Another alternative to the sliders would be all check boxes. For instance, lets say each parameter has 3 settings: Less, Normal, More. If you have XP, Gold(or something like store price), Horde Size, Monster Power, then the possible combinations of those check boxes is 4^3 = 64.
That is a lot more choice than we currently have and the boundaries are clearly defined and calculable. You can still use slider to get continious values or just more discrete settings between the Less, Average, and More and your boundaries would remain intact.
This is still a vast improvement over DA:O and DA2.
I don't want to play inventory tetris............
Débuté par
nicethugbert
, janv. 11 2013 12:01
Retour en haut
#152
Posté 12 janvier 2013 - 04:21
nightscrawl
-
- Members
- 7 469 messages
With the cinematics I was basically referencing scripted encounters (even the Corypheus fight is more complicated than the Diablo 3 boss fights), and also the focus of a particular game. Diablo is a dungeon crawl game, combat is really all there is. That is not so with Dragon Age; cinematics require a different budget allocation.nicethugbert wrote...
The cinematics have no bearing on this. In between cinematics both games are practically the same. You run around and hit stuff. In exchange you get their stuff. Looting and pillaging is looting and pillaging even when it is punctuated by cinematics or dialog.
#153
Posté 12 janvier 2013 - 09:42
AmstradHero
-
- Members
- 1 239 messages
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Firstly, your topic title is misleading and doesn't match the premise of your original post. What you're actually asking for is a bunch of gameplay sliders, and has basically nothing to do with inventory management.
[/quote]
The title is not misleading at all if you understand the implied point.
[/quote]
No. The title implies (if not explicitly states) that this is a thread about inventory management. This is a completely separate issue to what you're asking about. There is nothing implied by the title that relates to your post except "I want something".
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
The fact that you've done ONE programming class does not make you a programmer, and you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the full complexities involved in a game engine and the multitude of subsystems involved in a commercial game.
[/quote]
Wrong on both counts. I did take ace that class and I am not a programmer. But, that is irrelevant. I am a customer. And I can compare features. And I know that everything takes time and as long as the time is spent on something that people want, no one complaisn about the time.
No one here is saying that is takes time to implement an inventory system therefore the game should not have one. Why? Becuase they want an inventory system. If they did not want an inventory system, they would rant about how many more side quests or dialog or choices or ... they could have instead.
[/quote]
Stop talking about inventory systems, as that's not the point of your post. You're asking about gameplay sliders, so please focus on that point and don't get sidetracked. You also missed my point - you attempted to simplify programming into basic variable manipulation. The fact that you think knowing basic programming syntax means you are qualified to discuss the quality or professionalism of programmers is the very height of arrogance.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
So, stop pretending to be objective with all this talk of time. Admit it, you just want something else because you just want it.
[/quote]
I'm not asking for anything. I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion about gameplay mechanics and balance.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Critical hits: Nowadays, critical hits are typically designed as an integral part of combat mechanics, and frequently have special abilities associated with them. As such, removing them would almost certainly result in a significant skew in how combat plays out such that it would dramatically affect the value of particular skills, abilities and items.
[/quote]
I meant critical hits on the player by the enemy, not the other way around. For some reason some people don't like this. I'd rather control other aspects of the spawns.
[/quote]
I would assume some of this is a hangup from an era where critical hits had much more dramatic and permanent effects like the ability to instantly kill or permanent maim a character. This doesn't exist anymore, hence the redesign of combat systems to compensate. Removing the ability of monsters to critically hit the player would also potentially dramatically reduce the effectiveness of certain enemies - I am sure you are aware that in Dragon Age, many of the enemy abilties are drawn from the same pool as those provided to players - making these useless for the player would also make them uselessfor an enemy, therefore potentially significantly reducing the challenge of specific enemies.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
All your individual points here are based on false objectivity.
[/quote]
Incorrect, my points here are based around an understanding of game design and years of analysis about what makes games fun and what doesn't. Not just what makes games fun for me, but what makes people like or dislike games in a broader sense. No, there is no guarantee that one thing is going to be fun for everyone, but there are some general principles that can be applied.
The fact that you've misinterpreted my use of the word "pacing" tells me directly that you haven't explored game design theory. It also has nothing to do what you assume is my desire to compare skill levels players, because I also have absolutely zero interest in doing that. If you're going to make suggestions about how games should be designed, then if you want people to agree with you, you should understand that no aspect of a game exists in a vacuum, and how those changes will have knock on effects for many other aspects of the game. If you like games, I really suggest you go read a bunch of books on game design - or check out the "Extra Credits" series at Penny Arcade.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
A very common complaint about BW games is the lack of choice, meaningful or impactful choice in particular, as trivial choices abound.
[/quote]
Lack of choice is almost exclusively touted in terms of story and dialogue choice. The concept is that no matter what decisions the player makes, they always get routed into the same problems and events, leading to complaints that the choices had no impact. Don't conflate this with the concept you're discussing, because they're very different, and are being requested for very different reasons.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You cannot have broad appeal without broad choices.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally false. There are hundreds and thousands of successful games that don't have choice as a core part of their experience in the way that you're describing, from the casual to the hardcore market.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Yet, players insist on narrowly tailoring the game to their preferances at the expense of others thereby narrowing the player base which narrows the resources the game colects which means less content for them.
You're all ruining the game for yourselves with your selfishness.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Adding in sliders like this would require hundreds of hours of work to ensure that players couldn't create an unwinnable game, which would inevitably result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of actual playable content. The alternative is to allow players to make ill-informed decisions on various aspects of difficult and game balance, and potentially allow them to create an impossible or trivial gameplay challenge. This is completely undesirable from the developer's perspective, because it will result in bored or frustrated players, which will likely lead to complaints and/or a loss of sales in the future.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The cinematics have no bearing on this. In between cinematics both
games are practically the same. You run around and hit stuff. In
exchange you get their stuff. Looting and pillaging is looting and
pillaging even when it is punctuated by cinematics or dialog.
[/quote]
You're comparing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age games here. This highlights how little you understand about the gameplay design and mechanics of each. Diablo 3 is a dungeon crawler. It has infinitely respawning monsters that you can reset with a simple game restart, and using their new monster power slider in conjunction with their existing difficulty levels, you can quit and decrease the difficulty to grind your character up in power to be able to progress. The Dragon Age series is made up of ultimately linear games. There is no capabilty to restart or endlessly grind should a player start to struggle and need to gear/XP up, which is a core mechanic that Diablo 3's gameplay relies on. Again, no aspect of gameplay design occurs in a vacuum.
If you're asking for sliders, you want a different gamplay experience, which is something that cannot and should not be provided by a story driven game like Dragon Age. If you're looking for an experience with customisable gameplay challenge to this degree, what you're really looking for is a rogue/diablo clone, because that style of game has other constraints or design features that will enable those controls to (potentially) not get the game into a mechanically stale (whether trivially easy or unwinnably hard) state.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Firstly, your topic title is misleading and doesn't match the premise of your original post. What you're actually asking for is a bunch of gameplay sliders, and has basically nothing to do with inventory management.
[/quote]
The title is not misleading at all if you understand the implied point.
[/quote]
No. The title implies (if not explicitly states) that this is a thread about inventory management. This is a completely separate issue to what you're asking about. There is nothing implied by the title that relates to your post except "I want something".
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
The fact that you've done ONE programming class does not make you a programmer, and you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the full complexities involved in a game engine and the multitude of subsystems involved in a commercial game.
[/quote]
Wrong on both counts. I did take ace that class and I am not a programmer. But, that is irrelevant. I am a customer. And I can compare features. And I know that everything takes time and as long as the time is spent on something that people want, no one complaisn about the time.
No one here is saying that is takes time to implement an inventory system therefore the game should not have one. Why? Becuase they want an inventory system. If they did not want an inventory system, they would rant about how many more side quests or dialog or choices or ... they could have instead.
[/quote]
Stop talking about inventory systems, as that's not the point of your post. You're asking about gameplay sliders, so please focus on that point and don't get sidetracked. You also missed my point - you attempted to simplify programming into basic variable manipulation. The fact that you think knowing basic programming syntax means you are qualified to discuss the quality or professionalism of programmers is the very height of arrogance.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
So, stop pretending to be objective with all this talk of time. Admit it, you just want something else because you just want it.
[/quote]
I'm not asking for anything. I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion about gameplay mechanics and balance.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Critical hits: Nowadays, critical hits are typically designed as an integral part of combat mechanics, and frequently have special abilities associated with them. As such, removing them would almost certainly result in a significant skew in how combat plays out such that it would dramatically affect the value of particular skills, abilities and items.
[/quote]
I meant critical hits on the player by the enemy, not the other way around. For some reason some people don't like this. I'd rather control other aspects of the spawns.
[/quote]
I would assume some of this is a hangup from an era where critical hits had much more dramatic and permanent effects like the ability to instantly kill or permanent maim a character. This doesn't exist anymore, hence the redesign of combat systems to compensate. Removing the ability of monsters to critically hit the player would also potentially dramatically reduce the effectiveness of certain enemies - I am sure you are aware that in Dragon Age, many of the enemy abilties are drawn from the same pool as those provided to players - making these useless for the player would also make them uselessfor an enemy, therefore potentially significantly reducing the challenge of specific enemies.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
All your individual points here are based on false objectivity.
[/quote]
Incorrect, my points here are based around an understanding of game design and years of analysis about what makes games fun and what doesn't. Not just what makes games fun for me, but what makes people like or dislike games in a broader sense. No, there is no guarantee that one thing is going to be fun for everyone, but there are some general principles that can be applied.
The fact that you've misinterpreted my use of the word "pacing" tells me directly that you haven't explored game design theory. It also has nothing to do what you assume is my desire to compare skill levels players, because I also have absolutely zero interest in doing that. If you're going to make suggestions about how games should be designed, then if you want people to agree with you, you should understand that no aspect of a game exists in a vacuum, and how those changes will have knock on effects for many other aspects of the game. If you like games, I really suggest you go read a bunch of books on game design - or check out the "Extra Credits" series at Penny Arcade.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
A very common complaint about BW games is the lack of choice, meaningful or impactful choice in particular, as trivial choices abound.
[/quote]
Lack of choice is almost exclusively touted in terms of story and dialogue choice. The concept is that no matter what decisions the player makes, they always get routed into the same problems and events, leading to complaints that the choices had no impact. Don't conflate this with the concept you're discussing, because they're very different, and are being requested for very different reasons.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You cannot have broad appeal without broad choices.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally false. There are hundreds and thousands of successful games that don't have choice as a core part of their experience in the way that you're describing, from the casual to the hardcore market.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Yet, players insist on narrowly tailoring the game to their preferances at the expense of others thereby narrowing the player base which narrows the resources the game colects which means less content for them.
You're all ruining the game for yourselves with your selfishness.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Adding in sliders like this would require hundreds of hours of work to ensure that players couldn't create an unwinnable game, which would inevitably result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of actual playable content. The alternative is to allow players to make ill-informed decisions on various aspects of difficult and game balance, and potentially allow them to create an impossible or trivial gameplay challenge. This is completely undesirable from the developer's perspective, because it will result in bored or frustrated players, which will likely lead to complaints and/or a loss of sales in the future.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The cinematics have no bearing on this. In between cinematics both
games are practically the same. You run around and hit stuff. In
exchange you get their stuff. Looting and pillaging is looting and
pillaging even when it is punctuated by cinematics or dialog.
[/quote]
You're comparing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age games here. This highlights how little you understand about the gameplay design and mechanics of each. Diablo 3 is a dungeon crawler. It has infinitely respawning monsters that you can reset with a simple game restart, and using their new monster power slider in conjunction with their existing difficulty levels, you can quit and decrease the difficulty to grind your character up in power to be able to progress. The Dragon Age series is made up of ultimately linear games. There is no capabilty to restart or endlessly grind should a player start to struggle and need to gear/XP up, which is a core mechanic that Diablo 3's gameplay relies on. Again, no aspect of gameplay design occurs in a vacuum.
If you're asking for sliders, you want a different gamplay experience, which is something that cannot and should not be provided by a story driven game like Dragon Age. If you're looking for an experience with customisable gameplay challenge to this degree, what you're really looking for is a rogue/diablo clone, because that style of game has other constraints or design features that will enable those controls to (potentially) not get the game into a mechanically stale (whether trivially easy or unwinnably hard) state.
Modifié par AmstradHero, 12 janvier 2013 - 09:45 .
#154
Posté 12 janvier 2013 - 10:26
Swagger7
-
- Members
- 1 119 messages
Paul Sedgmore wrote...
Swagger7 wrote...
Gazardiel wrote...
When I saw the subject line, I thought you were speaking out against Diablo I's inventory tetris system where you actually had to geometrically fit items in your rectangular bag.
I am disappoint... and probably old.
Perhaps I'm crazy, but I actually enjoyed the inventory puzzles of old RPGs. Dungeon Siege had it. I think Baldur's Gate did as well?
From what I remember Baldur's Gate used a weight system rather than object size with all objects taking up one square with some objects being automatically grouped while still only taking up one square
Ah, thanks for the correction. I think I might have been remembering the Sacred inventory system, and somehow got the two confused.... [Googles it] Yep, I was thinking of this:
#155
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 02:44
nicethugbert
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Firstly, your topic title is misleading and doesn't match the premise of your original post. What you're actually asking for is a bunch of gameplay sliders, and has basically nothing to do with inventory management.
[/quote]
The title is not misleading at all if you understand the implied point.
[/quote]
No. The title implies (if not explicitly states) that this is a thread about inventory management. This is a completely separate issue to what you're asking about. There is nothing implied by the title that relates to your post except "I want something".
[/quote]
OK, I'll indulge your hang up about the title.
The title is "I don't want to play inventory tetris ................" Key word, play, I could go on about what I don't want to play in a computer game and indeed the title ends with ......... becuase there is more to say and it did say a little more about what I don't want to play. But, I kept it brief regarding what I don't want to play. A longer list of what I don't want to play would have been irrelevant as I only needed to introduce the basic notion. Sadly, some people need everything spelled out at length.
Then I proposed a solution to manage the situation because we all know games are not perfect. There will be things you don't like about a game and since you can't cut out the mechanics you don't like, you can demphasis them and emphasis something else if given the tools. After all, games are composed of connected parts not in a vaccum.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
The fact that you've done ONE programming class does not make you a programmer, and you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the full complexities involved in a game engine and the multitude of subsystems involved in a commercial game.
[/quote]
Wrong on both counts. I did take ace that class and I am not a programmer. But, that is irrelevant. I am a customer. And I can compare features. And I know that everything takes time and as long as the time is spent on something that people want, no one complaisn about the time.
No one here is saying that is takes time to implement an inventory system therefore the game should not have one. Why? Becuase they want an inventory system. If they did not want an inventory system, they would rant about how many more side quests or dialog or choices or ... they could have instead.
[/quote]
Stop talking about inventory systems, as that's not the point of your post. You're asking about gameplay sliders, so please focus on that point and don't get sidetracked. You also missed my point - you attempted to simplify programming into basic variable manipulation. The fact that you think knowing basic programming syntax means you are qualified to discuss the quality or professionalism of programmers is the very height of arrogance.
[/quote]
I could substitute inventory system for something else and my message would be the same. Hyper focusing on variable details is not condusive to understanding.
The fact that I aced a programming course is irrelevant. The course has nothing to do with my proposal. And, I have not proposed anything that has not been seen before. Difficulty adjusters are standard in computer games.
I merely proposed a more discrete system rather than a packaged system.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
So, stop pretending to be objective with all this talk of time. Admit it, you just want something else because you just want it.
[/quote]
I'm not asking for anything. I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion about gameplay mechanics and balance.
[/quote]
So, you have no dog in this fight? You just randomly showed up here and decided to randomly discuss something?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Critical hits: Nowadays, critical hits are typically designed as an integral part of combat mechanics, and frequently have special abilities associated with them. As such, removing them would almost certainly result in a significant skew in how combat plays out such that it would dramatically affect the value of particular skills, abilities and items.
[/quote]
I meant critical hits on the player by the enemy, not the other way around. For some reason some people don't like this. I'd rather control other aspects of the spawns.
[/quote]
I would assume some of this is a hangup from an era where critical hits had much more dramatic and permanent effects like the ability to instantly kill or permanent maim a character. This doesn't exist anymore, hence the redesign of combat systems to compensate. Removing the ability of monsters to critically hit the player would also potentially dramatically reduce the effectiveness of certain enemies - I am sure you are aware that in Dragon Age, many of the enemy abilties are drawn from the same pool as those provided to players - making these useless for the player would also make them uselessfor an enemy, therefore potentially significantly reducing the challenge of specific enemies.
[/quote]
There is no problem with reducing the challenge of specific enemies if the player does it in private, or increase them for that matter. That is what difficulty settings are for.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
All your individual points here are based on false objectivity.
[/quote]
Incorrect, my points here are based around an understanding of game design and years of analysis about what makes games fun and what doesn't. Not just what makes games fun for me, but what makes people like or dislike games in a broader sense. No, there is no guarantee that one thing is going to be fun for everyone, but there are some general principles that can be applied.
The fact that you've misinterpreted my use of the word "pacing" tells me directly that you haven't explored game design theory. It also has nothing to do what you assume is my desire to compare skill levels players, because I also have absolutely zero interest in doing that. If you're going to make suggestions about how games should be designed, then if you want people to agree with you, you should understand that no aspect of a game exists in a vacuum, and how those changes will have knock on effects for many other aspects of the game. If you like games, I really suggest you go read a bunch of books on game design - or check out the "Extra Credits" series at Penny Arcade.
[/quote]
I know what I enjoy. I'm not going to pretend otherwise because you said so. It is incredibly arrogant to think you know someone else's preferances better than they do.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
A very common complaint about BW games is the lack of choice, meaningful or impactful choice in particular, as trivial choices abound.
[/quote]
Lack of choice is almost exclusively touted in terms of story and dialogue choice. The concept is that no matter what decisions the player makes, they always get routed into the same problems and events, leading to complaints that the choices had no impact. Don't conflate this with the concept you're discussing, because they're very different, and are being requested for very different reasons.
[/quote]
No, DA2 was criticized for having enemy waves and for having quick combat movement. If those features could have been turned off and substituted with something else in game, then people would have happily done so. We could find other examples. DA:O was crtitisized for having slow combat movement. If DA:O had a slider to control combat movement, I and others would have been happy to turn it up.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You cannot have broad appeal without broad choices.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally false. There are hundreds and thousands of successful games that don't have choice as a core part of their experience in the way that you're describing, from the casual to the hardcore market.
[/quote]
Sadly, gamers make due with what's available.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Yet, players insist on narrowly tailoring the game to their preferances at the expense of others thereby narrowing the player base which narrows the resources the game colects which means less content for them.
You're all ruining the game for yourselves with your selfishness.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Adding in sliders like this would require hundreds of hours of work to ensure that players couldn't create an unwinnable game, which would inevitably result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of actual playable content. The alternative is to allow players to make ill-informed decisions on various aspects of difficult and game balance, and potentially allow them to create an impossible or trivial gameplay challenge. This is completely undesirable from the developer's perspective, because it will result in bored or frustrated players, which will likely lead to complaints and/or a loss of sales in the future.
[/quote]
No it will not because the sliders are just a better way of doing what is already being done.
You test the game at it's most difficult settings and if the player can advance on the most difficult settings then he can advance on any lesser settings. You can even just test at some lesser but still high settings and dare the player to beat the game on higer untested settings. People will have fun with that and when they fail they can't blame the developer. They were warned. You can do the same thing for a much lower setting. If they are bored with settings easier than the easiest tested settings, well, they were warned.
Incidentally, about DA2 Act 1, that was a cheap way to go about doing things and, IIRC, it was critisized. Rounding up 50 GP and forking it over is dull. A more interesting way would have been to do favors, thereby making friends, or associates, and enemies, nd getting a good story, and let your friends put up the money. There is always a rich person looking for talent, and pawns, at least in literature there is.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The cinematics have no bearing on this. In between cinematics both
games are practically the same. You run around and hit stuff. In
exchange you get their stuff. Looting and pillaging is looting and
pillaging even when it is punctuated by cinematics or dialog.
[/quote]
You're comparing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age games here. This highlights how little you understand about the gameplay design and mechanics of each. Diablo 3 is a dungeon crawler. It has infinitely respawning monsters that you can reset with a simple game restart, and using their new monster power slider in conjunction with their existing difficulty levels, you can quit and decrease the difficulty to grind your character up in power to be able to progress. The Dragon Age series is made up of ultimately linear games. There is no capabilty to restart or endlessly grind should a player start to struggle and need to gear/XP up, which is a core mechanic that Diablo 3's gameplay relies on. Again, no aspect of gameplay design occurs in a vacuum.
[/quote]
What you are saying there is that the DA series lacks in useful features. There is no reason why DA games cannot have a "trainer" or grinder of some sort or, even simpler, just a button to grant your character GP and XP as you see fit other than Bioware just did not put it in.
It does not take a ton of time to put in an XP and a GP button. It's child's play. It's even easier than a slider that lets you deprive yourself of GP. The player can always just choose to not pick up items or sell them or even spend his gold if they want less resources and having too much gold does not prevent progress.
Similarly, a player does not have to level up if they think they are advancing to fast.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
If you're asking for sliders, you want a different gamplay experience, which is something that cannot and should not be provided by a story driven game like Dragon Age. If you're looking for an experience with customisable gameplay challenge to this degree, what you're really looking for is a rogue/diablo clone, because that style of game has other constraints or design features that will enable those controls to (potentially) not get the game into a mechanically stale (whether trivially easy or unwinnably hard) state.
[/quote]
No, I know what I want. I want a great cinematic story with action and the ability to manage the difficulty and resources as I see fit. These things are not mutually exclusive just because you said so or read some fancy terms. The world is full of more choices than genres and pigeonholes might imply.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Firstly, your topic title is misleading and doesn't match the premise of your original post. What you're actually asking for is a bunch of gameplay sliders, and has basically nothing to do with inventory management.
[/quote]
The title is not misleading at all if you understand the implied point.
[/quote]
No. The title implies (if not explicitly states) that this is a thread about inventory management. This is a completely separate issue to what you're asking about. There is nothing implied by the title that relates to your post except "I want something".
[/quote]
OK, I'll indulge your hang up about the title.
The title is "I don't want to play inventory tetris ................" Key word, play, I could go on about what I don't want to play in a computer game and indeed the title ends with ......... becuase there is more to say and it did say a little more about what I don't want to play. But, I kept it brief regarding what I don't want to play. A longer list of what I don't want to play would have been irrelevant as I only needed to introduce the basic notion. Sadly, some people need everything spelled out at length.
Then I proposed a solution to manage the situation because we all know games are not perfect. There will be things you don't like about a game and since you can't cut out the mechanics you don't like, you can demphasis them and emphasis something else if given the tools. After all, games are composed of connected parts not in a vaccum.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
The fact that you've done ONE programming class does not make you a programmer, and you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the full complexities involved in a game engine and the multitude of subsystems involved in a commercial game.
