209 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The realism argument is irrelevant. What you describe isn't realism. The only guarantees come from metaknowledge, which is irrelevant to the game world. The only reason why you "knew" that going to the circle the first time would be ideal is based on prior experiences with other games.

Indeed. But I cannot completey abandon player knowledge.
Such perfect roleplaying only exist for people with a split personality.

One can supress metagaming to an extent, but it's always in the back of the mind...nagging.
You can certaly REASON as if the PC doesn't posses knowledge X..you can do the thinking for him "in character".
But I can never feel the danger for him when I know there isn't one.
The atmosphere...just isn't there after the first playtrough.

Aha! So what this really is, is a request for more content. This is a very different type of request. Furthermore, the situation you describe is still something that can be done deterministically too.

Not really. That was an example of anohter way to implement some randomness (with the 50% chance of Connor flipping out).
But I really would like to see some limited randomness.

I can't blame the people for not wanting it tough. It's ...different than what they are accustomed to.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...
You are projecting YOUR preferred method of playing onto other people. Stop it. You are welcome to play however you like, but if someone else enjoys using a guide or whatever other method they damn well choose, who are you to call it "gaming the system"?

Who are you to tell me I can't call it that?

No, sorry, that does not make sense. Player X (let's call her Jane) doesn't want to mod the game, she's never heard of modding and wouldn't care to muck about with game files anyway. Jane just wants to play Dragon Age, probably only once (she's a busy person) and she wants to come away having "won" the game (for the sake of argument, let's say "achieved the best ending she believes possible"). So she googles a quest that she's stuck on, or reloads a save when her dialogue has unintended consequences. This isn't avoiding anyone's intent - she's enjoying the game exactly as the developers made it. She isn't enjoying her game in the same way that John is enjoying his, or Diane is enjoying hers, but again - so what? She's not hurting your game experience, and neither the game nor the world in which the game is set has suffered in any way because of it.

You're equating winning the game with a perfect playtrough.

And again, you demanding that a certainty of a perfect playtrough be the ONLY way to design or make a game.
Why should that be so?

No, not every approach has to be catered to (for example, lots of games save only at checkpoints rather than freely throughout the game, to assist pacing and balance, and to increase weight of choices by increasing replay time following a reload). But we are talking about cRPGs, specifically ones with long, complex stories which DO offer save/reload systems and generally have strategy guides. So the approaches I'm describing ARE "catered to", aren't they?

So?
Again, game X does it, does it mean game Y must?
You yourself gave examples of games that do it differnetly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

OdanUrr wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

2) The PC must survive for the plot to go on. Basicly it's a game over screen.

So? In real life, sometimes you fail. That is what we're going for, right? Realism?

So you see no difference between the PC and NPC and a plot-central quest and a side-quest?

And b.t.w - there is an option for what your'e talking about.
It's call IRONMAN MODE. Go figure.

Well, since you ask, Eamon is also trapped in the Fade, isn't he? Maybe killing Connor without confronting the demon in the Fade could result in Eamon being trapped in the Fade forever? Just a thought and not really a ridiculous one.

All who sleep apparently go into the Fade. Eamon being there is nothing strange.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
By using a little thing called common sense.

And yet, common sense is the least common of all senses.

I can't argue with you on that one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...

Since no RPG's so far have had anything but deterministic outcomes, it's a safe assumption. You might as well berrate me for thinking the sun will rise in the morning.

I would certainly suggest you'd gone mad if you wanted to randomise the chance of it doing so.

....

It sounds fun to me. You want ASSURANCE. You want guarantees. Which is something that doesn't exist in real life. It is that that gives weight to many of our choices.

I want a game that doesn't kick me up the arse because a virtual die rolled the wrong number. End of.

And here is the crux of the problem.
You see it as a punishment (which it is not)
Instead of just accepting and seeing it as a challenge.

I didn't say I wanted a "super outcome". I'm happy enough with bad endings (or "bittersweet", the horrible phrase that loads of people are throwing around recently without really understanding what it means), but yes, the ending should make sense in context from what I've done along the way.

And I've yet to see how anything I said DOESN'T make sense in the context of the what the PC did.

Of course, given the outcry ME3 had for not allowing everyone their super-duper outcomes annd blue babies, I can't say I'm surprised by the responses.

Wow, you so don't understand why people don't like the ME3 ending.

Which group of people you reffering to?
Cause the loudest one was the one I mentioned.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 30 octobre 2012 - 09:52 .

