239 réponses à ce sujet

[King Killoth]

The big issue with to much realism is simply that its boring and requires a lot of micromanagement. if your trying to sell a game to a mass market you have to keep the passe of the game at a steady speed as to not drag out needless mechanics. yea it sounds fun until your fifteen hours into the game and hardly out of the starting   because you have to keep starting the game over because all your companions keep dies of desese or hunger or some random mob kills you or them. plays die a lot in games and perma death would be more of a game breaker than a savior. plays on average do not want to contently keep checking their party members health and wellness they want to explore and have fun in the beautiful world that is made. adding more realism would only hurt the game and keep in mind this is a FANTASY world so realistic weapons and armor are also a moot point as those styles do not follow the art structure of the rest of the world. most of the weapons and armor are made by other races that have their own cutlers and art. also most human lands are influenced by magic or other races so an English suit of armor would be alien in that world.

[King Killoth]

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..

that may be true but it makes for a dull and lifeless game.. can you honestly say that either of the dragon age games would have sold as well if they just dropped all the non plot related companions early on int he game. me I think not a big part of the dragon age games is the relationships with the companions and the way the play forms those relationships as well as with who. its a large part of the games selling point is how the player chooses to handle each companion. and do keep in mind this is not a BG game and should not be compared to it as they are entirely separate game styles and structures not to mentions years apart from each other.

[CybAnt1]

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

 

Yes, who never spoke to the PC or had much interaction with him/her. They were voiced, and there were banters and combat cries, but what minimal interactions they had with the PC outside of combat were pretty much text-based dialogue. 

 

That was in BG1. A lot of the things that we think are typical of a Bioware game, like PC-party member romance, and more rich, interactive voiced dialogue, wouldn't come until BG2. 

[Realmzmaster]

that may be true but it makes for a dull and lifeless game.. can you honestly say that either of the dragon age games would have sold as well if they just dropped all the non plot related companions early on int he game. me I think not a big part of the dragon age games is the relationships with the companions and the way the play forms those relationships as well as with who. its a large part of the games selling point is how the player chooses to handle each companion. and do keep in mind this is not a BG game and should not be compared to it as they are entirely separate game styles and structures not to mentions years apart from each other.

 

I do compare BG to DA because DA was billed and marketed as the spiritual successor to BG. Also given that some of the same people who made and wrote for BG are now the same for DA. The game styles are not that different.

 

BG was just as story driven as DA. BG had companions that gamers grew attached to (from Viconia to Jaheria)  just like DA.  The point with BG is that no one companion was more intergal to the story than the protagonist unless it was a character like Elminister or Flemeth. The gamer had no control over  characters like that.

 

DA makes Morrigan, Anders and Varric integral to the plot. to the point the story cannot continue without them. Anders in particular is not integral to DA2 story. A new companion could have easily taken his place. That was fan service.

[Realmzmaster]

Yes, who never spoke to the PC or had much interaction with him/her. 

But sometimes had violent reactions to the point of fighting or leaving the party with each other depending on the composition of the party. Something that DA lacks.

[CybAnt1]

Oh sure, that was one thing you had to deal with - companions that were inseparable (like Minsc & Dynaheir), and ones that refused to be in the same party (usually because of opposing alignments). So, yes, party composition faced limits. 
 
Now, there are 16 (possible) party members (parties could have 5 besides the PC) in BG2, and impressively (this what is so amazing about it), they all had voiced interactions. (I'm not counting Sarevok, #17, who was the villain of BG1 but becomes recruitable in ToB. And, of course, at various points, it's not really all 16 who are available because Imoen is not there for a large part of the game, and some will betray you [Yoshimo], and there are more incompatibilities and crisis points, etc.) 

 

http://www.saber-sco...2_charguide.php

 

But they only did 4 romances: as many have noted, 3 for straight dudes (who, contrary to something I said earlier, had to be elves, half-elves, or human; sorry hobbits and half-orcs), and 1 (Anomen) for the straight ladies. That was it. Pretty much the extra-romantic companion relationships remained pretty shallow. 

[Realmzmaster]

The big issue with to much realism is simply that its boring and requires a lot of micromanagement. if your trying to sell a game to a mass market you have to keep the passe of the game at a steady speed as to not drag out needless mechanics. yea it sounds fun until your fifteen hours into the game and hardly out of the starting   because you have to keep starting the game over because all your companions keep dies of desese or hunger or some random mob kills you or them. plays die a lot in games and perma death would be more of a game breaker than a savior. plays on average do not want to contently keep checking their party members health and wellness they want to explore and have fun in the beautiful world that is made. adding more realism would only hurt the game and keep in mind this is a FANTASY world so realistic weapons and armor are also a moot point as those styles do not follow the art structure of the rest of the world. most of the weapons and armor are made by other races that have their own cutlers and art. also most human lands are influenced by magic or other races so an English suit of armor would be alien in that world.

