809 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

In that vein perhaps stealth sections could be solo, or accommodate a variable number of party members depending on how many rogues you have/ the oddball stealth mage character.

There shouldn't be "stealth sections".  Stealth should be an ability which is always available, like fireball.

[Fast Jimmy]

That's because RPGs have, by and large, been focused on nothing but combat (with some outliers through history). It's much easier to kill everything than it is to accommodate alternative ideas. I think that is an area where the gaming industry has become so stale, it is ridiculous. All this technology and innovations in how games are designed and still we have the ludicrous notion that a hero must be a mass murderer of thousands of bandits and giant spiders.

The concept that a game isn't entertaining if a group of four people can't, over the course of maybe a few months in-game, slaughter roughly what we may consider 35% of the viable large-mass fauna and humanoid population in a given area is insane. Literally, sociopathic.

We have some of the best minds in the industry constantly focusing on harnessing processing power, integrating pixel counts, rendering realistic models... and no one has figured out how to sneak four people past some orcs without fighting? I'd say that's a gross misapplication of resources.

[Realmzmaster]

@Fast Jimmy

Not misleading at all. All the calculations from the decision engines are going to be performed anyway throughout the manual combat. When you for example command Hawke to perform annihilate as a rogue against an opponent the decision engine calculates the results. That is the same as if you put it in the tactics and allow an autoresolve button to run the party member's script. Nothing new needs to be created except a button. The autoresolve button simply bypasses the animations speeding the combat. Nothing new need be added except a button for the interface that allows for autoresolve.

The program simply compares the powers and skills of the party with the enemy and declares a winner. If the button is included in the design at the beginning there is no need for extra construction on the programmer's part.

[Medhia Nox]

@Fast Jimmy: I think you might be glossing over the concept that the player base would find that "boring".

Hero Fetishism requires violence - it's part of the fantasy wish fulfillment. To solve problems in the most base simplistic way possible.

[Fast Jimmy]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: I think you might be glossing over the concept that the player base would find that "boring".

Hero Fetishism requires violence - it's part of the fantasy wish fulfillment. To solve problems in the most base simplistic way possible.

This thread wouldn't exist if some in the player base didn't also find endless, mindless slaughter also boring.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That's because RPGs have, by and large, been focused on nothing but combat (with some outliers through history). It's much easier to kill everything than it is to accommodate alternative ideas. I think that is an area where the gaming industry has become so stale, it is ridiculous. All this technology and innovations in how games are designed and still we have the ludicrous notion that a hero must be a mass murderer of thousands of bandits and giant spiders.

The concept that a game isn't entertaining if a group of four people can't, over the course of maybe a few months in-game, slaughter roughly what we may consider 35% of the viable large-mass fauna and humanoid population in a given area is insane. Literally, sociopathic.

We have some of the best minds in the industry constantly focusing on harnessing processing power, integrating pixel counts, rendering realistic models... and no one has figured out how to sneak four people past some orcs without fighting? I'd say that's a gross misapplication of resources.

The porblem is not so much that they cannot or will not, but does it sell. Planescape Torment (IMHO one of the best crpgs of all time) did not sell well along with Alpha Protocol. Alpha Protocol could not crack a million in sales (reached roughly 740,000 on three platforms). Many crpgs that do not focus on combat do not sell well.

If the gaming public is not clamoring for a game that does not focus on combat why would a publisher do so. That would be financial sucide. A small independent developer may be able to cater to that audience and make a profit.

In this thread alone you have posters stating why are people playing the game if they wish to skip combat or get it over faster.

I love other ways to get through the game beside combat. I would like to see far more methods to that end, but a lot of gamers play the game for the combat to watch their character grow to be that badass character they wish to roleplay.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...
 @Fast Jimmy

 Not misleading at all. All the calculations from the decision engines are going to be performed anyway throughout the manual combat. When you for example command Hawke to perform annihilate as a rogue against an opponent the decision engine calculates the results. That is the same as if you put it in the tactics and allow an autoresolve button to run the party member's script. Nothing new needs to be created except a button. The autoresolve button simply bypasses the animations speeding the combat. Nothing new need be added except a button for the interface that allows for autoresolve.

The program simply compares the powers and skills of the party with the enemy and declares a winner. If the button is included in the design at the beginning there is no need for extra construction on the programmer's part.

