332 réponses à ce sujet

[Sad Dragon]

Speaking of Low Int characters, didn't Arcanum of Steamworks and Magick Obscura handle that exceptionally well? I seem to remember that all your dialogue options was altered and I think some of the dialogue NPC's said were altered to make it gibberish as well -- could be wrong about that last part though.

-TSD

[Fast Jimmy]

In regards to the INT score of 3 (not really applicable in any Bioware game; but hey... what the heck) this is solved easily with Fallout style leveling. If you have a high INT score, you get more skill points.

That way a dumb lummox character is limited to how good in fighting he is because he gets less skill points to do more damage.

Granted, that doesn't address the root problem of the player knowing how to play the game and using strategy when their character shouldn't. But, as Sylvius said, if the player is that concerned with maintaining that level of role-play, they can always charge forward like a brute and or roam around like a lost puppy. Having such system tilt in favor of the player rather than in favor of the system mechanics is always the bet course of action, IMHO.

Allen, to your point of 2K12, yes it does require a good deal of skill to dribble, shoot and dunk WELL in these games (I too have been known to play a sports game - the shame! The horror! Lol) but if you drop the difficulty down to Easy/Casual, you can do all things pretty simply by pressing a button. Mass Effect makes combat super easy as far as enemy health, but it still requires me to line up a shot while being hounded after by Husks, a very Action-intense sevens t of gameplay that is present throughout.

DA2 also had this with the button mashing or the Rage demon dodging or the kiting.

If I'm not in control of Isabella, a character who anyone in their right mind would pump as much Dec and Cun into as humanly possible, and she, as the most dexterous and crafty person in the fight, cannot dodge the Rage demon attack, but I, as a bumbling Mage, can? That's a rift that cannot be explained except by player skill.

I would say that because a game like ME or Fallout give you control of one player, they have mechanisms which can mitigate this (pause and shoot, VATS, etc.) but since DA is a GROUP based combat system, there is no way to easily fix this without either A) getting rid of control of your party (I.e. maybe just power/ability control like in ME or altogether like in Dragon Dogma) or getting rid of the action segments of combat.

But, then again, maybe I'm missing something huge.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The only way to have a game that is devoid of any player skill is to have a game that plays itself without requiring any form of player input.

Dungeon Siege was a great game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This argument is just plain false. You're not actually shooting a gun, nor firing a bow, nor swinging a sword. You're pressing a controller button or a key on a keyboard or a mouse button.

And if I'm bad at that, my character will suffer.  That is the thing to which I object.

I constantly missed interrupts in ME2 because my hand wasn't on my mouse.  I typically remove my hand from my mouse during conversations, because that's an opportunity to rest it.  That's rest I need, and ME2 left me behind as a result.

At no point in any of these games is your ability to do any of these actions actually called into play. So when you say "characters who suffer from the same limitations we do" you're actually creating a strawman argument that doesn't reflect the reality of skills being called into question. Unless you're playing a game where you take control of someone that is playing a video game, the argument falls apart.

Okay, fine.  The character suffers from other limitations I have.  That's still a problem.

Now that I've satified your requirements for semantic precision, perhaps you'll address the actual issue.

Practise shouldn't be necessary.

Practice is required to become good at all games.

No it isn't.  Any game that gives you as much time as you need to make decisions can be played competently without any practice at all.  Since BG's mechanics were so well documented, anyone who took the time to figure out what the conseqences of his choices would be could make good gameplay decisions, even without practice.

I'd wager that you're actually quite practiced at a game like Baldur's Gate and would do significantly better than someone that has picked up the game for the first time and has no experience playing similar types of games.

In real time, perhaps.  But if the other guy is granted as much time as he wants to make decisions (as the game grants him) then he'd be able to play it just as well as me.  Just slower.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In regards to the INT score of 3 (not really applicable in any Bioware game...

Apparently someone who doesn't remember Gromnir.

[Vaeliorin]

Realmzmaster wrote...
If I design a character say with INT of 3 then no it should not be able to solve that complex puzzle and the designer needs to provide an alternate way of getting around the puzzle or make sure that the player cannot create a character that stupid or have the puzzle kill the character with a message stating the character's lack of intelligence has doomed it. The puzzle can also be optional.