[/quote]
Wrong on both counts. I did take ace that class and I am not a programmer. But, that is irrelevant. I am a customer. And I can compare features. And I know that everything takes time and as long as the time is spent on something that people want, no one complaisn about the time.
No one here is saying that is takes time to implement an inventory system therefore the game should not have one. Why? Becuase they want an inventory system. If they did not want an inventory system, they would rant about how many more side quests or dialog or choices or ... they could have instead.
[/quote]
Stop talking about inventory systems, as that's not the point of your post. You're asking about gameplay sliders, so please focus on that point and don't get sidetracked. You also missed my point - you attempted to simplify programming into basic variable manipulation. The fact that you think knowing basic programming syntax means you are qualified to discuss the quality or professionalism of programmers is the very height of arrogance.
[/quote]
I could substitute inventory system for something else and my message would be the same. Hyper focusing on variable details is not condusive to understanding.
The fact that I aced a programming course is irrelevant. The course has nothing to do with my proposal. And, I have not proposed anything that has not been seen before. Difficulty adjusters are standard in computer games.
I merely proposed a more discrete system rather than a packaged system.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
So, stop pretending to be objective with all this talk of time. Admit it, you just want something else because you just want it.
[/quote]
I'm not asking for anything. I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion about gameplay mechanics and balance.
[/quote]
So, you have no dog in this fight? You just randomly showed up here and decided to randomly discuss something?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Critical hits: Nowadays, critical hits are typically designed as an integral part of combat mechanics, and frequently have special abilities associated with them. As such, removing them would almost certainly result in a significant skew in how combat plays out such that it would dramatically affect the value of particular skills, abilities and items.
[/quote]
I meant critical hits on the player by the enemy, not the other way around. For some reason some people don't like this. I'd rather control other aspects of the spawns.
[/quote]
I would assume some of this is a hangup from an era where critical hits had much more dramatic and permanent effects like the ability to instantly kill or permanent maim a character. This doesn't exist anymore, hence the redesign of combat systems to compensate. Removing the ability of monsters to critically hit the player would also potentially dramatically reduce the effectiveness of certain enemies - I am sure you are aware that in Dragon Age, many of the enemy abilties are drawn from the same pool as those provided to players - making these useless for the player would also make them uselessfor an enemy, therefore potentially significantly reducing the challenge of specific enemies.
[/quote]
There is no problem with reducing the challenge of specific enemies if the player does it in private, or increase them for that matter. That is what difficulty settings are for.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
All your individual points here are based on false objectivity.
[/quote]
Incorrect, my points here are based around an understanding of game design and years of analysis about what makes games fun and what doesn't. Not just what makes games fun for me, but what makes people like or dislike games in a broader sense. No, there is no guarantee that one thing is going to be fun for everyone, but there are some general principles that can be applied.
The fact that you've misinterpreted my use of the word "pacing" tells me directly that you haven't explored game design theory. It also has nothing to do what you assume is my desire to compare skill levels players, because I also have absolutely zero interest in doing that. If you're going to make suggestions about how games should be designed, then if you want people to agree with you, you should understand that no aspect of a game exists in a vacuum, and how those changes will have knock on effects for many other aspects of the game. If you like games, I really suggest you go read a bunch of books on game design - or check out the "Extra Credits" series at Penny Arcade.
[/quote]
I know what I enjoy. I'm not going to pretend otherwise because you said so. It is incredibly arrogant to think you know someone else's preferances better than they do.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
A very common complaint about BW games is the lack of choice, meaningful or impactful choice in particular, as trivial choices abound.
[/quote]
Lack of choice is almost exclusively touted in terms of story and dialogue choice. The concept is that no matter what decisions the player makes, they always get routed into the same problems and events, leading to complaints that the choices had no impact. Don't conflate this with the concept you're discussing, because they're very different, and are being requested for very different reasons.
[/quote]
No, DA2 was criticized for having enemy waves and for having quick combat movement. If those features could have been turned off and substituted with something else in game, then people would have happily done so. We could find other examples. DA:O was crtitisized for having slow combat movement. If DA:O had a slider to control combat movement, I and others would have been happy to turn it up.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You cannot have broad appeal without broad choices.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally false. There are hundreds and thousands of successful games that don't have choice as a core part of their experience in the way that you're describing, from the casual to the hardcore market.
[/quote]
Sadly, gamers make due with what's available.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Yet, players insist on narrowly tailoring the game to their preferances at the expense of others thereby narrowing the player base which narrows the resources the game colects which means less content for them.
You're all ruining the game for yourselves with your selfishness.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Adding in sliders like this would require hundreds of hours of work to ensure that players couldn't create an unwinnable game, which would inevitably result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of actual playable content. The alternative is to allow players to make ill-informed decisions on various aspects of difficult and game balance, and potentially allow them to create an impossible or trivial gameplay challenge. This is completely undesirable from the developer's perspective, because it will result in bored or frustrated players, which will likely lead to complaints and/or a loss of sales in the future.
[/quote]
No it will not because the sliders are just a better way of doing what is already being done.
You test the game at it's most difficult settings and if the player can advance on the most difficult settings then he can advance on any lesser settings. You can even just test at some lesser but still high settings and dare the player to beat the game on higer untested settings. People will have fun with that and when they fail they can't blame the developer. They were warned. You can do the same thing for a much lower setting. If they are bored with settings easier than the easiest tested settings, well, they were warned.
Incidentally, about DA2 Act 1, that was a cheap way to go about doing things and, IIRC, it was critisized. Rounding up 50 GP and forking it over is dull. A more interesting way would have been to do favors, thereby making friends, or associates, and enemies, nd getting a good story, and let your friends put up the money. There is always a rich person looking for talent, and pawns, at least in literature there is.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The cinematics have no bearing on this. In between cinematics both
games are practically the same. You run around and hit stuff. In
exchange you get their stuff. Looting and pillaging is looting and
pillaging even when it is punctuated by cinematics or dialog.
[/quote]
You're comparing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age games here. This highlights how little you understand about the gameplay design and mechanics of each. Diablo 3 is a dungeon crawler. It has infinitely respawning monsters that you can reset with a simple game restart, and using their new monster power slider in conjunction with their existing difficulty levels, you can quit and decrease the difficulty to grind your character up in power to be able to progress. The Dragon Age series is made up of ultimately linear games. There is no capabilty to restart or endlessly grind should a player start to struggle and need to gear/XP up, which is a core mechanic that Diablo 3's gameplay relies on. Again, no aspect of gameplay design occurs in a vacuum.
[/quote]
What you are saying there is that the DA series lacks in useful features. There is no reason why DA games cannot have a "trainer" or grinder of some sort or, even simpler, just a button to grant your character GP and XP as you see fit other than Bioware just did not put it in.
It does not take a ton of time to put in an XP and a GP button. It's child's play. It's even easier than a slider that lets you deprive yourself of GP. The player can always just choose to not pick up items or sell them or even spend his gold if they want less resources and having too much gold does not prevent progress.
Similarly, a player does not have to level up if they think they are advancing to fast.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
If you're asking for sliders, you want a different gamplay experience, which is something that cannot and should not be provided by a story driven game like Dragon Age. If you're looking for an experience with customisable gameplay challenge to this degree, what you're really looking for is a rogue/diablo clone, because that style of game has other constraints or design features that will enable those controls to (potentially) not get the game into a mechanically stale (whether trivially easy or unwinnably hard) state.
[/quote]
No, I know what I want. I want a great cinematic story with action and the ability to manage the difficulty and resources as I see fit. These things are not mutually exclusive just because you said so or read some fancy terms. The world is full of more choices than genres and pigeonholes might imply.
Modifié par nicethugbert, 13 janvier 2013 - 03:23 .
#156
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 03:55
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 624 messages
nicethugbert wrote...
OK, I'll indulge your hang up about the title.
The title is "I don't want to play inventory tetris ................" Key word, play, I could go on about what I don't want to play in a computer game and indeed the title ends with ......... becuase there is more to say and it did say a little more about what I don't want to play. But, I kept it brief regarding what I don't want to play. A longer list of what I don't want to play would have been irrelevant as I only needed to introduce the basic notion. Sadly, some people need everything spelled out at length.
So, "inventory Tetris" is a single example and the thread's actually about a much more general point concerning things you don't like and how they should all be toggleable? I still don't see how that's a good way to title a thread. Why not use a title that actually indicates the entire topic?
#157
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 04:02
AmstradHero
-
- Members
- 1 239 messages
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The fact that I aced a programming course is irrelevant. The course has nothing to do with my proposal. And, I have not proposed anything that has not been seen before. Difficulty adjusters are standard in computer games.
I merely proposed a more discrete system rather than a packaged system.
[/quote]
Again, I state that the reason that a more discrete system causes problems is that because no one aspect of gameplay difficulty exists in isolation. Changing even one of these factors will have a lot of knock on effects. Difficulty levels at tested AT LENGTH by QA teams to make sure that the challenge is a reasonable one. If you let people go nuts with the parameters you've described, it would be very easy to disrupt game balance dramatically and render multiple aspects (including gameplay mechanics and structured gameplay) either pointless or impossible.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
So, stop pretending to be objective with all this talk of time. Admit it, you just want something else because you just want it.
[/quote]I'm not asking for anything. I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion about gameplay mechanics and balance.
[/quote]So, you have no dog in this fight? You just randomly showed up here and decided to randomly discuss something?
[/quote]I'm interested in talking about game design. I saw the opportunity for a potentially interesting discussion about mechanics.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Removing the ability of monsters to critically hit the player would also potentially dramatically reduce the effectiveness of certain enemies - I am sure you are aware that in Dragon Age, many of the enemy abilties are drawn from the same pool as those provided to players - making these useless for the player would also make them uselessfor an enemy, therefore potentially significantly reducing the challenge of specific enemies.
[/quote]
There is no problem with reducing the challenge of specific enemies if the player does it in private, or increase them for that matter. That is what difficulty settings are for.
[/quote]
The problem is that this would require the player to have explicit knowledge that critical hits were what was causing the difficulty in the encounter and know that removing them would allow them to defeat the problem, which is an unlikely scenario for the average player. It would mean that for every critical hit, the game would need to determine:
a) Whether the creature inflicting a hit was an enemy
Whether the creature receiving the hit was a player character
c) Whether the critical hit toggle is on/off.
This isn't necessarily a huge performance hit, but if you're adding in multiple checks like this, it could quickly start to ramp up the processing requirements for combat.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
All your individual points here are based on false objectivity.
[/quote]
Incorrect, my points here are based around an understanding of game design and years of analysis about what makes games fun and what doesn't. Not just what makes games fun for me, but what makes people like or dislike games in a broader sense. No, there is no guarantee that one thing is going to be fun for everyone, but there are some general principles that can be applied.
The fact that you've misinterpreted my use of the word "pacing" tells me directly that you haven't explored game design theory. It also has nothing to do what you assume is my desire to compare skill levels players, because I also have absolutely zero interest in doing that. If you're going to make suggestions about how games should be designed, then if you want people to agree with you, you should understand that no aspect of a game exists in a vacuum, and how those changes will have knock on effects for many other aspects of the game. If you like games, I really suggest you go read a bunch of books on game design - or check out the "Extra Credits" series at Penny Arcade.
[/quote]
I know what I enjoy. I'm not going to pretend otherwise because you said so. It is incredibly arrogant to think you know someone else's preferances better than they do.
[/quote]
I'm not saying I know what you like. I'm saying that game design analysis gives a good understanding of what is most likely to appeal to more people, thus where to best direct development time.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Lack of choice is almost exclusively touted in terms of story and dialogue choice. The concept is that no matter what decisions the player makes, they always get routed into the same problems and events, leading to complaints that the choices had no impact. Don't conflate this with the concept you're discussing, because they're very different, and are being requested for very different reasons.
[/quote]
No, DA2 was criticized for having enemy waves and for having quick combat movement. If those features could have been turned off and substituted with something else in game, then people would have happily done so. We could find other examples. DA:O was crtitisized for having slow combat movement. If DA:O had a slider to control combat movement, I and others would have been happy to turn it up.
[/quote]
I seriously suggest that you do some research. Start by looking up player agency in DA2. Enemy waves and combat movement have NOTHING to do with "choice" as it was most heavily criticised in DA2.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You cannot have broad appeal without broad choices.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally false. There are hundreds and thousands of successful games that don't have choice as a core part of their experience in the way that you're describing, from the casual to the hardcore market.
[/quote]
Sadly, gamers make due with what's available.
[/quote]
Actually, gamers genuine enjoy hundreds and thousand of games without what you're describing, and they love them because of it.
Also, it's "make do".
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote.
Incorrect. Adding in sliders like this would require hundreds of hours of work to ensure that players couldn't create an unwinnable game, which would inevitably result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of actual playable content.
[/quote]
No it will not because the sliders are just a better way of doing what is already being done.
You test the game at it's most difficult settings and if the player can advance on the most difficult settings then he can advance on any lesser settings. You can even just test at some lesser but still high settings and dare the player to beat the game on higer untested settings. People will have fun with that and when they fail they can't blame the developer. They were warned. You can do the same thing for a much lower setting. If they are bored with settings easier than the easiest tested settings, well, they were warned.
[/quote]
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but you're missing the point. Not everyone will play on the higher settings, and what about the "average" player who just decides to tweak one (or maybe two) of the aspects you've described. Unless they know what they're doing and have fully contemplated the possible knock-on effects of their changes, they could easily make the game trivial or impossible. If the sliders are provided to people, they will probably play with them, and there is a damn good chance they'll stuff up the difficulty of their game. You know who they will blame at that point? The developer. They won't think it's their fault, they'll blame the developer and may not buy their next game.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
You're comparing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age games here. This highlights how little you understand about the gameplay design and mechanics of each. Diablo 3 is a dungeon crawler. It has infinitely respawning monsters that you can reset with a simple game restart, and using their new monster power slider in conjunction with their existing difficulty levels, you can quit and decrease the difficulty to grind your character up in power to be able to progress. The Dragon Age series is made up of ultimately linear games. There is no capabilty to restart or endlessly grind should a player start to struggle and need to gear/XP up, which is a core mechanic that Diablo 3's gameplay relies on. Again, no aspect of gameplay design occurs in a vacuum.
[/quote]
What you are saying there is that the DA series lacks in useful features. There is no reason why DA games cannot have a "trainer" or grinder of some sort or, even simpler, just a button to grant your character GP and XP as you see fit other than Bioware just did not put it in.
[/quote]
Wow. Just wow. Grind is a useful feature? You want a button to instant grant GP and XP? Why not just have a button that goes "complete game"? If you really want to instant grant GP or XP, then use the console to provide that potentially game breaking bonus for yourself. However, do not think for a second that an in-built mechanism to do that is good game design. It's not.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
If you're asking for sliders, you want a different gamplay experience, which is something that cannot and should not be provided by a story driven game like Dragon Age. If you're looking for an experience with customisable gameplay challenge to this degree, what you're really looking for is a rogue/diablo clone, because that style of game has other constraints or design features that will enable those controls to (potentially) not get the game into a mechanically stale (whether trivially easy or unwinnably hard) state.
[/quote]
No, I know what I want. I want a great cinematic story with action and the ability to manage the difficulty and resources as I see fit. These things are not mutually exclusive just because you said so or read some fancy terms. The world is full of more choices than genres and pigeonholes might imply.
[/quote]
The problem is that you're asking to manage difficult in ways that can be impratical from a technical perspective and or could easily lead to destroying the game balance of the game such that it could easily be made ridiculously easy or impossible by players WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.
Let's take a serious look at a few things.
Enemy difficulty:
Effectively you're asking for manual control of the multiplier of enemy HP and damage. This potentially is one of the easiest things to modify, as it would merely require an additional calculation during creature spawn and combat damage determination. The problem is that a multiplier can be implemented by different in-built difficulty levels So do these multiply with your own difficult setting? Or can you only use the multiplier in a new "custom" difficulty setting?
In addition, number multiplication is the crudest form of difficulty scaling, and routinely does little more than force the usage of particular techniques because they are the only ones that can succeed at higher multiplers. Again, this is Diablo syndrome all over again, whereby certain skills, builds and tactics become useless at higher difficulties due to these multipliers. It might be interesting for a certain subset of gamers to calculate the optimal strategy and build to maximise damage output based on the highest multipliers possible, but from a designer's perspective, it's more valuable to be able to create skills that are useful in a variety of situations. This provides the player with freedom of choice in their gameplay - they can create and play a character however they want and won't be penalised for it by having the game become impossible.
Number of enemies:
Right off the bat, this one is a technical nightmare. In the engine used in DA/DA2 and I'm fairly certain this applies to the Frostbyte engine being used for DA3, enemies are individually placed by designers. The enemy number is predetermined, and is done in such a manner that it is not easy to generate more monsters. It is potentially possible, but it requires a lot more effort from designers for every single encounter, and/or a massive redesign from the programmers to accomodate this.
I created an encounter that does dynamically vary the size and composition of an enemy force based the player's selected difficulty level for my forthcoming DA:O mod, The Shattered War. However, it was a significant undertaking to get it to work at all, and even more work to ensure that the difficulty seemed to be pitched at a reasonable level for each player selected difficulty level. To do this for every single encounter would require a huge amount of time, and would drastically reduce the amount of content that could be created for a game.
Gold:
As I said, this one is a resource issue. If people are really annoyed by this one, they'll cheat their way around. Effectively you're asking for an in-built cheat mechanism. They're not good for game design or overall customer enjoyment. People don't have restraint, and will jump at the opportunity to cheat. As a result, they'll make things too easy for themselves through excess gold and will become bored and stop playing the game. See aforementioned problem about loss of future sales. Even worse is the situation where they keep playing, but eventually haven't learned the necessary skills to succeed because they've been able to buy their way through the game thus far, then hit a massive difficulty wall because of the lack of learned skills, rage quit and then tell all their friends about how bad the game was and then they (and their friends) don't buy the next game.
XP:
You'll pretty much run into exactly the same issues as you do with gold.
Please, if you have insights into game design that provide evidence that you would not cause game-breaking design issues as a result of sliders like this, I would love to hear them. If you have considered the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting please tell me what you would do to counter these problems and retain the overall balance of the game while still allowing player advancement and a difficulty curve that ensures an engaging experience throughout the entire game. That would be an interesting discussion.
The fact that I aced a programming course is irrelevant. The course has nothing to do with my proposal. And, I have not proposed anything that has not been seen before. Difficulty adjusters are standard in computer games.
I merely proposed a more discrete system rather than a packaged system.
[/quote]
Again, I state that the reason that a more discrete system causes problems is that because no one aspect of gameplay difficulty exists in isolation. Changing even one of these factors will have a lot of knock on effects. Difficulty levels at tested AT LENGTH by QA teams to make sure that the challenge is a reasonable one. If you let people go nuts with the parameters you've described, it would be very easy to disrupt game balance dramatically and render multiple aspects (including gameplay mechanics and structured gameplay) either pointless or impossible.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
So, stop pretending to be objective with all this talk of time. Admit it, you just want something else because you just want it.
[/quote]I'm not asking for anything. I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion about gameplay mechanics and balance.
[/quote]So, you have no dog in this fight? You just randomly showed up here and decided to randomly discuss something?
[/quote]I'm interested in talking about game design. I saw the opportunity for a potentially interesting discussion about mechanics.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Removing the ability of monsters to critically hit the player would also potentially dramatically reduce the effectiveness of certain enemies - I am sure you are aware that in Dragon Age, many of the enemy abilties are drawn from the same pool as those provided to players - making these useless for the player would also make them uselessfor an enemy, therefore potentially significantly reducing the challenge of specific enemies.
[/quote]
There is no problem with reducing the challenge of specific enemies if the player does it in private, or increase them for that matter. That is what difficulty settings are for.
[/quote]
The problem is that this would require the player to have explicit knowledge that critical hits were what was causing the difficulty in the encounter and know that removing them would allow them to defeat the problem, which is an unlikely scenario for the average player. It would mean that for every critical hit, the game would need to determine:
a) Whether the creature inflicting a hit was an enemy
Whether the creature receiving the hit was a player characterc) Whether the critical hit toggle is on/off.
This isn't necessarily a huge performance hit, but if you're adding in multiple checks like this, it could quickly start to ramp up the processing requirements for combat.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
All your individual points here are based on false objectivity.
[/quote]
Incorrect, my points here are based around an understanding of game design and years of analysis about what makes games fun and what doesn't. Not just what makes games fun for me, but what makes people like or dislike games in a broader sense. No, there is no guarantee that one thing is going to be fun for everyone, but there are some general principles that can be applied.
The fact that you've misinterpreted my use of the word "pacing" tells me directly that you haven't explored game design theory. It also has nothing to do what you assume is my desire to compare skill levels players, because I also have absolutely zero interest in doing that. If you're going to make suggestions about how games should be designed, then if you want people to agree with you, you should understand that no aspect of a game exists in a vacuum, and how those changes will have knock on effects for many other aspects of the game. If you like games, I really suggest you go read a bunch of books on game design - or check out the "Extra Credits" series at Penny Arcade.
[/quote]
I know what I enjoy. I'm not going to pretend otherwise because you said so. It is incredibly arrogant to think you know someone else's preferances better than they do.
[/quote]
I'm not saying I know what you like. I'm saying that game design analysis gives a good understanding of what is most likely to appeal to more people, thus where to best direct development time.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Lack of choice is almost exclusively touted in terms of story and dialogue choice. The concept is that no matter what decisions the player makes, they always get routed into the same problems and events, leading to complaints that the choices had no impact. Don't conflate this with the concept you're discussing, because they're very different, and are being requested for very different reasons.
[/quote]
No, DA2 was criticized for having enemy waves and for having quick combat movement. If those features could have been turned off and substituted with something else in game, then people would have happily done so. We could find other examples. DA:O was crtitisized for having slow combat movement. If DA:O had a slider to control combat movement, I and others would have been happy to turn it up.
[/quote]
I seriously suggest that you do some research. Start by looking up player agency in DA2. Enemy waves and combat movement have NOTHING to do with "choice" as it was most heavily criticised in DA2.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You cannot have broad appeal without broad choices.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally false. There are hundreds and thousands of successful games that don't have choice as a core part of their experience in the way that you're describing, from the casual to the hardcore market.
[/quote]
Sadly, gamers make due with what's available.
[/quote]
Actually, gamers genuine enjoy hundreds and thousand of games without what you're describing, and they love them because of it.
Also, it's "make do".
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote.
Incorrect. Adding in sliders like this would require hundreds of hours of work to ensure that players couldn't create an unwinnable game, which would inevitably result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of actual playable content.
[/quote]
No it will not because the sliders are just a better way of doing what is already being done.
You test the game at it's most difficult settings and if the player can advance on the most difficult settings then he can advance on any lesser settings. You can even just test at some lesser but still high settings and dare the player to beat the game on higer untested settings. People will have fun with that and when they fail they can't blame the developer. They were warned. You can do the same thing for a much lower setting. If they are bored with settings easier than the easiest tested settings, well, they were warned.
