239 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

I also think that travel times should be more realistic. I think that since DAO took a year of ingame time it should have taken a year of my time as well. do you see how unfun making a fantasy game realistic can be? most people don't have fun when a game becomes more difficult to survive or complete than our actual lives. I personally play games to escape the stress of life.

 

also the mana thing, if I attach a generator capable of powering an entire building to a flashlight the flashlight isn't gonna shine brighter just longer. why should mana and spells be different in that regards?

Now that you mention it. I would like party to actually find a location overland before being able to fast travel to it. I also use fantasy games for entertainment. I am looking for games that mirror some of my tabletop experiences and the early crpgs that I played.

[Realmzmaster]

I don't really agree at all, OP. There's a place for all those things in games, but I don't think it should be in Dragon Age.

 

Too much realism to the point of aggravation makes the game 1) a chore and 2) completely unappealing to anyone except the uber hardcore grognards. At some point you're going to have to make concessions for the sake of gameplay, and I'd much rather an unrealistic game that's fun and captivating, rather than something which aims for realism and just annoys me.

 

And if we're talking about Dragon Age being a viable and sustainable AAA franchise, it absolutely cannot turn away half its audience by being aggressively difficult, overly complex, nitpicky and basically old-fashioned. Forcing the player to stop every half an hour for a drink of water would do that.

 

Which means Bioware should abandon making games like the Baldur's Gate series? Are you saying that games like the Ultima series or Wizardry woulkd not appeal to gamers today?

[Realmzmaster]

I want my fantasy game to be a fantasy game .

If that is the case why does it matter if there are realistic armors and weapons? Or are you saying you want a certain amount of realism in the game that appeals to you.

[Realmzmaster]

I want a certain degree of believability, but not to the point it becomes annoying.  I was using a needs mod in Skyrim, until I realized it was tremendously slowing down my gameplay and bogging down my inventory with food items.  At that point the novelty wore off, and the additional difficulty became nothing more than an additional annoyance, something that was getting in the way of my gameplay experience, even though the mechanic added some immersion to the game.

 

I do not want permanent death.  I do not want to have to wait for in-game months for injuries to be healed, when we've got mages with the abilities to handle those kinds of injuries.

 

Having health and mana regenerate with rest makes sense; however, regenerating during travel isn't bad if you're wearing a certain accessory or have the game on the lowest difficulty setting.

 

I do want reasonable armor for everyone--no skimpy outfits in cold Ferelden, no chain bikinis.  A needs option for food, drink, rest, and disease wouldn't be horrible, but I don't want it forced on me because as I noted above, it can slow down gameplay and I have other things to do besides play the game.  I don't think horses/mounts should be immortal; we should have to take care to protect our assets, whether they're mounts or men.  I could go on, but my point being, realism to a certain degree is good, but I don't want my gameplay to be overboard on realism, because at a certain point it stops being novel and fun and starts being really tedious.

 

 

The question is where is that point? It differs for different people. In my opinion the pall of death should always be present regardless of the story. The story should accommodate that point that a companion could die while in combat. Otherwise one can just treat the companions as cannon fodder because with instant regeneration of health and mana there are no consequences.

[Realmzmaster]

Imagine if the inventory system was realistic, where you could only travel with a couple of smaller items, and if you came across any new weapons or armor, you could only take them at the cost of disposing of what you already have. After all, you shouldn't realistically be able to walk around with a dozen choices of sword or dagger everywhere you go.

Exactly, the party would have to manage what is carried or since there are mounts in DAI one can be used to carry inventory.

[CybAnt1]

If a mage has control over mana then the mage has control over the amount of mana used otherwise spells would not have different mana costs. What I propose is that the mage also be able to control the amount of mana for any particular spell. So instead of putting 40 mana in the fireball spell for example the mage can place 20. That would halve the effect which can be used for groups that do not require the full effect.

 

Well, so there are two ways that games do this. Tier the spells, so that you have a level 1 fireball or level 2 fireball. The level 2 fireball costs more mana and does more damage/effect. Of course, you can also set it so that the spell simply grows in both cost and power as the character levels, too. (That doesn't let them choose, though, in most cases, lower-cost/lower-effect.) 

 

Or, as you're saying, let the player set the mana for the spell - blow more mana and do more damage  (or maybe vice versa) - at player choice. Of course, if you put this in, in theory you're also allowing a lvl 1 mage to do it (although their total mana pool will be small.) 

[CybAnt1]

Imagine if the inventory system was realistic, where you could only travel with a couple of smaller items, and if you came across any new weapons or armor, you could only take them at the cost of disposing of what you already have. After all, you shouldn't realistically be able to walk around with a dozen choices of sword or dagger everywhere you go.

 

That's more or less the Dungeon Siege system. Weapons don't have weight, but they have "size". I'll explain for those who haven't played. Actually, a picture will help spell it out. 

 

 

Inventory was basically a "grid," but bigger weapons required more grid spaces/hexes than smaller ones, shields more grid space than potions, armor required more grid space than daggers, etc.

 

The Diablos have also used that for inventory; seems to be popular in the action-RPG space.

