176 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I will learn punctuation when you learn spelling and the meaning of subjectivity, while power fantasies might be shallow to YOU that might not be the case for others. But of course, EVERYONE should see their entertainment tainted by YOUR (somehow objective) vision of what entertainment is supposed to I.


 
Also, what Herr said

[crimzontearz]

And as a further point

Other games have toyed with the concept of "there are things/beings un this world you should NOT **** with" the best example I can think is Planescape Torment.

but it was never imposed on the player and it was not there to stomp their ego (and this in a game in which you DID fight and defeat godlike entities)

Modifié par crimzontearz, 18 septembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[Taura-Tierno]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Oh, it doesn't have to be levels. There are many great RPG's that don't use level and experience points. You need some form of progression for the character. The character improves, learns, gets better at whatever is essential to the game, whether its combat, intrigues, etc. 

I've played many non-computer RPG's (for instance, play-by-text rpgs online), where there are no stats or skills, and the entire focus is on character interactions and development. That's great. But not very feasible for a video game where action and combat are important parts. Like Dragon Age. I would say that the progression of combat or combat-oriented skills is very essential to a game like this. It doesn't have to be levels. But levels, as you say, is one of many types of mathematical abstractions of the characters development. Which is necessary to a game like this. And, I might add, a lot of people actually think that skills and talents/feats/etc is a very fun aspect of role-playing games. 

And all that should progress in a game, and allow the character to improve things. And since being defeated in combat should be a very good learning experience, it should also give the player actual experience points (if that is the system that is used). 

[crimzontearz]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Oh, it doesn't have to be levels. There are many great RPG's that don't use level and experience points. You need some form of progression for the character. The character improves, learns, gets better at whatever is essential to the game, whether its combat, intrigues, etc. 

I've played many non-computer RPG's (for instance, play-by-text rpgs online), where there are no stats or skills, and the entire focus is on character interactions and development. That's great. But not very feasible for a video game where action and combat are important parts. Like Dragon Age. I would say that the progression of combat or combat-oriented skills is very essential to a game like this. It doesn't have to be levels. But levels, as you say, is one of many types of mathematical abstractions of the characters development. Which is necessary to a game like this. And, I might add, a lot of people actually think that skills and talents/feats/etc is a very fun aspect of role-playing games. 

And all that should progress in a game, and allow the character to improve things. And since being defeated in combat should be a very good learning experience, it should also give the player actual experience points (if that is the system that is used). 

ugh

I always hated FF play by text RPG games, I always imposed a character sheet and a solid system for all of them when I had my own room


 
But I am going off topic

[myahele]

As long as it contribute to the stroy (kinda like the Ser Cautherine battle) then I don't mind a near unbeatable opponent.

But an unbeatable opponent for the sake of one doesn't make too much sense, at least in DA: I

[Tootles FTW]

I don't mind an antagonist or enemy who is beyond my skill-level due to obvious reasons (magic-related or otherwise). A Pyramid Head type situation, as mentioned on the first page, would be tense and interesting - forcing us to flee until we advance and find a work around.

HOWEVER, you risk setting up scenarios where you have "Kai Leng moment" if you render your PCs unable to defeat an enemy because...they just don't want you to yet. Nothing is worse than a cutscene showing your PC and companions herping the derp to service a poorly conceived narrative device.

Modifié par Tootles FTW, 18 septembre 2013 - 05:11 .

[Taura-Tierno]

Tootles FTW wrote...

I don't mind an antagonist or enemy who is beyond my skill-level due to obvious reasons (magic-related or otherwise). A Pyramid Head type situation, as mentioned on the first page, would be tense and interesting - forcing us to flee until we advance and find a work around.

HOWEVER, you risk setting up scenarios where you have "Kai Leng moment" if you render your PCs unable to defeat an enemy because...they just don't want you to yet. Nothing is worse than a cutscene showing your PC and companions herping the derp to service a poorly conceived narrative device.

Yeah, it should be executed well. In KotoR, it worked fine because, well ... Darh Mala was stronger. Simple as that. And then Bastila sacrificed herself to make you escape That's a good mix of fighting, conversation and some cutscene stuff to make it feel very natural. 

