54 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonAgeLegend]

I'm more of a player focused on the story, going through many fights just by wandering around an environment is tedious, not fun at all.

 

I'm playing DA2 at the moment and so this is where I feel this the most. I hope they DO NOT add this in DAI. It's extremely annoying, walking through Darktwon- fight, walking trhough Sundermount- fight and it's not like its just one wave and I'm done, there's 5 continuous waves of them all. There's no point to it as well! No reason to kill all these people at ALL. It's like those enemies are just put there to waste time, or just be annoying. 

 

Please DAI devs, reconsider this. I don't want to be wandering around the outskirts in point A and be led into numerous fights just to get to point B. 

[CybAnt1]

I have this dream.

 

Someday, (C. esp.)RPG developers will figure out a system that does not prioritize killing enemies as your primary source of XP. (And completing quests as just about the only way you can significantly get more of it other than that.) 

 

WoW now lets you get XP from gathering professions, although oddly, not from crafting professions. I don't get why you get XP for picking a flower, but DON"T get XP for making a sword. You also get some from exploration, but not much. Like other MMOs, it lets you dabble in getting XP from non-combat sources, but truth is, other than questing solo, your other major options are PvP combat and dungeon/raid group combat. Like so many other games, they "flirt" with noncombat XP, but still make combat (whether against monsters or other players) the main source of it. 

 

This is, IMHO, a fundamental design flaw which afflicts much of the genre. Until they broaden the ways to get experience points, there's just no way to give players opportunities to level without throwing a lot of mooks/trash mobs/giant rats at you. 

 

See, here's the problem. Say I'm given the quest to go get the amulet of doom from a chest. I can either kill the 5 guards near the chest, and take it, or sneak past them with stealth, and take it. Either way I get the quest XP. But with option 2, I lose the XP from killing the guards. The problem is as long as most of your experience comes from combat, players are going to want things to kill to level, and developers are going to give them what they want. 

 

Everyone (including me) sometimes complains these games are too combat-heavy/dense, but in fact, it's their leveling/XP mechanic that kind of forces them to be. It always incentivizes combat. 

[Xilizhra]

I have this dream.

 

Someday, (C. esp.)RPG developers will figure out a system that does not prioritize killing enemies as your primary source of XP. (And completing quests as just about the only way you can significantly get more of it other than that.) 

 

WoW now lets you get XP from gathering professions, although oddly, not from crafting professions. I don't get why you get XP for picking a flower, but DON"T get XP for making a sword. You also get some from exploration, but not much. 

 

This is, IMHO, a fundamental design flaw which afflicts much of the genre. Until they broaden the ways to get experience points, there's just no way to give players opportunities to level without throwing a lot of mooks/trash mobs/giant rats at you. 

 

See, here's the problem. Say I'm given the quest to go get the amulet of doom from a chest. I can either kill the 5 guards near the chest, and take it, or sneak past them with stealth, and take it. Either way I get the quest XP. But with option 2, I lose the XP from killing the guards. The problem is as long as most of your experience comes from combat, players are going to want things to kill to level, and developers are going to give them what they want. 

 

Everyone (including me) sometimes complains these games are too combat-heavy/dense, but in fact, it's their leveling/XP mechanic that kind of forces them to be. 

Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines did just this, with the only source of XP being completing quests. And you were frequently able to finish things nonviolently.

[CybAnt1]

Yeah, now see, that's innovation. The kind I can get behind.

 

Although, I would say, I would also like somebody to devise a system where killing the 5 guards gives you (say) 500 XP, but ALSO, sneaking past them gives you the SAME 500 XP (aside from the quest completion XP).

 

And/or that combat and killing enemies still provides XP, BUT, there's lots of OTHER activities that can also earn you XP, and BTW doing so is not marginally beneficial compared to constant killing. 

[DeaHamlet]

Didn't they have "story mode" in ME3?  Everyone and their mother laughed because... what exactly are you wanting, a movie as a video game?

 

I don't get it.  Devs, either make such nonsense optional (like ME3 but 100 times better cause that still had flaws) or don't waste time on it.  But do not make most of the game talk talk talk and more talk and little sign of combat.  It's a video game not a TV show or movie, ugh.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

"Please no unnecessary fights". 

 

Lol. Are you new to BioWare games, OP?

[BroBear Berbil]

What counts as unnecessary though? From your description it's anything not directly tied to a quest. Maybe the issue was that DA2, in general, was very tedious and had you treading the same ground looking for fights in every act. I've played DA2 several times and I'm usually sick of it by the start of Act 2.