 

If that is the case why are many threads on realistic weapons and armor? Are you saving this is a debatable point  or an issue open to argument because that is what moot point means. Or do you mean it an irrelevant question? Or a matter of little practical value? 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

A better question is: Should there be more fantasy in a realism game?

[CybAnt1]

I think "realism" means different things to different people, and some people care about certain kinds more than others. It's a semantic problem (like so many others) because nobody's meaning the same thing, or wanting the same stuff.

 

For some, the game would be more "realistic" if it more effectively simulated true medieval combat, like Kingdom Come. Others care more about "realistic" weapons and armor (which I guess should not look too "fantastic"). Yet others think it should apply to other aspects of combat, like whether people can forward roll in plate armor (I admit being somewhat in that camp.) We seem to have some who think it's "unrealistic" the world has too many bisexuals, or isn't more sexist to women, or doesn't have lighter-skinned people reacting negatively to Vivienne, and other Rivaini. I personally found it "unrealistic" the only places companions would talk in DA2 was in their "home bases" and nowhere else. How is that like people who have ever lived anywhere? 

 

These groups do not necessarily overlap. And they are all meaning different things by the word, because they all are caring about, or wanting, different things. I personally tend to use the suspension of disbelief principle, which means this is a fantasy world with lots of magic & unreality and so some unbelievable things can and will happen (like people killing high dragons and surviving). But there will be moments where you just say "You know what, that doesn't make sense in any (possible) world." I admit everybody hits that wall/limit at different places, for me bandits dropping out of the sky breaks the limit. Unless there's a mage teleporting them in, and that's not supposed to be happening. 

[Realmzmaster]

Oh sure, that was one thing you had to deal with - companions that were inseparable (like Minsc & Dynaheir), and ones that refused to be in the same party (usually because of opposing alignments). So, yes, party composition faced limits. 
 
Now, there are 16 (possible) party members (parties could have 5 besides the PC) in BG2, and impressively (this what is so amazing about it), they all had voiced interactions. (I'm not counting Sarevok, #17, who was the villain of BG1 but becomes recruitable in ToB. And, of course, at various points, it's not really all 16 who are available because Imoen is not there for a large part of the game, and some will betray you [Yoshimo], and there are more incompatibilities and crisis points, etc.) 

 

http://www.saber-sco...2_charguide.php

 

But they only did 4 romances: as many have noted, 3 for straight dudes (who, contrary to something I said earlier, had to be elves, half-elves, or human; sorry hobbits and half-orcs), and 1 (Anomen) for the straight ladies. That was it. Pretty much the extra-romantic companion relationships remained pretty shallow. 

 

DAO has four characters that can be romanced (Alistair, Morrigan, Lelianna and Zev). DA2 has Anders, Isabella, Fenris and Merrill. I will admit that the straight ladies and homosexuals make out better with the playersexual characters in DA2. DAO justs evens the romances .

[CybAnt1]

DAO has four characters that can be romanced (Alistair, Morrigan, Lelianna and Zev). DA2 has Anders, Isabella, Fenris and Merrill. I will admit that the straight ladies and homosexuals make out better with the playersexual characters in DA2. DAO justs evens the romances .

 

The issue is that of ratio, too. 4 out of 9 is not bad as a ratio. 4 out of 16 is 25% were romance-able. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Some of the stuff you brought up was interesting but those death points are just too much for me to support in good conscience. Perma-death is a video game design flaw, it originated from a limitation of video games back in their cartridge forms to hold enough memory to keep a save file. As game technology improved, so too did the art of saving, and of checkpoints rather then ending the players progress completely and making them start back at the beginning of the game after they died. That's why you usually had multiple lives back in the day, because it was easier to program a character who can die a certain amount of time before the data is wiped then it was to program a person to start back at a certain point after true death. Games that still use the perma-death approach appeal only to a niche market, so i wouldn't want to see dragon age, which is aiming for a more mainstream appeal, to suddenly try to compete with the likes of dark souls, which has found it's own successful fans who would probably dislike the prospect of dragon age due to it not being hardcore enough. Honestly, the mainstream-ness of dragon age is one of it's strengths, not it's weakness.

