99 réponses à ce sujet

[1483749283]

Thesis: Magic used to be much cooler in the D&D days and the current Diablo/MMO mana-based standard that has infected all fantasy games has got to be stopped. In the old days:

• You had to pick in advance what spells you studied (unless you went with the Sorcerer, which is basically what the current mage in DA is). Picking spells in advance meant you had to strategize for whatever you were facing the next day.
• When you cast a spell, it took some time to cast before it would activate, and it had a chance of fizzling, especially when you were hit while casting it. Nothing was more satisfying that hitting an enemy mage with an arrow and stopping the overwhelmingly powerful spell he was about to cast to summon a demon or to gas your party.
• There were multiple layers of spell protection; at low levels you could protect yourself against lower level spells, and then you gained higher and higher levels of protection. This turned into an interesting mechanic where strategy was incredibly important and rewarding, because there were spells that also *disabled* spell protections and you really had to know what you were doing. Nowadays, we just have a plain old useless dispel magic.
• There were many interesting non-damage spells. These days all the spells seem like they're just doing damage or buffing/healing. Before, you could summon an eye to explore the dungeon, or create multiple copies of yourself with limited spells, or chain multiple spells together into a simultaneous gigantic, devastating effect.

TL;DR we have devalued magic by making it into a pure damage mechanic and taking away all the complexity

Modifié par Pausanias, 30 août 2012 - 08:25 .

[King Cousland]

I don't think that spells outside of comabt, healing or "buffer" spells are really suited to DA. Certainly not with the mechanics you describe. I'd welcome toning down some of the more modern RPG elements, but I firmly believe that combat in a video game should not be determined by invisible dice rolling in the background. 

[Emzamination]

Sorry pausanias but this is the New school and that's not how we do things anymore.Those rules were great regarding Technological Dark age games like Baldurs gate and Nwn but that time is past and it's never coming back.

[1483749283]

Hurray for progress!

[Kileyan]

Pausanias wrote...

[*]TL;DR we have devalued magic by making it into a pure damage mechanic and taking away all the complexity

I have to agree with a lot of what you say. The mechanics you describe made for a way to limit the number of times you could pull out the big guns, which allowed the magic spells the be much more powerful.

In todays games, there are really just dps classes. I don't feel like I am playing a wizard anymore, I'm just playing a dps class whose way of doing damage is glowy stuff rather than arrowy stuff. No real utility spells or tricks, just a dps number or a healing number.

I don't know if we need to go back to memorizing spells, but those mechanics did breed some interesting dungeon designs and careful thought on when to use your best spells. Today it is just mash cooldowns, with the occasional combo for kicks.

Modifié par Kileyan, 30 août 2012 - 09:08 .

[Emzamination]

Pausanias wrote...

Hurray for progress!

Indeed, gaming must keep moving ever forward and never look back

[Maria Caliban]

My suspension of disbelief tends to be strained when my mage can call down a rain of fire from the heavens but can't open a wooden door. Non-combat spells just make this worse because I want a rationale why magic can do a wide range of things, but not those things the game doesn't support. Why can't I turn invisible? Fly? Make giant statues spring to life? Breath underwater? Persuade people to give me all their money?

This is actually a general grumbling about how game systems (and many stories) treat magic.

[mesmerizedish]

Vancian magic is the cancer that's killing gaming.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 30 août 2012 - 10:36 .

[Masha Potato]

you call it complexity, i call it inconvenience

[Kidd]

Vancian spellcasting is terrible. It promotes meta-game thinking on replays and generally screws a lot with the first time player.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 30 août 2012 - 11:16 .

[Firky]

I really liked memorising spells.

I don't mind cooldowns for magic in DA, and it's consistent with no measured time - like day/night, but some stuff did get lost, to my mind; prioritising which spells to take based on circumstance, using magic more sparingly etc. I don't mind "the future" but stuff is always lost.

Playing the first chapter of the BG2 redux mod for Origins really highlighted the difference for me. (They had custom injuries for fatigue, though, which was cool.)

[Blastback]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Vancian magic is the cancer that's killing gaming.

I see what you did there:D

Are any games still using Vancian magic?  I admit i prefer it myself.

[ray.mitch7410]

I'd be fine with non-combat utility spells. That being said, I'm fine without magic having the limitations you describe. That's not how magic in DA works.

