300 réponses à ce sujet

[jpbreon]

 Templar: Hey, Knight-Captain, you think the mages will come through the main door?

Knight-Captain: Yes, men, be prepared!

Templar: Yes, ser! We will end their wicked ways!

Knight-Captain: Just remember: we will ambush them here when they get past the door, but make sure not to cut off their escape route. Please be sure to give them a place to run back and hide so you can then proceed out individually to attack them. For the Chantry!

Templar: HUZZAH!

[The Hierophant]

jpbreon wrote...

 Templar: Hey, Knight-Captain, you think the mages will come through the main door?

Knight-Captain: Yes, men, be prepared!

Templar: Yes, ser! We will end their wicked ways!

Knight-Captain: Just remember: we will ambush them here when they get past the door, but make sure not to cut off their escape route. Please be sure to give them a place to run back and hide so you can then proceed out individually to attack them. For the Chantry!

Templar: HUZZAH!

A problem i see with this is that after leaving a trail of death in linear environments like in ME/DA it's implausible that anyone in the know was or is alive to lock the door behind the party.

[jpbreon]

The Hierophant wrote...

jpbreon wrote...

 Templar: Hey, Knight-Captain, you think the mages will come through the main door?

Knight-Captain: Yes, men, be prepared!

Templar: Yes, ser! We will end their wicked ways!

Knight-Captain: Just remember: we will ambush them here when they get past the door, but make sure not to cut off their escape route. Please be sure to give them a place to run back and hide so you can then proceed out individually to attack them. For the Chantry!

Templar: HUZZAH!

A problem i see with this is that after leaving a trail of death in linear environments like in ME/DA it's implausible that anyone in the know was or is alive to lock the door behind the party.

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.

[Yrkoon]

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   simply because I passed through it (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. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:22 .

[jpbreon]

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. 

[The Hierophant]

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.

Exactly. An example of this too is being attacked by some thugs at night in Hightown where Hawke would conveniently forget how to travel down a flight of stairs

[jpbreon]

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.

[Yrkoon]

  It's supposed to be mandatory.  It's called Party based gameplay, remember?  I was under the impression that the very stated  GOAL  is to make all character classes vital to combat/gameplay.  If not, then I'd like Someone , such as  Laidlaw to come out and tell us straight up that it isn't.  Perhaps something along the lines of:  "While it's true that there's only 3 character classes in Dragon Age, we want to make sure that  you won't need 1 of them, or 2 of them in order to complete this party-based game".

Because that would be a hilarious to hear.

Not that it matters.  no one here ever argued that scouting  should be mandatory, just that it's of huge, Huge tactical importance.... to someone who likes to scout, and who likes to use his rogues for something other than awesome-backstabbing-awesomeness.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[Kileyan]

jpbreon wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

jpbreon wrote...

 Templar: Hey, Knight-Captain, you think the mages will come through the main door?

Knight-Captain: Yes, men, be prepared!

Templar: Yes, ser! We will end their wicked ways!

Knight-Captain: Just remember: we will ambush them here when they get past the door, but make sure not to cut off their escape route. Please be sure to give them a place to run back and hide so you can then proceed out individually to attack them. For the Chantry!

Templar: HUZZAH!

A problem i see with this is that after leaving a trail of death in linear environments like in ME/DA it's implausible that anyone in the know was or is alive to lock the door behind the party.

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.

Well that is only a viable example because our Dragon Ages characters cannot hop over a 6 inch tall line of stones that are in their way. Let alone hop over or crawl under that felled tree and use it for cover:)

I'm kidding, that is a good example of when I like the doors locking behind players. I do not feel it was ever overused in either of the DA games.

The defense of locking doors is to design combats encounters that are challenging. Thing is, I would rather someone that found a certain encounter too hard, would use tactics to back up, bottleneck the bag guys, or even if they needed to, kite them around. At least they are playing the game and thinking a little bit, using character abilities, even if in cheesy ways(kiting).

The other alternative is the player will just hit the escape key and crank the diff level down to easy mode, ignore most of that well thought out character design and win on easy mode.