[Blood Wraith]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

General User wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just to continue discussion: Why shouldn't it be deterministic?

Why would actions play out differently in the event of not being present?

I see this idea more in terms of being a way to bridge the gap between the player and the player character.  In other words, if the player character doesn't know how any given event or mission is going to resolve itself, why should the player?

Plus there's the idea that the player/player character might be able to influence the outcome of a given mission, but ultimately they shouldn't be able to determine it.  Afterall, we human beings can only influence the actions of others to greater or lesser degrees, why should our digital avatars in Thedas be any different?

Who's to say they are determining it?  Simply because that's the consequence of all those preconditions being met?

Lets say there are 3 different preconditions that can be met, and each permutation is a unique outcome (so 6 outcomes).  If I satisfy the first 2, I have put my influence into the equation.  Everything being equal, why would the offscreen actors allow my influence to affect them one time, but in the other time, my exact same influence does NOT affect them?

Sounds like a good topic for a philosophy essay
also there's a ME3 joke in there somewhere

[Herr Uhl]

I like randomized encounters, but I really don't want the choices you do to become arbitrary. There are few enough choices that are recognized to give you a sense of achievement (good or bad) as it is without randomly taking away your cake.

The reason I'd replay an RPG is usually because I want to try to do things differently rather than doing the exact same things at all points, so there'd be little to gain for me in any case. If I replay it because I enjoy the combat, randomizing encounters would more than suffice for me.

Also, I really don't care if people "save scum".

[The Night Haunter]

I love XCOM, but trying to add in the XCOM feeling (missed a 95% chance to hit, 'That's XCOM, baby!') in other genre's isnt going to work any more than the Battlecruiser (a combination of the speed of cruisers + main guns of a battleship but lacking the armor of a battleship) worked in WW2. Sure they did the job if there was nothing better, but when you had a choice the admiral would use a cruiser for cruiser work and a battleship for battleship work while leaving the vulnerable and expensive battlecruisers as a 'Oh ****!' button if he really needed it.

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes. But the quest itself is complete and life goes on. So the "faliure" is to get the perfect outcome.

Yes, but it doesn't matter what the failure is. It's a failure of a virtual random number generator, and so made my actions pointless.

Risk is tied to randomness.

Randomness produces risk, yes. But risk can exist without a truly random factor. A lack of knowledge or simply an unpredictable (but notably not random) factor is sufficient. (This is probably semantics though at this point.)

You're equating winning the game with a perfect playtrough. And again, you demanding that a certainty of a perfect playtrough be the ONLY way to design or make a game. Why should that be so?

No... the point was that people are free to play games however they want, whether striving to achieve a "perfect" result (in games where that term makes sense), a hardcore playthrough (no reloads), a completionist playthrough, or maybe just to complete the game, and that your assertion that they should either write their own story or mod the game in order to play how they want didn't make sense to me. I wasn't suggesting the inclusion or otherwise of any particular type of content.

And here is the crux of the problem.
You see it as a punishment (which it is not)
Instead of just accepting and seeing it as a challenge.

How is randomness a challenge? Seriously, if I do everything in my power as a player to accomplish a goal, but fail because of a random number generator, how is that challenging?

And I've yet to see how anything I said DOESN'T make sense in the context of the what the PC did.

Using the 80/50/20 example - neither failing despite preparing as much as possible, nor succeeding despite failing to prepare at all, make much sense in context.

I don't have a problem with randomness being used to vary content (simple examples; the position of quest NPCs, the build of different encounters), but for me there is a huge difference between those kinds of random events, and outright unpredictability to the consequences of my actions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlexJK wrote...

Randomness produces risk, yes. But risk can exist without a truly random factor. A lack of knowledge or simply an unpredictable (but notably not random) factor is sufficient. (This is probably semantics though at this point.)

Do you object to the use of dice in tabletop gaming?  Do you object to the concept of a saving throw mechanic?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Indeed. But I cannot completey abandon player knowledge.

Yes you can.  You compartmentalise your knowledge so that only some of it is accessible to your character.

But I can never feel the danger for him when I know there isn't one.
The atmosphere...just isn't there after the first playtrough.

You want to experience your character's emotions?  Weird.

[The Night Haunter]

AlexJK wrote...

How is randomness a challenge? Seriously, if I do everything in my power as a player to accomplish a goal, but fail because of a random number generator, how is that challenging?

