190 réponses à ce sujet

[vania z]

DA2 has much more complexity than XCOM, for example, and also much less depth. Same with chess.

You remind me of banner saga, which has simple and interesting game mechanics. It is strange there are so few turn based RPGs.

[Maiden Crowe]

Well, it is desirable because it allows you to play different characters instead of playing yourself in a fantasy world. If your goal is to live a life in a fantasy world, than games with simple mechanics like skyrim which depend more on your skill a better suited for you.

 

You are missing the point, this isn't about playing a digitized version of yourself but the fact that decision making should largely be based on the player's ability to absorb and interpret information, it does not matter whether you are making decisions based on what you would do in that situation or what you think the character you are playing would do as the decision making process is still largely dependent on the player's own thought processes and I don't see why problem solving should be any different.

 

For instance lets say the game gives you a puzzle to solve, would you rather the game allow you to solve the puzzle yourself or be entirely dependent on your character having the requisite number of points in the puzzle skill to progress?

[vania z]

You are missing the point, this isn't about playing a digitized version of yourself but the fact that decision making should largely be based on the player's ability to absorb and interpret information, it does not matter whether you are making decisions based on what you would do in that situation or what you think the character you are playing would do as the decision making process is still largely dependent on the player's own thought processes and I don't see why problem solving should be any different.

 

For instance lets say the game gives you a puzzle to solve, would you rather the game allow you to solve the puzzle yourself or be entirely dependent on your character having the requisite number of points in the puzzle skill to progress?

Well, in ideal case the complexity of the puzzle should depend on my character's intelletcual score. If it is high, the puzzle should be easy, if the score is low - it should be difficult. 

[Maiden Crowe]

DA2 has much more complexity than XCOM, for example, and also much less depth.  Same with chess.

 

Hard to say, perhaps in terms of character builds but then again the differences between classes and abilities in XCOM is far greater than those in DA2 leading to more meaningful choices in this regard, however when it comes to battlefield tactics far more factors come into play in XCOM like cover, destructible terrain, multi leveled terrain ect leading to far more complexity and depth in terms of battlefield tactics.

[Maiden Crowe]

Well, in ideal case the complexity of the puzzle should depend on my character's intelletcual score. If it is high, the puzzle should be easy, if the score is low - it should be difficult. 

 

I would much rather the player's ability to solve puzzles be based on the player's intellectual score rather than the character's.

[vania z]

I would much rather the player's ability to solve puzzles be based on the player's intellectual score rather than the character's.

But it makes no sense

[Maiden Crowe]

But it makes no sense

 

What is so confusing about the idea that puzzle solving in a game should be dependent on the player's puzzle solving abilities?

[CybAnt1]

There were lots of puzzle games in DA. All of the titles. 

 

You faced riddles in Test of Faith. (Origins)

 

You had the Wending Wood Puzzle in Awakening. 

 

There was the Bridge Puzzle in Gauntlet. 

 

Stone Prisoner gave you the Sliding Puzzle with everyone's favorite Demon-Kitty. 

 

Who doesn't love trying to solve barrel placement puzzles in the Fade? (DA2-Feynriel). I mean, listening to the whooshing sounds while staring at blurry barrels can only help your concentration! 

 

And then of course ... the lovely Sliding Tile puzzles in DA2-MotA. 

 

Puzzles often feature in Adventure Games like Myst, but they also are common to the RPG genre. Heck, I remember text adventure games that had puzzles you had to solve textually, not visually. 

 

At the end of the day, I tend to notice some things:

 

1) They're usually optional. Well, except, maybe, the Gauntlet. That's where DAO goes all Indiana Jones because you have to make it to the Urn. But usually so! In general, given that it seems people never finish their playthroughs, hitting a puzzle they can't solve is a good way to get them to get frustrated and throw away the game, except

2) The solutions to the puzzles are usually a google search, forum search, or Prima guide glance away, and in the latter case, help sales, if I might say. 

3) This is an area where frankly I think just letting high-INT characters know the solution and low-INT ones fail would kind of defeat the point of puzzles being there in the first place (that is, to boost guide sales ), so yes, it's OK here to require the player to use their gray matter to solve the puzzle. Or ... see 2). 

[OdanUrr]

Yes we get it, complexity for complexities sake is never a good thing and will only alienate players, however to achieve some level of depth you will at least need some level of complexity and the problem is the Dragon Age series has eliminated complexity to the point that the gameplay lacks any real depth.

 

Actually, and forgive me for being so blunt, you don't, because I never said, in my example, that we were introducing more rules just for the sake of it. It could be that the game grows more complex as part of the natural evolution of its ruleset, or maybe newer technology allows this ruleset to be expanded upon. The problem is that the more your game grows in complexity the more it alienates players and, as the video said, the more it limits access to a game's depth (actually, it probably alienates players because it limits access to its depth). But perhaps we're going in circles here and what you really mean is that the game should have more depth? Maybe you can give me an example of what you think Dragon Age needs to incorporate?

