575 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I understand.

I know that I personally try very hard not to lose anyone during a combat encounter--though I'll admit I don't reload a save when I do. I think Bioware's evolution to giving a penalty for someone who falls, as opposed to KotOR, is a good idea--but the presence of injury kits makes that almost meaningless.

I personally try not to take any damage during a combat encounter.  I don't consider an encounter truly successful unless no one took any damage.

Yet another reason I didn't like DA2.  The no damage approach was basically impossible.

How about harsher penalties for a teammate death in combat, with no injury kits, with the injury or whatever only going away when you return to the home base? Would that be an acceptable compromise?

Only if returning to the home base wasn't trivial.  Actually having to trek back (and facing some difficultly or tedium in doing so) would discourage doing it, rather than just finding the edge of a small zone and selecting the camp on a map.

As Jimmy says, incentives matter (actually, I said that, but I was paraphrasing him).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 mai 2013 - 09:12 .

[Fast Jimmy]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder why no one hangs around, say, the developers of Sacred 2 and inundate them with their own game design opinions. Why is Bioware such a target? It's one thing to be a big fan and talk a bunch of b.s. about the game. Another to think you're actually part of the team.

Because the Sacred series is a Diablo-clone which has a quantity of unique game design that could fit in a thimble?

Designers who develop games that aren't just good and enjoyable, but which try and offer a unique game attract fans who actually think and have ideas of their own. And who know why and can articulate exactly why they enjoy a game. That's why. 

I'm confused why Bioware has so many fans who see gameplay discussion so intimidating. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

StreetMagic wrote...

Not wanting to take any damage at all sounds more like obsessive compulsive behavior, than a flaw in game design per se.

If you were in a fight, would it be your objective merely to survive, or also to avoid being hurt?

[Conduit0]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Why are you worrying about the low and median difficulty levels? A player who chooses to play on those levels is either still learning the game or doesn't particularly want to engage in any of the behaviors you're trying to push on him.

I'm starting to get the impression that the proposal actually is paternalistic.

The more you get your players to engage in all aspects of a game, the more they will enjoy it.

100% absolutely and positively WRONG. You get players to enjoy your game by letting them play the game the way they want to play. Trying to force people into playing the game the way, "it was intended to be played" is one of the biggest game design faux pas there is.

[Fallstar]

Going back to the mod thing: If Bioware are going to continue to sell weapon and armour packs of terribly low quality, it makes no business sense for them to release a toolkit which extremely talented modders will use to put anything they can do to shame. Few would buy the official item packs when far higher quality items could be downloaded for free.

[cindercatz]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder why no one hangs around, say, the developers of Sacred 2 or WWE Wrestling 2013 and inundate them with their own game design opinions. Why is Bioware such a target? It's one thing to be a big fan and talk a bunch of b.s. about the game. Another to think you're some part of the team.

Personally? I'm a creative guy. If I'm on any message board about anything, I'm going to most likely be talking about ways to change and potentially improve whatever it is I'm talking about. I'd get (permanently) bored within a couple hours if all I was allowed to do was comment on what already exists. I used to talk comics alot, and the vast majority of what I'd talk about is what new directions I'd like to see, what new idea sparked my imagination enough to make it worth talking about. When I talk politics or science or religion or film or anything, I'm far more likely to be looking forward and talking about what can be and how that can be and what I think would be cool or sometimes necessary in the future rather than talking about what the current state of affairs is. That's just how my mind works. No one should ever take it as disrespectful or whatever negative context. Instead, imagine bright eyes flashing wonder and a mind churning 90 miles a minute, because that's how I feel.

[Fast Jimmy]

The first time someone plays a game like God of War, they don't understand the base mechanics or tactics. They have a limited number of moves and enemies.

As they progress in the game, their character becomes stronger, but so do the challenges. The player must be better with their skill at the game in order to succeed.

With level-scaling and difficulty settings, this isn't the case with RPGs. But it is still a requirement that the game encourage the player to developer their skills. But instead of getting the Blades of Athena, a DA player should be gaining a better understanding of stacking Tactics slots in the right order brings, or how percentage increases to damage can often be much more powerful than flat increases.

