107 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Foolsfolly wrote...

There's always player agency otherwise you're not playing a video game... or either watching a movie or you're just running a simulation.

I would describe roleplaying as more like running a simulation than playing a game.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Hungry, Hungry, Hippos, thats what you think action combat amount too.

It is. 

It depends on how fast you can hit buttons, it depends on the timing of pushing the button (else you don't eat it, but send it flying away from your hippo and into the mouth of another player) and it is based on how quickly you can process information in a fast-paced environment. 

If that doesn't describe action games, then please, enlighten me. 

For the record, please don't be condescending, assuming others have never played an action game before. I have. Many times. I'm pretty good at them. I've played through Halo, CoD, GoW series (both God and Gears of War) as well as many others. But the fact is action elements weaken the experience for role playing games. It makes the characters in your party super-heroes when you are in control of them, even on the hardest difficulty levels. 

[Foolsfolly]

Ok, sure, Sylvius. You can purposely gimp your character or party if you want. I personally see no reason to since my fondest moments in the DA series have all involved either the character moments or my party effortlessly working in tandem to kick major ass.

I'm all about optimum characters and tinkering with the tactics screens. If a battle requires it I also like pausing and positioning characters. All which are very heavily player controlled.

Which is why I'm against Freeflow Combat in DA3. It misses what I see is essential to the series... party tactics.

I also agree with Fast Jimmy's earlier statement about how the game should encourage positioning early in the game. Something like another character saying "X get up on that hill and cover us" might allow the player to realize height has its advantages.

This also means that the maps need to allow for these things. DA2's vanilla maps seldom did and even if they did enemies tended to spout up there for no reason completely negating the terrain advantage.

[Foolsfolly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

There's always player agency otherwise you're not playing a video game... or either watching a movie or you're just running a simulation.

I would describe roleplaying as more like running a simulation than playing a game.

I wouldn't.

Essentially I feel its about crafting a character: past, personality, beliefs, ect. And that the gameplay around that is really up to preference.

There are deep role playing games and there are some quite shallow ones. But to me it all comes down to do you decide the actions and preferences of your character or not. Which is why I don't jump to the idea that Diablo 3 is a RPG just because it has upgrading mechanics and skill trees.

You don't get to decide anything with a Diablo 3 character other than "Do I play Diablo 3 today or not?"

Of course, discussions on "what is an RPG" usually turn heated as everyone has their own preference. Like I imagine you didn't like (or wouldn't like) The Witcher 2 which only calculates damage vs armor. And you can completely beat the game by just wading into battle and clicking the left mouse button as fast as you can. Whereas others on this board seem to think it's the pinnacle of modern RPGs.

(In my own opinion it's not. But it is a fun RPG.)

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 30 août 2012 - 09:25 .

[zyntifox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I don't see how were controling them equally in Dragon Age so far?

Pause, give all the characters orders, unpause.  No character ever had to be controlled in real-time.  As long as we can't control all of them simultaneously in real-time, there cannot be a requirement that any of them be controlled in real-time.

This was the biggest failure, I think, of the console versions of DAO - there was no move-to-point command, so all movement needed to be controlled in real-time, and only one character at a time could be controlled in this way.  The inability of the player to move simultaneously all of the characters independently was also, I think, the single greatest problem with KotOR.  BioWare actually has a history of not allowing full tactical movement control of the full party on console titles.

But they fixed that (sort of) for DA2.

As a PS3 player that is my biggest beef with DA:O, the ability to assign command to a party member to move to a point. Other then that it is pretty much flawless in my opinion, at least when it comes to combat. It made tactical gameplay a lot easier in DA2 by implementing this function; shame though they made pretty much everything else worse, in terms of combat that is. Another thing that would help a lot is a queue for the issued commands. But i think that will go against their view of making the combat responsive, whatever that means.

Modifié par Cstaf, 30 août 2012 - 09:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

For the record, please don't be condescending, assuming others have never played an action game before. I have. Many times. I'm pretty good at them. I've played through Halo, CoD, GoW series (both God and Gears of War) as well as many others.

As have I.  I played Halo, and thought it was boring.  I played God of War, and thought it was boring.

I did really enjoy Delta Force, though, but it offered much slower-paced combat.  As such, it felt less repetitive.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Please, don't tell you consider having to move you fingers half a cm to imput commands to be a limitation.

It can be.  If you have a wrist injury, your ability to move your fingers will be impaired.