Of course freedom to "run away" would not work for heavily scripted battles with phases like the rock guy. Just saying I'd rather people run away and use some semblance of tactics, rather than a game designer decide in his head THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY and get too rigid in what they consider the proper way to play.

Modifié par Kileyan, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:39 .

[jpbreon]

Yrkoon wrote...

  It's supposed to be mandatory.  It's called Party based gameplay, remember?  I was under the impression that the very stated  GOAL  is to make all character classes vital to combat/gameplay.  If not, then I'd like Someone , such as  Laidlaw to come out and tell us straight up that it isn't.  Perhaps something along the lines of:  "While it's true that there's only 3 character classes in Dragon Age, we want to make sure that  you won't need 1 of them, or 2 of them in order to complete this party-based game".

Because that would be a hilarious to hear.

Not that it matters.  no one here ever argued that scouting  should be mandatory, just that it's of huge, Huge tactical importance.... to someone who likes to scout, and who likes to use his rogues for something other than awesome-backstabbing-awesomeness.

You used a very-specific situation first, then expanded that to include all rogues. Not all rogues stealth, in fact, I rarely use the talent. In your world, a rogue that could stealth would be mandatory for a party. Now if we assume you also need a healer and a tank, you've got one slot for something else. That's the problem with being mandatory, it limits the choices you may make.

It would be better if you COULD bring a stealth rogue, and that using a stealth rogue in the manner you like would be beneficial, but if I don't want to play a rogue in such a way I'm hardly saying that all rogues are worthless and the game should be designed to be completed without them.

My first playthrough I beat DAO with Wynne, Zevran, Leliana, and my arcane mage. No warriors. The idea is to make each playstyle bring something unique but not REQUIRED. DA did well with the damage and even tank roles, but it still has the healer issue to contend with.

[jpbreon]

Kileyan wrote...

Well that is only a viable example because our Dragon Ages characters cannot hop over a 6 inch tall line of stones that are in their way. Let alone hop over or crawl under that felled tree and use it for cover:)

I'm kidding, that is a good example of when I like the doors locking behind players. I do not feel it was ever overused in either of the DA games.

The defense of locking doors is to design combats encounters that are challenging. Thing is, I would rather someone that found a certain encounter too hard, would use tactics to back up, bottleneck the bag guys, or even if they needed to, kite them around. At least they are playing the game and thinking a little bit, using character abilities, even if in cheesy ways(kiting).

The other alternative is the player will just hit the escape key and crank the diff level down to easy mode, ignore most of that well thought out character design and win on easy mode.

Of course freedom to "run away" would not work for heavily scripted battles with phases like the rock guy. Just saying I'd rather people run away and use some semblance of tactics, rather than a game designer decide in his head THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY and get too rigid in what they consider the proper way to play.

I agree that the locked door is a bit of a cop-out, but so is locking the party 5 miles away and using your tank to spawn the bad guys and run away so you can cull them individually. It seems like there must be a middle ground. One thing they could do is get rid of the Faces of Death AKA Templar Hunters that one-shot from stealth, because the only way to handle them was to run away until they broke stealth to catch up.

[Kileyan]

jpbreon wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

Well that is only a viable example because our Dragon Ages characters cannot hop over a 6 inch tall line of stones that are in their way. Let alone hop over or crawl under that felled tree and use it for cover:)

I'm kidding, that is a good example of when I like the doors locking behind players. I do not feel it was ever overused in either of the DA games.

The defense of locking doors is to design combats encounters that are challenging. Thing is, I would rather someone that found a certain encounter too hard, would use tactics to back up, bottleneck the bag guys, or even if they needed to, kite them around. At least they are playing the game and thinking a little bit, using character abilities, even if in cheesy ways(kiting).

The other alternative is the player will just hit the escape key and crank the diff level down to easy mode, ignore most of that well thought out character design and win on easy mode.

Of course freedom to "run away" would not work for heavily scripted battles with phases like the rock guy. Just saying I'd rather people run away and use some semblance of tactics, rather than a game designer decide in his head THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY and get too rigid in what they consider the proper way to play.