I feel like the system as is now doesn't do a great job in educating these lessons (many of which have been taught to us experienced vets before in other games), nor encouraging them to learn these things. Which means a details, intricate system is being ignored and the player is not engaging the game on the level it was designed to be.

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If the current system, with its plethora of injury kits, had the system I am suggesting, it would not run the risk of "piling up" on a character until they and experienced a huge number of combat deaths. I would possibly add a kink that injury kits could not be used when there are any nearby enemy groups (hundreds of meters) to prevent a "I got an injury? Let me use my injury kit right now... Dang! Permanent injury. Oh well, time to reload..."

If you make reloading more of a hassle than dealing with the slight injury inconvenience, only the most perfectionist would reload. Or use console commands, for the PC Master Race.

But, by the same token, if the consequence is given
immediately after the mistake is made, it is far too easy for the player
to just reload and avoid that consequence. By sheer luck, even the most
passive of players can fall into sheer dumb luck with a fight and get
away Scot free. So it encourages the easiest sidestep, instead of
encouraging engagement in the game's mechanics.

By that token, I feel the delayed application is the best course of action for this theoretical gameplay element.

(answer to both quotes:)

So... players that aren't doing very well at the moment need not only to have their ability to get out of their current predicament seriously inhibited but also have their ability of redoing the segment limited?

Remember that this penalty hits those who're already not doing too well. Not the ones who do things well. I imagine it's more likely to be too much for them, and too ineffectual for the ones who want more challenge.

Besides... isn't it a major point against this suggestion if you need to impede reloading to make it relevant? More often than not I'd say we reload for good reasons.

I would disagree here. Strongly.

Reloading is A) not the only course of action and not a given for players. You can learn to deal with the consequences and you can learn from them. And if you make reloading the bigger inconvenience of the bunch, then it would be more effective.

After all... we are treating players actually engaging in the combat system as some type of punishment or activity the player doesn't even want to do... that's (hopefully) not the case. The player just needs a nudge to stay awake during the endless string of combat encounters. Not having the same character did multiple times over the course of the game to beat the odds and actually start acquiring enough permanent injuries to REALLY affect gameplay would be... difficult. At that point, it would just be a little nudge to say "hey... There are these things called potions. You can use them during combat!"

Speaking of, tutorials need to exist for a GREAT DEAL of things combat related. While most of the DA systems are logical, they, like so many game systems, are not intuitive by nature. The game needs to TELL players things before it begins assuming they understand them. This can be skill able and optional to see, but it needs to exist. And, if a player begins to fail or do poorly, it needs to prompt the player to consult (or re-consult) these tutorials.

But if the penalty is permanent, then I'm not learning to cope with the situation. I'm having to redo the same thing but this time even weaker. And if that does not lead to perfect success? Even more weakness. You're making me weaker every time I don't achieve perfect score. And like I mentioned above if I am losing partymembers (need not be the same one) repeatedly, I'm probably the one that needs increased difficulty the least.

It's not a system that encourages me to innovate, because I can't learn from my mistakes. I must relearn my character every time I fail because it has less capability now. It encourages me to stick to what is safe and not experiment, which risks leading to having suboptimal strategies later.

I must be able to move on, at all times. Which is why a penalty being permanent (at any point) is bad, game over exempted. Tutorials are needed, yes. But they're ineffectual at best if the very system punishes you permanentaly for trying out new strategies (that happens not to work so well).

Woah, woah, woah, woah... hold the horses.

You just admonished me for having something that can stack up with one injury, then two, then the whole party until it now becomes impossible to win... but then suggest this?

Locking out abilities is going to make combat harder. A LOT harder. The player is going to VISCERALLY feel that harder difficulty. Unless the skills you lock are not even good ones (in which case, they shouldn't really exist, IMO)... and then, what if the player doesn't have those skills? Would that also result in a player not picking up certain skills because they are one of the "marked for death" skills that get taken out by injury? Oooh... serious problems with this one.