This may, on the surface, seem logical, but it's not the way things work. A system cannot just "get rid of" the physical/visual representation of a game, even one with defined tactics and responses. Not without additional programming to tell it how to fill in the gaps.

To take it as the most simplistic example I can think of, if you set a game of Pong to be the computer versus itself, it wouldn't have a way to calculate the tactics of its two CPU and automatically calculate a final score and victor. The AI/tactics are a set of conditional settings that result in the appropriate movements. If the "ball" object actor moves close enough to the "goal" area parameter, the "player paddle" actor knows to move to block its path. But it doesn't have the logic built in to calculate in advance where exactly the paddle will strike the ball, nor the angle it will bounce, nor if that will put the ball in the range of the opponent's paddles logic. It's not designed that way. It is strictly reactive - "if X, then Y." You are assuming because it knows to do this calculation and that Y will then result in Z and that there is a script that "If Z, then A" that the computer "knows" that if Y is completed, it can then begin calculating the Z to A script.

Tying those strings of logic together are not automatic for a computer. And it's not the way the DA system is designed currently. So an auto-skip button would require those steps in logic to be fully mapped out and understood. Or, much more likely, it will be simplified to a game of virtual Rock/Paper/Scissors, where rogues with X ability trump Fighters with Y ability but not Fighters with Z ability or Mages. Either way, it isn't as simple as pressing a button. Otherwise, someone would have made a mod for it with ease. 

[Jorji Costava]

Back in the day, we had an entire genre of games (namely, point-and-click adventures) which did quite well with a minimum of combat. Not a whole lot of fighting in the old Lucas Arts games, unless you count stuff like "How appropriate! You fight like a cow!" Also, the recent success of The Walking Dead suggests that the focus on combat to the exclusion of all else is not necessarily an inevitability.

As far as stealth goes, one potential obstacle to a successful implementation of stealth in Bioware games is the reliance on a simple pass/fail skill check. If you pass the check, you're totally invisible even if you're standing directly in front of a bad guy, whereas if you fail, they'll notice you breathing from 50 yards out and be able to immediately tell exactly where you are. That's not much more satisfying as an approach to stealth than a pass/fail combat skill check would be as an approach to combat.

IMO, the best stealth mechanics in games rely on things like exploiting cover, enemy lines of sight, distraction, etc. That could enable options for sneaking even for characters who aren't naturally gifted at it, so that if someone hears you fart, that doesn't mean the jig is up right then and there. Maybe they hear you, but if you stay still and utilize cover, they might attribute it to some stray animal, etc.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That's because RPGs have, by and large, been focused on nothing but combat (with some outliers through history). It's much easier to kill everything than it is to accommodate alternative ideas. I think that is an area where the gaming industry has become so stale, it is ridiculous. All this technology and innovations in how games are designed and still we have the ludicrous notion that a hero must be a mass murderer of thousands of bandits and giant spiders. 

The concept that a game isn't entertaining if a group of four people can't, over the course of maybe a few months in-game, slaughter roughly what we may consider 35% of the viable large-mass fauna and humanoid population in a given area is insane. Literally, sociopathic.

We have some of the best minds in the industry constantly focusing on harnessing processing power, integrating pixel counts, rendering realistic models... and no one has figured out how to sneak four people past some orcs without fighting? I'd say that's a gross misapplication of resources.

The porblem is not so much that they cannot or will not, but does it sell. Planescape Torment (IMHO one of the best crpgs of all time) did not sell well along with Alpha Protocol. Alpha Protocol could not crack a million in sales (reached roughly 740,000 on three platforms). Many crpgs that do not focus on combat do not sell well.

If the gaming public is not clamoring for a game that does not focus on combat why would a publisher do so. That would be financial sucide. A small independent developer may be able to cater to that audience and make a profit.

In this thread alone you have posters stating why are people playing the game if they wish to skip combat or get it over faster.

I love other ways to get through the game beside combat. I would like to see far more methods to that end, but a lot of gamers play the game for the combat to watch their character grow to be that badass character they wish to roleplay.

I'd say Planescape Torment suffered (greatly) from a lack of structure, narratively and otherwise. While its charm was derived from the ability to get lost in the world... many players just felt lost. And I'd say Alpha Protocol was not properly marketed. It tried to appear like an edgy spy shooter, but was much more firmly rooted in being an RPG. Since players didn't get a clear message of what the game was, his didn't generate for it. 

