300 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

frankf43 wrote...

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?

Eating or going to the bathroom can easilly be brushed aside as happening off-screen in games. Doors magically locking and unlocking, for no logical reason is shown clearly. its right there in the players face.

[The Hierophant]

Yrkoon wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...


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

Indeed. There have been many cRPGs in history that encorporated  a food for survival mechanic. Today, when that mechanic is in a game, it's usually part of a difficulty mode, for people who wish for more realism/challenge.

Which is why bringing it up as some sort of counter to Sylvius's argument is a silly red herring. Complaining about Doors that arbitrarily lock behind you when you walk through them, so as to force you into a scripted encounter is not even remotely the same sort of gripe as complaining about a character's lack of the need to eat.    Who the hell Brought  eating into this  discussion, anyway?

Exactly my thoughts. Plus having locked doors that even a 40+ cunning rogue can't pick creates a disconnect between gameplay features.

[Fast Jimmy]

Icecream, I was curious...

In your experience, does having all cinematically handled without switching tow cinematic view make any of that type of scripting easier to handle? For instance, in the IE engine, which has almost every scripted event as it would appear in game, would it be easier to create more dynamic ways to resolve the issue of scripted events forcing certain situations (like, no matter what, the Jarvia encounter alerts everyone that your party is in the hideout)? Or is it pretty much a difficult task, no matter how the cinematically are rendered?

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Icecream, I was curious...

In your experience, does having all cinematically handled without switching tow cinematic view make any of that type of scripting easier to handle? For instance, in the IE engine, which has almost every scripted event as it would appear in game, would it be easier to create more dynamic ways to resolve the issue of scripted events forcing certain situations (like, no matter what, the Jarvia encounter alerts everyone that your party is in the hideout)? Or is it pretty much a difficult task, no matter how the cinematically are rendered?

The simpler the setup, the more you can iterate on it in a given amount of time. In games like Baldur's Gate, you could literally have characters halfway across the map conversing with each other as if they were right next to each other - the camera would literally just bounce between them at high speed, and they could just shout at each other across a gigantic map. They don't need to be next to each other, they don't need to face each other, they don't need to animate, they only need to change the color of the little selection circle beneath them from green to white to indicate that they are talking.

It also can be very bad for immersion, because hey - they're having a conversation across an entire map, across walls, doors, locks, mountains, lava, and glaciers and that's just silly. You sacrifice verisimilitude for ease of scripting, because I can guarantee you that every such sacrifice will break verisimilitude for somebody.

The more complex the interaction, the longer it takes to iterate because you need to adjust each aspect to make it fit for the cinematic. The goal of the cinematic is to increase verisimilitude by injecting elements that were missing before, such as voice, animation, facial expressions, body language, etc. Text that says <They fight> is less immersive than actually seeing a fight scene. The mileage one gets out of the various complexity levels of cinematics, of course, varies with the individual player.

That said, it's a question of "What if?". If you have a triggered cinematic to happen when you enter a door, how is it handled? What if you have a single stealthed character? What if you have more than one stealthed character? What if all but one of your party is stealthed? What if they are all stealthed? What if character X has a specific response to this NPC you've just encountered? What if character X has a specific response *and* is stealthed? How many "What Ifs" do you have time to handle? The more "What Ifs" you support, the more time it takes, and open the window for more bugs to potentially appear. Furthermore, by handling certain "What Ifs" some of the time, you further create the expectation that it will happen *all* of the time, which can quickly compound into a far higher zot cost than is feasible.

[AmstradHero]

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

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.

I'm completely aware of why it happens. I'm also cognizant of the fact that the reason it is implemented is because of limitations in the gaming system and design that force arbitrary constraints on the player. Locked doors are absolutely no different in terms of verisimilitude than these magical game design area barriers.

There is always going to be a disconnect between perfect "realism" of the world and the gameplay, but it is the job of the designers to balance those disconnects to ensure that gameplay is challenging, fun and will perform reliably. If players can break the difficulty or the scripting of the game by retreating back a long, long distance because of unlocked doors, then it is the designer's duty to prevent that from happening.

Yes, it might be slightly annoying from a realism perspective, but a gamer who is unwilling to overlook these kinds of changes which are overall for the good of the quality of the gameplay simply due to a unwavering desire for perfect realism is being unrealistic and overly demanding in their request.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:04 .

[Yrkoon]

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."

No, that only happens before map transitions, not, say, within the same dungeon level.    Huge difference.  And it's not a valid example anyway, since the area transitions in question are not locked.    The BG games let you leave those maps if you DO gather your party.  Even in the middle of a fight.    And by the way,  in BG2,  some enemies actually followed you through those map transitions.

So the "reality" question arises: how come  we had it 12 years ago, but can't have it today?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:11 .