[/quote]
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but you're missing the point. Not everyone will play on the higher settings, and what about the "average" player who just decides to tweak one (or maybe two) of the aspects you've described. Unless they know what they're doing and have fully contemplated the possible knock-on effects of their changes, they could easily make the game trivial or impossible. If the sliders are provided to people, they will probably play with them, and there is a damn good chance they'll stuff up the difficulty of their game. You know who they will blame at that point? The developer. They won't think it's their fault, they'll blame the developer and may not buy their next game.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
You're comparing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age games here. This highlights how little you understand about the gameplay design and mechanics of each. Diablo 3 is a dungeon crawler. It has infinitely respawning monsters that you can reset with a simple game restart, and using their new monster power slider in conjunction with their existing difficulty levels, you can quit and decrease the difficulty to grind your character up in power to be able to progress. The Dragon Age series is made up of ultimately linear games. There is no capabilty to restart or endlessly grind should a player start to struggle and need to gear/XP up, which is a core mechanic that Diablo 3's gameplay relies on. Again, no aspect of gameplay design occurs in a vacuum.
[/quote]
What you are saying there is that the DA series lacks in useful features. There is no reason why DA games cannot have a "trainer" or grinder of some sort or, even simpler, just a button to grant your character GP and XP as you see fit other than Bioware just did not put it in.
[/quote]
Wow. Just wow. Grind is a useful feature? You want a button to instant grant GP and XP? Why not just have a button that goes "complete game"? If you really want to instant grant GP or XP, then use the console to provide that potentially game breaking bonus for yourself. However, do not think for a second that an in-built mechanism to do that is good game design. It's not.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
If you're asking for sliders, you want a different gamplay experience, which is something that cannot and should not be provided by a story driven game like Dragon Age. If you're looking for an experience with customisable gameplay challenge to this degree, what you're really looking for is a rogue/diablo clone, because that style of game has other constraints or design features that will enable those controls to (potentially) not get the game into a mechanically stale (whether trivially easy or unwinnably hard) state.
[/quote]
No, I know what I want. I want a great cinematic story with action and the ability to manage the difficulty and resources as I see fit. These things are not mutually exclusive just because you said so or read some fancy terms. The world is full of more choices than genres and pigeonholes might imply.
[/quote]
The problem is that you're asking to manage difficult in ways that can be impratical from a technical perspective and or could easily lead to destroying the game balance of the game such that it could easily be made ridiculously easy or impossible by players WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.
Let's take a serious look at a few things.
Enemy difficulty:
Effectively you're asking for manual control of the multiplier of enemy HP and damage. This potentially is one of the easiest things to modify, as it would merely require an additional calculation during creature spawn and combat damage determination. The problem is that a multiplier can be implemented by different in-built difficulty levels So do these multiply with your own difficult setting? Or can you only use the multiplier in a new "custom" difficulty setting?
In addition, number multiplication is the crudest form of difficulty scaling, and routinely does little more than force the usage of particular techniques because they are the only ones that can succeed at higher multiplers. Again, this is Diablo syndrome all over again, whereby certain skills, builds and tactics become useless at higher difficulties due to these multipliers. It might be interesting for a certain subset of gamers to calculate the optimal strategy and build to maximise damage output based on the highest multipliers possible, but from a designer's perspective, it's more valuable to be able to create skills that are useful in a variety of situations. This provides the player with freedom of choice in their gameplay - they can create and play a character however they want and won't be penalised for it by having the game become impossible.
Number of enemies:
Right off the bat, this one is a technical nightmare. In the engine used in DA/DA2 and I'm fairly certain this applies to the Frostbyte engine being used for DA3, enemies are individually placed by designers. The enemy number is predetermined, and is done in such a manner that it is not easy to generate more monsters. It is potentially possible, but it requires a lot more effort from designers for every single encounter, and/or a massive redesign from the programmers to accomodate this.
I created an encounter that does dynamically vary the size and composition of an enemy force based the player's selected difficulty level for my forthcoming DA:O mod, The Shattered War. However, it was a significant undertaking to get it to work at all, and even more work to ensure that the difficulty seemed to be pitched at a reasonable level for each player selected difficulty level. To do this for every single encounter would require a huge amount of time, and would drastically reduce the amount of content that could be created for a game.
Gold:
As I said, this one is a resource issue. If people are really annoyed by this one, they'll cheat their way around. Effectively you're asking for an in-built cheat mechanism. They're not good for game design or overall customer enjoyment. People don't have restraint, and will jump at the opportunity to cheat. As a result, they'll make things too easy for themselves through excess gold and will become bored and stop playing the game. See aforementioned problem about loss of future sales. Even worse is the situation where they keep playing, but eventually haven't learned the necessary skills to succeed because they've been able to buy their way through the game thus far, then hit a massive difficulty wall because of the lack of learned skills, rage quit and then tell all their friends about how bad the game was and then they (and their friends) don't buy the next game.
XP:
You'll pretty much run into exactly the same issues as you do with gold.
Please, if you have insights into game design that provide evidence that you would not cause game-breaking design issues as a result of sliders like this, I would love to hear them. If you have considered the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting please tell me what you would do to counter these problems and retain the overall balance of the game while still allowing player advancement and a difficulty curve that ensures an engaging experience throughout the entire game. That would be an interesting discussion.
Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 janvier 2013 - 04:09 .
#158
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 06:46
naughty99
-
- Members
- 5 801 messages
nicethugbert wrote...
I don't want to play Quarter Master. I don't want logistical nightmares.
I thought from the title that this thread was going to be about those grid based inventory systems (like Morrowind, Deus Ex, Mount & Blade, etc.) where you move little icons around. I hate those, that's what I think of when I hear "Inventory Tetris"
Give me a simple scrolling list any day, much prefer the inventory UI for games like DA:O, Oblivion, Fallout 3 / New Vegas, Skyrim.
And Dragon Age 2 inventory UI was not bad at all, I just wish there were more types of items in the game world, and didn't like the concept of having a "junk" category.
Modifié par naughty99, 13 janvier 2013 - 07:05 .
#159
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 12:53
nicethugbert
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
nicethugbert wrote...
OK, I'll indulge your hang up about the title.
The title is "I don't want to play inventory tetris ................" Key word, play, I could go on about what I don't want to play in a computer game and indeed the title ends with ......... becuase there is more to say and it did say a little more about what I don't want to play. But, I kept it brief regarding what I don't want to play. A longer list of what I don't want to play would have been irrelevant as I only needed to introduce the basic notion. Sadly, some people need everything spelled out at length.
So, "inventory Tetris" is a single example and the thread's actually about a much more general point concerning things you don't like and how they should all be toggleable? I still don't see how that's a good way to title a thread. Why not use a title that actually indicates the entire topic?
Because, this is what occured to me. How about Checks and Sliders? Or, I Want What I Want, Science Be Damned!
#160
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 03:23
nicethugbert
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Again, I state that the reason that a more discrete system causes problems is that because no one aspect of gameplay difficulty exists in isolation. Changing even one of these factors will have a lot of knock on effects. Difficulty levels at tested AT LENGTH by QA teams to make sure that the challenge is a reasonable one. If you let people go nuts with the parameters you've described, it would be very easy to disrupt game balance dramatically and render multiple aspects (including gameplay mechanics and structured gameplay) either pointless or impossible.
[/quote]
Every preset difficulty level in ME and DA series is a composite and that is common in the industry. Diablo 3 is an example of this. It's a linear system where all parameters increase proportionally in a linear manner from some minimum.
It is not impossible at all and it is standard fare to have to determine the bounds on difficulty. This is simply what must be done. So, the developer looks at his options and figures out the least difficult case that the player has no chance of completing. Anything below that is doable by somebody. What is left is to rank everything below that difficulty if you are going to use designated presets as usual. Regardless of how the game assigns difficulty, a set of sliders and check boxes or a set of presets like diablo 3, this must be done. The resources have to be spent here.
You don't have to let people go nuts with parameters using sliders and check boxes any more than you do with a set of designated linear proportional presets. But, you can let people go nuts. You can dare them to go nuts. ME series and DA series difficulties specifically state that Normal diffiulty is the difficulty that Bioware designed the game around. They are already telling you that if the game is too boring on easy or too difficult above normal that you brought it upon yourself. And they even dare you to play above normal. I suppose you would consider this bad design and that bad design is common in the game industry even among AAA titles and that this one example why.
Rendering gameplay mechanics pointless is exactly the freedom that players need. Many people complained about DA2's enemy waves. Many people did not mind it at all, even prefered it. You can't reconcile such opposites.
Many players hate mooks. They want all boss fights all the time. Many players love mooks. You can't reconcile such opposites.
Give the players Horde Size and Monster Power sliders and the problem is solved. If you want all boss battles all the time then turn down the Horde Size slider and turn up the Monster Power slider.
Some players would not be totally happy with this because most monsters will not really be bosses as they will not have a cut scene, unique name, etc. Instead they will just be super powered leutenants. Which, while they may be boss strength, they don't have the flavor. But, they can get closer to their desire and alleave the majority of they disatisfaction in the regard with the sliders I propose.
But, this can only be totally resolved in a game that is pure and strictly story. And that is a lot more work than what I am proposing with a slider and check box difficulty system. It's even more work in an open world. You can call any story game that is less than pure and strict story a badly designed game if you want but good luck getting any AAA game company to spend the money to do it for such a small audience.
There are also the players that want to see the screen full of corpses. They can turn up the Horde Size slider and turn down the Monster Power Slider and make themselves happy. They can turn off friendly fire and go to town with all the flash they want. It makes then happy and willing customers.
You find diametrically opposed players in mass in all games. It 's impossible to please them all without offering them the choices they want. Even seemingly monotone games such as Battlefireld 3 have their divides, the realists vs. the balance gurus, Hardcore vs. Normal, etc. RPGs are even worse as they always have been and always will be ployglots, especially sine the action or casual crowd is always larger than the story or sims crowd but it takes less work to please them.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
...It would mean that for every critical hit, the game would need to determine:
a) Whether the creature inflicting a hit was an enemy
Whether the creature receiving the hit was a player character
c) Whether the critical hit toggle is on/off.
This isn't necessarily a huge performance hit, but if you're adding in multiple checks like this, it could quickly start to ramp up the processing requirements for combat.
[/quote]
No, you have objects calculate damage, one with critical hits and one without. Then, when the player checks the No Critical Hits box, the game swaps out objects to the appropriate one. You don't have to check for critical hits with every hit, same for Friendly Fire or any check box or discrete condition. Some languages do not use objects but instead have function pointers, even arrays of such. For better or worse, it does the same thing.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
All your individual points here are based on false objectivity.
[/quote]
Incorrect, my points here are based around an understanding of game design and years of analysis about what makes games fun and what doesn't. Not just what makes games fun for me, but what makes people like or dislike games in a broader sense. No, there is no guarantee that one thing is going to be fun for everyone, but there are some general principles that can be applied.
The fact that you've misinterpreted my use of the word "pacing" tells me directly that you haven't explored game design theory. It also has nothing to do what you assume is my desire to compare skill levels players, because I also have absolutely zero interest in doing that. If you're going to make suggestions about how games should be designed, then if you want people to agree with you, you should understand that no aspect of a game exists in a vacuum, and how those changes will have knock on effects for many other aspects of the game. If you like games, I really suggest you go read a bunch of books on game design - or check out the "Extra Credits" series at Penny Arcade.
[/quote]
I know what I enjoy. I'm not going to pretend otherwise because you said so. It is incredibly arrogant to think you know someone else's preferances better than they do.
[/quote]
I'm not saying I know what you like. I'm saying that game design analysis gives a good understanding of what is most likely to appeal to more people, thus where to best direct development time.
[/quote]
Post sample games that prove the value of this game design stuff you speak of?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Lack of choice is almost exclusively touted in terms of story and dialogue choice. The concept is that no matter what decisions the player makes, they always get routed into the same problems and events, leading to complaints that the choices had no impact. Don't conflate this with the concept you're discussing, because they're very different, and are being requested for very different reasons.
[/quote]
No, DA2 was criticized for having enemy waves and for having quick combat movement. If those features could have been turned off and substituted with something else in game, then people would have happily done so. We could find other examples. DA:O was crtitisized for having slow combat movement. If DA:O had a slider to control combat movement, I and others would have been happy to turn it up.
[/quote]
I seriously suggest that you do some research. Start by looking up player agency in DA2. Enemy waves and combat movement have NOTHING to do with "choice" as it was most heavily criticised in DA2.
[/quote]
It does not matter that within the criticism directed towards DA2, or any game, that the majority of it regarding choice was narrowly referring to choice in story. The fact of the matter is that there is choice in mechanics. Choice pervades everything. Customers have the choice not to make a purchase. If you narrowly tailor your game, they can choose another. If your game is broadly tailored, they can choose another.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You cannot have broad appeal without broad choices.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally false. There are hundreds and thousands of successful games that don't have choice as a core part of their experience in the way that you're describing, from the casual to the hardcore market.
[/quote]
Sadly, gamers make due with what's available.
[/quote]
Actually, gamers genuine enjoy hundreds and thousand of games without what you're describing, and they love them because of it.
Also, it's "make do".
[/quote]
I am not one of them and I know I am not alone as this is not the first time that these suggestions have been made.
I know my gaming experience would have been better if ME, DA, and a whole host of other games, had the geatures I propose. I also know that I am not alone in this.
It's common sense that if a game is designed to sell to a hopelessly divided audience that choices will have to be provided.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote.
Incorrect. Adding in sliders like this would require hundreds of hours of work to ensure that players couldn't create an unwinnable game, which would inevitably result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of actual playable content.
[/quote]
No it will not because the sliders are just a better way of doing what is already being done.
You test the game at it's most difficult settings and if the player can advance on the most difficult settings then he can advance on any lesser settings. You can even just test at some lesser but still high settings and dare the player to beat the game on higer untested settings. People will have fun with that and when they fail they can't blame the developer. They were warned. You can do the same thing for a much lower setting. If they are bored with settings easier than the easiest tested settings, well, they were warned.
[/quote]
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but you're missing the point. Not everyone will play on the higher settings, and what about the "average" player who just decides to tweak one (or maybe two) of the aspects you've described. Unless they know what they're doing and have fully contemplated the possible knock-on effects of their changes, they could easily make the game trivial or impossible. If the sliders are provided to people, they will probably play with them, and there is a damn good chance they'll stuff up the difficulty of their game. You know who they will blame at that point? The developer. They won't think it's their fault, they'll blame the developer and may not buy their next game.
[/quote]
Then, why do games even have difficulty settings? Sounds like you think that Insane/Nightmare difficulty mode is a waste of resources.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
You're comparing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age games here. This highlights how little you understand about the gameplay design and mechanics of each. Diablo 3 is a dungeon crawler. It has infinitely respawning monsters that you can reset with a simple game restart, and using their new monster power slider in conjunction with their existing difficulty levels, you can quit and decrease the difficulty to grind your character up in power to be able to progress. The Dragon Age series is made up of ultimately linear games. There is no capabilty to restart or endlessly grind should a player start to struggle and need to gear/XP up, which is a core mechanic that Diablo 3's gameplay relies on. Again, no aspect of gameplay design occurs in a vacuum.
[/quote]
What you are saying there is that the DA series lacks in useful features. There is no reason why DA games cannot have a "trainer" or grinder of some sort or, even simpler, just a button to grant your character GP and XP as you see fit other than Bioware just did not put it in.
[/quote]
Wow. Just wow. Grind is a useful feature? You want a button to instant grant GP and XP? Why not just have a button that goes "complete game"? If you really want to instant grant GP or XP, then use the console to provide that potentially game breaking bonus for yourself. However, do not think for a second that an in-built mechanism to do that is good game design. It's not.
[/quote]
You are showing bias. Yes, some players love to grind, for years on end even. But, in a sense, all RPGs are a grind. The grind is interspersed among story bits.
Complete Game and being able to choose when you want some extra gold/XP are far from the same thing.
A grant GP/XP button is a better design than console commands hidden in shame. It's not a worse feature than error processing code. It is foolish to think your game will be perfect in any way, shape, or form. You should certainly strive for perfection but realistically, you have to hedge your bets especialy when attempting to appeal to a divided audience. Which, is the only audience in existance.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
If you're asking for sliders, you want a different gamplay experience, which is something that cannot and should not be provided by a story driven game like Dragon Age. If you're looking for an experience with customisable gameplay challenge to this degree, what you're really looking for is a rogue/diablo clone, because that style of game has other constraints or design features that will enable those controls to (potentially) not get the game into a mechanically stale (whether trivially easy or unwinnably hard) state.
[/quote]
No, I know what I want. I want a great cinematic story with action and the ability to manage the difficulty and resources as I see fit. These things are not mutually exclusive just because you said so or read some fancy terms. The world is full of more choices than genres and pigeonholes might imply.
[/quote]
The problem is that you're asking to manage difficult in ways that can be impratical from a technical perspective and or could easily lead to destroying the game balance of the game such that it could easily be made ridiculously easy or impossible by players WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.
[/quote]
Making players aware of the consequences of their choices is good and necessary design. If you're not going to do it then don't bother making a game. Idon't think you can even call it a game without this criteria being satisfied.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Let's take a serious look at a few things.
Enemy difficulty:
Effectively you're asking for manual control of the multiplier of enemy HP and damage. This potentially is one of the easiest things to modify, as it would merely require an additional calculation during creature spawn and combat damage determination. The problem is that a multiplier can be implemented by different in-built difficulty levels So do these multiply with your own difficult setting? Or can you only use the multiplier in a new "custom" difficulty setting?
In addition, number multiplication is the crudest form of difficulty scaling, and routinely does little more than force the usage of particular techniques because they are the only ones that can succeed at higher multiplers. Again, this is Diablo syndrome all over again, whereby certain skills, builds and tactics become useless at higher difficulties due to these multipliers. It might be interesting for a certain subset of gamers to calculate the optimal strategy and build to maximise damage output based on the highest multipliers possible, but from a designer's perspective, it's more valuable to be able to create skills that are useful in a variety of situations. This provides the player with freedom of choice in their gameplay - they can create and play a character however they want and won't be penalised for it by having the game become impossible.
[/quote]
I don't necessarily disagree with this. In fact it supports my proposal. Games are never balanced and never will be. I want to do something about that. It's also a matter of fun and exploration. Want to make an all rogue, or all mage party, or all tank party, etc.? Go for it, set the sliders how you want to make it work how you want.
This is a neccessity for a game that is not balanced, or broadly tailored as are all RPGs.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Number of enemies:
Right off the bat, this one is a technical nightmare. In the engine used in DA/DA2 and I'm fairly certain this applies to the Frostbyte engine being used for DA3, enemies are individually placed by designers. The enemy number is predetermined, and is done in such a manner that it is not easy to generate more monsters. It is potentially possible, but it requires a lot more effort from designers for every single encounter, and/or a massive redesign from the programmers to accomodate this.
[/quote]
If what you are saying is true then these game engines are garbage. Older game engines, such as Aurora, the one used in Neverwinter Nights, a Bioware game, could spawn enemies endlessly. As a matter of fact, ME3 MP does that during objective waves. It uses Unreal 3, IIRC.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
I created an encounter that does dynamically vary the size and composition of an enemy force based the player's selected difficulty level for my forthcoming DA:O mod, The Shattered War. However, it was a significant undertaking to get it to work at all, and even more work to ensure that the difficulty seemed to be pitched at a reasonable level for each player selected difficulty level. To do this for every single encounter would require a huge amount of time, and would drastically reduce the amount of content that could be created for a game.
[/quote]
Again, done in older games, and current ones, standard fair even, in those games. People loved them for it.
I'm starting to suspect that all this game design stuff is a case of the game industry attempting to "educate the customer".
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Gold:
As I said, this one is a resource issue. If people are really annoyed by this one, they'll cheat their way around. Effectively you're asking for an in-built cheat mechanism. They're not good for game design or overall customer enjoyment. People don't have restraint, and will jump at the opportunity to cheat. As a result, they'll make things too easy for themselves through excess gold and will become bored and stop playing the game. See aforementioned problem about loss of future sales. Even worse is the situation where they keep playing, but eventually haven't learned the necessary skills to succeed because they've been able to buy their way through the game thus far, then hit a massive difficulty wall because of the lack of learned skills, rage quit and then tell all their friends about how bad the game was and then they (and their friends) don't buy the next game.
[/quote]
Cheating is when you interfere with the normal running of the game via external means. Using the provided in game mechanisms is never cheating any more than driving within the speed limit is illegal. It's illegal when you go outside the law to do what you want. It's cheating when you go outside the program, or rules, to do what you want.
You are showing bias for a particular play style here, again.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
XP:
You'll pretty much run into exactly the same issues as you do with gold.
Please, if you have insights into game design that provide evidence that you would not cause game-breaking design issues as a result of sliders like this, I would love to hear them. If you have considered the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting please tell me what you would do to counter these problems and retain the overall balance of the game while still allowing player advancement and a difficulty curve that ensures an engaging experience throughout the entire game. That would be an interesting discussion.[/quote]
I just spent 7 (8?) pages doing so.
Again, I state that the reason that a more discrete system causes problems is that because no one aspect of gameplay difficulty exists in isolation. Changing even one of these factors will have a lot of knock on effects. Difficulty levels at tested AT LENGTH by QA teams to make sure that the challenge is a reasonable one. If you let people go nuts with the parameters you've described, it would be very easy to disrupt game balance dramatically and render multiple aspects (including gameplay mechanics and structured gameplay) either pointless or impossible.
[/quote]
Every preset difficulty level in ME and DA series is a composite and that is common in the industry. Diablo 3 is an example of this. It's a linear system where all parameters increase proportionally in a linear manner from some minimum.
It is not impossible at all and it is standard fare to have to determine the bounds on difficulty. This is simply what must be done. So, the developer looks at his options and figures out the least difficult case that the player has no chance of completing. Anything below that is doable by somebody. What is left is to rank everything below that difficulty if you are going to use designated presets as usual. Regardless of how the game assigns difficulty, a set of sliders and check boxes or a set of presets like diablo 3, this must be done. The resources have to be spent here.
You don't have to let people go nuts with parameters using sliders and check boxes any more than you do with a set of designated linear proportional presets. But, you can let people go nuts. You can dare them to go nuts. ME series and DA series difficulties specifically state that Normal diffiulty is the difficulty that Bioware designed the game around. They are already telling you that if the game is too boring on easy or too difficult above normal that you brought it upon yourself. And they even dare you to play above normal. I suppose you would consider this bad design and that bad design is common in the game industry even among AAA titles and that this one example why.
Rendering gameplay mechanics pointless is exactly the freedom that players need. Many people complained about DA2's enemy waves. Many people did not mind it at all, even prefered it. You can't reconcile such opposites.
Many players hate mooks. They want all boss fights all the time. Many players love mooks. You can't reconcile such opposites.
Give the players Horde Size and Monster Power sliders and the problem is solved. If you want all boss battles all the time then turn down the Horde Size slider and turn up the Monster Power slider.
