300 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Abit off topic: But you could die of starvation in the Ultima games, actually.

From at least 6 on, the Avatar is actually invincible. He may "starve to death" but someone always utters "Kal Lor."

Two of my favourite RPGs of all time (6 and 7, plus Serpent Isle) have a game mechanic that literally makes it impossible to lose.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:16 .

[AlexJK]

Yrkoon wrote...

Who the hell brought eating into this discussion, anyway?

If you were to read back over the topic, you'd find out...

[thats1evildude]

Rawgrim wrote...

Abit off topic: But you could die of starvation in the Ultima games, actually.

But not in Dragon Age, which is the point.

You can starve in San Andreas too, but like every other minor injury like being set on fire or shot fifty times or jumping into spinning helicopter blades, a quick visit to the hospital can clear that right up.

They removed the need to eat in GTA IV because it sucked.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:21 .

[Firky]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Abit off topic: But you could die of starvation in the Ultima games, actually.

From at least 6 on, the Avatar is actually invincible. He may "starve to death" but someone always utters "Kal Lor."

Two of my favourite RPGs of all time (6 and 7, plus Serpent Isle) have a game mechanic that literally makes it impossible to lose.

I'm playing Ultima 8 for the first time and I'm a bit shocked by how you can DIE. And frequently. From drowning in water. Frequently. D: There's a tombstone and everything.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Valadras21 wrote...

I don't see what's so wrong with it. Both Dragon age games afford you situations where you can control the fight and use most of the level to your advantage, while also creating situations where you must fight in an area determined by encounter design.

This isn't a real life simulator. At some point you have to realize that these are video games, and sometimes, a design choice is going to be made to challenge the player, instead of rolling over and handing you all the loot and story progression.

"I don't like it"=/= Bad game design

To be completely hypocritical though, I will agree with Pedrak's point about conversations breaking party positioning before a fight. I hate that.

"RIdiculous nonsensical way to contain the player"=/= Good game design. There are so many logical ways to increase difficulty or trap the player. Even spawning a enemy behind would be less offensive.

Even forcing the player to massacre everything before leaving can be considered bad game design, in so much as they "designed a bad game engine that means enemies can't follow you" Kinda makes stealth completely pointless.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

jpbreon wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Akugagi wrote...

Wow, this never bothered me. I can't believe someone actually pays attention to the doors. You suffer from some OCD or what?

Er... doors  (and whether they automatically lock behind you) are a prime issue of tactical gameplay importance to anyone  who enjoys stealth and scouting..

I for one,  DO like sending my rogue up ahead to assess the threat/numbers of a future encounter.... so that my party can prepare.


But when a game locks the door behind me  (or worse, when a game like dragon age instantly teleports my entire party past the door to be with my rogue, then locks the door behind us so that their precious cutscenes don't get messed up, well.... thats just STUPID, and suddenly eliminates a major part of a very *basic* strategy.

I'm a bit more sympathetic to this argument. I think the problem would be that it would make having a stealth-able rogue damn near mandatory for the party, kind of like Act 2 Anders. There would have to be some way you could scout and see what your about to face without starting the encounter, otherwise you could stealth im, start it, then draw the enemies out singularly and massacre them.

Still, I see your issue and agree that scouting should be possible and yield a benefit.

Give them better AI? Or simply just a do not leave the room instruction

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Abit off topic: But you could die of starvation in the Ultima games, actually.

From at least 6 on, the Avatar is actually invincible. He may "starve to death" but someone always utters "Kal Lor."

Two of my favourite RPGs of all time (6 and 7, plus Serpent Isle) have a game mechanic that literally makes it impossible to lose.

Hmm, you are quite right. I remembered some of my companions starving to death. Never happened to my Avatar.

[AmstradHero]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If someone like Sylvius doesn't request things from a by-gone era... who else will? And if no one requests them... then how can we expect anything but the same type of game, over and over and over again? 

Technology is not the problem. Game Design limitations and lack of initiative to do so is the problem.