 

I like the story aspects, but I don't want to spend most of the game in dialogue. What's the point of a leveling system and talent trees if you hardly get an opportunity to flex your muscle and use those abilities?

 

Of course, if you play on PC you could just "runscript killallhostiles" through all the unnecessary fighting.

[Razyx]

AS FrogDog has pointed out "What counts as unnecessary though?"...but the 'unnecessary fights' is something interesting.

The game dynamically could respond to the player choices, i.e. if the player is a diplomatic guy that tries to solve everything through dialogue, his level of aggressiveness/'dangerousness' would be X.
If the player is a stubborn warrior then a higher level (of aggressiveness) that will invite the enemy to send more mobs.

Obviously not always will work, an insightful and skilled guy can be more dangerous than a noisy striker

[LiketheRiver]

They could do something similar to AC4. If you went around on the Jackdaw destroying a bunch of ships your "wanted" level went up and there would be "hunters" that would come after you. So if your Inquisitor makes a certain group of people really really unhappy you might see some mobs of them in your travels.

With the world being bigger I think you will have more random encounters with animals and darkspawn or creatures that came through the veil compared to mobs or bandits.

[CybAnt1]

It's interesting that people think the game must be all combat - or dialogue - and nothing else. I've never played the Thief video game, but I understand just because you're not doing a lot of killing, doesn't mean you're doing a lot of talking.   (And the Thief does have weapons and can choose to use them; it's just that he has other methods.) 

 

Take the amulet of doom example: you could possibly have an option to talk your way past the guards. Or, you could trick them with a distraction, stealth past them, slip some sleep drug into their food a few hours earlier, trick them into fighting and killing each other, unleash a swarm of bees on them, spring a paralysis trap on them ... there could be a lot of options to deal with the problem, if the devs were imaginative enough to implement them. But usually they're not there. 

 

I'm no pacifist. I don't even usually role-play one, either. As I've said, though - and of course it is MHO - RPG combat should be more Sun Tzu and less Mortal Kombat/Button Spazm. 

 

But ... if you want to, attributes can contribute to more than just combat capacity. They do in many games. For example, STR affects not just your damage, but also your carrying capacity, ability to force open gates/doors, etc. INT affects not just your magical ability, but your ability to solve puzzles, decipher runes or languages, or trick the mooks (see above). D & D had an attribute that never really affected combat (CHA or Charisma) until they invented the Sorcerer (and then it became their primary stat.)

 

There can be non-combat skills. (BTW, to me that's exactly what "Exploration" skills sound like.) Traditionally, in many fantasy games, these are often the strong (but not always exclusive) province of thieves/rogues/scouts.

 

I would never argue for taking combat out of RPGs. It seems every game world is full of some thing that will kill you unless you kill them first, whether it be rapacious xenomorph aliens, radioactive post-apocalyptic mutants, or mindless darkspawn. There's no reasoning with or tricking them; they've gotta die. And let's face it, in these games as in many others, the main thing leveling is improving is your ability to crush your enemies.  Whether it be with poison arrows, fireballs, backstabs, or halberd slams. But it doesn't have to be the only thing. 

 

I just wonder why developers are not imaginative enough to realize in their games that characters/players can be doing more than JUST dialogue or combat, all the time, every situation. 

 

Of course, it does take more work to implement and allow players to utilize a solution to problems/quests that doesn't involve either. 

[Nefla]

But no fight will make DA2 dull with talk, talk and talk....

 

Just imagine when you arrive at the Gallow the first time...there's huge dialogue there with the guard, then dialogue again with the captain, then with the uncle, then with Meeran or Athenril, talk the guy you need to deal with, talk to Meeran or Athenril again, then with uncle again....how many talks there?

 

Then move to Act 1, talk again with Bartrand and Varric, then Aveline....

 

I like dialogue...the more the better.

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the extremely excessive trash mobs of DA2 ARE there to waste time. DA2 is a tiny game in a tiny re-used world. If there was no combat or only combat that made sense the game would probably be like 2 hours long.

[BroBear Berbil]

It's interesting that people think the game must be all combat - or dialogue - and nothing else. I've never played the Thief video game, but I understand just because you're not doing a lot of killing, doesn't mean you're doing a lot of talking.   (And the Thief does have weapons and can choose to use them; it's just that he has other methods.) 