I don't think any of that really ties to successfully using non-combat options. And a stealth game like Thief or DE focuses far too much on player skill rather than character skills/abilities to make me truly consider them as RPGs. So I'd say the industry hasn't made a real effort to make an RPG that was rooted in the idea of options, especially options that didn't involve killing as being the simplest option. I feel like Dishonored tried this, but failed. By the middle of the game, I found it much simpler to just ignore sneaking and kill anyone who opposed me. 

All that aside, even if combat is the primary problem solving device for RPGs and DAI, it still doesn't mean that smarter encounter design wouldn't benefit the experience and prevent players (myself included) from feeling dread about even considering another playthrough due to the inane amounts and type of combat. 

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
 @Fast Jimmy

 Not misleading at all. All the calculations from the decision engines are going to be performed anyway throughout the manual combat. When you for example command Hawke to perform annihilate as a rogue against an opponent the decision engine calculates the results. That is the same as if you put it in the tactics and allow an autoresolve button to run the party member's script. Nothing new needs to be created except a button. The autoresolve button simply bypasses the animations speeding the combat. Nothing new need be added except a button for the interface that allows for autoresolve.

The program simply compares the powers and skills of the party with the enemy and declares a winner. If the button is included in the design at the beginning there is no need for extra construction on the programmer's part.

This may, on the surface, seem logical, but it's not the way things work. A system cannot just "get rid of" the physical/visual representation of a game, even one with defined tactics and responses. Not without additional programming to tell it how to fill in the gaps.

To take it as the most simplistic example I can think of, if you set a game of Pong to be the computer versus itself, it wouldn't have a way to calculate the tactics of its two CPU and automatically calculate a final score and victor. The AI/tactics are a set of conditional settings that result in the appropriate movements. If the "ball" object actor moves close enough to the "goal" area parameter, the "player paddle" actor knows to move to block its path. But it doesn't have the logic built in to calculate in advance where exactly the paddle will strike the ball, nor the angle it will bounce, nor if that will put the ball in the range of the opponent's paddles logic. It's not designed that way. It is strictly reactive - "if X, then Y." You are assuming because it knows to do this calculation and that Y will then result in Z and that there is a script that "If Z, then A" that the computer "knows" that if Y is completed, it can then begin calculating the Z to A script.

Tying those strings of logic together are not automatic for a computer. And it's not the way the DA system is designed currently. So an auto-skip button would require those steps in logic to be fully mapped out and understood. Or, much more likely, it will be simplified to a game of virtual Rock/Paper/Scissors, where rogues with X ability trump Fighters with Y ability but not Fighters with Z ability or Mages. Either way, it isn't as simple as pressing a button. Otherwise, someone would have made a mod for it with ease. 

The pong example does not hold water because the computer will know exactly where the ball is along its trajactory while playing both sides. The trajactory can be calculate the momemt it bangs off the opponent's bat. The compuetr can also calculate all the available trajactories that the ball can take.  The computer playing Pong will simply tie itself at Zero-Zero because the ball will always be in play. The same as tic-tac-toe. The computer will always tie itself.

The Rock/Paper/ Scissors analog holds for manual combat as well. When you pick a special skill for use by the party member you are engaging in Rock/Paper/Scissors. The computer is calcualting the base attack skill plus the special attack versus the defense value of the enemy and any buffs the enemy has. It still boils down to Rock/Paper?Scissors at its base.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd say Planescape Torment suffered (greatly) from a lack of structure, narratively and otherwise. While its charm was derived from the ability to get lost in the world... many players just felt lost. And I'd say Alpha Protocol was not properly marketed. It tried to appear like an edgy spy shooter, but was much more firmly rooted in being an RPG. Since players didn't get a clear message of what the game was, his didn't generate for it. 

I don't think any of that really ties to successfully using non-combat options. And a stealth game like Thief or DE focuses far too much on player skill rather than character skills/abilities to make me truly consider them as RPGs. So I'd say the industry hasn't made a real effort to make an RPG that was rooted in the idea of options, especially options that didn't involve killing as being the simplest option. I feel like Dishonored tried this, but failed. By the middle of the game, I found it much simpler to just ignore sneaking and kill anyone who opposed me. 

All that aside, even if combat is the primary problem solving device for RPGs and DAI, it still doesn't mean that smarter encounter design wouldn't benefit the experience and prevent players (myself included) from feeling dread about even considering another playthrough due to the inane amounts and type of combat. 