Or one of his companions might solve it, assuming it's a party-based game.  Happens all the time in PnP games, and I see no reason that it can't happen in a cRPG (if people have a problem with someone being able to get through a puzzle without having to solve it themselves, I suppose you could lower/remove any experience reward if a companion solved it, though in this day and age of answers appearing on the internet sometimes even before a game is officially released, I don't know why anyone would care.)

Though, I admit, I have a hard time playing low int characters, because I want to help solve puzzles, and low int characters usually aren't helpful in doing that.

Low wisdom characters, however, are usually pretty fun.  They tend to not live very long, though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've never been entirely clear on what Wisdom is actually measuring.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I've never been entirely clear on what Wisdom is actually measuring.

*shrug*  I've always played low wisdom characters as impulsive types who don't really think before they act.  While I don't know what the designers intended, I've always viewed wisdom as the impulse control/thinking things through/self-reflection stat.  That's why my low wisdom characters tend to die.  The party will find a portal to another dimension, and while the rest of the party debates what to do, the low wisdom character will just jump through to see what's on the other side...which often times isn't too pleasant.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In regards to the INT score of 3 (not really applicable in any Bioware game...

Apparently someone who doesn't remember Gromnir.

You are absolutely correct. Let me rephrase my statement: (not really applicable to a Bioware game since Jade Empire...)

Any Bioware game after they abandoned the D&D rule set with (pretty much) set attributes at character creation. 

Meanwhile, in DA:O, not putting a single point in my Intelligence the whole game affects the cognitive abilities of my companions in the least. 


Thanks for catching me on that. 

[Deraldin]

Nah, Gromnir is a bad example. He had an INT score of 9. Higher than Minsc at 8.

[jillabender]

Personally, having my character's stats, like intelligence or cunning, influence his or her behaviour story-wise isn't a huge issue for me either way. I could see it adding to the game if it's done well, but in a game like DA:O, I wouldn't want my character's stats to dictate his or her behaviour too much – ideally, I'd want the freedom to be able to imagine my character as, for example, someone who's perceptive in certain kinds of situations but clueless in others, rather than having that be dictated for me by a somewhat arbitrary stat.

[Korusus]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Speaking of Low Int characters, didn't Arcanum of Steamworks and Magick Obscura handle that exceptionally well? I seem to remember that all your dialogue options was altered and I think some of the dialogue NPC's said were altered to make it gibberish as well -- could be wrong about that last part though.

-TSD

Yes.  And the studio that developed Arcanum (Troika) had some of the same people that developed Fallout 1/2 (Black Isle), two games in which having a low intelligence not only alters dialogue but also completely changes the way the world reacts to you and how you are able to receive quests.  This also appeard in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines (also Troika) if you played a non-typical Vampire (like the insane Malkavians) your dialogue options and the reactions you got were completely altered.  BioWare will never...ever...ever do anything like this.  Especially not EAware.  It's more cost-effective to spend that innovative developer talent on Day One DLC.

[Fast Jimmy]

Korusus wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

Speaking of Low Int characters, didn't Arcanum of Steamworks and Magick Obscura handle that exceptionally well? I seem to remember that all your dialogue options was altered and I think some of the dialogue NPC's said were altered to make it gibberish as well -- could be wrong about that last part though.

-TSD

Yes.  And the studio that developed Arcanum (Troika) had some of the same people that developed Fallout 1/2 (Black Isle), two games in which having a low intelligence not only alters dialogue but also completely changes the way the world reacts to you and how you are able to receive quests.  This also appeard in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines (also Troika) if you played a non-typical Vampire (like the insane Malkavians) your dialogue options and the reactions you got were completely altered.  BioWare will never...ever...ever do anything like this.  Especially not EAware.  It's more cost-effective to spend that innovative developer talent on Day One DLC.

Don't forget VA actors and cinematics!

