300 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredward]

thats1evildude wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Tut, tut. Manners. Sylvius might be bizzarely set in his views but he's never rude.

If I really wanted to injure Sylvius, I'd present him with a logical paradox and watch his head explode.

He's not a child. You don't need to hold his hand. If he's offended, he can report me or even try insulting me back.

It's less about Sylvius and more about the fact that I generally object to unprovoked douchiness.

[David Gaider]

esper wrote...
Whille it would be much better if it was always justified, I think this is just one of these examples where gameplay thrumps story ntegration.

Pathfinding, enemy ai, combat design and so forth have to be taken into consideration and for it to work sometimes it will have to be restricted to a certain area.

This is indeed the case. While I won't speak for the gameplay designers on the matter, this really seems to be one of those things where what seems to be reasonable in theory adds an incredible amount of complexity in practice.

[hoorayforicecream]

David Gaider wrote...

esper wrote...
Whille it would be much better if it was always justified, I think this is just one of these examples where gameplay thrumps story ntegration.

Pathfinding, enemy ai, combat design and so forth have to be taken into consideration and for it to work sometimes it will have to be restricted to a certain area.

This is indeed the case. While I won't speak for the gameplay designers on the matter, this really seems to be one of those things where what seems to be reasonable in theory adds an incredible amount of complexity in practice.

This very situation was the bane of several AI programmers on a FPS project I worked on. They spent a ton of time building intelligent squad AI that would actually function like a squad by laying down covering fire and flanking the player, except the level designers built their levels such that the player could (and in our focus tests, would) typically backtrack to a choke point where the AI couldn't perform any of its smart behaviors, and thus eventually charge a fortified position and get slaughtered.

It's easy to say "Well, don't design the levels that way", except it isn't always that easy. Sometimes you need to break up areas into small zones in order to unload the previous (now locked-off) area, and stream additional data from disc for the next without wanting a loading screen. Sometimes the level is too far along in production, and would cost too much to rebuild, relight, and redesign. There's a myriad of production issues that can crop up that make the process too expensive, and the arbitrary magical door that stops you from returning is an inexpensive fix that allows the team to continue creating new content, rather than crunching on old stuff to handle edge cases like this.

Those who are sticklers about internal rules consistency may not like it, but I don't think such games are targeted at those players to begin with.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 11 décembre 2012 - 09:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Sylvius does it bother you if there are suddenly magical barriers instead of doors blocking retreat? I mean then there is an "in game" explanation for it, yes?

It would bother me on a metagame level - I don't like being told how to play - but as long as it made sense within the setting for magical barriers to appear then that would be fine, yes.

But if magical barriers only ever appear when I'm fighting "bosses", and no other mention of them ever occurs in the game, and I can't ever come to control magical barriers myself, then they don't make sense in the setting.

If magical barriers are a thing in the world, then the rest of the world should take that into account.

[Sylvius the Mad]

thats1evildude wrote...

Sometimes your movements are so lifelike I forget you're not a real boy.

a) The medium is very relevant. If this was a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book, boss battles are unimportant because there's no mechanism for defeating bosses. But this is a video game. Boss battles are used in video games to "cap" a portion of the game — or the entire game itself — because we're accustomed in fiction to facing a major villain at the conclusion of the story.

Because it's a story and flow, or "pacing," is important to the story. When you play a game like this, you're agreeing to participate in a narrative. I know you'd rather have the finger puppets, but your desires are not possible and irrelevant.

You continue to presuppose your conclusions.

You've just defended catering to expectations on the grounds that there are expectations.  Really?  Is that as as far as you've thought this through?

As for the story, why is that paramount?  Why not let the story emerge through gameplay?

You need to back up and examine the foundations of your positions before you can begin to explain them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

esper wrote...

Whille it would be much better if it was always justified, I think this is just one of these examples where gameplay thrumps story ntegration.

Pathfinding, enemy ai, combat design and so forth have to be taken into consideration and for it to work sometimes it will have to be restricted to a certain area.

This is indeed the case. While I won't speak for the gameplay designers on the matter, this really seems to be one of those things where what seems to be reasonable in theory adds an incredible amount of complexity in practice.

You didn't used to artificially constrain encounters.  This is a relatively new feature in BioWare's games.

Therefore, it cannot be necessary.

Filament wrote...

I don't think that's really "the physics of Thedas."

It clearly is.  That's how every AoE attack worked.

I see no reason why the physics (aside from the fact that magic exists, etc) shouldn't function more or less the same as ours.

In cases where I don't have empirical data showing that it does, I would agree.

The fact that AoE attacks don't respect barriers, I should hope, is a sacrifice for gameplay limitations, not part of Thedas' actual physics.

There is no such thing as gameplay/story segregation.  There cannot be.  The player's decision-making would be rendered impossible by such a divide.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You didn't used to artificially constrain encounters.  This is a relatively new feature in BioWare's games.

Therefore, it cannot be necessary.

A lot of things that aren't necessary go into the game anyway. Romances, side quests, codex entries, companions, or any other feature that isn't part of the game's critical path aren't necessary. Yet there they are. Necessity is not the only metric by which a given feature is judged (nor should it be).

