174 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

That's what I'm saying should happen, but these games seem to be designed around lore and story first, and then they have to shoehorn in the gameplay around it.  That's what causes the disconnect.

 

The gameplay should absolutely come first.  But everything else should conform to the gameplay.  And in a roleplaying game, the primary gameplay (arguably all of the gameplay) is roleplaying.

 

If headshots aren't supposed to kill people, then they shouldn't kill people even in cutscenes.

 

This is impossible to do in any RPG would creating a world that operates on what TV tropes calls "blue and orange morality". The basic organizing principles of society and behaviour would have to be radically different in a world that actually behaves like how the rule-set describes. 

The mere existence of XP mechanics and HP would create such a radically different approach to combat that any attempted parallel to what we know IRL would fail. 

 

Roleplaying games aren't games at all.

 

The point of a computer roleplaying game, I insist, is to mimic the gameplay of tabletop roleplaying games without the need for other players.  And tabletop roleplaying games are not games.  They are activities, like hiking or stamp collecting.  There's no end point.  There's no victory or defeat.

 

Even if that were true, P&P games operate on the same gameplay/story segregation. A setting that wouldn't would look exactly like the webcomic order of the stick. 

[MattH]

One thing I'd like to see is them using skills outside of combat. 

 

For instance in the demo when the Inquisitor has the choice of sending his troops to the keep, defend the village or stay with the wounded, I'd like there to be an option for the mage in the party to stay and tend to the wounded. Or if a group of soldiers needs reinforcement, we have the option to send in a companion like Cass or Iron Bull.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is impossible to do in any RPG would creating a world that operates on what TV tropes calls "blue and orange morality". The basic organizing principles of society and behaviour would have to be radically different in a world that actually behaves like how the rule-set describes.
The mere existence of XP mechanics and HP would create such a radically different approach to combat that any attempted parallel to what we know IRL would fail.

Isn't this already true, though? Roleplaying is a thought experiment. We already approach the game world in ways that don't resemble real world behaviour at all. We casually murder whole species based on the belief that they are "evil". We loot every corpse we find.

Roleplaying games (particularly fantasy roleplaying games) basically always operate according to Blue and Orange morality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Even if that were true, P&P games operate on the same gameplay/story segregation. A setting that wouldn't would look exactly like the webcomic order of the stick.

In my experience, they do.

[spirosz]

Gameplay segregation breaks roleplaying.

 

So does your logic. 

[AlanC9]

In my experience, they do.

I don't remember anybody in BG1 pointing out that they can just resurrect any of the Grand Dukes Sarevok kills.

[Bootsykk]

 

Holy ... okay, wow, yes, that's absolutely unacceptable. But putting aside issues of player control, that's unacceptable because of the sexism. 

 

 

I don't really get this sentiment. It's an RPG. Sometimes you want to play as a character you hate, such as a racist and xenophobic shepard in Mass effect that dooms an entire race because he deems them "too dangerous". I don't think avoiding the topic of sexism entirely is a good way to approach interesting character writing. If a character is going to be ass, it should be at the choice of the player. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't remember anybody in BG1 pointing out that they can just resurrect any of the Grand Dukes Sarevok kills.

But in a tabletop game, they probably would.

[Sylvius the Mad]

P&P systems don't transfer well to CRPG systems. You will most likely be stripping something out due to resources.

No one is suggesting that an actual P&P system should be used - only that the gameplay should be mimicked.

[AresKeith]

But in a tabletop game, they probably would.

 

This is NOT a tabletop game

[Sylvius the Mad]

But what if that's not telling the story the developers are trying to achieve? I saw a gunshot example earlier so I'll try to explain it using that:

 

Using a more realistic world like GTA, a shootout in a cutscene isn't designed to be a long, drawn out affair. So the laws of its more realistic world will be more heavily enforced to move the story along. AKA: No one's surviving a gunshot to the head.

 

But when the gameplay comes around, a long, drawn out affair may be exactly what you're looking for to a certain extent to keep the challenge fun enough for the player. Maybe enemies will survive a few more gunshots then realistically possible as portrayed in the cutscene. 

 

In this case, its not necessarily a case of limitation but making sure the combat mechanics are fun.

 

Sometimes the gameplay just has to step on the lore to be engaging. Well, maybe a lot of times.

Why are they telling a story that breaks their mechanics?

