575 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaigunjoe]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Which means that the gamer will have to re-think their strategy or prepare the party better or get lucky. If they reload and do not change their results may be the same. So I have no problem with the gamer reloading.

If it's a game like DA:O/DA2, a party member's death is more likely the result of fluke battle conditions that anything that actually comes down to strategy, so not even something that tactics would fix.

If it's a game like BG2, then the 2nd time around you'll just metagame the encounter, like the game expects.

I would not know. I never metagamed in BG2. I simply changed my strategy and tactics. The spells of the spellcasters remained the same as the time before if I choose to reload which I rarely do. I simply pick up another companion if one died and carried on.

Changed your strategy and tactics based on what exactly?  Because if its based on what you saw already, then that is metagaming.

As I said before I rarely reload a save because of combat death. My parties live with it. Also in BG1 & 2, Ultima, Wizardry the attacks were not the same by the enemy if you reloaded and random encounters were a possibility. The enemy could change its tactics with the reload. So reloading came with a penalty. What I adjusted was my overall strategy for the party to keep them from dying. If a companion died again on one of those rare reloads I live with it and moved on. 
In BG2 I simply limped back to town to pick up a new companion and dump the dead one learning from the experience what I did wrong and changing strategy and tactics to prevent it from happening again.

I call BS, I don't really care about the other series, but in BG, sure, the attacks were not EXACTLY the same, but just knowing what abilities they had were a form of metagaming, if you played through the game more than once, you were metagaming.

[Firky]

Wasn't it more a case of knowing what the encounter looked like?

Like, you could know abilities, generally. If the enemy was a mage, cast breach, if the enemy looked undead, get the priest spells going.

(Having said that, I do recall being absolutely stuck on a couple of BG2 enemies because I had no idea what they were doing, even after playing the encounter a couple of times, so I had to go looking for help. Kangaxx was one.)

[TheShadowWolf911]

......put the options and gameplay that was removed in Dragon Age 2 from Origins and put it back in and improve upon everything both games did?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Filament wrote...

I for one am really glad BioWare games are far removed from those old WRPGs that were ugly as sin and whose gameplay sounds entirely unappealing. JRPGs were so much better in the 90s than whatever the west was doing at the time. imo obv

I assume you are talking about the seven minutes of gameplay between each six hour cutscene yes?

[Homebound]

bioware cant get what they lost cuz they never owned what they're missing. spose the smart thing is to start over n make new fans instead of backpedaling. cant uncook a boiled egg as they say. u can only promise the hen not to do it again.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I always thought it would be better if there was a random chance that an injury could still result in a lesser, but permanent penalty.

For instance, blindness is an injury you can incur. I think it would be interesting if, after either using an injury kit or returning to camp, you could have the outcome of something like cataracts, which gives a penalty to hit for the rest of the game (but not as stiff as the one for the actual Blindness injury).

Ideally, whether or not the injury would be permanent would be set when the actual injury occurs, so the player wouldn't know until they either used the kit or went back to camp. This would mitigate some reloading instances, give true risk of severe penalty for death, but not be as black-and-white as perma death.

[Realmzmaster]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Which means that the gamer will have to re-think their strategy or prepare the party better or get lucky. If they reload and do not change their results may be the same. So I have no problem with the gamer reloading.

If it's a game like DA:O/DA2, a party member's death is more likely the result of fluke battle conditions that anything that actually comes down to strategy, so not even something that tactics would fix.

If it's a game like BG2, then the 2nd time around you'll just metagame the encounter, like the game expects.

I would not know. I never metagamed in BG2. I simply changed my strategy and tactics. The spells of the spellcasters remained the same as the time before if I choose to reload which I rarely do. I simply pick up another companion if one died and carried on.

Changed your strategy and tactics based on what exactly?  Because if its based on what you saw already, then that is metagaming.

As I said before I rarely reload a save because of combat death. My parties live with it. Also in BG1 & 2, Ultima, Wizardry the attacks were not the same by the enemy if you reloaded and random encounters were a possibility. The enemy could change its tactics with the reload. So reloading came with a penalty. What I adjusted was my overall strategy for the party to keep them from dying. If a companion died again on one of those rare reloads I live with it and moved on. 
In BG2 I simply limped back to town to pick up a new companion and dump the dead one learning from the experience what I did wrong and changing strategy and tactics to prevent it from happening again.

I call BS, I don't really care about the other series, but in BG, sure, the attacks were not EXACTLY the same, but just knowing what abilities they had were a form of metagaming, if you played through the game more than once, you were metagaming.

Actually I only played through BG 1 and 2 twice with a 10 year span between the playings. Once when the games came out and then ten years later. I played many other crpgs in the years between that. So you can call it whatever you want. I do not care.

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I always thought it would be better if there was a random chance that an injury could still result in a lesser, but permanent penalty.

For instance, blindness is an injury you can incur. I think it would be interesting if, after either using an injury kit or returning to camp, you could have the outcome of something like cataracts, which gives a penalty to hit for the rest of the game (but not as stiff as the one for the actual Blindness injury).

