300 réponses à ce sujet

[LittleDiegito]

If were going to talk about realism and immersion breaking by the doors locking, isnt it just as unreal and immersion breaking that enemies would just stupidly chase you to a convenient kill spot? I have no problem with getting rid of the doors locking, but at the same time the enemies shouldnt just give chase. Maybe some just go back to what they were doing while others set traps and the like so that when your party comes back they get obliterated in the doorway? That makes a lot more sense to me

[upsettingshorts]

I await the Ken Burns documentary of the David Gaider vs. Sylvius the Mad Wars.

There will be slow pans over screenshots of threads ("The Battle of Locked Doors") set to Inon Zur music.

It will win a Peabody.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I await the Ken Burns documentary of the David Gaider vs. Sylvius the Mad Wars.

There will be slow pans over screenshots of threads ("The Battle of Locked Doors") set to Inon Zur music.

It will win a Peabody.

If there's a war, it's purely in the head of Sylvius or yourself. Considering that Sylvius' suggestions are ones he simply repeats ad nauseum (until they become borderline spam) because he thinks getting others to potentially agree with him will somehow convince us to make a game catered more to his specific tastes, and are mostly just ignored, there's room for neither battle nor drama.

[jillabender]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I await the Ken Burns documentary of the David Gaider vs. Sylvius the Mad Wars.

There will be slow pans over screenshots of threads ("The Battle of Locked Doors") set to Inon Zur music.

It will win a Peabody.

Hehe… I would totally watch that documentary! Maybe it would have an Inon Zur arrangement of "Ashokan Farewell!"

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I await the Ken Burns documentary of the David Gaider vs. Sylvius the Mad Wars.

There will be slow pans over screenshots of threads ("The Battle of Locked Doors") set to Inon Zur music.

It will win a Peabody.

If there's a war, it's purely in the head of Sylvius or yourself...

And Ken Burns.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

It's not credible if it always happens.  I'm specifically holding up ME2 as an example of a game that does this badly.  Yes, maybe someone locked me in the room with Jarvia.  Given the carefully placed traps, that makes perfect sense.  But when I'm infiltrating a criminal base, why are they locking the doors behind me?  That only traps them in there with me, and drawms me closer to the thing all of these defenses and supposedly trying to protect.

I allow abstraction.  I do not allow the world behaving in a contrived and incredible way.

David Gaider wrote...

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?

First of all, I don't think combat design should even be a thing.  It's all part of the world, and it should all follow the same rules.

Second, it breaks down where it prevents me from doing things that would otherwise be wholly acceptable.  Under normal circumstances, I could run down this corridor and collect ammo.  But now I can't, simply to enforce the scarcity of ammo.  It's an elimination of strategic planning for the benefit of tactical predictability, but the mechanism by which it is done damages verisimilitude.

Look at Skyrim - Skyrim does this only very rarely, and usually only for bosses.  If Skyrim were built like ME2 was, doors would slam shut behind you (doors that were open when you found them) every time you turned a corner. 

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.

I don't think it's ever okay, but I think most people will agree that it shouldn't happen incessanlty like it does in ME2.

I couldn't actually recall a specific instance of this happening in DA2; DA2 did not annoy me in this way (the Rock Wraith was mentioned by others).  But this forum isn't about DA2; it's about DA3.  And this a feature I see in many games, and I don't want it in DA3.

You're exactly right.  Much as the option to run away to Orlais isn't modelled in DAO, and the option to return to Ferelden isn't modelled in DA2 (both options clearly do exist within the in-game reality - we just can't choose them), the option to flee down the corridor to a choke-point isn't modelled in some of these encounters.  But doing it constantly (as ME2 does) harms the game by making the in-game reality appear contrived.

We both know that there are many sacrifices made during game development.  You don't get every feature you want, and nor does any other memer of the team.  But if you begin with the design goal of never closing the doors, then the number of times you're forced to close the doors by other design factors will then be limited.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

If there's a war, it's purely in the head of Sylvius or yourself.

I'm not fighting with anyone.  I'm performing a public service.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
First of all, I don't think combat design should even be a thing.  It's all part of the world, and it should all follow the same rules.

And I'll stop you right there. Combat design is a thing. It was a thing in DAO as well.

As I said before, I've no idea what the combat team will do with doors specifically. But I have little doubt there will be some things which will be set up to occur a certain way when it comes to setpiece combat encounters, and some of those won't seem logical to you. Other things won't seem logical to others. Yet there it is, because combat is a complex thing that requires abstraction.

