300 réponses à ce sujet

[frankf43]

Sir JK wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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. *snipped by me*  Combat shouldn't have special metaphysical characteristics that otherwise never occur in the game's reality.


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

I took these two comments out since I feel it highlights what I wish to address here.

It comes across as if you're perfectly willing to accept abstraction to avoid the issue of hunger, which narratively, is a very real threat. Even to our characters. But that you have chosen to reject abstraction in combat. Both dangers (physical violence and hunger) have emotional value for roleplaying purposes, so why is one acceptable and one not?
Rather than accept both as abstracted, you have decided for yourself that one of them reflects the world as it functions. If that is the way you wish to play, then fine by me. But I personally feel that calling the world incoherent or arbitrary for a choice you made for yourself is very disingenious. The only reason it does not is because you decided to approach it that way.

But more crucially and perhaps more relevant, if the reason this limitation exist is technological reasons (which is rather likely, if only partially) rather than part of the abstraction you do not accept, then removing it will not likely improve your playstyle. Instead it will allow you options and tactics that the enemy, because of technological or AI reasons, cannot utilise themselves. It would paint your characters, in game, as operating under an exclusive set of rules that nothing else in the world if capable of.
Is this actually an acceptable result to you? Something you'd find better than having a limitation?

Or perhaps the other side of the coin, should it not be to reasons technological:
Would you accept the enemy using these kinds of tricks against you. Blocking your characters with their bodies from both sides in doorways and then tossing AoE after AoE at you until your party is dead? Setting up ambushes around dropped ammo in the event you run out (thus cannot shoot back). Kite your melee combatants? Literally using the limitations of the system, enviroment and the "game world" against you, as a player, unfairly? After all, if that is how the world functions, should not the ones wanting you dead use it against you?
Is this something you would find enjoyable?

I must admit in BG I was guilty of running out of a room to heal up, rest up or apply potions while in combat because I knew the monsters could not follow me.

[lil yonce]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't think Gaider was rude, he just refuses to take crap from rude posters. good for him!

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. What's wrong with turning the other cheek?

[frankf43]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

In any other business, say a restaurant or a retail store, rude customers are refused service and ejected from the premises.

I'm not really addressing banning posters. That's necessary at times. Simply, them being rude doesn't mean Gaider has to be in return. It doesn't present the best image of him.

 you mean his being human rather than Vulcan. 

[frankf43]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't think Gaider was rude, he just refuses to take crap from rude posters. good for him!

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. What's wrong with turning the other cheek?

 
Cause people just wack you on that one too.

[lil yonce]

frankf43 wrote...

you mean his being human rather than Vulcan. 

No, I said the feeling is understandable, but I don't think he should broadcast it considering his job position and certainly not through it. Nor should any of the other mods. Its a shame. He seems like a really nice guy so long as he isn't interacting with fans on the forums.

[lil yonce]

Filament wrote...

Amen.

Why let some rude perosn dictate your actions? You should be rude because they are?

[Provi-dance]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't think Gaider was rude, he just refuses to take crap from rude posters. good for him!

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. What's wrong with turning the other cheek?

It's one thing to be rude with rude people, but it's a completely another thing to imagine in your head that someone is being rude and then going on a hysterical rampage about respect and whatnot.

[Provi-dance]

Filament wrote...

"Hysterical rampage"? Talk about completely imagining things.

Hi there, Captain Literal NoComprendo, what's up?

[PsychoBlonde]

I agree, in a limited fashion, with the concept of not "arbitrarily" locking doors (or making it impossible to, say, leave an area while combat is active), but even this doesn't mean that doors should never be locked. There are such things as traps and ambushes.

I do like it if magical plot doors have a bit of a lampshade tossed on them, though, because there is a point at which it becomes so bizarre that you start to find it arbitrary and pointless. Granted, that point is different for everybody.

Anyway, now I look forward to the Locking Doors Puzzle of Doom that we're sure to get, Should be entertaining.

[publius1000]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

...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.

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.

No problems? this is probably one of the most immersion-breaking and retarded things in video games for me. In any genre where it occurs - cue Kai Leng on Thessia.

[Nighteye2]

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?

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 think the problem is not with the doors being locked, but with it happening arbitrarily. Would it be too much to ask to make it believable why a door gets locked when it does?

For example: While they serve the same purpose in combat design, an exit blocked by a cave-in is much easier to accept than the door simply being suddenly locked.

[DarkSpiral]

Wulfram wrote...
I agree.  But does running back out of the door qualify?  I feel it's rather cheesy in outcome, if not in concept, and ultimately takes away from the strategy of the game rather than adds to it.

Well, if that's really the only option you have available, then yes? 

Battlefields where we can take advantage of postioning are great things.

Battlefields where our enemies can attempt to SUBVERT our positioning are also great.  If I stick my archers on a high point with only one access point, the enemy could rush the spot, or tunnel up from underneath, or toss a rain of fire down on that area.

[Maria Caliban]

Nighteye2 wrote...

I think the problem is not with the doors being locked, but with it happening arbitrarily. Would it be too much to ask to make it believable why a door gets locked when it does?

For example: While they serve the same purpose in combat design, an exit blocked by a cave-in is much easier to accept than the door simply being suddenly locked.

And when the cave in disappears after the fight?

[Nighteye2]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

I think the problem is not with the doors being locked, but with it happening arbitrarily. Would it be too much to ask to make it believable why a door gets locked when it does?