Fair enough... I was mostly thinking at the top of my head of something that be convenient, but not neccessary. Maybe not a good example

Now, I'm not against injury kits being a little less available. But how would you limit healing spells? They have a set healing cost and a cool down. If a character has it, they can cast it all the live-long-day under the current skill system. And, ultimately, it doesn't solve the problem - the player can have a character fall time and time again, but have zero long-term consequence. Which means there is no reason for the player to change their mindset, approach or even engagement of the game.

And, as I've stated before... when a player isn't engaged, they are bored. You can have pace ninjas doing backflips and fighting with lightsabers and if a player isn't engaged, they will be bored. There is some onus on the combat system, for sure, on that front... but the gameplay design does nothing to encourage that initial level of interest. A new player may freak out when a companion falls in battle, but then sees them hop up after the fight, with full health and mana, and probably thinks "oh, sweet, they can just get right back up." That enforces the idea that letting characters die isn't that big of a deal. If you have that mindset, I argue that not only do you try less, but you also get yourself in more trouble. After all, while one combat death is nothing to worry about, it can make the second, third and (final) fourth one that much easier.

And a player being bored and looking at a Game Over screen more often is definitely a bad thing, I would say.

This I largely agree to and is what I aimed at with my convenience angle. You make the player jump though hoops to to get out of the penalty. So while you can get out of them, it requires effort to do so. A chore, essentially. Which I magine should be enough of a disincentive to make the player work at not losing partymembers.
Much like death in BG1 or ability/level drain in BG2. A pain to be sure and something you feared... but unless it led to a TPK, you could always treat it and move on. No permanent repercussion. And it worked well, didn't it?

[hoorayforicecream]

DuskWarden wrote...

Going back to the mod thing: If Bioware are going to continue to sell weapon and armour packs of terribly low quality, it makes no business sense for them to release a toolkit which extremely talented modders will use to put anything they can do to shame. Few would buy the official item packs when far higher quality items could be downloaded for free.

This myth has been addressed repeatedly. The absolute #1 factor in the sales of DLC has always been whether the game remains installed on your PC/console's hard drive. Very few people are willing to reinstall a game to play newly released DLC, especially when there is already a steady stream of other games constantly being released competing for player attention. Toolkits/mods extend the lifetime of the installed game, which leads to more potential customers for DLC and microtransactions, far surpassing any revenue they might gain by 'protecting' their item pack sales.

The real main reasons that mod kits are difficult to release are generally:

#1. The toolkit for internal development almost always incorporates third party software/middleware that the studio has licensed for development purposes, but cannot release publicly for legal reasons. Bioware has the rights to distribute their own toolkit, but not Perforce, Havok, Motionbuilder, etc.
#2. Toolkit software often requires integration with other software tools that must be stripped and removed from the toolkit by programmers for the same reason as #1, as well as rigorously tested by QA.
#3. Console gamers don't get mods, so you'd have to justify spending programmer time on a feature utilized by less than 1/3 of your player base.

Just to give you an idea, the game I'm currently working on requires four additional proprietary and licensed software tools working in tandem in addition to the main toolkit for asset creation, all to do things like govern dependencies, version control, build streamlining, etc. in addition to just editing and creating new content. That stuff needs to be extracted and removed from the toolkit in order for it to be legally released to the public.

[Conduit0]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Going back to the mod thing: If Bioware are going to continue to sell weapon and armour packs of terribly low quality, it makes no business sense for them to release a toolkit which extremely talented modders will use to put anything they can do to shame. Few would buy the official item packs when far higher quality items could be downloaded for free.

This myth has been addressed repeatedly. The absolute #1 factor in the sales of DLC has always been whether the game remains installed on your PC/console's hard drive. Very few people are willing to reinstall a game to play newly released DLC, especially when there is already a steady stream of other games constantly being released competing for player attention. Toolkits/mods extend the lifetime of the installed game, which leads to more potential customers for DLC and microtransactions, far surpassing any revenue they might gain by 'protecting' their item pack sales.