The boss could also get an unexpected, very significant amount of reinforcement, forcing you to flee from sheer numbers. I could see something like that in a "King of the Hill" scenario, where you have to defend something against increasingly difficult odds. There's a map in Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty where you actually must fail on a mission, for reasons like that (the story-reason there is that it is a vision of a possible future). 

Or you could have a battle where there has never been a chance of success, and you only fight for your own survival to escape. Like, facing a strong antagonist before you're ready to deal with him/her. Which would make a lot of sense if you are the one who's attacked, and didn't seek the villain out. And then barely escaping with your life ... 

But, I guess, it's all in the details. I could easily see it happen, though. 

[Seival]

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.

You missed the point again, I'm afraid. Failure is an experience. If you failed, then you gained at least experience (if you survived of course). Something that doesn't kill you makes you stronger, remember? Failure is not a shame if you learned from it. And knowledge is a priceless reward.

Also, like I said, reward can be gained from failure in many different ways. For example, you could save someone's life by distracting the invincible boss. Later that person can find you and reward you for saving her/his life. Quite logical, isn't it?

[Seival]

crimzontearz wrote...

And as a further point

Other games have toyed with the concept of "there are things/beings un this world you should NOT **** with" the best example I can think is Planescape Torment.

but it was never imposed on the player and it was not there to stomp their ego (and this in a game in which you DID fight and defeat godlike entities)

Planescape Torment was a very good game. But it's very outdated now. New standards have come.

If someone's ego was stomped because of a failure, then that someone has real problems with pride and should do something about that ASAP. With such pride the person may have really nasty problems in real life.

[Lee80]

Just say no to plot armor. Enemies should be able to be defeated, even if you may have to wait till late in the game when you are high leveled with really great equipment. The idea of invincible enemies has never been appealing.

Yes there are often people stronger then you, but you have to remember you are using a team of 4 characters that are getting stronger as the game progresses, eventually they can surpass their former limits.

[crimzontearz]

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

And as a further point

Other games have toyed with the concept of "there are things/beings un this world you should NOT **** with" the best example I can think is Planescape Torment.

but it was never imposed on the player and it was not there to stomp their ego (and this in a game in which you DID fight and defeat godlike entities)

Planescape Torment was a very good game. But it's very outdated now. New standards have come.

If someone's ego was stomped because of a failure, then that someone has real problems with pride and should do something about that ASAP. With such pride the person may have really nasty problems in real life.

yes outdated enough that it is directly mentioned as one of the inspirations for Inquisition. Torment is a gold standard that is still used as a paragon this day.

Again, it is because I have a REAL life that I would rather not have a game try to teach me lessons I have already learned

for the zillionth time, I repeat this , I do not need nor want this in my god damn entertainment

[Taura-Tierno]

Lee80alabama wrote...

Just say no to plot armor. Enemies should be able to be defeated, even if you may have to wait till late in the game when you are high leveled with really great equipment. The idea of invincible enemies has never been appealing.

Yes there are often people stronger then you, but you have to remember you are using a team of 4 characters that are getting stronger as the game progresses, eventually they can surpass their former limits.

Rare is the game where the character is literally the most powerful entity in the cosmos. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Herr Uhl wrote...

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.

There are many subtleties you are missing. Like understandign what "feeling of entiltement" means.
Try not to burden yourself too much with spotting them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Oh, it doesn't have to be levels. There are many great RPG's that don't use level and experience points. You need some form of progression for the character. The character improves, learns, gets better at whatever is essential to the game, whether its combat, intrigues, etc. 

I've played many non-computer RPG's (for instance, play-by-text rpgs online), where there are no stats or skills, and the entire focus is on character interactions and development. That's great. But not very feasible for a video game where action and combat are important parts. Like Dragon Age. I would say that the progression of combat or combat-oriented skills is very essential to a game like this. It doesn't have to be levels. But levels, as you say, is one of many types of mathematical abstractions of the characters development. Which is necessary to a game like this. And, I might add, a lot of people actually think that skills and talents/feats/etc is a very fun aspect of role-playing games.