The problem is that a lot of what Sylvius requests never existed. Doors locking behind the player is a new invention in BioWare games? That's wrong. Unequivocally wrong. I present to you 8 words: "You must gather your party before venturing forth."

That's right. Right back from BioWare's first fully fledged RPG, this exact technique has existed. To say it hasn't is bollocks. It's the same with his "there was never any implied tone in player responses." Or the "voiced protagonists are unequivocally awful". Or any of his other mainstays.

Sylvius isn't "winning" these arguments, he's making the same noises ad nauseum and providing increasingly weaker "evidence" to support his case. I don't blame the developers for coming out and calling him on it, because he lives in a vacuum where he only considers games and their design from his perspective. No one else's opinion matters and he would happily discount the tastes of thousands of other people to cater for his niche.

From a player's perspective the "locked door" technique can be slightly annoying and cause combat frustration, but typically this is because the player has used environmental factors to prevent them from having to learn new tactics and skill combinations to allow their "real" skill level in the game to progress.  If a player continues to use a crutch even when the game has been trying to teach them to walk for several hours, then it's their own fault if they suffer when the game finally rips that crutch away from them.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:01 .

[Rawgrim]

AmstradHero wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If someone like Sylvius doesn't request things from a by-gone era... who else will? And if no one requests them... then how can we expect anything but the same type of game, over and over and over again? 

Technology is not the problem. Game Design limitations and lack of initiative to do so is the problem.

The problem is that a lot of what Sylvius requests never existed. Doors locking behind the player is a new invention in BioWare games? That's wrong. Unequivocally wrong. I present to you 8 words: "You must gather your party before venturing forth."

That's right. Right back from BioWare's first fully fledged RPG, this exact technique has existed. To say it hasn't is bollocks.

Sylvius isn't "winning" these arguments, he's making the same noises ad nauseum and providing increasingly weaker "evidence" to support his case.

From a player's perspective this technique can be slightly annoying and cause combat frustration, but typically this is because the player has used environmental factors to prevent them from having to learn new tactics and skill combinations to allow their "real" skill level in the game to progress.  If a player continues to use a crutch even when the game has been trying to teach them to walk for several hours, then it's their own fault if they suffer when the game finally rips that crutch away from them.

You had to bring your whole party with you in order to enter a new area in the BG games, sure. But you never got locked in a room everytime you encountered some sort of boss.

[Fast Jimmy]

Rawgrim wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If someone like Sylvius doesn't request things from a by-gone era... who else will? And if no one requests them... then how can we expect anything but the same type of game, over and over and over again? 

Technology is not the problem. Game Design limitations and lack of initiative to do so is the problem.

The problem is that a lot of what Sylvius requests never existed. Doors locking behind the player is a new invention in BioWare games? That's wrong. Unequivocally wrong. I present to you 8 words: "You must gather your party before venturing forth."

That's right. Right back from BioWare's first fully fledged RPG, this exact technique has existed. To say it hasn't is bollocks.

Sylvius isn't "winning" these arguments, he's making the same noises ad nauseum and providing increasingly weaker "evidence" to support his case.

From a player's perspective this technique can be slightly annoying and cause combat frustration, but typically this is because the player has used environmental factors to prevent them from having to learn new tactics and skill combinations to allow their "real" skill level in the game to progress.  If a player continues to use a crutch even when the game has been trying to teach them to walk for several hours, then it's their own fault if they suffer when the game finally rips that crutch away from them.

You had to bring your whole party with you in order to enter a new area in the BG games, sure. But you never got locked in a room everytime you encountered some sort of boss.

Quite true.

Besides, saying "Baldur's Gate had doors that magically locked" is not saying that it is immediately the best game design decision in the world. It is still totally nonsensical that a door would magically lock behind you when you walked into a combat encounter (and then possibly magically UNLOCK for you when all the enemies are dead). Using BG as a shield to say "this isn't new" is totally missing the point.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:55 .

[AmstradHero]

Rawgrim wrote...
You had to bring your whole party with you in order to enter a new area in the BG games, sure. But you never got locked in a room everytime you encountered some sort of boss.

How is this any more logically consistent?