 

Take the amulet of doom example: you could possibly have an option to talk your way past the guards. Or, you could trick them with a distraction, stealth past them, slip some sleep drug into their food a few hours earlier, trick them into fighting and killing each other, unleash a swarm of bees on them, spring a paralysis trap on them ... there could be a lot of options to deal with the problem, if the devs were imaginative enough to implement them. But usually they're not there. 

Haven't played Thief either but I've seen enough of it to get the gist of what it is. It's a stealth game, like Dishonored. All that time that you're not fighting or talking is taken up by movement. Dishonored gives you several ways to deal with objectives and a lot of that is focused around how you approach the target and scavenger hunting along the way. A game like that takes place in more confined and scripted maps than DA. The things you mention work fine in the scripted environment of a quest, but what about the rest of the time?

 

DA:I is giving us a semi-open world. It needs to be populated with enemies or you'll just be running around empty spaces picking flowers like Two Worlds and, to some extent, Elder Scrolls.

 

Party combat is the foundation of DA. I wouldn't want to see less enemies (what the OP is talking about) because some people feel they're inconvenient.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm more of a player focused on the story, going through many fights just by wandering around an environment is tedious, not fun at all.

 

I'm playing DA2 at the moment and so this is where I feel this the most. I hope they DO NOT add this in DAI. It's extremely annoying, walking through Darktwon- fight, walking trhough Sundermount- fight and it's not like its just one wave and I'm done, there's 5 continuous waves of them all. There's no point to it as well! No reason to kill all these people at ALL. It's like those enemies are just put there to waste time, or just be annoying. 

 

Please DAI devs, reconsider this. I don't want to be wandering around the outskirts in point A and be led into numerous fights just to get to point B. 

I don't want those fights to be mandatory, but I do want them to be there.

 

Unnecessary fights are fights you don't have to do.  I want more of those, not fewer.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm torn on this matter.

One one hand, you've got combat, which is often the "gameplay" portion of the game. So removing that (or even severely limiting it) turns it into an interactive movie. Which is fine, but it isn't the dragon age series.

On the other hand, DA2 (and ME2 and 3, in my book) were pretty terrible at throwing trash mobs at you repeatedly just to eat time. So fighting just for fighting's sake can be incredibly forced.


I like the idea of getting XP upon completing quests, regardless of how you accomplish things (kill all the things, sneak past or use some type of quick talk skill, what have you), however that relegates all activity in the game to some type of quest, which can be a bit forced. Not every fight or instance of using your skills comes in a nice, pre-wrapped quest box.

Also, the idea of The Elder Scroll games "XP by doing" is very attractive as a concept. Just because you aren't killing things doesn't mean you aren't using your skills. Especially when killing things to earn XP results in incongruent results, like swinging a sword turning into XP to leans how to pick pockets.

Ideally, there would be ways to earn XP that aren't fighting trash mobs but also not limited to just doing quests. But how such a system would be executed would be difficult to conceptualize. Maybe some type of system that gives general XP as well as specialized XP? Something that tracks the most-used form of completing a task (say sneaking, or battle magic, or diplomacy) and awards you a lump of general XP (which can be used to apply to any skill) and then some specialized XP, which can let you level up your sneaking skills, or battle skills, or speech skills (depending on how you completed a task).

That way, if you fought a lot, you would get general XP that could be applied to a non-related skill, like stealth, while you had combat XP that could only be applied to combat skills.


Hopefully, it would work to segregate some the gameplay and mechanics differences.

[CybAnt1]

Party combat is the foundation of DA. I wouldn't want to see less enemies (what the OP is talking about) because some people feel they're inconvenient.

 

Oh I'd go further. Combat has been the foundation of just about every RPG I've ever played whether on computers or not. D & D really didn't even have "quests". "Questing" is a mechanic that's really kind of taken off in CRPGs (i.e., have discrete objective, finish discrete objective, get reward.) The only thing you got XP for was killing monsters. Period. 

 

I'm not expecting this to change in Dragon Age. The developers have not tried to be innovative in this series with what I'm talking about; but there's no reason to be particularly critical of them here, as I don't really see anyone else doing it, either. 

 

Combat will probably be essential to just about any genre. The only one I've noticed that does things a bit different are the comic-book based superhero RPGs. Like the comics, there isn't a lot of dying, not even of the villains, because they've got to return. That would include Freedom Force. Supervillains, true to the comics, are almost never "killed" - just apprehended. Their minions of course are also usually "KO'd" at 0 hit points instead of killed. Of course, it's all still fighting, it's just that supposedly no one's dying. 