[Rawgrim]

AmstradHero wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

I'm completely aware of why it happens. I'm also cognizant of the fact that the reason it is implemented is because of limitations in the gaming system and design that force arbitrary constraints on the player. Locked doors are absolutely no different in terms of verisimilitude than these magical game design area barriers.

There is always going to be a disconnect between perfect "realism" of the world and the gameplay, but it is the job of the designers to balance those disconnects to ensure that gameplay is challenging, fun and will perform reliably. If players can break the difficulty or the scripting of the game by retreating back a long, long distance because of unlocked doors, then it is the designer's duty to prevent that from happening.

Yes, it might be slightly annoying from a realism perspective, but a gamer who is unwilling to overlook these kinds of changes which are overall for the good of the quality of the gameplay simply due to a unwavering desire for perfect realism is being unrealistic and overly demanding in their request.

Its not overly demanding to want doors not to magically lock behind you (even when there is actually no magic involved) just so the player can fight a boss in closed quarters. You can`t even avoid noticing it. Its like a gaping plot hole right in our face.

[AmstradHero]

Plot hole? Um, I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Yrkoon - Except they ARE locked. They're locked unless EVERYONE is standing at the edge. If one person is further away, there's an invisible barrier preventing you from leaving. Yes, it makes sense from a design perspective, but from a game perspective (which is the whole thing Sylvius is arguing) it makes absolutely no sense. For you to accept one and not the other is just demonstrating that you're happy with world inconsistencies. You just want to dictate where the line is. In that case, I suggest you try your hand at game design.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:11 .

[Yrkoon]

AmstradHero wrote...


Yrkoon - Except they ARE locked. They're locked unless EVERYONE is standing at the edge.

Nope, they're NOT.  And all the hair splitting  in the world won't  suddenly make your argument valid.  Your party just needs to be near the door.

The fact that you can leave, even in the middle of a fight, ALREADY  renders your 'example' irrelevant to Sylvius' point, since  his argument centers around the fact that  in the DA games, we have open  doors that suddenly lock behind you and cannot be re-opened in  any way, until the foozle is killed.

Edit:  In fact, in the BG games your entire party doesn't even need to be near the door.  Your party's leader, for example, can be WAY across the room engaging the enemy, but as long as you have everyone selected, and everyone else is near the door, the area transition Occurs.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:24 .

[AmstradHero]

Yes they are. You can't use them unless your entire party is right next to the edge. If one party member is further away, the area tranisition simply doesn't work. This is exactly the same type of construct. It's a break in the reality of the world, and that is not hair splitting. That is Sylvius' entire point.

Yrkoon wrote...
Edit:  In fact, in the BG games your entire party doesn't even need to
be near the door.  Your party's leader, for example, can be WAY across
the room engaging the enemy, but as long as you have everyone selected,
and everyone else is near the door, the area transition Occurs.

Wrong. "You must gather your party before venturing forth." You have to get everyone there. That's the whole point.

Also, do me a favour and actually THINK about the boss fights/encounters in the BG games. You know something about them? A large number of them occur AFTER an area transition. You go into an area and you can't leave it, or the enemy can't follow you OUT of the area, and you MUST kill the enemy in order to advance the plot. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:26 .

[Yrkoon]

No, it's not.  It's a stupid example and not, at all,  the same situation that Silvius is describing. 

And everyone here knows it.   If Silvius  wanted to discuss the non-realistic mechanics behind map transitions, he would have.  But instead, he chose to  discuss doors that arbitrarily re-lock themselves within a dungeon right after you pass through them.

[Rawgrim]

AmstradHero wrote...

Plot hole? Um, I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Yrkoon - Except they ARE locked. They're locked unless EVERYONE is standing at the edge. If one person is further away, there's an invisible barrier preventing you from leaving. Yes, it makes sense from a design perspective, but from a game perspective (which is the whole thing Sylvius is arguing) it makes absolutely no sense. For you to accept one and not the other is just demonstrating that you're happy with world inconsistencies. You just want to dictate where the line is. In that case, I suggest you try your hand at game design.

i wasn`t saying it was a plot hole, I was saying it gave me the same feeling as a giant plot hole staring me in the face. A cringe-worthy moment, to put it that way.

[Yrkoon]

AmstradHero wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
Edit:  In fact, in the BG games your entire party doesn't even need to
be near the door.  Your party's leader, for example, can be WAY across
the room engaging the enemy, but as long as you have everyone selected,
and everyone else is near the door, the area transition Occurs.

Wrong. "You must gather your party before venturing forth." You have to get everyone there. That's the whole point.

Just stop.  You will get nowhere trying to debate  the mechanics  (bugged or not-bugged) of a  12+ year old game I've spent 10,000 hours playing and modding, m'kay?  Most of us who have mastered  BG2 know precisely what triggers a successful map transition and what doesn't.     We also know what happens when you SOLO   the BG games and you come across an area transition.    And even people who haven't mastered  Baldur's Gate are intelligent enough to know the difference between a door that arbitrarily locks behind you  vs. a party-required level exit.  Good God.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:46 .

