16 réponses à ce sujet

[Flamingdropbear]

One of the threads on the board was about the opening level/s, and how it can be a bit of a slog on your n'th play through, and while the designers can work on the pacing, another thought came to me. Randomisation. This can take many forms [*]Randomly generated maps – what it says on the tin, examplewould be Torchlight
[*]Randomly chosen maps. - Maps are crafted by Bioware, but the order they come in, and objectives on the map is up to chance[*]Randomly Generated route- the map is fixed, but the route through it is not. Paths may be blocked, or keys found in different locations.
e.g. L4D2
[*]Randomly Populated maps- same map every time, but how many enemies, what type and where they are is not fixed e.g. X-Com, L4D
I wondered which idea you guys like the best, or if randomisation is a really bad idea,
Poll can be found here

Modifié par Flamingdropbear, 10 décembre 2012 - 02:52 .

[Wulfram]

I'd rather see more effort going into hand crafting combats and maps to make them a more interesting.

[Flamingdropbear]

EntropicAngel wrote...

And, in a game like DA, a game that involves things like levels and limits on player skill, simply telling the computer to randomize enemies or something will not work very well.

The computer can probably handly that fairly easily, and do it better than a static system as it can adapt to skill levels.
Basic idea using made up numbers, 3 genlocks = 2 hurlocks = I emissary, a map has a maxium of 6 groups of enemies and no more that two of those can me in one location. Play it the 1st time you get three lots of genlocks, 1 group of hrulocks and a group of 3 genlocks and an emissary, but second time 2 genlocks groups, 2 hurlock groups and a pair of emissaries. The computer records how well you do, and if you breeze throught it, it can throw in another group, die repeatedly remove 1 enemy from each group.

[Pedrak]

Randomly populated maps could work.

Randomly designed maps would not, because this typically translates to generic-looking environments which are indeed different every time, but also kind of vanilla and bland.

I'd rather have fewer dungeons where every background detail has been carefully designed than more generic-looking maps.

Modifié par Pedrak, 10 décembre 2012 - 03:15 .

[Kidd]

I went with random paths. Mostly cause that should be a somewhat easy thing to implement that would still boost the early game by a lot. Enemy formations could still be the same and gated in the same way, same with equipment etc.

I really don't want them to spend time working on randomised maps. That's a ton of work that I'd rather be put elsewhere =)

EntropicAngel wrote...

And, I doubt it would be as varied as you imagine it to be. Computers cannot be random, it must be programmed in, and that doesn't always show. You might very well get 3 genlocks five times in a row or something.

While it's technically true that a computer doesn't know what random is, you can still have something that is random for all intents and purposes to a human being. Play Baldur's Gate, opt to have the game show you the attack rolls and tell me you don't see a perfectly working 20-sided die

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Flamingdropbear wrote...

One of the threads on the board was about the opening level/s, and how it can be a bit of a slog on your n'th play through, and while the designers can work on the pacing, another thought came to me. Randomisation. This can take many forms [/b][*]Randomly generated maps – what it says on the tin, examplewould be Torchlight
[*]Randomly chosen maps. - Maps are crafted by Bioware, but the order they come in, and objectives on the map is up to chance[*]Randomly Generated route- the map is fixed, but the route through it is not. Paths may be blocked, or keys found in different locations.
e.g. L4D2
[*][b]Randomly Populated maps- same map every time, but how many enemies, what type and where they are is not fixed e.g. X-Com, L4D
I wondered which idea you guys like the best, or if randomisation is a really bad idea,
Poll can be found here

[*]So you want a rogue-like element in the game. It might make for greater replay value. I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea though.

[vortex216]

no thank you.

[Adugan]

No. There has to be one map for every level, house and street. Make it a brown walled, dirt floored and cloth draped hallway with waves after waves of enemies.

[Anomaly-]

I'm all for more randomization.