Some players would not be totally happy with this because most monsters will not really be bosses as they will not have a cut scene, unique name, etc. Instead they will just be super powered leutenants. Which, while they may be boss strength, they don't have the flavor. But, they can get closer to their desire and alleave the majority of they disatisfaction in the regard with the sliders I propose.
But, this can only be totally resolved in a game that is pure and strictly story. And that is a lot more work than what I am proposing with a slider and check box difficulty system. It's even more work in an open world. You can call any story game that is less than pure and strict story a badly designed game if you want but good luck getting any AAA game company to spend the money to do it for such a small audience.
There are also the players that want to see the screen full of corpses. They can turn up the Horde Size slider and turn down the Monster Power Slider and make themselves happy. They can turn off friendly fire and go to town with all the flash they want. It makes then happy and willing customers.
You find diametrically opposed players in mass in all games. It 's impossible to please them all without offering them the choices they want. Even seemingly monotone games such as Battlefireld 3 have their divides, the realists vs. the balance gurus, Hardcore vs. Normal, etc. RPGs are even worse as they always have been and always will be ployglots, especially sine the action or casual crowd is always larger than the story or sims crowd but it takes less work to please them.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
...It would mean that for every critical hit, the game would need to determine:
a) Whether the creature inflicting a hit was an enemy
Whether the creature receiving the hit was a player characterc) Whether the critical hit toggle is on/off.
This isn't necessarily a huge performance hit, but if you're adding in multiple checks like this, it could quickly start to ramp up the processing requirements for combat.
[/quote]
No, you have objects calculate damage, one with critical hits and one without. Then, when the player checks the No Critical Hits box, the game swaps out objects to the appropriate one. You don't have to check for critical hits with every hit, same for Friendly Fire or any check box or discrete condition. Some languages do not use objects but instead have function pointers, even arrays of such. For better or worse, it does the same thing.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
All your individual points here are based on false objectivity.
[/quote]
Incorrect, my points here are based around an understanding of game design and years of analysis about what makes games fun and what doesn't. Not just what makes games fun for me, but what makes people like or dislike games in a broader sense. No, there is no guarantee that one thing is going to be fun for everyone, but there are some general principles that can be applied.
The fact that you've misinterpreted my use of the word "pacing" tells me directly that you haven't explored game design theory. It also has nothing to do what you assume is my desire to compare skill levels players, because I also have absolutely zero interest in doing that. If you're going to make suggestions about how games should be designed, then if you want people to agree with you, you should understand that no aspect of a game exists in a vacuum, and how those changes will have knock on effects for many other aspects of the game. If you like games, I really suggest you go read a bunch of books on game design - or check out the "Extra Credits" series at Penny Arcade.
[/quote]
I know what I enjoy. I'm not going to pretend otherwise because you said so. It is incredibly arrogant to think you know someone else's preferances better than they do.
[/quote]
I'm not saying I know what you like. I'm saying that game design analysis gives a good understanding of what is most likely to appeal to more people, thus where to best direct development time.
[/quote]
Post sample games that prove the value of this game design stuff you speak of?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Lack of choice is almost exclusively touted in terms of story and dialogue choice. The concept is that no matter what decisions the player makes, they always get routed into the same problems and events, leading to complaints that the choices had no impact. Don't conflate this with the concept you're discussing, because they're very different, and are being requested for very different reasons.
[/quote]
No, DA2 was criticized for having enemy waves and for having quick combat movement. If those features could have been turned off and substituted with something else in game, then people would have happily done so. We could find other examples. DA:O was crtitisized for having slow combat movement. If DA:O had a slider to control combat movement, I and others would have been happy to turn it up.
[/quote]
I seriously suggest that you do some research. Start by looking up player agency in DA2. Enemy waves and combat movement have NOTHING to do with "choice" as it was most heavily criticised in DA2.
[/quote]
It does not matter that within the criticism directed towards DA2, or any game, that the majority of it regarding choice was narrowly referring to choice in story. The fact of the matter is that there is choice in mechanics. Choice pervades everything. Customers have the choice not to make a purchase. If you narrowly tailor your game, they can choose another. If your game is broadly tailored, they can choose another.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You cannot have broad appeal without broad choices.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally false. There are hundreds and thousands of successful games that don't have choice as a core part of their experience in the way that you're describing, from the casual to the hardcore market.
[/quote]
Sadly, gamers make due with what's available.
[/quote]
Actually, gamers genuine enjoy hundreds and thousand of games without what you're describing, and they love them because of it.
Also, it's "make do".
[/quote]
I am not one of them and I know I am not alone as this is not the first time that these suggestions have been made.
I know my gaming experience would have been better if ME, DA, and a whole host of other games, had the geatures I propose. I also know that I am not alone in this.
It's common sense that if a game is designed to sell to a hopelessly divided audience that choices will have to be provided.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote.
Incorrect. Adding in sliders like this would require hundreds of hours of work to ensure that players couldn't create an unwinnable game, which would inevitably result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of actual playable content.
[/quote]
No it will not because the sliders are just a better way of doing what is already being done.
You test the game at it's most difficult settings and if the player can advance on the most difficult settings then he can advance on any lesser settings. You can even just test at some lesser but still high settings and dare the player to beat the game on higer untested settings. People will have fun with that and when they fail they can't blame the developer. They were warned. You can do the same thing for a much lower setting. If they are bored with settings easier than the easiest tested settings, well, they were warned.
[/quote]
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but you're missing the point. Not everyone will play on the higher settings, and what about the "average" player who just decides to tweak one (or maybe two) of the aspects you've described. Unless they know what they're doing and have fully contemplated the possible knock-on effects of their changes, they could easily make the game trivial or impossible. If the sliders are provided to people, they will probably play with them, and there is a damn good chance they'll stuff up the difficulty of their game. You know who they will blame at that point? The developer. They won't think it's their fault, they'll blame the developer and may not buy their next game.
[/quote]
Then, why do games even have difficulty settings? Sounds like you think that Insane/Nightmare difficulty mode is a waste of resources.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
You're comparing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age games here. This highlights how little you understand about the gameplay design and mechanics of each. Diablo 3 is a dungeon crawler. It has infinitely respawning monsters that you can reset with a simple game restart, and using their new monster power slider in conjunction with their existing difficulty levels, you can quit and decrease the difficulty to grind your character up in power to be able to progress. The Dragon Age series is made up of ultimately linear games. There is no capabilty to restart or endlessly grind should a player start to struggle and need to gear/XP up, which is a core mechanic that Diablo 3's gameplay relies on. Again, no aspect of gameplay design occurs in a vacuum.
[/quote]
What you are saying there is that the DA series lacks in useful features. There is no reason why DA games cannot have a "trainer" or grinder of some sort or, even simpler, just a button to grant your character GP and XP as you see fit other than Bioware just did not put it in.
[/quote]
Wow. Just wow. Grind is a useful feature? You want a button to instant grant GP and XP? Why not just have a button that goes "complete game"? If you really want to instant grant GP or XP, then use the console to provide that potentially game breaking bonus for yourself. However, do not think for a second that an in-built mechanism to do that is good game design. It's not.
[/quote]
You are showing bias. Yes, some players love to grind, for years on end even. But, in a sense, all RPGs are a grind. The grind is interspersed among story bits.
Complete Game and being able to choose when you want some extra gold/XP are far from the same thing.
A grant GP/XP button is a better design than console commands hidden in shame. It's not a worse feature than error processing code. It is foolish to think your game will be perfect in any way, shape, or form. You should certainly strive for perfection but realistically, you have to hedge your bets especialy when attempting to appeal to a divided audience. Which, is the only audience in existance.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
If you're asking for sliders, you want a different gamplay experience, which is something that cannot and should not be provided by a story driven game like Dragon Age. If you're looking for an experience with customisable gameplay challenge to this degree, what you're really looking for is a rogue/diablo clone, because that style of game has other constraints or design features that will enable those controls to (potentially) not get the game into a mechanically stale (whether trivially easy or unwinnably hard) state.
[/quote]
No, I know what I want. I want a great cinematic story with action and the ability to manage the difficulty and resources as I see fit. These things are not mutually exclusive just because you said so or read some fancy terms. The world is full of more choices than genres and pigeonholes might imply.
[/quote]
The problem is that you're asking to manage difficult in ways that can be impratical from a technical perspective and or could easily lead to destroying the game balance of the game such that it could easily be made ridiculously easy or impossible by players WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.
[/quote]
Making players aware of the consequences of their choices is good and necessary design. If you're not going to do it then don't bother making a game. Idon't think you can even call it a game without this criteria being satisfied.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Let's take a serious look at a few things.
Enemy difficulty:
Effectively you're asking for manual control of the multiplier of enemy HP and damage. This potentially is one of the easiest things to modify, as it would merely require an additional calculation during creature spawn and combat damage determination. The problem is that a multiplier can be implemented by different in-built difficulty levels So do these multiply with your own difficult setting? Or can you only use the multiplier in a new "custom" difficulty setting?
In addition, number multiplication is the crudest form of difficulty scaling, and routinely does little more than force the usage of particular techniques because they are the only ones that can succeed at higher multiplers. Again, this is Diablo syndrome all over again, whereby certain skills, builds and tactics become useless at higher difficulties due to these multipliers. It might be interesting for a certain subset of gamers to calculate the optimal strategy and build to maximise damage output based on the highest multipliers possible, but from a designer's perspective, it's more valuable to be able to create skills that are useful in a variety of situations. This provides the player with freedom of choice in their gameplay - they can create and play a character however they want and won't be penalised for it by having the game become impossible.
[/quote]
I don't necessarily disagree with this. In fact it supports my proposal. Games are never balanced and never will be. I want to do something about that. It's also a matter of fun and exploration. Want to make an all rogue, or all mage party, or all tank party, etc.? Go for it, set the sliders how you want to make it work how you want.
This is a neccessity for a game that is not balanced, or broadly tailored as are all RPGs.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Number of enemies:
Right off the bat, this one is a technical nightmare. In the engine used in DA/DA2 and I'm fairly certain this applies to the Frostbyte engine being used for DA3, enemies are individually placed by designers. The enemy number is predetermined, and is done in such a manner that it is not easy to generate more monsters. It is potentially possible, but it requires a lot more effort from designers for every single encounter, and/or a massive redesign from the programmers to accomodate this.
[/quote]
If what you are saying is true then these game engines are garbage. Older game engines, such as Aurora, the one used in Neverwinter Nights, a Bioware game, could spawn enemies endlessly. As a matter of fact, ME3 MP does that during objective waves. It uses Unreal 3, IIRC.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
I created an encounter that does dynamically vary the size and composition of an enemy force based the player's selected difficulty level for my forthcoming DA:O mod, The Shattered War. However, it was a significant undertaking to get it to work at all, and even more work to ensure that the difficulty seemed to be pitched at a reasonable level for each player selected difficulty level. To do this for every single encounter would require a huge amount of time, and would drastically reduce the amount of content that could be created for a game.
[/quote]
Again, done in older games, and current ones, standard fair even, in those games. People loved them for it.
I'm starting to suspect that all this game design stuff is a case of the game industry attempting to "educate the customer".
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Gold:
As I said, this one is a resource issue. If people are really annoyed by this one, they'll cheat their way around. Effectively you're asking for an in-built cheat mechanism. They're not good for game design or overall customer enjoyment. People don't have restraint, and will jump at the opportunity to cheat. As a result, they'll make things too easy for themselves through excess gold and will become bored and stop playing the game. See aforementioned problem about loss of future sales. Even worse is the situation where they keep playing, but eventually haven't learned the necessary skills to succeed because they've been able to buy their way through the game thus far, then hit a massive difficulty wall because of the lack of learned skills, rage quit and then tell all their friends about how bad the game was and then they (and their friends) don't buy the next game.
[/quote]
Cheating is when you interfere with the normal running of the game via external means. Using the provided in game mechanisms is never cheating any more than driving within the speed limit is illegal. It's illegal when you go outside the law to do what you want. It's cheating when you go outside the program, or rules, to do what you want.
You are showing bias for a particular play style here, again.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
XP:
You'll pretty much run into exactly the same issues as you do with gold.
Please, if you have insights into game design that provide evidence that you would not cause game-breaking design issues as a result of sliders like this, I would love to hear them. If you have considered the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting please tell me what you would do to counter these problems and retain the overall balance of the game while still allowing player advancement and a difficulty curve that ensures an engaging experience throughout the entire game. That would be an interesting discussion.[/quote]
I just spent 7 (8?) pages doing so.
Modifié par nicethugbert, 13 janvier 2013 - 03:26 .
#161
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 08:08
dheer
-
- Members
- 705 messages
Think of it as inventory Dr. Mario.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
#162
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 08:17
AmstradHero
-
- Members
- 1 239 messages
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Again, I state that the reason that a more discrete system causes problems is that because no one aspect of gameplay difficulty exists in isolation. Changing even one of these factors will have a lot of knock on effects. Difficulty levels at tested AT LENGTH by QA teams to make sure that the challenge is a reasonable one. If you let people go nuts with the parameters you've described, it would be very easy to disrupt game balance dramatically and render multiple aspects (including gameplay mechanics and structured gameplay) either pointless or impossible.
[/quote]
Every preset difficulty level in ME and DA series is a composite and that is common in the industry. Diablo 3 is an example of this. It's a linear system where all parameters increase proportionally in a linear manner from some minimum.
It is not impossible at all and it is standard fare to have to determine the bounds on difficulty. This is simply what must be done. So, the developer looks at his options and figures out the least difficult case that the player has no chance of completing. Anything below that is doable by somebody. What is left is to rank everything below that difficulty if you are going to use designated presets as usual. Regardless of how the game assigns difficulty, a set of sliders and check boxes or a set of presets like diablo 3, this must be done. The resources have to be spent here.
...
Many players hate mooks. They want all boss fights all the time. Many players love mooks. You can't reconcile such opposites.
Give the players Horde Size and Monster Power sliders and the problem is solved. If you want all boss battles all the time then turn down the Horde Size slider and turn up the Monster Power slider.
Some players would not be totally happy with this because most monsters will not really be bosses as they will not have a cut scene, unique name, etc. Instead they will just be super powered leutenants. Which, while they may be boss strength, they don't have the flavor. But, they can get closer to their desire and alleave the majority of they disatisfaction in the regard with the sliders I propose.
[/quote]
Again you're demonstrating just how much you don't understand about game mechanics. This situation could and would easily create a situation where a player is insufficiently powered or skilled in the game mechanics by the time they reach a set point in the game, and would hit an unwinnable brick wall of difficulty. At this point, I guess you would say they just use the "instant XP/GP button" to level up and get past the fight. Or they go and adjust the difficulty sliders again. Or they modify another slider to affect the gameplay mechanics. Eventually, the player ends up adjusting the difficulty slider after every fight. They're no longer playing the game - they're playing the sliders.
This isn't an exciting game, a balanced game, or a game that keeps the player interested or pushing forward to complete the game. They're playing " changes the variables!" without even understanding the ramifications of those effects.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
...It would mean that for every critical hit, the game would need to determine:
a) Whether the creature inflicting a hit was an enemy
Whether the creature receiving the hit was a player character
c) Whether the critical hit toggle is on/off.
This isn't necessarily a huge performance hit, but if you're adding in multiple checks like this, it could quickly start to ramp up the processing requirements for combat.
[/quote]
No, you have objects calculate damage, one with critical hits and one without. Then, when the player checks the No Critical Hits box, the game swaps out objects to the appropriate one. You don't have to check for critical hits with every hit, same for Friendly Fire or any check box or discrete condition. Some languages do not use objects but instead have function pointers, even arrays of such. For better or worse, it does the same thing.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand programming at all, and you really shouldn't comment about how things can and should be implemented. I'll just say that what you've said here is wrong because it comes from a very simplified understanding of programming and leave it at that.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Not everyone will play on the higher settings, and what about the "average" player who just decides to tweak one (or maybe two) of the aspects you've described. Unless they know what they're doing and have fully contemplated the possible knock-on effects of their changes, they could easily make the game trivial or impossible. If the sliders are provided to people, they will probably play with them, and there is a damn good chance they'll stuff up the difficulty of their game. You know who they will blame at that point? The developer. They won't think it's their fault, they'll blame the developer and may not buy their next game.
[/quote]
Then, why do games even have difficulty settings? Sounds like you think that Insane/Nightmare difficulty mode is a waste of resources.
[/quote]
No, because these have been designed by developers after many many hours of testing. They've been determined to provide a balanced and consistent challenge based on this testing. There's no possible way to do that with a slider system.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Grind is a useful feature? You want a button to instant grant GP and XP? Why not just have a button that goes "complete game"? If you really want to instant grant GP or XP, then use the console to provide that potentially game breaking bonus for yourself. However, do not think for a second that an in-built mechanism to do that is good game design. It's not.
[/quote]
You are showing bias. Yes, some players love to grind, for years on end even. But, in a sense, all RPGs are a grind. The grind is interspersed among story bits.
Complete Game and being able to choose when you want some extra gold/XP are far from the same thing.
A grant GP/XP button is a better design than console commands hidden in shame. It's not a worse feature than error processing code. It is foolish to think your game will be perfect in any way, shape, or form. You should certainly strive for perfection but realistically, you have to hedge your bets especialy when attempting to appeal to a divided audience. Which, is the only audience in existance.
[/quote]
Again, you'll get into "playing sliders" not playing the game. That's why it's bad design.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
The problem is that you're asking to manage difficult in ways that can be impratical from a technical perspective and or could easily lead to destroying the game balance of the game such that it could easily be made ridiculously easy or impossible by players WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.
[/quote]
Making players aware of the consequences of their choices is good and necessary design. If you're not going to do it then don't bother making a game. Idon't think you can even call it a game without this criteria being satisfied.
[/quote]
Except it's not possible to make them aware of the composite effect of the sliders that they've chosen. It's impossible to calculate that without doing the hours and hours of aforementioned testing that makes it impractical.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Number of enemies:
Right off the bat, this one is a technical nightmare. In the engine used in DA/DA2 and I'm fairly certain this applies to the Frostbyte engine being used for DA3, enemies are individually placed by designers. The enemy number is predetermined, and is done in such a manner that it is not easy to generate more monsters. It is potentially possible, but it requires a lot more effort from designers for every single encounter, and/or a massive redesign from the programmers to accomodate this.
[/quote]
If what you are saying is true then these game engines are garbage. Older game engines, such as Aurora, the one used in Neverwinter Nights, a Bioware game, could spawn enemies endlessly. As a matter of fact, ME3 MP does that during objective waves. It uses Unreal 3, IIRC.
[/quote]
Again, you're commenting on programming issues from a position of ignorance. They are not garbage, the tools used to make the game have just been tailored to suit the game's design pipeline. As I said, it is POSSIBLE to do this, but it requires a considered effort in terms of the overall design of the game to accomodate this - designers can no longer place individual monsters to create an encounter, they would have to create an object that would spawn enemies within set parameters against which the sliders could be used to adjust that encounter.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Gold:
As I said, this one is a resource issue. If people are really annoyed by this one, they'll cheat their way around. Effectively you're asking for an in-built cheat mechanism. They're not good for game design or overall customer enjoyment. People don't have restraint, and will jump at the opportunity to cheat. As a result, they'll make things too easy for themselves through excess gold and will become bored and stop playing the game. See aforementioned problem about loss of future sales. Even worse is the situation where they keep playing, but eventually haven't learned the necessary skills to succeed because they've been able to buy their way through the game thus far, then hit a massive difficulty wall because of the lack of learned skills, rage quit and then tell all their friends about how bad the game was and then they (and their friends) don't buy the next game.
[/quote]
Cheating is when you interfere with the normal running of the game via external means. Using the provided in game mechanisms is never cheating any more than driving within the speed limit is illegal. It's illegal when you go outside the law to do what you want. It's cheating when you go outside the program, or rules, to do what you want.
[/quote]
Do you really want to go down the rabbit hole of what constitutes cheating? Simply put, if the player has to take action that exists outside of the game world, the designer has failed to provide the player with the skills, knowledge or tools to succeed in the encounter. This can come as a result of the player failing to learn because of the existence of a single strategy that has allowed them to bludgeon their way through all previous encounters without learning the skills the designer expected them to learn. Regardless of how it happens, it's the designer's problem.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Please, if you have insights into game design that provide evidence that you would not cause game-breaking design issues as a result of sliders like this, I would love to hear them. If you have considered the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting please tell me what you would do to counter these problems and retain the overall balance of the game while still allowing player advancement and a difficulty curve that ensures an engaging experience throughout the entire game. That would be an interesting discussion.[/quote]
I just spent 7 (8?) pages doing so.
[/quote]
Except you're failing to comprehend the core problem with your suggestions, and making wild and inaccurate statements about the quality of programs and programmers while you're doing it. Time and time again, you're failing to address or even acknowledge the fact that there are multiple consequences as a result of changing the sliders you're proposing; your defense is just "player preference" without any concept of the full ramifications of your suggestions.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Again, I state that the reason that a more discrete system causes problems is that because no one aspect of gameplay difficulty exists in isolation. Changing even one of these factors will have a lot of knock on effects. Difficulty levels at tested AT LENGTH by QA teams to make sure that the challenge is a reasonable one. If you let people go nuts with the parameters you've described, it would be very easy to disrupt game balance dramatically and render multiple aspects (including gameplay mechanics and structured gameplay) either pointless or impossible.
[/quote]
Every preset difficulty level in ME and DA series is a composite and that is common in the industry. Diablo 3 is an example of this. It's a linear system where all parameters increase proportionally in a linear manner from some minimum.
It is not impossible at all and it is standard fare to have to determine the bounds on difficulty. This is simply what must be done. So, the developer looks at his options and figures out the least difficult case that the player has no chance of completing. Anything below that is doable by somebody. What is left is to rank everything below that difficulty if you are going to use designated presets as usual. Regardless of how the game assigns difficulty, a set of sliders and check boxes or a set of presets like diablo 3, this must be done. The resources have to be spent here.
...
Many players hate mooks. They want all boss fights all the time. Many players love mooks. You can't reconcile such opposites.
Give the players Horde Size and Monster Power sliders and the problem is solved. If you want all boss battles all the time then turn down the Horde Size slider and turn up the Monster Power slider.
Some players would not be totally happy with this because most monsters will not really be bosses as they will not have a cut scene, unique name, etc. Instead they will just be super powered leutenants. Which, while they may be boss strength, they don't have the flavor. But, they can get closer to their desire and alleave the majority of they disatisfaction in the regard with the sliders I propose.
[/quote]
Again you're demonstrating just how much you don't understand about game mechanics. This situation could and would easily create a situation where a player is insufficiently powered or skilled in the game mechanics by the time they reach a set point in the game, and would hit an unwinnable brick wall of difficulty. At this point, I guess you would say they just use the "instant XP/GP button" to level up and get past the fight. Or they go and adjust the difficulty sliders again. Or they modify another slider to affect the gameplay mechanics. Eventually, the player ends up adjusting the difficulty slider after every fight. They're no longer playing the game - they're playing the sliders.
