44 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

DA:O was pretty cinematic, but it didn't appear to prioritise this over player involvement the way that DA2 and ME3 do.

There didn't appear to be the belief that bringing up the dialogue choice was a bad thing, to be avoided whenever possible.

[FedericoV]

Wulfram wrote...

It's very hard to do non-combat as satisfying gameplay, particularly in a computer based system with no live DM.  Because they really need the ability for the player to improvise.

You can do good stealth gameplay, but not in a party based game, and only really if the game is designed primarily to cater to it.

But it's hard to make good combat H&S RPG gameplay too. Look at Blizzard and how much time it takes them to develop their games. For sure Bioware is not doing that well in that department since BG (with the exception of ME2/3 wich are basically shooter games... DA:O's combat was just adequate). I mean, I understand what you mean, but I think that if they focus more on diplomacy, mistery and personal interactions, offering a wider set of possible interaction with the setting, players would be more willing to forgive the limitations in terms of gameplay. 

- The class system should be ditched in favour of a "faction" system.

Not sure what this means

Examples: 

- Vampire the Masquerade. Every player is a vampire. They just belongs to different bloodlines with different backgrounds and perks. 
- Legend of the 5 Rings: Every player is a samurai. They just belongs to different clans with different background and perks.
- Amber: Every charachter is a prince of Amber. They just have different backgrounds and ancestors (to put it simply).

It's not RADICALLY different from a class system (with the exception of Amber wich is more extreme being a diceless game). It just introduces many levels of asymmetry and put more emphasis on the Role in the story (the charachter) and less on the role in the combat (the miniatures on the grid).

Don't know exactly what "skill upgrades system" means.  But most non-level systems are not at all balanced.

Sorry, your'e right, the term I used is not really clear. I mean non-level system like the ones used in the Storytelling system for example. I get what you mean but game balance is a big issue when the game focuses on combat as the only meaningfull interaction with the world. If the game allow a wider range of possible interactions, game balance became less of an issue for the player (there are games developed more in that vein like VtM:B and AP wich are a complete mess in terms of game balance: in my experience the end result was still fun).

The first part I disagree with, the second seems uncontroversial.

It's easier to represent NPCs as individuals if they are not just slot-holders linked to their classes. In a storydriven game that focus on dialogue and relationships, I should be free to bring with me the charachters I care most and not min-max or metagame the choice according to their classes. I'm just saying that it would help the storytelling and not be at odds with it if that's really the focus.

I strongly disagree.  party based combat is a defining feature of Dragon Age.  Scrapping it means it's not Dragon Age.

Oh, I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago. It seems to me that Bioware has a different vision on their baby since in DA2 they have done everything to turn party-based combat in an unenjoyable mess. If party based combat is a defining feature, the game should not fight it at every step. I prefer a realized non-party based combat than a messy compromise like DA2.

And relegating squadmates to basically spectators/power bots is bad too.

But it's the only way for combat to work if your remove semi-turn based combat mechainics used in BG and Kotor. It's counter intuitive to controll 4 charachters in real time in 3rd person view (especially with a consolle's controller).

I don't know what this means.  I'd consider customization extremely important to characterisation, so I guess we are using these words in different ways.

What I mean is less loot/stat oriented customization and more room to express my charachter in RP terms.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you want an action based combat system Dragons Dogma is where it's at. Nothing better on the market at the moment with regards to combat.

Is DD worth getting? I have some spare cash and am thinking about re-buying DE:HR and Dawnguard or DD.

Between DE:HR and DD it's a really close call. DD's combat is really amazing , but Deus Ex wins in terms of story and gets bonus points for Adam. DD has a really in depth character creation but you still play the same character(there are classes). The AI and pawn features are really good too, the pawn thing is unique I think never seen it done before anyway.


DE:HR is really cheap now DD seems to be holding its price.DD does a lot of new stuff and the boss fights are the high point. Where as DE:HR is great but nothing new and the boss fights are the low point.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 30 juin 2012 - 03:59 .

