131 réponses à ce sujet

[Br3admax]

Gorguz wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Get fired up wrote...

Hard to say. I'm usually the sort who easily gets disturbed when lore gets shoved under the rug to make way for fancy gameplay, but if there is a reason as to why this is possible within the lore, and it doesn't feel forced as hell, I'm generally okay with it. A good example is teleporting in the DA universe - in DA2 it was a glaring plothole which made me twitch every time I saw it, but in DA:I we have an explanation as to why it suddenly works in DA:I which doesn't contradict the established lore as far as I know at least (note that it still doesn't explain why it worked in DA2 though!), which makes me feel okay about teleporting in DA:I.

I missed that.  What is the lore explanation for while teleporting works in DA:I?

I'd like to know too

David Gaider wrote...

The main purpose behind the ban on teleportation with regards to magic is actually to prevent two things: distance as being irrelevant and obstacles being easily surmountable. Gameplay often dictates that, in order to employ any kind of obstacle in a setting where teleportation exists, you need to create some kind of hand-wave in order to make it happen ("tachyon interference in the atmosphere has rendered the transporters inoperable!").

Technically speaking, what the mages in DA2 are doing breaks neither of these rules-- the mages are jumping between two spots but are neither traveling nor passing through obstacles. It's not supposed to be literal teleportation, either. The idea was to have a visual effect that travels between the spot where they disappear and the spot where they reappear... they're moving very quickly.

But that effect never got implemented, and thus the result really looks like literal teleportation. Which makes me unhappy. With any luck I'll have this fixed in the future as, no, mages are not actually breaking the cardinal rule.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

But what if technology is insufficient to portray the complexities of the lore?

The write the lore better.

Or worse yet... the advancing technology allows you to make better gameplay? Should you not make the sequel better to preserve the setting?

I can't imagine a technological advancement that is only useful in a way that breaks lore.

[Lokiwithrope]

For example, ogres are apparently capable of regenerating. Once an ogre is "slain", it can return to full health in a matter of minutes, unless its brain or head has been critically damaged. What your opinion on this being actual gameplay?

[Br3admax]

Lokiwithrope wrote...

For example, ogres are apparently capable of regenerating. Once an ogre is "slain", it can return to full health in a matter of minutes, unless its brain or head has been critically damaged. What your opinion on this being actual gameplay?

It's already in gameplay. The finishing moves are supposed to happen on the ogres all the time unless a missup happens. 

[Ieolus]

Filament wrote...

So the idea was to have it look like a magical biotic charge, essentially.

Not sure which is worse.  Every mage is The Flash, or teleportation exists that would break Gaider's law.

[Bleachrude]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The write the lore better.

This basically means you write the game BEFORE you write the lore.

Which to me, seems straight up weird.

[Br3admax]

Ieolus wrote...

Filament wrote...

So the idea was to have it look like a magical biotic charge, essentially.

Not sure which is worse.  Every mage is The Flash, or teleportation exists that would break Gaider's law.

Gaider's law? Also, since haste is a spell, it's not that far fetched. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bleachrude wrote...

This basically means you write the game BEFORE you write the lore.

You should be willing to amend the lore as game development progresses.

But I do think lore should come first.

1. Lore
2. Mechanics
3. Encounter Design
4. Story

No entry in the list should be allowed to violate any of the earlier entries.

[Aaleel]

I'm against it for the most part. You have a blank slate and can make any rules you want when setting the lore of your world. So don't for example say there's no teleportation and then have mages teleporting or rogues vanishing and instantaneously appearing on the side of the battlefield.

There's really no excuse for those types of violations of your lore.

[Ieolus]

Br3ad wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Filament wrote...

So the idea was to have it look like a magical biotic charge, essentially.

Not sure which is worse.  Every mage is The Flash, or teleportation exists that would break Gaider's law.

Gaider's law? Also, since haste is a spell, it's not that far fetched. 

Gaider's cardinal rule then, same difference.

Yes, haste is a spell.  Meaning it must be actively cast.  Oh, and rogues can cast it too then right?

[Vicious]

hard to say. lore changes all the time and the only canon is whatever the devs and writers say. this isn't star trek or something with years and years of defined storyline, it's a video game series with a couple loosely tied together books.

[Ieolus]

Vicious wrote...

hard to say. lore changes all the time and the only canon is whatever the devs and writers say. this isn't star trek or something with years and years of defined storyline, it's a video game series with a couple loosely tied together books.

Ouch.  Not sure the Writers would agree with or even like your sentiment.  Besides that, even something as sacred as Star Trek can be destroyed with one badly chosen writer and director at the helm (see Star Trek 2009).

[n7stormrunner]

Ieolus wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Filament wrote...

So the idea was to have it look like a magical biotic charge, essentially.

Not sure which is worse.  Every mage is The Flash, or teleportation exists that would break Gaider's law.

Gaider's law? Also, since haste is a spell, it's not that far fetched. 

