176 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Filament wrote...

One of those plans should involve luring the high dragon into a gauntlet of anchored chain ballistas so we can capture it and find out who the shapeshifter is.

I see what you did there

http://www.entravity...einer-annie.jpg

crimzontearz wrote...
and most people do not like that...at all

Sauce for that Argumentum Ad Populum?

are your tastes somehow "objectively better" than those of other people?

Depends.
Yours? Yes.

[KiwiQuiche]

So basically we run off like a loser and get rewarded for it? Lame.

[Taura-Tierno]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

So basically we run off like a loser and get rewarded for it? Lame.

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

[crimzontearz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Filament wrote...

One of those plans should involve luring the high dragon into a gauntlet of anchored chain ballistas so we can capture it and find out who the shapeshifter is.

I see what you did there

http://www.entravity...einer-annie.jpg

crimzontearz wrote...
and most people do not like that...at all

Sauce for that Argumentum Ad Populum?

are your tastes somehow "objectively better" than those of other people?

Depends.
Yours? Yes.

Look at the thread if you want a "sauce"

tastes are subjective, thus yours being objectively better is quite idiotic and needlessly confrontational....well so is a lot of what you said so I am not sure why I am surprised....oh wait, I'm not

[snackrat]

If it is supposed to be too tough, too smart, too well-equipped, they need to make sure it ACTUALLY IS. Having an enemy that, by rights, should be defeatable just getting away because the PC (against hte player's will) started standing around like a muggins is not, is NEVER, a real threat. It feels cheap. Aggravating. The journey feels for naught.

Maybe while a boss is monologuing, sudden spin PC around to see someone unnoticed (because distracted) triggering a trap, blocking you off (or knocking you out!). Maybe have a mage 'teleport' (since they can do that now for some reason) into an area unreachable before scarpering. Maybe have the enemy flee while, at the same time, you are called away for something urgent (escaping a cave in, saving a quest-escort, w/e).
But don't have us just stand and stare while Kai Leng and Thane do all the work.

[crimzontearz]

Karsciyin wrote...

If it is supposed to be too tough, too smart, too well-equipped, they need to make sure it ACTUALLY IS. Having an enemy that, by rights, should be defeatable just getting away because the PC (against hte player's will) started standing around like a muggins is not, is NEVER, a real threat. It feels cheap. Aggravating. The journey feels for naught.

Maybe while a boss is monologuing, sudden spin PC around to see someone unnoticed (because distracted) triggering a trap, blocking you off (or knocking you out!). Maybe have a mage 'teleport' (since they can do that now for some reason) into an area unreachable before scarpering. Maybe have the enemy flee while, at the same time, you are called away for something urgent (escaping a cave in, saving a quest-escort, w/e).
But don't have us just stand and stare while Kai Leng and Thane do all the work.

but you see, according to a certain poster we are childish people with huge egos and we SHOULD feel aggravated, humiliated abd put in our places!

BTW a good example of what you are talking about is Letho in TW2

[frankf43]

PinkShoes wrote...

Why would you get anything for running away?

www.youtube.com/watch

couldn't help it

[snackrat]

Don't forget that things need resolution. Adding in things just for their own sake doesn't make sense from a literary and resource management point of view.
Maybe it isn't beaten in combat at first, but it is in a subsequent battle. Maybe someone else deals with it and you fight THEM. Otherwise you end up with a source of frustration and no way to vent.
Making Shep just stare at Kai Leng was infuriating. Having him covered by the gunship worked a lot better (he had reason to have an advantage, there) and got you mad to kill them. And then when you finally DID... ahaha! Though introduced solely as a secondary villian, he became worth it.

Only occassion in my experience I can think of where a recurring villian never was defeated was Dead Space - the regenerating Hunter necromorph, the only one Isaac cannot kill (though can incapacitate, temporarily). Presumably this is considered okay because the point has always been survival, and RUNNING AWAY, and also WHERE'S NICOLE AUGH. But I did feel a little bit like that was unfinished business. At least there is a bug to get it accidentally into a vent so it 'dies', of a sort, but that's... ahh, its not the same.

