141 réponses à ce sujet

[Boss Fog]

hhh89 wrote...

S

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Hope the mana and stamina regens aren't what we had in DA2, hated that warriors had to kill something before it recovered. My ranged companions tended to steal my kills.

Warriors didn't have to kill something to get stamina regen in DA2.  You must be thinking of DA:O.  There was an entire tree in DA2 dedicated to stamina regen.

In DA2, during combat, the warriors regain stamina by killing enemies. Rogues instead regain stamina with each hit.

You only regenerate stamina by killing enemies if you chose the berserker specialization and even then, you could get passive stamina regeneration in addition to the second wind ability from the battlemaster skill tree.

[bEVEsthda]

Rawgrim wrote...

Dreamcleaver wrote...

Sigh...gamers these days...

Rickets wrote...

I like the idea. Baldur's Gate style.

BouncyFrag wrote...

Good

Mr.House wrote...
A perma death mode would be cool.

[Liamv2]

Sounds good as long as it's done correctly. If they do it wrong this could get massively frustrating.

[The Elder King]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

In DA2, during combat, the warriors regain stamina by killing enemies. Rogues instead regain stamina with each hit.

You only regenerate stamina by killing enemies if you chose the berserker specialization and even then, you could get passive stamina regeneration in addition to the second wind ability from the battlemaster skill tree.

Not true. Warriors get stamina boost for killing from the start. The last passive ability of Berseker (Death Blow), makes the warrior restore a larger quantity of stamina for each kill.
I'm not arguing with you if DA2 did right or wrong with the stamina regen. I'm just stating that warriors regain stamina with each kills. You can check it by yourself here (it's under 'Regeneration').
http://dragonage.wik..._(Dragon_Age_II)

[bEVEsthda]

Now a more lengthy discussion for all the anxious "I only play for the story" -people.

It does not make the game more difficult.

The game will be balanced differently.

It will give you a different form of gameplay:
Think of all other games as a sequence of battlestations (or levels) which are connected in a linear fashion, so that advancing from one station will give access to the next.
Most, or everything, is reset before each new battlestation. The combat can thus be balanced very precisely.
This is the structure of the typical videogame ever since 'Space Invaders'. Do you think it's fun?
I don't.

More to the point though, is that role playing games were never intended to be that sort of game. They were to be an adventure for the Player Char, where the PC accepts some kind of responsibility for every decision made. The PC should also be responsible for the companions.

In an ideal open world, role playing game, there will be sections, which you can venture into, which will surely kill you, if your party is weak in experience, equipment and strength, yet - if you pass through with a hardened, scarred party of muscled and well armed companions, belts adorned with shrunken heads and ears, - noone will touch you and there will be no fight at all.

Think about it for awhile.
...And noone will fight until death except fanatics of kinds. Others will try to flee or surrender, either when they're wounded, or when they realize they're outmatched.
Think about that too for awhile.

That's the sort of spiritual direction, into which some role playing games started off into. Baldur's Gate and Fall Out, to mention a couple. A completely different gameplay than your usual Nintendo fodder.

Then, unfortunately, Bioware hired a group of developers who had never played BG but were heavily into Diablo. Then again, unfortunately, a new type of cRPGs from Japan rose to awareness. These featured animated movies to tell the story, which was also rather fixed and set, regardless of the combat. Then again, Bioware was taken over by a group who figured it would be a great idea to make the same kind of games. Thus they have dragged you into this, while another group here would much rather have Bioware go back to the old.
And there we are.

Edit:  Idiocy (by me) removed and replaced with something more relevant.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 10 décembre 2013 - 01:17 .

[The Elder King]

@bEVEsthda: of which japanese game are you talking about?

[bEVEsthda]

hhh89 wrote...

@bEVEsthda: of which japanese game are you talking about?

FF VII  (mishmashed with impressions of sequels)

Because that's the first I was aware of. And yes, I now realize that I had the timeline all wrong, and thus my depiction of it as well. The FF games were labeled RPG since dawn of time, because the combat was RPG rule-style.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 10 décembre 2013 - 12:31 .

[Sidney]

The problem isn't really balance per se. It is combat that needs to be redone. Combat since BG1 in Bioware games and really any RPG is about getting hit - these combat systems almost universally suck despite the laughable fact that people find them tactical. It is the whole reason hit points keep going up - because relatively speaking you never get harder to hit. Yes your armor class might get better but so do the monsters swinging at you. I mean you have an entire combat function (tank) who has the job to go get hit a lot. Unless each fight is changed so that not getting hit is more of an option no health regen means you have to sit around and quaff healing potions unless you are willing to walk into the next fight down a whole mess of hit point or are going to meta game to know that this dungeon goes mob-mob-mob-mob-mini-boss-mob-mob-boss and not mob-mob-mini-boss-mob-boss and so you won't need to be full strength in fight 3 and 4 for example. I think people need to go re-download BG and experience the fun of no health regen in levels 1-5 characters for example and what it means in terms of constantly resting and healing.

[The Elder King]

@bEvesthda: understood.
About FF's visual style, I don't this is relevant to define a RPG. Of course people might not like it and prefer a realistic style, but a game with such visual style would still be an RPG if it has the core element of the genre.

Modifié par hhh89, 10 décembre 2013 - 01:05 .

[bEVEsthda]

Sidney wrote...