I know it can be fun, but what I'm arguing is that it ISN'T necessary. Not really.

A game where for the entire game you have the same weapon and your comabt skills are always the same - still a RPG.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Lee80alabama wrote...

Just say no to plot armor. Enemies should be able to be defeated, even if you may have to wait till late in the game when you are high leveled with really great equipment. The idea of invincible enemies has never been appealing.

Yes there are often people stronger then you, but you have to remember you are using a team of 4 characters that are getting stronger as the game progresses, eventually they can surpass their former limits.

I know it's a phrase, but it kinda bugs me.
If you can suprass them, then they never were limits in the first place.

And while people can get stronger, there is a limit to that too. Why is the idea that no matter how strong you are, there will always be someone stronger or that are things you simply can't so repulsive to some people.

If I told you to kill an elephant bare-handed, could you do it? Would it mattter how much you excersice and how good you are at martial arts? No, not really.

[Fredward]

I don't like fighting someone if there is absolutely no chance whatsoever in me killing them. What's the point? Rather make it very, very unlikely in that case. Fleeing from someone is a totally different kettle of fish though, that might be interesting.

[Taura-Tierno]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Oh, it doesn't have to be levels. There are many great RPG's that don't use level and experience points. You need some form of progression for the character. The character improves, learns, gets better at whatever is essential to the game, whether its combat, intrigues, etc. 

I've played many non-computer RPG's (for instance, play-by-text rpgs online), where there are no stats or skills, and the entire focus is on character interactions and development. That's great. But not very feasible for a video game where action and combat are important parts. Like Dragon Age. I would say that the progression of combat or combat-oriented skills is very essential to a game like this. It doesn't have to be levels. But levels, as you say, is one of many types of mathematical abstractions of the characters development. Which is necessary to a game like this. And, I might add, a lot of people actually think that skills and talents/feats/etc is a very fun aspect of role-playing games.

I know it can be fun, but what I'm arguing is that it ISN'T necessary. Not really.

A game where for the entire game you have the same weapon and your comabt skills are always the same - still a RPG.

To me, an essential part of an RPG is character development. Your characters grows and changes depending on what you do. This could easily be accomplished in a regular RPG. In a CRPG, you need to implement character development in some form. Having the same character for 40 hours, with the same skills, the same weapons, the same everything - that would be a game trying to be an RPG, but that's lacking something important. Remove DA's level system, freeze the skills and give each class a fixed set of always available abilities ... that would be a hell of a lot more boring. There's no way to let your character grow, to shape it the way you want. The only, only thing that would even make it remotely an RPG, would be a handful of dialogue options. But those options would always be present, to everyone. There would be no sense of character development, of character growth. No uniqueness of characters. Everything would be the same.

Sure, it might still be considered an RPG, but it would be a bad RPG, and more of an action game. Just like a game like Deus Ex, which features a lot of customizations and skills, but has few dialogue options and choices, is more of an action game with customisation than a real RPG. 

I'm not saying that levels are the only way to go. Obviously they are not. But character progression and improvement has to astracted in some way in a CRPG, even though that's not necessary in a regular RPG, where you are in 100% control of everything and can use your full imagination and creativity to affect what happens and how the character is affected by that.

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 19 septembre 2013 - 08:10 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Seival wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

 

KiwiQuiche wrote...


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.

You missed the point again, I'm afraid. Failure is an experience. If you failed, then you gained at least experience (if you survived of course). Something that doesn't kill you makes you stronger, remember? Failure is not a shame if you learned from it. And knowledge is a priceless reward.

Also, like I said, reward can be gained from failure in many different ways. For example, you could save someone's life by distracting the invincible boss. Later that person can find you and reward you for saving her/his life. Quite logical, isn't it?

Yet failing for the simple reason of 'failure makes you strong' is silly. I mean hell, look at Dark Souls; you die over and over with many bosses, yet you have to admit it feels pretty damn good when you are finally juiced up enough to finally strike them down. Immortal bosses are just an annoyance.

That isn't an example that you used in your original post; you came across as wanting an immortal boss for no other reason than for the PC to be slapped with  "you suck and are mortal" not "saving someone from an immortal monster". They are too vasty different scenarios and my opinion differs on both. As it, I find having an immortal monster you can't win to just be annoying and time-consuming.