This isn't an exciting game, a balanced game, or a game that keeps the player interested or pushing forward to complete the game. They're playing " changes the variables!" without even understanding the ramifications of those effects.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
...It would mean that for every critical hit, the game would need to determine:
a) Whether the creature inflicting a hit was an enemy
Whether the creature receiving the hit was a player characterc) Whether the critical hit toggle is on/off.
This isn't necessarily a huge performance hit, but if you're adding in multiple checks like this, it could quickly start to ramp up the processing requirements for combat.
[/quote]
No, you have objects calculate damage, one with critical hits and one without. Then, when the player checks the No Critical Hits box, the game swaps out objects to the appropriate one. You don't have to check for critical hits with every hit, same for Friendly Fire or any check box or discrete condition. Some languages do not use objects but instead have function pointers, even arrays of such. For better or worse, it does the same thing.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand programming at all, and you really shouldn't comment about how things can and should be implemented. I'll just say that what you've said here is wrong because it comes from a very simplified understanding of programming and leave it at that.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Not everyone will play on the higher settings, and what about the "average" player who just decides to tweak one (or maybe two) of the aspects you've described. Unless they know what they're doing and have fully contemplated the possible knock-on effects of their changes, they could easily make the game trivial or impossible. If the sliders are provided to people, they will probably play with them, and there is a damn good chance they'll stuff up the difficulty of their game. You know who they will blame at that point? The developer. They won't think it's their fault, they'll blame the developer and may not buy their next game.
[/quote]
Then, why do games even have difficulty settings? Sounds like you think that Insane/Nightmare difficulty mode is a waste of resources.
[/quote]
No, because these have been designed by developers after many many hours of testing. They've been determined to provide a balanced and consistent challenge based on this testing. There's no possible way to do that with a slider system.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Grind is a useful feature? You want a button to instant grant GP and XP? Why not just have a button that goes "complete game"? If you really want to instant grant GP or XP, then use the console to provide that potentially game breaking bonus for yourself. However, do not think for a second that an in-built mechanism to do that is good game design. It's not.
[/quote]
You are showing bias. Yes, some players love to grind, for years on end even. But, in a sense, all RPGs are a grind. The grind is interspersed among story bits.
Complete Game and being able to choose when you want some extra gold/XP are far from the same thing.
A grant GP/XP button is a better design than console commands hidden in shame. It's not a worse feature than error processing code. It is foolish to think your game will be perfect in any way, shape, or form. You should certainly strive for perfection but realistically, you have to hedge your bets especialy when attempting to appeal to a divided audience. Which, is the only audience in existance.
[/quote]
Again, you'll get into "playing sliders" not playing the game. That's why it's bad design.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
The problem is that you're asking to manage difficult in ways that can be impratical from a technical perspective and or could easily lead to destroying the game balance of the game such that it could easily be made ridiculously easy or impossible by players WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.
[/quote]
Making players aware of the consequences of their choices is good and necessary design. If you're not going to do it then don't bother making a game. Idon't think you can even call it a game without this criteria being satisfied.
[/quote]
Except it's not possible to make them aware of the composite effect of the sliders that they've chosen. It's impossible to calculate that without doing the hours and hours of aforementioned testing that makes it impractical.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Number of enemies:
Right off the bat, this one is a technical nightmare. In the engine used in DA/DA2 and I'm fairly certain this applies to the Frostbyte engine being used for DA3, enemies are individually placed by designers. The enemy number is predetermined, and is done in such a manner that it is not easy to generate more monsters. It is potentially possible, but it requires a lot more effort from designers for every single encounter, and/or a massive redesign from the programmers to accomodate this.
[/quote]
If what you are saying is true then these game engines are garbage. Older game engines, such as Aurora, the one used in Neverwinter Nights, a Bioware game, could spawn enemies endlessly. As a matter of fact, ME3 MP does that during objective waves. It uses Unreal 3, IIRC.
[/quote]
Again, you're commenting on programming issues from a position of ignorance. They are not garbage, the tools used to make the game have just been tailored to suit the game's design pipeline. As I said, it is POSSIBLE to do this, but it requires a considered effort in terms of the overall design of the game to accomodate this - designers can no longer place individual monsters to create an encounter, they would have to create an object that would spawn enemies within set parameters against which the sliders could be used to adjust that encounter.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Gold:
As I said, this one is a resource issue. If people are really annoyed by this one, they'll cheat their way around. Effectively you're asking for an in-built cheat mechanism. They're not good for game design or overall customer enjoyment. People don't have restraint, and will jump at the opportunity to cheat. As a result, they'll make things too easy for themselves through excess gold and will become bored and stop playing the game. See aforementioned problem about loss of future sales. Even worse is the situation where they keep playing, but eventually haven't learned the necessary skills to succeed because they've been able to buy their way through the game thus far, then hit a massive difficulty wall because of the lack of learned skills, rage quit and then tell all their friends about how bad the game was and then they (and their friends) don't buy the next game.
[/quote]
Cheating is when you interfere with the normal running of the game via external means. Using the provided in game mechanisms is never cheating any more than driving within the speed limit is illegal. It's illegal when you go outside the law to do what you want. It's cheating when you go outside the program, or rules, to do what you want.
[/quote]
Do you really want to go down the rabbit hole of what constitutes cheating? Simply put, if the player has to take action that exists outside of the game world, the designer has failed to provide the player with the skills, knowledge or tools to succeed in the encounter. This can come as a result of the player failing to learn because of the existence of a single strategy that has allowed them to bludgeon their way through all previous encounters without learning the skills the designer expected them to learn. Regardless of how it happens, it's the designer's problem.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Please, if you have insights into game design that provide evidence that you would not cause game-breaking design issues as a result of sliders like this, I would love to hear them. If you have considered the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting please tell me what you would do to counter these problems and retain the overall balance of the game while still allowing player advancement and a difficulty curve that ensures an engaging experience throughout the entire game. That would be an interesting discussion.[/quote]
I just spent 7 (8?) pages doing so.
[/quote]
Except you're failing to comprehend the core problem with your suggestions, and making wild and inaccurate statements about the quality of programs and programmers while you're doing it. Time and time again, you're failing to address or even acknowledge the fact that there are multiple consequences as a result of changing the sliders you're proposing; your defense is just "player preference" without any concept of the full ramifications of your suggestions.
#163
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 10:14
nicethugbert
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Again, I state that the reason that a more discrete system causes problems is that because no one aspect of gameplay difficulty exists in isolation. Changing even one of these factors will have a lot of knock on effects. Difficulty levels at tested AT LENGTH by QA teams to make sure that the challenge is a reasonable one. If you let people go nuts with the parameters you've described, it would be very easy to disrupt game balance dramatically and render multiple aspects (including gameplay mechanics and structured gameplay) either pointless or impossible.
[/quote]
Every preset difficulty level in ME and DA series is a composite and that is common in the industry. Diablo 3 is an example of this. It's a linear system where all parameters increase proportionally in a linear manner from some minimum.
It is not impossible at all and it is standard fare to have to determine the bounds on difficulty. This is simply what must be done. So, the developer looks at his options and figures out the least difficult case that the player has no chance of completing. Anything below that is doable by somebody. What is left is to rank everything below that difficulty if you are going to use designated presets as usual. Regardless of how the game assigns difficulty, a set of sliders and check boxes or a set of presets like diablo 3, this must be done. The resources have to be spent here.
...
Many players hate mooks. They want all boss fights all the time. Many players love mooks. You can't reconcile such opposites.
Give the players Horde Size and Monster Power sliders and the problem is solved. If you want all boss battles all the time then turn down the Horde Size slider and turn up the Monster Power slider.
Some players would not be totally happy with this because most monsters will not really be bosses as they will not have a cut scene, unique name, etc. Instead they will just be super powered leutenants. Which, while they may be boss strength, they don't have the flavor. But, they can get closer to their desire and alleave the majority of they disatisfaction in the regard with the sliders I propose.
[/quote]
Again you're demonstrating just how much you don't understand about game mechanics. This situation could and would easily create a situation where a player is insufficiently powered or skilled in the game mechanics by the time they reach a set point in the game, and would hit an unwinnable brick wall of difficulty. At this point, I guess you would say they just use the "instant XP/GP button" to level up and get past the fight. Or they go and adjust the difficulty sliders again. Or they modify another slider to affect the gameplay mechanics. Eventually, the player ends up adjusting the difficulty slider after every fight. They're no longer playing the game - they're playing the sliders.
This isn't an exciting game, a balanced game, or a game that keeps the player interested or pushing forward to complete the game. They're playing " changes the variables!" without even understanding the ramifications of those effects.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
...It would mean that for every critical hit, the game would need to determine:
a) Whether the creature inflicting a hit was an enemy
Whether the creature receiving the hit was a player character
c) Whether the critical hit toggle is on/off.
This isn't necessarily a huge performance hit, but if you're adding in multiple checks like this, it could quickly start to ramp up the processing requirements for combat.
[/quote]
No, you have objects calculate damage, one with critical hits and one without. Then, when the player checks the No Critical Hits box, the game swaps out objects to the appropriate one. You don't have to check for critical hits with every hit, same for Friendly Fire or any check box or discrete condition. Some languages do not use objects but instead have function pointers, even arrays of such. For better or worse, it does the same thing.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand programming at all, and you really shouldn't comment about how things can and should be implemented. I'll just say that what you've said here is wrong because it comes from a very simplified understanding of programming and leave it at that.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Not everyone will play on the higher settings, and what about the "average" player who just decides to tweak one (or maybe two) of the aspects you've described. Unless they know what they're doing and have fully contemplated the possible knock-on effects of their changes, they could easily make the game trivial or impossible. If the sliders are provided to people, they will probably play with them, and there is a damn good chance they'll stuff up the difficulty of their game. You know who they will blame at that point? The developer. They won't think it's their fault, they'll blame the developer and may not buy their next game.
[/quote]
Then, why do games even have difficulty settings? Sounds like you think that Insane/Nightmare difficulty mode is a waste of resources.
[/quote]
No, because these have been designed by developers after many many hours of testing. They've been determined to provide a balanced and consistent challenge based on this testing. There's no possible way to do that with a slider system.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Grind is a useful feature? You want a button to instant grant GP and XP? Why not just have a button that goes "complete game"? If you really want to instant grant GP or XP, then use the console to provide that potentially game breaking bonus for yourself. However, do not think for a second that an in-built mechanism to do that is good game design. It's not.
[/quote]
You are showing bias. Yes, some players love to grind, for years on end even. But, in a sense, all RPGs are a grind. The grind is interspersed among story bits.
Complete Game and being able to choose when you want some extra gold/XP are far from the same thing.
A grant GP/XP button is a better design than console commands hidden in shame. It's not a worse feature than error processing code. It is foolish to think your game will be perfect in any way, shape, or form. You should certainly strive for perfection but realistically, you have to hedge your bets especialy when attempting to appeal to a divided audience. Which, is the only audience in existance.
[/quote]
Again, you'll get into "playing sliders" not playing the game. That's why it's bad design.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
The problem is that you're asking to manage difficult in ways that can be impratical from a technical perspective and or could easily lead to destroying the game balance of the game such that it could easily be made ridiculously easy or impossible by players WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.
[/quote]
Making players aware of the consequences of their choices is good and necessary design. If you're not going to do it then don't bother making a game. Idon't think you can even call it a game without this criteria being satisfied.
[/quote]
Except it's not possible to make them aware of the composite effect of the sliders that they've chosen. It's impossible to calculate that without doing the hours and hours of aforementioned testing that makes it impractical.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Number of enemies:
Right off the bat, this one is a technical nightmare. In the engine used in DA/DA2 and I'm fairly certain this applies to the Frostbyte engine being used for DA3, enemies are individually placed by designers. The enemy number is predetermined, and is done in such a manner that it is not easy to generate more monsters. It is potentially possible, but it requires a lot more effort from designers for every single encounter, and/or a massive redesign from the programmers to accomodate this.
[/quote]
If what you are saying is true then these game engines are garbage. Older game engines, such as Aurora, the one used in Neverwinter Nights, a Bioware game, could spawn enemies endlessly. As a matter of fact, ME3 MP does that during objective waves. It uses Unreal 3, IIRC.
[/quote]
Again, you're commenting on programming issues from a position of ignorance. They are not garbage, the tools used to make the game have just been tailored to suit the game's design pipeline. As I said, it is POSSIBLE to do this, but it requires a considered effort in terms of the overall design of the game to accomodate this - designers can no longer place individual monsters to create an encounter, they would have to create an object that would spawn enemies within set parameters against which the sliders could be used to adjust that encounter.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Gold:
As I said, this one is a resource issue. If people are really annoyed by this one, they'll cheat their way around. Effectively you're asking for an in-built cheat mechanism. They're not good for game design or overall customer enjoyment. People don't have restraint, and will jump at the opportunity to cheat. As a result, they'll make things too easy for themselves through excess gold and will become bored and stop playing the game. See aforementioned problem about loss of future sales. Even worse is the situation where they keep playing, but eventually haven't learned the necessary skills to succeed because they've been able to buy their way through the game thus far, then hit a massive difficulty wall because of the lack of learned skills, rage quit and then tell all their friends about how bad the game was and then they (and their friends) don't buy the next game.
[/quote]
Cheating is when you interfere with the normal running of the game via external means. Using the provided in game mechanisms is never cheating any more than driving within the speed limit is illegal. It's illegal when you go outside the law to do what you want. It's cheating when you go outside the program, or rules, to do what you want.
[/quote]
Do you really want to go down the rabbit hole of what constitutes cheating? Simply put, if the player has to take action that exists outside of the game world, the designer has failed to provide the player with the skills, knowledge or tools to succeed in the encounter. This can come as a result of the player failing to learn because of the existence of a single strategy that has allowed them to bludgeon their way through all previous encounters without learning the skills the designer expected them to learn. Regardless of how it happens, it's the designer's problem.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Please, if you have insights into game design that provide evidence that you would not cause game-breaking design issues as a result of sliders like this, I would love to hear them. If you have considered the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting please tell me what you would do to counter these problems and retain the overall balance of the game while still allowing player advancement and a difficulty curve that ensures an engaging experience throughout the entire game. That would be an interesting discussion.[/quote]
I just spent 7 (8?) pages doing so.
[/quote]
Except you're failing to comprehend the core problem with your suggestions, and making wild and inaccurate statements about the quality of programs and programmers while you're doing it. Time and time again, you're failing to address or even acknowledge the fact that there are multiple consequences as a result of changing the sliders you're proposing; your defense is just "player preference" without any concept of the full ramifications of your suggestions.
[/quote]
I asked you for games that would make your case and all I got was:
[quote]
Ah, yes, objects/pointers/function pointers/arrays, ... we have dismissed these claims.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
...........[/quote]
And you said you wanted a discussion?
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Again, I state that the reason that a more discrete system causes problems is that because no one aspect of gameplay difficulty exists in isolation. Changing even one of these factors will have a lot of knock on effects. Difficulty levels at tested AT LENGTH by QA teams to make sure that the challenge is a reasonable one. If you let people go nuts with the parameters you've described, it would be very easy to disrupt game balance dramatically and render multiple aspects (including gameplay mechanics and structured gameplay) either pointless or impossible.
[/quote]
Every preset difficulty level in ME and DA series is a composite and that is common in the industry. Diablo 3 is an example of this. It's a linear system where all parameters increase proportionally in a linear manner from some minimum.
It is not impossible at all and it is standard fare to have to determine the bounds on difficulty. This is simply what must be done. So, the developer looks at his options and figures out the least difficult case that the player has no chance of completing. Anything below that is doable by somebody. What is left is to rank everything below that difficulty if you are going to use designated presets as usual. Regardless of how the game assigns difficulty, a set of sliders and check boxes or a set of presets like diablo 3, this must be done. The resources have to be spent here.
...
Many players hate mooks. They want all boss fights all the time. Many players love mooks. You can't reconcile such opposites.
Give the players Horde Size and Monster Power sliders and the problem is solved. If you want all boss battles all the time then turn down the Horde Size slider and turn up the Monster Power slider.
Some players would not be totally happy with this because most monsters will not really be bosses as they will not have a cut scene, unique name, etc. Instead they will just be super powered leutenants. Which, while they may be boss strength, they don't have the flavor. But, they can get closer to their desire and alleave the majority of they disatisfaction in the regard with the sliders I propose.
[/quote]
Again you're demonstrating just how much you don't understand about game mechanics. This situation could and would easily create a situation where a player is insufficiently powered or skilled in the game mechanics by the time they reach a set point in the game, and would hit an unwinnable brick wall of difficulty. At this point, I guess you would say they just use the "instant XP/GP button" to level up and get past the fight. Or they go and adjust the difficulty sliders again. Or they modify another slider to affect the gameplay mechanics. Eventually, the player ends up adjusting the difficulty slider after every fight. They're no longer playing the game - they're playing the sliders.
This isn't an exciting game, a balanced game, or a game that keeps the player interested or pushing forward to complete the game. They're playing " changes the variables!" without even understanding the ramifications of those effects.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
...It would mean that for every critical hit, the game would need to determine:
a) Whether the creature inflicting a hit was an enemy
Whether the creature receiving the hit was a player characterc) Whether the critical hit toggle is on/off.
This isn't necessarily a huge performance hit, but if you're adding in multiple checks like this, it could quickly start to ramp up the processing requirements for combat.
[/quote]
No, you have objects calculate damage, one with critical hits and one without. Then, when the player checks the No Critical Hits box, the game swaps out objects to the appropriate one. You don't have to check for critical hits with every hit, same for Friendly Fire or any check box or discrete condition. Some languages do not use objects but instead have function pointers, even arrays of such. For better or worse, it does the same thing.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand programming at all, and you really shouldn't comment about how things can and should be implemented. I'll just say that what you've said here is wrong because it comes from a very simplified understanding of programming and leave it at that.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Not everyone will play on the higher settings, and what about the "average" player who just decides to tweak one (or maybe two) of the aspects you've described. Unless they know what they're doing and have fully contemplated the possible knock-on effects of their changes, they could easily make the game trivial or impossible. If the sliders are provided to people, they will probably play with them, and there is a damn good chance they'll stuff up the difficulty of their game. You know who they will blame at that point? The developer. They won't think it's their fault, they'll blame the developer and may not buy their next game.
[/quote]
Then, why do games even have difficulty settings? Sounds like you think that Insane/Nightmare difficulty mode is a waste of resources.
[/quote]
No, because these have been designed by developers after many many hours of testing. They've been determined to provide a balanced and consistent challenge based on this testing. There's no possible way to do that with a slider system.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Grind is a useful feature? You want a button to instant grant GP and XP? Why not just have a button that goes "complete game"? If you really want to instant grant GP or XP, then use the console to provide that potentially game breaking bonus for yourself. However, do not think for a second that an in-built mechanism to do that is good game design. It's not.
[/quote]
You are showing bias. Yes, some players love to grind, for years on end even. But, in a sense, all RPGs are a grind. The grind is interspersed among story bits.
Complete Game and being able to choose when you want some extra gold/XP are far from the same thing.
A grant GP/XP button is a better design than console commands hidden in shame. It's not a worse feature than error processing code. It is foolish to think your game will be perfect in any way, shape, or form. You should certainly strive for perfection but realistically, you have to hedge your bets especialy when attempting to appeal to a divided audience. Which, is the only audience in existance.
[/quote]
Again, you'll get into "playing sliders" not playing the game. That's why it's bad design.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
The problem is that you're asking to manage difficult in ways that can be impratical from a technical perspective and or could easily lead to destroying the game balance of the game such that it could easily be made ridiculously easy or impossible by players WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.
[/quote]
Making players aware of the consequences of their choices is good and necessary design. If you're not going to do it then don't bother making a game. Idon't think you can even call it a game without this criteria being satisfied.
[/quote]
Except it's not possible to make them aware of the composite effect of the sliders that they've chosen. It's impossible to calculate that without doing the hours and hours of aforementioned testing that makes it impractical.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Number of enemies:
Right off the bat, this one is a technical nightmare. In the engine used in DA/DA2 and I'm fairly certain this applies to the Frostbyte engine being used for DA3, enemies are individually placed by designers. The enemy number is predetermined, and is done in such a manner that it is not easy to generate more monsters. It is potentially possible, but it requires a lot more effort from designers for every single encounter, and/or a massive redesign from the programmers to accomodate this.
[/quote]
If what you are saying is true then these game engines are garbage. Older game engines, such as Aurora, the one used in Neverwinter Nights, a Bioware game, could spawn enemies endlessly. As a matter of fact, ME3 MP does that during objective waves. It uses Unreal 3, IIRC.
[/quote]
Again, you're commenting on programming issues from a position of ignorance. They are not garbage, the tools used to make the game have just been tailored to suit the game's design pipeline. As I said, it is POSSIBLE to do this, but it requires a considered effort in terms of the overall design of the game to accomodate this - designers can no longer place individual monsters to create an encounter, they would have to create an object that would spawn enemies within set parameters against which the sliders could be used to adjust that encounter.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Gold:
As I said, this one is a resource issue. If people are really annoyed by this one, they'll cheat their way around. Effectively you're asking for an in-built cheat mechanism. They're not good for game design or overall customer enjoyment. People don't have restraint, and will jump at the opportunity to cheat. As a result, they'll make things too easy for themselves through excess gold and will become bored and stop playing the game. See aforementioned problem about loss of future sales. Even worse is the situation where they keep playing, but eventually haven't learned the necessary skills to succeed because they've been able to buy their way through the game thus far, then hit a massive difficulty wall because of the lack of learned skills, rage quit and then tell all their friends about how bad the game was and then they (and their friends) don't buy the next game.
[/quote]
Cheating is when you interfere with the normal running of the game via external means. Using the provided in game mechanisms is never cheating any more than driving within the speed limit is illegal. It's illegal when you go outside the law to do what you want. It's cheating when you go outside the program, or rules, to do what you want.
[/quote]
Do you really want to go down the rabbit hole of what constitutes cheating? Simply put, if the player has to take action that exists outside of the game world, the designer has failed to provide the player with the skills, knowledge or tools to succeed in the encounter. This can come as a result of the player failing to learn because of the existence of a single strategy that has allowed them to bludgeon their way through all previous encounters without learning the skills the designer expected them to learn. Regardless of how it happens, it's the designer's problem.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Please, if you have insights into game design that provide evidence that you would not cause game-breaking design issues as a result of sliders like this, I would love to hear them. If you have considered the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting please tell me what you would do to counter these problems and retain the overall balance of the game while still allowing player advancement and a difficulty curve that ensures an engaging experience throughout the entire game. That would be an interesting discussion.[/quote]
I just spent 7 (8?) pages doing so.
[/quote]
Except you're failing to comprehend the core problem with your suggestions, and making wild and inaccurate statements about the quality of programs and programmers while you're doing it. Time and time again, you're failing to address or even acknowledge the fact that there are multiple consequences as a result of changing the sliders you're proposing; your defense is just "player preference" without any concept of the full ramifications of your suggestions.
