92 réponses à ce sujet

[Amfortas]

Indeed. I would expand and generalize this, to all understanding about a game. I've seen individuals here, now and then, constructing a very contrieved argument that certain games are dead-easy and takes no skill, just because the battles can actually be beaten with consistency, when you've figured out how to. There is no difference in - this regard - between Baldur's Gate and Dark Souls.

 

In fact, it's true about all games, even the purest twitch games. To beat a game, you need to learn and adapt. When you've done so, it's easier to beat. Does that mean it was always easy and took no skill?

 

It is true both games require an intial learning phase, be it learning the ruleset or learning how to approach an individual fight through repetition, when to dodge when to attack or whatever. The difference is that when that phase is done, in an action game, reflex and timing of your actions will always remain.

 

To give an example, I do not play action rpgs, so imagine a Mario game. I know how to jump, I know when to do the jump, but if I do not time the jump properly I'll fail. In that game success is dependant of the player's reflexes, not only the learing of a few basic concepts. With repetition I'll manage to time the jump properly only to find myself equally challenged by the next jump. A game like this relies heavily on certain skills that not every player has, I love Mario games, but I'm terrible at them. While a game like Dragon Age relies on a few basic concepts that everybody should be able to understand, but requires a playstyle that most people don't enjoy (again, the real reason people don't play on nightmare).

[JCFR]

And none of the stuff i mentioned in the op is cutting content. Only added extra. You'd have a point about my hypothetical examples if you stated that they'll make the mode easier but Thumb Fu and Realmz already highlighted that.

Plus, do you think an achievement for completing nightmare mode would cut content from players?

I really don't care about ANY kind of achievement. They just a tap on the shoulder and only serve the purpose for some, to brag with them.

And never ever would i go that far to describe those good-fot-nothing-things as "game content".

 

But if you had to play on higher dfiiculty to get this weapon or that armor, then it's cutting content.

[JCFR]

D&D is just a pure garbage ruleset. Aside how short-changed warriors are, mages aren't even fun to play. It's basically rock, paper hold person. 90% of learning D&D is realizing how many trap or otherwise crap abilities there are and how to avoid those like the plague. Or bizarre counter-intuitive systems like THAC0. 

On the other hand it was never as shallow as this ultra-light-RPG-System DA uses.

Just three standard classes... and those specialisations are inferior to the prestige-classes. 

And didn't DAO  have it's own trap abilities too? Like building traps? I never used them... took way to long and too often enemies appeared out of nowhere.

Or how about shapeshifting? Useless.

But with every sequel, which used AD&D, the system got deeper and complexer... and the last D&D-titles i played (NWN1+2) added so many skills and abilities, it offered so many ways to customise your Charakter.

 

And Dragon age? Does any class have any kind of skill or ability, which is not just for combat (exept of crafting)? Only the rogue and only steal and lockpick.

No bartering, no intimidation, no creating magic weapons or armors (just potions, poisons and traps), no identification of magical items - none whatsoever.

I even liked to play mages the most in D&D... throwing fireballs and summoning demons. A well placed spell can change the whole fighting-situation.

Yes, the learning curve  is higher than in DA and the THAC0 seems a bit stupid (especially if you know nothing about the pen&paper original like i did at first),

But still i prefer a BG2 3x over a lightweight RPG as DA2 was. 

Geez, i really start sounding like an old fanboy.

 

Anyhow, just take a peek around and you might notice, that many classic RPG-systems have some weird design-decisions and require some effort to get into them. TDE(the dark eye) is even more complex than D&D for example.

I'm not saying, i dislike the DA-series, i just want to point out, that it could learn from its predecesors and gain a little bit more deepness.

[Amfortas]

And Dragon age? Does any class have any kind of skill or ability, which is not just for combat (exept of crafting)? Only the rogue and only steal and lockpick.

No bartering, no intimidation, no creating magic weapons or armors (just potions, poisons and traps), no identification of magical items - none whatsoever.

I even liked to play mages the most in D&D... throwing fireballs and summoning demons. A well placed spell can change the whole fighting-situation.

Yes, the learning curve  is higher than in DA and the THAC0 seems a bit stupid (especially if you know nothing about the pen&paper original like i did at first),

But still i prefer a BG2 3x over a lightweight RPG as DA2 was. 

Geez, i really start sounding like an old fanboy.

 

Do not take this the wrong way, but you do sound like a BG2 fanboy. If you had compared it with Icewind Dale 2 or NWN2 I might have agreed, but Baldur's Gate 2?

 

Non combat skills? Only for rogues, lockpicking, traps and stealth. None of the other skills you metion either. No feats until epic levels, a very rudimentary system of saving throws if my memory serves me right, no maximum dexterity penalty for wearing armour (why doesn't dragon age have it btw?)...

 

There's nothing to praise about those rules other than that they were clearly explained in the manual.

 

Well, there is one thing actually that I prefer about it, defining the character's attributes at the start of the game as a way of defining the character himself. I don't mind one extra point every few levels, but in dragon age they've gone really overboard with the 3 points per level, to the point that the stats have no meaning other than being numbers used for combat.