Ideally, whether or not the injury would be permanent would be set when the actual injury occurs, so the player wouldn't know until they either used the kit or went back to camp. This would mitigate some reloading instances, give true risk of severe penalty for death, but not be as black-and-white as perma death.

That's just another nuisance that no one will actually enjoy, except for a relatively few diehards. I doubt any sort of permanent penalties have any place in the game... unless they can be toggled off at any time.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I always thought it would be better if there was a random chance that an injury could still result in a lesser, but permanent penalty. 

For instance, blindness is an injury you can incur. I think it would be interesting if, after either using an injury kit or returning to camp, you could have the outcome of something like cataracts, which gives a penalty to hit for the rest of the game (but not as stiff as the one for the actual Blindness injury). 

Ideally, whether or not the injury would be permanent would be set when the actual injury occurs, so the player wouldn't know until they either used the kit or went back to camp. This would mitigate some reloading instances, give true risk of severe penalty for death, but not be as black-and-white as perma death.

That's just another nuisance that no one will actually enjoy, except for a relatively few diehards. I doubt any sort of permanent penalties have any place in the game... unless they can be toggled off at any time.

Maybe it could be a factor of the difficulty level. Very high on Nightmare, non-existent on Casual. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mai 2013 - 04:21 .

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I always thought it would be better if there was a random chance that an injury could still result in a lesser, but permanent penalty.

For instance, blindness is an injury you can incur. I think it would be interesting if, after either using an injury kit or returning to camp, you could have the outcome of something like cataracts, which gives a penalty to hit for the rest of the game (but not as stiff as the one for the actual Blindness injury).

Ideally, whether or not the injury would be permanent would be set when the actual injury occurs, so the player wouldn't know until they either used the kit or went back to camp. This would mitigate some reloading instances, give true risk of severe penalty for death, but not be as black-and-white as perma death.

I would like to see injury kits done away with. I think a first aid skill would be interesting. I like your example. The blindness would be temporary if treated by first aid or a cure blindness spell but the treatment could not totally cure the companion. The effect would not be immediate but kick in later.

[Jerrybnsn]

I'm pretty sure I read that the Witcher III will be making a toolkit for their game. Because I read that it would allow you to create your own villages and NPCs in the world. A map that takes something like 45 minutes to walk from end to end.

"I'm pretty sure"....."something like".....I'm just a vat of reliable information.

[Realmzmaster]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I always thought it would be better if there was a random chance that an injury could still result in a lesser, but permanent penalty.

For instance, blindness is an injury you can incur. I think it would be interesting if, after either using an injury kit or returning to camp, you could have the outcome of something like cataracts, which gives a penalty to hit for the rest of the game (but not as stiff as the one for the actual Blindness injury).

Ideally, whether or not the injury would be permanent would be set when the actual injury occurs, so the player wouldn't know until they either used the kit or went back to camp. This would mitigate some reloading instances, give true risk of severe penalty for death, but not be as black-and-white as perma death.

That's just another nuisance that no one will actually enjoy, except for a relatively few diehards. I doubt any sort of permanent penalties have any place in the game... unless they can be toggled off at any time.

You simply have a hardcore mode like Fallout:New Vegas (which has two modes: Casual and Hardcore). The mode has to chosen at the beginning of the game. Fallout: New Vegas allows toggling of the hardcore mode to casual.
Witcher 2 has both Insane and Dark mode. Insane mode makes your saves unusable upon character death. Dark mode allows for saves but has a hiher difficulty level.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 20 mai 2013 - 04:26 .

[In Exile]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
I assume you are talking about the seven minutes of gameplay between each six hour cutscene yes?

In the 90s? I haven't played a JRPG for a while, but I'm pretty sure cutscene mania was an early 2000s thing. 

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Ideally, whether or not the injury would be permanent would be set when the actual injury occurs, so the player wouldn't know until they either used the kit or went back to camp. This would mitigate some reloading instances, give true risk of severe penalty for death, but not be as black-and-white as perma death.

All that would do is have people re-load every time a character falls to avoid the perma-stat damage. 

[Realmzmaster]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Ideally, whether or not the injury would be permanent would be set when the actual injury occurs, so the player wouldn't know until they either used the kit or went back to camp. This would mitigate some reloading instances, give true risk of severe penalty for death, but not be as black-and-white as perma death.

All that would do is have people re-load every time a character falls to avoid the perma-stat damage. 

That may be true, but my suggestion would be to have the effect occur after a period of time. So the player would have to go back to a save before receiving the initial injury to avoid it. It would be limited to hard or above modes..

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Ideally, whether or not the injury would be permanent would be set when the actual injury occurs, so the player wouldn't know until they either used the kit or went back to camp. This would mitigate some reloading instances, give true risk of severe penalty for death, but not be as black-and-white as perma death.

All that would do is have people re-load every time a character falls to avoid the perma-stat damage. 

Even if there was only a remote chance of it happening? I don't think it would. If only once out of 100 times a character "falls" in combat they had a chance at a permanent injury, who would reload every time? 

The question then becomes finding the sweet spot to make it sting enough to instill fear (and, hence, better management during combat) but not be so annoying a player feels the need to reload every time a character drops. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mai 2013 - 04:44 .