I agree that the locked door is a bit of a cop-out, but so is locking the party 5 miles away and using your tank to spawn the bad guys and run away so you can cull them individually. It seems like there must be a middle ground. One thing they could do is get rid of the Faces of Death AKA Templar Hunters that one-shot from stealth, because the only way to handle them was to run away until they broke stealth to catch up.

Yeh, I hear people all the time bragging that DA2 on nightmare was easy once  you set up your tactics screen. I cannot believe they were able to let the play the game itself when they met the crazy insta death stealthers, even if you did surive the first hit, they were immune to most CC and interupted casting easily. IT was mostly random luck, if your mage got targeted by them, he died.

ANyways, to the point, I'd rather folks when met with an encounter that is too hard, use cheesy kiting tactics, use things within the game even if the devs dont' like it or didn't plan for it. They are using tools in the game.

That is at least a person thinking and trying to play the game with what they have. That is more acceptable to me than setting rules to enforce the play my way or the highway game, where people end up just turning down the diff level because the only strat is to use the MMO style taunt over and over and play the encounter like a rigid World of Warcraft Boss fight.

Maybe I am making too much of this. I assume that once someone has to turn down the diff level, they will end up leaving it on easy mode. I'd rather they play the game on harder levels and the devs shouldn't care if players occasionally cheese an encounter.

Modifié par Kileyan, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:18 .

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

That may be true to an extent, but the concept of hunger is never addressed in game, therefore it is an easy portion of the game to abstract away a reason for that. 

On the other hand, we have instances where lockpicks and door hacks are common. Where finding a key can unlock a door. And where our character was able to open a door without issue, but then suddenly, by only the virtue of getting into combat, that door is now locked and un-unlockable.

Incredible occurences that aren't addressed at all can be ignored. Incredible occurences that the game constantly presents to us with contradicting gameplay mechanics is one that is not as easily ignored.

To add some further Off Topic flavor into the conversation, Ultimat 7, where each character had their own hunger meter that required you to feed them AND which allowed you to combine flour and water to make dough and then put said dough into an over to bake bread (which then could be eaten or sold for money) is a level of detail in an RPG that falters in comparisson. Did this add to the story? Not really, other than a few lines of dialogue from the baker you sold it to. Did it bring anything of value to other aspects of the game? No, gold was readily available, the best equipment couldn't even be purchased regardless and the meager amount you gained for each piece of bread would require (real-life) hours of work to equate what one visit to a dungeon with weak headless creatures would give you in five minutes.

But this level of realism and of gameplay immersion was AMAZING. It was not a technically massive feat, but it was a DESIGN massive feat. That the developers would think (and then CARE) enough to include these elements in the game gave the feeling of a world that was truly interactable, in every respect. You literally could find a source of the flour in the game, as well, right outside huge wheat fields. If every NPC in the game had a hunger meter (which they didn't, only your companions did, but let's just say for argument...), the NPCs, literally, had a way of feeding themselves and keeping their world going. 

Compare that with the design scale of DA2, which had nearly every NPC remain perfectly still for seven years in the game. 

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. 

I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but surely you can recognize that a detail the game never touches on can't really be held to the same standard as a detail that it reinforces in multiple instances?

[hoorayforicecream]

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

[Dominus]

I have to agree with Ms. Ice Cream. Besides the above references, food is something that is assumably done outside of the gameplay itself. Having doors and other openings becoming magically locked is something beyond what we typically consider reality. Not unless you live in a haunted house.

To my knowledge, most BioWare games do not show the PC's point of view in real-time from beginning to end.

Modifié par DominusVita, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:06 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

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

We can assume the player character eats and drinks because he or she has been able to survive this long or we could even say that they don't need to for whatever reason. Both are conscious thoughts that the player can assume to his/her benefit for the sake of a more credible game universe.

A locked door appears in the game regardless. You can imagine that every door is locked for some magical reason if you find that credible, and that's fine. The issue is that some people can't.