You're in the wilderness and there's an invisible barrier at the edge of the empty grassland that you simply can't pass.... unless everyone is standing around it.

There are always arbitrary disconnects between reality and gameplay. That is because games cannot portray reality flawlessly. Anyone who thinks otherwise can't really offer reasoned or rational design ideas because they don't understand the limitations of the medium.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:20 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It should probably be noted that there's several PnP campaigns that occur by the staff in various universes and rule settings that happen every day of the week, in the office.

This doesn't include the numerous games that I know happen but just aren't literally played inside BioWare's offices after hours.

This is heart-warming. And why Bioware has some of the best people in the RPG industry working there. 

Technology is not the problem. Game Design limitations and lack of initiative to do so is the problem.

This is probably one of the rudest things I've seen written on this forum. Just a blanket statement that we lack initiative. Thanks!

I'm truly sorry. This was in no way intended to be rude. I'm sorry it hurt your feelings.

I didn't say you lacked initiative to do ANYTHING. I said you lacked the initiative to do what you and Gaider said, in this very thread, you would not do, which is to take every minute detail of the game experience, like magically locking doors, and think of it from the character's perspective. Its not something Bioware's Design Team has an initiative for. I thought using the word "desire" might have been more offensive, so I did not use it, since that may not be the case. But you definitely don't have the drive/initiative to do it. There is no employee at Bioware like Sylvius (edit: that we know of), clamouring for small details that cost an inordinate amount of resources to try and bring a more mundane sense of realism to the game world.

And that's fine.

But to the criticize and mock a fan who thinks these details are important is, perhaps, one of the rudest things I've seen on this forum. Calling someone's actions rude could be a violation of the site rules, though, so I refrain from doing so.

Obviously this isn't a big concern on Bioware's list (again, nothing wrong with that), but it isn't due to technical limitations, as the person I quoted earlier claimed. Its an issue of resources. Which is, ultimately, a design decision. The design team can only fit X amount of features in the game with Y budget and Z schedule. 

But as a I said in my earlier post - it has gotten to the point where video game limitations (like you must stay in this room to prevent the encounter from bugging out or being to unmanageable) aren't even viewed as limitations any longer. Magically locking doors and unrealistic levels of damage (1000 sword strikes vs. one Murder Knife stab) and characters staying alive for days/weeks/etc. in a dungeon with no source of clean water or food... all of these aspects of game design were questioned when they were first introduced in the 80's and 90's. And a few games said "Okay, we'll try and address these segregations between story and gameplay." And they found that by doing so, their requirements and scope documents had extreme scope creep.

So they were tossed out in almost all future games. And are now considered just "par for the course." Again, nothing Bioware did or didn't do, its just how the industry has moved. Sylvius is just pointing out the fact that this segregation still exists. If Bioware doesn't want to acknowledge this segregation, that's their prerogative. But complaining about a fan complaining about it doesn't really accomplish much. Especially when that fan is Sylvius.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

From at least 6 on, the Avatar is actually invincible. He may "starve to death" but someone always utters "Kal Lor."

Two of my favourite RPGs of all time (6 and 7, plus Serpent Isle) have a game mechanic that literally makes it impossible to lose.

True. But, to be fair, it did set you back some time. You were transported back to one of the first beginning towns, losing any of your companions who may have also died in Ultima 7. In Serpent Isle, it was a lot more forgiving (where it would often teleport you back to the exact dungeon/area you had died in), but there was still a sense of penalty. For whatever that's worth.

Please note... I'm not hung up on magically locking doors or the need for eating food in a game (or taking bathroom breaks). I'm pretty much strictly arguing that Sylvius' right to request such a gameplay design, unhindered by dismissive remarks or undue levels of catechization, is totally valid. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Suspension of disbelief, world immersion and a feeling of being "in" a game can sometimes be made or broken by the details. In this instance, Sylvius says that a game that never mentions food once, the fact that you don't eat is a detail he can ignore. However, a game that has magically locking/unlocking doors just as a shallow attempt to create artificial difficulty is one he can't ignore.