[/quote]
I asked you for games that would make your case and all I got was:
[quote]
Ah, yes, objects/pointers/function pointers/arrays, ... we have dismissed these claims.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
...........[/quote]
And you said you wanted a discussion?
Modifié par nicethugbert, 13 janvier 2013 - 10:16 .
#164
Posté 13 janvier 2013 - 11:03
AmstradHero
-
- Members
- 1 239 messages
Resorting to meaningless attempts at cheap shots rather than logical debate does nothing to demonstrate your understanding or support your case. Even so, I asked you for evidence that you'd considered the ramifications of your suggestion and all you did was regurgitate "I want sliders because I want sliders and game programmers suck." I ignored this and attempted to find some cogent points in your arguments, and you come back with this.nicethugbert wrote...
I asked you for games that would make your case and all I got was:
Ah, yes, objects/pointers/function pointers/arrays, ... we have dismissed these claims.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
My theorycrafting says you are wrong.
And you said you wanted a discussion?
You've not demonstrated one iota of understanding of how game mechanics work and the interdependency between issues. I don't come from a background of theorycrafting, I come from a background of actually making games and mods and having to deal with these issues in depth to make sure that players get a reasonable challenge and a difficulty curve that keeps them engaged. This isn't theorycrafting, this is knowledge and skills that I've put into practice. What are your credentials?
Okay, so you want games that make my case? Well, I could pick pretty much anything for that. Let's consider a few titles:
Dishonored: The game has various difficulty levels, a broad range of skills that support lethal and non-lethal gameplay, and the game allows the player to select skills which will suit their playstyle. The game can easily provide a good challence, allow the player to impose their own personal challenges upon themself within the confies of the game's mechanics (e.g. going non-lethal or ghosting) and every skill has a practical use depending on the player's play style. Introducing sliders like you've proposed would do nothing to improve the overall gameplay, and indeed could and would hinder various playstyles.
Assassin's Creed 2: This game not only has no sliders, it doesn't even have a difficulty level. Yet it's a fantastic game with great pacing, great gameplay, fairly good story telling and a wide variety of choice and mechanics for the player to experience. It can be stated that the combat mechanics can be a bit easy once you get the pattern and playstyle down pat, but this does not detract from the overall experience, and in fact only serves to ensure that the core gameplay experience remains true to the core vision. The player doesn't get stuck endlessly fighitng and grinding through guard mooks like some unstoppable warrior, and nor should they, because they are playing an assassin. Changing these aspects would not fit with the game experience mechanically or thematically.
Warcraft 3: This classic RTS had a solid single player campaign with a excellent difficulty curve that both let the player learn and then consolidate their skills. It teaches them something new, allows them to explore it, and then gets them to put that into action. After building up the player's skills with a particular race of the game and general tactics, it then forces them into a new race with new scenarios. Some of the skills they have learned transfer across, but they also have to adapt to nuances in the way the different races and units work, and also pit them against the units they have already learned, so therefore exposing them to a means to counter and exploit the strengths and weaknesses of the units they've used.
Introducing sliders to minutely control the balance of each of these aspects would screw up the balance of the game a phenomenal amount because it relies heavily on the balance of a multitude of factors (resource acquisition time, resource limits, unit/building creation time, unit/building cost, unit hp, unit damage, unit speed, etc,etc) all of which were balanced repeatedly after the game came out in response to observed imbalances in power as a result of online competitive gameplay. To imagine that players would be able to tweak individual aspects of these and not have the game balance completely messed up is delusional.
Planescape Torment: Widely regarded as one the best RPGs ever created, this game didn't have or need any difficulty sliders as you claim would make games better. It was a superb story driven experience, with combat that provided a challenge for the player even though the player was immortal. That's right, losing was almost impossible, yet the game is still considered fantastic, and has some very fondly remembered story and combat sequences. Adjusting the difficulty of individual creatures or their size would have done virtually nothing for the overall experience of the game, and it's never been something that I've ever heard asked for from it.
So now I've given you examples from multiple genres as to why sliders wouldn't work, as well as repeatedly demonstrating the flaws in your system. All you've done is wheel out your tagline of "player preferences", without showing any understanding of game mechanics. What you claim is useless theorycrafting comes from a background of understanding how games work and the relationships between different aspects of the mechanics, and knowledge that I've put into practice.
How about you demonstrate how YOUR suggestions would work and not break the game? How about you provide games that support YOUR case? How about you demonstrate how such a system could be created within the constraints or a realistic budget of time and money and still produce a coherent and quality product with a focus on gameplay rather than on the sliders you're saying are essential to ensure variety and choice?
Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 janvier 2013 - 11:16 .
#165
Posté 14 janvier 2013 - 04:35
nicethugbert
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
AmstradHero, you will never find cogent points in my arguments because you think you know better than players what it is that they want. You're the expert and they are not. Players are too stupid to make choices, RPG players no less.
I have already mentioned games. I mentioned DA:O, DA2, ME3, NWN1, NWN2. I have also played all the DA:O campaigns and DLC, NWN1/2 expansions, ME1 and expansions/DLC, ME2 and expansions/DLC, BG2, and a lot more.
I know what I would do with my proposed sliders and check boxes in these game, especially DA series, and why. This is not the first time I have made this proposal in all my years of gaming nor am I the only one who has made it. I know what other people would do with these sliders and check boxes because I have seen them post it in various forums over the years. But, your expertise says we're too stupid to know what we want.
I have already submited DA2 as a game that supports my case. And you just tried to hide your objections behind claims of expertise and claims of universal rules that you will not reveal and don't exist.
You come up with the derogatory phrase "playing the sliders" in a genre where people love to play inventory tetris. If some people enjoy inventory tetris, some people will definitly enjoy "playing the sliders". People build characters, yet, they must not "play the sliders". They use the command line routinely but they must not "play the sliders". If you have issues with "playing the sliders" then you have issues with DA series, ME series, NWN series, BG series, and a ton of other RPG games. You must find these games attrocious because people are always playing some slider or check box or inventory box or widget or command line or going to wikis and forums in, and out of, those games. My proposal does not stop that. It just allows them to do it better.
Oh my god! The pause button! Vile pause button monkeys! Dirty dirty filthy pause button monkeys! Don't get me started! Agent of bathroom breaks!
The sliders I propose do basically the same thing that the preset difficulty does it just gives you more options within whatever boundaries are determined to be safe. If you can figure out 1 to 5 safe difficulty presets you can figure out safe ranges for the sliders. I shouldn't have to explain that if the game can be played by the highest difficulty level then having a slider that allows you to reduce the number of monsters does not blow up the game. And if the game has an easy mode, well, you're already willing to put some people to sleep.
I have already mentioned games. I mentioned DA:O, DA2, ME3, NWN1, NWN2. I have also played all the DA:O campaigns and DLC, NWN1/2 expansions, ME1 and expansions/DLC, ME2 and expansions/DLC, BG2, and a lot more.
I know what I would do with my proposed sliders and check boxes in these game, especially DA series, and why. This is not the first time I have made this proposal in all my years of gaming nor am I the only one who has made it. I know what other people would do with these sliders and check boxes because I have seen them post it in various forums over the years. But, your expertise says we're too stupid to know what we want.
I have already submited DA2 as a game that supports my case. And you just tried to hide your objections behind claims of expertise and claims of universal rules that you will not reveal and don't exist.
You come up with the derogatory phrase "playing the sliders" in a genre where people love to play inventory tetris. If some people enjoy inventory tetris, some people will definitly enjoy "playing the sliders". People build characters, yet, they must not "play the sliders". They use the command line routinely but they must not "play the sliders". If you have issues with "playing the sliders" then you have issues with DA series, ME series, NWN series, BG series, and a ton of other RPG games. You must find these games attrocious because people are always playing some slider or check box or inventory box or widget or command line or going to wikis and forums in, and out of, those games. My proposal does not stop that. It just allows them to do it better.
Oh my god! The pause button! Vile pause button monkeys! Dirty dirty filthy pause button monkeys! Don't get me started! Agent of bathroom breaks!
The sliders I propose do basically the same thing that the preset difficulty does it just gives you more options within whatever boundaries are determined to be safe. If you can figure out 1 to 5 safe difficulty presets you can figure out safe ranges for the sliders. I shouldn't have to explain that if the game can be played by the highest difficulty level then having a slider that allows you to reduce the number of monsters does not blow up the game. And if the game has an easy mode, well, you're already willing to put some people to sleep.
#166
Posté 14 janvier 2013 - 06:37
AmstradHero
-
- Members
- 1 239 messages
None of these games have these sliders you propose, but you think that these games would be improved by them. I am not saying that I know better than players about what they want, I am saying that players do not have sufficient information to make educated decisions on how to dynamically and individually control different aspects of gameplay difficulty because they do not fully understand the relation between those factors on the difficulty of the game because they have not designed the encounters of the game.nicethugbert wrote...
AmstradHero, you will never find cogent points in my arguments because you think you know better than players what it is that they want. You're the expert and they are not. Players are too stupid to make choices, RPG players no less.
I have already mentioned games. I mentioned DA:O, DA2, ME3, NWN1, NWN2. I have also played all the DA:O campaigns and DLC, NWN1/2 expansions, ME1 and expansions/DLC, ME2 and expansions/DLC, BG2, and a lot more.
People would be operating from a distinct lack of knowledge trying to adjust and balance the difficulty of the game without any knowledge of upcoming encounters and the necessary power or skill level required to succeed.
DA2 doesn't support your case in any shape or form. It has none of the sliders you request. It would suffer from many of the problems that I and others have pointed out would occur if your proposal was implemented.nicethugbert wrote...
I know what I would do with my proposed sliders and check boxes in these game, especially DA series, and why. This is not the first time I have made this proposal in all my years of gaming nor am I the only one who has made it. I know what other people would do with these sliders and check boxes because I have seen them post it in various forums over the years. But, your expertise says we're too stupid to know what we want.
I have already submited DA2 as a game that supports my case. And you just tried to hide your objections behind claims of expertise and claims of universal rules that you will not reveal and don't exist.
Again, how many times must I repeat myself? It is not that I believe players are too stupid to know what they want, it is that players do not have the necessary knowledge to balance the difficulty because they do not know how the encounters of the game are designed, and they do not possess intimate knowledge of the combat mechanics. What is it about this concept that you do not understand? Why is it that you have failed to address this in ANY of your posts? Is it that you believe you do have this knowledge? If so, please demonstrate it. Else every post you make just proves that you do not have the necessary understanding to tweak these factors in a way that would preserve game balance.
It's not a derogatory phrase, and the fact that you have interpreted it as such demonstrates again that you have both misunderstood my comments and don't comprehend the complexities involved in gameplay mechanics. I love RPGs. (Side note, it's not RPG games - that would be Role Playing Game Games) They're my favourite genre, in fact. I've never found myself playing extensively with sliders, check boxess or command lines in any other these games. I've played the game and played the core gameplay as created by the designers. I've actually gone ahead and enjoyed the gameplay that was provided.nicethugbert wrote...
You come up with the derogatory phrase "playing the sliders" in a genre where people love to play inventory tetris. If some people enjoy inventory tetris, some people will definitly enjoy "playing the sliders". People build characters, yet, they must not "play the sliders". They use the command line routinely but they must not "play the sliders". If you have issues with "playing the sliders" then you have issues with DA series, ME series, NWN series, BG series, and a ton of other RPG games. You must find these games attrocious because people are always playing some slider or check box or inventory box or widget or command line or going to wikis and forums in, and out of, those games. My proposal does not stop that. It just allows them to do it better.
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Also, you would do well to remember that it is a minority of players who will consult wikis on their games. The percentage of players who frequent forums is even smaller still, so your suggestion that a multitude of people are using the console or external programs or the like to tweak their game is plain wrong.
Don't bring irrelevant arguments into this. If you have a chip on your shoulder because someone accused you of cheating by using the pause button, then get over it.nicethugbert wrote...
Oh my god! The pause button! Vile pause button monkeys! Dirty dirty filthy pause button monkeys! Don't get me started! Agent of bathroom breaks!
Right, so you're happy to let people play the game the way they want, but if they have the gall to play it on easy, then those people are boring and have no skill. Judgemental and hypocritical much? It sounds like you just abused some people for playing the game the way they want because it doesn't match your expectations.nicethugbert wrote...
The sliders I propose do basically the same thing that the preset difficulty does it just gives you more options within whatever boundaries are determined to be safe. If you can figure out 1 to 5 safe difficulty presets you can figure out safe ranges for the sliders. I shouldn't have to explain that if the game can be played by the highest difficulty level then having a slider that allows you to reduce the number of monsters does not blow up the game. And if the game has an easy mode, well, you're already willing to put some people to sleep.
You claim that 1 to 5 safe difficulty levels means that it would be easy to figure out safe ranges for the sliders. I agree that it might be possible to come up with ranges, but the amount of testing required to find these ranges would be a vast amount of time and effort, and due to the relationship between various gameplay mechanics you would almost certainly end up with LESS variance in these sliders and therefore the maximum difficulty variance because of the interplay between combat variables.
For example, if you reduced experience gain to the minimum, but upped enemy damage and HP to the maximum, you could quite easily get into a situation where the players had not levelled up sufficiently to defeat an encounter no matter what tactics they use. Then I see you would argue that the solution would be to instantly level and gear up your characters through XP and gold buttons. At this point, the game has devolved into a push-button-to-win scenario, which is just a bandage solution for a poorly balanced game. This is bad design. A player should never have to resort to a button the provides them with the ability to automatically win. If they do, it means that that they're not experiencing the intended gameplay, either because it's too difficult, or because it's so boring that they just want to skip it. Either is an indication of a tedious and uninteresting game.
Again, this is just one of many examples that I've been providing evidence, along with a detailed analysis of the issues involved. On the other hand, you've provided nothing but rhetoric and irrelevant points that have added no value.
Modifié par AmstradHero, 14 janvier 2013 - 07:16 .
#167
Posté 14 janvier 2013 - 06:41
Arppis
-
- Members
- 12 750 messages
Speaking of inventory tetris. RE4 had a great inventory system, I like it like that.
#168
Posté 14 janvier 2013 - 07:04
Dragoonlordz
-
- Members
- 9 920 messages
I do, in fact I now want tetris to be the mini-game in order to access your backpack each time.
#169
Posté 14 janvier 2013 - 09:10
n7stormrunner
-
- Members
- 1 605 messages
...hmm, maybe they should add a nice tetris inventory, quick! someone make a poll
#170
Posté 14 janvier 2013 - 05:45
nicethugbert
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
AmstradHero, you will never find cogent points in my arguments because you think you know better than players what it is that they want. You're the expert and they are not. Players are too stupid to make choices, RPG players no less.
I have already mentioned games. I mentioned DA:O, DA2, ME3, NWN1, NWN2. I have also played all the DA:O campaigns and DLC, NWN1/2 expansions, ME1 and expansions/DLC, ME2 and expansions/DLC, BG2, and a lot more.
[/quote]
None of these games have these sliders you propose, but you think that these games would be improved by them. I am not saying that I know better than players about what they want, I am saying that players do not have sufficient information to make educated decisions on how to dynamically and individually control different aspects of gameplay difficulty because they do not fully understand the relation between those factors on the difficulty of the game because they have not designed the encounters of the game.
People would be operating from a distinct lack of knowledge trying to adjust and balance the difficulty of the game without any knowledge of upcoming encounters and the necessary power or skill level required to succeed.
[/quote]
Game manuals, I shouldn't have to say anything else.
Have you ever looked at one? 99% are not worth the paper they are printed on. Players routinely go into games blind, having to figure out how they work. All the BW games I mentioned are shining classic examples of this!
And you think that once already having to muck around in the game and the forums and the wikia and where ever, and muck around in the inventory and read meaningless in game descriptions, that we can't handle these sliders? Are you kidding me? We're not helpless retarded babies dude! Stop the condescending bull****.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
I know what I would do with my proposed sliders and check boxes in these game, especially DA series, and why. This is not the first time I have made this proposal in all my years of gaming nor am I the only one who has made it. I know what other people would do with these sliders and check boxes because I have seen them post it in various forums over the years. But, your expertise says we're too stupid to know what we want.
I have already submited DA2 as a game that supports my case. And you just tried to hide your objections behind claims of expertise and claims of universal rules that you will not reveal and don't exist.
[/quote]
DA2 doesn't support your case in any shape or form. It has none of the sliders you request. It would suffer from many of the problems that I and others have pointed out would occur if your proposal was implemented.
[/quote]
I have specifically stated problems with DA2 that would be addressed by the sliders and check boxes. It is really not as complicated as you make it out.
Just a GP slider that lets you decrease the cost of items at the store would be an improvement and have absolutely no chance of breaking the game yet you are opposed to it for some nebulus non-reason, because people might get bored. Oh, give me a break. Bored? Then get rid of easy mode.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Again, how many times must I repeat myself? It is not that I believe players are too stupid to know what they want, it is that players do not have the necessary knowledge to balance the difficulty because they do not know how the encounters of the game are designed, and they do not possess intimate knowledge of the combat mechanics. What is it about this concept that you do not understand? Why is it that you have failed to address this in ANY of your posts? Is it that you believe you do have this knowledge? If so, please demonstrate it. Else every post you make just proves that you do not have the necessary understanding to tweak these factors in a way that would preserve game balance.
[/quote]
I understand the concept but you do not seem to recognize that this is standard operating proceedure in the gaming industry and Bioware is a shining example of it. It happens with game after game after game and with each game the players say the manual is crap and year after year, game after game the manuals continue to be crap and we have to wait 3 months for other players to figure out how the game works and post it and by then we're done with our first play through and moving on to MP or another game entirely.
I would not hold my breath waiting for Bioware or any computer gameing company to actually not leave the players in the dark having to figure out for themselves how the game works. It costs money to educate the customer and they can get away with not spending it.
So, you are telling me that computer game companies will not spend money on sliders, that no such thing has been done before, implying they will never have to. Yet, your solution, customer education, suffers from the same situation. Worse, they already sell walk throughs. The reason why the manual always sucks is because people will pay for the walkthrough, i.e., the real game manual and players will do the job of writing the wikia for free.
We are already groping in the dark with these games. "Playing the sliders" woudn't be worse than what we already have to put up with. At least, we would be able to game with the intent of getting the experience we want.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You come up with the derogatory phrase "playing the sliders" in a genre where people love to play inventory tetris. If some people enjoy inventory tetris, some people will definitly enjoy "playing the sliders". People build characters, yet, they must not "play the sliders". They use the command line routinely but they must not "play the sliders". If you have issues with "playing the sliders" then you have issues with DA series, ME series, NWN series, BG series, and a ton of other RPG games. You must find these games attrocious because people are always playing some slider or check box or inventory box or widget or command line or going to wikis and forums in, and out of, those games. My proposal does not stop that. It just allows them to do it better.
[/quote]
It's not a derogatory phrase, and the fact that you have interpreted it as such demonstrates again that you have both misunderstood my comments and don't comprehend the complexities involved in gameplay mechanics. I love RPGs. (Side note, it's not RPG games - that would be Role Playing Game Games) They're my favourite genre, in fact. I've never found myself playing extensively with sliders, check boxess or command lines in any other these games. I've played the game and played the core gameplay as created by the designers. I've actually gone ahead and enjoyed the gameplay that was provided.
[/quote]
I've actually gone ahead and not enjoyed the gameplay as provided and found forums full of people not enjoying the game as provided. I also found that there is not one single solution to address all the complaints, not even half of them. For every person that thinks there is not enough gold/xp/monsters/etc. there is one that thinks that there is too much or just about right. The sliders I propose directly address their, and my, criticisms.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Also, you would do well to remember that it is a minority of players who will consult wikis on their games. The percentage of players who frequent forums is even smaller still, so your suggestion that a multitude of people are using the console or external programs or the like to tweak their game is plain wrong.
[/quote]
I've also heard of instances where a minority of players do not finish the game, where expansions/dlc never sell as much as the initial game, i.e., sales are on a downward spiral from launch.
So, what you are implying is that forums are a waste of time. People who take the time to try to suggest to the company, as we are practically doing here, what they would like to see in a game, are wasting their time because the majority of sales come from people who do not even finish the game, let alone go to a forum.
You have just marginalized the entire forum, including yourself. And on the rare occasions when a dev comes to the forums to enlist our opinions, we're just getting trolled.
Let's discusss.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Oh my god! The pause button! Vile pause button monkeys! Dirty dirty filthy pause button monkeys! Don't get me started! Agent of bathroom breaks!
[/quote]
Don't bring irrelevant arguments into this. If you have a chip on your shoulder because someone accused you of cheating by using the pause button, then get over it.
[/quote]
I've got no chip on my shoulder. I'm not the one who considers the command line to be cheating and refuses to even discuss what cheatign is. Yet, you are willing to let command lines exist in game, in shame. Really, shameful gaming? Doesn't sound like fun to me. I'd rather make my peace with the necessity to hedge bet and move on.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The sliders I propose do basically the same thing that the preset difficulty does it just gives you more options within whatever boundaries are determined to be safe. If you can figure out 1 to 5 safe difficulty presets you can figure out safe ranges for the sliders. I shouldn't have to explain that if the game can be played by the highest difficulty level then having a slider that allows you to reduce the number of monsters does not blow up the game. And if the game has an easy mode, well, you're already willing to put some people to sleep.
[/quote]
Right, so you're happy to let people play the game the way they want, but if they have the gall to play it on easy, then those people are boring and have no skill. Judgemental and hypocritical much? It sounds like you just abused some people for playing the game the way they want because it doesn't match your expectations.
[/quote]
I must be boring then because my last Awakening play through was on easy mode. Boring me for wanting to see what Inferno looks like without having to incinerate my party, or put them on hold and scroll the mouse into the next room and drop all my AOE spells on hapless foes who are hapless to such tactis even on nightmare difficulty.
Or boring me for wanting to play ME3 in stry mode because I want the story without being interupted by reloads. but that is ok, because I got unboring later when my whimsical self decided to play on Insanity.
Gee, I never knew I was boring, thx.
Here you are claiming that these sliders could make the game too easy to enjoy and you accuse me of calling players who play easy mode boring. Excellant.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
You claim that 1 to 5 safe difficulty levels means that it would be easy to figure out safe ranges for the sliders. I agree that it might be possible to come up with ranges, but the amount of testing required to find these ranges would be a vast amount of time and effort, and due to the relationship between various gameplay mechanics you would almost certainly end up with LESS variance in these sliders and therefore the maximum difficulty variance because of the interplay between combat variables.
For example, if you reduced experience gain to the minimum, but upped enemy damage and HP to the maximum, you could quite easily get into a situation where the players had not levelled up sufficiently to defeat an encounter no matter what tactics they use. Then I see you would argue that the solution would be to instantly level and gear up your characters through XP and gold buttons. At this point, the game has devolved into a push-button-to-win scenario, which is just a bandage solution for a poorly balanced game. This is bad design. A player should never have to resort to a button the provides them with the ability to automatically win. If they do, it means that that they're not experiencing the intended gameplay, either because it's too difficult, or because it's so boring that they just want to skip it. Either is an indication of a tedious and uninteresting game.