Combat is as much a part of the emergent narrative as conversation is.  If I don't execute my plan correctly, then I would have to reload to maintain character coherence.  I'd rather minimise the risk of that.

Because its not about how fast you can move your fingers, it always about out thinking your enemy.
If enemy is just to fast for someone, then they just have to pause the game, think about what they need to, then do it.

Being able to pause the game to make decisions is vital, yes, but being forced to implement the action in real time is unnecessarily stressful, and, frankly, unfun.

Plus, it's also impossible to do that with multiple characters simultaneously.

You think action combat is unfun and stressful, thats fine.
I think watching the game control my character doing combat is boring.
So, lets have both systems then.
Theres nothing stoping both from being added.

Also you can can control multiple characters simultaneously in real time, all you need is four buttons.

 

[Foolsfolly]

Cstaf wrote...

As a PS3 player that is my biggest beef with DA:O, the ability to assign command to a party member to move to a point. Other then that it is pretty much flawless in my opinion, at least when it comes to combat. It made tactical gameplay a lot easier in DA2 by implementing this function; shame though they made pretty much everything else worse, in terms of combat that is. Another thing that would help a lot is a queue for the issued commands. But i think that will go against their view of making the combat responsive, whatever that means.

Queing commands. Now there's an idea.

It can still be responsive too. Look at StarCraft 2. RTS and not an RPG, yes. But that queue can be over-ridden easily with a button click. And as Korean pro-gamers can tell you StarCraft is pretty damn responbsive combat. Keystroke and mouse clicks are even measured in the pro-circle.

So queuing doesn't have to make combat unresponsive. Telling Alistair to Shield Bash an enemy running towards Wynne only to see Alistair get in front of the enemy, dance around the enemy, eventually get left behind the enemy, and only bashing the enemy once its started attacking Wynne is unresponsive combat.

Not telling Alistair to Shield Bash, followed by two standard attacks, and then Assault.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Foolsfolly wrote...

Essentially I feel its about crafting a character: past, personality, beliefs, ect.[/quote]
I woiuld agree, but the gameplay is a part of that.  How you assign abilities is an expression of the character's personality.  Which tactics you employ is an expression of the character's personality.  So, for me, gameplay can't be a matter of preference, because the gameplay needs to permit those expressions of personality.
There are deep role playing games and there are some quite shallow ones. But to me it all comes down to do you decide the actions and preferences of your character or not.[/quote]
Yes, and combat tactics and attribute assignments are among those.
[quote]Like I imagine you didn't like (or wouldn't like) The Witcher 2 which only calculates damage vs armor.[/quote]
I made it about 10 minutes into the first Witcher game before I decided the combat was intolerable.

[Foolsfolly]

I made it about 10 minutes into the first Witcher game before I decided the combat was intolerable.

It is. And its reams of spread sheet patterned menus makes it feel like a much much older game than it is. The series is a fun one and I really look forward to Witcher 3 but that's a series that's good despite some of its features and not because of them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Also you can can control multiple characters simultaneously in real time, all you need is four buttons.

If there's only one button per character, sure.  How fun would that be?  And if it were a timing-based system, do you honestly think you could do that with four characters at a time?

[Realmzmaster]

The gamer should not be able to compensate for what their characters in their PC's party lacks. As I said before if I have a character that has zero dodge skill it should not matter if I hit the dodge button. The character should always be hit. If the player can hit the dodge button and most or almost all of the time the enemy misses then that is wrong as far as the character is concerned.

The same can be said for puzzles. If my character has an intelligence or cunning of 10 then there should be limited ability for that character to figure out a difficult puzzle. In a party based game it is not a problem unless all of the characters have low intelligence or cunning then the puzzle should be unsolvable. The designer then has to provide an alternative method to get around the puzzle.

The fact that I the gamer can solve the puzzle should not matter if I decide to create a character that is dumb as a brick.

Accessibility is key for me. A game to me should be accessible to as many potential customers as possible. That is why for me DA2 and DAO ( and other Bioware rpgs along with Witcher 1) trumps Witcher 2. I can control DA2 with the mouse. I game on a PC.

Yes I have a physical limitation in my left hand it is called arthritis. No amount of practice is going to make it go away. In fact I am basically typing this with my right hand. There are others who are in the same position.

IMHO reaction time should not be a prerequisite for playing an rpg.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cstaf wrote...

Another thing that would help a lot is a queue for the issued commands. But i think that will go against their view of making the combat responsive, whatever that means.