 

If you design the gameplay first, then you can design it however you like and it never steps on anything.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You are highly mistaken in what a video game roleplay is. They are a choose your own adventure book, with on the rails stories, and a host of activities to distract you from the fact that your decisions were mapped out ahead of time, and you are only being allowed to choose what path you go down.

 

In RPG's you have more freedom, sure, but lets not pretend that there isn't a fundamental difference between tabletop games and role playing video games. You can't negotiate with the leader of the campaign for your character to fit in the story, nor can you have any sort of dialouge about the plot. ITs preset, these are your choices, follow them or do not play.

I completely disagree.  Yes, from the player's perspective the games are very different, but they shouldn't be different from the character's perspective, and that's where I think these modern CRPgs are failing.

 

All gameplay in a roleplaying game occurs from an in-character perspective.  Literally everything that happens, from level-up to inventory management to exploration to dialogue.

 

If the player compares multiple playthroughs, differences will appear, but as those differences are invisible from an in-character perspective, they are not relevant to roleplaying.

 

One thing I do like about the Choose Your Own Adventure comparison, however, is that those books didn't have winning or losing conditions unless the reader invented them.  Just like roleplaying games.

 

But I dislike the comparison because it suggests that the narrative in an RPG has defined end points.  And it doesn't.  The authored narrative does, but the authored narrative is merely background for your roleplaying.  It's an important part of the setting, much like the combat mechanics, but the story arises from player choices.  Also, there are many gaps in the authored narrative for the player to fill.  A game like DA2 leaves many fewer gaps than a game like BG does, but they're still there.  Does the Bhaalspawn follow Gorion's advice and head to the Friendly Arm Inn?  That question is modeled by the game.  But the motive for that is not.  That's a gap.  Why was the hero of Neverwinter enrolled in the Neverwinter Academy?  What was his primary objective during the search for the Waterdhavian creatures?  Why did Revan believe he was on the Endar Spire?  How did the Warden interpret Alistair's deference to him?  Why did Hawke go to Kirkwall?  There's your story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is NOT a tabletop game

The argument was that the lore and gameplay are segregated even in tabletop games.  Thus, my request that they not be in CRPGs was baseless.

 

I was defeating the tabletop claim.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If it is able to be implemented then sure but it does make it more complex due to the addition of extra elements such as animations,physics and other things that are being incorporated into the combat system. Tabletop systems are usually backed by imagination as their prime vehicle of displaying actions, while an rpg like dragon age is limited by what is possible from a technical stand point.

I think replacing imagination with technical limitations was a bad idea.  Now, we have so many resources spent on modelling facial expressions for the cinematic dialogue.  Compare that to NWN, where conversations took place seamlessly in the same gameplay interface (from which we couldn't really see faces).  Is the cinematic approach so much better as to offset that massive development cost?

[JadePrince]

I think replacing imagination with technical limitations was a bad idea.  Now, we have so many resources spent on modelling facial expressions for the cinematic dialogue.  Compare that to NWN, where conversations took place seamlessly in the same gameplay interface (from which we couldn't really see faces).  Is the cinematic approach so much better as to offset that massive development cost?

 

Personally, I'm really glad that DA2 gave Hawke facial expressions. One of the hardest parts for me of playing Origins, was how my Warden's facial expression never changed-- always that vaguely creepy closed-mouth stare even during emotional moments. 

 

I suppose if it was like NWN and we weren't being given close ups of the awkward static face of our player character, that'd be one thing, though it would feel like a step back in terms of what these games are capable of showing us. 

 

TL;DR I really like seeing emotion on my player character's face when they interact with companions, and I hope we see more of that in DA:I.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TL;DR I really like seeing emotion on my player character's face when they interact with companions, and I hope we see more of that in DA:I.

I would like that if I got to choose those emotions.  Every time.  Just as I would like to choose the words my character speaks (something I could do in DAO, but not DA2).

[n7stormrunner]

I would like that if I got to choose those emotions.  Every time.  Just as I would like to choose the words my character speaks (something I could do in DAO, but not DA2).

 

 

no you couldn't. there was never an opinion to choose emotion independent of what was inherit in a dialogue choice in dragon age period... 

 

and no head canon doesn't count, head canon never counts except in fanfics.

[SilkieBantam]

I really liked this feature in DA2, I'd like to see it return.