Deus Ex: Human Revolution seemed to be quite successful in allowing the gamer to choose from Combat., Stealth, Hacking or Social playstyles.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 23 juillet 2013 - 10:06 .

[Fast Jimmy]

The pong example does not hold water because the computer will know exactly where the ball is along its trajactory while playing both sides. The trajactory can be calculate the momemt it bangs off the opponent's bat. The compuetr can also calculate all the available trajactories that the ball can take.  The computer playing Pong will simply tie itself at Zero-Zero because the ball will always be in play. The same as tic-tac-toe. The computer will always tie itself.

Sorry, but it doesn't.

A computer CAN calculate the trajectory, but it DOESN'T. Because it doesn't need to. Here is no script that says "if ball is hit, calculate exact velocity and distance to next goal." The program can capture, create, store and utilize this data, but it has to be told to.

A game of Pong with a computer will not result in a 0-0 stalemate forever. Not if the AI is set to the level that can be beaten by a human, at least. You could create an AI that would be unbeatable, able to determine the every movement of the ball and where it would need to be to block it, but it would be not much fun for a human to play against.

Similarly, DA enemy AI knows "if nearby actor = enemy Mage, then melee attack" or "if 3 or more enemy actors are within X amount of space, cast firestorm" but it can't extrapolate that out to know that if a Mage is 10 feet away from a melee fighter, if the melee fighter will get over to the Mage in time before firestorm is cast.

It is a common fallacy to assume that since computers are able to access all the neccessary information they need to complete a task, that they DO. In fact, computers are very stupid in that if you do not spell out the exact steps and correlations in a given series of tasks, they will not ever treat them as totally separate, uncorrelated phenomenon.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 juillet 2013 - 10:11 .

[Sjpelke]

Overall think that expectations given by the devs and marketing devices used are very important when a game is launched.

What has been said about expectations gamers are given about a game that do not hold up when they start playing the game, is dissapointing and will not result in a good word of mouth to others who do not get the game at launch or soon after that.

How a game is PROMOTED in a trailer and the marketing previous to the launch of the game effects the long term sales imho. If a game is displayed as it is it will profit from that IF the game is enjoyable for the player.

RPG's have a wide range in how one can interpretate the genre as a whole and the different genres are more and more overlapping. Creating a signature, defining themselves from the other dev's, is part of a games succes.

Becoming mostly a hack and slash game, running from one battle to another, is not what I personally would like to see in an RPG. Will get me a shooter if I want to play that kind of game.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd say Planescape Torment suffered (greatly) from a lack of structure, narratively and otherwise. While its charm was derived from the ability to get lost in the world... many players just felt lost. And I'd say Alpha Protocol was not properly marketed. It tried to appear like an edgy spy shooter, but was much more firmly rooted in being an RPG. Since players didn't get a clear message of what the game was, his didn't generate for it. 

I don't think any of that really ties to successfully using non-combat options. And a stealth game like Thief or DE focuses far too much on player skill rather than character skills/abilities to make me truly consider them as RPGs. So I'd say the industry hasn't made a real effort to make an RPG that was rooted in the idea of options, especially options that didn't involve killing as being the simplest option. I feel like Dishonored tried this, but failed. By the middle of the game, I found it much simpler to just ignore sneaking and kill anyone who opposed me. 

All that aside, even if combat is the primary problem solving device for RPGs and DAI, it still doesn't mean that smarter encounter design wouldn't benefit the experience and prevent players (myself included) from feeling dread about even considering another playthrough due to the inane amounts and type of combat. 

Deus Ex: Human Revolution seemed to be quite successful in allowing the gamer to choose from Combat., Stealth, Hacking or Social playstyles.

Well, again, I'd say that system is much more based on player skill rather than RPing a character with those skills. Not to mention all of those terribly planned boss battles that made any attempt at being a non-combat character pretty much a huge headache. 

So I'd say DE:HR attempted and made a valiant effort, but ultimately failed. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

The problem is that kind of stealth has been a bit nonsensical in RPGs since NWN-DAO as far as I'm concerned, whereas if they design a section specifically for stealth, they have a more controlled environment where it can actually feel like stealth and not just provisional invisibility.