This was essentially the problem with Ironman Mode in XCOM on classic or Impossible. If your first few abduction missions gave you engineers and allowed you to control Panic appropriately then you could win the game fairly easily, because past the first 3 months the game gets super easy. If on the other hand the game assigns the Engineers to Brazil (a country in SA which only has 2 countries and is thus one of those easier to let slide) and puts scientists in China (Asia has 4 countries and so ignoring this results in a HUGE panic increase) then you have problems. It isnt up to the player in any way shape or form what these rewards are or where the abductions take place in the early game. A random number generator determines whether this game can suceed or whether you should quit and start again.

I loved XCOM, but this isnt difficult, this is purely random. The game gets pretty easy on classic when you know what to do (focus on satillites and do Base mission quick) and you get a workable start mission set up. If the random number generator stabs you in the face with a bad mission group then you pretty much cant win. This is not how to properly adjust difficulty, this is how to SIMULATE difficulty on an individual scale. 80% of the games will be difficult because of getting screwed in the opening, 20% will be easy because the game gives you awesome start mission set ups.

So all in all, random doesnt not necesarily equal good. It has to be done well. And in an RPG it really cant be done well, because an RPG is about PLAYER CHOICE and taking away the effects of PLAYER CHOICE is always bad. Random Effects takes away PLAYER CHOICE, and, following the formula, is thus bad.

[AlexJK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

Randomness produces risk, yes. But risk can exist without a truly random factor. A lack of knowledge or simply an unpredictable (but notably not random) factor is sufficient. (This is probably semantics though at this point.)

Do you object to the use of dice in tabletop gaming?  Do you object to the concept of a saving throw mechanic?

No objection, where there is no appropriate non-random alternative.

(I do accept that chance is a well-established mechanic of combat systems, for example. I have more objection to dice used for skill checks where they are purely used to introduce randomness where none need exist with a good DM.)

[saintjimmy43]

People would save before these major decisions and reload if they didn't get what they want. Gamers don't do things if they can't get what they want.
Why do you think there was such a stink over ME3s ending? If there was another ending you could have gotten by reloading before the endgame enough times, people would have just done that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlexJK wrote...

No objection, where there is no appropriate non-random alternative.

(I do accept that chance is a well-established mechanic of combat systems, for example. I have more objection to dice used for skill checks where they are purely used to introduce randomness where none need exist with a good DM.)

Saving throws are an area where I think randomness is really valuable.  If you're facing a really powerful creature, and he can resist your magic, then the battle's outcome is effectively pre-determined.  But if he can only resist your magic 95% of the time, high-risk high-reward tactics become something worth trying, and that makes for exciting gameplay.

Randomness makes for more exciting stories.  Trying something that isn't likely to succeed, but succeeding, is wonderful.  Randomness is the easiest way to make that an on-going part of the world.

This can be written into the game deterministically (the third option in Redcliffe is just such a thing), but introducing randomness allows to to happen nearly anywhere.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 octobre 2012 - 11:41 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius,

If you think of the oft-quoted Connor/Redcliffe choice in terms of savings throws, would the chance that Connor fails a saving throw against demon possession be a suitable explanation for having a negative outcome going to the Circle one time, and a positive one in another time? Would introducing NPC skill checks, such as a Persuassion fail by Harrowmont which causes him to be an ineffective king, versus passing said check that results in him winning other to how cause, be framed in the right light to allow a random consequences feature?

[the_one_54321]

The application of throwing die is contextual. It is for the determination of individual actions, not for plot resolution in what is essentially a story system on multiple rails.

[Ferretinabun]

Well I like the idea a lot - it had crept across my mind, actually. I dislike that I know exactly what to do to bring about the 'perfect' ending. The element of random chance guarantees that I don't know how my game will go and stubs out metagaming. It would make, say, the Redcliffe decision a difficult one every time!

That said I can see that the idea would be unpopular. And if people wanted to save before decisions and keep reloading until they get the outcome they want, then I have no problem with letting them do that. If random chance really does annoy them that much,

[the_one_54321]

It works as a saving throw because your decision still dictates the outcome. If you decide to handle it immediately, it is resolved one way or the other. If you decide to go for help, it is resolved by the saving throw.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius,

If you think of the oft-quoted Connor/Redcliffe choice in terms of savings throws, would the chance that Connor fails a saving throw against demon possession be a suitable explanation for having a negative outcome going to the Circle one time, and a positive one in another time?

