88390 réponses à ce sujet

[Hugebull]

Mr.House wrote...

David7204 wrote...

In Skyrim, it would have been trivial to close off half the dungeons based on some supposed 'choice.' Your race, maybe.

Would that have made the game any better?

I really doubt it. It would have just made a game with half the dungeons.

Any fool could program a game where 'choices' make a big impact. That's ****** easy. Making choices that are meaningful, with good gameplay design and storytelling, is a different matter entirely.

The BSN, and frankly, video game players in general, need to give up this very silly attitude of 'the right design choice is always the one that gives players the most 'RPG-ness.' It's a dead end. 

Many dungeons are closed off in Skyrim if you are not part of guilds.

But you can still join all the guilds and enter them all. I could live with only joining one Guild, but then they should have designed the game so that the same caves will be used, but you do different quests in them. 

Mages get an artifact, warriors do warrior things and rogues rogue. Not locking 2/3 of the game for players.

Edit: That is if they only make you able to join 1 guild.

Modifié par Hugebull, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:11 .

[Hugebull]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

By 'many' you mean maybe five? Out of like, a hundred?

It doesn't matter, anyway. There's no penalty for joining the guilds.

Besides RP hits, what if I'm a 2h warrior who has no intent of joining the College of Winterhold, all of those dungeons are cut off.

In a game like Skyrim where the key aspect is exploration exclusive content is a bit of a bad idea.

But in a game where the point is dealing with hard choices exculsionary content should be the standard.

Locking massive amounts of content is not a good marketing strategy.

Edit: You chose to not enter the College, that was your choice, not locked out content.

Modifié par Hugebull, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:10 .

[wolfhowwl]

Hugebull wrote...
I'm really no fan of that, and the community is going to have a hard time accepting the small amount of content the game is going to have in their playthrough. 

As an example, Imagine this: BioWare makes 30 hours of gameplay, but the player is only going to see 10 of these hours. So of course BioWare will go out and brag about the 30 hours of content, but when players sit down, they only have 10. Voila, yet another BioWare outrage.

I repeat, the hours were an example.

The idea that there will be only a "small amount of content" in a single playthrough is just not happening due to financial constraints; it is a baseless fear.

It is not unreasonable to lock out some content in a situation where there are conflicting factions. If you have to side with either the Mages or Templars for example, you should not be able to do everything for both groups. Dragon Age 2 had a small amount of exclusive quests based on this.

Speaking of Bioware outrages and community acceptance regarding choices and consequences, the Rachni queen returning no matter if it was killed or spared sure was received well.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:11 .

[Steelcan]

Hugebull wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

By 'many' you mean maybe five? Out of like, a hundred?

It doesn't matter, anyway. There's no penalty for joining the guilds.

Besides RP hits, what if I'm a 2h warrior who has no intent of joining the College of Winterhold, all of those dungeons are cut off.

In a game like Skyrim where the key aspect is exploration exclusive content is a bit of a bad idea.

But in a game where the point is dealing with hard choices exculsionary content should be the standard.

Locking massive amounts of content is not a good marketing strategy.

I'm not talking about massively divergent paths (though that would be awesome) I just think more chocies that result in say a different end mission depending on your choice or you fight some different enemies.

For example, if you sided with the Mages in DA2 fighting Orsino is a bit ridiculous and vice versa with Meredith for Templars.

[David7204]

I'm perfectly fine with exclusionary content. I would be far, far, far less fine with constantly running into areas and being told "Nope! Can't do it! Start a new game as an elf or whatever and come back!"

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

I'm perfectly fine with exclusionary content. I would be far, far, far less fine with constantly running into areas and being told "Nope! Can't do it! Start a new game as an elf or whatever and come back!"

And that's not what I'm trying to advocate.  But perhaps a mission exclusive to elves and one for humans etc...

ME1 had a similar thing with the background missions, or other missions having some different dialogue depending on your service history.

[Hugebull]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Hugebull wrote...
I'm really no fan of that, and the community is going to have a hard time accepting the small amount of content the game is going to have in their playthrough. 

As an example, Imagine this: BioWare makes 30 hours of gameplay, but the player is only going to see 10 of these hours. So of course BioWare will go out and brag about the 30 hours of content, but when players sit down, they only have 10. Voila, yet another BioWare outrage.

I repeat, the hours were an example.

The idea that there will be only a "small amount of content" in a single playthrough is just not happening due to financial constraints; it is a baseless fear.

It is not unreasonable to lock out some content in a situation where there are conflicting factions. If you have to side with either the Mages or Templars for example, you should not be able to do everything for both groups. Dragon Age 2 had a small amount of exclusive quests based on this.

Speaking of Bioware outrages and community acceptance regarding choices and consequences, the Rachni queen returning no matter if it was killed or spared sure was received well.

Of course you cant get 100% of the game, that is unreasonable. But if you look at the video where they show the monuments and things on the map, you spend agents to unlock them, and all of those areas has content connected to it, and you are only able to open, lets say half of them. 