I insist that DA2's combat is less responsive that DAO's combat.  DAO didn't trap your characters in uninterruptable animations wherein they would ignore commands.

Not to mention having them ignore hold or movement commands when focus was taken to a different character.

[Maria Caliban]

MichaelStuart wrote...

You think action combat is unfun and stressful, thats fine.
I think watching the game control my character doing combat is boring.
So, lets have both systems then.
Theres nothing stoping both from being added.

Also you can can control multiple characters simultaneously in real time, all you need is four buttons.

Today's award for most out of touch BSN poster goes to... probably someone in the ME 3 forums. But you're a close second.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Accessibility is key for me.

I've complained before about how audible cues for things like ambient dialogue exclude deaf gamers, as well.

BioWare has actually listened to me on one issue related to accessibility.  I pointed out that DAO (unlike many earlier BioWare games) didn't have a mouse activated pause button anywhere in the UI.  As such, only someone who could use both the mouse and keyboard at the same time could play the game effectively.  I raised the issue because, at the time, I had an infant who sometimes slept on on my lap while I played, and I didn't then have full use of both of my hands (as one needed to prevent her from rolling onto the floor).

And, lo, in DA2 there is a mouse-activated pause button in the UI.  Good job, BioWare.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Today's award for most out of touch BSN poster goes to... probably someone in the ME 3 forums. But you're a close second.

That would make an awesome forum signature.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

Another thing that would help a lot is a queue for the issued commands. But i think that will go against their view of making the combat responsive, whatever that means.

I insist that DA2's combat is less responsive that DAO's combat.  DAO didn't trap your characters in uninterruptable animations wherein they would ignore commands.

Not to mention having them ignore hold or movement commands when focus was taken to a different character.

The way Hold is implemented in DA2 is just wrong and the problem is I think it is deliberate. In DAO you told the party to hold that is where the party stayed unless the controlled character transition to a new area.  In DA2 they move  to keep close to the controlled character which removes a tactic that can be used against the enemy. The ability to lure them into an ambush.

[AtreiyaN7]

I love B:AC and B:AA, but this is something that I just don't really see working in a Dragon Age RPG of any sort. I don't believe that freeflow can work in a system where you're dealing with combat that's calculated based on weapons modifiers, character stats, etc. There are also various schools of magic to consider - I mean, what are you supposed to do if you're a spirit healer, freeflow heals? It just doesn't work for me.

In something like ME where combat is not reliant on character strength, dexterity, intelligence, willpower, etc. freeflow could work (maybe).

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Accessibility is key for me.

I've complained before about how audible cues for things like ambient dialogue exclude deaf gamers, as well.

BioWare has actually listened to me on one issue related to accessibility.  I pointed out that DAO (unlike many earlier BioWare games) didn't have a mouse activated pause button anywhere in the UI.  As such, only someone who could use both the mouse and keyboard at the same time could play the game effectively.  I raised the issue because, at the time, I had an infant who sometimes slept on on my lap while I played, and I didn't then have full use of both of my hands (as one needed to prevent her from rolling onto the floor).

And, lo, in DA2 there is a mouse-activated pause button in the UI.  Good job, BioWare.

I agree with you. Which is why having Bodhan or Gamlen tell you that a letter is there is wrong. There should be subtitles or closed captioning for the hearing impaired.

[Foolsfolly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

Another thing that would help a lot is a queue for the issued commands. But i think that will go against their view of making the combat responsive, whatever that means.

I insist that DA2's combat is less responsive that DAO's combat.  DAO didn't trap your characters in uninterruptable animations wherein they would ignore commands.

Not to mention having them ignore hold or movement commands when focus was taken to a different character.

I've lost count of how many times I've rolled my eyes waiting for my character to stop its damn killing of an ogre in Origins. That uninterruptable freaking animation drove me nuts especially if there's still a sizable battle going on around me. It's like they momentary take away one of your characters for a while.

That being said I really dislike the attack-chain for Mages in DA2 which sometimes (too often) means the spell you just told the character to cast cannot be cast until the attack chain finishes. Your direct action should be considered the only action the mage should carry out.

I didn't notice attack animations stopping the other classes so much.

And yeah, what's up with the characters ignoring wait commands in DA2?

[Foolsfolly]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Accessibility is key for me.

I've complained before about how audible cues for things like ambient dialogue exclude deaf gamers, as well.