[Realmzmaster]

Korusus wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

Speaking of Low Int characters, didn't Arcanum of Steamworks and Magick Obscura handle that exceptionally well? I seem to remember that all your dialogue options was altered and I think some of the dialogue NPC's said were altered to make it gibberish as well -- could be wrong about that last part though.

-TSD

Yes.  And the studio that developed Arcanum (Troika) had some of the same people that developed Fallout 1/2 (Black Isle), two games in which having a low intelligence not only alters dialogue but also completely changes the way the world reacts to you and how you are able to receive quests.  This also appeard in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines (also Troika) if you played a non-typical Vampire (like the insane Malkavians) your dialogue options and the reactions you got were completely altered.  BioWare will never...ever...ever do anything like this.  Especially not EAware.  It's more cost-effective to spend that innovative developer talent on Day One DLC.

I agree with you, but Troika had other problems that overshadowed the brillance like total absence of QA and some games that were virtually unplayable out of the box. The brillance simply got lost in the bugs. Without Circle of Eight stepping in TOEE would still be an almost unplayable mess.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 août 2012 - 01:24 .

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I've never been entirely clear on what Wisdom is actually measuring.

Perception and Awareness I believe. I still don't understand why exactly it would benefit will saves though.

[Realmzmaster]

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I've never been entirely clear on what Wisdom is actually measuring.

Perception and Awareness I believe. I still don't understand why exactly it would benefit will saves though.

I believe it measure perception as you state but it also measures willpower. Awareness would be considered part of perception.

[wsandista]

Realmzmaster wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I've never been entirely clear on what Wisdom is actually measuring.

Perception and Awareness I believe. I still don't understand why exactly it would benefit will saves though.

I believe it measure perception as you state but it also measures willpower. Awareness would be considered part of perception.

True, I meant to type "as in" instead of "and".

I believe that wisdom was the last attribute created for D&D, so they just decided to combine willpower and perception into the same attribute to balance attributes between "Physical" and "Mental".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Deraldin wrote...

Nah, Gromnir is a bad example. He had an INT score of 9. Higher than Minsc at 8.

Not the in-game Gromnir.  The BioBoards Gromnir (for whom the in-game Gromnir was named).  Gromnir wrote all of his forum posts in-character, and his character had an Intelligence of 3.  He wrote this way to protest BioWare's inaccurate documentation of Baldur's Gate, where the manual claimed that high Wisdom scores granted a positive "Magical Attack Adjustment" - a sort of resistance to magic.  And while the manual did correctly describe how the AD&D rules worked, that particular aspect of the rules had not in fact made it into the final game, so Gromnir's use of INT as a dump stat to raise his Wisdom score was ultimately pointless.  So he came to the BioBoards to let everyone know what BioWare had wrought.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 août 2012 - 05:03 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Deraldin wrote...
Nah, Gromnir is a bad example. He had an INT score of 9. Higher than Minsc at 8.

Not the in-game Gromnir.  The BioBoards Gromnir (for whom the in-game Gromnir was named).  Gromnir wrote all of his forum posts in-character, and his character had an Intelligence of 3.  He wrote this way to protest BioWare's inaccurate documentation of Baldur's Gate, where the manual claimed that high Wisdom scores granted a positive "Magical Attack Adjustment" - a sort of resistance to magic.  And while the manual did correctly describe how the AD&D rules worked, that particular aspect of the rules had not in fact made it into the final game, so Gromnir's use of INT as a dump stat to raise his Wisdom score was ultimately pointless.  So he came to the BioBoards to let everyone know what BioWare had wrought.

Is that why he did that?  I assumed he just did it for fun.  I always liked reading his posts, the way he wrote them was always entertaining.

[Cyberarmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Deraldin wrote...

Nah, Gromnir is a bad example. He had an INT score of 9. Higher than Minsc at 8.

