of instances based on a digital dice roll.

Of course, this would be a feature that could lead to a lot of confusion and rage-quit of people who do not understand or appreciate it. And its primary purpose would be to make replays more exciting, something that Bioware has stated they aren't that concerened with doing (they'd prefer people have access to all content on their first playthrough). But still, a very novel idea. 

One that might result in some SERIOUS metagaming of people reloading a choice over and over until it "jackpotted" the "good" ending, however.

There will always be metagaming. The developers have no need to worry about metagaming. That is a choice made by the gamer. If the gamer wishes to keep re-loading until the gamer gets the decent outcome let him/her. It's  like the gamer who keeps re-rolling until he/she got 18's in all the attributes for their character in other crpgs.

The feature would have to be explain in the manual. Bioware would have to put more effort into the manual and documentation rather the barely usable manuals they do now.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 20 juin 2012 - 04:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

There will always be metagaming. The developers have no need to worry about metagaming. That is a choice made by the gamer. If the gamer wishes to keep re-loading until the gamer gets the decent outcome let him/her. It's  like the gamer who keeps re-rolling until he/she got 18's in all the attributes for their character in other crpgs.

The feature would have to be explain in the manual. Bioware would have to put more effort into the manual and documentation rather the barely usable manuals they do now.

I'm not sure that's true.  Yes, generally I would like BioWare to write better manuals.  Their documentation of recent games has been sorely lacking.

But, they seem pretty content to give people undocumented systems.  The resistances in DA2 are a fine example.  How those worked wasn't at all clear within the game.  Since they haven't documented the scripted nature of their past games, would they really need to document the unscripted nature of future games?

I would like them to, yes, but this would appear to be something they'd be willing to accept undocumented.

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How's that?

I could live with that.

For what its' worth, so could I.

I just brokered a compromise.  Sound the trumpets.

*laughs*  Naturally, its really easy to broker a compromise when the costs are paid by someone not in the deal   (ie the devs).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I just brokered a compromise.  Sound the trumpets.

*laughs*  Naturally, its really easy to broker a compromise when the costs are paid by someone not in the deal   (ie the devs).

As David pointed out, the costs here would have been pretty small.

All randomisation does is take the three scripted outcomes and shuffle them so you can't know in advance which one you're going to get.  There's almost no extra work involved in this.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 juin 2012 - 09:40 .

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

All randomisation does is take the three scripted outcomes and shuffle them so you can't know in advance which one you're going to get.  There's almost no extra work involved in this.

Well, assuming you were writing three outcomes in the first place.   Currently, they only write one.  Presumably, outcome 2 and 3 would need cinematics, maps, dialogues, etc.   Might be small potatoes for a particular scene, but replicated across the game that would seem like a lot to me.

Still, the devs would know better than I how much zots would be involved. 

[PinkShoes]

Well when a game tries to please everyone it is usually really awesome.

[wsandista]

Rojahar wrote...

"We want to appeal to a wider audience." sounds better than "We want our game to be so exclusive and niche that nobody plays it. /pcgamerhipsterglasses"

"We want to appeal to a wider audience" often translates to "We need the CoD crowd". There is nothing wrong with making a niche game(Bethesda does it) if it is good at filling that niche. I would argue that it is much better to please a smaller crowd than to disappoint a larger crowd.