Food is mentioned repeatedly in both Dragon Age games.

- The Dwarf Commoner origin has a quest that involves poisoning someone's food and drink.
- There is a similar quest in Mark of the Assassin to poison a wyvern's food.
- Merrill awkwardly offers Hawke water on her first visit to the Alienage.
- Isabela orders Hawke whiskey on her friendship path during her Act 2 Questioning Beliefs quest.
- There is a poem about how the brood mother came about describes the darkspawn feeding a dwarven woman tainted meat.
- Hawke can go to the Hanged Man and order a drink.
- There are two conversations in Mark of the Assassin where they specifically talk about cheese that tastes of despair.
- Isabela warns about eating bad clams
- Alistair has a conversation with Leliana about how Fereldans cook lamb and pea stew
- Sten enjoys cookies

You are correct. 

I should have clarified my point to say that there is no mention of needing to ingest food for your character to stay alive in the gameplay mechanics or story. Talking about food, using it as a set piece during conversation (like pouring a glass to drink) or in conjuction to a quest objective, like poisoing someone's food/drink, offers no real problem for immersion, as it never indicates that your character cannot live on without collecting food stuffs. 

Yet our characters walk through doors all the time. Our character enters combat all the time. For the doors to act in certain ways during certain combat scenarios without a clear cut reason why other than "though must" is what Sylvius is complaining about. 

Just because he is also not concurrently asking for a life simulator where its possible to put the wrong shoe on the wrong foot when getting dressed in the morning or tripping when stepping off a city curb too quickly doesn't mean its not a valid example of gameplay/story segregation. And just because the game has others that are obvious, like the damage difference between a Murder Knife and a Blizzard spell, shouldn't inherently give it a free pass to being discussed.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AmstradHero wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
You had to bring your whole party with you in order to enter a new area in the BG games, sure. But you never got locked in a room everytime you encountered some sort of boss.

How is this any more logically consistent?

You're in the wilderness and there's an invisible barrier at the edge of the empty grassland that you simply can't pass.... unless everyone is standing around it.

There are always arbitrary disconnects between reality and gameplay. That is because games cannot portray reality flawlessly. Anyone who thinks otherwise can't really offer reasoned or rational design ideas because they don't understand the limitations of the medium.

Sylvius, as a customer, is offering a problem statement. It is in Bioware's court whether they want to solution that problem or not. 

Saying "my vacuum cleaner keeps getting clogged, I find it very hard to go through my vacuuming experience because of that" doesn't also require you to understand Newtonian physics explanation of the vacuum, how a small electric engine could create such a vacuum and how plastic production in China limits the shape and design of the overall product... he just needs to know that his vacuum doesn't work how he wants it to. He, as a customer, can make the blanket statement "NEVER let a vacuum clog." 

Whether or not this conjured up vacuum company sees this as a problem and actively tries to improve the vacvuum design to never clog is their prerogative. But saying someone is wrong for complaining because they don't understand the manufacturing process of vacuums seems a little obtuse. 

[Rawgrim]

AmstradHero wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
You had to bring your whole party with you in order to enter a new area in the BG games, sure. But you never got locked in a room everytime you encountered some sort of boss.

How is this any more logically consistent?

You're in the wilderness and there's an invisible barrier at the edge of the empty grassland that you simply can't pass.... unless everyone is standing around it.

There are always arbitrary disconnects between reality and gameplay. That is because games cannot portray reality flawlessly. Anyone who thinks otherwise can't really offer reasoned or rational design ideas because they don't understand the limitations of the medium.

Thats because the game has to load a new area. All rpgs do that, In the BG games, you travel for days from one area to another. To save time, you exit the screen and chose where to go. I am sure you wouldn`t want to walk for days in game, and just sit there and watch it happen? the DA games does the same thing. Exit Lothering, and then pick a spot on the map wich you want to go to. Its not the same as locking a player and hi party inside a room just because a bossfight is about to happen. And then, somehow, killing the boss magically opens the doors again.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Suspension of disbelief, world immersion and a feeling of being "in" a game can sometimes be made or broken by the details. In this instance, Sylvius says that a game that never mentions food once, the fact that you don't eat is a detail he can ignore. However, a game that has magically locking/unlocking doors just as a shallow attempt to create artificial difficulty is one he can't ignore.