For example: While they serve the same purpose in combat design, an exit blocked by a cave-in is much easier to accept than the door simply being suddenly locked.

And when the cave in disappears after the fight?

If there's an explanation for it, no problem at all. For example a search party that came after the cave-in, but needed time to break though.

[Estelindis]

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. 

Indeed.  I'd love to see how anyone would manage combat in a game where there had been no combat design.

[lil yonce]

Filament wrote...

I just wanted to biblically praise a deconstructed bible verse.

That's the point of the verse though. You offer the other cheek because their words don't hurt you. It demonstrates how little of what they say matters. It matters so little that you don't care if they say something else or something worse. But no more bible study on the BSN.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 12 décembre 2012 - 10:12 .

[DarkSpiral]

Estelindis wrote...

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. 

Indeed.  I'd love to see how anyone would manage combat in a game where there had been no combat design.

Indeed.  While I agree with the idea that doors suddenly not being interactable, or even just suddenly locked behind me for no discernable reason is a bit annoying, the idea that combat design shouldn't be a thing is completely laughable.  The entire game comes about because of cooperative design.  It is a bit like suggesting the rain not fall on your head in winter, because its cold, and annoying, and not fun.  All those things are true.  That doesn't mean the system is going to change, because no one part of the design (be that "design" the weather, or a video game) exists in a vaccuum.

[Pzykozis]

DarkSpiral wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

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. 

Indeed.  I'd love to see how anyone would manage combat in a game where there had been no combat design.

Indeed.  While I agree with the idea that doors suddenly not being interactable, or even just suddenly locked behind me for no discernable reason is a bit annoying, the idea that combat design shouldn't be a thing is completely laughable.  The entire game comes about because of cooperative design.  It is a bit like suggesting the rain not fall on your head in winter, because its cold, and annoying, and not fun.  All those things are true.  That doesn't mean the system is going to change, because no one part of the design (be that "design" the weather, or a video game) exists in a vaccuum.

To be fair I believe what Sylvius was getting at is there should be no distinction between combat and the world itself it should be whole and complete so having a seperation of combat design and level design or what have you is strange for him, I semi agree with him in terms of not seperating the two similar to something like the witcher where you don't suddenly morph into combat you can always draw your sword and swing it, but at the same time I recognise the importance of combat design as a thing in general.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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. *snipped by me*  Combat shouldn't have special metaphysical characteristics that otherwise never occur in the game's reality.


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

I took these two comments out since I feel it highlights what I wish to address here.

It comes across as if you're perfectly willing to accept abstraction to avoid the issue of hunger, which narratively, is a very real threat. Even to our characters. But that you have chosen to reject abstraction in combat. Both dangers (physical violence and hunger) have emotional value for roleplaying purposes, so why is one acceptable and one not?
Rather than accept both as abstracted, you have decided for yourself that one of them reflects the world as it functions. If that is the way you wish to play, then fine by me. But I personally feel that calling the world incoherent or arbitrary for a choice you made for yourself is very disingenious. The only reason it does not is because you decided to approach it that way.

But more crucially and perhaps more relevant, if the reason this limitation exist is technological reasons (which is rather likely, if only partially) rather than part of the abstraction you do not accept, then removing it will not likely improve your playstyle. Instead it will allow you options and tactics that the enemy, because of technological or AI reasons, cannot utilise themselves. It would paint your characters, in game, as operating under an exclusive set of rules that nothing else in the world if capable of.
Is this actually an acceptable result to you? Something you'd find better than having a limitation?

Or perhaps the other side of the coin, should it not be to reasons technological:
Would you accept the enemy using these kinds of tricks against you. Blocking your characters with their bodies from both sides in doorways and then tossing AoE after AoE at you until your party is dead? Setting up ambushes around dropped ammo in the event you run out (thus cannot shoot back). Kite your melee combatants? Literally using the limitations of the system, enviroment and the "game world" against you, as a player, unfairly? After all, if that is how the world functions, should not the ones wanting you dead use it against you?
Is this something you would find enjoyable?

Yes. This sounds awesome. 

A game that acts like its trying to kill you with strategy and intelligence, as opposed to HP bloat and overpowered one-kill moves, would be awesome. Instead we get HP bloat and magic doors that can never be re-opened.

Also, the hunger abstraction is a straw man. 

I don't go from having a charcter who has no hunger need to suddenly being told they are starving without a good reason. Yet I am told that a door I just went through is suddenly locked and unaccessible, when I hack/lockpick doors going INTO the level without a problem. 

By the same logic, just because I don't ask that my character has a bladder/bowel meter that must be emptied as it is filled up, that means I can't ask for more realism/logic in video games. That hardly seems like a logical standard to apply any argument to.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 décembre 2012 - 11:01 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, the hunger abstraction is a straw man. 

I don't go from having a charcter who has no hunger need to suddenly being told they are starving without a good reason. Yet I am told that a door I just went through is suddenly locked and unaccessible, when I hack/lockpick doors going INTO the level without a problem.

You are making an incorrect assumption. The argument is not that the hunger abstraction is analogous to doors closing behind you. The argument is that the hunger abstraction is an incredible occurrence that is acceptable to Sylvius, while the doors closing behind you is an incredible occurrence that is not acceptable to Sylvius. This contradicts his claims he does not accept incredible situations. By only selectively applying acceptability, he is being disingenuous with his claims. In order to contradict this assertion you need to prove that the hunger abstraction is not incredible, ergo Sylvius's claim is not shown to be disingenuous.