I don't mind areas that are specifically designed to be stealth-friendly, but those mechanics should always be available.  They might not always be as useful, or their usefulness might not be immediately apparent (I suspect most KotOR players didn't realise that you could kill Malak using only the Demolitions skill), but those character skills shouldn't suddenly disappear just because the developers didn't think you'd want them right then.

If stealth requires shadows, any shadow should do, not just specific shadows placed there to be useful for stealth.

The universal availability of the stealth skill in both KotOR and DAO was great.  If you want a better and more realistic stealth mechanic, fine - but don't restrict when I can use it based on how the designers intended me to approach each problem.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The pong example does not hold water because the computer will know exactly where the ball is along its trajactory while playing both sides. The trajactory can be calculate the momemt it bangs off the opponent's bat. The compuetr can also calculate all the available trajactories that the ball can take.  The computer playing Pong will simply tie itself at Zero-Zero because the ball will always be in play. The same as tic-tac-toe. The computer will always tie itself.

Sorry, but it doesn't.

A computer CAN calculate the trajectory, but it DOESN'T. Because it doesn't need to. Here is no script that says "if ball is hit, calculate exact velocity and distance to next goal." The program can capture, create, store and utilize this data, but it has to be told to.

A game of Pong with a computer will not result in a 0-0 stalemate forever. Not if the AI is set to the level that can be beaten by a human, at least. You could create an AI that would be unbeatable, able to determine the every movement of the ball and where it would need to be to block it, but it would be not much fun for a human to play against.

Similarly, DA enemy AI knows "if nearby actor = enemy Mage, then melee attack" or "if 3 or more enemy actors are within X amount of space, cast firestorm" but it can't extrapolate that out to know that if a Mage is 10 feet away from a melee fighter, if the melee fighter will get over to the Mage in time before firestorm is cast.

It is a common fallacy to assume that since computers are able to access all the neccessary information they need to complete a task, that they DO. In fact, computers are very stupid in that if you do not spell out the exact steps and correlations in a given series of tasks, they will not ever treat them as totally separate, uncorrelated phenomenon.

If the programmer can write the neccessary code the computer can access the data and calculate the necessary response. If the program is designed to compete with a human at different levels say like chess or Pong then the program  A. I is deliberately crippled to compete at that level. The programming is to the point that computers can compete and beat grandmaster level players (like Deep Blue or  like Watson was able to beat the Jeopardy champions. Watson actually learns from its mistakes).

Chessmaster XI (ELO rating 2718) on the micro can give even grandmasters a run for their money.
If the progammer can write it the computer can execute it. Any IF statements necessary for manual calculation and logical decision making can be used by the computer to create an autoresolve button. This has been done in the past with crpgs like Wizard's Crown, and games like Total War and Spartan to name a few.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Filament wrote...

The problem is that kind of stealth has been a bit nonsensical in RPGs since NWN-DAO as far as I'm concerned, whereas if they design a section specifically for stealth, they have a more controlled environment where it can actually feel like stealth and not just provisional invisibility.

I don't mind areas that are specifically designed to be stealth-friendly, but those mechanics should always be available.  They might not always be as useful, or their usefulness might not be immediately apparent (I suspect most KotOR players didn't realise that you could kill Malak using only the Demolitions skill), but those character skills shouldn't suddenly disappear just because the developers didn't think you'd want them right then.

If stealth requires shadows, any shadow should do, not just specific shadows placed there to be useful for stealth.

The universal availability of the stealth skill in both KotOR and DAO was great.  If you want a better and more realistic stealth mechanic, fine - but don't restrict when I can use it based on how the designers intended me to approach each problem.

The problem I had with DAO stealth skill was that it was more like an invisibility spell than stealth. Mask of the Assassin came closer to a realistic stealth skill in my opinion.

[Fast Jimmy]

If the programmer can write the necessary code the computer can access the data and calculate the necessary response.

Exactly. If the programming is there. It's not, currently. Talking about adding it in are the examples of extra decision engines needed to be planned, created, evaluated, tested and tweaked.

A video game can put a set of pool balls on a table and let you hit the cue ball with varying velocity and angles and give you an accurate representation of where the balls would line up using engine physics. But just because it can simulate these physics doesn't mean it can, in any way possible, PREDICT these same results. Not without additional programming. It's one thing to make a game of pool where the balls react realistically. It's another to have the game be able to predict how the balls will land when they are hit, have the "opponent" take the smartest, easiest shot at their designated balls, determine if they miss, switch to the next player, have them play out their turn, etc., until the completion of the game. It also is a compeltely different task to be able to do all of the above in a non-visual, strictly numeric environment behind the scenes at a much more rapid pace and then give the final result.