Food is mentioned repeatedly in both Dragon Age games.

- The Dwarf Commoner origin has a quest that involves poisoning someone's food and drink.
- There is a similar quest in Mark of the Assassin to poison a wyvern's food.
- Merrill awkwardly offers Hawke water on her first visit to the Alienage.
- Isabela orders Hawke whiskey on her friendship path during her Act 2 Questioning Beliefs quest.
- There is a poem about how the brood mother came about describes the darkspawn feeding a dwarven woman tainted meat.
- Hawke can go to the Hanged Man and order a drink.
- There are two conversations in Mark of the Assassin where they specifically talk about cheese that tastes of despair.
- Isabela warns about eating bad clams
- Alistair has a conversation with Leliana about how Fereldans cook lamb and pea stew
- Sten enjoys cookies

You are correct. 

I should have clarified my point to say that there is no mention of needing to ingest food for your character to stay alive in the gameplay mechanics or story. Talking about food, using it as a set piece during conversation (like pouring a glass to drink) or in conjuction to a quest objective, like poisoing someone's food/drink, offers no real problem for immersion, as it never indicates that your character cannot live on without collecting food stuffs.

You're just selectively applying your own criteria. "That they talk about food, but you never go hungry" may not as immersion breaking to you, but that should not make it universal unless you are as self-centered as Sylvius.

There are people who do desperate things due to lack of food in the games. There's Ruck who, in his desperation to survive, consumed corpses in the Deep Roads and became tainted. Alec steals food in DAA for his starving family, and the player can pronounce judgement. It gets enough mention that some may feel their sense of immersion break, since their character never has to eat, never has this feeling of desperation.

All of this is still gameplay/story segregation. That you deem it acceptable doesn't make it any less gameplay/story segregation. I'll say it again - Sylvius claims he does not accept incredible or contrived situations in his world view, but he does. This is disingenuous because it selectively applies criteria that he claimed to be universal.

Yet our characters walk through doors all the time. Our character enters combat all the time. For the doors to act in certain ways during certain combat scenarios without a clear cut reason why other than "though must" is what Sylvius is complaining about.

We also come across many, many doors that are unable to be opened, as well as doors that block our path that we are unable to interact with that are opened to us later. There can be a clear-cut reason - you just need to use your imagination (like he does with the hunger example). I fully believe there can even be a credible reason if your imagination is good enough. It is enough that such a reason can exist to disprove that the argument is about logic and consistency. The problem is that Sylvius doesn't want to imagine these things, but he's claiming it's about logic instead of personal preference.

Just because he is also not concurrently asking for a life simulator where its possible to put the wrong shoe on the wrong foot when getting dressed in the morning or tripping when stepping off a city curb too quickly doesn't mean its not a valid example of gameplay/story segregation. And just because the game has others that are obvious, like the damage difference between a Murder Knife and a Blizzard spell, shouldn't inherently give it a free pass to being discussed.

No, Sylvius is complaining that the rules of the game are not consistent and they always should be. He claims that gameplay/story segregation cannot exist, or else the character would be unable to make meaningful decisions. He claims logic, yet applies this metric selectively. He says one thing, but accepts another. This is what is disingenuous. He says he is against all gameplay/story segregation, but what he actually means is he is against all gameplay/story segregation that he does not find acceptable. If he would like to reframe his argument within the context of his own personal opinion, rather than such absolute language, then I would be fine with it. But he is not, and therefore he is being disingenuous.

If he demands consistency, he should be consistent within his own demand.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[Rogue Roxy]

I always simply assume that everyone eats at some point or other and doesn't necessarily need an in game announcement every single time. Just like going to the bathroom. Or shaving, or brushing teeth,...

Back on topic, locking the doors during a battle has never been game breaking for me. In fact, I <i> rarely </i> notice. *shrug*

[Fast Jimmy]

If he demands consistency, he should be consistent within his own demand.