 

Of course, if you can think of many video games, period, which don't involve fighting, combat & killing - it's not a long list, is it? Oh yeah, the Sims. And we all know (stereotype incoming) "that's just for girls". 

 

As I've said enough times, I do find the combat portion of these games interesting, as long as they are more like tactical wargaming and less like Space Invaders or Mortal Kombat. More thought, less action and twitching. Still, I'm waiting for the innovative developer who will not take out combat (I just don't see that happening) or even de-center it out of the game, but at least offer some occasional variety for people who occasionally want to find a resolution in ways that don't involve killing. Looks like the Vampires: Bloodlines folks tried it. Good for them. Like I said, yay innovation. Almost makes me wish I had tried it. 

 

IMHO, gaming is about overcoming challenges; not always involving some form of shooting aliens. I think I've said that. A creative developer can put different challenges in your way to overcome, that are not of a military/combat nature. Not all the time, not even most of the time, but some of the time. I've used "politicking" as an example, like the Orlesian Ball thing people keep talking about, or being involved in real life diplomacy (not just talking diplomatically).  It'd be cool to see it, as something to do besides conversations and killing. Once in a while.

 

Back to the real grief of the OP, IMHO, combat gets boring if it's repetitively facing the same mooks without any variety. I think this is what the people upset over "trash mobs" are ultimately getting at. If it feels the game is endlessly throwing the same faceless t-mobs at you with no distinctiveness and no 'personality' (by that in this case I mean interesting combat-based behavior or actions), it gets boring. The fun is lost. Challenge has once again become tedium. Endless battles of nook-minions can be tedious, too, as much as having to eat and drink every 4 hours. 

 

Developers need to be better at that, at designing enemy encounters - at least. Not everything you fight has to be a Tremendous Boss Battle ™ or for a Incredible Game Objective ™, but as I've said, it just gets tiring, boring, and tedious when you've been ambushed by the same uninteresting, bland, interchangeable bandits for the 800th time. 

[Wulfram]

Open world pretty much means lots of trash fights, I think.  Need to fill up that space with something.  If we're lucky, they might be avoidable.

Not that closed world has meant any shortage in the past, of course

[CybAnt1]

It seems we might be able to run away from either too-dangerous menaces or too-pointless world-map enemies on our mounts, but that hasn't been confirmed. My guess is they might use the pursuit/chase distance mechanic of WoW -- they'll chase you, but if they can't catch you (and presumably your mount speed advantage means they won't be able to), they'll eventually give up.

 

Think they might have to make this work, as it seems if you're not careful, your level 1 starting-out Quiz may go to the wrong part of the map and run into a few level 8 bandits, and you are toast. And while I'm sure there are many who would take a "just desserts" attitude toward that event, the player whining here may become deafening. 

 

Guess, as always, we'll find out.

 

I agree, there's got to be creatures on that big-semi-open-world map, but of course, some of them don't need to be automatically hostile, a lot of things could basically be more or less neutral, and not attack unless you ****** them off. Or attack first. And many of them might just be "critters" which are basically non-attackable animals. Maybe as part of the "emergent systems" if stuff you've done has made them particularly hungry and famished, they might otherwise have left you alone, but now, dude, you're their dinner. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Both the dialogue and the fights are opportunities for roleplaying.

[Bob from Accounting]

A game whose gameplay revolves around combat needs to have quite a bit of combat.

 

You're not in a good place if you're already considering the core of gameplay as 'unnecessary.'

 

Of course, that doesn't excuse unfun or repetitive combat. But we should be looking for fun combat instead of no combat.

[MDCT506]

*snip*

I like the idea of getting XP upon completing quests, regardless of how you accomplish things (kill all the things, sneak past or use some type of quick talk skill, what have you), however that relegates all activity in the game to some type of quest, which can be a bit forced. Not every fight or instance of using your skills comes in a nice, pre-wrapped quest box.

Also, the idea of The Elder Scroll games "XP by doing" is very attractive as a concept. Just because you aren't killing things doesn't mean you aren't using your skills. Especially when killing things to earn XP results in incongruent results, like swinging a sword turning into XP to leans how to pick pockets.

Ideally, there would be ways to earn XP that aren't fighting trash mobs but also not limited to just doing quests. But how such a system would be executed would be difficult to conceptualize. Maybe some type of system that gives general XP as well as specialized XP? Something that tracks the most-used form of completing a task (say sneaking, or battle magic, or diplomacy) and awards you a lump of general XP (which can be used to apply to any skill) and then some specialized XP, which can let you level up your sneaking skills, or battle skills, or speech skills (depending on how you completed a task).