Other than a combat designer actually deciding to come in here and tell you why a door might need to be locked every now and again, that's really all there is to say.

[AlanC9]

LittleDiegito wrote...

If were going to talk about realism and immersion breaking by the doors locking, isnt it just as unreal and immersion breaking that enemies would just stupidly chase you to a convenient kill spot? I have no problem with getting rid of the doors locking, but at the same time the enemies shouldnt just give chase. Maybe some just go back to what they were doing while others set traps and the like so that when your party comes back they get obliterated in the doorway? That makes a lot more sense to me

The problem is that having the enemies respond correctly  to the party falling back to a killzone would require either an enormously complicated AI or special AI scripting for every encounter. Neither of those is going to happen.

[Provi-dance]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm not fighting with anyone.  I'm performing a public service.

You exhibit amazing self-control. Don't you ever feel the need to respond to Gaider's childish flamebaits directed towards you: "we don't listen to your suggestions that you repeat ad nauseam Sylvius, (nanana)", even just a little?

Anyway, reality check. They "need" locked doors to not break their cinematic game/movie progression. Combat's over, one guy's missing, or even better - your entire party is missing, and there needs to be a cutscene in that room after the combat's over... Oh my gawd! What do we do!??

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

It's not credible if it always happens.  I'm specifically holding up ME2 as an example of a game that does this badly.  Yes, maybe someone locked me in the room with Jarvia.  Given the carefully placed traps, that makes perfect sense.  But when I'm infiltrating a criminal base, why are they locking the doors behind me?  That only traps them in there with me, and drawms me closer to the thing all of these defenses and supposedly trying to protect.

Are you saying that even with your oft-touted powers of imagination, you cannot possibly imagine a credible explanation for each situation on a case-by-case basis? Is it truly an impossible feat?

I allow abstraction.  I do not allow the world behaving in a contrived and incredible way.

Because the terms "contrived" and "incredible" are 100% objective, agreed-upon criteria, right?

[Provi-dance]

AlanC9 wrote...


The problem is that having the enemies respond correctly  to the party falling back to a killzone would require either an enormously complicated AI or special AI scripting for every encounter. Neither of those is going to happen.

And giant LOL at "requiring an enormously complicated AI".

[ForceXev]

It's fine as long it's not overused. On boss fights, for example, it's generally acceptable. It's a way to prevent "cheating" an encounter. For example fighting a boss until your party health gets low, fleeing out a door which the boss is too large or the encounter is too scripted for it to follow, healing up the party, and then running back in to continue the fight (repeat until enemy is dead). When I start a boss encounter and I see some sort of force field go up over a doorway, I know it's a bit of a hack by the developers to prevent cheating like this, but it's fine and can I go along with it.

On the other hand, I remember some non-boss encounters in DAO and DA2 where fake doors or walls are erected, the point of which seemed to be to just make the fight more challenging (ono you're trapped with baddies! ahh!). In a situation like that, rather than be impressed by the encounter I sneer at the developers for the rather lame attempt to create an obvious "haha we got you" challenge moment. If the door is the thing that is providing a significant portion of the challenge in a fight, or if you are expecting players to turn to the exit and go "curses! I have been foiled by this random door!," I think there is something wrong with the design of that encounter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LittleDiegito wrote...

If were going to talk about realism and immersion breaking by the doors locking, isnt it just as unreal and immersion breaking that enemies would just stupidly chase you to a convenient kill spot?

Except that's how people behave.  Even players do this.  If you watch a Let's Play of DAO you may well see players blindly chasing after that Hurlock Alpha in the Korcari Wilds who attacks at range and then retreats behind some traps and into an ambush position.

People are dumb.  Having the AI be dumb mimics human behaviour.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

First of all, I don't think combat design should even be a thing.  It's all part of the world, and it should all follow the same rules.

And I'll stop you right there. Combat design is a thing. It was a thing in DAO as well.

Sure it was.  But it shouldn't be.  Combat design should be merely a part of world design.  it should not stand apart.  There should be no visible transition between combat and non-combat.  Combat shouldn't have special metaphysical characteristics that otherwise never occur in the game's reality.

Provi-dance wrote...

You exhibit amazing self-control.

Because I'm winning.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Are you saying that even with your oft-touted powers of imagination, you cannot possibly imagine a credible explanation for each situation on a case-by-case basis? Is it truly an impossible feat?

At no point did I claim these events were impossible.  I'm saying they're not believable.

Because the terms "contrived" and "incredible" are 100% objective, agreed-upon criteria, right?