Again, this is just one of many examples that I've been providing evidence, along with a detailed analysis of the issues involved. On the other hand, you've provided nothing but rhetoric and irrelevant points that have added no value.
[/quote]
How can you say that a game is designed and tested when a setting that has max Monster Power and Minimum XP, in other words a worst case scenario, stops the party from progressing? If such a thing happened then the game was not designed and tested, sufficiently, if not at all. Worst case scenario analysis is the foundation of any good design. You don't just put stuff together and say i was designed. You figure out what it is it's purpose, what the environment and user will subject it too and design it to survive that. Otherwise you are not designing, you are just throwing stuff together.
Continuing the example, if the player suddenly finds that he has hit a brick wall ....... Well, how is it that the player hit a brick wall? How do you chug along playing the game and everything is cozy, just how you like it, and all of a sudden, BAM, this next encounter is impossible? How does that happen? the player shold be gettig a feel for the game as they progress. You know that these games take time to play. You have time to explore the game and, considering the lack of instruction from the developer, you are forced to explore the game.
And if it did, you turn down the monster power slider, maybe even the Horde Size slider, which ever you prefer, turn up the XP slider because you know you are XP deprived, maybe you are gold deprived too, then continue, maybe you have to grant yourself a level or three. Now you have learned how you want the difficulty settings set for the rest of the game unless the game is poorly designed to mislead you about the difficulty of playing it.
We have saves and auto saves so the player can redo this encounter until he gets it right. This is what people willingly subject themselves to in nightmare mode, btw, saving and redoing tough encounters. Even on lower difficulty levels, people save to hedge their bets and the game saves for them anyway.
You know a player can get into all this trouble with the current difficulty systems in any Bioware game. They could start on easy then get bored with that and crank it to max difficulty and totaly fail to progress.
In Act 1 of DA2, the player could have spent all their money in the store and come up short of the money needed to progress to act 2.
Players already have the means to sabotage their game and if they didn''t then they would cry that there are no consequences that the game plays itself ......... oh, wait, they already do.
The way that Bioware designes games now, they may as well give us the sliders and check boxes I have proposed and say, "Go ahead, it's your game explore. .........." That is what they are already doing, I'm just asking for better tools to do it with.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
AmstradHero, you will never find cogent points in my arguments because you think you know better than players what it is that they want. You're the expert and they are not. Players are too stupid to make choices, RPG players no less.
I have already mentioned games. I mentioned DA:O, DA2, ME3, NWN1, NWN2. I have also played all the DA:O campaigns and DLC, NWN1/2 expansions, ME1 and expansions/DLC, ME2 and expansions/DLC, BG2, and a lot more.
[/quote]
None of these games have these sliders you propose, but you think that these games would be improved by them. I am not saying that I know better than players about what they want, I am saying that players do not have sufficient information to make educated decisions on how to dynamically and individually control different aspects of gameplay difficulty because they do not fully understand the relation between those factors on the difficulty of the game because they have not designed the encounters of the game.
People would be operating from a distinct lack of knowledge trying to adjust and balance the difficulty of the game without any knowledge of upcoming encounters and the necessary power or skill level required to succeed.
[/quote]
Game manuals, I shouldn't have to say anything else.
Have you ever looked at one? 99% are not worth the paper they are printed on. Players routinely go into games blind, having to figure out how they work. All the BW games I mentioned are shining classic examples of this!
And you think that once already having to muck around in the game and the forums and the wikia and where ever, and muck around in the inventory and read meaningless in game descriptions, that we can't handle these sliders? Are you kidding me? We're not helpless retarded babies dude! Stop the condescending bull****.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
I know what I would do with my proposed sliders and check boxes in these game, especially DA series, and why. This is not the first time I have made this proposal in all my years of gaming nor am I the only one who has made it. I know what other people would do with these sliders and check boxes because I have seen them post it in various forums over the years. But, your expertise says we're too stupid to know what we want.
I have already submited DA2 as a game that supports my case. And you just tried to hide your objections behind claims of expertise and claims of universal rules that you will not reveal and don't exist.
[/quote]
DA2 doesn't support your case in any shape or form. It has none of the sliders you request. It would suffer from many of the problems that I and others have pointed out would occur if your proposal was implemented.
[/quote]
I have specifically stated problems with DA2 that would be addressed by the sliders and check boxes. It is really not as complicated as you make it out.
Just a GP slider that lets you decrease the cost of items at the store would be an improvement and have absolutely no chance of breaking the game yet you are opposed to it for some nebulus non-reason, because people might get bored. Oh, give me a break. Bored? Then get rid of easy mode.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Again, how many times must I repeat myself? It is not that I believe players are too stupid to know what they want, it is that players do not have the necessary knowledge to balance the difficulty because they do not know how the encounters of the game are designed, and they do not possess intimate knowledge of the combat mechanics. What is it about this concept that you do not understand? Why is it that you have failed to address this in ANY of your posts? Is it that you believe you do have this knowledge? If so, please demonstrate it. Else every post you make just proves that you do not have the necessary understanding to tweak these factors in a way that would preserve game balance.
[/quote]
I understand the concept but you do not seem to recognize that this is standard operating proceedure in the gaming industry and Bioware is a shining example of it. It happens with game after game after game and with each game the players say the manual is crap and year after year, game after game the manuals continue to be crap and we have to wait 3 months for other players to figure out how the game works and post it and by then we're done with our first play through and moving on to MP or another game entirely.
I would not hold my breath waiting for Bioware or any computer gameing company to actually not leave the players in the dark having to figure out for themselves how the game works. It costs money to educate the customer and they can get away with not spending it.
So, you are telling me that computer game companies will not spend money on sliders, that no such thing has been done before, implying they will never have to. Yet, your solution, customer education, suffers from the same situation. Worse, they already sell walk throughs. The reason why the manual always sucks is because people will pay for the walkthrough, i.e., the real game manual and players will do the job of writing the wikia for free.
We are already groping in the dark with these games. "Playing the sliders" woudn't be worse than what we already have to put up with. At least, we would be able to game with the intent of getting the experience we want.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
You come up with the derogatory phrase "playing the sliders" in a genre where people love to play inventory tetris. If some people enjoy inventory tetris, some people will definitly enjoy "playing the sliders". People build characters, yet, they must not "play the sliders". They use the command line routinely but they must not "play the sliders". If you have issues with "playing the sliders" then you have issues with DA series, ME series, NWN series, BG series, and a ton of other RPG games. You must find these games attrocious because people are always playing some slider or check box or inventory box or widget or command line or going to wikis and forums in, and out of, those games. My proposal does not stop that. It just allows them to do it better.
[/quote]
It's not a derogatory phrase, and the fact that you have interpreted it as such demonstrates again that you have both misunderstood my comments and don't comprehend the complexities involved in gameplay mechanics. I love RPGs. (Side note, it's not RPG games - that would be Role Playing Game Games) They're my favourite genre, in fact. I've never found myself playing extensively with sliders, check boxess or command lines in any other these games. I've played the game and played the core gameplay as created by the designers. I've actually gone ahead and enjoyed the gameplay that was provided.
[/quote]
I've actually gone ahead and not enjoyed the gameplay as provided and found forums full of people not enjoying the game as provided. I also found that there is not one single solution to address all the complaints, not even half of them. For every person that thinks there is not enough gold/xp/monsters/etc. there is one that thinks that there is too much or just about right. The sliders I propose directly address their, and my, criticisms.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Also, you would do well to remember that it is a minority of players who will consult wikis on their games. The percentage of players who frequent forums is even smaller still, so your suggestion that a multitude of people are using the console or external programs or the like to tweak their game is plain wrong.
[/quote]
I've also heard of instances where a minority of players do not finish the game, where expansions/dlc never sell as much as the initial game, i.e., sales are on a downward spiral from launch.
So, what you are implying is that forums are a waste of time. People who take the time to try to suggest to the company, as we are practically doing here, what they would like to see in a game, are wasting their time because the majority of sales come from people who do not even finish the game, let alone go to a forum.
You have just marginalized the entire forum, including yourself. And on the rare occasions when a dev comes to the forums to enlist our opinions, we're just getting trolled.
Let's discusss.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Oh my god! The pause button! Vile pause button monkeys! Dirty dirty filthy pause button monkeys! Don't get me started! Agent of bathroom breaks!
[/quote]
Don't bring irrelevant arguments into this. If you have a chip on your shoulder because someone accused you of cheating by using the pause button, then get over it.
[/quote]
I've got no chip on my shoulder. I'm not the one who considers the command line to be cheating and refuses to even discuss what cheatign is. Yet, you are willing to let command lines exist in game, in shame. Really, shameful gaming? Doesn't sound like fun to me. I'd rather make my peace with the necessity to hedge bet and move on.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The sliders I propose do basically the same thing that the preset difficulty does it just gives you more options within whatever boundaries are determined to be safe. If you can figure out 1 to 5 safe difficulty presets you can figure out safe ranges for the sliders. I shouldn't have to explain that if the game can be played by the highest difficulty level then having a slider that allows you to reduce the number of monsters does not blow up the game. And if the game has an easy mode, well, you're already willing to put some people to sleep.
[/quote]
Right, so you're happy to let people play the game the way they want, but if they have the gall to play it on easy, then those people are boring and have no skill. Judgemental and hypocritical much? It sounds like you just abused some people for playing the game the way they want because it doesn't match your expectations.
[/quote]
I must be boring then because my last Awakening play through was on easy mode. Boring me for wanting to see what Inferno looks like without having to incinerate my party, or put them on hold and scroll the mouse into the next room and drop all my AOE spells on hapless foes who are hapless to such tactis even on nightmare difficulty.
Or boring me for wanting to play ME3 in stry mode because I want the story without being interupted by reloads. but that is ok, because I got unboring later when my whimsical self decided to play on Insanity.
Gee, I never knew I was boring, thx.
Here you are claiming that these sliders could make the game too easy to enjoy and you accuse me of calling players who play easy mode boring. Excellant.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
You claim that 1 to 5 safe difficulty levels means that it would be easy to figure out safe ranges for the sliders. I agree that it might be possible to come up with ranges, but the amount of testing required to find these ranges would be a vast amount of time and effort, and due to the relationship between various gameplay mechanics you would almost certainly end up with LESS variance in these sliders and therefore the maximum difficulty variance because of the interplay between combat variables.
For example, if you reduced experience gain to the minimum, but upped enemy damage and HP to the maximum, you could quite easily get into a situation where the players had not levelled up sufficiently to defeat an encounter no matter what tactics they use. Then I see you would argue that the solution would be to instantly level and gear up your characters through XP and gold buttons. At this point, the game has devolved into a push-button-to-win scenario, which is just a bandage solution for a poorly balanced game. This is bad design. A player should never have to resort to a button the provides them with the ability to automatically win. If they do, it means that that they're not experiencing the intended gameplay, either because it's too difficult, or because it's so boring that they just want to skip it. Either is an indication of a tedious and uninteresting game.
Again, this is just one of many examples that I've been providing evidence, along with a detailed analysis of the issues involved. On the other hand, you've provided nothing but rhetoric and irrelevant points that have added no value.
[/quote]
How can you say that a game is designed and tested when a setting that has max Monster Power and Minimum XP, in other words a worst case scenario, stops the party from progressing? If such a thing happened then the game was not designed and tested, sufficiently, if not at all. Worst case scenario analysis is the foundation of any good design. You don't just put stuff together and say i was designed. You figure out what it is it's purpose, what the environment and user will subject it too and design it to survive that. Otherwise you are not designing, you are just throwing stuff together.
Continuing the example, if the player suddenly finds that he has hit a brick wall ....... Well, how is it that the player hit a brick wall? How do you chug along playing the game and everything is cozy, just how you like it, and all of a sudden, BAM, this next encounter is impossible? How does that happen? the player shold be gettig a feel for the game as they progress. You know that these games take time to play. You have time to explore the game and, considering the lack of instruction from the developer, you are forced to explore the game.
And if it did, you turn down the monster power slider, maybe even the Horde Size slider, which ever you prefer, turn up the XP slider because you know you are XP deprived, maybe you are gold deprived too, then continue, maybe you have to grant yourself a level or three. Now you have learned how you want the difficulty settings set for the rest of the game unless the game is poorly designed to mislead you about the difficulty of playing it.
We have saves and auto saves so the player can redo this encounter until he gets it right. This is what people willingly subject themselves to in nightmare mode, btw, saving and redoing tough encounters. Even on lower difficulty levels, people save to hedge their bets and the game saves for them anyway.
You know a player can get into all this trouble with the current difficulty systems in any Bioware game. They could start on easy then get bored with that and crank it to max difficulty and totaly fail to progress.
In Act 1 of DA2, the player could have spent all their money in the store and come up short of the money needed to progress to act 2.
Players already have the means to sabotage their game and if they didn''t then they would cry that there are no consequences that the game plays itself ......... oh, wait, they already do.
The way that Bioware designes games now, they may as well give us the sliders and check boxes I have proposed and say, "Go ahead, it's your game explore. .........." That is what they are already doing, I'm just asking for better tools to do it with.
Modifié par nicethugbert, 14 janvier 2013 - 06:02 .
#171
Posté 15 janvier 2013 - 06:50
AmstradHero
-
- Members
- 1 239 messages
That's an interesting comment given that BG1/2 and NWN1/2 had lengthy manuals describing in detail how D&D mechanics worked. Now jump forward to DAO/DA2. How much do you know about the internal mechanics of the combat?nicethugbert wrote...
I mentioned DA:O, DA2, ME3, NWN1, NWN2. I have also played all the DA:O campaigns and DLC, NWN1/2 expansions, ME1 and expansions/DLC, ME2 and expansions/DLC, BG2, and a lot more.
Game manuals, I shouldn't have to say anything else.
Have you ever looked at one? 99% are not worth the paper they are printed on. Players routinely go into games blind, having to figure out how they work. All the BW games I mentioned are shining classic examples of this!
And you think that once already having to muck around in the game and the forums and the wikia and where ever, and muck around in the inventory and read meaningless in game descriptions, that we can't handle these sliders? Are you kidding me? We're not helpless retarded babies dude! Stop the condescending bull****.
Do you know roughly how many hitpoints an enemy you face will have at any given level? Do you have any idea how many hit points damage it can deal in a single attack? Do you know how the success or failure of an attack is calculated? Do you know what determines if a hit is a critical? Do you know how much damage your average spell or attack does, and how this is mitigated by an opponent's defense? Do you understand how checks for half damage against AoE spells are calculated?
Do you know any of those things? If you don't know a majority of those things, do you honestly think that you can make an intelligent and reasoned judgement about how to tweak the combat parameters within the game? Do you think you can make an informed decision afbout the effects your changes will have on the overall difficulty?
Your concept that people are eventually finding this stuff out doesn't really hold any weight, because the only people who are doing that are a very, very small minority. A game company should not be expected to put in countless hours of effort to cater for probably less than 1% of their possible player base. To expect them to do so is just plain selfish.
No. I said that using people on wikis and forums as evidence that there is overwhelming support for your idea is a fallacy. Also, ideas voiced on developer forums are not always useless, but it seems that BioWare may be taking less notice of their forums these days because of people who simply wish to attack them and their games with vitriolic rhetoric and tired arguments that do nothing to help their overall design and creative process. If the forums were filled with fewer trolls and idiots, maybe we'd see them starting to engage more again. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.nicethugbert wrote...
So, what you are implying is that forums are a waste of time. People who take the time to try to suggest to the company, as we are practically doing here, what they would like to see in a game, are wasting their time because the majority of sales come from people who do not even finish the game, let alone go to a forum.AmstradHero wrote...
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Also, you would do well to remember that it is a minority of players who will consult wikis on their games. The percentage of players who frequent forums is even smaller still, so your suggestion that a multitude of people are using the console or external programs or the like to tweak their game is plain wrong.
Oh, no you don't. I was quoting YOUR statement. YOU declared easy mode to be boring:nicethugbert wrote...
Here you are claiming that these sliders could make the game too easy to enjoy and you accuse me of calling players who play easy mode boring. Excellant.
And you did it again in your last reply:nicethugbert wrote...
if the game has an easy mode, well, you're already willing to put some people to sleep.
You called easy mode boring and suggested it was a lesser experience, not me.nicethugbert wrote...
Oh, give me a break. Bored? Then get rid of easy mode.
Holy. Crap. Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just wilfully misunderstand it? Seriously, given your responses, I'm starting to think you're just trolling me.nicethugbert wrote...
How can you say that a game is designed and tested when a setting that has max Monster Power and Minimum XP, in other words a worst case scenario, stops the party from progressing? If such a thing happened then the game was not designed and tested, sufficiently, if not at all. Worst case scenario analysis is the foundation of any good design. You don't just put stuff together and say i was designed. You figure out what it is it's purpose, what the environment and user will subject it too and design it to survive that. Otherwise you are not designing, you are just throwing stuff together.
... same old argument ...
Please, start talking about game mechanics and demonstrate your understanding of this highly important aspect of gameplay and game design, or there is absolutely no further point in continuing this discussion, because that is the key issue at stake with your suggestion. If you can't do that, then I will bid you and this thread farewell.
Modifié par AmstradHero, 15 janvier 2013 - 08:05 .
#172
Posté 15 janvier 2013 - 03:10
nicethugbert
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
I mentioned DA:O, DA2, ME3, NWN1, NWN2. I have also played all the DA:O campaigns and DLC, NWN1/2 expansions, ME1 and expansions/DLC, ME2 and expansions/DLC, BG2, and a lot more.
Game manuals, I shouldn't have to say anything else.
Have you ever looked at one? 99% are not worth the paper they are printed on. Players routinely go into games blind, having to figure out how they work. All the BW games I mentioned are shining classic examples of this!
And you think that once already having to muck around in the game and the forums and the wikia and where ever, and muck around in the inventory and read meaningless in game descriptions, that we can't handle these sliders? Are you kidding me? We're not helpless retarded babies dude! Stop the condescending bull****.
[/quote]
That's an interesting comment given that BG1/2 and NWN1/2 had lengthy manuals describing in detail how D&D mechanics worked. Now jump forward to DAO/DA2. How much do you know about the internal mechanics of the combat?
[/quote]
The D&D rules set is much larger than DA/ME. Well, the core rules are simple enough, it's the massive amount of content that requires much more explanation. And, there was still much knowlege left out of those manuals.
As for my knowledge of game internals, not much if anything and that would be regarded as a failing of the game in any other type of game. But, it's industry standard in electronic games.
A certain amount of exploration is to be expected but I think games keep the player too much in the dark. I think DPS ratings on weapons/powers as a standard feature of a game, in game, are entirely appropriate. I think in an RPG, you should be able to research your opponents and the player should recieve statistics on them when doing so. As appropriate, not being able to spy, or otherwise conduct research, on the opponent may be entirely in keeping with the story at certain points. You see, you can do that sort of thing in an RPG. RPGs are highly mechanical games and they are hybrid games. You can do anything in an RPG, at least historically, perhaps in contradiction to it's name.
I think it would be great fun to have a mechnism in an RPG where the more you fight a creature, the more the creature's statistics are revealed and marked in your journal, per character. This would reflect the charater's knowledge of their role. Of course, the character would not think of the monsters in terms of game mechanics, but the player already does every time he levels up his character or looks at item stats. The journal could also show the character's point of view. That is where intelligence comes to play. A highly intelligent character would categorize his findings in a well organized, detailed manner. A lesser intelligant character wouldn't make as many distinctions, would have a simpler point of view.
You could do the same thing for items and powers.
I would much rather collect information on the world than go collect hides for gold. If exploration is a corner stone of the game then it must have an exploration mechanism. Otherwise the game is conflicted.
With that knowledge in hand, gainedthrough game play. It's much easier to purposely manage one's difficulty settings in accordance with one's desires.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Do you know roughly how many hitpoints an enemy you face will have at any given level? Do you have any idea how many hit points damage it can deal in a single attack? Do you know how the success or failure of an attack is calculated? Do you know what determines if a hit is a critical? Do you know how much damage your average spell or attack does, and how this is mitigated by an opponent's defense? Do you understand how checks for half damage against AoE spells are calculated?
Do you know any of those things? If you don't know a majority of those things, do you honestly think that you can make an intelligent and reasoned judgement about how to tweak the combat parameters within the game? Do you think you can make an informed decision afbout the effects your changes will have on the overall difficulty?
[/quote]
No, yet a set of preset difficulty settings is standard in electronic games, or at least computer/console games. People can and do change difficulty settings through out the course of the game to suit themselves. There is no harm in that.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Your concept that people are eventually finding this stuff out doesn't really hold any weight, because the only people who are doing that are a very, very small minority. A game company should not be expected to put in countless hours of effort to cater for probably less than 1% of their possible player base. To expect them to do so is just plain selfish.
[/quote]
Yet, this is what is already happening, as I have mentioned many times already. But, you have not taken a position against difficulty settings in their entirety and have even posted sample games some of which had difficulty settings and some of which did not and claimed they are all good games. The games you consider good violate your views on good game design.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Also, you would do well to remember that it is a minority of players who will consult wikis on their games. The percentage of players who frequent forums is even smaller still, so your suggestion that a multitude of people are using the console or external programs or the like to tweak their game is plain wrong.
[/quote]
So, what you are implying is that forums are a waste of time. People who take the time to try to suggest to the company, as we are practically doing here, what they would like to see in a game, are wasting their time because the majority of sales come from people who do not even finish the game, let alone go to a forum.
[/quote]
No. I said that using people on wikis and forums as evidence that there is overwhelming support for your idea is a fallacy. Also, ideas voiced on developer forums are not always useless, but it seems that BioWare may be taking less notice of their forums these days because of people who simply wish to attack them and their games with vitriolic rhetoric and tired arguments that do nothing to help their overall design and creative process. If the forums were filled with fewer trolls and idiots, maybe we'd see them starting to engage more again. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.
[/quote]
Conversely using the size of the forum population as lack of support is a fallacy. The forums just might be representative of the player base and indeed it seems that Bioware believes so in a selective manner as they have stated that they will not recycle areas in DA3. Recycled areas was a common complaint in the forums, i.e., expressed by the minority. And since the majority is mute, they could not possibly know what the majority think on recycled areas, unless a proper survey had been conducted. Which might have happened, I don't know. There is also the possiblity that they believe it is wise to appeal to the minority for some reason regardless of their lack of knowledge regarding the majority. I'm not convinced that EA/Bioware or game companies in general consistently select game features based on proper cost benefit analysis.
I wouldn't come onto these forums either to be the surrogate for what management choose to do unless I were getting paid for it either.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Here you are claiming that these sliders could make the game too easy to enjoy and you accuse me of calling players who play easy mode boring. Excellant.
[/quote]
Oh, no you don't. I was quoting YOUR statement. YOU declared easy mode to be boring:
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
if the game has an easy mode, well, you're already willing to put some people to sleep.
[/quote]
And you did it again in your last reply:
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Oh, give me a break. Bored? Then get rid of easy mode.