In the case of food abstraction, people can imagine anything they want that suits their needs. Not so with a locked door. The issue lies with players who can't imagine that pixies did it all the time. Not everyone has to see a problem with locked doors, but there is a difference between that and food abstraction.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:20 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That can easily be explained through abstraction.

Since, in your own words, everything is an abstraction, so can everything else.

Doors consistently close.  Empircally, it happens all the time.  It's a part of the abstraction.  The only thing you can't deduce is why they close, but since we're not interested in the why, only the empirical observations, this isn't something we should be bothered with.  Why should your character care if Sylvius is finding there to be some sort of strange behaviour?

Turns out that in the future, there's a prankster God that lollerskates as he closes doors behind Shepard.  Actually it's just a Reaper thing.

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.

I don't.  Mostly because I don't actually content test very much.  Unfortunately, you'd probably not like the answer even if I did.  Especially since we've already demonstrated that you and I see eye to eye on very little.  After all, I've already ascertained that the separation of player and character is impossible.

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.

Correction, people make dumb decisions within the context of an artificial world that ultimately will not harm them in reality in any way.

The problem here is that you continue to think that video games are in some way an accurate reflection of reality, and that the things that happen in video games should therefore be strictly adhered to in those same ways that you expect.

Video games are not reality though.  I can freely choose to blitz into an area knowing that if something bad happens, I can just reload.  This is typically the point where you will interject with a statement about how the in game character couldn't know that, and therefore is behaving with his own interal logic for making such an aggressive move.  Unfortunately, since the player is not removed from controling or influencing the character's actions, this can never be the case.


People do not typically blindly run into choke points.  People typically act in the best interests of self-preservation, which is often some form of cowering or running.  It is very rarely to actively pursue the hostile by taking actions that explicitly expose oneself to greater harm.

Then again, the exceptional restrictions that exist on what one can and cannot do in a video game already reflects this.  Unless there's some sort of deity that determines what decisions I can and cannot make at a given time, video games will always have this disconnect from reality.

Or they turn down the difficulty, behave exactly the same way, and succeed.

Some people appear not to want to learn.

And sometimes it's just the dice falling the right way.

I do agree that some people do appear to not want to learn, however.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[thats1evildude]

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.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:40 .

[Allan Schumacher]

This is EXACTLY why Sylvius does what he does. You play PnP's and are resigned to the fact that games don't have the technology (not really the case, maybe AAA game design does not allot the neccessary resources required for such a, to most people, minor feature, such as seamless combat and other gameplay design functions, but regardless...) to do that today.

Yet less and less people who have played PnP's are now playing video games. It is getting to the point where video game limitations aren't even being viewed as limitations anymore. They are just accepted as par for the course. What happens when no more PnP players are giving input into game design? What happens when no more game designers have any working knowledge of the wide-open possibilities of a PnP campaign with a live DM can do?

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.

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!

[Rawgrim]

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.

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

[Arppis]

I have to admit, it's annoying when you can't back out in to the doorway you just came trough from.

Like in Medal of Honor Warfighter, you kick the door down, and go into the room, trying to kill everyone there... but you can't go back because the door is magicaly fixed.

[Dominus]

The problem here is that you continue to think that video games are in some way an accurate reflection of reality, and that the things that happen in video games should therefore be strictly adhered to in those same ways that you expect.

I think that varies upon each game itself. While it may not be our reality, it's creating a reality that's typically similar to ours. Some supernatural abstractions are easier to accept - people have been creating fireballs out of thin air for decades. While I'm not going to delve greatly into the subject, the concept of a mischievious door-locking deity having fun with our PC comes off as a bit too inexplicable for a Quasi-Realistic world like ferelden. Not unless it can be explained through a better clarity of context like a haunted house, or a magical entity intentionally closing them. 

While I can't say "NEVER lock the doors arbitrarily", I can say I'm not a big fan of it.

Modifié par DominusVita, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:58 .

[Homebound]

Doors....

What WILL the bsn ****** over next?

[Yrkoon]

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?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:04 .