[FedericoV]

sickpixie wrote...

I'm always perplexed when I see someone talk about DA:O as if it wasn't full of cinematic storytelling. It's as if I played a fantasy Knights of the Old Republic with gameplay elements taken from MMOs and others played something else. Is it a case of ignoring features you don't like because it has some features in common with your Platonic Form of RPGs?

What Wulfram said. Basically, DA:O's use of cinematic was less at odds with the gameplay. It was already a compromise but it worked better because everything was put together in a more organic way. Moreover, the basic elements of the storyline (classic high fantasy/sword & sorcery epic with a twist) were not in conflict with the gameplay tools used by the devs.

Having said all of that, can we agree that DA2 is a more cinematic and less party-based game than DA:O at least? I'm not accusing anyone of betrayal, I'm just presenting an opinion on what I think has not worked in DA2.

[Jerrybnsn]

wsandista wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you want an action based combat system Dragons Dogma is where it's at. Nothing better on the market at the moment with regards to combat.

Is DD worth getting? I have some spare cash and am thinking about re-buying DE:HR and Dawnguard or DD.

DD looked a little to "kiddie" to me.  I played the demo and the combat reminded me of Spyro.  DE:HR has only stealth combat which is kind of boring to me (although I only played a few hours of the game and haven't returned...yet).   I just downloaded Dawnguard but haven't had that much oppurtunity to get into it.  I found myself working on upgrading my smithing to level 70...when all of a sudden a master vampire attacked me.  His corpse is still sitting in the Whiterun smith forge the last time I checked.

[Vormaerin]

FedericoV wrote...

What Wulfram said. Basically, DA:O's use of cinematic was less at odds with the gameplay. It was already a compromise but it worked better because everything was put together in a more organic way. Moreover, the basic elements of the storyline (classic high fantasy/sword & sorcery epic with a twist) were not in conflict with the gameplay tools used by the devs.

Having said all of that, can we agree that DA2 is a more cinematic and less party-based game than DA:O at least? I'm not accusing anyone of betrayal, I'm just presenting an opinion on what I think has not worked in DA2.

Well, DA2 was clearly not given the same resources at DAO.  You can easily see gameplay elements that are in a more raw state in DA2 than in DAO.   For example, both reused maps extensively but it was obvious in DA2 and decently concealed in DAO.

I can certainly agree that DAO was a better made game.  But I have difficulty accepting that is because of any specific design choices.   Hawke wasn't central to the story the way the protagonist should have been, but that wasn't because of the cinematics.   It was because the story didn't get as fleshed out and refined as it should have been.

I don't like exploding bodies in combat, but then I don't like the whole 'drenched in blood spatter" theme of the DA series.  I didn't even buy DAO until assured there was an 'off switch' for that.   DAO's combat was mediocre and had mages that were way out of whack with everyone else.  DA2's was better.   CCC's were a clear improvement over mages' getting spell combos and everyone else getting jack.   However, as you can see with the DLC, the basic game's combat needed a lot of polish.

[FedericoV]

wsandista wrote...

I agree with most of your post, excpet for the removal of full-party control or levels, which I don't want to go. I'm also on the fence about removing classes. It works excellently in games like TES and Fallout(1 and 2, I hated 3), but I don't know about a DA game removing them.

As I said in a previous reply, I've just made an incomplete list and I'm not sure too that each of my proposal could improve a DA game (not counting the fact that Bioware will never read a post of mine to decide what they have to do with the DA franchise LOL). It hasn't to be exactly like that, I just offered some constructive criticism based on my pnp experiences.

Levels and classes are perfect for action games that relies on combat. But if the focus is the story and the relationship with NPCs, they just risk to become a distraction that limit the possibilites of the storytelling.

Party controll: again, it's perfect for game like BG and it worked adequately well in DA:O. But if they keep going with quick and actiony contact-based combat in third person view, you start to feel that you're fighting with the controll and the game options instead of having fun with them.