BioWare has actually listened to me on one issue related to accessibility.  I pointed out that DAO (unlike many earlier BioWare games) didn't have a mouse activated pause button anywhere in the UI.  As such, only someone who could use both the mouse and keyboard at the same time could play the game effectively.  I raised the issue because, at the time, I had an infant who sometimes slept on on my lap while I played, and I didn't then have full use of both of my hands (as one needed to prevent her from rolling onto the floor).

And, lo, in DA2 there is a mouse-activated pause button in the UI.  Good job, BioWare.

I agree with you. Which is why having Bodhan or Gamlen tell you that a letter is there is wrong. There should be subtitles or closed captioning for the hearing impaired.

Isn't there a quest icon on the mini-map for when you have mail? I thought there was.

[MichaelStuart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Hungry, Hungry, Hippos, thats what you think action combat amount too.

It is. 

It depends on how fast you can hit buttons, it depends on the timing of pushing the button (else you don't eat it, but send it flying away from your hippo and into the mouth of another player) and it is based on how quickly you can process information in a fast-paced environment. 

If that doesn't describe action games, then please, enlighten me. 

For the record, please don't be condescending, assuming others have never played an action game before. I have. Many times. I'm pretty good at them. I've played through Halo, CoD, GoW series (both God and Gears of War) as well as many others. But the fact is action elements weaken the experience for role playing games. It makes the characters in your party super-heroes when you are in control of them, even on the hardest difficulty levels. 

Action games are about having control of yourself and out thinking your opponent. How fast the game is doen't matter, all that matters is I (not the game) out thought the opponent by imputting the right commands.

If I offended you or anyone else, I apologize, but I stick by my comment about strategy games.

If action really weaken's the Role Playing for you, thats fine.
But know that having to point and click, then letting the game fight my battles for me, weaken's Role Playing for me.

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I've lost count of how many times I've rolled my eyes waiting for my character to stop its damn killing of an ogre in Origins. That uninterruptable freaking animation drove me nuts especially if there's still a sizable battle going on around me. It's like they momentary take away one of your characters for a while.

Absolutely.  Those killshot animations in DAO were really annoying.

I remember when I was fighting Jarvia for the first time (I still think she's one of the three most difficult encounters in the game), and I was on probably my fourth attempt when I realised I had a chance to win.  I had only two characters still standing, both with extremely low health, and was about to kill the final non-Jarvia opponent.  Jarvia was also almost dead, and advancing on my nearly dead mage.  And then I got a killshot animation on that other opponent.  In that 1.5 seconds, I could have intercepted Jarvia and kept my mage alive, but instead my character wasted time beheading some assassin and Jarvia killed my mage.  And then my Rogue.  And I lost the fight again.

That being said I really dislike the attack-chain for Mages in DA2 which sometimes (too often) means the spell you just told the character to cast cannot be cast until the attack chain finishes. Your direct action should be considered the only action the mage should carry out.

It's because they front-loaded the attacks.  In DAO, all the wind-up happns before the impact, so if you cancel an attack midway through you don't hit anybody (but you can now start some other action immediately).  In DA2, the hit has already happened, but the game still forces you to pay the activation cost in terms of the time it takes the animation to complete, and since you already landed the hit you're not allowed to cancel.

I didn't notice attack animations stopping the other classes so much.

I play mages almost exclusively, so this may be why I found it so irritating.

And yeah, what's up with the characters ignoring wait commands in DA2?

There appears to be some limit as to how far away from each other the characters can be, so they'll ignore the Hold command to follow if another character goes too far.  It basically prevents you from ambushing anyone or scouting ahead (which was perhaps already impossible with the loss of non-combat stealth).

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Action games are about having control of yourself and out thinking your opponent. How fast the game is doen't matter, all that matters is I (not the game) out thought the opponent by imputting the right commands.

If I offended you or anyone else, I apologize, but I stick by my comment about strategy games.

If action really weaken's the Role Playing for you, thats fine.
But know that having to point and click, then letting the game fight my battles for me, weaken's Role Playing for me.

So it's not the action you need.  It's finer control over your character.  You don't want a combat round to be an abstraction - you want to make every relevant decision within that combat round: how and when to feint or strike, how or when to parry.

Am I right?

I'd be happy to play a game like that as long as I didn't have to input those commands in real time.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Also you can can control multiple characters simultaneously in real time, all you need is four buttons.

If there's only one button per character, sure.  How fun would that be?  And if it were a timing-based system, do you honestly think you could do that with four characters at a time?

Its fun, because I'm out thinking the enemy.
Now that I have thought about it. I would need a few more buttons and either a mouse or a control stick with a button, but it is doable.