[Taura-Tierno]

KiwiQuiche wrote...


That isn't an example that you used in your original post; you came across as wanting an immortal boss for no other reason than for the PC to be slapped with  "you suck and are mortal" not "saving someone from an immortal monster". They are too vasty different scenarios and my opinion differs on both. As it, I find having an immortal monster you can't win to just be annoying and time-consuming.

I'll agree with that. There should be a good reason for encountering a boss that cannot be killed. Preferably a reason that's important to the story. And then, it's fine. If that's how the story should progress, by you failing to kill whatever ... that's a good reason. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I know it can be fun, but what I'm arguing is that it ISN'T necessary. Not really.

A game where for the entire game you have the same weapon and your comabt skills are always the same - still a RPG.

To me, an essential part of an RPG is character development. Your characters grows and changes depending on what you do. This could easily be accomplished in a regular RPG. In a CRPG, you need to implement character development in some form. Having the same character for 40 hours, with the same skills, the same weapons, the same everything - that would be a game trying to be an RPG, but that's lacking something important. Remove DA's level system, freeze the skills and give each class a fixed set of always available abilities ... that would be a hell of a lot more boring. There's no way to let your character grow, to shape it the way you want.

You are fixated on the numbers aspect.
Are you saying the character doesn't grow or progress without having comabt skills icnrease?

Isn't he progressing trough the story/world? Aren't his decisions defining/changing the character? Isn't he gaining experience - indirectly - trough you?

The only, only thing that would even make it remotely an RPG, would be a handful of dialogue options. But those options would always be present, to everyone. There would be no sense of character development, of character growth. No uniqueness of characters. Everything would be the same.

Bollocks.
So what if they are present for everyone (and who sez they would to begin with?).
What defines a character is not exclusive conversation options, but rather options taken.

Sure, it might still be considered an RPG, but it would be a bad RPG, and more of an action game. Just like a game like Deus Ex, which features a lot of customizations and skills, but has few dialogue options and choices, is more of an action game with customisation than a real RPG.

A game that focuses so heavily on numbers and comabt skills is far more action-focused in my oppinion.
Don' get me wrong here - I like skills and feats as much as the next guy - but power progression in games is so often...forced.

There you are, John Doe the dirt farmer, you leave your farm, grab a sword and after a few WEEKS of aventuring you are a master swordsman, master alchemist and master smith. Those silly old people calling themslves masters that spent their entire LIVES dedicated to one task...such charlatans.

It's a difficult thing to explain or do. On one had you want to show the player he is improving. On the other hand, a small change wouldn't even be noticed. So you add bigger changed. And players like the *DINGS*. So you give them lots of dings. And we end up with demi-gods with powers of pure bull****.

Archers that fire a million arrows. Rouges that turn invisible. Warirors that make sonic booms with their warcry and dash like the dman Flash.
Gameplay and story segregation you might say? I have no love for it.

[Taura-Tierno]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I know it can be fun, but what I'm arguing is that it ISN'T necessary. Not really.

A game where for the entire game you have the same weapon and your comabt skills are always the same - still a RPG.

To me, an essential part of an RPG is character development. Your characters grows and changes depending on what you do. This could easily be accomplished in a regular RPG. In a CRPG, you need to implement character development in some form. Having the same character for 40 hours, with the same skills, the same weapons, the same everything - that would be a game trying to be an RPG, but that's lacking something important. Remove DA's level system, freeze the skills and give each class a fixed set of always available abilities ... that would be a hell of a lot more boring. There's no way to let your character grow, to shape it the way you want.

You are fixated on the numbers aspect.
Are you saying the character doesn't grow or progress without having comabt skills icnrease?

Isn't he progressing trough the story/world? Aren't his decisions defining/changing the character? Isn't he gaining experience - indirectly - trough you?

The only, only thing that would even make it remotely an RPG, would be a handful of dialogue options. But those options would always be present, to everyone. There would be no sense of character development, of character growth. No uniqueness of characters. Everything would be the same.