The real main reasons that mod kits are difficult to release are generally:

#1. The toolkit for internal development almost always incorporates third party software/middleware that the studio has licensed for development purposes, but cannot release publicly for legal reasons. Bioware has the rights to distribute their own toolkit, but not Perforce, Havok, Motionbuilder, etc.
#2. Toolkit software often requires integration with other software tools that must be stripped and removed from the toolkit by programmers for the same reason as #1, as well as rigorously tested by QA.
#3. Console gamers don't get mods, so you'd have to justify spending programmer time on a feature utilized by less than 1/3 of your player base.

Just to give you an idea, the game I'm currently working on requires four additional proprietary and licensed software tools working in tandem in addition to the main toolkit for asset creation, all to do things like govern dependencies, version control, build streamlining, etc. in addition to just editing and creating new content. That stuff needs to be extracted and removed from the toolkit in order for it to be legally released to the public.

Trying to dismiss DLC/MT myths with actual facts is like trying to teach a chimp rocket science, it usually just results in an angry monkey throwing fecal matter at you.

[Fast Jimmy]

StreetMagic wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder why no one hangs around, say, the developers of Sacred 2 or WWE Wrestling 2013 and inundate them with their own game design opinions. Why is Bioware such a target? It's one thing to be a big fan and talk a bunch of b.s. about the game. Another to think you're some part of the team.

Personally? I'm a creative guy. If I'm on any message board about anything, I'm going to most likely be talking about ways to change and potentially improve whatever it is I'm talking about. I'd get (permanently) bored within a couple hours if all I was allowed to do was comment on what already exists. I used to talk comics alot, and the vast majority of what I'd talk about is what new directions I'd like to see, what new idea sparked my imagination enough to make it worth talking about. When I talk politics or science or religion or film or anything, I'm far more likely to be looking forward and talking about what can be and how that can be and what I think would be cool or sometimes necessary in the future rather than talking about what the current state of affairs is. That's just how my mind works. No one should ever take it as disrespectful or whatever negative context. Instead, imagine bright eyes flashing wonder and a mind churning 90 miles a minute, because that's how I feel.

I like to consider myself creative too (with music, to be precise). I'm not going to listen to anyone's input there either, unless they were band members. As for comics, those guys who write and draw started from nothing, sending in scripts or artwork, and getting their chance to help out on some throwaway issue, and finally getting a chance to tell their own stories in a flagship series. They invested time in where they got, and I doubt they need anyone to tell them what their job is. They'll either live or die by their own work. Not by anyone else's input. If people end up not liking, they stop reading. And that artist's success goes downhill. All that matters is whether you create something good or not. Not whether you listen. Ideally, you retain old fans and new fans alike, but often it doesn't work out like that.

Why do you listen to your bandmates? They don't play your instrument. Sure, it may affect their own goals and desires for expressing their creativity, but should you have to compromise yourself to please them?

Could it be that you realize that fostering a good relationship with those who interact with your creative output is a good thing? 

Also, if no one ever took any creative criticism or suggestions, their work would be inherently stale. We become blind to certain flaws, while far too focused on others. People who not only experience but use, in a functional way, the results of our efforts often have the best suggestions for how to improve it.

Besides, a gameplay UI programmer doesn't have the same type of open, creative process as, say, an artist or a writer. There is a lot of brilliant work and ideas going on... but it is the work of engineering a smooth system, not that of creating a chareacter who's actions and emotions feel believable. Forum posts suggesting that things in the story for the next game have to happen, or that certain characters or types of characters have to be in the next game is silly and would be considered "fan service" if the creator didn't think it was the best for the product, but would result in more sales. Conversely, suggesting that there be less injury kits doesn't impede anyone's creative decision in how they perceive their vision of the game... its a gameplay tweak.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

So... players that aren't doing very well at the moment need not only to have their ability to get out of their current predicament seriously inhibited but also have their ability of redoing the segment limited?

Remember that this penalty hits those who're already not doing too well. Not the ones who do things well. I imagine it's more likely to be too much for them, and too ineffectual for the ones who want more challenge.