That is going to be a lot of unused content, which will be wasted development hours. Compared to let players go to most areas, but for different reasons. 

A horrible example of this would be in Origins when you are recruiting allies, you still get to see the Brecilian Forest, but you can have a completely different experience than other people, and it might have ended completely different. But you still saw the same content.

Compared to. "Nop, you're not going to learn this massive secret, because you chose to repair a monument, instead of exploring some ruins."

Edit: Horrible example, as in its a horrible example. I really liked the way they did it in DA:O

Modifié par Hugebull, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:28 .

[Hugebull]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I'm perfectly fine with exclusionary content. I would be far, far, far less fine with constantly running into areas and being told "Nope! Can't do it! Start a new game as an elf or whatever and come back!"

And that's not what I'm trying to advocate.  But perhaps a mission exclusive to elves and one for humans etc...

ME1 had a similar thing with the background missions, or other missions having some different dialogue depending on your service history.

Which was fine, its the same as DA:O where you have different origins. And you would have different goals and quests that only fit with YOUR origin. 

I just dont want to see people geting punished for playing.

[Hugebull]

David7204 wrote...

I'm perfectly fine with exclusionary content. I would be far, far, far less fine with constantly running into areas and being told "Nope! Can't do it! Start a new game as an elf or whatever and come back!"

Assassins Creed Age: inquisition.

[David7204]

Assassin's Creed doesn't do that, does it?

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

I'm perfectly fine with exclusionary content. I would be far, far, far less fine with constantly running into areas and being told "Nope! Can't do it! Start a new game as an elf or whatever and come back!"

I highly doubt anyone is advocating that sort of restrictions. Restrictions mean to reflect your character's actual skills and talents however can make your choice of class more meaningful and the character more immersive.

[Hugebull]

David7204 wrote...

Assassin's Creed doesn't do that, does it?

In the start of the game when you can only walk in certain places, or else you get desynced

[Mr.House]

David, have you played Morrowind? Where alot of areas and stuff was in fact cut off if you don't join certain guilds or you progress too far in the main story and end up killing some important groups or people that result in any advancement in said guild gone? You would always lose access to things in Morrowind because you could not join every guild, plus the advancement system was way diffrent(and better)

Modifié par Mr.House, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:34 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Assassin's Creeds restrictions have more to do with the linear story structure set in sandbox setting, you can't go to certain areas until the story progresses. It's certainly not based on character creation, there is no character creation in Assassin's Creed.

[Seboist]

David7204 wrote...

Making choices that are meaningful, with good gameplay design and storytelling, is a different matter entirely.

You would know of games that lack such, given that you're a fan of Mass Effect.

[Hugebull]

Mr.House wrote...

David, have you played Morrowind? Where alot of areas and stuff was in fact cut off if you don't join certain guilds or you progress too far in the main story and end up killing some important groups or people that result in any advancement in said guild gone? You would always lose access to things in Morrowind because you could not join every guild, plus the advancement system was way diffrent(and better)

Personally, I think you're being nostalgic. Going back to play Morrowind... Well... It's not that good.

[Mr.House]

J. Reezy wrote...

Hugebull wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Assassin's Creed doesn't do that, does it?

In the start of the game when you can only walk in certain places, or else you get desynced

Invisible walls are stupid.

Just do what Liz did in Persona 4 Arena.

[Hugebull]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Assassin's Creeds restrictions have more to do with the linear story structure set in sandbox setting, you can't go to certain areas until the story progresses. It's certainly not based on character creation, there is no character creation in Assassin's Creed.

I was only reffering to the fact that you are not allowed to go somewhere, because game tells you there is a wall there. Not an actual referenace to Dragon Age.

[Steelcan]

Seboist wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Making choices that are meaningful, with good gameplay design and storytelling, is a different matter entirely.

You would know of games that lack such, given that you're a fan of Mass Effect.

But they are really meaningful, all the paragon power tripping and heroism THE HEROISM

[GreyLycanTrope]

Hugebull wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Assassin's Creeds restrictions have more to do with the linear story structure set in sandbox setting, you can't go to certain areas until the story progresses. It's certainly not based on character creation, there is no character creation in Assassin's Creed.

I was only reffering to the fact that you are not allowed to go somewhere, because game tells you there is a wall there. Not an actual referenace to Dragon Age.

You'll need to be clearer for David, he hasn't played many games.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:42 .

[Hugebull]

Steelcan wrote...

Seboist wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Making choices that are meaningful, with good gameplay design and storytelling, is a different matter entirely.

You would know of games that lack such, given that you're a fan of Mass Effect.

But they are really meaningful, all the paragon power tripping and heroism THE HEROISM

There are no real choices in Mass Effect, you're either blue or red. And I can live with it, since that is Mass Effect.

Edit: red and blue, as in you either play the entire trilogy full blue, or you play it full red.

Modifié par Hugebull, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:44 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David why are you so addicted to the concept of heroism?

More importantly why do you have such a lulzy definition of heroism?

Even more importantly why are perfect black hole sues the only characters that get your heroism seal of approval?