239 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

I can live without scabbards and such. I can see how those can be tricky to implement. Still...when I see games like Drakensang, wich has alot lower budget than DA, implement bowstrings with no problem, I do feel Bioware should be able to do this too.

[Realmzmaster]

All fallen enemies ae dead, though. The companions arn`t dead.

 

The inventory system is very broken, really. I noticed in DA:O, when the warden gets captured. You can send 2 companions in to free him\her ann all that. Those two can use stuff the warden found just before getting captured...Makes NO sense.

 

That is the problem with a shared inventory system instead of an individual one for each companion.

[ElitePinecone]

AOE effects don't target the fallen, which is why you can't burn dead or unconscious enemy bodies with fireballs either.

 

If anything in this game is unrealistic and bugs me to death, it's the inventory system. I would very much like it if the number of items in the game was considerably streamlined, because there's no possible way you can be carrying all of that around. This is why I enjoyed the ME2 and 3 take on it.

 

To some other people though, there's great pleasure in having sixteen different swords to choose from, and they enjoy killing a dragon then looting an entire set of armour from its hoard. That fun might outweigh the ridiculousness of having a backpack the size of a truck.

 

And I daresay that if Bioware actually went and made Dragon Age a game where you couldn't carry more than two swords or whatever, people - and professional critics - would be confused and disappointed.

 

Far from hailing it as realism, wouldn't more people accuse Bioware of "dumbing down the game" or "pandering to the CoD crowd" by having severely limited inventory space?

[Realmzmaster]

I can live without scabbards and such. I can see how those can be tricky to implement. Still...when I see games like Drakensang, wich has alot lower budget than DA, implement bowstrings with no problem, I do feel Bioware should be able to do this too.

 Probably could have implemented it depending on where it is on the priority list.

[CybAnt1]

AOE targets an area which means that anything in that area is affected. Sorry the body burns. I suggested a combination of weight and grid restrictions to handle the inventory problem. 

 

Unfortunately, the solution she's talking about is simply to have fewer items in general to have to carry around and simplifying inventory mechanics. "Streamlining" inventory. That's what ME2 did. 

 

For those of us grognards who loved going through our inventory bags and wondering what we should pull out next for the next encounter (some call this "golf bag gaming"), this is the opposite solution. 

 

Dunno. I tend to like games where the nature of the opponent might make you do this. Like their immunities and resistances make you think about choosing what items/weapons/spells/acids-poisons to use against them. Like ... hmmm, trolls ahead, time to dig out the acid bombs and fire arrows, to keep them from regenerating. Or, ice giants ahead, better to use the fire bombs on them than the frost brand sword. But then, some people obviously don't. 

 

P.S. you might also need to have items or spells that increase your resistance or immunity to the kinds of special abilities or attacks they have, too. 

[Xilizhra]

To some other people though, there's great pleasure in having sixteen different swords to choose from, and they enjoy killing a dragon then looting an entire set of armour from its hoard. That fun might outweigh the ridiculousness of having a backpack the size of a truck.

 

And I daresay that if Bioware actually went and made Dragon Age a game where you couldn't carry more than two swords or whatever, people - and professional critics - would be confused and disappointed.

 

Far from hailing it as realism, wouldn't more people accuse Bioware of "dumbing down the game" or "pandering to the CoD crowd" by having severely limited inventory space?

Well, that's why it's not a gigantic concern of mine; the arguments against it are strong enough that I don't really care all that much. It only bugs me when I try to think about it.

[Rawgrim]

To some other people though, there's great pleasure in having sixteen different swords to choose from, and they enjoy killing a dragon then looting an entire set of armour from its hoard. That fun might outweigh the ridiculousness of having a backpack the size of a truck.

 

And I daresay that if Bioware actually went and made Dragon Age a game where you couldn't carry more than two swords or whatever, people - and professional critics - would be confused and disappointed.

 

Far from hailing it as realism, wouldn't more people accuse Bioware of "dumbing down the game" or "pandering to the CoD crowd" by having severely limited inventory space?

 

Adding inventory management would be the opposite of "dumbing down". Most rpgs, even new ones, still limit the amount of things a player can have in his inventory. The elder scrolls gams and the fallout games have a maximum carrying capacity based on the str score, etc. I think The Witcher has something like that too, and Deus Ex deffinatly had it. Bioware is actually the exception here. Everyone else has the "limited inventory" from the get-go.