 

If you wish for permadeath, I would success deleting your savefile every time you die. It's a bit of an extra chore, but it will mean you can have the rpg you wanted, and nobody else has to suffer through it.

[Realmzmaster]

I think "realism" means different things to different people, and some people care about certain kinds more than others. It's a semantic problem (like so many others) because nobody's meaning the same thing, or wanting the same stuff.

 

For some, the game would be more "realistic" if it more effectively simulated true medieval combat, like Kingdom Come. Others care more about "realistic" weapons and armor (which I guess should not look too "fantastic"). Yet others think it should apply to other aspects of combat, like whether people can forward roll in plate armor (I admit being somewhat in that camp.) We seem to have some who think it's "unrealistic" the world has too many bisexuals, or isn't more sexist to women, or doesn't have lighter-skinned people reacting negatively to Vivienne, and other Rivaini. I personally found it "unrealistic" the only places companions would talk in DA2 was in their "home bases" and nowhere else. How is that like people who have ever lived anywhere? 

 

These groups do not necessarily overlap. And they are all meaning different things by the word, because they all are caring about, or wanting, different things. I personally tend to use the suspension of disbelief principle, which means this is a fantasy world with lots of magic & unreality and so some unbelievable things can and will happen (like people killing high dragons and surviving). But there will be moments where you just say "You know what, that doesn't make sense in any (possible) world." I admit everybody hits that wall/limit at different places, for me bandits dropping out of the sky breaks the limit. Unless there's a mage teleporting them in, and that's not supposed to be happening. 

 

That is where the rub lies. When someone saids realistic or realism in a fantasy world is that person looking at history in the real world and trying to apply it to the fantasy world. Why does it matter if the weapons and armor are realistic looking in a fictional universe? If the rules, lore and laws of that world are not violated then it should not matter. What is happening is that gamers are projecting historical accuracy of their known world on a fantasy world. 

 

As you stated in comes down to suspension of belief and for each person that line happens in different places. The other point comes down to playability and how much detail wanted in a fantasy world.

 

For me it makes no sense that quivers have an unlimited supply of arrows or that weapons and armor do not degrade or break. Other gamers do not wish to deal with that pesky detail. I on the other hand think it add to my immersion in the game.

 

I have no problem with Fenis carrying a big sword and swinging it or shoot an arrow that splinters and hits several enemies ala Green Arrow or Hawkeye. That appears to be immersion breaking for others. I am not applying the laws of my world to a fictional world where as you stated High dragons can be killed and certain characters can command the elements. 

 

The interesting point is that when I suggest injecting more realism that depends on what is and is not acceptable to each person.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Completely wrong kind of permdeath you're thinking about.

Also, on characters, I think of all games, Mass Effect 2/3 were good at replacing characters in plot arcs without devolving into Biff the Understudy levels. Granted, they only die during story decisions not normal game play, but the idea isn't impossible. Have a larger cast, then introduce supporting characters who "take over" the arcs of certain main plot centric characters who die. It wouldn't be easy, or cheap, so I don't see it ever happening in BioWare's cinematic design. But I reckon it can be done. Probably already has. Deus Ex counts maybe? Not really the same thing though since hey aren't companions in the literal sense.

[Realmzmaster]

Some of the stuff you brought up was interesting but those death points are just too much for me to support in good conscience. Perma-death is a video game design flaw, it originated from a limitation of video games back in their cartridge forms to hold enough memory to keep a save file. As game technology improved, so too did the art of saving, and of checkpoints rather then ending the players progress completely and making them start back at the beginning of the game after they died. That's why you usually had multiple lives back in the day, because it was easier to program a character who can die a certain amount of time before the data is wiped then it was to program a person to start back at a certain point after true death. Games that still use the perma-death approach appeal only to a niche market, so i wouldn't want to see dragon age, which is aiming for a more mainstream appeal, to suddenly try to compete with the likes of dark souls, which has found it's own successful fans who would probably dislike the prospect of dragon age due to it not being hardcore enough. Honestly, the mainstream-ness of dragon age is one of it's strengths, not it's weakness.

 

If you wish for permadeath, I would success deleting your savefile every time you die. It's a bit of an extra chore, but it will mean you can have the rpg you wanted, and nobody else has to suffer through it.

 

I play on a PC not  so the limitation you speak of does not exist. Permdeath of companions was in the original Wizardry back in 1981. . Actually, Might and Magic X, Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2 will be or are using the permdeath system. Bioware also used it with BG1 and BG2 unless the character could be resurrected which was usually not the case. 