Besides... isn't it a major point against this suggestion if you need to impede reloading to make it relevant? More often than not I'd say we reload for good reasons.

Honestly? I'd say most people don't reload for good reasons. 

The only reason I can think of to reload that doesn't involve wanting to avoid combat penalties is either to go back to a certain part of the story to do something different or to continue a quest that may now be locked, or to go back and collect missed loot/ingredients/items.

Otherwise, you'd reload either because you A) had your entire party die (the Game Over screen) or didn't want to deal with a negative consequence of an injury or using key resources (potions/bombs/traps/etc.).

Not that reloading is bad... but if the game gives you a consequence you don't like, going back to the Load Screen just means you don't have to deal with that consequence. This is like having a "Re-Roll Dice" button in old school character creators. Who WOULDN'T re-roll those dice until you have some great stats? How powerful your charcter starts out is simply a matter of how patient you want to be and how many types you want to click that button. 

Similarly, combat penalites without some type of delay will only be a matter of how patient the player wants to be and how many times they want to click the reload button before moving forward with the stats they have.



All that aside, I am not advocating a system where anytime you mess up, the RPG Grognard Gods come down and Smite Thee. I am talking about a percentage of times you suffer an injury. A likely LOW percentage of times. In addition, I already stated there would be a set limit to the number of permanent injuries a player could incur. AND that they would be smaller in impact/scope than the current injuries... which are negligible. 

Arguably, it could be a system where a player has a death five or ten times in the game and not experience one permanent injury. That's hardly beating down players who aren't good.

But if the penalty is permanent, then I'm not learning to cope with the situation. I'm having to redo the same thing but this time even weaker. And if that does not lead to perfect success? Even more weakness. You're making me weaker every time I don't achieve perfect score. And like I mentioned above if I am losing partymembers (need not be the same one) repeatedly, I'm probably the one that needs increased difficulty the least. 

It's not a system that encourages me to innovate, because I can't learn from my mistakes. I must relearn my character every time I fail because it has less capability now. It encourages me to stick to what is safe and not experiment, which risks leading to having suboptimal strategies later.

I must be able to move on, at all times. Which is why a penalty being permanent (at any point) is bad, game over exempted. Tutorials are needed, yes. But they're ineffectual at best if the very system punishes you permanentaly for trying out new strategies (that happens not to work so well).

Which is why I suggested my "carrot" concept of giving bonuses for "hot streaks" or certain tactical actions. These could then result in permanent stat/skill BOOSTS if chance works out. This could INCENTIVIZE more creative builds, ones that maybe favor cross-class-combos over doing more base dmaage, as the characters could have a chance at getting great permanent stat boosts that more standard "highest DPS possible" party builds wouldn't have available to them. 

I feel like both sides of this coin would do well to push players to learn the mechanics, while also still encouraging overall creativity and innovative encounter and party design.

This I largely agree to and is what I aimed at with my convenience angle. You make the player jump though hoops to to get out of the penalty. So while you can get out of them, it requires effort to do so. A chore, essentially. Which I magine should be enough of a disincentive to make the player work at not losing partymembers. 
Much like death in BG1 or ability/level drain in BG2. A pain to be sure and something you feared... but unless it led to a TPK, you could always treat it and move on. No permanent repercussion. And it worked well, didn't it?

I'd say, objectively? No. It didn't work. 

Because if  you didn't have a ressurect spell handy, you'd need to drag them back to town or a temple to get healed. Which was a pain. You can tell, because players of the newly released version of Baldur's Gate said they found it terribly annoying. 

Not to mention such spells were either high level or required by a scroll, which means a player could be dealing with a dead character for quite some time before they could get them back.

This affects story, as companions who could be "dead" cannot be interacted or scripted with for events. If Isabella died in a fight against some Blood Mages, it would require contrivances for her to suddenly be back up and taking the book of Koslun. If Anders died against some street bandits, it wouldn't make sense that he would be, behind your back (AS DEAD), planting the bomb at the Chantry.

So you can see the problems of having "dead" characters a la BG1. The alternative is to have characters never be "dead" but knocked out in combat, and then injured, like what we see in DA:O. But this leads to gross lack of consequence and, hence, we are where we are.