[hexaligned]

Filament wrote...

I for one am really glad BioWare games are far removed from those old WRPGs that were ugly as sin and whose gameplay sounds entirely unappealing. JRPGs were so much better in the 90s than whatever the west was doing at the time. imo obv

I like me some japacheesy console weeblo strategy/RPG's as much as the next guy, I was never a fan of the pure JRPG's though(especially the twitch ones). If they want to rip off something like Fire Emblem or the Shining Force games, I would be all for it.

Modifié par relhart, 20 mai 2013 - 04:43 .

[In Exile]

Realmzmaster wrote...
That may be true, but my suggestion would be to have the effect occur after a period of time. So the player would have to go back to a save before receiving the initial injury to avoid it. It would be limited to hard or above modes..

No. All the player would have to do is re-load before the encounter once a character falls. Basically, if your penalty triggers on HP = 0 (permadeath, stat reduction X hrs into the future), then the actual way to avoid it is the same, which is to retry the encounter without the character reaching HP = 0. 

And if it's a nightmare only feature, then that's all the more reason to re-load rather than to wind up with a perma-nerfed party and have to restart the whole game anyway.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Even if there was only a remote chance of it happening? I don't think it would. If only once out of 100 times a character "falls" in combat they had a chance at a permanent injury, who would reload every time?  

It depends on the sort of player. But it depends on your incentive system. If the actual stat loss is meaningless (i.e., something that counts as 1 of 3 points you get at level up and the chance is 1/100 to have it happen), then it's it's like that thing isn't even part of the game. If the chance is low but the penalty is severe, then why would it be justified to take the risk and have your character nerfed? And if the chance of injury is high but the magnitude is low, then you get back to the original incentive problem of death by 1000 cuts.

The other problem, design wise, is that you're essentially punishing players who are worse at the game. 

Th question then becomes finding the sweet spot to make it sting enough to instill fear (and, hence, better management during combat) but not be so annoying a player feels the need to reload every time a character drops. 

What do you mean, fear? The second the player wants to re-load because a character gets to HP = 0, you've created the effect you want. You say "not so annoying", but that's just something that's subjective. 

I personally would rather redo the encounter until I perfect it than deal with a pain-in-the-ass later. 

Modifié par In Exile, 20 mai 2013 - 04:47 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Yes, they are releasing a toolkit for Witcher 3.  And, no, it will not have multiplayer.

www.webpronews.com/cd-projekt-red-talks-up-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-2013-02

Personally, I didn't like the need for so many potions.  I like skills and magic in my rpg, but, other than health, I really don't get into taking potions.  But in the Wticher, it's important for potion taking.

[Fast Jimmy]

The lack of duplication of permanent injuries would prevent the "death by 1000 cuts" scenario you outline. For each injury, say there is only one or two "permanent" injuries that are inflicted because of it. Therefore, even as you become injured permanently, it lowers your chance of getting a further permanent injury. You can only have cataracts once, after all. There is no DOUBLE cataracts.

Injuries themselves are little more than a nuisance. So a diminished effect of a permanent one would be similarly mild, exact details notwithstanding.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mai 2013 - 05:09 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

The lack of duplication of permanent injuries would prevent the "death by 1000 cuts" scenario you outline. For each injury, say there is only one or two "permanent" injuries that are inflicted because of it. Therefore, even as you become injured permanently, it lowers your chance of getting a further permanent injury. You can only have cataracts once, after all. There is no DOUBLE cataracts.

Injuries themselves are little more than a nuisance. So a diminished effect of a permanent one would be similarly mild, exact details notwithstanding.

But if the penalty is negligible, what is the point of the injury? Basically, I see the incentie system as either being untouched by a mild penalty or that it will encourage reloading for those that are bothered by the penalty (minus the smaller group that wants to be penalized). 

[Fast Jimmy]

But if the penalty is negligible, what is the point of the injury? Basically, I see the incentie system as either being untouched by a mild penalty or that it will encourage reloading for those that are bothered by the penalty (minus the smaller group that wants to be penalized).

You assume that everyone tries their hardest during combat, and any failure will be a result of them simply being bad.

That is not the case.

The fear of loss makes the stakes higher and engages the player more. If nothing bad happens when you lose, then succeeding will have the same flavor as failure - that is to say, none. If your player is entirely disengaged from everything except only the most EXTREME forms of failure (entire party dies), then what incentive do they have to try? If they aren't trying, then how is the player not going to feel bored? On the other side, if the player is constantly trying to stay alive, how are they NOT more engaged in their party make-up, the equipment they are using, the tactics they are employing and, in general, the game?

Developers catering to those who would reload upon a character dying by removing death are not doing anyone any favors. The player obviously cares if they live or die, they just didnt like how extreme the penalty of doing so was. A logical answer was the injury system. But that, too, is easily games with the huge quantity of injury kits and the easy fix of a camp visit.

Taking one step back towards the realm of penalization merely increases the stakes. Increasing the stakes increases the feeling of excitement.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mai 2013 - 05:29 .