That's fair enough... but do you really think a guy like Sylvius would be against starting up a new thread and arguing that all gameplay/story segregation should be suspended entirely? Because, I gotta tell you... I wouldn't see him having too much of a problem arguing that position, either.

[Travie]

I really don't think this is an aspect of gameplay that needs much of an explanation (or excuse).

Sure, it hurts gameplay and immersion... but most gamers are used to the whole 'door locked behind you for the fight' thing.

It's a pleasant surprise when it doesn't happen, though.

I would argue it's something designers should try to actively avoid whenever possible, but it's not a requirement.

[frankf43]

I have two plausible situations that have actually happened to me that could explain the mysterious locking doors.
                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was young the old lady that lived next door to us knocked on the door asking for help because while she was out putting a bag of rubbish in the bin the front door mysteriously locked on her.
 How could this happen I hear you say there is no way a door can lock with no one on the other side to lock it.
Well you see her front door had what we in the UK call a Yale Lock on it. This lock has a spring loaded locking mechanism that will automatically lock if closed. On the inside of the door the lock can be opened by a lever but on the other side you need a key to open it. What caused the door to close was a door spring, a coiled spring designed to put pressure on the door if it is left open to slowly swing it closed.
                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now not so long a ago I went to a self-service petrol station. I filled the car with petrol and walked into the store to pay. On exiting the store I heard a horrible clicking sound. Why was the clicking sound Horrible you may ask?
It was the sound of my central locking mechanism automatically locking with my keys still in the ignition.
 
So there you have it a low tech way that a door can auto lock that can be used in the DA series and a high tech way that can be used in the ME series.
I put it to anybody reading this are either of these two scenarios any less feasible than not having to eat or expel waste for was it seven years that DA:2 took?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

You should have killed everyone in the car parking lot. That would have magically unlocked your car door, according to the logic in most video game worlds.

[frankf43]

Either that or wait for thr man from the RAC to come and open it for me:)

[darrylzero]

I also find the doors closing a minor irritation, but it seems to me that some little explanation could go a long way when developers decide it's necessary. It's not hard to imagine that Jarvia might have some super-secret trap lock, or that a more magical enemy might have other ways of sealing doors.

What I found much more annoying in the Jarvia encounter (and this got much worse in DA2) was that sneaking in stealthily with one character triggered a cinematic with everyone just tromping in there with no stealth or caution. My characters would never do that! I spent a lot of energy trying to sneak through, killing as few guards as possible (because what do I have against them? And why risk unnecessary combat?), and then...

I accept the idea that some of these things are necessary at times, but those moments are painful. Whatever could be done to have such traps sprung in ways that acknowledge the attempt to be stealthy and cautious would be much appreciated.

[Fast Jimmy]

frankf43 wrote...

Either that or wait for thr man from the RAC to come and open it for me:)

Awwwww... that's not nearly as fun. Or conducive to video game interaction!

[hoorayforicecream]

darrylzero wrote...

I also find the doors closing a minor irritation, but it seems to me that some little explanation could go a long way when developers decide it's necessary. It's not hard to imagine that Jarvia might have some super-secret trap lock, or that a more magical enemy might have other ways of sealing doors.

What I found much more annoying in the Jarvia encounter (and this got much worse in DA2) was that sneaking in stealthily with one character triggered a cinematic with everyone just tromping in there with no stealth or caution. My characters would never do that! I spent a lot of energy trying to sneak through, killing as few guards as possible (because what do I have against them? And why risk unnecessary combat?), and then...

I accept the idea that some of these things are necessary at times, but those moments are painful. Whatever could be done to have such traps sprung in ways that acknowledge the attempt to be stealthy and cautious would be much appreciated.

It is painful. It really sucks, and should be avoided if possible. It's also, however, the reason that they disallowed stealth as a navigational feature in DA2... because on an 11 month development cycle, you often have to go with what is safest and least bug-prone, and this problem can happen on practically any triggered cinematic. They've had this problem since the Baldur's Gate days though.