Bollocks.
So what if they are present for everyone (and who sez they would to begin with?).
What defines a character is not exclusive conversation options, but rather options taken.

Sure, it might still be considered an RPG, but it would be a bad RPG, and more of an action game. Just like a game like Deus Ex, which features a lot of customizations and skills, but has few dialogue options and choices, is more of an action game with customisation than a real RPG.

A game that focuses so heavily on numbers and comabt skills is far more action-focused in my oppinion.
Don' get me wrong here - I like skills and feats as much as the next guy - but power progression in games is so often...forced.

There you are, John Doe the dirt farmer, you leave your farm, grab a sword and after a few WEEKS of aventuring you are a master swordsman, master alchemist and master smith. Those silly old people calling themslves masters that spent their entire LIVES dedicated to one task...such charlatans.

It's a difficult thing to explain or do. On one had you want to show the player he is improving. On the other hand, a small change wouldn't even be noticed. So you add bigger changed. And players like the *DINGS*. So you give them lots of dings. And we end up with demi-gods with powers of pure bull****.

Archers that fire a million arrows. Rouges that turn invisible. Warirors that make sonic booms with their warcry and dash like the dman Flash.
Gameplay and story segregation you might say? I have no love for it.

I guess you might say that I am fixated on the numbers aspect for a CRPG that has a lot of combat-focus, yes. Dragon Age is a game like that. It has a good story and good characters, but also a lot of combat. To make dialogue choices the only kind of progression you get, you'd have to have a much better dialogue system with a much greater focus on character interaction, that will allow your character to actually grow and change. As things are now, you only have a very limited choice of dialogue options, a very limited number of choices. And the choices can generally all be boiled down to some sort of archetype (the paragon-version, renegade-version, for-the-greater-good, be-a-douche-bag, slaughter-everything, etc), and those are mostly the same throughout the game. That's not character growth and development. That's choosing a personality and sticking to it. I've never really played a CRPG that manages to pull of character growth in terms of personality in any meaningful ways. There are plenty of games that are good at portraying a few, pre-determined personalities (e.g. Mass Effect), but that's not the same. Because allowing a the player to determine a complex personality and developing that in a natural way across a game isn't something that video games is a good platform for. RPG's are good at letting written NPC's develop their personalities and change over the course of a game, or giving the palyer good, interesting choices to make. The only character growth that takes place, personality-wise, is whatever the player imagines, but that is severely restricted by the number of dialogue options available. How often have we not seen a dialogue and thought "Well, my character wouldn't do ANY of this ... but I guess option Y is the closest I get ... sigh ..."

Which makes all the other types of customisation you can have very important for it to feel as close to a real RPG as possible. Skills and abilities to reflect what the character learns and gets better at and how it chooses to fight and engage the world. A wide assortment of weapons and other equipment, so that you can shape the appearance and fighting-style to something you believe your character would prefer. 

Skills, abilities and powers are all important for character abstraction in a video game, to me. If the character grows and improves, why should I not be able to determine in what direction the character develops, what he or she gets better at, how he or she will dress, what type of weapons he or she will use? Just like I would in a non-video game RPG.

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 19 septembre 2013 - 08:53 .

[Seival]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Seival wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

 

KiwiQuiche wrote...


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.

You missed the point again, I'm afraid. Failure is an experience. If you failed, then you gained at least experience (if you survived of course). Something that doesn't kill you makes you stronger, remember? Failure is not a shame if you learned from it. And knowledge is a priceless reward.

Also, like I said, reward can be gained from failure in many different ways. For example, you could save someone's life by distracting the invincible boss. Later that person can find you and reward you for saving her/his life. Quite logical, isn't it?

Yet failing for the simple reason of 'failure makes you strong' is silly. I mean hell, look at Dark Souls; you die over and over with many bosses, yet you have to admit it feels pretty damn good when you are finally juiced up enough to finally strike them down. Immortal bosses are just an annoyance.

That isn't an example that you used in your original post; you came across as wanting an immortal boss for no other reason than for the PC to be slapped with  "you suck and are mortal" not "saving someone from an immortal monster". They are too vasty different scenarios and my opinion differs on both. As it, I find having an immortal monster you can't win to just be annoying and time-consuming.

