44 réponses à ce sujet

[Dagr88]

A question to the community and maybe to DA development team. In games as a resource you like money to be:
(I) Unlimited (Fable III)
(II) Limited but given in a quantity much larger than you might actually need
(III) Most of the time in deficit

I personally prefer number (III)

I consider DA2 to be (II). Every time I finished the game I still had several hundreds gold coins in my purse. With constant loot, premium content and crazy usefulness/cost ratio of the shop items (equipment) I only spent money on companion upgrades, +skill potions and runes. Maybe it's just my problem and I'm actually some kind of gold hoarder but it took away the whole "moral value" of the money.

After the first Act (for obvious reasons) I never felt that I need to bully quest givers for more profit or get my hands dirty unless I wanted my PC to be... "a bad person". The whole pragmatism was lost. I don't need 1 billion $ if for the rest of my life I'm going to spend 35000$/year.

I really enjoyed ME2 in this aspect. I went to different hub worlds, saw what is for sale in all shop (upgrades) and thought to myself "I need money. I need a LOT of money to buy all that!" And after I acquired a dissent sum my next thought was "I still can't buy all that, so what should I buy first?"

I actually enjoy when game doesn't give me enough money to buy all possible upgrades/artifacts/doodads in 1 playthrough. Limitation give weight to decisions. It'll give me more personal satisfaction if I give 5 coins to a beggar to feed his family (or street) if I only have 15 coins myself. Or demand more money from morally grey quest giver if I can put that gold to good use (not more equipment or potions).

Modifié par Dagr88, 10 septembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[MichaelStuart]

I prefer money be hard to obtain and not have enough to buy everything

[Welsh Inferno]

scyphozoa wrote...

I also prefer having a lot less money than what is available to buy. This is a very common pitfall for pretty much all RPGs. I also don't think its an accident, I think designers want people to be able to buy everything by the end of the game. I don't agree with that idea. I want an economy and items that I want to work and save for. I think DAO and KOTOR are two of Bioware's best economies. In both games, there were lots of high priced items that a player could not obtain all of in a single playthrough. I much prefer that, than what I do in ME2/3, which is basically just clearing out every single store of every item, including all the stuff I'll never use.

I think this adds more value to the items themselves and more value to the currency and the process of earning that currency. 

Fully agree. DAO had it down perfect for me. I love that even when you know the best way to make money, know a few exploits & you have unlocked & sold the Reapers Cudgel etc you still dont have anywhere near enough to buy up every unique piece of armor & weapons. 

[PsychoBlonde]

Dagr88 wrote...

I actually enjoy when game doesn't give me enough money to buy all possible upgrades/artifacts/doodads in 1 playthrough. Limitation give weight to decisions. It'll give me more personal satisfaction if I give 5 coins to a beggar to feed his family (or street) if I only have 15 coins myself. Or demand more money from morally grey quest giver if I can put that gold to good use (not more equipment or potions).

I enjoy this . . . when it actually MATTERS which upgrades/doodads/whatever you pick.  In DA2 it hardly mattered what gear you wore.  You could spend 150 gold on that ****in' ring . . . and you couldn't tell that your character was any more ossum.  3% more damage is undetectable.  3% more defense is undetectable.  I wound up wearing sets just so my gear would match.

If I'm going to spend a substantial percentage of all the gold I've managed to accumulate throughout the game to get a piece of gear, I want to see a 35% improvement in a VITAL area, AT MINIMUM.  The later in the game I get it, the better it should be.  Otherwise I'm going to do what I did in DA2: sit on the gold.

If they're going to have a gear system like DA2 where the improvements are insignificantly tiny, they should let you have all the money you want so you can buy absolutely everything and try different ways to stack up those tiny increments.  This would at least be marginally less boring.

It would also be nice if they'd put in some optional uses for money that didn't involve gear, like, say, sidequest lines you can solve by chunking down 80 gp.  OR . . . you can go spend a couple of hours doing dungeons and running back and forth and arguing with people.  Granted, if you do this a couple of times, you ain't buying any of the endgame gear.

[Morty Smith]

I just missread the title "money for DA 3",

sorry, that would just be silly.

[Realmzmaster]

I always had enough money in both DAO and DA2 to buy what ever my party needed. Both games were gulity of having too much money available. By the end of either game I could have as many health and mana potions as I wanted the party to have. Always had several hundred gold pieces left over after DAO and DA2. I had enough from DAO that I could carry it over to Awakening and buy what I needed or wanted.

I would like to see money scarce at the beginning of the game where every copper piece can make a difference. The party by the end of the game should have acquired a reasonable amount of money. I stand basically in the Limited camp, but I mean limited on the lower end of the scale.

Also so in most crpgs buying that unique piece of armor is not necessary. I would rather see unique items tied to quests.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 septembre 2012 - 08:16 .

[Sealy]

I like lots of money, I am almost always broke in real life, I like to buy all the pretties in a game.