The problem isn't really balance per se. It is combat that needs to be redone. Combat since BG1 in Bioware games and really any RPG is about getting hit - these combat systems almost universally suck despite the laughable fact that people find them tactical. It is the whole reason hit points keep going up - because relatively speaking you never get harder to hit. Yes your armor class might get better but so do the monsters swinging at you. 

The lack of progress in cRPG combat systems is indeed depressing. That's why I never bother with even discussing combat systems, nor understand people who think D&D are much worse than anything else. It's all the same ideas from an ancient P&P game. When those rules where originally created, they had a purpose. They strove to give a player a certain experience. But as limited, by having to make do with system that could be managed by dice, pen and paper. What we then have seen is mainly systems that strive to give the player the same experience as the old P&P system. What I argue we should have had instead, is a modern computer simulation that strives to give us something closer to the original player experience that the P&P rule creaters were aiming for, but couldn't quite achieve. Morrowind is the best effort I've seen, I think. But it's an action game and a single char -non-party game.

I do not, however, find the fact that people find them "tactical" to be laughable, though. They mostly are.
 

I think people need to go re-download BG and experience the fun of no health regen in levels 1-5 characters for example and what it means in terms of constantly resting and healing.

I think you're missing many things here. Just a couple - The game is what the player makes of it. That's particulary true of games which' concept and construction is aiming for being a software toy. - And BG does not set the no health regen experience in stone.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 10 décembre 2013 - 01:11 .

[bEVEsthda]

hhh89 wrote...

@bEvesthda: understood.
About FF's visual style, I don't this is relevant to define a RPG. Of course people might not like it and prefer a realistic style, but a game with such visual style would still be an RPG if it has the core element of the genre.

I agree. I totally regret the way I put in and phrased that line. What can I say. I'm sorry. It was stupid.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KC_Prototype wrote...

I hope what hhh89 said is true because I understand they want to make it more strategic and challenging but no health regeneration plus limited supplies sounds like overkill to me.

No, that sounds like it should be.
Frankly I'm tired of all the health regen the games throw around these days. Where the only thing that matter is surviving the battle, and how well you do doesn't matter, because you'll be fully healed by the next one.
Frak that.
I feel like RPG's have been steadily watered down for the sake of convenience.

[TanithAeyrs]

I am going to fall on the side of those in favor of no, or minimal health regeneration. From a role playing standpoint it encourages me to consider what I take with me on a mission and where and how far I can go before stopping to resupply (LOL, yeah, I'm one of the crazy Elder Scrolls players who stops to eat at least twice daily - with a consideration for adequate calories and what my companions eat - and sleeps every day).

It also mimics reality in a very tiny way. I can see a character taking a major wound and staunching the blood flow, even pausing for a moment to deal with the pain - thus slight regeneration. The wound doesn't go away when combat is over, it still has to be dealt with. It seems to be a reasonable way to increase immersion when looked at properly as well as encourage more tactical play.

I don't necessarily feel like I will need to take a healer specialization mage along unless I fail to use my other party members to their best advantage. A rogue character could eliminate an enemy from stealth before an encounter. A heavily armored sword and board tank could take the bulk of the hits. Traps, runes and terrain could be used to divide the battlefield. I find I am really looking forward to a game that will make me think before each encounter. I typically play with minimal potion and healer use anyway, so using items sparingly suits me fine.

I do think a toggle for health regeneration is a good idea though. Everyone has their own play style and it seems reasonable to allow for that if the mechanic to make it work is not overly complicated.

[Sandy]

It is impossible to say if this will be a good or bad system without trying it first. Not just getting to know how it should work, but actually trying it out.

The main thing Bioware needs to avoid is for the player to feel a need to travel back to camp after every single fight just to feel that they are up for whatever enemy they are facing next. I almost always play on Normal difficulty, no matter what game I play, but the first time I played Dragon Age: Origins I had to dial it back to Easy (somewhere around Ostagar I believe). A few levels later I could change it back to Normal and by the later half of the game I could probably have changed it to Hard (but I never did).

However, had health regeneration been percentage based depending on the difficulty I don't think I would have ever changed it back from Easy to Normal.

I kind of hope that the regen system works something like this:

Easy: 100% regen (you get all your life back after fights)
Normal: 75% regen
Hard: 50% regen
Nighmare: no regen or maybe 25% regen

That way the people who only want to play for the story can play on easy or normal and still feel like they can manage, and the ones that want more of a gameplay challenge can do their precious Hard and Nightmare mode and be happy.

[Raikas]

metatheurgist wrote...

Milan92 wrote...
And why not? If they make it an optional choice I don't see the problem. You may want a challenge with your games but some people prefer to just play the story without too much trouble.

I keep thinking there must be an untapped market for choose your own adventure games, where there is no combat and just story. An indy developer could make a killing.

I dont know that it's so untapped - That's part of the market that Telltale is reaching their their adventure games - sure, there's a little combat in Walking Dead and Wolf Among Us and the like, but it's all QuickTime events.  Plus visual novels and the point-andclick resurgence that's playing stuff like Gone Home or Grey Matter.

For what it's worth,  of people I know IRL who playthe Dragon Age games on easy, most of them are more into story-driven adventure games than they are to traditional RPGs.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Why does healthregen matter again? With healing spells and potions it wont be a problem anyway. Simply more expensive (More pots = less money on equipment).

[Argahawk]

They dont wanted to add health regen as they wanted us to think before every fight, as you will have less pots with you etc. And to not make game so easy as previous DA games where you could fight and fight without think about health at all.

Modifié par Argahawk, 14 décembre 2013 - 09:41 .