190 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

I really liked that depth vs. complexity video earlier. It does get to the problem at the heart of game design.

 

What players want is depth, not complexity. Thing is, they can't get depth without some complexity. However, too much complexity becomes confusion and/or tedium. I've never played Dwarf Fortress, but just looking at those screenshots, I could feel my brain shutting down as I watched those screens crowded with too much simultaneous (ASCII!?!) data and information. It was kinda like staring at the Matrix in code form. Too much complexity means incredibly long tutorials for new players to the game or series, and then they sometimes give up in frustration, never getting to the depth. 

 

IMHO, therefore, it requires the search for the sweet spot, again -- enough complexity to provide depth, but not too much to frustrate players. 

 

Personally, I do think developers have been erring too much on the side of shearing complexity, to where games are now starting to lack enough depth, and that's why I'm a Grognard.   

 

I also cannot grok the decision to hide (some of) the underlying complexity of the game from players - if it's already there! - in order to make it seem simple. (Thus, the "hidden" combat mechanics of DA2.) THAT makes no sense to me. 

 

No, you shouldn't need to know Trig or Calculus. But if items have a resistance bonus, well, geez, you should at least know what it means. Bigger's always better, but how much better is +45 to resistance than +25? I maintain if players have no way of knowing, then don't bother putting stats on items at all! 

[Sidney]

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.

 

Depth and complexity aren't the same thing. The SPECIAL system was brilliant but not complex. The Oblviion era TES system was cumbersome but not deep.  The BG AD&D rules could be understood by my cat except for the unnecessarily complex concept of AC dropping to get better. Heck even something like Borderlands has a very simple skill tree system but the configurations allow the same class to play out very, very differently.

[CybAnt1]

Yeah, 3E & 4E rules scrapped that rather odd notion that your Armor Class (AC) gets lower, the more armor you wear, and switched to the more logical notion that it should go up as you wear more. Many 3E players gladly embraced the disappearance of THAC0 for a more logical "to hit" system. 

 

Also, of course, what made it the most confusing is that the best armor classes in 2E were negative (below zero), like -1 to -10. 

[Realmzmaster]

 

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?

 
The problem comes when the puzzle or riddle is part of the main quest line like the riddle and bridge puzzle for the urn quest. The player is unable to go forward because the player cannot solve the puzzle or riddle. That simply causes frustration.
A way needs to be presented that stops this occurrence. The player that can solve the puzzle should have his protagonist given an extra reward for solving the puzzle. The player who is not good at riddles or puzzles should not be penalized by the inability to proceed in the game because the player cannot solve the puzzle.

O

[Realmzmaster]

Complexity does not equal depth. The Fallout series has the SPECIAL system and perks. The SPECIAL system is not complex. The attributes in the SPECIAL system max out at 10. The perks add the depth needed to flush out the character. Some complexity is necessary to implement the depth. Complexity for the sake of complexity is not good. There has to be a reason for the complexity. For example armor class in 2E D&D I am sure the creators thought it was a good idea except it was counterintuitive, hence it was changed for the 3E and 4E versions.

[metatheurgist]

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.

Your character's characteristics are part of your character. A dumb guy isn't going to be a good mage. A weak guy isn't going to be a great fighter. Now, nothing is stopping your character from wanting to be those things, that struggle may in fact define his personality and outlook in life (or the decisions he makes), that's roleplaying.

[Rawgrim]

Less streamlining and more depth, wouldn`t be bad. The ruleset isn`t bad, though. Keeping the ruleset abit more true to the lore and whatsnot would make it even better.

[AlanC9]

The player that can solve the puzzle should have his protagonist given an extra reward for solving the puzzle. The player who is not good at riddles or puzzles should not be penalized by the inability to proceed in the game because the player cannot solve the puzzle.

Let one of the other party members solve it if the player character can't, and only award XP if the player solves it?

[AlanC9]

As for the topic, what counts as complex? I didn't think DA:O was as complex to play as DA2, since CCCs and aggro management require a bit more work with builds and control than the DA:O equivalents. And the IE system is simpler than either, once you filter out all the noise in the spell lists.

[vania z]

Bigger's always better

IIRC, in dnd 2 lower AC was better.