 

 

Although I think Diablo's is simpler, every inventory item either takes 1 grid space, or 2 vertical spaces. 

 

Anyway, this is a way to make sure people can carry fewer of the "bigger"/"heavier" items. Without using an actual weight for every item. It still creates a kind of inventory limitation. 

[Realmzmaster]

This is a rpg, not a survival game. I like to be able to handle combat casually, if I want more difficult gameplay I will play a more difficult game.

 

It's the route Dragon Age has had that I like it for.

Any game that has combat is a survival game. I simply take the realism further. I am simply pointing out that some gamers want realism but only to a certain degree. The degree of realism I choose is greater than what others want. 

This section is Feedback and Suggestions. Bioware is free to listen or not listen to what I wrote. 

[Realmzmaster]

I disagree with every single point you made, OP.

Why?

[Realmzmaster]

Well, so there are two ways that games do this. Tier the spells, so that you have a level 1 fireball or level 2 fireball. The level 2 fireball costs more mana and does more damage/effect. Of course, you can also set it so that the spell simply grows in both cost and power as the character levels, too. (That doesn't let them choose, though, in most cases, lower-cost/lower-effect.) 

 

Or, as you're saying, let the player set the mana for the spell - blow more mana and do more damage  (or maybe vice versa) - at player choice. Of course, if you put this in, in theory you're also allowing a lvl 1 mage to do it (although their total mana pool will be small.) 

 

I think it was Wizardry 8 that allowed the wizard to specify the power level of the spell. The power level ranged from 1 to 7 with an eighth power level for some spells.

The game also had the Knock-Knock speel to open doors and chests. Warriors could bash open doors and chests at the cost of breakage.

[Realmzmaster]

That's more or less the Dungeon Siege system. Weapons don't have weight, but they have "size". I'll explain for those who haven't played. Actually, a picture will help spell it out. 

 

 

 

Inventory was basically a "grid," but bigger weapons required more grid spaces/hexes than smaller ones, shields more grid space than potions, armor required more grid space than daggers, etc.

 

The Diablos have also used that for inventory; seems to be popular in the action-RPG space.

 

 

 

Although I think Diablo's is simpler, every inventory item either takes 1 grid space, or 2 vertical spaces. 

 

Anyway, this is a way to make sure people can carry fewer of the "bigger"/"heavier" items. Without using an actual weight for every item. It still creates a kind of inventory limitation. 

 

And some games used both systems both weight and space. It required the gamer to think about what was important for the party to carry. 

I would like to see the return of the individual inventory system for each companion.

[CybAnt1]

Those are interesting systems, but then you need to answer one other question. Should the power level of the spell (available) depend on the level of the wizard?

 

Generally, DA seems to more or less stick to this -- you either choose low-mana, low-damage spells (like spirit bolt), or the high-mana, high-damage/effect spells, and those are the choices given to you. Of course, unlike D & D, they are not explicitly tiered into spell levels, like "that there is a lvl 1 spell" or "this one is a lvl 3 spell". 

[CybAnt1]

And some games used both systems both weight and space. It required the gamer to think about what was important for the party to carry. 

I would like to see the return of the individual inventory system for each companion.

 

Sure, although you could also simulate weight by making the higher-STR characters have a bigger grid, and lower-STR characters having a smaller grid. (Though I don't know of a game that does that.) 

 

Also, of course, Dungeon Siege had your 6th party member be a mule - a real mule - who had the biggest grid space of all (but didn't do much, otherwise). 

 

In the end, because it also has finite inventory space, DA can and does at points make you think about what to pick up or drop. Of course, every physical thing in the world takes 1 inventory space, and some things (like potions or arrows) stack. And the only way to build up inventory space is to find more backpacks. You can't say DA is without inventory limits. 

 

Hmmm. Oddly enough, for reasons I don't get, the inventory limit (without mods) is 125 items for PC, and 120 for console.

 

http://dragonage.wik.../wiki/Inventory

 

Of course, that's purely theoretical, as without a mod, PC version is still limited to finding 5 additional backpacks/50 additional inventory spaces (over the 70 you start with; 10 per backpack). In reality, everybody maxes out at 120 slots. 

 

DA2, as I recall, also gated finding the last backpack until Act 3. 

[CybAnt1]

The WoW system, typical to many MMOs, is "bag slots". You have a backpack (18 slots) and then 4 bag slots, which you can then put in (duh) up to 4 bags.

 

The bags themselves vary in how many slots they have. Anywhere from 6 slots to 28. (Pretty much anything over 22 slots requires unusual crafting from fairly unusual materials and crafting recipes. Making bags, as opposed to finding or buying them, requires tailoring.) 

 

Lately, they've been doing interesting things, like putting keys onto a non-inventory keyring, or auto-sorting crafting materials (both raw materials and produced goods) into crafting bags. They used to auto-sort ammo into ammo bags, until ammo disappeared. The other question then is how much stacking is allowed. WoW typically put things into stacks of 20, so if you have 25 of something, you are using 2 slots (20 for stack 1, 5 for stack 2.)