[Plaintiff]

This sounds incredibly lame, for the reasons KiddDaBeauty mentioned. Also, I do not want to have to spend a significant chunk of my playtime deciding which spells I get to use that day, just like I wouldn't want to spend a significant chunk of my playtime packing and repacking my inventory.

If an enemy requires a specific spell to be defeated, and I have not got it prepared, then I'm screwed, with no options for recourse. That's not tactical gameplay, that's total ****. The same goes for utility spells, they only work if the spells you need to progress through the game world are readily available at any given moment. If I can't progress through a dungeon because I didn't learn the "unlock door" spell, or didn't bring it with me, then that's also ****.

It's 'old school' for a reason. Even if it wasn't, not every game has to use the magic system you want. If you want Vancian casting, find a game that uses it, rather than demanding that all games conform to your ideals.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 31 août 2012 - 03:02 .

[Realmzmaster]

There was a reason for Vancian spell casting in p n p rpgs. It was easier to keep track of which spells were used. The only reason why it continued into crpgs is because the games were base exactly on the D & D ruleset or loosely based on it. There was no reason for vancian spell casting except gamers were use to it from having played p n p systems.

A computer does not have the limitation that a DM has in this regard. A computer has no problem keeping track of how much mana is used for a spell and how much mana the mage has left.

So the limitation on spell casting becomes the amount of mana as it should be. It makes very little sense to say the mage must re-memorize a spell. It is not like the mage forgot the spell or how to cast it.

[Satyricon331]

I agree with what most people have said about Vancian magic. I'm love the BG games, but Vancian magic makes the game be more an issue of luck (or metagaming) than strategy, though I liked the hybrid sorcerer system.

But I agree with Pausanias about points 3 and 4; personally, I'd like to see them. Bioware doesn't seem to have thought much beyond the old combat-exclusive, mana-based system rather than changing up the mana-based formula for interesting spell duels (longer cooldowns?) or non-combat applications.

[Zanallen]

The only game where I have enjoyed a Vancian casting system is in the Suikoden series.

[AmstradHero]

While I did like vancian casting, I agree that it did pose a problem where certain fights were not winnable until you went away, memorised the right spell that could easily turn the tide. If you couldn't do that, you either had to drop the difficulty level or use a lot of consumables in order to prevail. I'm not sad to see that go.

However, I do wholeheartedly agree with the concept that there are insufficient utility spells going around. In fact, I'd argue there are insufficient utility abilities (or insufficient advantage offered by them) in many modern RPGs over the old school. Remember when you cast invisibility on your thief (or got them to swig a potion of super strength and then invisibility) so that they could deal massive damage to a target in the D&D days?

For the vast and overwhelming majority of the game, I found stealth in DA:O to be completely useless. It wasn't worth the effort to do a backstab, because the party separation required (and subsequent beating the rogue would take) wasn't worth the payoff as an initiator, and I had better things to spend points on.

Far too many games are pursuing the WoW (or even more pointedly, Diablo 3) approach of having everything centre around DPS. That's far less interesting that having non-comparable abilities of equal value. Think of the massive variety of spells that exist in D&D. All the disabling abilities, protection, weakening, debuffing, talents present in old school games barely rate nowadays. The only question being asked in the mechanics of modern games is "How high is your DPS?"

I would contend that game designers need to go play those old games. Heck, go play DotA(2)/HoN/LoL or any equivalent and see the number of abilities they have that don't simply rely on damage. See how utility spells can be made useful and viable. That's how to make modern spell (or general combat) mechanics more interesting.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Emzamination wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

Hurray for progress!

Indeed, gaming must keep moving ever forward and never look back

Unfortunately, gaming doesn't seem like it's looking forward so that tar pit, sewer and cliff are all likely desitnations.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Vancian spellcasting is terrible. It promotes meta-game thinking on replays and generally screws a lot with the first time player.

OH NOES! A system that actuayl requires some thought! TOO DIFFICULT FOR OUR PUNY MINDS!

There was a reason for Vancian spell casting in p n p rpgs. It was
easier to keep track of which spells were used. The only reason why it
continued into crpgs is because the games were base exactly on the D
& D ruleset or loosely based on it. There was no reason for vancian
spell casting except gamers were use to it from having played p n p
systems.

A computer does not have the limitation that a DM has in
this regard. A computer has no problem keeping track of how much mana
is used for a spell and how much mana the mage has left.