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 12 décembre 2012 - 12:22 .

[Allan Schumacher]

You didn't used to artificially constrain encounters. This is a relatively new feature in BioWare's games.

Therefore, it cannot be necessary.

This is making the assumption that our games are functionally created and executed in the exact same way (on the same platforms, for the exact same purposes).

They aren't.

There is no such thing as gameplay/story segregation. There cannot be.

Sure there is. It's why someone can take 50 shots in combat, and survive gigantic explosions and being turned into solid ice, but during a cinematic a single crossbow bolt that hits is deadly.

Combat gameplay has always been an abstraction element of RPGs, going back to PnP. Once it became visual, it was still a visual abstraction. This is the way it's always been. It's a bunch of rules compiled together in order to make something fun and enjoyable. Justifications exist to explain the abstractions since the abstractions make it inherently unrealistic, but they're just justifications.

The player's decision-making would be rendered impossible by such a divide.

Players do it all the time. They have no problems one shot "murder-knifing" someone, when their counterpart takes 200 bludgeoning hits to the head while on fire in the combat immediately preceding said murder-knifing.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 12 décembre 2012 - 12:28 .

[Rawgrim]

Didn`t the door also lock behind the player sometimes in Kotor, as well? Or am i remembering it wrong?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You didn't used to artificially constrain encounters. This is a relatively new feature in BioWare's games.

Therefore, it cannot be necessary.

This is making the assumption that our games are functionally created and executed in the exact same way (on the same platforms, for the exact same purposes).

They aren't.

The rules of verisimilitude haven't changed.

To be fair, the DA games haven't done this much.  But ME2 did it all of the time, and it was endlessly frustrating to turn around to find nearly every door I passed through had locked behind me.

Sure there is. It's why someone can take 50 shots in combat, and survive gigantic explosions and being turned into solid ice, but during a cinematic a single crossbow bolt that hits is deadly.

If an NPC pulls out a dagger, it is a cinematic dagger (instantly deadly) or a combat gameplay dagger (laughably ineffective)?  I cannot determine my character's reaction to the dagger unless I know what rules govern daggers right then.

Do you take this into account when you test the game?  Every moment of the game, how does your character feel?  Moment to moment, what does he know, how does he know it, and what impact does that have on his decision-making?  Because you should.  That's roleplaying.  Inhabit the character.  What does he know?  How does he feel?  Every detail.

Combat gameplay has always been an abstraction element of RPGs, going back to PnP. Once it became visual, it was still a visual abstraction. This is the way it's always been. It's a bunch of rules compiled together in order to make something fun and enjoyable. Justifications exist to explain the abstractions since the abstractions make it inherently unrealistic, but they're just justifications.

It's all abstraction.  But it should be internally consistent abstraction, else is renders the entire gameplay exercise nonsensical.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 décembre 2012 - 01:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

Well you have empirical data showing that improbably heavy looking weapons are wieldable in Thedas yet you've said that's not sufficient.

If there exist super-light super-strong materials in Thesda, we should se evidence of that in their architecture.  We don't.

But mostly it's an aesthetic objection.  I just don't like the giant weapons, and I would prefer more realistically sized weapons (like NWN).

Why are AoE's passing through barriers taken without questioning when there's no explanation as to why they should do that?

That's not how science works.  Empirical data tells us what happens, not why.  We know that the fireball passes effortlessly through doors and walls, even if we have no idea why.  Just as Isaac Newton knew that a falling object accelerated toward the ground at a constant rate, but he couldn't have explained why.

[Face of Evil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There is no such thing as gameplay/story segregation.  There cannot be.  The player's decision-making would be rendered impossible by such a divide.

Of course there is. Take starvation, for example. In DAO, you never see the PC or anyone else ever eat, and if you put down the controller/leave the keyboard and let the game run for a week, you'll find your PCs none the worse for wear despite going an unbearably long time without nourishment.

And yet, hunger is frequently a plot point. The Deserter in Ostagar wants food in exchange for a key. The peasants rebel in Awakening because they're hungry. The Dwarf Commoner starved to death in his cell. That's not possible to do in gameplay, and yet it happens in the story.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 12 décembre 2012 - 01:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Face of Evil wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There is no such thing as gameplay/story segregation.  There cannot be.  The player's decision-making would be rendered impossible by such a divide.

Of course there is. Take starvation, for example. In DAO, you never see the PC or anyone else ever eat, and if you put down the controller/leave the keyboard and let the game run for a week, you'll find your PCs none the worse for wear despite going an unbearably long time without nourishment.

And yet, hunger is frequently a plot point. The Deserter in Ostagar wants food in exchange for a key. The peasants rebel in Awakening because they're hungry. The Dwarf Commoner starved to death in his cell. That's not possible to do in gameplay, and yet it happens in the story.

That can easily be explained through abstraction.  That the Warden is never seen to eat on camera is not evidence that he doesn't eat.  It is merely evidence that he doesn't eat on camera.

