176 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

 

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. 

Why should you get rewarded for failing something? It defeats the purpose of a reward in the first place. A reward is for when you succeed at something, not "lol you didn't die good enuff" rubbish or "oh welp you tried, here have stuff".

You should get punished or get nothing for failing at something, not given a treat like you actually did something worthwhile, which is the point of a reward.

[crimzontearz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

and your belief that we should be put in our place for our arrogance because YOU happen to like the thought is JUST as irrelevant. Actually I would LOVE for you to pitch that to David Gaider because as much as I might not agree on his stance on some issues I am pretty sure he too would consider this a horrible idea (especially given the premise)

Modifié par crimzontearz, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:09 .

[Taura-Tierno]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

 

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. 

Why should you get rewarded for failing something? It defeats the purpose of a reward in the first place. A reward is for when you succeed at something, not "lol you didn't die good enuff" rubbish or "oh welp you tried, here have stuff".

You should get punished or get nothing for failing at something, not given a treat like you actually did something worthwhile, which is the point of a reward.

How do you define "reward"? 

When we talk about rewards for a quest, I mean anything from gold and items, to experience points and leveling up. If the point of a battle is to fail it, the player should be rewarded with satisfaction for progressing the plot (e.g. by getting to level up the character, or progressing towards a level-up). So a character should definitely earn experience points for it. That was what I meant by "people learn as much, if not more, from failure than success". You get better when you fail, because you (hopefully) learn from your mistakes. And getting better is what experience points means. 

Of course, just seeing the monster, turning around and walking away shouldn't be rewarded with anything, since you didn't actually do anything. But if you fight the monster (which cannot be killed) and are defeated/have to escape, which is the point, then yes, you should get xp. 

Whether you get items or not, I guess, would depend on the context of the quest and unkillable boss in question.

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:12 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Forget the reward-punishment mentality to begin with.

Are you a child that requires candy as simple monitvation to do anything?

[Lotion Soronarr]

crimzontearz wrote...

and your belief that we should be put in our place for our arrogance because YOU happen to like the thought is JUST as irrelevant. Actually I would LOVE for you to pitch that to David Gaider because as much as I might not agree on his stance on some issues I am pretty sure he too would consider this a horrible idea (especially given the premise)

What do you call the idea that you are the greatest and everything should be given to you? That no one should be superior to you? That you MUST win every fight?

Sorry, but in my dictionary, the word that describes it best is arrogance.

[Taura-Tierno]

"Reward" is a pretty integral part of any game where a character improves and gets better over time. Get rid of that, and it's not really an RPG anymore. If leveling up/getting experience/improving the character is counted as a "reward".

[Vapaa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Are you a child that requires candy as simple monitvation to do anything?

Yes, yes I am, I don't do things for free

[KiwiQuiche]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Forget the reward-punishment mentality to begin with.

Are you a child that requires candy as simple monitvation to do anything?

Oh wow, level 2 snark-ass already. Try harder.

Taura-Tierno wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

 

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. 

Why
should you get rewarded for failing something? It defeats the purpose of
a reward in the first place. A reward is for when you succeed at
something, not "lol you didn't die good enuff" rubbish or "oh welp you
tried, here have stuff".

You should get punished or get nothing
for failing at something, not given a treat like you actually did
something worthwhile, which is the point of a reward.

How do you define "reward"? 

When
we talk about rewards for a quest, I mean anything from gold and items,
to experience points and leveling up. If the point of a battle is to
fail it, the player should be rewarded with satisfaction for progressing
the plot (e.g. by getting to level up the character, or progressing
towards a level-up). So a character should definitely earn experience
points for it. That was what I meant by "people learn as much, if not
more, from failure than success". You get better when you fail, because
you (hopefully) learn from your mistakes. And getting better is what
experience points means. 

Of course, just seeing the monster,
turning around and walking away shouldn't be rewarded with anything,
since you didn't actually do anything. But if you fight the monster
(which cannot be killed) and are defeated/have to escape, which is the
point, then yes, you should get xp. 

Whether you get items or not, I guess, would depend on the context of the quest and unkillable boss in question.

Are something benefical you get after you do something worthwhile.

You do get a failure/win scenario with whatsherface in DAO, where if you loose the fight you end up in jail. However you can kick her ass and win, though it's kinda tough. Having a "you fail no matter what" fight just seems lame; why bother fighting or wasting time on something you can't win or achive at?

[Taura-Tierno]

I still wonder why this seems to be such a controversial topic, btw. This is a pretty common concept used in a loooot of games, isn't it? Often when you face the main villain before the end of the game. Darth Malak in KotoR was a pretty good boss like that. Not only did you have to flee from him, but you also had to leave a companion behind (and you still got xp, the character progressed). Jon Irenicus in Baldur's Gate 2. Lots of games have fights you cannot win. For plot reasons.

Darth Malak, especially, is a great example of a fight that you cannot win, for a good reason, and that manages to progress the plot and has an emotional impact to boot. With a very good reason for how you manage to escape. 