So the
limitation on spell casting becomes the amount of mana as it should be.
It makes very little sense to say the mage must re-memorize a spell. It
is not like the mage forgot the spell or how to cast it.

It all depends how magic is explained.
Let's say for example that spells are complex and take a long time to cast and drain a mage. So to be effective in battle, a mage prepares beforehand by casting a spell in advance and have in "waiting" to be a ctivated by a few final words/gestures. There you go. Makes perfect sense now.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AmstradHero wrote...

While I did like vancian casting, I agree that it did pose a problem where certain fights were not winnable until you went away, memorised the right spell that could easily turn the tide. If you couldn't do that, you either had to drop the difficulty level or use a lot of consumables in order to prevail. I'm not sad to see that go.

What exactly is the problem?
Retreating and preparing SHOULD be options. They make sense.
And you just contradicted yourself. You said they are not winnable and then you say they can be won with an alternate strategy.

[Kidd]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

OH NOES! A system that actuayl requires some thought! TOO DIFFICULT FOR OUR PUNY MINDS!

It doesn't really require any amount of thought though. On the first playthrough where the player is not meta-gaming, they will either hyper-specialise and then get screwed over a lot ("magic missile is generally the bomb, so I didn't memorise this other spell that was useful in this one situation") or they will keep token spell slots looking the same throughout most of the game. For instance, one identify spell in case they find a magic item and one fire arrow in case they meet a troll.

In fact I think the only time I've ever seen a wizard do any big changes to his spellbook before heading out to an adventure in D&D (non-4E since 4E doesn't really have Vancian casting outside of daily powers) is when I had put glowing neon signs saying "this will be a fire-based dungeon" prior to them getting there. If they had simply come upon the dungeon without me telegraphing that back in town, he would have went in there with his usual spellbook.

I mean sure, he could've asked the group to go back outside and regroup so he could waste a day's time to ready a new spellbook once he realised there was only fire stuff in that dungeon, but how interesting would that be, really? I don't see any enjoyment coming from him telling the others they have to postpone their adventure because he wants to give his options a makeover - not from him, not from the other people around the table. That's simply him fighting the system itself so he can ensure he will do better in the upcoming battles.

Ultimately you might as well specialise on level up. Heck, that's more interesting any way since it leads to focusing on designing more actual build options (in theory, at least).

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 31 août 2012 - 07:40 .

[AmstradHero]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

While I did like vancian casting, I agree that it did pose a problem where certain fights were not winnable until you went away, memorised the right spell that could easily turn the tide. If you couldn't do that, you either had to drop the difficulty level or use a lot of consumables in order to prevail. I'm not sad to see that go.

What exactly is the problem?
Retreating and preparing SHOULD be options. They make sense.
And you just contradicted yourself. You said they are not winnable and then you say they can be won with an alternate strategy.

Okay, unwinnable in a reasonable manner. I don't consider having to use up a ridiculous amount of your consumable items in order to succeed a reasonably balanced encounter simply because you haven't got one or two spells are your disposal. That was indeed liable to happen in some D&D games. When you could run away and rest, you'd get smashed the first time because you lacked the necesary spells that made the fight trivial. So you reload, memorise those spells, come back, and the fight is trivial. That's not a rewarding experience. That's jumping through hoops. Do you remember this happening to you when playing BG2 for the first time? Because I sure as heck do.

Sometimes retreat and rest is not an option. Sometimes you're stuck in a dungeon and it's impossible to get somewhere to rest and recuperate and regain your spells. If you'd ever played the ant level dungeons in Eye of the Beholder 2, you'd know what I'm talking about. That involved a LOT of saving, trying, dying, then reloading from the start of the section in order to figure out the optimal path so you could get through before you ran out of spells from random encounters. I am not sad to see that kind of gameplay go in the slightest.

While I do agree games like BG2 and its compatriots had some nice counterspell type systems going, as I've pointed out, some of the fights could be near impossible without the right spell (or two), but trivially easy with them. That's not an ideal balance.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 31 août 2012 - 07:48 .

[1483749283]

All this discussion about whether to memorize ahead or to have mana-based casting I think is taking away from the main point, which is that magic has lost a lot of what made it interesting in video games, including Bioware's.

No spell sequencers

No timed spell-casting with spell fizzling

No spell protections

It is now reduced to pretty much a thoughtless process.