[CybAnt1]

Party members could be resurrected. If the PC died, it was game over. I learned that the hard way recently playing BG2: Enhanced Edition, when I noted one of the enhancements was not changing that. 

 

As I recall, though, when party members died, they dropped all their belongings, and also their corpse became an "item". You actually could bring their corpse to one of the Athatkala temples and pay to have them resurrected there. Then give them back all their belongings. This, of course, meant you had to make your way back out of the dungeon and back to the city without them to do this, of course. 

 

There were certain kinds of "chunking" deaths (like overwhelming hits) that prevented either form of resurrection, too. 

 

Of course, PC death meant you simply went back to the most recent save, and could start over from there. Plus there were auto-saves at critical junctures. That's been true of Bioware games for a looong time. 

[Bond]

I dont care much about that, i love some games, just the way they are. Dragon Age has nice balance on realism/fantasy and i am happy about it. The most important thing is to bring the DA feel to Inquisition,whether it is more realistic or not i dont care. Witcher for example has far more realistic way of doing things and i liked it almost as much. So it is not the most important thing. 

But to answer the question, generally i prefer realism to mad fentasy. I prefer a game to be overly realistic (GTA, dont insert ****** jokes and driving through people...) to .... say....DOTA or some other shiny thing kids play these days. Looking at my fav games - Mass Effect, Witcher, Dragon Age, Gothic, Skyrim, a lot of them has fantasy setting but keep it real, its not so colourful and fairy tale like.

[Realmzmaster]

Party members could be resurrected. If the PC died, it was game over. I learned that the hard way recently playing BG2: Enhanced Edition, when I noted one of the enhancements was not changing that. 

 

As I recall, though, when party members died, they dropped all their belongings, and also their corpse became an "item". You actually could bring their corpse to one of the Athatkala temples and pay to have them resurrected there. Then give them back all their belongings. This, of course, meant you had to make your way back out of the dungeon and back to the city without them to do this, of course. 

 

There were certain kinds of "chunking" deaths (like overwhelming hits) that prevented either form of resurrection, too. 

 

Of course, PC death meant you simply went back to the most recent save, and could start over from there. Plus there were auto-saves at critical junctures. That's been true of Bioware games for a looong time. 

 

You are correct party members could be resurrected if the party had the gold to pay for the resurrection, had a scroll of resurrection or raise dead or some one in the party knew either Raise dead or Resurrection spell. The character being raised had a system shock percentage. If the outcome was under the system shock percentage the character was returned to life. The Raise Dead spell restored the character with one life point. The Resurrection restored to full health. There was a chance the spell would fail.

Both spells required a body for the restoration. 

 

If the body was destroyed or missing heart or brain it could not be restored. If the body was missing a limb when restored the limb was still missing.

[Ispan]

You are correct party members could be resurrected if the party had the gold to pay for the resurrection, had a scroll of resurrection or raise dead or some one in the party knew either Raise dead or Resurrection spell. The character being raised had a system shock percentage. If the outcome was under the system shock percentage the character was returned to life. The Raise Dead spell restored the character with one life point. The Resurrection restored to full health. There was a chance the spell would fail.

Both spells required a body for the restoration. 

 

If the body was destroyed or missing heart or brain it could not be restored. If the body was missing a limb when restored the limb was still missing.

 

Eek, I don't see the realism in picking up a body and putting it in your inventory.  Real would be the body taking the place of your main and offhand items, then having to exit the dungeon defenseless.  That actually sounds like a fun minigame.

[CybAnt1]

Correct. That aspect of it absolutely made no sense. A dead body does not fit in a backpack or sack. 

 

Of course, I've noticed a lot of games where corpses are treated like any other inventory item, which is undoubtedly odd. 

[daveliam]

Some of the stuff you brought up was interesting but those death points are just too much for me to support in good conscience. Perma-death is a video game design flaw, it originated from a limitation of video games back in their cartridge forms to hold enough memory to keep a save file. As game technology improved, so too did the art of saving, and of checkpoints rather then ending the players progress completely and making them start back at the beginning of the game after they died. That's why you usually had multiple lives back in the day, because it was easier to program a character who can die a certain amount of time before the data is wiped then it was to program a person to start back at a certain point after true death. Games that still use the perma-death approach appeal only to a niche market, so i wouldn't want to see dragon age, which is aiming for a more mainstream appeal, to suddenly try to compete with the likes of dark souls, which has found it's own successful fans who would probably dislike the prospect of dragon age due to it not being hardcore enough. Honestly, the mainstream-ness of dragon age is one of it's strengths, not it's weakness.