Also I would like to add that there should be much less emphasis on cinematics for storytelling, the gameplay should be the main and most important source of the story.

I agree but that's not Bioware's position unfortunately. They want to stick with heavy cinematic storytelling a la ME. In that sense, we should try to offer suggestion that could improve cinematics from a player perspective and makes them less of a passive experience. Honestly, I don't know how... I do not get paid for these afterall .

[FedericoV]

Vormaerin wrote...

Well, DA2 was clearly not given the same resources at DAO.  You can easily see gameplay elements that are in a more raw state in DA2 than in DAO.   For example, both reused maps extensively but it was obvious in DA2 and decently concealed in DAO.

I understand: it's obvious that if they polish DA2 formula with more budget and time, DA3 will probably be a better game. Will it be a great popular game? I don't know but it ought to or the franchise is as good as dead imho and I would not be happy cause it still has a lot of untapped potential. What I'm saying is that no matter how much they polish it, imho they need to revisit and rework most compromises (or better, ditch them) if they want to make an outstanding game.

Let me make a simple example to explain what I mean when I say that the gameplay is at odds with the overall vision of the game.

There is a sequence in DA2 settled in a haunted house. It's quite amusing as a comedic moment. But as a suspence or ambient moment if falls completely flat. Why? Because it's pointless to have such a passage when in the first place is obvious that it's going to finish in lot of exploding bodies and secondly because it's ridiculous to presume I should fear a ghost who moves objects and closes door when I kicked every ass of every living creature in kirkwall and surrounding for the large majority of the game.

Now, let's travel in time and visit an hounted house sequence that really worked fine in an RPG. The Haunted Hotel in VtMB. No fights. No great special effects. No big bad boss at the end. Just exploration, adventure and a very dark story that resembled Kubrick's Shining very closely. That's how the thing should be done. But how could them if the point of the DA franchise has become to mix button and awesome? How if the point at the end is to have just a framework to support a streamlined version of classic RPG combat?

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 juin 2012 - 04:44 .

[Realmzmaster]

I like some of the ideas.
The best translation of D & D rules were Temple of Elemental Evil (3.5 ruleset) and Pool of Radiance (3.0 ruleset): Myth Drannor. Both games were truer to the rule set than BG being completely turn based.

BG was realtime with pause (or semi-turn base as you state) allowing the gamer to issue commands to companions. DAO and DA2 simply took it a step further by using the Tactics screen. BG2 allowed the gamer to develop scripts for each companion and incorporate them into the game. The tactics screen allows the gamer to customize the fighting style of the companions and set up a style for the PC when the gamer wishes to take control of a companion.

The system works well (IMHO). I like the ability to be able to switch to whatever companion I wish to control. I do not want to be limited to controlling only the PC that is removing more player choice.

classless and levelless systems are interesting in concept but most gamers still ended with the same basic types (just without the title) of warrior, mage and rogue because it has been ingrained in most gamers because of D & D.

Legends of the Five Rings is a good system, but they limit the party members to playing samurai associated with different clans that provide different skills and/or perks. The gamer cannot play a ninja, monk etc.
World of Darkness has three sub main games in it: Vampire, Werewolf and Mage which can be interchanged using the World of Darkness core rule book: So you can actually have all three in a party with a competent DM. Not as limiting as Legend of the Five Rings.

Many gamers want more player agency not less. Like the ability to choose race, class etc.

Legend of the Five Rings works because it is based on feudal Japan and all players are human. The same with World of Darkness. The characters will be vampire, werewolf or mage which are or at one time human. Race is not a consideration.

I am all for gameplay that uses other means of resolving conflict besides combat.

The problem with very few but powerful weapons comes in terms of game balance. An overpowered weapon or item can destroy game balance much like overpowered spells like Mana Clash. Combat becomes a cake walk with no challenge or the enemies have to ramp up to take into account the power of the party because of the artifact. Games that used powerful items also gave the items drawbacks that made keeping them dangerous to the wearer. (Like cursed items.)