I understand wanting the player to keep on their toes at to whether they'll win though. Maybe, rather than using cutscenes, the enemy can be made ridiculously strong - but instead of the standard 'mission failed' screen, the story continues with the PC's loss? The player will feel themselves losing and, being based in gameplay, gives the NPCs a better sense of real strength.

[Seival]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

Wise words.

[crimzontearz]

Seival wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

Wise words.

I do not play games to learn life lessons

[Seival]

Karsciyin wrote...

Don't forget that things need resolution. Adding in things just for their own sake doesn't make sense from a literary and resource management point of view.
Maybe it isn't beaten in combat at first, but it is in a subsequent battle. Maybe someone else deals with it and you fight THEM. Otherwise you end up with a source of frustration and no way to vent.
Making Shep just stare at Kai Leng was infuriating. Having him covered by the gunship worked a lot better (he had reason to have an advantage, there) and got you mad to kill them. And then when you finally DID... ahaha! Though introduced solely as a secondary villian, he became worth it.

Only occassion in my experience I can think of where a recurring villian never was defeated was Dead Space - the regenerating Hunter necromorph, the only one Isaac cannot kill (though can incapacitate, temporarily). Presumably this is considered okay because the point has always been survival, and RUNNING AWAY, and also WHERE'S NICOLE AUGH. But I did feel a little bit like that was unfinished business. At least there is a bug to get it accidentally into a vent so it 'dies', of a sort, but that's... ahh, its not the same.

I understand wanting the player to keep on their toes at to whether they'll win though. Maybe, rather than using cutscenes, the enemy can be made ridiculously strong - but instead of the standard 'mission failed' screen, the story continues with the PC's loss? The player will feel themselves losing and, being based in gameplay, gives the NPCs a better sense of real strength.

The point is that invincible bosses shouldn't be able to stop you from completing your mission. There should be bosses which are impossible for you to kill, or even impossible for you to deal any damage at all. But eventually that creature must not be able to stop you from saving the world.

Kai Leng would be a good example of what I'm talking about only if he would be much stronger than Shepard plus all her/his companions combined each time you had to fight him, and eventually you would be 100% unable to defeat him, which wouldn't stop you from completing your main goal of course.

[Fast Jimmy]

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

Wise words.

I do not play games to learn life lessons

...maybe you should...?

[The Night Mammoth]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

Wise words.

I do not play games to learn life lessons

...maybe you should...?

Fox news would have to start up a recurring segment on video games. 

[Seival]

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

Wise words.

I do not play games to learn life lessons

Games are the essence of learning, you know? Through the games people learn very important lessons without the risk to suffer or die in the process. You may learn the hard way, or you may play games first... I suppose you prefer the hard way

[crimzontearz]

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

Wise words.

I do not play games to learn life lessons

Games are the essence of learning, you know? Through the games people learn very important lessons without the risk to suffer or die in the process. You may learn the hard way, or you may play games first... I suppose you prefer the hard way

no, thank you, I learned the normal way through my parents and first hand experience. Life actually reminds me every day that you do not always win, that life itself is unfair and of my own mortality, I do not need nor want my recreational activities and primary hobby to remind me of that too.

[Zarathiel]

Seival wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

Don't forget that things need resolution. Adding in things just for their own sake doesn't make sense from a literary and resource management point of view.
Maybe it isn't beaten in combat at first, but it is in a subsequent battle. Maybe someone else deals with it and you fight THEM. Otherwise you end up with a source of frustration and no way to vent.
Making Shep just stare at Kai Leng was infuriating. Having him covered by the gunship worked a lot better (he had reason to have an advantage, there) and got you mad to kill them. And then when you finally DID... ahaha! Though introduced solely as a secondary villian, he became worth it.

Only occassion in my experience I can think of where a recurring villian never was defeated was Dead Space - the regenerating Hunter necromorph, the only one Isaac cannot kill (though can incapacitate, temporarily). Presumably this is considered okay because the point has always been survival, and RUNNING AWAY, and also WHERE'S NICOLE AUGH. But I did feel a little bit like that was unfinished business. At least there is a bug to get it accidentally into a vent so it 'dies', of a sort, but that's... ahh, its not the same.