[Realmzmaster]

 

Let one of the other party members solve it if the player character can't, and only award XP if the player solves it?

That could work also.

[CybAnt1]

IIRC, in dnd 2 lower AC was better.

 

Yes, it's one of my favorite counterexamples to that rule, which is why I mentioned it above. 

 

It really confuses first time 2E D & D players, that the best armor classes are negative. 

 

THAC0 was a bizarre system from day one, and I was glad to see it dumped in 3E. I wasn't a big fan of 3E multi-classing at first, but that grew on me. My feelings about 4E remain mixed. Of course, I ain't playing tabletop-rpgs anymore, and I don't know of any CRPG using 4E other than that new Neverwinter (2013) MMO. Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) sticks with 3.5E, so does NWN2. 

 

BTW, of course, D & D also uses the system that armor makes you harder "to hit" (thus why both it and DEX affect AC), rather than simply reducing/blocking/absorbing damage. You can get a lower AC both by wearing more armor, AND by being better at dodging. 

[AlanC9]

In D&D's defense, your HP total wasn't supposed to be how much purely physical damage you could take.

[Maiden Crowe]

The problem comes when the puzzle or riddle is part of the main quest line like the riddle and bridge puzzle for the urn quest. The player is unable to go forward because the player cannot solve the puzzle or riddle. That simply causes frustration.
A way needs to be presented that stops this occurrence. The player that can solve the puzzle should have his protagonist given an extra reward for solving the puzzle. The player who is not good at riddles or puzzles should not be penalized by the inability to proceed in the game because the player cannot solve the puzzle.
 

 

Ok yeah if there is a puzzle that is part of the main quest there should be an alternate path or a penalty for not solving the puzzle that still allows the player to progress, however if a puzzle is optional or part of a side quest then I don't see why the bar needs to be lowered for those who can't solve it, if they can't solve the puzzle then they miss out on whatever content that is unlocked by solving it, not sure why you would expect any less?

 

 

Complexity does not equal depth. The Fallout series has the SPECIAL system and perks. The SPECIAL system is not complex. The attributes in the SPECIAL system max out at 10.

 

 

Does the fact that Dragon Age's 4 attributes max out at 100 make it more complex than the SPECIAL system's 7 attributes that max at 10? Just because the Dragon Age attribute system has higher stat caps doesn't make it more complex, it only makes the numbers lose meaning and forces the player to neglect their other stats while pumping up their main stat to stay relevantly powerful against higher level enemies.

[Maiden Crowe]

Your character's characteristics are part of your character. A dumb guy isn't going to be a good mage. A weak guy isn't going to be a great fighter. Now, nothing is stopping your character from wanting to be those things, that struggle may in fact define his personality and outlook in life (or the decisions he makes), that's roleplaying.

 

Let me ask you this, are you making the decisions or is your character? Would you rather your character's make decisions for themselves without your input or would you rather be in control of their decision making process?

[Realmzmaster]

Ok yeah if there is a puzzle that is part of the main quest there should be an alternate path or a penalty for not solving the puzzle that still allows the player to progress, however if a puzzle is optional or part of a side quest then I don't see why the bar needs to be lowered for those who can't solve it, if they can't solve the puzzle then they miss out on whatever content that is unlocked by solving it, not sure why you would expect any less?

 

 

 

 

Does the fact that Dragon Age's 4 attributes max out at 100 make it more complex than the SPECIAL system's 7 attributes that max at 10? Just because the Dragon Age attribute system has higher stat caps doesn't make it more complex, it only makes the numbers lose meaning and forces the player to neglect their other stats while pumping up their main stat to stay relevantly powerful against higher level enemies.

 

No one knows if the quest is optional or not unless the developer specifically leaves clues that it is an optional quest. The puzzles in Mask of the Assassin you know are optional because the player is given clues. I have no problem with optional puzzles that do not impede progress in the main quest. DAO is guilty of that. Awakening, DA2 and the dlc for DA2 were not.

 

The point about the SPECIAL system was that the perks help round out the character. The attributes in DA could have a cap and then have skills and abilities that round out the character instead of the stat-dumping some players do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think the player should be told anything about which quests are main quests.