Gaider's cardinal rule then, same difference.

Yes, haste is a spell.  Meaning it must be actively cast.  Oh, and rogues can cast it too then right?

they didn't have time to go, "hey wait, this looks like the mages and rogues are teleporting better add  a delay before they reappear" for da 2?

[Star fury]

Bioware already sacrificed the lore for gameplay reasons and it was huge. I mean they introduced the Collectors in ME3 mp, also volus characters in actual combat.

[Sir JK]

Ieolus wrote...

My conclusion is different.  Instead of keeping them seperate, you just should not make the game if you messed up that badly.

The thing is... gameplay design isn't terribly easy. You can't just drum something up and suddenly there's an enjoyable system. Sometimes you create a system you like that turns out to be terribly unintuitive and difficult to learn. Sometimes one that that's more tedium than challenge. Sometimes one that was supposed to challenge but turned out to be trivial.

Just look at Mass Effect 1's combat system, it was an interesting idea and was kind of okay. But as it turns out it did not exactly pit the player against any strategical challenges. With no need to conserve ammo, you could pretty much spray and pray only pausing occasionally to cool down. With frictionless materials, you didn't even have to do that. Decent system, did not work out fantastic. Definate room for improvement.

That aspect of the combat system was tied to the lore and they jumped through hoops to justify it, with limited success. Maybe they could have improved the system in a way consistent with their lore had they had unlimited time or money, but they didn't.

And that's the crux of it all. The quality of the gameplay is not the only constraint a game has. A game should not have to be perfect to be released now should it? And if I then decide to make a sequel, should lore prevent me from improving it even if the majority of my fanbase wants the change?

EDIT: To clarify, I am not saying that they should always be segregated or have no impact on one another. They should for as much as possible strenghten one another. Gameplay that contradicts lore should be avoided as much as possible. But they should never lead to one another's detriment.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The write the lore better.

So if I want a world like ours for our stories to take place in, I must make a perfect simulation of reality regardless of whether that is fun or achieveable?
And if I cannot or will not, I must let my gameplay limit how I write my setting? Possibly to it¨s detriment.

I can't imagine a technological advancement that is only useful in a way that breaks lore.

Of course not. But if the new technology allows me to do what I orginally desired, should I let my previously written lore hold me back? Even if the playerbase wants it?

In a sense: Should I let lore written based on what I could do prevent me from doing what I can do now? Am I as a designer not allowed to learn and improve because the lore is so sacrosanct.

Modifié par Sir JK, 23 septembre 2013 - 05:47 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

The thing is... gameplay design isn't terribly easy. You can't just drum something up and suddenly there's an enjoyable system. Sometimes you create a system you like that turns out to be terribly unintuitive and difficult to learn. Sometimes one that that's more tedium than challenge. Sometimes one that was supposed to challenge but turned out to be trivial.

A system that mirrors lore or realism can hardly be unintuitive.
Gameplay design isn't easy, but if you make it unintuitive, that isn't becuae you wanted to reduce lore/gameplay segragation.

Just look at Mass Effect 1's combat system, it was an interesting idea and was kind of okay. But as it turns out it did not exactly pit the player against any strategical challenges. With no need to conserve ammo, you could pretty much spray and pray only pausing occasionally to cool down. With frictionless materials, you didn't even have to do that. Decent system, did not work out fantastic. Definate room for improvement.

I preffered it to ME2 and 3.
Sue me.

So if I want a world like ours for our stories to take place in, I must make a perfect simulation of reality regardless of whether that is fun or achieveable?

Not perfect no.
But if you can't make reality fun, then you're messing something up.
Because reality isn't boring - despite what many people want to claim.

In a sense: Should I let lore written based on what I could do prevent me from doing what I can do now? Am I as a designer not allowed to learn and improve because the lore is so sacrosanct.

Why would you write lore based on that? It's backwards.
You write lore based on the world you want, and then use available technolgoy to get as close to it as you can. If new technology pops up later, great.

[TEWR]

Br3ad wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Filament wrote...

So the idea was to have it look like a magical biotic charge, essentially.

Not sure which is worse.  Every mage is The Flash, or teleportation exists that would break Gaider's law.

Gaider's law? Also, since haste is a spell, it's not that far fetched. 

Haste was a part of the Creation school, of which there are very few masters of it in the lore. One would assume that to use Haste like this to run really quickly between A to B, you'd have to be an adept if not an expert or master.

So not just any Mage should be able to do it.

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A system that mirrors lore or realism can hardly be unintuitive.
Gameplay design isn't easy, but if you make it unintuitive, that isn't becuae you wanted to reduce lore/gameplay segragation.

The two are not related. It's perfectly possible to make a system that blends perfectly into the lore but is incredibly difficult to learn.

I preffered it to ME2 and 3.
Sue me.

Great. I didn't think it was bad either. I just wished to point it out that it was not the strongest system in terms of strategical or logistical elements. The only thing you really had to bother with was overheating, and that could be upgraded away.