 

Just to clarify, every game comes with a certain amount of complexity. The trick is making the player think there's none by feeding him the data, rules, etc., at a pace s/he can absorb and process.

[vania z]

Funny thing how something obvious and natural to one can be opposite of that to the other  In my opinion, there should be correlation between how many people can solve puzzle and their character's related ability. For example, mage should do summoning exercises more easily than, say, a low-magic warrior. Summoning exercises aren't really a puzzle, but it is a good example. Also, since I believe everyone can solve in-game puzzles(haven't seen particulary difficult, unless this is a puzzle which requires to do something in limited time and/or is as stupid, as dragon claw doors from skyrim) there should be some hints/other things making puzzle simplier if you have high ability score, related to the puzzle. And maybe autosolve for extremely high ability scores. 

[CybAnt1]

Yeah. By the way, I can see a grognard case for that. Perhaps an in-game hint system for puzzles that is more accessible and reveals more, if the character has a higher INT score. 

[vania z]

I was thinking something along this lines, myself. 

[Realmzmaster]

When it comes to puzzles I do not believe that the player's skill should trump the character's skill. What should happen is there are multiple ways to solve the problem especially if the puzzle is part of the main quest line like getting the urn. The puzzle does not have to be solved by the protagonist. It could be solve by a companion with a high enough cunning or intelligence.

 

The higher the intelligence or cunning the more clues are revealed about the answer. If my character has high intelligence or cunning why should the character be hampered by my lack of puzzle solving skills? If I am role playing a character who is dense why should my ability at puzzle solving save my character?

 

I believe that any puzzle should have multiple ways of reaching the solution.

 

For example, My son was playing Lufia II which has a number of column puzzles. He and his mother do not have the spatial reasoning ability to figure them out. The game simply caused frustration at this point. His character had high intelligence (which actually only boosts magical damage), but it required that he solve the puzzles. He was stuck. The solution to the puzzles were not up on the Internet (yet). The puzzles were on the main quest line.

Luckily, my youngest daughter and myself do not have that spatial reasoning problem. We solved the puzzles for him. He finished the game. The point is having high character intelligence in the game meant nothing in solving the puzzles when it should have. 

 

Puzzles should be optional so that they do not lead to frustration like the bridge puzzle in the urn quest or have multiple ways to solve the puzzle in game.

[metatheurgist]

^ It should be based on the character's abilities and not the players, but CRPGs have had a long tradition of puzzles that are solved by the player and not the character. I'm not sure players would like the change. I'm amazed the bridge puzzle frustrated so many, anything that can be solved by simple observation and trial and error should be solvable by everyone.

[Realmzmaster]

^ It should be based on the character's abilities and not the players, but CRPGs have had a long tradition of puzzles that are solved by the player and not the character. I'm not sure players would like the change. I'm amazed the bridge puzzle frustrated so many, anything that can be solved by simple observation and trial and error should be solvable by everyone.

Not everyone has the same level of patience nor spatial reasoning ability. Both are necessary to move your companions to the right place at the right time. My wife and son are master wordsmiths with vocabularies to match, but I can hold my own in a game of Scrabble with them because I am better at strategy, spatial reasoning and patience.

[Maiden Crowe]

Actually, and forgive me for being so blunt, you don't, because I never said, in my example, that we were introducing more rules just for the sake of it. It could be that the game grows more complex as part of the natural evolution of its ruleset, or maybe newer technology allows this ruleset to be expanded upon. The problem is that the more your game grows in complexity the more it alienates players and, as the video said, the more it limits access to a game's depth (actually, it probably alienates players because it limits access to its depth). But perhaps we're going in circles here and what you really mean is that the game should have more depth? Maybe you can give me an example of what you think Dragon Age needs to incorporate?

 

Just to clarify, every game comes with a certain amount of complexity. The trick is making the player think there's none by feeding him the data, rules, etc., at a pace s/he can absorb and process.

 

Yeah I kind of ignored your example as even if we humor the idea that the Dragon Age games are getting more complex with every new installment (which DA2 is evidence to the contrary) the Dragon Age ruleset was never all that complex to begin with and if for some reason a player is alienated by the "complexities" of the Dragon Age ruleset then I am not sure character building or strategic combat is really going to appeal to them no matter how simple the devs make it anyway. Even if the Dragon Age ruleset were to get more complex I am sure it wouldn't be too hard for new players to pick it up, besides even in sequels most game tutorials start with the basics anyway to introduce new players to the gameplay and work their way up to more advanced concepts so it is not like most game developers just drop new players into sequels and expect them to know everything that would have been learned over the previous game.