[Fast Jimmy]

Conduit0 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Why are you worrying about the low and median difficulty levels? A player who chooses to play on those levels is either still learning the game or doesn't particularly want to engage in any of the behaviors you're trying to push on him.

I'm starting to get the impression that the proposal actually is paternalistic.

The more you get your players to engage in all aspects of a game, the more they will enjoy it.

100% absolutely and positively WRONG. You get players to enjoy your game by letting them play the game the way they want to play. Trying to force people into playing the game the way, "it was intended to be played" is one of the biggest game design faux pas there is.

It is not forcing anyone to do anything. It is encouraging players to utilize all the tools and aspects of the game that are available. 

Metal Gear Solid 2 FORCED players to switch their controller out to beat the last boss. My way simply gives small penalties to those who engage in less-than-optimal playstyles.

If you get a -1 Strength permanent penalty to just one of your characters (that you could subsequently switch out and just use less) and it isn't something that you can mitigate by dropping down to Casual (let alone one Level Up), then I'd say you might not enjoy a game like DA, regardless of how the combat is set up.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mai 2013 - 10:32 .

[cindercatz]

StreetMagic wrote...

I like to consider myself creative too (with music, to be precise). I'm not going to listen to anyone's input there either, unless they were band members. As for comics, those guys who write and draw started from nothing, sending in scripts or artwork, and getting their chance to help out on some throwaway issue, and finally getting a chance to tell their own stories in a flagship series. They invested time in where they got, and I doubt they need anyone to tell them what their job is. They'll either live or die by their own work. Not by anyone else's input. If people end up not liking, they stop reading. And that artist's success goes downhill. All that matters is whether you create something good or not. Not whether you listen. Ideally, you retain old fans and new fans alike, but often it doesn't work out like that.

See, you're internalizing a lot of discussion there as (undue, unfounded, personal) criticism. I'm not telling any creator anywhere that what they did is trash, and I can do it better, whether I can or not. I'm just giving my own personal analysis (when it applies) and throwing out what I think might be cool ideas. ... And my ideas tend to stick. A good number of my conceptual story ideas actually ended up finding their way into books. Direct quotes found their way into narration. A good number of ideas I've proposed on this site have already found their way into BioWare's games (specifically ME3 and some of what we've seen for DA3:I, as I started here just after ME2). Whether they got those ideas from me or another poster or someone on staff thought of them concurrently is irrelevant. They're cool ideas. I.E. Positive feedback. That's basically why this whole board exists, or so I gather.

So understand I could care less if you're too proud to take any inspiration from what's given out in the world. I could care less if you listen. I'm a visual artist, a singer, a film professional (when I was healthy), and I certainly have tried my hand at comics and haven't given up on their developement yet. I will take and improve from everything around me as it strikes me. Forgive me, I'm a wholistic thinker and that's how my mind works. If your response to anybody's creative input about your musicianship is to take offense and jump on a high horse about it, that's your business, but I can't, don't, and won't go through life worried that actually throwing out some creative substance to toss over in anybody's head if they feel like it ('wouldn't that be cool?  ) is just too much for some delicate other party to deal with.

I'm not disrespecting anybody's work ethic or professional focus. Honestly I envy them the ability to concentrate their efforts on any one thing at a time if that's what they do. I have trouble not overextending and burning out. Any time I do interject, it should be considered with the notion that whatever I'm applying myself to in that instance is worth doing so, that it's something with enough quality or intrinsic value to warrant my interest. When you're talking creative output, it means they've done a pretty good job (or else they've mucked up somebody else's house just that bad.. but I haven't dove into something like that in a good 11, 12 years). It's a compliment.

When someone is offensively dismissive, I'll go at them, yes, because it's a direct insult. But that's not what's happening. When people make suggestions here, my suggestion to you is to take what they have to say and think about it or don't, but don't get offended the suggestion was made. That serves no purpose whatsoever.