That is, essentially, what is being requested here. Again, nothing that is (in the least bit) impossible. As you say, they can create a chess program that analyzes millions of possible moves and selects the best one, with simulations able to be completed in milliseconds. But it is work. How much, I would have no way of knowing without more insight into the system of DAI. But I'd wager it wouldn't be inconsequential. That's why I advocate my solution - there's no work, other than the normal bonuses/penalties that are already in place with the sliding difficulty scales.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If the programmer can write the necessary code the computer can access the data and calculate the necessary response.

Exactly. If the programming is there. It's not, currently. Talking about adding it in are the examples of extra decision engines needed to be planned, created, evaluated, tested and tweaked.

A video game can put a set of pool balls on a table and let you hit the cue ball with varying velocity and angles and give you an accurate representation of where the balls would line up using engine physics. But just because it can simulate these physics doesn't mean it can, in any way possible, PREDICT these same results. Not without additional programming. It's one thing to make a game of pool where the balls react realistically. It's another to have the game be able to predict how the balls will land when they are hit, have the "opponent" take the smartest, easiest shot at their designated balls, determine if they miss, switch to the next player, have them play out their turn, etc., until the completion of the game. It also is a compeltely different task to be able to do all of the above in a non-visual, strictly numeric environment behind the scenes at a much more rapid pace and then give the final result.

That is, essentially, what is being requested here. Again, nothing that is (in the least bit) impossible. As you say, they can create a chess program that analyzes millions of possible moves and selects the best one, with simulations able to be completed in milliseconds. But it is work. How much, I would have no way of knowing without more insight into the system of DAI. But I'd wager it wouldn't be inconsequential. That's why I advocate my solution - there's no work, other than the normal bonuses/penalties that are already in place with the sliding difficulty scales.

The programming is there. If it can calculate the manual combat the necessary statements are already implemented otherwise it could not perform manual combat. In fact it would be easier to do in a non-visual format which is what Wizard's Crown back in 1985 did.
The battle rules and calculations are set in place before the animations. The decision engine would be done with its battle calculations before any animations which is why in DAO the party member can seemed to have dodged a blow when it did not. The calcualtion had already been performed and the blow hit. The animation takes time to catch up. The autoresolve button is simply implemented along with the battle rules.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The problem I had with DAO stealth skill was that it was more like an invisibility spell than stealth. Mask of the Assassin came closer to a realistic stealth skill in my opinion.

Great.  Then maybe the act of being stealthy should work more like it did in MotA, but that ability should always be available.

That said, I took the DAO implementation to be an abstraction of stealth.  Mechanically, it worked fine.  It just looked a bit silly on the screen.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 juillet 2013 - 11:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

The programming is there. If it can calculate the manual combat the necessary statements are already implemented otherwise it could not perform manual combat.

You're confusing data with programming.

The DATA is there for the computer to figure this all out. The PROGRAMMING is not.

A computer can scan an entire book and tell you exactly how many times the word "Batman" appears in it. It can tell you exactly how many words are in the text, or how many punctuation marks. It can quote the exact page numbers or take you to the very last page with the press of a button. But, despite having access to every word in the entire book faster than a human could possibly dream, it can't tell you what the book's about. It has access to the entire set of data, but zero ability to interpret that. You could ask the computer "Who is the killer in this murder mystery?" and it wouldn't be able to answer, even if you could then right afterwards tell it to search for the phrase in the book "And the killer's name is..."

This is the same thing. It's Pong. It's video game pool. The game can tell the AI what to do, exactly, at this moment in time... but it's not designed to know the ramifications of its actions to the level where it can start planning its next move.

The logic asks "What is going on right now?" It goes through the list of imperatives until it hits one that is actionable. It doesn't, before it does so, calculate the length of time it will take to complete that action until it is able to make another decision, and then be able to look at the other objects and behaviors in play and figure out what it's next move will be after that.

It searches for its highest actionable item and it engages it. Then, once it becomes free again, it does the same thing. It isn't designed to look at other actor's behaviors, their stats, their overall tactics, the distance between other actors or how long they will take until their designated actions are over... the programming is not there. The DATA is there... but not the programming. The understanding. The THINKING.