The best PnP example I know of for a great XP system is World of Darkness and the various settings therein (Vampire: the Masquerade among them).  The character gets XP for, among other things, the player showing up and participating (no kidding), roleplay (assuming you tried and it was good), the character learning something new, a well written character back story, accomplishing something impressive, accomplishing an objective, combat, etc.  A character can do quite well for themselves without having to lift a finger once the fur starts to fly. 

 

That being said, I do like combat.  I think that it's a I even like "random monster encounters" as long as they make some sense.  Combat should be a meaningful aspect of a game, not padding to stretch a game out. 

[CybAnt1]

But we should be looking for fun combat instead of no combat.

 

I certainly agree with that. But though I digressed into the combat-centrality of (C.)RPGs in general, as was my wont, I sorta get the feeling that was the basic nature of what the OP was asking for. As for me, it took me a while to get back to that. 

[theflyingzamboni]

But I like slaughtering hundreds of people and monsters...

 

More seriously though, the core gameplay mechanic of DA is tactical group combat. I play the games partly because I enjoy that. I'm not sure how offering less core gameplay would improve the game, unless the intent was to simply alter the core gameplay entirely.

 

I know InXile is planning to do something like that in Torment: Tides of Numenera, using a limited number of highly tailored "Crisis" scenarios, which includes combat. So a quality over quantity approach. But the style of the game will be designed specifically with that in mind.

 

Another series this brings to mind is Deus Ex. You can get through those without ever killing anyone or engaging in combat. But again, the game type is designed with the possibility of stealth and combat-avoidance in mind. A single-character stealth game is simply more conducive to finding alternate and sneakier means to objectives than a party-based game.

 

DA:I on the other hand, is designed to be a semi-open-world game, and if you left out those "unnecessary" encounters littered across the scenery, it would just be a game full of walking through the empty wilderness which sounds not at all fun. Only Shadow of the Colossus has made me enjoy riding across desolate, empty wastelands, and minimalist BioWare games are not.

That said, an open-worldish game should make sure those non-critical encounters are avoidable. No rabid moose dropping out of trees to surround me as I meander through the forest. I want to see my enemies ahead of time so I can go around them if I really want. As long as there are no paratroopers, I'm happy.

Beyond that, it seems a lot like saying "I would love this more if it were something it's not." Tactical party combat is their thing. If you really love their stories and characters, you may just have to accept more meat-grinding than you'd like.

[Torrible]

What I want to see less of (within a mission): facing waves and waves of similar enemies that will require using the same strategy to overcome again and again.

 

What I want to see more of: facing enemies of different setups under different scenarios. Some enemies would be spotted by your band first and you would be able to set up traps and strategies. Sometimes, you are being ambushed and have to formulate strategies on the fly. Interactive environmental traps would be awesome; for instance, being able to push them into swamps and electrocute them. Or actual battle scenarios like defending a choke point at the top of a long flight of stairs. In short: more variety and unpredictability.

[Monoten]

Fighting and dialogue are two of the essentials needed for a good RPG. Fighting an unnecessary fight is boring, because there is no story to it. In DA:O you would encounter darkspawn and there was a story behind it (a small one) namely the darkspawn have gone to the surface nobody is safe anymore. In DA2 you would encounter thieves in Kirkwall, but the hordes are so big you seriously doubt that a guild of thieves could have so many members and be killed so quick. Less enemies but stronger.

 

I've played south park Stick of Truth these last few days, and apart from some of the vulgar things and the bad language, I like the RPG system especially using the environment to weaken enemies and making the fights a lot easier.

[9TailsFox]

Both the dialogue and the fights are opportunities for roleplaying.

 

This and DA:O already did it perfect. First bandit encounter in Lothering. You can do everything possible to imagine. You can just kill bandits. You can just force bandits to pay you . You can just talk your way true. And then if you beat enemy they surrender and you can try to arrest them this is how you should be forced to kill your opponent. And then we have my favourite encounter in DA Then you fight Cauthrien you can't win because it's not forced lost but because it's just impossible because it's purposely made so you can't win but you still can win and if you lost you not just get game over but you continue to play.

And DA;2 somehow forget it all we have more bandits roaming at night then we have city guards, they can just unite and take over city and easily defeat Qunari.