Of course they are not.  If you would like to participate in an effort to define them more precisely, however, I would welcome that.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Are you saying that even with your oft-touted powers of imagination, you cannot possibly imagine a credible explanation for each situation on a case-by-case basis? Is it truly an impossible feat?

At no point did I claim these events were impossible.  I'm saying they're not believable.

Strawman. I did not say impossible with reference to the situation. I said credible. The word "impossible" is used describe the feat of actually imagining such a situation, not of the situation itself.

Because the terms "contrived" and "incredible" are 100% objective, agreed-upon criteria, right?

Of course they are not.  If you would like to participate in an effort to define them more precisely, however, I would welcome that.

But since they are not rigidly defined, as you have admitted, they are used arbitrarily by you. Ergo, you are not actually arguing for true consistency or logic, but rather your own personal preference masquerading as such.

It is clear that you allow (and, indeed, ask for) the world to behave in contrived (Mysterious Stranger origin please!) and incredible (Abstraction of the eating of food or the passage of time) ways, but only when you deem it acceptable. It seems disingenuous to claim logic and consistency when it does not consistently apply to your own argument.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 12 décembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because I'm winning.

That depends upon who is keeping score.

[Fredward]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because I'm winning.

That depends upon who is keeping score.

And the definition of "winning." xp

[ohnotherancor]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because I'm winning.

That depends upon who is keeping score.

Personally, I like to think Ken Burns is keeping score.

Only because I would buy 5 copies of that movie.

[LittleDiegito]

AlanC9 wrote...

LittleDiegito wrote...

If were going to talk about realism and immersion breaking by the doors locking, isnt it just as unreal and immersion breaking that enemies would just stupidly chase you to a convenient kill spot? I have no problem with getting rid of the doors locking, but at the same time the enemies shouldnt just give chase. Maybe some just go back to what they were doing while others set traps and the like so that when your party comes back they get obliterated in the doorway? That makes a lot more sense to me

The problem is that having the enemies respond correctly  to the party falling back to a killzone would require either an enormously complicated AI or special AI scripting for every encounter. Neither of those is going to happen.

Yep. Thats the thing Im not clear on though. Why doors locking, often to help minimize the limitations of the technology running the game, is more immersion breaking than very unrealistic AI.

I play a whole lot of table top RP and there are a whole lot of things I would love to see in CRPGs. But I accepted a long time ago that the tech doesnt allow for them yet, and possibly wont for a long time. There are also some things that wouldnt make sense in any world that are put in because of the tech limits. Locking doors are one of those things.

[LittleDiegito]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LittleDiegito wrote...

If were going to talk about realism and immersion breaking by the doors locking, isnt it just as unreal and immersion breaking that enemies would just stupidly chase you to a convenient kill spot?

Except that's how people behave.  Even players do this.  If you watch a Let's Play of DAO you may well see players blindly chasing after that Hurlock Alpha in the Korcari Wilds who attacks at range and then retreats behind some traps and into an ambush position.

People are dumb.  Having the AI be dumb mimics human behaviour.

Players understand that theres no real consequence of losing. You reload and try again. Ive watched play throughs where players behave that way. Then they wipe, reload, and play the encounter with more reasonable tactics catered to what they already know is there.

But villians that behave that way arent credible. How would they become credible threats if they ran to their deaths any time someone poked their head in a room then ran away?

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

But since they are not rigidly defined, as you have admitted, they are used arbitrarily by you. Ergo, you are not actually arguing for true consistency or logic, but rather your own personal preference masquerading as such.

It is clear that you allow (and, indeed, ask for) the world to behave in contrived (Mysterious Stranger origin please!) and incredible (Abstraction of the eating of food or the passage of time) ways, but only when you deem it acceptable. It seems disingenuous to claim logic and consistency when it does not consistently apply to your own argument.

In what way does the food abstraction damage credibility?  I really want this answer.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

And people behaving that way 100% of the time is credible to you?

People are dumb.  It never ceases to amaze me, but it's remarkably predictable.

How is that (the limitations of enemy AI) not a perfect illustration of the necessity of seeing combat in a CRPG as an abstraction and not something that can flow seamlessly with the story?

That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to make it seamless and improve the AI and all that, and the more they can do in that regard the better, but you've placed your demand at the end of the asymptote. A story designed to be absolutely faithful to gameplay would expose all the characters for automatons of simple programming, and gameplay designed to be absolutely faithful to the story would be impossibly resource intensive.

Only if we keep each the same.  Yes, to have the gameplay match current stories would be extremely difficult.  And to have stories match current gameplay would be extremely difficult.

The two should be designed in concert.