Not so much in map layout, but I wouldn't mind seeing more of a random element in terms of the enemies you face and their positioning/overall strategy. However, what I'd like to see more than anything is more randomized itemization. The itemization is in serious need of improvement over DA:O, and especially over DA2.

[Flamingdropbear]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

[*]So you want a rogue-like element in the game. It might make for greater replay value. I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea though.

[*] 
[*]Acutally I'd prefer either random routes or randomly populated. Both would make the game play different enough each time to prevent some of the repetivenes of some of the game play, and re introduce the element of suprise. In DAO, and some other games, I knew that if i threw a fire ball at this bit of wall it would damage and trigger the enemies waiting in to amubush me, luring them away from the hidden traps where I could wipe them out before sending in a rogue to clear out the traps. Randomly generated wouldn't really work for the DA series, but I threw it in for completionist sake.

[MichaelStuart]

While I normally have a great dislike of randomization (particularly when it's success of player actions), but I actual have no problem with area layout being random.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Pedrak wrote...

Randomly populated maps could work.

Randomly designed maps would not, because this typically translates to generic-looking environments which are indeed different every time, but also kind of vanilla and bland.

I'd rather have fewer dungeons where every background detail has been carefully designed than more generic-looking maps.

This^

For me just create a brilliant game like DA:O, one that has at least 3 playthroughs at 60 hours+ before you grow tired of it, and in the 3-6 months which the player is playing through that create some great DLC to build upon that game.

Surely that was the point in DLC in the first place? I would still love a trip back to Fereldan as The Warden visiting places which I'd already been, but with those areas extended (for example Orzammar has a gold or iron quarter as well as Diamond and Dust Town) and extra shops, people and obviously quests located in areas I was already familiar with.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 décembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Flamingdropbear]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

For me just create a brilliant game like DA:O, one that has at least 3 playthroughs at 60 hours+ before you grow tired of it, and in the 3-6 months which the player is playing through that create some great DLC to build upon that game.

Surely that was the point in DLC in the first place? I would still love a trip back to Fereldan as The Warden visiting places which I'd already been, but with those areas extended (for example Orzammar has a gold or iron quarter as well as Diamond and Dust Town) and extra shops, people and obviously quests located in areas I was already familiar with.

DLC to increase the replayabilty would be great, if it was consistently produced. DA2 only had 2 bits before being shelved, and while DAO had 7 bits, and one expantion, only three took place during the main game and two of those were released at launch.
If they could ensure that DLC came out at the rate of ME2 or greater randomisation would be less important, but as they can't I hope for some.
I should point out that I have played over 600 hours of DAO according to steam, hence why I'm overly familiar with it.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Flamingdropbear wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

For me just create a brilliant game like DA:O, one that has at least 3 playthroughs at 60 hours+ before you grow tired of it, and in the 3-6 months which the player is playing through that create some great DLC to build upon that game.

Surely that was the point in DLC in the first place? I would still love a trip back to Fereldan as The Warden visiting places which I'd already been, but with those areas extended (for example Orzammar has a gold or iron quarter as well as Diamond and Dust Town) and extra shops, people and obviously quests located in areas I was already familiar with.

DLC to increase the replayabilty would be great, if it was consistently produced. DA2 only had 2 bits before being shelved, and while DAO had 7 bits, and one expantion, only three took place during the main game and two of those were released at launch.
If they could ensure that DLC came out at the rate of ME2 or greater randomisation would be less important, but as they can't I hope for some.
I should point out that I have played over 600 hours of DAO according to steam, hence why I'm overly familiar with it.

What's baffling is that, done properly, it's an easy money spinner for them too. I played DA:O through twice fully (2 extra times about half way) then purchased the Enhanced Edition with DA:A and all the DLC. My 3rd full playthrough was enhanced loads and I loved it.

If tommorow they released further adventures based on DA:O I'd snap them up straight away. Fereldan was a large place and easy to expand upon too.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 12 décembre 2012 - 11:47 .