[CybAnt1]

To be clear, it has inventory management. DA does limit the number of items you can carry. Even once you've found all the DA2 backpacks, and aren't using a mod, you can never carry more than 120 things. 

 

Of course, those could, theoretically, be 120 suits of armor (though that will never happen). Yes, that's where things break down - from a logical/versimilitude point of view.   Even if your 4 party members are qunari with a strength of 100, they shouldn't be hauling around 120 suits of armor. 

 

That's why DA:I needs a pack mule. I'm not kidding. It was one thing from Dungeon Siege that really made sense (if not the gibbering auto-bot way everybody had of shooting arrows and flinging spells). Maybe our horses might have this role. Be interesting to see. 

[Rawgrim]

Ohh. True! I forgot about the backpacks and the item limitations. Been awhile since I played the DA games. Fair point.

[Xilizhra]

I actually think that inventory should be unlimited, as it already clearly has nothing to do with realism.

[CybAnt1]

An infinite inventory can actually cause problems for the computer system it's running on. Although this could be more of a problem on gaming consoles, than PCs. 

 

Of course, there's also the tedium of having to thumb through 800 pages of inventory to find the item you're looking for, even if the game is paused while doing it. 

[Realmzmaster]

@CybAnt1,

 

I find it interesting that I am finding more of what I want in an rpg in more of the cross genre games. The only problem I have is mainly with the combat. Stalker and Far Cry have caught my attention. Stalker being somewhat like Fallout 3 and  New Vegas. The addition of a VATS like system in Stalker and Far Cry would go along way to making the combat better for me. There is more realism and the story is good not great. The "realism" in the story and gameplay is more apparent. 

[Realmzmaster]

One other point I would like to see some weapon design change if traveling from one country to another.

[ElitePinecone]

I actually think that inventory should be unlimited, as it already clearly has nothing to do with realism.

 

But there's a game design objective there, in forcing the player to be careful about how many items they carry, and potentially in forcing them to learn the game's systems better so they know which items are worth keeping and which can be discarded.

 

In a game-world there are going to be choices that are not made with realism in mind, surely?

[Realmzmaster]

I actually think that inventory should be unlimited, as it already clearly has nothing to do with realism.

 

Not practical from a gameplay perspective. If gamers think food, water and weight requirements are tedious having to go through a large inventory would be mind numbing. The gamers would self limit themselves out of practicality. 

[Baboontje]

I have been reading a lot of different threads about wanting realistic weapons, scabbards, bow strings and more realistic armor. Why stop at just that amount of realism?

 

I think games should take some cues from earlier crpgs. I would like to see weight, food and water requirements. I want death to mean something. I want the return of perma-death. 

 

I would like to see injury kits become first aid kits. The point it to stabilize the companion until the party can rest to better tend the wounds. Another companion would have to quickly assisst the wounded companion or death could occur.

 

I want to see non-regenerating health, stamina and mana unless time is taken to recuperate. I would like the return of status effects like poison, paralysis and severe non-lethal injuries that take a companion time to recover. If the companion continues with the party the injury will affect both in and out of combat performance.

 

If the injury is extremely severe  companion would unavailable until recuperation is over. The companion would heal at a keep that the Inquisitor has acquired or be force to stay at an inn for that time period.

 

Locations should not appear on any map until either the party or operatives find them, get information about them from some source like purchasing or receiving a map. 

 

I would also like to vary the amount of mana used for a spell so it could have different power levels.

 

I would like more than three classes. In fact the ability to make a custom class would be nice barring that the addition of more classes would be nice.

 

Just a few suggestions

 

Some of these Bioware has done in previous games.

No.

[Realmzmaster]

No.

 

Why?

[Baboontje]

Why?

 

Because I want to play a fantasy game. Not a semi-realistic/survival game which happens to have fantasy elements. I also think a lot of these options are tedious at best. Especially the ones concerning health. It seems to me it would only draw out the play-time unnecessarily just for the sake of lengthening the game. It would take a huge amount of time just to get anywhere. So again, no.

[CybAnt1]

In a game-world there are going to be choices that are not made with realism in mind, surely?