[FedericoV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I like some of the ideas.

<cut>

The problem with very few but powerful weapons comes in terms of game balance. An overpowered weapon or item can destroy game balance much like overpowered spells like Mana Clash. Combat becomes a cake walk with no challenge or the enemies have to ramp up to take into account the power of the party because of the artifact. Games that used powerful items also gave the items drawbacks that made keeping them dangerous to the wearer. (Like cursed items.)

I won't reply about your points on PnP RPGs since it's a little bit OT. Mind that I've just bring them as examples of what could be done to resolve some of the issues I have with DA2 (I completely understand that for a lot of persons, they are not issues at all). I understand what you say about those RPGs: mind that for me the simplest solution would be to return to DA:O's model and work to improve it. I'm offering alternatives simply because I lost all hope in a return to a style closer to BG (and you know how much I love those games since we have discussed it in depth many times before).

About powerfull items ruining game balance: I don't believe it to be the case. It's just a question of... overall balance I guess? I mean, in BG there was a Holy Avenger's sword called Carsomyr. Best weapon in the game but it never ruined the experience (and they did not have to resort to level scaling). In DA2 there are a lot of (pointless) items but there are a lot of issues of game balance. Like... have you ever watched the video of that Rogue who could kill the Arishock with 3 blows? Moreover, game balance is overrated if the focus is the story. It's very important for an hack and slash game like Diablo 3. But for a storydriven game the "build" you  should care most about are the choices and consquences that help you shape an unique experience.

[Realmzmaster]

FedericoV wrote...

Snip

You are assuming that the quest was not meant as a comedic moment when it started. Varric even states that he did not tell the new owner about its colorful past and strange events are happening. Varric and the new owner assume it is a ghost. When it is in fact something else that the party has encountered before. Varric enlists Hawke to go with him to investigate. Hawke has the option of refusing or accepting. Refusal means quest is over. This quest was never meant to be frightening or scary

The ghosts in Dragon Age are not like ghosts in D & D. Ghosts in D & D are incorporeal beings immuned to nonmagical attacks. Ghosts in Dragon Age can be killed just like any other enemy which is an oversimplification. The quest could have been more challenging if that were not the case. The same point occurs in DAO with the enraged Dwarven spirits.

Hawke should have had to find other ways to kill the "ghost" or figure out that physical weapons had no effect and magic was the only way. A party that went in with no mage would be rudely surprised.

[Realmzmaster]

FedericoV wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I like some of the ideas.

<cut>

The problem with very few but powerful weapons comes in terms of game balance. An overpowered weapon or item can destroy game balance much like overpowered spells like Mana Clash. Combat becomes a cake walk with no challenge or the enemies have to ramp up to take into account the power of the party because of the artifact. Games that used powerful items also gave the items drawbacks that made keeping them dangerous to the wearer. (Like cursed items.)

I won't reply about your points on PnP RPGs since it's a little bit OT. Mind that I've just bring them as examples of what could be done to resolve some of the issues I have with DA2 (I completely understand that for a lot of persons, they are not issues at all). I understand what you say about those RPGs: mind that for me the simplest solution would be to return to DA:O's model and work to improve it. I'm offering alternatives simply because I lost all hope in a return to a style closer to BG (and you know how much I love those games since we have discussed it in depth many times before).

About powerfull items ruining game balance: I don't believe it to be the case. It's just a question of... overall balance I guess? I mean, in BG there was a Holy Avenger's sword called Carsomyr. Best weapon in the game but it never ruined the experience (and they did not have to resort to level scaling). In DA2 there are a lot of (pointless) items but there are a lot of issues of game balance. Like... have you ever watched the video of that Rogue who could kill the Arishock with 3 blows? Moreover, game balance is overrated if the focus is the story. It's very important for an hack and slash game like Diablo 3. But for a storydriven game the "build" you  should care most about are the choices and consquences that help you shape an unique experience.