Absolutely.  Though I see no reason to make this explicit.

Would introducing NPC skill checks, such as a Persuassion fail by Harrowmont which causes him to be an ineffective king, versus passing said check that results in him winning other to how cause, be framed in the right light to allow a random consequences feature?

In that case, I actually like that the outcome is predetermined, because the player isn't actually given an opportunity to see relevant characteristics of the two vying for the crown.  Yes, Bhelen is cutthroat and ruthless, but that tells us nothing about his proposed policies (we hear a bit about those from others, but not much).  Similarly, Harrowmint is a nice guy, but that also tells us nothing about what sort of King he would be (again, unless you think niceness is a relevant trait of governance).  The player (and PC) are led down a path that shows them irrelevant traits that inveite value judgments, which can then be misapplied.  I think the Bhelen/Harrowmint choice would be harmed by randomness.  The sorts of people they are aren't really subject to a pass/fail based on a signe skill-check.

But, answering your actual question, I don't see why you need to explain to the player exactly why anything is happening.  Ideally the saving throw mechanic would be well documented, and it would be known (or knowable) to the player that the mechanic applied to PC and NPC alike, but connecting the dots for the player would seem to get in the way of the storytelling.  That things do or don't work out due to the vagaries of fate is the draw, I think.  Drawing specific attention to the saving throw on a case by case basis would kind of ruin it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]AlexJK wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes. But the quest itself is complete and life goes on. So the "faliure" is to get the perfect outcome.[/quote]
Yes, but it doesn't matter what the failure is. It's a failure of a virtual random number generator, and so made my actions pointless.
[/quote]

Of course it matter. It always does.

Why would it make your actions pointless? Do you think everything is defined only by the result?
That only the destination of a journey matters, and not the trip itself?

How does trying NOT help define the character? Regardless if you suceeded or failed at the end.


[quote]
[quote]Risk is tied to randomness.[/quote]
Randomness produces risk, yes. But risk can exist without a truly random factor. A lack of knowledge or simply an unpredictable (but notably not random) factor is sufficient. (This is probably semantics though at this point.) [/quote]

Except by your own admission it's not unpredictable. The result is known. The "risk" is illusory.


[quote]
[quote]You're equating winning the game with a perfect playtrough. And again, you demanding that a certainty of a perfect playtrough be the ONLY way to design or make a game. Why should that be so?[/quote]
No... the point was that people are free to play games however they want, whether striving to achieve a "perfect" result (in games where that term makes sense), a hardcore playthrough (no reloads), a completionist playthrough, or maybe just to complete the game, and that your assertion that they should either write their own story or mod the game in order to play how they want didn't make sense to me. I wasn't suggesting the inclusion or otherwise of any particular type of content.[/quote]


You say no. But that is exactly what you are saying.

Because if you campaing agaisnt a specifc game design and decalre it wrong and invalid, then you are actively demanding that the game to be made to fit your tastes - and that the other design should not be made.

It's irnoy that you are declaring me wantign to take away something from you, when you are trying to do exactly the same thing.
It's even more ironic because doing it as I mentioned before (the externalized switch), still enables you to paly "your way".



[quote]
[quote]And here is the crux of the problem.
You see it as a punishment (which it is not)
Instead of just accepting and seeing it as a challenge.[/quote]
How is randomness a challenge? Seriously, if I do everything in my power as a player to accomplish a goal, but fail because of a random number generator, how is that challenging?[/quote]

Adapting to it, your characters reaction to it, moving and and continuing despite the setback - that is a challenge.
Accepting non-perfection is a challenge in itself.


[quote]
[quote]And I've yet to see how anything I said DOESN'T make sense in the context of the what the PC did.[/quote]
Using the 80/50/20 example - neither failing despite preparing as much as possible, nor succeeding despite failing to prepare at all, make much sense in context.[/quote]

But it does. the PC is not in control of Redcliffe. It makes PERFECT sense.



[quote]
I don't have a problem with randomness being used to vary content (simple examples; the position of quest NPCs, the build of different encounters), but for me there is a huge difference between those kinds of random events, and outright unpredictability to the consequences of my actions.[/quote]

It's not true unpredictabiltiy to begin with. You can deduce the possible consequences.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 31 octobre 2012 - 09:04 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Indeed. But I cannot completey abandon player knowledge.

Yes you can.  You compartmentalise your knowledge so that only some of it is accessible to your character.