[Realmzmaster]

Let me ask you this, are you making the decisions or is your character? Would you rather your character's make decisions for themselves without your input or would you rather be in control of their decision making process?

 

Let me ask a question, are you playing a role as a different character or playing yourself as the character? If you are role playing a character who has low intelligence then that character should fail at solving the puzzle unless it is extremely simple.

 

If you are role playing yourself as the character then you as the character should have a shot at solving the puzzle. It is like having a character who has no archery skill hit a bulleye's eye from 400 feet away. The character has a slim to none chance with slim walking out the door.

 

The point for some players is do I become protagonist or do I role play myself as the protagonist.

[Realmzmaster]

I don't think the player should be told anything about which quests are main quests.

 

Which is why I stated that quests that have puzzles should have an alternative way around the puzzle. If the player solves the puzzle then give the character a reward for solving the puzzle. The alternative way may mean hacking through more enemies to reach the same point. Both methods could give the same number of experience points. The character that solves the puzzle gets a nifty sword as a reward plus experience. The other way gives the same experience plus any loot found on the enemies. 

Make it equitable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Which is why I stated that quests that have puzzles should have an alternative way around the puzzle. If the player solves the puzzle then give the character a reward for solving the puzzle. The alternative way may mean hacking through more enemies to reach the same point. Both methods could give the same number of experience points. The character that solves the puzzle gets a nifty sword as a reward plus experience. The other way gives the same experience plus any loot found on the enemies. 

Make it equitable.

I see no reason to require this.  As long as only side quests have necessary puzzle components, there's no need for non-puzzle solutions.

 

You don't want to force any player to have to solve a puzzle.  We can do that without eliminating all puzzle-centric quests.

 

This has nothing to do with whether we tell the player which quests are which.

[AlanC9]

But then the player could know which quests are sidequests, because they'd be the ones without workarounds.

[metatheurgist]

Let me ask you this, are you making the decisions or is your character? Would you rather your character's make decisions for themselves without your input or would you rather be in control of their decision making process?

Of course you're still making the decisions. They haven't invented an AI that can play for you yet. You supply the character's drive, motivation and personality. But the character is still your proxy and filter into the game world and you are bound by it's in-game limitations. Fighters can't cast spells. Mages suck at combat. Dumb people can't solve puzzles. You (the player) can decide to try to solve the puzzle, your dumb character is probably not going to succeed.

[Maiden Crowe]

No one knows if the quest is optional or not unless the developer specifically leaves clues that it is an optional quest.

 

You mean like putting the quest in the journal section labeled "OPTIONAL" as opposed to "MAIN PLOT"?

 

 

The point about the SPECIAL system was that the perks help round out the character. The attributes in DA could have a cap and then have skills and abilities that round out the character instead of the stat-dumping some players do.

 

 

But doesn't adding perks count as additional complexity? I mean sure they may not be all that complex however a system with additional components is still more complex than one without them and can add depth, sure complexity may not equal depth however it is still a vital component. 

[Maiden Crowe]

Let me ask a question, are you playing a role as a different character or playing yourself as the character?

 

Depends on the character, sometimes I will create a character that closely reflects my own personality and beliefs and sometimes I will create someone completely different, however no matter who I play or what their beliefs and personality are their thoughts are still my thoughts and while I can adjust my thought patterns to reflect different personalities and beliefs I can't lower my intelligence to reflect the thought patterns of a dimwit just as I am sure that you guys can't raise your own intelligence to reflect the thought patterns of a genius like myself.

[Maiden Crowe]

Of course you're still making the decisions. They haven't invented an AI that can play for you yet. You supply the character's drive, motivation and personality. But the character is still your proxy and filter into the game world and you are bound by it's in-game limitations. Fighters can't cast spells. Mages suck at combat. Dumb people can't solve puzzles. You (the player) can decide to try to solve the puzzle, your dumb character is probably not going to succeed.

 

Yes you are bound by your character's physical limitations such as strength, endurance ect however the thought processes are yours to supply, it is why I don't believe the stat that governs casting ability should be called "intelligence" as the character's intelligence should more be a reflection of the player's intelligence.