[The Hierophant]

I really don't care about ANY kind of achievement. They just a tap on the shoulder and only serve the purpose for some, to brag with them.
And never ever would i go that far to describe those good-fot-nothing-things as "game content".
 
But if you had to play on higher dfiiculty to get this weapon or that armor, then it's cutting content.

sure.

[Allan Schumacher]

Your example is as good as mine, because the point is that the hitpoints is a pretty fundamental piece of data, that you might  want to also use for something different.

 

My question then is simply "can you not do the same for damage done?"  Imagine a check that records the highest damage hit you've ever done (maybe in the context of a tournament).

 

If we'd be scaling hitpoints, we could also scale the requirements in my example.  The reality is that we might use any data for something different.

[The Hierophant]

Good convos. Keep it up. (no sexual)

[In Exile]

Indeed. I would expand and generalize this, to all understanding about a game. I've seen individuals here, now and then, constructing a very contrieved argument that certain games are dead-easy and takes no skill, just because the battles can actually be beaten with consistency, when you've figured out how to. There is no difference - in this regard - between Baldur's Gate and Dark Souls.

 

...

 

It didn't matter much, but I most certainly found DA2 combat mostly very unenjoyable. But one battle that was sort of fun to figure out was the Corypheus. Just goes to show how different opinions can be. Just saying.

 

I agree with you here. Corypheus is a good contrast, because I generally like DA2's combat except for Corypheus, which I thought was an aggravating chore and just turned the difficulty from Nightmare to Casual to get it over with as fast as possible. 

[In Exile]

It is true both games require an intial learning phase, be it learning the ruleset or learning how to approach an individual fight through repetition, when to dodge when to attack or whatever. The difference is that when that phase is done, in an action game, reflex and timing of your actions will always remain.

 

To give an example, I do not play action rpgs, so imagine a Mario game. I know how to jump, I know when to do the jump, but if I do not time the jump properly I'll fail. In that game success is dependant of the player's reflexes, not only the learing of a few basic concepts. With repetition I'll manage to time the jump properly only to find myself equally challenged by the next jump. A game like this relies heavily on certain skills that not every player has, I love Mario games, but I'm terrible at them. While a game like Dragon Age relies on a few basic concepts that everybody should be able to understand, but requires a playstyle that most people don't enjoy (again, the real reason people don't play on nightmare).

 

Learning to plan out a complicated build multiple levels in advance, power-gaming your abilities and knowing that stats to pump, etc. all takes IRL skills like a head for numbers etc. which are as much of a skill as reflexes. It's not as if people can't hone their reflexes either. 

[In Exile]

On the other hand it was never as shallow as this ultra-light-RPG-System DA uses.

Just three standard classes... and those specialisations are inferior to the prestige-classes. 

And didn't DAO  have it's own trap abilities too? Like building traps? I never used them... took way to long and too often enemies appeared out of nowhere.

Or how about shapeshifting? Useless.

But with every sequel, which used AD&D, the system got deeper and complexer... and the last D&D-titles i played (NWN1+2) added so many skills and abilities, it offered so many ways to customise your Charakter.

 

And Dragon age? Does any class have any kind of skill or ability, which is not just for combat (exept of crafting)? Only the rogue and only steal and lockpick.

No bartering, no intimidation, no creating magic weapons or armors (just potions, poisons and traps), no identification of magical items - none whatsoever.

I even liked to play mages the most in D&D... throwing fireballs and summoning demons. A well placed spell can change the whole fighting-situation.

Yes, the learning curve  is higher than in DA and the THAC0 seems a bit stupid (especially if you know nothing about the pen&paper original like i did at first),

But still i prefer a BG2 3x over a lightweight RPG as DA2 was. 

Geez, i really start sounding like an old fanboy.

 

Anyhow, just take a peek around and you might notice, that many classic RPG-systems have some weird design-decisions and require some effort to get into them. TDE(the dark eye) is even more complex than D&D for example.

I'm not saying, i dislike the DA-series, i just want to point out, that it could learn from its predecesors and gain a little bit more deepness.

 

When I say "trap" abilities, I mean abilities that look like they are good but are actually complete garbage. They trap you, the player, in wasting a skill point you can't get back on an ability that is complete garbage, so the opportunity cost is huge. 

 

NWN is a great example of how much filled with garbage D&D in terms of useless skills and feats. You're basically rifling through a lot of garbage to understand the role of, say, tumble in combat and why you'd want to take something like that. A skill that exists only because the actual ruleset isn't calculated on a computer. 

 

It's not that there's a learning curve, it's that the payoff of the curve is learning how to riffle through a bunch of garbage to find useful abilities. 

[bEVEsthda]

My question then is simply "can you not do the same for damage done?"  Imagine a check that records the highest damage hit you've ever done (maybe in the context of a tournament).

 

If we'd be scaling hitpoints, we could also scale the requirements in my example.  The reality is that we might use any data for something different.

 

Why is that a question? 