 

P.S. I would love, love, love if WoW, like DA2, auto-sorted all your "vendor trash"/"junk" into one bag, and then let you sell it all at once. 

[AlanC9]

Now that you mention it. I would like party to actually find a location overland before being able to fast travel to it. I also use fantasy games for entertainment. I am looking for games that mirror some of my tabletop experiences and the early crpgs that I played.

BG2's fast travel struck me as being a lot more like PnP than BG's zone mowing.

[AlanC9]

The question is where is that point? It differs for different people. In my opinion the pall of death should always be present regardless of the story. The story should accommodate that point that a companion could die while in combat.

How would you actually do this? One obvious way is to make the companions irrelevant to the story, which is doable. Another way is to duplicate everyone's plot roles with other characters, which can get expensive fast. A third way would be cheap resurrection, which isn't available in DA. There's also the old Wing Commander method, where NPCs are immortal until their plot arcs are complete.

[Ispan]

WoW used to leave the player with access to every level of spell they had learned (but took that away the last time I checked, just one spell of the highest power).  Earlier in WoW I used different levels of heals all the time to manage my mana pool and really enjoyed the problem solving aspect of working with limited resources.  That said, the spell book was pretty overwhelming, not to mention we only controlled one character, not 4.  While I love micromanaging my party, that sounds... tedious.   Also, I don't think console gamers would take too nicely to selecting the strength/intensity of spells, since many seem to think the skill selection process takes too long as is.

[JimboGee]

I like these ideas. Maybe not to the extent of vegas eating and drinking but I would like the old Baldurs Gate style of having a drinks list.

 

I'm not sure I'd like to have my party healing at the keep or whatever though. To me this means having to have a sufficient number of party members to cover the missing spot. Then it just seems to merge into some sort of fantasy based X-Com.

[Realmzmaster]

Those are interesting systems, but then you need to answer one other question. Should the power level of the spell (available) depend on the level of the wizard?

 

Generally, DA seems to more or less stick to this -- you either choose low-mana, low-damage spells (like spirit bolt), or the high-mana, high-damage/effect spells, and those are the choices given to you. Of course, unlike D & D, they are not explicitly tiered into spell levels, like "that there is a lvl 1 spell" or "this one is a lvl 3 spell". 

 

I would not tie to the level of the wizard. If a first level wizard is able to cast a 7th power fireball then that is fine. The problem is that is all the wizard would be able to cast since it would expend all available mana at that power level. That is the counterbalance to the system. So if the wizard is unable to defeat the enemy with that spell you will have a wizard in serious trouble.

[Realmzmaster]

How would you actually do this? One obvious way is to make the companions irrelevant to the story, which is doable. Another way is to duplicate everyone's plot roles with other characters, which can get expensive fast. A third way would be cheap resurrection, which isn't available in DA. There's also the old Wing Commander method, where NPCs are immortal until their plot arcs are complete.

 

The companions do not have to be essential to the story. None of thew companions in BG1 or BG2 were essential to the story. Bioware has changed that in in both DAO and DA2 especially DA2 where Varric and Anders was made essential to the plot and Morrigan to a lesser degree with the dark ritual. None of other companions are essential.

 

What would need to happen is a larger selection of companions in case a companion died or Biff the Understudy..

[Realmzmaster]

I like these ideas. Maybe not to the extent of vegas eating and drinking but I would like the old Baldurs Gate style of having a drinks list.

 

I'm not sure I'd like to have my party healing at the keep or whatever though. To me this means having to have a sufficient number of party members to cover the missing spot. Then it just seems to merge into some sort of fantasy based X-Com.

 

If I recall correctly Baldur's Gate had twenty-five different companions.

 Also BG1 had Biff the Understudy!

[Eveangaline]

If a mage has control over mana then the mage has control over the amount of mana used otherwise spells would not have different mana costs. What I propose is that the mage also be able to control the amount of mana for any particular spell. So instead of putting 40 mana in the fireball spell for example the mage can place 20. That would halve the effect which can be used for groups that do not require the full effect.

Says who? How is that more realistic?

[JimboGee]

If I recall correctly Baldur's Gate had twenty-five different companions.

 Also BG1 had Biff the Understudy!

 

Well thats news to me I have to say it always bugged me that death/being knocked out had no real penalty other than having to use a healing kit. Who knows maybe they are heading back to the ways of old school gaming.

[KaiserShep]

With all this stuff about realism in the game's mechanics, the thing that concerns me the most is how this may affect the amount of meaningful content we actually have available with each companion. It seems to me that with a system that necessitates a larger cast of disposable characters, it's less likely that we'll get as much in the way of good content for each, or companion quests or things of that nature. How much time would/should BioWare devote to writing in lots of stuff for characters players may never meet unless they accept the death of their companion(s)? If I ended up with Biff the Understudy, I'm no doubt going to put this character under a great deal of scrutiny, because anything that makes me think "cheap substitute" is going to simply make me restart from scratch out of aggravation.

[Iakus]

How realistic a fantasy game is isn't as important as having it follow its own rules.  What's important is that it remain consistent with itself.