Failure making you stronger is not silly. It is reality.

I find boring and annoying that in almost all games protagonists are unstoppable. So much strength and luck is nothing more but a parody. The more I see those standard badass faces, the less I can take the standard games seriously, and the less I like them.

[crimzontearz]

Seival wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Seival wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

 

KiwiQuiche wrote...


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.

You missed the point again, I'm afraid. Failure is an experience. If you failed, then you gained at least experience (if you survived of course). Something that doesn't kill you makes you stronger, remember? Failure is not a shame if you learned from it. And knowledge is a priceless reward.

Also, like I said, reward can be gained from failure in many different ways. For example, you could save someone's life by distracting the invincible boss. Later that person can find you and reward you for saving her/his life. Quite logical, isn't it?

Yet failing for the simple reason of 'failure makes you strong' is silly. I mean hell, look at Dark Souls; you die over and over with many bosses, yet you have to admit it feels pretty damn good when you are finally juiced up enough to finally strike them down. Immortal bosses are just an annoyance.

That isn't an example that you used in your original post; you came across as wanting an immortal boss for no other reason than for the PC to be slapped with  "you suck and are mortal" not "saving someone from an immortal monster". They are too vasty different scenarios and my opinion differs on both. As it, I find having an immortal monster you can't win to just be annoying and time-consuming.

Failure making you stronger is not silly. It is reality.

I find boring and annoying that in almost all games protagonists are unstoppable. So much strength and luck is nothing more but a parody. The more I see those standard badass faces, the less I can take the standard games seriously, and the less I like them.

so there is a chance you will actually move on to other games and stop trying to impose what you THINK is an objectively better set of subjective tastes if you start disliking Bioware games enough?



oh dear GOD please Gaider make the Inquisitor as much of a Mary Sue/Marty Stue as you can I implore you

Modifié par crimzontearz, 19 septembre 2013 - 10:51 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Seival wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Seival wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

 

KiwiQuiche wrote...


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.

You missed the point again, I'm afraid. Failure is an experience. If you failed, then you gained at least experience (if you survived of course). Something that doesn't kill you makes you stronger, remember? Failure is not a shame if you learned from it. And knowledge is a priceless reward.

Also, like I said, reward can be gained from failure in many different ways. For example, you could save someone's life by distracting the invincible boss. Later that person can find you and reward you for saving her/his life. Quite logical, isn't it?

Yet failing for the simple reason of 'failure makes you strong' is silly. I mean hell, look at Dark Souls; you die over and over with many bosses, yet you have to admit it feels pretty damn good when you are finally juiced up enough to finally strike them down. Immortal bosses are just an annoyance.

That isn't an example that you used in your original post; you came across as wanting an immortal boss for no other reason than for the PC to be slapped with  "you suck and are mortal" not "saving someone from an immortal monster". They are too vasty different scenarios and my opinion differs on both. As it, I find having an immortal monster you can't win to just be annoying and time-consuming.

Failure making you stronger is not silly. It is reality.

I find boring and annoying that in almost all games protagonists are unstoppable. So much strength and luck is nothing more but a parody. The more I see those standard badass faces, the less I can take the standard games seriously, and the less I like them.

Not if all you ever do is fail due to the inability to actually achive.

...so you wanna be a boring civilian who doesn't achive anything and fails all the time?


Sounds like a great game.

[Arthur Cousland]

I've played many rpgs where a boss is invincible, but all of a sudden easy or beatable after acquiring a certain weapon or simply returning later on in the story. These battles were always scripted and were part of the plot. I don't want to see enemies be invincible just for the sake of making the player run from a battle that they can't win, but only if it makes sense. At first, the player is young and unprepared, but later on, they're better experienced and better equipped. However, since the Inquisitor is supposed to be established, and not just some rookie who just learned how to use a sword, I don't see this happeneing in DA:I.

As others have suggested, have more "Ser Cauthrien" type battles, that are tough, but even if the player dies, the game still continues.  If the player is able to win the battle, then they can skip the failure scenario.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 20 septembre 2013 - 02:55 .