 

As for what I think the game needs yes I do believe it needs more depth, however I also understand that in order to have depth there needs to be some level of complexity. That being said perhaps the Dragon Age ruleset is so poorly designed that even adding complexity wouldn't result in depth, perhaps the ruleset needs a complete overhaul? What I would like to see is more flexibility and variety in character builds and classes, a better attribute system (one where you dont just pump points into your character's main stat and call it a day), more factors that infulence equipment selection than just "pick the one with the highest damage output or armour class" and more variety in weapons and a bigger emphasis on strategy in combat.

[Maiden Crowe]

^ It should be based on the character's abilities and not the players.

 

But why? I mean I see so many people claim that perception and puzzle solving skills should be based on the character's abilities rather than the player's however nobody has been able to articulate why and how exactly this would benefit game design.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

But why? I mean I see so many people claim that perception and puzzle solving skills should be based on the character's abilities rather than the player's however nobody has been able to articulate why and how exactly this would benefit game design.

Because what if the player isn't good at those types of puzzles? They should be deprived of game content because they have difficulty with it?

[Maiden Crowe]

Because what if the player isn't good at those types of puzzles? They should be deprived of game content because they have difficulty with it?

 

Yes, what is the point of including puzzles if they don't challenge the player's problem solving skills? If a player can't solve a puzzle then why should they receive the reward usually reserved for those who can?

[metatheurgist]

But why? I mean I see so many people claim that perception and puzzle solving skills should be based on the character's abilities rather than the player's however nobody has been able to articulate why and how exactly this would benefit game design.

The core concept of a RPG is that you play another character. If your character is blind, they can't see. If your character is clumsy, they shouldn't be able to hit anything. If your character is weak, they shouldn't be able to carry much. If your character is dumb, they shouldn't be solving puzzles. Otherwise you're not playing a RPG, you're probably playing an action game. Not that there's anything wrong with action games, they're just not RPGs.

[Maiden Crowe]

The core concept of a RPG is that you play another character. If your character is blind, they can't see. If your character is clumsy, they shouldn't be able to hit anything. If your character is weak, they shouldn't be able to carry much. If your character is dumb, they shouldn't be solving puzzles. Otherwise you're not playing a RPG, you're probably playing an action game. Not that there's anything wrong with action games, they're just not RPGs.

 

To me the core concept of an RPG should be about putting the player in the character's shoes and have them define the role rather than creating a character with a strict set of characteristics that need to be adhered to, the way you describe it you don't seem to want to play a role at all but rather direct a character and observe how they handle the trials themselves, by your logic there should be little to no decision making at all and that is certainly not what I would call a role playing game.

[Nightdragon8]

Because what if the player isn't good at those types of puzzles? They should be deprived of game content because they have difficulty with it?

 

Got my vote!

Yes, what is the point of including puzzles if they don't challenge the player's problem solving skills? If a player can't solve a puzzle then why should they receive the reward usually reserved for those who can?

*sigh* and this arguement is nulified by a video in how to do the puzzle. I always did it for the DA:O one for getting the ashes... Just too much time to deal with the puzzle. (sort of one the reasons I don't want to play DA:O again)

[berelinde]

IDK. On the one hand, I wouldn't complain about having more ways to customize my character. A focused skill set that allowed me to build a true specialist would be kinda fun and would present some interesting challenges. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to spend that much time poring over microscopic build choices... or tearing my hair out if I make a mistake.

 

Other changed - bringing back persuasion, enhancing the use of non-combat skills, etc, sound great... as long as you have the option of letting party members do things that the protagonist cannot. And by that, I mean deliberately giving players the choice to defer to the companion. Having the companion jump in and take over without any input from the protagonist makes me rage.

[Navasha]

I would always hope for more complexity as that inevitably brings more options for the player to choose how to play.    That said, I don't ever expect that.   Not anymore.   The days of making complex games seems to be a thing of the past.    Even strategy games being made today are dropping options left and right in order to attract more players.  

 

Complexity and steep learning curves seem to make games anymore part of a smaller niche market and you aren't going to ever see that from AAA titles. 

 

Its sad, but its also part of reality.

[Sidney]

Got my vote!

*sigh* and this arguement is nulified by a video in how to do the puzzle. I always did it for the DA:O one for getting the ashes... Just too much time to deal with the puzzle. (sort of one the reasons I don't want to play DA:O again)

 

 

Puzzles are not part of an RPG. The ability of Sidney the dude sitting behind the controller to solve a problem has no relationship to the ability of Warden X to solve the same thing. Puzzles are always about me not my character. I can recall some game where there was a riddle and if your intellegence was high enough they flagged the right answer which was sorta cool but at the same time if I had a meathead fighter type they didn't hide the right answer.