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:32 .

[Taura-Tierno]

Also, failure at something usually means that the plot takes a drastic turn. That's a very good reason to force the protagonist to fail. If everything goes as planned, things get predictable.

[crimzontearz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

and your belief that we should be put in our place for our arrogance because YOU happen to like the thought is JUST as irrelevant. Actually I would LOVE for you to pitch that to David Gaider because as much as I might not agree on his stance on some issues I am pretty sure he too would consider this a horrible idea (especially given the premise)

What do you call the idea that you are the greatest and everything should be given to you? That no one should be superior to you? That you MUST win every fight?

Sorry, but in my dictionary, the word that describes it best is arrogance.

or, you know, a game which is created for entertainment, your opinion on whether it's meant to fuel arrogance is utterly irrelevant, again, pitch that lovely idea to Gaider "hey David, do you think it would be a swell idea to give the players punishing, humiliating, unavoidable defeats because, as people, they are arrogant egomaniacs in love with power fantasy and should be put in their place because I like the thought of it"


 
Go on, I dare you

[Vapaa]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Lots of games have fights you cannot win. For plot reasons.

And it sucks

Saren in ME1 is a really bad offender, as well as his unholy offspring: Kai Leng in ME3

[Taura-Tierno]

I was not a fan of Kai Leng.

But the Darth Malak fight in Knights of the Old Republic? Are you going to say that that fight was bad an unnecessary? It was critical to the plot and well-executed. 

Take any good book or movie. In virtually every good story, the protagonist suffers setbacks, and often fails, for the story to take an unexpected route, to build suspense and create conflict. The failure does not have to be in a battle, but in anything action-oriented, it's extremely common. Because constant success generally makes for an uninteresting story. 

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:44 .

[crimzontearz]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

I still wonder why this seems to be such a controversial topic, btw. This is a pretty common concept used in a loooot of games, isn't it? Often when you face the main villain before the end of the game. Darth Malak in KotoR was a pretty good boss like that. Not only did you have to flee from him, but you also had to leave a companion behind (and you still got xp, the character progressed). Jon Irenicus in Baldur's Gate 2. Lots of games have fights you cannot win. For plot reasons.

Darth Malak, especially, is a great example of a fight that you cannot win, for a good reason, and that manages to progress the plot and has an emotional impact to boot. With a very good reason for how you manage to escape. 

My problem is twofold

• Lotion's starting point as per WHY we should be forced to lose (because we are egomaniacs children) and thus we should be put in our place  is both insulting and counterproductive to the nature of these games and his idea of HOW we should lose reinforces the above.

• Bioware is generally bad at it and lately especially with Kai Leng it felt insanely forced


 
I am not against the idea but it MUST be done well and not simply because "players should be put in their place"

Geralt is de fact beaten by Letho in act 1 of TW2, Alcatraz is betrayed and nearly killed by Hargreave, John 117 is uncerimoniously beaten by the didact (I am not even going to touch Reach....), Mondus manages to outwit Dante and Vergil and kidnaps Kat, War is betrayed by the council TWICE and beaten by the watcher....and so on, and those arenall games I like.

[Vapaa]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Take any good book or movie. 

Stop it right there, a book or a movie is not a game, a game is interactive and thus the dynamic between the media and the audience is not the same as with a book or a movie when you're simply spectator

[KiwiQuiche]

Vapaä wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Lots of games have fights you cannot win. For plot reasons.

And it sucks

Saren in ME1 is a really bad offender, as well as his unholy offspring: Kai Leng in ME3

Ah yes kai lame. Truely a glorious example of "you fail everytime due to cutscene incompotence and lousy writing"

Like anyone want a repeat of that rubbish.

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:55 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

I was not a fan of Kai Leng.

But the Darth Malak fight in Knights of the Old Republic? Are you going to say that that fight was bad an unnecessary? It was critical to the plot and well-executed. 

Take any good book or movie. In virtually every good story, the protagonist suffers setbacks, and often fails, for the story to take an unexpected route, to build suspense and create conflict. The failure does not have to be in a battle, but in anything action-oriented, it's extremely common. Because constant success generally makes for an uninteresting story. 

The OP isn't talking about the protagonist being defeated at some point, he wants monsters that the player can't kill, that are beaten by the player escaping. It's not new for games, and it's not inherently more interesting than the usual mechanic since the result is exactly the same, and half the proposed reason for having them is to make the player feel small, because we're just human after all, which is pointless and adds nothing of worth to the game.

[abnocte]

Kai-Leng was a pain in the ass so I was going to say no, but I'm replaying BG2 and in that game you run into Irenicos twice before the final battle.

I really like how it is handled there, the first time there's a third party meddling that stops the fight ( The Cowled Wizards ) and the second you run right into his trap ( Spellhold ).

So I guess it is a "depends on how it is handled" to me.