You can add the thinking. But it would need to be added. It does not currently exist today.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 juillet 2013 - 11:51 .

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The programming is there. If it can calculate the manual combat the necessary statements are already implemented otherwise it could not perform manual combat.

You're confusing data with programming.

The DATA is there for the computer to figure this all out. The PROGRAMMING is not.

A computer can scan an entire book and tell you exactly how many times the word "Batman" appears in it. It can tell you exactly how many words are in the text, or how many punctuation marks. It can quote the exact page numbers or take you to the very last page with the press of a button. But, despite having access to every word in the entire book faster than a human could possibly dream, it can't tell you what the book's about. It has access to the entire set of data, but zero ability to interpret that. You could ask the computer "Who is the killer in this murder mystery?" and it wouldn't be able to answer, even if you could then right afterwards tell it to search for the phrase in the book "And the killer's name is..."

This is the same thing. It's Pong. It's video game pool. The game can tell the AI what to do, exactly, at this moment in time... but it's not designed to know the ramifications of its actions to the level where it can start planning its next move.

The logic asks "What is going on right now?" It goes through the list of imperatives until it hits one that is actionable. It doesn't, before it does so, calculate the length of time it will take to complete that action until it is able to make another decision, and then be able to look at the other objects and behaviors in play and figure out what it's next move will be after that.

It searches for its highest actionable item and it engages it. Then, once it becomes free again, it does the same thing. It isn't designed to look at other actor's behaviors, their stats, their overall tactics, the distance between other actors or how long they will take until their designated actions are over... the programming is not there. The DATA is there... but not the programming. The understanding. The THINKING.

You can add the thinking. But it would need to be added. It does not currently exist today.

I am not confusing data and programming. I have programmed for more than 30 years. I was a system analyst in my every day job in case you forgot. I was programming Fortran and COBOL back in the 70's. The programming to implement the button is already there in the programming logic. You can run the tactics in both DAO and DA2 without any animation. Strip away all the animation and you can run the battles. The computer can run the battles independent of any animation and calcualte any conceivable distance on the battlefield. Computer Wargames have been doing it since their inception. Battles in DAO and DA2 are simple on a smaller scale. It can take in all the variables of your party build match them against the enemy and run the battle.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The problem I had with DAO stealth skill was that it was more like an invisibility spell than stealth. Mask of the Assassin came closer to a realistic stealth skill in my opinion.

Great.  Then maybe the act of being stealthy should work more like it did in MotA, but that ability should always be available.

That said, I took the DAO implementation to be an abstraction of stealth.  Mechanically, it worked fine.  It just looked a bit silly on the screen.

If they could actually make it work like it did in MotA (with refinements) throughout the entire game, and if there was a way to separate your party in a discrete way (no following 500 ft away), flip between the two groups, dismiss a group, that could be pretty good.

Sounds like a heck of a task, though. Particularly, how to resolve dialog that may be prompted at a group that does not contain the protagonist. With DAO the protagonist just teleported onto the scene if the rogue walked into a speech trigger, if I recall correctly. That's less than ideal. I have a feeling your solution would be "no speech triggers," but barring that, maybe companions could have autodialog or limited choice a la the Fade (Connor), Fort Drakon, or Leliana's Song. But present throughout the entire game, making it possible for any companion to lead a conversation... yeah, that would be untenable, probably.

My solution would be to let any party member speak the player-selected lines.  Like BG did.

I strongly oppose this insistence on BioWare's part that the PC always act as the party's spokesperson.  Even more so beacuse they appear to have fallen into this design by accident.  At least some of the BG2 writers (accoreding to David gaider) believed that's how BG2 worked, even though it didn't, and in fact the ability to use any party member as spokesperson was explicitly documented in the BG manual.  But ever since BG2, they're enforced this limitation, and I hate it.  It's anti-party.  They keep making party-based games, but they undermine that design right from the start by preventing appropriate distributions of roles within that party.

So, if, by implenting a stealth mechanic, they were forced to re-exanime whether they even want to force the PC to be the party spokesperson in each and every instance (though, I will concede that the Fort Drakon rescue in DAO did allow an auto-dialogue solution for this), I'd call that a bonus.

The design I prefer all works together.  When I propose mechanics that appear to create new problems, those problems can be easily eliminated by implementing others of my proposed mechanics.