I understand wanting the player to keep on their toes at to whether they'll win though. Maybe, rather than using cutscenes, the enemy can be made ridiculously strong - but instead of the standard 'mission failed' screen, the story continues with the PC's loss? The player will feel themselves losing and, being based in gameplay, gives the NPCs a better sense of real strength.

The point is that invincible bosses shouldn't be able to stop you from completing your mission. There should be bosses which are impossible for you to kill, or even impossible for you to deal any damage at all. But eventually that creature must not be able to stop you from saving the world.

Kai Leng would be a good example of what I'm talking about only if he would be much stronger than Shepard plus all her/his companions combined each time you had to fight him, and eventually you would be 100% unable to defeat him, which wouldn't stop you from completing your main goal of course.

The only satisfying part of the Kai Leng character in Mass Effect 3 was when I finally got to kill him, both as revenge for Thane and to end his obnoxious presence from the story. The whole encounter with him on Thessia forever marred him as an enemy who needed the game developers to cheat for him to win because DRAMA as opposed to someone who could actually outfight or outthink Shepard.

The only way your idea could work without ruining the game is as a Fade sequence.

[snackrat]

^^ ...but after its infamous use in DAO, and DA2 not being much better, a lot of people would consider the game ruined by adding any Fade sequence at all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

crimzontearz wrote...
Look at the thread if you want a "sauce"

Insufficient to claim a majority oppinion, and mostly irelevant.

Karsciyin wrote...

If it is supposed to be too tough, too smart,
too well-equipped, they need to make sure it ACTUALLY IS. Having an
enemy that, by rights, should be defeatable just getting away because
the PC (against hte player's will) started standing around like a
muggins is not, is NEVER, a real threat. It feels cheap. Aggravating.
The journey feels for naught.

Indeed.
It makes much mroe sense for monstrous bosses - like demons and dragon.

Against a human or humanoid opponent, what I definately don't want to see if that battleaxe critical to the head taking 0.01% off his health. I'd rather kill him with 2-3 crits than suffer having to pound him for two hours and him shedding several olympic pools owrth of blood befiore finally succumbing.

To be gameplay and story segragation is a sour point.
The less of it I see, the better. Any mechanic or number that doesn't make at sense in the setting is a negative point for me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Karsciyin wrote...

I understand wanting the player to keep on their toes at to whether they'll win though. Maybe, rather than using cutscenes, the enemy can be made ridiculously strong - but instead of the standard 'mission failed' screen, the story continues with the PC's loss? The player will feel themselves losing and, being based in gameplay, gives the NPCs a better sense of real strength.

Roll up a new character?
And I don't mean start a new game. I mean like they do it in PnP.
The Inquisitors replacement/protege/heir/whatever takes over.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zarathiel wrote...

The only satisfying part of the Kai Leng character in Mass Effect 3 was when I finally got to kill him, both as revenge for Thane and to end his obnoxious presence from the story. The whole encounter with him on Thessia forever marred him as an enemy who needed the game developers to cheat for him to win because DRAMA as opposed to someone who could actually outfight or outthink Shepard.

That's a big problem in games.
The AI will NEVER be as good as a human player. And the human player can re-load a million times..the bad guy can't.
So you can't really make a "unbeatable" boss the standard way.

There is a PnP expression - "if you stat it, they will kill it". And that is true.


You could of course, simple give a character liek Kai-Leng REDICOLOUSLY powerfull attacks.
But then again, players can save-scum till they avoid getting hit even once.

[Taura-Tierno]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

I understand wanting the player to keep on their toes at to whether they'll win though. Maybe, rather than using cutscenes, the enemy can be made ridiculously strong - but instead of the standard 'mission failed' screen, the story continues with the PC's loss? The player will feel themselves losing and, being based in gameplay, gives the NPCs a better sense of real strength.

Roll up a new character?
And I don't mean start a new game. I mean like they do it in PnP.
The Inquisitors replacement/protege/heir/whatever takes over.

I don't think that would be particularly fun, given how much time you invest in building relationships from the perspective of your current character. Not in a Dragon Age game ... it would be an interesting feature, but it would have to be a game that is built around the mechanic that death happens, and it should never feel as a great loss or a setback to have your character killed, its progression lost and all relationships reset to zero. All aspects of the game, story, subplots, NPC relationships and interaction, should be constructed for the purpose of that happening. 