 

Well, there are no such things in the real world as trolls, ice giants, or undead, but I do like games where there is a "tactical" choice involved in offense and defense (hmmm, undead, need holy water, need protection from level drain; hmmm, ice giants, need fire weapons and protection from cold) ...

 

Same thing as asking for more usable magic items; the real world has no magic items. (Well, except for what magicians use for tricks.)

 

I can't make an appeal to realism, though, it's just how I like to play. 

[Realmzmaster]

Because I want to play a fantasy game. Not a semi-realistic/survival game which happens to have fantasy elements. I also think a lot of these options are tedious at best. Especially the ones concerning health. It seems to me it would only draw out the play-time unnecessarily just for the sake of lengthening the game. It would take a huge amount of time just to get anywhere. So again, no.

 

What is your definition of a fantasy game? Because that definition depends on the person doing the defining.  What you find as tedious enhances the gameplay for me. I get to plan on both the strategic and tactical levels.

 

I find it odd that some gamers want time dialogue, bowstrings ,more realistic swords and armors that do not affect how the game is played, but only look good. They say it in the name of realism whether it follows the set rules and lore of the game world or not. 

[KaiserShep]

I didn't say I wanted timed dialogue per se, but that I was always conflicted between the two systems and wanted others to weigh in on it. As for practical aesthetics, they only really serve a superficial end without adding lots of time with micromanagement on the part of the player (anyone remember the complaints about a lack of sheaths?). Something like a more "realistic" sword wouldn't really conflict with anything related to the lore, but it would probably be passed off as boring by a lot of gamers

[Realmzmaster]

I didn't say I wanted timed dialogue per se, but that I was always conflicted between the two systems and wanted others to weigh in on it. As for practical aesthetics, they only really serve a superficial end without adding lots of time with micromanagement on the part of the player (anyone remember the complaints about a lack of sheaths?). Something like a more "realistic" sword wouldn't really conflict with anything related to the lore, but it would probably be passed off as boring by a lot of gamers

 

 I  was not pointing you out. The timed dialogue also came up on one thread (that I remember) about QTEs. I know you are conflicted between the systems. You are correct that it does not require micromanagement to implement graphical improvements, but it does require resources to be allocated to those superficial touches for (IMHO) little return. But, that is my perspective. I understand that others do not share that perspective.

 

I understand that others may see my requests as to much micromanagement. There are certain points I look for in a crpg. I find many of the present crpgs lacking in that regard.

[metatheurgist]

Like if you asked me, should Dragon Age have sheaths and scabbards, I would say - sure? Why not? I can't think of a counterargument. Is there a good reason for weapons to be floating in midair an inch behind peoples' backs? Can't think of any. Same thing for bowstrings, too.

This is one thing that I think is contrary to the idea of a fantasy game. Why does my sword float over my back? Because it's magic. Really, if I were an actual warrior, I'd much prefer that my weapon magically float over my back than have to deal with an annoying sheath that might get tangled, poke me in the back of the head, get caught on a branch, break and fall off when I'm climbing, get between my legs when I'm trying to run, or awkwardly delay my draw. You should have to pay for the privilege of floaty weapons!

In Ultraviolet, the protagonist can store a near infinite amount of guns ammo and weapons from about her person. It's high tech - dimensional storage. She just draws weapons from thin air as required. It's a feature.

[AlanC9]

That sort of thing would require a higher-magic setting than we've got, wouldn't it?

[ElitePinecone]

That sort of thing would require a higher-magic setting than we've got, wouldn't it?

 

Yeah, I'd think so.

 

I mean, mages could probably levitate their staves or whatever, but your average guard in Thedas surely wouldn't have enchanted weapons or spells for keeping their sword floating behind them.

 

It's probably better to look at this from a technical perspective (like bowstrings, maybe the engine was just rubbish at scabbards) rather than trying to invent an explanation after the fact. The gameplay can't possibly be 100% realistic, so we shouldn't assume that what we see on screen accurately represents the reality of the world, or its potential. (So despite bows having no strings in DA:O/DA2, they do now.)

 

Maybe it's even an aesthetic thing - the designers thought it looks cooler if weapons are on your back in full view, rather than being hidden in a scabbard or sheath.