You haven't been reading what I wrote carefully or I suck at explainig.

No, perfect isolation is impossible.

But I can never feel the danger for him when I know there isn't one.
The atmosphere...just isn't there after the first playtrough.

You want to experience your character's emotions?  Weird.

No.
I want it to feel like a risk. I want to spend 10 minutes agonizing over a decision, weighing pros and cons.
But that ATMOSPHERE is just not there.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

How is randomness a challenge? Seriously, if I do everything in my power as a player to accomplish a goal, but fail because of a random number generator, how is that challenging?

This was essentially the problem with Ironman Mode in XCOM on classic or Impossible. If your first few abduction missions gave you engineers and allowed you to control Panic appropriately then you could win the game fairly easily, because past the first 3 months the game gets super easy. If on the other hand the game assigns the Engineers to Brazil (a country in SA which only has 2 countries and is thus one of those easier to let slide) and puts scientists in China (Asia has 4 countries and so ignoring this results in a HUGE panic increase) then you have problems. It isnt up to the player in any way shape or form what these rewards are or where the abductions take place in the early game. A random number generator determines whether this game can suceed or whether you should quit and start again.

Actually, you can suceed even if several counties leave you.

You cannot affect what coutnreis the aliens hit, but you CAN affect how you react to it. We can argue weather or not the balance could use some refinment, but you can almost always salvage the situation.

But that exactly the gist of XCOM. Sometimes it deals you good cards, sometimes bad one. Deal wiht it. Make best with what you have. That is an challenge.



However, this is not the kind of randomness we're talkign about here. You can't really LOOSE any of the main quests, since you always have sure-fire options that always work.
So your "I loose the game" fear is unfounded. You cannot loose the game.
The worst-case scenario is a less-than-perfect victory.

So all in all, random doesnt not necesarily equal good. It has to be done well. And in an RPG it really cant be done well, because an RPG is about PLAYER CHOICE and taking away the effects of PLAYER CHOICE is always bad. Random Effects takes away PLAYER CHOICE, and, following the formula, is thus bad.

Limited randomness doesn't take away player choice.
That is hogwash. A lie you convinced yourself to believe.
And a even bigger lie is that it "can't be done well." Such a thing is only ever uttered by people with lack of imagination or understanding. Frankly, I consider it a insult to human ingenuity.

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Why would it make your actions pointless? Do you think everything is defined only by the result?
That only the destination of a journey matters, and not the trip itself?
How does trying NOT help define the character? Regardless if you suceeded or failed at the end.

Because we're talking about a video game where the parameters of your journey are absolute; the player can only choose X actions from Y possibilities, working from the best knowledge they have of the situation. To then offer a randomised outcome destroys the value of the journey in this context.

You say no. But that is exactly what you are saying.

Because if you campaign against a specific game design and declare it wrong and invalid, then you are actively demanding that the game to be made to fit your tastes - and that the other design should not be made.

No, I'm not having an argument against a point I didn't make. I am not demanding any particular content or method of game design. My original point was that you seem to think that people are cheating, or "gaming the system" if they don't play a game in the way that you think they should, and I was illustrating that I believe your opinion to be wrong.

Adapting to it, your characters reaction to it, moving and and continuing despite the setback - that is a challenge. Accepting non-perfection is a challenge in itself.

Adapting to a setback, yes. Accepting that a perfect outcome is not possible, or due to my choices unachievable, yes. But not randomly. You seem happy to fail a task because the game rolled a die. I'm not.

But it does. the PC is not in control of Redcliffe. It makes PERFECT sense.

I believe Allen touched on this earlier - why would Redcliffe behave any differently in the PC's absence, assuming all input factors are the same? Either they are competent enough to deal with situation X, or they are not - it's not random. So I agree with the statement that the PC is not in control of Redcliffe, but I don't agree with your conclusion that a random outcome therefore makes sense.

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You haven't been reading what I wrote carefully or I suck at explainig.

No, perfect isolation is impossible.

And why is it needed? Actors know how a movie is going to end because they read the script beforehand, but they still manage to play their roles.

You are role-playing. Your character is not you. Your knowledge is irrelevent to what the character does or does not know.

No.
I want it to feel like a risk. I want to spend 10 minutes agonizing over a decision, weighing pros and cons.
But that ATMOSPHERE is just not there.

It's a story. There is never any genuine risk.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 31 octobre 2012 - 09:51 .