Not the in-game Gromnir.  The BioBoards Gromnir (for whom the in-game Gromnir was named).  Gromnir wrote all of his forum posts in-character, and his character had an Intelligence of 3.  He wrote this way to protest BioWare's inaccurate documentation of Baldur's Gate, where the manual claimed that high Wisdom scores granted a positive "Magical Attack Adjustment" - a sort of resistance to magic.  And while the manual did correctly describe how the AD&D rules worked, that particular aspect of the rules had not in fact made it into the final game, so Gromnir's use of INT as a dump stat to raise his Wisdom score was ultimately pointless.  So he came to the BioBoards to let everyone know what BioWare had wrought.

Those were the days I was really shocked to see him in ToB. He managed to get Bioware mad it seems since we cannnot reason with him and had to kill him.
He was telling to truth tough(which was obvius if you ask me, Melissan screams in every step that she have other motives)

[byzantine horse]

On JC Denton having to spend skill points to practice shooting, I'll just say this:

A dude with military grade augmentations who is sent on a dangerous mission by the UN and is not able to shoot just breaks immersion for me. He's an agent, he should know how to hold a gun properly, it doesn't add anything to the experience that he can't shoot it just takes away from it as it makes no sense what so ever. I think Human Revolution handled that much better as you spend your points on other stuff.

[Dessalines]

I have always believe there are two types of rpgs: There are role playing and roll playing. The latter is basically your rolling stats or dice to decide majority of the game. Your character's backgrond is not important, and even the world the character inhabits is not really important.You can hack and slash anyone in the game withour reason, find lots of treasures, and there is always a major boss that you must defeat to win the game. These games will always exists, and be successful.
I have always enjoyed role playing games more in which you take on a role of character, and the decisions you make are not based on your stats. Cinematic storytelling just defines the world better, These games are not always successful, because who wants to play a game in which that they may not have a true "win", but role playing games are like books. It is the journey which makes them so great.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Is that why he did that?  I assumed he just did it for fun.  I always liked reading his posts, the way he wrote them was always entertaining.

I feel like I just became BioWare's cultural archivist.

[Sad Dragon]

Dessalines wrote...
 Cinematic storytelling just defines the world better, These games are not always successful, because who wants to play a game in which that they may not have a true "win", but role playing games are like books. It is the journey which makes them so great.

Just wanted to say that there are major differences between a book and a role playing game, and even then some people actually read the endings of books first to see if the book is worth their time. Now, I don't personally do that but a bad ending is liable not to make me buy another book by the author and will no doubt ruin the book for me -- no matter how much I liked it before the ending.  This goes for both happy and sad endings. If the book builds up to a happy ending and gives me a sad one its a bad ending. If it buils up to a tragic ending and ends on a happy note that is also a bad ending.

When it comes to treagity though it gets worse when its interactive as you are the one failing, not someone else. This is what brought DA2 and parts of ME3 down hard for me. You fail simply because the game wants you to fail. Its could have been handled in a good way but it is not. The plot requires your character to be stupid in order to fail so stupid you are.  There are ways to make a good story where the main character doesn't neccesary win but making interactive ones are tricky at best. Tragedies make good stories after all, not so grate when they happen to you though.

If you are refering to partial wins such as sacrefice yourself for victory, winning a battle but at great costs, or even losing the battle but still get a small victory in there -- then I see nothing wrong with it as long as it is handled in a good way.  In some games it is even expected.

I would like to end this post by saying that in non-rpg games making it a tragedy is also tricky but far less so as the players tend to have an easier time differentiating themselves from their characters. When I play Mass Effect I am Shepard, when I play Super Mario I control Mario Mario (or Luigi Mario as the case may be)

-TSD

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dessalines wrote...

I have always believe there are two types of rpgs: There are role playing and roll playing. The latter is basically your rolling stats or dice to decide majority of the game. Your character's backgrond is not important, and even the world the character inhabits is not really important.You can hack and slash anyone in the game withour reason, find lots of treasures, and there is always a major boss that you must defeat to win the game. These games will always exists, and be successful.
I have always enjoyed role playing games more in which you take on a role of character, and the decisions you make are not based on your stats. Cinematic storytelling just defines the world better, These games are not always successful, because who wants to play a game in which that they may not have a true "win", but role playing games are like books. It is the journey which makes them so great.

If those two descriptions covered all roleplaying games, then I wouldn't like roleplaying games.