Yes I saw that video and I know he used mods to create the ultimate rogue build. A rogue can kill the Arishok easier than a mage or warrior provided you build them properly but not in three blows. The one he used in the video could not be done without mods and an exploit

[FedericoV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are assuming that the quest was not meant as a comedic moment when it started.

No, I'm assuming that it was something in between comedy and suspence/mistery and that it falls flat on the suspence/mistery part (I never talked about "scary") since it does not make a lot of sense with the rest of the gameplay.

I don't remember the exact specifics: I just remember that my reaction to the sequence was "this is odd". The fact that it's an optional quest, does not change my point. Jeez, even the final quest is optional, that does not change the fact that it was a rushed job that leaves a lot to be desired.

[Realmzmaster]

FedericoV wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are assuming that the quest was not meant as a comedic moment when it started.

No, I'm assuming that it was something in between comedy and suspence/mistery and that it falls flat on the suspence/mistery part (I never talked about "scary") since it does not make a lot of sense with the rest of the gameplay.

I don't remember the exact specifics: I just remember that my reaction to the sequence was "this is odd". The fact that it's an optional quest, does not change my point. Jeez, even the final quest is optional, that does not change the fact that it was a rushed job that leaves a lot to be desired.

My reaction was that it made sense that a mansion that had a malevolent object in it at one time (and mass murder) may have left something behind. We will have to agree to disagree.

[FedericoV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Yes I saw that video and I know he used mods to create the ultimate rogue build. A rogue can kill the Arishok easier than a mage or warrior provided you build them properly but not in three blows. The one he used in the video could not be done without mods and an exploit

I don't know he was using mods. But exploit are a game balance issue, right? Talking about the mage in the Arishock duel, are you still convinced that the game was balanced? Having said that, for me game balance in a storydriven game is a relative issue as I allready said. And I really do not believe that you can create a direct correlation between the number of items in a game and the balance of its combat. I played a lot of unbalanced games with lot of items and lot of balanced games with very few ones.

Having few but powerfull items that are strictly related to the story just mean that abundance and quality of fat-loot is not crucial to the storytelling and that more often than not it just became a distraction (while it's crucial feature for a game like Diablo where the story is just an afterthought... and where you can even make real money selling stuff).

[FedericoV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

My reaction was that it made sense that a mansion that had a malevolent object in it at one time (and mass murder) may have left something behind. We will have to agree to disagree.

But it does not make a lot of sense that it could scare you or your companions when you are the Champions of Kirkwall, who has kicked allready a lot of living and undead asses during your travel. And it's pointless when you allready know that it's going to finish in a blood bath. At least, give me the option to finish the quest without relying to combat.

[Rawgrim]

DA2 felt more like watching a story play out, rather than me playing the story, being a part of it, and influencing it.

[sickpixie]

FedericoV wrote...

sickpixie wrote...

I'm always perplexed when I see someone talk about DA:O as if it wasn't full of cinematic storytelling. It's as if I played a fantasy Knights of the Old Republic with gameplay elements taken from MMOs and others played something else. Is it a case of ignoring features you don't like because it has some features in common with your Platonic Form of RPGs?

What Wulfram said. Basically, DA:O's use of cinematic was less at odds with the gameplay. It was already a compromise but it worked better because everything was put together in a more organic way. Moreover, the basic elements of the storyline (classic high fantasy/sword & sorcery epic with a twist) were not in conflict with the gameplay tools used by the devs.

Unless you're referring to the removal of player character options, I don't understand what you mean by at odds. I also don't remember any moments where I'd blame a cinematic for gameplay/story segregation. It was there, but it fell on the gameplay-side.

Having said all of that, can we agree that DA2 is a more cinematic and less party-based game than DA:O at least? I'm not accusing anyone of betrayal, I'm just presenting an opinion on what I think has not worked in DA2.

Yes to the first, no to the second. They did make micromangament unnecessary (and infuriating if you actually wanted to try), but soloing or playing without customised tactics would be an exercise in tedium (or even more tedium depending on your way of looking at things).