[abnocte]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The OP isn't talking about the protagonist being defeated at some point, he wants monsters that the player can't kill, that are beaten by the player escaping. It's not new for games, and it's not inherently more interesting than the usual mechanic since the result is exactly the same, and half the proposed reason for having them is to make the player feel small, because we're just human after all, which is pointless and adds nothing of worth to the game.

I know this isn't directed to me, but... the thread titles says bosses so I assumed that the OP was referring to Kai Leng and the like.

But if s/he refers to random enemies I thing s/he has nothing to worry about, there is no level scaling. That should cover it.

Modifié par abnocte, 18 septembre 2013 - 12:10 .

[Taura-Tierno]

 

Vapaä wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Take any good book or movie. 

Stop it right there, a book or a movie is not a game, a game is interactive and thus the dynamic between the media and the audience is not the same as with a book or a movie when you're simply spectator

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

I was not a fan of Kai Leng. 

But the Darth Malak fight in Knights of the Old Republic? Are you going to say that that fight was bad an unnecessary? It was critical to the plot and well-executed. 

Take any good book or movie. In virtually every good story, the protagonist suffers setbacks, and often fails, for the story to take an unexpected route, to build suspense and create conflict. The failure does not have to be in a battle, but in anything action-oriented, it's extremely common. Because constant success generally makes for an uninteresting story. 

The OP isn't talking about the protagonist being defeated at some point, he wants monsters that the player can't kill, that are beaten by the player escaping. It's not new for games, and it's not inherently more interesting than the usual mechanic since the result is exactly the same, and half the proposed reason for having them is to make the player feel small, because we're just human after all, which is pointless and adds nothing of worth to the game.

A game, especially one like the Dragon Age games, is very story-related, though. And a good story (in my opinion) requires some level of defeat instead of constant success. No, it does not have to be combat, but it's a perfectly viable way to do it. 

Yes, I agree that it has to be done well - because it should be done for a story reason. And as such, should be as good as the story is in general. Just like Darth Malak, which I think is one of the best examples. It is fullfilling from a gameplay point of view, because it progresses the plot, reveals interesting information, you get to actually encounter the villain, and then there's a very good explanation for why you manage to escape (Bastila remains to hold him off). 

I don't think that having an unkillable boss just to annoy players is a good way to go. it should be unkillable for a good reason. 

If you want to stomp on players' egos, it's much better to have monsters that are too strong to be killed _now_, e.g. a huge dragon on early levels, that you could approach, but could also be avoided easily. If you're foolish enough to try, you die (or have to escape). Which sounds exactly like what they're gonna do. But then, that's not really to annoy players, just a side-effect of enemies not leveling and having an open world. Player responsibility. Don't chew more than you can swallow. 

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 18 septembre 2013 - 12:11 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

"Reward" is a pretty integral part of any game where a character improves and gets better over time. Get rid of that, and it's not really an RPG anymore. If leveling up/getting experience/improving the character is counted as a "reward".

R stands for Role, not Reward.

The reward IS the reoleplaying. The continuation of the story. The Experience itself. Levels are nothing more than mathematical abstraction of strength.

You coudl have a RPG where the play NEVER levels up at all. It would still be a RPG.

[Lotion Soronarr]

crimzontearz wrote...

or, you know, a game which is created for entertainment, your opinion on whether it's meant to fuel arrogance is utterly irrelevant, again, pitch that lovely idea to Gaider "hey David, do you think it would be a swell idea to give the players punishing, humiliating, unavoidable defeats because, as people, they are arrogant egomaniacs in love with power fantasy and should be put in their place because I like the thought of it"

Go on, I dare you

If you learn to use punctuation, I might (tough not with that words).

Entertanment does NOT equal "I must always win" (or "my character must always win")
While a pure power fantasy is a valid form of entertainment, it also tends to be shallow, and serving little more than ego-stroking.

[Lotion Soronarr]

crimzontearz wrote...

• Lotion's starting point as per WHY we should be forced to lose (because we are egomaniacs children) and thus we should be put in our place  is both insulting and counterproductive to the nature of these games and his idea of HOW we should lose reinforces the above.

All the demands and emoing and whining made on forums everywhere by gamers everywhere proves me right.
Maybe it's the internet, maybe something else, but gamers tend to look really bad to an outsider when you start reading.
Too many gamers sure do act like self-absorbed children, regardless of their actual age.

[Herr Uhl]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

All the demands and emoing and whining made on forums everywhere by gamers everywhere proves me right.
Maybe it's the internet, maybe something else, but gamers tend to look really bad to an outsider when you start reading.
Too many gamers sure do act like self-absorbed children, regardless of their actual age.

The irony in you stating this is all to painful. Having read your posts everywhere on these forums for years.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taura-Tierno wrote...
Yes, I agree that it has to be done well - because it should be done for a story reason.

I disagree that that is the ONLY reason.

What about the world/setting? What if the setting has immortal/god-like entities? What if you want to create a lving, breathing world?
Such things can be added for atmosphere and lore. To make it feel as if the character is PART of the world and not like the world revoles around him.