[/quote]
You called easy mode boring and suggested it was a lesser experience, not me.
[/quote]
You said that the sliders have the potential to make the game not challenging. So, you got me. I interpreted that as boring. But, it's irrelevant to my point.
Who cares if you can make the game not challenging with these sliders/check boxes? Being able to make the game not challenging is an industry standard. All BW games allow you to make the game not challenging, in fact people complain that their recent games are not challenging not matter what the difficulty level.
Sometimes, people do not want a challenge. They simpe want the rest of the game without the challenge.
Who are you to deny the player the choices he wants?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
How can you say that a game is designed and tested when a setting that has max Monster Power and Minimum XP, in other words a worst case scenario, stops the party from progressing? If such a thing happened then the game was not designed and tested, sufficiently, if not at all. Worst case scenario analysis is the foundation of any good design. You don't just put stuff together and say i was designed. You figure out what it is it's purpose, what the environment and user will subject it too and design it to survive that. Otherwise you are not designing, you are just throwing stuff together.
... same old argument ...
[/quote]
Holy. Crap. Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just wilfully misunderstand it? Seriously, given your responses, I'm starting to think you're just trolling me.
Please, start talking about game mechanics and demonstrate your understanding of this highly important aspect of gameplay and game design, or there is absolutely no further point in continuing this discussion, because that is the key issue at stake with your suggestion. If you can't do that, then I will bid you and this thread farewell.
[/quote]
And what understanding have you demonstrated? All you have done is make biased claims:
1) Too expensive
2) Potential to stop game progression
3) It's akin to cheating
4) Potential to remove challenge
5) "Playing Sliders/Buttons"
6) Bad Design
7) Player too ignorant, oh, excuse me, uninformed
You can already say that about DA series, ME series, BG series, practically the entire computer/console game industry. Yet, people keep buying these games. Some of them are highly acclaimed.
If, the electronic game industry is going to continue as it has done, it may as well add custom difficulty to it's games.
As far as I know DA3 will follow in the steps of privious DA games. In which case, I'll gladly explore the game via difficulty sliders, give xp/gp buttons, etc.
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
I mentioned DA:O, DA2, ME3, NWN1, NWN2. I have also played all the DA:O campaigns and DLC, NWN1/2 expansions, ME1 and expansions/DLC, ME2 and expansions/DLC, BG2, and a lot more.
Game manuals, I shouldn't have to say anything else.
Have you ever looked at one? 99% are not worth the paper they are printed on. Players routinely go into games blind, having to figure out how they work. All the BW games I mentioned are shining classic examples of this!
And you think that once already having to muck around in the game and the forums and the wikia and where ever, and muck around in the inventory and read meaningless in game descriptions, that we can't handle these sliders? Are you kidding me? We're not helpless retarded babies dude! Stop the condescending bull****.
[/quote]
That's an interesting comment given that BG1/2 and NWN1/2 had lengthy manuals describing in detail how D&D mechanics worked. Now jump forward to DAO/DA2. How much do you know about the internal mechanics of the combat?
[/quote]
The D&D rules set is much larger than DA/ME. Well, the core rules are simple enough, it's the massive amount of content that requires much more explanation. And, there was still much knowlege left out of those manuals.
As for my knowledge of game internals, not much if anything and that would be regarded as a failing of the game in any other type of game. But, it's industry standard in electronic games.
A certain amount of exploration is to be expected but I think games keep the player too much in the dark. I think DPS ratings on weapons/powers as a standard feature of a game, in game, are entirely appropriate. I think in an RPG, you should be able to research your opponents and the player should recieve statistics on them when doing so. As appropriate, not being able to spy, or otherwise conduct research, on the opponent may be entirely in keeping with the story at certain points. You see, you can do that sort of thing in an RPG. RPGs are highly mechanical games and they are hybrid games. You can do anything in an RPG, at least historically, perhaps in contradiction to it's name.
I think it would be great fun to have a mechnism in an RPG where the more you fight a creature, the more the creature's statistics are revealed and marked in your journal, per character. This would reflect the charater's knowledge of their role. Of course, the character would not think of the monsters in terms of game mechanics, but the player already does every time he levels up his character or looks at item stats. The journal could also show the character's point of view. That is where intelligence comes to play. A highly intelligent character would categorize his findings in a well organized, detailed manner. A lesser intelligant character wouldn't make as many distinctions, would have a simpler point of view.
You could do the same thing for items and powers.
I would much rather collect information on the world than go collect hides for gold. If exploration is a corner stone of the game then it must have an exploration mechanism. Otherwise the game is conflicted.
With that knowledge in hand, gainedthrough game play. It's much easier to purposely manage one's difficulty settings in accordance with one's desires.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Do you know roughly how many hitpoints an enemy you face will have at any given level? Do you have any idea how many hit points damage it can deal in a single attack? Do you know how the success or failure of an attack is calculated? Do you know what determines if a hit is a critical? Do you know how much damage your average spell or attack does, and how this is mitigated by an opponent's defense? Do you understand how checks for half damage against AoE spells are calculated?
Do you know any of those things? If you don't know a majority of those things, do you honestly think that you can make an intelligent and reasoned judgement about how to tweak the combat parameters within the game? Do you think you can make an informed decision afbout the effects your changes will have on the overall difficulty?
[/quote]
No, yet a set of preset difficulty settings is standard in electronic games, or at least computer/console games. People can and do change difficulty settings through out the course of the game to suit themselves. There is no harm in that.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Your concept that people are eventually finding this stuff out doesn't really hold any weight, because the only people who are doing that are a very, very small minority. A game company should not be expected to put in countless hours of effort to cater for probably less than 1% of their possible player base. To expect them to do so is just plain selfish.
[/quote]
Yet, this is what is already happening, as I have mentioned many times already. But, you have not taken a position against difficulty settings in their entirety and have even posted sample games some of which had difficulty settings and some of which did not and claimed they are all good games. The games you consider good violate your views on good game design.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Also, you would do well to remember that it is a minority of players who will consult wikis on their games. The percentage of players who frequent forums is even smaller still, so your suggestion that a multitude of people are using the console or external programs or the like to tweak their game is plain wrong.
[/quote]
So, what you are implying is that forums are a waste of time. People who take the time to try to suggest to the company, as we are practically doing here, what they would like to see in a game, are wasting their time because the majority of sales come from people who do not even finish the game, let alone go to a forum.
[/quote]
No. I said that using people on wikis and forums as evidence that there is overwhelming support for your idea is a fallacy. Also, ideas voiced on developer forums are not always useless, but it seems that BioWare may be taking less notice of their forums these days because of people who simply wish to attack them and their games with vitriolic rhetoric and tired arguments that do nothing to help their overall design and creative process. If the forums were filled with fewer trolls and idiots, maybe we'd see them starting to engage more again. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.
[/quote]
Conversely using the size of the forum population as lack of support is a fallacy. The forums just might be representative of the player base and indeed it seems that Bioware believes so in a selective manner as they have stated that they will not recycle areas in DA3. Recycled areas was a common complaint in the forums, i.e., expressed by the minority. And since the majority is mute, they could not possibly know what the majority think on recycled areas, unless a proper survey had been conducted. Which might have happened, I don't know. There is also the possiblity that they believe it is wise to appeal to the minority for some reason regardless of their lack of knowledge regarding the majority. I'm not convinced that EA/Bioware or game companies in general consistently select game features based on proper cost benefit analysis.
I wouldn't come onto these forums either to be the surrogate for what management choose to do unless I were getting paid for it either.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Here you are claiming that these sliders could make the game too easy to enjoy and you accuse me of calling players who play easy mode boring. Excellant.
[/quote]
Oh, no you don't. I was quoting YOUR statement. YOU declared easy mode to be boring:
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
if the game has an easy mode, well, you're already willing to put some people to sleep.
[/quote]
And you did it again in your last reply:
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
Oh, give me a break. Bored? Then get rid of easy mode.
[/quote]
You called easy mode boring and suggested it was a lesser experience, not me.
[/quote]
You said that the sliders have the potential to make the game not challenging. So, you got me. I interpreted that as boring. But, it's irrelevant to my point.
Who cares if you can make the game not challenging with these sliders/check boxes? Being able to make the game not challenging is an industry standard. All BW games allow you to make the game not challenging, in fact people complain that their recent games are not challenging not matter what the difficulty level.
Sometimes, people do not want a challenge. They simpe want the rest of the game without the challenge.
Who are you to deny the player the choices he wants?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
How can you say that a game is designed and tested when a setting that has max Monster Power and Minimum XP, in other words a worst case scenario, stops the party from progressing? If such a thing happened then the game was not designed and tested, sufficiently, if not at all. Worst case scenario analysis is the foundation of any good design. You don't just put stuff together and say i was designed. You figure out what it is it's purpose, what the environment and user will subject it too and design it to survive that. Otherwise you are not designing, you are just throwing stuff together.
... same old argument ...
[/quote]
Holy. Crap. Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just wilfully misunderstand it? Seriously, given your responses, I'm starting to think you're just trolling me.
Please, start talking about game mechanics and demonstrate your understanding of this highly important aspect of gameplay and game design, or there is absolutely no further point in continuing this discussion, because that is the key issue at stake with your suggestion. If you can't do that, then I will bid you and this thread farewell.
[/quote]
And what understanding have you demonstrated? All you have done is make biased claims:
1) Too expensive
2) Potential to stop game progression
3) It's akin to cheating
4) Potential to remove challenge
5) "Playing Sliders/Buttons"
6) Bad Design
7) Player too ignorant, oh, excuse me, uninformed
You can already say that about DA series, ME series, BG series, practically the entire computer/console game industry. Yet, people keep buying these games. Some of them are highly acclaimed.
If, the electronic game industry is going to continue as it has done, it may as well add custom difficulty to it's games.
As far as I know DA3 will follow in the steps of privious DA games. In which case, I'll gladly explore the game via difficulty sliders, give xp/gp buttons, etc.
Modifié par nicethugbert, 15 janvier 2013 - 04:02 .
#173
Posté 15 janvier 2013 - 07:36
AmstradHero
-
- Members
- 1 239 messages
These two don't add up. You claim the D&D ruleset is much larger, but then say you don't know anything about DAO's ruleset. How can you make the first judgement without that knowledge? That lack of knowledge isn't a failing, unless you want to start tweaking the individual parameters that affect game difficulty.nicethugbert wrote...
The D&D rules set is much larger than DA/ME. Well, the core rules are simple enough, it's the massive amount of content that requires much more explanation. And, there was still much knowlege left out of those manuals.
As for my knowledge of game internals, not much if anything and that would be regarded as a failing of the game in any other type of game. But, it's industry standard in electronic games.
Because those options have been rigorously tested by designers. Testing all possible permutations of multiple sliders is impossible.nicethugbert wrote...
a set of preset difficulty settings is standard in electronic games, or at least computer/console games. People can and do change difficulty settings through out the course of the game to suit themselves. There is no harm in that.
Wrong again. There is nothing wrong with difficulty settings, or the lack of them. The only issue is to make sure that the game is tested to ensure balanced difficulty and a good difficulty curve.nicethugbert wrote...
you have not taken a position against difficulty settings in their entirety and have even posted sample games some of which had difficulty settings and some of which did not and claimed they are all good games. The games you consider good violate your views on good game design.
So we both agree with my original statement then:nicethugbert wrote...
Conversely using the size of the forum population as lack of support is a fallacy.AmstradHero wrote...
I said that using people on wikis and forums as evidence that there is overwhelming support for your idea is a fallacy.
Thanks for that.AmstradHero wrote...
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
Let me try again, in more simple terms. Currently, the player has a limited control over the difficulty through a set of tested, balance parameter setups. If the player were to be able to control individual parameters relating to combat and character development, then due to the possible edge cases of the best and worst scenario, these sliders would have to have less variance than they currently do for static difficulty levels. As such, there would be less variance in overall difficulty than with the status quo of predetermined difficulty levels. In order to cater for the worst case scenarios, you would actually end up reducing the variety of the experience in terms of difficulty rather than increasing it.nicethugbert wrote...
If, the electronic game industry is going to continue as it has done, it may as well add custom difficulty to it's games.
As far as I know DA3 will follow in the steps of privious DA games. In which case, I'll gladly explore the game via difficulty sliders, give xp/gp buttons, etc.
You've repeatedly claimed that I am biased, yet it's obvious that I'm not, I've just thought about the consequences. The concept of individual controlling these parameters would be a boon to powergamers and people who love a game to death, play it over and over again, and have the necessary knowledge about the game's mechanics to make informed choices about how to tweak those parameters. However, this is the only market it would be catering for, and if there are modding tools available for a game, those players can already achieve some of these concepts anyway. The payoff is not worth the effort, but because it's your pet love, you want it and anyone who disagrees is biased.
Modifié par AmstradHero, 15 janvier 2013 - 07:39 .
#174
Posté 16 janvier 2013 - 02:51
nicethugbert
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The D&D rules set is much larger than DA/ME. Well, the core rules are simple enough, it's the massive amount of content that requires much more explanation. And, there was still much knowlege left out of those manuals.
As for my knowledge of game internals, not much if anything and that would be regarded as a failing of the game in any other type of game. But, it's industry standard in electronic games.
[/quote]
These two don't add up. You claim the D&D ruleset is much larger, but then say you don't know anything about DAO's ruleset. How can you make the first judgement without that knowledge? That lack of knowledge isn't a failing, unless you want to start tweaking the individual parameters that affect game difficulty.
[/quote]
Obviously, as published, D&D is much larger than DA. What the DA executables are doing I can't know because I do not reverse engineer programs. Do you? Incidentally, which is more detailed, the DA manuals or the DA wikia and who wrote the DA wikia?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
a set of preset difficulty settings is standard in electronic games, or at least computer/console games. People can and do change difficulty settings through out the course of the game to suit themselves. There is no harm in that.
[/quote]
Because those options have been rigorously tested by designers. Testing all possible permutations of multiple sliders is impossible.
[/quote]
Because there is no software that has multiple sliders. Such a thing has never been done before, therefore impossible. Right?
For instance when you type into the console, give gold someamountofgold, that is just like a slider, you would have to test it for every possible value of someamountofgold. That is impossible. Or, the dials on a guitar amp simulaion software, there is no such thing. You would have ot test the dials on microscopic settings. Dials are continous, that means that you would have to test an infinite number of settings between the min and max. That is impossible.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
you have not taken a position against difficulty settings in their entirety and have even posted sample games some of which had difficulty settings and some of which did not and claimed they are all good games. The games you consider good violate your views on good game design.
[/quote]
Wrong again. There is nothing wrong with difficulty settings, or the lack of them. The only issue is to make sure that the game is tested to ensure balanced difficulty and a good difficulty curve.
[/quote]
Which can be done with sliders:
1) Monster Power: 4 positions: casual, normal, hard, nightmare. This is what the DA:O and DA2 sli.....er... difficulty settings already do.
2) Horde Size: -50%, +0%, The XP drop could be doubled on the -50% setting so that the player does not run the risk of being XP starved. Or, since it's a quest driven story based game, you shouldn't even be handing out XP for combat, especially if you don't have grind locations like Storm of Zehir did. You should be handing out XP for quests. at milestones. If you avoid poor design choices like this then it's much easier to do other things like letting the player customize their experience.
3) The Store Price slider could have -50% and +0%.
4) The XP slider could have +0% and +50%.
5) Friendly Fire: On, Off
There, guaranteed to not cause cave-ins.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
I said that using people on wikis and forums as evidence that there is overwhelming support for your idea is a fallacy.
[/quote]
Conversely using the size of the forum population as lack of support is a fallacy.
[/quote]
So we both agree with my original statement then:
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
[/quote]
Thanks for that.
[/quote]
Yet, you claim that not enough players would use this to justify the expense. Where are you getting your data from?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
If, the electronic game industry is going to continue as it has done, it may as well add custom difficulty to it's games.
As far as I know DA3 will follow in the steps of privious DA games. In which case, I'll gladly explore the game via difficulty sliders, give xp/gp buttons, etc.
[/quote]
Let me try again, in more simple terms. Currently, the player has a limited control over the difficulty through a set of tested, balance parameter setups. If the player were to be able to control individual parameters relating to combat and character development, then due to the possible edge cases of the best and worst scenario, these sliders would have to have less variance than they currently do for static difficulty levels. As such, there would be less variance in overall difficulty than with the status quo of predetermined difficulty levels. In order to cater for the worst case scenarios, you would actually end up reducing the variety of the experience in terms of difficulty rather than increasing it.
You've repeatedly claimed that I am biased, yet it's obvious that I'm not, I've just thought about the consequences. The concept of individual controlling these parameters would be a boon to powergamers and people who love a game to death, play it over and over again, and have the necessary knowledge about the game's mechanics to make informed choices about how to tweak those parameters. However, this is the only market it would be catering for, and if there are modding tools available for a game, those players can already achieve some of these concepts anyway. The payoff is not worth the effort, but because it's your pet love, you want it and anyone who disagrees is biased.
[/quote]
And how many people do you think play Hard and Nightmare difficulty? Why bother spending money on them?
The modding tools themselves are used by a minority too. Bye bye modding tools, bye bye.
Most people do not finish the game, clearly, the game is too long. So, forget about ever seeing a BG length games ever again. We'll get even shorter ones. Oh, but they'll come out on a shorter development cycle. You'll get half the game for 60% of the price. So, you'll be paying 120% for the same content you used to pay 100% for. And, you will not have difficulty settings or toolsets or anything that could be considered a feature. Got to make way for choices.
Incidentally, have you played Of Orcs and Men?
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
The D&D rules set is much larger than DA/ME. Well, the core rules are simple enough, it's the massive amount of content that requires much more explanation. And, there was still much knowlege left out of those manuals.
As for my knowledge of game internals, not much if anything and that would be regarded as a failing of the game in any other type of game. But, it's industry standard in electronic games.
[/quote]
These two don't add up. You claim the D&D ruleset is much larger, but then say you don't know anything about DAO's ruleset. How can you make the first judgement without that knowledge? That lack of knowledge isn't a failing, unless you want to start tweaking the individual parameters that affect game difficulty.
[/quote]
Obviously, as published, D&D is much larger than DA. What the DA executables are doing I can't know because I do not reverse engineer programs. Do you? Incidentally, which is more detailed, the DA manuals or the DA wikia and who wrote the DA wikia?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
a set of preset difficulty settings is standard in electronic games, or at least computer/console games. People can and do change difficulty settings through out the course of the game to suit themselves. There is no harm in that.
[/quote]
Because those options have been rigorously tested by designers. Testing all possible permutations of multiple sliders is impossible.
[/quote]
Because there is no software that has multiple sliders. Such a thing has never been done before, therefore impossible. Right?
For instance when you type into the console, give gold someamountofgold, that is just like a slider, you would have to test it for every possible value of someamountofgold. That is impossible. Or, the dials on a guitar amp simulaion software, there is no such thing. You would have ot test the dials on microscopic settings. Dials are continous, that means that you would have to test an infinite number of settings between the min and max. That is impossible.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
you have not taken a position against difficulty settings in their entirety and have even posted sample games some of which had difficulty settings and some of which did not and claimed they are all good games. The games you consider good violate your views on good game design.
[/quote]
Wrong again. There is nothing wrong with difficulty settings, or the lack of them. The only issue is to make sure that the game is tested to ensure balanced difficulty and a good difficulty curve.
[/quote]
Which can be done with sliders:
1) Monster Power: 4 positions: casual, normal, hard, nightmare. This is what the DA:O and DA2 sli.....er... difficulty settings already do.
2) Horde Size: -50%, +0%, The XP drop could be doubled on the -50% setting so that the player does not run the risk of being XP starved. Or, since it's a quest driven story based game, you shouldn't even be handing out XP for combat, especially if you don't have grind locations like Storm of Zehir did. You should be handing out XP for quests. at milestones. If you avoid poor design choices like this then it's much easier to do other things like letting the player customize their experience.
3) The Store Price slider could have -50% and +0%.
4) The XP slider could have +0% and +50%.
5) Friendly Fire: On, Off
There, guaranteed to not cause cave-ins.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
I said that using people on wikis and forums as evidence that there is overwhelming support for your idea is a fallacy.
[/quote]
Conversely using the size of the forum population as lack of support is a fallacy.
[/quote]
So we both agree with my original statement then:
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Wikis and forums have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
[/quote]
Thanks for that.
[/quote]
Yet, you claim that not enough players would use this to justify the expense. Where are you getting your data from?
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]nicethugbert wrote...
If, the electronic game industry is going to continue as it has done, it may as well add custom difficulty to it's games.
As far as I know DA3 will follow in the steps of privious DA games. In which case, I'll gladly explore the game via difficulty sliders, give xp/gp buttons, etc.
[/quote]
Let me try again, in more simple terms. Currently, the player has a limited control over the difficulty through a set of tested, balance parameter setups. If the player were to be able to control individual parameters relating to combat and character development, then due to the possible edge cases of the best and worst scenario, these sliders would have to have less variance than they currently do for static difficulty levels. As such, there would be less variance in overall difficulty than with the status quo of predetermined difficulty levels. In order to cater for the worst case scenarios, you would actually end up reducing the variety of the experience in terms of difficulty rather than increasing it.
You've repeatedly claimed that I am biased, yet it's obvious that I'm not, I've just thought about the consequences. The concept of individual controlling these parameters would be a boon to powergamers and people who love a game to death, play it over and over again, and have the necessary knowledge about the game's mechanics to make informed choices about how to tweak those parameters. However, this is the only market it would be catering for, and if there are modding tools available for a game, those players can already achieve some of these concepts anyway. The payoff is not worth the effort, but because it's your pet love, you want it and anyone who disagrees is biased.
[/quote]
And how many people do you think play Hard and Nightmare difficulty? Why bother spending money on them?
The modding tools themselves are used by a minority too. Bye bye modding tools, bye bye.
Most people do not finish the game, clearly, the game is too long. So, forget about ever seeing a BG length games ever again. We'll get even shorter ones. Oh, but they'll come out on a shorter development cycle. You'll get half the game for 60% of the price. So, you'll be paying 120% for the same content you used to pay 100% for. And, you will not have difficulty settings or toolsets or anything that could be considered a feature. Got to make way for choices.
Incidentally, have you played Of Orcs and Men?
Modifié par nicethugbert, 16 janvier 2013 - 02:56 .
#175
Posté 16 janvier 2013 - 05:37
AmstradHero
-
- Members
- 1 239 messages
Sorry, I'm out. Your arguments are so inconsistent that there's no point continuing this discussion. Previously you were advocating grind, now you're saying grind shouldn't be included at all. You're resorting to strawman arguments with no detail or larger context, and attempting to extrapolate my cases beyond the boundaries I've stated and using that as a supposed weakness in my argument.
I see no point to attempting to discuss this with you further, because you simply don't want to discuss the important issues in detail, and I'm done wasting my time attempting to get you to do so.
I see no point to attempting to discuss this with you further, because you simply don't want to discuss the important issues in detail, and I'm done wasting my time attempting to get you to do so.