[Rawgrim]

Yrkoon wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
Edit:  In fact, in the BG games your entire party doesn't even need to
be near the door.  Your party's leader, for example, can be WAY across
the room engaging the enemy, but as long as you have everyone selected,
and everyone else is near the door, the area transition Occurs.

Wrong. "You must gather your party before venturing forth." You have to get everyone there. That's the whole point.

Just stop.  You will get nowhere trying to debate  the mechanics  (bugged or not-bugged) of a  12+ year old game I've spent 10,000 hours playing and modding, m'kay?  Most of us who have mastered  BG2 know precisely what triggers a successful map transition and what doesn't.     We also know what happens when you SOLO   the BG games and you come across an area transition.    And even people who haven't mastered  Baldur's Gate are intelligent enough to know the difference between a door that arbitrarily locks behind you  vs. a party-required area transition.

Spot on

[Nighteye2]

jpbreon wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

jpbreon wrote...

Zevran did it to the Warden, led into an ambush and fell a tree to block the escape with archers raining arrows down onto your party. That is a very difficult but rewarding encounter.

Lock the door was just the programmer's way of cutting off the escape. Perhaps they can simply have the AI immediately move to cut off the retreat with enemies, and if you run off then you'll still have the entire room follow you, or get part of your party seperated from the rest, which is always bad

People started doing this because of the waves in DA2, I suspect. Though cutting off the exit is a valid, and I daresay, required, tactic for ambush situations. The OP wants it to NEVER happen, which is dull and silly. Not every battle is an ambush, of course, but never is asking too much.

The OP doesn't want that.

The OP wants it to never happen arbitrarily--without an in-universe reason or mechanism for it.

They'll just put in something just as silly, though. Instead of locked door you'll get "single mage casting a barrier" or Glyph of Repulsion or big maul swinger drops from the ledge above the door. I just don't get the feeling that OP is as wrorried about immersion as he/she is trying to gimmick the encounters to avoid using tactics or team synergy. 

Something gimmicky like that to explain the blockade is still better than nothing at all.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

thats1evildude wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

You still haven't explained why food abstraction is comparable to magical door locking.

They're both evidence of gameplay and story segregation. Sylvius says that cannot exist, but it does. That was the point made by another poster earlier in the thread.

Let's say there was a non-standard game over in DAO when the Warden is captured, sent to Fort Drakon and is denied food and water until he finally dies. In reality, we accept that people can die of starvation. In gameplay, this is impossible. The Warden cannot die of any way not related to combat. Therefore, we have a case of gameplay and story segregation.

If it is made clear that the Warden is starving, and he sees a cheese wheel lying around or something to decorate the environment, then yes, that'd be a case of the game setup hurting suspension of disbelief. Just like not being able to pass through a locked door, which could give the Warden an advantage in combat, often cannot be done.

Suspension of disbelief often implies that if something is not mentioned or recognized in a fictional universe as different, then it's the same as in our world. That's what makes locked doors a fantastic occurrence (in some cases) and food abstraction understandable.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

AmstradHero wrote...

Plot hole? Um, I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Yrkoon - Except they ARE locked. They're locked unless EVERYONE is standing at the edge. If one person is further away, there's an invisible barrier preventing you from leaving. Yes, it makes sense from a design perspective, but from a game perspective (which is the whole thing Sylvius is arguing) it makes absolutely no sense. For you to accept one and not the other is just demonstrating that you're happy with world inconsistencies. You just want to dictate where the line is. In that case, I suggest you try your hand at game design.

You do realize you can manage your party and go alone if you want to? They don't need to go unless you want to take them with you, in which case your party members obviously have to accompany you while traveling. Going alone or taking along your party are both viable options in the game; player input is the issue here, not game design.

[AmstradHero]

Yrkoon wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
Edit:  In fact, in the BG games your entire party doesn't even need to be near the door.  Your party's leader, for example, can be WAY across the room engaging the enemy, but as long as you have everyone selected,
and everyone else is near the door, the area transition Occurs.

Wrong. "You must gather your party before venturing forth." You have to get everyone there. That's the whole point.

Just stop.  You will get nowhere trying to debate  the mechanics  (bugged or not-bugged) of a  12+ year old game I've spent 10,000 hours playing and modding, m'kay?  Most of us who have mastered  BG2 know precisely what triggers a successful map transition and what doesn't.     We also know what happens when you SOLO   the BG games and you come across an area transition.    And even people who haven't mastered  Baldur's Gate are intelligent enough to know the difference between a door that arbitrarily locks behind you  vs. a party-required area transition.