[FedericoV]

sickpixie wrote...
Unless you're referring to the removal of player character options, I don't understand what you mean by at odds. I also don't remember any moments where I'd blame a cinematic for gameplay/story segregation. It was there, but it fell on the gameplay-side.

Basically, what I mean with "at odds" is that for DA2 they wanted a fluid, addictive, adrenalinic and cinematic gameplay experience as a whole. I remember a Laidlaw's post in the boards where he said that with DA2 they wanted to build a bridge between RPGs and Gods of War. The classic D&Desque RPG format, based on party interaction and micromanagement, is at odds with that goal imho. The end result is that you will dumb down your RPG making it less enjoyable for what an RPG can offer, while looking and playing like a clunky version of an action game.

I could expand more on the subjects but I don't want to write another wall of text: you can agree or not off course but I hope that at least I made some sense. Let me just add that the juvenile visuals and estethics of the combat are completely at odds with the more intimate, dramatic and supposedly mature themes explored in the storyline. It's hard to pass from exploding bodies to philosophic reflection on the nature of power and control, but that's more subjective I guess.

Yes to the first, no to the second. They did make micromangament unnecessary (and infuriating if you actually wanted to try), but soloing or playing without customised tactics would be an exercise in tedium (or even more tedium depending on your way of looking at things).

Well, then, what's the point of party based combat if you remove micromanagement? I tried to use the tactic screen and I understand that there are many people who likes it very much: to each is own but in my opinion is simply not fun or worth the effort. If I play a party based game, I do it because I like to optimize the choices of my party and in my experience that's simply not going to happen using the tactic screen.

The default difficulty of the game in Bioware's view do not require you to be in controll of the whole party (again, why put all that effort on the party in the first place then: ME solution is a lot more economic and intuitive in that sense).

Modifié par FedericoV, 01 juillet 2012 - 10:49 .

[sickpixie]

FedericoV wrote...

Basically, what I mean with "at odds" is that for DA2 they wanted a fluid, addictive, adrenalinic and cinematic gameplay experience as a whole. I remember a Laidlaw's post in the boards where he said that with DA2 they wanted to build a bridge between RPGs and Gods of War. The classic D&Desque RPG format, based on party interaction and micromanagement, is at odds with that goal imho. The end result is that you will dumb down your RPG making it less enjoyable for what an RPG can offer, while looking and playing like a clunky version of an action game.

I could expand more on the subjects but I don't want to write another wall of text: you can agree or not off course but I hope that at least I made some sense. Let me just add that the juvenile visuals and estethics of the combat are completely at odds with the more intimate, dramatic and supposedly mature themes explored in the storyline. It's hard to pass from exploding bodies to philosophic reflection on the nature of power and control, but that's more subjective I guess.

I find everything about the series juvenile, so the over-the-top animations don't bother me. Ideally they'd have more heft, but when given a choice between combat that's boring to watch and one that isn't I prefer the latter. Either way, I don't believe the quality of animations has anything to do with how well-made the underlying systems are except when it comes to whether it feels appropriate to cancel out of them.

Well, then, what's the point of party based combat if you remove micromanagement? I tried to use the tactic screen and I understand that there are many people who likes it very much: to each is own but in my opinion is simply not fun or worth the effort. If I play a party based game, I do it because I like to optimize the choices of my party and in my experience that's simply not going to happen using the tactic screen.

The default difficulty of the game in Bioware's view do not require you to be in controll of the whole party (again, why put all that effort on the party in the first place then: ME solution is a lot more economic and intuitive in that sense).

Some people like having party members around for banter and interaction but don't believe micromanagement is a demand that should be placed on them when AI is sufficient enough. Taking away control entirely wouldn't quite work because they don't have cover to hide behind and they have access to far more abilities that are suited for different playstyles. From what I can gather, the next one will try to make micromanagement not-frustrating again (considering the greater focus on positioning and the attempts they've already made in reducing the obnoxiousness of waves) but forcing micromanagement for success probably won't happen.