 

If you wish for permadeath, I would success deleting your savefile every time you die. It's a bit of an extra chore, but it will mean you can have the rpg you wanted, and nobody else has to suffer through it.

 

Perma-death is an interesting gameplay feature, but only in some games.  I love the perma-death feature in games like State of Decay or XCOM, both of which are really strategy games, but both have RPG elements.  It adds an element of suspense around decision making and makes an interesting dynamic as characters come in and out of the party.  The problem with them is that the characters are really not developed at all because it's just not possible to do so when you have to keep adding in replacement characters in order for the player to continue with the game.

 

I don't really see Bioware going this way because their strength is character development which flies in the face of perma-death.  However, I wouldn't go so far to say that perma-death is a flawed mechanic.

[Realmzmaster]

Eek, I don't see the realism in picking up a body and putting it in your inventory.  Real would be the body taking the place of your main and offhand items, then having to exit the dungeon defenseless.  That actually sounds like a fun minigame.

 

There is no realism in putting the body in inventory. I just think it was convenient way for the developers to have the body carried without adding more graphics. In Dungeon Siege it would make more sense if you have a mule then the dead body is in the mule' inventory rather than showing the dead body roped to the mule. 

[ElitePinecone]

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?

 

Yes.

 

I never played them - they were before my time - and to be blunt I think the market for those sort of games is considerably smaller than people who like story-driven experiences, or people who just like hitting things in the face with a sword.

 

There are certainly ways in which Bioware can and should be bringing back old mechanics, but I don't think many fans of those games realise how niche they are today. 

 

If Baldur's Gate was enormously popular with a massive audience, after all, studios would still be making RPG games with that level of complexity. If those games are made at all now, it's for a smaller audience and *certainly* not the mainstream, which is what Dragon Age is trying to hit.

[CybAnt1]

If Baldur's Gate was enormously popular with a massive audience, after all, studios would still be making RPG games with that level of complexity. If those games are made at all now, it's for a smaller audience and *certainly* not the mainstream, which is what Dragon Age is trying to hit.

 

It's still popular with some audience. Just FYI, for those who care: Beamdog/Overhaul is thinking about not just updating the classics, but now moving on to sequels. 

 

(from Wikipedia, re BG1/2:EE)

 

In addition, Overhaul Games has revealed their intent to make Baldur's Gate 3 following their completion on both enhanced editions, describing it as their "long-term goal". They would, however, reveal that Baldur's Gate 3 would only be possible if the Enhanced Editions do well financially and if the team demonstrates the ability to successfully make their own original content.^[60] Overhaul Games has also stated that they would like to produce overhauls of Icewind Dale andPlanescape: Torment using rules from Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition, if it is successful.^[61][62] The Planescape: Torment overhaul would use the Infinity Enhanced Engine as well as possibly set up the stage for a sequel to Torment .

 

(this from Beamdog's Twitter)

"Baldur's Gate 3 has been our long term goal. We have a lot of things to put in place before such a project can be launched. So currently there is no such project but that's the one we want to do. Our thoughts have been that Enhanced Edition for BG 1 and 2 just make sense before there's any Baldur's Gate 3."

"We're totally thinking Kickstarter. It just makes so much sense and solves so many problems. I think what Brian is doing with Wasteland is very interesting."

[end]

 

I hope those who might be excited, will be excited.  Rumors of a BG3 have floated around for a long time. But Black Hounds sometimes fade into the sunset. 

 

Of course, it's not getting made yet. Still. Could wind up in Duke Nukem Forever territory, at this point. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

While I do think that BG type experiences have a lower ceiling in terms of audience sales, I do think that the story-oriented gaming has a lower ceiling than most would expect. Even supposed mega-hits like Last of Us and Bioshock: Infinite seem to plateau at the 5-6 million mark, around where the Mass Effect series is per game. 

 

X-COM: Enemy Unknown as a strategy game with progression elements and mechanics similar to what the OP suggests has probably sold in that ball-park as well. So it's not completely out of order to suggest that a BG-type game can get big numbers. 

 

That said, I think Might and Magic X - Legacy is much closer to the type of game the OP would want. A game with mid-tier production values and low budget compared to AAA behemoths and a niche, but sustainable audience. 

 

The upcoming Kickstarter games also seems to follow this model, so we'll see how Project Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, Wasteland 2 and Torment: Tides of Numenera end up (alongside others).