Sorry to write you a letter there.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Why are you worrying about the low and median difficulty levels? A player who chooses to play on those levels is either still learning the game or doesn't particularly want to engage in any of the behaviors you're trying to push on him.

I'm starting to get the impression that the proposal actually is paternalistic.

It is not paternalistic. It is smart game design.

The more you get your players to engage in all aspects of a game, the more they will enjoy it.

I don't see how your proposals generate any higher level of engagement. All they do is shift the focus of that engagement to a different set of specific circumstances that the player is trying to avoid. The amount of engagement necessary depends on how easy it is to avoid the fail states; the particular nature of those fail states isn't important.

Unless you think it is important, but in that casse you should explain why.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 mai 2013 - 10:56 .

[Shaigunjoe]

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

It is not paternalistic. It is smart game design.

The more you get your players to engage in all aspects of a game, the more they will enjoy it. [/quote]
[/quote]

Simply untrue.

I know people who basically play DA/DA2 as glorified choose your own adventure novels, they basically just ignore the combat.  If the game didn't let them do that, then they probably just wouldn't play.

People play games for different reasons, it is naive to think that having all aspects of the game forced upon a player equates to a better gaming experience for them.

[Fast Jimmy]

Bioware forces the gameplay on them. Not me.

I am simply trying to find ways to let people get out of their own way and enjoy, at a deeper level, what they are going to be doing regardless.

If Bioware were to include ways to avoid combat, through stealth, speech or some other method where the player won't be forced to fight for 99% of the game's encounters, then someone could say there is ways around combat. Or if they included a "skip combat" button, but the devs have not been exactly receptive to that idea when it has been suggested previously.

But if players are going to be engaging in combat for hours of each playthrough, even if they are only doing it to get to the "good stuff," it still would benefit them to have a deeper understanding of its mechanisms. Who knows, they may even find they enjoy it when they are given encouragement to understand it.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 mai 2013 - 02:10 .

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But if players are going to be engaging in combat for hours of each playthrough, even if they are only doing it to get to the "good stuff," it still would benefit them to have a deeper understanding of its mechanisms. Who knows, they may even find they enjoy it when they are given encouragement to understand it.

I don't think inflicting permanent nerfs as punishment for sucking is encouraging at all, and I can't imagine why anyone would.

And if characters are going to suffer a permanent "blindness" effect or become otherwise crippled, I damn well expect it to come up in the narrative.

[AlanC9]

I dunno about the whole objective here - in my experience mastering game systems makes them less fun. The more I understood AD&D the staler my gameplay got.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 mai 2013 - 03:00 .

[Conduit0]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Why are you worrying about the low and median difficulty levels? A player who chooses to play on those levels is either still learning the game or doesn't particularly want to engage in any of the behaviors you're trying to push on him.

I'm starting to get the impression that the proposal actually is paternalistic.

The more you get your players to engage in all aspects of a game, the more they will enjoy it.

100% absolutely and positively WRONG. You get players to enjoy your game by letting them play the game the way they want to play. Trying to force people into playing the game the way, "it was intended to be played" is one of the biggest game design faux pas there is.

It is not forcing anyone to do anything. It is encouraging players to utilize all the tools and aspects of the game that are available. 

Metal Gear Solid 2 FORCED players to switch their controller out to beat the last boss. My way simply gives small penalties to those who engage in less-than-optimal playstyles.

If you get a -1 Strength permanent penalty to just one of your characters (that you could subsequently switch out and just use less) and it isn't something that you can mitigate by dropping down to Casual (let alone one Level Up), then I'd say you might not enjoy a game like DA, regardless of how the combat is set up.

The only acceptable penalty for playing a game poorly is the game over screen. Anything else is punishing a player for playing the game the way they want to play it, and that is never acceptable game design.

If you want people to play a game a certain way you have to reward them for doing so, not punish them for not doing it. People play games to have fun, being rewarded is fun, being punished is not, and so if you're constantly being punished, you're going to stop having fun, and your going to stop playing the game. You might even tell all your friends how much fun you didn't have playing the game.

Modifié par Conduit0, 21 mai 2013 - 03:21 .