Yes, I suppose that is true. And I suppose some developers/publishers  would want highest damage hit as some kind of statistic or achievement. To me it's utterly pointless. It's rather random and dependent upon the character, and IMO not worthy or meaningful, nor respectable goal in playing an RPG. It's a paradigm from other types of games, which when influencing design of an RPG game can only result in impoverishing and converging the genres. That is subjective, of course.  But nevertheless absolutely true,   of course.

 

Yes, you can also scale requirements. But it's an added complication. What if the player change the difficulty setting? Several times during playthrough? Solvable, I suppose, but I would expect it to rather pop up in a series of 'bugs', and 'savegame bugs',  than be solved from the start with some convoluted programming. Why is that complication so attractive? Why isn't the game itself more important? I was also thinking along the lines of making the hitpoints of the enemy visible to the player. If you then scale those hitpoints, you change content for the player. Constant hitpoints make it possible for the player to keep track of how tough an opponent "really" is. And keep track of how heavy the balance towards violence is (I'm assuming there will, at least sometimes, be other ways to gain experience points, solve quests and progress through the game.).

 

I'd much rather have RPGs where the opposition, at any specific place or quest, change their behavior and willingness towards aggression, based on their assessment of the player party's combat strength, than RPGs where the point is to collect achievements to 'share' on facebook.

[Amfortas]

Learning to plan out a complicated build multiple levels in advance, power-gaming your abilities and knowing that stats to pump, etc. all takes IRL skills like a head for numbers etc. which are as much of a skill as reflexes. It's not as if people can't hone their reflexes either. 

 

I can't say I agree, but it doesn't make sense to discuss it any further.

 

 

I agree with you here. Corypheus is a good contrast, because I generally like DA2's combat except for Corypheus, which I thought was an aggravating chore and just turned the difficulty from Nightmare to Casual to get it over with as fast as possible. 

 

I thought the fight was pretty well designed, maybe a bit too long. It forced the player to control the entire party, but it didn't have any absurdly overpowered moves or allowed any kind of preexisting knowledge to make the fight easier, I personally beat it on my first attempt. The problem is that it shows that when faced with narrow corridors character pathfinding is still as bad as in the Baldur's Gate days, and it was a pain to keep everyone alive.

 

But if I compare it with the other fight in the dlc, it had that blood magic pool that instantly kills my low hp party and doesn't respect the line of sight mechanics, turning the 1st part of the fight into another kiting exercise. The second part had that unavoidable firestorm, and I'm sure that if a player with preexisting knowledge puts fire runes in his equipment, he can make the fight much easier. That's bad design in my opinion.

[Amfortas]

Good convos. Keep it up. (no sexual)

 

I believe an extra sex scene with a multisexual zoophilic demon with an underwear fetish would be an appropriate reward for beating the game in nightmare. Ruled by a die roll of course.

[The Hierophant]

I believe an extra sex scene with a multisexual zoophilic demon with an underwear fetish would be an appropriate reward for beating the game in nightmare. Ruled by a die roll of course.

lol, but nah.

[In Exile]

I thought the fight was pretty well designed, maybe a bit too long. It forced the player to control the entire party, but it didn't have any absurdly overpowered moves or allowed any kind of preexisting knowledge to make the fight easier, I personally beat it on my first attempt. The problem is that it shows that when faced with narrow corridors character pathfinding is still as bad as in the Baldur's Gate days, and it was a pain to keep everyone alive.

 

But if I compare it with the other fight in the dlc, it had that blood magic pool that instantly kills my low hp party and doesn't respect the line of sight mechanics, turning the 1st part of the fight into another kiting exercise. The second part had that unavoidable firestorm, and I'm sure that if a player with preexisting knowledge puts fire runes in his equipment, he can make the fight much easier. That's bad design in my opinion.

 

Corypheus didn't force me to control the entire party (putting aside that I did that anyway, that's how I always play party based games) - but it did force me to very, very, very slowly click one or two steps in front of the character to navigate the unholy maze of death to avoid immediate extermination by the terrible pathfinding AI, which would run headfirst into an obstacle and get stunlocked. 

 

I just don't have the patience to fight the AI, and I think any kind of boss battle that wants to be a platformer but forces me to play it with RPG controls is just garbage. The Rock Wraith was a similar type of annoyance, but I was fighting the pathfinding less. Though that was another reflex battle, since you constantly had to time your pause to dodge the enemy in what amounted to real time given the narrow arena that you're forced into (which I always hate - it's just stupid that my party would choose to fight something on the most disadvantageous ground around).  

[HiroVoid]

I don't know if anyone's played Alpha Protocol before, but maybe add a something similar to Veteran Mode. If you beat the entire game once as a Recruit (0 Ability and Experience Points) you unlock access to the Veteran class. Veteran not only gives you a gameplay advantage, but occasionally allows the player character, through their background, to succeed in seemingly impossible situations (like both rescuing a hostage and acquiring sensitive intelligence when they would otherwise be mutually exclusive).

 

I think unlocking rare content and completing otherwise impossible quest objectives should be the reward for playing at a higher difficulty.

That can actually be done with the right skill-set as well.  Can't remember if you need the engineer background as well, but I don't think so?