Not perfect no.
But if you can't make reality fun, then you're messing something up.
Because reality isn't boring - despite what many people want to claim.

Infection and addiction are interesting ideas, I've yet to see them made into fun gameplay. I've yet to see realistic recovery from injury be added to a game. I've yet to see the tedium of the daily grind or the need for visiting the bathroom (the sims excepted) be made engaging.

Reality is exciting, yeah. Is all of it though?

Why would you write lore based on that? It's backwards.
You write lore based on the world you want, and then use available technolgoy to get as close to it as you can. If new technology pops up later, great.

Precisely. This is what I've been trying to argue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Just look at Mass Effect 1's combat system, it was an interesting idea and was kind of okay. But as it turns out it did not exactly pit the player against any strategical challenges. With no need to conserve ammo, you could pretty much spray and pray only pausing occasionally to cool down.

With ME2 removing the possibility of missing, limited ammo became pointless in the very same game in which it was inroduced.

At least in ME it was possible for Shepard to miss the target at which the player aimed.  Not so in ME2.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

With ME2 removing the possibility of missing, limited ammo became pointless in the very same game in which it was inroduced.

At least in ME it was possible for Shepard to miss the target at which the player aimed.  Not so in ME2.

True, but it was a separate change as well. Related, since both define the combat system but separate nonetheless. In theory you could have added limited ammo without taking this aspect out. They would probably not have worked so great together though (not to mention that you were already manually aiming. Miss chances work better when you don't).

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

Thus I have painted myself into a corner: I wrote the lore so it would never contradict gameplay, but I cannot alter gameplay without contradicting lore. So I cannot make any improvements should I seek to make an expansion or sequel.

Therein lie the problem.

You can. You make the mistake of thinking in absolutes. In compltey and total 10000% link between gameplay and lore...something I don't think anyone is arguing. Not everything has to be exact or defined in the lore.

For example: The speed at which someoen swings a sword is not defined in the lore. You can change it to be a tad slower or faster. Changes in general should be subtle.

A game should never break lore without a damn good reason. And "it looks cool" is not one. Even less so if those break poitns are easiyl fixed by a 5-year old.
Case in point - the abominations. As someone said, all one had to do it put less of them, but have them be far more powerfull. But hey, that would break the actiony, hack-and-slashy wave combat feel they were gunning for.

They should work in harmony, and when they cannot you should keep them segregated.

And if you cannot keep them in harmony and you have to segregate them, you are doing something wrong. Either you fail as a designer or as a lore writer. Because there is no such a thing as "it can't be done".

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You can. You make the mistake of thinking in absolutes. In compltey and total 10000% link between gameplay and lore...something I don't think anyone is arguing. Not everything has to be exact or defined in the lore.

For example: The speed at which someoen swings a sword is not defined in the lore. You can change it to be a tad slower or faster. Changes in general should be subtle.

A game should never break lore without a damn good reason.
Case in point - the abominations. As someone said, all one had to do it put less of them, but have them be far more powerfull.

I agree. In my mind, making a better game is a good reason. Naturally, we are all of different opinions what makes a good game... which is all part of why game deisgn is difficult.

And if you cannot keep them in harmony and you have to segregate them, you are doing something wrong. Either you fail as a designer or as a lore writer. Because there is no such a thing as "it can't be done".

Consider: hit points. An abstraction as old as wargames (roughly). Still used to day because it's a system that does what it's supposed to do and people are used to it. But realistic, it is not. One thing it does eliminate is luck as the final arbiter of whether someone lives or dies (unless the RNG determining damage is really swingy). IRL equipment and training matters for a lot, but only luck will determine whether that mortar falls on your head or not (at which point no equipment or training will save you).

But I am fairly certain that most people would be fairly annoyed at a game where this can happen. Where, with no warning, a mortar explodes near you and you have to reload. No warning, no second chances. Just like IRL.

Should I thus write the setting so this cannot happen? That there are no such weapons and/or everything boils down to skill and the most hit points (perhaps going so far as to openly acknowledge them)?

Or should I, for the sake of setting integrity, subject the player to a game of Minesweeper without the clues?

Or perhaps in this case accept this gameplay and lore segregation and simply not drop any mortars on the player's head.

[Lotion Soronarr]

What I'd really like to see back is - EVERYONE CAN EQUIP ANY WEAPON.

In D&D your fighters/paladins melee focus and weaknes at range was handled in several ways - shields, boots of speed or just PACKING A BOW AND SOME ARROWS.

If orcs ambushed you from a hard-to-acess location (like across the chasm), you could fight back. You had options. And your options made sense.
But in DA2 (and DA:I) you have super-speed dashes or magical "Come over here!" hooks that render the ranged consideration for fihters completely pointless.
All for the sake of "iconic", overly-specialized retarded classes.

[phunx]

I believe they should try and make them as close as possible, but I can look the other way with most things.