As for going a long time, note that in all those hours away from the comnputer, the sun didn't set.  No matter how long you leave it alone, it was never more than a day.

[Face of Evil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That can easily be explained through abstraction.  That the Warden is never seen to eat on camera is not evidence that he doesn't eat.  It is merely evidence that he doesn't eat on camera.

As for going a long time, note that in all those hours away from the comnputer, the sun didn't set.  No matter how long you leave it alone, it was never more than a day.

And yet it's still a segregation between gameplay and story. The Warden is never shown to eat, and yet it's assumed for story purposes that he must.

Another example: monsters and equipment increase in power according to my level. If I go to Redcliffe in one playthrough and go there last in another, the level of challenge will still be roughly equal to my point of progression in the game.

There's no in-story basis for this, but it's a convenience that makes gameplay more fun.

And here's another: no matter how many times I die in DAO, I can decide to continue the game or load to an earlier save. And yet, if the Warden slays the Archdemon without performing Morrigan's ritual.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 12 décembre 2012 - 01:58 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That can easily be explained through abstraction.  That the Warden is never seen to eat on camera is not evidence that he doesn't eat.  It is merely evidence that he doesn't eat on camera.

As for going a long time, note that in all those hours away from the comnputer, the sun didn't set.  No matter how long you leave it alone, it was never more than a day.

So gameplay/story segregation is unacceptable, except for those situations where you can explain it and therefore accept it?

How arbitrary.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Face of Evil wrote...

And yet it's still a segregation between gameplay and story. The Warden is never shown to eat, and yet it's assumed for story purposes that he must.

That's only segregation if we assume no abstraction.  We can't say that the Warden doesn't eat - just that we never see him eat.

Another example: monsters and equipment increase in power according to my level. If I go to Redcliffe in one playthrough and go there last in another, the level of challenge will still be roughly equal to my point of progression in the game.

There's no in-story basis for this, but it's a convenience that makes gameplay more fun.

There's also no incongruity there.  You're comparing across different playthoughs.  Unless you assume that the reality is the same each time you create it, this isn't even vaguely a problem.  Those differences don't exist in the game world, and thus don't need an in-world justification.

And here's another: no matter how many times I die in DAO, I can decide to continue the game or load to an earlier save.

Again, that doesn't happen within the game world.

Try looking at it from the point of view of your character and then maybe you'll understand.  Remember, he doesn't know he's in a game.  He thinks the world around him is real.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 décembre 2012 - 02:35 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So gameplay/story segregation is unacceptable, except for those situations where you can explain it and therefore accept it?

Do you honestly not understand what abstraction is?

[Face of Evil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Try looking at it from the point of view of your character and then maybe you'll understand.  Remember, he doesn't know he's in a game.  He thinks the world around him is real.

He doesn't really think, though. Because he's not real. He's just a toy I play with.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 12 décembre 2012 - 02:39 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Face of Evil wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Try looking at it from the point of view of your character and then maybe you'll understand.  Remember, he doesn't know he's in a game.  He thinks the world around him is real.

He doesn't really think, though. Because he's not real. He's just a toy I play with.

And if he's just a toy to you, that explains why you don't value coherence in his world.  You're not trying to play him as if he's a real person.  You're not trying to perceive his reality through his eyes.

You are not roleplaying.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So gameplay/story segregation is unacceptable, except for those situations where you can explain it and therefore accept it?

Do you honestly not understand what abstraction is?

I understand that you are using the term as abritrary justification to selectively accept certain types of gameplay/story segregation while not accepting others.

You can just as easily use abstraction as justification for the doors shutting behind your character (it was closed by a minion, it was shut due to enemy computer control, it was sealed by invisible magical power), yet you do not. Instead, you arbitrarily choose to complain about it and not other elements you find acceptable.

[Xilizhra]

Wait, never mind, you covered this issue already. I think I understand your position better, although... hm. How would you handle, say, armor changes and inventory in general? Surely carrying around gigantic backpacks is unfeasible in combat, so inventory-gathering would be extremely limited, and if you got new weapons as quest rewards, they'd have to be delivered back to your home base or something. Carrying multiple weapons might be possible, but certainly not carrying multiple armor pieces, not to mention potions and other various items.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 décembre 2012 - 03:29 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Do you honestly not understand what abstraction is?

Do you?

The doors are closed because that's necessary for the combat design, and it-- as is much of what goes on with combat-- is an abstraction of what one might consider "realism". You can't go through the doors just like one of any number of things that you might think of doing but can't because the fact that this is a game requires everything to occur within set parameters. You can't go through those doors because you don't, just like you don't retreat or use environmental objects or any one of a number of imposed limitations. Yet this is where it breaks down for you?

I've no idea what the combat team or level designers have planned for DA3-- there are a number of overhauls to the system, all of which we'll discuss in the future. But the idea that this sort of thing must never be done? Sorry, but that's pure baloney. As I said before, this is the sort of idea that someone who gives it superficial thought will go "yeah, that sounds reasonable"... even if that impacts combat design in ways you can't imagine.

Modifié par David Gaider, 12 décembre 2012 - 03:40 .