Personally, I think that the sense of loss and defeat should be story-driven. It should not be because the player is not fast enough with the buttons or strategic enough to win every encounter, making the game into a dreary line of defeats. Defeat, when it happens like that, should be a part of gameplay. It should not be possible to save-reload past it (like Hawke's mother in DA2). Or it should be rooted in decisions made long ago, but a loss like that should not just mean that the players get defeated and their game ends or takes a drastic turn to being sucky; alternate paths could open up, other ways to continue the journey with the same amount of fun as if you had succeeded at [whatever]. 

Getting defeated gets moot when you can just reload and do the battle again to get a "better" outcome - if the outcome of success actually is better. 

I agree with what you said about enemies cheating, though. That's pretty much the only way to guarantee defeat if defeat is necessary. Cheating or introducing a mechanic against which there is no defense. Unexpected, overwhelming reinforcement, unavoidable traps, etc. 

[KiwiQuiche]

Seival wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

Wise words.

Pfft. If I wanted a protagonist who failed at everything I would go play DA2 again. The only thing I learned from Hawke's failures is that it would have been better for everyone if she had died in her sibling's place via the Ogre.

And how do you even learn any bloody thing via running away like a coward and getting rewarded for some dismal reason?

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 18 septembre 2013 - 07:49 .

[cold52]

ehh...not a particularly interesting thing for me...but if i were to have an unkillable boss...

1. give it an area in which can be avoided all together, or is part of the story

2. give a player a reason to want to encounter the boss...perhaps it guards a unique item...now if you really want to be creative perhaps at one point in the story you find another unkillable boss guarding an area and you need to use the item to lure unkillable boss a to unkillable boss b to have them distract one another allowing acess to a new area.

3. there be a good reason the boss is unkillable.

4. make sure the player is aware the boss is infact unkillable (it be pissed if i first encountered it looked like it could be killed only for me to constantly come back only to be killed until i found out about it being unable to be killed.

[Taura-Tierno]

 

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Seival wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

People learn just as much, if not more, from failure than success.

Wise words.

Pfft. If I wanted a protagonist who failed at everything I would go play DA2 again. The only thing I learned from Hawke's failures is that it would have been better for everyone if she had died in her sibling's place via the Ogre. 

And how do you even learn any bloody thing via running away like a coward and getting rewarded for some dismal reason?

I think you missed my point. People learn from mistakes, and it would make perfect sense for characters to get rewarded with XP by fighting a tough enemy and failing, if that is the point of the fight. Why wouldn't you? By failing, you learn what not to do, you are pushed to your very edge of skill and competence, you push your limits ... those are all valid, skill-increasing experiences. 

cold52 wrote...

ehh...not a particularly interesting thing for me...but if i were to have an unkillable boss...

1. give it an area in which can be avoided all together, or is part of the story 

2. give a player a reason to want to encounter the boss...perhaps it guards a unique item...now if you really want to be creative perhaps at one point in the story you find another unkillable boss guarding an area and you need to use the item to lure unkillable boss a to unkillable boss b to have them distract one another allowing acess to a new area.

3. there be a good reason the boss is unkillable. 

4. make sure the player is aware the boss is infact unkillable (it be pissed if i first encountered it looked like it could be killed only for me to constantly come back only to be killed until i found out about it being unable to be killed.

Unkillable bosses tend to be unkillable for plot reasons. That means it doesn't matter if the players knows it beforehand; the entire point is that they should not be killed, and when the protagonist fails, the plot moves forwards. Setbacks and failures are good plot devices. 

A boss that can be killed, but only by special means, is not "unkillable". It is just a boss that is very difficult to kill. From what's been said, it seems very likely that we'll encounter things like that, since enemies don't level with us. That means, to me, that we will encounter monsters that are way beyond our level, and that we simply will not be able to kill, so we'll have to either avoid them first, or retreat when we realise that it's too tough. Plenty of battles like that in Baldur's Gate 2, with some dragons, for instance, being way too difficult to kill when you first encounter them (depending on the order you do quests in).