Touting numbers of how long you've played BG isn't impressive and doesn't lend credence to your argument. Besides, pointing out exceptions only serves to further undermine your argument. The whole reason for this thread is because Sylvius doesn't like doors locking behind him when there is no in-game reason for that to happen. Read the thread properly.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If the door locks behind us, there had better be a good reason for it that isn't just "this is how we want the fight to happen".
...
Every aspect of the game should be subservient to the coherence of the game's setting.  The lore comes first.  The mechanics are part of the lore.  No aspect of gameplay or narrative should ever violate the lore.

So, Yrkoon, when you say you know what triggers and successful map tranisition and what doesn't, that indicates that there are mechanics that are not part of the lore, which means that they pose exactly the same problem for Sylvius in this regard.

Just because players can and know how to game the area transitions in the BG games to their advantage does not mean that they don't create a disconnect in the exact same way between mechanics and lore as automatically locking doors. Both still serve exactly the same purpose of keeping a player in a location until particular criteria are met. You finding it easier to meet the criteria in BG doesn't change that.

There are gameplay and design reasons as to why both of these occur. There are no lore reasons as to why they occur. That's why this aspect that Sylvius is complaining about has always existed, he's just picked a particular example of it that he's pretty sure he can get other people to complain about to support his agenda, which you've dutifully done.

For the record, I agree that locking doors behind the player isn't typically good design, but I acknowledge that it can be difficult to get around where a game engine doesn't have things like height or much freedom to dynamically change a map, which Dragon Age doesn't have. There are ways around it, but it's a time balance of design to facilitate an in-game reason for a game mechanic that many people are familiar with from other genres. Another problem is that if you use a trick to stop a player from leaving an area, the savvy player is likely to think (or realise) that there will be a boss fight, and arm up appropriately. Like I said before, there are lots of design implications to consider.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 15 décembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[Realmzmaster]

I have no problem with the designers using locked doors. The problem I have is no reason is given why it is necessary in an encounter. And before any says It has been done before this point has always been a stickler for me. I simply want an in game reason why it is being done whenever possible.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I have no problem with the designers using locked doors. The problem I have is no reason is given why it is necessary in an encounter. And before any says It has been done before this point has always been a stickler for me. I simply want an in game reason why it is being done whenever possible.

I concur. 

Although... its often a little forced to have a mechanic about why a door is locked for a fight, but then mysteriously unocked when the fight is over. But I'd rather be told why we can't go back through that door anymore than just have it close and then re-open, as if the enemies we were fighting had their souls tied to the locking mechanism.

[Yrkoon]

AmstradHero wrote...
So, Yrkoon, when you say you know what triggers and successful map tranisition and what doesn't, that indicates that there are mechanics that are not part of the lore,

Says who?  Of course they're part of the lore.   They're also completely  ingame-logical.   An area transition means You're traveling to someplace else.  e.g.   leaving a Building, or Entering a building, or leaving a city, or taking the stairs to the next or previous level.  If you're traveling with a party, then that is exactly what the game is assuming that you're doing:  Traveling. With your party.

And as mentioned by someone else above, you also have the choice to go into the party arbitration screen and Dismiss your party members, thereby allowing you to use that area transition  by yourself, while the rest of your party stays put, right where you left them. As you ordered them to.

This  is in Huge *HUGE* contrast to what  Sylvius is talking about, which is when the game instantly locks a door behind you, arbitrarily, when you did not  order it closed, when you did not trigger an  area transition; when you didn't leave an area at all;   when you didn't do ANYTHING but pass through an open  doorway within the map you're already in.....   And then, this door stays locked, no matter what you do, until the Room's boss is slain, and then the door  just magically swings back open, as if by ESP.  

There is NO purpose or explanantion for such a stupid,  artificial, forced combat-limitation mechanic  except to insure that:  1)  the devs precious cutscenes don't get screwed up, and 2) that their awesome-sauce Boss encounter phases all occur smoothly, without that pesky player getting in the way of the  "plan" with  his/her own creative  strategies  (perish the thought!).

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 décembre 2012 - 06:30 .

[DarkSpiral]

You know who HASN'T posted anything in this thread for a while now? Sylvius.

Maybe even he has gotten tired of you two going back and forth about a game that's close to 15 years old and has little to nothing to do with DA3. But that's nothing but my opinion.

[AmstradHero]

Because Sylvius got people arguing and some of them agreed with his case study for different reasons. Now that he considers that he has "won", he has left. That's pretty normal for him.

I never intended nor wanted this to turn into a debate about the BG series, but was merely using that as an example of how arbitrary limitations on movement have existed in BioWare games for a very long time, but apparently the nuance of this was lost because ERMAGERD BG IS PURFEKT.

Unfortunately the BioWare forums are apparently no longer a place where you get more reasoned debate than not, and that is a shame.