[Fast Jimmy]

I would like equipment or gear to be almost never seen in stores, other than generic, level one stuff. I'd like to start out with no equipment (or regular clothes, like what Sten and Leliana start out in) and weigh the need to buy that, or other supplies (like potions) in the beginning. I'd like cheap gear to be found on slain enemies, and super nice gear to be found through quests.

That being said, I'd like gold to play a bigger role in the story/role-playing part of the game. DA2 tried this, with the 50 G gathering the first Act, the option to give money to the residents of Dust Town and the purchase of the mine, but most of that fell flat.

I'd like to see factions become more powerful with gold/resources given, or have the option for charity that has an outcome on those you're trying to help, or the offer to have more prestige/influence if you fund the right investments. In fact, if gold could be a little more like the last segment of Fable 3, where you have limited resources as king to resolve situations and problems as they come up and have to measure the right thing to do versus what could be the most beneficial to help your cause, that would be very interesting.

Example: should I supply my spy network with more money, give more money to my top officers as a reward for good work, invest in a trip to recover a magical artifact, or supply refugees of a war with food? Or buy more potions or gear for my group? Each of these could nab different outcomes and even quest lines, but all cannot be done as there is only a finite amount of money.

[stonemyst]

I want to gamble and play cards to win money. They need unique ways of earning money besides killing everything and looting. I did like the rare items being unique and having a story about them that was nice. I would like a short term money glitch to at least be able to buy everything at least in the beginning or have the money that you leave Kirkwall with. I want my items to self level no matter what wepon or armor im using.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I prefer money be hard to obtain and not have enough to buy everything

I use the money glitch in Origins. Everything is so expensive in that game.

[Jerrybnsn]

I think the money should be called "zots". I wants lots and lots of zots.

By the way, I know money was hard to come by in DA2, but what was wrong with the way money was made in Origins?

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 10 septembre 2012 - 09:03 .

[MagmaSaiyan]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I think the money should be called "zots". I wants lots and lots of zots.

By the way, I know money was hard to come by in DA2, but what was wrong with the way money was made in Origins?

well for one ive ended up having over 250/300 soverigns easily, not quite sure since i havent checked in a while, Da2 i barely passed 200, and thats only buying potions, bombs, kits, companion armor, of course that just how my games end up.

if any of you have tried, theres a way to actually become desperate for money. pay Dougal off, you know unless you have gotten well above 100 by the end of Act 1. i think i usually ended up with 80 or so when i finish the Deep Roads

[deuce985]

Um, keep it the way it is? I kinda like how DA distributes money. I think it has a decent economic system. Most SP games go crazy with money and that kills the game in many ways. If I get 1/3 the way through the game and can buy everything in the world, what fun is that? I have no motivation to collect money if I can't buy anything.

DA gives you money slowly. Want legendary items? Break the bank for one. That's how it should be. You shouldn't be able to run around to every vendor and buy every piece of armor/weapon up, IMO. I'm a player that likes challenges too and if I can own every legendary piece in DA:O/DA2 easily, it motivates me less to play the game. No challenge just kills it for me. Economy is important. I think that's one area Bioware does a very good job at balancing.

Fable 2 had a horrible system. I'd turn my console off for a few days and come back to a bank that would make Bill Gates cry...

I don't really care how much money I get just as long as DA keeps their current money sink formula. Break the bank for a legendary...

Modifié par deuce985, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:17 .

[KiwiQuiche]

I was broke in Act 2 afrer I blew everything on Cold-Blooded...I think money was handled fine in DA2

[Plaintiff]

I'd rather have unlimited money, and a lot more stuff to do with it.

There's not a finite amount of money in the world, more is constantly being made. To suddenly have the player character not able to earn any more is just silly. I could accept only being able to carry a certain amount. Gold sovereigns are heavy.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:32 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Unlimited money would work, as long as there are sinks for it.

From a QA standpoint, an advantage of unlimited money is that I don't need to worry about whether or not there's sufficient money. From a game player standpoint, unless it's a real grind to get the money, it can remove elements of choice (unless we just code in that you can only buy one of the three amazing items).

[Sylvianus]

Many things were very expensive in DAO and I couldn't buy immediately, except after a long time. Not sure if I want money harder to obtain. It could be boring if it is too much.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[deuce985]

scyphozoa wrote...

I think a big contributing factor to the way a game economy works is based on how the player plays the game. As a completitionist, I always have too much gold in most games I play. I do every available mission, which results in the max amount of rewards. For people who don't want to do every sidequest, they will be making a lot less coin. I don't know if there is a sweet spot that accommodates both completionists and those who skip sidequests. Again, I cite DAO and KOTOR as great examples, as even when I completed every quest available, I still didn't have enough coin to buy everything I wanted.

I'm the same way. I loot everything I can find and sell everything I don't use. Even doing all that, I still probably only ended up with a few hundred sovereign. Some legendary items cost well over 100 sovereign and I liked that. As someone above mentioned, making it TOO hard gets boring. I think DA:O/DA2 has the perfect balance. That's something they don't need to tamper with in DA3, IMO.